Chapter XVIII: Part III: The Mounds and Palace-Portico at Sakje-Geuzi (4)

[131] (_a_) A Hittite invasion preceded the overthrow of the First Babylonian Dynasty. The date in the eighteenth century B.C. assigned by King (_Chronicles_, etc., i. p. 137) is accepted by Meyer, but thought by Sayce and others to be too late. (_b_) The Egyptian annals, diplomatic letters, mural decorations, etc., make frequent mention of the Kheta from the 33rd year of Thothmes III. (about B.C. 1471) until the time of Rameses III., early in the twelfth century B.C. There is an early appearance of the group of signs reading ‘Kheta’ on a stela of the Twelfth Dynasty (Louvre, CI.); some philologists are disposed to regard the group in this instance as forming part of a longer word—a unique instance which implies at any rate familiarity with the word Kheta in the Twelfth Dynasty. It is more probable, Mr. Griffith tells us, that the group is really to be translated ‘Kheta’ though written (under circumstances that can be explained philologically) with a false determinative. The Babylonian evidence now prepares us for this early appearance of the name. (_c_) In the Assyrian records the earliest reference to the Hatti seems to be in the reign of Shalmaneser I., about 1320 B.C., but the name is not found recurring until the time of Tiglath Pileser I., about 1120 B.C.: Sargon (B.C. 721-704) seems finally to have subjected and disunited their principalities in N. Syria.

[132] Winckler, _Report_, _cit._, especially pp. 27 and ff.

[133] See chap. v., Part 3, pp. 299, 314.

[134] See chap. v., Part 2, pp. 271-273.

[135] See above, pp. 55, 56; cf. also Xenophon, _Anabasis_, v. 4-30.

[136] The inscriptions still largely hold their secrets. The cause would seem to be chiefly the imperfections in our copies, for Professor Sayce’s system (described in the _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, 1904, _et seqq._) has consistently developed geographical and local names corroborated by the circumstances of discovery. The language seems to be unlike any that is known, and to vary in localities.

[137] The inscribed round-topped stone on its pedestal, on a rise of ground near Bogche, overlooking the Halys. See Pl. XLVIII.

[138] Like the massive altar on the pass of Kuru-Bel. See p. 147.

[139] _E.g._ the lions found near Derendeh; the obelisk of Izgîn, and the columnar figure from Palanga. See pp. 141, 145.

[140] _E.g._ the monuments of Jerablus, the site of CARCHEMISH; and of Marash, the ancient MARGHASI; also those found at Emir-Ghazi near ARDISTAMA; or at Bor, Nigdeh, and Andaval near TYANA.

[141] Like the lions of Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Eyuk, etc.

[142] _E.g._ at Kurts-oghlu and Marash. See pp. 98, 113.

[143] _E.g._ from Kara-burshlu, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Malatia.

[144] _E.g._ from Jerablus, Marash, etc. See the readings of Professor Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1904, Nov. _et seqq._

[145] These are marked upon the map, p. 390. A more detailed place-index to these monuments, with a bibliography, is given in Appendix B.

[146] Sculptures decorate the three last-named palaces.

[147] May be inferred from analogy of sculptured blocks and locality.

[148] A careful scrutiny might reveal some signs.

[149] Eagle monuments, presumably Hittite.

[150] Lion monuments, head only in the round.

[151] Statuettes in the round; at Marash, Lion monuments also.

[152] Altar.

[153] Built into the gate façade.

[154] Seemingly biographical or memorial.

[155] Objects easily portable.

[156] Columnar statue.

[157] _Provenance_ doubtful.

[158] Cf. below, ch. v. p. 313.

[159] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXXIX.-XLV.

[160] _E.g._ from Bor, _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. p. 88.

[161] _E.g._ from Aintab, _op. cit._, vol. xvii. p. 26.

[162] See below, p. 160, Pl. XL. (ii).

[163] Perrot in _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 83.

[164] See later, p. 321.

[165] To face p. 390.

[166] Khalabu in _Annals of Thothmes III._, 33rd year; Khalman in the Assyrian records; Khalpa in Hittite, and Haleb in Arabic.

[167] Except a small archaic bronze figure procured from Homs (Ménant: _Revue Arch._, 1895, p. 31); another bronze figure and a cylinder seal of ironstone purchased at Latakia upon the coast. (Longpérier _Musée Napol._, Pls. XXI.-XXII.; and _American Jour. Arch._, 1898, p. 163, and 1899, p. 18.) Addendum: an inscription of two lines in relief has recently been found at Restan by the Rev. Father Ronzevalli of Beyrout.

[168] See, for instance, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 18; Breasted, _The Battle of Kadesh_ (Chicago, 1903), pp. 13, _et ff._

[169] See pp. 128, 130; and the list of monuments in Appendix B.

[170] See Pl. XL. (i).

[171] Ramsay (_Hist. Geog._, p. 35; also _Recueil_, xv., p. 28) believes in a main eastern route passing through Malatia, and connecting with the Royal Road. The place was, of course, the site of a Roman frontier fortress.

[172] _Liverpool Annals of Arch._, i. p. 9.

[173] _Ibid._, p. 11, and Pl. XIV., fig. 1. See below, Pl. XL. (ii).

[174] See above, p. 38, and Ramsay, _Historical Geography of Asia Minor_, pp. 30, 31.

[175] Pausanias, I. iv. 5.

[176] _Journal Hellenic Studies_, xix., Part I., 1899, p. 50.

[177] Or perhaps discrediting it. Cf. _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._, p. 45, at the top.

[178] Our relatively large material for this region is mostly due to the consistent researches of Professor Sir William Ramsay and his school.

[179] Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, p. 174, footnote.

[180] See above, p. 56, and Pl. XXV.

[181] This uncertainty, however, forbids us to use their _provenance_ as evidence, though in themselves objects with special features of interest.

[182] Herodotus, i. 76, and i. 72; see also above, pp. 21, 22.

[183] Ramsay, _Historical Geography of Asia Minor_ (London, 1890), p. 32.

[184] Professor Ramsay points out the neglected irrigation works, _Luke the Physician_, p. 129.

[185] Thought by Miss Gertrude Bell to have been artificially separated from the ridge, of which it seems like a projecting headland. See _The Desert and the Sown_ (London, 1905), p. 223. The same work may be consulted for modern interests of this remarkable Arab town. So also Tyke, _Dar el Islam_ (London, 1907).

[186] See p. 85, note 2 (addendum); and Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909), p. 259.

[187] Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_, (London 1822), p. 149.

[188] For the progress and vicissitudes of the attempts to obtain a record of the Hamath stones, consult Wright, _The Empire of the Hittites_; Burton, _Unexplored Syria_, and the Quarterly Statements of the Palestine Exploration Fund (1871-2-3); and for a connected account, Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1905); pp. 60-64.

