The Project Gutenberg eBook of The land of the Hittites, by John Garstang.

AN ACCOUNT OF RECENT EXPLORATIONS AND
DISCOVERIES IN ASIA MINOR, WITH DESCRIPTIONS
OF THE HITTITE MONUMENTS

BY
JOHN GARSTANG D.Sc. B.Litt. M.A.
RANKIN PROFESSOR OF THE METHODS AND PRACTICE OF
ARCHÆOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL; FELLOW
OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON
HON. MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF NORTHERN
ANTIQUARIES, COPENHAGEN

LONDON
CONSTABLE AND COMPANY, LTD.
10 ORANGE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE, W.C.
1910

The history of ancient Oriental civilisation is slowly revealing itself to the excavator and archæologist. Scientific excavations have been carried on in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Palestine; it is now the turn of Asia Minor, both north and south of the Taurus; and there are indications that the revelation which Asia Minor and the neighbouring lands of Syria have in store for us will be even more startling than that which has come from Egypt and Babylonia. There we already knew that great empires and wide-reaching cultures had once flourished; the earlier history of Asia Minor, on the other hand, was a blank. But the blank is beginning to be filled up, and we are learning that there too an empire once existed, which contended on equal terms with those of the Nile and the Euphrates, and possessed a culture that formed a link between the east and the west. What I once called the forgotten empire of the Hittites is at last emerging into the light of day, and before long much[viii] that is still mysterious in the art and religion of Greece and Europe will be explained.

This much has already been ascertained by the excavations made by the German expedition under Professor Winckler at Boghaz-Keui, north of the Halys, the site of the Hittite capital. But there are many other sites in Asia Minor and northern Syria where Hittite culture once flourished, and where, therefore, discoveries similar to those which have startled the scientific world at Boghaz-Keui may be expected to be made. Some of these sites were examined by Professor Garstang in his preliminary journeys of exploration; at another he has begun the work of excavation and brought to light important remains of art and antiquity.

Sakje-Geuzi lies at a short distance from Sinjerli, where German excavators have discovered monuments which form the chief attraction of the Hittite section in the Museum of Berlin. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi represents a continuous history of unnumbered centuries. The earlier strata are the accumulation of a neolithic people; above them come the ruins of Hittite and Aramæan builders. The temple disinterred by Professor Garstang shows us what Hittite art was like in the Syria of the tenth and following centuries before our era, and enables us to guess at the character of the cult that was carried on in it.

In the following pages he has given an account of his work and the conclusions that may be drawn from[ix] it. This, however, occupies but a small portion of his book. Its main purpose is to review our present knowledge of Hittite history, art, and archæology; to describe the Hittite monuments now known to exist, and to trace the story of the Hittite empire as it has been revealed to us by recent discoveries.

Among the great political forces of the ancient Oriental world we now know that none exercised a more profound influence than the Hittites of Asia Minor. It was they who overthrew the Amorite dynasty of Babylonia to which the Amraphel of Genesis belonged; to them was due the fall of the Egyptian empire in Asia, and it was they who checked for centuries the desolating advance of the Assyrians. In Palestine their influence was supreme, and it is with good reason that in the tenth chapter of Genesis Heth is named second among the sons of Canaan. They were the founders of the Heraklid dynasty in Lydia, and Babylonian art as modified in Asia Minor was carried by them to the Greek seas. Greek religion and mythology owed much to them; even the Amazons of Greek legend prove to have been the warrior-priestesses of the great Hittite goddess. Above all, it was the Hittites who controlled the mines of Asia Minor which supplied the ancient world with silver, copper, lead, and perhaps also tin. Before the age of Abraham traders carried the bronze of Asia Minor to Assyria and Palestine, and thus transformed the whole culture of western Asia. The story of the forgotten[x] people is a fascinating one, and the reader cannot do better than study it under the guidance of Professor Garstang, whose work will be the standard authority on the subject for a long while to come.

Since Professor Sayce and Dr. Wright first called attention, more than thirty years ago, to the forgotten empire and civilisation of the Hittites, no book has appeared to keep the English reader abreast of the further information which has since come to light upon that subject. In the meantime researches made by British and German explorers in northern Syria and Asia Minor, and the studies of numerous scholars who have applied themselves to this problem, have advanced the position so far that the Hittites are nebulous no longer, but stand revealed in the clear light of history, claiming the attention of all those interested in the story of the Bible Lands, of Asia Minor, and of early Greece. The position and character of Asia Minor lend a wide interest and charm to its past no less than its present.

The present volume aims at filling the gap which has already grown too wide. It starts ab initio with a rapid survey of the Hittite lands, and an outline of their history. The Hittite monuments are then passed in review, each described separately and independently, in such a way as to be useful to any one visiting them in situ or in the museums of Constantinople and Berlin, where there are departments devoted specially to this branch of archæology. The bibliography and numerous[xii] cross-references in the footnotes will, it is hoped, make the work handy to the archæologist as a book of reference. The author’s own theories are mostly confined to the last chapter, and an effort has been made to distinguish between facts proved or generally accepted and matters of personal opinion. The attempt to reconstruct the history of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. from the archives recently discovered by Dr. Winckler at Boghaz-Keui is put forward tentatively, and would doubtless have been better done by a philologist. It has been found impossible to treat the subject of Hittite art and religious symbolism in general within the limited scope of this volume and its title.

Some other points are best noted at the outset. One aim of the book being to interest the English reader in a fascinating but neglected subject, the bibliographical references are given in English wherever translations of foreign authors are available. Unhappily some of the masterpieces of modern scholarship, like Meyer’s Geschichte des Alterthums, are not yet rendered into English. The geographical names employed, even at the risk of inconsistency, are those most familiar or in common use. Thus Hamath instead of Hama, Aleppo for Haleb, Carchemish for Jerablus, Tyana for Kilisse Hissar. In regard to the term ‘Hittite,’ also, the word is primarily used in reference to that class of monuments generally known as Hittite, and hence to the ancient people whose handiwork these were. The word Hatti is used in a more restricted sense, to imply[xiii] the central and at one time dominant Hittite state or states whose seat and centre of organisation was at Boghaz-Keui. But it should not be forgotten that actually the words Hittite and Hatti are interchangeable.

There are many friends who have helped forward the completion of the work at various stages. Among them are the writer’s colleagues during two of his journeys of exploration in Asia Minor. The Rev. W. M. Linton Smith has corrected several chapters in proof, and has provided several photographs of the Phrygian monuments. Mr. Arthur Wilkin has kindly supplied the photographs of Ephesus, Sardis, and the goddess on Mount Sipylus. The bulk of the illustrations, however, are the handiwork of Mr. Horst Schliephack, and they speak for themselves. Any one who has attempted photography under the conditions of travel in Asia Minor will realise the skill with which these results have been obtained. In Constantinople our work has received the constant help of Sir Edwin Pears and Mr. G. H. Fitzmaurice; while H.E. the late Hamdi Bey greatly facilitated our expeditions by his good-will as Director of the Imperial Ottoman Museum. In this connection we cannot omit to mention those patrons of science whose generosity provided the means of carrying out these expeditions, namely, the Right Hon. Sir John T. Brunner, Bart., M.P., the late Dr. Ludwig Mond, Mr. Ralph Brocklebank, Mr. Martyn Kennard, and Mr. Robert Mond. These gentlemen have earned the gratitude of all those interested in[xiv] the advance of knowledge; and the writer trusts sincerely that they will find within these pages something that will reward their interest in these undertakings. Mr. Hogarth and Dr. Messerschmidt are also to be thanked for the loan of several photographs, and for the facilities granted in the museums at Oxford and Berlin respectively under their control.

The brunt of the proof-reading has again been borne by the Rev. W. Macgregor, and Mrs. R. Gurney has also helped again in the revision of a considerable portion of the manuscript previous to printing; in this connection the help and kindly criticism of colleagues at Liverpool is not forgotten. Finally to Professor Sayce the writer’s warmest gratitude is due, both for his first lessons in Hittite lore, and for the constant stimulus of suggestion and correction given unstintingly from the funds of his knowledge. The pleasant labour of the best part of two years devoted to the preparation of this volume has been amply rewarded by many delightful days spent with him amid the Past in Oxford and Edinburgh and on the Nile.

At the outset of our undertaking we are faced by a considerable perplexity, in that the land we are setting forth to examine is practically undefined. We are guided indeed by vague and scanty historical references towards the north of Syria and the east of Asia Minor, but for a wider and surer delimitation, however incomplete, we must rely on the evidence afforded by the disposition of the Hittite monuments themselves. These cannot fix for us any certain boundaries, nor does the area throughout which they have as yet been found coincide with any great natural landmarks such as are wont to form the frontiers of nations. On the other hand, their curious disposition, and the very disunity of the tract they indicate, awaken our interest by a suggestion of unusual circumstances that could weld together, in political unity, peoples whose conditions of life so differed. And though mostly in the heart of a peninsula washed by the blue waves of two great inland seas, no part of the long coast-line can be included, upon present evidence, in our territory. Maybe the cause is only that the conditions there are not favourable to the preservation or recovery of monuments; but none the less it is to be noted that no trace of Hittite handiwork has yet been found around the coast, whether along the wooded shores of the Black[2] Sea in the north, on the fertile inlets of the west,[1] or on the rocky passes of the Syrian seaboard; nor has any clear connection yet been shown between the Hittite confederated peoples and those sea-rovers who, from their harbours under the southern shelter of the Taurus, made piratical descents upon the Egyptian Delta in the thirteenth century B.C.[2]

Thus we see the Hittites as a purely inland people, not taking to the sea more kindly at any rate than do the Turkish peoples of to-day. The centre of their monuments is the mountainous region of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus systems, whence on the one hand they lead us down to the hot plains that lie between the right bank of the Euphrates and Mount Amanus (the Giaour Dagh), with a continuation to the south by the valley of the Orontes as far as its sources in the Lebanon; and on the other hand widen out to embrace not only the northern fringe of the Taurus Mountains, and the basin of the Halys River, but practically the whole broad tableland of Central Asia Minor, with one finger pointing down the Hermus valley past Sardis to the west. The inference to be derived from these preliminary considerations will receive confirmation as we proceed with our inquiry, when we shall find reason to believe that the peoples whose land we are trying to map out were of mountain origin. The problem of their settlement, however, remains obscure; we must await the results of further investigations to determine whether it was a combined movement of peoples, bringing with them the elements of their civilisation,[3] like the Turks in modern history, or whether for ages they endured the rigours of mountain life before they became strong enough to descend upon the hospitable plains below.

The wilder mountains of Greater Armenia, east of the head-waters of the Euphrates, show no definite sign of Hittite settlement;[3] but they form a distinctive boundary to our region, being the culmination of the system of which the Taurus are a part. Here too is the centre of mountain-ranges which, like the rivers rising in their heights, descend in several directions. To the north the towering peak of Ararat, seventeen thousand feet in height, looks down upon the green upland valleys of the Caucasus. Towards the east, the range which skirts the Caspian Sea connects beyond with the systems of Central Asia. Towards the south, another chain holds up as it were the highlands of Asia, on the one hand, giving way on the other to the basins of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and touching eventually the eastern waters of the Persian Gulf.

The Taurus system is another such chain trending westward, dividing Asia Minor from the rest of Asia, skirting the southern coast-line, then breaking and scattering as the level falls towards the west until it descends below the sea, where its hilltops, still projecting, form the Ægean archipelago, until drawn together it rises to dry land on the soil of Greece. In the heart of these mountains, the two main sources of[4] the river Euphrates flow in a westerly direction until they unite above Malatia;[4] thence twisting and turning ever, in its search for a passage through the rocky ramparts that oppose it, the great river makes an easterly contour until nearing the plains. Before reaching Gerger, however, its direction is changed once more, turning westward in a long curve past Samsat towards Aintab, and southward to the latitude of Aleppo: from here its course becomes more tranquil and direct towards the Persian Gulf.

The bend of the Euphrates below Malatia marks for the present the boundary of the Hittite country on the east. The whole mountainous region lying to the west of this landmark is divided by the gorges of the Pyramus, comprising the bleak easterly heights of the main Taurus range on the one hand, and the more broken but less barren regions of the Anti-Taurus which lie within. From the Taurus numerous torrents fall southward to join the bend of the Euphrates, while the northern slopes of the same range look down on the deep valley of the Tochma Su. This river, flowing eastward, is another main tributary of the Euphrates, which it joins not far from Malatia, and it forms our present boundary to the north in that direction.[5] Its sources are found high up past Gurun in the main watershed, from which some rivers flow southward to the Cilician plain, others north-west to feed the Halys.

The routes connecting the north of Syria with Asia Minor make use of these natural channels of approach. Thus the main road from Aintab northwards, after reaching the Pyramus near Marash, follows that river[5] closely to Albistan, whence the bed of a stream leads up to the divide that gives way to the valley of the Tochma Su beyond. Derendeh is thus gained; and up this new valley the road passes by Gurun northward, and so over the watershed to Sivas in the valley of the Halys. From Albistan another route leads eastward to Malatia; and westward a path passing by Izgîn rises over the mountains to the interior.[6] A more direct route, however, from Aintab and Marash leads by the side of streams that feed the Pyramus north-westward up to Shahr (the classical Komana), on the sources of the Cilician Sarus; thence, by one of several passes, among which is the Kuru-Bel, the head-waters of the Zamanti Su are reached, so leading down to Cæsarea at the foot of Mount Argæus. The last-named river is tributary to the Sarus, passing by Ekrek, Tashji, and Fraktin on its course.

It may be judged that a region so broken up by mountain-streams is not altogether barren or inclement. Its very altitude, averaging six thousand feet above the sea, gives respite from the summer heats that make life burdensome upon the Syrian plains. Green patches nestle under the shelter of its heights, protected thereby from the severity of winter blizzards when the mountain-passes may be filled with snow. And in its deeper valleys, though the actual banks are mostly rocky, yet the broad slopes on either side are generally favourable to the cultivation of cereals and other necessaries. The numerous fair towns that have sprung up in favoured spots, mostly upon Hittite sites, with their gardens and vineyards, fruit and olive[6] plantations, their industries in weaving and embroideries, reveal to us something of its attractions and the possibilities of ancient settlement.

Just as the roadways of this region converge upon Marash, so from this centre other lines of communication spread out into the regions of the south. On the one hand the valley of the Pyramus leads down to the Cilician plain; on the other the road to Aintab, which we now follow, brings us to the northernmost parts of Syria, historically the scene of the struggles of the Hittites with the Pharaohs and with Assyria. The whole tract before us as far southward as Aleppo is of twofold character: on the east are the great plains that lie away to the Euphrates, while on the west two mountain-ranges intervene between these and the sea, lying parallel with one another and with the coast.

The plains are really an apex to the Syrian desert, themselves watered sparsely by winter streams flowing to the Euphrates, with some independent rivers which, failing to find an exit, resolve themselves into small salt lakes and swamps. There are no trees or other protection against the withering sun, and the surface is broken only here and there by low ridges and the mounds which mark the sites of ancient settlements.[7] The people are mostly Kurds, mingled with the settled descendants of northern Bedouins, using a primitive Arab speech. Their life is arduous: their crops are parched before they can be reaped; but none the less out of generations of experience they find the means to live and feed their flocks. Except for local routes, the only roads which cross this desolate tract lead[7] from Aleppo and from Aintab to the crossing of the Euphrates now found at Birejik, not far from the site of ancient Carchemish at Jerablus.[8]

Aleppo itself must be classed as a city of the plain, though its economy is different. Here is the natural centre of commerce for the north of Syria and a great part of Western Asia. So, instead of being a peasant village upon a nameless stream, Aleppo has grown to be one of the fairest cities of the East. Local industries have developed, adding to its resources. Its stone-built houses and public places, its groves and fruit-gardens, as well as the hearty spirit of its people, are the tokens of its prosperity. Another town of considerable interest and importance is Killiz, on the border of the plain, midway between Aleppo and Aintab. In approaching this place the road passes through miles of olive-groves, which form long lines of dark green upon the red loamy soil.

From Killiz as we turn westward the character of the landscape is immediately changed; the plains are left behind, and the mountain country is entered that lies between them and the sea. Of the two ranges mentioned previously, the Qurt Dagh, which is first encountered, is less bold than its western neighbour, and also less continuous, giving way gradually towards the south. It is wild and varied enough, however, to provide a series of memorable panoramas of mountain[8] scenery. Northward the head-waters of the Afrîn[9] River have scoured deep gorges in its wooded heights; and the main stream, flowing southward in a wild and sparsely cultivated valley, has hewn for itself a rocky bed through which it swirls until the hills are left behind, when turning westward it flows on to join the Orontes near to Antioch. In such a country it is not surprising that no Hittite monuments have been placed on record. It is in contact, nevertheless, on either hand, with places where some of the most instructive Hittite works have been discovered; and we are tempted therefore to linger somewhat in this unfamiliar region, seeking in the life and features of its people for living witness of the ancient civilisations in which it must have shared.

The population is naturally scanty, and varies racially according to its disposition. On the basalt plateau which forms the eastern boundary to the valley, leading down to Killiz and Aintab beyond, several villages of Kurdish families are found. Here communication with the towns is frequent, and mingling is not uncommon accordingly with other elements of the Turkish people. The houses are often well constructed of masonry, for stone is plentiful; indeed, the whole plateau is so thickly strewn that even the pathways are difficult and narrow, while before the plough can be put to the land a space must first be cleared at considerable labour. Consequently the amount of cultivation is small, and even the sparse grain that grows wild over thousands of acres remains unreaped. In addition to the settled villages, and the tumbled ruins of many deserted hamlets, this high ground is freely sprinkled in the summer-time with the tents of nomads,[9] either seeking refuge temporarily from the eastern plains, in accordance with a common practice, or halting for a brief season on their endless journey.

The rocky edges to this plateau on the western side are broken ever and again by rifts, down which a more copious supply of water tumbles from above, opening out into little nooks under the shelter of the heights before joining the main valley of the river below. In such places a village may be found amid a patch of comparatively luxurious cultivation, well illustrated by the vines and mulberries of Rowanduz. This pleasant spot lies at the foot of the steep descent from Karakul upon the plateau, and is marked by the ruins of a fine mediæval castle crowning a prominent cone-like hill.[10] The groves and gardens are watered by a primitive system of irrigation. The rich soil readily repays the labour bestowed upon it in however simple fashion.

Lower down, in the main valley and nearer the river’s bed, the aspect of the country is generally savage and neglected. A short withered scrub speckles the surface of the ground, which is reft in every direction by the dry gullies of winter torrents. The main routes, here as elsewhere, keep consistently along the higher levels, crossing the rifts near their beginnings, before they have become too rough and too steep to scale. Other tracks are found naturally along the river’s bed, which they cross and recross, scaling the cliffs where the water has laid bare the rocks, and at other times passing through more open spaces cheered by narrow strips of corn-land and the rich bloom of a myriad oleanders, wherever the steep banks recede a little way on one side or the other. These lower tracks, however, are never easy to follow, even under favourable conditions,[10] on account alike of the numerous scrambles over cliffs often shaly and precipitous, where a false step of horse or man might lead to disaster, and also of the numerous crossings of the river, often deceptive to any one unfamiliar with the fords. The latter obstacle becomes a grave danger after mountain storms which may have passed almost unnoticed in the valley. Even in summer-time thunder-clouds from time to time collect above the heights, and amid a gorgeous display of lightning and reverberating thunder a torrential rain transforms in a few minutes the rocky basin of the river. The dried-up gullies are now alive with splashing streams, and the slumbering rivulets become foaming torrents, the sudden uproar of scurrying streams and newly born cascades striking the ear with curious strangeness and foreboding.[11] In an hour or two the streams are once more tranquil and the sun has reappeared; but the river below has received nearly all the water that has fallen, and swirls on deep and dangerous. Fords that have little changed their appearance are now impassable, and none but the stranger will attempt to cross them.

Even without such temporary dangers, the unwary traveller in such a country, trying maybe to force a march when unacquainted with the village tracks and local landmarks, will surely come to grief; and though within an hour or two of some village where loyal, if frugal, hospitality awaits him, will find himself lost, with little means of knowing how to direct his footsteps. For the village which he would gain lies hidden out of sight in some sheltered nook, or behind a bend in the river, or beyond a rise of ground. Yet even though he reach the village by night, whether as an[11] armed party or as a benighted wanderer, his welcome is secure, and his life is sacred. No questions will be asked him, nor will any demand the reason of his coming. Warm milk and home-made bread-cakes, and sometimes honey, will be offered him as refreshment; and after a few simple courtesies the best room will be put at his disposal. In the morning the ‘swash-swish’ of the churn, an inflated goatskin, will tell him that the housewife is busied with his breakfast: soon the door is opened and he recognises in his attendant, who lays the round tray before him, none other than his host, the headman of the village. His horse is fed and saddled, and the chief’s son is his guide.

In the main valley, however, we have not found that which we seek. Pushing on then up one of the sources of the river we reach Kartal, in a green dell begirt with wooded hills. Though off the beaten track this place is only one day’s journey by mountain-path from Aintab. Perhaps on this account the people here are freer. Their simplicity of life is the same, but their curiosity is greater and their restraint is less. Here we are soon friends; and have opportunity to study their manners and their features. Their houses are partly hollowed in the hillside as in many parts of Asia Minor, alike for economy in construction, and for better protection against rain and cold. The roofs are built of timber, and so covered with earth that it is difficult in descending from above to distinguish them from the surface of the ground with which they are continuous. The chief industry of the villagers, in addition to the tending of their fields and flocks, is the making of butter and dairy produce, which is sent to the market at Aintab. They are said to be Turkomans, descendants of wanderers from the East who settled[12] here many generations back, and now an element of the Turkish people. But there is something in their faces reminiscent of Hittite portraits, suggested generally in the women, and marked strongly in some of the men, though in others not at all. This glimmer seems to be due to mixture in past times with a pre-existing population; for in the hills above there are settlements of woodmen whom even these villagers regard as a somewhat strange and different people. Here, at last, we come face to face with that remarkable type portrayed so clearly on Egyptian sculptures, and suggested also in the Hittite monuments themselves, characterised by the strong nose in line with the receding forehead, the round protrusion of the head behind, the heavy lips and beard, and the stolid look. The figure is short and thickset, betokening stamina and strength. Our photograph[12] was obtained at Kuchuk Kizil-Hissar, nearer to Aintab, but it is clear that the home of this type is now the mountainous country, where it has persevered in seclusion and still survives.

Our wanderings in this district have not then been fruitless. The traveller may be rewarded also by a picture of wonderful beauty to be seen at sunset from the wooded heights near the sources of the Afrîn River and the Kara Su. Pen cannot describe the delicacy and harmony of the colours in the trees, with the effects of light and shade among their leaves and in the shadows of the foreground; nor could brush compose[13] the majesty and depth imparted by Nature to the distance of this scene. Ridge beyond ridge, of varied forms and softening colours, leads back to where beneath the reddening glow the bold ranges of the Amanus chain are seen purple, even while the snow-clad peaks of far-distant Taurus in the north still gleam in the last lingering rays of light.

From here the western edge of the Qurt Dagh range descends abruptly to a broad and marshy valley, shut in, on the other side, by the Giaour Dagh. The land is flat, and the streams, after descending from the mountains, mostly stagnate in marshes overgrown with reeds and scrub. From the middle tract egress is almost wholly shut off, by ridges and outliers from the hills. Such water as escapes either flows northward to join the Pyramus or southward to form the Kara Su. Though now pestilential with malaria and sparsely inhabited, this valley is naturally very fertile; and numerous mounds which dot the surface are indicative of extensive ancient settlement.[13] Among these are the sites of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, which provide us with our most complete architectural monuments of the Hittites on this side of the Taurus. Here there seem to have been a series of petty states or principalities,[14] consisting of groups of towns clustering round the palace of the local king, fortified strongly with stone walls and towers. We do not yet know what may have been the precise relations of these elements of the population to one another; but it is clear that in the days of Hittite supremacy they must have been amongst those tribes who shared in the[14] confederacy.[15] It is also obvious that no people could hope to defend themselves in this valley who did not hold the passes of the mountain-ranges on either side.

The westerly chain of the Giaour Dagh, indeed, was readily defensible. Except for a few local tracks available only in the summer, there are but few passes over its unbroken mass, and these are well defined. This splendid range of mountains, better known as Mount Amanus, forms a main branch of the Taurus system, from which it is divided only by the valley of the Pyramus. It separates Syria from Cilicia on the west, and touching the sea near Alexandretta follows the coast south-westward, until arrested by the broad valley of the Orontes. The average height of the chain is from four to six thousand feet, while some of its peaks reach almost to the snow-line.[16] Of the several passes that traverse it, that which leads transversely from Marash into Cilicia presents the easiest gradient, and is much used by caravans, though impassable by carts. The central pass above Bogche, however, is better known, being the direct line of communication between Cilicia and the East. Bogche itself is reached from Osmaniyeh on the eastern borders of the Cilician plain by a path which, while generally following the valley of the Bogche Su, traverses also some outlying ridges. The village is thus found picturesquely situated in an open and fertile spot among the hills. The long ascent thence continues up to one of the main sources of the same stream until the watershed is crossed, whence the descent is steep and rugged to the valley. The track then heads directly by Sakje Geuzi over the Qurt Dagh to Aintab, and so eastward to the crossing of the[15] Euphrates. Though direct and not very difficult, this route is not yet made passable by carts, and perhaps for this reason the mail from Adana and the West takes the coast route, on mule pack, round to Alexandretta,[17] whence rises the main road to the interior. The Beilan Pass, as it is called, above Alexandretta, is by far the easiest, and the steep gradient on either side is so nicely engineered that it is hardly realised in passing where the watershed is crossed. Leading down directly to the fair seaport on the Mediterranean, this route for centuries has been a main channel of commerce between Europe and Asia; and until the railway connecting Aleppo with Beyrout diverted a large part of the traffic, caravans consisting of hundreds of laden camels in long procession could be seen daily, bringing out the merchandise of the East, and taking back the manufactured products of the West.

The mountain-chain now turns south-west, and terminates abruptly in the rocky point called in Arabic Ras El Khanzîr, ‘The Pig’s Head,’ while its southern slopes descend steeply to the estuary of the Orontes. Beyond, the mountainous character of the coast is continued south in the Jebel Ansarîa (or Bargylus Mountains), which hold on until broken by the broad rift which divides them from the Lebanon. Hugging the eastern side of this range the Orontes River comes northward, and turning sharply where the mountains break, it flows past Antioch south-westward to the sea. At the bend it is joined by the Afrîn River[16] and the Kara Su in a broad and swampy hollow almost shut in by the mountain-ranges and the eastern plains.

The sources of the Orontes are found in the northern region of the Anti-Lebanon, and here the southern limit of the Hittite monuments is reached.[18] In this vicinity was Kadesh, the frontier fortress of the Hittites that figures so prominently in the battle-scenes of Egypt. Here, too, is Homs, now a remarkable Arab city, at the junction of the main routes from Damascus to Aleppo, and from Palmyra to Tripolis on the sea. Further north is Restan, strongly placed at a bend of the river on a steep and naturally defended knoll. Further again is Hamath, where the main road and the river separate, the latter turning westward to seek its green bed below the mountains, and the former holding on directly towards Aleppo across the plains. Here, at Hamath, were found the hieroglyphic inscriptions which first gave rise to systematic Hittite studies. Here, too, types of people are found strongly reminiscent of the past, like living models of the ancient sculptures.[19]

This district, in the head-waters of the Orontes, was not only the Hittite frontier, but was such as the Hittites in the period of their settlement seem to have delighted in. Here their walled towns and citadels sprang up, in the midst of a land well watered and reasonably fertile, under the shadow of mountains[17] which cut them off from the sea and from their enemy of the South; while behind the road was open to call up in necessity the assistance of the northern branches of their people.

From the Taurus we descended firstly to the north of Syria, because in the development of Hittite studies this region first attracted attention through the references to it in Egyptian and Assyrian history. But modern research has added to our knowledge of the Hittite lands a wider and different territory on the other side. There the descent to the interior of Asia Minor from the mountains is not so marked, for even around the foot of snow-capped Argæus, the most advanced pinnacle of the system, the plateau is still four thousand feet above the sea. The level falls gradually towards the west, but rarely much below three thousand feet; while on the other hand the numerous minor ranges that break the surface of the interior attain a considerably greater height. This tableland is almost enclosed by ridges of mountains: on the north and south these descend directly to the coast; on the west they are more broken and less bold, but they constitute none the less a great obstacle between the plateau and the green valleys of the Ægean coast.[20] On the east, as we have already seen, are the Anti-Taurus ranges, backed by the Armenian hills beyond. The upland area thus enclosed is from two to three hundred miles across according to the direction taken, for its form is irregular. Only to the south is the boundary sharply defined, where the range of Taurus forms a mighty wall, which in the middle[18] turns almost a right angle in direction, running north-eastward and north-west. The whole plateau may be regarded as irregularly five-sided.

The interior varies greatly in its features, the chief agent being the peculiarities of its river systems. Shut in as it is, many rivers fail to find an outlet to the sea: this is especially the case in the plain which lies at the foot of the western ranges of the Taurus, where the waters stagnate, forming salt lakes or marshes. This plain is green around Konia, but its extensions to the north and east are practically desert, being parched and barren in the summer months. On its north-east, in the centre of the peninsula, its boundary is the largest salt lake of the interior, which is fed likewise by several minor inland streams. There are some rivers, however, which find an outlet even through the Taurus ranges, but such are more common towards the west and north-west. The districts which these water are consequently among the most attractive of Asia Minor, with areas of natural woodland and green pastures, as well as fertile soil for cultivation.

But the greatest river and most important landmark of the interior is the Halys, which describes a broad circuit through the heart of the plateau, enclosing towards the north-east a tract about a hundred and fifty miles across which mostly lies in the basin of the river, well watered by its many tributaries. This region is one of the most important in our subject. Though not extensively cultivated, for the stable population even here is relatively small, it is none the less highly fertile. Its hills and slopes are mostly green with pastures, and in the flat valleys are long reaches suitable for the plough. Another favoured district lies southward from the Halys, passing by Mount Argæus,[19] skirting the eastern edges of the plain, and watered by streamlets from the Anti-Taurus. Here in the vicinity of Tyana are wide acres of corn-land, gardens are plentiful, and even trees abound.

Woodland is rare in the interior, but highland trees grow in profusion on the mountain-sides. The middle heights of the Taurus are covered with virgin forest, especially on the southern aspect, where every variety of European tree is found; and the pine-woods of Phrygia in the west have been a feature of the country throughout its history.[21] The slopes overlooking the Black Sea, however, catch the chief share of the northern rains, and here consequently forest-land is plentiful,[22] and nearly continuous along the coast. The interior is almost rainless in the summer-time,[23] and relies chiefly for its water supply on the winter storms, and later melting of the mountain snows. Owing to its high elevation above the sea the cold season is severe and persistent: the bleak winds from southern Russia sweep across its plains and open spaces, driving the population of the exposed areas for shelter into houses either sunk below the surface of the ground or hollowed in the banks of streams. The compensation for this inclement season is ample in the summer weather, when the warm sun shining down from blue skies is tempered by refreshing breezes which the altitude produces—features of climate that distinguish this tableland from the southern coasts, and from the plains of Syria.

Such in brief are the striking features of this portion[20] of the Hittites’ land. On these breezy highlands the ancient people found all the elements of contentment: hunter, woodman, shepherd, and peasant found each his home, in which Nature provided him with all the ordinary requirements of his life. Nor was the development of his civilisation to be arrested by his settlement: the resources of his country were inexhaustible; mines of useful and precious minerals are not uncommon;[24] and the means of providing other commodities was at hand, for the walls of the plateau were not without openings to foster some relations with the coast and so with other lands. But, on the whole, the uplands which he had occupied were economically self-contained; and for the stimulus to his civilisation we look naturally to the East, and especially to the old-established culture on the Euphrates, the communications with which, by the nature of his settlement, were open and in his power.[25]

In the foregoing general view of Central Asia Minor we have seen that the interior tableland may be divided conveniently for description into five main regions, not for the most part separated from one another by any definite boundary, but each characterised by some special feature. These are, in the south, the plains that lie northward and eastward from Iconium; in the west, the pine-clad hills and verdant pastures of Phrygia, where several great rivers rise that descend in different directions; in the north, the upland but not highland country around[21] Angora, in which also is the divide between some tributaries of the Sangarius and of the Halys; in the north-east, the broad tract enclosed by the convex curve of the Halys River, to which we shall presently return; and, in the south-east, the tract of which Tyana is the centre, with which we shall include the eastern portion of the plain of Konia and the range of Taurus that bounds it on the south. Of these regions, the two latter may be regarded as an eastern or inner group as opposed to the three former lying to their west, from which they are physically separated, more clearly, at any rate, than the components of either group from one another, by the broad expanse of desert, the great central lake, and especially by the middle course of the Halys. This distinction between eastern and western will be found to have a real significance as our story develops: it is clear from the outset, however, that the former group would first receive and longest retain contact with Eastern civilisation, whether by the natural approaches over the watershed between the Euphrates and the Halys, or by the several crossings of the Anti-Taurus which converge upon Cæsarea, or by what is now the chief channel of communication through the Taurus Mountains by way of Cilicia. This distinction will be found further emphasised by the comparative plenty of Hittite monuments on the one side, and their paucity in the west. On the southern plains, indeed, skirting the main range of Taurus, westward progress was less restrained;[26] but that the Halys in the north presented a real barrier[27] is borne out by the fact that when the[22] Lydian Crœsus crossed the Halys in the sixth century B.C. he found a strange and presumably non-Aryan people surviving upon the eastern side, who were indeed, according to Herodotus,[28] called Syrians by the Greeks, and by that historian spoken of as Syro-Cappadocians.

With our two eastern divisions we must include the plain and district westward of Cæsarea, a tract which on the north lies partly in the basin of the Halys, and on the south is practically continuous with the plains of Tyana, from which it is separated only by a low ridge of hills. Towards the west are the remarkable troglodyte villages,[29] where, probably from remote antiquity, the inhabitants have hewn out their dwellings in the soft surface rock and conical mounds which are the peculiar feature of the locality. There is little evidence as yet, however, to make this region of importance in our subject, and it is only recently that Cæsarea has yielded trace of Hittite handiwork.[30] None the less the continuation of exploration will certainly bring to light new monuments, for the district lies in the heart of the Hittite country; and Old Cæsarea (Mazaca) was the residence of Cappadocian kings.

The position of Cæsarea is geographically of great importance, and from Roman times at any rate has marked the focus of the trade and traffic, and consequently of the road-systems, of the interior. The soil locally is of great fertility, owing to its volcanic nature. Vines and fruit-trees grow and thrive luxuriantly. The middle heights of slumbering[23] Argæus are covered thickly with pine-woods. The snow-capped peak of this mountain towers in the heavens, the conspicuous feature of the horizon and the landmark for two days’ journey on every side. Its form is conical: to the west and south, where it rises directly from the plain, its base is washed by great lakes and marshes of variable extent. Towards the east it is connected up by broken ridges with the Anti-Taurus system. On its northern slope is Asarjik, overlooking Cæsarea, which lies at the foot of the mountain on that side. The site of the ancient city (Mazaca) is probably that marked by the ruins of Græco-Roman times, to be found in the vineyards on a low spur of the mountain about a mile south of the modern town.[31] Here is a spot that will one day reward excavation by a volume of unsuspected history. In the modern town, apart from its bazaars and industries and its splendid mediæval remains,[32] one of the most interesting sights is the ever-changing stream of human faces to be seen in its streets, for its traffic and position bring to it daily caravans from every side. In its resident population there are considerable Greek and Armenian elements; but there may be noticed as specially of interest to our subject the Jewish families,[33] in which the dominant features of face and stature recall again the type previously noticed at Kartal in Northern Syria. Main roads radiate from Cæsarea in all directions: towards the north-east to Sivas by the valley of the Halys; to the north by Yuzgat, crossing the river, which is five hours distant from Cæsarea, by a remarkable bridge of many spans[24] (hence called Chok-Geuz Keupru); to the north-west by way of a lower bridge (called in contrast Bir-Geuz, or One-span Bridge), heading thence directly for Angora by the bridge at Cheshme Keupru; to the west across the plains to Konia by Sultan Han, skirting the southern border of the salt lake (Tuz Geul); to the south by Injesu and Tyana, and so to the Cilician Gates, or by a western branch to Eregli. An alternative route from Cæsarea to the Cilician Gates, shorter but impassable by carts, leads through defiles of wild beauty through the outlying ridges of the Anti-Taurus. South-east there are several well-established mountain tracks, like those to Fraktin and Ekrek, but there is one of special interest and antiquity, to which we have already alluded, heading directly for Marash by way of the high pass of Kuru-Bel,[34] and passing hence by Komana. Of the other routes enumerated there is one which was already of importance on general grounds before a recent discovery gave to it a special historical interest. This is the main road north and south, passing through Yuzgat, which in antiquity connected Boghaz-Keui with the east by way of Tyana and the Cilician Gates. This is clearly a southerly stage of the Royal Road of the Persian period, but whether it is the main route is not determinable from the description of Herodotus.[35] It has, however, now been traced for several miles between Injesu and a ford of the river near Bogche,[36] by the ruts scored deeply and over a broad track on the surface rock, exactly like the section previously traced through Phrygia by Sir William Ramsay.[37] It is significant that[25] this route did not touch Cæsarea, to reach which a considerable détour must be made around the foot of Argæus, so much so that even now an optional route is in use from Injesu to Chok-Geuz Keupru. The old route was, if anything, even more direct, for from Injesu, near which it is traceable, it headed for the river in due line for Boghaz-Keui. The Hittite inscription overlooking the river at Bogche, the continuous signs of the road approaching Injesu from this direction, the Phrygian inscription found on the site of Tyana,[38] and the Hittite inscriptions from the same vicinity,[39] are evidences of the antiquity of this road analogous in every way to those which have been accepted as identifying it in the Phrygian country, from Bey-Keui to Doghanlu. Incidentally we find light in this discovery on the historical antiquity of the Cilician Gates as the main channel of communication with the east. Later in these pages[40] we shall find reason to believe that the western part of the great Royal Road, which led the Persian posts in crossing Asia Minor to make the wide détour by way of Pteria (even though the city was in ruins),[41] had been made and established by the Hittites in the thirteenth century B.C., when the stone walls of their capital crowned the hilltops of Boghaz-Keui. Possibly the earliest communication with the East was by way of the valley of the Tochma Su,[42] or by Marash; but the development of this southern branch of the main chariot-way cannot well be later than the tenth century B.C., when the second kingdom of the Hittites grew prominent with Tyana (or maybe Cæsarea) as its centre.

In passing now to a closer examination of the geography of those portions of the tableland with which we shall be most concerned in later chapters, we cannot begin more appropriately than by a description of the Halys River itself, as one of the definite landmarks of the interior, and as including in its circuit some of the most instructive Hittite works. This splendid river, known in the Turkish language as the Kizil Irmak, has a total length of five hundred miles, without counting its minor windings. Its sources must be sought in the map beyond Sivas, far up the northern slope of the lower Armenian hills,[43] where at one point but a few miles divide it from several tributaries of the Euphrates. For nearly two hundred miles it holds on in a south-westerly direction through hilly country, fed by numerous short streams on either hand, which scour for themselves deep channels in their swift descent. Its waters are deeply stained red-brown in colour by the rich sediment which it carries. Its banks are rugged, and like most main rivers of western Asia it flows deep below the general level of the basin which it drains. The bridge opposite Cæsarea (Chok-Geuz) is only gained by a steep climb on either side. Between this and the other bridge some fifteen miles lower down, the river flows characteristically through a steep-sided valley, with only narrow strips of verdure along its banks. These strips are precious, and, though liable to be washed out by flood,[44] are cultivated with great care by individual peasants, who are rewarded with fruits and even flowers, as well as the vegetables which are their chief concern.[45] Sometimes these strips, which[27] are never more than a few feet in width, give way entirely where the rocks protruding from the bank present an obstacle around which the deep waters swirl. Ever and again, however, the steep banks recede, leaving a green oasis wherein a village lies among its crops. Yamoola is such a place, where the right bank lies back as the lower bridge is approached. But for the most part the edges of the plateau in which the river’s bed is sunk are so rugged and so strewn with stone that they remain uncultivated. Here and there villages are found even in the river’s banks; in some cases the entire houses are excavated therein, so that their windows look out on the water through walls of solid stone, as at Chok-Geuz Keupru; in other cases the excavation is more partial, leaving most of the frontage and part of the roof to be built—the one with mud, the other with timber and mud, as may be seen by following the left bank below the lower bridge. The traveller will also be rewarded here in summer-time with wildflowers in varieties of colour surpassing imagination, possible only in a highly fertile and neglected soil. Patches of pink, blue, orange, white and yellow meet the eye in quick succession. Roses grow in profusion, while here and there are whole fields of purple iris, shining and changing hue as they bend in the sunlight to the winds that play upon them.

The volume of the river has now become so great that fords are few and generally difficult. That near Bogche[46] is no longer passable in the winter and spring-time. The village itself lies back from the river-brink about fifteen miles below the Bir-Geuz bridge. Karaburna[28] lies near the opposite bank, another day’s journey lower down. Hereabouts the hilly ground which lies eastward of the great lake Tuz Geul arrests the southerly progress of the river, which, thrown back, turns in a great sweep north-westwards for nearly a hundred miles, then northwards to latitude of Angora, so dividing the heart of the peninsula. The chief bridge in the latter portion of its course is now at Cheshme Keupru, where amongst other main communications the road from Cæsarea to Angora recrosses the river. Hereabouts it would seem there was a bridge and fort or guardhouse in Persian times,[47] where the royal road from the Phrygian country and the west passed over towards Boghaz-Keui. Above this bridge the immediate banks are green and on the left side open; but below the waters pass at once into a rocky defile, changes which are typical of the varying nature of the river’s bed. Opposite Angora (which is distant about thirty miles at the nearest point) Nature opposes further obstacles to the northerly progress of the river in the broken ranges of the northern coast, so that it now turns completely upon its original direction, and henceforth flows north-easterly with one main détour. As it winds around the foot of the Kush Dagh it descends from the plateau, and in a widening valley with fertile banks finds its way into the Black Sea, northwards from Samsun, at the point of a promontory which it has itself deposited.

The great circuit of the Halys encloses a tract of country a hundred and fifty miles across, watered chiefly by tributaries of the same river. Of these the[29] Delije Irmak is chief, and it is perhaps more directly concerned with the fertility of the country than its parent river. It rises in the watershed of the Ak Dagh Mountains, under the southern slopes of which the Halys itself flows down the long reach between Sivas and the bridges near Cæsarea. Thence in its course it makes a similar circuit within that of the Halys, which it only joins in the middle of the north-westerly reach. This river is more gentle in its flow, and its banks are mostly flat alluvial tracts of great fertility; indeed, the land would support a population many times more numerous than its settled inhabitants. Long green pastures and arable spots remain unneeded and neglected. It is small wonder that the wandering Turkoman and other nomad peoples have found out this favoured region so suitable to their habits and the feeding of their flocks. Their tents in little groups are found quite frequently in places off the beaten tracks; indeed their encampments remaining through several years sometimes mark the foundation of villages and settled life. The tent of the nomad is generally made of lengths of rough hand-made cloth, woven from home-spun goats’ wool. These are sewn together to give a considerable expanse of cover, which is spread over vertical poles and brought down to earth on the windward side. In such a tent the owner and his family share a common shelter with their flocks and any other animals they may possess.[48] In some cases the development of the house from tent may be watched growing proportionately with the duration of their stay. For the ashes and rubbish are regularly thrown out around[30] the back of the tent for mere convenience. This refuse gradually accumulates, and may be increased by earth cleared gradually from within, and by stones collected from the land in use around, so that in a year or two a wall or mound three or four feet high already encloses the tent on three sides. The worn-out cloth cover is now replaced by a roof of rafters and twigs covered with earth, and perhaps without realising it the nomad has settled and built a house. The solution is not always so simple or purely economical. In some cases walls of reed are built, over which the cover will be stretched as before and held down all around with pegs. In due course, with a prolonged stay, the worn-out cloth will be replaced by thatch, and rough stone walls supplant the decaying reeds; and so, as he loses the habit of wandering, the nomad loses also the necessaries of his journeys.

The Delije Irmak is replenished in its turn by numerous smaller streams; on one of these is Yuzgat, which had its origin in a settlement of Turkomans, and has now grown to be one of the most important towns of the district. It is pleasantly situated in the cup-like hollow of a green hillside, and with its well-ordered streets, its stone-built bazaars and public buildings, has an appearance of considerable attraction. Here horses are to be procured of useful kind and at reasonable prices, and a great horse fair is held annually in the summer months. The masoned stone used in its construction was largely brought from the ruins of ancient Tavium, which is found at Nefez-Keui, a short journey to the west. The latter is one of the most typical and instructive villages of the interior. It is placed near the sources of another tributary of the same river, well up the southern slopes of a considerable secondary watershed. In typical fashion[31] the backs of the houses are partly excavated in the hillside, so that the mud-covered roofs are continuous with the ground behind, while the fronts of the houses and the village streets are banked up in terraces. Nearly all the houses have some form of verandah sheltering their entrances; and numerous Greek inscriptions may be found built into the walls of many buildings. The ancient acropolis may be recognised by a few sculptured fragments in a steep knoll some minutes westward, and on the way the modern cemetery is passed in which also several stones bearing Greek inscriptions or sculptures have been re-used and in some cases re-inscribed. The main industry of the villagers here, as everywhere in Asia Minor, is naturally agriculture. The fields in the dales below, though somewhat marshy in places, are very green with luxurious pastures and some quantity of trees; while nearer the village gardens of vegetables are plentiful with orchards of fruit-trees and a considerable expanse of vineyards. Other national industries are carried on in the houses unnoticed, such as the hand-weaving of small carpets,[49] done chiefly by the women. The water supply of the village is found in several springs, which have been built up and prepared for the watering of cattle and flocks, as well as for domestic purposes. The scene of women washing their garments or their children at the trough, or drawing water at the source is here, as throughout the East, one of the most characteristic of daily life. The prevailing type of face among the inhabitants of this place is Turkoman, but a certain clean-cut Greek or proto-Greek type of face may be found suggested in some few of the men, recalling distantly a special type of Hittite warriors as portrayed in Egyptian[32] sculpture. Some of the women are noticeably beautiful.[50]

Northwards from Nefez-Keui the route continues to rise to the crest of this secondary watershed, which reaches a height of over seven thousand feet. From the eastern edge several streams fall away to join the Chekerek. As soon as the northern slopes are reached, a remarkable change of landscape presents itself; bare patches are replaced by continuous pastures, and the stream which descends towards Boghaz-Keui passes through meadows and wooded glades of peculiar beauty. As the river[51] gathers strength it works its way into a deep continuous vale of increasing splendour, the slopes of which are thickly covered with trees and shrubbery of considerable variety, except where here and there a bare patch of rock or red-brown soil adds to the contrast of colours. At the mouth of this valley, on the right at the foot of the hill, the little village of Boghaz-Keui is disclosed, with its white minaret and houses and large konak, on a low outcrop of rock, made pleasant by a few trees and splashing streams. The ridge is left behind, and the landscape immediately opens out into wide pastures bounded by dark green uplands, and broken freely by white limestone rocks. The name of this place, the ‘Village of the Gorge,’ has arisen possibly on account of its general situation, or more probably in reference to the deep ravine of another river[52] which bounds the eastern edge of the historic hill, on which are the palaces and acropolis of ancient Pteria, that marks the one-time capital and centre of the land. It is difficult for us now to realise, with the changed political and[33] economic conditions, what special feature there was peculiar to this site, unless that were its climate and defensible position, that should have marked it out for such a destiny. Its ancient city is now a deserted ruin, without meaning to modern life. Its roadways have no longer any significance, and even in the faces of its people there can be seen no reflection of its former population. It would seem that the Lydian conqueror of the sixth century B.C. had thoroughly and effectively destroyed it.[53]

Another Hittite site, marked by a low mound now covered by the village of Eyuk, lies some twenty miles farther to the north. The route thither winds around somewhat barren uplands, among which a few arable spots have been chosen as the sites of villages. In some of these, particularly in the remoter places upon the hills, an ancient type survives in striking and rugged contrast to the familiar though varying Turkish features.[54] Our photograph, taken at Kulakly (a hamlet on the way from Boghaz-Keui to Eyuk), discloses the same prominent facial details and sturdy figures as we have previously seen in the woodlands[34] above Kartal in the north of Syria. It is a type preserved to some extent in the Jewish families found in some of the towns of Asia Minor, as we have seen to be the case at Cæsarea.[55] It is strikingly reminiscent of the Amorite element among the Hittite allies on the Egyptian battle scenes.

The main roadways of this region, as indeed throughout the tableland in general, are curiously independent of the river systems. Local tracks follow naturally the valleys of streams so far as these serve for the required direction, but in general the high roads are independently devised. Of these the two which cross at Yuzgat are the chief: the one leads from Cæsarea northwards either to Chorum, the administrative headquarters of this district,[56] or to Amasîa somewhat eastward, and so on to Samsun on the coast of the Black Sea; while the other connects Sivas with Angora and the west. The latter route as it approaches the Halys passes by Denek Maden, where are considerable mines of lead and silver, the ore of which contains also antimony and gold. The descent to the Halys bed lies through a well-timbered country, and the river is crossed by this route at Cheshme Keupru. There are also other routes of considerable importance, one of which has been mentioned as connecting Cæsarea with Angora directly, crossing the Halys twice; while another from Angora eastward, much used in summer-time, passes over the river considerably north of Cheshme Keupru, heading for Sungurlu, whence the[35] way is open to Chorum by way of Eyuk, or to Yuzgat, passing in this case by Boghaz-Keui.

There are some few rivers of this region which do not enter the basin of the Halys. The chief of these is the Chekerek, which rises likewise in the Ak Dagh Mountains, and pursues a circuitous course northwards, in avoiding the slopes of minor ranges, until it joins the river Iris at Amasîa. The last-named river, called in Turkish the Yeshil Irmak, with its main branch the Lycus, belongs entirely to the coastal system, and so does not enter into our account of the interior plateau. Another stream just eastward of the Iris is the Thermodon, made famous in Greek literature[57] by its association with the Amazons. This is one of a series of similar rivers which flow almost directly northwards to the Black Sea from the lower Armenian hills. There are other short rivers of like kind westward of the Halys, some of which help to feed that river, while others flow directly to the sea. These do not need to be mentioned by their names, as they all fall away from the northern slopes of the broken and irregular chain of mountains that forms the northern boundary to the tableland.

The most westerly main river flowing to the Black Sea is the Sangarius or Sakaria, which rises in the interior, and avoids the northern ranges by a long westerly détour. Numerous early tributaries of this great river rise indeed in the slopes of those northern mountains, while others fall from the western side of the divide, which on the east overlooks the Halys. These meander southward and westward, seeking for an opening through the upland region of which Angora is the economic centre. The country which they water[36] resembles in general characteristics many portions in the basin of the Halys; and though large tracts equally remain barren and neglected through lack of population, it is on the whole better cultivated, and hence more productive. Angora itself is strikingly placed upon a hill, crowned by an old fortress which overlooks a ravine with precipitous sides.[58] Here are extensive gardens and cultivation in sheltered spots, and in the immediate neighbourhood are numerous orchards and vineyards. The place is famous for its fruits, especially pears and apples, and for its honey. The Angora goat is historic, and there is still a considerable trade in the mohair which this animal produces, and to some extent in special woven fabrics. It is the administrative headquarters of a large province, the seat, that is to say, of a Wali; and is an important trade centre for the interior. Several main roads converge upon it, notably the high road connecting Constantinople with the East, by way of Yuzgat and Sivas, which crosses the Halys at Cheshme Keupru. A route no longer of first importance, but dating probably from Phrygian times[59] at least, connects Angora with Giaour-Kalesi, some thirty miles south-west, and another place in this vicinity with which we are concerned is Yarre, placed just above a bridge across the Sangarius called Karanje Keupru.

In the time of Herodotus the country around Angora was obviously regarded as a part of Phrygia, the eastern boundary of which was the Halys, dividing it from Cappadocia,[60] yet we have preferred to look upon this as a northern region apart, and to assign[37] to the Phrygian country its later and more familiar boundaries. As such Phrygia forms the geographical centre of the western portion of the peninsula. Here is the main watershed, in which are found the head-waters of three river systems. On the one side are the sources of the Hermus and the Mæander flowing down to the Ægean in the west; on another rises the Cayster (the Akkar-tchai), and several smaller rivers which follow a southerly or south-easterly course, emptying into inland lakes; while from the northern slopes, as we have previously noticed, other waters feed the Sangarius, and are rolled with the flood of that river into the Black Sea eastward from the Bosphorus. These uplands are among the most attractive parts of Asia Minor; the bracing air is filled with the delicious scent of pine-woods, the verdant pastures are well watered by numerous clear streams, and the meadows ripen under a glowing sun, the rays of which are tempered by the altitude. Here, too, are numerous monuments of the Phrygian kingdom; while north-east from these, at Doghanlu Daresi, on one of many minor tributaries of the Sangarius, and south-west at Bey-Keui, at one of the sources of the same river, near the summit of the watershed, there have been found traces of Hittite handiwork. Through the heart of this region, too, there passed the royal road of Persian times,[61] visible as a series of parallel scars in the surface rock. This was the main highway linking West with East, and that it developed largely during Hittite times also is seen by the disposition of Hittite monuments along its track. Near the coast, it passed near where the sculptures of Sipylus and Kara-Bel looked down on the approaches to Smyrna and to Ephesus.[38] From Sardis its precise route eastward is not determined, but it must have entered the Phrygian country near Bey-Keui, whence it is traceable past Bakshish and the monument of the Phrygian Midas, near which is also the Hittite sculpture at Doghanlu Daresi. Still leading north-westward past Giaour-Kalesi, it would seem to have crossed the Sangarius near to Yarre, and the Halys either at or just northwards from Cheshme Keupru,[62] heading in all this otherwise unexplained détour for Boghaz-Keui, the chief centre of the Hittites in the north. This road had already lost its main objective even in Persian times, for Pteria seems never to have recovered from its overthrow by Crœsus, but it continued to be used, probably because it was ready made; and its traces remain, like the isolated monuments of the Hittites in the west, striking witnesses to a vast system of government and economic organisation unlike anything in later times. For our immediate purpose it is sufficient to notice that all the clearly Hittite monuments westward of the Halys are found along this single line of road, a fact which is as significant as it is remarkable.

