[440] Constantinople Museum, No. 857. Hogarth, _Wandering Scholar_, p.
16.; Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil_, xiv. Pl. I.; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._
xxviii. (1906), p. 94 ff. and Pl. III.; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906),
Pl. XXXIII. and p. 3. For our photo, Pl. LVI., we are indebted to the
authorities of the Imperial Ottoman Museum.
[441] See below, Pl. LVII.
[442] Above, p. 126 and p. 113.
[443] Pl. LVII.
[444] Letters from Professor Sayce dated Oct. 2, Oct. 9, 1909.
[445] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1905, p. 200; and 1906, p. 94, with Pl. III.
[446] The first five signs on the right of the first column.
[447] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI., c. and text, p. 27. Ramsay and Hogarth,
_Recueil_, xiv., Pl. I. p. 84.
[448] By a botanist, Herr Walter Siehe, _C.I.H._ (1906), Pl. LIII. p. 15.
[449] Professor Sayce suggests to us the following translation: ‘This
stone was set up by the king, the Prince of Kas.’
[450] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXII. and p. 27; Hogarth and Ramsay,
_Recueil_, xiv. Pl. II. and p. 85; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1905, p. 229. In
the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is an enlarged photo of the
original, which has been collated with the cast in the Ashmolean Museum.
[451] See frontispiece and p. 43.
[452] _Op cit._, p. 230, line 3 and line 5.
[453] We pronounce this word Ivreez; though locally it is commonly
pronounced Ibreez, owing probably to racial difficulty with the letter
_v_.
[454] See Chapter I. p. 41.
[455] There is a plentiful literature on the subject. See _inter alia_
for a picturesque description of the country, Davis, _Life in Asiatic
Turkey_, pp. 245-248. For an account of the monument in relation to
its environment, with much beauty of thought and written with charm
of expression, see Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, pp. 171-179, and Pl.
XXI.; also a note in _Pauline and other Studies_, pp. 172, 173. For a
comparative study of the religious symbolism of the monument, Frazer,
_Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (1907), pp. 93-97. For our photograph, Pl.
LVII., taken from a plaster cast in the Asia Minor Museum at Berlin, we
are indebted to Dr. Messerschmidt, who describes his visit to the spot,
_C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 5, 6, and Pl. XXXIV. This photograph shows more of
the delicate detail than any of the originals that have been published,
in which the shadows are usually too violent.
[456] On the development of the route through the Cilician Gates, see
above, p. 45.
[457] Cf. the treatment of the priest-king and other monuments at
Sakje-Geuzi. Pl. LXXXI.
[458] Cf. Pl. LVI.
[459] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, May 1906, pp. 133, 134, and Plate.
[460] In the former instance in a compound or variant, _Ay-mi-ny-a-si-s_
(? son of Ayminyas); in the latter instance exactly as at Bor,
_Ay-mi-ny-a-s_. The signs are the two last of the first row, and the
three below them in the second row, of the inscription behind the king.
Cf. the first five signs of the Bor inscription, Pl. LVI.
[461] See what is said on this subject in the previous chapter, p. 54.
[462] Cf. pp. 238, 240. On the origins and development of this conception
of the god, see below, pp. 378, 379.
[463] We may pay special tribute to the pioneer work of the Berlin
expedition at Sinjerli, to the explorations of Sir Wm. Ramsay and
his school in Phrygia and Lycaonia, and to the organised labours of
Dr. Winckler at Boghaz-Keui. We shall incorporate also some of the
preliminary results of the excavations of the Liverpool Institute at
Sakje-Geuzi.
[464] _Vide supra_, p. 32.
[465] _Vide supra_, p. 13.
[466] See _inter alia_, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
pp. 103 _et seq._ The name Ptara is suggested by Ramsay, who accepts the
identification (_Luke the Physician_, p. 215, note).
[467] Herodotus, i. 76. The situation of Pteria is indicated vaguely as
κατὰ Σινώπην which is read to mean ‘opposite’ or ‘over against Sinope’;
the full context is: ἡ δὲ Πτερίη ἐστὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης τὸ ἰσχυρότατον
κατὰ Σινώπην πόλιν ... μάλιστά κῃ κειμένη.
[468] We prefer the term ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ to ‘White-Syrian,’ or
‘Leuco-Syrian,’ as a more comprehensive equivalent in our days of the
original name Suri.
[469] _Supra_, p. 158.
[470] Winckler, ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations at Boghaz-Keui,
1907’ (_Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, Berlin, 1907),
p. 57-58. See also above, p. 160. See also an earlier article in
_Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_, Dec. 1906.
[471] See above, p. 53.
[472] It had probably been destroyed, as the archives were not
transferred to the new building which was placed upon the ruins of the
old. The date is based on a calculation of difference in axial direction
kindly supplied by Sir Norman Lockyer, _vide infra_, p. 210.
[473] _Supra_, p. 37.
[474] Herodotus, v. 52.
[475] _Supra_, p. 24.
[476] As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp. 143, 366.
[477] _Supra_, pp. 33, 34.
[478] See Pl. LIX.
[479] Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian
fortresses, _infra_, pp. 273, 300.
[480] Pl. LX.
[481] Cf. _infra_, p. 226.
[482] Report _cit._, Pl. XII. Cf. below, p. 357.
[483] A plan is published in Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in
Kleinasien_, Pl. XIV., and a revised version in Murray’s _Handbook_, p.
21.
[484] Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi, p. 163, Karaburna, p. 154, and
Kizil Dagh, p. 178.
[485] _Vide_ the photograph on Pl. LVIII., where these features may be
seen in the distance.
[486] _Vide supra_, p. 158.
[487] Texier, _Description of Asia Minor_, i. Pl. LXXX.
[488] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 108 _et seqq._
[489] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 62 and ff.
[490] The best plan was published by Barth, _Reise von Trapesunt ... nach
Scutari_, p. 48.
[491] Pl. LXI. (ii).
[492] We are indebted to the courtesy of Dr. Winckler and his colleagues
for the facilities which enabled us to study this site during the
progress of the excavations.
[493] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 115.
[494] Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 64 and ff.
[495] See _infra_, p. 312.
[496] From calculations supplied from our rough data by Sir Norman
Lockyer.
[497] Above, p. 159; for our date, see below, p. 339.
[498] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 114.
[499] By Dr. Winckler’s excavations, _Report cit._, figs. 3, 4; pp. 54-55.
[500] _Infra_, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX., and p. 311.
[501] Ramsay (_Luke the Physician_, p. 203, in a chapter largely
reprinted from a paper in the _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._ 1882) makes the
remarkable suggestion that most of the figures apparently male are those
of females in disguise (_e.g._ of Amazons); but we have found nothing in
our study of these sculptures to support this view. With all deference to
a great scholar’s first impressions, we believe that if he revisited the
monuments, and viewed them in the light of the new comparative material,
he would find no reason to maintain the point of view which may have
seemed warranted twenty-seven years ago. One of the chief arguments is
the delicacy and femininity of face seen in some of the sculptures;
yet on the same argument several of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and
nineteenth dynasty would appear to have been female. The refinement
is clearly that of the sculptor. The same point of view is taken in
reference to the Amazon sculptures recently discovered (_Expository
Times_, Nov. 1909), in an article on _The Armed Priestesses of the
Hittite Religion_; but in our judgment these belong to a phase of art
quite distinct, and several centuries later in date. On this point, see
below, p. 357.
[502] See the plan, p. 221, and Pls. LXIII.-LXVIII.
[503] Cf. Malatia sculptures, etc., Pl. XLIV.
[504] This is a common feature on Hittite sculptures, and on several
well-preserved instances from here [cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii)] and elsewhere,
notably from Sinjerli [cf. Pl. LXVII. (ii), and Berlin V.-A. Mus.,
Cast No. 199], it seems to be due to a plain metal or otherwise stiff
attachment rising from or continuous with the brim of the hat.
[505] Compare the winged deity of Malatia, Pl. XLIV. and p. 139.
[506] Cf. pp. 111, 118.
[507] Presumably a sacred stone; _vide_ Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, p.
154, No. 11.
[508] Pl. LXXII. and p. 255.
[509] See Pl. LXVIII.
[510] Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, in the plan, p. 221. For position
of the group, see the photograph, Pl. LXIV.
[511] No. 17.
[512] No. 12.
[513] Nos. 14, 15.
[514] Resembling a large double bellows. Professor Sayce points out the
analogy with a Hittite hieroglyph in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi. (See
above, p. 183.)
[515] Nos. 19, 20.
[516] Nos. 22, 25.
[517] Nos. 23, 24.
[518] No. 21.
[519] Nos. 26, 27.
[520] Nos. 28-30.
[521] No. 31 of the whole series.
[522] Nos. 32-43.
[523] A schedule of the figures with our reference numbers may be of use:
LEFT.
⎰ 1 L. One standing on two others, bearded and exalted. ⎱ Pl. LXV.
⎱ 2, 3. Two others, younger, on pinnacles. ⎰
⎧ 4. One similar, but not raised aloft.
⎪ 5. One winged. ⎫
⎨ 6, 7. Two females as a group. ⎬ Pl. LXIII. (ii).
⎪ 8. A second winged. ⎭
⎩ 9. One with lituus and toga; winged rosette above (cf. 22 R.).
⎧ 10-13. Four with scimitars, of which one is winged. ⎱ Pl. LXIV.
⎨ 14, 15. Two monsters as a group (Pl. LXVI.). ⎰
⎩ 16-18. Three with scimitars.
⎧ 19-20. Two with maces like the leaders.
⎪ 21. One with arms and hat forward.
⎪ 22. One with mace.
⎨ 23, 24. Two with no weapons visible.
⎪ 25. One with mace.
⎩ 26-27. Two with arms and hat forward.
⎧ 28. One indistinct (tunic and hat).
⎨ 29-31. Three robed and bearded.
⎩ 32-43. Twelve in line, running.
RIGHT.
⎧ 1 R. One female on back of panther. ⎱ Pl. LXV.
⎨ 2. One youthful male with double axe. ⎰
⎩ 3, 4. Two similar to first, forming a group on double eagle.
5-21. Seventeen in procession resembling 1 R. (Pl. LXVII.).
22 R=65. One with lituus, toga, and winged rosette, etc., in hand,
standing on two stony mounds (Pl. LXVIII.).
[524] See the photograph, Pl. LXV. The head-dress was commonly employed
by the Phrygian women. Its shape is recalled by the modern hat of the
Turkoman women, which is worn covered by a shawl to serve at times as a
veil.
[525] These emblems are composed in each case of pictorial or
hieroglyphic signs, and in them doubtless lies the clue to the
identification of the figures. A sign like a divided oval (which
Professor Sayce believes to represent a sacred stone) is found at the
commencement of each group accompanying a divine or exalted personage.
[526] A similar detail is noticeable on a familiar Etruscan design.
[527] Cf. the sculpture from Sinjerli, Pl. LXVII. (ii). See also p. 104.
[528] Cf. the sculpture at Eyuk, Pl. LXXII.
[529] Cf. a similar detail ornamenting the emblem above figs. No. 9 L.
and 22 R. (Pl. LXVIII.).
[530] At Eyuk they clutch hares, Pl. LXXII. and p. 268.
[531] Clearly stony hilltops, as on the gates of Balawat.
[532] Arranged, as Professor Ramsay suggests (_Luke the Physician_, p.
212) to resemble a ναΐσκος.
[533] Possibly, suggests Prof. Sayce, a sort of fringe.
[534] Nos. 66-67. The presence of sculptures at the spot was noted by
Perrot and Chipiez.
[535] Cf. pp. 101 ff. and Pl. LXXV. (i).
[536] No. 68.
[537] No. 69.
[538] The broad end is not altogether enclosed, but leads to rocky broken
ground.
[539] Nos. 70-81.
[540] Nos. 32-43 L.
[541] Pl. LXIX. (ii).
[542] Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.
[543] No. 72.
[544] Nos. 73, 74.
[545] No. 2 R.
[546] Nos. 22 R., 9 L.
[547] No. 22 R.
[548] See particularly Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
pp. 149-153; Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, chap. vi.; and _Journal Royal
Asiatic Society_, vol. xv., New Series (1885), pp. 113-120; Hamilton,
_Researches_, etc. (i.) p. 394; and for an illuminative anthropological
point of view, Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (_Golden Bough_, iv.
