Chapter XIX: Part III: The Mounds and Palace-Portico at Sakje-Geuzi (5)

[607] We cannot accept the theory of an intentional opening (Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 11).

[608] Cf. p. 105, Pl. XXXIX.

[609] At the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.

[610] Pl. LXXII.

[611] The stones of the lower course vary from 3 ft. 11 in. to 4 ft. 2 in.

[612] This is more clearly suggested in a second photograph taken in the afternoon, with the shadows to the right hand.

[613] Traceable easily on the stone, but usually in shadow, owing to the projection of the stone of the upper course.

[614] ‘The bagpipe consists of the skin of a dog apparently, the insufflation pipe being at the tail end, while the drone pipe was probably concealed within the dog’s head, with the vent through its mouth. The same idea was carried out in the Middle Ages in Europe. Cf. Aristophanes, _Acharnians_ (i. 866): ‘you flute-players who are here from Thebes blow the dog’s tail with your bone-pipes’ (Extract from a letter from Miss K. Schlesinger).

[615] Pl. LIII.

[616] Pl. LXV.

[617] Pl. XLVII.

[618] MM. Perrot and Guillaume in particular seem to have fallen before the pitfalls of perspective in the picture, and their drawing is misleading (_Exploration Archéologique, Cappadoce_, Pl. LXIV.; _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 338). They have been followed by others.

[619] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 174, fig. 339.

[620] See below, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.

[621] See Perrot, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 341 and fig. 340; _Exploration_, Pl. LVII.

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

[623] These details were in vogue throughout the whole range of Hittite art at Sinjerli: see pp. 275, 289. Cf. also Pl. XXIV. (ii).

[624] P. 252: on the question of date, see below, p. 367.

[625] There is no analogy to date this object earlier than the ninth or tenth century B.C. Cf. pp. 210, 301.

[626] Ramsay, _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Society_ (N.S.), xv. p. 116, with sketch plan.

[627] Perrot, _op. cit._, fig. 335, represents the right-hand figure with head-dress serrated, but this marking seems to be the weathering of the stone.

[628] Perrot, _op. cit._, fig. 336, Pl. LXIII.; Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, fig. 28, p. 21.

[629] _Loc. cit._, also _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. p. 91 and fig. 5.

[630] Cf. Pls. XLIV. and XLVII.

[631] Pl. LXV., p. 223 (Nos. 3, 4, R.).

[632] Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_ (Berlin, 1907, No. 35), p. 70. Abb. 12, Das Ost-tor. See also above, p. 205.

[633] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._, Pl. XXIX., No. 17.

[634] Taken by Perrot for part of a sphinx, and by Macridy Bey for the lower part of a standing upright figure (_op. cit._, p. 25).

[635] No. 16 in M. Perrot’s Plan, _op. cit._, fig. 324 (Pl. LV.).

[636] We do not agree with any of the suggested restorations of these motives. Cf. Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, pp. 27, 28; Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_ (Paris, 1898), p. 9.

[637] Von Luschan and others: _Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen Sammlungen_, Hefte xi., xii., and xiii.; _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i., ii., iii. (Berlin, 1893, 1898, 1907).

[638] Published under the same auspices. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iv.

[639] See the Map on p. 375.

[640] Not much can be inferred from this fact, inasmuch as the Hittite palaces even of the Aramæan phase were probably based upon earlier models and of much the same plan. There are references to the _Hilâni_ in the time of Sargon.

[641] Compare the plan of the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui, p. 207.

[642] Cf. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXIV.

[643] Compare with the tail of sphinx of Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.

[644] Cf. a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii), and one from Marash, p. 115. So also the eagle-headed monster described above.

[645] See above, pp. 203, 253, and Pl. LX., and plan, p. 247.

[646] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii. p. 122 (Koldewey).

[647] Corresponding in the main with the scheme of publication in _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. pp. 208-229, to the illustrations of which we refer in the footnotes.

[648] Pp. 133, 134; Pl. XXXIX. and p. 105.

[649] _Op. cit._, iii. Pl. XXXIX.

[650] See Pl. LXXV. (ii), reproduced by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt. Cf. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XL.

[651] As the band is in each case doubled, it does not seem probable that this is merely the detail of an upper part to the shoe. Cf. the monument of Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.

[652] Compare the shield of the Hittite warrior shown on the north wall of the temple of Rameses II. at Abydos, Egypt; below, Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).

[653] Compare Pls. LXV., LXVIII., LXXI.

[654] Compare Pl. LXXXI.

[655] But not projecting beyond it as with the lions of Eyuk, p. 263, and Marash, Pl. XLII., Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.: compare the lion reliefs of Angora, p. 162.

[656] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XLIV. (ii).

[657] For Nos. vii.-xv. see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXVII.

[658] See Pl. LXXV. (i) (by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt).

[659] Cf. pp. 101, 111.

[660] P. 135.

[661] Compare a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, p. 105; also Pl. LXXXI.

[662] For a photograph of the sculptures ix.-xv., _in situ_, see Pl. LXXVI., reproduced by courtesy of Professor A. H. Sayce and the S.P.C.K., from _The Hittites_, p. 70.

[663] This wall, it will be borne in mind, faces to the south, being the inner wall of the inner pilaster. For the sculptures xvi.-xxxii., see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXVIII.

[664] Cf. No. ii. above, Pl. LXXV. (ii).

[665] No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii).

[666] Compare the sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (i).

[667] _In Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XXXVIII., at the top, these sculptures are aligned artificially with others for the photograph.

[668] Cf. the eagle-headed deity at Sakje-Geuzi, below, Pl. LXXX.

[669] On the general question of rearrangement of these sculptures, see below, p. 296.

[670] See Pl. LXXVII. (i); and _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii., Pl. XLI. (i).

[671] Cf. the sculptures of Marash, p. 111, and of Boghaz-Keui, p. 217, Pl. LXIII. (ii).

[672] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLIV.

[673] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLIII. No. 1.

[674] Letter from Miss K. Schlesinger, October 4, 1909.

[675] In the Camp Scene, Brit. Mus.

[676] Cf. the musicians of Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (ii).

[677] Cf. the sculpture of Marash, p. 118.

[678] Compare the features of the warrior, No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii), with the god-figures, Pls. LXXV. (ii), LXXVII.

