Chapter D: SOUTH CAPPADOCIA.--Karaburna; long, incised rock-inscription (1)

_Bogja_, eight hours west of Kaisariye; four-sided _stela_ with
incised inscription. _Assarjik_, on the side of Mt. Argaeus; incised
rock-inscription. _Ekrek_; a fragmentary inscription in relief and an
incised inscription on a _stela_ of very late appearance. _Fraktin_ or
_Farakdin_ (probably anc. _Das-tarkon_); sculptured rock-panel showing
two groups of figures in act of cult, with hieroglyphs in relief.
_Arslan Tash_, near Comana (Cappadocia), on the Soghan Dagh; two
colossal lions, one with incised inscription. _Tashji_ in the Zamanti
valley; rock-relief with rudely incised inscription. _Andaval_ and
_Bor_; inscriptions incised on sculptured _stelae_ of kings (?),
probably from Tyana (_Ekuzli Hissar_). All are now in Constantinople.
A silver seal with hieroglyphs, now at Oxford, came also from Bor.
_Nigdeh_; basalt drum or altar with incised inscription. _Ivriz_;
rock-sculpture of king adoring god, with three inscriptions in relief.
A second sculpture, similar in subject but smaller and much defaced,
was found hard by in 1906. _Bulgar Maden_; long incised rock
inscription, near silver-mines. _Gorun_ (Gurun); two rock-inscriptions
in relief, much damaged. _Arslan-Tepe_, near Ordasu (two hours from
Malatia); large mound whence two sculptured _stelae_ or wall-blocks
with inscriptions in relief have been unearthed (now in Constantinople
and the Louvre). Four other reliefs, reported found near Malatia and
published by J. Garstang in _Annals Arch. and Anthrop._, 1908,
probably came also from Arslan Tepe. _Palanga_; lower aniconic half of
draped statue with incised inscription, now in Constantinople. Also a
small basalt lion. _Arslan Tash_, near Palanga; two rude gateway
lions, uninscribed. _Yapalak_; defaced inscription, reported by J. S.
Sterrett but never copied. _Izgin_; obelisk with long inscription in
relief on all four faces, now in Constantinople. These last four
places seem to lie on a main road leading from Cappadocia to Marash
and the Syrian sites. The expedition sent out by Cornell University in
1907 found several Hittite inscriptions on rocks near _Darende_ in the
valley of the Tokhma Su.

E. NORTH SYRIA.--_Marash_; several monuments (_stelae_, wall-blocks
and two lions) with inscriptions, both in relief and incised (part are
now at Constantinople, part in Berlin and America); evidently one of
the most important of Hittite sites. _Karaburshlu_, _Arbistan_,
_Gerchin_, _Sinjerli_; mounds about the head-waters of the Kara Su.
The last-named mound, brought to O. Puchstein's notice in 1882 by the
chance discovery of sculptured wall-dados, now in Constantinople, was
the scene of extensive German excavations in 1893-1894, directed by F.
v. Luschan and K. Koldewey, and was found to cover a walled town with
central fortified palace. Hittite, cuneiform and old Aramaean
monuments were found with many small objects, most of which have been
taken to Berlin; but no Hittite inscriptions came to light.
_Sakchegeuzu_ (Sakchegozu), a site with several mounds between
Sinjerli and Aintab; series of reliefs, once wall-dados, now in Berlin
and Constantinople. This site is in process of excavation by Professor
J. Garstang of the University of Liverpool. A sculptured portico has
come to light in the smallest of the five mounds, and much pottery,
with incised and painted decoration, has been recovered. _Aintab_;
fragment of relief inscription. _Samsat_ (Samosata); sculptured stela
with incised inscription much defaced. _Jerablus_; see above. Several
Hittite objects sent from Birejik and Aintab to Europe probably came
from Jerablus, others from _Tell Bashar_ on the Sajur. _Kellekli_,
near Jerablus; two _stelae_, one with relief inscription. _Iskanderun_
(Alexandretta); source of a long inscription cut on both sides of a
spheroidal object of unknown origin. _Kirchoglu_, a site on the Afrin,
whence a fragmentary draped statue with incised inscription was sent
to Berlin. _Aleppo_; inscription in relief (see above). _Tell Ahmar_
(on left bank of Euphrates); large _stela_ with sculpture and long
relief inscription, found in 1908 with several sculptured slabs and
two gateway lions, inscribed in cuneiform. Two hours south, a lion and
a fragment of a relief inscription were found in 1909 by Miss G. L.
Bell. _Tell Halaf_ in Mid-Mesopotamia, near Ras el-Ain; sculptures on
portico of a temple or palace; cuneiform inscriptions and large
mounds, explored in 1902 by Oppenheim. _Hamah_; five blocks inscribed
in relief (see above).

F. OUTLYING SITES.--_Erzerum_; source of an incised inscription,
perhaps not originally found there. _Kedabeg_; metal boss or hilt-top
with pictographs, found in a tomb and stated by F. Hommel to be
Hittite, but doubtful. _Toprak Kaleh_; bronze fragments with two
pictographs; doubtful if Hittite. _Nineveh_; sealings, see above.
Babylon; a bowl and a stela of storm-god, both with incised
inscriptions; doubtless spoil of war or tribute brought from Syria.
The bowl is inscribed round the outside, the _stela_ on the back.

(For a detailed description of the subjects of the reliefs, &c., with
the necessary illustrations, see the works indicated in the
bibliography.)