2nd ed.), bk. I. chap. vi., § 4, pp. 105-110.
[549] These, it seems to us, have been too much neglected in attempts
which have been made to elucidate the meaning of the sculptures.
[550] Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (_The Golden Bough_, iv.,
2nd ed.), p. 107, reminds us that the deities associated with animals
are probably derived from a more primitive conception when the god
was indistinguishable from the beast. Doubtless the lioness (or
panther) and the eagle were cult objects, if not totems, before they
were humanised. In fact, in the sphinx and human-headed eagle, there
is seen the intermediate anthropomorphic stage. The human forms were
already developed in Babylonia, whence they may have been derived,
being superimposed on the pristine native beliefs and fetishes. (On the
relations with Babylonia and kindred cults, see pp. 323, 355 ff.) We
may assume that the evolution of the mountain-god was similar, though
inanimate. The ‘high place’ on Kizil Dagh, with image of the god carved
on the rock, (p. 181) is an illustration. Probably also the altar on Kuru
Bel (p. 147), may be most naturally explained as dedicated to the spirit
of the mountain or of the pass.
[551] We do not deal with these symbols in detail, as the reading of some
of the signs is doubtful, and being isolated groups, they present special
pitfalls to attempts at translation. It is interesting to note, however,
that such priests and priestesses commonly received a special sacred name
as a mark of their office.
[552] Cf. Ramsay, in _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. (1890), p. 78, on the
priest-classes of Asia Minor.
[553] _E.g._ excluding Nos. 29-31 from the whole series, 19-43.
[554] Or servants of the temple. Cf. Strabo on the rites at Comana, bk.
XII. chap, xi., § 3.
[555] No. 22 R.
[556] No. 9.
[557] The treaty of Rameses II. with Hattusil.
[558] This analogy was first pointed out by the late De Cara, _Gli Hethei
Pelasgi_ (Rome, 1894), i. p. 192.
[559] Cf. below, p. 257 and Pl. LXXII.
[560] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 57-58; above, p. 159.
[561] Cf. Pls. LXXXI. (i) (Sakje-Geuzi), and LXIV. (Malatia).
[562] Cf. Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 36 (below, p. 338), where the same
custom is illustrated in a treaty with the Mitanni.
[563] Incidentally it is of interest to note that an eagle was associated
with the rites of Sandon of Tarsus, identified with the Son-god, who here
precedes the eagle-deities. Cf. Frazer, _op cit._, p. 99.
[564] Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum (Königl. Mus.), No. 977.
[565] Letter from Professor A. H. Sayce, July 23, 1909.
[566] See above, p. 155 and Pl. XLIX.
[567] See p. 269.
[568] Cf. Herodotus, i. 199; Strabo, XVI. i. 20.
[569] Independently Professor Sayce informs us that he has recognised in
the symbol accompanying the first of these the emblem of the kingdom of
Kas, the second state of the confederacy.
[570] Nos. 5, 7.
[571] Compare especially No. 5 with the winged deity of Malatia. Pl. XLIV.
[572] In view of the proposition of Sayce (_Proc. S.B.A._ 1904) that
there were nine chief Hittite states, it is remarkable to notice that
the figures preceding this priest may be regarded as representing seven
different gods or cults, while two are represented in the opposite
series. On this subject see also below, p. 348.
[573] For a full insight into these cults see Frazer, _op cit._, pp. 97,
110.
[574] Cf. the rites of Comana (Pontus), Strabo, bk. XI. chap. iii. § 32;
and in the temple of Mabog, Lucian, _De Dea Syria_.
[575] Nos. 14, 15.
[576] Nos. 32-43.
[577] Professor Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 108.
[578] Cf. Sculpture of Marash, p. 110, also the translations of Professor
Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1904-5.
[579] _Researches in Asia Minor_, etc. (London, 1842), i. pp. 382-3.
[580] _Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari_, pp. 42 and 43; also _Über die
Ruinen bei Hejuk_ (_Arch. Zeit._ 1859, pp. 50, 59).
[581] _Travels in Little-known Parts of Asia Minor_ (London, 1870), pp.
129-148.
[582] Ramsay on _The Early Historical Relations of Phrygia and
Cappadocia_, Pt. 11 (_Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, xv., London, 1883),
pp. 116.
[583] Also Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, vol. ii. pp.
153-158.
[584] _Liv. Annals Arch._, i. (1908), p. 3, and Pls. II. and III.
[585] Macridy Bey, _La porte des sphinx à Euyuk_ (_Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 3).
[586] First noticed by Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 2.
[587] A town Teiria, of the ‘Leuco-Syrians,’ is mentioned by Hecatæus of
Miletus (_Fragm. Hist. Graec._, ed. Müller-Didot, No. 194). M. Maspero
inclines to the identification of this place with Eyuk (_The Passing of
Empires_, p. 338).
[588] Cf. the citadel gateway of Sinjerli, p. 278.
[589] _Op. cit._, Pl. I. fig. 10.
[590] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 6.
[591] In this conclusion we differ from Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, pp. 11,
13.
[592] It may be seen in the photograph, Pl. LXXII., and covers the
sculptured block marked _e_ in the plan, extending a little way on either
side.
[593] The restoration suggested by Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 11.
[594] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, figs. 23, 24.
[595] Cf. the ‘Stadt-thor’ at Sinjerli; Von Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in
Sendschirli_ (Berlin, 1902), Pls. XXIX., XXXIV.; and below, p. 274.
[596] The recent excavators failed to see the remains of these sphinxes,
_op. cit._, p. 11, but they are quite plain in profile after the earth
has been cleared away; see a photo, _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i.
(1908), Pl. III.
[597] Cf. for example, Murray’s _Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 27.
[598] Pl. LXXII. Cf. the details of the Sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl.
LXXXII.
[599] Cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 648.
[600] See the photograph in Newberry, etc., _Short History of Egypt_ (ed.
1907), frontispiece. The special feature of the horseshoe-like head-dress
occurs on scarabs of the Hyksos period (cf. the same writer’s _Scarabs_,
London, 1906, Pl. XXV. No. 30), another suggestion of Asiatic origins.
[601] Berlin Mus., Etruscan Rooms, No. 1251. Compare also some weathered
statues from Sinjerli described below, pp. 297, 298.
[602] Cf. Pl. XLIV. See also what is said about this cult on p. 359.
[603] Cf. the round altars of Emir-Ghazi, p. 183, and the representations
at Fraktin, Pl. XLVII. p. 150.
[604] Cf. Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1903), p. 39, for revised translation of
this passage in the treaty: cited below, p. 349.
[605] Cf. Pl. LXVII.
[606] Cf. Pls. LXV.-LXVII.
[607] We cannot accept the theory of an intentional opening (Macridy Bey,
_op. cit._, p. 11).
[608] Cf. p. 105, Pl. XXXIX.
[609] At the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.
[610] Pl. LXXII.
[611] The stones of the lower course vary from 3 ft. 11 in. to 4 ft. 2 in.
[612] This is more clearly suggested in a second photograph taken in the
afternoon, with the shadows to the right hand.
[613] Traceable easily on the stone, but usually in shadow, owing to the
projection of the stone of the upper course.
[614] ‘The bagpipe consists of the skin of a dog apparently, the
insufflation pipe being at the tail end, while the drone pipe was
probably concealed within the dog’s head, with the vent through its
mouth. The same idea was carried out in the Middle Ages in Europe. Cf.
Aristophanes, _Acharnians_ (i. 866): ‘you flute-players who are here from
Thebes blow the dog’s tail with your bone-pipes’ (Extract from a letter
from Miss K. Schlesinger).
[615] Pl. LIII.
[616] Pl. LXV.
[617] Pl. XLVII.
[618] MM. Perrot and Guillaume in particular seem to have fallen before
the pitfalls of perspective in the picture, and their drawing is
misleading (_Exploration Archéologique, Cappadoce_, Pl. LXIV.; _Art in
... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 338). They have been followed by others.
[619] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 174, fig. 339.
[620] See below, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.
[621] See Perrot, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 341 and fig. 340;
_Exploration_, Pl. LVII.
[622] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, figs. 23, 24.
[623] These details were in vogue throughout the whole range of Hittite
art at Sinjerli: see pp. 275, 289. Cf. also Pl. XXIV. (ii).
[624] P. 252: on the question of date, see below, p. 367.
[625] There is no analogy to date this object earlier than the ninth or
tenth century B.C. Cf. pp. 210, 301.
[626] Ramsay, _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Society_ (N.S.), xv. p. 116, with
sketch plan.
[627] Perrot, _op. cit._, fig. 335, represents the right-hand figure with
head-dress serrated, but this marking seems to be the weathering of the
stone.
[628] Perrot, _op. cit._, fig. 336, Pl. LXIII.; Macridy Bey, _op. cit._,
fig. 28, p. 21.
[629] _Loc. cit._, also _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. p. 91 and fig. 5.
[630] Cf. Pls. XLIV. and XLVII.
[631] Pl. LXV., p. 223 (Nos. 3, 4, R.).
[632] Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_ (Berlin,
1907, No. 35), p. 70. Abb. 12, Das Ost-tor. See also above, p. 205.
[633] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._, Pl. XXIX., No. 17.
[634] Taken by Perrot for part of a sphinx, and by Macridy Bey for the
lower part of a standing upright figure (_op. cit._, p. 25).
[635] No. 16 in M. Perrot’s Plan, _op. cit._, fig. 324 (Pl. LV.).
[636] We do not agree with any of the suggested restorations of these
motives. Cf. Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, pp. 27, 28; Chantre, _Mission en
Cappadoce_ (Paris, 1898), p. 9.
[637] Von Luschan and others: _Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen
Sammlungen_, Hefte xi., xii., and xiii.; _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
i., ii., iii. (Berlin, 1893, 1898, 1907).
[638] Published under the same auspices. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
iv.
[639] See the Map on p. 375.
[640] Not much can be inferred from this fact, inasmuch as the Hittite
palaces even of the Aramæan phase were probably based upon earlier models
and of much the same plan. There are references to the _Hilâni_ in the
time of Sargon.
[641] Compare the plan of the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui, p. 207.
[642] Cf. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXIV.
[643] Compare with the tail of sphinx of Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.
[644] Cf. a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii), and one from
Marash, p. 115. So also the eagle-headed monster described above.
[645] See above, pp. 203, 253, and Pl. LX., and plan, p. 247.
[646] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii. p. 122 (Koldewey).
[647] Corresponding in the main with the scheme of publication in
_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. pp. 208-229, to the illustrations of
which we refer in the footnotes.
[648] Pp. 133, 134; Pl. XXXIX. and p. 105.
[649] _Op. cit._, iii. Pl. XXXIX.
[650] See Pl. LXXV. (ii), reproduced by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt.
Cf. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XL.
[651] As the band is in each case doubled, it does not seem probable that
this is merely the detail of an upper part to the shoe. Cf. the monument
of Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.
[652] Compare the shield of the Hittite warrior shown on the north wall
of the temple of Rameses II. at Abydos, Egypt; below, Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).
[653] Compare Pls. LXV., LXVIII., LXXI.
[654] Compare Pl. LXXXI.
[655] But not projecting beyond it as with the lions of Eyuk, p. 263, and
Marash, Pl. XLII., Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.: compare the lion reliefs of
Angora, p. 162.
[656] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XLIV. (ii).
[657] For Nos. vii.-xv. see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl.
XXXVII.
[658] See Pl. LXXV. (i) (by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt).
[659] Cf. pp. 101, 111.
[660] P. 135.
[661] Compare a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, p. 105; also Pl. LXXXI.
[662] For a photograph of the sculptures ix.-xv., _in situ_, see Pl.
LXXVI., reproduced by courtesy of Professor A. H. Sayce and the S.P.C.K.,
from _The Hittites_, p. 70.
[663] This wall, it will be borne in mind, faces to the south, being the
inner wall of the inner pilaster. For the sculptures xvi.-xxxii., see
_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXVIII.
[664] Cf. No. ii. above, Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[665] No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[666] Compare the sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (i).
[667] _In Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XXXVIII., at the top,
these sculptures are aligned artificially with others for the photograph.
