Chapter XV: Part III: The Mounds and Palace-Portico at Sakje-Geuzi (1)

Text size

We have already described the situation of the neighbouring site of Sakje-Geuzi, and the nature of some of its surface monuments. There are several prominent mounds in this locality: the sculptures mentioned and the palace ruins lately discovered[682] are connected with the smallest of these. Soundings made in the other mounds have made it clear that their nature is similar, and their growth collateral: in all probability they contain inscribed and sculptured monuments, the careful uncovering of which would contribute new pages, if not volumes, to our knowledge of oriental history. So far as excavation has proceeded on this site, it has been sufficient to determine the nature of the main fortifications, and to disclose within the walls the portico of a palace decorated with a frieze of sculptured slabs in their original positions and in fresh unweathered state. It is also demonstrated that here, at any rate, long ages of local development preceded the period which these striking monuments have rendered more conspicuous, though historically not more important. In the story of the decline and fall of the Hittite power, however, nothing could be more interesting than these sculptured monuments, with the increasing signs of Assyrian influence upon them, and the study of them becomes endowed with wider significance by comparison with those elsewhere. Not only can we measure, by the local differences and similarities to be seen in the works of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the depth to which Assyrian feeling had already permeated the Hittite arts in the early centuries of the first millennium B.C.; but by comparing these again with those of Eyuk, we may realise how far certain features of architecture and religious symbolism were originally Hittite, and though here modified by close contact with the all-absorbing Assyrian power, remained on the farther side of the Taurus free from recognisable intrusion to the end.

In the small mound excavated at Sakje-Geuzi, the form of the main enclosure was found to be practically rectangular and four-sided, enclosing an area about a hundred feet long and eighty feet wide. A slight modification in form seems to have been made, either at the time of building the whole wall or later, where the north-western wall skirts the steep edge of the mound as it approaches the northern corner. No gateway was found, the lower side of the mound opposite the palace being almost denuded even to the foundations of the wall, which was found, in other places, six or eight feet below the surface. Nor did any outer rampart on the lower level correspond to the wide enclosure at Sinjerli. The wall was built of small stones revetted together by stouter facing blocks; these, though laid approximately in courses, were fitted together without much shaping and without mortar, as in Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui, and in the fortifications of Sinjerli. The wall was supported by external buttresses or mural towers, about thirteen feet wide, and projecting about three feet; these occur at intervals which decrease considerably around the steeper edge of the mound. The corners were similarly strengthened by rectangular turrets of the same projection. The wall was nearly twelve feet thick, and its foundations were proportionately deep and massive, as though destined to sustain a height of twenty feet or more, of which some thirteen feet remained preserved where the soil was deepest. The lowest courses of the foundations were built of large stones, suggestive of the masonry on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui.[683]

Within the enclosure a series of superposed buildings on the higher ground gave token of successive ages of occupation, and partially covered the site of a palace, which was found at a depth of seven or eight feet below the surface. This has not been completely uncovered, but the details of the portico and the sculptures which adorned its façade, show that it was generally similar to the chief Hittite palace (of Aramaic times) at Sinjerli, which was still in use in the eighth century B.C. Probably most of the construction had been made in unburnt brick, which had largely been reduced to mud, leaving, as usual, little trace of original arrangement; but the sculptured slabs which had adorned the entrance remained standing in position, and enable the plan of the building to be traced. The doorway seems to have been divided and supported in the middle by a round column,[684] and to have been flanked on either hand by a square wing-tower, distantly suggestive of the Egyptian pylon. It was approached by two broad steps reaching from side to side, leading up to a platform or threshold paved with large flagstones. This formed the main threshold, twenty-four feet in width and seven feet in depth. The pavement was continuous in the wings only far enough to serve as foundations for the facing slabs of the corner towers: the ornamental pedestal just mentioned was also set upon it.

SAKJE-GEUZI: ENTRANCE TO A PALACE, WITH SCULPTURES _in situ_]

Turning to the scheme of decoration,[685] the main feature is found in two life-size and realistic representations of lions, one on either side, guarding as it were the entrance to the building of which they formed the corner-stones. The forequarters and heads of the animals are carved in the round, and project beyond the frontage of the wall, while the body and hindquarters are in high relief, being continuous with the other sculptures that adorn the flanking walls. In detail of execution these beasts are fashioned after the models already familiar from earlier descriptions.[686] The forepaws are side by side and slightly advanced; the further hind leg is advanced, and the tail droops down and forward, ending in a curl between the feet. The mane is full, with a ruffle round the throat, and the hair is specially thick upon the shoulders and below the belly, as in other instances. That which is striking about these and, indeed, the other sculptures of this series, is their sharpness and preservation, which enables us to look upon them with renewed interest and refreshment, especially after contemplation of the weathered reliefs from which Hittite art has previously been almost wholly known and judged. Though ‘provincial’ work, the snarling defiant realism of these lions has never been surpassed in any specimen of oriental art. Architecturally, it has been noticed, they formed the corner-stones of the building, and the line of the front wall is indicated by the stops across the dressed horizontal surface of the stone above their backs, upon which they must have seemed to bear the chief weight of the towers, if not of the door-jambs themselves. The blocks out of which they were carved were proportionately more massive than the other stones of the series, in order to bear a superimposed weight as well as to enable the forepart of the animals to be represented in the round.