We do not include in the foregoing considerations the region of which Iconium (Konia) is the centre, which fills the southern corner of the tableland. Several main roads radiate naturally from this place, which is the chief town of the province; there are, however, only two or three with which we are even indirectly concerned. Of these one leads north-westward,[39] passing Ilgîn at a distance of about fifty miles, and so into Phrygia, which it approaches up the valley of the inland Cayster. The second is that which leads eastward across the plains by Sultan Han and Akserai for Cæsarea; and a third, bending southward to avoid the desert plains, communicates by Eregli with the Cilician Gates and with Tyana (Kilisse Hissar). In ancient times there must have been a more direct road connecting Iconium with Tyana, passing by Ardistama, the site of which is still marked in what is now desert by the name of Arissama, with the neighbouring mounds of Emir-Ghazi.[63]

Around and northward from Iconium there are extensive grass plains, the natural grazing ground of horses which are sent in great droves annually to the fairs and markets of the country, even as far as Baghdad. The breeds are not remarkable for quality, and cannot compare with those rare and beautiful animals reared in the plains that border the middle course of the Euphrates; but they are for the most part a hardy species standing little higher than a European pony, useful for transport, and trained for the saddle to the fast walking pace in which long journeys are always made.[64] The rivers of this region are short and local, ending for the most part upon the plains in salt lakes and marshes, which, after the snows have ceased to melt, become almost dry, leaving the ground covered[40] with white incrustation. Some of these lakes are of such volume as to be permanent; the largest of the kind, as has already been mentioned, is Tuz Geul; its waters are more dense even than those of the Dead Sea, and as they recede with the approach of summer they leave behind thick deposits of salt, collected regularly by the natives, who come many days’ journey for the purpose.

There is another great lake a long day’s journey westward from Iconium; its situation, however, is quite different from the foregoing, as it is well up in the western mountains, nearly four thousand feet above the sea. The town of Beyshehr, which gives its name to the lake, is found on its south-eastern corner; and the road thereto from Iconium passes by Fassiler, a place remarkable for its ancient monuments and the peculiar facial type of its inhabitants. Further to the north, and near the eastern border of the lake, is Eflatoun-Bunar, the site of a famous ‘Lycaonian’ structure called ‘Plato’s spring.’ With the tract westward of Konia, however, we have at present little concern,[65] and when we turn eastward we are inclined to regard the Hittite sites, whether along the edge of Taurus like Mahalich and Ivrîz, or isolated in the desert like Emir-Ghazi, as pertaining not to Konia, from which they are separated by desert, but to the same group as Tyana, with which they are to some extent geographically connected.

This eastern group of sites, indeed, is remarkably linked together by a common river system. The centre is the ‘White Lake’ Ak Geul, at the foot of the Taurus, westward from Eregli, and southward from the desert[41] ridge called Karaja Dagh, on the northern slopes of which is Emir-Ghazi.[66] This lake is of variable size. When overfull its surplus waters disappear in a hole that passes under the mountain; during the dry season, however, it becomes a marshy pond of stagnant water. Into this come three chief rivers. From the south-east the Ak Su, which rises in the main chain of Taurus, drains also the outlying spur known as the Kara Dagh, on the crest of which is Mahalich. Here also is Bin Bir Kilisse, ‘The Thousand and One Churches,’ an ancient site; while just to the north the isolated hill called Kizil Dagh rises from the plain. From the south-east there comes the Kodja Su from high in the Bulghar Dagh, flowing past Eregli, before which it is joined by a stream that with wonderful noise gushes forth in many points from the rock near the hamlet of Ivrîz, six or seven miles above the town. This source is called by the natives Huda Verdi, ‘God-has-given,’ in appreciation of a divine gift that transforms an arid corner of the desert into a garden-valley rich in fruit-trees and vines. Into the same lake from the north-east comes the Kizilja Su, after a sluggish journey across the eastern plains, fed in its course by many streams descending from the inner ranges of the Taurus. The head-waters of this river give life to a whole district of peculiar interest. The main stream rises just northward at Andaval, flowing past that village to Nigdeh and thence to Bor; just below here it is joined by another branch on which is Kilisse Hissar, the site of old-time Tyana. Here are abundant and picturesque ruins of antiquity, and though nothing[42] has yet been found earlier than the time of the Phrygian Midas,[67] there seems to be no doubt from the accounts of Strabo and other sources that it was from earliest times the political centre of this region. It is even probable that the Hittite inscriptions found in each of the neighbouring towns just mentioned have been transported from here in past times.[68] This district is mostly level, being actually the eastern border of the plain, though lying at the foot of the Ala Dagh Mountains that from here trend north-east towards Argæus. Owing doubtless to the various fertilising properties of the numerous streams that come down from the hills the whole country is unusually fruitful and productive; indeed, the region around Bor was in olden times selected as a part of the Roman Imperial Estate. Everywhere are wide acres of corn-land; while in the vicinity of the town are gardens, groves, and vineyards, adding to the attraction which the numerous monuments of antiquity already impart to it. The same features prevail all along the route from Cæsarea by Injesu, passing by the extensive groves and gardens of Develi Karahissar and the miles of arable land, dry but productive, between Arabli and Andaval. The approach to Tyana, as we proceed, runs for miles alongside an ancient but ruined aqueduct, picturesquely placed among gardens and trees.[69] Continuing south, the rolling plains give way gradually to the outlying spurs of the Taurus, and the main route crossing the watershed leads on towards the Cilician Gates, down the main valley of the Chakia Su.[70]

A mountain-track, leaving the road at Bayal, leads southward over a series of parallel ridges of increasing height and grandeur[71] directly for Bulghar-Madên. The silver mines, to which the place owes its name and probably its being, seem to have been considerably worked in ancient times. The village is found deep in a valley under the Bulghar Dagh, a chief range of Taurus, nearly nine thousand feet in height. The stream rises far up the ridge, from the opposite side of which a branch of the Kodja Su flows down towards Ivrîz and Eregli. Its course is eastward, and as it dashes down its rocky bed it is already, when passing Bulghar-Madên, nearly three thousand feet below the snow-splashed crags along the base of which it flows. From there the valley, though narrow and steep-sided, assumes the verdant and enchanting beauty that ever dwells by mountain-streams, lending character to a large portion of the Hittites’ country. But to the traveller following in summer-time the track that winds down the left bank of the river, this beauty and enchantment is intensified here by the vast setting of the picture, by its fulness and variety of detail and rich contrasts of colours, combined with the movement and variegated costumes of the people that mingle in the scene. The banks are fruit-gardens, and wildflowers of varied sorts carpet the ground with splendour. Vines and mulberries are in profusion; and ripe cherries may be plucked even from the saddle, their bright clusters mottling everywhere the dark green foliage. Below, the swirling waters, seen at intervals, contribute also their harmonious changes, being white and gleaming where played on by the bright sunlight, and again clear green in the deeper[44] pools and shaded places. From among the trees, the bright colours prevailing in Turkish costumes, reds and blues, yellow and white, add to the effect; for the whole population of the scattered hamlets, men and women, boys and girls, are in the gardens or beneath the trees. At one place may be seen an aged couple bending side by side at their work upon their tiny plot of land. Below, under a spreading tree, against the stem of which he leans, a bare-legged boy is piping his reed flutes, as Marsyas did, while boys and girls stand near in groups talking and at play. Beyond, out of sight of these, upon a sand-and-pebble beach two little boys, quite naked, are dancing merrily by themselves to the distant music. In the background rises the immense wall of mountain: its lower slopes are thickly wooded with larch and pines, giving way in the middle heights to scrub oak, which continues to struggle upward until the bleak rock appears. Overhead a curious phenomenon tempers the heat of noon-day in this happy valley, especially on windless days when its beneficence is most appreciated. Towards mid-day a mist, arising probably from the melting of the snows upon the ridge, spreads over the valley like a canopy, and so it remains until as the afternoon wears on the vapour re-condenses, and the bright sun reappears to cheer the evening. Except for this peculiarity the valley resembles in general many of those innumerable sheltered rifts among the Taurus and Anti-Taurus Mountains, wherein the rigour of winter is recompensed by the bounteous summer, and the scattered population pursues its life, isolated from and almost independent of the moving world.

Where this mountain-stream unites with the Chakia Su a bridge carries the track across to the other bank[45] to join equally the main road to the South. This is the historic route leading through the Cilician Gates, the only pass available for traffic through the unbroken rock wall of Taurus. Peoples have passed through it that have formed nations; the armies of conquerors have traversed it in the struggle of continents; religions from the East have made it their channel of approach towards the unthinking West; Paul of Tarsus travelled through it bringing the Cross of Peace; and through it the Crusaders took back in due time the Cross of War. Makers of history—Persian, Greek, and Macedonian; Christian, Jew, and Moslem, all have passed this way. The nicely engineered road, however, with its bridges and embankments, its rock-cuttings and eased gradients, is a work of modern times. At the opening of our story we must look back to the beginnings of the pass in a rough track alongside the rushing stream. Even in early Hittite times, if we pay regard to the disposition of their monuments, it seems probable that the longer but more open route that follows the Tochma Su, and the shorter but rocky track that descends by Kuru-Bel, continued to be the chief lines of communication between the two main branches of their empire.[72] Previous, however, to Persian times the road through the Cilician Gates must have been sufficiently arranged to enable a wheeled cart or chariot to pass that way.[73]

The route may be divided into main sections, the first[46] reaching as far as Bozanti Han. In this portion, which may be regarded as the northern approach to the Cilician Gates, the scenery gradually attains all the beauties of a deep mountain-pass. The steep slopes of the valley are clad with the dense growth of pines, mixed freely with oak and cypress, and other trees of varying foliage. In places the bare rock protrudes and towers aloft precipitously, with sharp peaks reaching to the snow-line. Ever and again a more open glade, or the widening of the wooded valley where the river is joined by other waters, adds pleasing variety to the journey, and brings into greater prominence the boldness and beauty of the views. At one place, visible by a short détour, there burst out of the rock the clear dark waters called appropriately Kara Su, changing the colour of the entire river. Several ‘Hans’[74] are passed and bridges crossed before nearing Bozanti; and hereabouts the river, with which the road has descended thus far, enters a rocky and precipitous defile through which it rushes to the plain. Avoiding this, the route crosses a low divide, and descends upon an arm of another river, the Cydnus, which leads down eventually to Tarsus and the sea. For a short way in this second section of the route the country is more open, but the enchantment of it is maintained in the wooded highland landscapes, with views of the dark green slopes of rugged Taurus and the snowy crest and crevices of Bulghar Dagh. Two well-placed ornamental forts[75] are passed, and the winding road, when seemingly faced by an impenetrable ridge of mountain, enters suddenly a deep rocky gorge. The spot is marked by an inscription of Marcus Aurelius[47] on a rock in the river’s bed. This is the veritable Gate of Cilicia. A double door would close it and defy an army.

In keeping with its momentous history, the scenery as the descent continues at once assumes a wild and impressive grandeur, unparalleled in beauty, passing description, to which all that has passed before served but as introduction. Now the keynote is changed, and Nature’s full orchestra breaks forth into a theme of violent and majestic discords, ever changing yet sustained, leaving for ever the impression of its grand harmonies. Here the crags tower up a thousand feet on either side. A myriad trees, their varied tones intensified by the glowing sunlight, clothe with soft colours the heights that hem in the horizon save where it is broken by fantastic peaks. Now the valley is torn by great rifts of red and grey rock, and warning precipices of prodigious character overhang the pathway. Below, on a verdant bed bedecked with flowers and creepers, peaceful glades and vistas disclose the chequered waters of the stream. Another turn, and a broad sweep of virgin forest lines the slopes in an unbroken curve; and ever and again Nature’s panorama changes, attracting the eye to some fresh beauty or surprise.

Though seemingly inaccessible, yet up in the wooded heights here and there a small village may be found, its houses nestling among fruit-trees and luxurious wildflowers. The people are very poor, for on these broken hilltops arable spots are scarce and difficult to work. They are also reticent and unsophisticated, and it is impossible to obtain from them any consistent reason as to their choice of dwelling-place while so many miles of corn-land in the interior await man’s[48] labour. And since the bracing mountain air amid the pines, and the unique views all round, which extend beyond Tarsus to the sea, are to them considerations of last importance, we are left to conjecture in this case also that their ancestors found refuge here from the political storms of an unknown date. We are inclined to believe that this was the reason, and that the date was remote, because of the survival amongst them in striking purity of a type of the old Hittite races which, though peculiar, is familiar on the Egyptian monuments. It may indeed have been that of the Cilicians in general: it is strongly mongoloid in appearance except for the nose, which is strong and straight, but fine. The chin is beardless, but there is a thin dark cynical moustache; the cheek-bones are high and the eyes oblique. In the Egyptian sculptures a pigtail usually completes the striking features of the portrait, but this seems not to have survived the Moslem tonsure.

Once through the pass the whole character of the country changes as by a magician’s wand and another land unfolds itself. The bracing dry uplands are left behind with their peculiar fascination and unrealised possibilities, and in their place there appear the palm-trees and fruit-gardens of a southern clime, with physical peculiarities, economy, and population entirely different. The western plain of Cilicia is entirely alluvial soil, and is well called the fruit-garden of Western Asia. Towards the east there are some hilly places, but to the north-east the plain stretches out again, following an inland bay of the mountains. These plains seem to be wholly the gift of the numerous rivers which water them. These, descending from the mountainous region above, wherein the nature of the[49] stone is various and to a large extent volcanic, bring down with them the rich alluvium which is deposited in their sluggish course below. Their names have been already mentioned. Some further streams to the west have a swifter course from the mountains which in that direction gradually approach the sea. Mersina, the modern port, marks almost the western extremity of the plain.

The green tract of Cilicia is so shut in to the north by the Taurus ranges, and to the east by the Amanus mountains, and so exposed to the sea, that it seems as if Nature had designed this unique corner of Asia Minor for a history of its own. Its remarkable fertility, however, and the important passes which lead down to it in several directions, make it impossible that it could have been overlooked by any power in possession of its frontiers. For this reason, and in this instance, the absence of any clearly Hittite remains[76] must be attributed to accident and to the nature of the country. But it is indeed remarkable that in none of the defiles that connect it with the several portions of the Hittite land has a single Hittite monument been discovered. When we consider how suitable many spots would seem to be for Hittite monuments, whether in the Cilician Gates, or in the valley of the Pyramus, or in the pass leading by Bogche over the Amanus mountains eastward, or on the wave-washed rocks which must be crossed by the coast route to Alexandretta, this absence of any Hittite trace becomes the more conspicuous and significant. It establishes the probability towards which we have been already drawn,[50] that the main channel of communication between the lands of the Hittites in the north of Syria and in Asia Minor was by way of the mountain passes of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus where their monuments are found in comparative plenty.

In this chapter we take a passing glance at the history of the Hittite lands after the Hittite power had passed, down to the establishment of the Seljûk Turks in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. It is not a connected story, for with the disappearance of the Hittites the political horizon changed: thereafter the balance of power in the Near East was several times distributed anew. We must therefore be content to sketch an outline of the general course of eventful history in which the lands subsequently shared, and to note in what manner, but not to what extent, the local records and monuments are evidence of the parts they severally played.

We are compelled to make these limitations, for no land on earth can claim a history so momentous as the drama that was worked out in Asia Minor during the centuries that followed the Hittite domination. Here was the scene of a long struggle for supremacy both among its own peoples and between the adjoining portions of the two continents which it connects; a thousand Iliads would do scant justice to the deeds of arms alone. And the struggle of the continents was not merely for the possession of a land itself rich in minerals and for the most part highly fertile, but for a passage-way for great migrations, civilisations, and religions. To this story we have nothing to contribute,[52] no new evidence to bring forward, no new opinions to maintain; the history of Asia Minor has been written by pens more able and more competent to deal with it.[77] In introducing these few pages our object is to subserve our main inquiry: to enable us to distinguish between the works of the various phases of history that we meet with in our wanderings, and especially to appreciate by contrast the peculiarities of the Hittite monuments which we shall next consider.

Though we defer writing the story of the Hittites until we have seen what their own works can tell us, we find ourselves obliged to trace its outline[78] in order to decide at what point that story ends. The Hittites first appear in history about 2000 B.C., when it would appear that they were already powerful enough to overturn the first dynasty of Babylon and sack that city, and that they had settlements in southern Syria on the frontiers of Egypt. Certain Hittite tablets from Central Asia Minor are said to belong to the same age. Nothing is known, however, of the constitution of the Hittites in these early times; but it may be inferred that they subsequently retired from the south or were there submerged. It is not until the fifteenth century B.C. that the name of the Hittites definitely reappears, when successive expeditions of the Pharaohs encountered them in the north of Syria. Then in the fourteenth century their capital is found at Boghaz-Keui, in the ruins of which their archives of this period have been recently unearthed. These, supplemented by the Tell-el-Amarna letters, tell how the King of the[53] ‘Hatti’—the local and at that time dominant element—became Great King of the Hittite confederated peoples and vassal states, whose chief towns included most of the sites identified with Hittite remains, like Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish, Marash, Malatia, and many city-states as yet unidentified. This was the period of their greatest empire, and it is probable that the regions of Cilicia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and even Lydia at this time acknowledged the suzerainty of the all-powerful soldier-king. For five or six generations of the Hatti rulers the position of the Hittites as a dominant power in Western Asia was recognised by the Pharaohs and the Kings of Babylon, both in their letters and treaties and by the exchange of ambassadors. During the great migrations of the twelfth century B.C., however, it would seem that the Hatti dynasty was overthrown and the Hittite empire dismembered. This may be inferred from the cessation of their own archives and from the appearance of the Muski, identified in later times with the Phrygians,[79] upon the north-west frontier of Assyria,[80] having thus fought their way across the heart of Asia Minor. These were repulsed,[81] but this incursion was contemporaneous with a shifting of the chief Hittite power to Carchemish, while Hamath on the Orontes and other southern centres come into increased prominence.

In trying to work out the story of the decline and fall of the Hittite power, we are faced with the same difficulty that enshrouded the whole problem of the Hittites until recent discoveries shed the light of[54] internal documentary evidence upon the period of their empire—namely, that for the most part only the events connected with certain of their frontier lands came at all within the horizon of the Assyrian and the Greek historians, and these are seen by us with relative disproportion. To take a single illustration, we fail to find in the Egyptian and Assyrian records any suggestion as to the position of the Hittite capital of the fourteenth century at Boghaz-Keui; and for more than seven hundred years we are without any direct evidence as to its fortunes, until a chance reference by Herodotus in describing the affairs of Lydia tells us of its final overthrow.

In the tenth century, however, during the temporary decline of Assyria and the withdrawal of the Phrygians, the Hittite states may be inferred to have largely recovered their power and independence. But though there were frequent alliances between neighbouring states, there does not seem to have been any over-lord, as of old, powerful enough to unite them all under his leadership and to maintain a consistent policy. Malatia and Marash appear as the chief cities of kingdoms in Taurus, while in the Anti-Taurus the kingdom of Tabal (or Tubal) probably included the districts of Komana, Ekrek, Mazaca, and Fraktin. On the plateau the kingdom of the Khilakku, which we may call Greater Cilicia (embracing the region from Tyana to the Kara Dagh, and from Karaburna to Bulghar-Madên), replaced the original state of Hatti within the Halys as chief representative of Hittite power and tradition. But it was not for long: if the Muski had retreated it was only to gather strength; while in the east a new rival, of force and character similar to the Hittites, had appeared in the region of Lake Van, pressing[55] down to the Euphrates and even into Syria, where also the steady infiltration of Aramæan peoples was already challenging the dominance of the old Hittite stock.

From the middle of the ninth century also the struggles of the weakening Hittite tribes against the reviving power of Assyria were renewed; and this time they were doomed. Their lands of Syria and in the Taurus were thereafter the objective of many punitive expeditions on the part of successive Assyrian kings, who claim always to have conquered and exacted tribute. For over a century, however, though many times defeated and severely punished, these states as often found opportunity for casting off the yoke. But Sargon, late in the eighth century, adopted with stern determination the policy which his predecessors had initiated, of transporting large numbers of the rebellious population and replacing them by Assyrian colonists. One by one the greater Hittite centres on his frontiers were absorbed, and when the Assyrian forces passed into Asia Minor to challenge the supremacy of the Phrygian Midas, about 718 B.C., it is clear that these two powers had divided the Hittite territory between them. The appearance, too, in the north, of the Cimmerians, in wellnigh irresistible strength, had changed the political horizon.[82]

From one point of view, however, it would be natural to point to the destruction of Pteria by Crœsus, in the middle of the sixth century B.C., as the last event of Hittite history, and so begin our post-Hittite story from that time. The conquest by Cyrus and the reunification of all the Hittite lands under Persian rule a few years later, in 546, would provide a suitable starting-point;[56] yet, in fact, from the age of Sargon, a century and a half before, there can be traced no real semblance of surviving Hittite power nor any of the old Hittite individuality in the local arts. Their very name then almost disappeared from Oriental history, and was retained but as a memory; while in Asia Minor the power of the Phrygian kings was then at its zenith, and in the presence of Phrygian inscriptions at Eyuk,[83] near the old Hittite capital, and at Tyana,[84] which seems to have replaced Pteria in importance in the revival of the tenth century, there is indication that the Hittite day was already ended. But though the Hittite power was broken and disintegrated, their civilisation faded only gradually from view. Long after the sun had set upon its pride it lingered on, felt rather than seen, in the twilight that obscures our vision of the tableland in the early part of the first millennium B.C., surviving long enough here and there, as we shall see, in the form of institutions and religious customs, to have left a trace in the pages of Greek history. Thereafter we have several clear phases to review, interrupted by others of considerable disturbance and obscurity. Following the overthrow of Assyria on the one hand, and the decline of Phrygia on the other, two new powers appeared in the sixth century in the Medes and the Lydians, who similarly divided Asia Minor, with the Halys as their mutual boundary. By 546, however, Cyrus had annexed the whole country to the Persian Empire, in the continuous history of which it shared until the advent, in B.C. 324, of Alexander, who once more established the supremacy of the West. With[57] his death the tribal struggles of antiquity reappear in new guise, and history is occupied chiefly with the varying fortunes of the kingdoms of Pergamum, of Pontus, and of the Seleucids, until in the first century B.C. Roman organisation gathered together the loose threads of independence and retied the knot in a manner that remained firm, in fine, for several hundred years. The next great landmark is not till 668 A.D., when, forty-six years after the flight of Mohammed, the Saracen army laid siege to Constantinople. In 1067 the Seljûks appeared from the east, followed two centuries later by the Osmanli-Turks, though these were not finally re-established in power, after the Mongol invasions, until 1413 A.D.

Of the monarchies that arose as the Hittite power declined, and in their turn passed away, that of the Phrygians first attracts our attention by its proximity in time and place. When the Muski first appeared in the twelfth century B.C. upon the north-west frontier of Assyria,[85] they gave warning of a tide of Aryan immigration setting in from the north-west. This first wave, after beating vainly against the ramparts of the Assyrian Empire, seems to have retreated; but it left its traces behind in a group of people, whether colonists or prisoners settled on the soil in the Assyrian manner, who by the same name reappear some centuries later[86] as a small state on the east of the Euphrates opposite Malatia. We know nothing of the early history of this movement, but, so far as can be seen, the rolling of this wave across Asia Minor was coeval with the submergence of the Hatti seated at Boghaz-Keui as[58] the dominant power among the Hittite states. Nor is it clear to what cause we must attribute the retiring of this vanguard. Probably, as in Syria with the Hittites,[87] and in Asia Minor with the Cimmerians, the migratory movement was intermittent; and historically we may see in the repulse by the Assyrians on the one hand, and in the development of the rival state of Lydia and the Greek colonies on the other, coupled with a certain recuperative vitality latent in the Hittite states of the centre, various active causes tending to the consolidation of the Phrygians at the focus of least resistance, in the fertile tracts to which they gave their name. However that may be, at the dawn of Greek history we find them already a fading power, but one which had left an indelible impression in Greek tradition and romance, obscuring entirely the old-time Hatti power of which no memory remained.

Though the settlement of the Phrygians is just beyond historical vision, the leading features of the movement can be inferred from Greek literature, and a certain amount of detail gathered from the monuments which they have left behind.[88] The chief migration of the Phrygians—the ninth wave of our simile—may be judged, from certain facts which Professor Ramsay has pointed out, to have taken place about the beginning of the ninth century B.C. They came in irresistible bands of mail-clad warriors from Macedonia and Thrace, crossing into Asia Minor by the Hellespont, and eventually establishing their monarchy[59] and state on the sources of the Sangarius.[89] Being all men and conquerors, their coming introduced new ideas of the dominance of the male element in religion and in society.[90] The pre-existing central ideal of the people of Asia Minor had been based on the importance of motherhood, reflected in religion by the worship of the Mother-goddess, and in society by a matriarchal system and absence of true marriage. Now the Phrygians introduced a new Father-god and a god of thunder, and a reminiscence of the struggle between the old and new ideals may be traced in the pages of Homer; but ultimately they were amalgamated in various ways in different parts of the country.[91]

Profound as were the changes in religious and social ideals which the Phrygians introduced, these influences could hardly stir the popular imagination so deeply or so rapidly as their deeds of arms. Defended from all harm by their impenetrable armour, they carried all before them, so that they appeared in Greek tradition as a race of heroes, whose kings were the associates of the gods, whose language was before all,[92] and the speech of the goddess herself.[93] ‘Their country was the land of great fortified cities.’[94] In this popular acclaim we suspect that the Phrygians received credit for works and to some extent for the prestige of the Hatti whose realm they had inherited.[95] Their kingdom[60] without doubt held chief sway over the north-west and centre of Asia Minor during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. In the west, indeed, it was only at the end of that period challenged by the independence and growing strength of Lydia; and on the other hand it must have embraced, as we have shown, the regions both of Pteria[96] and of Tyana, where it touched the Assyrian frontier in the age of Sargon; but on the whole we fail to find any wide range of Phrygian works, of walled cities or of vast monuments, that could entitle the Phrygians to the whole credit of these memories.

None the less, some Phrygian monuments, like the ‘tomb of Midas’ near Doghanlu, are striking, peculiar, and impressive. So, too, are others further south, of which we reproduce some illustrations,[97] because of the added interest of the influence of Hittite art and technique which can be traced in them. The ‘lion tomb,’ near Dimerli, illustrates a motive dominant in their decorative reliefs, reflected in the later sepulchres of Ayazîn. Here are seen two lions, guarding as it were the entrance to the tomb, arranged facing one another on either side of the door. In the tomb of Dimerli the lions are rampant, and a column or altar is seen between them. The symbolism of this design may be purely Phrygian, but the decorative conception of the twin guardian lions is too freely found in[61] Hittite art[98] for us to doubt that it had been borrowed from the older population. So, too, in the method of carving the reliefs, as well as in detail of treatment, as, for instance, in the outline of the shoulder muscles of the fallen lion,[99] there is abundant indication to us now of an influence not visible to the historians of antiquity.

Though the monuments and legends together help us to reconstruct the base and framework of Phrygian history, there are very few authenticated data with which to fill in the details. There is no long list of royal names, for the rulers are supposed to have been named Midas and Gordius alternately; and a few other names preserved in Greek tradition are merely legendary. It is not until the age of Sargon[100] at the close of the eighth century B.C., that a few facts come to light among the Assyrian archives. Then it would appear that the Phrygian sphere of influence had penetrated far into south-eastern Cappadocia and was expanding, until challenged by the Assyrian forces in a series of campaigns beginning in 718 B.C. But Midas the Phrygian was not easily restrained, and in the next year prevailed on Pisiris of Carchemish to revolt against the Assyrian supremacy, while several minor states of Cappadocia, forming part of the region called Tabal, followed this example, prompted, doubtless, from the same source of inspiration. The rebels were promptly punished, and one of these expeditions sent against them penetrated, it would seem, to Tyana, at this time an important centre for the Phrygians[101] in the conduct[62] of their wars. In 709, however, following a further expedition sent against Midas from Cilicia, the Phrygians capitulated, sending ambassadors and tribute. The reason for this sudden change of front is also made apparent. About the middle of the eighth century B.C. there had appeared the first wave of an overwhelming movement of peoples from Southern Europe,[102] including seemingly both Cimmerians and Scythians, coming by way of the Caucasus, spreading terror and devastation as it passed. The Vannic power of Urartu in Southern Armenia about 720 B.C. received the first onslaught, and then the frontiers of Sargon, who had to call up all the resources of his armies to protect his kingdom. Recoiling, the tide set westward through Asia Minor, meeting about 710 another similar stream[103] that had crossed the Bosphorus; and the united barbarians for half a century established a reign of terror in the north of Asia Minor. The details of the story are wanting, so far as it directly affects the Phrygians during this fateful period. About 675 however, the royal Midas (presumably the grandson of Mita who had begged Assyria through his ambassadors for help), defeated on every hand, in despair committed suicide. The Cimmerians overran his country, and the kingdom of Phrygia henceforth ceased to be. We do not follow the movements of these hordes further; for they have left no trace or handiwork upon the Hittite lands which they had overrun, although it was not until the close of[63] the seventh century that they disappeared. Their inroads, however, and the violent deflections which they gave to the course of history, are probably responsible for the final disappearance of all trace and memory of the Hittite power in Greek history.

The Lydian state in the west, that fought the final struggle for civilisation against these restless and untiring foes, next claims our notice from the way in which certain of its institutions and ancient customs reflect the influence of the Hittite civilisation, from which, indeed, they may have been inherited.[104] Unlike the rulers and customs of Phrygia, the leading elements of the Lydian society had been matured on the soil from dim antiquity. Tradition speaks of a dynasty of Heraclidae who ruled from the twelfth century for five hundred years,[105] and whose ancestor, Agron,[106] was descended from Hercules himself. Even before that date there is memory of a royal family of Atyadae, whose rule, if there be anything in this memory, must have passed back to the days of direct Hittite domination that saw the carving of the warrior-gods of Kara-Bel and maybe the Mother-goddess of Sipylus.

However that may be, we see the Lydians already an organised state, even while the Phrygian power was still at its height, before the Cimmerian storm had burst. As with the Hittites in past time, their constitution was partly that of confederate or vassal states governed by hereditary chiefs owning allegiance to the[64] ruling power at Sardis, and partly feudal,[107] the chieftains owing their military service and their tribal forces to the king, while the common people appear as serfs. In this society the king was both head of the priesthood and chief commander of the vassal chiefs in war.[108] The emblem of sovereignty was a double axe, which the Greeks said was derived from Hercules himself.[109] From among the mass of legend which characterise the earliest efforts of Greek history, it might be possible to trace many suggestions of the influence of the Hittite civilisation; but the lack of local monuments (a fact due doubtless to physical conditions), to reveal to us the dominant features of Lydian art, restrains us from this aspect of inquiry. One point at any rate is established, that not merely was the district of Lydia at one time embraced within the Hittite empire,[110] but that it became imbued then with many features of social organisation which it carried down from the old world to the new. Our main inquiry being based on the monuments of the Hittite lands, we cannot dwell upon the stories of the Lydian kings, of their desperate struggles with the Cimmerians following the downfall of Phrygia, nor of their warfare with the Medes, with whom, after the fall of Nineveh in 607 B.C., they ultimately divided Asia Minor, with the Halys as the boundary between them. The names of two kings are worthy of mention as historical landmarks;[65] the one is Gyges, first of the Mermnad dynasty in the middle of the seventh century B.C., contemporary of Assurbanipal, the Assyrian, and of Psamtek, Pharaoh of Egypt, with both of whom he held relations of diplomatic character. The other is Crœsus, the last and greatest of them all, who, having established his power eastward to the Halys, turned his attention to those rich Greek cities which had sprung up in the West.

These colonies, founded in selected spots along the coast several centuries before, had indeed in many cases already passed their zenith. Cities like Smyrna, Ephesus, and Colophon were in the pride of their prosperity before the fall of Phrygia and the rise of Lydia. How old they were in their origin is not determinable, but they had received, and retained in historic times, the impress of the Hittite civilisation, so much so that Mr. Hogarth, writing of Ionia, concludes that ‘this coast was long dominated by an inland, continental power, that of the Cappadocian Hatti, who imposed their own distinct civilisation, and admitted the Ægean culture only as a faint influence ascending along the trade routes.’[111] ‘The Goddess of the Phrygian mountains became at Smyrna the Sipylene Mother, and at Ephesus Artemis of the Many Breasts was worshipped with rites more Oriental than Greek.’ Recently also Sir Cecil Smith, in discussing certain ivory statuettes found by Mr. Hogarth in the foundations of the temple of Artemis, has pointed out further analogies with the old cult of the goddess, as revealed by the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui.[112] However that may be, the fact that the Hittite armies of the[66] fourteenth or thirteenth century B.C. had penetrated to the coast at Smyrna and Ephesus, is made clear by the sculptures of Sipylus and of Kara-Bel, to which we have alluded.[113] Now these fair cities of Ionia fell one by one to Crœsus, who seemed likely to establish an empire even over the islands, when suddenly Cyrus the Persian appeared from the East, reuniting all the sundered parts of the old empires of Assyria and of Babylon as he passed. Crœsus marched immediately out to resist his oncoming, and as a preliminary step crossed the Halys and ‘ravaged the lands of the “Syrians,” and took the city of the Pterians and enslaved the inhabitants. He also took all the adjacent places and expelled the population, who had given him no cause for blame.’[114] Possibly we may see in these acts, which appeared wanton to the historian, an effort on the part of Crœsus to delay or prevent the passing of the Persian army, which would naturally follow the old royal road in preference to the undeveloped route across the desert. However that may be, the effort was vain: about 546 B.C. the Lydian capital and its king fell into the hands of Cyrus.

The old Hittite realms were now reunited under Persian rule, and continued to share in the common history of the Empire of the Great King for more than two hundred years. For the purpose of administration Asia Minor was divided into provinces, governed by Satraps, of which the old kingdom of Lydia formed one, and the regions of Konia, Angora, Pteria, and Sivas were included in another, the largest of all, which reached from Lydia to Armenia, and included the whole plateau from the Taurus northwards to the sea.[67] The tract of Cilicia with part of the province of Aleppo formed another, while the former Hittite states in the north of Syria were similarly grouped together. But the hold of the Great King ruling in Susa over his distant provinces was weak, and the spirit of Persian civilisation did not penetrate, or could not, into these historic lands. No monument remains to tell us of this phase, during which the old local institutions were maintained and even developed unrestrained. The Greek cities of the coast retained their Greek characters under Greek governors; while the tribes of the interior restored the rule of their local princes or priest-dynasts amid a condition of security and freedom which they had not known for many generations. All that the central power demanded was tribute and tranquillity. Local feuds between the Satraps might smoulder, and the symptoms of rebellion here and there remain almost unheeded, so long as these conditions were fulfilled. Under these circumstances the western people gradually recovered the spirit of independence, while from across the sea the Greek states even aspired to empire. The march of the Ten Thousand in 402, under Cyrus the younger, made famous by Xenophon in his Anabasis, showed how lax was the organisation and how weak the control of the central government. It also opened up incidentally the southern route by the Mæander, Ilgîn, and Iconium to the Cilician gates, in preference to the longer royal road by way of Boghaz-Keui, by which hitherto the posts from Susa had travelled west to Sardis.

In B.C. 334 Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont, and within a year, by his energy and ability to use the new army-machine which he had inherited, had conquered western Asia Minor as far as the Halys, and[68] passed on leaving it his own. This date marks an issue more changeful to Asia Minor than the conquest of Cyrus. For though no monuments throw light on the story of the next two centuries, the system of government was now initiated which in due time was to result in the Hellenising of the interior. Cities were founded with Greek names, and the Greek speech gradually made its way, through Greek-speaking princes and governors, as the official language. The change worked very slowly, but it was profound in the issue, as we shall see. At first the states maintained their old customs and native dialects without appreciable difference, except in the vigour of the new government, but in the course of two or three centuries Greek language and Greek culture, even to some extent Greek thought and religious ideas, had permeated widely among the upper-class natives of the interior.

The struggles of Alexander’s successors, who had inherited from him the empire, are matters of common history. The Seleucids reunited, though in futile manner, the formerly Hittite regions in the north of Syria and Cilicia, and for a time gained some ascendency in Asia Minor, until defeated in 191 B.C. and driven back beyond the Taurus, where for another century they retained a sphere of influence. But of greater interest to us is the survival of local power in Cappadocia, under the dynasty of Ariarthes, which had come to the fore in the last century of Persian domination. This state, at first with incessant warfare, and then by means of tribute to the Seleucids, maintained in effect a form of local independence which survived even down to the Roman occupation and beyond. Another state that retained its freedom and local princes throughout this time was Bithynia, on the tract opposite Constantinople,[69] but this is a region outside the boundaries of our story.

The Romans dallied long in following up the defeat of the Seleucids at Magnesia, when the way lay open to the annexation of Asia Minor, for which its people, torn by their internal wars, would have been even grateful. But it was not until late in the second century b.c. that the west was united as a Roman province. Even then the east remained under the direct government of the local princes, to whom the Roman Senate entrusted their frontier. At the beginning of the first century B.C. the disaffection of Mithridates, king of Pontus, a state bordering the Black Sea, and his efforts to win for himself a kingdom in Cappadocia and Bithynia, was one of the last fitful traces of the old native power, and called up more serious efforts on the part of Rome. The Cilician pirates, who from their base under the southern slopes of Taurus had become a leading naval power, were also suppressed, and during the century that followed the whole country as far as the Euphrates was gradually brought under direct control, and the provincial system was established. The province of Cilicia had been founded in B.C. 103, and after various successive modifications, during which the western district, Cilicia Trachæa, continued to be ruled by the priest-dynasts of Olba, the whole was united with Lycaonia under a consular legate about 137 A.D. Bithynia-Pontus, the scene of the late rebellions, came into the power of Rome by the will of its last king in B.C. 74, and the double province was put under the administration of a prætorian proconsul in B.C. 27. Galatia was constituted in B.C. 25, and Pontus was added to it in 63 A.D. Finally, the occupation of Cappadocia, dating from A.D. 17, completed the division[70] of the administrative districts; for the sixth province Asia, in the west, had been the earliest founded, as we have noted, in B.C. 133.

The system of Roman organisation at first modified and finally broke up the old tribal communities. For some time, many old-world institutions were maintained, notably the priest-dynasts of Comana, Olba, and Venasa; but gradually the native communal temple-district organisation of society gave way, to be replaced by the Greek political system, the seeds of which had been planted two or three centuries before, and had now taken root. In this system the city became the administrative centre, and the villages around were its branches. Greek became more and more the language of the people.[115] The formal records of military works, the milestones and imperial monuments, are inscribed in Latin, but the inscriptions in the old graveyards are carved in Greek letters. We cannot dwell upon the history of these times, of the reorganisation under Diocletian, at the close of the third century, marking the commencement of the Byzantine period, nor of the spread of Christianity, with the great social changes that involved. We reproduce, however, some illustrations of Roman works, such as are met with in plenty throughout the length and breadth of Hittite lands, from Malatia to Iconium and beyond, from Tarsus to the Black Sea coast. The great aqueducts like those of Tyana,[116] and those which stretch for miles across the Cilician plain,[117] are an indication of the vast scheme of development that was instituted under the new well-ordered system of government. Great cities both in Syria and in Asia Minor were the product of[71] these times. Many of these were the foundations of places that still remain centres of administration; while some have lost their importance, and are falling gradually to ruin in silence and desolation. The remains of Kyrrhus upon the Afrîn,[118] a site now marked only by the small village of Huru-Pegamber some distance away, are among the wonderful memorials of antiquity. The imposts are falling from their pilasters, and the keystones to its arches are working loose, but it retains its silent streets of impressive stone buildings, its arches and colonnades, its amphitheatre, as though its people had quitted hardly a generation ago. Numerous Greek inscriptions may still be found amongst the ruins,[119] and just southward of the Acropolis several sarcophagi of marble, with Greek names upon them, indicate the position of the old-time burying place. In the extreme south of the site, with its sanctity still maintained in a modern Mohammedan shrine and well adjoining, there stands perfect a tomb-structure[120] in the Roman style of the second century A.D. We give a photograph of this, which is one of the best-preserved examples of its kind. Our other photographs[121] taken at Ephesus and at Ba’albec,[122] at the two ends of the Hittite lands, will[72] sufficiently illustrate the art and civilisation of their time and place.

The very prosperity of the country during the Roman occupation was one cause of its danger, presenting it as an alluring prize to the forces gradually arising along its frontiers. The extreme centralisation of the Byzantine system weakened, if it did not altogether exterminate, the power of local resistance and administration. So long as the central government remained powerful all was well, but the danger of the system was manifested by the ease with which the Arab forces in 668 passed through the land from end to end, pausing only before the walls of Constantinople. The hold of the Saracen power, however, was not firm, and the Roman system was possessed of great latent vitality which in the end was equal to the emergency, so that in a series of campaigns extending from 920 to 965, the Saracens were driven back from point to point, until first Tarsus[123] was recovered and then Antioch, which had for more than three hundred years been in their possession.

The Seljûk Turks, who next appeared on the scene, were a more formidable and resistless enemy. Having at one time been the servants of the Arab sultans, they had now become the masters, and in 1067 they entered Asia Minor, conquering Cilicia and Cappadocia. Four years later the Emperor Romanus Diogenes himself was their prisoner, and by 1081 the whole centre and east of the tableland was recognised as their realm. Adopting a policy of depopulation and devastation, in which the whole of Phrygia was laid waste, the Turks rapidly set up an almost impassable frontier between themselves and the Byzantine power which still held[73] sway in the West. Notwithstanding spasmodic efforts of the old rulers to regain their dominion, the country gradually relapsed into Orientalism, and with the rise of the Osmanli Turks from 1289 the Empire of the West rapidly disintegrated. Under the Seljûk rule, a new aspect of decorative art and architecture appeared in Asia Minor, a phase much neglected yet most worthy, as Professor Ramsay has pointed out, of special study. Under certain of their lines a brilliant series of monuments arose, among which the Hans[124] or roadside rest-houses are specially noteworthy, contributing also as they did to public security and pacification. In addition to these, other public works like their bridges and fortifications, as well as their mosques and colleges with cloisters and sculptures, are all evidence of one of the brightest phases of Moslem art. Some of the beautiful monuments which are shown in our illustrations, like the sculptured portal of the old school (or Midresseh) at Nigdeh, and the ‘tomb of Havanda,’ at the same place,[125] with its delicate tracery and design, belong to the best phases of this memorable period.

With the enthronement of the Seljûks the old world faded rapidly from view. No conquest in all the history of the Hittite lands had been so thorough and so enduring. Previously we had seen old institutions surviving under a new system that grew up around them; but now a new language and new forms of government, with new administrative districts, were imposed by the conquerors; while the devastation of the earlier stages of the conquest, followed by the repeated incursions of nomad peoples, profoundly modified the racial stock of the population. With them the modern Turkey-in-Asia was born.

Preliminary: Chronology—Classification—Disposition

With this outline of the chief historical phases of Asia Minor before us, we pass from the remains of mediæval and classical antiquity to a consideration of those more ancient monuments which bear witness to Hittite handiwork. Notwithstanding the progress of historical research, these remain the surest basis for the study of our subject, giving us an insight into the Hittite civilisation, which is rendered more valuable and more intelligible by the light thrown upon Hittite chronology by recent excavation. Their nature and intrinsic details are material evidence of Hittite arts, which, in the lack of internal literary documents, no other sources can satisfactorily supply; while their disposition defines for us the Hittite lands in a manner more reliable and more substantial than theories based on vague and difficult references in oriental history. A reasonable consideration of the environment of these monuments, also, may help us to appreciate something of that which is most difficult to realise but all-important, namely the circumstances of the life of those whose hands produced them.[126]

Obedient to a now accepted principle of psychology, we follow in the development of our inquiry the sequence of evidences by which this subject has been established during the past generation. Postponing for the present any detailed account of the walled towns and groups of sculptures which have been the scene of recent investigation, we shall consider firstly those monuments which are found isolated and scattered throughout the regions indicated in the opening chapter. If, in so doing, we can yet be guided by the light of modern discoveries, we may hope to avoid some of the difficulties which beset the path of these pioneers whose work introduced to us this new material. Our method of study, like theirs, must be comparative; but we shall be content to confine ourselves almost entirely to the monuments identified as Hittite by the presence of the peculiar hieroglyphic signs or inscriptions carved upon them. It was indeed upon this line of evidence that Professor A. H. Sayce was enabled, thirty years ago, to establish the relationship of the unexplained inscriptions of Hamath with the sculptures of Kara-Bel in the far west of Asia Minor, and thence to make his brilliant inference of a forgotten empire.[127]

We use the test of Hittite hieroglyphs, not only because it has become in this way fundamental to our subject, but because it is no longer open to doubt whether these peculiar signs are of Hittite origin or not. Formerly there may have been room for reasonable criticism so long as this conclusion was based only on the fact that these symbols were found chiefly on unexplained monuments from Hamath and neighbouring places in Northern Syria associated in[76] history with the Hittites. But now the increasing accumulation of this kind of circumstantial evidence has been crowned by the discovery that the chief site of such monuments in Asia Minor, namely Boghaz-Keui, was for two centuries the capital of the Hittites, whose name (Hatti) appears freely on the literary documents that have been unearthed[128] there in recent excavations. Being secured then against fundamental error, a comparison of the Hittite monuments identified on this basis readily reveals peculiarities of art which may be regarded as typical, so that we might reasonably include in our category other monuments of like kind which lack only the ultimate criterion which we have set before us. We do not wish, however, nor do we need, in the scope of this volume, to press the argument by analogy, being warned against the pitfalls of such a method by several general considerations, and especially by the noticeable survival of Hittite influence in the local sculptures, like those of Phrygia[129] and western Lycaonia.[130]

Though we continue to employ the old materials, however, we see them now in a clearer light. Just as the time has passed by when the word ‘Hittite’ must be written in inverted commas, or qualified with the adjective ‘so-called,’ so now we are not content any longer to regard the older monuments of the interior together in general as pre-Hellenic, much less pre-historic, without distinction as to period or locality. The references[77] to the Hittites in Babylonian, Egyptian, and Assyrian history alone, it is true, would not be sufficient to establish an historical basis for this phase of our inquiry, though giving us a range of dates that covers broadly the whole of the second millennium down to the eighth century B.C.,[131] but these allusions are now supplemented, and in great measure made intelligible, by the evidence of the Hittite archives recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui, which establish chronological relationships of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C.,[132] together with a series of contemporary Hittite works. This date now becomes the basis for all inquiry, bringing into line several points previously problematical and much disputed, just as the intrinsic evidence of these archives throws a new flood of light over the disposition and constitution of the Hittites at the very period when they figure most prominently in the pages of Egyptian history.

Other researches have contributed towards broadening this basis of investigation. At Sakje-Geuzi recent[78] excavations[133] have established the fact previously in doubt, that the settlements of Hittite peoples had begun there at any rate many centuries, possibly several thousand years, previous to the age marked by the oncoming and ultimately overwhelming tide of Assyrian influence early in the first millennium B.C. The relation of the later phase of local arts to Assyrian chronology is given by the results of excavations made on the great mound at Sinjerli, distant about a day’s journey in the same valley towards the south.[134] Here certain palace buildings and sculptures, some of which betray Assyrian feeling, may be dated, by help of inscribed monuments that were unearthed, to the eighth century B.C., when this principality became tributary to Tiglath Pileser III. The reign of Esarhaddon, the conqueror of Egypt, brought even this nominal independence to an end about 680 B.C.

To these revelations by the spade there should be added various contributions of the pen, which, together with the old materials, make possible the study of Hittite remains upon an historical rather than a purely archæological basis. We might indeed make some general inferences from the results of these researches, but it will be wise to keep ever in view the geographical conditions, and never to assume collateral development among the various branches of the Hittite peoples whose lands were physically so disunited. Evidence affecting one state in the north of Syria may be applied with some surety to its neighbours; but it may not be applicable beyond the Taurus. No published accounts enable us to test the antiquity of Hittite[79] settlements upon the tableland of Asia Minor, and it is doubtful if even the necessary soundings have been made. For the middle period, however, the difficulty is less, where history shows that the influence of the Hatti administered from Boghaz-Keui must have predominated in the north of Syria, and contemporaneity of development may therefore be inferred. But when we come to the inferior limit of date the same difficulty (the possibility of independent development) is reopened, for, in the absence of positive material evidence to the contrary, the Assyrian arms seem never to have passed the Halys even while Assyrian influences were dominant in Syria. On the other hand, as we have seen in the previous chapters, we have to take into account the possible influence of the new civilisations, like that of the Phrygians, which had meanwhile been developing upon the tableland. One thing at any rate seems clear, that no Hittite monuments of Asia Minor can well be later than the period of Phrygian domination in the eighth century B.C.,[135] so that in the end a general parallel is suggested with the closing dates afforded from Assyrian history.

Having now considered in general terms the method and the new chronological basis of our inquiry, we come first to an account of those isolated monuments which illustrate to us the diversity of Hittite art and the wide range of its influence. The most striking of these are perhaps those carved on the living rock, which may take the form of single figures, some gigantic, others less than life-size, or groups representing deities and their ministers, accompanied in each case by Hittite hieroglyphs, or long inscriptions without any sculptures[80] to give a suggestion of their meaning.[136] Of the moveable monuments only one is found clearly in situ,[137] and this from its position and nature may be thought, like some of the rock-inscriptions, to have been a boundary stone. There are others, however, of such weight[138] or peculiar character[139] that they may be judged to have been set up not far from the sites where they have been found. The provenance of monuments found on or in the vicinity of ancient sites is also reliable as evidence.[140] Sculptures are rarely executed in the round, except for architectural purposes,[141] though in one or two instances there have been found fragments of statues.[142] Reliefs however, are plentiful, mostly representing mythological creatures or persons; while a distinct class, which represents a ceremonial feast or communion, seems to include some specimens of funerary character.[143] Among inscribed monuments the most interesting are those stelæ which show a human figure, accompanied, it would seem, by a formal biography of good works.[144]

Unfortunately a considerable proportion of the[81] inscribed blocks of stone that have been found are imperfect, so that little can be hoped from the inscriptions themselves. There are also a few small objects so portable, and reported from regions so exceptional, that they cannot be used as topographical evidence. Lastly, there are naturally a number of monuments simulating Hittite work which we hesitate to include without further evidence. It will be useful at this stage to give a classified list of the places where the chief Hittite monuments have been found.[145] Towns and palaces are included though not discussed in this chapter; further, classifications which are based on inference, or doubtful in any way, are denoted by square brackets, while an asterisk signifies that the Hittite origin of the monument to which it refers is problematical and unconfirmed. Other special features are pointed out in the footnotes.

Walled Towns.—Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli. [Ilgîn (Kolitoghlu Yaila), Jerablus (Carchemish), Marash.]

Palaces.—Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli.[146] [Malatia, Marash.[147]]

Fortresses.—Boghaz-Keui (Sary Kaleh, Yenije Kaleh), Giaour Kalesi, Karaburna, Kizil Dagh.

Rock Carvings.—Sculptures with Inscriptions—Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya), Fraktin, Ivrîz, Kara-Bel (Mount Tmolus), Kizil Dagh, Mount Sipylus, Tashji. Sculpture only—Giaour-Kalesi.[148] Inscriptions only—Asarjik, Boghaz-Keui (Nishan Tash), Bulghar-Madên, Gurun, Kara Dagh (Mahalich).

Stones in situ.—Inscribed Sculpture—Kuru-Bel. Inscription only—Bogche.

Moveable Stones.—Sculptures in the round—Boghaz-Keui,[149] Derendeh[150] (and at Arslan Tash),[150] Eyuk,[150] Eski-Yapân,[150] Kurts-oghlu,[151] Kuru-Bel,[152] Marash,[151] Yamoola.[149] Reliefs; mural—Aintab, Boghaz-Keui, Doghanlu, Malatia, Marash. [Angora (Kalaba, Yalanjak, Amaksiz Keui).] Reliefs representing a Ceremonial Feast—Kara-burshlu, Malatia, Marash, Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli,[153] Yarre. Inscriptions accompanying human figure—Andaval, Bor, Jerablus[154] (Carchemish), Kellekli, Marash,[153] Samsat, Tell-Ahmar. Inscriptions only—Aleppo, Alexandretta,[155] Albistan (Kirchuk Yapalak), Bey-Keui, Ekrek,[154] Emir-Ghazi,[151] Hamath, Ilgîn (Kolitoghlu Yaila), Izgîn,[156] Jerablus, Karaburna, Nigdeh,[151] Restan, Suasa.