[189] One in particular, which was long, had virtues for the rheumatic, who stretched themselves upon it. The Aleppo stone was regarded as effective for ophthalmia; and some superstition clings to nearly all such remains when they have long been known to village communities. In Egypt any monuments of stone, even a stela newly found but of guaranteed antiquity, is particularly sought out by barren women, who seem to have a definite formula and ritual to observe—one of these acts is to cross and recross the stone, if possible, seven times each way without turning the eyes to right or left.

[190] _C.I.H._ (_Mitteilungen_, etc., 1900, 5), Pls. III. B; IV. A, B; V., VI., and text (1900, 4), pp. 6-8. Also Wright, _op. cit._, Pls. I.-IV., pp. 139-141.

[191] Being a characteristic specimen and of historical interest we reproduce this monument in Pl. XXXVII.

[192] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, March.

[193] This feature distinguishes this sign from the determinative of a district, represented as a conical hill.

[194] See for example the groups of symbols accompanying the divine figures at Boghaz-Keui, Pls. LXV., LXII.

[195] A reading of No. 1 was tentatively put forward by Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ (1903), p. 354; but this must be revised in the light of the new reading of No. 2, and the note on one of the signs of No. 1, in _Proc. S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 218.

[196] Cf. the Aintab stone below, p. 107, and Pl. XLI. Also the corner-stones _in situ_ at Eyuk, Pls. LXXII., LXXIII.

[197] These monuments are now to be seen at Constantinople, in the Ottoman Museum. (Nos. 831, 832, etc.)

[198] _C.I.H._, Pl. III. A, Text, p. 4 (_Mitteilungen_, etc., 1900, 4, 5), and _Proc. S.B.A._, v. (1883), p. 146.

[199] By the Liverpool Expedition of 1907. See _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. p. 8, Pl. IX., 3; and cf. _Proc. S.B.A._, June 1908. For three uninscribed but presumably Hittite sculptures from Aleppo, see _Liv. Annals_, ii. p. 184, and Pl. XLII.

[200] See Pl. XXXVIII., to face.

[201] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. VII. and p. 8.

[202] _Vorderasiatische Abteilung_, No. 3009.

[203] _Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1900, pt. 4, p. 8. There is another inscribed object coming from this region now in the museum at Alexandretta, but it seems to have come originally from Marash. It is a small stone inscribed on both sides, of which one is flat and the other convex. The four rows of hieroglyphs in relief are preserved on either side, while portions of a fifth are visible, for a part of the object is broken away. Its width is 9½ inches, and the height of what is preserved 14 inches (_ibid., loc. cit._).

[204] _C.I.H._ (1900, 5), Pl. XXVI. 1, 2, and do. (1900, 4), p. 20.

[205] The illustration of the Sinjerli scene, Pl. LXXV., explains the subject in general: only at Sakje-Geuzi one of the figures is standing, in the other cases both are seated.

[206] Compare in shape and subject the ‘gravestone of an Aramaic Queen,’ eighth century B.C., Berlin Museum (_Vorderasiatische Abteilung_, No. 2995). The shape corresponds also with that of the monument from Samsat (below, p. 130); and of the stela of Nabonidus from Mujelibeh now at Constantinople, published by Scheil, _Recueil de Travaux_, xviii. 1, 2 (Paris, 1896).

[207] Such as are to be seen at Sakje-Geuzi and in one instance at Marash.

[208] Unfortunately there seem to have been no soundings made for a much-wanted Hittite necropolis. On the possible evolution of the motive in general, see below, p. 357.

[209] On this point see p. 357, and cf. Jensen, _Hittiter und Armenier_ (Strassburg, 1898), p. 166; and Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix., pp. 42, 43.

[210] _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.

[211] Publ. in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. XLV., and pp. 101-2. There is a cast at the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.

[212] Cf. the monuments of this class from Marash, described below, and the stela of Nerab, a Phœnician monument of the ninth century B.C. (of which a good photograph is published by Ball, _Light from the East_, to face p. 236). These sculptures should be compared with representations of shrines, or offerings at the altar, like the reliefs at Fraktin, Pl. XLVII. (_Recueil de Travaux_, xiv., Pl. VI., and Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_, Pl. XXIII.); also a scene at Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (i).

[213] Cf. the similar sculpture from Marash, p. 111, and _C.I.H._ (1900, 5), Pl. XXII., and from Malatia, below, p. 135.

[214] _Vorderasiat. Mus._, No. 971.

[215] Pl. XXXIX.; cf. also Humann and Puchstein, in _Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord Syrien_ (Berlin, 1890): _Atlas_, Pl. XLVI. Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64, and fig. 279.

[216] Cf. the similar composition of another sculpture from the same site. _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), Pl. XV., fig. 2.

[217] Cf. the lion of Marash, Pl. XLII., and the newly found lion of Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.

[218] Cf. _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), Pls. XXXIV. 2, XXXV. 2.

[219] Attributed by Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890), to the age of Sargon.

[220] Pl. XL. (i). From _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), figs. 2, 3, Pl. XIV.

[221] Cf. _inter alia_ Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_, Pl. XXIV.; also (Bezzenberger und) Peiser, _Die bronze Figur von Schernen_ (_Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges. Prussia_, Heft 22), where the distribution of this class of bronze figure is thoroughly examined. Among the sites of Asia Minor there appear Yuzgat, Angora, Amasîa, Karashehr, Iconium, and ten unnamed places of Cappadocia. On the Syrian side, Marash and Homs and the Lebanon region are noticeable. The distribution thus includes many Hittite sites, but not exclusively.

[222] Pl. XLI.; cf. _Liv. Annals Arch._, i. (1908), Pls. X., XI., p. 8, and fig. p. 7. Several important small objects have been secured at Aintab.

[223] Cf. the monument recently discovered at Marash, described below, pp. 114 ff.

[224] As at Sakje-Geuzi. See Pl. LXXVIII.

[225] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 268.

[226] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pls. XLVII.-XLIX.

[227] Other sculptured fragments are described on pp. 118-122.

[228] Pl. XLII. from a photo of the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople, by courtesy of H. E. Hamdy Bey.

[229] Below, Pls. XXXVIII., LXXIX.

[230] The original is now at Constantinople Museum, No. 840; a cast may be seen in the British Museum.

[231] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ 1905, Nov., p. 225.

[232] _E.g._ at Comana of Pontus, Strabo, XII. iii. 32; _ibid._, and of Cappadocia, where the priest was second in rank, _ibid._, XII. ii. 3; also at Pessinus, _ibid._, XII. vi. 3.

[233] Cf. the sculpture No. 72 at Iasily Kaya, Pl. LXX., and p. 228; also p. 360.

[234] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900, pt. 5), Pl. XXII., and _ibid._, 4, p. 18.

[235] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64.

[236] Cf. the similar feature in a sculpture from Carchemish, p. 127.