_Structures._--The structural remains found as yet on Hittite sites are few, scanty and far between. They consist of: (a) Ground plans of a palatial building and three temples and fortifications with sculptured gate at Boghaz Keui. The palace was built round a central court, flanked by passages and entered by a doorway of three _battants_ hung on two columns. The whole plan bears more than a superficial resemblance to those of Cretan palaces in the later Minoan period. Only the rough core of the walls is standing to a height of about 3 ft. The fortifications of the citadel have an elaborate double gate with flanking towers, (b) Fortifications, palace, &c., at Sinjerli. The gates here are more elaborate than at Boghaz Keui, but planned with the same idea--that of entrapping in an enclosed space, barred by a second door, an enemy who may have forced the first door, while flanking towers would add to his discomfiture. The palace plan is again rectangular, with a central pillared hall, and very similar in plan to that of Boghaz Keui. The massive walls are also of similar construction. Dados of relief-sculpture run round the inner walls; this feature seems to have been common to Hittite buildings of a sumptuous kind, and accounts for most of the sculptured blocks that have been found, e.g. at Jerablus, Sakhchegeuzu, Euyuk, Arslan Tepe, &c. Columns, probably of wood, rested on bases carved as winged lions, (c) Gate with sculptured approach at Euyuk. The ground plan of the gate is practically the same in idea as that at Sinjerli. Structures were found at Jerablus, but never properly uncovered or planned, (d) Sculptured porticoes of temples or palaces uncovered at Sakchegeuzu and Tell Halaf (see above). On other sites, e.g. Arslan Tepe (Ordasu), Arbistan, Marash (above the modern town and near the springs), Beikeui, mounds, doubtless covering structures, may be seen, and sculptured slabs have been recovered. The mounds, probably Hittite, in N. Syria alone are to be counted by hundreds. No tombs certainly Hittite have been found,[4] though it is possible that some of the reliefs (e.g. at Fraktin) are of funerary character.

_Sculptures and other Objects of Art._--The sculptures hitherto found consist of reliefs on rocks and on _stelae_, either honorific or funerary; reliefs on blocks forming parts of wall-dados; and a few figures more or less in the round, though most of these (e.g. the sphinxes of Euyuk and the lions of Arslan Tash and Marash) are not completely disengaged from the block. The most considerable sculptured rock-panels are at Boghaz Keui (see Pteria); the others (Ivriz, Fraktin, Karabel, Giaur Kalessi, Doghanludere), it should be observed, all lie N. of Taurus--a fact of some bearing on the problem of the origin and local domicile of the art, since rock-reliefs, at any rate, cannot be otherwise than _in situ_. Sculptured _stelae_, honorific or funerary, all with pyramidal or slightly rounded upper ends, and showing a single regal or divine figure or two figures, have come to light at Bor, Marash, Sinjerli, Jerablus, Babylon, &c. These, like most of the rock-panels, are all marked as Hittite by accompanying pictographic inscriptions. The wall-blocks are seldom inscribed, the exceptions (e.g. the Arslan Tepe lion-hunt and certain blocks from Marash and Jerablus) being not more certainly wall-dados than _stelae_. The only fairly complete anthropoid statue known is the much-defaced "Niobe" at Suratlu Tash, engaged in the rock behind. The aniconic lower part of an inscribed statue wholly in the round was found at Palanga, and parts of others at Kirchoglu and Marash. Despite considerable differences in execution and details, all these sculptures show one general type of art, a type which recalls now Babylonian, now Assyrian, now Egyptian, now archaic Ionian, style, but is always individual and easily distinguishable from the actual products of those peoples. The figures, whether of men or beasts, are of a squat, heavy order, with internal features (e.g. bones, muscles, &c.) shown as if external, as in some Mesopotamian sculptures. The human type is always very brachycephalic, with brow receding sharply and long nose making almost one line with the sloping forehead. In the sculptures of the Commagene and the Tyana districts, the nose has a long curving tip, of very Jewish appearance, but not unlike the outline given to Kheta warriors in Egyptian scenes. The lips are full and the chin short and shaven. The whole physiognomy is fleshy and markedly distinct from that of other Syrians. At Boghaz Keui, Euyuk and Jerablus, the facial type is very markedly non-Semitic. But not much stress can be laid on these differences owing to (1) great variety of execution in different sculptures, which argues artists of very unequal capacity; (2) doubt whether individual portraits are intended in some cases and not in others. The hair of males is sometimes, but not always, worn in pigtail. The fashions of head-covering and clothes are very various, but several of them--e.g. the horned cap of the Ivriz god; the conical hat at Boghaz Keui, Fraktin, &c; the "jockey-cap" on the Tarkudimme boss; the broad-bordered over-robe, and the upturned shoes--are not found on other Asiatic monuments, except where Hittites are portrayed. Animals in profile are represented more naturalistically than human beings, e.g. at Yasili Kaya, and especially in some pictographic symbols in relief (e.g. at Hamah). This, however, is a feature common to Mesopotamian and Egyptian, and perhaps to all primitive art.

The subjects depicted are processions of figures, human and divine (Yasili Kaya, Euyuk, Giaur Kalessi); scenes of sacrifice or adoration, or other cult-practice (Yasili Kaya, Euyuk, Fraktin, Ivriz, and perhaps the figures seated beside tables at Marash Sakchegeuzu, Sinjerli, &c.); of the chase (Arslan Tepe, Sakchegeuzu); but not, as known at present, of battle. Both at Euyuk and Yasili Kaya reliefs in one and the same series are widely separated in artistic conception and execution, some showing the utmost _naivete_, others expressing both outline and motion with fair success. The fact warns us against drawing hasty inductions as to relative dates from style and execution.

Besides sculptures, well assured, Hittite art-products include a few small objects in metal (e.g. heavy, inscribed gold ring bought by Sir W. M. Ramsay at Konia; base silver seal, supported on three lions' claws, bought by D. G. Hogarth at Bor; inscribed silver boss of "Tarkudimme," mentioned above, &c. &c.); many intaglios in various stones (chiefly in steatite), mostly either spheroidal or gable-shaped, but a few scarabaeoid, conical or cylindrical, bearing sometimes pictographic symbols, sometimes divine, human or animal figures. The best collection is at Oxford. The majority are of very rude workmanship, bodies and limbs being represented by mere skeleton lines or unfilled outlines; a few vessels (e.g. inscribed basalt bowl found at Babylon) and fragments of ware painted with dark ornament on light body-clay, or in polychrome on a cream-white slip, or black burnished, found on N. Cappadocian sites, &c. The bronzes hitherto claimed as Hittite have been bought on the Syrian coast or come from not certainly Hittite sites in Cappadocia (see E. Chantre, _Mission en Cappadocie_). A great many small objects were found in the excavations at Sinjerli, including carved ivories, seals, toilet-instruments, implements, &c., but these have not been published. Nor, except provisionally, has the pottery, found at Sakchegeuzu.