SAKJE-GEUZI: LION CORNER-STONE (LEFT SIDE)]

The subjects depicted on the slabs adjoining the lions, both those by the side along the frontage and those which immediately follow along the flanking walls of the portico, were reproduced in duplicate on either side. The nearest, along the side, shows in each case an eagle-headed winged deity with human body (a familiar Assyrian design); he stands erect, with bare feet, facing towards the lion; he proffers with the extended further hand a seed, and carries a basket in the near hand, which is held up with elbow bent. His dress is a plain skirt reaching hardly to the knees. The muscles of the legs are shown with some amount of detail. The wings are four in number, of which one pair rise up from the shoulders, while the others are depressed. The head-dress ends upon the shoulder in a conspicuous curling plait. The next slab is much wider, but the height remains the same, namely about three feet. On this two figures, standing and facing towards one another, are represented in the act of fertilising the sacred tree. The further hand of each holds a seed aloft, while the near one grasps a curving knife with upturning blade. The tree is shown conventionally with three pairs of curling branches, while the stem (but not the foliage) suggests the scaly date-palm.[687] The figures are clad alike, in a short skirt reaching just to the knee, covered by a sleeveless cloak cut away in front and falling behind to the ankles. The lower part is fringed. Their hats are like the fez of modern times, with a knob in the middle on the top (in the Assyrian fashion) and a horn upon the sides. Their feet seem (but not clearly) to be shod with shoes with upturning toes. The features, beard and hair, are in a conventional Assyrian style. Above the figures, and reaching from side to side of the slab, is the emblem consisting of a winged rosette and crescent. There are twelve petals to the rosette, and the crescent is immediately below it: in these two features we may have a prototype of the star and crescent of the Turkish peoples.[688] The legs of the bird[689] survive in the composition of this emblem only as decorative features, and the talons give place to outward curves or circles, like those seen on the head-dress of the sphinxes at Eyuk.[690] From these, slender pistillate objects, with divided or cup-like ends, hang down to touch the seeds within the uplifted hands of the men. Other objects like cords, but undefined, hang down from the same place, falling behind their wrists. It is suggested that possibly the fertilisation of the pistil is the subject of the scene. However that may be, we notice that, as in the previous case, the muscles of the arms and legs are strongly shown; the figures, too, are stolid, and the drawing, treatment, and subject are alike strongly Assyrian in feeling, with the exception of the peculiar and distinctive feature of the rosette and crescent. This representation completes the series of sculptures decorating the frontage of the palace, but there are others flanking the entrance on either side. Of these the lion corner-stones come first, and the details of these we have already examined.

SAKJE-GEUZI: LION AND ADJOINING SCULPTURES (RIGHT SIDE)]

The Lions are followed on each side by representations of winged sphinxes, the two sculptures, as in the other cases examined, being practically duplicates of one another. The creatures may be supposed to have the body of a lion, though the general pose is stiff, and the position of the front legs even suggests a bird, corresponding to the wings above; the further details of the monster, however, do not bear out this suggestion. The treatment of the head and details of this sculpture again fails to suggest anything distinctively Hittite, but only here and there the survival of Hittite feeling and tradition. Probably this art corresponds to an early phase of Semitic influence, such as was illustrated with more completeness in the excavations of Sinjerli. The first criterion is to be found in the treatment of the hair, which falls all around the back of the head in ringlets, and does not curl backward in a single bunch, in the fashion characteristic of the Hittite figures of Marash, Carchemish, and Bor. The beard is treated in similar fashion, while upon the cheeks it is represented by little coils or concentric circles. The features of the man are also much softer and less pronounced than those with which we are familiar in Hittite works of Asia Minor. The head-dress is a sort of helmet, a close-fitting rounded hat with a knob on the top. The wings of this creature are folded by the side, extending beyond the tail, and the whole of the breast is covered as it were with down. The hindquarters of the animal are strongly delineated, and the treatment here certainly suggests a lion’s body. The tail is held aloft and comes to an end in the shape of a bird’s head, but whether of a swan or goose is not clear. Though we fail to comprehend the full meaning of the symbolism involved in this detail, it is full of interesting suggestions.[691] This feature is found on each sphinx; and there may also be traced, more clearly on the right than on the left, the design of a horn upon the helmet. On the right-hand side the series of sculptures now terminates, the corner having been disarranged at some time. Two or three loose slabs, with traces of sculpture upon them, were found in the neighbourhood, and obviously had completed the decoration of the inner corner. The sculptures seem to represent men, two of them clad in long robes with fringed border, and a third presumably clad in a short tunic. On one of the former, the figure is preserved below the shoulders, and there may be seen the outline of a long dagger, or knife, in its sheath, with a fringed tassel[692] probably in attachment with its handle. Owing to the condition of the stone, it cannot be seen whether this tassel was attached to a girdle or whether it was independent; nor indeed is it clear that it hangs actually from the handle of the dirk. The other stones of this corner are too much weathered and broken for further instructive details to be made out with certainty.

1. SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT-HAND FLANKING WALL

2. SCULPTURES ON THE RETURN WALL CONTINUING THE SERIES]

Upon the left-hand side, however, the series is complete, and remains in good condition in its original position. Following the sphinx there comes the figure of a man who, from his position, is the most important human being of the series, and must be deemed therefore to be the priest-dynast of the locality. The figure itself faces naturally to our left, following the direction of the leading sculptures, looking, that is, towards the outside of the palace. In the treatment of this sculpture there is revealed an interesting mixture of original Hittite motive with the change brought about, as we suppose, by Semitic infusion. The robe in which he is clad is a survival of the toga so familiar in the sculptures of Asia Minor.[693] The loose folds pass from behind over the right shoulder and are clasped by his left hand. The garment seems to hang quite loosely, and numerous folds in it are shown, following the direction in which it is wrapped around him. The sleeves of the undervest may also be seen, coming to an end as usual at the elbow. His feet are shod with sandals, and there are large bracelets upon his wrists. His hair is dressed in a series of wavy curls, arranged from side to side across the top of the head, and bound by a narrow fillet, which is decorated at intervals with concentric circles. The features of this personage are crudely represented: the eye is shown in full, and exaggerated in size; the nose, in contradistinction to the usual Hittite representations, is small and almost Mongoloid; the lips are heavy. The beard, both upon the cheek and where it hangs freely, is in the style illustrated by the sphinx figure which precedes, but the hair obeys the older convention to a certain extent, being bunched together behind the neck and curling backwards. In his right hand the king-priest holds out something like a cup with a long stem, the precise nature of which is not evident. It can hardly be thought that he is offering to either of the creatures that precede him, inasmuch as they are facing away from him. It seems more likely, from the sculptures which follow, that he is simply refreshing himself with wine. The series is continued, but not upon the same face of the wall; for the stone upon which the priest-king is carved proved to be the corner-stone, marking the return of the inner wall of the wing-tower on that side. On this inner wall two further sculptures are found on two separate slabs. With these the series comes to an end, though it is not clear that the actual corner of the tower is indicated by this discontinuity. Both figures are those of men: both are carved with noticeable skill, and remarkably preserved. They seem to be attendants in the palace or personal servants of the king, for they are clad alike and carry in their hands objects for the king’s use. Their dress is a long robe with a fringe-like band some little way above the hem. Their feet are shod with sandals, the toes of which are slightly upturned. They wear no ornaments, and round their heads there is only a plain fillet ending in a fringed bow. Both stand facing to their right, following their leader, with their right feet advanced, their right arms extended, and the left arms held up by the side of the body. The leader holds up in his right hand what seems to be a fly-whisk, while with his left he holds a pendent object like a piece of leather or ribbon ending in a fringe. This probably explains the representation on the corresponding stone on the opposite side, and it is significant that it seems to have no connection with the dagger, which is suspended from his waist by an attachment passing over the right shoulder. It is interesting to note also that this stone seems to have been carved _in situ_, for part of the whisk is found upon the corner-stone which precedes it, while the end of the dagger is found in like manner on the stone which follows. The second figure holds aloft a bird carved like a vulture, but from its size and the general nature of the subject it must be taken for a falcon.[694] In his left hand the falconer holds the ‘lure,’ a sling, to which there was generally attached a bell or similar object, to be thrown after the bird to attract it to return. This person also carries a dagger, suspended in like manner by an attachment which passes over the right shoulder, and is connected with the sheath appropriately at two points. The handle of this dagger is peculiar, suggesting a small notch in the metal between the hilt and the blade.

There remains to be mentioned one striking sculptured object, placed as we have mentioned in the middle of the portico between the wing-towers, and clearly defined as the base of an architectural column to support the doorway. The design, in brief, suggests that the weight of the drum was borne upon the backs of two sphinxes standing side by side. All round the top edge the pedestal is decorated with a design of numerous fingers placed side by side, the nails upwards; a similar object was found, as we have seen, at Sinjerli, upon which this detail also was clear. The rest of the sculpture is more simple, but equally striking, not merely from the nature of the design, but from the beautiful quality of its execution. The body of each sphinx seems to be that of an elongated lion. Two paws are seen in front, three from the side and two from behind, so that we have a new convention illustrated, which seems to be peculiar to Hittite art. It recalls that of Assyrian art, but nevertheless differs essentially. In both cases such animals are represented with five legs, in order to give a realistic effect to each of the three points of view. But in Assyrian art the front leg on the remote side would have been repeated in the side view; whereas here it is the hind leg which is duplicated. The human portrait upon this animal is remarkable, recalling to a striking degree the head of the sphinx at Eyuk, and to a certain extent the portrait statue of the Egyptian queen Nefret, to which we have alluded.[695] It seems without doubt to represent a female. The face is full, the lips are firm and somewhat severe, the eyes are hollowed as for the reception of inlaid precious stones. The hair hangs in two ringlets on either side, between which the ear can be seen. Upon the head there is placed a close-fitting wig, or head-dress of that character, made, as we may suspect, of plaited hair or of fine ropework, the strands of which run from front to back. It ends with the shoulders in a triple border, and is decorated on either side of the head with horn-like emblems.[696]

