a definite offensive and defensive alliance, and treaty of extradition,
‘a good treaty for friendship and concord, which was to assure peace,
for a longer period than beforetime’ with the Pharaoh. The preliminary
negotiations occupied many months, and were carried out with a full
measure of oriental dignity. The queens on either side took part in the
negotiations, and the chief wife of Rameses wrote to Putukhipa specially
expressing her satisfaction when the affair was concluded. The first
draft of the treaty was clearly prepared by the Hittite diplomatists; not
only does the name of the Hittite king come first in all cases where both
names occur, but a summary has been found among their archives which does
not contain all the clauses finally incorporated.[815] It is prefaced
with an historical preamble, after the well-established precedent
found in the Hittite treaties with the Amorites and the Mitannians, as
well as with minor vassal states. Only in this case, the treaty being
one of equity, no pointed allusion was made to the first conquest of
Subbi-luliuma on the one side, or to the exploits of Sety on the other:
the fact of past wars and of the previous interim treaties was mentioned,
but now the two kings were to be as allies, friends, and brothers,
with a good understanding between them for evermore. Neither should
henceforth invade the other’s lands, the boundary between them being the
northern Lebanon; on the other hand, if either was in distress of war,
and appealed to the other for assistance, then troops should be sent
accordingly; their warfare should be in common.[816] Minor matters, such
as the question of fugitive servants and refugees, were also arranged.
We do not know whether duplicate copies of this treaty were actually
exchanged, but this may be inferred from the fact that an Egyptian
embassy was received in the Hittite capital.[817] The Egyptian record
of this affair, inscribed on the walls of the temple of Karnak, only
makes it known that two Hittite ambassadors, by name ‘Tal-tisebu’ and
‘Rameses,’ accompanied by a goodly retinue, presented the Hittite copy
engraved on a silver tablet to the Pharaoh.
The gods of all the Hittites were separately invoked, after their
time-honoured custom, as guardians to the inviolability of this treaty.
The sun-god, lord of heaven, takes first place, followed by the sun-god
of Arinna. Then come the various localised forms of Sandes,[818] called
Sutekh by the Egyptians, and associated here with nine chief states,
in which we seem to recognise three,[819] Arinna, Aleppo (Khilpa), and
Sarisu, possibly the classical Sareisa. A list of the tutelary deities
follows, including seven gods and three goddesses,[820] but possibly
the gaps in the text betoken others. Finally, the god of the land, the
queen of heaven, the goddess of the soil, the mistress of the oath, the
goddess (Askhir) of the mountains, and the rivers of the Hittite lands,
are appealed to; with a last reference to the gods of Qizwadna, the
home of the Hittite queen, and to those of Egypt, who are all covered
by one clause. The designs and inscriptions of the seals are of special
interest: upon the tablet itself these were naturally engraved. On the
obverse, we are told, there was the image of the Hittite national god
embracing the Great King,[821] surrounded by an inscription rendered,
through the medium of the Egyptian text, ‘The Seal of Sutekh, Prince of
Heaven,’ and ‘the seal of the treaty made by Khetasar (Hattusil) son of
Maursar (Mursil), the great and powerful king of the Hittites.’ This
was the seal of the Hittite god of the skies. The reverse was parallel,
only in place of the figure of Sandes was that of the sun-god of Arinna,
lord of the whole earth, and the Great Queen was shown in the deity’s
embrace. Around was an inscription, ‘The seal of the sun-god of the city
of Arinna, lord of the earth,’ and ‘The seal of Putukhipa, Great Queen of
the Hittites, daughter of the land of Qizwadna ... of the land of Arinna,
the mistress of its territory, the priestess of its goddess.’
The fame of this treaty was noised abroad, and an inquiry was
received from the king of Babylonia as to its purport. The Hittite
king replied[822] with firmness and obvious exultation: ‘I will
inform my brother: the king of Egypt and I have made an alliance, and
made ourselves brothers. Brothers we are and will [unite against] a
common foe, and with friends in common.’ The letter continues with an
explanation of the previous warfare between the nations that had rendered
this compact desirable, and allusion is made to the inroads of the
Pharaoh on the Hittite lands.
Though relations between Egypt and Babylonia at this time were well
established, it might have been thought that Babylon was too distant
to have been much concerned with the Hittite seated in the north of
Asia Minor. Yet in fact at this time only the eastward extension of the
Amorite realm divided the two powers, just as the same people formed
the frontier with Egypt further west. Diplomatic relations had indeed
been opened between them for fully a generation, and several long
letters have been recovered. They refer chiefly to the brigandage of the
Amorites, whom the Hittite king is asked to keep in order, and punish as
being his vassals. It is interesting to notice also the influence which
Hattusil exerted, through the forceful language of his ambassador at the
Babylonian court, and his own almost threatening diplomatic letters,
interfering even in the settlement of the succession to the Babylonian
throne. This subject might well be regarded as outside the sphere of
international politics, and the Babylonian king found reason to object
also to the terms of the communication on this matter, which would have
been addressed more fittingly to a vassal rather than a compeer. But
Hattusil’s reply is worthy of record: ‘I only wrote this, “If you do not
acknowledge the son of your lord, will it not happen that if an enemy
attack you, I will not come to your aid?” for my brother was then a
child, and he is an evil man who deals according to evil thoughts.’
Questions of foreign policy also were discussed by these two powers in
several letters. One fragment from Babylon shows that the increasing
power of Assyria[823] was the problem of the moment, and a reply of
Hattusil[824] shows that they were being drawn together on this matter,
which was of grave concern to them both. His advice to the younger king,
expressed in flattering terms, to ‘go and plunder the land of the foe,’
indicates the astute politician’s anxiety to get the sword that hung
menacing over his own head removed. The situation that now developed is
one of considerable historical interest. Like Tushratta of Mitanni on
the approach of the Hatti, so now the Hittite king at this crisis took
special means to ensure the support of Egypt, where Rameses the Great
still sat upon the throne of Thebes beside the tranquil Nile. Formerly
Tushratta had granted a daughter in marriage at the first time of asking,
contrary to precedent; but now not only was the first Hittite princess
seemingly offered to Rameses, to take a place among the other royal
wives, but the Hittite king himself with great state accompanied her to
Egypt, and, escorted up the Nile, visited the Egyptian monarch in his
capital, an event without parallel in oriental history. Naturally Rameses
made adequate record of this incident,[825] and the beauties of his new
bride received the praises of his courtiers.
Little is known of the two successors of Hattusil, Dudkhalia, and his
son Arnuanta, under whom the dynasty of the Hatti kings was prolonged
into the twelfth century, B.C. An edict issued by the former concerns the
organisation of the empire and the position of the greater vassals.[826]
The names of some of the chieftains transpire among the witnesses to the
document: Eni-Tessub[827] appears at this time as king of Carchemish,
which was probably the second state of the empire. Another event in the
reign of Dudkhalia is a ‘treaty’ with the king of Aleppo, doubtless a
ratification of the terms of vassalage, but the name of that chieftain is
not revealed.
The name of Arnuanta, his son, who in turn became Great King, is the last
of the dynasty that has come to light, and circumstances tend to show
that the day of Hatti dominion was really over. He is known only from two
fragments of royal edicts, and a more complete document (found in the
débris of a gateway), seemingly an elaborate land register or cadastral
survey.[828] This is rendered of special interest by the seals, which,
like the famous boss of Tarkudimme, were inscribed in Hittite hieroglyphs
and in cuneiform. The Hittite inscription on one seal is defaced, but the
cuneiform can be read in both cases. The first seal is that of Arnuanta
himself, the Great King, son of Dudkhalia. The second gives the names of
the royal ladies, namely, the Queen-Mother Tawâssi,[829] and his wife,
the Great Queen, Munidan; while a daughter of Dudkhalia is mentioned,
though her name is lost.
The appearance of these royal women side by side with the monarch in
the transaction of state affairs reawakens a whole series of interesting
allusions which transpire in the earlier archives of this dynasty,
indicating a clear position of authority held by the female side, and
even suggesting a matriarchal system of succession to the throne. In
the edict of Dudkhalia the Queen-Mother, Putu-khipa, is mentioned as
co-ruler; and we have seen above that she separately placed her seal
upon the treaty with Egypt, wherein she is described as Great Queen
of the land of the Hittites, ... of the land of Arinna, the mistress
of its territory.’ Further, the son of this powerful lady succeeded
to the throne upon the death of Mutallu, even though the latter’s son
was still alive (being mentioned in documents of Hattusil). During the
interregnum[830] she maintained the continuity of the government, with
sole powers in her hands, as appears from her correspondence at this time
with Rameses. The title of Hattusil himself to the throne can best be
explained in view of these facts, by his marriage with this lady, a first
princess of the land;[831] and that her son would succeed seems to have
been foreseen by Rameses II. when he wrote to her diplomatically, wishing
him ‘good health.’ The part taken by royal women in state affairs in the
East can be illustrated from modern events in China, which under its
Mongol rulers presents us with so much interesting comparison, no less
than from the records of the correspondence between Egypt and Mitanni in
the age with which we deal.
This respect of the worshippers of the Mother-Goddess for the female was
inculcated by them among various branches of their peoples. It will not
be forgotten that the founder of the Hatti dynasty, when he admitted
the fugitive Mitannian prince to his family and extended to him his
protection, laid down the condition of a monogamous marriage. So, too,
Hattusil, in granting his daughter to the Amorite chieftain, Put-akhi,
whom in like manner he re-established in his authority, inserted in
the document recording the alliance a clause to the effect that the
sovereignty over the Amorite should belong to the son and descendants of
his daughter for evermore.
These indications all agree with the impression that Greek tradition
and the Hittite monuments have already left upon our minds. The worship
of the Mother-Goddess, to which we have alluded, would seem, indeed, to
have been paramount throughout the Hittite lands, from Carchemish to
Ephesus, from Kadesh to the coast of the Black Sea. Originally a nature
cult, derivable from the productivity of the earth, this had now taken
divine form with the quality of self-reproduction, to develop later into
the conception of a universal mother. Though this worship was general
throughout western Asia, its introduction into Asia Minor is traceable to
the Hittites, upon whose monuments its symbolism appears earlier than it
is known elsewhere, notably at Boghaz-Keui,[832] Eyuk,[833] Fraktin,[834]
and on Sipylus.[835] We do not wish to imply a local development of the
cult, though that may be admitted as a possibility when we consider
the simple and general nature of its origins, and the power of the
human mind then as now to attain in a few years the standpoint reached
only by generations of ancestral experiences, and thereon to build
up new conceptions, to be transmitted in like manner together with
those inherited. Yet on the fertile plains of Babylonia the seasonal
productivity of nature was more conspicuous and almost spontaneous;
there indeed, as it seems, man was earlier able to give up his wandering
life and settle, noting with satisfaction and gratitude that earth and
sunshine with other elemental forces provided him with the means of
living. Taking also the evidence as it stands, it would seem that the
embodiment of these conceptions in divine form (under the name Istar)
is earliest attributable to Babylonia; and from there consequently we
are disposed to derive her when found in Asia Minor, whether by general
contact, as is historically admissible, or introduced, as seems more
probable, by some early migration of Hittite peoples that had already
assimilated her to themselves.
The worship of a goddess with virtues so natural and with powers that it
was so desirable to propitiate would, in any case, it may be thought, be
readily acceptable to a peasant people. It became deeply rooted, and in
certain localities took special forms, reflected many centuries later in
rites like those of Ma at Comana, Kybele in Phrygia, Artemis at Ephesus,
and, latest of all, Semiramis at the post-Hittite city at Carchemish.
From the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui[836] it may be seen that, as in
Babylonia, there was already associated with her a youth, whose male
powers were necessary to complete her own. With her also there appears a
lioness or panther whose force and character seemed to be emblematic of
hers. Though clearly attributable to an earlier phase of thought, this
association may have been made before the cult was localised. There
are, however, traces in these sculptures of more primitive conceptions,
attributable to older strains of population. From the evidence in
general, four or five strata, indeed, may be discerned in the Hittite
pantheon. In the lowest of these there appear the purely elemental
forms, mountains and streams,[837] earth,[838] sun,[839] moon[840]
and star.[841] Passing from the inanimate to the animate, we find the
lion,[842] the bull,[843] the eagle,[844] the falcon or dove,[845] the
goat,[846] the stag, the serpent[847] and other living creatures, some
of them possibly adopted as tribal totems, and all no doubt representing
some special virtue or power that later became embodied in the deities
associated with them. Upon these substrata the gods of human form appear
to be imposed, and first among these the Mother-goddess. Already, as we
have noticed in these sculptures,[848] her supreme powers in life and her
unfathomable actions had found expression in the semblance of a lion,
before she was adopted by the mountain-worshippers; and another class of
monument, possibly of later evolution, seems to reveal her in another
aspect, as a goddess to be propitiated at death. The two ideas in her
case are not far separated; for just as in the simplest conception of her
powers through her the dead earth revived, while in her developed cult,
her dead son yet lived in her offspring (through her unnatural union
with him), so the instinctive belief of humanity in the incompleteness
of death found expression in offerings to her for the dead,[849] and in
communion of the dead at her table.[850] The idea of a future life after
death was inseparable from her worship.
In the sculptures[851] of these times there are associated with the
goddess a number of divine attendants and priestesses, each holding as it
seems a bent staff upon which she leans. These are not armed, but in them
we may see the prototypes of a class of women devoted to the goddess, who
in later centuries, on the decline of the Hittite power, at the coming
maybe of the Phrygians, at first for the defence of their religion, and
later separating in independent action, developed into armed priestesses,
and possibly the Amazons of tradition.[852] But that was not yet; nor
do we see in any of the shrines of the goddess of this age any sign or
suggestion of the orgies and carnal festivals that a thousand years later
were celebrated in her name. On the other hand, we see the cult at this
age in its simplicity; in some cases the goddess worshipped alone, in
others accompanied by the son-consort, whose position in legend and at
Boghaz-Keui is secondary to her own. In the latter case, however, she
is face to face with another god who is her equal. We have been able to
trace in these sculptures to some extent the merging of this religion
with the old conceptions, and now we pass to consider its union with the
new.