_Inscriptions._--These, now almost sixty in number (excluding seals), are all in a pictographic character which employed symbols somewhat elaborately depicted in relief, but reduced to conventional and "shorthand" representations in the incised texts. So far, the majority of our Hittite inscriptions, like those first found at Hamah, are in relief (cameo); but the incised characters, first observed in the Tyana district, have since been shown, by discoveries at Marash, Babylon, &c., to have had a wider range. It has usually been assumed that the incised inscriptions, being the more conventionalized, are all of later date than those in relief; but comparison of Egyptian inscriptions, wherein both incised and cameo characters coexisted back to very early times, suggests that this assumption is not necessarily correct. The Hittite symbols at present known show about two hundred varieties; but new inscriptions continually add to the list, and great uncertainty remains as to the distinction of many symbols (i.e. whether mere variants or not), and as to many others which are defaced or broken in our texts. The objects represented by these symbols have been certainly identified in only a few instances. A certain number are heads (human and animal) detached from bodies, in a manner not known in the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, with which some of the other symbols show obvious analogies. Articles of dress, weapons, tools, &c., also appear. The longer inscriptions are disposed in horizontal zones or panels, divided by lines, and, it seems, they were to be read _boustrophedon_, not only as regards the lines (which begin right to left) but also the words, which are written in columnar fashion, syllable _below_ syllable, and read downwards and upwards alternately. The direction of reading is towards any faces which may be shown among the pictographs. The words are perhaps distinguished in some texts by punctuation marks.

Long and patient efforts have been made to decipher this script, ever since it was first restored to our knowledge; and among the would-be decipherers honourable mention must be made, for persistence and courage, of Professor A. H. Sayce and of Professor P. Jensen. Other interpretations have been put forward by F. E. Peiser (based on conjectures as to the names on the Nineveh sealings), C. R. Conder (based largely on Cypriote comparisons and phonetic values transferred from these) and C. J. Ball (based on Hittite names recorded on Egyptian and Assyrian monuments, and applied to word-groups on the Hittite monuments). These, however, as having arbitrary and inadequate foundations, and for other reasons, have not been accepted. F. Hommel, J. Halevy and J. Menant have done useful work in distinguishing word-groups, and have essayed partial interpretations. No other decipherers call for mention. A. H. Sayce and P. Jensen alone have enlisted any large body of adherents; and the former, who has worked upon his system for thirty years and published in the _Proceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology_ for 1907 a summary of his method and results, has proceeded on the more scientific plan. His system, however, like all others, is built in the main upon hypotheses incapable at present of quite satisfactory verification, such, for example, as the conjectural reading "Gargamish" for a group of symbols which recurs in inscriptions from Jerablus and elsewhere. In this case, to add to the other obvious elements of uncertainty, it must be borne in mind that the location of Carchemish at Jerablus is not proved, though it is very probable. Other conjectural identifications of groups of symbols with the place-names Hamath, Marash, Tyana are bases of Sayce's system. Jensen's system may be said to have been effectually demolished by L. Messerschmidt in his _Bemerkungen_ (1898); but Sayce's system, which has been approved by Hommel and others, is probably in its main lines correct. Its frequent explanation, however, of incompatible symbols by the doctrines of phonetic variation and interchange, or by alternative values of the same symbol used as ideograph, determinative or phonetic complement, and the occasional use of circular argument in the process of "verification," do not inspire confidence in other than its broader results. Sayce's phonetic values and interpretations of determinatives are his best assured achievements. But the words thus arrived at represent a language on which other known tongues throw little or no light, and their meaning is usually to be guessed only. In some significant cases, however, the Boghaz Keui tablets appear to give striking confirmation of Sayce's conjectures.

Writing in 1903 L. Messerschmidt, editor of the best collection of Hittite texts up to date, made a _tabula rasa_ of all systems of decipherment, asserting that only one sign out of two hundred--the bisected oval, determinative of divinity--had been interpreted with any certainty; and in view of this opinion, coupled with the steady refusal of historians to apply the results of any Hittite decipherment, and the obvious lack of satisfactory verification, without which the piling of hypothesis on hypothesis may only lead further from probability, there is no choice but to suspend judgment for some time longer as to the inscriptions and all deductions drawn from them.

_Are the Monuments Hittite?_--It is time to ask this question, although a perfectly satisfactory answer can only be expected when the inscriptions themselves have been deciphered. Almost all "Hittitologues" assume a connexion between the monuments and the Kheta-Khatti-Hittites, but in various degrees; e.g. while Sayce has said roundly that common sense demands the acceptance of all as the work of the Hittites, who were the dominant caste throughout a loosely-knit empire extending at one time from the Orontes to the Aegean, Messerschmidt has stated with equal dogmatism that the Hittites proper were only one people out of many[5] in N. Syria and Asia Minor who shared a common civilization, and that therefore they were authors of a part of the monuments only--presumably the N. Syrian, Commagenian and Cataonian groups. O. Puchstein[6] has denied to the Hittites some of the N. Syrian monuments, holding these of too late a date (judged by their Assyrian analogies) for the flourishing period of the Kheta-Khatti, as known from Egyptian and Assyrian records. He would ascribe them to the Kummukh (Commagenians), who seem to have succeeded the Khatti as the strongest opponents of Assyria in these parts. He was possibly right as regards the Sinjerli and Sakchegeuzu sculptures, which are of provincial appearance. The following considerations, however, may be stated in favour of the ascription of the monuments to the Hittites:--

(1) The monuments in question are found frequently whereever, from other records, we know the Hittites to have been domiciled at some period, i.e. throughout N. Syria and in Cataonia. (2) It was under the Khatti that Carchemish was a flourishing commercial city; and if Jerablus be really Carchemish, it is significant that apparently the most numerous and most artistic of the monuments occur there. (3) Among all the early peoples of N. Syria and Asia Minor known to us from Egyptian and Assyrian records, the Kheta-Khatti alone appear frequently as leading to war peoples from far beyond Taurus. (4) The Kheta certainly had a system of writing and a glyptic art in the time of Rameses II., or else the Egyptian account of their copy of the treaty would be baseless. (5) The physiognomy given to Kheta warriors by Egyptian artists is fairly representative of the prevailing type shown in the Hittite sculptures.