As in the case of the sphinx upon the flanking wall, the breast of this creature is covered with down as though partaking of the scheme completed by the wings, which as in the former case are folded by the side. These cover the upper half of the body only, below which the belly and hindquarters of the animal may be seen, strongly though somewhat conventionally delineated. As in the former cases of lion sculptures there is copious hair under the belly, which in this instance recurs also behind the forepaws and on the hinderquarters. The tail descends between the hind legs, curling forward towards the ground, where with a short backward curl its bushy end may be traced. The two sphinxes are similar in all respects to one another, but the head of one was found to have been broken away. The whole composition of this sculpture is so complex that it may be readily believed that it was not designed from an architectural point of view alone, as the mere support for a plain column. The excavators indeed found reason to believe that in some secondary use of the site, after the upper walling of this palace had been destroyed, the flat top of this pedestal had served as an altar or its equivalent, and by the side of it they found numerous burnt bones and cinders. It is clear, however, that in its original inception the palace doorway must have required a column to help the broad span between the wing-towers, which amounted to more than twenty-three feet. We are inclined to believe that possibly such a column, in conformity with the general design of the building, may have been in the form of a great statue, similar for example to that of Panammu found at Gerdschein near to Sinjerli,[697] and more particularly to the round column-figure found at Palanga.[698] This conclusion is, however, merely hypothetical, based purely on the elaborate nature of the pedestal, and on the rounded nature of the statues in question. It would however, be well accordant with the phase of oriental art to which the sculptures pertain.

SAKJE-GEUZI: SPHINX-PEDESTAL TO CENTRAL COLUMN OF PORTICO]

Before passing from the subject of this portico, we must mention also two broad steps which obviously formed part of the same building. They are decorated chiefly with rosettes, and seem to have given access to an inner chamber, the connection of which with the threshold is not yet clear.

In regard to the art illustrated by these subjects in general they lead us, after careful comparison with other Hittite monuments and with the ‘Aramaic’ monuments of Sinjerli,[699] to the conclusion that they represent an intermediate stage between the one and the other.[700] We cannot, from the internal evidence, decide whether this appearance is due to the influence of Hittite dominion over an Aramæan population, or to the supersession of a Hittite stronghold by Semitic rulers.

The excavations which have been made at Sakje-Geuzi have not as yet been rewarded by any documentary evidence. An effort was made to obtain some material basis for chronology by cutting a section of the mound down to the undisturbed ground upon which it had grown. It was found that the whole mound was artificial, being the accumulated rubbish of continuous or successive settlements. It began in remote antiquity with the middens and other traces of a primitive neolithic population, whose flint and obsidian fragments and black pottery formed a distinct deposit, in which the excavators thought they detected three strata. That age was succeeded by two others, during which the neolithic culture remained predominant. Towards the end of this phase a new style of painted pottery began to make its appearance, and thereafter for two long ages painted motives typify the Ceramic art of the locality. The main wall of the mound was built at the close of the last of these periods, and it seems to have been contemporary with the construction of the palace within. Subsequently painted pottery appears only sporadically, and such fragments as were found are more definitely related to late Ægean art, while the commoner pottery was the hard burnt brick-like ware familiar on Assyrian sites.[701]

There can be no doubt that in this record of two thousand fragments of pottery in their original stratification, there is valuable material for future comparative study. For the present, however, that which prevents the immediate application of this material to the problem of chronology is the remarkable fact that nearly all the early painted fabrics,[702] which constitute by far the larger portion of objects found in the course of this section, seem to be local, or at any rate unlike any others upon record. In the course of future excavations in this and other localities, doubtless relations will be established which will enable archæologists to connect the growth of this site with the established chronology of some civilisation like that of Egypt or Assyria. For the present the only relations suggested, and these are not clearly established, are firstly, in regard to the black pottery, sometimes decorated with a white incised pattern, which resembles in general character that found sparsely in the Troad by Schliemann[703] and by Dr. Arthur Evans in the neolithic and earliest ‘Minoan’ strata of Crete;[704] secondly, a few fragments of a peculiar fabric with black pattern on yellow base, belonging at Sakje-Geuzi to the neolithic epoch, and corresponding closely to some of the age of Naram-Sin, found freely by M. de Morgan in his excavations at Susa;[705] and, thirdly, some general resemblance between individual fragments of the painted fabrics and those found by Dr. Pumpelly in Turkestan,[706] by Professor Petrie in the Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty at Abydos,[707] and more especially by Dr. Evans in the early Minoan strata of Crete.[708] The precise nature of these suggested relations is not yet made clear, but for our purpose it is of interest to realise that it is so remote. So far as its Ceramic art is concerned, the Hittite civilisation for many ages developed independently. Further, it is established that the growth of that civilisation may be traced back in the locality for several thousand years, a fact which these excavations have for the first time demonstrated.