In this fourth phase the male predominates. The new divinity was a god
omnipotent, with lightning in his hand. We call him Sandes, from a name
surviving in Greek tradition in Cilicia and Lydia; but his real name is
unknown. Possibly Tarku was one Hittite form of it; but at this period of
his conspicuous individuality Baal or Zeus would suit him better. Like
the goddess, he was well known in western Asia under various guises, the
Tessub of Mitanni, the Hadad of Syria, the Rimmon of Babylonia. He came
into Asia Minor, it seems to us, as guardian deity of the conquering
Hatti, clad like their warriors; and in their wake came a limited number
of kindred tribes, among whom also he was worshipped under various
forms,[853] notably as a God of War with sword in hand.[854] By them he
was transmitted as the national god to the other Hittite peoples, whose
tutelary deities, however, seem to have been various.[855] In him, the
embodiment of manly strength, the nature worshippers saw the sun, ruling
in the skies,[856] supreme, a fitting husband for their Mother Earth.
It was not hard to reconcile the cults. Just as the sun’s return in
spring-time to shine upon the earth was necessary to revivify the dead
year; so was the periodic union of the god with the goddess natural and
appropriate, that the earth might bring forth her fruits in due season.
The sculptures[857] illustrate the rite that arose upon this new ideal,
where we see the statue of the god borne upon the shoulders of his
priests to the open-air sanctuary of the goddess, and the divine nuptials
celebrated with the dancing and revelry that have accompanied marriage
festivals through all time.
The conception of Fatherhood, hitherto submerged, now found expression
in independent form, wherein the new god was identified with the Bull,
the emblem of virility. At Malatia[858] the god rides upon the animal’s
back; at Eyuk[859] the animal alone is found, in a scene where his
ministers are the royal high priest and priestess, the counterpart to
the worship of the goddess herself on the other side of the gateway. In
this character food and music and revelry were his delight. There were
present all the elements which under other conditions might have led
to the development of a special and exaggerated worship of masculine
powers. But here the circumstances were unfavourable. So long, indeed,
as the warrior kings maintained the throne, their god also retained his
individuality,[860] amid an environment, however, too deeply imbued with
the older ideals to maintain his separate worship after their downfall.
Already we see one way in which his cult was liable to be submerged; for
the part he now claimed, as it were, by force, had been hitherto played
in esoteric fashion by the son. Hence a new identity arose, in which the
attributes of the father-god and the son-god became confused and merged
in one.[861] This fact seems to be reflected even in the sculptures of
Boghaz-Keui, where the cult of a dirk, which each important male figure
wears, becomes endowed with a separate ritual.[862] Possibly, however,
this may be more particularly an aspect of the son-god, and associated
with the ritual of the Mother-goddess. It was, moreover, a national
cult, widespread, and revered.[863] In any case the association of the
Father-god with the Son-god in the cult of the Mother-goddess, nature’s
divine triad, seems to us an essential feature of the religion of these
times.
The part played by the king and his queen in this worship is clear in
the sculptures of Eyuk[864] and Malatia,[865] and their position as high
priest and priestess of the god is defined in the text of the Egyptian
treaty.[866] Whether the king himself took an official position in the
worship of the goddess is still open to conjecture; for the pictures
of the high priest at Boghaz-Keui,[867] though accompanied by the royal
insignia, are open to another interpretation,[868] and possibly in her
festivals the king’s place was taken by a eunuch-priest of considerable
authority, in accordance with a ritual long established and surviving in
later times. At Sinjerli there is an interesting suggestion in a certain
series of sculptures[869] belonging possibly to this era. In comparing
these it seems to us that the king himself is shown impersonating his
gods or god in various characters; in one he is the warrior with shield
and spear, in another he holds aloft the lightning trident, and in a
third we see him like Thor with a magic hammer. In the rites of the
various deities the king may possibly have carried these sacred emblems
ceremonially.
The position of the Hatti kings in state affairs, the nature of their
kingdom and their empire, has been already disclosed in watching how
their power was won.[870] The army was the mainstay of their empire, yet
no martial scenes decorate the walls of the palaces and temples that have
been hitherto unearthed. This may be accounted for by the essentially
feudal nature of the constitution, whereby the bulk of the forces would
be composed of troops under the more direct command of the vassal kings
and chieftains. Within the domain of his own tribe or tribes, though
doubtless a royal bodyguard was maintained, it would almost seem that the
power of the Hittite king was sustained rather by constitutional rights
such as have been indicated. Some of the religious sculptures, however,
give an indication, though in somewhat conventional and maybe antiquated
form, of the dress and armour of the Hittite infantry; while the general
character of their chariots and arms may be gathered from the hunting
scenes of later date in Syrian towns. Where the home sources fail, the
Egyptian carvings supply a wealth of detail illustrating all branches
of the Hittite forces;[871] and these, though drawn as it were from
afar, have none the less the advantage of being contemporary evidence,
recorded, too, by past-masters in this branch of archivism, who allowed
no characteristic detail to escape them.
The freest drawing of a foot-soldier is that from Sinjerli,[872]
wherein a warrior is seen armed with a spear and shield; the head of
the spear is narrow and ribbed down the middle, and the shaft is about
the length of the man; the defensive weapon is of the figure-of-eight
shape traditional in Asia Minor, and associated with some branches of
the Hittites in Egyptian sculptures.[873] The dirk which is worn, an
invariable side-arm of the Hittites, is here shown so long that it looks
almost like a two-edged sword; from other sculptures, however, like those
of Giaour-Kalesi[874] and Boghaz-Keui,[875] we may be sure that a dirk or
dagger is indicated. The crescental hilt and the midrib are noticeable
features. That the sword was used, however, may be gathered from other
scenes.[876] The dress of the Hittite warrior, like that of his gods,
was uniformly the short tunic, short-sleeved vest, shoes with turned-up
points, and tall conical hat; the last named is seemingly padded in
this instance at the top. Equestrians and charioteers seem to have
modified or discarded this head-dress[877] as being unsuitable for rapid
motion. In addition to the spear, the bow was doubtless used by both
infantry[878] and chariotry;[879] but other implements, originally of an
offensive character, like the club, double-axe,[880] mace, and curved
dagger,[881] are found only in religious symbolism in such connection
that it must be considered doubtful whether they continued to be used
in war. The throw-stick is, however, admissible, though found only in
sporting scenes.[882] As to the Hittite cavalry the local sources almost
fail us. Two stones from Sinjerli show a rider armed with bow and dagger,
and possibly a shield decorated with a human face;[883] and a third
sculpture from the same site introduces a large round shield and possibly
a quiver.[884] There is also a fragment, possibly from Marash, showing a
horse rider,[885] though apparently not in that instance a fighting man.
In another case a led horse is shown, with attendant groom, as though
awaiting his royal master’s pleasure.[886] In Egyptian scenes,[887]
however, the Hittite horse-rider is conspicuous, fleeing before the
Pharaoh’s arrows, himself armed with a lance; and in two literary
passages at least, clear reference is made to the Hittite cavalry.[888]
The chariotry of the Hittites was, however, their chief arm of offence.
Unfortunately only one war-chariot is shown in their own sculptures,[889]
and this is apparently of later date and employed in an inter-tribal
struggle. In this case two persons are shown in the car, the warrior
and his driver. The wheel has six spokes, the car is lightly built, and
a pair of horses are harnessed to it.[890] The warrior’s arms are the
bow and spear. Other chariots appear in hunting scenes, showing little
variation except the eight-spoked wheels; but it may be thought from
the Egyptian representations that a somewhat heavier car with panelled
sides was employed for war. The magnificent appearance of the massed
Hittite chariots in attack excited the admiration of their enemies, the
Egyptians, who have handed down vivid pictures of them taken from their
wars: the assault on a hill,[891] an incident in the battle of Kadesh,
shows excellent formation in close order while advancing at a gallop.
The Egyptians were unanimous in representing three Hittites in each
car, a practice which differed from their own, and so attracted their
attention. The third man was a shield-bearer, whose absence from the
hunting scenes of the Hittite sculptures is self-explanatory. A square
shield, mostly associated with the Syrian allies, makes its appearance in
the scene before us; but the Egyptian artists were so much perplexed by
the necessity of crowding and showing three men within the tiny car, that
they forgot or found no room for the offensive arms of their redoubtable
enemy.
For transport in war the Hittites seem to have employed freely a covered
wagon on four wheels, a characteristic vehicle throughout western Asia
to-day, and drawn then as now either by bullocks or a pair of horses. In
addition, the hardy ass was also requisitioned, represented as struggling
with the weight of his panniers.[892] Though for the frontier wars with
Egypt, fought out mostly near the Lebanon, the Hittite doubtless employed
a strategic base in northern Syria, such as Carchemish, yet for his
Syrian campaigns, and for the general control of his Syrian dependencies,
it becomes almost self-evident that there must have been one route
at least available for wheeled traffic connecting with the interior
and the capital. But it is by no means easy to determine which of the
several passes may have been used for this purpose.[893] The history
of these times leads us to infer a system of communication throughout
the empire, with Boghaz-Keui as its focus. From this centre, to judge
by the disposition of the earlier monuments and other evidence, roads
already radiated in several directions. To the north was Sinope,[894]
which seems at one time to have been the first port of the country, but
to have fallen into decline with Boghaz-Keui itself. To the east we must
infer a road connecting the valley of the Halys, whether by way of Sivas
or otherwise, with that of the Tochma Su,[895] and so leading down to
the frontier at Malatia. A southerly bifurcation of this route led by
Albistan down the passes of the Pyramus to Marash,[896] communicating
thence severally with Carchemish, Aleppo, and the valley of the Kara Su,
wherein lay the cities of Sakje-Geuzi and Sinjerli. A more direct track
over the mountains from Mazaca (Cæsarea) to Marash passed by Kuru-Bel
near old-time Comana,[897] whence also Dastarkon (near Ferakdin)
might be approached. The line of communication from Boghaz-Keui to
Mazaca is not known, but a direct road from the former towards Tyana
is traceable, and possibly it sent off a branch corresponding with the
modern route from Injessu to Cæsarea. Whether in its direct southerly
line it continued as a wheel track thus early through the Cilician gates
to Tarsus is open to question, though it was clearly open some three
centuries later.[898] Westward also there must have been established
now or shortly afterwards an embranchment connecting Tyana by way of
Ardistama with Iconium; while, as we have already noted,[899] the
existence of a main westerly route from Boghaz-Keui to the Lydian coast
is testified by the contemporary sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel.
Of the cities which these roads connected there remains little
trace. At Boghaz-Keui only the buried remains of the palace built by
Mursil[900] and the sculptured sanctuary which we have dated to the
age of Hattusil[901] can be assigned with any security to the two
centuries that we have been considering. At Eyuk and Malatia the
cubical building blocks decorated with sculptures seem to indicate the
existence of palaces as early as the reign of Subbi-luliuma.[902] The
site of Sakje-Geuzi was already occupied by Hittite people, and probably
counted six walled townships and citadels within its neighbourhood;[903]
we suspect it to be the centre of the state that later becomes known in
the Assyrian records by the name of Iaudi. Sinjerli was also a large
and flourishing city,[904] the capital of the kingdom later called by
the Assyrians Samalla. Carchemish,[905] Aleppo,[906] and Hamath[907]
are also known as Hittite cities from the history of these times, but
no remains of buildings have been found within their areas that can be
assigned to this period.[908] We may infer, however, from the evidence of
the excavations at Sinjerli, and from contemporary Egyptian sculptures,
as well as from the designs of late fortifications, that the cities of
this age were already surrounded by masoned walls, supported by numerous
external towers, and entered through gateways barred by a pair of double
doors and guarded by wing towers on either hand. But most of the visible
architectural remains of Boghaz-Keui, and nearly all those that have come
to light in Syria, including those of Marash, belong upon our evidence to
a later period after the disintegration of the empire, when for a while
in the development of history the opportunity occurred for a revival of
local arts upon the old models among the small kingdoms that survived.
The disintegration of the Hittite empire introduces a new phase of their
history. With it was involved the downfall of the Hatti rulers, indicated
by the failure of the archives of Boghaz-Keui after the reign of
Arnuandas, two generations after the time of Hattusil, and hence probably
about 1200 B.C. In the great combine of land and sea powers against
Egypt, which Rameses III. resisted and dispersed,[909] the Hittites
again figure among the confederates, but this time no longer as leaders;
and subsequently they appear no more in Egyptian history. They had held
sway over Asia Minor for about two centuries, a lengthy period for an
oriental dynasty, and now they were submerged by historical movements,
of which the details are wanting so far as it affected them, though the
development of events may be traced in outline. As often in the history
of Asia Minor, the tide of immigration that had formerly set westward
had now turned, and, sweeping irresistibly from Europe southward and
eastward over the Greek world and the Ægean Islands, traversed also the
peninsula.[910] The wave which Rameses III. turned away from the Egyptian
frontier had swept away the Hatti power, and it may be thought that their
part in the movement, like that of others, was migratory rather than
warlike, pressed onwards by newcomers from beyond.