Exceptional Districts.—Babylon, Erzerum (Kaza Passinler),[157] Kedabeg,[154] Toprah Kaleh.

The first thing that strikes us in considering this list is that these monuments are all of stone. We might possibly be able to include, with suitable caution, some number of small objects of bronze or pottery, mostly in animal form, and also a number of peculiar ceramic types, including painted vases and neolithic pottery decorated in a primitive manner by incisions. But, except in the latter instances,[158] these do not advance the main subject of our inquiry; for while their[83] identification with the Hittites is chiefly a matter of general inference, their provenance is nearly always doubtful. The same thing might be said unhappily of the definitely Hittite seals and kindred objects, of which several excellent specimens are on record,[159] whether made of silver,[160] stone,[161] or ivory.[162] While all of these are worthy of closest study from the point of view of Hittite art and motif, yet nearly all have been found in the hands of peasants who were loath to tell the exact site of their discovery, or of town-dealers who did not know.

Hence to define our Hittite land by the disposition of the monuments, we fall back largely on the works in stone, the original position of which is known or can be inferred. Doubtless at one time the surface of the ground was covered with other indications, with ruins of villages and houses where now the grass grows over indistinguishable mounds; and doubtless also many exposed monuments must hitherto have escaped scientific record. Hence our argument from the disposition of the monuments should be guarded; it is positive, indeed, so far as we have evidence, but the negative case should not be urged. The durability of stone has perpetuated these monuments to us, but it is not thereby demonstrated that the Hittites had any exclusive preference for this material. And being of stone, they are most plentiful in stony regions, and rarely found upon grassy plains. We cannot expect, for instance, upon the broad pastures of Iconium anything analogous to the sculptures which are found in rocky Taurus, where the opportunity was all-tempting[84] which in the former case was lacking. It has been well said that ‘if the plateau presented throughout the same character, there would be no need to seek on its surface monuments of the past. Hunters and woodmen build no cities, and arts are unknown to them.’[163] Consequently, in finding a concentration of Hittite sites upon the hilly regions of the map, this fact should not be allowed to weigh disproportionately, although there is independent evidence tending to the conclusion that several branches of the Hittite peoples, particularly those of Asia Minor, were of mountain origin.[164]

With these considerations in mind, a study of the disposition of these Hittite sites upon the map[165] can teach us much, notwithstanding our self-imposed restrictions. Our southerly frontier reaches to Hamath on the Orontes. Eastward our boundary is the Euphrates, flowing past Malatia, Samsat, and Jerablus. Westward the monuments follow the inner edge of Taurus as far as the Kara Dagh, with not a single site under the southern slope of these mountains. In the north we have no clear boundary. Eyuk and Boghaz-Keui are found in the middle of the circuit of the Halys, with no places nearer than those which lie in the valley of that river. Across the river a single line of monuments, including Giaour-Kalesi, Yarre, Doghanlu, and Bey-Keui, seems to lead on towards the Lydian coast, to where Sipylus and Kara-Bel are found between Sardis and Smyrna.

A brief consideration of the classified list of monuments above will reveal the fact that for description no grouping of these places is so convenient as that formed naturally by geographical divisions. The first[85] main group (A) will include all the monuments of the north of Syria, in which we may recognise three separate districts. The most southerly is the Orontes valley, with which we can include Aleppo, though the latter historically would seem to have been the centre of an independent state.[166] The monuments from Hamath consist of a series of stones inscribed in relief, partly belonging to the same inscription; while at Aleppo there is one small stone of similar character. The places Restan and Homs indicated upon the map are positions of importance further up the Orontes, though unidentified by local remains.[167] The site of Kadesh, the historical frontier fortress of the Hittites in their warfare with Egypt, is similarly now unrecognisable, but a consensus of opinion among students of the Egyptian records places it not far southward of the present lake of Homs.[168]

Eastward we have the monuments on the Euphrates, including numerous inscriptions, a stela, and fragments of sculpture, from the irregular mounds which mark the site of ancient Carchemish at Jerablus. Several carved and inscribed monuments are recently reported from Kellekli and Tell-Ahmar,[169] which are in the same vicinity, while further up the river there are found an inscribed and sculptured block from Samsat, and a doubtful carving on the rocks near Gerger Kalesi. The remaining monuments of the north of Syria lie towards the west, mostly in the valley of the Kara Su.[86] The mounds of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi are included, wherein excavations have disclosed the ruins of sculptured palaces and other monuments that will be described with more detail in a later chapter. A relief with inscription comes from Kara-burshlu in the same vicinity; while a sculptured and inscribed corner-stone of peculiar character has been found at Aintab, a little to the east. To the south of this town is Killiz, a place not marked by any peculiar remains, but the centre where numbers of bronze figures,[170] seals, and other small objects of Hittite character, are commonly found in the bazaars. Lower down on the Afrîn, and hence geographically contiguous, is Kurts-oghlu, whence comes a portion of a small statue carved in the round, upon which still remain two lines of incised inscription. We include Marash also in this group, though it is on higher ground at the ascent of the Taurus mountains. Here there must have been a city of importance, suggested alike in the strategic position and in the number and character of the monuments found upon the site. Among these are two sculptured lions (one inscribed with hieroglyphs in relief), slabs carved with reliefs depicting interesting scenes, and the lower part of an inscribed statue, as well as several blocks and fragments also inscribed.

Passing northwards the monuments found in the mountain regions of Taurus and Anti-Taurus constitute our second main group (B). This embraces the district marked by the four sites in the valley of the Tochma Su, with which there may be included two others in the head-waters of the Pyramus. At Malatia there have been found several architectural blocks sculptured in relief with religious representations and hunting[87] scenes, most of them bearing also groups of Hittite hieroglyphs upon them. There can be no doubt that, situated like Marash in a position of great strategic importance,[171] at one time on the Mitannian and later on the Assyrian frontier, this place is equally one of the more noteworthy Hittite sites. From Derendeh come an inscribed fragment of a statue and a small basaltic lion; and from a spot called appropriately Arslan Tash, one hour distant to the south, two other lions, which are presumably architectural. At Palanga an inscribed cylindrical columnar figure has been found; while Gurun, further up the valley, is the site of two inscriptions, one on the living rock and the other on an isolated block. On the southern side of the watershed an inscribed stone has been found in a cemetery at Kirchuk Yapalak, two hours distant from Albistan; while the column or obelisk from Izgîn, inscribed on four sides with hieroglyphs in relief, is an object almost as remarkable as the round column from Palanga.

This group includes, as a second district, five sites in the Anti-Taurus. The most easterly is Kuru-Bel, a pass near old-time Comana: here is one of the most striking Hittite works, resembling a great altar with lions crouching upon the top on either hand. Three places are on the main stream of the Zamanti Su: from an Armenian cemetery at Ekrek there has come a stone inscribed in incised hieroglyphs, which has been re-dressed with Christian emblems; at Tashji are two figures and an inscription incised upon the rock; while Fraktin is famous as the site of rock-sculptures that[88] make important additions to Hittite religious symbolism. Lastly, at Asarjik, on the northern slope of Mount Argæus, overlooking Cæsarea, an inscription is incised upon a broken rock, accompanied by interesting markings like graffiti.

In our third main group (C) we include those few monuments found in or near the valley of the Halys, north-westward of Cæsarea. These are a great sculptured eagle on a lion-base, an object not demonstrably of Hittite workmanship, on the river-bank near Yamoola; a perfect inscription covering four sides of a round-topped stone, standing on a pedestal, overlooking the river valley on the south bank near Bogche; thirdly, an inscription in three lines on a stone found at Karaburna, which is on the opposite bank considerably lower down; and lastly, two incised inscriptions found recently at Suasa, which lies back considerably from the river, almost opposite the place last named.

With the same group we class the district inside the circuit of the Halys, the monuments of which are almost confined to the famous ruins of Boghaz-Keui, with the neighbouring sculptured sanctuary of Iasily Kaya, and the walled mound and palace of Eyuk, both of which are described in later chapters. There are, however, one or two features which may be appropriately singled out for comparison in this chapter, notably the inscription in relief on the rock called Nishan Tash, on the high ground of the citadel at Boghaz-Keui, and a couple of building blocks sculptured like those of Sinjerli, Malatia, and Eyuk, recently found at the foot of the acropolis. If we may mention also two objects of doubtful provenance, these introduce a place called Eski-Yapân, on the road from Sungurlu to Chorum, where an architectural lion is built into a[89] modern wall,[172] and Denek-Madên, near to Cheshme-Keupru, where an interesting round ivory object engraved with Hittite characters and signs has been rescued.[173]

We are inclined to group together all the monuments westward of the Halys (D), including with them the two famous sculptures near the Lydian coast. We thus bring together for comparison the rock carvings of Giaour-Kalesi and of Kara-Bel, which are analogous, and the dethroned Niobe seated on Mount Sipylus. In the Phrygian country there are on record an inscribed stone at Bey-Keui, and a sculpture with uncertain hieroglyphs at Doghanlu Daresi. A relief found at Yarre, representing a ceremonial feast, conforms with a definite class of Hittite sculptures found elsewhere on the several sites mentioned in the list above. The same may be said, though with less confidence, of carved slabs found in the vicinity of Angora, representing lions, but we exclude the sculptured lion to be seen near the bridge at Cheshme Keupru. The remarkable thing about the disposition of these monuments, excluding the reliefs at Angora, is that they seem to mark out the line of a single road, namely the Royal Road from Boghaz-Keui to Sardis and the west.[174] The only reasonable doubt seems to be as to the route from Giaour-Kalesi to Boghaz-Keui, about which there is no evidence. Some students of the local topography think it must have gone by way of Angora, in spite of the tradition (which in the absence of evidence becomes of interest) that Angora was a comparatively late Phrygian foundation.[175][90] Others urge[176] that it was improbable that the road ‘swerved southwards to Giaour-Kalesi,’ an opinion seemingly forgetful of the road’s objective.[177]

The district westward of Iconium, in which are found the Lycaonian-Hittite monuments of Eflatoun-Bunar and Fassiler, stands by itself. But as there is only one clearly Hittite object from this region, namely a stone inscribed with hieroglyphs in relief, from near Kolitoghlu Yaila, near Ilgîn, we include this with the main western group.

We now come to the fifth and last group (E) of these arbitrary divisions, which includes nine sites and several of the most important monuments.[178] It embraces the whole of the south-western range of Taurus from the Kara Dagh to Bulghar Dagh, as well as the districts at its foot, of which in classical times Eregli (Cybistra) Arissama (Ardistama) and Kilisse Hissar (Tyana) were the more important centres. The monuments recently discovered on the Kara Dagh might indeed have been regarded as a group apart; but as this district shares in the geographical economy of the others, and is a spur of the main Taurus range, we prefer to class them with the rest. They are found in two places, firstly, near Mahalich, on the summit of the Kara Dagh, where there are two inscriptions in relief and a passage in the rock; and secondly, on the outlying knoll called Kizil Dagh, on which are the remains of a ‘high place,’ including a rock-throne and an incised seated figure with three inscriptions; while on the very summit there are the ruins of a fortress, and an inscription in relief upon the rock. The monument of Ivrîz,[91] above Eregli, is well known; it is a gigantic and imposing sculpture of the god of fertility (by whatever name he may be known) with the local priest-king in adoration; three short inscriptions accompany the scene. The traces of a second sculpture of similar character are to be found not far above.[179] At Bulghar-Madên, on the other side of a lofty ridge, an incised inscription of five lines is graved upon the living rock. These two monuments seem to have been connected in some way with Tyana, in the vicinity of which several inscribed stelæ and sculptures have been found. That from Bor, discovered in two portions which were rescued at different times, is the best of these; and an interesting fragment remains at Eski Andaval, where jealousies and suspicions prevent it from being seen. Nigdeh contributes an incised altar of round shape. From Tyana itself nothing is reported, but the antiquity of the site is unquestioned, and its known monuments reach back to the time of a Phrygian Midas.[180] In this district, particularly at Bor, numerous small objects of great interest have been secured, and there is little reason to doubt but that they were found originally not far away.[181] Further west, in the desert tract of the eastern extremity of the great salt plains, there are the ruins of Ardistama; and in the vicinity, near Emir Ghazi, there have been found in late years an inscription in relief, and three others on round altars. These are included in the same group on account of their geographical proximity.

Now that we have completed this preliminary survey[92] of the disposition of such Hittite monuments as by their character or the circumstances of their discovery may be accepted by us as evidence in our inquiry, we realise more clearly the reason for the distinction we made in an earlier chapter between the eastern and western portions of Asia Minor. In the West we can speak of only nine monuments, of which four are not of Hittite origin. Six of these seem to lie along the line of a single road; and of the others, only one is inscribed with Hittite characters, and even that is moveable and not found in its original position. If only by contrast with this paucity, the comparative frequency of monuments towards the East, and their definite character, naturally inclines us to assign some tentative boundaries to the Hittite country. In the North this is not difficult; the Halys River remained in the time of Crœsus a division between peoples of different race,[182] and Sir William Ramsay has pointed out[183] differences in important racial customs between the peoples of the two banks in ancient times.

But to the south there is no such boundary; even the great plains, which form so prominent a landmark in the map, seem to be more barren now than in the days when Ardistama flourished.[184] This change is illustrated by the western extension of the monuments along the foot of the Taurus and in the desert. We must not forget, also, that whole tracts are eliminated from our purview from absence of stone; nor should we allow ourselves to be prepossessed with the idea of divisions on the tableland, which is, after all, continuous and coterminous. If it is true that nearly[93] all the evidences of Hittite occupation in the west resolve themselves into monuments erected along a single road, it is also true that if we exclude from our view the group of remarkable monuments at Boghaz-Keui and Eyuk, there remains little sign that the country within the circuit of the Halys was indeed at any time Hittite territory, much less that it enclosed their northern capital. In face of such considerations the great sculptures and fortress of Giaour-Kalesi, the carvings of Doghanlu, the inscription and tumulus of Bey-Keui, and most striking of all, the sculptures of the west on Mount Sipylus and in the pass of Kara-Bel, as well as those monuments in Phrygia and Western Lycaonia which at least reflect the influence of Hittite art, become imbued with a relative importance not to be overlooked in our inquiry. The land of the Hittites is for us as broad as the extent of their works: it is for another phase of our subject to inquire whether there is evidence to tell us how and when their territory was acquired, and for how long it remained in their power.

Section A.—Monuments of the North of Syria.

The town of Hamath has grown up where the main road from the north enters the Orontes valley. This river, in characteristic fashion, flows for the most part deep below the level of the surrounding plains; and[94] Hamath is found at a spot where the banks widen out, so that the town is in a hollow, almost surrounded by escarpments formed of the steep banks and the broken edges of the plain. Though picturesque, the position in general can have had little strategic importance, even in antiquity, being overlooked and exposed. Hence it probably came into being in Hittite times as an important halting-place upon the main road through Syria, and as a natural centre for the surrounding agricultural districts. The original Hittite stronghold would seem to have been more strongly placed; this probably covered the broad-topped mound[185] which marks, in the manner so familiar in old Syrian towns, the beginnings of the site. Doubtless this would be surrounded at a certain stage with a wall, as was the fashion of those days; and later, on the analogy of Sinjerli, the population overspread the limits of the enclosure, and so settled in times of quiet on the tempting ground at the foot of the acropolis. In this development, and in the nature of its situation, Hamath shares largely the general features of many Syrian sites. Being (even now) somewhat out of the way of European travellers, it is curious that numerous inscriptions should have been noticed here, while a famous historical site like Kadesh remains unidentified, and a strong natural position like Restan was until recently without record of Hittite occupation.[186]

Whatever may be the explanation, as early as 1812 a black basaltic block built into the corner of one of the houses in a bazaar attracted the eye of a famous[95] traveller[187] by reason of the strange-looking hieroglyphic signs upon it. Sixty years later other stones came to light;[188] some were built into the modern walls, others lay loose. All were regarded with veneration by the inhabitants,[189] and it was with great difficulty that they were removed, in 1872, to a place of safety by the Turkish Governor through the energetic initiation of Dr. Wright, supported by the British Consul.

The inscriptions are five in number,[190] whereof two are on adjacent sides of the same block of stone. The first was found in the wall of a house; it measures nearly 15 inches in height and 13 inches in length.[191] The inscription is in three lines; and it begins at the top right-hand side, with the symbol of the human arm and head, with finger touching the lips, a sign which indicates the beginning of a first personal declaration. Other hieroglyphics may be readily recognised in the photograph. The yoke which has the phonetic value of our letter S is thrice repeated in the lower part of the line; while towards the end there is seen the hand and forearm, marked off by the smaller[96] word-dividing signs above and below, which in this grouping seems to express some attribute of lordship,[192] as ‘mighty’ or ‘powerful.’ On the analogy of other hieroglyphic systems, the signs face always towards the commencement of the inscription. In this way the character of Hittite inscriptions may be recognised as boustrophedon, turning alternately in direction with the successive rows, like oxen ploughing in a field. The second row in this case must be read then towards the right. The most noticeable sign is the royal head-dress, which is conical and drawn always with a midrib.[193] This symbol is an ideograph meaning king. Below the first example of this sign there occurs the freely used determinative of a locality; it is oval in shape, and is to be distinguished by details from a similar symbol indicating sanctity or divinity, which is seen commonly at the top of the groups of signs which seem to name individuals in the sculptures.[194]

There seems to be little variation between the texts of this inscription and two others from the same place.[195] Of these, No. 2 is an inscription likewise in three lines, lacking only a few signs at the end. The stone measures nearly 20 inches in length by 15 inches in height; it was found built into the wall of a garden. The inscribed end of the third stone (that which was looked on as possessed with virtue for the rheumatic), is only just 11 inches in height, with a width the same as in the former instance. There are two lines of inscription[97] preserved. The largest stone of all was found built into the corner of a small shop; its height is just over 2 feet, and its length 3 feet in front. It is cubical, with a thickness or depth of at least 15 inches. It was probably a corner-stone in antiquity also, for it is inscribed on the front and on the left-hand side.[196] The signs, as in the other cases, are in relief. The inscription is not continuous around the corner, for in front are five rows, which begin to read from the right, while by the side are four rows only, beginning from the left. The depth of the rows is the same in each case. The face inscription is considerably rubbed and damaged, and a portion of the last line missing; while the edges of the side-inscription are also rubbed away.[197]

The one monument of Aleppo[198] is a single panel of inscription carved in relief upon a block of basalt, nearly 2 feet 6 inches long, and 1 foot 6 inches high. When seen originally it was built into the south wall of an old mosque, and was regarded with special superstition by the native people, who ascribed to it powers of curing ophthalmia. The smooth-rubbed nature of the surface of the stone may be partly ascribed to the devotions of the afflicted, who were wont to rub their affected eyes upon it. When attention was drawn to the character and archæological importance of this monument, it was hastily removed, and reported as broken. Rather more than twenty years later, however, it was refound,[199][98] built again into the wall of a mosque, and a new photograph was obtained. The signs are too worn to transcribe with certainty, and the inscription is too incomplete to be of much present use for comparative study. It is remarkable that no other Hittite monuments from Aleppo have been recorded. Possibly the reason is that the fine mediæval Turkish castle now completely covers the bold acropolis which was probably the position of the stronghold in Hittite times.[200] There is rumour of other inscriptions in the masonry of the keep, and in the town, but nothing has yet come to light.

We pass now westward towards the ancient lands of Wan. From here only one monument is recorded,[201] but that is of peculiar interest, being part of a sculpture in the round. This was found in a large rubbish-mound at Amk near Kurts-oghlu, a village not far from the Gindarus of Roman times upon the Afrîn. It is now in the Berlin Museum.[202] It consists of the lower part of a statue, which must have represented a somewhat stolid person standing, clad in long skirt, below which the toes protrude. The inscription is incised in two rows around the front and sides of the skirt at the bottom, beginning from behind the right-hand side. The space not inscribed behind is filled with four vertical folds, descending from the waist, which seems to be encircled with a belt. The upper part of the body is broken away, but it seems to have been clad in a garment which reached down, in front and behind, to the waist and descended lower over the thighs; but the upper part is all broken away, leaving only the position of one elbow, which was bent. The height of the preserved portion of the statue is 16 inches, and width[99] at the bottom 10½ inches. Dr. Messerschmidt notes with regard to the inscription that an attempt seems to have been made to add a third line, which was abandoned possibly owing to lack of room, and the signs added were then effaced with cross-lines. It remains probable, none the less, that these extra words were essential to complete the sense of the inscription.[203]

Northward lies Sinjerli, the centre of old-time Shamal, in the valley of the Kara Su, under the eastern slopes of Mount Amanus. Here one of the numerous mounds in this locality has been excavated, and disclosed the site of a walled town surrounding an acropolis which was separately enclosed. Within were palaces, or Hilâni, of different building periods, and decorated like the gates of the citadel and town with sculptures of varying character. Several inscriptions, from the dated evidence upon them and their relative positions, added to the archæological value of these discoveries, which will be found described in greater detail in Chapter v.

An hour northward from Sinjerli is the village of Kara-burshlu, at the foot of Mount Amanus, and on the way from one of the chief local descents from the mountains called significantly Arslan Boghaz (Lion Gorge). Above this village there towers a steep knoll, on the summit of which an interesting carved monument was found by members of the first Berlin expedition to Sinjerli.[204] The subject of the relief is a Ceremonial Feast, similar in its general features to[100] others observed in the locality at Sinjerli,[205] Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, and Malatia, and in Asia Minor at Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya) and at Yarre, but rendered important through certain variations. For it seems to have been inscribed on both sides and on the top; while, below, part of a pedestal remains, on which it must have been designed to stand.[206] Thus it could not have been intended for a building stone, nor is there any suggestion that it was an old stone re-used. Its height is 3 feet 7 inches, its width 3 feet; and the pedestal is preserved to a length of about 5 inches with a width of 18 inches. Unfortunately the stone was found in a poor state of preservation, and could not be moved, so that we have to rely chiefly on sketches and impressions taken on the spot by the discoverers. These, however, were executed with great skill, and it is the fault rather of the condition of the monument, and of our unfamiliarity with the writing, that more of the inscription cannot be made out. As it is, only part of four rows from the right-hand side have been published; but there seem to have been originally six rows on each side and at least one row on the top. The letters are all incised. The sculpture is in relief, and represents two figures seated on either side of a low table, similar to one another and vis-à-vis. The hair of the one seems to be short, and of the other curled. Their shoes turn upwards at the toe. Their robes are long and fringed, reaching to the ankles, and[101] there is a belt (partly at least) around the waist. Each raises the further hand with something in it to the level of the mouth. The nearer elbow is drawn back in a natural position, and a staff is suggested in the hand. The chairs are square cornered and straight legged, twice as high as broad, with spindles to match, and low backs, the upper bars of which are thicker and rounded behind. The table is of familiar shape, rather squeezed in the drawing. The top seems to be round, and the curved legs (which are probably three in number) cross about two-thirds of their height, forming a tripod. The feet of the legs are ornamented, probably but not clearly, as animals’ feet. Upon the table are five flat circular objects (if we interpret the perspective of the drawing rightly) like native loaves of bread, and upon them are two small pear-shaped objects more difficult to define.

The class of sculpture to which this monument belongs is to be distinguished in our opinion from that in which one of the personages represented is clearly more exalted than the other,[207] hence presumably the lord or master to whom a servant ministers; whereas in these, the persons seem to be on an equality, and both share in the feast. The suggestion of a ‘funerary feast’[208] as an explanation of these sculptures seems most natural, but the difficulty in accepting this arises from the fact that at Sinjerli the stone in question forms part of a mural decoration, and others of those mentioned seem to be clearly architectural blocks. This difficulty might be explained away by the compromise that the scenes were originally[102] commemorative of some religious institution of a funerary character, though not actually tombstones.[209]

One of the most interesting monuments of this kind is found at Sakje-Geuzi, which lies in the same valley as Sinjerli, about a day’s journey to the north-east. The route passes through a gap in a low ridge which divides the valley transversely and forms a natural boundary between the two districts. Recent excavations[210] have unearthed in one of the mounds at Sakje-Geuzi the outline of a walled citadel and the foundations of a palace with portico sculptured in characteristic fashion. These buildings we describe with those of Sinjerli and Eyuk in a later chapter; but there are one or two surface monuments of this site that may appropriately be mentioned now. One of these is the relief in question.[211] The stone was found in the marshy ground at the foot of the mound called Jobba Eyuk. The stone is preserved to a height of 27 inches, and is probably a decorative building slab, brought down in modern times from the mound. The carving is very weathered, but its main features may be readily made out. The figure on the left is seated, with hands stretched out towards the table; while that on the opposite side stands facing the other, with hands forward as though in the act of serving.[212] The dresses seem to be long robes; that of the standing figure may be bordered or fringed.[103] The hair of the seated figure ends in a bunched curl.[213] The chair is straight-legged as before, only the back is higher, and while curving very slightly backwards does not thicken but rather tends to taper. The table is better drawn than in the last instance; the curve and crossing of the legs is more clear; but the third leg is shown in each case stopping short at the junction, possibly because the artist thought the curve took it out of the plane of the sculptures. The objects upon the table cannot be identified: the one which seems to be proffered by the left hand of the standing figure is round and set upright; the other is small and T-shaped.

Another monument not found in situ, and no longer at Sakje-Geuzi, was removed to Berlin[214] some years ago from the walls of the Konak, or chiefs house, in the village. It consists of three sculptured stones, obviously part of a mural decoration, but forming in themselves a complete group. The subject depicted is a royal lion hunt.[215] The king or priest dynast is marked out by a winged disk near to his head; he rides in a two-horsed chariot, which is driven by a companion. The horses, like the men, are clad in mail; jaunty tassels hang from their sides and shoulders. The car is small and seemingly open at the back; a quiver for arrows is hung up on each side, as well as an implement which seems like a javelin. The tires of the wheels are thick, and there are eight spokes. The two figures standing within the chariot are clad exactly alike, in long mail robes with short sleeves that do not reach the elbow. Both are without other[104] headgear than their copious hair or wig, which is arranged in long parallel curls over the head; their beards also are dressed in pendent curls in the Assyrian style. The face of the warrior is partly hidden by that of him who drives, but the visible characteristics are the same. The eye is rendered in full, while the somewhat aquiline nose and prominent lips are in profile. The similarity of these two figures is somewhat striking; possibly, on the Egyptian analogy, it is the king’s son who drives. He holds the reins in his two hands, a pair in each, while in his right he seems to grasp also a short-stocked whip. The figure seen partly behind, which we take for the monarch, is portrayed in the act of shooting. The short bow is drawn to the back of the neck, and the middle part of the weapon, held by the outstretched left hand, together with the long point of the arrow, is seen protruding from before the face of the nearer figure. His quarry is a noble lion which is seen immediately in front of the chariot horses. A third figure in the background here intervenes, being partly hidden by the forelegs of the horses and the hind parts of the lion. He is clad only in a short tunic from the waist; the garment has apparently a seam vertically down the front, and the fold, which is fringed or bordered, falls transversely over the right thigh. His feet are shod in sandals.[216] The face of this person is not well preserved, but his hair is short and very curly. In his right hand an implement resembling a double axe is poised aloft, while with his left he still grasps a spear, the point of which protrudes from the near flank of the lion. The beast itself is shown also in profile; the tail with bushy tip is down; the[105] mane and ruffle are depicted, and the hair is shown full behind the shoulder and under the belly.[217] The mouth is open, with the teeth all bared, and the left paw is upraised with the claws turned outwards, both actions threatening a fourth person who with face turned towards the group completes the scene. With both hands this man drives home a spear into the skull or left shoulder of the animal. He is clad like the riders in the chariot in a long suit of mail, with short sleeves. In this case the lower part of the garment may be seen, which in the others is hidden by the side of the chariot: it is cut away from above the knees, though falling behind nearly to the ankles. There is a belt around the waist as before; the sandals have flat soles, while toe-piece and ankle-strap are clearly delineated. The head-dress of this person is peculiarly interesting. While perpetuating the form of the conical hat it seems to look more clearly like a helmet. This may, however, be an illusion, as there is a border around the brow, and the appearance of a turnover fold which reaches down the side from the peak. Over the back of the animal, between the spears of the two standing figures, there appear four rosettes of twelve petals each; while the upper and lower borders of the stones are decorated also with a pattern composed of contiguous concentric circles. The height of these slabs is nearly four feet, which accords with the measure of other stones of similar character and decoration found upon one of the mounds of this site.[218] Together these form a series of pronounced Assyrian feeling, and obviously of later date[219] than the palace-portico recently unearthed.

From Sakje-Geuzi a difficult mountain track leads over the Qurt Dagh to Kartal, crossing the head-waters of the Afrîn, and, following the wild upper valley of that river to Karadinek, passes thence under the curve of the basalt plateau to Killiz. The distance in time is much the same as the better road by way of Aintab, being two days’ journey in either case, but the scenery and interests of the former route are unparalleled in Northern Syria. At Killiz various small objects have been from time to time bought in the bazaars, such as stone seals and small bronze figures. Two of the latter we illustrate here,[220] but it is not certain that they are of Hittite origin. Their archaic appearance, however, the range of country and localities in which this class of objects are found, and several other considerations, render the suspicion a probability.[221]

Aintab, one day’s march eastward from Sakje-Geuzi, lies at the juncture of two main routes, the one from Cilicia eastward across the Euphrates, the other from Marash southward by Killiz to Aleppo. It is somewhat surprising therefore that there is no further evidence of Hittite handiwork forthcoming than a single granite corner-stone. This is a cubical block,[222] about twenty inches in height, inscribed on the one face and sculptured on the adjoining side to the right.[107] It is clearly an architectural piece, for neither sculpture nor inscription is completed on the single stone; yet it should be mentioned that in the palace buildings of Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli, and Eyuk in no case has an inscription been found built into the walls which are decorated with sculptures. Recently at Malatia, and at Boghaz-Keui, sculptured blocks have been found on the face of which are hieroglyphic signs, as may be seen in situ at Eyuk; but in no case is an inscription found built into a wall. We feel inclined to regard this stone therefore as part of another class of structure, like a built-up hero-monument or shrine.[223] The inscription is in three panels, of which the middle one is complete and enclosed by a border; the lowest is lacking only in the left-hand corner at the bottom, while the uppermost is suggested only by traces of the lowest signs within it. A religious character is suggested in the reading of the middle panel tentatively offered by Professor Sayce: ‘This (monument) erecting to the god of my country.’ The sculptured side is equally problematical. That which remains shows the right leg of a man from thigh to knee. The dress seems to be a short tunic, the lowest edge of which seems to be curled up behind. The position of the leg and dress suggest several points of interest in attempting a restoration of the attitude. The figure must have been about life-size, and posed for action with left leg forward; not running but rather walking quickly, or possibly hurling a spear, with the muscles of the leg strung up to give the final impetus to the throw.

Marash lies one day’s journey northwards of Aintab:[108] it is a considerable town placed at the descent from the Taurus on sloping ground well above the plain and 2500 feet above the sea. We have seen that it has played a considerable part in local history, as follows from its important position at the junction of several main routes; and to judge from the remains that have been found there, it must have been in earlier times one of the more important centres of the Hittites. As in the parallel cases of Aleppo and Hamath, probably the conical knoll to the west of the town, crowned by the remains of the mediæval and earlier fortifications, marks the original village ‘tell,’ which, like the mounds of Sakje-Geuzi, began to grow with the first settlements of Hittites upon the spot. Into an arched stone gateway on this acropolis there had been built two sculptured lions of Hittite workmanship, one of them, indeed, freely inscribed with Hittite characters. Originally the two lions had unquestionably guarded the entrance to a palatial building, forming the corner-pieces of the lowest course;[224] but in later times they had been poised aloft in the masonry as mere ornaments.[225] Though these are perhaps the most striking objects from this place, several other monuments are on record, the interest of which is enhanced by their variety of character and detail.[226] These include a slab sculptured with the representation of a Ceremonial Feast, similar to those of Kara-burshlu and Sinjerli, but with the addition of Hittite hieroglyphs upon the sculptured face. There is also the body of a small statue with a considerable part of the sculpture preserved, and a stela[109] with carved figure and long incised inscription. Several other sculptures may be unhesitatingly included in the list, though without Hittite hieroglyphs upon them. One of these is a fragment showing a woman seated with a child on her knee, holding in her left hand a lyre upon which is perched a bird. Another is also broken, but the figure of a man serving at a table is preserved, and there is clear suggestion of a greater figure on the opposite side. Below, in an ill-drawn scene, a man holding a spear is represented leading a horse.[227] Recently a fine monumental piece has been added to the list, consisting of a cubical block of stone carved on the four sides, with inscription in this case as well as a human figure in relief. There are also various fragmentary inscriptions which have been longer known. There can be no doubt but that Marash was a royal seat of even greater importance than those at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi.

The first object of this list, the inscribed lion, is well known, and has several times been published in illustration. We reproduce a photograph of its profile,[228] which is the most typical and interesting point of view. Its architectural nature is evident, and is entirely accordant with that of the lions found in situ at Sakje-Geuzi.[229] It must have stood at the left hand as the decorative corner-stone of a palatial portico, with its fellow lion in the corner opposite. The place on the back prepared for the reception of an upper course of masonry may be seen, and the relative alignment of both walls may be inferred. The forequarters and head of the lion stood out from the wall, and these are[110] sculptured in the round; the rest of the body is in relief. The treatment obeys the now familiar canon, though not carried out in detail: the ruffle of the neck and hairy belly are suggested; the tail curls under, and is seen between the two hindlegs. Only one foreleg is seen in profile, in contradistinction to the familiar Assyrian representations. In this case, however, detail of execution is sacrificed to the long inscription, which uniquely covers the body and even the legs of the animal as well as the spaces between them. The hieroglyphs are deliberate and well cut; the basaltic nature of the rock probably accounts for their superficial roughness, especially in view of the great number of signs carved on a really small surface; for the object is much less than life-size, being only 17 inches high, 35 inches long, and just over 10 inches thick.[230] From the rendering of the inscription by Professor Sayce,[231] it would appear to have been carved by the Hittite king of the district, who united the priestly dignities with his office, as we should expect from the accounts of Strabo in parallel cases.[232] There are several striking points developed by this translation, which though unconfirmed commands our interest and respect. The king claims for himself amongst other attributes to be ‘the dirk-bearer[233] powerful,’ ‘citizen of Merash,’ ‘priest of Merash,’ ‘royal lord of these lands, king of the lands of the god,’ ‘who provides food for the sanctuary,’ ‘of the men of the corn land the chief,’ ‘seated on the throne of Kas.’ He also[111] claims to ‘have nourished the sanctuary of the Hittite ... the god’s high place,’ and to ‘have made a high place for the dancers’ for the celebration of religious rites. The Assyrian name of Marash was Markhasi, which seems to take the form Ma(a)rghasi in the Hittite. There is a clear suggestion of a theocratic ideal in state affairs, beginning with the high priesthood of the sovereign, and borne further by naming the subjects of the Marash king ‘children of the gods,’ for which there is analogy in the Vannic inscriptions. Sandes seems to be chief god.

The stone sculptured with the representation of a Ceremonial Feast is reported to have been found, together with ‘lance heads and potsherds,’ in a vineyard of Marash.[234] This is another of that class of monument of which we noted the wide distribution and varying features in connection with that found at Kara-burshlu. In this case both figures are seated. They are presumably but not necessarily female. They are clad in long robes; details of the bust are not visible, and it is only the relative smallness of the feet and hands, and certain fulness in the treatment of the bodies, that offer a suggestion of their sex. They are seated on high square chairs with backs that curl away at the top, and their feet rest upon low square footstools. A table between them has straight legs, of which only two are shown, ornamented in some way at the feet. On the table are three round bread-cakes and a cup. The figures are vis-à-vis: each one stretches out the further hand, the left one holding a cup, the other a round mirror of familiar Egyptian shape. Their other hands are drawn back and only just protrude from their cloaks; each seems to hold the same[112] sort of object, ‘perhaps a vase or pomegranate.’[235] The garment is curious, being continuous over the head-dress, and descending to the ankles, with a fringe or border all along the edge and round the bottom. There is a waistband to each figure, which is seemingly composed of separate strands, but it is difficult to understand its attachment.[236] The head-dress is singular, being cylindrical in shape, recalling most nearly that of the Turkoman women.[237] The faces of the persons are ill-drawn and unnatural, but prominence is given to the straightness of nose in line with the receding forehead[238] and to the fulness of the lips. Above and between the heads there are traces of a considerable inscription in relief, of which the signs towards the sides can be made out with some certainty; but the middle portion is too worn to enable one to study the sequence of the characters, or even to decide whether they form two groups, one referring to each person. The whereabouts of this stone is uncertain, but casts are in the Berlin Museum. Its height is 49 inches and width 35 inches; it is just over 15 inches thick. The material is basaltic stone or dolerite.

The portion of a statue from Marash[239] is of importance as numbering, together with a large hand from the same place and the broken figure from Kurts-oghlu, among the very few recorded Hittite sculptures in the round. Unfortunately this one is too broken and too small to tell us much in detail of this feature of Hittite art.[113] With the exception of the right shoulder, however, the whole body is preserved, and only the head and feet are lacking; but the style of the object is formal, and in place of artistic detail there are merely four or five irregular bands of inscription in relief, with other signs upon the preserved shoulder. The right hand remains, but it is worn and lacks detail; in the left there seems to be held a sort of loop with pendent tassel. The material of the statuette is basalt. The height preserved is under 9 inches, its width 6 inches. This torso seems to have belonged to a figure quite distinct from another of similar material which seems to have come from the same vicinity.[240] Of this only two broad bands of the inscription remain, but they seem to mark the beginning of a long inscription; the symbols are boldly cut in relief, and are similar in every way to those of Jerabis. The fragment is rounded and apparently formed part of a hollow figure: it was copied by the discoverers amid much difficulty and subsequently disappeared. The existence of a third statue at Marash, but in this case of gigantic size, is indicated by a large hand, fully twice life-size, and carved in the round.[241] It is, of course, impossible to say from this fragment whether it is really of Hittite origin.

Another important monument of Marash has the appearance of a royal stela with a long inscription accompanied by an image of the king. This belongs to a class of monument of which we shall find further examples at Carchemish and in the neighbourhood of Tyana. In this case the figure occupies the central part of the stone, reaching almost to its full length; and[114] the inscription is incised in six rows across the whole, the face and feet and forearms of the man alone excepted. The face of the kingly personage is turned to his right, and the whole figure is in profile with the exception of the shoulders, which are square to the observer—in conformity with the common Oriental principles of drawing. The right hand holds a staff which touches the ground in front of the right foot, and rises vertically as high as the shoulders; both elbows are bent at right angles, the left fist being closed and shown about the middle of the body. The robe is a single garment reaching to the ankles, the bottom being fringed or bordered. The toes of the boots are upturned, and, being represented clumsily, look like sabots. The face of the man is too worn to show much character; there is a long curled beard, a band around the forehead, and the hair or wig ends in a prominent curled bunch behind the neck. This stone seems to have been found outside Marash in a burying-place on the road to Adana.[242] Its height is nearly 3 feet 8 inches, and its breadth just over 1 foot 10 inches.[243]

This monument must yield place to another, which is of unique character and interest, more recently discovered[244] on the citadel. This is a block of granite more nearly cubical in shape, but with the top and bottom broken away, so that its original height remains problematical. The preserved portion measures about 2 feet 3 inches in height, and the combined length of three sides, which are approximately equal, is about 5 feet 2 inches. On three sides the inscription is continuous; the hieroglyphs are in relief and are[115] arranged in five bands, of which four are seemingly complete. A sixth band at the bottom is partly traceable, and there may have been others below; at the top, however, the limit is clearly marked, so that the beginning of the inscription is preserved. The opening groups of signs resemble closely those on the lion previously described, though variations of single signs are noticeable, and may possibly supply philologists with alternative readings. It is not, however, the inscription, though unusually legible and complete, that attracts our interest, so much as the sculptures and composition of the whole. The inscription is preceded by a king-like figure in relief, who occupies the right-hand portion of the side on which he is carved and faces away from the inscription, to the right, looking that is to the corner. The inscription follows: the height of the figure is equal to four bands of the hieroglyphs, and the lower bands project under his feet. The second side is entirely filled with the continuation of the inscription, which comes to an end at the left hand of the third side (which is opposite the figure) with the upper part of the picture of a dagger and part of an attachment for it. On the fourth side there is no inscription; the corners are cut away, but there is seen in the middle a sort of tassel, on a large scale accordant with that of the dagger-hilt. It must be noted that the king is turned towards this object in the extended drawing: he is portrayed much as on the stela described above, but the drawing is not good or well preserved. He wears a long robe bound around the waist; the short sleeves are ornamented at the ends, whether with a plain band or otherwise; and the bottom of the plain skirt, which reaches to the ankles, is also fringed or bordered in[116] some way. The toes are shown upturned. The head-dress seems to be a close-fitting skull-cap, behind which the hair descends in the familiar bunching curl. The beard hangs in curls. The face is crudely represented, the mouth being no longer distinguishable. The left hand, which is very disproportioned, is held up before the face with fingers towards the mouth, in the position which in the hieroglyphs is read to indicate the beginning of a personal declaration. The right hand is drawn up breast high, but no staff is shown, possibly because it would have traversed the body.

This stone is thought by Dr. Messerschmidt, who has studied it closely,[245] to have been re-dressed and re-used in Hittite times; he thinks that a large god-figure, wearing a dagger suspended from the shoulder, must have been originally the chief subject of the sculpture; and that this was partly effaced in Hittite times by the king, who had the stone re-dressed and his own figure carved thereon. The inscription he regards as pertaining to the larger figure; and he looks upon the mutilation of the figure of a god as the sign of a period of decline and degradation.

This monument is unique in character, and every respect must be paid to the conclusions of one who, being familiar with Hittite works, has studied this one carefully. Having only the photograph and drawings which he published as guide, we naturally hesitate to put forward any alternative view; yet it must be said that there are several fundamental objections to the explanation which has been offered. The most obvious and irremovable is that there is direct evidence on the face of the stone that the carving is all contemporary; for it is all in relief, and in accordance[117] with precedent the background not sculptured must have been cut away, so that it would have been impossible subsequently to carve thereon a figure with the same relief as the rest. Added to this, it is clear that the inscription is arranged with due regard to the small figure, not the reverse. Also the ends of the inscribed bands are coterminous with the dagger, stamping the whole composition as contemporary. It must next be noted that no trace of a great figure is to be seen, nor can its form be conjectured, seeing that the dagger hangs on one side and the tassel on the next, unless indeed the stone formed the lower portion of a somewhat angular statue,[246] about four times its present height. A figure in relief would have occupied part of two sides of the stone including the corner—an unprecedented complication in Hittite sculpture. The analogy quoted by Dr. Messerschmidt of the god-figure discovered in the last excavations at Sinjerli breaks down at this point. That object was carved in the round, representing a deity standing in Hittite fashion upon a base composed of two standing lions, as on the monuments of Carchemish and Boghaz-Keui. He wears a dagger stuck into a belt, and with the trappings there is a large tassel of the kind seen on the fourth side in this instance. From these details Dr. Messerschmidt thinks that the Marash monument only differed in that the dagger must have been worn suspended from the shoulder, on account of the pendent position of the belt. On all analogy, however, the priest-king in this case must be facing the deity he is worshipping. If then no other form of deity can be suggested, we must take the only evidence before us as[118] to its nature, which would lead us to infer that it is here represented by the dagger and tassel. We venture no hypothesis in explanation; the Sacred Dirk[247] as a cult object is known in Hittite symbolism and familiar in the hieroglyphs; and it would be equally accordant with precedent to imagine that the dirk was really emblematic of the deity with whom it was usually associated. Alternatively the object of worship may have been a great divine statue upon the skirt of which these representations were carved.

Among the minor inscribed objects from Marash there should be mentioned one, which is a fragment of basalt 10½ inches high and 8 inches wide, inscribed with characters in high relief on two adjacent sides.[248] There are also several uninscribed sculptures from Marash of peculiar interest. The first is a slab of basalt 21 inches high, carved in relief.[249] The subject is that of a female seated at a table facing to the left; on her left knee[250] is a child, whose face is towards the mother. In the right hand of the woman is a decorated mirror, or something of that form; and in her left, which is extended over the table, she holds a primitive five-stringed lyre, square in shape.[251] Over the lyre is a bird often taken for a dove, but more nearly resembling a vulture.[252] The counterpart to the figure, if such existed, is broken away; the carving[119] is crude and the surface worn. Such details as are distinguishable, the robe, the hat, the chair and table, seem to be similar respectively to those upon the sculpture of the Ceremonial Feast from this place previously described. There is a second uninscribed stone on which appears the emblem of a bird similar to the other in outline and appearance.[253] In this case the subject shows two figures, one on either side of a small two-legged table. That on the right, which is seated, wears the same cylindrical hat as in the cases just described. That on the left, which is standing, is clad in a long robe, which, from such details as are visible, suggests the toga-like garment which distinguishes the priestly class on certain monuments of Asia Minor. The further hand of each is outstretched as usual, the one holding a mirror and the other the bird; the latter feature, however, is not carved with the same detail as in the case just quoted. Over the right shoulder of the standing figure there seems to hang a bow of the peculiar triangular form often depicted in ancient drawing.[254] The cord, however, is not seen; and the stone is in general worn so smooth that little detail can be discerned. The bow reappears on a third uninscribed fragment, which probably resembled the former in subject somewhat closely. On this a figure is shown standing before a two-legged table, over which he holds aloft a curving bow with his extended left hand. In his right hand, which is kept low, there may be seen two arrows, while a quiver hangs at his waist. This stone is also very smooth-worn, but some details of dress may still be recognised, notably the skull-cap[120] long robe with fringe, and turned-up shoes. The Hittite character of the theme is sustained by the arrangement of the hair, which falls away in a single thick cluster or curl behind the neck. A tassel is attached to the waistbelt.[255]

A fourth stone of somewhat larger size, being 35 inches high, is decorated with a subject of unusual character, but unfortunately the most important figure of the scene is largely broken away.[256] This must have been a picture of a god, represented in long fringed robe, and sandals with upturned toes. Poised aloft in front of him, but how supported is not seen, there is the end of an implement or weapon, the attachment to which forms a loop, and then hangs down. A low table, with two curving legs, is placed opposite the middle height of this figure; upon it is a bird, seemingly a goose, with bread-cakes and other eatables. On the opposite side, and facing the major being, a small male figure stands at the same level as the table. He is clad in a short fringed tunic, with oblique fold, and a vest with short sleeves. On his feet are sandals, with the points very prominently returned, and above these are anklets, unless these be long laces wrapped around the ankles to bind the sandals. His hair is curly on the head and bound by a fillet, while lower down it hangs more straightly as far as the shoulders. An earring is suggested, and thick bracelets are clearly shown. He holds an object in his left hand which may be taken for a palm leaf, while with the right he partly proffers towards the greater person a small cup which seems to be bound[121] around with two small bands, as though made of wood. Below, in such space as remains available, the sculptor has added a horse led by a man. Both are on a small scale, but disproportionate, as the man stands higher than the horse’s head; this arises from the fact that a greater height is available under the feet of the small figure than under the greater one, where the horse’s body is seen. The animal is a stallion, represented with a vague suggestion of spirited movement in the forelegs; and his shoulder-muscles are shown in the same conventional outline as is seen sometimes on the representations of lions in this style of art.[257] The man holds the bridle with his right hand; and, with his back to the horse, and indeed to the greater figure, he holds a spear upright with his left hand, the end of the shaft resting on the ground. He seems to wear a skull-cap, and his hair falls behind in the characteristic bunch or knot. In this case, as in nearly all the figures considered, the outline of the face shows the nose and forehead as practically continuous.

There are two further sculptured fragments of stones from Marash worthy also of special mention. On the one there is preserved the front part of a chariot and the hind part of a horse;[258] the carving is rough, and the drawing neither clear nor good. A small animal under the horse may be a dog. The wheel of the chariot seems to have had eight spokes. The driver is hardly seen, except for the forearm and the hand that grasps the reins. We may conclude none the less that the fragment formed part of a scene of the royal hunt.[259]

The other fragment is better known, showing the head of a musician playing the double pipes.[260] From the treatment of the hair and general character of the carving of this piece we suspect that it is of post-Hittite art, corresponding to the Aramaic period at Sinjerli. There is also in the Berlin Museum a new piece in Hittite style which may very well come from the same place. It is about two feet high, and rather wider. The sculpture is fragmentary, but of striking interest, for the central figure, a man, seems to be riding on horseback. He grasps the bridle with his left hand, and holds a curving nameless object in the right. His legs and the body of the horse are not visible. In the background to the left there is the smaller figure of a female seated on a chair. She holds a pomegranate in her right hand, and raises a drinking-cup with the left. To the right of the man’s head a tiny figure seems to represent the whisk-bearer, turning towards his lord, and waving a palm leaf.

This brings to an end the list of major monuments from Marash. When it is considered that the site has never been excavated for its antiquities, and that these discoveries are mostly accidental, it must be admitted that there is evidence here of a Hittite city of exceptional importance. The date to which it can be assigned as a seat of power will be considered when all the data for comparison are before us.[261]

We now pass to a third group of Syrian monuments: those which are found at places on the Euphrates, which we accept as the eastern frontier. We begin naturally with Jerablus, the site of Carchemish,[123] as being the nearest, the furthest south and the most famous. Here was the strategic frontier in the struggle of the oriental nations, and here a Hittite fortress was so strongly placed that it defied the assaults of the Pharaohs, and resisted with a great measure of success the efforts of the Assyrians to reduce it several centuries after the Hittite power had passed its zenith.[262] Some amount of excavation has been made upon the site, and though not thorough and inadequately reported, we gain thereby an indication of a walled city upon the river’s brink, protected on the land side by ditches in addition to the ramparts,[263] and enclosing as usual a high knoll which marks at once the acropolis and the site of the original settlement in a remoter age. Here there have been found several lengthy inscriptions in Hittite characters, numerous fragments of the same kind, two stelæ and the upper portion of a third, as well as a stone sculptured upon its flat side with the full-face portrait of an exalted being. In some of the sculptures the motive, and in others the details, of treatment tell of the proximity to a dominant extraneous artistic influence. This is particularly to be noticed in the emblems of winged deities, and in some of the monuments on which no Hittite hieroglyphs are found. One of the latter category is a striking monument representing two figures standing upon the back of a crouching lion. The mane of the lion is represented, but no hair is shown underneath the belly. The attitude of the beast is uncommon in Hittite art, as may[124] be seen by comparing the lions of Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Derendeh, and elsewhere. The animals carved on the rock walls of the sanctuary of Iasily Kaya, which also support exalted persons, are represented as standing; whereas in this case the chin, belly, and tail of the animal almost touch the ground. The nearest analogy is perhaps one of the less known sculptures of Eyuk,[264] but there is no real parallel for this treatment of the subject. Of the personages, one is winged and clearly divine, while the other, though dressed in the same way, stands behind over the quarters of the animal, with one hand raised in an attitude of reverence or supplication. Otherwise the figures are of equal height, and their costumes also are alike. The head-dress[265] is a conical hat with prominent upturning brim; the toes of the shoes are likewise turned up in an exaggerated manner. The robe in each case is long, with a broad fringe around the bottom; around the waist there is a belt or girdle, and a fold of the skirt falls sideways from the middle towards the right. The wings of the leading figure rise sharply upwards from behind the shoulders, as on one of the deities of Iasily Kaya. He stands upon the shoulders of the beast, whose head cowers in abjection. In the photograph before us there is a suggestion of hieroglyphs upon the face of the stone, a feature which is not, however, confirmed by the observations of others. We thus have in this sculpture a recognisable mingling[125] of the Hittite and Assyrian motives; and the sculptor’s art, at any rate, has not suffered in the combination. Both in treatment and in drawing this monument, though weathered and exposed, reveals an evidence of artistic skill which in some of the purely Hittite monuments elsewhere is not even suggested.

Turning now to the monuments of Jerablus that bear Hittite inscriptions upon them, another deity is found on a fragment of basalt, 31 inches high, upon which the lower part of the body and the ends of four bands of hieroglyphs are preserved.[266] In this case the wings are depressed, folding by the sides, and reaching to the knees, otherwise they would hardly be visible on the broken stone. The feet of the figure and the left hand are missing; in the right hand, which is in front of the body, is a small seed-basket—a symbolism derived from the other side of the Euphrates.[267] The long robe of this deity is similarly strange to early Hittite art, being bordered with a long fringe, and divided by several parallel bands of embroidery.[268] This seems to be an outer cloak, for one may see on the original traces of the familiar short tunic. The carving of this monument is unsurpassed on any inscribed Hittite relief. The delicate indications of the knee muscles may be noted as an illustration, especially when the gritty nature of the stone is taken into consideration. In making this comparison it should be borne in mind that most of the known Hittite reliefs are worn through exposure to the weather; and that[126] objects unearthed for the first time, as at Sakje-Geuzi, give a different impression as regards the sculptor’s craft. Another noteworthy instance is at Iasily Kaya, where a row of figures which had been partly covered, at least for long centuries, has been cleared during the last few decades, giving evidence of a detailed treatment of the whole series which would not have otherwise been suggested.