[237] Cf. the photograph Pl. V. (ii) of women at Kartal, which is in the Kurt Dagh to the south of Marash. A suggestive general resemblance is to be found on certain Etruscan monuments.

[238] Cf. Pls. LXXV., LXXVII.

[239] C.I.H. (1900-5), Pl. XXIII, A-B. Original in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 973.

[240] Hogarth, _Recueil_, etc., XV. p. 32, and Pl. II., fig. B.

[241] Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 972.

[242] _C.I.H._ (1900-4), p. 20; _Ibid._ (1900-5), Pl. XXV.

[243] It is now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York; (Cesnola Coll., No. 1904), and there are impressions in the Berlin Museum.

[244] _C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 12-15, and Pl. LII.

[245] _Op. cit._, p. 13. The original is at the Constantinople Museum, No. 1625.

[246] After inspection of the object we believe this to be the real explanation. We are confirmed also in our impression that the inscription and carving are contemporary with the original monument.—March 1910.

[247] See, for example, fig. No. 72 in the small gallery at Iasily Kaya, below, Pl. LXX.; also pp. 110, 360. For the tassel cf. pp. 306, 308, and Pl. LXXXI. (ii).

[248] _C.I.H._ (1900-4), p. 19; and (1900-5), Pl. XXIV.

[249] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pl. XLVII., No. 2; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 281. Metrop. Mus. of Art, New York, No. 1906.

[250] Thought by Perrot to be a high stool.

[251] Cf. the lyre held by an Asiatic immigrant into Egypt about 2000 B.C. Newberry, _Beni Hasan_ (London, 1893), Pl. XXXI.

[252] As a cult object this bird provides a wide and interesting range of study. Cf. for example, an Archaic Greek statue of the sixth century B.C., from Asia Minor, in the Berlin Museum (Stehende Frau), No. 1597.

[253] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pl. XLVII., fig. 4. There is a cast in the Berlin Museum, No. 61.

[254] _E.g._ at Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.; and at Malatia, Pl. XLIV. Cf. also the scene of the storming of Dapur in the Ramesseum at Thebes.

[255] A cast is in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 63, V.A.G.

[256] Humann, etc., _op. cit._, XLVII. 5; Perrot, etc., _op. cit._, fig. 282. The original is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, No. 1905; and there is a cast in the Berlin Museum.

[257] Cf. pp. 265, 282.

[258] Humann and Puchstein, _op. cit._, Pl. XLVII. 1. Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, 62.

[259] Cf. similar sculptures of Malatia, p. 133; Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. XXXIX.

[260] Original Berlin Vorderas. Mus., No. 974; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 77, fig. 290.

[261] See below, p. 380.

[262] Cf. below, p. 371, and Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 145 ff.

[263] See Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 281, for summary of a report printed in the _Graphic_. Consult also Drummond, _Travels ... to the Banks of the Euphrates_ (1754), p. 209; and Maundrell (Hy.), _A Journey ... to the Banks of the Euphrates_ (Oxford), 1749.

[264] See p. 263; and cf. Pl. LXV. (Iasily Kaya), Pl. LXXIX. (Sakje-Geuzi), and Pl. XLII. (Marash). For a discussion of the motive in general, see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, _cit._, p. 270, note 1.

[265] As represented by Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 62, fig. 276. For the photo from which we write we are indebted to the courtesy of the Mission at Cæsarea. This object is illustrated by an ill-printed photograph in Sayce’s _The Hittites_, to face p. 58, where it is described by oversight as from Marash.

[266] British Museum, _Guide to Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities_, p. 27, No. 3; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 277; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XII. A photograph in Ball, _Light from the East_, p. 142.

[267] Cf. also the sculpture found at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXX.; and _Liv. Annals Arch._, 1908 (4), Pl. XLI., No. 2, where the deity has four wings.

[268] Cf. the sculptures of Bor, Pl. LVI.; and Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.

[269] _C.I.H._, 1900, Pl. X.; _British Museum Guide_, _cit._, p. 27, No. 8. Rendering by Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 201, beginning ‘the dirk-bearer of Carchemish.’ The repetition of the geographical word Kar-ka-me-is (Assyrian Gargamis) is a remarkable corroboration of Professor Sayce’s system of translation.

[270] Cf. for this feature the Bor sculpture, Pl. LVI.

[271] On the importance of this detail as a criterion, see p. 379.

[272] Boscawen in the _Graphic_, Dec. 11, 1880; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii., Additions, fig. 390; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XV. 13, and Text, p. 12.

[273] Cf. _Baruch_, vi. 43. ‘The women having cords around their body sit; and one says ... why was I not chosen and my cord broken?’

[274] _Brit. Mus. Guide_, p. 27, No. 6; _C.I.H._ (1902), Pl. XIV., No. 7.

[275] _British Museum Guide_, p. 27, No. 1, where ‘portion of a building’ is the sum of information available; _C.I.H._, Pl. IX., and Text, p. 9; Ball, _Light from the East_, p. 143; Sayce in _S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 204.

[276] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XI., 2, and Text, p. 10; _British Museum Guide_, p. 27, No. 2; Sayce in _S.B.A._, 1905 (Nov.), p. 206.

[277] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, fig. 390. _Addendum_, 1910: our information about these sculptures is now supplemented by Mr. Hogarth’s account, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (Dec. 1909), ii. pp. 165-172, and Pls. XXXV., XXXVI. (i). See also _Kellekli_ in Appendix B.

[278] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, fig. 391.

[279] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 62, fig. 278.

[280] Since published, see App. B, and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, ii. pp. 177-183, and Pls. XXXVII.-XL.

[281] _Op. cit._, fig. 283. First published in _Gazette Arch._, 1883. Pl. XXII.

[282] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord Syrien_ (Berlin, 1890), _Atlas_, Pl. XLIX., No. 1-3. Also Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVII., and Text, p. 14.

[283] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, etc., p. 355, fig. 50. ‘Felsrelief bei Gerger.’

[284] _Recueil de Travaux_, xvii. p. 26.

[285] Constantinople Museum, No. 846. Hogarth, _loc. cit._, with Plate, fig. 3. Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_ (Philadelphia, 1897), fig. 159; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVI. A., and Text, p. 13.

[286] Discussed by Sayce, _S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 212. Hand copy, Hogarth, _loc. cit._, p. 25.

[287] Cf. the sculptures, Pls. XLII. and LXXIX.

[288] Constantinople Museum, No. 847. _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVI. B. Hogarth, _Recueil_, xvii. p. 25.

[289] See pp. 99, 103, 111.

[290] Cf. Pl. LXXV. (i), and p. 111.

[291] Cf. the epilogue to the treaty between Rameses II. and Hattusil, p. 349.

[292] Cf. Pl. LXXII. On this question in general see below, p. 360.