Furthermore, the Boghaz Keui tablets, though only partially deciphered as yet, go far to settle the question. They show that whether Boghaz Keui was actually the capital of the Hatti or not, it was a great city of the Hatti, and that the latter were an important element in Cappadocia from very early times. Before the middle of the 16th century B.C. the Cappadocian Hatti were already in relations, generally more or less hostile, with a rival power in Syria, that of Mitanni; and Subbiluliuma (= Saplel or Saparura), king of these Hatti, a contemporary of Amenophis IV. and Rameses I., seems to have obtained lasting dominion in Syria by subduing Dushratta of Mitanni. Carchemish thenceforward became a Hatti city and the southern capital of Cappadocian power. Since all the Syrian monuments of the Hittite class, so far known, seem comparatively late (most show such strong Assyrian, influence that they must fall after 1100 B.C. and probably even considerably later), while the North Cappadocian monuments (as Sayce, Ramsay, Perrot and others saw long ago) are the earlier in style, we are bound to ascribe the origin of the civilization which they represent to the Cappadocian Hatti.

Whether the Mitanni had shared in that civilization while independent, and whether they were racially kin to the Hatti, cannot be determined at present. Winckler has adduced evidence from names of local gods to show that there was an Indo-European racial element in Mitanni; but none for a similar element in the Hatti, whose chief god was Teshub. The majority of scholars has always regarded the Hittites proper as, at any rate, non-Semitic, and some leading authorities have called them proto-Armenian, and believed that they have modern descendants in the Caucasus. This racial question can hardly be determined till those Hatti records, whether in cuneiform or pictographic script, which are couched in a native tongue, not in Babylonian, are read. In the meantime we have proper names to argue from; and these give us at least the significant indication that the Hittite nominative ended in _s_ and the accusative in _m_. In any case the connexion of the Hatti with the peculiar class of monuments which we have been describing, can hardly be further questioned; and it has become more than probable that the Hatti of Cappadocia were responsible in the beginning for the art and script of those monuments and for the civilization of which they are memorials. Other peoples of north Syria and Asia Minor (e.g. the Kummukh or Commagenians and the Muski or Phrygians) came no doubt under the influence of this civilization and imitated its monuments, while subject to or federated with the Hatti. Through Phrygia and Lydia (q.v.) influences of this same Cappadocian civilization passed towards the west; and indeed, before the Greek colonization of Asia Minor, a loosely knit Hatti empire may have stretched even to the Aegean. The Nymphi (Kara Bel) and Niobe sculptures near Smyrna are probably memorials of that extension. Certainly some inland Anatolian power seems to have kept Aegean settlers and culture away from the Ionian coast during the Bronze Age, and that power was in all likelihood the Hatti kingdom of Cappadocia. Owing perhaps to Assyrian aggression, this power seems to have begun to suffer decay about 1000 B.C. and thereafter to have shrunk inwards, leaving the coasts open. The powers of Phrygia and Lydia rose successively out of its ruins, and continued to offer westward passage to influences of Mesopotamian culture till well into historic times. The Greeks came too late to Asia to have had any contact with Hatti power obscured from their view by the intermediate and secondary state of Phrygia. Their earliest writers regarded the latter as the seat of the oldest and most godlike of mankind. Only one Greek author, Herodotus, alludes to the pre-historic Cappadocian power and only at the latest moment of its long decline. At the same time, some of the Greek legends seem to show that peoples, with whom the Greeks came into early contact, had vivid memories of the Hatti. Such are the Amazon stories, whose local range was very extensive, and the myths of Memnon and Pelops. The real reference of these stories, however, was forgotten, and it has been reserved to our own generation to rediscover the records of a power and a civilization which once dominated Asia Minor and north Syria and occupied all the continental roads of communication between the East and the West of the ancient world. The credit of having been the first to divine this importance of the Hittites should always be ascribed to Sayce.

The history of the Hatti and their civilization, then, would appear to have been, very briefly, this. They belonged to an ethnic scattered widely over Eastern Asia Minor and Syria at an early period (Khatti invaded Akkad about 1800 B.C. in the reign of Samsuditana); but they first formed a strong state in Cappadocia late in the 16th century B.C. Subbiluliuma became their first great king, though he had at least one dynastic predecessor of the name of Hattusil. The Hatti now pushed southwards in force, overcame the kingdom of Mitanni and proceeded partly to occupy and partly to make tributary both north Syria and western Mesopotamia where some of their congeners were already settled. They came early into collision with Egypt, and at the height of their power under Hattusil II. fought the battle of Kadesh with Rameses II., on at least equal terms. Both now and previously the diplomatic correspondence of the Hatti monarchs shows that they treated on terms of practical equality with both the Babylonian and the Egyptian courts; and that they waged constant wars in Syria, mainly with the Amorite tribes. At this time the Hatti empire or confederacy probably included, on the west, both Phrygia and Lydia. The Boghaz Keui correspondence ceases to be important with the generation following Hattusil II., and in the Assyrian records, which begin about a couple of centuries later, we find Carchemish the chief Hatti city and N. Syria called the Hatti-land. It is possible therefore that a change of imperial centre took place after the Hatti had ceased to fear Egypt in north Syria. If so, the continuation of Hittite history will have to be sought among the remains at Jerablus and other middle Euphratean sites, rather than in those at Boghaz Keui. The establishment of the Hatti at Carchemish not only made them a commercial people and probably sapped their highland vigour, but also brought them into closer proximity to the rising North Semitic power of Assyria, whose advent had been regarded with apprehension by Hattusil II. (see above). One of his successors, Arnaunta (late 13th century?), was already feeling the effect of Assyrian pressure, and with the accession of Tiglath Pileser I., about a century later, a long but often interrupted series of Assyrian efforts to break up the Hatti power began. A succession of Ninevite armies raided north Syria and even south-east Asia Minor, and gradually reduced the Hatti. But the resistance of the latter was sturdy and prolonged. They remained the strongest power in Syria and eastern Asia Minor till well into the first millennium B.C., and their Syrian seat was not lost finally till after the great extension of Assyrian power which took place in the latter part of the 9th century. What had been happening to their Cappadocian province meanwhile we do not yet know; but the presence of Phrygian inscriptions at Euyuk and Tyana, ancient seats of their power, suggests that the client monarchy in the Sangarius valley shook itself free during the early part of the Hittite struggle with Assyria, and in the day of Hatti weakness extended its dominion over the home territory of its former suzerain. "White Syrians," however, were still in Cappadocia even after the Cimmerians had destroyed the Phrygian monarchy, allowing Lydia to become independent under the Mermnad dynasty. Croesus found them centred at Pteria in the 6th century and dealt them a final blow. But much of their secular or religious custom lived on to be recorded by Greek writers, and regarded by modern scholars as typically "Anatolian."