[668] Cf. the eagle-headed deity at Sakje-Geuzi, below, Pl. LXXX.
[669] On the general question of rearrangement of these sculptures, see
below, p. 296.
[670] See Pl. LXXVII. (i); and _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii., Pl.
XLI. (i).
[671] Cf. the sculptures of Marash, p. 111, and of Boghaz-Keui, p. 217,
Pl. LXIII. (ii).
[672] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLIV.
[673] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLIII. No. 1.
[674] Letter from Miss K. Schlesinger, October 4, 1909.
[675] In the Camp Scene, Brit. Mus.
[676] Cf. the musicians of Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (ii).
[677] Cf. the sculpture of Marash, p. 118.
[678] Compare the features of the warrior, No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii), with
the god-figures, Pls. LXXV. (ii), LXXVII.
[679] Below, Pl. LXXIX.; and _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pls.
XLVI., XLVII.
[680] _Op. cit._, iii. p. 236 (with figs. 142, 143, 144, 145), where they
are ascribed to Byzantine origins.
[681] Above, p. 254 and Pl. LXXII.
[682] By the Liverpool expedition of 1908. _Liv. Annals of Archæology_,
i. (1908), pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.
[683] Cf. p. 205.
[684] Only the base or pedestal of the column was preserved, and the
excavators found reason to believe that, after the destruction of the
building, it had served some other purpose, possibly as an altar.
[685] See Pls. LXXVII., LXXXI.
[686] See Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.; and compare the lions of Marash (Pl.
XLII.), of Eyuk (p. 263), and of Sinjerli (p. 297). Also of Boghaz-Keui,
Pl. LX. and p. 210.
[687] Compare the treatment of the mounds upon which stands the
priest-dynast in the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, No. 22 R., Pl. LXVIII.
[688] On the subject of this emblem, cf. Ridgeway, ‘The Origin of the
Turkish Crescent,’ _Jour. Roy. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. xxxviii., ii.
(1908), p. 241.
[689] Cf. the double eagles of Iasily Kaya and Eyuk, Pls. LXV., LXXII.
[690] Cf. p. 253 and Pl. LXXII.
[691] In the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is a small stela
of Egyptian work dating from about the twenty-eighth dynasty, on which
a standing sphinx is portrayed; the tail of this creature is made to
represent the head of a cobra. Compare also a sculpture from Sinjerli, p.
275.
[692] Cf. the tassel and dirk upon the stone recently discovered at
Marash, p. 115.
[693] Especially in representations of the priesthood. Cf. Boghaz-Keui,
(Pl. LXVIII.), Eyuk (Pl. LXXII.).
[694] The treatment of this bird is very similar to that on the small
monument from Marash, p. 118, illustrated in Humann and Puchstein,
_Reisen in Kleinasien_, Pl. XLVII., fig. 2; and Perrot and Chipiez, _Art
in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 68, fig. 2, and p. 181. It is interesting to
compare it also with the bird sculptured on an archaic statue from Asia
Minor of the sixth century B.C., No. 1577, Berlin Museum, _Stehende Frau_.
[695] See p. 255, Pl. LXXII.
[696] Compare the head-dress of the priest-king just described. The horns
are wanting on the similar sphinx-base from Sinjerli (_Ausgrabungen
in Sendschirli_, ii., Pl. XXXIII.), and in this case an extra short
wing is shown descending behind the shoulder: otherwise the details of
treatment correspond. It is interesting to compare these bases with one
of purely Assyrian style, published by Layard (_Monuments of Nineveh_,
i. Pl. XCV.); in the latter case there are three pairs of horns, and the
rendering of the idea differs in nearly every detail.
[697] See _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i., p. 54, fig. 16; and Berlin
Vorderas. Mus., No. 3012.
[698] See Chapter III., p. 141, and Pl. XLV., and cf. p. 142, note 4.
[699] In the Berl. Vorderas. Mus., vide _Ausgrabungen_, etc., iv.
[700] In this opinion we differ somewhat from Dr. Messerschmidt,
_Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, Sept. 1909, pp. 378, 381, where he
reviews the results of the excavations made by us at Sakje-Geuzi.
[701] See _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, vol. i., No. 4, Pl. XLIII.,
and p. 112, etc.
[702] The later painted fabrics have a clear relation to those of Kara
Eyuk (Chantre, _Mission_, Pls. III., X.-XIII.), Boghaz-Keui, and the Kara
Dagh. These, however, are not earlier than the first millennium B.C.
[703] Schuchhardt, _Schliemann’s Excavations_ (London, 1891), p. 41,
figs. 18, 20, 21.
[704] Ashmolean Museum, the black, red-black, and red-brown wares, also
the _pointillé_.
[705] _Les Premières Civilisations_ (Paris, 1909), p. 198, _note 5_.
[706] R. Pumpelly, _Explorations in Turkestan_ (Washington, 1908), Pls.
XXIX.-XXXIII., specimens to be seen in the Völkerkunde Museum, Berlin.
[707] _Royal Tombs_, ii. (1901), Pl. LIV., specimens to be seen in the
Ashmolean Mus., Oxford.
[708] _E.g._ Ashmolean Mus., Class Æ. 757 (various kinds), Æ. 753 (red on
buff), and Æ. 758 (mottled red). After early Minoan II. the resemblance
ceases.
[709] _Temp._ Amenhetep III. and IV., overlapped by Subbi-luliuma of the
Hatti and Tushratta of Mitanni. We use the edition of Winckler (referred
to in the notes as Winckler, _T. A. Letters_), with some amendments by
Knudtzon.
[710] In particular those of Karnak (_temp._ Seti I. and Rameses II.),
the Ramesseum at Thebes, Abu Simbel and Abydos (_temp._ Rameses II.,
overlapping Mutallu and Hattusil of the Hatti), and Medinet Habu (_temp._
Rameses III.).
[711] For bibliography, etc., see the Appendices, pp. 392 ff.
[712] See above, p. 208; also an article in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i.
pp. 41 ff.
[713] _Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi_, 1907, by Hugo Winckler; _Mitteil. der
Deuts. Orient-Ges._, 1907, No. 35. Also an article, _Die in Sommer 1906
... Ausgr._, in _Orient. Lit.-Zeitung_, ix., No. 12, pp. 621 ff.
[714] See above, p. 312.
[715] See above, p. 313.
[716] Pl. LXXXIII., from the north wall of the temple of Rameses II. at
Abydos.
[717] In this case the head is shaved. There is another form of pigtail
which must be distinguished from this, being in fact only the hair so cut
and drawn together behind the head that it ends in the same way. Cf. De
G. Davies, _Tell el Amarna_ II. (_temp._ Amenhetep IV. Akhenaten), Pl.
XL. (bottom row); also ‘the people of Dapur in the land of the Amorites,’
S. wall of the great hall in the Ramesseum (T in Murray’s _Handbook for
Egypt_, 1907, p. 414), where also the square shield and triangular bow
should be noted.
[718] This type may be freely recognised, _e.g._ in the Ramesseum and at
Abydos, Petrie, _Racial Types_, pp. 146-148, republished in his _History
of Egypt_, iii. p. 48, fig. 17. Cf. our ‘living Amorite,’ Pl. LXXXIV. and
p. 12, n. 1.
[719] Petrie, _Racial Types_, pp. 55, 143-145, in his _History_, iii. p.
48, fig. 17 (i); Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 353; Sayce,
_The Hittites_, 1903, p. 11.
[720] Cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii), and compare the type with that from Sinjerli,
Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[721] Their language, which might have formed a clue, is equally
problematical. There is strong temptation to regard both as Caucasian.
[722] Cf. Pls. LXV., LXXI.
[723] Cf. p. 313.
[724] Cf. the addresses of some case tablets from Asia Minor, published
by Pinches, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ i. pp. 49 ff., assigned by that
scholar to 2000 B.C.; also a Cappadocian tablet of the same period, now
in the Royal Scottish Museum of Art and Science. Horses and chariots
were employed by Aitagama in the early fourteenth century; while Hittite
cavalry are mentioned in the treaty with Rameses II., and are depicted on
the north wall of Karnak.
[725] Though we await some revision of Dr. Pumpelly’s chronology,
we cannot doubt the antiquity of the deposits in question. See his
_Explorations in Turkestan_, i. p. 38.
[726] Cf. Pls. XLVII., LVII., LXV., LXXI., LXXV. (ii), etc.
[727] Cf. W. Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 328, 372; Lenormant,
_Les Origines d’Histoire_ (who infers a northern origin), iii. p. 299.
[728] Cf. p. 237, and Pl. LXV.
[729] Cf. pp. 13, 298.
[730] We suspect tin from this direction. Cf. description by Belck
(_Verhandl. der Berl. Ges. für Anthropologie_, 1893, pp. 61 ff.), of
tombs at Kala-Kent near Kedabeg. For this reference we are indebted to
Mr. H. Schliephack.
[731] Cf. the bronze figure, Pl. XL.; the bronze axe and trappings of
Boghaz-Keui, Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 7 ff. and fig. 1.
[732] King, _Chronicles_, i. pp. 168, 169.
[733] Of the date of Khammu-rabi; for this reference we are indebted to
Professor Sayce.
[734] In the Book of Omens (Hommel, _Die Semit. Völker und Sprache_, pp.
176 ff.), cited by Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_ (1896), p. 19.
The extract is supposed to date from the time of Sargon (of Akkad) and
Naram-Sin, but more probably belongs, Professor Sayce tells us, to that
of Khammu-rabi. (Cf. also Winckler, _Alttestament. Forsch._, p. 162, note
1; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 271, note 6.)
[735] Stela, C. 1, Musée du Louvre. See above, p. 77, note 1 (_b_). There
is, however, considerable difference of opinion among philologists as to
this reading.
[736] Cf. Genesis xxiii., xxv. 9, xxvi. 34, xlix. 29, 32.
[737] Genesis xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1. (Also xxxvi. 2, but the text is
subject to amendment.) Cf. also Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums_, i. pp.
213, 214.
[738] Ezekiel xvi. 3, 45. Messerschmidt also points to the analogy of the
name of a king of Jerusalem, _Abd-khipa_ (_T. A. Letters_), with those
of _Putu-khipa_ (wife of Hattusil the Hittite) and _Tadu-khipa_ (wife of
Tushratta of Mitanni). Winckler (_Mitteilungen D.O.G._ 1907, 35, pp. 47
ff.) attributes these early references and the appearance of the Hittites
in these times in southern Syria and Babylonia, to the settlement of the
Mitannians, whom he regards as a kindred but earlier stock. Among these
he finds an Indo-Germanic element (_op. cit._, p. 51); but with the
controversy on this point we are not concerned.
[739] On the relation of Hyksos and Hittites, see Maspero, _The Struggle
of the Nations_ (1898), p. 57. For us, in the recent recognition of the
Amorites as an Aramæan people, coupled with the Semitic names of the
Hyksos leaders, and the vassalage of the Amorite to the Hittite in later
centuries (see below, p. 336), the problem is nearing solution.
[740] On this point Professor Sayce kindly supplies the following
note:—‘In the fourteenth chapter of Genesis we are told that one of the
vassal allies of Chedor-laomer in his campaign against his revolted
subjects in the naphtha-bearing district of southern Canaan was Tidᶜal,
king of the Goyyim or “Nations.” In the fragments of the Babylonian story
of Chedor-laomer published by Dr. Pinches, the name of Tidᶜal is written
Tudkhul, and he is described as king of the Umman Manda or Nations
of the North, of which the Hebrew Goyyim is a literal translation.
Now the name is Hittite. In the account of the campaign of Ramses II.
against the Hittites it appears as Tidᶜal, and one of the Hittite kings
of Boghaz-Keui bears the same name, which is written Dud-khaliya in
cuneiform. The name is evidently a compound of Dud or Tud—with which we
may compare Tadu-Khipa—and the territorial divinity Khaliya (Greek Halys;
cp. the Lydian Alyattes).
‘In the Bogche inscription [p. 155] the king who erected the monument
is called Khaleis “the Khalian,” and we probably have the same name in
Khulli, the father of the Cilician Amris.