Another sculptured object belongs to the category of stelæ, resembling in general that of Marash. It is partly chipped away, but sufficient remains for us to make out its original character and dimensions.[269] It is 47 inches high and 26 inches wide. It is crossed horizontally with eight bands of hieroglyphic inscriptions in relief, with raised lines between them, except where the outline of the central figure intervenes. This represents a man, in higher relief than the rest of the carving,[270] who stands in the middle portion of the stone, his feet descending below the inscription, and his head just entering the topmost band. The figure is nearly all chipped away, but the outline remains by that very process well defined. The person, undoubtedly a king, faces to his left, and in his extended left arm he holds aloft a short staff or rod which is marked as though divided down the middle. His right arm is not seen. His robe was crossed obliquely by folds, and it descended to the ankles. His feet were shod, and the toes of the shoes turned sharply upwards. His hair seems to have been dressed[271] in a[127] single bunched curl behind the neck, but the point is obscure. The upper portion of a second similar monument is on record,[272] but the object is destroyed. It shows a central figure turned likewise to the left; with the left hand up, and forward, and the right hand before the chest. The head-dress seems to be a skull-cap, with band across the forehead. The sleeves of the dress are short; and around the waist there is another instance of the broad girdle of cords, ending, it would seem, in a curling knot or loop.[273] There are four rows of hieroglyphs, of which we have only an imperfect copy. A fragment of a third monument of like kind is preserved,[274] but it is uninstructive.

There are two notable inscriptions from Jerablus among many which are fragmentary. The one is a corner-stone of special shape,[275] being recessed in the very angle for eight inches on each side. The raised inscription upon it, however, seems to be continuous even through the recessed angle to the broken end of the block. The stone is basalt, and the whole measures 39½ inches in height. The widths of the various stages, beginning from the right side, which is unbroken, are 7 inches, 8½ inches, 8¾ inches, and 22 inches to the fractured edge. In further explanation of the form of the stone, it may be said that the first and third of these measures are in the same parallel direction, and combine to give that side of the whole stone a width of 15¾ inches. Similarly the next side was at least 30½ inches wide. The inscription is in relief, and is arranged in[128] five bands, divided by lines of equal projection. The signs are clear, and the tenor of the inscription, according to Professor Sayce’s reading, is religious and monumental, giving the king-priest’s account of his setting up a bull shrine on a high place at Carchemish. Another considerable inscription is found on a portion of a round column, 5 feet 6 inches high.[276] Four bands of the inscription are perfect so far as they continue, namely, for 41 inches, but the beginning and ending of the lines are not preserved. There is another band partly visible above. The back of this object has been dressed, subsequently to the breaking of the stone, for the purpose of carving thereon a figure seemingly divine and in full face. It is not in Hittite style, but Hittite influence may be found surviving in certain features.

We cannot dwell longer with profit upon the details of these broken remains, nor of the numerous inscribed fragments, of which copies of nearly twenty are before us. But if we may cull from a somewhat unusual source, namely the columns of a daily newspaper, an account of excavations made for the British Museum on the site, it would seem that the foundations of at least one palatial building were come upon. ‘Facing the entrance,’ we are told, ‘there were found two imperfect tablets, which formed part of an adoration scene. On the one was the image of a goddess, the Hittite Kybele, naked, winged, and with hands offering her breasts.’ Her hair descends in a double plait on each side, curling away at the bottom around the shoulders.[277] The hat is of conical shape, the brim upturned, and[129] bulging at the top. The priestess represented on the adjoining slab was thought by those who saw the sculptures to have been clad in a cloak, but the stone was broken away above the knees of the figure. A little further along were three figures in procession. This stone was likewise broken about the middle of the figures;[278] but the central figure may be seen to have been clad in a long fringed cloak, with a long under garment which is belted, while the outer figures have only the short tunic familiar in Hittite sculptures. Only the outer figures wear the turned-up shoe, an interesting distinction if correctly represented. M. Perrot sees in the sculptures a priest between two warriors. The border to the stone is the pattern of continuous concentric circles such as we have seen at Sakje-Geuzi on sculptures of late Hittite art.

A short distance up the Euphrates from Jerablus is Birejik, which has now supplanted the former as the place for the passage of the river. From here there comes a curious monument of indefinite origin, now in the British Museum under the title ‘Monolith of a King.’ As there is no clear evidence upon it or in the circumstances of its discovery that it is of Hittite handiwork, we do not dwell upon it. It has, however, several suggestive features, not the least interesting of which is the winged disk with horse-shoe ornament above the figure, as in the emblems which designate the priest-king at Boghaz-Keui.[279] At Tell-Ahmar, where there is another crossing of the Euphrates about the same distance southward from Jerablus, Mr. Hogarth has recently made discoveries which contribute important evidences to our subject. Awaiting a full description[130] of these newly-found monuments,[280] we may take note that the site of the finds was on the eastern bank of the river, revealing the Hittites of that day as masters of this crossing; and that among the objects discovered, here or in the neighbourhood, are a lion of somewhat Hittite character, inscribed in cuneiform but not in hieroglyphs, and a stela or sculptured monument of sorts, with eight lines of inscription in relief around three sides, and on the fourth side the lower part of a male figure standing upon a bull. Further up the river, above Birejik, is Rum-Kale, whence comes another fragment equally doubtful and even more curious. It is certainly one of the worst serious efforts to draw a human figure that sculptor or mason ever worked upon. M. Perrot[281] apparently includes this in his list of Hittite works, though he describes it as ‘uncouth.’ There is in this case no indication of Hittite or of any other style, so that nothing can be gained by considering it further.

When we reach Samsat, however, a definitely Hittite monument presents itself.[282] This is an object which in form recalls the funerary stela of Kara-burshlu; but as in this case a pedestal of diminishing thickness is preserved, and the inscription is likewise found upon the two sides of the stone, there is further evidence in favour of its having stood alone. The subject of the sculpture carved upon the face is quite different, however, being only a single figure. So far as this can be seen (for a deep groove has been cut at some time down the length of the stone through the middle of the body),[131] it seems to be that of a man turned to his right. He is clad in a long robe fringed at the bottom, and wearing shoes with the toes turned extravagantly upwards. He seems to be holding (with the right hand possibly) a staff, and more doubtfully a reversed lituus with the left, after the manner of the priests of Boghaz-Keui and Eyuk. The inscription is incised, but it is hardly sufficiently well preserved to be copied with any certitude. Nine rows of hieroglyphs are traceable at the one side and six upon the other, but nearly half of the stone is missing. It was found in the open, partly buried, between the town and the hill of the acropolis. Its height is just over five feet, without including the pedestal, so that the figure which stands clear of the bottom was about life size. The face of the stone is 25 inches wide, and the depth of the inscribed sides seventeen inches.

At Gerger Kalesi, almost at the main turn of the river, there is a monument on the rocks, about which further details would be full of interest. From the published drawings[283] it resembles the Hittite reliefs of Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel in the west of the Hittite lands; and we await some further careful examination with expectation of finding Hittite hieroglyphs upon it. The figure is apparently gigantic, of three times human height. It is that of a warrior clad in short tunic (the details of which are doubtful). He wears a collar of some kind and a conical hat. There is a bow over the left shoulder; the right hand is down and forward. It simulates a Hittite monument very closely, and its presence on the brink of the Eastern frontier of that people is the more full of interest.

Section B.—Monuments in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus.

From the north of Syria we pass to the mountainous region of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus. Here is the centre, if not the focus, of the Hittite lands, and isolated monuments are found in considerable numbers and variety. When one takes into account the difficulty of exploration, it must be conceded to be a remarkable and suggestive fact that no fewer than eleven Hittite sites in the Taurus country are clearly indicated, as compared with the same number in the north of Syria, and about twenty scattered throughout the whole tableland and west of Asia Minor.

One of the most important of these sites is located at Old Malatia, which lies near the confluence of the Tochma Su with the Euphrates. Here there must have been a fortified city, comparable to Marash, for the defence of the frontier. Though no systematic excavation of the site has yet been made, yet the nature of the several sculptures found there speaks for itself. The mound which marks the old-time acropolis is probably that now called Arslan Tepe, near the village of Ordasu, about two or three miles north-eastward from the modern town: the attention of scholars was called to this spot by the visit of Mr. Hogarth’s expedition in 1894. The explorer describes the mound[284] as about fifty feet in height, of irregular shape, longest from north to south, like the accumulation[133] above a building, but without any visible masonry upon it. West of it rise two smaller mounds, and to the south one. The Euphrates is about two hours distant. The sculptured stones are seven in number, and they seem to form part of a series decorating a façade. Three of these are facing-slabs merely, while four others (found independently) are more solid, and may have been building-blocks. The most perfect slab[285] is just under four feet in length, with a height of two feet, and thickness one foot. Along the top is an incomplete row of hieroglyphs in relief,[286] reading from the left. Below is the main theme of decoration, representing a lion hunt, carved in strong relief. The picture is composed of a horse chariot with two riders, a dog below the horse, and a wounded lion in front. Several hieroglyphic signs are found above the horse’s back, and also between his head and that of the lion; but as these signs read now from right to left, it may be concluded that they continue the inscription above. The sculpture is formal and lacking in vitality, but several details may be noticed. The chariot is small. The charioteer and the warrior stand within, side by side; the latter occupies a front place in the picture, which is drawn in profile with the usual conventions. Both men are clad in short tunics with waist-belts, and both wear close-fitting skull-caps, and the hair of the warrior curls in characteristic fashion behind the neck. His weapons are the bow and the spear. The bow is short and curved, and the arrow is strongly barbed; two quivers are depicted cross-ways upon the side panel of[134] the chariot. The spear is shown point upward, ready at hand in the back of the chariot. The driver holds two pairs of reins, from which it may be inferred that two horses are being driven, though being side by side the outline of only one is visible. The shoulder muscles of the horse are outlined conventionally, and it is noticeable that his mane is tightly bound and ends in a curl. The trappings are not distinguishable. The figure of the dog is seen between the horse’s front and back legs; it is crude and uninteresting. The pose of the lion is unconventional. He is represented as half rampant, turning round his head with open mouth towards his tormentors, and clawing the air with the pain of his wound. The shaft of an arrow is seen below the shoulder. The tail is short and thin, and curls upwards; that of the horse is long, and falls so as almost to touch the ground. The mane of the lion is represented fully by short curls; but the belly and shoulders are hairless.[287] The claws are exaggerated; the nose is out of drawing, and the execution of the sculpture in general is poor.

The second block[288] is smaller, but broken in two pieces; it seems to lack also the upper band of inscription. On the right hand it is clearly defective, showing towards that side the back part of a chariot, with six-spoked wheels, quivers, spear, and bowman, exactly as in the previous instance. The more perfect scene, though broken through the middle, shows two figures seated at a ceremonial feast of the kind previously described.[289] Though both persons are seated, they are not represented exactly alike. That[135] on the left seems to be a male; he is distinguished by a close round skull-cap with upturned peak or ornament upon the brow. His long, straight nose is very prominent. His hair turns backward in a single full curl behind the neck. His robe is long, and fringed around the bottom. The toes of his shoes are prominently upturned, and his feet rest on a square-framed stool. The chair on which he sits has curving legs, forming a figure-of-eight cross, and ending in a small outward curve, similar to those supporting the table in other sculptures. The back of the chair is high and turns outward. In his right hand the man holds a crooked staff reversed, and in his left he holds up a small cup. The objects on the table cannot well be identified, as the stone thereabouts is rubbed smooth; but the table may be seen to be supported by two straight legs which cross. The figure on the right of the table, which faces towards the other, is less clearly seen upon the stone, but sufficient may be made out to show that it differs considerably in some details. The head-dress is a hat which is not close-fitting, but rises squarely in front. From behind, a long veil or shawl seems to descend to the waist, where it can no longer be traced owing to the weathering of the stone. The suggestion of the face and clothing is that the figure represents a woman. She is seated, as in the other cases of women,[290] on a square-framed seat with spindle, the back of which must have been low. It is suggested, but not certain, that her feet rest on a footstool. A few hieroglyphic signs between the heads of the figures, and a longer row over all, complete the whole. Though poorly preserved and poorly carved, the general theme of these sculptures is not without[136] special interest. The right-hand portion with the chariot and archer is of the same nature as the lion-hunt seen on the stone previously described, and possibly formed part of the same scheme. The left side, with its two seated figures, belongs to the class of ceremonial feast, of which we have already described various examples. The association of this subject with others of entirely different import has a parallel in the wall sculptures of Sinjerli, where, however, the different subjects are not found on the same stone as in this instance. Here also the persons represented seem to be man and woman. Neither serves the other; both seem to share equally in the rite. In them we are inclined to see the local king and queen, inasmuch as they are personages of sufficient importance to be represented, even though no special attributes of rank denote them. The chieftain and his consort feasting would constitute a theme readily comprehensible in oriental art; but if the subject have really a religious significance, which is more probable, we see them in their capacity of chief priest and priestess,[291] an association for which the sculptures of Eyuk provide us with sufficient analogy.[292] This alternative we regard as the real explanation in this instance.

A third sculpture from Malatia[293] is of smaller size, measuring only thirty-two inches in length and eighteen in height. It is, however, in beautiful condition, and though the edges are broken, the scene depicted upon it is complete in itself. The carving is[137] in relief. As in previous cases a line of inscription[294] runs along the top from left to right. The subject reproduces a striking resemblance to most of the features on the stone first described, except that a fleeing stag takes the place of the wounded lion. Otherwise the horse, chariot, bowman and driver, even the dog below the horse’s feet, are reproduced almost in exact facsimile. Only in this case the better preservation of the stone enables us to trace some details more clearly, while the drawing and carving are executed with greater skill and care. The short sleeves of the men’s dress are distinguishable; the ‘two quivers’ suspended crosswise on the side panel of the chariot seem almost like stout diagonal supports to an open framework. As in the former case only one horse is represented, but the trappings are clearly designed for two, and there is a raised band above his back which may be taken for the back of the further horse, or possibly the pole of the chariot. The horse is entire. The muscles of the shoulder and thigh on all the animals are outlined with deliberation, and behind the horse’s shoulder are certain further markings, intended probably to represent the ribs or muscles more fully, recalling the similar convention seen on certain sculptures of Eyuk[295] and of Sakje-Geuzi.[296] The stag is represented with branching horns; and his head is well drawn. He is in full flight before his pursuers, his hind legs being shown in the picture as overlapping the forelegs of the horse.

The other stones from Malatia[297] are four in number, each decorated on one face. Unfortunately no information is forthcoming in regard to them except the published photographs, which again are not satisfactory. The subjects carved upon the stones are of striking interest. In the first of the series a deity, wearing a conical head-dress decorated with rings,[298] stands upon the back of a horned bull.[299] His left leg is forward (as he faces to the right), and on his feet are tip-tilted shoes. In his right hand, which is drawn back, there is a triangular bow,[300] and in his outstretched left hand he seems to hold up a forked emblem, like the lightning trident,[301] and to grasp at the same time a cord which is attached to the nose of the bull. His dress is a short bordered tunic. Facing him is a long-robed personage, in whom we recognise the king-priest, distinguished by his close-fitting cap and the characteristic large curl of hair behind the neck. In his left hand he holds a reversed lituus; his right is partly extended and seems to be pouring out some fluid which falls in a wavy stream. He is followed by a small person who leads up (with some difficulty it would seem) a goat clearly intended for an offering. Some hieroglyphs complete the picture. It is instructive to compare the whole theme with that which decorated the left[139] hand of the façade to the palace at Eyuk,[302] especially as the blocks of stone seem to be in this instance also cubical building stones. The second sculpture of this series shows a different deity, who is winged,[303] though wearing the same conical hat with rings and upturning peak. His dress is curious; the lower part seems like a many-pleated continuous flowing garment which winds around his body and one leg, and passes behind the other leg. His two hands are held near his body, and in the left he grasps some object which is obscured, but may be seen to have reached to the left shoulder. He is approached by the queen-priestess, who is recognised (as in former cases) by the low cylindrical hat and the long cloak or veil descending therefrom behind the shoulders to the ground. Her left hand is raised as in reverence, and her right one, extended but low, seems to hold a narrow jug, with side handle and long neck, from which she is clearly pouring an oblation into a two-handled vase which seems to rest on the ground before the feet of the god.[304] Behind her there follows a small attendant leading an animal which may be presumed to be a goat as in the previous case. The few hieroglyphs accompanying these figures are illegible. The third block of the series seems to have been decorated with a row of male figures, unaccompanied by any hieroglyphs. Two of these remain. Each is clad in a short bordered tunic reaching to the knees, a conical helmet with rings between the ribs, and shoes with turned-up toes. The second man, who brings the series to an end, is bearded; his nose is[140] mongoloid rather than aquiline or semitic, and he wears a conspicuous curling pigtail. In his advanced left hand he holds in a vertical position a long spear (or similar object), the shaft of which rests on the ground. In his right hand, which is held to his side, he clasps the handle of a mace, the head of which is made up of a ring-like device similar to that seen in the helmets. At his waistbelt there hangs a dagger with curling blade and crescental handle. The man whom he follows seems to be beardless, and he wears a short mantle, one end of which is thrown loosely over the right shoulder. His knife is like his neighbour’s; but an object with long shaft that he carried obliquely, grasped in both hands, is difficult to recognise; from the upper end there seems to hang a short tassel or object attached by a cord. Both figures face to the right, and in obedience to convention, their faces and bodies are in profile, the shoulders in full view, while the left foot and left arm are advanced. The last of this series is fragmentary, and seems to be the decorated upper border of a larger subject. In what remains it is possible to see hypothetically a pair of hands held aloft amid flames. Over all is the pattern of a twisted coil of rope.

Looking back for a moment at the nature of these sculptured monuments, we may with some certainty attribute them to two different building periods. The earliest are those four just described, which, from the point of view of construction and of symbolism, resemble, as we have seen, the palace works and sculptures of Eyuk.[305] The other sculptured slabs, which we described first, correspond more nearly from both points of view with the remains of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi,[306] which[141] we shall find reason to believe in later chapters belong probably to a later phase than the foregoing. The one group may be dated in general terms to the later half of the second millennium B.C., and the other to the early centuries of the first.

Passing up the valley of the Tochma Su, a small group of monuments is met with just after passing Derendeh. There was a rumour, when the English explorers, Hogarth and Munro, passed that way in 1891,[307] of a sculptured lion at a place called Haüz, not far from Derendeh towards the north. But the monuments on record were found in the neighbourhood of Palanga (Chiftlik), which lies on the higher ground after leaving the gorge of the river, some three hours’ journey westward from Derendeh. Here a small lion carved in basaltic stone was seen built into the main gateway; while lying in a puddle near a well hard by, and used as a stepping-stone, was a fragment of a unique columnar figure made also of basalt. The lion was similar to those found in the neighbouring wayside cemetery, hence called Arslan Tash, which we shall presently describe; the columnar figure,[308] however, is unique and instructive. The fragment preserved is fifty-two inches high and about fifty-five inches in circumference towards the top: it swells a little lower down. It ‘represents the lower portion of a draped figure; it is a mere shapeless column without feet, but a double protuberance of the stone at the end of the first line of the inscription is evidently intended to represent the buttocks. The drapery consists of an underskirt, plain except for a short series of perpendicular pleats down the middle of the back,[142] and an upper garment thrown round the left side, the folded edges almost meeting under the right arm.[309] This mantle or cloak reaches down below the level of the knees; its vertical edges are fringed with a border of narrow lappets or tags very similar to those represented on a terra-cotta statuette from Cyprus.’[310] The inscription on this monument extends from the front of the figure around the left side to the back, covering two-thirds of the circumference. The signs are incised, and arranged in four bands, whereof the lowest is broader but less carefully cut than the others. Mr. Hogarth, in his description, points out other interesting analogies. The columnar form, the flat treatment of the drapery, and the ribbed pleats of the underskirt, recall to him the Hera of Samos in the Louvre; while for the rendering of the zigzag folds at the edges of the cloak and the buttocks, a parallel might readily be found in early Greek art, as, for example, among the archaic statues in the Acropolis Museum at Athens. In particular, the large terra-cotta figures from Salamis present an interesting comparison as regards both form and the general disposition of the draperies.

It is difficult to point to any nearer analogies than those which Mr. Hogarth indicated at the time of his discovery. Though belonging to a different place and later period, the statue of Hadad, found near Sinjerli, seems to us to be a product of the same tradition in art.[311] There is another statue of later date from the latter place, the discovery of which was recently announced.[312][143] This is also of columnar form, though the bottom of the skirt and feet are shown. The arms also are in relief, while the head and face, the latter wofully ill-drawn, are in the round. It is a survival and development from the older motive.

The string of monuments from Palanga to Albistan indicates a southern bifurcation of the route, linking in Hittite times with the valley of the Pyramus. The suggestion of an important Hittite road leading continuously up the valley of the Tochma Su, and so over the watershed to the Halys and possibly towards Pteria, seems to be substantiated by two further inscriptions found on the rocks at Gurun, which is some way further up the river on the edge of the divide. This place (the Gauraina of Ptolemy and Guriania of the Assyrian texts) lies in a defile on both banks of the river. Just above the village the waters race through a narrow rocky gorge, at the foot of which the two inscriptions were found.[313] The one is incised on the face of an overhanging crag, near a small spring. It fills a space about four feet wide and three feet high,[144] and is placed about twelve feet or more above the ground. The other is somewhat higher on the declivity, and further from the stream: the hieroglyphs are larger than in the former case, and less carefully incised. The inscriptions are very weathered, so that it is hardly possible to make much of them, but they seem to be partly in duplicate. The emblems which distinguish the two chief male deities in the divine triad at Boghaz-Keui[314] may be recognised; and Professor Sayce has also detected a variant of the place-name frequently recurring on the inscriptions of Carchemish (Gar-ga-me-i-si-ya), which makes it appear that there was some political relation between the two places.

Turning from Derendeh southward up towards the divide, ‘Arslan Tash’ is reached, about three miles after passing Palanga. The place lies about one mile east of the Kurdish village of Yeni Keui. The spot is marked by a series of hummocks near a small wayside graveyard, and receives its name[315] from two great monumental lions of hard limestone,[316] one erect, and the other fallen on its left side. They form a pair each about eight feet in length, and nearly six feet in height. These monuments, though large and impressive, are of crude appearance. They recall most nearly two massive early lions found at Sinjerli,[317] but though obeying certain early canons they are less thoroughly worked, as well as more roughly drawn. Their mouths are open, but exaggerated in size. The rough of the[145] mane is strongly but not finely marked; the legs are not at all disengaged from the stone; the forepaws are almost shapeless, but the hind ones are fully outlined, with the muscle of the thigh suggested. Only one forepaw and one hindpaw appear in the profile view (a purely Hittite convention) while the tail comes down between the legs forward, ending in a curl.[318] Mr. Hogarth thinks that as they lay when found these lions may have marked the position of the entrance to a building.

Just over the watershed, at a place called (Ashagha) Yapalak, a badly defaced Hittite inscription has been seen,[319] but not published, and it seems to have been removed. The record, however, marks the continuity of the track, and the next discovery brings us well into the valley of the Pyramus at Izgîn. The monument itself was seen and photographed amid considerable excitement at Albistan,[320] whither it had been transported, and it is now in safe keeping in the museum at Constantinople.

The object is an obelisk, a unique example among Hittite works. Its Hittite origin is attested by the inscription which covers its four sides. Its material is coarse limestone; in height it measures eight feet two inches; in form it narrows slightly towards the top from one point of view, maintaining its width (twenty-one inches) in the other. The tapering faces are narrower at the bottom than the others, being only ten inches wide. The apex is slightly rounded. The hieroglyphs are in strong relief, arranged in rows. There are about nineteen of these rows on the broad faces, and sixteen[146] only on the narrow ones, so that the signs are less crowded on these sides. Unfortunately the monument is very worn around the middle, and a considerable portion of the inscription cannot be recovered. It was originally seen standing as a headstone in a graveyard at Izgîn, which is a Turkoman village, some six miles north-east from Albistan, near the confluence of the Kurman Su with the Pyramus.

We have seen that the monuments which we have examined thus far in the Taurus region mark out the track of two main highways, the one following the valley of the Tochma Su, the other branching from that route southward to gain the valley of the Pyramus. A monument recently discovered now suggests one way at least by which in ancient times the Anti-Taurus might be traversed. This is found in the high pass of Kuru-Bel, a route which has now fallen considerably into disfavour, though not without its advantages. The distance is not more than ten miles to Comana (identified with the modern village of Shahr), which lies to the south-east. By this route, the tracks from the east, whether by way of Marash or by Albistan, converging on Comana, might lead down directly to Cæsarea and the interior; or they might, without serious difficulty, connect with Ekrek farther to the north, or Tashji and Fraktin farther south, all of them sites of Hittite works. In this case the monument seems like a great altar of stone, square cut, with a lion crouching on the top on either hand. The material is grey trachyte, which is only found fifteen or twenty miles nearer to Mount Argæus;[321] and[147] as the object weighs just over a ton, it is a matter of considerable perplexity how it was transported in ancient times over the rugged path to the spot where it now lies. There is little doubt but that it remains in its ancient position. It is found on a limestone rock which rises from a small grassy plateau overshadowed by the lofty peaks of the Soghan Dagh, being itself about 7500 feet above the sea. The base of the object is solid and rectangular in form, with a length of four feet; its width is just under three feet, and its height seventeen inches. The two crouching lions are carved in the same piece of stone, one on either side, like the decorative arms to a throne. The stone is considerably weathered, so that it is not possible to recover much impression of the original finish or detail of the work. The limbs of the animals are outlined, and shown in full relief; the carving is all in the round. The lions are nearly as long as the stone is broad, while they are ten inches high and about eleven inches broad. The clear space between them on the top of the altar is about two feet. In front there may be made out several incised Hittite hieroglyphs, which seem to have formed part of a considerable inscription in three lines. We accept the term altar as an explanation of this monument on the mere general suggestion of its shape; it is, however, unique, and there is no material for forming a definite opinion. The modern shepherds of the vicinity make use of it for pounding up the roots from which they extract a dye for marking their sheep. This usage has considerably damaged the lions, and affords us no clue as to the original purpose of the monument. It may, however, have very well been an altar to the God of the Mountain or of the Pass. The sculptures of[148] the Kara Dagh,[322] and even those of Boghaz-Keui,[323] prepare us for local cults of this character.

From Kuru-Bel, as we have mentioned, several different routes lead on to the plateau of the interior. One of these (but not the easiest or most direct) follows the stream called Kuru Chai down till it joins the Zamanti Su. A little way above the junction on the opposite side there flows in another stream which comes past Ekrek. This is a small Armenian village, eight hours’ easy journey eastward from Cæsarea. It boasts three Christian churches, and from one of the graveyards there has come to light a stone[324] of special interest. This was originally a Hittite monument with a panel of hieroglyphs incised along the bottom, bordered by a double line. A few signs appear below, but they are not continued. The stone has been re-dressed, it would appear, in Christian times, and five crosses have been carved upon it, being left in false-relief by cutting away the surface of the stone. There is a feather and zigzag border around the edge, which may possibly be original. The two rosettes might equally well be a Hittite device, but their relief corresponds with that of the crosses. The latter are symmetrically arranged, two small ones on each side under the arms of the larger central cross, which stands on a bar upon a roughly incised ‘calvary.’

Farther down the Zamanti Su we come to the village of Tashji, placed in a narrow glen on the bank of a small tributary. Here, upon a rock, there are visible the incised outlines of two figures and a considerable number of hieroglyphs.[325] The carvings are so weathered,[149] and the record of them so insufficient, that little can be made out of the inscription. The two figures, however, may be judged to have been clad in priestly dress, with close-fitting skull-cap. The sharply-cut features of one of them remain conspicuous. They are to the right hand of the scene as published, and facing to the observer’s right; hence it is probable that they are facing some deity or deified object which has escaped observation. The position of this monument is of special interest, as it is only eight miles eastward from Fraktin, which is found on the next main bend of the river.

Here, at Fraktin (otherwise Ferak-Din),[326] is one of the most famous of Hittite sculptures, which makes most important contributions to Hittite religious symbolism.[327] From its position on the river, Professor Ramsay has, with reason, identified this place with the Dastarkon on the river Karmalas mentioned by Strabo,[328] and has shown how the omission of the name of the place from the list of Hiera, though at one time the most important, and the head over all others in Cappadocia, argues for its extreme antiquity as a religious centre, the importance of which was already passing when the list was made. Its sanctity was preserved, however, even in Christian times, by the Bishopric of Kiskissos, situated at Kiskeui, the nearest village to the site.

The sculptures[329] of Fraktin are found about half a mile north-north-east of the village, carved upon a[150] convex rock facing to the west, where a cliff about fifteen or twenty feet high rises above a sluggish stream, the Kara Su, which flows past at the foot. They are about four feet from the ground, and the figures are from three feet to three feet four inches in height. The group fills a space nine feet eight inches wide, or, including an outer group of hieroglyphs, thirteen feet ten inches over all. The carving is executed in relief about two inches high. There are two scenes, in each of them two personages. The group on the left consists of two male figures, facing one another, and separated by an altar. They are both clad in Hittite fashion, with short tunic, conical hat, and shoes with upturned toes,[330] while each has seemingly a dagger at the waist. The figure to the left holds out some object in his extended left hand above the altar. In his right hand there is grasped a curving staff, which rests upon the shoulder.[331] With this figure there is associated the divided oval, the emblem of sanctity; so that we cannot doubt that if either of these two is a divine figure to whom the other is ministering, then it is the one in question. The figure upon the other side of the altar is more defaced; he seems to hold under the left arm a triangular bow,[332] while with his right hand he grasps an object which is continued by a wavy outline to the ground before his feet.[333] The altar between the two is very curious, and the object upon it unintelligible. The pedestal seems to be draped almost like a human figure with a narrow folded garment ending in a fringe. The narrowing at the top, representing the waist, and the horizontal belt around it, are evident.

The group to the right is not completely carved, the outlines only being shown, though the background is cut away. On the left of the altar in this case, the figure is seated on a square-shaped stool, and notwithstanding the conical hat (generally a part of the male attire), the only parallel cases of a seated deity suggest the figure of Ma, the Mother-goddess.[334] Whoever or whatever it may be, the hands are held out towards the altar. On the opposite side there is a similar long-robed figure standing, and the garment in this case shows a considerable train behind, while in front the turned-up toe of one foot protrudes. The right hand seems to lean on a long staff,[335] while the left, contrary to the usual convention, is extended, and grasps a long pendent object which reaches the floor,[336] as in the counterpart. The object perched upon the altar is unexplained, but most resembles the crudely drawn outline of a falcon or other large bird[337] facing the goddess.

Much has been written, and much might still be argued, as to the meaning of these sculptures. All that is certain is the insufficiency of evidence by which to identify them. We seem to have, however, two acts of worship, probably oblation scenes, represented; and on the analogy of the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,[338] we may feel drawn to see in these sculptures two shrines, the one of the Mother-goddess, later known as Cybele, the other of her companion, likewise familiar in later times as Attis. At Boghaz-Keui the same divine pair appear in other guise. But being ignorant of the local religion, we learn little or nothing from these[152] identifications. It is however of interest to notice how deeply permeated and how widely spread throughout the Hittite lands was the cult of the Nature-goddess in early times.

Section C.—Monuments of the Halys Basin.

With this group of monuments there are two or three outside the convex curve of the Halys, though none the less in the basin which that river drains. The first of these, on the slopes of Mount Argæus, might perhaps more appropriately have been classed with the monuments of Anti-Taurus, of which system Argæus is really the most advanced and most prominent peak. We have no doubt that near the summit of this magnificent slumbering volcanic cone there might be found traces of Hittite high-places, but for the present our only evidence of Hittite presence in this locality is to be found a comparatively short way up the ascent, at a place called Tope Nefezi, near to Asarjik.[339] Here, among a number of small rocks, there is found one, enclosed with a growth of low scrub, upon the southern face of which a Hittite inscription is incised. The spot is near one of the main ascents of the cone, commanding a view of the plain below, while in front the snowy peak emerges in vivid, gleaming contrast out of the dense growth of pine and fir trees that clothe the middle heights of the mountain. A stream coming from high up the mountain passes near the spot, and[153] descends just eastward of Cæsarea to join the Deli Su. This river, flowing west through the marshes, shortly afterwards enters the Kara Su, which empties into the Halys just above Bir Geuz bridge.[340]

The rock itself is cracked vertically and weathered at the edges, so that some of the inscription on the left hand is missing, and some of it is illegible. It covers a space nearly four feet wide and nearly two feet high. It consists of two bands, of which the lower one, about eight inches in height, is marked only faintly with half-obliterated signs which suggest graffiti. The upper band is covered with incised hieroglyphs and a group of short upright strokes probably representing numerals. In the left part of the inscription, three or more signs are superposed in each column, while the whole is to be read clearly from right to left. For the moment the presence and position of this monument are its chief features of importance.

The other site, about equally distant from the Halys, but considerably to the west, is Suasa, on the head-waters of the stream which enters the Halys just above Karaburna. Here, on a cubical block of stone, similar to many hundreds fallen from the cliff, there has been found[341] an inscription, incised on the front and back. The exposed part of the stone is rather more than three feet wide. The record of the monument is insufficient to let us assign much importance to its apparent intrinsic details, such as the possible appearance of a winged animal and a fish among the hieroglyphs. That which concerns us most, as in the former case, is the unquestionably Hittite nature of the monument,[154] and the place where it is found. If we are to regard these isolated monuments as general evidence of Hittite routes, we may see in this one the suggestion of a road from Akserai (Archelais) direct to Karaburna, connecting on the one hand with Ardistama or with Konia, and on the other with Boghaz-Keui by a southern branch of the royal road.[342]

Karaburna lies on the north bank of the Halys river.[343] Just behind the village a steep hill rises about four hundred feet, and is crowned with an ancient fortress. On two sides the wall of rock forms a sufficient defence, but on the west, and particularly on the north, this is more broken, and is supplemented by an artificial wall of rough stone work.[344] In the east side there is a sort of gateway, and below there is an underground passage leading probably to a well.[345] On a shelf of rock to the left of this entrance there is a lengthy Hittite inscription.[346] The surface of the rock is not very smooth, and it was found both worn and covered with lichen. None the less the discoverer brought back good copies of the inscription, which is important both intrinsically and topographically. The hieroglyphs are incised, and are arranged in three rows with border and dividing lines. They seem to have filled a space rather more than five feet long and just less than two feet wide. The inscription, as translated by Professor Sayce, refers chiefly to the building of the fortification and the towers thereof;[155] there is also a remarkable suggestion that the district was subject to or part of Tyana. If we may make an inference therefrom, it is that the inscription belongs to a time when Tyana had superseded Pteria as the Hittite capital, and when Greater Cilicia had taken the place of northern Cappadocia as the most important Hittite state.

At Bogche, higher up the river, and on the opposite bank, there is a unique Hittite monument, which, so far as can be judged, stands now precisely where it did in antiquity. It is a flat round-topped granitic stone, inscribed on both sides and ends, and standing upon a suitable plinth or pedestal. The width of the stone is almost exactly four feet, and its height three feet. At the side it is twenty-one inches wide at the bottom, narrowing to eleven and a half inches at the top.[347] The position of the monument is a slope of high ground overlooking the valley of the river, and isolated amid pastures to the west of the village. Its nature and situation alike suggest a tribal or village boundary stone, such as we suspect at Gurun and Bulghar-Madên. The inscription is arranged in four lines, and seems to commence at the top right hand of the northern face (which is towards the river). The hieroglyphs are incised, and include several new and uncommon signs. Though difficult the inscription is one of the most perfect pieces available for the decipherer or philologist.

Passing the Bir Geuz bridge, Yamoola is found some little way farther up the river, upon the northern bank. The village is in open ground, but just above the valley narrows to a gorge, which is practically continuous as far as Chok Geuz Keupru.[348] A pathway follows the[156] river-side for the most part, winding along the narrow strip of soil between the water and the heights which overlook it. Other tracks take the higher ground, but they are rendered difficult by the loose stones that thickly cover the surface, imparting a desolate and wild character to the region. About forty minutes’ journey above Yamoola, or two and a half hours below Chok Geuz Keupru, the monument is found upon gently-sloping ground near the brink of a steep knoll about five hundred feet in height. The spot does not command an extensive view of the river, though only a hundred yards away, because the ground rises slightly in between; but a little way up stream the banks are more gentle, and the water comes into view at a bend.

The monument is a gigantic eagle of stone,[349] sculptured in the round, standing upon a solid base carved in bold relief with the design of a seated lion within each of three panels at the front and sides. The height over all is seven feet. It now lies upon one side, but it would appear that it was originally set up some four or five yards distant on a platform of stones, the front edge of which is slightly raised like a ridge to prevent slipping.[350]

The head of this great eagle is unfortunately broken away, and has not been found. Around the neck the feather pattern which covers the body gives way to a hair-like representation, seen as two clusters of hair curling finally towards one another. This may, indeed, be only a method of reproducing the down upon the neck, parallel with the treatment of the legs; on the other hand, hair may be intended, and it is thus possible[157] that the bird was human-headed. After due consideration of the details and probabilities, however, we are disposed to accept the simpler solution: that the emblem was a simple though gigantic eagle, set upon a lion-base. Upon the breast of the bird, the plumage is represented by a leaf-like pattern with a boldness accordant with the great size of the subject. Upon the back this detail is repeated to some extent, but for the most part the work is more conventional, consisting of bands of herring-bone pattern running down the full length of the body, diverging upon the shoulders, and then converging gradually so as to cross towards the tail. The legs are shown covered with down, and the talons are forcefully executed.

The base of this monument is also of special interest. In each of the two visible panels (hence presumably upon the third) a lion is shown in an attitude not exactly crouching, but as though supporting the weight upon his shoulders and back. His forequarters are too much raised for an ordinary recumbent position, though otherwise the attitude of these animals is reposeful. The left leg in each case crosses over the right, and the tail curls up from between the legs backward over the thigh. The right side is presented in each case, and the face looks outwards. The width of the base, excluding the tail, which projects about five inches, is three feet nine inches. Framing the panels in which the lions are shown, and separating the pedestal from the rest of the monument, there is a curious wavy ridge of stone upon which the eagle is perched. It may possibly be intended as a branch of a tree, but it is made almost to resemble a writhing serpent, with its alternate narrowing and widening.

We have departed from the strict lines laid down at[158] the outset of our inquiry in including this object, which is uninscribed, and bears no direct evidence of date upon it. We do so because we claim it with some confidence as Hittite work. Eagles, in relief and in the round, and lions, are familiar emblems in Hittite religious art, and they are found in association at Boghaz-Keui;[351] indeed, at this place, which we may believe to have been the religious centre for the whole Halys basin, a cult of the eagle seems to have been perpetuated in Hittite times.[352] Hence, though the character and composition of the monument are unique, the emblems which it comprises are familiar subjects in Hittite art, and appropriate to the locality. As to its meaning, however, we can hazard no opinion; its position near the valley of the river suggests a possible relationship, and we know[353] that rivers were sacred to some Hittite tribes.

Leaving now the valley of the Halys, it is a singular fact that there is no permanent trace of Hittite presence on record within the broad circuit which that river encloses, except the ruins of the capital at Boghaz-Keui and of the neighbouring palace at Eyuk. At the former place there is one monument called Nishan Tash, which claims mention independently of the buildings and sculptures to which we devote a special chapter, inasmuch as it is a rock-carving unlike anything else on the acropolis where it is found. It lies between the two fortresses of Beuyuk and Yenije Kaleh, where the surface of a rock facing to the south has been smoothed for a space about twenty feet by ten, and carved with a design or inscription arranged in ten separate lines. It is generally[159] thought that this is an inscription in Hittite hieroglyphs, and probably that is correct; but owing to its extremely weathered state, we do not believe it possible now to recognise the signs with any certainty, though one traveller claims to have deciphered four lines in comparatively recent years. The rock lies back at a considerable angle, and is thus entirely exposed to rain and frost. At the present time the carving simulates a series of animal forms, arranged in pairs facing one another, and (in the second row) of winged creatures placed singly and separated by dividing lines from one another. In the ninth row there is a suggestion of bulls facing one another in pairs, with lowered heads. Doubtless this is illusion,[354] but it shows the unfortunate impossibility of recovering the original inscription with any reliability.

Two further monuments, recently discovered,[355] may be appropriately mentioned, inasmuch as they have no clear relation to any other buildings of the site. They are cubical building blocks of granite (similar to those from Malatia and elsewhere), and the face of each is decorated with a relief. In the upper part of the stone there is a socket-hole, from which fact the discoverers argue that they were the bases for statues, though from the analogy which their other discoveries afford, it would appear more probable that they supported a building carried up in timber. The subject of the relief is clearly religious, and it includes some striking and important features, which appear on each stone. Indeed, the only difference between the two is found in three out of five hieroglyphic[160] signs that occur in each case. Otherwise the subject represented is the same. This shows a priest, clad in toga-like robe standing in an attitude of prayer before an altar. He wears a skull-cap, shoes with turned-up toes, and earring. The toga is worn (in one case plainly) over a short tunic and vest. His left hand is raised towards the altar, and his left foot is advanced. The altar is of square shape, and without parallel in Hittite representations.[356] It is decorated with squares divided by diagonal lines and crosses. There is a little difference discernible in the arrangement of these decorative details, the chief point being that on the one they are arrayed in rows (in which case there are no crosses) and in the other in columns (in which case the crosses form a partial middle column between two of diagonals). Most curious of all, upon the altar, seemingly one on the right hand and one on the left, are two tall loop-like or round-topped objects standing vertically. Behind the altar there seems to be the cult object, which at first glance looks very like a harpoon, though the head is bent somewhat backward. It may, however, be thought to represent some pointed object (like the Hittite hat) on a pole.

(There is a small ivory object recently obtained at Denek Maden, near Chesme Keupru, which we may appropriately mention here,[357] as it is characteristic of a certain class of Hittite objects, though not of direct use to our present subject. Its form makes it improbable that it was a seal in the ordinary sense. On the obverse there is the figure of a god clad in a short tunic; from the hieroglyphs alongside he is to be recognised perhaps as Sandan, or Sandes. On the[161] reverse there is the robed figure of a priest holding apparently a long staff in his hand, and wearing a skull-cap. Certain hieroglyphs accompany this figure also. The character of the object and treatment of detail have several features of special interest.)

Section D.—Monuments of the West.

It has already been indicated that the Hittite works in the west are few in number and of somewhat special character, and that they are disposed for the most part seemingly along a single line of road.[358] They betoken a line of conquest rather than a period of settlement. Nevertheless, if we may permit ourselves to take into consideration certain sculptures which, though uninscribed, are of strongly Hittite character, we shall find reason to feel the presence of Hittite influence, or close contact with Hittite artistic feeling, in Galatia north-east from Phrygia. In view of the fact which has been established[359] that the Halys River formed a boundary between peoples of different racial customs, this evidence, if it may be accepted, assumes definite importance, inasmuch as such influence was less likely, under the circumstances, to be the result of neighbourly assimilation. It would argue, in short, for a definite occupation or suzerainty.

Of such uninscribed works we may single out three in the immediate vicinity of Angora, the one at Kalaba,[360][162] which is just eastward of the town, the others at Amaksiz and Yalanjak,[361] which lie to the west and south-west respectively. These are uniform slabs of stone, suitable for the façade of a building, decorated with reliefs of lions.[362] It is not merely the analogy of motive and of subject, but certain details of treatment, which give them a Hittite character. The beasts are in each case represented as advancing, with wide open mouths. The farther legs are advanced and the tail curls over the back. On the lion from Kalaba the body is seemingly hairy below the belly and the collar is suggested. Most characteristic of all is the treatment of the shoulder muscles, which are drawn in conventional outline, as at Eyuk, Sinjerli, and elsewhere. (At Chesme Keupru, also, exposed to the weather on the western side of the bridge, there is a lion sculptured completely in the round. This is in itself a fashion unknown to Hittite art, and added to that there must be noticed the seated posture of the animal and uncouth treatment of the subject. We cannot see in this any semblance of Hittite influence.)

The sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi, however, are of unmistakably Hittite origin, even though no inscription seems to have been noticed with them. Here the subjects are godlike figures, in familiar Hittite guise.[363] They are carved in relief upon the living rock, and their situation is particularly noteworthy. A rocky knoll overlooks, indeed partly overhangs, a narrow pass: upon the summit is a fortress, rectangular in shape, about eighteen yards by thirty-seven, and supported by an outer and lower wall at a distance of[163] twelve to thirty yards. The masonry of the inner wall is rough dry-walling, while the outer is built in the style of the fortress on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui,[364] of stones roughly pentagonal in shape, irregular in size, fitted to one another, and laid without mortar. In its shape this fortress corresponds to that of Yenije Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui;[365] in its double wall and rough inner masonry to that on Kizil Dagh;[366] and in the position of the monuments near its entrance to that on Kizil Dagh just mentioned, and to another at Karaburna.[367]

The sculptures represent two male figures: the one bearded, the other beardless. Both are clad in the short tunic, tip-tilted shoes, and conical hat familiar in the god-figures at Boghaz-Keui.[368] A dagger with crescental hilt is stuck into the belt of each. They are of gigantic size, seemingly about ten or twelve feet high, and both are posed in the same way facing in the same direction. They turn to the observer’s left; their right hands are advanced, as though pointing down the pass, while their left arms are drawn back. Obedient to convention, the right legs are advanced, and the shoulders are seen almost in full view. Something hangs down from the hat of each, falling behind the neck;[369] and upon the front of the hat worn by the bearded figure there may be traced a curving object, but whether the upturned brim familiar on the sculptures at Sinjerli and Boghaz-Keui,[370] or some other emblem, is not determinable.

There can be little doubt as to the identification of these two figures, as they are portrayed, with the father-god and the son-god (the two forms of Attis of later[164] times), seen in exact correspondence on the sculptured walls of the sanctuary at Boghaz-Keui.[371] Is it merely a coincidence that, while being a link in the great westerly route from Boghaz-Keui towards Kara-Bel and Sipylus, they are pointing down the pass which is thought by many to have led also directly to Pessinus or Pessinous, the chief sanctuary of the Mother-goddess[372] in this part of Asia Minor?

Whatever may have been the direction of the Royal Road eastward of Giaour-Kalesi, it would seem to have passed west by way of Yarre, which is found near a bridge over the Sangarius called Karanji Keupru. Here a sculptured slab has been found[373] decorated with a relief representing a ceremonial feast. This is an important link, for this class of subject has a wide distribution, as we have seen,[374] throughout Hittite lands on both sides of the Taurus. Its appearance west of the Halys betrays the influence not only of Hittite art but of a common religious institution.

The slab is almost exactly thirty inches square and twelve inches thick. The back is rough, and on the upper side is carved a tongue or ‘joggle,’ for attaching another slab: clearly it formed part of the façade of a building like the slabs of Angora, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi. The drawing of the scene is more angular and less free than is seen on most Hittite works, but there are several intrinsic Hittite peculiarities. Two figures are seated, their feet on footstools, at opposite sides of a narrow table or altar. The head and back of the[165] left-hand figure are missing. The shoes of both turn upwards at the toes, and their garments seem to be long, reaching to their ankles. The end of a toga-like garment is conspicuous on the right-hand figure, falling over the right shoulder and reaching almost to the seat. The head-dress of this figure resembles a skull-cap with expanding front, and a short hood or veil falls behind the neck. The features are sharp, the nose and chin being particularly prominent. The figure is seated on a stool with two straight legs which cross. In the left hand (which, as at Sinjerli and elsewhere, is inaccurately represented with the palm instead of the knuckles towards the observer) there is grasped a small round-topped object; and in the right hand, which is partly raised, there seems to be a cup. The opposite figure is clad alike, so far as it can be seen, and similarly raises a cup towards the lips. The object between them resembles in form the narrow tapering altars seen on the sculptures of Fraktin. Upon it there seem to be a bird, and possibly some other offerings not clearly defined. In the background between the two heads, and above the ‘altar,’ there appear certain marks, in relief, which may be the remains of hieroglyphic signs. It is unfortunate that the whole of this sculpture is not preserved, a circumstance which makes us hesitate to attempt to explain its meaning. It is probable, however, that the persons, being both seated, are in this case on an equality, and both share in the feast, as at Marash,[375] Boghaz-Keui,[376] and Sinjerli.[377] We infer that they are man and woman, but that is not clear. The figure on the right, clad in the toga and long robe, wears also an earring. The seat on the left is not a stool of the same kind as that on[166] the right, but rather a square-shaped chair, though, being broken in two, we have only a portion remaining from which to judge.

In the Phrygian country the rock sculptures of non-Phrygian character near the Midas-tomb at Doghanlu[378] may be thought to carry on the line of Hittite highway to the west. These are found on a plateau above the valley in which are the Phrygian monuments, and they seem to have been anciently reached by means of a road ascending in a gentle curve, now partly hidden at the bottom by accumulated earth. There are several figures of gigantic size carved in relief upon the rocks, but that which has attracted most attention is a small one in the series, two feet four inches high, described by the discoverer as a figure of ‘Hermes.’ The person stands, facing left, his left foot and arm advanced. His hair is dressed close, or it may be covered by a skull-cap, and a curl is visible behind the neck. In the left hand a caduceus is held upright, the head of which is seen like a small disk with horn-like objects projecting from the top and turned towards one another. Beyond the staff are certain picture-signs, amidst which a bird[379] may be recognised, with a small triangular sign below. These signs, in the opinion of the discoverer, are not the same as the Hittite hieroglyphs. None the less, the monument is accepted as Hittite by Dr. Messerschmidt[380] and M. Perrot.[381] We consider their interpretation of the origin of the sculpture to be extremely doubtful. We do not feel so strongly as Professor Ramsay that the Phrygians[167] obviously learned this type from the Hittites of Pteria, as may be seen from a comparison with the youthful god in the sanctuary of that place. On the other hand, the caduceus, the picture-signs, and the short robe of the figure, are not really those familiar in Hittite art. We are told, however, that other sculptures of the series with which the ‘Hermes’ is associated have more in common. The theory of Hittite influence, though not of Hittite origin, is perhaps easiest reconciled with history, and we may accept it tentatively as a working hypothesis explaining their presence, but not as independent evidence.

The same doubt does not exist, however, in regard to an inscription from Bey-Keui, which is a definite trace of the Hittites in the west. The monument is a dressed block of limestone, dug by Professor Ramsay[382] out of a mound at the entrance to a glen. The hieroglyphs are in relief, and on the portion of the stone preserved were arranged in rows, of which two partly remain. The whole was surrounded by a plain border.[383] From the published copy two or three of the signs may be readily recognised as distinctively Hittite. The position of the monument has thus a great interest amid the paucity of evidence in the west.