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--General summaries: L. Messerschmidt, _The Hittites_
("Ancient East" series, vi., 1903); A. H. Sayce, _The Hittites_
("Bypaths of Biblical Knowledge" series, xii., 2nd ed. 1892); G.
Perrot and C. Chipiez, _History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and
Asia Minor_ (Eng. trans., vol. ii., 1890); L. Lantsheere, _De la race
et de la langue des Heteens_ (1891); P. Jensen, _Hittiter und
Armenier_ (1898); M. Jastrow, final chapter in H. V. Hilprecht,
_Exploration in Bible Lands_ (1903); W. Wright, _Empire of the
Hittites_ (1884); F. Hommel, _Hettiter und Skythen_ (1898); D. G.
Hogarth, _Ionia and the East_ (1909); W. Max Muller, _Asien und
Europa_, chap. xxv. (1893). See also authorities for Egyptian and
Assyrian history.

Inscriptions: L. Messerschmidt, "Corpus inscr. Hettiticarum,"
_Zeitsch. d. d. morgenland. Gesellschaft_ (1900, 1902, 1906, &c.), and
"Bemerkungen zu d. Heth. Inschriften," _Mitteil. d. vorderasiat.
Gesellschaft_ (1898); P. Jensen, "Grundlagen fur eine Entzifferung der
(Hat. oder) Cilicischen Inschriften," _Zeitschr. d. d. morgenland.
Gesellschaft_ (1894); F. E. Peiser, _Die Hettitischen Inschriften_
(1892); A. H. Sayce, "Decipherment of the Hittite Inscriptions,"
_Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology_ (1903), and "Hittite Inscriptions,
translated and annotated," ibid. (1905, 1907); J. Menant, "Etudes
Heteennes," _Recueil de travaux rel. a la philologie, &c._, and _Mem.
de l'Acad. Inscr._, vol. xxxiv. (1890); J. Halevy in _Revue
semitique_, vol. i. Also divers articles by A. H. Sayce, F. Hommel and
others in _Proc._ and _Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ since 1876, and in
_Recueil de travaux, &c._, since its beginning.

Exploration: G. Perrot and E. Guillaume, _Exploration arch. de la
Galatie_, &c. (1862-1872); E. Chantre, _Mission en Cappadocie_ (1898);
Sir W. M. Ramsay, "Syro-Cappadocian Monuments," in _Athen.
Mitteilungen_ (1889), with D. G. Hogarth, "Pre-Hellenic Monuments of
Cappadocia," in _Recueil de travaux_, &c. (1892-1895); and with Miss
Gertrude Bell, _The Thousand and One Churches_ (1909); C. Humann and
O. Puchstein, _Reisen in Nord-Syrien_, &c. (1890). J. Garstang in
_Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology_, i. (1908) and following
numbers. Reports on excavations at Sinjerli in _Berl. Philol.
Wochenschrift_ (1891), pp. 803, 951; and F. von Luschan, and others,
"Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli" in _Mitteil. Orient-Sammlungen_ (Berlin
Museum, 1893 ff.); and on excavations at Boghaz-Keui, H. Winckler in
_Orient. Literaturzeitung_ (Berlin, 1907); _Mitteil.
Orient-Gesellschaft_ (Dec. 1907). See also s.v. PTERIA. (D. G. H.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] First described by the Turk, Hajji Khalifa, in the 17th century;
first seen by the Swedish traveller Otter in 1736, and first
published in 1840 in Ritter's _Erdkunde_, iii., after a drawing by
Major Fischer, made in 1837.

[2] The "Niobe" statue near Manisa was not definitely known for
"Hittite" till 1882, when G. Dennis detected pictographs near it.

[3] The "pseudo-Sesostres" of Herodotus, already demonstrated
non-Egyptian by Rosellini. The second figure was unknown, till found
by Dr Beddoe in 1856.

[4] Five intramural graves were explored at Sinjerli, but whether of
the Hittite or of the Assyrian occupation is doubtful.

[5] The Assyrian records, as well as the Egyptian, distinguish many
peoples in both areas from the Kheta-Khatti; and the most we can
infer from these records is that there was an occasional league
formed under the Hittites, not any imperial subjection or even a
continuous federation.

[6] _Pseudo-Hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890).

HITTORFF, JACQUES IGNACE (1792-1867), French architect, was born at Cologne on the 20th of August 1792. After serving an apprenticeship to a mason in his native town, he went in 1810 to Paris, and studied for some years at the Academy of Fine Arts, where he was a favourite pupil of Belanger, the government architect, who in 1814 appointed him his principal inspector. Succeeding Belanger as government architect in 1818, he designed many important public and private buildings in Paris and also in the south of France. From 1819 to 1830 in collaboration with le Cointe he directed the royal fetes and ceremonials. After making architectural tours in Germany, England, Italy and Sicily, he published the result of his observations in the latter country in the work _Architecture antique de la Sicile_ (3 vols., 1826-1830; new edition, 1866-1867), and also in _Architecture moderne de la Sicile_ (1826-1835). One of his important discoveries was that colour had been made use of in ancient Greek architecture, a subject which he especially discussed in _Architecture polychrome chez les Grecs_ (1830) and in _Restitution du temple d'Empedocle a Selinunte_ (1851); and in accordance with the doctrines enunciated in these works he was in the habit of making colour an important feature in most of his architectural designs. His principal building is the church of St Vincent de Paul in the basilica style, which was constructed between 1830 and 1844. He also designed the two fountains in the Place de la Concorde, the Circus of the Empress, the Rotunda of the panoramas, many cafes and restaurants of the Champs Elysees, the houses forming the circle round the Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile, besides many embellishments of the Bois de Boulogne and other places. In 1833 he was elected a member of the Academy of Fine Arts. He died in Paris on the 25th of March 1867.