‘The important fact which results from this is that the Hittite king was
already serving as an ally or vassal under the king of the Babylonian
empire in the age of Abraham and Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of the Old
Testament.’—A. H. S., December 1, 1909.
[741] We refer to these archives henceforward for brevity as the _B. K.
Tablets_, with a reference to the page of Dr. Winckler’s preliminary
publication of them in _Mitteilungen der Deut. Orient-Gesellschaft_,
Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 1-71. The most important documents of which
translations are given are—1. Treaty with Mitanni, _temp._ Subbi-luliuma,
with historical preamble describing previous relations with Tushratta,
Isuwa, Alshe, Aleppo, and finally the terms of alliance with Mattiuaza.
2. A treaty fragment of the same reign referring to Nukhasse and
Aitagama. 3. Treaty with Amorites, _temp._ Mursil. 4. Treaty with
Amorites, _temp._ Hattusil, with historical preamble covering the reigns
of Subbi-luliuma, Mursil and Mutallu. 5. Correspondence of Hattusil with
Babylonia _re_ the succession, the Egyptian treaty, the Amorites and
Assyria. 6. Edict of Dudkhalia, relating to internal affairs; and 7. A
document of same king in Hittite relating to an Amorite revolt, _temp._
Mutallu. 8. Cadastral survey, _temp._ Arnuanta, signed by the royal
ladies.
[742] Treaty with Mitanni, Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 32, 33, 34, 36.
[743] And is once so named, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 17.
[744] That Arzawa was a vassal state would appear from the fact that its
archives are found at Boghaz-Keui; but that it retained its own kings
is seen from the letter addressed to Tarkundaraus by Amenhetep III.
(Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 40, 41), as well as from the former to the
latter (_Proc. S.B.A._, xi. p. 336). It seems, according to Sayce, to
have been in N.E. Cilicia, corresponding therefore to the district of Quë
in the Assyrian texts. Its tutelary deity is clearly Tarqu or Tarkhu,
found also in the name of Tarkon-demos, the Tarku-dimme of the well-known
silver boss (_C.I.H._, 1900; xlii. p. 9). Possibly Tarsus and Dastarkon,
the latter identified by Ramsay with Fraktin (p. 149), embody the stem of
this name: in this case a wider area of influence is indicated: that the
state was wide and comprehensive appears from the fact that another king,
Alakshandu, is mentioned as a vassal of Tarkundaraus; while a third king
sent presents to the Pharaoh through the latter’s ambassadors.
[745] This reading is due to Professor Sayce, being based on an
inscription recently found by De Morgan at Susa. Its position was on the
Tochma Su, for Schrader (_Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-forschung._, pp.
151 ff., 530) has shown that it included Malatia. The same writer gives
the reading Khanigalbat; while W. Max Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 320)
uses Khani-rabbat, and points out an analogy between Khani-the-Great
and Kheta-the-Great of the Egyptian texts. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, v. p. 177, note 1) and Winckler (_Gesch. Babs. und
Assyrs._, pp. 174, 259) support Schrader. That it was an important state
appears from its name, and from its independent correspondence with Egypt
(Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, Nos. 1, 15); and that it was allied to the
Hatti must be inferred from the account of the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma
which follows.
[746] Annals of Thothmes III., 33rd year.
[747] See the Genealogical Table, p. 329.
[748] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 21.
[749] Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, 1907, p. 35.
[750] In what follows we attempt to reconstruct the campaigns of
Subbi-luliuma from the new records read side by side with the Tell
el-Amarna letters, basing the sequence of events, where no clue is
provided, on the gradual movement of the scene from north to south.
[751] Fragment of treaty, Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 35.
[752] See below, and cf. Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, Nos. 132, 139.
[753] Winckler, _loc. cit._
[754] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 125. The alternative reading Am in
place of the more familiar Amki is proposed by Sayce (cf. _The Hittites_,
p. 164), and corresponds closely with the Amma or Ammiya of the Tell
el-Amarna texts. He points out that the reading Amki is inadmissible, as
_ki_ is really the ordinary determinative.
[755] Mitanni treaty preamble, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 32. Cf. Maspero,
_Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 358 ff.
[756] Unless it be that which Tushratta claims in a letter to the Pharaoh
to have successfully resisted. Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 16.
[757] Winckler, _B. K. Archives_, _op. cit._, pp. 33, 34.
[758] We may suspect that, as the fashion was, numbers of the conquered
Mitanni people were drafted off to the Hatti-land and settled on the
soil, where they appear in later times as the Matieni (Herodotus, i. 72;
v. 49, 52). Cf. Th. Reinach, _Un Peuple oublié, les Matiènes_ (_Rev. des
Études Grecques_, ’94, pp. 217, 218).
[759] The fact seems to transpire in the _T. A. Letters_: cf. the story
of Akizzi which follows.
[760] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 34.
[761] An Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II. (? _c._ 1420 B.C.), claims to
have wrested Malatia from the Mitannians; cf. Johns, in Hastings’ _Dict._
(1909).
[762] _Khalpa_ in Hittite, _Khalman_ in Assyrian.
[763] Katna lay on the Khabour, tributary of the Euphrates; Nî must have
been somewhere N.W. of Aleppo.
[764] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 132.
[765] _Ibid._, No. 146.
[766] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 139; Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_,
p. 34. The parallelism between the archives of Tell el-Amarna and
Boghaz-Keui is remarkable and instructive.
[767] For he addressed a letter to the Egyptian court in the third year
of the reign of Amenhetep IV., about 1373.
[768] Further information about this chieftain also transpires in the
letters (Winckler, No. 7; Knudtzon, No. 51) in reference to Nukhasse.
[769] That his action followed closely on the events just described is
clear from _Letter_, Winckler, No. 119, where the defection of his son
Aziru and his destruction of Sumur are reported to the Pharaoh at the
same time as the annexation of Am(ma) by Aitakama.
[770] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 27.
[771] _Ibid._, No. 87.
[772] _Ibid._, No. 50.
[773] _Ibid._, No. 51.
[774] All these events seem to have preceded the conversion of Akhenaten.
[775] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 52.
[776] Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 42.
[777] Preamble Amorite treaty, _temp._ Hattusil, Winckler, _B. K.
Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 43.
[778] Preamble Amorite treaty, _temp._ Mursil; _ibid._, p. 44.
[779] The treaty with Sapalulu mentioned in that with Khetasar (Hattusil
II.), _temp._ Rameses II.
[780] With Maurasar (Mursil), who succeeded, _ibid._
[781] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 36.
[782] _Ibid._
[783] When he appears under the name of Abu-Tessub, Winckler, _op. cit._,
p. 38.
[784] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 36.
[785] Such evidence as there is on this point (pp. 163, 199) seems to
link the monuments of the west, at Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel, with the
reign of Hattusil II., by analogy with the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui;
but historically the opportunity for westward expansion was now open.
Hattusil, like his Egyptian compeer, seems to have been mostly concerned
with retaining what he had inherited.
[786] See pp. 159, 205.
[787] See Pl. XLIV., and pp. 138, 139. Our date is based on the
resemblance of the oblation vases (more clearly seen in Miss Bell’s
photographs published by Hogarth in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1909)
to those found in the hands of Hittite prisoners in Egypt, temp.
_Akhenaten_; see De Garis Davies, _El Amarna II._ (London, 1905), pp.
41, 42, and Pl. XL. (bottom row). Such vases were common in Hittite
Syria during the fifteenth century B.C. (cf. Maspero, _Struggle of the
Nations_, fig. on p. 263), and the date of the sculptures is therefore
liable to modification from various considerations, such as the range of
time such types were in use, the probability of antique forms surviving
in religious practices, and the possibility of special forms being sent
as tribute to the Pharaoh.
[788] P. 268. But see Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_, who assigns
it to the ninth century B.C.
[789] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.
[790] P. 249.
[791] Though Akhenaten himself may have claimed the title, it was
employed before his conversion.
[792] Cf. the position of Hattusil and Putukhipa, in the seal of the
treaty with Rameses II., below, p. 349.
[793] On this point see below, p. 353.
[794] See what is said above (p. 64) about the surviving elements of the
Hittite constitution in the state of Lydia.
[795] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 35.
[796] We infer, from the synchronisms with Egypt and Mitanni, between
1360 and 1340 B.C.; he and his successor overlap by their reigns those of
Amenhetep III. and Sety I. Mutallu and Hattusil were contemporary with
Rameses II.
[797] On this interesting expression, occurring in the preamble to the
Amorite treaty, _temp._ Hattusil, see Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc.,
1907, p. 43, note. We have still to learn the nature of the Hittite
burial rites, but this reference is significant.
[798] E.g. _Gasga_ (Assyrian Kaskâ), _Tibia_, _Zikhria_; cf. Winckler,
_op. cit._, p. 18.
[799] ? Manapa-_Sanda_.
[800] Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 19, 44.
[801] See above, pp. 207, 208; cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 14.
[802] Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, p. 608; Johns, in Hastings’
_Abridged Dictionary_ (1909). We adopt the latter’s chronology.
[803] See the map, p. 375. _Muzri_ is a term meaning ‘the frontier
lands,’ and hence not fixed, _vide_ Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Assyr._,
p. 530, note 2; Tiele (_Bab. Assyrische Gesch._, p. 201) regarded this
Muzri as referring to the border-lands of Cilicia, while Winckler
(_Alttestamentliche Untersuch._, p. 172) thinks it applies at this time
to the whole of North Syria.
[804] The argument of Petrie, _History_, iii. (1905) p. 17, as to the
reliability of the Egyptian sources in this matter seems to be supported
historically by the new light upon the period.
[805] Though Professor Sayce has detected at Karnak a scene which may
refer to the northern districts.
[806] We place this event about the time of the accession of Rameses II.,
_c._ 1292 B.C. (following the chronology of Breasted, based on Meyer).
The battle of Kadesh, which is reflected in the Hittite treaty of Rameses
II. (cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 45), links the two reigns, and would
fall under this system of dates about 1288-1289 B.C. Mutallu’s short
reign (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 20) would thus end shortly afterwards: he
is the Mautenel or Mautal of the Egyptian texts.
[807] For a summary of the Egyptian sources, see de Rougé, _Revue
Égyptologique_, iii. p. 149; vii. p. 182. For discussion of the identity
of the peoples, with the authorities, Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_,
pp. 390, 398. Time has brought respect for the latter’s common-sense
principle of inquiry, and for the insight of Professor Sayce (_The
Hittites_, 1903 ed., p. 26) in this matter. The argument of Professor
Petrie, based on the improbability of troops, ‘three men in a car,’ being
able to cross ‘so rough a country as Asia Minor’ (_History_, iii. p. 47),
breaks down at the first name on the lists, and we may regard the main
subject of this controversy practically closed. So, too, new evidence
makes it unnecessary to discuss in detail the attitude of Hirschfeld,
_Die Felsenreliefs in Kleinasien und das Volk der Hittiter_ (Berlin,
1881), and O. Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890),
though we notice special points of criticism. For a review of the whole
situation down to 1896, see Reinach, _Chroniques d’Orient_, especially i.
pp. 372 ff. and pp. 772 ff.
[808] For an exhaustive study of the strategy of the Egyptian leader, and
a critical examination of the authorities, see Breasted, _The Battle of
Kadesh_ (Chicago, 1903). Cf. also E. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_,
pp. 288 f.; Maspero, _Histoire_ (1875), pp. 220 ff., and _Struggle of the
Nations_, pp. 392 ff.
[809] Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 216, note 1) thinks this passage in
the poem of Pentaur must refer to the overtures of Hattusil II. sixteen
years afterwards; but the preamble to the treaty with the latter, read
in the light of the new synchronisms, leads us to accept the text as
historical.
[810] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 45.
[811] Professor Sayce notes that this rendering of the name, which is
written ideographically, must be considered doubtful. The same person
appears as Banti-shinni in other texts.
[812] The facts alone transpire (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 19); this
sequence is our interpretation of them.
[813] Cf. Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 27.
[814] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 24.
[815] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 21.
[816] See the translation into English by Professor Sayce, _The
Hittites_, pp. 31-39; also trans. from text of Müller (_Der
Bündnis-vertrag Ramses II. und des Chetiterkönigs_, Berlin, 1902) in
Messerschmidt, _The Hittites_.
[817] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 23.