Those monuments which tell of the Hittite influence in the extreme west are found on the mountains of Sipylus and Tmolus, not far in either case from Smyrna. The river Hermus before entering the sea flows about a mile distant on the northern side of Mount Sipylus. On the other bank there stretches out a considerable expanse of highly fertile plain. The road and railway[168] pass between the river and the mountain, and from them the famous sculpture may be plainly seen. It is several hundred feet up the slope, involving a sharp climb up the accumulated débris and soil at the foot of the cliff. Above, the cliffs rise sheer and almost precipitous.[384]

The monument occupies a recess specially prepared, about forty feet in height, while the figure itself is over thirty feet high. This gigantic sculpture, perhaps on account of its accessibility, has been more noticed in writings, ancient and modern, than any other. Its present condition,[385] however, leaves us no chance of forming any new opinion as to its original meaning and character. Fortunately on both points there remains little doubt, in spite of a considerable controversy, which is, however, now no longer of interest. As to its meaning, we are guided by the studied words of Pausanias,[386] read in the light of modern information, to believe that it was a rock image of the Mother-goddess; and as to its character, we may see in its present weathered state the indications of a sculpture in very high relief, almost indeed in the round, though not disengaged from the rock, which once represented a female seated, with her feet presumably upon a stool. The head of the figure is seemingly inclined forward, and the form of the female bust may still be recognised. Those who previously may have thought the carving to represent a bust upon a pedestal were deceived by its present appearance, for certain[169] hieroglyphs[387] in the recess near the head attest its Hittite origin: the motive of bust and pedestal finds no place in the category of Hittite art, while the seated figure of the Mother-goddess has its counterpart in the Hittite sculptures at Eyuk[388] and Fraktin.[389] The inscription in question is very fragmentary, though certain characteristic symbols can be recognised, notably the tip-tilted shoe and the horned (ram’s) head. ‘It contains,’ writes Professor Sayce, ‘the name of the Mother-goddess, with her title “Queen of the Rock,” all of which signs recur in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi.’[390]

It would seem that classical writers, following generally in the footsteps of Homer, confounded this image with another object, a natural rock on the same mountain, which tradition associated with Niobe, and would seem indeed to have conveyed a suggestion of her weeping form. Thus Homer[391] sings that ‘Niobe, turned to stone, upon arid Sipylus broods o’er her sorrows’; and so again Ovid:[392] ‘Fastened to the rock she weeps, and the marble sheds tears.’ Fortunately Pausanias, himself probably a native of this country, ascertained the facts and showed how the confusion had arisen. ‘This Niobe,’ he says,[393] ‘I myself saw when I ascended Mount Sipylus; close at hand it is merely a rock and a cliff, with no resemblance to a woman, mourning or otherwise; but if you stand farther off, you will think you see a weeping woman bowed with grief.’ This is clearly the Niobe of Homer, Ovid, and Sophocles, and clearly also the smoothed appearance of the rock above[170] the image of the Mother-goddess (which is not, it seems, due at all to the action of the water), was one of the reasons accounting for the confusion. As to the identity of the image, Pausanias leaves us in no doubt where he says,[394] ‘Here (at Aeriae) there is a temple of the Mother of the Gods, with a stone image of her: both are worth seeing. The people of Aeriae say that it is the most ancient sanctuary of this goddess in the Peloponnese. The oldest of all her images,[395] however, is on the rock of Coddinus at Magnesia, to the north of Sipylus: the Magnesians say it was made by Broteas, son of Tantalus.’ Finally the same writer makes his distinction apparent by showing that he was aware of the passage in Homer referring to the story of Niobe.[396]

As in other cases, we do not dwell upon the religious symbolism of the monument. That the Mother-goddess (Ma) was the prototype of Kybele remains undisputed, and all that is of interest in the cult of the great Phrygian goddess has been pointed out by Sir William Ramsay[397] and others. But the attributes of the goddess in the minds of the Hittites remain indefinite, and are to be inferred from the rites represented with her at Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, and Fraktin, from the ritual described by Strabo and Herodotus, as surviving at Comana, Tyana, Pessinus, and elsewhere, and from the inherited attributes of Kybele herself.[398]

The other Hittite monuments of the west on the pass of Kara-Bel are comparatively near at hand. A[171] stream which feeds the Hermus, flowing around the foot of Mount Sipylus on the east, comes down from the valley which separates that mountain on the south from the opposite slopes of Olympus. The bed of another small tributary leads up these southern slopes to a narrow wooded glen upon the ridge, in which are the sources of the Kara Su. Through this glen there passes a track, now not much used, connecting Ephesus to the south with Sardis or Smyrna by the northern valley. About seventy feet above this track, in the perpendicular face of the cliff, a niche of rock encloses a sculpture in relief. The niche is about six feet wide at the base and nine feet high, being considerably narrower at the top.[399] The figure within is that of a warrior, similar to those of Giaour-Kalesi, and resembling the god-figures at Boghaz-Keui. He stands facing to his left, his left leg and arm advanced, and his shoulders squared to the observer. He wears a short tunic and short-sleeved vest and high boots, which in some early drawings are shown as turning up at the toes.[400] The conical Hittite hat completes his costume. A triangular-shaped bow is carried over his right shoulder, and his extended left hand seems to grasp a long staff or spear.[401] The sculpture, being on the east side of the ravine, is turned towards Ephesus. There is another similar sculpture on a detached block of stone some two hundred and fifty yards farther up the pass. This stone seems to have fallen from the rocks above, and it now lies on the west side near the stream,[172] about twelve yards below the level of the path. As it lies the sculptured face is towards the east, and the figure being turned as in the former case, towards the left, looks to the north. It is probable, however, from the similarity of the two subjects, that they originally looked in the same direction.

It is curious that there is no mention of these sculptures by Pausanias. Herodotus, however, describes them as images of Sesostris,[402] ‘the one on the way from Ephesus to Phocaea, the other from Sardis to Smyrna. In both places a man is carved, four and a half cubits high, bearing a spear in his right hand, and in his left a bow; and the rest of his equipment is in unison, for it is partly Egyptian and partly Ethiopian. From one shoulder to the other there extend across the breast sacred Egyptian characters, incised, which read as follows: “I acquired this region by my own shoulders.” Who or whence he is he does not here show.’ It is clear that Herodotus was writing from hearsay: there is just enough general accuracy in his account to identify the monuments, and enough discrepancy to make it apparent that he had not visited them himself. The details as to position we have already noticed; and Professor Sayce has shown[403] that the inscription, so far from being across the breast of the figure and in Egyptian characters, is found in the characteristic place, between the spear and the head of the figure, and consists of a group of Hittite hieroglyphs, in which certain symbols can be recognised. On the fallen block no trace of inscription remains, as the sculpture has suffered mutilation; in fact, a Yuruk’s tent was at one[173] time pitched against it, and the niche used as a fireplace. But sufficient remains to make it demonstrable that no Egyptian inscription ran across the breast. We can hardly hesitate to identify this figure with one of the two forms of the Hittite national deity, and if the suggested absence of beard be a guide, he will be in this case the son-god of Boghaz-Keui, the Sandon of Tarsus, the prototype of Attis the consort of Kybele. We are inclined to see him here, as at Giaour-Kalesi, in the aspect of a God of Arms. We may notice once more, and ask, as in a previous case, whether it can be mere coincidence that the only Hittite monuments surviving in the extreme west are representations of the Mother-goddess and of the chief male deity of the Hittite peoples.

With these monuments of the west we classify also one definitely Hittite inscription from near Iconium, and two instructive monuments reflecting Hittite influence, found near the Lake Beyshehr. The inscription was found near Ilgîn, at a place called Kölit-oghlu Yaila,[404] about three miles from the latter and eight miles eastward from the former, and about three hundred yards off the road from Ilgîn to Kadyn Khan. Actually the spot is about fifty miles north-westward from Iconium. Here there are traces of an ancient site in a slight eminence upon the plain, and the ruins of a wall running in a curve for a long distance. It is possible, Professor Ramsay thinks, that these indications may mark the site of pre-Hellenic Tyriaion,[405] which was one of the three chief cities of the Phrygio-Lycaonian[174] frontier lands. In Roman times, however, Tyriaion was placed without doubt at Ilgîn. It is more probable that the mound indicates a site of antiquity that fell for some reason into neglect as Tyriaion came into prominence. Out of the top of this there was dug up a block of limestone, about two feet eight inches high and six feet long. It is not quite complete; but upon it there may be made out with some certainty three rows of Hittite hieroglyphs in relief, the inscription commencing with the right-hand side at the top. The position of the monument is of special importance, for it seems clearly to have been found near to its original position, and is the sole witness of Hittite handiwork in this part of the tableland. And though it stands alone, it does not seem to be of that class, the isolation of which may be accounted for and is in itself instructive, like the sculptures of Sipylus and Kara-Bel. It seems, on the other hand, to be the product of settled conditions, and its presence implies a whole field and period of Hittite influence which would otherwise have remained in obscurity.

There are two monuments south-west of Konia which, though not inscribed nor demonstrably of Hittite handiwork, reflect clearly Hittite influence and feeling in art. One of them is ‘Plato’s Spring’ at Eflatoun-Bunar,[406] nine miles northwards from Beyshehr. This consists of two walls of an unexplained structure, of which about two-thirds has been destroyed. The façade, which is decorated with sculptures, is about twelve feet in height and twenty feet in length. It is washed by a stream which has been partly dammed by[175] stones taken from the building. The stones are large, almost gigantic, and dressed with care: they are decorated with human figures in relief, which vary in size with the stones, though forming a symmetrical group, and each posed with hands raised, in full view; several of them wear the conical Hittite hat. Two pairs of wings, enclosing disks, are carved upon a single stone which spans all but the corner-stones, while a great slab which covers the whole retains the decoration of a single pair of wings and part of a central disc. In the side view some of the stones are dressed with a panel; other stones are lying about, and Professor Ramsay has detected one on which a lion seemed to have been carved.

There is another remarkable but equally problematical monument at Fassiler,[407] near the route from Beyshehr to Iconium. It is a gigantic stela, about eight yards in height, and nearly a yard thick. At the bottom its width is nearly three yards, narrowing at the top to nearly two yards. The subject represented upon it is carved in very high relief. It shows two lions side by side separated only by a figure, clad in a long robe, with hands folded before the breast. Upon the shoulders[408] there is posed a greater figure, wearing the short tunic and conical hat of peculiar form. The right hand is raised, while the left arm is bent, and some indistinct object is grasped by the hand. Meagre as is our information about this monument, we do not hesitate to see in it a reflection of an idea which we see carried out in the Hittite sanctuary of Boghaz-Keui. The theme seems to us to represent[176] the statue of the god borne upon the shoulders of his priest; and the lions, as emblems or guardians of the god, suggest a derived form of the son-god or Attis, which we discuss in a later chapter.[409] The character of the lions flanking the monument, with their heads projecting boldly in front, is also in keeping with Hittite tradition;[410] and the position of the sculpture between the lions has its counterpart in a monument, equally of post-Hittite times, which has been brought to light at Sinjerli.[411] Finally the whole appearance of the monument suggests a columnar figure upon a lion-base,[412] of which this is a clumsy and ill-carved substitute. A wonderful gulf separates the drawing and execution of this monument from the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui.

Section E.—Monuments in the South-East of the Tableland.

We turn in fine to the south-eastern corner of the tableland, now a desert tract fringed by the northern slopes and outlying ridges of the Taurus mountains. Our comparatively intimate knowledge of the monuments and historical geography of this region is due almost entirely to the consistent researches of Professor Sir Wm. Ramsay and his school.

We come firstly to the Kara Dagh (Black Mountain), an outlying ridge of Taurus,[413] which rises three or four[177] thousand feet above the plain, to a height of seven thousand feet above the sea. At the foot of the mountain, on the north, the little village of Maden-Shehr marks the classical site of Barata, better known, perhaps, as Bin Bir Kilisse, ‘the thousand and one churches.’ Professor Ramsay tells[414] of the great changes that time has wrought in this locality. Here there ‘must have been in ancient time the summer sanatorium of the Lycaonian plain. The soil is very fertile, and being volcanic, is specially suitable for vines. Many kinds of fruit trees also were cultivated. Water is not plentiful, but there are several springs of remarkably good water. The needs of agriculture and viticulture were met by a wonderfully elaborate system of storing the rain and the melted snows of winter.’ But now ‘the site of this ancient city is the most inhospitable in the whole of Lycaonia. There is no water except filthy half-poisonous puddles stored in the ancient cisterns. The vines have almost entirely disappeared, the orchards remain only in a few trees run wild. There is hardly any cultivation. The water runs rapidly off the steep slopes of the mountain, and is of no benefit to agriculture except in the lowest parts of the little sheltered valley where the city was built.’

That the life, and possibly the sanctity, of the place dates back to remote antiquity is shown by the discovery[415] of two Hittite inscriptions on the summit of the mountain. The spot called Mahalich is marked by a Byzantine Church, which seems to preserve the ancient sanctity of a high place of older times.[416] The church[178] is supported on the north side by rocks in which a passage can now be traced, though it would seem to have been partly hidden at least by the Byzantine walls. This passage was to some extent artificial, and on its rock-walls are two inscriptions, a short one in relief upon the north, and a longer one incised on the south. The shorter inscription consists of four groups of signs only, translated by Professor Sayce[417] to mean ‘Tarkyanas, the supreme king.’ The other inscription is longer, comprising twelve groups of signs in a row, in addition to the same royal name, which in the middle recurs with little variation in its hieroglyphic form, though surmounted in this case by a winged emblem. There appears in this inscription[418] a hieroglyphic sign otherwise unknown, resembling a horned altar.

In the same neighbourhood, about eight miles to the north-west, there is an outlying rocky hill called Kizil Dagh, which rises sharply from the plain to a height of nearly four hundred feet. The summit of this knoll is crowned with a fortress, the early character of which is betokened, says the discoverer,[419] by its style and by three hieroglyphic inscriptions found near by. We are not yet told the precise nature of the ramparts, but the position of the fortress recalls those of Giaour-Kalesi, Boghaz-Keui, and Karaburna. Near a gate in the western wall, on the right-hand side, the longest inscription of the series is to be seen upon a sort of rock altar. The hieroglyphs are carved in relief, and arranged in two rows. As with the inscription on the Kizil-Dagh, the same royal name appears in the middle[179] of the group of signs, surmounted, it would seem, by a winged disk. Lower down on the hill, but still upon the shoulder, there rises a sharp rock, roughly hewn into the form of a high-backed seat or throne, and on the back of this a bearded figure has been engraved. The personage is represented as seated on a square-shaped throne, his feet upon a stool; but the details of the design are unlike anything else that has been recorded.[420] Much of its peculiarity may be attributed to the unskilled hand that carved it, but there are certain features rendered with deliberation that are worthy of note. The left arm is outstretched, and the hand grasps towards the top a staff with crescental knob, which is held vertically. The lower end of the staff stops short above the stool, possibly in obedience to the general convention of perspective in Hittite art. Were the drawing completed, indeed, in our own convention, with the vanishing point suitably chosen, it would be found that the staff seemed to rest upon the stool. In the right hand, which is just in front of the body, there seems to be a cup of some kind.[421] The dress is not clearly drawn, but there is the suggestion, by a simple oblique line, of a loose fold or possibly the loose end of a toga across the body. The hem of the skirt is fringed. No footgear is apparent, and the head-dress is apparently a degradation of the familiar conical hat, reduced in this case to an inverted V-shape by unskilled drawing. The hair falls straight and backwards upon the shoulders. The seat is curious, and plainly simulates a substantial chair of wood. The back is a solid[180] upright piece, square cut, and the side-pieces which form the arms are lateral strips, connecting the front legs with the back. The footstool is similar in style. Without other evidence it would have been difficult to support an argument of Hittite origins for this carving; but that question does not arise, owing to the presence of a group of hieroglyphs appearing characteristically between the top of the staff and the face, and these signs are at once recognisable as forming the same group which we have met with three times previously in the same vicinity, namely, the royal name read by Professor Sayce Tarkyanas.[422] The same name appears in two other places on the same rock. In the one case it is followed by two short lines of inscription, incised like the rest, and the spelling of the name seems to illustrate an interchangeability of two hieroglyphic signs. Surmounting the whole there is a winged emblem, in which the central portion seems to be composed of two crescents underneath a disk (which is also divided like a crescent). Above the emblem there appear the symbol of sanctity (the divided oval) and the hieroglyph which Professor Sayce interprets as the name of the god Sandes.[423] The same arrangement, with slight variations, is repeated with the other occurrence of the name, which in this case, however, is spelt as in the earlier instances. The centre of the winged emblem may be seen to be a rosette, with a[181] curious spreading object below. Above, two dots follow the name of Sandes, and the picture-sign of a human arm bent ‘in adoration’ is by the side.

These two groups of inscriptions, and the carving which accompanies them, awaken several interesting thoughts. The most important point is one which might be easiest lost sight of, namely, that these sacred places are sought on rocky points or hilltops, bearing out the suggestion of the sculptures near Boghaz-Keui,[424] in which there may be reasonably suspected the surviving traces of mountain-cults, or cults of mountain deities, underlying the newer religious symbolism. There the idea is conveyed in the drawings, here in fact. Who this deity was, in his local guise at any rate, we do not learn. It would seem, however, that he was identified at some time or other with Sandes, just as at Boghaz-Keui most of the various local deities seem to be identified with the chief national god of the age. The monuments before us, then, probably belong to the time when the cult of this god was dominant, as under the Hatti rulers, or during the ascendency of Greater Cilicia (possibly Kas in the inscriptions) as head-state of the Hittite confederacy. As for the name repeated in each inscription, the fact that the winged rosette, or winged emblem of sorts, overspreads it in four instances, leads us to infer from the analogy of similar Hittite monuments,[425] that the name is that of the king-priest of the locality. We recognise then in our Tarkyanas (by whatever name he may have been called) the local dynast of the period[182] of the sculptures, who was the chief minister and representative of the local god.

Who, then, is the seated figure? It may be naturally thought that the group of hieroglyphs repeating the same name decide that fact, but we are led on further consideration to incline to another conclusion. For there is no single example in Hittite art where the king is represented seated or enthroned. On the other hand, it is the god who is found to be enthroned, and the king appears in such scenes by virtue of his priestly office. In this case the winged emblem does not accompany the writing of the name between the figure and his staff; hence it is conceivable that we have here a representation of the deity called by a name which was that used also by the priest; if this be so, then it may be assumed that the priest has really adopted to himself a name similar to, or compounded of, that by which the god was known in the locality.[426]

There is one further point of importance which these inscriptions illuminate. It is hardly to be doubted but that they are all contemporary, especially as we have reason to believe that they each contain the name of the same living person. Yet the different styles in which they are carved—some in relief, others incised, some badly drawn, others outlined with more care—would have otherwise given scope for argument as to different periods of origin. We may dismiss, at any rate for the future, the arguments as to period based merely upon the difference between relief-work and incision, irrespective of style and details.[427]

The plain is broken between Iconium and Tyana by a low ridge called the Karaja Dagh. On the northern side of this, an isolated mass of rocks rises from the plain, and is known as the Arissama Dagh. On one of its highest peaks an ancient fortress, called naturally Arissama Kaleh, commands a track which skirts the northern shoulder of the ridge and looks down on the remains of a village called Eski Kishla (Old Winter Quarters), about four miles distant to the west. The place is now hardly inhabited, save for a few half-starving nomads; but there are considerable traces of an ancient site in the squared stones to be found among the débris. Here there has been found[428] a remarkable stone altar of mushroom shape, and inscribed in the Hittite hieroglyphs. Some three miles south-east is the village of Emir-Ghazi, placed upon the slope of a considerable mound, where also old worked stones are excavated in quantity. Here Professor and Lady Ramsay discovered two further monuments, also inscribed; the one was a fragment of a second altar of the same form, but the original character of the other object remains uncertain, as it had been converted into a water-trough and so considerably damaged.

These three monuments[429] are an important contribution to Hittite archæology, and their position throws considerable light upon the changed conditions and economy of the past. The altar is unique and perfect. It is forty-two inches high, cylindrical in shape, with an expanding top, the diameter of which is twenty-four and a half inches. The material is black basalt.[184] The pedestal tapers somewhat from the base upwards, and the top spreads out sharply like a table. The Hittite hieroglyphs upon it are in relief, and form a seemingly continuous inscription, arranged around the top edge and around the shaft in six parallel rows. A conspicuous feature of the inscription[430] is the Ædicula (so called), being the grouping of the royal or priestly emblems in the form of a shrine (or naiskos) under the outspread wings attached to a rosette, and recalling closely the emblems of the priest-king at Boghaz-Keui.[431] From the second altar, the tray and bottom of which are broken away, one line of inscription is entirely missing, while the ends of the other lines (of which there were five originally) are also wanting. As in the former case the hieroglyphs are carved in relief. This form of altar, though not found elsewhere in the round, is suggested by the rock carving of Fraktin,[432] and is clearly and elaborately represented on the dromos-decorations at Eyuk.[433] In the latter case the altar is placed before the enthroned bull, and towards it the priests and priestess lead up rams to the sacrifice.

The remaining monument is so imperfect that but little can be made out as to its original nature. That it was a corner-stone is certain from the arrangement of the inscription, and we may compare it with the monuments from Aintab[434] and from Marash.[435] Dr. Messerschmidt is inclined to give it the same form as a corner-stone with recessed angle from Carchemish.[436][185] However that may be, five lines of hieroglyphs in relief are partly preserved upon the two inscribed faces, the rest being cut or broken away; the height is about twenty-five inches, and the width of the sides seventeen and fifteen inches respectively.

At the eastern limits of the great plains we reach Kilisse Hissar, the site of the old-time Tyana.[437] It is shut in on three sides by ridges and low outlying hills, but is open to the plain, and accessible from Eregli and from Bulghar-Madên. It can hardly be doubted that this was the chief city for the region we are considering, even in Hittite times, to judge from its importance in the minds of classical writers and from the extensive nature of its mounds and ruins. Strabo[438] describes it as ‘built upon the mound of Semiramis’ which was ‘fortified with good walls.’ Here, curiously enough, no Hittite monument has been brought to light, probably because haphazard excavation in the mound is hardly possible, owing to the fact that it is almost covered by the modern houses. None the less, a Phrygian inscription of Midas[439] attests the antiquity of the site; and three separate Hittite inscriptions seen in the neighbouring places of Bor, Nigdeh, and Andaval may be reasonably believed, as is supposed, to have come from the same source.

The most instructive and interesting of these monuments is that from Bor, which is a monumental stela, recovered in two main portions at different times at an interval of twelve years or more.[440] Even now the[186] stone is not complete; as may be seen from our illustration the fitted edges do not quite correspond, so that a small portion is missing from the height, while the left-hand edge is entirely broken away. The upper part measures thirty inches by sixteen, with a thickness of eight inches. The lower part is five inches taller, so that the whole must have been six feet or more in height. Fortunately, on the fragments that have survived, there is to be seen nearly the whole figure and face of a man, clearly the priest-king, as well as an indication of the nature and arrangement of the inscription. The figure is carved in high relief, with a projection amounting in places to three inches, while the hieroglyphs are incised upon the background. The figure occupied a height equivalent to eleven bands of the hieroglyphs, of which fourteen are indicated. We have no means of judging how wide the stone was originally, as the bottom is fractured and the top has plainly been re-dressed since it was broken, to correspond with the narrower width. We are inclined to think that the larger and more important portion of the stone is still lacking. For the attitude of the figure is that of adoration or of a suppliant. The man is depicted with his back near the edge of the stone, and his hands raised before his chin, exactly as on the rock monument of Ivrîz.[441] Now on the stelæ in which one figure alone appears, like those of Carchemish and Marash,[442] the personage, be he priest or king, occupies the central position on the stone, and almost its whole height. He stands in those cases with one arm outstretched grasping his staff, while the other arm is close to his side; on the one he faces to the left, on the other to the right, but[187] the pose is the same. In this case the details are all changed. To judge by certain faint indications on the stone, and by comparison with the monument of Ivrîz described below, it may be inferred that the hands are clasped in front of the face; it is at any rate clear in the photograph that one hand at least is raised before the mouth. He does not occupy the centre of the stone but the side of it, as may be judged from the short lines of inscription beginning just opposite the face. He does not fill the whole monument in accordance with the idea of ‘exclusive majesty’ so common and so dominant in Oriental art; on the other hand there are three lines of inscription above his head, and at least one below. We are inclined from these considerations to regard these fragments as forming part of a much larger whole, on which the theme was one of adoration, not much unlike that carved on the rocks at Ivrîz.[443] The resemblance may well be extended, for on comparing the two priestly or kingly figures many striking features will be found in common. The most apparent difference is the arrangement of the cloak, which on the Bor stone is fastened below the throat, while on the Ivrîz sculpture it is shown to hang more loosely, so that the front edge of the fringed border trails on the ground. Otherwise the details correspond closely; in each case the cloak is embroidered in three bands, and bordered with a fringe. Even the patterns are similar, the svastika appearing on the stone before us in the middle band between two bands decorated with diamond pattern (or ‘continuous squares’). The skirt below is even more sumptuously embroidered; in each case the svastika fills the lowest band, and from this hangs[188] a fringe. On the Bor fragment other elaborate devices are introduced, including the double or quadruple Ionic curve, and the rosette; an embroidered waistbelt, collar, and shoes complete the treatment. Other features, less exceptional, conform to the old conventions: the turning-up points to the shoes, the bunched curl of hair behind the neck, the skull-cap, and the straightness of the nose. The beard is full and curly.

The inscription commences with two groups of hieroglyphs which may be read Ay-mi-ny-a-s of the land of Tyana.[444] An earlier reading[445] by the same decipherer suggested Ai-m-gal-a-s, corresponding to the royal name Αινγαλος occurring in Greek inscriptions of Cilicia. However that may be, and whatever may be the precise values to be assigned to these hieroglyphs, the initial group which contains the royal name[446] will be found to recur on the two famous monuments of Bulghar-Madên and Ivrîz. On the latter, the name appears in one place written exactly in this instance, and in another place, as at Bulghar-Madên, with a slight and evidently grammatical variation. This fact throws a welcome light upon the local history of the period.

Of the other monuments of the locality, the fragment from Andaval—now hidden in the Greek church of that place—seems from the description given of it to have been part of a similar monument, or at any rate of a stone decorated with human figure and inscription.[447] The stone is broken and rounded, measuring about[189] thirteen inches across. It shows only the top and back of the head of the figure, with two lines of incised hieroglyphs above and the beginnings of two lines behind. The hair on the head is shown by small curls, while behind the neck it falls in the characteristic bunch. The eye is seen as usual in full upon the profile of the figure, which is turned to the observer’s right.

The third monument has been found[448] in late years at Nigdeh, where it was dug out of the foundations of a house. It is round and moulded, and in all probability formed part of the base of a column or of a built-up pedestal of some kind. At the bottom there is a protrusion of stone for attachment, and in the top there is a square-cut socket hole, of a width equal to about a third of the whole diameter. The mouldings, which run around the upper edge only, look almost Roman in style. The inscription[449] upon it is short, occupying a space only twelve inches by four, and the letters are incised.

The monument of Bulghar-Madên is an inscription in five lines of incised hieroglyphs.[450] It may be reached by crossing the outlying ridges of Taurus between Tyana and Bulghar-Madên (a distance of thirty miles), or by turning from the main road up the valley of the stream which flows at the foot of the Bulghar Dagh.[451] In either case the monument is found near the small village of Ali Hodje, two miles below Bulghar-Madên, on the left (or north) bank of the stream; and it is to[190] be reached only by a sharp climb up the steep side of the valley, a little way above the village. A guide is necessary, for the inscription is inconspicuous, and it is carved on an outcrop of brown rock similar to many others in the locality. The rock overhangs slightly, and is fairly smooth, though its rough granitic nature renders it difficult to work with ease. The inscription is in fair preservation, but it has probably never been deeply or clearly incised. It occupies a space about four feet high and rather more than six feet wide, and it is divided off from the rock around by a border-line incised to about the same depth as those which separate the rows of hieroglyphs. These rows are not all of the same length, for the two uppermost are shorter on the left hand than the others, probably on account of a considerable flaw in the stone which they thus avoid. The top of the inscription is about ten feet from the ground, so a ladder is desirable in order to study it closely.

It is generally thought that the vicinity of the silver-mines explains the presence of this inscription. Yet the mines are some four miles distant, and a more appropriate spot near the entrance to them could have been readily found. It seems much more probable that this monument, like the stone upon a pedestal near to Bogche, marks the boundary to a territory or state, which in this case, for the reason we have indicated, would be that ruled from Tyana. The general tendency of the reading given by Professor Sayce,[452] which is remarkably instructive, seems to confirm this opinion. Thus ‘A prince am I who has fixed the boundaries,’ and again, ‘This is the prince-god’s sacred stone for the land, set up here, belonging to the boundary.’ It is only fair to say that Professor Sayce regards his[191] reading in this case as tentative; he also reads the name of the prince in this case as a ‘son of Ayminyas’ of Tyana; and there is another compound form of the word which may be taken for ‘the land of Ayminyas.’

We come, in conclusion, to the monument of Ivrîz,[453] which is best approached from Tyana or Iconium by way of Eregli,[454] but is also accessible to the adventurous traveller from Bulghar-Madên by traversing the rocky snow-flecked ridge that lies between. From Eregli following up the bed of the Kodja Su the dreary barren plains are left behind, and a verdant though neglected valley is unfolded. The pathway lies through old gardens and vineyards and reaches of corn-land; willows line the waterside, and the country is cheered by a profusion of trees in which the hazel and chestnut abound, with here and there a great walnut or a row of poplars. The valley with its singular fertility and beauty is in marked contrast to the arid tracts beyond, and the change is only intensified where, leaving the main stream, the pathway follows up, on the left bank, a richly wooded vale that trends towards the south. This new valley leads into the mountain, and after a distance of nearly three miles it comes to an abrupt end where the wall of Taurus is met, rising almost precipitously, and encircling the head of the glen where the hamlet of Ivrîz is found. At the foot of the rock a stream of water, clear and cool, bursts out in tremendous volume, and, supplemented by other similar sources, becomes in a hundred yards a raging and impassable torrent, roaring with a wonderful noise as it foams and leaps over the rocks in its course. Before joining the main[192] stream of the valley it washes at a bend the foot of a bare rock, upon which from the opposite side there may be seen the famous sculptures,[455] the most striking of all known Hittite works, and one of the most imposing monuments of the ancient East.

The treatment of these sculptures is all in relief. In composition there are two persons represented: the Peasant-god, a gigantic figure fourteen feet in height, distinguished by the bunches of grapes and bearded wheat which he holds, and the King-priest, an heroic figure eight feet in height, facing towards the god, with clasped hands raised in adoration or thanksgiving for his bounty.

The god is clad in the short tunic, short-sleeved vest, pointed cap, and shoes with turned-up toes, characteristic of the godlike figures on all Hittite sculptures. But here the sculptor has elaborated his theme, and has worked into it ideas or conceptions which we may reasonably suspect were derived ultimately from the East through the intermediary of Cilicia.[456] The figure is squat and stolid, and the face almost Semitic. The nose, while straight and prominent, is treated with unusual fulness. The hair is arranged in ringlets, so too the beard, except upon the face where it is represented[193] by curls.[457] The left hand is advanced, holding up the ears of corn; while the right one is by the body, grasping the vine-branch with pendent clusters. The drawing of the body obeys the ordinary convention; the left leg is advanced, the head is seen in profile to the left, while the shoulders are squared to the observer. There are bracelets on the wrists, and the suggestion of something undetermined upon the right forearm. The belt is decorated as if of worked leather, and ends in a curl before the body, possibly suggesting an attachment on the further side. The boots are high, with a front flap bound to the ankle by a lace wrapped around, like the boots of the peasantry of the district and of Cilicia in modern times. Perhaps the most peculiar and Oriental detail is to be found in the horns which decorate the helmet, of which four pairs are visible. In front of the right foot is the suggestion of a bolted implement, possibly a plough.

Facing the god, and posed at a higher level (possibly, as in other examples of eastern art, so that the relative smallness of the figure would be less apparent), is the figure of the priest-king, who, if we mistake not the group of hieroglyphs that denote him, is the same that we have previously met with near Tyana.[458] In general style and in some details, the treatment of this figure is similar; but the dress differs in several ways. The priestly skull-cap is surrounded by three decorated fillets with a knotted ornament of jewels upon the brow. The long skirt is a richly woven garment, on which the pattern is chiefly a series of punctuated squares in parallel rows, with a svastika[194] border edged with a fringe. Over the shoulders there is thrown an embroidered mantle, with ample collar, attached in front with a jewelled clasp or brooch. It falls behind to below the knees, while in front the tasselled or fringed ends trail on the ground. The pattern is arranged in three bands of continuous squares or double zigzags. There is a substantial necklace and bracelet. The boots and features and hair are treated as in the god-figure opposite; perhaps the hair is bunched in this case a little more thickly behind the neck. The right leg is advanced, and the two raised hands are clearly clasped before the face, the fingers and nails of the further hand being carefully represented.

There are three short inscriptions accompanying these figures. In that which is carved before the face of the god, Professors Sayce[459] and Jensen both find the name of Sandes in the first line (the W-like sign below the divided oval that signifies divinity). In the next line, as in the overlap of the first and second lines of inscription behind the king, we find the same name (read Ayminyas)[460] as we have previously seen in the inscriptions of Bor and of Bulghar-Madên. This point is of importance in considering the history of the Hittite peoples when, as it seems, the central authority was no longer at Boghaz-Keui. For the date of these sculptures, if only from their close analogy in treatment to those of Sakje-Geuzi, may be put down to the tenth or ninth century B.C. It would seem indeed[195] that we are here drawn into relation with the kingdom of (Greater) Cilicia, which, with Tyana probably as capital, took the place of the Hatti-state within the Halys, as the dominant Hittite state at the beginning of the first millennium B.C.[461]

This point becomes more probable as we dwell upon the religious symbolism of the monument. As Professor Ramsay has shown, in the muscular toiling peasant-god who by his hoe and plough reclaims an arid waste and makes it bounteous, we have a conception of Hercules, and that he was the recognised chief deity of the district is evident from the name Herakleia given by the Greeks to Eregli. Professor Frazer also has put it beyond doubt that the attributes of this Hercules are to be found in Sandon of Tarsus. Now the prototype of Sandon we shall find in the national Son-god (later Attis) portrayed in the sculpture gallery of Boghaz-Keui,[462] and in this way we are linked at once with the older Hittite mythology through the intermediary of the Cilician.

Part I.

Fundamental though they are to our inquiry, the isolated monuments which have been reviewed in the preceding chapter illustrate only certain aspects of Hittite art, and disclose only incidentally a few details of features, dress, and armour, with some suggestion of religious observances and customs. Their disposition, it is true, helps us to determine the confines of the land we have set forth to examine; but their provenance tells us little or nothing of where and how the people lived who fashioned them. Nevertheless, just as these were the first materials from which scholars have little by little created a science of Hittite studies, so we may employ them most fittingly as the criteria for our further investigation; that we may examine, with minds prepared, the more coherent evidences of the Hittite civilisation, as disclosed by the ruins of their cities and fortifications, their sanctuaries, and their palaces adorned with mystic sculptures.

Such places are few indeed; but our knowledge of them is chiefly the result of recent scientific expeditions, and is therefore the surer and more precise.[463][197] The published accounts enable us to select four sites, which happily afford material for a comparative study. Two of these, Eyuk and Boghaz-Keui, are towards the north of Asia Minor,[464] within the wide circuit of the Halys; while the other two are found below the Taurus at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi in the north of Syria.[465] Three of these, moreover, are sites superficially similar, being small walled towns placed on considerable mounds, which contain also the remains of palace buildings decorated with peculiar sculptures. The fourth, which covers the hilltop above the village of Boghaz-Keui, is of vastly greater extent, and includes in its remains many peculiarities not represented by the others. It has with some certainty been identified[466] with the Pteria (or Ptara) across the Halys which, according to Herodotus,[467] fell about 550 B.C. before Crœsus of Lydia, who found it in possession of a ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ population whom he reduced to servitude.[468] It has also for some time been linked with the Hittites in the minds of scholars, both by the nature of the art its ruins illustrate, and by the doubtful hieroglyphic inscription on the rock called Nishan Tash,[469] and more particularly by the clear hieroglyphs associated with the neighbouring sculptures of Iasily Kaya. Recently Dr. Winckler has added to these links two building-stones decorated with sculptures and with[198] hieroglyphs[470] in the familiar Hittite style; and has finally riveted the chain of evidence by the discovery in the ruins of an early palace of numerous inscribed tablets of brick inscribed in cuneiform characters, which prove to be from the archives of Hatti kings, including fragments of diplomatic correspondence with the Pharaohs of Egypt and other Oriental potentates in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. It seems clear, then, that for several centuries at least the ancient city of this place was the centre of Hittite power and civilisation. In an earlier chapter[471] we have shown reason to believe that the decline of this power is traceable to an early movement of a people akin to the Phrygians, in the twelfth century B.C. We do not know as yet to what extent the city suffered at their hands, if at all, or indeed during the later struggles with Assyria. The palace of the fourteenth century B.C., however, would seem to have been in ruins some two or three hundred years later when it was rebuilt.[472] The visible remains of the city, some of which possibly belong to this period of revival, present no evidence of any striking changes in the art they typify, and we may assume that they represent to us the Hittite handiwork, or at least the direct survival of Hittite art, down to the period of Phrygian domination in the eighth century B.C., if not to the final overthrow and depopulation of the city at[199] the hands of Crœsus. These ruins thus claim our first consideration.

Fortunately for the preservation of these remains the village of Boghaz-Keui lies just below the boundaries of the ancient site, and is also a day’s journey from the nearest modern towns of any importance, namely, Yuzghat and Sungurlu. In ancient times, however, the place seems to have been connected by a system of engineered roads with other portions of the country. The royal road which traversed Phrygia,[473] linking, it is supposed, by the Hermus valley with Sardis and the west, held on towards the Halys[474] without other apparent objective than to approach this city. To the south also a similar royal road has been traced for miles,[475] scouring the surface rocks northwards from Injesu (near Cæsarea), leading towards a ford of the Halys near to Bogche. The Persian posts from east to west are credited with having followed this northern route, although the direct road from Carchemish to Ephesus or Smyrna, whether by way of the Cilician Gates or by one of the passes leading down on Cæsarea, did not need to approach, much less to cross, the Halys river at all. It is indeed possible that the earliest continuation of the route passed eastward by the valley of the Tochma Su,[476] while a northern objective may be found in the old-time importance of Sinope as seaport. These considerations however, only increase the importance of Boghaz-Keui as the focus of the system. Nowadays, as we have seen,[477] the main routes run differently, adapting themselves to changed conditions, and the place which was once the apparent centre of all activities in the[200] interior is now without economic interest, a wonderful memorial of the past.

The position chosen for this city was one of considerable natural strength. Its walls surround the broad top of an outlying hill which is connected with the watershed lying to the south only by the high ground in that direction. On either side it is cut off by the steep valleys of two mountain-streams flowing northward, which meet just below the modern village. These in turn are fed by small tributaries from just behind the hill, which is thus almost enclosed. From the point where these rise the fall is about a thousand feet to the confluence of the main streams two miles away; and though the descent of the latter is necessarily more gradual, they are still very rapid, and in the winter are foaming torrents. That on the eastern side in particular, the Beuyuk Kayanin, has by its force worn down its rocky bed so deeply that where it passes by the eastern knoll of the citadel, called Beuyuk Kaleh, its banks have become precipitous cliffs requiring little or no artificial defence.[478] The Yazîr Daresi, on the western side, flows through more alluvial ground, and has there scooped for itself a gorge, in the steep bank of which the harder rocks are left protruding, thus rendering an assault uninviting on that side also. The engineers who planned the defence utilised the natural advantages of the position, banking up the slopes, and bringing their wall wherever practicable to the edges of the rocks, in which all possible footholds were filled up with masonry.

On the north side, where the line of defence is less clear, the ground is broken by a third small stream,[201] the Kizlar Kaya Daresi, which rises within the circuit of the wall in the high ground of the acropolis, and now joins the Yazîr in the modern village at its foot. On the level ground, near this junction, there are the traces of an ancient rampart; but the line of natural defence being somewhat higher, it may reasonably be suspected that the enclosure was at some time extended in this direction, possibly in order to include the Lower Palace. However that may be, the really vulnerable point would seem to have been by way of the higher ground to the south, and here the artificial protection was stronger in proportion. The wall seems to have been built on this side upon a rampart revetted with stone, which in its turn followed the line of a natural ridge in the ground, giving an almost impregnable appearance to the enormous mass of the defensive works. So high is this mound that a narrow subterranean way was constructed through it, giving access to the interior.

The ground within, which we call the acropolis, is the flat top of the hill, around which the wall forms approximately three sides of a hexagon (omitting the northern portion which descends, as we have seen, to a lower level). The length of the wall upon the acropolis is about one and a half miles, and the greatest width across from east to west is about three-quarters of a mile. The whole circuit of the defences, including the lower portion, is about three miles and a half; while the greatest length from north to south upon the plan is about one mile and a quarter, of which about half lies on the upper level.

The city wall, though built without mortar, was constructed in such a way that it is still traceable continuously around the acropolis, and is preserved in[202] many places to a height of twelve feet or more. It has an average thickness of about fourteen feet, made up of an inner and outer facing each about four feet thick, padded with a core of stone between. The outer face was especially strong, consisting of large stones sometimes as much as five feet in length (but averaging from two feet six inches at the bottom to one foot towards the top), dressed so as to fit cleanly together, with a preference for an approximately rectangular or five-sided form. The masonry was laid in courses as far as practicable with such material, but was liable to be interrupted by a stone larger than usual, or from other cause. Indeed, in some of the inner walls, where the masonry is less massive though similar in character, large stones have been inserted at intervals as a bond and to give general stability. The contour of the wall was further strengthened by buttresses or extra-mural towers, placed at intervals which varied according to the situation, averaging about a hundred feet apart. These do not seem to have been designed from principles of defence, but solely as architectural supports.[479]

Some of the original doorways leading through the wall seem to have been extremely small, not more than three feet in width. The subway under the southern rampart is also very narrow, but this was possibly a later addition. Its exit is a plain doorway, four feet wide, built of three granite blocks arranged as jambs and lintel; inside, the passage has a width of about five feet at the bottom, and is lined with stones in triangular arrangement, with the apex six feet from the floor. It is of interest to compare the principle of[203] vaulting under pressure illustrated by its construction with the system of counterpoise employed in the arches of the larger gateways. These again may have been added since the original inception of the wall. In the vicinity of the Lion-gate, at any rate, the regular courses of the outer masonry give way at the corners, and in their place an arrangement of fitted stones, shaped to receive the corners and eccentricities of their neighbours, recalls the bonding of the palace walls in the lower portion of the interior. This may of course have been a deliberate original variation designed to strengthen the corners where the recess for the gate intervenes; and it is also obvious that some gateway wide enough to admit a cart or chariot must have been necessary at the beginning. Such, however, we are inclined to see in the unsculptured entrance, of similar character but smaller size, called Eshuk Tash, on the south-east of the town. The architectural principle, however, is in each case much the same, and maybe studied in the photograph of the Lion-gate itself.[480] This entrance is set back thirteen feet from the road, with an approach twenty feet across, narrowing to a clear space of thirteen feet between the jambs of the gateway. These main supports are of great size and weight; and while tending towards one another in a gentle curve as they rise, are so shaped and bonded to the wall that they stand in solid equilibrium. The height of these single stones is about twelve feet, and in the other gate mentioned about eleven feet. The latter illustrates more clearly the upper structure, in which the pointed arch was brought to its completion by repetition of the same principle of counterpoise. Each of the upper stones projected towards the other,[204] while overhanging sufficiently in the opposite direction to retain its balance singly. Further details are not preserved, but the faces of these also must have been dressed to the curve of the arch, and if they did not approach one another close enough to touch, then the arch must have been completed by a fifth stone placed over all, as is indeed suggested in the case of the Eshuk Tash. In this way we gain a minimum height for the gateway, without superficial structure, of fifteen or sixteen feet. As the arch was repeated within at a distance of twenty-five feet, it is probable that the two spans supported a chamber or sentry-walk continuous with the parapet. Probably the mass of masonry to left and right indicates a guard-chamber flanking the approach on either side, in the well-known style later adopted by Roman engineers and finally transmitted to mediæval architecture.

We have dealt somewhat lengthily with the elementary details of this stronghold, but none the less deliberately; for the contemplation of this mass of masonry and the details of its execution is rewarded by an insight, which perhaps no other monument discloses, into the solidarity, power, skill and resource of the people whom it has so long survived. The famous Lions which guard this entrance are further witness to the standard of their civilisation, and are among the brightest products of their art. That on the right hand, which is almost perfectly preserved, illustrates a wealth of detail which the somewhat distant photograph does not show. The appropriate boldness and realism of the design, however, are manifest. This fashion of adorning the gateways, particularly with lions, as also at Sinjerli, Marash, and Sakje-Geuzi, is further paralleled by the sphinxes of Eyuk, and to[205] some extent by the monstrous emblems in relief warding off trespassers from the inner gallery at Iasily Kaya.[481] In another gateway of the same character on this acropolis, Professor Winckler’s excavations have disclosed a high relief of a being clad in the Hittite tunic, shoes and hat, supposed at the time to represent a king,[482] but since recognised as a female warrior or Amazon.

The outer wall was not the only defensive work which the advantages of the site afforded. Across the enclosure are a series of prominent crags overlooking the lower ground to the north, and marking by their alignment the edge of the acropolis which gives access to them.[483] One may be tempted to presuppose, as indeed we have already suggested, that these indicate a line of earlier defences and the natural limits of an earlier city situated entirely upon the hill. They were crowned with rectangular forts, built of square blocks of masonry arranged in courses, and constituted in any case a formidable second line of defence against attack from below. That which is called Yenije Kaleh is illustrated by our photograph:[484] its position is not naturally so strong, however, as that of the middle of the three forts of this series, which presents a precipitous face to the northern side. The largest of these knolls—hence called Beuyuk Kaleh—is to the east, and overlooks the gorge of the river on that side.[485] To the north, however, where the slope descends to the lower part of the enclosure on which lie the famous palace ruins, it is less abrupt, and it has been fronted[206] accordingly with a stout buttressed wall, built of large stones roughly pentagonal or squared, the lowest courses of which are from two to three feet in height.

Hereabouts, in the dip between the two forts last described, is the weathered rock inscription known as Nishan Tash.[486] Descending thence to the lower ground, following the course of the stream which flows through the middle of the enclosure, two further rocks arrest attention by the fact that they have been worked by hand. The first of these is called the Maiden’s Rock, and has given its Turkish name of Kizlar Kaya to the stream which passes just below it. Though of considerable dimensions, this rock, besides being dressed around the sides and worked down squarely in two places in the body, has been cleanly cut across the top with the exception of a small table-like protuberance remaining towards one end. The other, which lies still further down and nearer to the Lower Palace, has been cleft in two, to form as it were a passage through it from side to side. It would be unsafe without evidence to suggest any definite use for these rocks in ancient times, and it is possible that their peculiarities may have resulted only from the quarrying of the stone blocks used for the Lower Palace or other buildings of the site.

We use the term Lower Palace to designate the foundations made famous by the visit of Texier,[487] and the later descriptions of Professor Perrot,[488] in distinction to those more recently discovered by Dr. Winckler on the Upper Acropolis, where the ruins of four such buildings were found, of which three were probably[207] palaces and the fourth a temple.[489] The lower courses of the first-mentioned palace, however, are visible above the ground, so that its plan may be readily traced out; and whether to be identified as palace or as a temple, it presents an interesting study, and a peculiar link between the architecture of the East and West.[490] As may be seen in our photograph,[491] that which remains of it is built in large single blocks of stone about four feet in thickness and averaging twice that measure in length. Its form is rectangular, with a length just over two hundred and ten feet down the main axis, and a width of one hundred and twenty-eight feet. Its chief entrance is in the middle of the southern side, and, passing small guard-rooms on either hand, it leads into a large central court, around which are chambers, a double series at the ends and a single series at the sides. To the north and to the west a passage or corridor intervenes between the court and the rooms: that on the north seems to have been entered by an opening opposite the main entrance, and one chamber (across the passage and to the left) is filled by a large tank or bath of stone. These portions of the building may be judged to have been residential, while the front and east wings were devoted to offices of the palace. There are few further features of the interior obvious to the eye except the size and arrangement of the rooms, on which we do not need to dwell. The central court is paved with rough stones[492] at a depth of three feet below the present surface, a depth which[208] probably accords with the foundations of the walls and with the ancient level.

The sloping ground to the north was prepared for this building by a stone revetment mounting in steps; and special precautions were taken against slipping in the bonding of the masonry on that side. Not only are the stones of the upper courses shaped to fit into one another in a scheme of ‘joggles,’ resembling ‘tongues and grooves,’ to borrow a term better known, but the lower course is provided with a ridge rising along its front edges, which further prevented any general movement of the whole in that direction. As for the upper part of this structure, it is for the excavators to decide whether it was carried up in masonry, of which there remains no visible trace, or whether it was of wood and brick, as in the Hittite palaces across the Taurus. The level nature of the preserved masonry, and certain features pointed out by Perrot,[493] suggest that the latter method was employed here also, as is indeed supported by observations made by Dr. Curtius in one of the upper buildings recently discovered in the acropolis.[494]

To judge by the foundations disclosed at a greater depth by Dr. Winckler’s expedition, the palace which we have just described seems to mark the site of an earlier and somewhat similar building, in the ruins of which were found numerous precious tablets inscribed in the cuneiform script. These are long-lost pages in the history of monarchs, of empires and principalities in Western Asia, and as such their relevance lies with a later chapter of our work. That which is important for the moment is the fundamental date they give, overlapping in part the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties[209] of Egypt, and coming to an end shortly after the reign of Rameses II. in the thirteenth century B.C.

We have no published means of estimating, from this source or otherwise, the history of the development of this ancient capital. But some conjectures, as a working hypothesis, may be made from the probabilities of the case with this date as a basis, awaiting meanwhile further illumination from Dr. Winckler and his colleagues. In the first place, as to the date of the main fortifications, though the period of empire is not often the time of building home defences, yet in this case the deliberate and vast nature of the outer walls conveys no impression of a stricken people hastening to defend themselves, nor even of precipitation. The scheme and details are carried out with dignity, thoroughness, and elaboration. It was the product of a prosperous age, dictated by prudence rather than immediate conscious necessity. Yet the pride of Hittite power soon passed; even while treating on equal terms with the courts of Thebes and Babylon, the shadow of the Assyrian armies already clouded the eastern horizon; and the menace of barbarian northern hordes was probably ever present, particularly as their offensive powers weakened. It may safely be supposed that their city must have been prepared against assault at any rate before the inroads of the Phrygian Muski, in the twelfth century B.C. And secondly, with regard to the palace just considered, built as it is upon the ruins of one which flourished in the time of Rameses the Great, it represents a reconstruction and re-establishment of royal state at some time subsequent. As to the date of this revival there is little evidence. From the plan of the palace it may be conjectured to have preceded any wide spreading of Assyrian influences; and from[210] our own observations it was probably contemporary with a certain class of coloured pottery, which at Sakje-Geuzi[495] was already passing out of vogue at the beginning of the first millennium B.C. Upon this point it is interesting to notice that the difference of axial direction between this and the buried palace, namely, 2½°, would, if astronomically dictated, suggest a difference of date amounting to about two hundred and thirty years,[496] assigning the period of restoration to the eleventh century B.C.

Doubtless some clear evidence will be forthcoming with the progress of excavations; for the present we can only pay due regard to the few items of circumstantial evidence that are available. The absence of visible sculptures on the façade of the building, in contrast with the buildings of Eyuk, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi, is curiously significant. That phase of motive seems to be reflected rather in the two sculptured stones already mentioned as recently found somewhat further up the slope of Beuyuk Kaleh, at the foot of which the palace stands.[497] Two sculptured lions indeed are found lying in close proximity to the lower palace, those which were supposed by Texier and Perrot[498] to be the arms of a throne, but are now shown[499] to be the end ornaments of a tank, with a similar pair on the opposite side. These correspond both in style and in details of art with the lions guarding the palace entrance at Sakje-Geuzi,[500] which may be dated with some security to the tenth or ninth century B.C. If then the lions of Boghaz-Keui can be shown to have[211] organic relation to the palace in the precincts of which they lie, then a basis for solution to the problem is obtained, and the date depends upon the range of time during which such sculptures were in vogue. But if, on the other hand, this tank was an addition to the palace, and of later date, as its partly exposed situation, above the level of the palace floor, suggests, then the palace is of earlier date, preceding the period when such sculptured lions were in fashion, a conclusion which our other considerations seem to justify. Incidentally we arrive at a possible date for certain sculptures of like kind, as the lion of Eyuk, and possibly the Lion Gateway of the acropolis.

In conclusion we tentatively summarise the present possibilities of local development, which any new item of evidence may profoundly modify:

Part II.—The Rock Sculptures called Iasily Kaya.

The far-famed sculptures named by the Turks simply ‘Inscribed Rock’ are at a distance of about two miles eastward from the village of Boghaz-Keui. They are not easy to locate. After leaving the village and crossing the river opposite the lower palace, a footpath rises steeply to the plateau about six hundred feet above, meeting the roadway, which skirts the base of this knoll on its northern side, about a mile further on, where it turns southwards towards Yuzghat. The ancient city is no longer visible, and there are few[212] landmarks of special character. To the north-west a number of rolling valleys unfold themselves, while the gently rising ground to the north-east is partly corn-land and partly green pasture, splashed as it rises to its crest with dark scrub, and broken here and there with bare limestone rocks; a typical view of an Asiatic highland.

The sculptures are found in one of these masses of rock, which is not the largest or most conspicuous of the series, nor distinguishable in any general way. Its chief attraction of old was probably the natural facility which certain irregularities in its formation afforded to the purpose in view. Towards its west side there is a recess about thirty yards deep, which opens towards the south-west on to a broad grassy terrace. The entrance to this rocky chamber, so far as it concerns us, may be reckoned about seventeen yards wide. Its walls are irregular with projections, especially on the right hand, but on the whole they draw gradually together until separated by only six or seven yards at a distance of about six yards from the end. The farther portion is more regular in shape, widening slightly, so that the inner face opposite the entrance is about eight yards in width. This being the largest plane surface and placed suitably in the depth of the recess, it was prepared for the central group of sculptures, which are on a scale proportionate to the relative dignity of the personages they represent. For the rest, the sides were dressed in short lengths of two or three yards, following the windings of the rock, in a more or less continuous band about three feet high. Though the stone was prepared, the smooth surface must have been fashioned in clearing away the backgrounds of the sculptures, which are throughout in relief and in the peculiar Hittite style.

At the outset it may be noticed that the motive of these sculptures seems to be commemorative or emblematic rather than decorative: they are also extremely weathered, being protected only from the violence of the wind from certain quarters, and not at all from the rain; so that little need be said as to the artistic composition of the whole, or the details of its execution. The design, in brief, represents two processions of beings which meet in the middle (on the inner wall facing the entrance south). On the right the figures, with two exceptions, are those of robed females. On the left the persons represented are chiefly male,[501] but include two females, and are interspersed with certain winged beings of mythological character, and a group of two monstrosities which have not been explained. Hittite hieroglyphs and emblems accompany many of the figures, which are further identified by certain recognisable details of dress and weapons.