HITZACKER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover at the influx of the Jeetze into the Elbe, 33 m. N.E. of Luneburg by the railway to Wittenberge. Pop. (1905) 1106. It has an Evangelical church and an old castle and numerous medieval remains. There are chalybeate springs and a hydropathic establishment in the town. The famous library now in Wolfenbuttel was originally founded here by Augustus, duke of Brunswick (d. 1666) and was removed to its present habitation in 1643.

HITZIG, FERDINAND (1807-1875), German biblical critic, was born at Hauingen, Baden, where his father was a pastor, on the 23rd of June 1807. He studied theology at Heidelberg under H. E. G. Paulus, at Halle under Wilhelm Gesenius and at Gottingen under Ewald. Returning to Heidelberg he became _Privatdozent_ in theology in 1829, and in 1831 published his _Begriff der Kritik am Alten Testamente praktisch erortert_, a study of Old Testament criticism in which he explained the critical principles of the grammatico-historical school, and his _Des Propheten Jonas Orakel uber Moab_, an exposition of the 15th and 16th chapters of the book of Isaiah attributed by him to the prophet Jonah mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25. In 1833 he was called to the university of Zurich as professor ordinarius of theology. His next work was a commentary on Isaiah with a translation (_Ubersetzung u. Auslegung des Propheten Jesajas_), which he dedicated to Heinrich Ewald, and which Hermann Hupfeld (1796-1866), well known as a commentator on the Psalms (1855-1861), pronounced to be his best exegetical work. At Zurich he laboured for a period of twenty-eight years, during which, besides commentaries on _The Psalms_ (1835-1836; 2nd ed., 1863-1865), _The Minor Prophets_ (1838; 3rd ed., 1863), _Jeremiah_ (1841; 2nd ed., 1866), _Ezekiel_ (1847), _Daniel_ (1850), _Ecclesiastes_ (1847), _Canticles_ (1855), and _Proverbs_ (1858), he published a monograph, _Uber Johannes Markus u. seine Schriften_ (1843), in which he maintained the chronological priority of the second gospel, and sought to prove that the Apocalypse was written by the same author. He also published various treatises of archaeological interest, of which the most important are _Die Erfindung des Alphabets_ (1840), _Urgeschichte u. Mythologie der Philistaer_ (1845), and _Die Grabschrift des Eschmunezar_(1855). After the death of Friedrich Umbreit (1795-1860), one of the founders of the well-known _Studien und Kritiken_, he was called in 1861 to succeed him as professor of theology at Heidelberg. Here he wrote his _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1869-1870), in two parts, extending respectively to the end of the Persian domination and to the fall of Masada, A.D. 72, as well as a work on the Pauline epistles, _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe_ (1870), on the Moabite Stone, _Die Inschrift des Mescha_ (1870), and on Assyrian, _Sprache u. Sprachen Assyriens_ (1871), besides revising the commentary on Job by Ludwig Hirzel (1801-1841), which was first published in 1839. He was also a contributor to the _Monatsschrift des wissenschaftlichen Vereins in Zurich_, the _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft_, the _Theologische Studien u. Kritiken_, Eduard Zeller's _Theologische Jahrbucher_, and Adolf Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie_. Hitzig died at Heidelberg on the 22nd of January 1875. As a Hebrew philologist he holds high rank; and as a constructive critic he is remarkable for acuteness and sagacity. As a historian, however, some of his speculations have been considered fanciful. "He places the cradle of the Israelites in the south of Arabia, and, like many other critics, makes the historical times begin only with Moses" (F. Lichtenberger, _History of German Theology_, p. 569).

His lectures on biblical theology (_Vorlesungen uber biblische
Theologie u. messianische Weissagungen_) were published in 1880 after
his death, along with a portrait and biographical sketch by his pupil,
J. J. Kneucker (b. 1840), professor of theology at Heidelberg. See
Heinrich Steiner, _Ferdinand Hitzig_ (1882); and Adolf Kamphausen's
article in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_.

HIUNG-NU, HIONG-NU, HEUNG-NU, a people who about the end of the 3rd century B.C. formed, according to Chinese records, a powerful empire from the Great Wall of China to the Caspian. Their ethnical affinities have been much discussed; but it is most probable that they were of the Turki stock, as were the Huns, their later western representatives. They are the first Turkish people mentioned by the Chinese. A theory which seems plausible is that which assumes them to have been a heterogenous collection of Mongol, Tungus, Turki and perhaps even Finnish hordes under a Mongol military caste, though the Mongolo-Tungus element probably predominated. Towards the close of the 1st century of the Christian era the Hiung-nu empire broke up. Their subsequent history is obscure. Some of them seem to have gone westward and settled on the Ural river. These, de Guiques suggests, were the ancestors of the Huns, and many ethnologists hold that the Hiung-nu were the ancestors of the modern Turks.

See _Journal Anthropological Institute_ for 1874; Sir H. H. Howorth,
_History of the Mongols_ (1876-1880); 6th Congress of Orientalists,
Leiden, 1883 (_Actes_, part iv. pp. 177-195); de Guiques, _Histoire
generale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongoles, et des autres Tartares
occidentaux_ (1756-1758).

HIVITES, an ancient tribe of Palestine driven out by the invading Israelites. In Josh. ix. 7, xi. 19 they are connected with Gibeon. The meaning of the name is uncertain; Wellhausen derives it from [Hebrew: Hava] "Eve," or "serpent," in which case the Hivites were originally the snake clan; others explain it from the Arabic _hayy_, "family," as meaning "dwellers in (Bedouin) encampments." (See PALESTINE; JEWS.)

HJORRING, an ancient town of Denmark, capital of the _amt_ (county) of its name, in the northern insular part of the peninsula of Jutland. Pop. (1901) 7901. It lies 7 m. inland from the shore of Jammer Bay, a stretch of coast notoriously dangerous to shipping. On the coast is Lonstrup, a favoured seaside resort. In this neighbourhood as well as to the south-east of Hjorring, slight elevations are seen, deserving the name of hills in this low-lying district. Hjorring is on the northern railway of Jutland, which here turns eastward to the Cattegat part of Frederikshavn (23 m.), a harbour of refuge.