THE STORY OF THE HITTITES

In this concluding chapter we shall endeavour to relate the material evidences of Hittite handiwork to the story of their doings. The monuments have been described, their disposition noted, and in some cases the materials for dating them have been defined; but the outline of Hittite history as sketched in the second chapter remains to be filled in with such details as can be gleaned from the literary sources both old and new. The old sources are well known. They include the letters found at Tell el Amarna,[709] the decorative scenes and inscriptions on the walls of Egyptian temples,[710] and the archives of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings. In our use of these we must rely on the published translations and critical discussions of philologists,[711] which we can do with more reliance in that this branch of investigation is associated with such names as Maspero, Meyer, Müller, Sayce, Winckler, Hommel, Knudtzon, Reinach. The new sources are the archives of the Hatti kings, the first dynasty of the Hittites yet visible to history, discovered recently amid the ruins of their capital at Boghaz-Keui.[712] These documents are at the beginning contemporary with the Tell el Amarna letters, which they supplement and substantiate, and they range in date practically as far as the Egyptian references, by the side of which they provide a series of important synchronisms. These new archives have not yet been published in full, so that we do not reap the advantage of others’ criticisms in this case. But Dr. Winckler has given the world the first fruits of his labours,[713] which embody the materials for many long-lost pages of oriental history. These we have endeavoured to analyse, for they are difficult and obscurely put forward, and we shall express them in what appears to us to be their historical sequence and relationship.

As usual, however, in these investigations, the purely archæological evidences throw light on the settlement of the Hittites long before the earliest literary allusions. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi,[714] at the southern foot of Taurus, illustrates the development of local culture during a continuous occupation of the site throughout a period which is not overestimated as beginning before 3000 B.C. and lasting down to the time of Assyrian domination. We have already seen that the earliest settlers shared some features of their neolithic culture in common with Susa on the one hand and the Troad and even Crete on the other.[715] Was all western Asia and the Ægean infused with a common germ of civilisation in those days, or was this settlement in remote antiquity an incident in a migration from one point to the other? Unfortunately we have no collateral evidence as to the plateau of Asia Minor to help in answering these questions; yet if the Hittite culture had taken root in the north of Syria before the second millennium B.C., it may readily be believed that it had been planted equally long upon the tableland, where in historic times its chief power is found. The high standard of Hittite culture, as revealed by their own archives and monuments at the dawn of their history in the fourteenth century B.C., argues in itself a long period of settlement and development under civilised conditions; while a long contact with the culture of the Euphrates valley is indicated also by the fact that their earliest international correspondence was conducted in the Assyro-Babylonian language, while their scribes had sufficient intimacy with the cuneiform system of writing to be able to apply it to their own language, which was radically different. The great deities of the Hittite pantheon also have their prototypes in Babylonia.

Of what stock, then, were these early settlers, and whence did they come? Did they form part of a great migration from the East, like the Turks in modern history, according to an old school of thought? were they Semitic? or did they pass like the Phrygian conquerors, from Europe into Asia, absorbing and adopting Eastern thought and habits, a veritable _mirage orientale_? That the Hittites were not autochthonous, if such a term has any meaning, is apparent already, and will become more clear as we proceed, from the complexity of their pantheon and the mingled elements of their peoples. We must from the outset beware also of the pitfall of inconsistent terminology. The name Hittite is commonly employed in three senses which we must distinguish: it may be used in reference to the whole confederacy of peoples as depicted in the Egyptian scenes, or to the smaller and more homogeneous band of Hittite tribes, or to the dominant tribe of Hatti within the Halys, which seems to have given its name in antiquity to the whole. The Egyptian artists indeed recognised the mixed character of the confederates in their day, and noted some of their peculiarities, but did not distinguish between them with sufficient clearness or consistency for our purpose. Two types which we reproduce[716] will serve to illustrate the wide difference of racial character among the Hittite allies obvious to the Egyptians in the time of Rameses the Great. The one is Mongoloid, characterised by a definite pigtail,[717] oblique eyes, high cheek-bones; in short, a recognisable Tartar type. We are inclined to place it in the vicinity of Carchemish, if not beyond the Euphrates, upon the main trade route with the East. The other is a clean-cut proto-Greek type, with a special form of shield, which we are tempted to assign to Lydia or some part of western Asia Minor. The Amorites, an Aramæan (Semitic) people, are also conspicuous among the allies of these times, being distinguished by a projecting beard, receding forehead, and other features.[718] These vast differences among the peoples united under the Hatti leadership in the thirteenth century B.C. are now explained historically, as will become evident later in this chapter. They reveal to us a population of the Hittite lands no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day. They do not, however, throw any light upon the question of the original race of the Hittite tribes. These are commonly identified with another type with a long head, long nose, and receding forehead, deep-set eyes somewhat obliquely placed, and yellow, wrinkled skin. A sharp, firm line runs down from beside the nostril on either side of the lips.[719] On the walls of the Ramesseum, where it is best seen, this type is associated with Aleppo, and we must recognise in it an element of the Hittite peoples; but on comparing it with the Hittite sculptures of Sinjerli, Boghaz-Keui, and elsewhere, we must regard it as still hypothetical whether even the central Hittite states were strictly homogeneous in race. The Hatti themselves, indeed, we look on as a dominant conquering element, differing again, maybe, considerably from other Hittite peoples[720] in a manner best explained by considering the dominance of the Seljûks or the Osmanlis in later times, or most analogous perhaps to the position of the Phrygian rulers in antiquity amongst other peoples of kindred race who had preceded them.