[818] The sculptured figures of the god at Malatia, Pl. XLIV.; at
Sinjerli, Pl. LXXVII.; and at Boghaz-Keui, No. 1 L., Pl. LXV.
[819] The others are: Zanu-arnda, Pirqa, Khisa-sapa, Rukhasina, Tonisa,
Sakhepaina, all unrecognisable in their Egyptianised forms.
[820] Cf. the arrangement of the seven god-figures and three divine
female figures left and right in the sculpture of Boghaz-Keui, p. 215,
Pls. LXIII. (ii), LXV.
[821] Cf. Pl. LXXI. and pp. 228, 239.
[822] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, pp. 23, 24.
[823] Winckler (_op. cit._, p. 21) identifies _Katashman-turgu_ of the
letters with _Katashman-buriash_, and hence synchronises these events
with the period of Shalmaneser I., which we have treated as earlier.
Possibly we have here new material for a revision of Assyrian chronology.
[824] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 26.
[825] The only surviving record is found in the rock-temple of Abusimbel,
high up on the southern side. Unfortunately the name of the Hittite king
could not be made out by Lepsius, who first noticed the scene. Probably
he was Hattusil’s successor, for the princess offered to Rameses was
apparently his eldest daughter, and on all precedent could not well have
been older than fifteen or sixteen years if she was to prove acceptable.
Yet Hattusil was already of mature age when he succeeded to the throne,
for it will be recalled that his father’s reign was a long one, and his
brother’s short reign also intervened. The date of the event was about
B.C. 1258, in the thirty-sixth year of Rameses’ reign, thirteen years
after the treaty with Hattusil, twenty-nine years after the battle of
Kadesh—three events without historical connection.
[826] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 28.
[827] Alternatively read _Eni-Sanda_ by Prof. Sayce, the last group being
ideographic.
[828] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 15 and p. 19.
[829] Winckler (_loc. cit._) interprets these relationships otherwise,
and sees in them the traces of family intermarriage.
[830] A similar short interval seems to have occurred before the
succession of Arnuanta, and probably of Mursil previously. (Winckler,
_op. cit._, p. 18.)
[831] Qizwadna seems to have held an autonomous position exceptional
among the Hittite states. Cf. Winckler in _Orient. Lit.-Zeit._, _loc.
cit._
[832] P. 235, Pl. LXV.
[833] P. 262, Pl. LXXIII.
[834] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.
[835] P. 168, Pl. LIII.
[836] Pl. LXV.
[837] Cf. p. 348 and Pl. LXV.
[838] Cf. p. 348 and Pl. LXVIII. The boot in the design of the ædicula
may be taken to be emblematic of the earth.
[839] Cf. Pl. LXVIII.
[840] Pp. 217, 303; cf. Pls. LXVIII., LXXX.
[841] _Ibid._
[842] Cf. pp. 157, 235, and Pl. LXV.
[843] Pls. XLIV., LXXII., p. 256.
[844] Pls. XLIX., LXV., p. 236.
[845] Pp. 118, 151, 165.
[846] Pl. LXV. and p. 215.
[847] The two latter only appear upon small seals, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl.
XLI. (i), which, though Hittite, we must regard as beyond the scope of
this volume.
[848] Pl. LXV., p. 235.
[849] Cf. pp. 102, 119, and Pls. XLVII., LXXIII. (i).
[850] In this way we explain the development of the funerary symbolism
of the Ceremonial Feast (p. 100), which became a stereotyped design (Pl.
LXXV. (i), pp. 111, 135, 164, 226, 284, 290).
[851] Pl. LXVII.
[852] As we differ on this question in our interpretation of the
sculptures of Boghaz-Keui from Professor Ramsay (see p. 213), who _inter
alia_ ranks what we regard as male figures [Pl. LXIX. (ii)] among the
female bodyguard of the cult, we feel it due to him to recapitulate our
argument. _a_ (i) In Egyptian art down to 1200 B.C., though there are
detailed descriptions of Hittite allies (cf. Pl. LXXXIII.), and down to
1150 B.C. of Asiatic-Ægean coalition (p. 368), there is no suspicion of
women warriors; (ii) In Greek tradition there is no memory of the Hatti
power, but the Amazons appear. _b_ (i) These sculptures seem to belong
to the great Hatti period, and in particular to the age of Hattusil
(cf. the argument on p. 233), being somewhat more conventionalised than
those of probably earlier phase (compare the lightning emblem of fig.
1 L, Pl. LXV., with that of the Malatia god, Pl. XLV., which is freely
drawn like that of Sinjerli, Pl. LXXIII.); (ii) the sculptured gateway,
newly recognised as decorated with an Amazon figure (p. 205), has been
independently dated by us (pp. 210, 211, 380) by a series of direct
analogies in æsthetic treatment, to a period probably some centuries
later. Thus far we are possibly agreed, but at the next point we differ.
_c_ (i) In the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, the males and females seem to
us to be as distinct as ever man and woman were in art; the former are
characterised by their short tunics, muscular athletic figures, firm
thighs, and masculine chests, not to speak of their arms; the latter are
disclosed by their long robes, their full breasts, and other ordinary
feminine characteristics. (ii) In view of the emphatically female
character of the Amazon figure of the gateway, stamped by the conspicuous
breasts, the feminine thighs, and long hair, we think it unreasonable
to suppose any concealment of sex in the warrior figures of the earlier
sculptures. We conclude then (_d_) that in neither the contemporary
records nor monuments, so far as known, is there any trace of female
warriors, before 1200 or 1150 B.C.; that the whole cycle of the Amazon
legends belongs historically to a later age, subsequent to the downfall
of the Hatti warrior-kings. On the eunuch-priest, however, see p. 361,
note 2.
[853] Cf. The Sutekh cycle of the nine states in the Egyptian treaty, p.
348.
[854] Cf. figures 2 L and 3 L at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV., and at Kara-Bel,
Pl. LIV.
[855] The second cycle mentioned in the Egyptian treaty; cf. the
sculptures of Malatia, where the chief god and a winged deity are
worshipped with different rites.
[856] Sutekh and the sun-god are both called lord of heaven in the
Egyptian treaty (pp. 348, 349). Cf. the identification of Sandes with the
sun-god (p. 322).
[857] Pl. LXV.
[858] Pl. XLIV.
[859] Pl. LXXII. The bull figure, unfortunately, is not wholly shown in
these photographs.
[860] At Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LXV.), and Giaour-Kalesi (p. 163) he is
represented with a beard in contradistinction to the beardless Son-god.
[861] Cf. the legends of Baal and Sandan of Tarsus, above, pp. 195, 238.
[862] Pl. LXX., p. 240.
[863] Cf. p. 170.
[864] Pl. LXXII., p. 268.
[865] Pl. XLIV., p. 139.
[866] P. 349.
[867] Pls. LXVIII., LXXXI.
[868] We have given our reasons (p. 231) for preferring to see in them
the person of the king; but if certain emblems in the _naiskos_ are
really phallic, they may be read as indicating the sacrifice of these
organs. On the other hand, like the bull, they may be merely emblematic
of the king’s position as chief representative of the virile god. The
evidence seems to us insufficient to solve this point.
[869] Above, p. 297.
[870] Above, pp. 326 ff.
[871] See Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 356 f.; and cf. W.
Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 324-329.
[872] Pl. LXXV. (ii).; cf. p. 281.
[873] Cf. Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).
[874] P. 163.
[875] Pls. LXV., LXX.
[876] Cf. Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV., No. 2 L., and Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV., p.
171, note 3.
[877] Cf. pp. 274-5.
[878] Cf. Pl. XLIV. (Malatia) and Pl. LIV. (Kara-Bel).
[879] Cf. Pl. XXXIX. (Sakje-Geuzi), and there are earlier confirmatory
scenes described on pp. 133, 134.
[880] Pl. LXV. and p. 287.
[881] P. 140; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. V.
[882] P. 283.
[883] Pp. 274-5.
[884] P. 293 (No. xxv.).
[885] P. 122.
[886] P. 121.
[887] Cf. N. wall of the temple of Karnak, the rout after the battle of
Kadesh.
[888] Treaty with Egypt, _temp._ Hattusil, p. 347; Preamble to treaty
with Mitanni, _temp._ Subbi-luliuma, cf. p. 331.
[889] P. 279.
[890] On the antiquity of the horse and chariot, see what is said above,
p. 320, note 3.
[891] Cf. Pl. LXXXVIII., from the north wall of the temple of Rameses II.
at Abydos.
[892] Abydos temple, N. wall, the Hittite prisoners.
[893] Cf. p. 5, note 1.
[894] See p. 34, note 2.
[895] See p. 143.
[896] See pp. 6, 24.
[897] _Cappadociæ_, later distinguished always from Comana of Pontus.
[898] See pp. 24, 45. As to the problem of the direction followed by
the Persian Posts in later times, we have formed no opinion, and it is
beyond our subject. The suggestion made by Prof. Kiepert that it led
over by Sebasteia to the valley of the Tochma Su, and so past Malatia,
seems to be supported by the fact that no second crossing of the Halys
was considered noteworthy in the record. Mr. Hogarth’s summary (Macan’s
_Herodotus_, 1895, vol. ii. App. xiii. §§ 8, 9) in favour of a route by
Mazaca and Comana, descending on Samosata (Samsat), satisfies all the
conditions, but seems to us to be improbable owing to its difficulties
and to a lack of internal evidence of its importance. Prof. Ramsay’s
original preference for a route by the Cilician gates is seemingly
substantiated by our new evidence of a visible section northwards from
Injessu, which corresponds so nearly to that portion of the Royal Road
which he has traced on the Phrygian uplands (Pl. XXIV.). We do not think
the material at present sufficient to solve the problem, which we believe
must in any case be attacked upon the lines laid down by Prof. Myres in
a paper read before the Roy. Geog. Soc. 1896, in which he attempted to
reconstruct the Maps of Herodotus.
[899] Pp. 37, 38.
[900] Pp. 208, 342.
[901] P. 233.
[902] See p. 339, note 2.
[903] P. 298, and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. XXXIII.
[904] P. 272.
[905] See p. 123.
[906] See pp. 7, 97, and Pl. XXXVIII.
[907] See p. 94.
[908] In regard to an inscription from Carchemish, see, however, p. 371.
[909] Inner wall of the second pylon of the temple _Medinet Habu_ at
Thebes.
[910] On this subject, cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp.
468 and 587.
[911] Cf. Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 30.
[912] Cf. above, p. 53, note 1.
[913] Ed. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums_, i. p. 331. See, however,
Schrader, _Bab.-Ass. Gesch._, pp. 162-3, who identifies the ‘Upper Sea’
of the text (published by Winckler, _Inschriften Tigl.-Pilesers I._) with
Lake Van; he is supported by Sayce and others. Ménant thought that the
Caspian was referred to, and Rawlinson the Mediterranean, but neither of
the latter theories agrees with the geography of the expedition, on which
see Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 653-4.
[914] See what is said on this subject above, pp. 57-8.
[915] The Annals of the Xth year record the number as 30, Winckler, _op.
cit._, p. 28, l. 10.
[916] (?) Tell Bashar, in difficult country between Aintab and Carchemish.
[917] We are inclined to place this range in the Amanus, on the Cilician
frontiers. The treble-walled city of Kibshuna (Maspero, _Struggle of
the Nations_, pp. 655-6) recalls strongly the defences of Sinjerli (see
above, p. 272); possibly it is to be identified with Kabessus on the
Sarus. The route of the Assyrian army, descending southward by the passes
of the Pyramus, might easily avoid Marash, which is not mentioned in the
record.
[918] Maspero, _op. cit._, pp. 657-8. The inscription on the rocky sea
front at Nahr-el-Kelb is hardly legible; and our photograph yields no
fresh evidence on this point.
[919] Cf. Schrader, _Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung_, pp.
225-236. Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 589, and note 3.
[920] Sayce, translation of a Hittite inscription of Carchemish, above,
p. 126.
[921] Sayce, inscription of Gurun, above, p. 144.
[922] Biyassili (? _Kasyas-sil_, suggested by Professor Sayce), _temp._
Subbi-luliuma; and Eni-Sanda, _temp._ Dudkhalia. Other kings of later
history are: Shangara (or Sangar), _circa_ 860 B.C., and Pisiris, the
last of all, _circa_ 740-717 B.C.