HKAMTI LONG (called Kantigyi by the Burmese, and Bor Hkampti by the peoples on the Assam side), a collection of seven Shan states subordinate to Burma, but at present beyond the administrative border. Estimated area, 900 sq. m.; estimated pop. 11,000. It lies between 27 deg. and 28 deg. N. and 97 deg. and 98 deg. E., and is bordered by the Mishmi country on the N., by the Patkai range on the W., by the Hukawng valley on the S. and E., and indeed all round by various Chingpaw or Kachin communities. The country is little known. It was visited by T. T. Cooper, the Chinese traveller and political agent at Bhamo, where he was murdered; by General Woodthorpe and Colonel Macgregor in 1884, by Mr Errol Grey in the following year, and by Prince Henry of Orleans in 1895. All of these, however, limited their explorations to the valley of the Mali-hka, the western branch of the Irrawaddy river. Hkamti has shrunk very much from its old size. It was no doubt the northernmost province of the Shan kingdom, founded at Mogaung by Sam Long-hpa, the brother of the ruler of Kambawsa, when that empire had reached its greatest extension. The irruption of Kachins or Chingpaw from the north has now completely hemmed the state in. Prince Henry of Orleans described it as "a splendid territory, fertile in soil and abundant in water, where tropical and temperate culture flourish side by side, and the inhabitants are protected on three fronts by mountains." According to him the Kiutze, the people of the hills between the Irrawaddy and the Salween, call it the kingdom of Moam.

HLOTHHERE, king of Kent, succeeded his brother Ecgberht in 673, and appears for a time to have reigned jointly with his nephew Eadric, son of Ecgberht, as a code of laws still extant was issued under both names. Neither is mentioned in the account of the invasion of Aethelred in 676. In 685 Eadric, who seems to have quarrelled with Hlothhere, went into exile and led the South Saxons against him. Hlothhere was defeated and died of his wounds.

See Bede, _Hist. eccl._ (Plummer), iv. 5, 17, 26, v. 24; _Saxon
Chronicle_ (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 685; Schmid, _Gesetze_, pp. 10
sqq.; Thorpe, _Ancient Laws_, i. 26 sqq.

HOACTZIN, or HOATZIN, a bird of tropical South America, thought by Buffon to be that indicated by Hernandez or Fernandez under these names, the _Opisthocomus hoazin_ or _O. cristatus_ of modern ornithologists--a very curious and remarkable form, which has long exercised the ingenuity of classifiers. Placed by Buffon among his "_Hoccos_" (Curassows), and then by P. L. S. Muller and J. F. Gmelin in the Linnaean genus _Phasianus_, some of its many peculiarities were recognized by J. K. W. Illiger in 1811 as sufficient to establish it as a distinct genus, _Opisthocomus_; but various positions were assigned to it by subsequent systematic authors. L'Herminier was the first to give any account of its anatomy (_Comptes rendus_, 1837, v. 433), and from his time our knowledge of it has been successively increased by Johannes Muller (_Ber. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin_, 1841, p. 177), Deville (_Rev. et mag. de zoologie_, 1852, p. 217), Gervais (Castelnau, _Exped. Amerique du Sud, zoologie, anatomie_, p. 66), Huxley (_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1868, p. 304), Perrin (_Trans. Zool. Society_, ix. p. 353), and A. H. Garrod (_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1879, p. 109). After a minute description of the skeleton of _Opisthocomus_, with the especial object of determining its affinities, Huxley declared that it "resembles the ordinary gallinaceous birds and pigeons more than it does any others, and that when it diverges from them it is either sui generis or approaches the _Musophagidae_." He accordingly regarded it as the type and sole member of a group, named by him _Heteromorphae_, which sprang from the great Carinate stem later than the _Tinamomorphae_, _Turnicomorphae_, or _Charadriomorphae_, but before the _Peristeromorphae_, _Pteroclomorphae_ or _Alectoromorphae_. This conclusion is substantially the same as that at which A. H. Garrod subsequently arrived after closely examining and dissecting specimens preserved in spirit; but the latter has gone further and endeavoured to trace more particularly the descent of this peculiar form and some others, remarking that the ancestor of _Opisthocomus_ must have left the parent stem very shortly before the true _Gallinae_ first appeared, and at about the same time as the independent pedigree of the _Cuculidae_ and _Musophagidae_ commenced--these two groups being, he believed, very closely related, and _Opisthocomus_ serving to fill the gap between them.

The first thing that strikes the observer of its skeleton is the extraordinary structure of the sternal apparatus, which is wholly unlike that of any other bird known. The keel is only developed on the posterior part of the sternum--the fore part being, as it were, cut away, while the short furcula at its symphysis meets the manubrium, with which it is firmly consolidated by means of a prolonged and straight hypocleidium, and anteriorly ossifies with the coracoids. This unique arrangement seems to be correlated with the enormously capacious crop, which rests upon the furcula and fore part of the sternum, and is also received in a cavity formed on the surface of each of the great pectoral muscles. Furthermore this crop is extremely muscular, so as more to resemble a gizzard, and consists of two portions divided by a partial constriction, after a fashion of which no other example is known among birds. The true gizzard is greatly reduced.

The hoactzin appears to be about the size of a small pheasant, but is really a much smaller bird. The beak is strong, curiously denticulated along the margin of the maxilla near the base, and is beset by diverging bristles. The eyes, placed in the middle of a patch of bare skin, are furnished with bristly lashes, resembling those of horn-bills and some few other birds. The head bears a long pendant crest of loose yellowish feathers. The body is olive-coloured, varied with white above, and beneath is of a dull bay. The wings are short and rounded. The tail is long and tipped with yellow. The legs are rather short, the feet stout, the tarsi reticulated, and the toes scutellated; the claws long and slightly curved. According to all who have observed the habits of this bird, it lives in bands on the lower trees and bushes bordering the streams and lagoons, feeding on leaves and various wild fruits, especially, says H. W. Bates (_Naturalist on the River Amazons_, i. 120), those of a species of _Psidium_, and it is also credited with eating those of an arum (_Caladium arborescens_), which grows plentifully in its haunts. "Its voice is a harsh, grating hiss," continues the same traveller, and "it makes the noise when alarmed, all the individuals sibilating as they fly heavily away from tree to tree, when disturbed by passing canoes." It exhales a very strong odour--wherefore it is known in British Guiana as the "stink-bird"--compared by Bates to "musk combined with wet hides," and by Deville to that of a cow-house. The species is said to be polygamous; the nest is built on trees, of sticks placed above one another, and softer materials atop. Therein the hen lays her eggs to the number of three or four, of a dull-yellowish white, somewhat profusely marked with reddish blotches and spots, so as to resemble those of some of the _Rallidae_ (_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1867, pl. xv. fig. 7. p. 164). The young are covered only with very scanty hair, like down, and have well-developed claws on the first and second fingers of the wing, which they use in clambering about the twigs in a quadrupedal manner; if placed in the water they swim and dive well, although the adults seem to be not at all aquatic. (A. N.)