In the redistribution of power that followed the dispersal of these
peoples, the dominant position in Asia Minor seems to have been held
by the Muski,[911] whom we presume to be a European people, akin to
the Phrygian conquerors of later times.[912] With these newcomers at
any rate the Assyrian kings were occupied for half a century. By 1170
B.C., it would appear, they had traversed Asia Minor and descended upon
Kummukh, the Hittite state lying around Samsat, between Carchemish and
Malatia, upon the Assyrian frontier; and it was not until 1120 that they
were driven back by the valorous expeditions of Tiglath-Pileser I. It
is possible that the Assyrian king followed up his victories as far as
the Black Sea;[913] but in any case the power of the Muski would seem
to have been broken and to have gradually declined until reinforced by
the Thracian immigrants of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.[914] In
the meanwhile the Hittite states found the opportunity for a remarkable
revival. The readiness of these peoples, though no longer politically
united, to combine against a common enemy is well shown by the
experiences of the Assyrian king, who had no sooner crossed the frontier
at Malatia, than he was assailed on his right flank by twenty-three
chieftains,[915] while in front lay sixty others whose domains extended
to the Upper Sea. Though possibly this expedition lay eastward of the
boundary of the Hittite lands, the central Hittite states did not
escape from the ambitious raids of the Assyrian king, who crossing the
Euphrates on rafts of skin, this time nearer to Carchemish, put Mount
Bishri[916] to the sword, and advancing northwards, devastated the
frontier lands (Muzri), which lay now, as we have seen, beyond Kummukh,
nearer to the kingdom of Malatia. The Kumani, dwelling probably in the
mountainous region round Comana (Shahr), seem to have gone out to the
assistance of their kinsfolk, harassing the Assyrian probably on his left
flank. But their native fastnesses and walled cities did not protect
them from the vengeance of the Assyrian. Their advanced troops were
overcome and imprisoned in the fortress of Arinni; while the remainder
of their fighting men, some 20,000 strong, who lay entrenched on Mount
Tala, were driven out and pursued as far as the range of Kharusa, on the
frontiers.[917] Kibshuna, the capital of the Kumani, surrendered. The
states of Syria were the next to fall to the Assyrian conqueror, for a
fresh expedition passing up the Orontes seems to have crossed the Lebanon
and reached the Mediterranean coast northward from Beyrout.[918]
Though the expeditions of Tiglath-Pileser I. were far-reaching, they do
not seem to have established anything like a permanent hold over the
Hittite states of Syria. Carchemish, upon the frontier, does not seem to
have lost any of its independence, and it may be suspected that after
the decline of the Hatti, this state remained the chief centre of the
Hittite power.[919] There is indeed a suggestion that its kings were
descended from, or early related to, the Hatti rulers,[920] and that
at one time, perhaps in the eleventh century, they held sway as far as
Gurun,[921] in the valley of the Tochma Su, indicating a kingdom which
embraced all the central Hittite states. However that may be, some names
of the early kings of Carchemish have been handed down among the archives
of the Hatti,[922] under whom it seems clearly to have been already a
state of major importance; and its independence was maintained, in name
at least, as late as any of which the history is known.
The apparent independence of Carchemish throughout the reign of
Tiglath-Pileser is not only a testimony to its own military resources,
but an indication that the Assyrian conquests were not secured. The time
of the great Assyrian empire was not yet, and as the Assyrian power
gradually weakened for a while, so did that of the Hittite states revive.
For something like a century and a half, until about 950 B.C., some
semblance of Assyrian authority may still be traced on the near side of
the Euphrates,[923] but in view of the history of these times it may be
said that during the tenth century B.C., until the renewal of Assyrian
invasions (about 850 B.C.), the Hittite states of Syria were free, and
their works illustrate to us their latent vitality and the revival of
their traditions.
It was not only in Syria that this opportunity was afforded, for a
parallel development of circumstances upon the plateau of Asia Minor
seems to have encouraged the revival of the chief states also by the
removal of their embarrassments. The Assyrian invasions had broken the
strength of the Muski, who had for some time threatened to overwhelm
and submerge the Hittite peoples; and now the gradual withdrawal of
both enemies was marked by a cycle of Hittite works which proved how
deep-rooted was their civilisation, and later history shows how radical
must be the changes that would supplant it in their mountain homes. At
Boghaz-Keui a new palace, unadorned, however, with sculptures, sprang
up on the site of that of the Great Kings, which was now completely
ruined. It is possible that the great walls of the citadel as they are
now seen were the product also of this age.[924] They would seem to have
been furnished, now or within a few generations, with the great arched
gateways decorated with sculptures[925] which are one of their most
striking features. Incidentally there is disclosed in the representation
of a female warrior upon one of the great jambs[926] the development of,
or union with, the Amazons,[927] whose fame lived in Greek history and
tradition while the deeds of the old Hatti kings were already buried in
oblivion. At Eyuk we have seen there is indication of a corresponding
phase of local buildings, involving details of architecture and sculpture
peculiarly Hittite.
It would seem, however, that it was not in the old centre of
administration that the dominant Hittite spirit most revealed itself.
The sculptures of Bor[928] and Ivrîz,[929] and the related inscriptions
of Bulghar-Madên[930] and Karaburna,[931] with others on the Kara Dagh
and at Bogche, as well as numerous minor works, are all indications
of a considerable area united as a single kingdom, the centre of
which was Tyana. The Assyrian records of later times tell indeed of a
powerful tribe or people named by them the Khilakku, whose geographical
disposition seems to correspond with this area. These two facts in
association recall the tradition of a great ‘Cilician’ empire, mentioned
by Solinus,[932] which was said to have embraced within its sway most
of the great states of Asia Minor and of Syria that had formerly
acknowledged the rule or suzerainty of the Hatti kings.[933]
Though this renaissance of the Hittite kingdoms may have been
short-lived,[934] it was none the less real and general, as the peculiar
features and relationship of the monuments of this age testify.
Practically nothing is known, however, of the history of this period:
their own inscriptions seem to be mostly theocratic or religious, while
Egypt and Assyria were too much engaged with home affairs to send
expeditions into Hittite-Syria, the records of whose adventures might
otherwise have enabled us to penetrate into the obscurity which hides
this brilliant epoch from our view. The period falls, however, within
the first pale glimmer of Greek tradition, which enables us at any rate
to interpret more clearly some aspects of the local monuments of these
times. The map of the Hittite world[935] in the tenth century B.C.,
deduced from the disposition of their monuments, and from the records of
the Assyrians when they came again into contact, is also instructive, and
seems to us to indicate the home-lands or settling-places of the real
Hittite peoples more clearly even than a map of the Hittite empire, based
as that would necessarily be on the whole range of Hittite works[936]
and the uncertain identification of Egyptian names. Eastward of the
Khilakku,[937] the kingdom known by the Assyrians as Tabal seems for part
of the time to have embraced most of the cities of the Anti-Taurus from
Fraktin to Comana, extending northwards possibly as far as Ekrek and
Mazaca (Cæsarea). It included numerous small states,[938] some of which
at various times became separately prominent, among which Kammanu seems
to be recognisable in Komana (identified with the modern Shahr), while
the principality of Shinukhta and the city of Tynne[939] lay nearer to
Tyana. On the Tochma Su, Guriania was the name of a minor kingdom seated
at Gurun, while lower down old Malatia was the chief town of the kingdom
of Milid (Miliddu), which still retained its great importance.[940]
Gurgum lay seemingly around Marash, then known as Marghasi, to which we
refer below, while Kummukh[941] extended, as we have seen, north-eastward
up the near bank of the Euphrates. Several states lay in the valley
between the Kurt Dagh and the Giaour Dagh,[942] like Mikhri, bordering
on the Pyramus; Iaudi, with its centre (Kullani) possibly at Sakje-Geuzi
or at Killiz; and Samalla, farther south, with its capital at Sinjerli;
while lower down on the Kara Su was Unki,[943] which probably included
Kurts-oghlu and the site of the classical Gindarus. The boundaries of
the small states and larger kingdoms alike cannot be fixed, and probably
varied continually with the ascendency of this chief or the other. The
region last mentioned, for example, seems at one time to have been mostly
subject to Samalla,[944] while at other times it was divided between
Gurgum and the Hattina, or subject to one or other of these powers.
The latter, as their name implies, were a Hittite folk, whose numerous
principalities[945] lay in the valley of the Orontes,[946] with Hamath
doubtless as their capital. Lastly, the Hatti themselves seem to be
represented by the powerful kingdom of Carchemish on the Euphrates,[947]
the boundaries of which were indefinite, but reached at any rate to the
Khabour River on the south.
[Illustration: THE HITTITE STATES after the Revival of the Xth Century
B.C.]
On the outskirts of the Hittite kingdoms there were already present most
of the elements of the powers that later were to submerge them. In the
immediate West we place the Muski-Phrygians, but the mutual boundary is
indefinable and probably varied constantly.[948] East of the Euphrates,
Mitanni was no more, and Assyria was recruiting; while from the south
and south-east there had already begun the steady infiltration of
Aramæan peoples, who now occupied most of the tongue of land between the
Orontes and the Euphrates.[949] Damascus was their centre, and within
the Hittite-Assyrian sphere they had already planted strong settlements
in the plains westward of the Euphrates. Even the kings of Samalla are
early found with Semitic names,[950] a fact which corresponds with the
character of a whole series of its monuments.[951] We may suspect from
the name in like manner the Aramæan extraction of the dynasty of Bit
Adini, which ruled over a broad and numerously peopled Hittite tract
extending from south of Carchemish even across the Euphrates, including
probably the site of Tell-Ahmar. Shugab lay also on both banks of the
river, somewhat further north. In the north-east a new and formidable
power akin to the earlier Hittites was gathering strength in the vicinity
of Lake Van, by name Urartu; but the Cimmerian hordes had not as yet
appeared in the north.
Many of the surface monuments of the Hittites seem to belong to this
period of revival: they are linked by various common features in detail,
and illustrate at the same time the development of new motives in art.
The increasing power of the priest-king is reflected in the prominence
now given to his portrait as a chief subject for the sculptures.[952]
His dress has now assumed a magnificence of embroidery and tapestry
unknown in earlier times, though clearly derived, as regards the close
cap, long robe, mantle, and shoes, from the priestly dress of the bygone
age. On the rock carving of Ivrîz he pays his devotions to a god of
agriculture, who presents so many new features that he might at first
sight be taken for an entirely new conception, notwithstanding that his
dress is obviously a direct modification only of the time-honoured and
sacred costume of the Hatti gods. Yet he is a descendant of the Son-god
of Boghaz-Keui,[953] and his new virtues are a product of the Hittite
lands. Now he has become the peasant’s god, the patron of agriculture,
himself rewarding toil with fruit and corn. In Babylonia, where the grain
grew wild, and the harvest was a gift of nature varying only in degree,
the function of the consort to the earth-goddess, as the fertiliser,
had been a secondary consideration. In the prominence of manhood under
the Hatti kings, the god had received his separate local attributes and
sanctuary. Now he appears, alone, in a third phase clearly developed
upon a soil where the goddess was benign only to those who toiled.
Here the clearing of the ground, irrigation, ploughing, sowing, and
constant tending were necessary before the harvest could be won; and in
this attribution the god is worshipped. The Greeks, when they arrived
upon the scene, saw in him their own Hercules as the god of toil. His
dress, however, as we have mentioned, betokens his Hittite origin. The
tunic and turned-up shoes, though more elaborate, remain essentially
the same as of old. The national hat, however, has lost its height,
and is also broader; and the same difference may be noted in the newly
found Amazon figure at Boghaz-Keui. This change, indeed, may be traced
back to the later years of the Hatti period, if reliance may be placed
on the Egyptian representation[954] of the Hittite monarch who visited
Rameses II. The pigtail, moreover, has disappeared, and from the source
last quoted and other considerations we are inclined to believe that
even in the Hatti period it was already antiquated, surviving only in
religious representations as sanctified by time. For civil purposes it
may even then have been replaced by the new style, which at any rate
is characteristic of the monuments of the age we are considering, in
which the hair is gathered in a thick bunch curling backward behind the
neck.[955]
The range of these changes in detail on both sides of the Taurus is
another indication of close bonds between the various branches of the
Hittite peoples. In the architecture of these times there appears a
new and striking motive, equally wide in its distribution, in the lion
corner-stone.[956] The lion itself we have seen to have been early
introduced into Hittite symbolism, but the earliest examples in the round
seem to be the product of this age. The carvings of Sakje-Geuzi, which
show the Hittite style just tinged with Assyrian or Aramaic (Semitic)
influence, can be assigned with some certainty to the period 900-850 B.C.
At Sinjerli the great lions seem to be of earlier date,[957] but in any
case there is a remarkable coherence in design and method of employment
between all the recorded specimens; as well as a correspondence in
treatment of detail with the lions which decorate the chief gateway and
the tank at Boghaz-Keui.[958]
One of the lions of Marash is covered with an inscription, the nature of
which seems to conform entirely with the dominant theocratic ideals of
the age.[959] The monuments and ruins of this place are in themselves
evidence of a city of remarkable strength and of conspicuous importance
in the Hittite world,[960] of which it was one of the last surviving
members. Unhappily for history we must still wait here as elsewhere for
the evidences which the excavator’s spade alone can satisfactorily bring
to light. The bare references in the Assyrian annals to the capture of
this or that city, or to the various desperate coalitions of the Hittite
states against the power that threatened their independence, if not their
existence, tell us little but the date and manner of their downfall.
If one could but penetrate the gloom that enshrouds the story of the
Hittites in these stirring times, how many Iliads could be written to
delight their readers!
We pass then to the last phase, which covers the period 850-700 B.C.,
during which the Hittite states were one by one submerged by the various
powers that encircled them, and finally the Cimmerians blotted out from
Asia Minor the memory of the past. The story is soon told; for we have
only the record of the Assyrian[961] and Vannic[962] inscriptions to
help in filling the outline of the Hittite story of these last centuries
which was sketched in an earlier chapter. These records also are usually
either brief and formal, or expressed in terms obviously exaggerated and
partial; and the operations of which they tell were for the most part
confined to the eastern Hittite states. Such as they are, however, they
are welcome.
The story opens about 884 or 885 B.C., with the loss of Tul Barsip, a
chief stronghold of the Bit Adini. This was, as it were, the warning of
a long series of incursions by the Assyrian forces under Assur-nazir-pal
and his successor, Shalmaneser II. The Euphrates was crossed by them on
rafts of skin as aforetime. Shangara, King of Carchemish, was awed into
sending a handsome tribute to secure the safety of his crown and life.