Our chief interest centres naturally in the significance or symbolism of the leading figures of these processions—those which are carved on the short wall opposite to the opening: the relative importance of these is made clearer by a preliminary glance at those[214] which follow in their trains.[502] The main figures on the left hand are forty-three in number, of which the first stands upon the shoulders of two others, bringing the total number on that side to forty-five. The leader is a godlike figure nearly seven feet high, clad in short tunic and shoes with turned-up toes. His left leg is forward and his left arm is advanced; the right arm is drawn back, and, the face being in profile to the left, we have here an illustration of the convention familiar also in Egyptian drawing, whereby the front view of the upper part of the body is seen, while the head and limbs are reproduced in profile. Only in the sculptures before us we see, whether as an illusion caused by the softening hand of Time, or whether by the deliberate treatment of the Hittite sculptor, an infinitely greater freedom, fulness, and suggestion of life imparted to the figure than we are wont to find in Egyptian funereal sculptures and temple decorations, notwithstanding the masterly skill with which the latter may have been executed. The right hand of this figure grasps the handle of a large round mace which rests upon his shoulder, and a dirk with crescent-shaped handle hangs at his left side, presumably from a girdle. Upon his head there is the tall conical head-dress of the Hittite peoples, though differing slightly from the ordinary representations in that the vertical ribs or flutings of this hat are connected by rings, in suggestion of metal work.[503] In the treatment of this feature the sculptor has realised our own convention of perspective, never adopted by the Egyptians, in the diminishing distances between the ribs receding round the sides. The hair at the back was dressed in a long pigtail, the[215] curling end of which is seen behind the elbow. The face seems to have been bearded, and it is suggested, but not clear, that a large earring hung from the lower lobe of the ear. The outstretched left hand holds a three-pronged emblem and sign towards the advancing figure to which it is opposed, the two figures being balanced in the composition of the group. Behind each is a small horned animal, presumably a goat, capped with the plain conical hat upon its head, and with the forepart and legs advancing beyond the body of the main figure. The two beings which support the figure just described wear long robes, bound by a girdle at the waist, and seemingly fringed or bordered round the bottom of the skirt. Their clasped hands are raised before their bearded chins, and their heads are slightly bowed in a natural pose of reverence or adoration. Their hats are similar to that just described, but seem to be flexible, bending forwards towards the tip in response to the inclination of the heads; while lower down there is something projecting, possibly the brim of the hat upturned, but rather more suggestive of the royal uraeus as in the crown of ancient Egypt.[504]

The figure which follows, though somewhat smaller in stature, would seem to have considerable importance, being raised on two tall flat-topped pinnacles, so that his head is on a level with the others of this group. In details of pose, costume, and armour, this figure resembles that which precedes it, except that in the left hand a long sword with flat hilt is held aloft, and the emblems which denote his rank are placed[216] between the sword and hat. The girdle also is plain in this instance, and the left elbow seems to rest upon a staff. A third figure follows, on this wall, but is not shown in our photograph. It is in an exposed corner, and most of the detail is lost, but it may be seen to resemble the foregoing, though the emblem held in the left hand seems to differ considerably, being of feather-like appearance. The right leg also, which is behind as in all other cases in this scene, may be designedly hidden by the fold of a cloak descending to the ankle.

Turning now to the left-hand wall, the fourth figure resembles again the leader of the procession, though on the smaller scale, being only three feet in height. The fifth is altogether different in character. The shoes, pigtail, and earrings are repeated; the hat also is the common one without the rings; but the long shirt or cloak has curious oblique curving folds, and it trains somewhat behind the right leg. The left toe alone is visible, and the front edge of the robe is seen as far forward as the elbow, obviously descending from the shoulder. Most conspicuous of all are a pair of narrow wings rising from behind the shoulders well above the top of the head.[505] The objects held by the hands cannot now be recognised.

Then follow two female figures, clad in long pleated skirts like the figures in the opposite procession. A belt encircles the waist of each, but it is not clear whether the upper part of the body is bare or clad in a tight-fitting garment; the breasts in any case are visible. The head-dress is not plain; if a cap is worn it must fit closely, while the hair or wig ends in large distinct curls above the shoulder. The left hands are not visible, but the right hands fall by the side, holding[217] by their handles in a reversed position a curved object not very clear, but which in the rear figure forms a complete disk, suggestive of the Egyptian mirror.[506] The eighth figure, like the fifth, is winged; and horns, or a crescent, are conspicuous in the hat, but other details are obscure. The ninth is clearer and of great interest. The robe, however, is like a toga, with a tight sleeve to the right arm, and the loose end flung over the left shoulder, as on certain figures at Eyuk. A dirk is by the side as before, but in the right hand there appears a new object in the long curving lituus held reversed. Above the outstretched left hand is a group of three signs, which may be recognised as a crescent, a feather or star-like object, and above them the divided oval which accompanies all such devices.[507] The face is beardless, and the cap is close-fitting to the skull. Above the head is a composite emblem, in which the main elements are a rosette surrounded by a horseshoe-shaped device recalling the shape of the wig on the Eyuk Sphinx,[508] and reminiscent of the so-called Hathor head-dress of the Egyptian monuments. The whole is supported by large outspread wings, bound at intervals, and turning slightly upwards at the ends. This figure closely resembles the larger one opposite to it, the isolated twenty-second figure on the right,[509] which is described below.

The six figures just described fill the left-hand wall of the inner part of the enclosure. The rock now breaks away somewhat sharply, and the next length is decorated with nine figures on a somewhat smaller scale. Five of these are similar to one another.[510] Their[218] costume includes the short-belted tunic, the conical ribbed hat with rings, and the shoe with upturned toe; and the pose of figures is as previously detailed. The pigtail is suggested in some cases, though the chins are beardless. No weapons are discernible, but each carries in his right hand an object like a sickle or scimitar, which is supported by the right shoulder. A group of emblems or signs precedes each figure, varying in each case. Two other figures of the nine differ only slightly from this model; the one[511] in having apparently a long cloak which partly covers the right leg, in addition to the tunic; and the other[512] in the appearance of a wing rising from the left shoulder, a cap of closer fit, and no object over the right shoulder; but these three distinctions may be illusions due to the weathering of the stone. With regard to the remaining pair,[513] however, there is an utterly different motif. These two are nearly alike, and together form a group of monstrous character. The arms and body of each are human, the legs are those of a quadruped, and the head, with feline ears, is also that of an animal. To the right-hand figure a tail is added, while each is represented with a pigtail. The left-hand figure wears a short plain skirt. The arms of both are upraised, and bracelets may be detected on the wrists; they support an object of crescental form, near the lower edge of which are folds or ridges. The pair are placed symmetrically upon an object (possibly a wine-press[514]) oblong in form with two rod-like handles projecting from each side, equally difficult to describe as to explain. It is possible that monkeys are intended by this group, but if so, the[219] animal was unfamiliar to the artist; it is more probable that they represent some composite mythological creature of the imagination.

The three figures following this pair have been described, and with them the second straight length of wall comes to an end. The next bend is inwards, and the wall becomes nearly parallel to the axis of the chamber, containing in this length nine further figures. The leaders[515] are similar in general appearance to those which precede them, though the object carried on the shoulder may be thought to resemble rather the mace carried by the head of the whole procession. The same may be said of two others[516] of this series, but the condition of the stone is too bad to enable much detail to be gathered. In regard to the pair between these,[517] no objects are now visible in their hands, while their costumes also show some difference of detail. The one seems to have a long cloak, or possibly a staff, hanging from the arm, while the robe of the other is striped horizontally over the left leg. The third figure of the group[518] is peculiar; the arms seem to be thrown forward, with a cloak or long staff hanging down from below the shoulder, while the hat also is inclined slightly forward. A horn or peak to the hat is also traceable. The two last of this series[519] resemble rather the type of the figures supporting the leader of the procession, both as regards costume, position of the hands, and the curving forward of the hat, even though the heads are not inclined as in the earlier instance quoted. There next follow, on a short return of the wall, three figures[520] which we found too weathered to describe, though two of them have been represented by earlier visitors as[220] bearded and wearing embroidered robes. The next and last turn of the wall, which now resumes its main parallel direction, is occupied by thirteen figures, of which the first[521] seems to be a robed and bearded figure of the kind indicated by those two which precede it. It stands apart from those which follow; so too do the next two, though not so far, while the remaining ten figures[522] are close together. These twelve figures are all alike, clad in tunics, conical hats, and tip-tilted shoes. They carry no weapons, and their right feet are partly raised, touching the ground only with the toes, as in the act of running, which is suggested also by the position of the arms, drawn up at the double, and to some extent by the poise of the bodies. These figures also, unlike the rest, are not in procession but in line, for the right elbows and right feet of the more advanced are hidden by those which are shown behind them, and the left hands of the latter partly hide the former—a convention of perspective adopted freely by Egyptian artists also, and repeated in an inner gallery which has yet to be described. This completes the series of sculptures on the left.[523]

This series of sculptures finds its counterpart in those upon the opposite side of the recess, which being less[222] numerous, and for the most part like one another, are more readily described. The figures are twenty-two in number, of which only two are male; they are represented likewise in procession, but approaching in the opposite direction with their faces turned consequently to the observer’s left. The leading figure, which is opposed to the godlike figure just described, is likewise of majestic stature. She stands upon the back of a panther, which in turn is poised upon four low flat-topped pedestals (or ‘mountains’). She is clad in a long pleated skirt with train and waistbelt; the upper part of the body seems to be bare or clothed in a tight-fitting garment, and the female breast is suggested in the fulness of the bust below the outstretched arm. Her head-dress is the ‘mural crown,’ an upright flat-topped bonnet with vertical supports.[524] Her long plait of hair and turned-up shoes are conspicuous. Both arms are forward; with her left hand she holds a long staff on which she partly leans, and with her right she proffers certain special emblems,[525] which almost touch those held out by the male figure which meets her. To complete the balance of composition, the forepart of a goat with a conical cap upon his head, protrudes from behind her dress also.

The figure that follows, though smaller, is none the less striking and important. It represents a boy or beardless man, with curling pigtail, in the now familiar costume, consisting of short tunic, shoes with toes[223] upturned, and a conical fluted hat. He also stands upon the back of a panther, which differs only from the former in the position of its tail, which is held up while the other is kept low.[526] With his outstretched right hand he clasps the upper end of a staff, and in his left he holds an axe with double head,[527] the offensive edges of which are curved. A short dagger with semicircular handle hangs by the belt, but worn in this case on the right side, doubtless at the discretion of the artist, so as to avoid breaking the contour of the figure. The symbol which seems to denote his name is the lower part of the body and legs of a small being clad in the same fashion as the figure itself, under the usual oval emblem.

Behind are two female figures, which in all respects resemble that which heads this series, except that they are smaller, and the emblems above their right hands are different. These sculptures are comparatively well preserved, being in a corner sheltered somewhat from the weather. Their headgear, staves, long plaits (or shawls) down their backs, and turned-up shoes, are particularly clear. They form a pair, standing as though supported by a double-headed eagle with outspread wings.[528] The heads of the eagle face in opposite directions, and the wings, which are turned upwards towards the tips, are represented, as in a previous case, by lateral lines bound by vertical bands on each side. An interesting addition to the design is in the horseshoe-shaped device,[529] the ends of which only, however, are seen, as though placed over the back behind the wings: they[224] descend as a thin line on each side of the body and curl outwards at the level of the top of the legs. The legs of the eagle are wide apart, and the talons are in the position of resting on something flat which is not represented.[530] This completes the sculptures on the main frontage. The figures which follow, as far as the twenty-first, are nearly alike, and closely resemble the female figures just described. They all stand, however, on the level; their left hands are upraised towards the face, and the staff which seems to be held by their right hands is clearly seen to curve away towards the top. The eighteenth figure is distinguished by obliquity of the pleats in the skirt, but it falls none the less naturally into the series. It may be said also that in not one of these figures is there clear proof preserved that earrings were worn, though the suggestion is present in several cases. Their height averages two feet eight inches. Two are found in the recess formed by the return of the wall to the right, and there is space for a third on the weathered surface of the rock. Seven others follow in a somewhat irregular line, which is broken by a small gap in which one more is found. Two follow on a slight projection, and seven others along the receding wall bring the series to an end.

The twenty-second figure is quite different, and worthy of special study. It is of much greater size, being eight feet high, and it stands alone on the inner face of a projection in the rock, thus facing the innermost portion of the enclosure where the two processions meet. In it we see again upon a larger scale the details of costume, with toga, skull-cap, and tip-tilted shoes, which we have already noticed in[225] connection with the ninth figure on the left, only in this case the figure faces to the observer’s left; the left arm is thus the one that is sleeved, and the loose end of the robe hangs over the right shoulder, reaching almost to the ground and ending possibly in a tassel. The dirk is by the right side, and the reversed lituus is grasped in the left hand, which is raised to hold it. The cap has three bands round the edge; a pigtail is possible but doubtful. The feet rest on two rounded pedestals with scale-like surfaces;[531] and the extended right hand supports a series of emblems.[532] These form a somewhat complicated group; in the middle of it there is a small bearded figure wearing a conical ribbed hat which tilts forward at the top, and clad in a long robe decorated with scale-like pattern. At the sides are three protrusions which are difficult to explain.[533] This little figure rests upon what resembles a Hittite shoe, the toe of which is prominently upturned. Its left hand is upraised above the head, and the right arm is outstretched. The outside elements of this emblem are tapering columns of three flutes capped by Ionic volutes; between these and the figure a third device intervenes on each side, consisting possibly of a dirk with its point resting in a quiver. The whole is covered by a device in which two rosettes form the central features, the lower one encircled by a horseshoe-shaped object, and borne on a pair of outspread wings as previously described. This figure, we shall find, recurs once more in a group in the adjoining gallery, to which we shall shortly pass.

On the opposite side of the same projection of rock,[226] and therefore facing to the south, exactly where we have defined the entrance, there is a group of two figures[534] which have not been previously described, but are characteristic and of special interest. These are very difficult to trace on the weather-beaten rock, and to make out the details it is necessary to examine them in various lights, particularly in the early morning and again in the early afternoon. By this means it is possible to make out that the group consists of two females or robed figures seated at opposite sides of a table in the characteristic attitude seen on the slabs representing ceremonial feasts, from Marash, Sinjerli, Yarre, and elsewhere.[535] One of the figures at least has the appearance of a plait of hair or shawl thrown back; the chair on which she sits seems to be solid. Certain emblems accompanied each figure, but these cannot now be identified, except the oval emblem of sanctity or divinity which surmounts each group.

On the next bend of the wall, some six yards distant, and thus really outside the main chamber, there are two monstrous winged figures just over three feet high. They face one another on opposite sides of a narrow rift in the rock, which seems to have been the ancient approach to an inner sanctuary adorned also with a series of sculptures. That on the left hand[536] presents most detail. The body and limbs are human, but the head is that of a lion, and two short wings are added behind, of which the right is slightly raised and the left hangs down. The hands are raised one on each side of the head, and the fingers are extended like claws, adding menace to the threatening aspect of the jaws, as in warning to those who dared to approach[227] the entrance over which it watched. A short tunic tied across the waist reaches barely to the knees, and around the lower edges a broad fringe may be traced. The upper part of the body seems also to be clad in a garment fastened down the front. The carving of the companion figure,[537] on the opposite side, seems hardly to have been completed in detail, though it reproduces in general the design and appearance of the former.

The entrance which these creatures guard is now closed by fallen stones, and access to the interior is gained further to the right by climbing over stones and rubbish at a place which would seem to have been originally closed. On entering from this end we find ourselves in a narrow gallery between vertical walls of rock, which open out slightly as we advance. By the original entrance, however, the approach would be from the broader end.[538] On the west side there are carved twelve male figures[539] side by side, resembling the similar group in the main chamber already described.[540] In this case, however, the group is low down, and until recent times was partly or wholly covered with earth, so that the sculptures are in excellent preservation.[541] The action and attitude of the figures suggests a quick march in line. The costume and details in each case are the same, and have already become familiar. Each wears a short tunic with a fold in front, a belt around the waist, shoes with upturned toes, conical ribbed hats with brim, and a horn-like emblem attached to the front. The earring is plain in several cases. The left arm is forward and turned up at the elbow, the hand being empty. The[228] right hand holds a weapon like a sickle, which rests upon the shoulder, the curved part of the blade being upwards. The form is very nearly that of the sacred khopesh of Egypt.[542] The figures are not unnaturally stolid, but the faces are heavy and the nose and lips thick, though not protrusive.

On the opposite wall are two important sculptures, facing in the same sense. The front one[543] is generally regarded as an heraldic figure. It is very tall, being about eleven feet in height. The upper part is the body of a man, face right, wearing the conical hat with ribs and rings. He is represented as clad in lion-skins, two of which hang from the shoulders, the heads facing outwards and replacing the arms, which are not visible or suggested. The other pair hang downwards from the waist, each suspended by one foot, their other hindlegs being drawn under the bodies and approaching close to one another. The heads of the lions reach with the forepaws to the approximate level of knees. The whole design may be alternatively regarded as composed of lions in this combination, replacing altogether the body of the man, while reproducing the same form. Below the knees the legs are replaced by a device which may be taken for the tapering point of a great dagger or dirk with midrib. The figure has no visible frame.

We come now to the last sculptures of the series, which form a group of two figures.[544] The one is great and majestic, resembling on a large scale in all details the youthful figure that stands upon the lioness in the main series.[545] Only in this case the rings in the conical hat are prominent, and seem not to lie wholly[229] between the ribs, but to be bisected by them. The left hand also, which in the other figure holds the double-headed axe, here grasps the upraised right wrist of a smaller figure, which his left arm enfolds about the neck. This smaller figure is in all respects similar to that which we have met with twice previously in the outer chamber,[546] clad in the toga as before, and carrying the lituus reversed in the hand which is free. The curled end of a pigtail is seen behind his shoulder, but this may be judged to belong to the larger figure, on account both of its large scale and position, and because the bare neck of the smaller figure is visible. Both figures are identified by the emblems which accompany them: the greater by the device of a small body and legs, held up as in its counterpart by the outstretched right hand; the smaller one by the composite group placed in the bare space above his head to the right. This is the same as that accompanying the figure mentioned,[547] except for the small central figure which is here replaced by a different symbol, thought by some to be a phallus. The symbols on either side give the impression of uraei crowned with a disk, seen in full face, but the real motive is doubtful.

So many and so various are the hypotheses that have been put forward as to the meaning of these sculptures,[548] that it will prove less confusing perhaps to regard them entirely de novo. We are the more constrained[230] to do so, in that the attention of scholars has been largely focussed on the identification of the deities in the central group, without much consideration of the series as a whole, or its relation to Boghaz-Keui and the Hittite peoples. It seems to us that the whole series must from its composition illustrate one central idea, on which any explanation of individual figures should throw some light. Looking then broadly at the sculptures, it is clear that certain of the figures, notably those with wings, are of divine aspect, representing gods or minor deities.[549] The exalted figures which lead the procession must then be those of gods or of persons held in highest reverence. These are, on the left, firstly, the great male figure borne on the shoulders of two ministers, and behind him two other male figures of like kind but lesser magnitude. On the right are the leading female figure and the youth borne on the backs of lionesses or panthers. Behind these is a pair of female figures, clad like their leader, standing upon the emblem of the two-headed eagle. These two groups are parallel; if the leading figures are those of gods, as we are led to infer, the pair of figures which follow on each side should equally be gods or personages of divine rank. Casting our eyes left and right we find numerous figures clad in like fashion to their leaders, and we conclude that the gods of the Hittites at this stage of their art are represented in their national costumes as they are in human form.[550][231] The train which follows the goddess and her youthful companion and the female divinities of the double eagle is composed of females, many of whom are denoted by special symbols.[551] In these we see the priestesses of the cult or cults, wearing the dress and simulating the persons of the goddesses.[552] The common costume on the left, excluding certain special figures,[553] is the short tunic characteristic of the Hittite soldiery and people. In these male figures we readily recognise two classes. First, those who mingle with the main procession, and are often denoted by special symbols. These seem to be the priests, though some of the foremost may be demi-gods. Second, those who form a group of twelve at the end of the procession. These may represent the populace[554] taking part in the rites represented.

Where now is the king under whose direction these sculptures were made, and whose figure on the analogy of all the commemorative sculptures of the ancient East should occupy a place and rank second only to the gods? On the main façade he finds no place, for the attendant figures in each case are in pairs, and the[232] youth who follows the leading goddess to the right shows no insignia of royalty, but seems to be grouped naturally with his leader. Looking around, we find facing this scene the majestic figure clad in a toga,[555] accompanied by a whole group of emblems which indicate his rank. He stands alone, exalted and distinguished, yet following as it were in the train of the goddess. In the other procession, to the left,[556] he follows the figures of the lesser gods. In the inner gallery he is embraced by the godlike figure of the same youthful deity who, in the outer gallery, accompanies the goddess; and we are reminded of the Egyptian text[557] which describes the representation of the god of the Hittites embracing their king as the design upon the royal signet which was attached to a treaty.[558] Now this figure is that which is generally regarded as representing the high priest, and not without reason; it reappears without insignia as leading in the act of sacrifice before the bull-shrine at Eyuk,[559] and on two sculptured blocks recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui, we find the same again ministering before the altar.[560] It mattered little what was the object of the cult; the costume was evidently that of the priesthood. Now the same treaty informs us that the great king of the Hittites was also chief priest of the god. The king-priest indeed was a feature of Hittite national life, and in this light we are able to interpret their monuments across the Taurus also.[561] We are led to conclude that such is the explanation of these sculptures,[233] and that in the figures before us we have both chief priest and king. The problem is now much simplified. The kingly figure accompanies both processions: that in which his majesty is most clear is that of the great goddess and her consort; while on the other side he seems to embrace or at least to sanction by his presence the worship of the other deities.

It is possible, however, that when the minutiæ of the royal insignia, the winged rosette, shall be more thoroughly understood, it will be found that these two kings are not one and the same person. Who then can they be? Why are they associated here together with so many different deities? Who are these deities? What can be the meaning of the whole series of representations?

Before attempting to answer any of these questions, let us pause to remind ourselves of several fundamental considerations. Recent discoveries have made it clear that in the fourteenth century B.C. the organising centre of the Hatti power—the capital, in short, of the Hittite peoples—was at Boghaz-Keui. So far as we can see, this was the greatest period of the Hittite empire, when their arms were not only contesting the possession of Syria with the Pharaohs, on the one hand, but had penetrated through Lydia to the Ægean on the other. We are prepared to believe that the great sanctuary of Iasily Kaya was also the product of this age, if only from the fact that it is the most imposing monument which has survived. The intimate correspondence, moreover, in the nature and treatment of the chief male figures with those which from their position beyond the Halys must belong to the period of empire, like the sculptures of Kara-Bel and Giaour-Kalesi, points also to this period. We are indeed[234] already prepared in our minds for this suggestion by the clear correspondence of the seal impressed upon the treaty between Hattusil and Rameses the Great with the design of the sculpture in the inner sanctuary described above. Now the constitution of the Hittite power at this period was clearly a confederacy, an alliance of petty states, the traces of which may be found on both sides of the Taurus. The ‘kings’ of those states were the ‘allies’ or vassals of the great king who directed their military operations, and whose seat at this time was at Boghaz-Keui. The archives of the site itself confirm the point, which was already suggested by the Egyptian monuments, and especially from the intrinsic evidence of the treaty (which has now, in view of recent discoveries, become authenticated material for our use).

We have made this digression to establish certain facts, the appreciation of which seems to us fundamental to a right consideration of the problem of the sculptures. Briefly put, these are: that Boghaz-Keui marks the site of the Hittite capital at the time of the greatest Hittite extension (in the xivth and xiiith centuries B.C.); that the constitution of the Hittite power at this time was a confederacy of states from both sides of the Taurus; and that the sanctuary of Iasily Kaya was contemporary with this period. We may expect then to find the national deities most prominent in the sculptures. Again, having due regard to the nature of the states, each ruled by its own king or priest-king, each separated from its neighbour by the broken nature of the country, developing its own customs, ritual, and religion, it is not to be supposed that any common national cult could supplant or greatly change the local worships. The definite history of later times leads us to infer the[235] contrary; and we are again confirmed in this conclusion by the evidence of the treaty, to the sacredness of which the numerous gods of states were called as witness.[562] With some of the states the national deity, or the national word for a deity (Sutekh), is associated; others mention their separate deities by name.

Let us return now to the sculptures. The first two figures on the right hand, the female and the youth who ride the backs of lionesses, are recognised almost unanimously by scholars as prototypes of the great Mother-goddess (MA) of Asia Minor and her Lover-son, identified on the one hand with Cybele and Attis, as with Istar and Tammuz on the other. This identification, while it helps us to conjecture the local attributes of the deities, enables us also to recognise at once the national character of the leaders in the procession, for the cult of the Nature goddess was world-wide. Her association with the lioness is familiar in her many guises, as for instance in Phrygia, where she rides in a lion-drawn car. Doubtless in the Lion-goddess accompanied by the Lion-son there is a reminiscence of some primitive worship, the origins of which perhaps were already lost to view, and which we must seek somewhere in the hilly borders of the Euphrates valley. The Lion pair is followed by the twin deities of the Double Eagle, goddesses both.[563] The significance of the double-headed eagle is unknown. But that there was a local worship associated with the eagle is indicated alike by the discovery at Boghaz-Keui of a sculptured head of this bird, in black stone,[236] larger than natural size,[564] and by a newly deciphered cuneiform fragment from the same site, on which mention is made in ideographic writing of the house or temple of the eagle.[565] That such a cult was general within the circuit of the Halys is suggested by the great monument which now lies prone in a wild spot overlooking the river near to Yamoola,[566] and by various smaller objects. At Eyuk also there is a conspicuous though partly defaced representation of a priest of the Double Eagle, on a sphinx-jamb of the palace gateway,[567] a symbolism which we read to imply that the occupant of the palace was chief priest of the cult. This palace, however, at so short a distance from the capital, probably marks the site of a royal estate rather than an independent kingdom. Now we have already come to the conclusion that the sculptures on the right-hand procession pertain particularly to the locality of Boghaz-Keui, inasmuch as the chief representation of the king-priest is associated with this group. Hence we conclude that, following the images of the national deities on this side (the Mother-goddess and her Son, the Lion deities), there come the images of the local cult of this part of Cappadocia, namely, the twin goddesses of the Double Eagle. The other female figures of this side distinguished by separate symbols represent probably the priestesses of the cults, which may have been to some extent allied; while the continued procession of nameless women recalls to mind the rite of self-dedication practised in the temples of Istar at Babylon.[568]

The left-hand series of sculptures is more complex, but[237] open to explanation in general terms on the same line of argument. The leading figure clearly represents the Father-God (in contraposition to the Mother-Goddess), the Zeus of the Greeks, the Baal of Tarsus, the ‘Sutekh,’ or national deity of the Hittites. This is shown supported upon the shoulders of two priestly attendants, who, like the lions opposite, seem to stand upon the tops of mountains. There is in this detail a lurking reminiscence or absorption of a mountain-cult, which becomes clearer in the two figures which follow. These deities we take to be the local forms of ‘Sutekh’ pertaining to different Hittite states[569] other than Cappadocian; the first is distinguished by the unsheathed sword, the second by a detail of his dress, but both are almost identical with the leader, while both stand upon mountain-tops. It is significant that the peoples whom we suspect from their dress to have descended from the mountains should preserve also in this way the unconscious memory of their ancestral deity. Another figure of like kind follows, but it is the two winged figures that particularly attract our notice.[570] Here in Hittite art we have clearly deities from across the Taurus,[571] claiming place in the ceremony here depicted just as they claim separate mention in the list of Hittite deities in the Egyptian treaty.[572] There follows the image of a priest-king; but whether that of the great king seen on the opposite side, or of a vassal king from beyond the Taurus similarly[238] accompanying his deities, is not determined. The star-like emblem and crescent which he bears must be a clue, if only it could be interpreted. At this point we suspect the list of divine beings gives way to the sacred; but it may be that the gods of minor states (in all cases identified with the great god) continue to occur, accompanied in several cases by their local retinue. Finally there comes the group of moving beings, which alone tells us that the scene which we are looking on is the picture of a rite, and not a mere commemoration of an alliance.

What then is this rite? There is little direct evidence to answer us. In the central group are the images of male and female deities, accompanied by a youth, Nature’s divine Triad. We cannot hope at this stage of our knowledge to penetrate the mystery of the symbolism seen in the mountains, the lions, and the goats. But from what is known of the cult of Cybele in her various forms, and of Attis, her lover-son, whose attributes are distinguished yet identified in the separate cults of Baal and Sandon of Tarsus, there can be little doubt as to the main object of the ceremony.[573] The rejuvenescence of Nature, symbolised by the divine nuptials of the Goddess of Earth with the God of Fertility, is the central motive; and the fruits of the earth are the issue. But though we recognise the nature of the cult, we do not feel justified in presupposing anything but a general resemblance between the local worship and the rites practised elsewhere in later times. That which we do see in this monument is a national religious ceremony of the Hittites, at which the local deities of the chief states, or the divine personages representing them, were present. In this ceremony[239] the image of the national god was borne upon the shoulders of his priests[574] to the shrine of the Mother-Goddess, which was found in the local sanctuary of the capital. The objective was that the earth should be fertile and yield her produce, that the fruits should ripen and the ears of corn grow fat. As to the season when this ceremony took place, there is little suggestion. The spring-time is that which seems to us appropriate; but if the grotesque figures in the left-hand series[575] really stand upon a wine-press, and if the group of men[576] on the same side really hold sickles in their hands, then the harvest-time is indicated. On the other hand, the ceremony may have been seasonal or irregular, or adapted to some great date of the Hittite calendar. Speculation on the point is useless. As to the further nature of the rites we remain likewise in ignorance, realising only the dance or march of the men and the presence of the women, and having only the knowledge which has been handed to us of rites practised at the shrine of the goddess in other places.

If we pass to the inner sanctuary we only find ourselves face to face with new mysteries. The group of figures on the left is clearly a counterpart to those depicted in the outer chamber, suggesting the ceremonies in the act. But on the opposite side the two separate sculptures are of new and independent character. In the one is seen the dirk-deity enfolded in lion-skins; in the other the youthful god, now assuming a greater dignity, embraces the king. It has been suggested, with much apparent reason,[577] that the[240] symbolism may be interpreted to mean that the priest-king or his representative is gently guided by the deity ‘through the valley of the shadow of death’ to sacrifice. But we know of no parallel for such symbolism in Oriental sculptures, and we prefer to see in this inner chamber merely a special sanctuary of the god, with images pertaining to his cult. In the one the king is received as high priest into the presence and embrace of the god. We have already seen that such an action in itself was deemed of so great moment that it formed the subject of the royal signet. Thereby, maybe, the king became invested with sanctity of person; in any case, his privilege of access to the god is recognised. In the other sculpture, in our opinion, we see the god once more, but in another guise, and identified with another cult, which from its widespread vogue and influence must have been almost national—namely, that of a sacred dirk.[578] A first attribute of the kingship, indicating, it would seem, his priestly office, was the guardianship of the sacred dirk, just as one might say ‘Defender of the Faith.’ That such a dirk has some original reference to sacrifice we cannot doubt. Here we find it forming the lower part of a composite divine figure. The face of the deity may be thought to suggest the Son-god: we are tempted to believe in this identification by a somewhat venturesome analogy. For this god is clearly to be identified with the Sandon of Tarsus, Hercules son of Zeus; and in his early character Hercules is represented clad in lion-skins, much as we see the deity before us. Hence it is possible that the sculpture which decorates the wall of the inner sanctuary commemorates some rite[241] of investiture of the king with the insignia of his office as high priest of the god. We see, then, in the inner chamber a separate shrine of the Son-god, to which the king had access, by virtue of his office as high priest. The outer recess we regard as a shrine of the Mother-goddess, adorned on the one side with the symbolism of her cult, and on the other with the representation of the rite we have described. The further consideration of the historical aspect of these sculptures belongs to a later chapter.

Part I.—The Palace and Sculptures of Eyuk.

In the foregoing chapter it has incidentally become apparent that the northern capital arose to greatness as the centre of a military organisation rather than as the geographical or economic focus of a country. The alliance between the states, though seen to us mainly as a confederacy in arms, cannot have been without effect in tending to some extent to unify, if not to nationalise, the local customs and institutions. On the other hand, they were separated in many cases by physical boundaries that must otherwise have fostered and emphasised their natural differences. In passing then to examine such of these minor capitals as have been sufficiently disclosed to us by excavation, it will be a special and constant interest to note how far a common or mutual influence in art and architecture can be traced among their ruins. The result is, on the whole, surprising. We can only single out for comparison one site from Asia Minor and two neighbouring sites in the North of Syria; and though the inquiry is rendered difficult through insufficient chronological material, and the result complicated by the intrusion of other influences more potent on the one side than the other, nevertheless we shall find a correspondence in general features and in some detail which is sufficient[243] at any rate to stamp them as products of the same civilisation, all dominated by a common motive, even though separated by some generations or maybe centuries in point of time.

We begin with the site of Eyuk, a village situated some twenty miles northwards from Boghaz-Keui, sufficiently near to have been closely in touch with the activities and culture-progress of the capital, albeit sufficiently far to have maintained some local peculiarities. Here the ruins which we now know to be Hittite were lighted upon by Hamilton,[579] ‘the prince of travellers,’ in 1835; subsequently they were visited by Barth[580] and Van Lennep.[581] The account of them given by the last-named, who was for thirty years a missionary in Turkey, was the first attempt to hand down a reliable and complete description, accompanied by a rough plan of a building and sketches of the sculptures which adorned its portico. Then came Professor Ramsay, in 1881, and in the record[582] of his visit to these monuments we have the first scholar’s impression of their meaning and significance. M. Perrot visited the site and incorporated his notes in his great work on Exploration Archéologique,[583] and many inquirers have followed in his wake. The Liverpool Expedition of 1907 called here and secured a complete series of photographs and a measured plan;[584] and subsequently in the same year the Ottoman Government was enabled to make some useful clearances in[244] front of the now famous portico of sphinxes, adding considerable information, and bringing to light two interesting sculptures which had lain previously buried.[585] The accounts of these various writers, though in the main agreed as to the nature of the ruins, differ to some extent in their description of details, and very considerably in their interpretation of the meaning of the sculptures. This being so, we shall use our own notes and plans as the basis of our description, indicating so far as possible the places where we differ in our interpretation from one or other of the more recent investigators. In the plan, also, we shall omit the present position of those sculptured blocks no longer in situ, but whose original position is known, because they have been considerably moved in recent years, leading to discrepancies in successive published plans. We shall also for the same reason use letters instead of figures to denote the blocks, in order to avoid further confusion with the various classifications and enumerations that have been published.

The mound which the little hamlet of Eyuk just covers is more or less quadrangular in shape with rounding corners; its length from north to south is about 250 yards, and its width a little more. It is not prominent as one approaches from Boghaz-Keui, as it rises gently from the plain on that side, attaining its greatest height of forty to forty-five feet towards its northern limits, whence it gives way again somewhat steeply to the level ground. The background on this side is a range of low hills, from which, however, the mound is quite distinct and separated. Traces of a wall enclosing the top of the mound may be seen here[245] and there, and would be readily followed out by excavation. Near the northern brink the masonry is visible inside a stable with a low-lying floor; in fact, the new wall has partly used the old one for a foundation. It is generally similar in construction to some of the roughly polygonal masonry seen in some interior walls at Boghaz-Keui, like that which surrounds Beuyuk Kaleh. Hereabouts also a postern-way is reported, constructed entirely like that on the south slope of the acropolis at Boghaz-Keui, roofed with corbelled masonry, and sufficiently high for a man to walk through it upright. It can be followed in a southerly direction for some fifteen yards, when it turns abruptly westwards and continues for six or seven yards further.[586] In the ridge of the roof there may be noted a flat slab of stone perforated with a circular hole, as for the admission of light, or the drainage of water from above. We are not told to what depth the roof is now buried beneath the surface. About twenty yards westward from this spot, on the mound, there are a number of dressed blocks of stone, one of which at least has a rounded hole in one face, a feature noticeable in several instances at Boghaz-Keui.

From these general indications of an ancient walled town[587] we pass to the more famous sculptures, which are found on the lowest part of the mound towards the south-east, about twenty yards only from the cultivated plain. These decorated the lowest course of the façade of a gateway which in plan resembles closely[246] that of the Lion-gate on the acropolis at Boghaz-Keui. This plan is shown to scale on the opposite page, so that we do not need to give detailed measurements of the blocks where the arrangement involves no reconstruction. Fortunately, though exposed for long ages, the alignment of the stones remains almost intact, so that the plan of this interesting gateway may be determined without much difficulty. It remains also unique hitherto among Hittite works of Asia Minor.

As in the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui this entrance has an outer and an inner doorway. The nearer one lies back from the frontage of the main wall a distance of just over thirteen feet. The width between the corners of the approach (E, G), making allowance for a slight displacement of the corner-stones, is almost exactly twenty feet: this is reduced between the great monoliths which form the jambs to a few inches over eleven feet. The interval between the faces of the outer and inner monoliths on either side is about twenty-six feet, which must have been approximately the distance from one door to the other. Between the two gateways the space widens out to the same width as the approach outside; but inside the inner gate the walls return at once on either side (II, KK) without any approach on that side corresponding to that from without. Thus the projection of the walls flanking the approach beyond the gates becomes by comparison with the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui an established feature of Hittite military architecture, designed to protect the gateway by enfilading fire from above.[588]

The recent excavations conducted by Macridy Bey have thrown light on several important features not previously determined. From the plan which he publishes[589] it would seem that the frontage to the approach, on the left side at any rate (E, F), is really the outer wall of the gate tower and external to the main wall. We are thus confirmed in our conclusion that the entrance was flanked on either side by extra-mural towers, as later well known in Roman military forts and mediæval architecture of Europe. Unfortunately the excavators did not carry on their inquiry to ascertain (as might have been done with little difficulty) the line of frontage of the main wall of the whole building or enclosure. This we suspect would be in line with the nearer monoliths, though from a suggestion upon the plan it may have been a little nearer the interior—a position which from several reasons would not be probable—and, indeed, such a wall must have been much stouter than anything marked upon the plan.

From the foundations preserved it would seem that each tower was designed with chambers. Two other strong oblong chambers or vaults may be noted in the thickness of the wall, and there seems to be indication in the plan of a continuation to the series. The excavators were troubled by the fact that no door openings were found to these rooms.[590] As no section is given by them to show the relative levels of the different walls, it is not possible to form an opinion as to whether they are at all preserved above the lower courses. It is in any case interesting to observe that in military Roman forts of later days (in the earlier system of the first and second centuries) the chambers on the lower floors of such guard-rooms were often merely vaults or cellars, gained from the upper floor[249] (which was nearly level with the sentry-go upon the wall) by means of an internal ladder.

There is a still more important fact revealed by this recent excavation, the full significance of which does not seem to have been noted. This is the discovery, on the left hand, of a lower frontage wall or foundation (X, Y), upon which the upper one partly rests. Now between these upper and lower walls there is, according to the plan, a clear angle of deviation amounting to five degrees. The masonry of the lower wall corresponds with the roughly ‘polygonal’ system of walling illustrated on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui and elsewhere, while that of the upper consists entirely of large square blocks of granite, nearly uniform in height and mostly five or six feet in length, bound together by means of ‘joggles,’ and backed by a revetment of rough stones, making the whole about two metres thick. So far as one can judge from the published evidence, there is clear suggestion of two different building periods, as we noted in regard to the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui. The earlier one is seen in a stout military wall of polygonal type, the later in the line of sculptured blocks which was built partly over the remains of the other. The monoliths and other sculptures, and the visible remains in general, belong to this later series.

Before passing on to a consideration of the sculptures there are two or three architectural points to be noted. In the large cubes for the frontage wall, it is noticeable, particularly in the interior, that their faces are dressed only for a width of five or six inches around the edges, while the rest of the face projects considerably beyond this dressed line. This seems to have been a regular mason’s method of treatment, for the same may be[250] noticed in the smaller stones in the main wall at the approach to the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LX.). It is clear that in the latter case no sculptures were contemplated, hence this feature does not necessarily imply that such stones were left by the mason for the sculptor, and remained for some reason unfinished, nor even that the sculptures were wont to be carved after the stones had been placed in position.[591] If the latter was true, it must be proved from other evidence; the contrary conclusion seems to be more probable prima facie, and to be borne out to some extent by the general completeness of the group of sculptures upon each stone individually, and by the care with which the bottom-most details of the reliefs are executed, features which would have tended to be neglected had the stone been already in position on the ground. Another point is the reconstruction of the doorway, whether as a cantilever archway, as at Boghaz-Keui, or by a single massive lintel. The great size of the granite block which marks the threshold shows that the latter method was possible to the engineers, and part of the lintel may perhaps be seen in a huge square-cut mass of granite (i), with a few hieroglyphs upon it, which lies, unclaimed for any other purpose, in front of the gateway, where it might easily have fallen. On the other hand, the clear space between the jambs is nearly twelve feet in length, and it may be thought that the jambs are not designed of sufficient relative proportions to support a mass and weight so great as would have been required of a single stone that spanned them. In the preserved upper part of the left-hand monolith also (B) it may be seen that the horizontal portion declines a little as though to form the offspring of an arch, while the[251] vertical stop is inclined slightly outwards, as though designed to receive the direct thrust of an arch, whether of two large stones or of many small ones. The thrust would be further taken by a backing of masonry behind the monoliths, which may be seen from the plan to have been included in the original design. Notwithstanding these considerations, the material evidence in this case is in favour of a great stone lintel, of strength and size proportionate to the width of its span.

A third point is the reconstruction of the upper courses of the building, and this involves a consideration of the mutual relation of the upper and lower walls of the frontage (EF and XY). With regard to the upper wall (EF), a dressed block of the second course remains seemingly not much out of its original position.[592] This prepares us for the restoration of the whole course in stone, and possibly another fallen block (lying just in front of that marked f) might be fitted into place to the left hand of the former. This creates for itself a precedent, for in other sculptured walls that are known, as at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the wall was carried up in brick. In those cases, however, the sculptures were carved on facing slabs merely, not on cubical building blocks, so that for architectural analogy we must look rather to the palace at Boghaz-Keui. The latter, however, furnishes no direct evidence on the point, though M. Perrot suspected that it was carried up on a timber frame. We must, then, accept the suggestion of this single stone in situ; but we must hesitate to accept without clear proof the theory that there were sculptures also on the second tier,[593] a feature for[252] which we have no analogy in Hittite works. The two sculptured blocks (x, y) recently found at a lower level, in front of the lower wall (XY), represent subjects entirely different to those in situ, and seem from the published photographs[594] to illustrate a phase of art as different as the early and later reliefs of Sinjerli. Measurements taken of stones irregular in outline are apt to be deceptive, and not until these, when tried, are found to fit accurately into the position suggested, alongside that which is in situ, on the second course of the upper wall, can we believe that such was their original position. It has been noted that these blocks were found in the excavation which disclosed the lower wall. Now there is clear suggestion, in plan and photograph, that the lower wall was antecedent to the upper, and bearing in mind the later level, which is best seen in the threshold between the sphinxes, it is highly improbable that the lower wall remained exposed to view at the time when the upper one was in use. It was probably already hidden by débris and ruins. The analogy of the palaces of Boghaz-Keui is entirely accordant. We are inclined, therefore, to believe that the two sculptured blocks in question (x, y), representing scenes of the chase, belong to the earlier period coeval with the lower wall. However that may be, the evidence before us tells of two distinct phases in the history of the Hittite Eyuk: the first when the site was surrounded by a town wall, possibly with a decorated gateway;[595] the second after the earlier works had been ruined (like the neighbouring palace of the Hatti at Boghaz-Keui), and in their place a palace was constructed[253] with its entrance over the remains of the older gateway. Later in this chapter we shall find indication in an unplaced corner-stone (p) of still a third building period, to which alternatively the newly found blocks (x, y) may possibly be assigned.

The sculptures decorating this palatial entrance are of two classes: there are the great monoliths forming the jambs of the gateway, fashioned like sphinxes (A, B, C, D), and there are the reliefs with which the walls of the frontage and the approach-way are adorned. The outer sphinxes (A, B) are almost identical: each is over seven feet in height, while the blocks of which they form a part are about ten feet high in all. The inner sphinxes must have been similar but smaller.[596] Only the forepart of the sphinx is represented, and that is in bold relief. The breast and fore legs are those of a large animal; this is generally supposed to represent a bull,[597] though that on the left has five toes or claws. There is a bagginess as of pendent flesh between the legs. The upper part is a human face, surrounded with a wig or head-dress of sorts, which has the shape of a horse-shoe, ending in front of the shoulders in a completed outward curve within which is an inner concentric circle. At the sides of the head this feature comes outwards and forwards like a hood to protect the ears and neck. It is fitted to the head by a broad band around the brow; from this there descend in front of the ears two long attachments to support a collar which forms a band under the chin. That on the left is plain; but that on the right is ornamented with[254] three rosettes, each with six hollow loop-like petals. The ears are human, but large and too low down. The eye-sockets are hollowed as for insetting the eyes separately. The face is too weathered to preserve much character; it may be judged to have been full and round, especially in the upper part of the cheeks. The photograph speaks more clearly than any length of description.[598]

It has been supposed by early writers,[599] and repeated by many, that these sphinxes are of Egyptian suggestion. But the sphinx in general is not necessarily Egyptian: no one has traced any indigenous development of it as an artistic motive or as a religious symbol. It is much commoner in the Euphrates valley, where also it is found in greater variety of form. Its meaning in those more life-like representations becomes clearer. There the strength and dominion of the monarch are symbolised by the movement and force of the noble beast upon which his features are portrayed. But in Egypt the Sphinx is, for the most part, conventional and lifeless, an adaptation to the religious after-death symbolism which is the dominant motive of surviving Egyptian art. The familiar posture in early examples is sitting, and even the face is represented with so much conventionality and death-like mystery that it has given rise to an adjective in our language in the word ‘sphinx-like,’ implying an unvarying aspect of potential and mysterious serenity. Finally, no example of this class of sphinx, where the body is that of a bull, seems to have been found in Egypt, which could then hardly have provided the model for these standing ponderous bull-sphinxes of Eyuk.

The face carved upon the sphinxes may be that of[255] the royal and priestly law-giver who dwelt within the palace which they guarded, or it may be a conventional type; upon that point there is no evidence. We have disclaimed any Egyptian motive in these sphinxes on general grounds, but there are found two curious and unexplained resemblances when we come to consider the facial type portrayed and the manner in which it is adorned. The one is in the portrait-statue[600] of Nefret, a queen of Egypt in the middle of the twelfth dynasty (before or about 2000 B.C.) a sculpture which represents a type exceptional, indeed almost unique, in Egyptian art. There is something to be borne in mind, however, in making a comparison, namely, that this statue may have been carved in the Delta, and that ancient monuments of Lower Egypt are so rare that their standard character is little known. Hence it is not certain whether this peculiar monument merely reproduces a type of which no other examples have survived, or whether it was itself worked from a model strange even to the Delta. In the latter case the interesting explanation offers itself, that perhaps as early as the twelfth dynasty the Egyptian kings intermarried with Mesopotamian or Hittite princesses, as was done during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. The other resemblance is found in an Etruscan monument,[601] which presents a general similarity in subject and treatment at once striking and noteworthy.

Turning now to the reliefs that adorn the frontage-walls, it is seen that, as at Iasily Kaya, two main series are opposed to one another in the composition of the[256] whole. In both the main themes are religious. On the left-hand side the shrine of a Bull is represented, with priest and priestess and attendants bringing up smaller animals to be sacrificed. On the right-hand side the centre of worship appears as an enthroned goddess, twice depicted; and other stones in the row are decorated with a bull and lion of magnificent proportions. The cult-deity occupies in each case the naturally prominent place, namely, the front face of the corner-stones on either side, facing towards the worshippers and others who follow in their train.

The bull (a), the object of adoration on the left, stands on a panelled pedestal with projecting cornice. His dewlap, hair, full chest, and heavy shoulders are delineated, and he seems to bear some special marks upon his flank and quarter. His generative organs are represented, but not in exaggeration when allowance is made for the tendency of old-time sculptors to enlarge on details. He stands the emblem of earthly strength and virility; and it is reasonable to infer from his counter-position to the Mother-goddess, that he here separately embodies the essentially masculine powers of her divine consort, with whom indeed he seems to have been originally identified.[602]

In front of the bull, the nearest object, on the next stone, may be taken for an altar, the precise form of which, however, is not apparent. It was presumably round. Its pedestal narrows towards the top, and is crossed by lateral bands, the alternate ones being decorated by transverse lines in alternating series.[603] The figure who leads the worshippers is the priest-king, a type familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui and Malatia,[257] only here he lacks the winged emblem which seems in the former case to denote his sovereignty. Here, however, his dignity at the head of the procession is apparent. He wears the same skull-cap, toga-like robe, earrings, and shoes with upturned toes. In his right hand is the reversed lituus, while his left, with the thumb prominent, is stretched out towards the altar. He is followed or accompanied by a female, the chief priestess, his queen. We do not hesitate in this identification, derived from general considerations, because this office is associated with the queen in the description of the seal of the treaty concluded between the Hittite and Egyptian kings[604] to which we have previously alluded. Her dress is interesting. She wears a skirt with oblique curving pleats, and tightly fitting vest. Her hair seems to descend behind as a pigtail almost to the ground, though some stray plaits may be seen also falling over the ear. The earring is plain: so too are the turned-up points of her shoes. The arms are in a curious position, and not easy to trace upon the stone: it seems probable, however, that the left one is folded under the right, and that it rests near the elbow upon a staff, which may be seen to be inclined thence obliquely towards the left foot, which is advanced. The head of this staff is not visible, and it cannot be said, therefore, whether it resembles those used similarly by the priestesses in the right-hand series of sculptures at Iasily Kaya;[605] it may be seen, however, to be decorated by a series of short transverse parallel lines down its whole length. The head-dress is broken away. The face of this figure also is not well preserved, but it may be seen to resemble that of the leader in the[258] straightness of the nose, which is in line with the receding forehead, a feature repeated too deliberately and too often to be accounted for merely as a defect in drawing.[606]

Then here follows a gap from which a smaller stone is missing; to have escaped from the joggles that fixed it in position it must have been broken, and has so disappeared.[607] The third stone (c) is well filled by a scene representing a ram and three sheep led forward by a man as to the sacrifice. The latter holds the ram by the horns, and two of the sheep appear as an upper register, in the usual convention which was intended to convey the impression of distance; by this arrangement it is possible that a flock of sheep is symbolised, as suggested by M. Perrot, but it is noticeable that the number of animals is the same as the number of priest-shepherds (or attendants), of whom three more are shown following this group on the next stone (d). These are clad uniformly in similar fashion to their leader, and the only feature in this respect that distinguishes them from the chief priest is the fall of their cloaks, which ends almost in a point behind the foot. One hand of each is raised before the face, but the other is employed differently in each case. The leading attendant, it was noted, grasps the horn of one of the animals. The first figure of the group that follows (d) seems to be holding a cord or whip, the continuation of which cannot, however, be traced on the stone in front. The second holds up an object which is worn away at the top, but ends below, level with his elbow, in an outward curl. The last is represented similarly with both hands raised, but nothing[259] can now be seen to have been held by them. The head of this figure, too, is almost wholly obliterated.

Then follows, on the fourth stone, one of the most curious representations of the series. This consists of two small figures of men, one of whom is mounting a ladder of twenty rungs, which rises obliquely from the ground-level and ends at two-thirds of the height of the stone. M. Perrot suggests that these were clowns, which seems to be an unnecessary complication: it is more natural to suppose that there is here commemorated some scene familiar in the rites, or in the representation of them. The men are clad in short tunics, and other details noticeable in their dress are the helmet-like hat[608] of the man upon the ladder, the skull-cap and earrings of the other, the girdle-knot of both. The position of their hands is very curious and interesting, and enables us to divine with some certainty the real meaning of the group. In the several photographs before us,[609] taken from different points of view in different lights, we get (as is commonly the case) a comparative effect of great assistance in eliminating the unessential features on the stone. It may be seen[610] that the man upon the ladder is not holding the ladder in order to climb up higher. There is plain to careful scrutiny of the photograph a small thin implement projecting below the clenched hand, which is just clear of the ladder near the top. The right hand is raised aloft and grasps a rounded implement (more clearly seen in another picture), in a natural attitude of striking a blow. He is working with a chisel and mason’s hammer; it must be the simplicity of the interpretation that has so long deferred[260] it. Now the courses of this wall are about four feet in height,[611] so that a ladder of ordinary tread with twenty rungs would rest approximately against the fourth course or the fifth. If the man stood about the middle of the ladder, which was nearly twice his own height, as is suggested in the picture, he would be working on the third or fourth course, or at the equivalent height. In either case it is implied that he is dressing the wall face, as was commonly done after the blocks had been fitted, and this being a last stage of the building, the completion of the palace is commemorated by the sculpture. The possibility that the sculptor here represents himself at work, as was not unknown in Oriental mural decorations, seems to be excluded by several considerations, the first being the use of a long ladder, which would have been unnecessary even for a second course of sculptures, and the second the absence of any design on that part of the stone where the chisel is at work. The figure standing on the ground-level is seen to be at work in similar fashion upon the lowest courses; he is represented in the act of striking his blow, the hammer being in contact with the chisel.[612]

On the same block there is depicted one of three musicians, all of whom face in the reverse direction, towards the left. They are presumably taking part in another scene, not connected at any rate with the groups of worshippers. The one in question is a trumpeter, his instrument being a plain straight trumpet with expanding end.[613] His dress is the short[261] tunic, skull-cap, and tip-tilted shoe. He wears an earring, and the pigtail is thick and conspicuous, ending in a curl well below the shoulder. The other musicians are found on the next block (e). The middle one is clad like the former, but his instrument is different. It is an inflated skin, into which he is clearly blowing, but no pipe is represented: we must suspect a drone effect, the invariable accompaniment of Oriental music.[614] The third instrument is again different, being a fine specimen of guitar, twanged, it would seem, by the fingers. It is attached by a cord to the waistbelt of the operator, and is decorated by loose ribbons which flutter from the end.