[679] Below, Pl. LXXIX.; and _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pls. XLVI., XLVII.

[680] _Op. cit._, iii. p. 236 (with figs. 142, 143, 144, 145), where they are ascribed to Byzantine origins.

[681] Above, p. 254 and Pl. LXXII.

[682] By the Liverpool expedition of 1908. _Liv. Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908), pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.

[683] Cf. p. 205.

[684] Only the base or pedestal of the column was preserved, and the excavators found reason to believe that, after the destruction of the building, it had served some other purpose, possibly as an altar.

[685] See Pls. LXXVII., LXXXI.

[686] See Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.; and compare the lions of Marash (Pl. XLII.), of Eyuk (p. 263), and of Sinjerli (p. 297). Also of Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LX. and p. 210.

[687] Compare the treatment of the mounds upon which stands the priest-dynast in the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, No. 22 R., Pl. LXVIII.

[688] On the subject of this emblem, cf. Ridgeway, ‘The Origin of the Turkish Crescent,’ _Jour. Roy. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. xxxviii., ii. (1908), p. 241.

[689] Cf. the double eagles of Iasily Kaya and Eyuk, Pls. LXV., LXXII.

[690] Cf. p. 253 and Pl. LXXII.

[691] In the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is a small stela of Egyptian work dating from about the twenty-eighth dynasty, on which a standing sphinx is portrayed; the tail of this creature is made to represent the head of a cobra. Compare also a sculpture from Sinjerli, p. 275.

[692] Cf. the tassel and dirk upon the stone recently discovered at Marash, p. 115.

[693] Especially in representations of the priesthood. Cf. Boghaz-Keui, (Pl. LXVIII.), Eyuk (Pl. LXXII.).

[694] The treatment of this bird is very similar to that on the small monument from Marash, p. 118, illustrated in Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien_, Pl. XLVII., fig. 2; and Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 68, fig. 2, and p. 181. It is interesting to compare it also with the bird sculptured on an archaic statue from Asia Minor of the sixth century B.C., No. 1577, Berlin Museum, _Stehende Frau_.

[695] See p. 255, Pl. LXXII.

[696] Compare the head-dress of the priest-king just described. The horns are wanting on the similar sphinx-base from Sinjerli (_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii., Pl. XXXIII.), and in this case an extra short wing is shown descending behind the shoulder: otherwise the details of treatment correspond. It is interesting to compare these bases with one of purely Assyrian style, published by Layard (_Monuments of Nineveh_, i. Pl. XCV.); in the latter case there are three pairs of horns, and the rendering of the idea differs in nearly every detail.

[697] See _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i., p. 54, fig. 16; and Berlin Vorderas. Mus., No. 3012.

[698] See Chapter III., p. 141, and Pl. XLV., and cf. p. 142, note 4.

[699] In the Berl. Vorderas. Mus., vide _Ausgrabungen_, etc., iv.

[700] In this opinion we differ somewhat from Dr. Messerschmidt, _Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, Sept. 1909, pp. 378, 381, where he reviews the results of the excavations made by us at Sakje-Geuzi.

[701] See _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, vol. i., No. 4, Pl. XLIII., and p. 112, etc.

[702] The later painted fabrics have a clear relation to those of Kara Eyuk (Chantre, _Mission_, Pls. III., X.-XIII.), Boghaz-Keui, and the Kara Dagh. These, however, are not earlier than the first millennium B.C.

[703] Schuchhardt, _Schliemann’s Excavations_ (London, 1891), p. 41, figs. 18, 20, 21.

[704] Ashmolean Museum, the black, red-black, and red-brown wares, also the _pointillé_.

[705] _Les Premières Civilisations_ (Paris, 1909), p. 198, _note 5_.

[706] R. Pumpelly, _Explorations in Turkestan_ (Washington, 1908), Pls. XXIX.-XXXIII., specimens to be seen in the Völkerkunde Museum, Berlin.

[707] _Royal Tombs_, ii. (1901), Pl. LIV., specimens to be seen in the Ashmolean Mus., Oxford.

[708] _E.g._ Ashmolean Mus., Class Æ. 757 (various kinds), Æ. 753 (red on buff), and Æ. 758 (mottled red). After early Minoan II. the resemblance ceases.

[709] _Temp._ Amenhetep III. and IV., overlapped by Subbi-luliuma of the Hatti and Tushratta of Mitanni. We use the edition of Winckler (referred to in the notes as Winckler, _T. A. Letters_), with some amendments by Knudtzon.

[710] In particular those of Karnak (_temp._ Seti I. and Rameses II.), the Ramesseum at Thebes, Abu Simbel and Abydos (_temp._ Rameses II., overlapping Mutallu and Hattusil of the Hatti), and Medinet Habu (_temp._ Rameses III.).

[711] For bibliography, etc., see the Appendices, pp. 392 ff.

[712] See above, p. 208; also an article in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. pp. 41 ff.

[713] _Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi_, 1907, by Hugo Winckler; _Mitteil. der Deuts. Orient-Ges._, 1907, No. 35. Also an article, _Die in Sommer 1906 ... Ausgr._, in _Orient. Lit.-Zeitung_, ix., No. 12, pp. 621 ff.

[714] See above, p. 312.

[715] See above, p. 313.

[716] Pl. LXXXIII., from the north wall of the temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.

[717] In this case the head is shaved. There is another form of pigtail which must be distinguished from this, being in fact only the hair so cut and drawn together behind the head that it ends in the same way. Cf. De G. Davies, _Tell el Amarna_ II. (_temp._ Amenhetep IV. Akhenaten), Pl. XL. (bottom row); also ‘the people of Dapur in the land of the Amorites,’ S. wall of the great hall in the Ramesseum (T in Murray’s _Handbook for Egypt_, 1907, p. 414), where also the square shield and triangular bow should be noted.

[718] This type may be freely recognised, _e.g._ in the Ramesseum and at Abydos, Petrie, _Racial Types_, pp. 146-148, republished in his _History of Egypt_, iii. p. 48, fig. 17. Cf. our ‘living Amorite,’ Pl. LXXXIV. and p. 12, n. 1.

[719] Petrie, _Racial Types_, pp. 55, 143-145, in his _History_, iii. p. 48, fig. 17 (i); Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 353; Sayce, _The Hittites_, 1903, p. 11.