Among his gifts were a royal chariot, objects of gold, silver, copper and
iron, bulls of bronze, decorated cups and carvings in ivory. The route
of the Assyrian leader lay by way of the Orontes valley, and for a brief
moment, Lubarna, who at that time was head of the principalities of the
Hattina, seems to have contemplated resistance. Realising, however, the
inutility of such a course, he followed the example of Shangara, and
paved with presents the way of the Assyrian king, who, with the route now
open, passed onwards beyond the Lebanon. But the Hittite leaders were not
yet conquered. Somewhere about 860 B.C. nearly all the Hittite states of
Syria, including Carchemish, Bit Adini, Gurgum, Samalla, Quë, and the
Hattina, leagued themselves in a determined effort to resist, if not to
rid themselves of, the Assyrian menace. Taking advantage of the absence
of Shalmaneser’s army in the north, where he was assailing the fastnesses
of the Urartu, they even crossed the frontier and made considerable
inroads upon the Assyrian lands. The vengeance of the Assyrian was
swift. The towns of Bit Adini were taken by storm, and the Euphrates was
crossed. Gurgum, one of the states first open to attack, seceded from
the confederates and submitted. The combined army of Adini, Samalla,
and the Hattina was next defeated, and the Assyrian forces pressed once
more up the valley of the Orontes, this time in pursuit of the King
of the Hattina, Shapalulme, who had escaped. Seizing the opportunity,
the King of Samalla collected his troops, and being joined by the King
of Carchemish, with reinforcements also from Quë and further west, he
prepared to defend his country against the invader. The effort, however,
was vain. The fortress of Shapalulme was burnt. It is even possible
that the Assyrian passed over the Amanus into Cilicia,[963] being only
stopped on the frontiers of the chief Hittite state by ambassadors and
presents.[964] Hittite prisoners graced this triumph of the Assyrian
conqueror, in his capital, being distinguished by their long robes and
cumbrous hats.[965]
Though in the following year Bit Adini once more rebelled, with the
result that two hundred villages and six fortresses were taken or
destroyed, and Tell Barsip was garrisoned by Assyrian troops, it would
seem that five years later the states of Carchemish, Kummukh, Milid,
Samalla, Hattina and Gurgum[966] still acknowledged, however unwillingly,
the suzerainty of their all-powerful neighbour, and their respective
kings attended a conference at his bidding. Aleppo alone stood aloof,
and was persuaded accordingly by force of arms. Satisfied apparently
with their submission and attitude, the Assyrian king determined to try
conclusions with the Aramæan power seated at Damascus. The Hittites of
Hamath, Quë, and the Taurus fought against him in the great battle which
ensued at Qarqar.[967] The issue was indecisive, but the Assyrian, as
the attacker, lost prestige by his lack of success. Carchemish and other
vassal states promptly refused to renew their tribute. Shalmaneser was a
whole year suppressing this rebellion, and thereafter found it desirable
to send an expedition to the frontier each year to maintain his authority.
Thus far, it is clear, the incursions of the Assyrians into the Hittite
territory had been rather of the nature of raids for booty and the
exaction of tribute; no serious effort had been made as yet to bring the
states within the direct government of Assyria, and the operations had
been confined practically to the north of Syria. There is a record of
850 B.C. from which it may be thought that a first blow was now aimed at
the central Hittite states.[968] In the next year, however, after the
Assyrian forces had passed Carchemish and reached the Amanus, and then
turning southward had held Hattina to ransom, a league of twelve Hittite
kings in the vicinity of Hamath seems to have barred their further
progress. These kings are no more mentioned, and possibly their territory
was absorbed by Damascus, which had obviously gained influence after
the battle of Qarqar. The King of Hamath, however, paid homage to the
Assyrian when he once more entered the valley of the Orontes in 842 B.C.
Turning for a moment from the affairs of Syria, the kingdom of Tabal
was for the first time invaded in 838 B.C., and the Assyrian claims to
have reduced twenty-four of its chieftains to subjection. In Quë the
king, Kati, was dethroned and replaced by another named Kirri; while
further west Tarsus also fell into the Assyrian hands. At this stage
Shalmaneser gave up his military command; for a while the Hittite states
had respite, and some of them, like the Hattina, resumed an attitude of
independence.
[Illustration: Submergence of the Hittite States in the Eighth Century
B.C.]
Meanwhile, however, the Vannic kings had been steadily gaining strength
and now found themselves powerful enough to more than hold their own.
Erelong they began to cause the Assyrians considerable inquietude on
their northern frontier, and about 804 B.C. Menuas drove back the
Assyrians and attacked the Hittites. Crossing the Euphrates the Urartians
exacted tribute from Malatia.[969] The events of the next generation are
obscure; but in 776 the Hittite tribes of Syria, notably those under
the Amanus, took advantage of the discomfiture of the Assyrians at the
hands of the new Urartian king, Argistis of Ararat, to throw off their
allegiance; and within a few years most of them were free of the Assyrian
yoke. But their freedom was transient. Argistis looms in the history of
these times as a great conqueror, and the Hittite states on his immediate
frontier, including not only Malatia and Kummukh, but possibly a great
part of Tabal, yielded to his authority. After a temporary withdrawal, it
would seem, the whole of northern Syria was swiftly brought within the
domain of the new power. In 758 B.C. the kingdom of Malatia, which under
Khite-ruadas had regained a momentary independence, was invaded once more
by the hardy mountaineers: the capital, as well as fourteen castles and
a hundred towns, fell into their hands.[970] By 756 B.C. Marash also had
probably fallen, for the conquests of the Vannic power extended as far
south as had the Assyrian, and the Hittite states of northern Syria were
all forced into allegiance. Previous to the year 744 B.C. at any rate,
when the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III., with a reinvigorated army,
prepared to repel the invaders, Carchemish, Gurgum, Kummukh, Unki and Quë
all acknowledged the suzerainty of Sharduris.[971]
The details of the struggle for Syria between two foreign powers can
hardly be regarded as Hittite history. The Hittite strength was already
gone; their kingdoms in Syria and the Taurus had been broken, ravaged,
and weakened by the scourge of constant wars; while in Asia Minor a
similar but more vital struggle, all unknown to history, was being waged
between the advancing Phrygians and the chief Hittite kingdoms of the
interior. All hope of general union was at an end. Yet in the records of
the Syrian side of these affairs, it is wonderful to see how the spirit
of independence lived on in the old Hittite centres, ready at any time to
break out in open rebellion. No ordinary military punishments seemed able
to crush it. In 743, Tiglath-Pileser met and routed the great confederate
army of Sharduris, with whom fought the Hittite contingents from Agusi,
Gurgum, Kummukh, and Malatia.[972] The issue was decisive and momentous.
Both kings led their armies in person, and the Assyrian record[973]
states that 73,000 of the enemy were slain in battle. Yet undismayed,
Matîlu of Agusi, the centre of which was Arpad, seems to have asserted
his freedom and to have resisted the Assyrian for nearly three years,
when he was overcome and slain in 740 B.C. The downfall of Arpad and
the death of its king were not without a reactive effect upon the other
states, so that the kings of Kummukh, Gurgum, Carchemish, and Quë came to
the victors to humbly tender their formal submission. The Hattina still
held out, but the Assyrian moved on their capital, Kinalua, which was
carried by assault; and in order to avoid further disturbance in these
rebellious quarters, both Agusi and Unki were hereafter administered by
Assyrian officers and garrisoned by Assyrian troops. The policy thus
initiated, coupled with that of deportation of the natives in large
numbers, proved more fateful to the Hittites than the long series of
punitive expeditions sent against them.
Samalla was next in arms. Profiting by the absence of the Assyrian
forces on their own north-eastern frontiers, Azriyahu, who appears to
have been a native prince, laid claim to the throne, though it was
occupied by Panammu II.,[974] a Semitic ruler who had been set up by
the Assyrian king. Tiglath-Pileser hastened back to restore order,
laying waste Kullani[975] on his way. He then passed southwards up the
valley of the Orontes, ravaging as he went. Hamath yielded, and the
kings of Carchemish, Malatia, and Tabal, with others, were convinced by
these exploits that it was their best policy to tender their complete
submission and to send their tribute. The Assyrian supremacy was now
complete, and it was demonstrated by an arduous expedition which
penetrated to the walls of the Urartian capital, in the mountains of the
north. The Vannic power was broken, and thereafter its warriors only
appear like those of the Hittites, in a series of vain struggles against
the greater power that was steadily overwhelming them. In 732 B.C.
the fall of Damascus at last laid open the way to the founding of the
greatest Assyrian empire.
Our tale is nearly told; the inevitable issue is traceable in a bare
statement of the chief events of a dozen years. A last combine in
720 B.C. of the Hittites of Tabal and Carchemish, reinforced by the
Urartians, only tended to precipitate the end. In 718 the troops of
Sargon passed northwards through the Cilician gates,[976] beyond which
Tyana no longer represented the chief Hittite centre, but was now
a frontier stronghold of the Phrygian Midas.[977] This monarch was
obviously perplexed by the Assyrian advance, and made overtures to
Pisiris of Carchemish, who openly revolted. But Midas failed him: his
kingdom became an Assyrian colony, and the greatest Hittite stronghold of
Syria, that had so long retained a semblance of real independence amid
the submergence of the states around, was now garrisoned with Assyrian
soldiers.[978] The Tabal were again in arms in 713 B.C., though the rebel
leader was a protégé of Assyria.[979] He was duly punished, and his fief
was annexed to the Cilician province. Following an incursion led by
Tarkhunazi of Malatia, the eastern portion of the Tabal, around Comana,
was in 712 B.C. fortified as an Assyrian frontier state, with five forts
on the Urartian side, two towards the north, and three as protection
against the Phrygians. The kingdom of Malatia itself was in 710 put under
the rule of Mutallu of Kummukh, and the whole mountain region was renamed
Tulgarimme. Gurgum, with its stout fortress of Marash, was the last to
succumb. For something like thirty years its last king, Tarkhulara,
had retained his throne by diplomatic presents and submission first
to the Urartian, and then to the Assyrian. Upon the outbreak of local
hostilities, however, in 709, this state also was created an Assyrian
province, and with that event the last element of Hittite freedom
disappeared.
In the mountains of Taurus, in the kingdom of Tabal, the smouldering
fire might still burst from time to time[980] into a flame. But the
Cimmerian hordes put out that spark, as they had done for the Urartu,
and did in due time for the Muski; and before they could be driven back
the course of history was changed. The story of the Hittites was ended;
‘Meshech and Tubal’[981] were destroyed, and ‘the Land of the Hittites’
became a memory of the past.[982]
[Illustration: MAP OF HITTITE SITES IN ASIA MINOR AND N. SYRIA.]
EPOCHS OF HITTITE HISTORY
2000 B.C.[983] Settlements in southern Syria; overthrow of the
1st Dynasty of Babylon (p. 323). Horse and chariot used in Asia
Minor (p. 320).
1400 B.C.[983] Hatti kings established at Boghaz-Keui (p. 326).
1380 B.C.[983] Subbi-luliuma annexes N. Syria (p. 330) and
invades Mesopotamia (p. 331).
1370 B.C.[983] Amorite vassalage (p. 336); Treaty with Egypt
(p. 337); Mitanni a protectorate (p. 338).
Empire in Asia Minor and N. Syria.
Palace[984] on Beuyuk-Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui;
local palaces at Eyuk and Malatia; sculptures
of Fraktin and (?) Sipylus (p. 339).
1350 B.C.[983] Reign of Arandas. 1340 B.C.[983] Accession of
Mursil (p. 341).
1330 B.C.[984] Lower palace at Boghaz-Keui constructed (p. 342).
1320 B.C.[983] Assyria takes Mesopotamia and Malatia (p. 342).
1310 B.C.[983] Egypt reconquers N. Syria (p. 343).
1295 B.C.[984] Accession of Mutallu (p. 343).
1288 B.C.,[983] Battle of Kadesh (p. 343).
1271 B.C. Hattusil concludes treaty with Egypt (p. 347).
Diplomatic relations with Babylonia (p. 350). [984]Sculptures
of Iasily Kaya, Giaour-Kalesi, and Kara-Bel (p. 366). [?
Fortifications of Boghaz-Keui constructed] Hittite cities at
Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash,
Malatia, Comana; confederate states in western and southern
Asia Minor.
1258 B.C. Hittite king (? Dudkhalia) visits the Pharaoh (p.
351).
1220 B.C.[983] Arnuanta, cadastral survey (p. 352).
1200 B.C.[983] Invasions by the Muski-Phrygians; fall of the
Hatti and (?) Boghaz-Keui (p. 368).
1170 B.C.[983] Muski reach the Assyrian frontier; 1120,
repelled (p. 368).
1120 B.C. _et seqq._ Assyrian invasions of N. Syria and Taurus
(p. 369).
1000 B.C.[983] to 900 B.C. Revival of the Hittite kingdoms.
[984]Sculptures of Bor, Ivrîz, Eyuk, Malatia, Marash, Sinjerli,
Sakje-Geuzi; inscriptions of Bulghar-Madên and Karaburna (p.
373). Road opened through Cilician Gates (p. 366). Palace
reconstructed at Boghaz-Keui; Amazon sculpture (p. 372).
885 B.C. Invasions by Assyria as far as (838) Tabal and Tarsus
(p. 384).
750 B.C.[983] N. Syria and Taurus subject to the Vannic kings
(p. 386). [984]Plateau of Asia Minor subject to Phrygia.
743 B.C. Assyrian supremacy re-established (p. 387).
718 B.C. Fall of Carchemish; Assyrian troops enter Asia Minor
(p. 388).
712 B.C. Tabal (Taurus) conquered; 709, fall of Marash (p. 389).
FOOTNOTES
[1] We regard, however, the sculptures of Mount Sipylus (Pl. LIII.) and
of Kara-Bel (Pl. LIV.) as witnesses to the possession of inland passes
leading to the Lydian coast.
[2] In particular the Lycians (Lukki), who appear among the Hittite
allies in the time of Rameses II., and later with the sea-peoples in the
reign of Merenptah.
[3] There is no evidence to enable us to include the ‘Vannic’ monuments.
Cf. Sayce’s _Herodotus_ (London, 1883), App. iv. p. 424 and below, pp.
54, 385; we exclude also as capable of other interpretation isolated
discoveries of moveable monuments, like those at Kedabeg (Messerschmidt,
_Corpus Inscrip. Hettiticarum, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1900, Pt. v. No. 1.), at Babylon (_op. cit._, Nos. 3, 4,
5), and Nineveh (_ibid._, Pl. XXXIX. Nos. 2-9), etc. The inscribed stone
reported as found near Erzerum, now in the museum at Constantinople, No.
1193, is of doubtful provenance (_op. cit._, 1906, Pt. v. pp. 7, 8).
[4] These Hittite sites are shown on the map, to face p. 390.