On the last block (f) an ox is represented in outline facing the original direction. Two round objects accompany the scene, the one hollowed in the centre, the other a plain disk. Upon the back of the animal there is a load, the top of which projects. It is impossible to say what the motive of this sculpture was, but being prepared for a non-religious interpretation by the scenes which precede it, it may be explained as a beast of burden, bringing a load towards the building of the palace. Possibly the round objects represent the wheels of a wagon which could not be introduced owing to lack of space upon the wall, which here comes to an end.

The series of sculptures on the right hand, which corresponds with those we have just described, opens with the representation of a religious rite. In this case it is a female deity, enthroned, that is the object of[262] adoration; but we miss any distinctive features among those who worship. The goddess is presumably to be recognised here, again, as the prototype of Kybele, the same who is similarly enshrined on Mount Sipylus,[615] and described by Pausanias as the Mother-goddess. We have been able to identify her in the representations of Iasily Kaya,[616] and on the rocks at Fraktin;[617] and on the other side of Taurus she is found in Hittite mythology at Carchemish. She was plainly a deity acceptable to all branches of the Hittite peoples, indeed under other names and guises her worship was almost general throughout the ancient east. In this case (l) we find her seated, facing right, upon a low-backed chair. Her dress is a long robe reaching to the ankles, and beneath it, upon a low stone, her feet may be seen, the left advanced, clad in shoes, the toes of which turn up and back in a completed curve—a unique instance. She wears a threefold collar, and her hair falls in a long pigtail reaching to the seat of the chair between its back and her body. The nose is angular and in line with the receding forehead, but the head-dress is broken away. With her right hand she holds something to her mouth, and with her left she holds aloft a drinking-cup in the form of a goblet, the stem of which is partly hidden by the hand, and not drawn straight. The chair on which she sits has four legs, the feet of which turn forward: the seat is slightly curved, and the frame is supported by a spindle.

The worshippers (m) are three in number, and seem to be all similar to one another; unfortunately their faces are obliterated. They stand with one foot forward, which is probably the right, as they are turned to the left towards the goddess. They seem to be clad in the[263] toga-like garment, as worn by the priest and his attendants in the corresponding scene on the opposite side. The front edge of this garment, however, is bordered in some way and so prominently displayed that it has misled many observers. The right arms of these figures are advanced with hands uplifted.[618] The left elbow is by the side and bent, and the hand, opposite the middle of the chest, clasps a straight staff about its middle, with the upper end resting upon the shoulder in a natural position. The top end does not curve (as suggested by M. Guillaume’s drawing), and if there was any embellishment it was in the addition near the middle of the crescental object seen better on a sculpture (a²) in the left hand of the approach, which is described below. The feature is not clear in this case, however. This block is followed by a third (n) still in situ, on which there may be faintly made out the representations of three other figures similar to those which precede. The next block (o) is out of place, and somewhat lower than those of this façade: none the less it is sufficiently near in position and in size for it to be probable that it followed next in the series. Upon it there is depicted with magnificent realism a bull,[619] with lowered head, as in the act of charging or preparing to toss. Another stone (p), though at hand, is separated from its neighbours, and standing now on end, does duty as the jamb of a doorway into the public wash-house of the village. This is carved with equally vigorous realism, the subject being a lion holding down a ram with his forefeet; the hind legs, too, are[264] outstretched as though he had not recovered from his spring. The tail is down and curls outwards. The lion faces left, and the ram is transverse to the latter’s profile. This block must have served as corner-stone, from the analogy of similar monuments at Sakje-Geuzi[620] and elsewhere, in which the body of the lion is carved in relief, with the head and forepart in the round. Upon his back there is to be seen a squared surface for the reception of the upper corner-stone. In this case the ram also is in high relief, with head in the round, as the length of its body corresponds with the thickness of the stone.[621] The treatment of detail on the flank and quarters of the ram obeys a definite Hittite convention, which is further illustrated by the two loose stones recently discovered. These were found[622] below and in front of the lower frontage-wall on the left (x, y). Each is carved in an upper and lower register. On the one, in the upper part, a man is represented kneeling, taking aim with bow and arrow against a wild boar which is charging him. His dress is the short tunic and skull-cap; the bow is only medium length, but the arrow is long and barbed. The animal is depicted with considerable realism, especially the snout and bristles: the tail ends in a treble point. In the register below, a stag, facing left, is nibbling at some herbage; the artist has been short of space in height, and has squeezed his subject so that the animal seems to crouch. It is followed in series by another huntsman figure, who was represented in the same attitude as the one above, but the stone at this place is very much worn, and only the arrow point and outline can be distinguished.[265] The second stone is in sequence to the left; in the upper row only a tree can be plainly made out towards the left, but the remainder may be believed to have been a continuation of the scene of chase. In the lower register the herbage (remarkably like gentian) appears to be continued on the right, and facing it is another standing stag. Two smaller but similar animals face the other way, and in the distance (shown high in the scene and small in size) there may be seen another, running left but with head turned back.

In the treatment of these animals the same peculiar conventions are observed, particularly in the delineation of the shoulder muscles, that we have noticed on the small animal under the lion’s paws (p) described above: the three sculptures are not, however, necessarily contemporary.[623] As stated previously, it seems probable that the newly found reliefs (x, y) belong to the earlier building period,[624] by reason of the circumstances of their discovery and the scenes depicted upon them. Moreover, the lion block (p) is a corner-stone, and fits no visible position in the palace entrance that we have been considering; so that there is indication of still a third building period, which was presumably the latest.[625]

Two sculptured blocks have been displaced from the walls that line the approach leading to the sphinx-gate (EB, GA), but they have been recognised from their dimensions among those lying loose about the entrance.[626] There are only two blocks on either side,[266] whereof the corner-stones remain in situ, with their ends to the line of frontage (a¹ and l in the plan); so that the loose stones fall into place between the corner-stone and the sphinx on each side (h, k in the plan). On the left hand the faces of both stones are sculptured (a², h). The nearer one is the corner-stone, on the end of which there appears, as we have seen, the image of the bull upon a pedestal. On the short side, however, the subject is quite different; and we see two pairs of male figures, the members of each pair facing towards one another. On the left each member grasps a staff: the one figure is taller than the other, so that his hand is found above the other, the staff resting on the ground and rising vertically between them. Each figure is clad in a short tunic, but little else can be made out except the earring and prominent receding nose of the taller. As in the case of the bull last described (g), the carving does not seem to have been executed in anything but outline, though that is fairly deep, and the background has been cut away. The smaller figure, which is to the left, has partly disappeared with the broken corner of the stone, and the upper part has also been considerably damaged.[627] The group on the right of the same stone is not quite the same. The taller figure faces left in this case also, but he is clad in the long toga-like garment, with skull-cap, earring, and tip-tilted shoes, and he alone touches the staff which he holds aloft with both hands, the right above the left. Projecting from the middle of the staff, and at the very place where the left hand grasps it, there is a crescental object, with interior peak, resembling in the drawing a certain kind of axe-head[267] found in Egypt, which was affixed at three points to the staff. It is difficult to form any opinion as to what this really is intended to represent; an axe-head would hardly be fixed to the middle of a staff, even though only for ceremonial purposes; while, on the other hand, by the old conventions of perspective, the curving outer edge may really represent some solid object that was round in the plane perpendicular to the surface of the stone, as seen for example in the trumpet depicted on the outer façade (d). The smaller figure in this case is very indistinct, and is represented as standing some distance beyond the greater, though facing it (his feet being shown, that is, on a higher level than the rest).

The next block (h) shows six figures.[628] These sculptures are in a poor state, but some details may be gleaned. The men are in procession or in line, all turned towards the right, facing, that is, the sphinx and the entrance to the palace. They seem to be clad in short tunics, and they wear tip-tilted shoes. Their head-dress is possibly helmet-like, as worn by the mason on the ladder described above. The knot of their girdle-rope is seen in some cases. The left hands seem all to be held up in symmetry, with their right hands near the middle of the waist, and their right elbows bent.

The counterpart to this group on the opposite side (k) is of special interest, but was not published by M. Perrot. As pointed out by Professor Ramsay,[629] who first rolled this block over and so found the sculpture, there is on the right hand of the picture the clear outline of a seated goddess, resembling in most respects the goddess adored in the front group (l), which we[268] have described and identified with Kybele. In this case the stone is broken, and only the knees and hands are seen, with part of the stool, but the analogy is sufficient. Any object that may have been held in her hand is no longer visible, and a row of points has been drilled at some time across the stone as though to sever that end from the block. The next feature of interest is the reappearance of the chief priest and priestess, whom we suppose to have been the local king and queen, and whose figures we have seen previously, on the left front (b), conducting the rites at the shrine of the Bull. Only in this case an oblation scene is represented, such as we have noticed at Malatia and at Fraktin.[630] In the restored scene the priest pours out the liquid offering with his left hand into a vase held by the goddess; while the priestess poises some large object like a pomegranate aloft. Unfortunately in this case again the head-dress of the queen cannot be made out. She is followed by two weathered figures, who resemble the attendants in the previous instance, wearing the same toga-like garment with prominent front edge.

The inner face of the corner-stone (l) on this side is not sculptured at all; but on the side of the great sphinxes (A, B) that flank the entrance, there have been considerable reliefs, among which that which remains on the right hand (q) is of special interest. Here we find a repetition of the double eagle which we last met with in the sculptures of Iasily Kaya.[631] In this case the talons of the bird are fixed on two hares, the faces of which turn outwards. There was apparently only one figure represented upon his back; whether this was male or female it is difficult to say. The form of[269] the skirt trailing behind would well agree with those of Iasily Kaya; but there are no vertical pleats. On the other hand, a scrutiny of the photograph suggests that there may be detected traces of the loose end of a toga and of the curved end of a reversed lituus, features which suggest a male figure clad like the priest-king now familiar in these sculptures. One detail is quite clear, namely the turned-up toe of the shoe, and this may be seen upon the corresponding side of the opposite sphinx, together with traces of an eagle’s head. The inner ends of these monoliths (removed, that is, from the front of the sphinxes) are too broken to detect any sculptures upon them, but in the corresponding places on the inner sphinxes (s, t) there may be found deep down the feet of a man wearing the tip-tilted shoe, and turned towards the gateway. There seems to be an analogy to the warrior figures recently found adorning a gateway at Boghaz-Keui.[632]

There are no other carvings found in situ: of those lying about we may mention a large block with a few hieroglyphic signs[633] upon it, lying near the threshold (i in Plan); another stone with a border on two sides, and a figure in high relief upon it, which seems to us to be possibly the body of a seated goddess, though in another sense it looks like a crude crouching lion.[634] It lies in a garden not far from the gateway.[635] There are also a pair of large stones that seem to have formed part of the local series, but are now irrecognisable.[636][270] They lie a mile away on the rising ground, where they have been arranged at some forgotten date to serve as the jambs of an entrance which may be still traced below the soil.

Part II.—The Town and Sculptures of Sinjerli.

Excavations conducted during three seasons at Sinjerli by the German Orient Committee[637] have thrown a flood of light upon the archæology of Northern Syria. They have also contributed a great series of monuments to our list of Hittite works; and the later history of the city and neighbourhood are further illuminated by the discovery of several inscribed monuments, which though not dealing with the period of Hittite domination, nevertheless establish for us definite historical landmarks from which to work backwards in our argument. The monuments and architectural remains discovered belong to three main periods, which may be distinguished, terminologically at any rate, as the Hittite, Aramæan, and Phœnician. With the monuments of the two later phases[638] we are not concerned, except so far as they throw light upon the story of the Hittite occupation of the site: yet even in them the dominant feeling is derived from the Hittite prototypes.

Many of the buildings, indeed a whole series of sculptures as well as historical documents, belong to the so-called Aramæan period. At this time the place was the seat of a principality identified with Samaal (or[271] Samalla), which in the eighth century B.C. was ruled at different times by local kings, named Panammu and Barrekub, under the suzerainty of Assyria. Formerly it had possibly formed part of the Hittite feudal state of Hattina,[639] which included also Iaudi and Unki; and it was absorbed by the growing power of Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser III., as would appear from the name of Panammu, Prince of Samaal, amongst his tribute lists of B.C. 738 to 735. In the next century, 670 B.C., Esarhaddon seems to have made the place a temporary residence during his warfare with Egypt and with Tyre, and he set up there a stela recording victories that were probably imaginary, showing the kings of Egypt and of Tyre held captive by a cord.

The ruins unearthed in the course of these excavations disclose to us a walled citadel or acropolis, enclosing several palaces and other buildings, and surrounded upon the plain below by a double wall which marks the limits of the township. There was considerable difference of opinion, it would seem, amongst the excavators themselves as to the dates to be assigned to the various features of the site. It is well then to recognise that the ground for this difference of opinion existed in the insufficiency of dated materials. This is no criticism of the excavators themselves, who admirably conducted their pioneer work without the aid of established local criteria to help in solving the various minor problems which arise daily in the course of an excavation. One criticism which may be made is that no systematic record of the finding of the pottery fragments seems to have been kept, such as might conceivably have helped to establish the relationship of one part of the site to another, and more[272] particularly would have been serviceable in future excavations in the north of Syria, or indeed anywhere in Hittite lands. Such an investigation, however, would have been one demanding great foresight, for the buildings were found to have been destroyed and reconstructed at various times, and to this cause probably must be attributed the fact that this investigation was not made.

The excavators seem to have been in agreement, however, as to the general growth of the site from a group of shepherds’ huts into a walled town. They recognised three different building periods, the first of which may belong to the latter part of the second millennium B.C., when the site of the city was wholly confined to the mound which later became the citadel. In this village the houses were closely packed together, and their outer walls, being continuous and without windows, presented a line of defence around the knoll. The foundations of several houses were partly traced under the sites of the palaces of later times, and though marked as unimportant, these may really be the ruins of the chieftains’ residences during the early Hittite period. The entrance to this citadel was to the south, but the excavators believed it had not yet assumed its final plan, nor had it yet been decorated with the sculptures that later rendered it so remarkable.

The next great period is not clearly separated from the first, from which it may have been derived in our judgment by natural growth: it is characterised by the laying out of the whole city and township on much the same lines as it preserved through the succeeding centuries. During this phase there sprang up a wall surrounding the whole township, an outer and inner defensive wall to the citadel, a cross-wall which seemed to[273] have marked some period of renovation, as well as the foundations of an older palace and several other minor features of rearrangement. The buildings of this time are characterised by rows of timber with stone layers between. This phase must be dated in the opinion of the excavators to twelfth century B.C.; and it is noticeable that the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser I., is found to have copied the plan of a Hittite palace (called Hilâni),[640] which corresponds exactly with the plans of the palaces built upon the citadel during the next period.

The third phase is assigned to about the eighth century B.C. The city was now fully established. On its walls rose eight hundred towers. The south gate of the citadel was finally built and adorned with sculptures like the older gateway of the city, but in more elaborate fashion. The corner-stones of the palaces were architectural lions, and their porticos were supported by columns placed upon the backs of sphinxes. Of these palaces there were three in chief, and they conformed to a standard type, which is distinguished by wing-towers on either side of the portico, and was approached by steps leading beyond to a hall around which were several chambers.[641] Thereafter, from about 750 B.C., a date which the documentary evidence supplies, houses sprang up between the palaces. There was a departure from the former strict type of the Hilâni, to admit of greater accommodation, and the purely Hittite character of the buildings was greatly modified. The city seems to have been burned about 680 B.C., corresponding with the date of Esarhaddon’s stela.

In the absence of more precise historical data, our interest is centred upon the several series of sculptures which adorned the gateways and palaces. Those which the excavators believe to be the oldest were found at the southern gateway of the city. The stones themselves are weathered, but the subjects upon them have been carefully studied and reproduced. They are carved in relief upon blocks of dolerite. The drawing is for the most part crude, but they illustrate to us the standard conventions in such Hittite works with some interesting variations. Being numerous, we shall confine ourselves to a brief description of the subjects, noting here and there details which help us in our comparative study.[642] Firstly, there is an eagle-headed winged creature with human body and limbs, clad in a short Hittite tunic, holding up both hands, and standing with his left foot advanced in the direction towards which he faces. Though no shoes are visible, the toes upon the sculpture are upturned in conformity with the Hittite pattern. A lock of hair descending by the side of the eagle’s head ends in an outward curl, which is a mark of the earlier Hittite style. A tassel also hangs from the middle of the girdle. On another block the same representation appears with little modification. A third stone shows, in crude fashion, a horse-rider; he holds up with his left hand a mask, the features upon which resemble his own, being of the usual Hittite character, with straight nose and large eye seen in profile. He rides with his heels drawn up as though clutching the horse’s side, for he has no stirrups. He is clad in a short tunic and short-sleeved vest, and upon his head there is the conical hat, though not so high as those[275] now familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui, while the curling lock or pigtail is prominent behind his neck. By his left side there is suspended a long knife or dagger, and he holds with his right hand a diminutive looped object which may be intended for his bow. The drawing of the horse is even more crude. The head might be taken for that of a zebra, but in the treatment of the shoulder muscles and the haunches there is a certain obedience to the Hittite conventions. There is another stone on which a horse-rider is portrayed in a style which is very similar, but the details are almost obliterated.

We then come to two monstrous mythological creatures, carved upon a single stone, the one above the other, to be imagined therefore as side by side. The lower one has the body of a lion on which the shoulder muscles are suggested, while the face is that of a human being, and the curling pigtail is clear behind the neck. The head-dress is a modification of the conical hat, with a sort of knob upon the top, and the brim is upturned in front and behind. One wing only is shown, being that upon the further side. The tail is upright, and ends in the head of a bird.[643] The upper monster is the same in all respects except the head, which is purely a product of the artist’s imagination, though from the hooked bill it may be supposed to be intended for that of a bird. Both creatures are walking with the left forefoot advanced and in the air. Curiously, it is the right hind leg of the lower animal that is advanced, while the corresponding leg of the upper animal is behind. This monument is perhaps the crudest of the series.

Upon the sixth block of stone there appear two male[276] figures facing one another: each is clad in a long robe, the hem of which is visible; each advances the further leg towards that of the other; each grasps in his nearer hand a short staff, and with his further hand approaches a cup-like object to his lips. They are distinguished only in that the right-hand figure has a tassel[644] descending from his girdle. They seem to wear skull-caps, and the curling pigtail is seen on the left-hand figure, while the corresponding portion of the stone on the other side is broken away. The next sculpture is somewhat broader, and shows a hunting scene in which a bowman is seen in the act of discharging his arrow. He is clad in a very short fringed tunic; the toes are upturned, and a pigtail curls away from his neck. A knife hangs, point forward, from the girdle on the further side, but the detail is obscure. Behind him, poised in the air head downwards, is an animal resembling a hare, which he may be supposed to have shot. His aim is probably directed, however, against a stag seen in the sculpture which precedes. This again is a drawing so crude as to be almost quaint. The animal stands with his head turned back towards his pursuer. An arrow has pierced his neck, and the barbs are visible beyond, while an ill-drawn dog is joining in the chase. In front of this again two other animals, represented upon a single stone, are obviously intended to suggest further quarry for the sport. The one is a stag, drawn in this case in full profile (including his antlers); while in the lower register there is seen a lion which, though it can be identified, lacks in the drawing any character that invites comment.

A more interesting, though in part less ancient,[277] series of sculptures decorated the main door of the citadel. This was placed at the southern bend of the wall, and, as it appears in its final form, resembled closely in general plan the gateways of the palace at Eyuk and of the citadel of Boghaz-Keui, which we have previously described.[645] The approach to this entrance is protected, as in those other cases, with wing-towers on either hand.[646] The width at this point of the entrance is about twelve yards, and the depth of these extra-mural towers before reaching the first doorway is six yards. The first doorway is met with almost in alignment with the contour of the wall. Its broad pilasters project eleven feet, leaving the space between them rather more; this was filled, as the excavators found reason to believe, by a double door. The space beyond—lying, that is to say, between the two doorways—forms a separate chamber the same width as the entrance and with a depth of sixteen feet, bounded on the inner or northern end by the pilasters which supported the second doorway. These are almost in alignment with the main inner walls of the entrance-towers, which thus have a total depth of fifty-five feet; their breadth is about ten yards. The main wall of the enclosure, to which they return on either side, has a thickness estimated at about fifteen feet.

The whole of the face of this entrance, both along the façade of the towers and around the bases of the pilasters, was decorated with sculptured slabs. The carving in all cases is in relief; the subjects represented are various, including deities, mythological emblems, and scenes of the chase, the treatment of which in all cases corresponds to the established Hittite motives and[278] presents in other details traces of Hittite handiwork. The date of this gateway is at least as early as, indeed probably earlier than, the stela which Esarhaddon set up in the space between the two doors in B.C. 681. Indeed, the origin of the gateway was traced by the excavators to the second great building period, though its final structure and some of its decorations belong to the later phase. We may assume that its latest sculptures were the work of the eighth century B.C.

The sculptures in this case are so numerous that we find it convenient to attach numbers to them for reference. We begin with the outer approach to the gateway from the southern end, and describe the sculptures on each face of the wall east and west, before proceeding to the next return.[647] At the approach of the doorway and facing south the series of sculptures begins on the left hand (to the west) with

No. i. Two slabs upon which the subject of decoration is a horse and chariot. The general scheme recalls the[279] chariots which we have previously found among the sculptures of Malatia and Sakje-Geuzi,[648] but there are about this one certain details unique in Hittite art, while other features previously difficult to explain are now made clear. The chariot is small and mounted upon a six-spoked wheel.[649] The two objects upon the panel of the chariot, crossing one another, are clearly in this case quivers to hold the arrows for the warrior who stands within. As in the other examples we have noticed, a spear is placed with point upwards in the back of the car, and leaning backwards. Outside, on the back of the chariot, there is seen in profile the head of a small lion, an emblem probably of the royal rank of the owner. As before, there are two men standing inside, and we see their features in this case more plainly because the driver is represented somewhat in advance of the other, who occupies the nearer part of the car, and in characteristic fashion is bending his bow with the arrow ready for its flight. This personage, although we must take him for the chief or prince of the city, wears the national Hittite dress, a short tunic belted at the waist, and a vest with short sleeves. His head-dress is more peculiar, but unfortunately it is too weathered for much detail to be gathered: there may be seen, however, a curling lock of hair upon the near side, continuous possibly with a wig upon his head, and coming to an end behind the neck. The figure in the background is similarly clad, but on his head there is a plain cap which fits tightly to the skull. Both figures are bearded, but in the latter instance the ringlets of his beard are not trimmed square. He stands with his arms outstretched, holding[280] two pairs of reins, which leads us to infer that a pair of horses is being driven, though, as in previous cases, only one is represented. This animal bears a jaunty trapping on his head, and just behind the neck (hence presumably an ornament upon the collar) there is an emblem which is taken by the excavators to resemble the head of a long-necked griffin. The trappings of the horse are plainly defined and resemble a halter firmly fixed behind the ears, though possibly from the position of the reins a bit also is employed. This point, however, is not certain. The drawing of the animal as usual is crude; it obeys certain ordinary rules in that the muscles of the shoulder and the haunch are shown in outline. Unique, however, in Hittite representations is the picture of a man prostrate between the fore and hind legs of the animal and pierced by two arrows, obviously shot by the warrior in the car. With one hand the victim tries to pluck an arrow from his thigh. The picture is almost a counterpart to those so familiar upon the walls of Egyptian temples, in which the Pharaoh may be seen slaying with his arrows his fleeing Hittite enemies. Here, however, it is not a foreign enemy that is represented. The prostrate man conforms in general character to the North Syrian type, such as may be seen even in the charioteer within the car. He is apparently without clothing except for his cap, which is close-fitting; the curl of hair behind his neck is shown in outline, and even the toes of his shoeless feet are represented by the habit of the sculptor as being upturned.

No. ii. The corresponding sculpture on the opposite face of this entrance—that is to say, on the eastern side, but still facing south, is the upright figure of a warrior armed with spear and shield as well as the customary[281] long dagger or sword.[650] Curiously enough, he faces in the same direction as the chariot, namely, towards his left, looking therefore in this instance away from the gateway. The warrior stands with his left foot and left arm advanced; his body and face shown in profile, and his shoulders in full view, in obedience to the ordinary conventions of Oriental art. He is dressed in the familiar short tunic which is fringed at the bottom, and the overlap of the garment is seen falling obliquely in front; the upper part of his body is lightly covered with a short-sleeved vest. A broad girdle passes around the waist, and the long dagger hanging from his left side seems to have a special attachment which passes over the right shoulder. His head-dress is the conical hat of the Hittite peoples with the brim upturned, but with the top expanding like a ball. On his feet are shoes the points of which are extravagantly upturned, while around the ankles there is a suggestion of ornaments or of attachments, for binding on the shoes.[651] The features of the man, though conventional, are represented with boldness. The long straight nose in line with the forehead is drawn with deliberation. From the chin there falls a square-cut beard, and a moustache also is represented. The eye is shown in full profile, and is also too large in proportion. The conventional lock of hair, like the survival of a pigtail, falling from the crown of the head, ends in a broad curl behind the neck. The shield which he holds up is obviously intended to be of the figure-of-eight shape,[652][282] though the perspective of the picture has given the artist trouble. The spear, which he holds transversely with the point down, is longer than himself. The shaft is not drawn straight, possibly suggesting the natural shape of the branch of a tree. The blade is long and pointed, with indication of a midrib. His short weapon is probably a dagger, though represented of such length that it might also be a sword. The hilt is crescental,[653] with a notch on either side of the handle,[654] and is doubtless enclosed in a sheath; the midrib is well defined along its entire length.

From the outer face we pass to the sculptures which decorate the flanking walls of the pilasters in the first doorway.

No. iii. The decoration on the left, facing therefore to the east, comprises two subjects: the one a large lion, which occupies two slabs, with its head upon the corner-stone,[655] and the other a monstrous creature holding up a rabbit. The lion[656] faces to the left, looking out therefore from the gateway. The picture is poorly drawn; there is no vigour and little life in the animal, and the artist’s conventions are exaggerated so as to be no longer artistic. The beast’s mouth is open. His further legs are advanced, and his tail falls between the two hind legs as in the standard types. The shoulder muscles are shown by a border line, which reaches in a broad curve to the back of his neck, and a collar, whether of hair or what not, is suggested behind the ears. The claws are curved and prolonged so as to be ridiculous. The body, which is found on the second stone, is elongated[283] and narrow, and hardly seems to fit on to the heavy forequarters.

No. iv. The monstrous figure which is his companion faces to the right. It is called by the excavators the God of the Chase. His body is that of a human being, clad in a short tunic, vest, and upturning shoes; while his head is that of a lion, with wide-open mouth and long exaggerated neck. A slender dagger hangs from his left side. With his outstretched left arm he holds up a rabbit by the back legs; while borne upon that hand there is a bird, which cannot be readily described, though its hooked beak suggests a vulture or a falcon. The right arm is held aloft behind the head, wielding some short curving implement like a throwing-stick, and behind that there is seen another bird with open beak.

Nos. v.-vi. The counterpart to these representations, on the opposite side of the doorway, is practically a repetition of the subject just described, only that in this case both creatures face to the right, looking out from the doorway. The leader is a lion represented even more crudely than in the last instance, and with no further instructive detail; while the only variation in the upright monster that follows is in the position of the two birds, which in the former instance were seen upon his hands, and are now perched upon his arms.

No. vii. We now come to the inner wall of the chamber, which is found between the doorways. We commence as before on the left-hand side, with the sculptures that face to the east, continuing subsequently with those on the return facing south. The first part comprises five sculptured blocks.[657] The first of these is the picture of a man facing left, clad in a short tunic and[284] upturned shoes. He wears a close skull-cap, and behind this the Hittite curl is represented. His beard is long and square-cut. His arms are aloft, and he bears a kid upon his shoulders, the head of which is turned as though looking backwards.

No. viii. The next block is filled with the scene of a Ceremonial Feast.[658] Two figures, clearly man and woman, are seated facing one another on opposite sides of a low table filled with provisions. The man is on the left, and his seat is a square-framed chair, with high back. He wears a close round skull-cap, and the Hittite lock falls behind his neck. He is represented with both beard and moustache; his nose is prominent and straight. His dress is a long robe reaching to his ankles, and the toes of his shoes are upturned as usual. His right arm is by his side and holds a long crooked staff, while with his left he is raising some object to his mouth. The figure opposite presents several differences. Her hat is cylindrical, and is covered with a long slender wavy object reaching down behind her back almost to the ground; this may be taken for a veil pushed back from before the face. Her dress also is a long robe, and her girdle, like that worn by the man, is broad, and composed of six or more strands, as of cord. Her hair is dressed in the usual curling lock or pigtail. Her features are sharp, but not so prominent as in her counterpart. Like him, with her right hand she holds up some object towards her mouth, and in her left hand, which is by her side, she holds two seemingly edible objects on stalks. She has bracelets on both her wrists. Her seat is a low stool, which, in contrast to that of the man, is seemingly without a back. For want of space[285] the table between them is set back from the picture. Only two legs are seen, and these are curved as usual. The top of the table also is curved downwards, suggesting that it was round; so too are the provisions piled upon it, which cannot, however, be identified.[659] We have previously described several sculptures of like kind, and to some extent discussed their character. The closest analogy to the present instance is one from Malatia,[660] and here as there we take the subject to be a feast on the part of the royal pair. In spite of the incongruous scenes around, the religious origin of this class of sculpture seems to be perpetuated in the priestly dress in which the male figure is clad.

No. ix. Upon the next stone there are two figures represented, both facing to the left. The leader is smaller than the other. He is clad in the usual Hittite fashion, with short tunic and skull-cap. His long, straight nose, and the curl of hair, are equally characteristic. His left arm is by his side, and his right, which is seen only in outline, is advanced, but no further details are distinguishable. The figure which follows him, facing in the same direction, is somewhat taller. He is clad differently; his dress being a long robe reaching to his ankles and ending in a fringe. The usual belt, with upper and lower border-lines, encircles the waist. The sleeves are short, and the toes of his shoes upturned. In place of a hat he clearly wears a wig, from which the Hittite curl descends behind his neck. His beard is long and conventional, and he is seemingly without moustache. His nose is straight and exaggerated in length, and the features are poorly drawn. His right hand is extended, but the left is drawn back, holding a long curving object, which rests on and reaches beyond[286] his left shoulder. He wears also a dagger on the further side of his belt.

No. x. A third man follows upon the next stone, clad like the foregoing in a long robe, which however is not fringed. This is an interesting figure, for in the place of turning-up shoes he clearly wears sandals,[661] the straps of which may be traced. His head-dress too is different: whereas in the sculpture which precedes him the hair or wig is arranged in conventional concentric bands and curls, or short plaits, the cap worn by this man is covered with plain ribs passing over from one side to the other. The Hittite curl descends, however, behind the neck, and the beard, though receding, is conventionally represented. The face of this man is striking, even though the drawing is ill done. The long nose in line with the forehead is represented more deliberately than in any other instance. The chin is receding, and the lips, though thin, are prominent and protruding. From his belt there hangs a tassel, which may be seen to consist of a loop and two loose ends, like a loop of cord doubled. Among other distinguishing features, a dagger with crescental hilt is held in his left hand, while his right hand outstretched holds an upright staff.[662]

No. xi. The stone which follows is small, and the figure upon it faces to the right. It is the representation of an archer with bent bow. He is shown with all the common features of male attire—the tunic, turned-up shoes, skull-cap, curl, girdle, and dagger. He stands upon his left leg with the right knee bent, in the act of shooting. This stone is set upon another below it,[287] in order to bring it up to the required height, and it brings the inner wall of this recess to an end. The adjoining wall advances eastward, and consists of five stones decorated with four subjects.

Nos. xii.-xiii. A stag facing to the right occupies the first two stones. It is badly drawn. The head and neck are utterly mis-shaped; the conventions of animal representations are exaggerated, and a lifeless picture is the result. It is preceded on the third stone by a kid looking backwards, the carving of which is perhaps more successful, though still displaying little artistic feeling or application. The muscles are outlined in the usual fashion.

No. xiv. A different picture, better drawn and better carved, fills the whole height of the block which follows. The subject here is a winged lion rampant, whose left paw claws the air, while the right paw is depressed. A wing rises from his near shoulder and passes behind the neck. The tail is erect behind the back, ending in a stiff curl. The muscles of his haunches are suggested with some vitality, but the claws are exaggerated.

No. xv. The next stone brings this series to an end, the corner having been rearranged in antiquity by the inclusion of a pedestal. Upon the face we are considering there is the figure of a man carrying over his right shoulder what seems to be a large double-headed stone hammer, or a double axe. He is clad in a short tunic, fringed, shoes with upturned toes, and a skull-cap so high as to be almost conical. The Hittite curl is prominent behind his neck; the strong nose may be traced, and a square-cut beard falls from his chin. He is armed also with a long dagger shown with the hilt behind the girdle and the blade or sheath[288] projecting forwards. His legs are bare as usual, and his figure is perhaps unusually powerful and muscular.

No. xvi. Passing across now to the eastern side of this recess, the wall corresponding to that which we have last described[663] is similarly adorned with four sculptured blocks, whereof the first is a repetition in detail of that which we have last described, and needs little further description. There may be noticed, however, two slight variations in the treatment of the subject. Firstly, the dagger is now suspended in the usual fashion, with the hilt shown in front of the body; and the headgear seems to be higher, more like the conical hat of the Hittites, with expanding top.[664] It may be noted also that the double axe or hammer is somewhat broader and shorter, and is marked with four short lateral lines, while the long handle is somewhat bent as though formed of the branch of a tree. This handle he grasps with both hands, the left one holding the end. There is an error of drawing in the delineation of the left hand; for though the left elbow is advanced and the hand drawn back towards the body, the palm of that hand is turned outwards, while the thumb is uppermost, and the fingers are also represented in full, pressing into the palm, instead of which the mere knuckles should be shown in front of the handle. This is an error of a kind not uncommon in oriental drawing.

No. xvii. The next block of stone is larger than the others, bearing two figures upon it, both facing as in the previous case to the observer’s right. In front there is a winged sphinx walking, followed by a[289] warrior with spear and shield in much the same style as that which we have previously described.[665] In this case the figure is so small and the surface of the stone so much decayed that no new details can be added, but with the exception of the dagger or sword, all the features of the earlier stone seem to be suggested. The upturned brim of the hat in front is perhaps more prominent. The sphinx is an interesting representation. The body is that of a lion, and the face, which is somewhat delicate, is that of a human being. A wing rises from behind the shoulder, sloping backwards. The muscles of the animal are shown in outline, and the claws or talons are exaggerated as usual. The tail is erect in the air and seems to end in the head of a bird,[666] though possibly this appearance is illusory. The face is beardless and of clear-cut Hittite type; the head-dress is a skull-cap with brim, the front peak of which upturns. A double plait falls from under it behind the head, turning upwards behind the neck and completely round, forming a prominent curl. A second double plait of hair seems to fall from behind the ear, in front of the breast of the animal, and halfway to the ground, where it ends in a curl. The delineation of the wing is unusual, the curving ribs being drawn together in the middle towards the upper part, as though that were a new starting-point for a series of feathers.

No. xviii. Another monstrous figure precedes the sphinx, in this case a griffin, with the body of the lion and the head of an eagle. A wing rises from the junction of the long neck and the body; the muscles are shown in outline; the head is ill drawn, and provided with ears; the tail hangs down behind the body.[290] A double plait falling from behind the right ear of the animal, as in the previous case, ends in a curl to the left part of the breast. The drawing, on the whole, is lacking in spirit and vitality.

No. xix. The last sculpture in this length of wall seems to represent a man, but the carving has not been carried out in detail, and except that he is facing to his right, with both arms held backwards, the outline of his figure conveys little other suggestion than the ordinary Hittite type. The wall now turns parallel with the opposite face, running north and south, the sculptures therefore facing westward. There are four of these;[667] all face towards the right, as in the previous section.

No. xx. The first is an upright monstrous figure with depressed wings; the body is that of a man, the head that of an eagle. His dress is a short tunic. His arms are raised aloft as in adoration. Behind the ear, with which the bird’s head is adorned as in the last instance, there falls a similar double plait, ending in a curl upon the throat.[668]

No. xxi. In front there is a worn representation of a seated figure, in which little detail can be discerned. The head-dress seems to be cylindrical in form, with a long veil falling as usual behind. A curling lock of hair is suggested beside the neck of the figure. The right arm is held up by the side. The chair is low and square shaped, and its high back ends in an outward curl. The general appearance of this stone bears such a marked contrast to the sharp carving of those on either side of it, that it seems probable that it was already old when the doorway was constructed in its[291] present form, and that it formed at one time the left-hand part of a Ceremonial Feast similar to that which we previously described (No. viii.), to which it would thus form the counterpart.[669]

No. xxii. It is preceded by a splendid sculpture of the Hittite storm-god Tessup, or by whatever name he should be called.[670] He wears the characteristic short tunic and upturned shoes of the Hittite people. His head-dress is the tall conical hat with expanding top. His beard is long, square-cut, and depicted as usual in successive bands of short curls or plaits. The nose is long and straight, and the eyes are large. A long curling plait of hair, resembling a pigtail, falls behind his neck and shoulder, and is seen below the right elbow, which is held up. A long dagger with crescental hilt, and the midrib clearly shown, is slung from the farther side of the belt, the handle backwards. In his left hand he holds up an emblem, like a three-pronged trident, representing, it is supposed, forked lightning, while in his right hand he wields aloft an axe-hammer with short handle, to which it is bound by threads.

No. xxiii. The next sculpture fills one side of the corner-stone. It is the representation of a woman, and though broken at the top several new features may be discerned in it, while other details are more plainly seen than in cases previously described. Her dress is a long robe reaching to the ankles, bound at the waist with a rope-girdle of six strands. This garment seems to be wrapped round the body, joining down the right side, where it is fringed or bordered in some way. Behind the figure there is the suggestion of a long veil or cloak, which, from the numerous[292] serrations in the drawing, may also have been fringed or embroidered. The top of the hat is not clear, but the front peak is turned upwards. A double plait and curl are seen as usual behind the neck, and a necklace also is shown. In her right hand she seems to grasp something like a feather, while with her left hand she holds up a round mirror, with handle similar to those frequently found in Egyptian tombs.[671] The drawing of the right hand, which is in front of the body, exhibits the same fault as we indicated in a recent instance, where, with thumb upwards, the palm of the hand is also turned outwards—an impossible position.

We have now reached the return of the wall, on the inner side of the pilaster to the outer gateway. This, like the corresponding wall on the opposite side to the left, was left blank, probably because it did not strike the eye of any one entering the gateway, and it was also in comparative darkness to any one going out. We proceed then to describe the remaining sculptures decorating the pilasters of the inner doorway, and, in the first place, those which flank the position of the doorway on either side: the corresponding walls of the outer doorway were decorated with representations of lions facing outwards.

Nos. xxiv.-xxv. In this case bulls form the leading motive of the decoration: on the left hand two stones are filled with a representation of this animal.[672] The drawing, as in the case of the lions, is too much elongated, and the sculptor has not carried out his work with realism, obeying only established conventions. The horns of the animal are both drawn forward; his shoulder muscles are shown in exaggerated outline,[293] and just above his hoof on each leg there seems to be a ring or ornament of some kind. The third block of stone bears a new design, being that of a rider facing in the same direction. The horse is small and ill-drawn; the trappings seem to be somewhat like a halter, as in the case of the chariot horses, and the rider holds a pair of reins or ropes, both of which pass on the near side of the neck. No saddle or stirrup is visible. The features of the man are not clearly preserved. His head-dress, however, is plainly the simple conical helmet or hat, and the Hittite curl may be seen falling behind. Upon his left arm, and covering his body from our view, there is borne a large round shield. Rising from behind his back, at a level with his shoulder, is an object which may be taken for a large quiver.

Nos. xxvi.-xxvii. Corresponding to these sculptures on the opposite side, the right-hand flanking wall to the inner doorway is decorated by a similar representation of a bull, facing outwards, and occupying two stones, and of a man on the left-hand side who faces in the opposite direction. The latter representation (No. xxvii.) is new. The man stands, it is evident, with his back to the animal, and probably the two subjects are distinct. He is clad in a long-fringed skirt and vest with short sleeves. A close-fitting skull-cap and the Hittite shoes complete his costume. His beard projects somewhat forward, and the Hittite lock is seen behind his neck. A long dagger or sword hangs from behind his girdle, the handle forward. He carries two objects which seem to be similar to one another, resembling clubs in outline. In his right hand he holds out one of these, which he grasps just above the level of his head; in his left hand, however, he holds[294] the other at the end of the handle which rests in a natural way upon his left shoulder.

Nos. xxviii.-xxix. There remain the sculptures which decorate the inner frontage-wall of this doorway, that is, the first wall confronting any one passing out from the citadel. On the right hand, the nearest sculptures are a pair of deer drawn only in outline, one upon each of two blocks of stone. The animals are turned towards one another, but the nearer one is looking backwards, so that both their faces are looking towards the entrance. On the opposite side, that is to the east, there are three sculptures on separate blocks of stone.

No. xxx. Of these three the first,[673] which is carved on the same block as the man with clubs (No. xxvii.) just described, is a complex monstrous figure. The body is apparently that of a lion, with mouth open and tail erect. A wing rises from behind the shoulder, and in the drawing is continuous with the conventional outline of the shoulder muscles. Upon the neck there rises the head of a human-being wearing the close skull-cap, the front brim of which upturns. The features are those familiar in the preceding sculptures, and the Hittite curl behind the neck is not omitted. A broad band, decorated in three rows, is shown around the neck. It is unfortunate that the stone shows signs of weathering, and little detail can be made out, for the representation is unique; and though the drawing is crude, it is not altogether inelegant.

No. xxxi. The next stone is not decorated, but upon the second from the corner is the picture of a warrior, with shield and spear similar to those two previously described (Nos. iii. and xvii.). The only detail which[295] may be added is the appearance of a tassel hanging from the peak of his conical hat.

No. xxxii. After a similar interval there appears the last sculpture of this wall, in which, though much weathered and hardly traceable, we seem to see the picture of a hunter holding up a rabbit with his left hand and brandishing a long spear in his right. He seems to wear a tall helmet, but other details are obscure.

Having now completed a survey of the sculptures decorating the inner walls of this entrance on either side of the doorway, we pass outside, where there were found several interesting carvings which seem to have decorated the outer flanking walls, and were seen therefore in approaching the entrance to the citadel from the south. On the right hand side, that closest the corner was decorated with an animal figure now no longer visible, while on a small stone (No. xxxiii.) placed above it there seems to be the picture of a dog, which is equally destroyed. The next four, however, are more plain.

No. xxxiv. The first is the picture of a musician seated upon a stool. He wears a long skirt with waistband, but the details of his dress and features call for no special comment. The instrument which he plays, however, is of interest, being[674] ‘a Tambur of pronounced Assyrian type, exactly similar to one of the time of Assur-nazir-pal,’ cir. 880 B.C.[675] There is a cord for attachment to the shoulder. It has been suggested, alternatively, that an instrument like a harp seen from the side is intended; the position of the musician’s hands, however, does not support this[296] view, as with his left he clasps the stem of the instrument which he plays[676] with his right. On a small stone placed above this one there is the outline of an eagle or vulture.[677]

No. xxxv. The sculpture on the next stone shows a man who seems to be in relation to the musician towards whom he is turned. His dress is a short skirt, and he seems to have worn, in addition to the upturned shoes, some prominent ornament around his ankle. The hat is close-fitting and ribbed laterally. The beard and curl are as usual. His left arm is bent, and with his fingers he seems to touch his beard; the right hand is obliterated.

Nos. xxxvi.-xxxvii. The last two sculptures of this side may be taken together, for they represent the familiar oriental scene of a pair of goats standing upon their hind legs in order to reach the upper green shoots of a shrub at which they are nibbling.

The left-hand flanking wall to the approach of this main gateway seems to have been destroyed previous to excavation, and no sculptures are on record to form the counterpart to the group last described. In our description we have endeavoured to record the actual find-spot of each stone, but we are convinced, from an examination of the original monuments, and of the excavators’ photographs, that very few of them were found in the positions for which they were originally intended. Their varying sizes, the medley and lack of sequence of the subjects they represent, all contribute to support this point of view. Nor do we share with the excavators the opinion that all the sculptures of the outer gate of the town, which we described first, are[297] necessarily older than those of the gate of the citadel; the former are more weathered, for they have been more exposed, and the latter are not, in our opinion, all contemporary with one another. We can distinguish three or four groups of subjects, which were probably ranged together, as at Eyuk and Sakje-Geuzi. Among these are the procession of mythological creatures and representations of the deities (possibly the king himself impersonating the gods[678]), the scenes of the chase, the musicians, and the Ceremonial Feast, all of which appear for the most part to be intermingled haphazard. It seems to us that the warrior-figure (No. ii.) might be as old as any sculpture of Boghaz-Keui, while others again might be as late as history sanctions. We believe them to be in the main the work of the tenth century B.C., and we regard the rearrangement to be due to one of the later restorations of the site, such as the local documents show must have been not infrequent, and possibly to the preparation of the buildings as summer palace of Esarhaddon in the seventh century B.C.

There are several further sculptures of considerable interest, including two pairs of massive lions which must have served as corner-jambs of doorways, like those of Sakje-Geuzi.[679] In this case, however, the lions are of enormous size. One pair is carved only in outline, while the work of the other is carried out in detail of admirable quality. Most striking of all, however, are two stone busts in relief, found near to the lions last mentioned.[680] Here we are face to face[298] with that remarkable facial type and head-dress which characterises the sphinxes of Eyuk.[681] The stones are very weathered, but there can be little doubt, from the front and profile views which have been published, that they are each decorated with the bust and head of a woman. There can be distinguished the roundness of face, the high cheek-bones, the band across the forehead, the curving wig over the head, and finally (but faintly) the outward curl of the ends of the wig on each side of the throat, which are plain on the sculptures of Eyuk. The nature of the sphinx-bases, another series of sculptures of striking character, will become apparent in the description of the palace-portico at Sakje-Geuzi which follows.

Part III.—The Mounds and Palace-portico at Sakje-Geuzi.

We have already described the situation of the neighbouring site of Sakje-Geuzi, and the nature of some of its surface monuments. There are several prominent mounds in this locality: the sculptures mentioned and the palace ruins lately discovered[682] are connected with the smallest of these. Soundings made in the other mounds have made it clear that their nature is similar, and their growth collateral: in all probability they contain inscribed and sculptured monuments, the careful uncovering of which would contribute new pages, if not volumes, to our knowledge of oriental history. So far as excavation has proceeded on this site, it has been sufficient to determine the nature of the main[299] fortifications, and to disclose within the walls the portico of a palace decorated with a frieze of sculptured slabs in their original positions and in fresh unweathered state. It is also demonstrated that here, at any rate, long ages of local development preceded the period which these striking monuments have rendered more conspicuous, though historically not more important. In the story of the decline and fall of the Hittite power, however, nothing could be more interesting than these sculptured monuments, with the increasing signs of Assyrian influence upon them, and the study of them becomes endowed with wider significance by comparison with those elsewhere. Not only can we measure, by the local differences and similarities to be seen in the works of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the depth to which Assyrian feeling had already permeated the Hittite arts in the early centuries of the first millennium B.C.; but by comparing these again with those of Eyuk, we may realise how far certain features of architecture and religious symbolism were originally Hittite, and though here modified by close contact with the all-absorbing Assyrian power, remained on the farther side of the Taurus free from recognisable intrusion to the end.

In the small mound excavated at Sakje-Geuzi, the form of the main enclosure was found to be practically rectangular and four-sided, enclosing an area about a hundred feet long and eighty feet wide. A slight modification in form seems to have been made, either at the time of building the whole wall or later, where the north-western wall skirts the steep edge of the mound as it approaches the northern corner. No gateway was found, the lower side of the mound opposite the palace being almost denuded even to the[300] foundations of the wall, which was found, in other places, six or eight feet below the surface. Nor did any outer rampart on the lower level correspond to the wide enclosure at Sinjerli. The wall was built of small stones revetted together by stouter facing blocks; these, though laid approximately in courses, were fitted together without much shaping and without mortar, as in Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui, and in the fortifications of Sinjerli. The wall was supported by external buttresses or mural towers, about thirteen feet wide, and projecting about three feet; these occur at intervals which decrease considerably around the steeper edge of the mound. The corners were similarly strengthened by rectangular turrets of the same projection. The wall was nearly twelve feet thick, and its foundations were proportionately deep and massive, as though destined to sustain a height of twenty feet or more, of which some thirteen feet remained preserved where the soil was deepest. The lowest courses of the foundations were built of large stones, suggestive of the masonry on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui.[683]

Within the enclosure a series of superposed buildings on the higher ground gave token of successive ages of occupation, and partially covered the site of a palace, which was found at a depth of seven or eight feet below the surface. This has not been completely uncovered, but the details of the portico and the sculptures which adorned its façade, show that it was generally similar to the chief Hittite palace (of Aramaic times) at Sinjerli, which was still in use in the eighth century B.C. Probably most of the construction had been made in unburnt brick, which had largely been reduced to mud, leaving, as usual, little trace of[301] original arrangement; but the sculptured slabs which had adorned the entrance remained standing in position, and enable the plan of the building to be traced. The doorway seems to have been divided and supported in the middle by a round column,[684] and to have been flanked on either hand by a square wing-tower, distantly suggestive of the Egyptian pylon. It was approached by two broad steps reaching from side to side, leading up to a platform or threshold paved with large flagstones. This formed the main threshold, twenty-four feet in width and seven feet in depth. The pavement was continuous in the wings only far enough to serve as foundations for the facing slabs of the corner towers: the ornamental pedestal just mentioned was also set upon it.

Turning to the scheme of decoration,[685] the main feature is found in two life-size and realistic representations of lions, one on either side, guarding as it were the entrance to the building of which they formed the corner-stones. The forequarters and heads of the animals are carved in the round, and project beyond the frontage of the wall, while the body and hindquarters are in high relief, being continuous with the other sculptures that adorn the flanking walls. In detail of execution these beasts are fashioned after the models already familiar from earlier descriptions.[686] The forepaws are side by side and slightly advanced; the further hind leg is advanced, and the tail droops down and forward, ending in a curl between the feet. The[302] mane is full, with a ruffle round the throat, and the hair is specially thick upon the shoulders and below the belly, as in other instances. That which is striking about these and, indeed, the other sculptures of this series, is their sharpness and preservation, which enables us to look upon them with renewed interest and refreshment, especially after contemplation of the weathered reliefs from which Hittite art has previously been almost wholly known and judged. Though ‘provincial’ work, the snarling defiant realism of these lions has never been surpassed in any specimen of oriental art. Architecturally, it has been noticed, they formed the corner-stones of the building, and the line of the front wall is indicated by the stops across the dressed horizontal surface of the stone above their backs, upon which they must have seemed to bear the chief weight of the towers, if not of the door-jambs themselves. The blocks out of which they were carved were proportionately more massive than the other stones of the series, in order to bear a superimposed weight as well as to enable the forepart of the animals to be represented in the round.

The subjects depicted on the slabs adjoining the lions, both those by the side along the frontage and those which immediately follow along the flanking walls of the portico, were reproduced in duplicate on either side. The nearest, along the side, shows in each case an eagle-headed winged deity with human body (a familiar Assyrian design); he stands erect, with bare feet, facing towards the lion; he proffers with the extended further hand a seed, and carries a basket in the near hand, which is held up with elbow bent. His dress is a plain skirt reaching hardly to the knees. The muscles of the legs are shown with some amount[303] of detail. The wings are four in number, of which one pair rise up from the shoulders, while the others are depressed. The head-dress ends upon the shoulder in a conspicuous curling plait. The next slab is much wider, but the height remains the same, namely about three feet. On this two figures, standing and facing towards one another, are represented in the act of fertilising the sacred tree. The further hand of each holds a seed aloft, while the near one grasps a curving knife with upturning blade. The tree is shown conventionally with three pairs of curling branches, while the stem (but not the foliage) suggests the scaly date-palm.[687] The figures are clad alike, in a short skirt reaching just to the knee, covered by a sleeveless cloak cut away in front and falling behind to the ankles. The lower part is fringed. Their hats are like the fez of modern times, with a knob in the middle on the top (in the Assyrian fashion) and a horn upon the sides. Their feet seem (but not clearly) to be shod with shoes with upturning toes. The features, beard and hair, are in a conventional Assyrian style. Above the figures, and reaching from side to side of the slab, is the emblem consisting of a winged rosette and crescent. There are twelve petals to the rosette, and the crescent is immediately below it: in these two features we may have a prototype of the star and crescent of the Turkish peoples.[688] The legs of the bird[689] survive in the composition of this emblem only as decorative features, and the talons give place to outward curves or circles, like those seen on the head-dress[304] of the sphinxes at Eyuk.[690] From these, slender pistillate objects, with divided or cup-like ends, hang down to touch the seeds within the uplifted hands of the men. Other objects like cords, but undefined, hang down from the same place, falling behind their wrists. It is suggested that possibly the fertilisation of the pistil is the subject of the scene. However that may be, we notice that, as in the previous case, the muscles of the arms and legs are strongly shown; the figures, too, are stolid, and the drawing, treatment, and subject are alike strongly Assyrian in feeling, with the exception of the peculiar and distinctive feature of the rosette and crescent. This representation completes the series of sculptures decorating the frontage of the palace, but there are others flanking the entrance on either side. Of these the lion corner-stones come first, and the details of these we have already examined.