[720] Cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii), and compare the type with that from Sinjerli, Pl. LXXV. (ii).

[721] Their language, which might have formed a clue, is equally problematical. There is strong temptation to regard both as Caucasian.

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

[723] Cf. p. 313.

[724] Cf. the addresses of some case tablets from Asia Minor, published by Pinches, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ i. pp. 49 ff., assigned by that scholar to 2000 B.C.; also a Cappadocian tablet of the same period, now in the Royal Scottish Museum of Art and Science. Horses and chariots were employed by Aitagama in the early fourteenth century; while Hittite cavalry are mentioned in the treaty with Rameses II., and are depicted on the north wall of Karnak.

[725] Though we await some revision of Dr. Pumpelly’s chronology, we cannot doubt the antiquity of the deposits in question. See his _Explorations in Turkestan_, i. p. 38.

[726] Cf. Pls. XLVII., LVII., LXV., LXXI., LXXV. (ii), etc.

[727] Cf. W. Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 328, 372; Lenormant, _Les Origines d’Histoire_ (who infers a northern origin), iii. p. 299.

[728] Cf. p. 237, and Pl. LXV.

[729] Cf. pp. 13, 298.

[730] We suspect tin from this direction. Cf. description by Belck (_Verhandl. der Berl. Ges. für Anthropologie_, 1893, pp. 61 ff.), of tombs at Kala-Kent near Kedabeg. For this reference we are indebted to Mr. H. Schliephack.

[731] Cf. the bronze figure, Pl. XL.; the bronze axe and trappings of Boghaz-Keui, Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 7 ff. and fig. 1.

[732] King, _Chronicles_, i. pp. 168, 169.

[733] Of the date of Khammu-rabi; for this reference we are indebted to Professor Sayce.

[734] In the Book of Omens (Hommel, _Die Semit. Völker und Sprache_, pp. 176 ff.), cited by Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_ (1896), p. 19. The extract is supposed to date from the time of Sargon (of Akkad) and Naram-Sin, but more probably belongs, Professor Sayce tells us, to that of Khammu-rabi. (Cf. also Winckler, _Alttestament. Forsch._, p. 162, note 1; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 271, note 6.)

[735] Stela, C. 1, Musée du Louvre. See above, p. 77, note 1 (_b_). There is, however, considerable difference of opinion among philologists as to this reading.

[736] Cf. Genesis xxiii., xxv. 9, xxvi. 34, xlix. 29, 32.

[737] Genesis xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1. (Also xxxvi. 2, but the text is subject to amendment.) Cf. also Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums_, i. pp. 213, 214.

[738] Ezekiel xvi. 3, 45. Messerschmidt also points to the analogy of the name of a king of Jerusalem, _Abd-khipa_ (_T. A. Letters_), with those of _Putu-khipa_ (wife of Hattusil the Hittite) and _Tadu-khipa_ (wife of Tushratta of Mitanni). Winckler (_Mitteilungen D.O.G._ 1907, 35, pp. 47 ff.) attributes these early references and the appearance of the Hittites in these times in southern Syria and Babylonia, to the settlement of the Mitannians, whom he regards as a kindred but earlier stock. Among these he finds an Indo-Germanic element (_op. cit._, p. 51); but with the controversy on this point we are not concerned.

[739] On the relation of Hyksos and Hittites, see Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (1898), p. 57. For us, in the recent recognition of the Amorites as an Aramæan people, coupled with the Semitic names of the Hyksos leaders, and the vassalage of the Amorite to the Hittite in later centuries (see below, p. 336), the problem is nearing solution.

[740] On this point Professor Sayce kindly supplies the following note:—‘In the fourteenth chapter of Genesis we are told that one of the vassal allies of Chedor-laomer in his campaign against his revolted subjects in the naphtha-bearing district of southern Canaan was Tidᶜal, king of the Goyyim or “Nations.” In the fragments of the Babylonian story of Chedor-laomer published by Dr. Pinches, the name of Tidᶜal is written Tudkhul, and he is described as king of the Umman Manda or Nations of the North, of which the Hebrew Goyyim is a literal translation. Now the name is Hittite. In the account of the campaign of Ramses II. against the Hittites it appears as Tidᶜal, and one of the Hittite kings of Boghaz-Keui bears the same name, which is written Dud-khaliya in cuneiform. The name is evidently a compound of Dud or Tud—with which we may compare Tadu-Khipa—and the territorial divinity Khaliya (Greek Halys; cp. the Lydian Alyattes).

‘In the Bogche inscription [p. 155] the king who erected the monument is called Khaleis “the Khalian,” and we probably have the same name in Khulli, the father of the Cilician Amris.

‘The important fact which results from this is that the Hittite king was already serving as an ally or vassal under the king of the Babylonian empire in the age of Abraham and Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of the Old Testament.’—A. H. S., December 1, 1909.

[741] We refer to these archives henceforward for brevity as the _B. K. Tablets_, with a reference to the page of Dr. Winckler’s preliminary publication of them in _Mitteilungen der Deut. Orient-Gesellschaft_, Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 1-71. The most important documents of which translations are given are—1. Treaty with Mitanni, _temp._ Subbi-luliuma, with historical preamble describing previous relations with Tushratta, Isuwa, Alshe, Aleppo, and finally the terms of alliance with Mattiuaza. 2. A treaty fragment of the same reign referring to Nukhasse and Aitagama. 3. Treaty with Amorites, _temp._ Mursil. 4. Treaty with Amorites, _temp._ Hattusil, with historical preamble covering the reigns of Subbi-luliuma, Mursil and Mutallu. 5. Correspondence of Hattusil with Babylonia _re_ the succession, the Egyptian treaty, the Amorites and Assyria. 6. Edict of Dudkhalia, relating to internal affairs; and 7. A document of same king in Hittite relating to an Amorite revolt, _temp._ Mutallu. 8. Cadastral survey, _temp._ Arnuanta, signed by the royal ladies.

[742] Treaty with Mitanni, Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 32, 33, 34, 36.

[743] And is once so named, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 17.