TYPES OF HITTITE ALLIES.

i. Mongoloid.

ii. Proto-Greek.

Temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.]

Though we fail to identify the Hittite race,[721] there is some general indication of the direction whence they came. We have dismissed the direct evidence of the pigtailed element amongst the Hittite peoples, in spite of the temptation of the pigtails on the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,[722] and the description of a pigtailed leader as a royal Hittite, lest we should push the argument there—from further than might be warranted. We may regard these facts, however, as a general indication of relationship with the East. The contact with Babylonia has been already argued, and we must recall the singular relations between the painted pottery of Sakje-Geuzi with that of Turkestan, extending over a long range of post-neolithic culture.[723] Another link, not previously mentioned, is the early employment by the Hittites of the horse, dating from at least the beginning of the second millennium B.C.,[724] and the antiquity of the remains of horses found equally in the mounds of Turkestan.[725] Another item of evidence on this question may be found in the footgear of the Hittites, which, except in the later sculptures of North Syria, is always represented, as we have seen, as a shoe or boot with upturned toe.[726] This feature is now specially characteristic of the Tartar peoples, and hence another eastward connection is suggested. But it is not so exclusively; the Arabs (who borrowed it in the Middle Ages from the Turks) employ it in the desert sands, and in the more special form in question it may be found in many mountain countries, for example Greece, and it has long been used in Crete. It is commonly supposed to be the natural form of snow-shoe for highland regions, though the shepherds of the Pyrenees, who also use it, believe it to be specially adapted to walking upon broken and stony ground. However that may be, most scholars are agreed that it argues a mountain origin for its Hittite wearers,[727] and this suggestion is borne out by the mountain cults found in the Hittite pantheon.[728] The mountains by which the Hittites reached the plateau of Asia Minor are not far to seek; they lie eastward, in Armenia, the Caucasus, and the Taurus.

1. A LIVING AMORITE. (_See pp. 12, 318._)

2. SURVIVING HITTITE TYPE.

From a sketch by Mr. Horst Schliephack. (_See p. 16, note 2, and cf. p. 48._)]

We do not press the argument of these suggestions, but only regret the paucity of evidence available. For the present we must be content that we have been able to find some evidence as to the antiquity of the Hittite settlement. We cannot suppose that the mounds of Sakje-Geuzi stand alone: indeed a myriad others, that remain unexamined,[729] are evidence to the contrary, and considerable inference may be made with these as basis from the disposition of the Hittite tribes as revealed by the first light of history. One powerful branch must have early seized the position of Carchemish, while others settled in the plains that lie westward of the Euphrates. Others again found their homes in the valleys of the Kara Su and the Orontes, while some branches passed the Lebanon and mingled with the aboriginal people of southern Syria, where they were gradually submerged. If we are right in our argument, the habitable valleys of the Taurus and anti-Taurus regions must have been earlier peopled; and to judge from the relationship we have indicated, the western extension of these tribes in Asia Minor must have been considerable even as early as neolithic times. Whether the Hatti rulers themselves were part of a later immigration is still open to consideration; upon that point we await further evidence. The Hittites would seem to have brought with them (sooner or later) a new cycle of deities, with Babylonian prototypes, including their national Sandes or Sandan, lord of heaven, a god of the skies with lightning in his hand, in one of his various forms; and they seem to have absorbed into their pantheon a number of acceptable nature-cults, like the worship of mountains and streams and of the mother-goddess of earth, already practised by an earlier population whom they overlaid. The sun-god they seem to have received from contact with the Semite, and to have identified him with their own chief god. With regard to other aspects of their primitive culture, we can argue from the one site of Sakje-Geuzi alone, and from the reflected witness of later times. There is only one general assumption, therefore, that we make, that once settled in a metal-producing country, in contact with the rich mines of the Caucasus,[730] and the copper sources in Cyprus and the Taurus, their civilisation would share to the full in the stimulus of the copper and bronze ages as these arose. It is at the latter stage that they emerge into the full light of history[731] in the fourteenth century B.C.

THE WESTWARD DRIFT: NOMADS PASSING INTO ASIA MINOR THROUGH THE CILICIAN GATES.]