[923] Assur-bel-kala seems to have retained possession of Kummukh, and
later Assurirba claims to have penetrated to Mount Amanus and the sea,
_circa_ 950 B.C. Cf. Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Assyr._, p. 540.
[924] The visible lower palace (p. 207) and the main defence of the upper
city (p. 201) are related by the feature of joggles and fitted stones
(cf. p. 208).
[925] Cf. Pl. LX. and p. 203. The treatment of the lion’s face is an
important factor in the date, as it corresponds to the works of this
period at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi (p. 311). The lion tank of Boghaz-Keui
(p. 210) is related in like way, and this from its position helps to
give a date to the lower palace (p. 211). The unplaced lion corner-stone
of Eyuk (‘p’ on the plan, p. 247) belongs to the same class and phase
of art, and is indicative of an upper series of buildings that have
seemingly disappeared.
[926] See above, pp. 205, 357. The importance and nature of this
sculpture were first pointed out by Miss Dodd, having been apparently
overlooked by the members of Dr. Winckler’s expedition, under whom it was
brought to light (_Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, Pl. XII.). At the time of
writing we have only seen Miss Dodd’s sketch and memoranda, for which we
are indebted to the courtesy of Professor Sayce.
[927] A passage from Pindar, quoted by Strabo (XII. iii. 11), seems to
imply that in the old Hatti state within the Halys the Amazons became
the recognised leaders in warfare. There is also a suggestion that these
developments were coeval with the rise of the Iron Age.
[928] Pl. LVI., p. 186.
[929] Pl. LVII., p. 191.
[930] P. 190.
[931] P. 154.
[932] Quoting Hecatæus of Miletus (_Polyhistor._, ed. Mommsen, p. 129, c.
38, § 1 and ff.). This tradition formed the basis of many old theories
about the Hittites, notably those advanced by Mordtmann, Lehmann, and
Jensen, upon which we need no longer dwell.
[933] Professor Maspero (_Struggle of the Nations_, p. 668) seems to us
to have traced the origin of the tradition in a confusion between the
memory of the great kingdom of Khilakku and the fabled dominion of the
Hatti kings.
[934] The inscriptions of Bor, Bulghar-Madên, and Ivrîz are clearly
confined to two generations at most; cf. p. 188.
[935] P. 375. In this map the Assyrian names of the states are used, and
modern names are quoted in some cases where identification is possible.
Capitals denote modern towns not necessarily Hittite but useful as
landmarks.
[936] Cf. the map to face p. 390.
[937] With Khilakku we incline to include Cilicia with Tarsus;
Northeastern Cilicia seems to have been distinct under the name of Quë;
see above, p. 326, note 3.
[938] ‘Twenty-four kings’ are mentioned, _c._ B.C. 838.
[939] Identified by Ramsay with Faustinopolis, see above, p. 61, n. 4.
The record is dated B.C. 718, by which time the power of the ‘Cilician’
kings in Asia Minor had probably been broken by the Phrygians.
[940] See the note on Khali-rabbat, p. 327, note 1; and the description
of monuments, pp. 132 ff. Names of kings found in Assyrian sources are:
_c._ 800, Lalle (which seems to lack the god-name usually prefixed, cf.
Subbi-luliuma); 758, Khite-ruadas; 717, Tarkhu-nazi; and 672, Mugallu,
who seems to have ruled also the Tabal.
[941] The names of three kings appear in the Assyrian records: Kundashpi,
_c._ 859 B.C.; Kushtashpi, _c._ 743 B.C.; and Mutallu, _c._ 717 B.C.
[942] See p. 13.
[943] The name of one king, Tutammu, appears _c._ 740 B.C., whose capital
was at Kinulua. Earlier, _c._ 884, Lubarna, King of the Hattina, had his
palace at the same place, which is identified with Gindarus. Cf. Maspero,
_Passing of Empires_, p. 38, and Tomkins, _Bab. and Oriental Record_,
iii. p. 6, who points to the name surviving in _Tell-Kunana_. It was a
riverine country, with woods and mines; cf. Polybius, v. 59.
[944] These local struggles are reflected in one of the monuments
described above, p. 280.
[945] ‘Twelve kings’ are referred to, _c._ 849 B.C. (Maspero, _Passing
of Empires_, p. 78). Three names of kings found in Assyrian texts are
Lubarna, _c._ 880 B.C.; Shapalulme, _c._ 860 B.C.; and Garparunda, _c._
859 B.C.
[946] Cf. Winckler, _Altorient. Forsch._ i. p. 3; Delattre, _L’Asie
Occid. dans les Inscr. Assyr._, pp. 44-52.
[947] Cf. Schrader, _Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung_, pp. 221,
236.
[948] See what is said, pp. 83, 84, on the archæological problem of the
plateau.
[949] Cf. Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, p. 589.
[950] E.g. _Akhuni_, _c._ 860 B.C., and _Khaiani_, _c._ 859 B.C.; see
also p. 272.
[951] See above, p. 273. Cf. also a sculpture of later date from
Sinjerli, now in the Berlin Vorderasiat. Museum, No. 2996, where a
Hittite is seen placed between two Semites, the former distinguished
_inter alia_ by the typical bunch of hair curled behind his neck, the
latter by the equally characteristic designing of the hair in ringlets.
On this interesting criterion see below, p. 380.
[952] Cf. the monuments of Bor, Pl. LVII., Ivrîz, Pl. LVII., Marash, p.
113, Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.
[953] Cf. pp. 222, 240.
[954] Temple of Abu Simbel, N. wall.
[955] See also above, pp. 188, 194.
[956] Cf. Pls. XLII., LXXIX., and pp. 109, 265, 297, 301.
[957] Cf. above, p. 297.
[958] Pp. 203, 210.
[959] See above, pp. 110, 111, and cf. Strabo, XI. iii. p. 32.
[960] Cf. above, pp. 108-122. Only two kings are known, namely,
Garparunda, _c._ 859 B.C., and Tarkhulara, _c._ 740 B.C.
[961] Our work of constant reference at this stage is Maspero, _The
Passing of Empires_, coupled with various articles by Johns, Winckler,
and others cited in the footnotes.
[962] Published by Sayce, _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, xiv.
[963] _Tarzi_ (Tarsus) was among the cities that fell.
[964] We place Muzri in this instance in the Taurus, in the vicinity of
the Cilician gates, partly because of the nature of the presents—claimed
in the Assyrian records as tribute—which included silver (derivable from
Bulghar-Madên and Bereketli Maden) and salt (obtainable from Tuz Geul and
elsewhere in the plain of Konia). Cf., however, the opinions of Tiele,
_Babylonisch-Assyrische Gesch._, p. 201, note 1; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und
Ass._, p. 609, and Winckler, _Alttestament. Forsch._, p. 172.
[965] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 64.
[966] There is probably some confusion in the text at this point where
Garparuda appears as king of both Gurgum and Hattina, since Khaiani ruled
at Samalla, which intervened. Cf. Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p.
193.
[967] Cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 71.
[968] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 28. Tiele, _Bab.-Ass. Gesch._, pp. 187,
201. Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 197.
[969] Sayce, _op. cit._, pp. 558-592, No. xxxiii.
[970] Sayce, _The Cuneiform Inscr. of Van_; _op. cit._, xiv. p. 642-649,
also xx. pp. 18, 19.
[971] This must be regarded as the minimum extent of the Urartian
conquests, inasmuch as the source of information is Assyrian, being drawn
from _Annals of Tiglath-Pileser_, p. 743, ll. 59-62.
[972] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 146 and note 3.
[973] _Annals of Tiglath-Pileser_, iii. ll. 59, 73.
[974] Cf. p. 271. He was the grandson of the earlier ruler of that name,
and son of Barzar. For a reflection of these local wars, cf. the monument
of Sinjerli described on p. 280. For a full discussion and bibliography
of these incidents, cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 150.
[975] From local geographical considerations, this place may perhaps be
identical with Killiz. But cf. Tiele, _Bab. Ass. Gesch._, p. 230; Hommel,
_Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 660; Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 225.
[976] The objective of this expedition was the punishment of Kiakku of
Shinukhta, whose principality was given to Matti of Atuna or Tuna. On
the possible identification of this place with the Tynna of Ptolemy (v.
vi. 22), see above, p. 61, note 4, and with Faustinopolis, see Ramsay,
_Hist. Geog._, p. 68. Olmstead (_Western Asia in the Days of Sargon_,
p. 83, note 9) places it at Tyana itself, which opens up interesting
possibilities.
[977] On the identification with ‘Mita of Muski’ of the Assyrian texts,
see above, p. 53.
[978] On the organisation of the Assyrian provinces in these times, see
Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, pp. 210 ff.; Tiele, _Bab. Ass. Gesch._,
pp. 497-499. Cf. also Olmstead, _op. cit._, pp. 163 ff.
[979] On these events which concern Uassarmi, chief of Tabal in 740 B.C.,
and others, cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 251.
[980] As in 706 B.C., Pinches, _Bab. Chron._, col. 2, l. 9; and later in
672 B.C., Winckler, _Alt. Forsch._, ii. pp. 125 ff.
[981] Cf. Ezekiel xxxii. 26, 27.
[982] Cf. Egyptian inscription, _temp._ Taharqa, B.C. 673, which mentions
Mitanni also; and an Assyrian record, _temp._ Esarhaddon, B.C. 672
(Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 370).
[983] Date approximate.
[984] Date inferred.
APPENDIX A.—BIBLIOGRAPHY
WORKS ON HITTITE ARCHÆOLOGY QUOTED
_For Works of History, Travel, and General Reference, see Author Index._
ANDERSON, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxi. (1901), p. 322.
BARTH, Reise von Trepesunt nach Scutari. Über die Ruinen bei Heyuk (Arch.
Zeit., 1859).
BELCK, Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Ges. (Dec., 1901.)
CALLANDER, See RAMSAY.
CHANTRE, Mission en Cappodoce. (Paris, 1898.)
CROWFOOT, J. W., Jour. Hell. Stud., xix. 1 (1899), pp. 34-51, figs. 4, 5.
DAVIS, E. J., On a New Hamathic Inscription at Ibreez. (Trs. Soc.
Biblical Arch., vol. iv. 1876.)
—— —— Life in Asiatic Turkey. (London, 1879.)
DAVIES, DE GARIS, El Amarna II. (London, 1905.)
FRAZER, PROF. J. G., The Golden Bough, iv.; Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 2nd
ed. (London, 1907.)
HAMILTON, W. J., Researches in Asia Minor. (London, 1842.)
HILPRECHT, Research in Bible Lands. (Edinburgh, 1905). Professor P.
Jensen in same: ‘The so-called Hittites and their Inscriptions’ (755-793).
HIRSCHFELD, Die Felsenreliefs in Klein-Asien und das Volk der Hittiter
(Abhandlungen der Akademie in Berlin, 1887).
HOGARTH, D. G. (i), Recueil de Travaux, ... xvii. [See also Ramsay.]
—— —— (ii) Appendix xiii., § 9, in Macan’s ed. of Herodotus. (Oxford,
1895.)
—— —— (iii) Ionia and the East. (Oxford, 1909.)
—— —— (iv) Liv. Annals of Arch., ii. (1909).
HUMANN and PUCHSTEIN, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord-Syrien (with Atlas),
1890.
JENSEN, P., Hittiter und Armenier (Strassburg, 1898).
JERAPHANION (GU. DE), Two new Hittite Monuments in the Cappadocian
Taurus. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XXX. (1908, Feb.).
Liverpool Annals of Archæology, vols. i. ii. iii. (Liverpool, 1908 _et
seqq._) [Abbr. _Liv. Annals_.]
LENNEP, VAN, Travels in ... Asia Minor. (London, 1870.)
LUSCHAN, VON, and others, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i. ii. iii.
(Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen Sammlungen, K. Museen zu Berlin.)
Berlin, 1893, ’98, 1902.
MACRIDY BEY, La porte des Sphinx à Euyuk. (Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 3, Berlin.)
MASPERO, The Struggle of the Nations. (London, 1896.)
—— The Passing of Empires. (London, 1900.)