[744] That Arzawa was a vassal state would appear from the fact that its archives are found at Boghaz-Keui; but that it retained its own kings is seen from the letter addressed to Tarkundaraus by Amenhetep III. (Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 40, 41), as well as from the former to the latter (_Proc. S.B.A._, xi. p. 336). It seems, according to Sayce, to have been in N.E. Cilicia, corresponding therefore to the district of Quë in the Assyrian texts. Its tutelary deity is clearly Tarqu or Tarkhu, found also in the name of Tarkon-demos, the Tarku-dimme of the well-known silver boss (_C.I.H._, 1900; xlii. p. 9). Possibly Tarsus and Dastarkon, the latter identified by Ramsay with Fraktin (p. 149), embody the stem of this name: in this case a wider area of influence is indicated: that the state was wide and comprehensive appears from the fact that another king, Alakshandu, is mentioned as a vassal of Tarkundaraus; while a third king sent presents to the Pharaoh through the latter’s ambassadors.

[745] This reading is due to Professor Sayce, being based on an inscription recently found by De Morgan at Susa. Its position was on the Tochma Su, for Schrader (_Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-forschung._, pp. 151 ff., 530) has shown that it included Malatia. The same writer gives the reading Khanigalbat; while W. Max Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 320) uses Khani-rabbat, and points out an analogy between Khani-the-Great and Kheta-the-Great of the Egyptian texts. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, v. p. 177, note 1) and Winckler (_Gesch. Babs. und Assyrs._, pp. 174, 259) support Schrader. That it was an important state appears from its name, and from its independent correspondence with Egypt (Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, Nos. 1, 15); and that it was allied to the Hatti must be inferred from the account of the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma which follows.

[746] Annals of Thothmes III., 33rd year.

[747] See the Genealogical Table, p. 329.

[748] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 21.

[749] Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, 1907, p. 35.

[750] In what follows we attempt to reconstruct the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma from the new records read side by side with the Tell el-Amarna letters, basing the sequence of events, where no clue is provided, on the gradual movement of the scene from north to south.

[751] Fragment of treaty, Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 35.

[752] See below, and cf. Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, Nos. 132, 139.

[753] Winckler, _loc. cit._

[754] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 125. The alternative reading Am in place of the more familiar Amki is proposed by Sayce (cf. _The Hittites_, p. 164), and corresponds closely with the Amma or Ammiya of the Tell el-Amarna texts. He points out that the reading Amki is inadmissible, as _ki_ is really the ordinary determinative.

[755] Mitanni treaty preamble, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 32. Cf. Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 358 ff.

[756] Unless it be that which Tushratta claims in a letter to the Pharaoh to have successfully resisted. Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 16.

[757] Winckler, _B. K. Archives_, _op. cit._, pp. 33, 34.

[758] We may suspect that, as the fashion was, numbers of the conquered Mitanni people were drafted off to the Hatti-land and settled on the soil, where they appear in later times as the Matieni (Herodotus, i. 72; v. 49, 52). Cf. Th. Reinach, _Un Peuple oublié, les Matiènes_ (_Rev. des Études Grecques_, ’94, pp. 217, 218).

[759] The fact seems to transpire in the _T. A. Letters_: cf. the story of Akizzi which follows.

[760] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 34.

[761] An Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II. (? _c._ 1420 B.C.), claims to have wrested Malatia from the Mitannians; cf. Johns, in Hastings’ _Dict._ (1909).

[762] _Khalpa_ in Hittite, _Khalman_ in Assyrian.

[763] Katna lay on the Khabour, tributary of the Euphrates; Nî must have been somewhere N.W. of Aleppo.

[764] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 132.

[765] _Ibid._, No. 146.

[766] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 139; Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 34. The parallelism between the archives of Tell el-Amarna and Boghaz-Keui is remarkable and instructive.

[767] For he addressed a letter to the Egyptian court in the third year of the reign of Amenhetep IV., about 1373.

[768] Further information about this chieftain also transpires in the letters (Winckler, No. 7; Knudtzon, No. 51) in reference to Nukhasse.

[769] That his action followed closely on the events just described is clear from _Letter_, Winckler, No. 119, where the defection of his son Aziru and his destruction of Sumur are reported to the Pharaoh at the same time as the annexation of Am(ma) by Aitakama.

[770] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 27.

[771] _Ibid._, No. 87.

[772] _Ibid._, No. 50.

[773] _Ibid._, No. 51.

[774] All these events seem to have preceded the conversion of Akhenaten.

[775] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 52.

[776] Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 42.

[777] Preamble Amorite treaty, _temp._ Hattusil, Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 43.

[778] Preamble Amorite treaty, _temp._ Mursil; _ibid._, p. 44.

[779] The treaty with Sapalulu mentioned in that with Khetasar (Hattusil II.), _temp._ Rameses II.

[780] With Maurasar (Mursil), who succeeded, _ibid._

[781] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 36.

[782] _Ibid._

[783] When he appears under the name of Abu-Tessub, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 38.

[784] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 36.

[785] Such evidence as there is on this point (pp. 163, 199) seems to link the monuments of the west, at Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel, with the reign of Hattusil II., by analogy with the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui; but historically the opportunity for westward expansion was now open. Hattusil, like his Egyptian compeer, seems to have been mostly concerned with retaining what he had inherited.

[786] See pp. 159, 205.

[787] See Pl. XLIV., and pp. 138, 139. Our date is based on the resemblance of the oblation vases (more clearly seen in Miss Bell’s photographs published by Hogarth in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1909) to those found in the hands of Hittite prisoners in Egypt, temp. _Akhenaten_; see De Garis Davies, _El Amarna II._ (London, 1905), pp. 41, 42, and Pl. XL. (bottom row). Such vases were common in Hittite Syria during the fifteenth century B.C. (cf. Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, fig. on p. 263), and the date of the sculptures is therefore liable to modification from various considerations, such as the range of time such types were in use, the probability of antique forms surviving in religious practices, and the possibility of special forms being sent as tribute to the Pharaoh.

[788] P. 268. But see Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_, who assigns it to the ninth century B.C.

[789] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.

[790] P. 249.

[791] Though Akhenaten himself may have claimed the title, it was employed before his conversion.

[792] Cf. the position of Hattusil and Putukhipa, in the seal of the treaty with Rameses II., below, p. 349.

[793] On this point see below, p. 353.

[794] See what is said above (p. 64) about the surviving elements of the Hittite constitution in the state of Lydia.

[795] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 35.