[5] Mr. Hogarth, writing in the _Recueil de Travaux_, xvii., records that
during his journeyings up through the valley he never saw nor heard of
any pre-Hellenic monuments on the north side of the river.
[6] For these routes see Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, XV. p. 29, and
in Macan’s _Herodotus_ (1895), App. XIII. § 9; also Ramsay, _Historical
Geography_, pp. 35, 46 ff.
[7] For the modern condition and ancient importance of this region, see
further: Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 94; Peters, _Nippur_, i. p.
81; Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (London, 1896), pp. 144 and
ff.; and _The Passing of Empires_ (1900), p. 35, with an illustration.
[8] Here also the Euphrates is still our eastern boundary; for
Tell-Ahmar, the scene of Mr. Hogarth’s recent discoveries (p. 129),
though on the further side, is on the water’s edge; and the few monuments
found further east, like the seal from Urfa (Messerschmidt, _op.
cit._, _C.I.H._ 1900, Pl. XLI. No. 3), and the palace sculptures of
Tell-Halaf (Von Oppenheim, _Der alte Orient_, 1908, Heft 1), which owe
something to Hittite influence, are not definite enough to imply Hittite
occupation. That the river separated the land of Mitanni from the Hatti
is substantiated by the archives of Boghaz-Keui (Winckler, _Mitteilungen
der D. Orient._-Ges. 1907, No. 35). On the relation of Mitanni to Hittite
see below, pp. 58, note 1, 324, note 2.
[9] Pronounced _Afreen_.
[10] See Plates XXXV., XLIII.
[11] We noticed this effect especially at Karadinek, August 1907.
[12] Pl. LXXXIV. (i), p. 320. This is clearly the old Amorite-Hittite
type as represented on the Egyptian temple sculptures, _temp._ Rameses
II., then apparently most prevailing in the Lebanon region. See Petrie,
_Racial Types_, No. 147, and Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p.
147 and fig.; cf. also W. Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 229, 233,
and the Book of Joshua, x. 6, and xi. 3. The type is now more widely
dispersed, as seen from this example and Pls. XV. (ii), LXXXVI. below.
[13] A local tradition says that 120,000 men were drawn from this region
in the time of Alexander.
[14] Von Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i.; and _Liverpool
Annals of Archæology_, i. p. 99.
[15] Including the kingdoms of Unki, Samalla, and Jaudi: see the map, p.
375.
[16] Cf. Plate LXXIV.
[17] The coast route to Alexandretta was in course of reconstruction in
1907. Formerly the rocky promontory known as _Pylæ Syriæ et Ciliciæ_
presented a formidable obstacle, over which carts could pass only with
great difficulty; while for travellers on horseback the easiest passage
was by wading in the sea at the foot of the cliffs. The Bogche route is
that contemplated for the new section of the railway heading for Baghdad.
[18] A silvered copper seal, cylindrical in shape, is recorded as from
Haifa (_C.I.H._ 1900, Pl. XLI. 2), but no argument can be based thereon.
Other small objects from this region are a seal and archaic bronze figure
from Latakia (_C.I.H._ _loc. cit._ No. 6, and Peiser, _Die Bronze-figur
von Schernen_, aus _Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges. Prussia_, Heft 22, p.
428), and a similar archaic bronze from Homs, said to have been found in
the Orontes (Peiser, _op. cit._).
[19] See Plate LXXXIV. (ii), reproduced from a sketch by Mr. Horst
Schliephack. The subject was an Arab-speaking carriage driver, resident
in Hamath, who said that his birthplace was Urfa. Cf. the types Pls.
LXXV., LXXVII.
[20] Ramsay, _Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, xv. p. 100.
[21] Cf. Livy, Bk. xxxviii. 18, etc., for the contrast between Phrygia
and the plains.
[22] This feature also is historic. Cf. Strabo XII. viii. 8.
[23] For the general geographical conditions affecting life on the
plateau, cf. Hogarth, _The Nearer East_ (London, 1902), pp. 246 ff.
[24] For mineral and other resources consult _inter alia_, Hamilton,
_Researches in Asia Minor_ (London, 1842), vol. i. chs. xvi., xx.,
xxiii.; likewise Van Lennep, _Travels in ... Asia Minor_ (London, 1870).
[25] It is of interest in this connection to notice that one of the
earliest historical references to the Hittites occurs in the Babylonian
chronicles (King, _Chronicles of the Early Babylonian Kings_, London,
1907, pp. 72 and 148).
[26] Witness the group of monuments in the Kara Dagh, p. 90.
[27] A barrier, that is, to general migration in ancient times. As a
political boundary its importance is clear from the fact that it divided
the Median and Lydian empires (Herodotus, i. 72).
[28] _Loc. cit._, Strabo (XII. iii. 9) speaks of ‘the “Leuco-Syrians”
whom we call Cappadocians.’ See also p. 92; and Ramsay, _Historical
Geography_, pp. 32, 33.
[29] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, vol. ii. ch. xliii.
[30] _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908), p. 6, Pls. VIII., IX.
[31] It is noteworthy that Strabo (XII. ii. 7), describes Mazaca (then
the capital of the Cilician province) as being in a ruinous state without
walls, while its land remained unfertile and uncultivated.
[32] See Pl. IX.
[33] See Pl. LXXXVI.
[34] Professor Ramsay (_Historical Geography_, p. 35) already argued the
necessary antiquity of such a route before the Hittite monument on the
mountain pass was brought to light.
[35] See below, pp. 45, 366, note 2; and cf. Macan’s _Herodotus_, App.
XIII. §§ 7, 8, 9.
[36] _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), p. 11.
[37] Cf. Pl. XXIV. (i).
[38] See below, Pl. XXV. (iii); and _Liverpool Annals of Arch._, i. pp.
10, 13.
[39] At Andaval, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI.; and at Bor, _ibid._ (1906),
Pl. XXXIII. See below, p. 91.
[40] See p. 233.
[41] See pp. 33, 38.
[42] See p. 143.
[43] See Pl. II. (ii).
[44] Cf. Strabo, XII. xi. 8.
[45] We noticed in passing an aged pair working together in their small
garden of vegetables. It was summer-time, and their sleeping-place was a
bower of branches and twigs covered entirely with pink roses.
[46] To be distinguished from the Bogche, which gives its name to the
pass over the Giaour Dagh (p. 14).
[47] Herodotus, i. 75, and v. 52; Ramsay, _Historical Geography_, p. 29;
but see below, p. 38, note 1.
[48] Cf. Pls. XII., XIII. (ii). We are alluding to the poorer classes.
There is a considerable degree of refinement and simple luxury among the
more prosperous Turkomans. See, for example, Davis, _Life in Asiatic
Turkey_, pp. 223-4.
[49] Pl. XVII.
[50] Cf. Pls. XIV., XVIII.
[51] The Yazîr Daresi.
[52] The Beuyuk Kayanin Daresi. See Pl. LIX.
[53] Herodotus, i. 76, says that Crœsus enslaved the inhabitants, and
took also the adjacent places, expelling the population.
[54] We do not attempt to distinguish any but the types that recall the
various Hittite representations in contemporary sculptures, particularly
those which decorate the walls of Egyptian temples. Such resemblance may
be accidental, but it is of interest. In the deeper inquiry, there is
a wonderful field of material for a trained ethnographist. Probably no
‘nation’ on earth to-day is composed of so many and varying elements as
is that of the Turks. A walk through any market town, where the people
are brought together, or even a glance out of the carriage window at
the people on the platform of a busy railway station, will bring forth
visions of Tartars and Mongols, Greeks and Jews, even occasionally
Hindoos and Arabs, as well as the dominant Turkoman, Circassian and
Armenian types, all of which under Nature’s gentle and wonderful
influence seem to blend quite fittingly together. There is nothing,
moreover, that astonishes the reason; for this country was not only the
battlefield of nations, but the natural pathway between two continents.
Cf. Pls. XV., LXXXV.-LXXXVII.
[55] Cf. Pls. LXXXIV., LXXXVI. (i). On the subject of surviving types,
cf. Wilson (Sir Charles) in the _Quart. Statement Pal. Expl. Fd._, Jan.
1884.
[56] And thence in ancient times to Sinope. Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 28;
see also Curtius, _Griech. Gesch._, ed. 5, i. 408, and Herodotus, i. 76,
in reference to which cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Sardinia
... Syria and Asia Minor_ (Engl. ed. 1890), ii. p. 103.
[57] _E.g._ Herodotus, ix. 27; and Strabo, XI. ch. v. 4.
[58] See Pl. L.
[59] Ramsay, _Historical Geography_, p. 31, and _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._,
XV. pp. 100-112; also Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, XIX., i. p. 50.
[60] Herodotus, i. 72. But cf. also Homer, _Iliad_, iii. 187, and xvi.
719.
[61] Ramsay, _Historical Geography_, pp. 29, 30. See Pl. XXIV. (i).
[62] Herodotus, i. 75, quotes a general doubt (in which, however, he does
not share) that the Halys was not yet bridged in the time of Crœsus.
There are, however, suitable fords northward from Cheshme Keupru still
freely used for the summer routes leading from Angora across the river
eastward; and that the bridge was in use in Persian times seems to be
clear (_ibid._, v. 52).
[63] _Vide_ Ramsay, _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern
Provinces of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906), pp. 177-180.
[64] The Hittite horses were called by the Egyptians _abari_, strong or
vigorous (_Anastasi Pap._, iv., Pl. XVII., ll. 8-9), but we may suspect
that the reference here and elsewhere is to the breeds of Syria (vide
_Annals of Thothmes_ III.); Maspero (_Struggle of the Nations_, p.
215, note 4, and p. 352, note 4) seems divided in his view, referring
the passage in one place to Cappadocia and in the other to Syria. Cf.
also his _Passing of Empires_ (1900), p. 205. There was a special breed
in Cilicia, it would appear, in Persian times, from the reference in
Herodotus, iii. 90.
[65] It is, however, full of interests, as any student of Professor
Ramsay’s researches will know.
[66] Professor Ramsay’s _Luke the Physician_, pp. 129 ff., tells of
numberless neglected irrigation works in the desert and on the slopes of
Taurus. The country must, at one time, have presented quite a different
appearance.
[67] See below, p. 56, and Pl. XXV. (iii).
[68] Cf. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. (1893), pp. 74
and ff.
[69] See Pl. LV.
[70] Locally called the _Bozanti Su_ or _Ak Su_, from the names of
important points along the route; it is a main tributary of the Sarus,
which it joins after uniting with the Korkun as it nears the plain.
[71] See frontispiece.
[72] It is stated, however, by Aucher-Eloy, _Relations de Voyages en
Orient de 1830 à 1838_, i. p. 160, that a rock sculpture (of uncertain
character) which he had seen in the Cilician Gates was destroyed in 1834.
[73] We may reasonably suspect that this dates from the revival of the
Hittite state with Tyana as its centre, in the tenth century B.C. (See
above, p. 24, and below, p. 373.) On this question see Ramsay, _The
Cities of St. Paul_ (London, 1907), pp. 114 and ff., also _Pauline and
other Studies_ (London, 1906), ch. xi.; cf. also, for a description of
the route, Davis, _Life in Asiatic Turkey_ (London, 1879), ch. viii.
[74] Roadside rest-houses. Cf. Pls. XIII., XX.
[75] Built or rebuilt it would seem by Ibrahim Pasha.
[76] We cannot accept as Hittite, from the evidence before us, the
doorway and carved lintel from Lamas near Aseli-Keui; Langlois, _Voyage
en Cilicie_, p. 169; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p.
57; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXIII. B.
[77] Among works readily accessible, we may refer the reader to Mr.
Hogarth’s summary in the introduction to Murray’s _Handbook_; to the
articles by Winckler and Brandis in vols. iii. and iv. of _The World’s
History_, Ed. Helmolt (London, 1902); and for the materials to Ramsay,
_Historical Geography of Asia Minor_ (London, 1890).
[78] For a detailed account, with the sources, see below, Chapter VI.
[79] The identification of Mita of Muski with Midas of Phrygia was first
pointed out by Winckler, _Ostorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 71 ff.
Our inference is that the Muski of the Assyrian Annals, the Moschoi of
Herodotus (iii. 94), were really akin to the Phrygians of later history.
[80] About 1170 B.C.
[81] Fifty years later, in the reign of Tiglath Pileser I.
[82] See the Maps accompanying Chap. VI. pp. 375, 385.
[83] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, i. p. 383; Ramsay, _Jour. Roy.
As. Soc._, XV. p. 123.
[84] See Pl. XXV. (iii), from _Liv. Annals_, i. Pl. XIII. The name of
Midas in this inscription was first recognised by Prof. Myres, _op.
cit._, p. 13.
[85] Cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 591, 643.
[86] In the reign of Assur-Nazir-Pal; cf. Maspero, _The Passing of
Empires_, p. 16.
[87] Regarding, that is, the successive appearance of the Mitanni, the
Hittites, and the Urartu (the Vannic power) as analogous movements. Cf.
Winckler, _Mitteil. d. Deut. Orient-Ges._, December 1907, pp. 47 ff.; and
in _The World’s History_, vol. iii. p. 113 etc.
[88] See especially Ramsay, ‘A Study of Phrygian Art,’ in the _Jour.
Hell. Stud._, ix. (1887-8), pp. 350-352, and an earlier article in vol.
iii. pp. 1-32; and Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, pp. 328-335.
[89] Cf. Homer, _Iliad_, iii. 187; xvi. 719.
[90] On this point, see Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_
(Oxford, 1895), i. p. 7.
[91] Ramsay, _loc. cit._ Cf. the central group of Hittite sculptures at
Iasily Kaya, Pl. LXV., where, however, the Father-god, the consort of
the Mother-goddess, is seemingly derived from Babylonian origins. So,
too, the Storm-god of the Hittites has clearly a Babylonian prototype in
Hadad. On the subject of the Hittite deities, see below, pp. 356 ff.
[92] Herodotus, ii. 2.
[93] Homer, _Hymn. Aphr._ 111 and ff.
[94] Φρυγίης εὐτειχήτοιο. Cf. Ramsay, _loc. cit_.
[95] In this opinion we may appear to differ from Hogarth, _Ionia and the
East_ (Oxford, 1909), p. 70, but the standpoints are different.