[293] In the Louvre Museum, Paris. Publ. Heuzy, _Les Origines Orientales de l’Art_, Pt. i. (Paris, 1892), Pl. X. Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906), Pl. XLVII., and p. 7.

[294] First published and discussed by Sayce, _P.S.B.A._ xxvi. (1904, Jan.), p. 13, with drawing. Prof. Sayce’s rendering is: ‘of this gateway the carver-out is Lie ... s, the lord of ... the ... ian,’ but Messerschmidt disputes the reading ‘gateway,’ _loc. cit._

[295] Cf. Pl. LXXII., and pp. 256, 265.

[296] Pl. LXXIX., and p. 301.

[297] See Pl. XLIX. from _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908), Pls. IV., V. More recently Mr. Hogarth (_ibid._, 1909, Pl. XLI.) has secured a new set of photographs which show the details much clearer.

[298] Cf. the head-dress of the god at Boghaz-Keui, Pls. LXV., LXXI.

[299] He corresponds, Professor Sayce points out, with the Syrian Hadad, who similarly stands on the back of a bull which he guides with a cord. Cf. also the statement of Lucian (_De Dea Syria_), that the chief god of Hierapolis, which replaced Carchemish, was supported on a bull. On the position of the god in the Hittite Pantheon, see p. 359.

[300] Cf. sculpture of Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV., also p. 119.

[301] For this object cf. a sculpture of Sinjerli, Pl. LXXVII. (ii); and for a formal representation, the leading god at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.

[302] Pl. LXXII., p. 256.

[303] Cf. the winged deity of Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya), No. 5 L., p. 216.

[304] For the types of vases cf. the Syrian tribute in Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 263; and especially the Hittite tribute, _temp._ Akhenaten, published by Davies, _El Amarna II._, Pl. XL., and p. 41; cf. also the oblation scenes of Eyuk (_k._, p. 268), and of Fraktin, Pl. XLVII.

[305] On the question of date, see p. 339.

[306] See pp. 277, 301.

[307] _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. p. 27, Pt. iv.

[308] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. Pl. III., Constantinople Museum, No. 1215 (630); Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XX., and revised copy, 1906, Pl. XX.

[309] Cf. _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. xii. Pl. IX.

[310] Hogarth, _loc. cit._, p. 31.

[311] Vorderasiat. Mus., Berlin, No. 2882, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i. (_Mitt. aus den Orient. Sammlungen_, 1893, Berlin, Heft xi.), Pl. VI.

[312] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 13. The base of the statue appears to be a survival of the columnar bases of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi (Pl. LXXXII.), in the design of which two sphinxes support the drum of the column upon their backs. In this case the design is modified, but retains striking features surviving from the older prototype. The sphinxes are replaced by lions, in the style of the corner-stone lions of Sinjerli (_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLVII.), and between their fore-parts there appears the figure of a man carved in relief. He is in a crouching attitude, dictated probably by the small space at the sculptor’s disposal; his hands are stretched out to the collars of lions on either side; his face is shown in full, with square-cut ridged beard, and a curl of hair prominent on either side of his head, attached clearly to a wig. His dress is a short fringed tunic and short-sleeved vest; a belt is round his waist, to which a dagger is attached. His legs are turned towards his left; upon his feet there seem to be bands or anklets, possibly to bind on his footgear. Though no shoe is visible, the toes are prominently upturned. It is a striking object. The rim of the drum is not decorated in any way, but on the top there is a large square-cut socket, corresponding to the tongue upon the bottom of the statue. (Orig. Consple. Mus., No. 1519.)

[313] By Sir Charles W. Wilson; Wright, _Empire_, etc., p. 57. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil_, etc., xiv. and Pl. IV. _C.I.H._, 1900; Pl. XVIII., and p. 15.

[314] Cf. Pls. LXV., LXXI.

[315] The name means ‘Lion-stone,’ and is familiar wherever such monuments are found.

[316] Ramsay and Hogarth, _loc. cit._ Pl. II., A.

[317] See below, p. 297, and _Mitt. a. d. Orient. Samm. Sendschirli_, iii. (Berlin, 1902), Pl. XLVI. Originals in the Berlin Vorderas. Mus., Nos. 2718, 3001.

[318] Cf. the lions of Marash and Sakje-Geuzi, Pls. XLII., LXXIX.

[319] Sterrett, _Epigraphical Journey_ (1884), p. 299.

[320] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil, etc._, xv. p. 30 and Pls. I.-II.

[321] G. de Jeraphanion, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1908 (Feb.), p. 42 and Pl. I. For the two photographs before us as we write we are indebted to the members of the American Mission at Cæsarea.

[322] Pp. 180, 181.

[323] P. 237.

[324] Pl. XLVI.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI. p. 26; _Ibid._ (1906), Pl. XXXI. A and p. 23. Constantinople Museum, No. 1217.

[325] Hans Rott, _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_ (Leipzig, 1908), p. 178, fig. 3; Jeraphanion, _Proc. S.B.A._, xxx. (1908) pp. 43, 44, and Pl. II.

[326] Murray’s _Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 273.

[327] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil, etc._, xiv. p. 81, and Pl. VI.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXX. and p. 25; Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_ (Paris, 1898), Pl. XXIII and p. 125.

[328] _Hist. Geog._, pp. 288, 312. The identification probably remains unshaken by the discovery at Tashji. Cf. Strabo, xii. 2-6. The word seems to involve the name TARK....

[329] Pl. XLVII.

[330] Cf. the god-figures of Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.

[331] This position is unique; cf. the priest-figures in Pls. LVIII., LXXII.

[332] Cf. the god-figures of Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.; Malatia, Pl. XLIV.

[333] Cf. the oblation scenes of Malatia, Pl. XLIV., p. 138, and of Eyuk, p. 268.

[334] Cf. Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (i); Sipylus, Pl. LIII.

[335] Cf. the female figure at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXVII.

[336] Cf. the tassel at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii); and Marash, p. 115; also the oblation-scene at Malatia, above, Pl. XLIV.

[337] Cf. the sculptures from Marash, p. 118, and Yarre, p. 165.

[338] Cf. p. 241.

[339] _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, vol. i., No. 1, p. 6, and Pls. VIII. and IX. (i.).

[340] See above, p. 24.

[341] Hans Rott, _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_ (Messerschmidt in the same), pp. 175-179 and figs. 1, 2.

[342] See above, p. 24.

[343] It is described by Anderson, _Jour. Hellenic Studies_, xxi. (1901), pp. 328-332 as six miles north-north-west of Tuz Keui, hence is probably the _Karapunar_ of Kiepert’s map, and to be distinguished from _Karapurna_, north-west of Arapison.

[344] Cf. the fortress and inscription of Kara Dagh, below, p. 178.

[345] Cf. _Jour. Hellenic Studies_ (1899), p. 55 ff.