[796] We infer, from the synchronisms with Egypt and Mitanni, between 1360 and 1340 B.C.; he and his successor overlap by their reigns those of Amenhetep III. and Sety I. Mutallu and Hattusil were contemporary with Rameses II.

[797] On this interesting expression, occurring in the preamble to the Amorite treaty, _temp._ Hattusil, see Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 43, note. We have still to learn the nature of the Hittite burial rites, but this reference is significant.

[798] E.g. _Gasga_ (Assyrian Kaskâ), _Tibia_, _Zikhria_; cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 18.

[799] ? Manapa-_Sanda_.

[800] Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 19, 44.

[801] See above, pp. 207, 208; cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 14.

[802] Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, p. 608; Johns, in Hastings’ _Abridged Dictionary_ (1909). We adopt the latter’s chronology.

[803] See the map, p. 375. _Muzri_ is a term meaning ‘the frontier lands,’ and hence not fixed, _vide_ Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Assyr._, p. 530, note 2; Tiele (_Bab. Assyrische Gesch._, p. 201) regarded this Muzri as referring to the border-lands of Cilicia, while Winckler (_Alttestamentliche Untersuch._, p. 172) thinks it applies at this time to the whole of North Syria.

[804] The argument of Petrie, _History_, iii. (1905) p. 17, as to the reliability of the Egyptian sources in this matter seems to be supported historically by the new light upon the period.

[805] Though Professor Sayce has detected at Karnak a scene which may refer to the northern districts.

[806] We place this event about the time of the accession of Rameses II., _c._ 1292 B.C. (following the chronology of Breasted, based on Meyer). The battle of Kadesh, which is reflected in the Hittite treaty of Rameses II. (cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 45), links the two reigns, and would fall under this system of dates about 1288-1289 B.C. Mutallu’s short reign (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 20) would thus end shortly afterwards: he is the Mautenel or Mautal of the Egyptian texts.

[807] For a summary of the Egyptian sources, see de Rougé, _Revue Égyptologique_, iii. p. 149; vii. p. 182. For discussion of the identity of the peoples, with the authorities, Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 390, 398. Time has brought respect for the latter’s common-sense principle of inquiry, and for the insight of Professor Sayce (_The Hittites_, 1903 ed., p. 26) in this matter. The argument of Professor Petrie, based on the improbability of troops, ‘three men in a car,’ being able to cross ‘so rough a country as Asia Minor’ (_History_, iii. p. 47), breaks down at the first name on the lists, and we may regard the main subject of this controversy practically closed. So, too, new evidence makes it unnecessary to discuss in detail the attitude of Hirschfeld, _Die Felsenreliefs in Kleinasien und das Volk der Hittiter_ (Berlin, 1881), and O. Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890), though we notice special points of criticism. For a review of the whole situation down to 1896, see Reinach, _Chroniques d’Orient_, especially i. pp. 372 ff. and pp. 772 ff.

[808] For an exhaustive study of the strategy of the Egyptian leader, and a critical examination of the authorities, see Breasted, _The Battle of Kadesh_ (Chicago, 1903). Cf. also E. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, pp. 288 f.; Maspero, _Histoire_ (1875), pp. 220 ff., and _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 392 ff.

[809] Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 216, note 1) thinks this passage in the poem of Pentaur must refer to the overtures of Hattusil II. sixteen years afterwards; but the preamble to the treaty with the latter, read in the light of the new synchronisms, leads us to accept the text as historical.

[810] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 45.

[811] Professor Sayce notes that this rendering of the name, which is written ideographically, must be considered doubtful. The same person appears as Banti-shinni in other texts.

[812] The facts alone transpire (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 19); this sequence is our interpretation of them.

[813] Cf. Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 27.

[814] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 24.

[815] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 21.

[816] See the translation into English by Professor Sayce, _The Hittites_, pp. 31-39; also trans. from text of Müller (_Der Bündnis-vertrag Ramses II. und des Chetiterkönigs_, Berlin, 1902) in Messerschmidt, _The Hittites_.

[817] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 23.

[818] The sculptured figures of the god at Malatia, Pl. XLIV.; at Sinjerli, Pl. LXXVII.; and at Boghaz-Keui, No. 1 L., Pl. LXV.

[819] The others are: Zanu-arnda, Pirqa, Khisa-sapa, Rukhasina, Tonisa, Sakhepaina, all unrecognisable in their Egyptianised forms.

[820] Cf. the arrangement of the seven god-figures and three divine female figures left and right in the sculpture of Boghaz-Keui, p. 215, Pls. LXIII. (ii), LXV.

[821] Cf. Pl. LXXI. and pp. 228, 239.

[822] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, pp. 23, 24.

[823] Winckler (_op. cit._, p. 21) identifies _Katashman-turgu_ of the letters with _Katashman-buriash_, and hence synchronises these events with the period of Shalmaneser I., which we have treated as earlier. Possibly we have here new material for a revision of Assyrian chronology.

[824] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 26.

[825] The only surviving record is found in the rock-temple of Abusimbel, high up on the southern side. Unfortunately the name of the Hittite king could not be made out by Lepsius, who first noticed the scene. Probably he was Hattusil’s successor, for the princess offered to Rameses was apparently his eldest daughter, and on all precedent could not well have been older than fifteen or sixteen years if she was to prove acceptable. Yet Hattusil was already of mature age when he succeeded to the throne, for it will be recalled that his father’s reign was a long one, and his brother’s short reign also intervened. The date of the event was about B.C. 1258, in the thirty-sixth year of Rameses’ reign, thirteen years after the treaty with Hattusil, twenty-nine years after the battle of Kadesh—three events without historical connection.

[826] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 28.

[827] Alternatively read _Eni-Sanda_ by Prof. Sayce, the last group being ideographic.

[828] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 15 and p. 19.

[829] Winckler (_loc. cit._) interprets these relationships otherwise, and sees in them the traces of family intermarriage.

[830] A similar short interval seems to have occurred before the succession of Arnuanta, and probably of Mursil previously. (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 18.)

[831] Qizwadna seems to have held an autonomous position exceptional among the Hittite states. Cf. Winckler in _Orient. Lit.-Zeit._, _loc. cit._

[832] P. 235, Pl. LXV.

[833] P. 262, Pl. LXXIII.

[834] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.

[835] P. 168, Pl. LIII.

[836] Pl. LXV.