The earliest allusions to the Hittites, however, in oriental records take us back to the period of the great movements in western Asia some five or six centuries before. These references are naturally scanty, but they occur in the records of three different peoples, and are in a sense parallel to one another, so that the main facts bear the stamp of historical accuracy. From the Babylonian archives it appears that about 1800 B.C., or before, the Hittites were chiefly responsible for the overthrow of the first dynasty that ruled at Babylon;[732] while of even earlier date in the same dynasty are references to the king of the Hittites and his doings, contained in the great Babylonian work on astrology,[733] and there is an allusion of possibly much older date.[734] The mention of the Hittites at the beginning of the second millennium is almost synchronous with the earliest dated reference from Egyptian sources, in an inscription of the twelfth dynasty,[735] from which it would appear that settlements of the Hittites had been established in southern Syria, and that these were among the objectives of a military expedition. The historical setting of this record is apparent, and it is confirmed and amplified by the references in Hebrew history, which claim our consideration no less than the inscriptions carved by loyal subjects of the Pharaoh. These passages show us that in local tradition of the time of the Patriarchs the Hittite settlements were no matter for special comment.[736] On the other hand, their name was practically synonymous with that of Canaanites,[737] and, like the Amorites, they were long looked upon as one of the settled peoples of the land.[738] For some centuries, however, we are without dated records, nor is there any direct evidence as to the history and doings of the Hittites until the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty. One thing, however, is clear, that the ‘Hyksos’ peoples who overran Egypt in the meanwhile were deeply imbued with the elements of a culture which, if not purely Hittite nor directly traceable to them at this date, was still largely shared by the Hittites in historic times.[739] The people that had overthrown the dynasty of Babylon was clearly an established power already organised.

Though the earliest kings[740] and dynasties of the Hittites remain unknown, the nature of the Hittite organisation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. is now made clear by the archives recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui. These cover the reigns of six generations of the Hatti dynasty of kings, making allusion in all to eight of their sovereigns. They include treaties with internal states in Syria and elsewhere, with Mitanni, with the Amorites, and with Egypt, most of them prefaced by historical notes of events leading up to the conclusion of the treaty in question. There is also correspondence of a diplomatic character with the courts of Thebes, of Babylonia and of Mitanni, and other documents of varied sorts. These are written in cuneiform, and the language employed in foreign affairs is the Assyro-Babylonian: only in some internal matters the Hittite language is used. Though the documents have not yet disclosed the full nature of their contents, the archives as a whole[741] have already thrown as much light upon the history of the Hittites at this period as did the Tell el Amarna tablets, with which they are in part contemporary, on the foreign affairs of Egypt during the eighteenth dynasty.

The story opens with a bid for empire under the Hatti leadership in the person of Subbi-luliuma.[742] This ruler (known in Egyptian records as Sapalulu) had inherited only the kingship of his city-state of Kû-sar [or Sû-sar], which was possibly at Boghaz-Keui itself, from his father, Hattusil I.; but so well were his plans laid, and so accomplished his military leadership, that before his death he had won for himself the title of Great King.[743] We cannot follow the story of his doings in Asia Minor, for unfortunately the names of the places mentioned in Hittite in this and the succeeding reign cannot yet be identified; but it will be clear from what follows that his western frontiers, if not already peopled by Hittite tribes and subject to his authority, must have claimed his first attention. In other directions his policy and movements are revealed more clearly. Among his own peoples he seems to have arranged a series of alliances; other lands which he overran he parcelled out among his followers, while to some non-Hittite tribes he granted terms of vassalage.

Though we have no clear allusion to the kingdoms in the Taurus regions at this time, we may infer that the two great Hittite states of Arzawa[744] and Khali-rabbat,[745] which lay on either side of his pathway, were already allied with him in one or other of these ways, before he descended to the north of Syria, and ventured to enter the political arena of western Asia, where the older powers were stationed to resist his oncoming. The whole of Syria as far northward as Aleppo had indeed for something like a century been within the sphere of influence of the Pharaohs. It is claimed for the Egyptian monarch Thothmes I. that before the close of the sixteenth century B.C. he had set up the boundary of his empire somewhere near Carchemish on the Euphrates, in the ‘land of Naharain.’ Three of his successors by occasional expeditions, beginning with that of Thothmes III. about 1469 B.C.,[746] had sought to retain this boundary, and had come into conflict with the Hittite tribes already settled in these regions. These seem to have submitted like other northern states, nominally at any rate, to the Egyptian supremacy, and to have regularly sent their tribute to the Pharaoh. But though Amenhetep III. inherited the full power and dominion of his predecessors, he seems to have found it necessary to send an expedition at the beginning of his reign to maintain his suzerainty.

These frontier states indeed occupied at this time a position of considerable difficulty, where all the diplomacy of their chieftains was required to maintain the security of their inheritance. The reins held by the Pharaoh on his distant throne at Thebes may, it is true, have been only lightly felt: an occasional present or diplomatic letter to the court would generally secure respite from that direction; but their anxieties were not thereby ended, for in the East a nearer power claimed their allegiance also, before the arrival of the Hatti leader added to their perplexities. This power was the kingdom of Mitanni, which was firmly established in northern Mesopotamia, from the Euphrates to the Tigris. Tushratta, who now occupied the throne, represented the fourth generation of his illustrious house,[747] the authority of which had been strengthened through the foresight of his predecessors by intermarriage with the royal family of Thebes. His father’s sister had been wife of Thothmes IV., and his own sister was married to the ruling Pharaoh. He clearly realised that the continued support of Egypt would be necessary to him if he was to save his kingdom from being crushed by the increasing pressure of Assyria on the one hand and of the Hittite on the other; so that with some alacrity on his part[748] his daughter was sent to Egypt to become the wife of the heir-apparent. Propped up in this manner, the Mitannians had not only established a formidable barrier at the Euphrates against Hittite expansion eastward, but had even extended their own influence westward of that landmark, so much so that some of the princes of northern Syria first encountered by the Hittites hardly knew to whom they owed their allegiance, and were conquered as vassals of Mitanni while professing in their letters to be loyal subjects of the Pharaoh.[749]

TABLE SHOWING CONTEMPORARY RULERS AND ROYAL ALLIANCES

_Compiled from the Hittite Archives and the Tell el-Amarna Letters._

HITTITE

[Hatti.]