MESSERSCHMIDT, (i) Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum. (Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.) Berlin, 1900, 4 and 5; 1902, 3; 1906, 5.
[Abbr. _C.I.H._]
—— (ii) The Hittites. (Ancient East Series VI.) (London, 1903, being
transl. of Die Hittiter, Der alte Orient, Leipzig, 1903.)
—— (iii) Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung (1909, Sept.).
MEYER, ED., Geschichte des Alterthums. (Stuttgart 1884, _et seqq._)
MÜLLER, W. MAX, (i) Asien und Europa. (Leipzig, 1893.)
—— (ii) Der Bündnis-vertrag Ramses II. und des Chetiter-Königs. (Berlin,
1902.)
MURRAY, Handbook for Asia Minor, etc. (London, 1895.)
MYRES, PROF. J. L., (i) Midas beyond the Halys. (Liv. Annals, i, 1908.)
—— (ii) Geography of Herodotus (Roy. Geog. Soc., 1896).
OLMSTEAD, Western Asia in the days of Sargon of Assyria, 722-7 B.C. (New
York, 1908.)
VON OPPENHEIM, Der alte Orient, 1908. Heft. i.
PEISER, Die Bronze-figur von Schernen (Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges.
Prussia. Heft 22.)
PERROT AND CHIPIEZ, History of Art in Sardinia ... Syria and Asia Minor
ii. (Engl. ed. London, 1890). [Abbr. _Art in ... Asia Minor_.]
—— AND GUILLAUME, Exploration Archéologique (Cappadoce, etc.)
PUCHSTEIN, O., (i) Pseudo-hethitische Kunst, ein Vortrag (Berlin, 1890).
RAMSAY, PROF. SIR WM., (i) On the early Historical Relations between
Phrygia and Cappadocia, i. ii. iii. (Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc. N. S. XV.,
1883.)
—— AND HOGARTH, Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à
l’archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes, xiv. xv. xvii. [Abbr. _Recueil
de Travaux_.]
RAMSAY (ii) Studies in Asia Minor, i. and ii. Jour. Hellenic Studies,
iii. (London 1883), also _ibid._, ix. p. 372.
—— (iii) The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. (London, 1890.) Royal
Geog. Soc. Suppl. Papers. Vol. iv. [Abbr. _Historical Geog._]
—— (iv), Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the
Roman Empire (Aberdeen, 1906); V. T. CALLANDER. Exploration in Lycaonia
and Isauria, 1904. [Abbr. _Stud. History and Art_].
—— (v) Pauline and other studies. (London, 1906.) Esp. Chs. VI. XI.
—— (vi) The Cities of St. Paul. (London, 1907.)
—— (vii) Luke the Physician (London, 1908). Esp. Chs. V. VI.
REINACH, Chroniques d’Orient. (Paris 1891, 1896.)
ROBINSON, W. A., A monument from Tsok-Goz-Kupruköe. Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch., XXX. 1. (1908, Jan.)
ROTT, HANS, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler (Leipzig, 1908), Messerschmidt in
do., pp. 175-8, figs. 1, 2, 3.
SAYCE, the REV. PROF. A. H.
—— (i) The Hittites. (3rd ed., London, 1903.)
—— (ii) Monuments of the Hittites, _Trs. S.B.A._, vii.
—— (iii) The Hittites Inscriptions, in the Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archæology; 1903, March, May, June, Nov., Dec.; 1904, Jan.,
Nov.; 1905, Nov.
—— (iv) Inscriptions from the Kara Dagh. (_Ibid._, vol. xxxi., 1909,
March.)
SAYCE, A Hittite Cuneiform Tablet from Boghaz-Keui. (Publ. jointly by the
Royal Asiatic Society, London, and Liv. Inst. of Arch., Oct. 1908.)
VAN LENNEP. See LENNEP.
VON LUSCHAN. See LUSCHAN.
WINCKLER, H., Vorläufige Nachrichten über die Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Keui
in Sommer 1907. (Mitteilungen der deutschenorient. Gesellschaft zu
Berlin. No. 35, Dec. 1907.) [Abbr. _Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K._, 1907.]
—— Note on Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K., 1906, Orientalistische
Litteraturzeitung, ix.
WRIGHT, WM., B.A., D.D., The Empire of the Hittites. (London, 1884.)
APPENDIX B
INDEX OF HITTITE MONUMENTS, WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY
[_C.I.H. = Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum_ (Messerschmidt). For other
abbreviations see Appendix A; and for full titles of the books of travel
and general reference see the footnotes.]
Aintab: Sculptured and Inscribed Corner-stone, pp. 106, 107, Pl. XLI.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), p. 8 and fig. p. 7;
Pls. X., XI.
Albistan: Inscribed Obelisk from Izgîn, pp. 145, 146.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1902), pp. 13 and Pl. XIX.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, xv. p. 30 and Pls. I., II. Now in the Constantinople
Museum.
Aleppo: Inscribed Stone, p. 97.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 4, Pl. III. A; _Quart. St. Pal.
Expl. Fd._, 1873, p. 73; Wright, _Empire_, p. 142, Pls.
V.-VII.; _Proc. S.B.A._, v. (1883), p. 146, and 1908 (June);
_Liv. Annals of Arch._ i. (1908), p. 8 and Pl. IX. (iii).
—— Sculptured Lion and Eagle; relief of Ceremonial Feast, uninscribed.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, ii. p. 184 and Pl. XLII. (i, ii,
iii).
Alexandretta: Small Stone, inscribed both sides, possibly from Marash, p.
99, note 1.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 8 and Pl. VIII.
Amaksiz. See Angora.
Andaval: Top of Inscribed Stela with figure, pp. 188, 189.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 27 and Pl. XXXI. C.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, xiv. p. 84 and Pl. I.
Angora: Reliefs of Lions from Amaksiz, Kalaba, and Yalanjak, pp. 161, 162.
BIBL.: Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in Asia Minor_, ii. p. 202 and
fig. 352; _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. pp. 45-48 and fig. 5.
Asarjik: Inscription on Rock, p. 153.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. p. 6 and Pls. VIII., IX. (i).
Bey-Keui: Inscription on Black Stone, p. 167.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 32 and Pl. XXXVI. A; _Mitt. d. Deut.
Arch. Inst. Athen._, xiv. (1889), p. 181; _Jour. Hell. Stud._,
ix. p. 372; _Murray’s Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 135.
Bogche: Inscribed Stone _in situ_, p. 155 and Pl. XLVIII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 11, 12, and Pl. LI.
Boghaz-Keui: (i) Rock Inscription (Nishan Tash); (ii) Two Sculptured
Blocks with hieroglyphs, pp. 158, 159. (iii) Remains of Pteria, pp.
196-211, with Pls. LVIII.-LXII. (iv) Sculptures of Iasily Kaya, pp.
211-241, with Pls. LXIII.(ii)-LXXI., and Plan, p. 221.
BIBL.: (i) _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 22; Perrot, _Exploration_, ii.,
Pl. XXXV.; _Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._
(1889), xiv. p. 170. (ii) _Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient. Ges.
Berlin_ (1907), 35, pp. 57, 58, and figs. 6, 7. (iii) The
Name: Herodotus, i. 76; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia
Minor_, ii. p. 103; Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, p. 215,
note. Excavations: Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_, pp. 13
ff.; Winckler, _Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient. Ges._ (1907),
pp. 57, 58; Winckler, _Orientalistische Lit. Zeitung_ (1906),
Dec. (iii and iv) Descriptive: Barth, _Reise ... nach Scutari_,
pp. 44-52; Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kl. A._, pp. 54
ff. and Pls. VII. ff.; Perrot, _Exploration Archéol._, ii.
Pls. XXXV. ff.; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 108 ff.;
Texier, _Description de l’Asie Mineure_, i. Pls. LXXX. ff.
(iv) Religion: Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 149-153;
Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, ch. vi.; Ramsay, _Jour. Roy.
As. Soc._, xv., N.S. (1885), pp. 113-120; _Expository Times_,
Nov. 1909; Hamilton, _Researches in A.M._, i. p. 396; Frazer,
_Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_, i. vi. pp. 105-110. Sculptures and
Hieroglyphs: _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXVII.-XXIX.
Bor: (part of) Inscribed Adoration Scene, pp. 185-188 and Pl. LVI.
Bibl.: _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 3 and Pl. XXXIII.; _Recueil_, xiv.
Pl. I.; _Proc. S.B.A._, xxviii. (1906), p. 94 and Pl. III.;
Hogarth, _Wandering Scholar_, p. 16. Now in Constantinople
Museum, No. 857.
Bulghar-Madên: Rock Inscription, pp. 189, 190.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 27 and Pl. XXXII.; _Recueil_,
xiv. p. 85 and Pl. II.; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1905), p. 229. Casts
at Oxford (Ashmolean Mus.) and Berlin (Vorderas. Mus.).
Large-scale photographs at Liverpool (Inst. Arch.).
Carchemish. See Jerablus.
[Denek Maden: Ivory Seal, p. 160 and Pl. XL. (ii).]
Derendeh. See Palanga, Haüz.
Doghanlu; Hermes and other Rock Sculptures, pp. 166, 167.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 32 and Pl. XXXVI. B; _Jour. Hell.
Stud._, iii. (1883), pp. 6-11 and fig. 2; _Mitteil. d. Deutsch.
Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._ (1889), xiv. p. 182, Pl. VI.; Perrot
and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 206 and fig. 353.
Eflatoun-Bunar: Sculptured ‘Lycaonian’ Monument, pp. 174, 175.
BIBL.: Hamilton, _Researches_, ii. pp. 350, 351; _Revue Arch._,
3ᵉ ser. vol. v. pp. 257-264 and Pls. XI., XII.; Perrot and
Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 224, fig. 356.
Ekrek: Inscribed Stone (re-dressed), p. 148 and Pl. XLVI.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 26, Pl. XXXI., and _ibid._ (1906),
pp. 2, 3, Pl. XXXI. A. Now in Constantinople Museum, No. 1217.
Emir-Ghazi: Three Inscribed Altars and an Inscribed Corner-stone, pp.
183, 184.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 9 and Pls. XLIX., L.; _Proc.
S.B.A._, xxvii. (1905), pp. 21-23, Pls. I.-III., and _ibid._,
xxviii. (1906), p. 134; Ramsay, _History and Art of the Eastern
Provs. of Rom. Emp._, p. 178 and Pls. IX., X., XI.
Eski-Yapân: Uninscribed Sculptured Lion, p. 88.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), p. 9.
Eyuk: Foundations of Walled Town. Palace Gateway with Sculptures, pp.
242-269, Pls. LXXII., LXXIII., Plan, p. 246.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 24, 25; Hamilton, _Researches_,
i. pp. 382, 383; Barth, _Reise ... nach Scutari_, pp. 42, 43;
_Arch. Zeit._ (1859), pp. 50-59; Van Lennep, _Travels in ...
Asia Minor_, pp. 129-148; Perrot, _Exploration_, ii. Pls.
LIII. ff.; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
pp. 153-158; Chantre, _Mission_, p. 1; Maspero, _Passing of
Empires_, p. 338; _Struggle of Nations_, p. 648; Humann and
Puchstein, _Reisen_, p. 82, Pl. VII.; _Recueil de Travaux_,
xiv. p. 91, fig. 5; _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._, xv. p. 116;
_Mitteil. d. Vorderas. Ges._ (1908), 3; _Liv. Annals of Arch._,
i. (1908), p. 3, Pls. II., III.
Fassiler: Sculptured ‘Lycaonian’ Monument, pp. 175, 176.
BIBL.: Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp.
222, 223. ILLUSTR.: _Cities of St. Paul_, p. 134, fig. 7.
Fraktin: Rock Sculptures, pp. 150, 151, and Pl. XLVII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 25, 26, and Pl. XXX.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, p. 87 and Pl. XIV.; Chantre, _Mission_, p. 125 and
Pl. XXIII.
Gerger; Rock Sculpture (doubtful origin), p. 131.
Giaour-Kalesi: Fort and Rock Sculptures, pp. 162-164.
BIBL.: Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 202,
fig. 352.
Gurun: Rock Inscriptions, pp. 143, 144.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 15 and Pl. XVIII.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, xiv. p. 86 and Pl. IV.; Wright, _Empire_, p. 57;
Sayce, _Trans. S.B.A._, vii. p. 305; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1903), p.