[96] In addition to the Phrygian inscriptions at Eyuk, cited above, the
story of Daskylos, the fugitive Lydian prince (B.C. 720), indicates close
political relation between the two sides of the Halys at this time; for
when fearful of remaining in Phrygia at the accession of Myrsos to the
Lydian throne, for greater security he crossed the Halys and took refuge
with the ‘White Syrians.’ Cf. Nicholas of Damascus, _Fragm. Hist. Grec._
(ed. Müller-Didot), No. 49. On the relationship with Pteria and the
Chalybes see also Radet, _La Lydie et le Monde Grec_, pp. 63, 111.
[97] Pls. XXIV., XXV.
[98] Cf. Pls. LX., LXXVIII.
[99] Pl. XXIV. (ii); cf. pp. 121, 265, 289.
[100] Our newest authority for this period is Olmstead, _Western Asia in
the Days of Sargon_ (New York, 1908).
[101] If the _Tuna_ of the Assyrians be really _Tyana_, there is clear
evidence of Phrygian supremacy there in 714, in the fact that Matti
of Tuna disclaimed his allegiance to Assyria and turned to Midas. If,
however, Tuna is to be located somewhat further east (cf. the _Tynna_ of
Ptolemy V., 6, 22, and Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, p. 239, note
2), or south-east at Faustinopolis (Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 68), then
the inference is equally clear that the Phrygian sphere reached at least
to Tyana, if not beyond. This evidence is supplementary to that of the
inscription already mentioned (Pl. XXV.).
[102] Herodotus, iv. 11, 12. We follow the story as worked out by
Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 345.
[103] Strabo, XIV. i. 40.
[104] Cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 336; also Sayce, _Empires of the East_,
i. p. 427.
[105] Herodotus, i. 7. On the way in which the date is derived, see
Schubert, _Gesch. der Könige von Lydien_, p. 8.
[106] For the character of the early names and their relation to
the Hittite see Sayce, _loc. cit._; cf. also Hall on _Mursil_ and
_Myrtillos_, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xxix. (1909), pp. 19-22; and on the
same point, Winckler in the _Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_, Dec.
1906.
[107] Gelzer, _Das Zeitalter des Gyges_, Rheins. Mus., vol. xxxv. (1880),
pp. 520-524; cf. Radet, _La Lydie et le Monde Grec_, etc., pp. 90, 91.
[108] Cf. the position of the Hatti kings, pp. 340, 361 ff.; and of the
kings of Comana, of Pontus, and other states (Strabo, Bk. XII. ch. iii.
sec. 32). On this subject see also Ramsay, in _Recueil de Travaux_, vol.
xiv. pp. 78 ff., on ‘The Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia.’
[109] For the double axe in Hittite symbolism, see Pl. LXV.; and for the
relation of the God-of-the-double-axe to Hercules, see pp. 195, 240.
[110] On this question, and on the whole subject of Hittite influence
surviving in the civilisations of the western coast, see the brilliant
survey by Hogarth, _Ionia and the East_, especially pp. 74 ff. and 101-2.
[111] _Op. cit._, pp. 101-2.
[112] _Excavations at Ephesus_: I. _The Archaic Artemisia_ p. 173.
[113] Above, p. 37; see also below, p. 338, and Pls. LIII., LIV.
[114] Herodotus, i. 76.
[115] On this subject see Mommsen, _The Provinces of the Roman Empire_
(London, 1909), pp. 120, 123.
[116] Pl. LV.
[117] Pl. XXVII.
[118] This place was visited by Drummond, _Travels ... in Parts of Asia
to the Euphrates_ (London, 1874), who gives a sketch plan (No. 9 to
f. p. 201). Theodoret in his _Ecclesiastical History_ mentions three
inscriptions over the gate, as well as a castle, a ‘very superb’ Theatre,
a Basilica, Temple, and other buildings; cf. also Maundrell, _A Journey
from Aleppo to Jerusalem_ (ed. 1799), p. 158.
[119] For these see a paper by the Rev. W. M. Linton Smith, in the _Liv.
Annals of Arch._, 1910.
[120] Pl. XXVIII. Cf. the _Mausolée Pyramidal de Maktar_, published by
Gauckler, _Les travaux d’Art ... en Tunisie_, in _Revue Générale des
Sciences_ (Paris, November 30, 1896), p. 971, fig. 15. Also tombs at
Arles and in Algeria, published by Gsell in _Les Monuments Antiques
d’Algérie_ (Paris, 1901). For these references we are indebted to
Professor Bosanquet.
[121] Pls. XXIX., XXX.
[122] The old Aramæan name for Heliopolis; it is really just south of the
historic Hittite frontier in the Lebanon.
[123] For photographs of the ruins and city of Tarsus see Pl. XXII.,
XXIII.; cf. also Ramsay, _Cities of St. Paul_, Part II., with Pls. II.-V.
[124] See Pl. XXXIV. (ii).
[125] Pls. XXXII., XXXIII.
[126] On the importance of this aspect of study, cf. Frazer, _Adonis,
Attis, and Osiris_, in the Preface; and Hogarth in _Authority and
Archæology_, 2nd ed. (London, 1899), Preface, vii.
[127] Sayce, _The Hittites_ (London, 1888), 3rd ed., 1902, p. 67.
[128] As well as other sculptured and inscribed stones; see Winckler:
Preliminary Report of Excavations at Boghaz Keui, 1907. (_Mitteilungen
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, No. 35, Dec. 1907), figs. 6, 7, pp.
57, 58.
[129] Hist. Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia (_Jour. Roy. Asiatic
Soc._, xv., Pl. I.), p. 124.
[130] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. etc., pp. 214 and
ff.; also Hamilton, _Researches_, etc., ii., pp. 350, 351; and _Revue
Arch._, 3, v. pp. 257-264, and Pls. XI., XII.
[131] (_a_) A Hittite invasion preceded the overthrow of the First
Babylonian Dynasty. The date in the eighteenth century B.C. assigned
by King (_Chronicles_, etc., i. p. 137) is accepted by Meyer, but
thought by Sayce and others to be too late. (_b_) The Egyptian annals,
diplomatic letters, mural decorations, etc., make frequent mention of
the Kheta from the 33rd year of Thothmes III. (about B.C. 1471) until
the time of Rameses III., early in the twelfth century B.C. There is an
early appearance of the group of signs reading ‘Kheta’ on a stela of
the Twelfth Dynasty (Louvre, CI.); some philologists are disposed to
regard the group in this instance as forming part of a longer word—a
unique instance which implies at any rate familiarity with the word
Kheta in the Twelfth Dynasty. It is more probable, Mr. Griffith tells
us, that the group is really to be translated ‘Kheta’ though written
(under circumstances that can be explained philologically) with a false
determinative. The Babylonian evidence now prepares us for this early
appearance of the name. (_c_) In the Assyrian records the earliest
reference to the Hatti seems to be in the reign of Shalmaneser I., about
1320 B.C., but the name is not found recurring until the time of Tiglath
Pileser I., about 1120 B.C.: Sargon (B.C. 721-704) seems finally to have
subjected and disunited their principalities in N. Syria.
[132] Winckler, _Report_, _cit._, especially pp. 27 and ff.
[133] See chap. v., Part 3, pp. 299, 314.
[134] See chap. v., Part 2, pp. 271-273.
[135] See above, pp. 55, 56; cf. also Xenophon, _Anabasis_, v. 4-30.
[136] The inscriptions still largely hold their secrets. The cause would
seem to be chiefly the imperfections in our copies, for Professor Sayce’s
system (described in the _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, 1904, _et seqq._) has
consistently developed geographical and local names corroborated by the
circumstances of discovery. The language seems to be unlike any that is
known, and to vary in localities.
[137] The inscribed round-topped stone on its pedestal, on a rise of
ground near Bogche, overlooking the Halys. See Pl. XLVIII.
[138] Like the massive altar on the pass of Kuru-Bel. See p. 147.
[139] _E.g._ the lions found near Derendeh; the obelisk of Izgîn, and the
columnar figure from Palanga. See pp. 141, 145.
[140] _E.g._ the monuments of Jerablus, the site of CARCHEMISH; and
of Marash, the ancient MARGHASI; also those found at Emir-Ghazi near
ARDISTAMA; or at Bor, Nigdeh, and Andaval near TYANA.
[141] Like the lions of Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Eyuk, etc.
[142] _E.g._ at Kurts-oghlu and Marash. See pp. 98, 113.
[143] _E.g._ from Kara-burshlu, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Malatia.
[144] _E.g._ from Jerablus, Marash, etc. See the readings of Professor
Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1904, Nov. _et seqq._
[145] These are marked upon the map, p. 390. A more detailed place-index
to these monuments, with a bibliography, is given in Appendix B.
[146] Sculptures decorate the three last-named palaces.
[147] May be inferred from analogy of sculptured blocks and locality.
[148] A careful scrutiny might reveal some signs.
[149] Eagle monuments, presumably Hittite.
[150] Lion monuments, head only in the round.
[151] Statuettes in the round; at Marash, Lion monuments also.
[152] Altar.
[153] Built into the gate façade.
[154] Seemingly biographical or memorial.
[155] Objects easily portable.
[156] Columnar statue.
[157] _Provenance_ doubtful.
[158] Cf. below, ch. v. p. 313.
[159] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXXIX.-XLV.
[160] _E.g._ from Bor, _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. p. 88.
[161] _E.g._ from Aintab, _op. cit._, vol. xvii. p. 26.
[162] See below, p. 160, Pl. XL. (ii).
[163] Perrot in _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 83.
[164] See later, p. 321.
[165] To face p. 390.
[166] Khalabu in _Annals of Thothmes III._, 33rd year; Khalman in the
Assyrian records; Khalpa in Hittite, and Haleb in Arabic.
[167] Except a small archaic bronze figure procured from Homs (Ménant:
_Revue Arch._, 1895, p. 31); another bronze figure and a cylinder seal
of ironstone purchased at Latakia upon the coast. (Longpérier _Musée
Napol._, Pls. XXI.-XXII.; and _American Jour. Arch._, 1898, p. 163,
and 1899, p. 18.) Addendum: an inscription of two lines in relief has
recently been found at Restan by the Rev. Father Ronzevalli of Beyrout.
[168] See, for instance, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
p. 18; Breasted, _The Battle of Kadesh_ (Chicago, 1903), pp. 13, _et ff._
[169] See pp. 128, 130; and the list of monuments in Appendix B.
[170] See Pl. XL. (i).
[171] Ramsay (_Hist. Geog._, p. 35; also _Recueil_, xv., p. 28) believes
in a main eastern route passing through Malatia, and connecting with
the Royal Road. The place was, of course, the site of a Roman frontier
fortress.
[172] _Liverpool Annals of Arch._, i. p. 9.
[173] _Ibid._, p. 11, and Pl. XIV., fig. 1. See below, Pl. XL. (ii).
[174] See above, p. 38, and Ramsay, _Historical Geography of Asia Minor_,
pp. 30, 31.
[175] Pausanias, I. iv. 5.
[176] _Journal Hellenic Studies_, xix., Part I., 1899, p. 50.
[177] Or perhaps discrediting it. Cf. _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._, p. 45, at the
top.
[178] Our relatively large material for this region is mostly due to the
consistent researches of Professor Sir William Ramsay and his school.
[179] Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, p. 174, footnote.
[180] See above, p. 56, and Pl. XXV.
[181] This uncertainty, however, forbids us to use their _provenance_ as
evidence, though in themselves objects with special features of interest.
[182] Herodotus, i. 76, and i. 72; see also above, pp. 21, 22.
[183] Ramsay, _Historical Geography of Asia Minor_ (London, 1890), p. 32.
[184] Professor Ramsay points out the neglected irrigation works, _Luke
the Physician_, p. 129.
[185] Thought by Miss Gertrude Bell to have been artificially separated
from the ridge, of which it seems like a projecting headland. See _The
Desert and the Sown_ (London, 1905), p. 223. The same work may be
consulted for modern interests of this remarkable Arab town. So also
Tyke, _Dar el Islam_ (London, 1907).
[186] See p. 85, note 2 (addendum); and Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909),
p. 259.
[187] Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_, (London 1822), p.
149.
[188] For the progress and vicissitudes of the attempts to obtain
a record of the Hamath stones, consult Wright, _The Empire of the
Hittites_; Burton, _Unexplored Syria_, and the Quarterly Statements of
the Palestine Exploration Fund (1871-2-3); and for a connected account,
Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1905); pp. 60-64.
[189] One in particular, which was long, had virtues for the rheumatic,
who stretched themselves upon it. The Aleppo stone was regarded as
effective for ophthalmia; and some superstition clings to nearly all
such remains when they have long been known to village communities. In
Egypt any monuments of stone, even a stela newly found but of guaranteed
antiquity, is particularly sought out by barren women, who seem to have a
definite formula and ritual to observe—one of these acts is to cross and
recross the stone, if possible, seven times each way without turning the
eyes to right or left.
[190] _C.I.H._ (_Mitteilungen_, etc., 1900, 5), Pls. III. B; IV. A, B;
V., VI., and text (1900, 4), pp. 6-8. Also Wright, _op. cit._, Pls.
I.-IV., pp. 139-141.
[191] Being a characteristic specimen and of historical interest we
reproduce this monument in Pl. XXXVII.
[192] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, March.
[193] This feature distinguishes this sign from the determinative of a
district, represented as a conical hill.
[194] See for example the groups of symbols accompanying the divine
figures at Boghaz-Keui, Pls. LXV., LXII.
[195] A reading of No. 1 was tentatively put forward by Sayce, _Proc.
S.B.A._ (1903), p. 354; but this must be revised in the light of the new
reading of No. 2, and the note on one of the signs of No. 1, in _Proc.
S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 218.
[196] Cf. the Aintab stone below, p. 107, and Pl. XLI. Also the
corner-stones _in situ_ at Eyuk, Pls. LXXII., LXXIII.
[197] These monuments are now to be seen at Constantinople, in the
Ottoman Museum. (Nos. 831, 832, etc.)
[198] _C.I.H._, Pl. III. A, Text, p. 4 (_Mitteilungen_, etc., 1900, 4,
5), and _Proc. S.B.A._, v. (1883), p. 146.