[837] Cf. p. 348 and Pl. LXV.

[838] Cf. p. 348 and Pl. LXVIII. The boot in the design of the ædicula may be taken to be emblematic of the earth.

[839] Cf. Pl. LXVIII.

[840] Pp. 217, 303; cf. Pls. LXVIII., LXXX.

[841] _Ibid._

[842] Cf. pp. 157, 235, and Pl. LXV.

[843] Pls. XLIV., LXXII., p. 256.

[844] Pls. XLIX., LXV., p. 236.

[845] Pp. 118, 151, 165.

[846] Pl. LXV. and p. 215.

[847] The two latter only appear upon small seals, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XLI. (i), which, though Hittite, we must regard as beyond the scope of this volume.

[848] Pl. LXV., p. 235.

[849] Cf. pp. 102, 119, and Pls. XLVII., LXXIII. (i).

[850] In this way we explain the development of the funerary symbolism of the Ceremonial Feast (p. 100), which became a stereotyped design (Pl. LXXV. (i), pp. 111, 135, 164, 226, 284, 290).

[851] Pl. LXVII.

[852] As we differ on this question in our interpretation of the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui from Professor Ramsay (see p. 213), who _inter alia_ ranks what we regard as male figures [Pl. LXIX. (ii)] among the female bodyguard of the cult, we feel it due to him to recapitulate our argument. _a_ (i) In Egyptian art down to 1200 B.C., though there are detailed descriptions of Hittite allies (cf. Pl. LXXXIII.), and down to 1150 B.C. of Asiatic-Ægean coalition (p. 368), there is no suspicion of women warriors; (ii) In Greek tradition there is no memory of the Hatti power, but the Amazons appear. _b_ (i) These sculptures seem to belong to the great Hatti period, and in particular to the age of Hattusil (cf. the argument on p. 233), being somewhat more conventionalised than those of probably earlier phase (compare the lightning emblem of fig. 1 L, Pl. LXV., with that of the Malatia god, Pl. XLV., which is freely drawn like that of Sinjerli, Pl. LXXIII.); (ii) the sculptured gateway, newly recognised as decorated with an Amazon figure (p. 205), has been independently dated by us (pp. 210, 211, 380) by a series of direct analogies in æsthetic treatment, to a period probably some centuries later. Thus far we are possibly agreed, but at the next point we differ. _c_ (i) In the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, the males and females seem to us to be as distinct as ever man and woman were in art; the former are characterised by their short tunics, muscular athletic figures, firm thighs, and masculine chests, not to speak of their arms; the latter are disclosed by their long robes, their full breasts, and other ordinary feminine characteristics. (ii) In view of the emphatically female character of the Amazon figure of the gateway, stamped by the conspicuous breasts, the feminine thighs, and long hair, we think it unreasonable to suppose any concealment of sex in the warrior figures of the earlier sculptures. We conclude then (_d_) that in neither the contemporary records nor monuments, so far as known, is there any trace of female warriors, before 1200 or 1150 B.C.; that the whole cycle of the Amazon legends belongs historically to a later age, subsequent to the downfall of the Hatti warrior-kings. On the eunuch-priest, however, see p. 361, note 2.

[853] Cf. The Sutekh cycle of the nine states in the Egyptian treaty, p. 348.

[854] Cf. figures 2 L and 3 L at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV., and at Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.

[855] The second cycle mentioned in the Egyptian treaty; cf. the sculptures of Malatia, where the chief god and a winged deity are worshipped with different rites.

[856] Sutekh and the sun-god are both called lord of heaven in the Egyptian treaty (pp. 348, 349). Cf. the identification of Sandes with the sun-god (p. 322).

[857] Pl. LXV.

[858] Pl. XLIV.

[859] Pl. LXXII. The bull figure, unfortunately, is not wholly shown in these photographs.

[860] At Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LXV.), and Giaour-Kalesi (p. 163) he is represented with a beard in contradistinction to the beardless Son-god.

[861] Cf. the legends of Baal and Sandan of Tarsus, above, pp. 195, 238.

[862] Pl. LXX., p. 240.

[863] Cf. p. 170.

[864] Pl. LXXII., p. 268.

[865] Pl. XLIV., p. 139.

[866] P. 349.

[867] Pls. LXVIII., LXXXI.

[868] We have given our reasons (p. 231) for preferring to see in them the person of the king; but if certain emblems in the _naiskos_ are really phallic, they may be read as indicating the sacrifice of these organs. On the other hand, like the bull, they may be merely emblematic of the king’s position as chief representative of the virile god. The evidence seems to us insufficient to solve this point.

[869] Above, p. 297.

[870] Above, pp. 326 ff.

[871] See Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 356 f.; and cf. W. Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 324-329.

[872] Pl. LXXV. (ii).; cf. p. 281.

[873] Cf. Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).

[874] P. 163.

[875] Pls. LXV., LXX.

[876] Cf. Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV., No. 2 L., and Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV., p. 171, note 3.

[877] Cf. pp. 274-5.

[878] Cf. Pl. XLIV. (Malatia) and Pl. LIV. (Kara-Bel).

[879] Cf. Pl. XXXIX. (Sakje-Geuzi), and there are earlier confirmatory scenes described on pp. 133, 134.

[880] Pl. LXV. and p. 287.

[881] P. 140; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. V.

[882] P. 283.

[883] Pp. 274-5.

[884] P. 293 (No. xxv.).

[885] P. 122.

[886] P. 121.

[887] Cf. N. wall of the temple of Karnak, the rout after the battle of Kadesh.

[888] Treaty with Egypt, _temp._ Hattusil, p. 347; Preamble to treaty with Mitanni, _temp._ Subbi-luliuma, cf. p. 331.

[889] P. 279.

[890] On the antiquity of the horse and chariot, see what is said above, p. 320, note 3.

[891] Cf. Pl. LXXXVIII., from the north wall of the temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.

[892] Abydos temple, N. wall, the Hittite prisoners.

[893] Cf. p. 5, note 1.

[894] See p. 34, note 2.

[895] See p. 143.

[896] See pp. 6, 24.

[897] _Cappadociæ_, later distinguished always from Comana of Pontus.