148.
Hamath: Five Inscribed Stones, pp. 95-97 and Pl. XXXVII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 6-8 and Pls. III. B-VI.; Wright,
_Empire_, pp. 139-141 and Pls. I.-IV.; Sayce, _Hittites_, pp.
60-64; Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria ..._, p. 146; Burton,
_Unexplored Syria_, p. 335; _Palestine Expl. Fund_, Q. S.,
1871, p. 173; _ibid._, 1872, pp. 74, 199; _ibid._, 1873,
pp. 35, 61, 74; _Amer. Pal. Expl. Soc._ (1871), p. 31; _Trs.
S.B.A._, vii. p. 429; _Proc. S.B.A._ 1903 (March), _ibid._,
1905 (Nov.), p. 218. Now in the Constantinople Museum, Nos.
831-834.
Ilgîn. See Kölit-oghlu.
Ivrîz: Rock Sculptures with Inscription, pp. 191-195 and Pl. LVII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 30 and Pl. XXXIV.; _ibid._ (1906),
p. 5 and Pl. XXXIV., and pp. 19, 20; Davis, _Trs. S.B.A._, iv.
(1876). pp. 336, 346; _Life in Asiatic Turkey_ (1879), pp.
245-260; Hamilton, _Researches_, ii. pp. 304-307; Ramsay and
Hogarth, _Recueil_, xiv. pp. 71-85, Pls. III.-IV.; Ramsay,
_Luke the Physician_, pp. 171, 179, and Pl. XXI.; Ramsay,
_Pauline_, etc., pp. 172, 173; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ (1906),
pp. 133, 134, and Pl.; Frazer, _Adonis_, etc. (1907), pp.
93-97. Cast in the Berlin Vorderas. Museum.
Izgîn. See Albistan.
Jerablus, Site of Carchemish. Inscribed Stela with relief and fragments
of the others. Inscription with Winged Figure. Inscribed Corner-stone:
Inscribed Column. Inscribed Fragments of Stone. Relief showing Figures on
Lion’s Back. Relief showing ‘Adoration of Kybele.’ Relief showing Priest
between Warriors, pp. 123-129.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 9-12 and Pls. IX.-XV.; _ibid._
(1902), pp. 2-12 and Pls. X.-XV.; Wright, _Empire_, pp. 143,
148, Pls. VIII.-XIII., also XIX.-XXII.; _Trs. S.B.A._, vii.
p. 435; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p.
62, figs. 276, 277, and p. 281, with figs. 390, 391; Ball,
_Light from the East_, pp. 141-143; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1905),
pp. 201 ff.; _The Graphic_, Dec. 11, 1880; _Liv. Annals of
Arch._ (1909), ii. pp. 165-171, with fig. 1 and Pls. XXXV.,
XXXVI. (i); Maspero, _Struggle_, p. 145; Maundrell, _Journey to
Euphrates_ (1749); Drummond, _Travels to ... Euphrates_ (1754),
p. 209. The Inscriptions now in British Museum (_Guide_, p. 27).
Kalaba. See Angora.
Kara-Bel. Rock Sculptures, pp. 171-173 and Pl. LIV.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 37, Pl. XXXIX.; Sayce, _Hittites_
(1903), p. 67, with Pl.; Texier, _Description_, ii. Pl.
CXXXII.; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p.
229 and fig. 362; Wright, _Empire_, p. 155 and Pl. XVIII.;
_Revue Archéol._ (1866), xiii. Pl. XII.; _Trs. S.B.A._, vii.
pp. 266, 439; _Proc. S.B.A._, XXI. p. 222; Herodotus, ii. p.
106.
Karaburna: Rock Inscription, pp. 154, 155.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1902), pp. 17, 24, Pl. XLVI.; _Jour. Hell.
Stud._, xxi. (1901), pp. 328-332, with Pl.; _Proc. S.B.A._
(1905), p. 217.
Kara-burshlu: Inscribed Sculpture, Ceremonial Feast, pp. 99-101.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 20 and Pl. XXVI. (1, 2).
Kara-Dagh: Rock Passage, with two Inscriptions. (Kizil-Dagh): Fortress,
with three Inscriptions; Rock Altar, with Inscription: Rock Throne, with
Figure and Inscription, pp. 177-181.
BIBL.: Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, pp. 160 ff. and Pls.
XIV.-XVI. _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909), xxxi. p. 86 and Pls. VII. and
VIII.
Kellekli: Eight miles north of Jerablus. Recently found: (i) Relief of
Human Figure in long robe. (ii) Stela showing relief of two Figures
facing, inscribed on face and two sides.
BIBL.: Hogarth in _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (1909), ii. p. 172,
figs. 2, 3, and Pl. XXXVI. (ii, iii).
Kizil-Dagh. See Kara-Dagh above.
Kurts-oghlu: Fragment of Statuette inscribed, pp. 98, 99.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 8 and Pl. VII. Now in Berlin
Vorderas. Museum, No. 3009.
Kuru-Bel: Inscribed Altar with Lions, pp. 146-148.
BIBL.: _Proc. S.B.A._ (1908), xxx., Pt. II., p. 42 and Pl. I.
[Remains _in situ_.]
Malatia: Three Reliefs of Lion Hunt, Stag Hunt, and Ceremonial Feast,
with Inscriptions. Four Reliefs with Deities and Oblation Scenes, etc.,
pp. 135-140 and Pl. XLIV.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 13, Pl. XVI. (A, B); _ibid._ (1906),
p. 7, Pl. XLVII.; Heuzy, _Les Origines Orientales d’Art_,
i. Pl. X.; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), Pls. IV., V.;
_ibid._, 1909, p. 180 and Pl. XLI.; Hogarth, _Recueil_, xviii.,
with Pl., p. 25; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1905), p. 212; _ibid._ (1904),
xxvi. p. 13. Lion Hunt and Feast now in Constantinople Museum,
846, 847; Stag Hunt in the Louvre Museum, Paris.
Marash: (_a_, _b_) Two Lion Corner-stones (one Inscription), pp. 108-111
and Pl. XLII.
Inscribed:—(_c_) Relief of Ceremonial Feast, pp. 111-112. (_d_)
Portion of a Statue, p. 113. (_e_) Fragment of a Statue, p.
113. (_f_) Royal Stela, p. 114. (_g_) Four-sided Monument, pp.
115-117. (_h_) Fragment of Basalt, p. 118.
Uninscribed Reliefs:—(_i_) Woman seated with Child, p. 118.
(_k_) Ceremonial Feast, p. 119. (_l_) Warrior before Table, p.
119. (_m_) Adoration Scene, p. 120. (_n_) Chariot and Horse, p.
121. (_o_) Musician with Pipes, p. 122. (_p_) Horse-rider, p.
122.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 18, 19, and Pls. XXII.-XXV.;
(1902), pp. 15, 16, and Pl. XXI.; (1906), p. 2 and Pl. XXII.;
Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, Atlas, Pls. XLVII.-XLIX.;
_Recueil_, xv. p. 32 and Pl. II. B; Wright, _Empire_, p. 162
and Pl. XXVI.; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
fig. 268 and pp. 64 ff.; _Proc. S.B.A._ ix. (1887), p. 374;
(1905), p. 225.
Now _a_ at Constantinople Museum, No. 840; Cast at British
Museum; _d_, _n_, _o_ at Berlin (V.A. Museum, Nos. 973, 974);
_f_, _h_, _l_ Metropolitan Museum, New York, Nos. 1904-6-5;
_l_, _k_, _m_ Casts at Berlin (V.A.G., 61, 63, 62); _g_ at
Constantinople Museum, No. 1625.
Nigdeh: Inscribed Altar or Moulded Base, p. 189.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 15 and Pl. LIII.
Palanga: Carved Lion. Columnar Figure inscribed, pp. 141, 142, and Pl.
XLV.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 17 and Pl. XX; _ibid._ (1906), pp.
1, 2, and Pl. XX.; _Recueil_, xv. p. 95 and Pl. III.; _Proc.
S.B.A._, xxviii. pp. 93, 94, and Pl. II. Now in Constantinople
Museum, No. 1215.
Restan: Inscribed Stone, p. 85, note 2, and p. 94.
BIBL.: _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909), p. 259.
Sakje-Geuzi: (_a_) Reliefs of Lion Hunt, Ceremonial Feast, and fragments
of Lions, etc., pp. 102-105 and Pl. XXXIX. (_b_) Walled Mounds, Palace
Ruins, and Reliefs, pp. 298-314 and Pls. LXXVIII.-LXXXII.
BIBL.: (_a_) Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, Atlas, Pl. XLVI.
Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64 and fig.
279; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, pp. 101, 102, and Pl. XLV.; (_b_)
_ibid._, pp. 97-117 and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX. Now _Lion Hunt_ at
Berlin; casts of _a_ at Liv. Inst. of Arch.
Samsat: Inscribed Stone with Pedestal, pp. 130, 131.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 14 and Pl. XVII.; Humann and
Puchstein, _Reisen_, Atlas, Pl. XLIX. (1-3).
Sinjerli: Walled Town and Citadel: Gate Sculptures, Ruins of Palaces,
Carvings, pp. 270-297 and Pls. LXXV.-LXXVII.
BIBL.: Luschan and others, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_. Now
half gate sculptures at Berlin and half at Constantinople.
Sipylus: Rock Sculpture of Mother-goddess, with Inscription, pp. 168-170
and Pl. LIII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 33-36 and Pls. XXXVII., XXXVIII.;
Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 234 ff.
and fig. 365; Weber, _Le Sipylus_, pp. 36 ff.; _Jour. Hell.
Stud._, iii. pp. 33-68; _Proc. S.B.A._, iii. p. 49; _ibid._,
vii. Pl. V.; _Academy_ (1879); Pausanias, III. xxii. 4.
Gerger: Rock Sculpture resembling Hittite, p. 131.
BIBL.: Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, p. 355 and fig. 50.
Suasa: Inscription on Stone, p. 153.
BIBL.: Rott, _Kleinas. Denkmäler_, pp. 175-179 and figs. 1, 2.
Tashji: Rock Carvings and Inscription, p. 149.
BIBL.: Rott, _Kleinas. Denk._, p. 178, fig. 3; Jeraphanion,
_Proc. S.B.A._, xxx. (1908), pp. 43, 44, and Pl. II.
Tell-Ahmar: Mounds of Hittite Site, East Bank of Euphrates, south of
Jerablus, pp. 129, 130. (i) Stela in Black Basalt, round topped, upper
half; figure wearing polus, and clasping object. (ii) Six broken Blocks
of Basalt, with hieroglyphs, forming a four-sided monument, with male
Hittite deity standing on bull upon the face, and an inscription in eight
lines of hieroglyphs in relief upon the sides and back. [Measures about
200 × 90 × 90 cms., tapering slightly.] (iii) Broken Slab, two draped
figures, with fringed robe and upturning shoes. (iv) Broken Slab with
two figures in relief, clad in tunics and upturned shoes with objects
in hands. (v) [Gigantic Lion sculptures, inscribed in cuneiform.] (vi)
[Uninscribed large Block, with relief of two rampant horse-demons.] (vii)
[Slab, T-shaped, with relief of a bull.] (viii) [Broken Block, relief of
forearm and hands.] (ix) [Basalt Block, relief of eagle-headed winged
deity in Assyrian attitude.]
BIBL.: Hogarth, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (1909), ii. pp. 177-183
and Pls. XXXVI.(iv)-XL.
Yalanjak. See Angora.
Yamoola: Sculptured Eagle on Lion Base, pp. 155, 156, and Pl. XLIX.
BIBL.: _Proc. S.B.A._ (1908), p. 27 and figs. 1, 2; _Liv.
Annals of Arch._, i. p. 5 and Pls. VI., VII.
Yarre: Relief Ceremonial Feast, pp. 164, 165.
BIBL.: _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. pp. 40-45 and fig. 4.
Yapalak: Inscription seen, p. 145.
BIBL.: Sterrett, _Epigraph. Journey_, p. 299.
AUTHOR INDEX
Anderson, 154, 164.
Ball, 102, 125, 127.
Barth, 207, 243.