[346] Discovered by Anderson, cf. _op. cit._ and Plate; also Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1905 (Nov.), p. 217; _C.I.H._ (1902), Pl. XLVI.

[347] See Pl. XLVIII. for our photo of the southern face. Cf. _C.I.H._ (1906), Pl. LI. and pp. 11, 12.

[348] Cf. p. 27, above.

[349] See Pl. XLIX. Cf. Robinson, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1908 (Jan.), p. 27 and fig. 1, 2; and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1, i. Pls. VI., VII. and p. 5.

[350] Cf. the constructive details of the Lower Palace at Boghaz-Keui, below, p. 208.

[351] Cf. Pl. LXV.

[352] See pp. 235, 236.

[353] From the treaty between Hattusil and Rameses II., see below, p. 348.

[354] Especially as some hieroglyphs are visible in M. Perrot’s photograph.

[355] Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient. Gesellschaft zu Berlin_, Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 57, 58, figs. 6, 7.

[356] Though found in hieroglyph at Emir Ghazi; and in the round at Kuru-Bel (above p. 147).

[357] See Pl. XL. (ii), and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1, i. p. 11, and Pl. XIV. (1).

[358] See pp. 37, 38.

[359] See pp. 21, 92.

[360] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 198, fig. 350.

[361] Crowfoot, _Jour. Hellenic Studies_, xix. pp. 45-48, fig. 5.

[362] Cf. the construction at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXVIII.

[363] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 202 fig. 352.

[364] See p. 205.

[365] See Pl. LXI. (i).

[366] See p. 178.

[367] See p. 154.

[368] See Pl. LXV.

[369] It is interesting to compare this head-dress with that of the Scythians (cf. the designs on the Electron Vase from Kul-Oba, Reinach, etc., _Antiquities of Southern Russia_).

[370] See p. 215, note.

[371] See Pl. LXV.

[372] Strabo, XII. v. 3; for the route cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 202; Anderson, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. p. 95; Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 31; and _Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc._, xv. (1883), p. 109.

[373] Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. Pt. 1 (1899), pp. 40-45, and fig. 4.

[374] See pp. 99, 100, and Pl. LXXV. (i).

[375] P. 111.

[376] P. 226.

[377] P. 284 and Pl. LXXV. (i).

[378] Ramsay, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, iii (1883) pp. 6-11 and fig. 2. For the Phrygian monuments in brief see Murray’s _Handbook_, p. 142, etc.

[379] Cf. the sculpture from Marash, p. 119, and at Fraktin, p. 151.

[380] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVI. B, and text, p. 32.

[381] _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 206 and fig. 353.

[382] _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._, xiv. (1889), p. 181; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVI. A, and text, p. 32; Murray’s _Handbook_, p. 135.

[383] Cf. the original appearance of the inscription from Ekrek, Pl. XLVI.

[384] For a description of the mountain, and a comparative study of the religion of the famous monument, see a paper by Ramsay, ‘Sipylus and Cybele,’ in _Jour. Hell. Stud._, iii. pp. 33-68. Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 234 and ff., and fig. 365; Weber, _Le Sipylus et ses monuments_ (Paris, 1880); _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXXVII., XXXVIII., and text, p. 33.

[385] See Pl. LIII., to face.

[386] Pausanias, III. xxii. 4, quoted below.

[387] Dennis, _Proc. S.B.A._, iii. p. 49; Sayce, _ib._, vol. vii. Pl. V.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVIII.

[388] Pl. LXXIII. (i).

[389] Pl. XLVII.

[390] Below, p. 184.

[391] _Iliad_, xxiv. 615.

[392] _Metamorphoses_, vi. 310.

[393] Pausanias, trans. Frazer, I. xxi. 3.

[394] Pausanias, trans. Frazer, III. xxii. 4.

[395] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 236, where this passage is translated: ‘A statue of the Mother of the Gods, the oldest goddess of all.’ The Greek runs: μήτρος θεῶν ἀρχαιότατον ἁπάντων ἄγαλμα. There can be no doubt, however, as to the identity of the monument.

[396] Pausanias, VIII. xxxviii. 10.

[397] _J.H.S._ (_loc. cit._), iii. p. 41, etc., p. 54. Cf. also Rawlinson, _Ancient Monarchies_, i. p. 494.

[398] On the place of this cult in the Hittite religion, see pp. 354 ff.

[399] See Pl. LIV., taken from Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1903), p. 68, and republished by courtesy of the author and the S.P.C.K.

[400] Texier, _Description_, vol. ii. Pl. CXXXII.; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 229, fig. 362.

[401] Alternatively a sword held aloft; the markings on the stone above and below the hand are not in line. Cf. the God 2 L. at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.

[402] Herodotus, ii. 106.

[403] _Trs. S.B.A._, vii. pp. 266, 439, and _Proc. S.B.A._, xxi. p. 222; also in _The Hittites_, pp. 67 ff. Cf. _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXIX. and p. 38.

[404] _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXV. and p. 31; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 213 (where the name is incorrectly given as Kosli-Tolu). The inscription was first published in _Revue Archéologique_, 3ᵉ série, 1885, v. p. 262. Revised copy of Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._, Jan. 1904, p. 24, with Plate.

[405] Xenophon, _Anabasis_, I. ii. 14.

[406] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 350, 351; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 214 and fig. 356; _Revue Archéologique_, 3ᵉ série, vol. V. pp. 257-264, Pls. XI., XII.

[407] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. pp. 222, 223; illustration in Ramsay, _The Cities of St. Paul_ (London, 1907), p. 134, fig. 7.

[408] This is an inference from the omission of the feet; actually the legs come to an end upon the head of the lower figure.

[409] Cf. pp. 235, 239.

[410] Cf. especially the lions and sphinx-base of Sakje-Geuzi, Pls. LXXIX., LXXXII.

[411] See p. 142 above, note 4.

[412] Cf. below, p. 311.

[413] Cf. chap. i. p. 41.

[414] _Luke the Physician_, pp. 163, 164.

[415] By Miss Gertrude Bell, 1907.

[416] Ramsay, _op. cit._, Pls. XIV., XV.

[417] _Proc. S.B.A._ (March 1909), xxxi. p. 86, Pl. VII. No. 5.

[418] Sayce, _op. cit._, Pl. VIII. No. 6.

[419] Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 160 and Pl. XVI.

[420] _Proc. S.B.A._ (March 1909), Pl. VII.

[421] Professor Sayce does not agree with Professor Ramsay’s interpretation, which we adopt in lack of an alternative explanation, and especially in view of the parallels afforded by the sculptures of Eyuk (Pl. LXXIII. (i)) and of Sakje-Geuzi (Pl. LXXXI.).

[422] Professor Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 160) reproduces the name as Tarkuattes; but the form given by Professor Sayce (_S.B.A._ _loc. cit._, p. 84) corresponds closely with the name of a Hittite leader, _Targannas_, recorded by Rameses II.