[199] By the Liverpool Expedition of 1907. See _Liv. Annals of Arch._,
i. p. 8, Pl. IX., 3; and cf. _Proc. S.B.A._, June 1908. For three
uninscribed but presumably Hittite sculptures from Aleppo, see _Liv.
Annals_, ii. p. 184, and Pl. XLII.
[200] See Pl. XXXVIII., to face.
[201] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. VII. and p. 8.
[202] _Vorderasiatische Abteilung_, No. 3009.
[203] _Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1900, pt. 4, p.
8. There is another inscribed object coming from this region now in the
museum at Alexandretta, but it seems to have come originally from Marash.
It is a small stone inscribed on both sides, of which one is flat and
the other convex. The four rows of hieroglyphs in relief are preserved
on either side, while portions of a fifth are visible, for a part of the
object is broken away. Its width is 9½ inches, and the height of what is
preserved 14 inches (_ibid., loc. cit._).
[204] _C.I.H._ (1900, 5), Pl. XXVI. 1, 2, and do. (1900, 4), p. 20.
[205] The illustration of the Sinjerli scene, Pl. LXXV., explains the
subject in general: only at Sakje-Geuzi one of the figures is standing,
in the other cases both are seated.
[206] Compare in shape and subject the ‘gravestone of an Aramaic Queen,’
eighth century B.C., Berlin Museum (_Vorderasiatische Abteilung_, No.
2995). The shape corresponds also with that of the monument from Samsat
(below, p. 130); and of the stela of Nabonidus from Mujelibeh now at
Constantinople, published by Scheil, _Recueil de Travaux_, xviii. 1, 2
(Paris, 1896).
[207] Such as are to be seen at Sakje-Geuzi and in one instance at Marash.
[208] Unfortunately there seem to have been no soundings made for a
much-wanted Hittite necropolis. On the possible evolution of the motive
in general, see below, p. 357.
[209] On this point see p. 357, and cf. Jensen, _Hittiter und Armenier_
(Strassburg, 1898), p. 166; and Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix., pp.
42, 43.
[210] _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.
[211] Publ. in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. XLV., and pp. 101-2. There
is a cast at the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.
[212] Cf. the monuments of this class from Marash, described below, and
the stela of Nerab, a Phœnician monument of the ninth century B.C. (of
which a good photograph is published by Ball, _Light from the East_, to
face p. 236). These sculptures should be compared with representations
of shrines, or offerings at the altar, like the reliefs at Fraktin, Pl.
XLVII. (_Recueil de Travaux_, xiv., Pl. VI., and Chantre, _Mission en
Cappadoce_, Pl. XXIII.); also a scene at Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (i).
[213] Cf. the similar sculpture from Marash, p. 111, and _C.I.H._ (1900,
5), Pl. XXII., and from Malatia, below, p. 135.
[214] _Vorderasiat. Mus._, No. 971.
[215] Pl. XXXIX.; cf. also Humann and Puchstein, in _Reisen in Kleinasien
und Nord Syrien_ (Berlin, 1890): _Atlas_, Pl. XLVI. Perrot and Chipiez,
_Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64, and fig. 279.
[216] Cf. the similar composition of another sculpture from the same
site. _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), Pl. XV., fig. 2.
[217] Cf. the lion of Marash, Pl. XLII., and the newly found lion of
Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.
[218] Cf. _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), Pls. XXXIV. 2, XXXV. 2.
[219] Attributed by Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890),
to the age of Sargon.
[220] Pl. XL. (i). From _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), figs. 2, 3, Pl. XIV.
[221] Cf. _inter alia_ Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_, Pl. XXIV.; also
(Bezzenberger und) Peiser, _Die bronze Figur von Schernen_ (_Sitzungsber.
der Altertumsges. Prussia_, Heft 22), where the distribution of this
class of bronze figure is thoroughly examined. Among the sites of Asia
Minor there appear Yuzgat, Angora, Amasîa, Karashehr, Iconium, and ten
unnamed places of Cappadocia. On the Syrian side, Marash and Homs and
the Lebanon region are noticeable. The distribution thus includes many
Hittite sites, but not exclusively.
[222] Pl. XLI.; cf. _Liv. Annals Arch._, i. (1908), Pls. X., XI., p.
8, and fig. p. 7. Several important small objects have been secured at
Aintab.
[223] Cf. the monument recently discovered at Marash, described below,
pp. 114 ff.
[224] As at Sakje-Geuzi. See Pl. LXXVIII.
[225] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 268.
[226] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pls. XLVII.-XLIX.
[227] Other sculptured fragments are described on pp. 118-122.
[228] Pl. XLII. from a photo of the Imperial Ottoman Museum at
Constantinople, by courtesy of H. E. Hamdy Bey.
[229] Below, Pls. XXXVIII., LXXIX.
[230] The original is now at Constantinople Museum, No. 840; a cast may
be seen in the British Museum.
[231] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ 1905, Nov., p. 225.
[232] _E.g._ at Comana of Pontus, Strabo, XII. iii. 32; _ibid._, and of
Cappadocia, where the priest was second in rank, _ibid._, XII. ii. 3;
also at Pessinus, _ibid._, XII. vi. 3.
[233] Cf. the sculpture No. 72 at Iasily Kaya, Pl. LXX., and p. 228; also
p. 360.
[234] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900, pt. 5), Pl. XXII., and _ibid._, 4,
p. 18.
[235] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64.
[236] Cf. the similar feature in a sculpture from Carchemish, p. 127.
[237] Cf. the photograph Pl. V. (ii) of women at Kartal, which is in the
Kurt Dagh to the south of Marash. A suggestive general resemblance is to
be found on certain Etruscan monuments.
[238] Cf. Pls. LXXV., LXXVII.
[239] C.I.H. (1900-5), Pl. XXIII, A-B. Original in the Berlin
Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 973.
[240] Hogarth, _Recueil_, etc., XV. p. 32, and Pl. II., fig. B.
[241] Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 972.
[242] _C.I.H._ (1900-4), p. 20; _Ibid._ (1900-5), Pl. XXV.
[243] It is now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York; (Cesnola Coll., No.
1904), and there are impressions in the Berlin Museum.
[244] _C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 12-15, and Pl. LII.
[245] _Op. cit._, p. 13. The original is at the Constantinople Museum,
No. 1625.
[246] After inspection of the object we believe this to be the real
explanation. We are confirmed also in our impression that the inscription
and carving are contemporary with the original monument.—March 1910.
[247] See, for example, fig. No. 72 in the small gallery at Iasily Kaya,
below, Pl. LXX.; also pp. 110, 360. For the tassel cf. pp. 306, 308, and
Pl. LXXXI. (ii).
[248] _C.I.H._ (1900-4), p. 19; and (1900-5), Pl. XXIV.
[249] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pl. XLVII., No. 2;
Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 281. Metrop. Mus.
of Art, New York, No. 1906.
[250] Thought by Perrot to be a high stool.
[251] Cf. the lyre held by an Asiatic immigrant into Egypt about 2000
B.C. Newberry, _Beni Hasan_ (London, 1893), Pl. XXXI.
[252] As a cult object this bird provides a wide and interesting range
of study. Cf. for example, an Archaic Greek statue of the sixth century
B.C., from Asia Minor, in the Berlin Museum (Stehende Frau), No. 1597.
[253] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pl. XLVII., fig. 4.
There is a cast in the Berlin Museum, No. 61.
[254] _E.g._ at Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.; and at Malatia, Pl. XLIV. Cf. also
the scene of the storming of Dapur in the Ramesseum at Thebes.
[255] A cast is in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 63, V.A.G.
[256] Humann, etc., _op. cit._, XLVII. 5; Perrot, etc., _op. cit._, fig.
282. The original is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, No. 1905; and
there is a cast in the Berlin Museum.
[257] Cf. pp. 265, 282.
[258] Humann and Puchstein, _op. cit._, Pl. XLVII. 1. Berlin
Vorderasiatisches Museum, 62.
[259] Cf. similar sculptures of Malatia, p. 133; Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. XXXIX.
[260] Original Berlin Vorderas. Mus., No. 974; Perrot and Chipiez, _op.
cit._, ii. p. 77, fig. 290.
[261] See below, p. 380.
[262] Cf. below, p. 371, and Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp.
145 ff.
[263] See Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 281, for summary of a
report printed in the _Graphic_. Consult also Drummond, _Travels ...
to the Banks of the Euphrates_ (1754), p. 209; and Maundrell (Hy.), _A
Journey ... to the Banks of the Euphrates_ (Oxford), 1749.
[264] See p. 263; and cf. Pl. LXV. (Iasily Kaya), Pl. LXXIX.
(Sakje-Geuzi), and Pl. XLII. (Marash). For a discussion of the motive in
general, see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, _cit._, p. 270, note 1.
[265] As represented by Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
p. 62, fig. 276. For the photo from which we write we are indebted to
the courtesy of the Mission at Cæsarea. This object is illustrated by an
ill-printed photograph in Sayce’s _The Hittites_, to face p. 58, where it
is described by oversight as from Marash.
[266] British Museum, _Guide to Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities_, p.
27, No. 3; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 277;
Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XII. A photograph in Ball, _Light
from the East_, p. 142.
[267] Cf. also the sculpture found at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXX.; and _Liv.
Annals Arch._, 1908 (4), Pl. XLI., No. 2, where the deity has four wings.
[268] Cf. the sculptures of Bor, Pl. LVI.; and Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.
[269] _C.I.H._, 1900, Pl. X.; _British Museum Guide_, _cit._, p. 27, No.
8. Rendering by Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 201, beginning
‘the dirk-bearer of Carchemish.’ The repetition of the geographical
word Kar-ka-me-is (Assyrian Gargamis) is a remarkable corroboration of
Professor Sayce’s system of translation.
[270] Cf. for this feature the Bor sculpture, Pl. LVI.
[271] On the importance of this detail as a criterion, see p. 379.
[272] Boscawen in the _Graphic_, Dec. 11, 1880; Perrot and Chipiez, _op.
cit._, ii., Additions, fig. 390; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XV. 13, and Text,
p. 12.
[273] Cf. _Baruch_, vi. 43. ‘The women having cords around their body
sit; and one says ... why was I not chosen and my cord broken?’
[274] _Brit. Mus. Guide_, p. 27, No. 6; _C.I.H._ (1902), Pl. XIV., No. 7.
[275] _British Museum Guide_, p. 27, No. 1, where ‘portion of a building’
is the sum of information available; _C.I.H._, Pl. IX., and Text, p. 9;
Ball, _Light from the East_, p. 143; Sayce in _S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p.
204.
[276] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XI., 2, and Text, p. 10; _British Museum
Guide_, p. 27, No. 2; Sayce in _S.B.A._, 1905 (Nov.), p. 206.
[277] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, fig. 390. _Addendum_, 1910: our
information about these sculptures is now supplemented by Mr. Hogarth’s
account, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (Dec. 1909), ii. pp. 165-172, and Pls.
XXXV., XXXVI. (i). See also _Kellekli_ in Appendix B.
[278] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, fig. 391.
[279] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 62, fig. 278.
[280] Since published, see App. B, and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, ii. pp.
177-183, and Pls. XXXVII.-XL.
[281] _Op. cit._, fig. 283. First published in _Gazette Arch._, 1883. Pl.
XXII.
[282] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord Syrien_
(Berlin, 1890), _Atlas_, Pl. XLIX., No. 1-3. Also Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._
(1900), Pl. XVII., and Text, p. 14.
[283] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, etc., p. 355, fig. 50. ‘Felsrelief
bei Gerger.’
[284] _Recueil de Travaux_, xvii. p. 26.
[285] Constantinople Museum, No. 846. Hogarth, _loc. cit._, with Plate,
fig. 3. Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_ (Philadelphia, 1897),
fig. 159; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVI. A., and Text, p. 13.
[286] Discussed by Sayce, _S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 212. Hand copy,
Hogarth, _loc. cit._, p. 25.
[287] Cf. the sculptures, Pls. XLII. and LXXIX.
[288] Constantinople Museum, No. 847. _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVI. B.
Hogarth, _Recueil_, xvii. p. 25.
[289] See pp. 99, 103, 111.
[290] Cf. Pl. LXXV. (i), and p. 111.
[291] Cf. the epilogue to the treaty between Rameses II. and Hattusil, p.
349.
[292] Cf. Pl. LXXII. On this question in general see below, p. 360.
[293] In the Louvre Museum, Paris. Publ. Heuzy, _Les Origines Orientales
de l’Art_, Pt. i. (Paris, 1892), Pl. X. Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906),
Pl. XLVII., and p. 7.
[294] First published and discussed by Sayce, _P.S.B.A._ xxvi. (1904,
Jan.), p. 13, with drawing. Prof. Sayce’s rendering is: ‘of this
gateway the carver-out is Lie ... s, the lord of ... the ... ian,’ but
Messerschmidt disputes the reading ‘gateway,’ _loc. cit._
[295] Cf. Pl. LXXII., and pp. 256, 265.
[296] Pl. LXXIX., and p. 301.
[297] See Pl. XLIX. from _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908),
Pls. IV., V. More recently Mr. Hogarth (_ibid._, 1909, Pl. XLI.) has
secured a new set of photographs which show the details much clearer.
[298] Cf. the head-dress of the god at Boghaz-Keui, Pls. LXV., LXXI.
[299] He corresponds, Professor Sayce points out, with the Syrian Hadad,
who similarly stands on the back of a bull which he guides with a cord.
Cf. also the statement of Lucian (_De Dea Syria_), that the chief god of
Hierapolis, which replaced Carchemish, was supported on a bull. On the
position of the god in the Hittite Pantheon, see p. 359.
[300] Cf. sculpture of Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV., also p. 119.
[301] For this object cf. a sculpture of Sinjerli, Pl. LXXVII. (ii); and
for a formal representation, the leading god at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.
[302] Pl. LXXII., p. 256.
[303] Cf. the winged deity of Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya), No. 5 L., p. 216.
[304] For the types of vases cf. the Syrian tribute in Maspero, _The
Struggle of the Nations_, p. 263; and especially the Hittite tribute,
_temp._ Akhenaten, published by Davies, _El Amarna II._, Pl. XL., and p.
41; cf. also the oblation scenes of Eyuk (_k._, p. 268), and of Fraktin,
Pl. XLVII.