HOADLY, BENJAMIN (1676-1761), English divine, was born at Westerham, Kent, on the 14th of November 1676. In 1691 he entered Catharine Hall, Cambridge, where he graduated M.A. and was for two years tutor, after which he held from 1701 to 1711 the lectureship of St Mildred in the Poultry, and along with it from 1704 the rectory of St Peter-le-Poer, London. His first important appearance as a controversialist was against Edmund Calamy "the younger" in reference to conformity (1703-1707), and after this he came into conflict with Francis Atterbury, first on the interpretation of certain texts and then on the whole Anglican doctrine of non-resistance. His principal treatises on this subject were the _Measures of Submission to the Civil Magistrate_ and _The Origin and Institution of Civil Government discussed_; and his part in the discussion was so much appreciated by the Commons that in 1709 they presented an address to the queen praying her to "bestow some dignity in the church on Mr Hoadly for his eminent services both to church and state." The queen returned a favourable answer, but the dignity was not conferred. In 1710 he was presented by a private patron to the rectory of Streatham in Surrey. In 1715 he was appointed chaplain to the king, and the same year he obtained the bishopric of Bangor. He held the see for six years, but never visited the diocese. In 1716, in reply to George Hickes (q.v.), he published a _Preservative against the Principles and Practices of Nonjurors in Church and State_, and in the following year preached before the king his famous sermon on the _Kingdom of Christ_, which was immediately published by royal command. These works were attacks on the divine authority of kings and of the clergy, but as the sermon dealt more specifically and distinctly with the power of the church, its publication caused an ecclesiastical ferment which in certain aspects has no parallel in religious history. It was at once resolved to proceed against him in convocation, but this was prevented by the king proroguing the assembly, a step which had consequences of vital bearing on the history of the Church of England, since from that period the great Anglican council ceased to transact business of a more than formal nature. The restrained sentiments of the council in regard to Hoadly found expression in a war of pamphlets known as the Bangorian Controversy, which, partly from a want of clearness in the statements of Hoadly, partly from the disingenuousness of his opponents and the confusion resulting from exasperated feelings, developed into an intricate and bewildering maze of side discussions in which the main issues of the dispute were concealed almost beyond the possibility of discovery. But however vague and uncertain might be the meaning of Hoadly in regard to several of the important bearings of the questions around which he aroused discussion, he was explicit in denying the power of the Church over the conscience, and its right to determine the condition of men in relation to the favour of God. The most able of his opponents was William Law; others were Andrew Snape, provost of Eton, and Thomas Sherlock, dean of Chichester. So exercised was the mind of the religious world over the dispute that in July 1717 as many as seventy-four pamphlets made their appearance; and at one period the crisis became so serious that the business of London was for some days virtually at a stand-still. Hoadly, being not unskilled in the art of flattery, was translated in 1721 to the see of Hereford, in 1723 to Salisbury and in 1734 to Winchester. He died at his palace at Chelsea on the 17th of April 1761. His controversial writings are vigorous if prolix and his theological essays have little merit. He must have been a much hated man, for his latitudinarianism offended the high church party and his rationalism the other sections. He was an intimate friend of Dr Samuel Clarke, of whom he wrote a life.

Hoadly's brother, JOHN HOADLY (1678-1746), was archbishop of Dublin from 1730 to 1742 and archbishop of Armagh from the latter date until his death on the 19th of July 1746. In early life the archbishop was very intimate with Gilbert Burnet, then bishop of Salisbury, and in later life he was a prominent figure in Irish politics.

The works of Benjamin Hoadly were collected and published by his son
John in 3 vols. (1773). To the first volume was prefixed the article
"Hoadly" from the supplement to the _Biographia Britannica_. See also
L. Stephen, _English Thought in the 18th Century_.

HOAR, SAMUEL (1778--1856), American lawyer, was born in Lincoln, Massachusetts, on the 18th of May 1778. He was the son of Samuel Hoar, an officer in the American army during the War of Independence, for many years a member of the Massachusetts General Court, and a member in 1820-1821 of the state Constitutional Convention. The son graduated at Harvard in 1802, was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1805 and began practice at Concord. His success in his profession was immediate, and for a half-century he was one of the leading lawyers of Massachusetts. He was in early life a Federalist and was later an ardent Whig in politics. He was a member of the state senate in 1825, 1832 and 1833, and of the national house of representatives in 1835-1837, during which time he made a notable speech in favour of the constitutional right of congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. In November 1844, having retired from active legal practice some years before, he went to Charleston, S.C., at the request of Governor George Nixon Briggs (1796-1861), to test in the courts of South Carolina the constitutionality of the state law which provided that "it shall not be lawful for any free negro, or person of color, to come into this state on board any vessel, as a cook, steward or mariner, or in any other employment," and that such free negroes should be seized and locked up until the vessels on which they had come were ready for sea, when they should be returned to such vessels. His visit aroused great excitment, he was threatened with personal injury, the state legislature passed resolutions calling for his expulsion, and he was compelled to leave early in December. In 1848 he was prominent in the Free Soil movement in Massachusetts, and subsequently assisted in the organization of the Republican Party. In 1850 he served in the Massachusetts house of representatives. He married a daughter of Roger Sherman of Connecticut. He died at Concord, Massachusetts, on the 2nd of November 1856.

See a memoir by his son G. F. Hoar in _Memorial Biographies of the New
England Historic Genealogical Society_, vol. iii. (Boston, 1883); the
estimate by R. W. Emerson in _Lectures and Biographical Sketches_
(Boston, 1903); and "Samuel Hoar's Expulsion from Charleston," _Old
South Leaflets_, vol. vi. No. 140.