[423] The sign is ideographic, and the reading Sandes (or Sandon) is corroborated in various ways. The same sign seems to denote the storm-god (the Babylonian Hadad, and Tessup of the Mitanni) on the Hittite monument found at Babylon (Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1904, p. 306). Dr. Winckler, however, in discussing the archives of Boghaz-Keui, believes that Tessup was the name of the national Hittite deity. See also p. 358.

[424] Below, Pl. LXV. and p. 237. Notice also the altar on the Pass of Kuru-Bel, above, p. 147.

[425] Cf. pp. 129, 232. Among the Hatti, it appears from the archives of Boghaz-Keui, the King was called the Sun-God. Winckler, _Mitteil. der D. Orient-Ges._, No. 35, Dec. 1907.

[426] In this conclusion we differ somewhat from Professor Sayce, and agree partly with Professor Ramsay. Our argument, however, is only based on somewhat distant analogies. Cf. also Ramsay in the _Recueil_, etc., xiv. pp. 74 ff. on the priestly office.

[427] Cf. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. p. 26.

[428] By Mr. T. Callander, a member of Prof. Ramsay’s expedition of 1904.

[429] Ramsay, _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906), p. 178 and Pls. IX., X., XI.; _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 9 and Pls. XLIX., L. Professor Ramsay found still another altar in 1907.

[430] For an exhaustive comparative study of these inscriptions see a paper by Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ xxvii. (1905), pp. 21-31 and Pls. I., II., III., and revised note, _ibid._, vol. xxviii. (1906), May, p. 134.

[431] See below, Pls. LXVIII., LXXI.

[432] Above, Pl. XLVII.

[433] Below, Pl. LXXII.

[434] P. 107, Pl. XLI.

[435] Pp. 114 ff.

[436] P. 127.

[437] See above, p. 41.

[438] xii. 2-7.

[439] Above, p. 56.

[440] Constantinople Museum, No. 857. Hogarth, _Wandering Scholar_, p. 16.; Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil_, xiv. Pl. I.; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ xxviii. (1906), p. 94 ff. and Pl. III.; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906), Pl. XXXIII. and p. 3. For our photo, Pl. LVI., we are indebted to the authorities of the Imperial Ottoman Museum.

[441] See below, Pl. LVII.

[442] Above, p. 126 and p. 113.

[443] Pl. LVII.

[444] Letters from Professor Sayce dated Oct. 2, Oct. 9, 1909.

[445] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1905, p. 200; and 1906, p. 94, with Pl. III.

[446] The first five signs on the right of the first column.

[447] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI., c. and text, p. 27. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil_, xiv., Pl. I. p. 84.

[448] By a botanist, Herr Walter Siehe, _C.I.H._ (1906), Pl. LIII. p. 15.

[449] Professor Sayce suggests to us the following translation: ‘This stone was set up by the king, the Prince of Kas.’

[450] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXII. and p. 27; Hogarth and Ramsay, _Recueil_, xiv. Pl. II. and p. 85; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1905, p. 229. In the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is an enlarged photo of the original, which has been collated with the cast in the Ashmolean Museum.

[451] See frontispiece and p. 43.

[452] _Op cit._, p. 230, line 3 and line 5.

[453] We pronounce this word Ivreez; though locally it is commonly pronounced Ibreez, owing probably to racial difficulty with the letter _v_.

[454] See Chapter I. p. 41.

[455] There is a plentiful literature on the subject. See _inter alia_ for a picturesque description of the country, Davis, _Life in Asiatic Turkey_, pp. 245-248. For an account of the monument in relation to its environment, with much beauty of thought and written with charm of expression, see Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, pp. 171-179, and Pl. XXI.; also a note in _Pauline and other Studies_, pp. 172, 173. For a comparative study of the religious symbolism of the monument, Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (1907), pp. 93-97. For our photograph, Pl. LVII., taken from a plaster cast in the Asia Minor Museum at Berlin, we are indebted to Dr. Messerschmidt, who describes his visit to the spot, _C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 5, 6, and Pl. XXXIV. This photograph shows more of the delicate detail than any of the originals that have been published, in which the shadows are usually too violent.

[456] On the development of the route through the Cilician Gates, see above, p. 45.

[457] Cf. the treatment of the priest-king and other monuments at Sakje-Geuzi. Pl. LXXXI.

[458] Cf. Pl. LVI.

[459] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, May 1906, pp. 133, 134, and Plate.

[460] In the former instance in a compound or variant, _Ay-mi-ny-a-si-s_ (? son of Ayminyas); in the latter instance exactly as at Bor, _Ay-mi-ny-a-s_. The signs are the two last of the first row, and the three below them in the second row, of the inscription behind the king. Cf. the first five signs of the Bor inscription, Pl. LVI.

[461] See what is said on this subject in the previous chapter, p. 54.

[462] Cf. pp. 238, 240. On the origins and development of this conception of the god, see below, pp. 378, 379.

[463] We may pay special tribute to the pioneer work of the Berlin expedition at Sinjerli, to the explorations of Sir Wm. Ramsay and his school in Phrygia and Lycaonia, and to the organised labours of Dr. Winckler at Boghaz-Keui. We shall incorporate also some of the preliminary results of the excavations of the Liverpool Institute at Sakje-Geuzi.

[464] _Vide supra_, p. 32.

[465] _Vide supra_, p. 13.

[466] See _inter alia_, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 103 _et seq._ The name Ptara is suggested by Ramsay, who accepts the identification (_Luke the Physician_, p. 215, note).

[467] Herodotus, i. 76. The situation of Pteria is indicated vaguely as κατὰ Σινώπην which is read to mean ‘opposite’ or ‘over against Sinope’; the full context is: ἡ δὲ Πτερίη ἐστὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης τὸ ἰσχυρότατον κατὰ Σινώπην πόλιν ... μάλιστά κῃ κειμένη.

[468] We prefer the term ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ to ‘White-Syrian,’ or ‘Leuco-Syrian,’ as a more comprehensive equivalent in our days of the original name Suri.

[469] _Supra_, p. 158.

[470] Winckler, ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations at Boghaz-Keui, 1907’ (_Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, Berlin, 1907), p. 57-58. See also above, p. 160. See also an earlier article in _Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_, Dec. 1906.

[471] See above, p. 53.

[472] It had probably been destroyed, as the archives were not transferred to the new building which was placed upon the ruins of the old. The date is based on a calculation of difference in axial direction kindly supplied by Sir Norman Lockyer, _vide infra_, p. 210.

[473] _Supra_, p. 37.

[474] Herodotus, v. 52.

[475] _Supra_, p. 24.

[476] As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp. 143, 366.

[477] _Supra_, pp. 33, 34.

[478] See Pl. LIX.

[479] Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian fortresses, _infra_, pp. 273, 300.