[305] On the question of date, see p. 339.
[306] See pp. 277, 301.
[307] _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. p. 27, Pt. iv.
[308] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. Pl. III.,
Constantinople Museum, No. 1215 (630); Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900),
Pl. XX., and revised copy, 1906, Pl. XX.
[309] Cf. _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. xii. Pl. IX.
[310] Hogarth, _loc. cit._, p. 31.
[311] Vorderasiat. Mus., Berlin, No. 2882, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
i. (_Mitt. aus den Orient. Sammlungen_, 1893, Berlin, Heft xi.), Pl. VI.
[312] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 13. The base of the statue
appears to be a survival of the columnar bases of Sinjerli and
Sakje-Geuzi (Pl. LXXXII.), in the design of which two sphinxes support
the drum of the column upon their backs. In this case the design is
modified, but retains striking features surviving from the older
prototype. The sphinxes are replaced by lions, in the style of the
corner-stone lions of Sinjerli (_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl.
XLVII.), and between their fore-parts there appears the figure of a man
carved in relief. He is in a crouching attitude, dictated probably by
the small space at the sculptor’s disposal; his hands are stretched out
to the collars of lions on either side; his face is shown in full, with
square-cut ridged beard, and a curl of hair prominent on either side of
his head, attached clearly to a wig. His dress is a short fringed tunic
and short-sleeved vest; a belt is round his waist, to which a dagger is
attached. His legs are turned towards his left; upon his feet there seem
to be bands or anklets, possibly to bind on his footgear. Though no shoe
is visible, the toes are prominently upturned. It is a striking object.
The rim of the drum is not decorated in any way, but on the top there is
a large square-cut socket, corresponding to the tongue upon the bottom of
the statue. (Orig. Consple. Mus., No. 1519.)
[313] By Sir Charles W. Wilson; Wright, _Empire_, etc., p. 57. Ramsay and
Hogarth, _Recueil_, etc., xiv. and Pl. IV. _C.I.H._, 1900; Pl. XVIII.,
and p. 15.
[314] Cf. Pls. LXV., LXXI.
[315] The name means ‘Lion-stone,’ and is familiar wherever such
monuments are found.
[316] Ramsay and Hogarth, _loc. cit._ Pl. II., A.
[317] See below, p. 297, and _Mitt. a. d. Orient. Samm. Sendschirli_,
iii. (Berlin, 1902), Pl. XLVI. Originals in the Berlin Vorderas. Mus.,
Nos. 2718, 3001.
[318] Cf. the lions of Marash and Sakje-Geuzi, Pls. XLII., LXXIX.
[319] Sterrett, _Epigraphical Journey_ (1884), p. 299.
[320] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil, etc._, xv. p. 30 and Pls. I.-II.
[321] G. de Jeraphanion, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1908 (Feb.), p. 42 and Pl. I.
For the two photographs before us as we write we are indebted to the
members of the American Mission at Cæsarea.
[322] Pp. 180, 181.
[323] P. 237.
[324] Pl. XLVI.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI. p. 26; _Ibid._ (1906), Pl.
XXXI. A and p. 23. Constantinople Museum, No. 1217.
[325] Hans Rott, _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_ (Leipzig, 1908), p. 178,
fig. 3; Jeraphanion, _Proc. S.B.A._, xxx. (1908) pp. 43, 44, and Pl. II.
[326] Murray’s _Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 273.
[327] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil, etc._, xiv. p. 81, and Pl. VI.;
_C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXX. and p. 25; Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_
(Paris, 1898), Pl. XXIII and p. 125.
[328] _Hist. Geog._, pp. 288, 312. The identification probably remains
unshaken by the discovery at Tashji. Cf. Strabo, xii. 2-6. The word seems
to involve the name TARK....
[329] Pl. XLVII.
[330] Cf. the god-figures of Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.
[331] This position is unique; cf. the priest-figures in Pls. LVIII.,
LXXII.
[332] Cf. the god-figures of Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.; Malatia, Pl. XLIV.
[333] Cf. the oblation scenes of Malatia, Pl. XLIV., p. 138, and of Eyuk,
p. 268.
[334] Cf. Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (i); Sipylus, Pl. LIII.
[335] Cf. the female figure at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXVII.
[336] Cf. the tassel at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii); and Marash, p. 115;
also the oblation-scene at Malatia, above, Pl. XLIV.
[337] Cf. the sculptures from Marash, p. 118, and Yarre, p. 165.
[338] Cf. p. 241.
[339] _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, vol. i., No. 1, p. 6, and Pls.
VIII. and IX. (i.).
[340] See above, p. 24.
[341] Hans Rott, _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_ (Messerschmidt in the same),
pp. 175-179 and figs. 1, 2.
[342] See above, p. 24.
[343] It is described by Anderson, _Jour. Hellenic Studies_, xxi.
(1901), pp. 328-332 as six miles north-north-west of Tuz Keui, hence is
probably the _Karapunar_ of Kiepert’s map, and to be distinguished from
_Karapurna_, north-west of Arapison.
[344] Cf. the fortress and inscription of Kara Dagh, below, p. 178.
[345] Cf. _Jour. Hellenic Studies_ (1899), p. 55 ff.
[346] Discovered by Anderson, cf. _op. cit._ and Plate; also Sayce,
_Proc. S.B.A._, 1905 (Nov.), p. 217; _C.I.H._ (1902), Pl. XLVI.
[347] See Pl. XLVIII. for our photo of the southern face. Cf. _C.I.H._
(1906), Pl. LI. and pp. 11, 12.
[348] Cf. p. 27, above.
[349] See Pl. XLIX. Cf. Robinson, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1908 (Jan.), p. 27 and
fig. 1, 2; and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1, i. Pls. VI., VII. and p. 5.
[350] Cf. the constructive details of the Lower Palace at Boghaz-Keui,
below, p. 208.
[351] Cf. Pl. LXV.
[352] See pp. 235, 236.
[353] From the treaty between Hattusil and Rameses II., see below, p. 348.
[354] Especially as some hieroglyphs are visible in M. Perrot’s
photograph.
[355] Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient. Gesellschaft zu
Berlin_, Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 57, 58, figs. 6, 7.
[356] Though found in hieroglyph at Emir Ghazi; and in the round at
Kuru-Bel (above p. 147).
[357] See Pl. XL. (ii), and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1, i. p. 11, and Pl.
XIV. (1).
[358] See pp. 37, 38.
[359] See pp. 21, 92.
[360] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 198, fig. 350.
[361] Crowfoot, _Jour. Hellenic Studies_, xix. pp. 45-48, fig. 5.
[362] Cf. the construction at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXVIII.
[363] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 202 fig. 352.
[364] See p. 205.
[365] See Pl. LXI. (i).
[366] See p. 178.
[367] See p. 154.
[368] See Pl. LXV.
[369] It is interesting to compare this head-dress with that of the
Scythians (cf. the designs on the Electron Vase from Kul-Oba, Reinach,
etc., _Antiquities of Southern Russia_).
[370] See p. 215, note.
[371] See Pl. LXV.
[372] Strabo, XII. v. 3; for the route cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _op.
cit._, p. 202; Anderson, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. p. 95; Ramsay, _Hist.
Geog._, p. 31; and _Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc._, xv. (1883), p. 109.
[373] Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. Pt. 1 (1899), pp. 40-45, and
fig. 4.
[374] See pp. 99, 100, and Pl. LXXV. (i).
[375] P. 111.
[376] P. 226.
[377] P. 284 and Pl. LXXV. (i).
[378] Ramsay, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, iii (1883) pp. 6-11 and fig. 2. For
the Phrygian monuments in brief see Murray’s _Handbook_, p. 142, etc.
[379] Cf. the sculpture from Marash, p. 119, and at Fraktin, p. 151.
[380] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVI. B, and text, p. 32.
[381] _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 206 and fig. 353.
[382] _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._, xiv.
(1889), p. 181; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVI. A, and text, p. 32; Murray’s
_Handbook_, p. 135.
[383] Cf. the original appearance of the inscription from Ekrek, Pl. XLVI.
[384] For a description of the mountain, and a comparative study of the
religion of the famous monument, see a paper by Ramsay, ‘Sipylus and
Cybele,’ in _Jour. Hell. Stud._, iii. pp. 33-68. Cf. Perrot and Chipiez,
_Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 234 and ff., and fig. 365; Weber, _Le
Sipylus et ses monuments_ (Paris, 1880); _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXXVII.,
XXXVIII., and text, p. 33.
[385] See Pl. LIII., to face.
[386] Pausanias, III. xxii. 4, quoted below.
[387] Dennis, _Proc. S.B.A._, iii. p. 49; Sayce, _ib._, vol. vii. Pl. V.;
_C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVIII.
[388] Pl. LXXIII. (i).
[389] Pl. XLVII.
[390] Below, p. 184.
[391] _Iliad_, xxiv. 615.
[392] _Metamorphoses_, vi. 310.
[393] Pausanias, trans. Frazer, I. xxi. 3.
[394] Pausanias, trans. Frazer, III. xxii. 4.
[395] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 236, where this passage
is translated: ‘A statue of the Mother of the Gods, the oldest goddess of
all.’ The Greek runs: μήτρος θεῶν ἀρχαιότατον ἁπάντων ἄγαλμα. There can
be no doubt, however, as to the identity of the monument.
[396] Pausanias, VIII. xxxviii. 10.
[397] _J.H.S._ (_loc. cit._), iii. p. 41, etc., p. 54. Cf. also
Rawlinson, _Ancient Monarchies_, i. p. 494.
[398] On the place of this cult in the Hittite religion, see pp. 354 ff.
[399] See Pl. LIV., taken from Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1903), p. 68, and
republished by courtesy of the author and the S.P.C.K.
[400] Texier, _Description_, vol. ii. Pl. CXXXII.; Perrot and Chipiez,
_op. cit._, ii. p. 229, fig. 362.
[401] Alternatively a sword held aloft; the markings on the stone above
and below the hand are not in line. Cf. the God 2 L. at Boghaz-Keui, Pl.
LXV.
[402] Herodotus, ii. 106.
[403] _Trs. S.B.A._, vii. pp. 266, 439, and _Proc. S.B.A._, xxi. p. 222;
also in _The Hittites_, pp. 67 ff. Cf. _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXIX. and p.
38.
[404] _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXV. and p. 31;
Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 213 (where the name is incorrectly
given as Kosli-Tolu). The inscription was first published in _Revue
Archéologique_, 3ᵉ série, 1885, v. p. 262. Revised copy of Sayce in
_Proc. S.B.A._, Jan. 1904, p. 24, with Plate.
[405] Xenophon, _Anabasis_, I. ii. 14.
[406] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 350, 351; Perrot and
Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 214 and fig. 356; _Revue Archéologique_, 3ᵉ
série, vol. V. pp. 257-264, Pls. XI., XII.
[407] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. pp. 222, 223; illustration in
Ramsay, _The Cities of St. Paul_ (London, 1907), p. 134, fig. 7.
[408] This is an inference from the omission of the feet; actually the
legs come to an end upon the head of the lower figure.
[409] Cf. pp. 235, 239.
[410] Cf. especially the lions and sphinx-base of Sakje-Geuzi, Pls.
LXXIX., LXXXII.
[411] See p. 142 above, note 4.
[412] Cf. below, p. 311.
[413] Cf. chap. i. p. 41.
[414] _Luke the Physician_, pp. 163, 164.
[415] By Miss Gertrude Bell, 1907.
[416] Ramsay, _op. cit._, Pls. XIV., XV.
[417] _Proc. S.B.A._ (March 1909), xxxi. p. 86, Pl. VII. No. 5.
[418] Sayce, _op. cit._, Pl. VIII. No. 6.
[419] Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 160 and Pl. XVI.
[420] _Proc. S.B.A._ (March 1909), Pl. VII.
[421] Professor Sayce does not agree with Professor Ramsay’s
interpretation, which we adopt in lack of an alternative explanation, and
especially in view of the parallels afforded by the sculptures of Eyuk
(Pl. LXXIII. (i)) and of Sakje-Geuzi (Pl. LXXXI.).
[422] Professor Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 160) reproduces the name as
Tarkuattes; but the form given by Professor Sayce (_S.B.A._ _loc.
cit._, p. 84) corresponds closely with the name of a Hittite leader,
_Targannas_, recorded by Rameses II.
[423] The sign is ideographic, and the reading Sandes (or Sandon) is
corroborated in various ways. The same sign seems to denote the storm-god
(the Babylonian Hadad, and Tessup of the Mitanni) on the Hittite monument
found at Babylon (Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1904, p. 306). Dr. Winckler,
however, in discussing the archives of Boghaz-Keui, believes that Tessup
was the name of the national Hittite deity. See also p. 358.
[424] Below, Pl. LXV. and p. 237. Notice also the altar on the Pass of
Kuru-Bel, above, p. 147.
[425] Cf. pp. 129, 232. Among the Hatti, it appears from the archives of
Boghaz-Keui, the King was called the Sun-God. Winckler, _Mitteil. der D.
Orient-Ges._, No. 35, Dec. 1907.
[426] In this conclusion we differ somewhat from Professor Sayce, and
agree partly with Professor Ramsay. Our argument, however, is only based
on somewhat distant analogies. Cf. also Ramsay in the _Recueil_, etc.,
xiv. pp. 74 ff. on the priestly office.
[427] Cf. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. p. 26.
[428] By Mr. T. Callander, a member of Prof. Ramsay’s expedition of 1904.
[429] Ramsay, _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces
of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906), p. 178 and Pls. IX., X., XI.;
_C.I.H._ (1906), p. 9 and Pls. XLIX., L. Professor Ramsay found still
another altar in 1907.
[430] For an exhaustive comparative study of these inscriptions see a
paper by Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ xxvii. (1905), pp. 21-31 and Pls. I., II.,
III., and revised note, _ibid._, vol. xxviii. (1906), May, p. 134.
[431] See below, Pls. LXVIII., LXXI.
[432] Above, Pl. XLVII.
[433] Below, Pl. LXXII.
[434] P. 107, Pl. XLI.
[435] Pp. 114 ff.
[436] P. 127.
[437] See above, p. 41.
[438] xii. 2-7.