[898] See pp. 24, 45. As to the problem of the direction followed by the Persian Posts in later times, we have formed no opinion, and it is beyond our subject. The suggestion made by Prof. Kiepert that it led over by Sebasteia to the valley of the Tochma Su, and so past Malatia, seems to be supported by the fact that no second crossing of the Halys was considered noteworthy in the record. Mr. Hogarth’s summary (Macan’s _Herodotus_, 1895, vol. ii. App. xiii. §§ 8, 9) in favour of a route by Mazaca and Comana, descending on Samosata (Samsat), satisfies all the conditions, but seems to us to be improbable owing to its difficulties and to a lack of internal evidence of its importance. Prof. Ramsay’s original preference for a route by the Cilician gates is seemingly substantiated by our new evidence of a visible section northwards from Injessu, which corresponds so nearly to that portion of the Royal Road which he has traced on the Phrygian uplands (Pl. XXIV.). We do not think the material at present sufficient to solve the problem, which we believe must in any case be attacked upon the lines laid down by Prof. Myres in a paper read before the Roy. Geog. Soc. 1896, in which he attempted to reconstruct the Maps of Herodotus.

[899] Pp. 37, 38.

[900] Pp. 208, 342.

[901] P. 233.

[902] See p. 339, note 2.

[903] P. 298, and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. XXXIII.

[904] P. 272.

[905] See p. 123.

[906] See pp. 7, 97, and Pl. XXXVIII.

[907] See p. 94.

[908] In regard to an inscription from Carchemish, see, however, p. 371.

[909] Inner wall of the second pylon of the temple _Medinet Habu_ at Thebes.

[910] On this subject, cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 468 and 587.

[911] Cf. Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 30.

[912] Cf. above, p. 53, note 1.

[913] Ed. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums_, i. p. 331. See, however, Schrader, _Bab.-Ass. Gesch._, pp. 162-3, who identifies the ‘Upper Sea’ of the text (published by Winckler, _Inschriften Tigl.-Pilesers I._) with Lake Van; he is supported by Sayce and others. Ménant thought that the Caspian was referred to, and Rawlinson the Mediterranean, but neither of the latter theories agrees with the geography of the expedition, on which see Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 653-4.

[914] See what is said on this subject above, pp. 57-8.

[915] The Annals of the Xth year record the number as 30, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 28, l. 10.

[916] (?) Tell Bashar, in difficult country between Aintab and Carchemish.

[917] We are inclined to place this range in the Amanus, on the Cilician frontiers. The treble-walled city of Kibshuna (Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 655-6) recalls strongly the defences of Sinjerli (see above, p. 272); possibly it is to be identified with Kabessus on the Sarus. The route of the Assyrian army, descending southward by the passes of the Pyramus, might easily avoid Marash, which is not mentioned in the record.

[918] Maspero, _op. cit._, pp. 657-8. The inscription on the rocky sea front at Nahr-el-Kelb is hardly legible; and our photograph yields no fresh evidence on this point.

[919] Cf. Schrader, _Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung_, pp. 225-236. Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 589, and note 3.

[920] Sayce, translation of a Hittite inscription of Carchemish, above, p. 126.

[921] Sayce, inscription of Gurun, above, p. 144.

[922] Biyassili (? _Kasyas-sil_, suggested by Professor Sayce), _temp._ Subbi-luliuma; and Eni-Sanda, _temp._ Dudkhalia. Other kings of later history are: Shangara (or Sangar), _circa_ 860 B.C., and Pisiris, the last of all, _circa_ 740-717 B.C.

[923] Assur-bel-kala seems to have retained possession of Kummukh, and later Assurirba claims to have penetrated to Mount Amanus and the sea, _circa_ 950 B.C. Cf. Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Assyr._, p. 540.

[924] The visible lower palace (p. 207) and the main defence of the upper city (p. 201) are related by the feature of joggles and fitted stones (cf. p. 208).

[925] Cf. Pl. LX. and p. 203. The treatment of the lion’s face is an important factor in the date, as it corresponds to the works of this period at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi (p. 311). The lion tank of Boghaz-Keui (p. 210) is related in like way, and this from its position helps to give a date to the lower palace (p. 211). The unplaced lion corner-stone of Eyuk (‘p’ on the plan, p. 247) belongs to the same class and phase of art, and is indicative of an upper series of buildings that have seemingly disappeared.

[926] See above, pp. 205, 357. The importance and nature of this sculpture were first pointed out by Miss Dodd, having been apparently overlooked by the members of Dr. Winckler’s expedition, under whom it was brought to light (_Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, Pl. XII.). At the time of writing we have only seen Miss Dodd’s sketch and memoranda, for which we are indebted to the courtesy of Professor Sayce.

[927] A passage from Pindar, quoted by Strabo (XII. iii. 11), seems to imply that in the old Hatti state within the Halys the Amazons became the recognised leaders in warfare. There is also a suggestion that these developments were coeval with the rise of the Iron Age.

[928] Pl. LVI., p. 186.

[929] Pl. LVII., p. 191.

[930] P. 190.

[931] P. 154.

[932] Quoting Hecatæus of Miletus (_Polyhistor._, ed. Mommsen, p. 129, c. 38, § 1 and ff.). This tradition formed the basis of many old theories about the Hittites, notably those advanced by Mordtmann, Lehmann, and Jensen, upon which we need no longer dwell.

[933] Professor Maspero (_Struggle of the Nations_, p. 668) seems to us to have traced the origin of the tradition in a confusion between the memory of the great kingdom of Khilakku and the fabled dominion of the Hatti kings.

[934] The inscriptions of Bor, Bulghar-Madên, and Ivrîz are clearly confined to two generations at most; cf. p. 188.

[935] P. 375. In this map the Assyrian names of the states are used, and modern names are quoted in some cases where identification is possible. Capitals denote modern towns not necessarily Hittite but useful as landmarks.

[936] Cf. the map to face p. 390.

[937] With Khilakku we incline to include Cilicia with Tarsus; Northeastern Cilicia seems to have been distinct under the name of Quë; see above, p. 326, note 3.

[938] ‘Twenty-four kings’ are mentioned, _c._ B.C. 838.

[939] Identified by Ramsay with Faustinopolis, see above, p. 61, n. 4. The record is dated B.C. 718, by which time the power of the ‘Cilician’ kings in Asia Minor had probably been broken by the Phrygians.