[480] Pl. LX.

[481] Cf. _infra_, p. 226.

[482] Report _cit._, Pl. XII. Cf. below, p. 357.

[483] A plan is published in Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien_, Pl. XIV., and a revised version in Murray’s _Handbook_, p. 21.

[484] Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi, p. 163, Karaburna, p. 154, and Kizil Dagh, p. 178.

[485] _Vide_ the photograph on Pl. LVIII., where these features may be seen in the distance.

[486] _Vide supra_, p. 158.

[487] Texier, _Description of Asia Minor_, i. Pl. LXXX.

[488] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 108 _et seqq._

[489] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 62 and ff.

[490] The best plan was published by Barth, _Reise von Trapesunt ... nach Scutari_, p. 48.

[491] Pl. LXI. (ii).

[492] We are indebted to the courtesy of Dr. Winckler and his colleagues for the facilities which enabled us to study this site during the progress of the excavations.

[493] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 115.

[494] Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 64 and ff.

[495] See _infra_, p. 312.

[496] From calculations supplied from our rough data by Sir Norman Lockyer.

[497] Above, p. 159; for our date, see below, p. 339.

[498] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 114.

[499] By Dr. Winckler’s excavations, _Report cit._, figs. 3, 4; pp. 54-55.

[500] _Infra_, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX., and p. 311.

[501] Ramsay (_Luke the Physician_, p. 203, in a chapter largely reprinted from a paper in the _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._ 1882) makes the remarkable suggestion that most of the figures apparently male are those of females in disguise (_e.g._ of Amazons); but we have found nothing in our study of these sculptures to support this view. With all deference to a great scholar’s first impressions, we believe that if he revisited the monuments, and viewed them in the light of the new comparative material, he would find no reason to maintain the point of view which may have seemed warranted twenty-seven years ago. One of the chief arguments is the delicacy and femininity of face seen in some of the sculptures; yet on the same argument several of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasty would appear to have been female. The refinement is clearly that of the sculptor. The same point of view is taken in reference to the Amazon sculptures recently discovered (_Expository Times_, Nov. 1909), in an article on _The Armed Priestesses of the Hittite Religion_; but in our judgment these belong to a phase of art quite distinct, and several centuries later in date. On this point, see below, p. 357.

[502] See the plan, p. 221, and Pls. LXIII.-LXVIII.

[503] Cf. Malatia sculptures, etc., Pl. XLIV.

[504] This is a common feature on Hittite sculptures, and on several well-preserved instances from here [cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii)] and elsewhere, notably from Sinjerli [cf. Pl. LXVII. (ii), and Berlin V.-A. Mus., Cast No. 199], it seems to be due to a plain metal or otherwise stiff attachment rising from or continuous with the brim of the hat.

[505] Compare the winged deity of Malatia, Pl. XLIV. and p. 139.

[506] Cf. pp. 111, 118.

[507] Presumably a sacred stone; _vide_ Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, p. 154, No. 11.

[508] Pl. LXXII. and p. 255.

[509] See Pl. LXVIII.

[510] Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, in the plan, p. 221. For position of the group, see the photograph, Pl. LXIV.

[511] No. 17.

[512] No. 12.

[513] Nos. 14, 15.

[514] Resembling a large double bellows. Professor Sayce points out the analogy with a Hittite hieroglyph in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi. (See above, p. 183.)

[515] Nos. 19, 20.

[516] Nos. 22, 25.

[517] Nos. 23, 24.

[518] No. 21.

[519] Nos. 26, 27.

[520] Nos. 28-30.

[521] No. 31 of the whole series.

[522] Nos. 32-43.

[523] A schedule of the figures with our reference numbers may be of use:

LEFT.
⎰ 1 L. One standing on two others, bearded and exalted. ⎱ Pl. LXV.
⎱ 2, 3. Two others, younger, on pinnacles. ⎰
⎧ 4. One similar, but not raised aloft.
⎪ 5. One winged. ⎫
⎨ 6, 7. Two females as a group. ⎬ Pl. LXIII. (ii).
⎪ 8. A second winged. ⎭
⎩ 9. One with lituus and toga; winged rosette above (cf. 22 R.).
⎧ 10-13. Four with scimitars, of which one is winged. ⎱ Pl. LXIV.
⎨ 14, 15. Two monsters as a group (Pl. LXVI.). ⎰
⎩ 16-18. Three with scimitars.
⎧ 19-20. Two with maces like the leaders.
⎪ 21. One with arms and hat forward.
⎪ 22. One with mace.
⎨ 23, 24. Two with no weapons visible.
⎪ 25. One with mace.
⎩ 26-27. Two with arms and hat forward.
⎧ 28. One indistinct (tunic and hat).
⎨ 29-31. Three robed and bearded.
⎩ 32-43. Twelve in line, running.

RIGHT.
⎧ 1 R. One female on back of panther. ⎱ Pl. LXV.
⎨ 2. One youthful male with double axe. ⎰
⎩ 3, 4. Two similar to first, forming a group on double eagle.
5-21. Seventeen in procession resembling 1 R. (Pl. LXVII.).
22 R=65. One with lituus, toga, and winged rosette, etc., in hand,
standing on two stony mounds (Pl. LXVIII.).

[524] See the photograph, Pl. LXV. The head-dress was commonly employed by the Phrygian women. Its shape is recalled by the modern hat of the Turkoman women, which is worn covered by a shawl to serve at times as a veil.

[525] These emblems are composed in each case of pictorial or hieroglyphic signs, and in them doubtless lies the clue to the identification of the figures. A sign like a divided oval (which Professor Sayce believes to represent a sacred stone) is found at the commencement of each group accompanying a divine or exalted personage.

[526] A similar detail is noticeable on a familiar Etruscan design.

[527] Cf. the sculpture from Sinjerli, Pl. LXVII. (ii). See also p. 104.

[528] Cf. the sculpture at Eyuk, Pl. LXXII.

[529] Cf. a similar detail ornamenting the emblem above figs. No. 9 L. and 22 R. (Pl. LXVIII.).

[530] At Eyuk they clutch hares, Pl. LXXII. and p. 268.

[531] Clearly stony hilltops, as on the gates of Balawat.

[532] Arranged, as Professor Ramsay suggests (_Luke the Physician_, p. 212) to resemble a ναΐσκος.

[533] Possibly, suggests Prof. Sayce, a sort of fringe.

[534] Nos. 66-67. The presence of sculptures at the spot was noted by Perrot and Chipiez.

[535] Cf. pp. 101 ff. and Pl. LXXV. (i).

[536] No. 68.

[537] No. 69.

[538] The broad end is not altogether enclosed, but leads to rocky broken ground.

[539] Nos. 70-81.

[540] Nos. 32-43 L.

[541] Pl. LXIX. (ii).

[542] Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.

[543] No. 72.