B.C. Hattusil I.
1400 |
|
SUBBI-LULIUMA.
|
1350 +------------+----------+
| |
Arandas. MURSIL.
|
+---------------+-----------------+-----+----------+
| | | |
1300 Khalpu- MUTALLU. HATTUSIL II. A daughter.³
Sulubi(s). | _m._ Putukhipa. [_Ilani-irina._]
Urkhi-tessub. |
+------------------+------+------------+
| | |
1250 DUDKHALIA. Nerigga-Shems.² A daughter.³
_m._ Tawâssi (?) [_Gashuliawi._]
|
+------------------+-------------------+
| | |
1200 ARNUANTA. Eldest daughter (?) A daughter.
_m._ Munidan. [Maat-neferu-Ra.]⁷ [Name lost.]

AMORITE

[E. of Lebanon]

MITANNI

[N. Mesopotamia]

EGYPT

[Thebes.]

Amenhetep II.
B.C. { B.C.
1400 ⁴THOTHMES IV. { 1420

{ 1411
{
⁵AMENHETEP III. {
{
{ 1375

1350 ⁶AMENHETEP IV. { 1350
[_Akhenaten._] {

Horemheb.

Rameses I.
{ 1313
1300 SETY I. {
{ 1292
1250 ⁷RAMESES II. {
{ 1225
{
MERENPTAH. { 1215

1200 Five Rulers.

Rameses III. 1198-1167

NOTE.—The numerals indicate the marriages.

With these two allied powers arrayed against him, Subbi-luliuma must have had confidence in the unity and valour of his forces when he crossed the Taurus to throw down the challenge. We cannot tell whether he employed any new method or weapon of war that encouraged him in his aspirations. As seen by us now, in unravelling the tangled record of his rapid movements and effective victories,[750] his successes appear to be attributable to the hardihood and mobility of his troops and to his own able generalship. As to his forces, we may assume from the absence of contrary evidence, that the whole region behind him, northwards and westwards from Marash, as well as the states round Carchemish and in the valley of the Kara Su, already acknowledged his supremacy, and united with him in this enterprise.

His first operations were thus directed against Nukhasse, a region which we suppose to have extended northwards of Aleppo as far as Killiz, including some of the ancient cities of the plain. He took all the lands of the several states[751] that were included in this district. The king, Sarrupsi, fled, but his relatives were made prisoners, and a servant of the dethroned king was set up in his stead, doubtless as a vassal. The conqueror was turning his attention to the district of Abîna, being disposed to leave Kinza unmolested, when the king of the latter district, Sutatarra, and his son Aitakama, with their war chariots, bore down upon him and gave battle. Though he had been prepared to respect these adversaries, Subbi-luliuma was not slow to respond to and punish this provocation: the king and his son, together with many of the chiefs, were taken prisoners and sent in triumph to the capital. The fate of Sutatarra is unknown, but Aitakama reappeared later, reinstated in his kingdom, and a faithful ally of the Hittite, who entrusted him with the command of the Syrian armies.[752] The land of Kinza is unplaced, but it seems to have lain westward, possibly on the lower Orontes, corresponding with the district of Hamath or the kingdom of the Hattina in later times. It was probably peopled with a Hittite tribe, to judge from the nature of these chieftains’ names and the position subsequently accorded to Aitakama. Realising in these incidents the constant influence of Mitanni, and attributing them to the hostile attitude of Tushratta, Subbi-luliuma now deemed it desirable to establish his prestige, and so turned eastward, ready, if necessary, to join issue with Tushratta. In a single year he added to his territory the whole region of the plains lying between the mountains and the Euphrates.[753] In this campaign he seems to have overrun the Aramæan district of Am (or Amma), and with the aid of his allies to have captured several cities.[754] But the real objective of the Hittite leader was the destruction of the Mitannian supremacy and power. Therefore crossing the Euphrates[755] he ‘went forth against the might of the king Tushratta,’ and marched against the lands of Isuwa, which are supposed to have bordered on the Tigris, bringing its people into subjection, as it would appear his father had done in some previous campaign hitherto unrecorded.[756] This record is difficult to understand, but we are led to infer that Tushratta did not actually give battle to him on this expedition, and even when the conqueror made his way northwards into the mountainous region of Alshe, the Mitannian king still hesitated to join issue with him.[757] The newly acquired territory was handed over to a confederate, Antaraki, ‘as a present.’

Previous Next

Comments

The land of the HittitesChapter XV: Part III: The Mounds and Palace-Portico at Sakje-Geuzi (1)

0%36 min left in chapter