[940] See the note on Khali-rabbat, p. 327, note 1; and the description of monuments, pp. 132 ff. Names of kings found in Assyrian sources are: _c._ 800, Lalle (which seems to lack the god-name usually prefixed, cf. Subbi-luliuma); 758, Khite-ruadas; 717, Tarkhu-nazi; and 672, Mugallu, who seems to have ruled also the Tabal.

[941] The names of three kings appear in the Assyrian records: Kundashpi, _c._ 859 B.C.; Kushtashpi, _c._ 743 B.C.; and Mutallu, _c._ 717 B.C.

[942] See p. 13.

[943] The name of one king, Tutammu, appears _c._ 740 B.C., whose capital was at Kinulua. Earlier, _c._ 884, Lubarna, King of the Hattina, had his palace at the same place, which is identified with Gindarus. Cf. Maspero, _Passing of Empires_, p. 38, and Tomkins, _Bab. and Oriental Record_, iii. p. 6, who points to the name surviving in _Tell-Kunana_. It was a riverine country, with woods and mines; cf. Polybius, v. 59.

[944] These local struggles are reflected in one of the monuments described above, p. 280.

[945] ‘Twelve kings’ are referred to, _c._ 849 B.C. (Maspero, _Passing of Empires_, p. 78). Three names of kings found in Assyrian texts are Lubarna, _c._ 880 B.C.; Shapalulme, _c._ 860 B.C.; and Garparunda, _c._ 859 B.C.

[946] Cf. Winckler, _Altorient. Forsch._ i. p. 3; Delattre, _L’Asie Occid. dans les Inscr. Assyr._, pp. 44-52.

[947] Cf. Schrader, _Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung_, pp. 221, 236.

[948] See what is said, pp. 83, 84, on the archæological problem of the plateau.

[949] Cf. Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, p. 589.

[950] E.g. _Akhuni_, _c._ 860 B.C., and _Khaiani_, _c._ 859 B.C.; see also p. 272.

[951] See above, p. 273. Cf. also a sculpture of later date from Sinjerli, now in the Berlin Vorderasiat. Museum, No. 2996, where a Hittite is seen placed between two Semites, the former distinguished _inter alia_ by the typical bunch of hair curled behind his neck, the latter by the equally characteristic designing of the hair in ringlets. On this interesting criterion see below, p. 380.

[952] Cf. the monuments of Bor, Pl. LVII., Ivrîz, Pl. LVII., Marash, p. 113, Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.

[953] Cf. pp. 222, 240.

[954] Temple of Abu Simbel, N. wall.

[955] See also above, pp. 188, 194.

[956] Cf. Pls. XLII., LXXIX., and pp. 109, 265, 297, 301.

[957] Cf. above, p. 297.

[958] Pp. 203, 210.

[959] See above, pp. 110, 111, and cf. Strabo, XI. iii. p. 32.

[960] Cf. above, pp. 108-122. Only two kings are known, namely, Garparunda, _c._ 859 B.C., and Tarkhulara, _c._ 740 B.C.

[961] Our work of constant reference at this stage is Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, coupled with various articles by Johns, Winckler, and others cited in the footnotes.

[962] Published by Sayce, _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, xiv.

[963] _Tarzi_ (Tarsus) was among the cities that fell.

[964] We place Muzri in this instance in the Taurus, in the vicinity of the Cilician gates, partly because of the nature of the presents—claimed in the Assyrian records as tribute—which included silver (derivable from Bulghar-Madên and Bereketli Maden) and salt (obtainable from Tuz Geul and elsewhere in the plain of Konia). Cf., however, the opinions of Tiele, _Babylonisch-Assyrische Gesch._, p. 201, note 1; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 609, and Winckler, _Alttestament. Forsch._, p. 172.

[965] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 64.

[966] There is probably some confusion in the text at this point where Garparuda appears as king of both Gurgum and Hattina, since Khaiani ruled at Samalla, which intervened. Cf. Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 193.

[967] Cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 71.

[968] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 28. Tiele, _Bab.-Ass. Gesch._, pp. 187, 201. Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 197.

[969] Sayce, _op. cit._, pp. 558-592, No. xxxiii.

[970] Sayce, _The Cuneiform Inscr. of Van_; _op. cit._, xiv. p. 642-649, also xx. pp. 18, 19.

[971] This must be regarded as the minimum extent of the Urartian conquests, inasmuch as the source of information is Assyrian, being drawn from _Annals of Tiglath-Pileser_, p. 743, ll. 59-62.

[972] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 146 and note 3.

[973] _Annals of Tiglath-Pileser_, iii. ll. 59, 73.

[974] Cf. p. 271. He was the grandson of the earlier ruler of that name, and son of Barzar. For a reflection of these local wars, cf. the monument of Sinjerli described on p. 280. For a full discussion and bibliography of these incidents, cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 150.

[975] From local geographical considerations, this place may perhaps be identical with Killiz. But cf. Tiele, _Bab. Ass. Gesch._, p. 230; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 660; Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 225.

[976] The objective of this expedition was the punishment of Kiakku of Shinukhta, whose principality was given to Matti of Atuna or Tuna. On the possible identification of this place with the Tynna of Ptolemy (v. vi. 22), see above, p. 61, note 4, and with Faustinopolis, see Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 68. Olmstead (_Western Asia in the Days of Sargon_, p. 83, note 9) places it at Tyana itself, which opens up interesting possibilities.

[977] On the identification with ‘Mita of Muski’ of the Assyrian texts, see above, p. 53.

[978] On the organisation of the Assyrian provinces in these times, see Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, pp. 210 ff.; Tiele, _Bab. Ass. Gesch._, pp. 497-499. Cf. also Olmstead, _op. cit._, pp. 163 ff.

[979] On these events which concern Uassarmi, chief of Tabal in 740 B.C., and others, cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 251.

[980] As in 706 B.C., Pinches, _Bab. Chron._, col. 2, l. 9; and later in 672 B.C., Winckler, _Alt. Forsch._, ii. pp. 125 ff.

[981] Cf. Ezekiel xxxii. 26, 27.

[982] Cf. Egyptian inscription, _temp._ Taharqa, B.C. 673, which mentions Mitanni also; and an Assyrian record, _temp._ Esarhaddon, B.C. 672 (Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 370).

[983] Date approximate.

[984] Date inferred.