[544] Nos. 73, 74.

[545] No. 2 R.

[546] Nos. 22 R., 9 L.

[547] No. 22 R.

[548] See particularly Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 149-153; Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, chap. vi.; and _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, vol. xv., New Series (1885), pp. 113-120; Hamilton, _Researches_, etc. (i.) p. 394; and for an illuminative anthropological point of view, Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (_Golden Bough_, iv. 2nd ed.), bk. I. chap. vi., § 4, pp. 105-110.

[549] These, it seems to us, have been too much neglected in attempts which have been made to elucidate the meaning of the sculptures.

[550] Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (_The Golden Bough_, iv., 2nd ed.), p. 107, reminds us that the deities associated with animals are probably derived from a more primitive conception when the god was indistinguishable from the beast. Doubtless the lioness (or panther) and the eagle were cult objects, if not totems, before they were humanised. In fact, in the sphinx and human-headed eagle, there is seen the intermediate anthropomorphic stage. The human forms were already developed in Babylonia, whence they may have been derived, being superimposed on the pristine native beliefs and fetishes. (On the relations with Babylonia and kindred cults, see pp. 323, 355 ff.) We may assume that the evolution of the mountain-god was similar, though inanimate. The ‘high place’ on Kizil Dagh, with image of the god carved on the rock, (p. 181) is an illustration. Probably also the altar on Kuru Bel (p. 147), may be most naturally explained as dedicated to the spirit of the mountain or of the pass.

[551] We do not deal with these symbols in detail, as the reading of some of the signs is doubtful, and being isolated groups, they present special pitfalls to attempts at translation. It is interesting to note, however, that such priests and priestesses commonly received a special sacred name as a mark of their office.

[552] Cf. Ramsay, in _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. (1890), p. 78, on the priest-classes of Asia Minor.

[553] _E.g._ excluding Nos. 29-31 from the whole series, 19-43.

[554] Or servants of the temple. Cf. Strabo on the rites at Comana, bk. XII. chap, xi., § 3.

[555] No. 22 R.

[556] No. 9.

[557] The treaty of Rameses II. with Hattusil.

[558] This analogy was first pointed out by the late De Cara, _Gli Hethei Pelasgi_ (Rome, 1894), i. p. 192.

[559] Cf. below, p. 257 and Pl. LXXII.

[560] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 57-58; above, p. 159.

[561] Cf. Pls. LXXXI. (i) (Sakje-Geuzi), and LXIV. (Malatia).

[562] Cf. Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 36 (below, p. 338), where the same custom is illustrated in a treaty with the Mitanni.

[563] Incidentally it is of interest to note that an eagle was associated with the rites of Sandon of Tarsus, identified with the Son-god, who here precedes the eagle-deities. Cf. Frazer, _op cit._, p. 99.

[564] Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum (Königl. Mus.), No. 977.

[565] Letter from Professor A. H. Sayce, July 23, 1909.

[566] See above, p. 155 and Pl. XLIX.

[567] See p. 269.

[568] Cf. Herodotus, i. 199; Strabo, XVI. i. 20.

[569] Independently Professor Sayce informs us that he has recognised in the symbol accompanying the first of these the emblem of the kingdom of Kas, the second state of the confederacy.

[570] Nos. 5, 7.

[571] Compare especially No. 5 with the winged deity of Malatia. Pl. XLIV.

[572] In view of the proposition of Sayce (_Proc. S.B.A._ 1904) that there were nine chief Hittite states, it is remarkable to notice that the figures preceding this priest may be regarded as representing seven different gods or cults, while two are represented in the opposite series. On this subject see also below, p. 348.

[573] For a full insight into these cults see Frazer, _op cit._, pp. 97, 110.

[574] Cf. the rites of Comana (Pontus), Strabo, bk. XI. chap. iii. § 32; and in the temple of Mabog, Lucian, _De Dea Syria_.

[575] Nos. 14, 15.

[576] Nos. 32-43.

[577] Professor Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 108.

[578] Cf. Sculpture of Marash, p. 110, also the translations of Professor Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1904-5.

[579] _Researches in Asia Minor_, etc. (London, 1842), i. pp. 382-3.

[580] _Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari_, pp. 42 and 43; also _Über die Ruinen bei Hejuk_ (_Arch. Zeit._ 1859, pp. 50, 59).

[581] _Travels in Little-known Parts of Asia Minor_ (London, 1870), pp. 129-148.

[582] Ramsay on _The Early Historical Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia_, Pt. 11 (_Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, xv., London, 1883), pp. 116.

[583] Also Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, vol. ii. pp. 153-158.

[584] _Liv. Annals Arch._, i. (1908), p. 3, and Pls. II. and III.

[585] Macridy Bey, _La porte des sphinx à Euyuk_ (_Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 3).

[586] First noticed by Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 2.

[587] A town Teiria, of the ‘Leuco-Syrians,’ is mentioned by Hecatæus of Miletus (_Fragm. Hist. Graec._, ed. Müller-Didot, No. 194). M. Maspero inclines to the identification of this place with Eyuk (_The Passing of Empires_, p. 338).

[588] Cf. the citadel gateway of Sinjerli, p. 278.

[589] _Op. cit._, Pl. I. fig. 10.

[590] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 6.

[591] In this conclusion we differ from Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, pp. 11, 13.

[592] It may be seen in the photograph, Pl. LXXII., and covers the sculptured block marked _e_ in the plan, extending a little way on either side.

[593] The restoration suggested by Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 11.

[594] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, figs. 23, 24.

[595] Cf. the ‘Stadt-thor’ at Sinjerli; Von Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_ (Berlin, 1902), Pls. XXIX., XXXIV.; and below, p. 274.

[596] The recent excavators failed to see the remains of these sphinxes, _op. cit._, p. 11, but they are quite plain in profile after the earth has been cleared away; see a photo, _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908), Pl. III.

[597] Cf. for example, Murray’s _Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 27.

[598] Pl. LXXII. Cf. the details of the Sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXII.

[599] Cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 648.

[600] See the photograph in Newberry, etc., _Short History of Egypt_ (ed. 1907), frontispiece. The special feature of the horseshoe-like head-dress occurs on scarabs of the Hyksos period (cf. the same writer’s _Scarabs_, London, 1906, Pl. XXV. No. 30), another suggestion of Asiatic origins.

[601] Berlin Mus., Etruscan Rooms, No. 1251. Compare also some weathered statues from Sinjerli described below, pp. 297, 298.

[602] Cf. Pl. XLIV. See also what is said about this cult on p. 359.

[603] Cf. the round altars of Emir-Ghazi, p. 183, and the representations at Fraktin, Pl. XLVII. p. 150.

[604] Cf. Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1903), p. 39, for revised translation of this passage in the treaty: cited below, p. 349.

[605] Cf. Pl. LXVII.

[606] Cf. Pls. LXV.-LXVII.