The Lions are followed on each side by representations of winged sphinxes, the two sculptures, as in the other cases examined, being practically duplicates of one another. The creatures may be supposed to have the body of a lion, though the general pose is stiff, and the position of the front legs even suggests a bird, corresponding to the wings above; the further details of the monster, however, do not bear out this suggestion. The treatment of the head and details of this sculpture again fails to suggest anything distinctively Hittite, but only here and there the survival of Hittite feeling and tradition. Probably this art corresponds to an early phase of Semitic influence, such as was illustrated with more completeness in the excavations of Sinjerli. The first criterion is to be found in the treatment of the hair, which falls all around the back of[305] the head in ringlets, and does not curl backward in a single bunch, in the fashion characteristic of the Hittite figures of Marash, Carchemish, and Bor. The beard is treated in similar fashion, while upon the cheeks it is represented by little coils or concentric circles. The features of the man are also much softer and less pronounced than those with which we are familiar in Hittite works of Asia Minor. The head-dress is a sort of helmet, a close-fitting rounded hat with a knob on the top. The wings of this creature are folded by the side, extending beyond the tail, and the whole of the breast is covered as it were with down. The hindquarters of the animal are strongly delineated, and the treatment here certainly suggests a lion’s body. The tail is held aloft and comes to an end in the shape of a bird’s head, but whether of a swan or goose is not clear. Though we fail to comprehend the full meaning of the symbolism involved in this detail, it is full of interesting suggestions.[691] This feature is found on each sphinx; and there may also be traced, more clearly on the right than on the left, the design of a horn upon the helmet. On the right-hand side the series of sculptures now terminates, the corner having been disarranged at some time. Two or three loose slabs, with traces of sculpture upon them, were found in the neighbourhood, and obviously had completed the decoration of the inner corner. The sculptures seem to represent men, two of them clad in long robes with fringed border, and a third presumably clad in a short tunic. On one of the former, the figure is preserved below the shoulders, and there may be seen the outline[306] of a long dagger, or knife, in its sheath, with a fringed tassel[692] probably in attachment with its handle. Owing to the condition of the stone, it cannot be seen whether this tassel was attached to a girdle or whether it was independent; nor indeed is it clear that it hangs actually from the handle of the dirk. The other stones of this corner are too much weathered and broken for further instructive details to be made out with certainty.

Upon the left-hand side, however, the series is complete, and remains in good condition in its original position. Following the sphinx there comes the figure of a man who, from his position, is the most important human being of the series, and must be deemed therefore to be the priest-dynast of the locality. The figure itself faces naturally to our left, following the direction of the leading sculptures, looking, that is, towards the outside of the palace. In the treatment of this sculpture there is revealed an interesting mixture of original Hittite motive with the change brought about, as we suppose, by Semitic infusion. The robe in which he is clad is a survival of the toga so familiar in the sculptures of Asia Minor.[693] The loose folds pass from behind over the right shoulder and are clasped by his left hand. The garment seems to hang quite loosely, and numerous folds in it are shown, following the direction in which it is wrapped around him. The sleeves of the undervest may also be seen, coming to an end as usual at the elbow. His feet are shod with sandals, and there are large bracelets upon his wrists. His hair is dressed in a series of wavy curls, arranged[307] from side to side across the top of the head, and bound by a narrow fillet, which is decorated at intervals with concentric circles. The features of this personage are crudely represented: the eye is shown in full, and exaggerated in size; the nose, in contradistinction to the usual Hittite representations, is small and almost Mongoloid; the lips are heavy. The beard, both upon the cheek and where it hangs freely, is in the style illustrated by the sphinx figure which precedes, but the hair obeys the older convention to a certain extent, being bunched together behind the neck and curling backwards. In his right hand the king-priest holds out something like a cup with a long stem, the precise nature of which is not evident. It can hardly be thought that he is offering to either of the creatures that precede him, inasmuch as they are facing away from him. It seems more likely, from the sculptures which follow, that he is simply refreshing himself with wine. The series is continued, but not upon the same face of the wall; for the stone upon which the priest-king is carved proved to be the corner-stone, marking the return of the inner wall of the wing-tower on that side. On this inner wall two further sculptures are found on two separate slabs. With these the series comes to an end, though it is not clear that the actual corner of the tower is indicated by this discontinuity. Both figures are those of men: both are carved with noticeable skill, and remarkably preserved. They seem to be attendants in the palace or personal servants of the king, for they are clad alike and carry in their hands objects for the king’s use. Their dress is a long robe with a fringe-like band some little way above the hem. Their feet are shod with sandals, the toes of which are slightly upturned. They wear no ornaments,[308] and round their heads there is only a plain fillet ending in a fringed bow. Both stand facing to their right, following their leader, with their right feet advanced, their right arms extended, and the left arms held up by the side of the body. The leader holds up in his right hand what seems to be a fly-whisk, while with his left he holds a pendent object like a piece of leather or ribbon ending in a fringe. This probably explains the representation on the corresponding stone on the opposite side, and it is significant that it seems to have no connection with the dagger, which is suspended from his waist by an attachment passing over the right shoulder. It is interesting to note also that this stone seems to have been carved in situ, for part of the whisk is found upon the corner-stone which precedes it, while the end of the dagger is found in like manner on the stone which follows. The second figure holds aloft a bird carved like a vulture, but from its size and the general nature of the subject it must be taken for a falcon.[694] In his left hand the falconer holds the ‘lure,’ a sling, to which there was generally attached a bell or similar object, to be thrown after the bird to attract it to return. This person also carries a dagger, suspended in like manner by an attachment which passes over the right shoulder, and is connected with the sheath appropriately at two points. The handle of this dagger is peculiar, suggesting a small notch in the metal between the hilt and the blade.

There remains to be mentioned one striking sculptured[309] object, placed as we have mentioned in the middle of the portico between the wing-towers, and clearly defined as the base of an architectural column to support the doorway. The design, in brief, suggests that the weight of the drum was borne upon the backs of two sphinxes standing side by side. All round the top edge the pedestal is decorated with a design of numerous fingers placed side by side, the nails upwards; a similar object was found, as we have seen, at Sinjerli, upon which this detail also was clear. The rest of the sculpture is more simple, but equally striking, not merely from the nature of the design, but from the beautiful quality of its execution. The body of each sphinx seems to be that of an elongated lion. Two paws are seen in front, three from the side and two from behind, so that we have a new convention illustrated, which seems to be peculiar to Hittite art. It recalls that of Assyrian art, but nevertheless differs essentially. In both cases such animals are represented with five legs, in order to give a realistic effect to each of the three points of view. But in Assyrian art the front leg on the remote side would have been repeated in the side view; whereas here it is the hind leg which is duplicated. The human portrait upon this animal is remarkable, recalling to a striking degree the head of the sphinx at Eyuk, and to a certain extent the portrait statue of the Egyptian queen Nefret, to which we have alluded.[695] It seems without doubt to represent a female. The face is full, the lips are firm and somewhat severe, the eyes are hollowed as for the reception of inlaid precious stones. The hair hangs in two ringlets on either side, between which the ear[310] can be seen. Upon the head there is placed a close-fitting wig, or head-dress of that character, made, as we may suspect, of plaited hair or of fine ropework, the strands of which run from front to back. It ends with the shoulders in a triple border, and is decorated on either side of the head with horn-like emblems.[696]

As in the case of the sphinx upon the flanking wall, the breast of this creature is covered with down as though partaking of the scheme completed by the wings, which as in the former case are folded by the side. These cover the upper half of the body only, below which the belly and hindquarters of the animal may be seen, strongly though somewhat conventionally delineated. As in the former cases of lion sculptures there is copious hair under the belly, which in this instance recurs also behind the forepaws and on the hinderquarters. The tail descends between the hind legs, curling forward towards the ground, where with a short backward curl its bushy end may be traced. The two sphinxes are similar in all respects to one another, but the head of one was found to have been broken away. The whole composition of this sculpture is so complex that it may be readily believed that it was not designed from an architectural point of view alone, as the mere support for a plain column. The excavators indeed found reason to believe that in some secondary use of the site, after the upper walling of this palace had been destroyed, the flat top of this[311] pedestal had served as an altar or its equivalent, and by the side of it they found numerous burnt bones and cinders. It is clear, however, that in its original inception the palace doorway must have required a column to help the broad span between the wing-towers, which amounted to more than twenty-three feet. We are inclined to believe that possibly such a column, in conformity with the general design of the building, may have been in the form of a great statue, similar for example to that of Panammu found at Gerdschein near to Sinjerli,[697] and more particularly to the round column-figure found at Palanga.[698] This conclusion is, however, merely hypothetical, based purely on the elaborate nature of the pedestal, and on the rounded nature of the statues in question. It would however, be well accordant with the phase of oriental art to which the sculptures pertain.

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

In regard to the art illustrated by these subjects in general they lead us, after careful comparison with other Hittite monuments and with the ‘Aramaic’ monuments of Sinjerli,[699] to the conclusion that they represent an intermediate stage between the one and the other.[700] We cannot, from the internal evidence, decide whether[312] this appearance is due to the influence of Hittite dominion over an Aramæan population, or to the supersession of a Hittite stronghold by Semitic rulers.

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

There can be no doubt that in this record of two thousand fragments of pottery in their original stratification, there is valuable material for future comparative study. For the present, however, that which[313] prevents the immediate application of this material to the problem of chronology is the remarkable fact that nearly all the early painted fabrics,[702] which constitute by far the larger portion of objects found in the course of this section, seem to be local, or at any rate unlike any others upon record. In the course of future excavations in this and other localities, doubtless relations will be established which will enable archæologists to connect the growth of this site with the established chronology of some civilisation like that of Egypt or Assyria. For the present the only relations suggested, and these are not clearly established, are firstly, in regard to the black pottery, sometimes decorated with a white incised pattern, which resembles in general character that found sparsely in the Troad by Schliemann[703] and by Dr. Arthur Evans in the neolithic and earliest ‘Minoan’ strata of Crete;[704] secondly, a few fragments of a peculiar fabric with black pattern on yellow base, belonging at Sakje-Geuzi to the neolithic epoch, and corresponding closely to some of the age of Naram-Sin, found freely by M. de Morgan in his excavations at Susa;[705] and, thirdly, some general resemblance between individual fragments of the painted fabrics and those found by Dr. Pumpelly in Turkestan,[706] by Professor Petrie in the Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty at Abydos,[707] and more especially by[314] Dr. Evans in the early Minoan strata of Crete.[708] The precise nature of these suggested relations is not yet made clear, but for our purpose it is of interest to realise that it is so remote. So far as its Ceramic art is concerned, the Hittite civilisation for many ages developed independently. Further, it is established that the growth of that civilisation may be traced back in the locality for several thousand years, a fact which these excavations have for the first time demonstrated.

In this concluding chapter we shall endeavour to relate the material evidences of Hittite handiwork to the story of their doings. The monuments have been described, their disposition noted, and in some cases the materials for dating them have been defined; but the outline of Hittite history as sketched in the second chapter remains to be filled in with such details as can be gleaned from the literary sources both old and new. The old sources are well known. They include the letters found at Tell el Amarna,[709] the decorative scenes and inscriptions on the walls of Egyptian temples,[710] and the archives of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings. In our use of these we must rely on the published translations and critical discussions of philologists,[711] which we can do with more reliance in that this branch of investigation is associated with such names as Maspero, Meyer, Müller, Sayce, Winckler, Hommel, Knudtzon, Reinach. The new sources are the archives of the Hatti kings, the first dynasty of the Hittites yet visible to history, discovered[316] recently amid the ruins of their capital at Boghaz-Keui.[712] These documents are at the beginning contemporary with the Tell el Amarna letters, which they supplement and substantiate, and they range in date practically as far as the Egyptian references, by the side of which they provide a series of important synchronisms. These new archives have not yet been published in full, so that we do not reap the advantage of others’ criticisms in this case. But Dr. Winckler has given the world the first fruits of his labours,[713] which embody the materials for many long-lost pages of oriental history. These we have endeavoured to analyse, for they are difficult and obscurely put forward, and we shall express them in what appears to us to be their historical sequence and relationship.

As usual, however, in these investigations, the purely archæological evidences throw light on the settlement of the Hittites long before the earliest literary allusions. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi,[714] at the southern foot of Taurus, illustrates the development of local culture during a continuous occupation of the site throughout a period which is not overestimated as beginning before 3000 B.C. and lasting down to the time of Assyrian domination. We have already seen that the earliest settlers shared some features of their neolithic culture in common with Susa on the one hand and the Troad and even Crete on the other.[715] Was all western Asia and the Ægean infused with a common germ of civilisation in those days, or was this settlement in remote antiquity an incident in a migration[317] from one point to the other? Unfortunately we have no collateral evidence as to the plateau of Asia Minor to help in answering these questions; yet if the Hittite culture had taken root in the north of Syria before the second millennium B.C., it may readily be believed that it had been planted equally long upon the tableland, where in historic times its chief power is found. The high standard of Hittite culture, as revealed by their own archives and monuments at the dawn of their history in the fourteenth century B.C., argues in itself a long period of settlement and development under civilised conditions; while a long contact with the culture of the Euphrates valley is indicated also by the fact that their earliest international correspondence was conducted in the Assyro-Babylonian language, while their scribes had sufficient intimacy with the cuneiform system of writing to be able to apply it to their own language, which was radically different. The great deities of the Hittite pantheon also have their prototypes in Babylonia.

Of what stock, then, were these early settlers, and whence did they come? Did they form part of a great migration from the East, like the Turks in modern history, according to an old school of thought? were they Semitic? or did they pass like the Phrygian conquerors, from Europe into Asia, absorbing and adopting Eastern thought and habits, a veritable mirage orientale? That the Hittites were not autochthonous, if such a term has any meaning, is apparent already, and will become more clear as we proceed, from the complexity of their pantheon and the mingled elements of their peoples. We must from the outset beware also of the pitfall of inconsistent terminology. The name Hittite is commonly employed in three[318] senses which we must distinguish: it may be used in reference to the whole confederacy of peoples as depicted in the Egyptian scenes, or to the smaller and more homogeneous band of Hittite tribes, or to the dominant tribe of Hatti within the Halys, which seems to have given its name in antiquity to the whole. The Egyptian artists indeed recognised the mixed character of the confederates in their day, and noted some of their peculiarities, but did not distinguish between them with sufficient clearness or consistency for our purpose. Two types which we reproduce[716] will serve to illustrate the wide difference of racial character among the Hittite allies obvious to the Egyptians in the time of Rameses the Great. The one is Mongoloid, characterised by a definite pigtail,[717] oblique eyes, high cheek-bones; in short, a recognisable Tartar type. We are inclined to place it in the vicinity of Carchemish, if not beyond the Euphrates, upon the main trade route with the East. The other is a clean-cut proto-Greek type, with a special form of shield, which we are tempted to assign to Lydia or some part of western Asia Minor. The Amorites, an Aramæan (Semitic) people, are also conspicuous among the allies of these times, being distinguished by a projecting beard, receding forehead, and other features.[718] These vast differences among the peoples united under[319] the Hatti leadership in the thirteenth century B.C. are now explained historically, as will become evident later in this chapter. They reveal to us a population of the Hittite lands no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day. They do not, however, throw any light upon the question of the original race of the Hittite tribes. These are commonly identified with another type with a long head, long nose, and receding forehead, deep-set eyes somewhat obliquely placed, and yellow, wrinkled skin. A sharp, firm line runs down from beside the nostril on either side of the lips.[719] On the walls of the Ramesseum, where it is best seen, this type is associated with Aleppo, and we must recognise in it an element of the Hittite peoples; but on comparing it with the Hittite sculptures of Sinjerli, Boghaz-Keui, and elsewhere, we must regard it as still hypothetical whether even the central Hittite states were strictly homogeneous in race. The Hatti themselves, indeed, we look on as a dominant conquering element, differing again, maybe, considerably from other Hittite peoples[720] in a manner best explained by considering the dominance of the Seljûks or the Osmanlis in later times, or most analogous perhaps to the position of the Phrygian rulers in antiquity amongst other peoples of kindred race who had preceded them.

Though we fail to identify the Hittite race,[721] there is some general indication of the direction whence they came. We have dismissed the direct evidence of the pigtailed element amongst the Hittite peoples, in spite[320] of the temptation of the pigtails on the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,[722] and the description of a pigtailed leader as a royal Hittite, lest we should push the argument there—from further than might be warranted. We may regard these facts, however, as a general indication of relationship with the East. The contact with Babylonia has been already argued, and we must recall the singular relations between the painted pottery of Sakje-Geuzi with that of Turkestan, extending over a long range of post-neolithic culture.[723] Another link, not previously mentioned, is the early employment by the Hittites of the horse, dating from at least the beginning of the second millennium B.C.,[724] and the antiquity of the remains of horses found equally in the mounds of Turkestan.[725] Another item of evidence on this question may be found in the footgear of the Hittites, which, except in the later sculptures of North Syria, is always represented, as we have seen, as a shoe or boot with upturned toe.[726] This feature is now specially characteristic of the Tartar peoples, and hence another eastward connection is suggested. But it is not so exclusively; the Arabs (who borrowed it in the Middle Ages from the Turks) employ it in the desert sands, and in the more special form in question it may be found in many mountain countries, for example Greece, and it has long been used in Crete.[321] It is commonly supposed to be the natural form of snow-shoe for highland regions, though the shepherds of the Pyrenees, who also use it, believe it to be specially adapted to walking upon broken and stony ground. However that may be, most scholars are agreed that it argues a mountain origin for its Hittite wearers,[727] and this suggestion is borne out by the mountain cults found in the Hittite pantheon.[728] The mountains by which the Hittites reached the plateau of Asia Minor are not far to seek; they lie eastward, in Armenia, the Caucasus, and the Taurus.

We do not press the argument of these suggestions, but only regret the paucity of evidence available. For the present we must be content that we have been able to find some evidence as to the antiquity of the Hittite settlement. We cannot suppose that the mounds of Sakje-Geuzi stand alone: indeed a myriad others, that remain unexamined,[729] are evidence to the contrary, and considerable inference may be made with these as basis from the disposition of the Hittite tribes as revealed by the first light of history. One powerful branch must have early seized the position of Carchemish, while others settled in the plains that lie westward of the Euphrates. Others again found their homes in the valleys of the Kara Su and the Orontes, while some branches passed the Lebanon and mingled with the aboriginal people of southern Syria, where they were gradually submerged. If we are right in our argument, the habitable valleys of the Taurus and anti-Taurus regions must have been earlier peopled; and to judge from the relationship we have[322] indicated, the western extension of these tribes in Asia Minor must have been considerable even as early as neolithic times. Whether the Hatti rulers themselves were part of a later immigration is still open to consideration; upon that point we await further evidence. The Hittites would seem to have brought with them (sooner or later) a new cycle of deities, with Babylonian prototypes, including their national Sandes or Sandan, lord of heaven, a god of the skies with lightning in his hand, in one of his various forms; and they seem to have absorbed into their pantheon a number of acceptable nature-cults, like the worship of mountains and streams and of the mother-goddess of earth, already practised by an earlier population whom they overlaid. The sun-god they seem to have received from contact with the Semite, and to have identified him with their own chief god. With regard to other aspects of their primitive culture, we can argue from the one site of Sakje-Geuzi alone, and from the reflected witness of later times. There is only one general assumption, therefore, that we make, that once settled in a metal-producing country, in contact with the rich mines of the Caucasus,[730] and the copper sources in Cyprus and the Taurus, their civilisation would share to the full in the stimulus of the copper and bronze ages as these arose. It is at the latter stage that they emerge into the full light of history[731] in the fourteenth century B.C.

The earliest allusions to the Hittites, however, in oriental records take us back to the period of the great[323] movements in western Asia some five or six centuries before. These references are naturally scanty, but they occur in the records of three different peoples, and are in a sense parallel to one another, so that the main facts bear the stamp of historical accuracy. From the Babylonian archives it appears that about 1800 B.C., or before, the Hittites were chiefly responsible for the overthrow of the first dynasty that ruled at Babylon;[732] while of even earlier date in the same dynasty are references to the king of the Hittites and his doings, contained in the great Babylonian work on astrology,[733] and there is an allusion of possibly much older date.[734] The mention of the Hittites at the beginning of the second millennium is almost synchronous with the earliest dated reference from Egyptian sources, in an inscription of the twelfth dynasty,[735] from which it would appear that settlements of the Hittites had been established in southern Syria, and that these were among the objectives of a military expedition. The historical setting of this record is apparent, and it is confirmed and amplified by the references in Hebrew history, which claim our consideration no less than the inscriptions carved by loyal subjects of the Pharaoh. These passages show us that in local tradition of the time of the Patriarchs the Hittite settlements were no matter for special comment.[736] On the other hand, their[324] name was practically synonymous with that of Canaanites,[737] and, like the Amorites, they were long looked upon as one of the settled peoples of the land.[738] For some centuries, however, we are without dated records, nor is there any direct evidence as to the history and doings of the Hittites until the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty. One thing, however, is clear, that the ‘Hyksos’ peoples who overran Egypt in the meanwhile were deeply imbued with the elements of a culture which, if not purely Hittite nor directly traceable to them at this date, was still largely shared by the Hittites in historic times.[739] The people that had overthrown the dynasty of Babylon was clearly an established power already organised.

Though the earliest kings[740] and dynasties of the[325] Hittites remain unknown, the nature of the Hittite organisation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. is now made clear by the archives recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui. These cover the reigns of six generations of the Hatti dynasty of kings, making allusion in all to eight of their sovereigns. They include treaties with internal states in Syria and elsewhere, with Mitanni, with the Amorites, and with Egypt, most of them prefaced by historical notes of events leading up to the conclusion of the treaty in question. There is also correspondence of a diplomatic character with the courts of Thebes, of Babylonia and of Mitanni, and other documents of varied sorts. These are written in cuneiform, and the language employed in foreign affairs is the Assyro-Babylonian: only in some internal matters the Hittite language is used. Though the documents have not yet disclosed the full nature of their contents, the archives as a whole[741] have already thrown as much light upon the history of the Hittites at this period as did the Tell el Amarna tablets, with which they are in part contemporary, on the foreign affairs of Egypt during the eighteenth dynasty.

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

Though we have no clear allusion to the kingdoms in the Taurus regions at this time, we may infer that the two great Hittite states of Arzawa[744] and[327] Khali-rabbat,[745] which lay on either side of his pathway, were already allied with him in one or other of these ways, before he descended to the north of Syria, and ventured to enter the political arena of western Asia, where the older powers were stationed to resist his oncoming. The whole of Syria as far northward as Aleppo had indeed for something like a century been within the sphere of influence of the Pharaohs. It is claimed for the Egyptian monarch Thothmes I. that before the close of the sixteenth century B.C. he had set up the boundary of his empire somewhere near Carchemish on the Euphrates, in the ‘land of Naharain.’ Three of his successors by occasional expeditions, beginning with that of Thothmes III. about 1469 B.C.,[746] had sought to retain this boundary, and had come into conflict with the Hittite tribes already settled in these regions. These seem to have submitted like other northern states, nominally at any rate, to the Egyptian supremacy, and to have regularly sent their tribute to the Pharaoh. But though Amenhetep III. inherited the full power and dominion of his predecessors, he seems[328] to have found it necessary to send an expedition at the beginning of his reign to maintain his suzerainty.

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

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

His first operations were thus directed against Nukhasse, a region which we suppose to have extended northwards of Aleppo as far as Killiz, including some of the ancient cities of the plain. He took all the lands of the several states[751] that were included in this district. The king, Sarrupsi, fled, but his relatives were made prisoners, and a servant of the dethroned king was set up in his stead, doubtless as a vassal. The conqueror was turning his attention to the district of[331] Abîna, being disposed to leave Kinza unmolested, when the king of the latter district, Sutatarra, and his son Aitakama, with their war chariots, bore down upon him and gave battle. Though he had been prepared to respect these adversaries, Subbi-luliuma was not slow to respond to and punish this provocation: the king and his son, together with many of the chiefs, were taken prisoners and sent in triumph to the capital. The fate of Sutatarra is unknown, but Aitakama reappeared later, reinstated in his kingdom, and a faithful ally of the Hittite, who entrusted him with the command of the Syrian armies.[752] The land of Kinza is unplaced, but it seems to have lain westward, possibly on the lower Orontes, corresponding with the district of Hamath or the kingdom of the Hattina in later times. It was probably peopled with a Hittite tribe, to judge from the nature of these chieftains’ names and the position subsequently accorded to Aitakama. Realising in these incidents the constant influence of Mitanni, and attributing them to the hostile attitude of Tushratta, Subbi-luliuma now deemed it desirable to establish his prestige, and so turned eastward, ready, if necessary, to join issue with Tushratta. In a single year he added to his territory the whole region of the plains lying between the mountains and the Euphrates.[753] In this campaign he seems to have overrun the Aramæan district of Am (or Amma), and with the aid of his allies to have captured several cities.[754] But the real objective of the Hittite leader was the destruction of the[332] Mitannian supremacy and power. Therefore crossing the Euphrates[755] he ‘went forth against the might of the king Tushratta,’ and marched against the lands of Isuwa, which are supposed to have bordered on the Tigris, bringing its people into subjection, as it would appear his father had done in some previous campaign hitherto unrecorded.[756] This record is difficult to understand, but we are led to infer that Tushratta did not actually give battle to him on this expedition, and even when the conqueror made his way northwards into the mountainous region of Alshe, the Mitannian king still hesitated to join issue with him.[757] The newly acquired territory was handed over to a confederate, Antaraki, ‘as a present.’

The power of Tushratta would seem, indeed, to have been crushed by these irresistible exploits;[758] the kingdom fell into anarchy, and the king himself was shortly afterwards murdered, giving the Hittite a further occasion for interference in its affairs, an opportunity which we shall find he was not slow to seize. Meanwhile, however, disaffection had shown itself in the North of Syria, seemingly as a result of the overtures of Pharaoh’s emissaries.[759] ‘Wheeling about,’ the record says,[760] Subbi-luliuma recrossed the Euphrates and descended on Aleppo. His route lay probably from Malatia by[333] way of Samsat or Marash, and the absence of comment at this stage confirms our impression that this region was already subject to him, though there is a suggestion that a generation previously it had been for a time in the hands of the Mitannians.[761] The subjection of Aleppo[762] and the neighbouring lands and cities of Nî and Katna[763] was swiftly effected, and at first these districts were placed under the rule of one Akia, king of Arakhti; but on the disaffection of this chief they were reduced to direct government by Hittite officials and became a province of the kingdom. A chieftain who remained loyal to Egypt made an effort about this time to recover the land of Am for the Pharaoh, but he was repulsed by Aitakama with the Hatti.[764] Aitakama thus reappears on the scene, and from the same record it is clear that he had been reinstated in his father’s kingdom. He now appears as the most influential agent of the Hittite king in the north of Syria, entrusted with the conduct of missions and command of troops, even while protesting to the Pharaoh[765] that he was maligned by those who accused him of infidelity. His attempts to seduce the frontier states from their old allegiance had been reported to the Pharaoh by Akizzi,[766] who wrote from Katna, apparently on the eve of the events we have just recorded, appealing at the same time in despair for help against the catastrophe that threatened. To Aitakama’s proposals Akizzi replied[334] that though he should die he would not go over to the king of the Hatti. With him there remained faithful the kings of Nukhasse, of Nî, of Zinzar, and of Tunanat, all city-states near Aleppo, while with the Hittite there were leagued the kings of Rukhizi and Lapana, whose names were Arzawia and Teuwatti. We have seen that Akizzi’s appeal and his fidelity were alike in vain. The Pharaoh was powerless or unwilling to interpose; resistance unsupported was impossible; and Subbi-luliuma with his generals easily made good his victories. Akizzi himself seems to have escaped from Katna before that city fell,[767] but the king of Nî, by name Takua,[768] and his brother Aki-tessub were among the prisoners.

The triumph of the Hittite arms in these, and doubtless other minor expeditions, had now established the authority of the Hittite king throughout the region of northern Syria, and had extended his frontier until it bordered on that of the Amorites, hitherto professed allies of the Pharaoh. These early settlers have recently been recognised as of Aramaic (Semitic) stock; in records of Babylonia as old as the time of Hammurabi, from which this inference is made, they are described as living in the western deserts, and now appear to have pushed gradually northward, until they had occupied, like Bedouin, all the habitable fringe of the tongue of desert lying between Mesopotamia and the Lebanon. Their patriarch, Ebed-Asherah, now found himself in the same dilemma as Aitakama and other northern chieftains had before[335] him, but the rapid advance of the Hittite power left him little time for hesitation.[769] He and his sons were the recognised leaders of the Amorite tribes in peace and policy and war. They had watched with anxiety the approach of the Hittite leader on Tunip from Nukhasse,[770] and the failure of the Pharaoh to send them support could not but have added to their concern. Quick by instinct to read the signs of the times, they covertly came to an understanding with the chief of Kadesh, a city already under the Hittite suzerainty, if not actually within the domain of Aitakama. At the same time Aziru, the most active of the sons of Ebed-Asherah, making pretence of still serving his old master, cast his eye upon the city of Sumur as his nearest prize. The change of attitude and subtle dealings of the Amorites did not escape the notice of the Pharaoh’s emissary, who reported Sumur to be in great danger though not yet fallen, and Ebed-Asherah’s sons as minions of the new northern power.[771] The Egyptian sovereign was grieved but inactive. In a letter addressed to the Amorite chief[772] he charged them with their duplicity, and ordered the appearance of Aziru as a hostage at his court. The latter, however, evaded the command. He would seem to have already brought about the downfall of Sumur and other cities, and felt some natural hesitation in accepting his sovereign’s invitation. He found also a pretext for postponing the rebuilding of Sumur as commanded,[773] and still protested his fidelity. In response, however, to a more[336] peremptory summons, in spite of shifts and subterfuges, Aziru appeared ultimately at Thebes[774] for the judgment of his case. But the Amorites had influence at court, as appears from a letter of their patriarch to one of the officials asking for his son’s release.[775] Amon ‘passed sentence’ on Aziru and ‘granted him his life.’[776] The mercy extended to Aziru, however, was unavailing; and further allegiance to the Pharaoh could only have proved fatal to the best interests of his people. The Hittite cause was clearly triumphing, indeed the Egyptian made no apparent effort to resist his oncoming; in any case the Amorite hastened to take the winning side. Betaking himself to the Hittite, Aziru ‘cast himself under the feet of Subbi-luliuma,’ who ‘granted him grace.’[777] The price of the Amorite vassalage appears in another record as three hundred shekels of gold paid yearly.[778]

With the Amorites on his side it would appear that the Hittite leader might now have swept onwards to the frontiers of Egypt, but at this stage the southerly progress of the Hittite arms seems to have been stayed. Occupied probably with other campaigns of similar character for the expansion of his power in Asia Minor, Subbi-luliuma had been obliged to entrust the conduct of much of his Syrian wars to Aitagama, and possibly he found that the region of the Lebanon was a frontier already distant enough for effective control. However that may be, he found it desirable to come to terms with the Pharaoh, and concluded with him[337] an alliance,[779] which brought their struggle for some time to an end.

Some of the events which we have described seem to have happened with a swiftness surprising even in oriental history, but the Great King probably foresaw that a sterner task lay before him in the consolidation of his empire. Here again fortune proved to be on his side, by removing the two chief sources of inquietude on his Asiatic frontiers. In Egypt, Amenhetep IV., who had succeeded to the throne about 1375 B.C., was too young or too busily occupied with home affairs to take any active interest in the possession of Syria, and was only too glad to renew the Hittite treaty in due course.[780] Babylonia, where the kings of Karduniash sat upon the throne, was too distant to give occasion for anxiety, and in addition the broad tract subject to the Amorite régime was wedged between their respective spheres of influence. In the East the tragic development of affairs among the Mitannians,[781] the murder of Tushratta, the flight of the heir-apparent from the usurper and patricide, Sutatarra, and the invasion of the land by the Assyrians and by the mountaineers of Alshe, were a series of events all favourable to the Hittite cause. The armies of Subbi-luliuma crossed the Euphrates to make good his claim to a portion of the disintegrated kingdom, and when he realised the distressful condition which the anarchy of these times had brought about, he even sent his administrators with cattle, sheep, and horses to re-establish the population.[782] Finally, when the fugitive[338] Mattiuaza, after a vain appeal to the court of Babylon,[783] turned to him for protection, he saw and grasped his opportunity. The oracle was consulted, and ‘the Hittite god gave judgment in favour of Mattiuaza, Tushratta’s son’ (as against Sutatarra, whom he had previously supported). Taking, therefore, the unhappy prince by the hand, Subbi-luliuma gave him one of his daughters to wife, and set him upon the remnants of his father’s throne. Terms of allegiance were defined, and the new but reduced kingdom of Mitanni was created a special Protectorate.[784] The gods of both peoples were invoked as guardians of the treaty. The frontier of Subbi-luliuma on the Euphrates was amply secured by the gratitude of the re-established king.

The empire of the Hittites beyond Taurus had now reached, under Subbi-luliuma, its furthest historical extent; and in Asia Minor, though direct evidence is not yet available, we may infer that his sway had been extended westward far beyond the confines of the Halys, even if his arms had not already penetrated to the Lydian coast.[785] We thus see in Subbi-luliuma the founder of the Hittite empire under the dynasty of the Hatti, which for nearly two hundred years continued to hold its own amid the constant tremblings of the balance of oriental power throughout this time. Relieved for the present from their frontier campaigns, the Great King and his allies seem to have reaped the reward of their good fortune and prosperity.[339] In the capital at Boghaz-Keui, ‘the city of the Hatti,’ the royal palace seems to have stood on the northern crest of Beuyuk Kaleh.[786] At Malatia, the palace of his vassal or ally, the king of Khali-rabbat (the Milid of later Assyrian records), was decorated with sculptured blocks showing the ruler and his consort as high priest and high priestess, making oblations before Sandes (the Hittite national deity), and to the winged deity who seems to have been the guardian of the tribe.[787] To the same phase of art, though not necessarily the work of this generation, we must assign the similar oblation scenes of Eyuk[788] and Fraktin[789]; in the former case, moreover, the forms of the sacred vessels are the same as those seen at Malatia. It is true that such vases may have continued in use for ceremonial purposes after their common vogue had passed; but in any case the lower buildings at Eyuk, the existence of which we have pointed out,[790] must be as old as these times; while in the rock-sculptures of Fraktin we recognise a phase of art and motive as early as that of any recorded Hittite works.

It is a singular fact that notwithstanding the great deeds of Subbi-luliuma and his successors, no sculpture of any kind has come down to perpetuate the Hittite[340] triumphs. The Hittite monuments of Asia Minor are all of primarily religious signification. The royal palaces were decorated with religious scenes, while even the warrior deities of Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel are identified with forms of the national god Sandes. The king is always spoken of as The Sun, and this fact may be reflected in the terms of address to the Pharaoh by his Syrian subjects at this time,[791] who otherwise is invariably styled the Horus. At Malatia the local king and queen are already seen as high priest and high priestess of the gods.[792] In these early suggestions we see the first traces of ideals so clear in later history, namely, priest-kingship and the high status of the woman,[793] with all the ramifications which the maintenance of these principles involved.

The nature of the Hittite constitution as a whole becomes more clear in later reigns, but we have already seen something of the nature of the kingdom and confederacy in watching the tying of its bonds. Three distinct grades of allegiance can be recognised already:[794] the allies, the vassals under tribute, and the conquered states administered by the crown. The special protectorate of Mitanni may be classed with the first of these. Each subject state would seem to have been bound to the Great King by special treaty: that with the Amorites has been already mentioned, while even the petty kingdom of Nukhasse seems to have its special firman granted when first conquered, previous to the disaffection of its chief.[795]

Subbi-luliuma died,[796] and ‘mounted the hill,’[797] where on the sacred high place he was gathered to his god. Thereafter for over a century and a half, notwithstanding the constant development of new historical situations, the dynasty of the Hatti sat firmly on the throne, throughout the greatest visible period of Hittite power. His son Arandas, who nominally succeeded after a short interregnum, seems to have been without effective power, and was shortly replaced by his brother Mursil, the Maurasar of the Egyptian texts. During the earlier part of an apparently long reign, this monarch seems to have had leisure and tranquillity to enjoy the empire which he had inherited from his father. During the first ten years at any rate, the annals of which are preserved, there seems to have been no incident of foreign affairs more noteworthy than a series of minor troubles on the frontiers. His relations with a number of states are mentioned, but the Hittite names of these are not yet recognisable.[798] The governorship of various frontier lands was apportioned, or possibly these were now for the first time brought under Hittite rule. One Barkhu-izuwa was appointed to the land of Mira, Manapa-Tessub[799] to Amaskhe-haku, and Targâs-nâli to Happalama. The terms of the Amorite vassalage were renewed in a special treaty with Abbi-Tessub, who now appears as chieftain of that people.[800] In the period of apparent[342] calm in the early part of this reign, we may see historically the opportunity when in the security of his kingdom the monarch built a new royal palace at Boghaz-Keui on the lower ground to the north of the acropolis, outside the main line of the defences.[801]

But inactivity in these empires of the sword was always fraught with danger. Towards the close of his reign, if we read the somewhat obscure chronology of this period rightly, the eastern frontiers of his empire suffered several shocks. The Assyrian kingdom had been steadily gathering strength, and soon after 1320 B.C. Shalmaneser I. seems to have dispossessed the Hittite entirely of his suzerainty eastward of the Euphrates, ravaging all the kingless country of Mitanni as far as Carchemish.[802] Further north he even crossed the Euphrates and entered Khali-rabbat, capturing Malatia, just as a previous Assyrian monarch had done a hundred years before. In this campaign the Hittite forces sent against him seem to have been definitely defeated, and Shalmaneser penetrated as far as Muzri,[803] while his successor also invaded the district of Kummukh, which lay on the Hittite side of the Euphrates around Samsat. Egypt also, rejoicing in the re-establishment of a strong line of kings, was not long in taking advantage of this temporary weakening. Sety I. had hardly ascended the throne of the Pharaohs when he initiated a series of campaigns in the south of Syria, and erelong found himself able to beat back the[343] Hittite forces, and to penetrate northwards as far as Tunip and the land of Naharain,[804] reaching possibly to the Euphrates. The early operations of his successor, Rameses II., however, seem to have extended only as far as the Lebanon,[805] where the Hittites were encountered; hence we may conclude that the latter had been able to regain their ascendency in northern Syria. In these critical times, with a great struggle inevitable and even imminent, Mursil died, and his son Mutallu succeeded to the Hittite throne.[806]

The new monarch was not slow to realise the critical state of affairs that had arisen on his eastern frontiers. Assyria, indeed, seems to have withdrawn temporarily, through internal reasons, from her efforts to obtain a footing in the Hittite lands, but the repeated incursions of the Egyptian armies, and the evident intention of the Pharaoh to regain his dominion over Syria, called forth a mighty effort on the part of Mutallu to retain the empire which his great ancestor, Subbi-luliuma, had established, if not even to extend its boundaries. The call to arms was sounded through the Hittite lands, and the response from every side showed how deeply and widely the power of the Great King had been established. Practically all parts of Asia Minor are represented in this splendid rally round the Hittite leader. United in this common enterprise,[344] the states of the centre, like the Hatti (Kheta), Arinna, Pisidia, were joined by Dardanians and Mysians from the furthest portions of the peninsula, as well as by Lycians of the southern coast, and Kataonians from the anti-Taurus.[807] Northern Syria, from Carchemish to Kadesh, sent also its contingents, for the Hittite leader ‘left no people on his road. Their number was endless, nothing like it had ever been seen before. They covered the mountains and hills like grasshoppers for their number.’ The Pharaoh valiantly went out to meet this formidable enemy before it entered his own dominions, and the fateful battle was joined not far from Kadesh. The opening stages were favourable to the Hittite, who made a strategic and unforeseen onslaught on the enemy’s flank, and for a time disorganised the Egyptian forces. The Pharaoh’s position, indeed, at one moment seems to have been almost desperate, but in the issue he managed to recover his formation and claims to have pursued the Hittites from the field.[808] The Egyptian losses were so great that they were unable to follow up their advantage:[345] even Kadesh remained unassailed, though the Hittite king had taken refuge within its walls; so that the battle must be regarded as indecisive. The moral effect, however, on both sides was sufficient. Mutallu made overtures for a truce, which the Pharaoh readily accepted,[809] and the Egyptian forces were withdrawn.

The result of this battle proved indeed an effective rebuke to the ambitions of the leaders on both sides. Thereafter Rameses confined his military operations to southern Syria. With the Hittites the issue was more serious, and the consequences more immediate. Two princes of the royal blood, Sipa-zar (? Subbi-sil) and Mazarima, several chiefs, soldiers, and charioteers had been counted among the slain. The Kataonian chief also perished in the battle, and the king of Aleppo was drowned while attempting to cross the moat and marshes that protected Kadesh. The great army had to be disbanded, dismayed and disappointed, when victory had been so nearly within their grasp. The Amorites, whose home lands had suffered perhaps most of all in this warfare, and who were at all times watchful of the balance, threw off their allegiance.[810] Their chief, Put-akhi,[811] was deposed, but escaped the punishment of his offence. The disaffection spread among the troops: a mutiny took place, in which the chief general figures conspicuously, and Mutallu was assassinated.[812] The zenith of Hittite power was passed;[346] the Hittite Sun had reached its highest point, and the shadows at that same moment began to lengthen. Never again, it would seem, could the Hittite leaders call up in their special enterprise so many allies drawn from such varied peoples.

The dynasty of the Hatti none the less retained the throne; Hattusil, brother of the ill-starred leader, whose end we have described, now became Great King, and Putukhipa, Princess of Qizwadna, was his queen. As daughter of the city of Arinna, the home of the sun-god, this lady was probably the foremost of the land, and her union with the Prince of the Hatti was one of the events that contributed to restore the prestige of his house. As Khetasar this monarch looms big in the pages of Egyptian history, and indeed his reign was one of considerable importance and duration. But, as with his compeer upon the throne of Egypt, the actual tendency of events throughout this reign shows signs of weakening in the Hittite power and the gradual dismemberment of their empire.[813] As with Egypt also from this date, this reign was free from serious conflict or disturbance in Syria. Assyria had fallen temporarily behind in the bid for empire, the Mitannians were utterly submerged, and neither of the other two powers was yet disposed to resume hostilities. One of Hattusil’s first acts contributed indeed to secure the tranquillity of his frontier in this direction, by the reinstatement of Put-akhi as Chief of the Amorites, under the same terms of vassalage as of old.[814] It was indeed to Hattusil’s intervention that the Amorite prince owed his life at the time of his disaffection; and now, with a Hittite princess (Gashuliawi) for wife,[347] Put-akhi was united in his allegiance by a double bond.

Later in his reign, about 1271 B.C., Hattusil succeeded in bringing about a definite offensive and defensive alliance, and treaty of extradition, ‘a good treaty for friendship and concord, which was to assure peace, for a longer period than beforetime’ with the Pharaoh. The preliminary negotiations occupied many months, and were carried out with a full measure of oriental dignity. The queens on either side took part in the negotiations, and the chief wife of Rameses wrote to Putukhipa specially expressing her satisfaction when the affair was concluded. The first draft of the treaty was clearly prepared by the Hittite diplomatists; not only does the name of the Hittite king come first in all cases where both names occur, but a summary has been found among their archives which does not contain all the clauses finally incorporated.[815] It is prefaced with an historical preamble, after the well-established precedent found in the Hittite treaties with the Amorites and the Mitannians, as well as with minor vassal states. Only in this case, the treaty being one of equity, no pointed allusion was made to the first conquest of Subbi-luliuma on the one side, or to the exploits of Sety on the other: the fact of past wars and of the previous interim treaties was mentioned, but now the two kings were to be as allies, friends, and brothers, with a good understanding between them for evermore. Neither should henceforth invade the other’s lands, the boundary between them being the northern Lebanon; on the other hand, if either was in distress of war, and appealed to the other for assistance, then troops should be sent accordingly; their warfare should[348] be in common.[816] Minor matters, such as the question of fugitive servants and refugees, were also arranged.

We do not know whether duplicate copies of this treaty were actually exchanged, but this may be inferred from the fact that an Egyptian embassy was received in the Hittite capital.[817] The Egyptian record of this affair, inscribed on the walls of the temple of Karnak, only makes it known that two Hittite ambassadors, by name ‘Tal-tisebu’ and ‘Rameses,’ accompanied by a goodly retinue, presented the Hittite copy engraved on a silver tablet to the Pharaoh.

The gods of all the Hittites were separately invoked, after their time-honoured custom, as guardians to the inviolability of this treaty. The sun-god, lord of heaven, takes first place, followed by the sun-god of Arinna. Then come the various localised forms of Sandes,[818] called Sutekh by the Egyptians, and associated here with nine chief states, in which we seem to recognise three,[819] Arinna, Aleppo (Khilpa), and Sarisu, possibly the classical Sareisa. A list of the tutelary deities follows, including seven gods and three goddesses,[820] but possibly the gaps in the text betoken others. Finally, the god of the land, the queen of heaven, the goddess of the soil, the mistress of the oath, the goddess (Askhir) of the mountains, and the rivers of the Hittite lands, are appealed to; with a last reference to the gods of Qizwadna, the home of the[349] Hittite queen, and to those of Egypt, who are all covered by one clause. The designs and inscriptions of the seals are of special interest: upon the tablet itself these were naturally engraved. On the obverse, we are told, there was the image of the Hittite national god embracing the Great King,[821] surrounded by an inscription rendered, through the medium of the Egyptian text, ‘The Seal of Sutekh, Prince of Heaven,’ and ‘the seal of the treaty made by Khetasar (Hattusil) son of Maursar (Mursil), the great and powerful king of the Hittites.’ This was the seal of the Hittite god of the skies. The reverse was parallel, only in place of the figure of Sandes was that of the sun-god of Arinna, lord of the whole earth, and the Great Queen was shown in the deity’s embrace. Around was an inscription, ‘The seal of the sun-god of the city of Arinna, lord of the earth,’ and ‘The seal of Putukhipa, Great Queen of the Hittites, daughter of the land of Qizwadna ... of the land of Arinna, the mistress of its territory, the priestess of its goddess.’

The fame of this treaty was noised abroad, and an inquiry was received from the king of Babylonia as to its purport. The Hittite king replied[822] with firmness and obvious exultation: ‘I will inform my brother: the king of Egypt and I have made an alliance, and made ourselves brothers. Brothers we are and will [unite against] a common foe, and with friends in common.’ The letter continues with an explanation of the previous warfare between the nations that had rendered this compact desirable, and allusion is made to the inroads of the Pharaoh on the Hittite lands.

Though relations between Egypt and Babylonia at[350] this time were well established, it might have been thought that Babylon was too distant to have been much concerned with the Hittite seated in the north of Asia Minor. Yet in fact at this time only the eastward extension of the Amorite realm divided the two powers, just as the same people formed the frontier with Egypt further west. Diplomatic relations had indeed been opened between them for fully a generation, and several long letters have been recovered. They refer chiefly to the brigandage of the Amorites, whom the Hittite king is asked to keep in order, and punish as being his vassals. It is interesting to notice also the influence which Hattusil exerted, through the forceful language of his ambassador at the Babylonian court, and his own almost threatening diplomatic letters, interfering even in the settlement of the succession to the Babylonian throne. This subject might well be regarded as outside the sphere of international politics, and the Babylonian king found reason to object also to the terms of the communication on this matter, which would have been addressed more fittingly to a vassal rather than a compeer. But Hattusil’s reply is worthy of record: ‘I only wrote this, “If you do not acknowledge the son of your lord, will it not happen that if an enemy attack you, I will not come to your aid?” for my brother was then a child, and he is an evil man who deals according to evil thoughts.’

Questions of foreign policy also were discussed by these two powers in several letters. One fragment from Babylon shows that the increasing power of Assyria[823] was the problem of the moment, and a reply[351] of Hattusil[824] shows that they were being drawn together on this matter, which was of grave concern to them both. His advice to the younger king, expressed in flattering terms, to ‘go and plunder the land of the foe,’ indicates the astute politician’s anxiety to get the sword that hung menacing over his own head removed. The situation that now developed is one of considerable historical interest. Like Tushratta of Mitanni on the approach of the Hatti, so now the Hittite king at this crisis took special means to ensure the support of Egypt, where Rameses the Great still sat upon the throne of Thebes beside the tranquil Nile. Formerly Tushratta had granted a daughter in marriage at the first time of asking, contrary to precedent; but now not only was the first Hittite princess seemingly offered to Rameses, to take a place among the other royal wives, but the Hittite king himself with great state accompanied her to Egypt, and, escorted up the Nile, visited the Egyptian monarch in his capital, an event without parallel in oriental history. Naturally Rameses made adequate record of this incident,[825] and the beauties of his new bride received the praises of his courtiers.

Little is known of the two successors of Hattusil, Dudkhalia, and his son Arnuanta, under whom the[352] dynasty of the Hatti kings was prolonged into the twelfth century, B.C. An edict issued by the former concerns the organisation of the empire and the position of the greater vassals.[826] The names of some of the chieftains transpire among the witnesses to the document: Eni-Tessub[827] appears at this time as king of Carchemish, which was probably the second state of the empire. Another event in the reign of Dudkhalia is a ‘treaty’ with the king of Aleppo, doubtless a ratification of the terms of vassalage, but the name of that chieftain is not revealed.

The name of Arnuanta, his son, who in turn became Great King, is the last of the dynasty that has come to light, and circumstances tend to show that the day of Hatti dominion was really over. He is known only from two fragments of royal edicts, and a more complete document (found in the débris of a gateway), seemingly an elaborate land register or cadastral survey.[828] This is rendered of special interest by the seals, which, like the famous boss of Tarkudimme, were inscribed in Hittite hieroglyphs and in cuneiform. The Hittite inscription on one seal is defaced, but the cuneiform can be read in both cases. The first seal is that of Arnuanta himself, the Great King, son of Dudkhalia. The second gives the names of the royal ladies, namely, the Queen-Mother Tawâssi,[829] and his wife, the Great Queen, Munidan; while a daughter of Dudkhalia is mentioned, though her name is lost.

The appearance of these royal women side by side[353] with the monarch in the transaction of state affairs reawakens a whole series of interesting allusions which transpire in the earlier archives of this dynasty, indicating a clear position of authority held by the female side, and even suggesting a matriarchal system of succession to the throne. In the edict of Dudkhalia the Queen-Mother, Putu-khipa, is mentioned as co-ruler; and we have seen above that she separately placed her seal upon the treaty with Egypt, wherein she is described as Great Queen of the land of the Hittites, ... of the land of Arinna, the mistress of its territory.’ Further, the son of this powerful lady succeeded to the throne upon the death of Mutallu, even though the latter’s son was still alive (being mentioned in documents of Hattusil). During the interregnum[830] she maintained the continuity of the government, with sole powers in her hands, as appears from her correspondence at this time with Rameses. The title of Hattusil himself to the throne can best be explained in view of these facts, by his marriage with this lady, a first princess of the land;[831] and that her son would succeed seems to have been foreseen by Rameses II. when he wrote to her diplomatically, wishing him ‘good health.’ The part taken by royal women in state affairs in the East can be illustrated from modern events in China, which under its Mongol rulers presents us with so much interesting comparison, no less than from the records of the correspondence between Egypt and Mitanni in the age with which we deal.

This respect of the worshippers of the Mother-Goddess for the female was inculcated by them among[354] various branches of their peoples. It will not be forgotten that the founder of the Hatti dynasty, when he admitted the fugitive Mitannian prince to his family and extended to him his protection, laid down the condition of a monogamous marriage. So, too, Hattusil, in granting his daughter to the Amorite chieftain, Put-akhi, whom in like manner he re-established in his authority, inserted in the document recording the alliance a clause to the effect that the sovereignty over the Amorite should belong to the son and descendants of his daughter for evermore.

These indications all agree with the impression that Greek tradition and the Hittite monuments have already left upon our minds. The worship of the Mother-Goddess, to which we have alluded, would seem, indeed, to have been paramount throughout the Hittite lands, from Carchemish to Ephesus, from Kadesh to the coast of the Black Sea. Originally a nature cult, derivable from the productivity of the earth, this had now taken divine form with the quality of self-reproduction, to develop later into the conception of a universal mother. Though this worship was general throughout western Asia, its introduction into Asia Minor is traceable to the Hittites, upon whose monuments its symbolism appears earlier than it is known elsewhere, notably at Boghaz-Keui,[832] Eyuk,[833] Fraktin,[834] and on Sipylus.[835] We do not wish to imply a local development of the cult, though that may be admitted as a possibility when we consider the simple and general nature of its origins, and the power of the human mind then as now to attain in a few years the standpoint reached only by generations[355] of ancestral experiences, and thereon to build up new conceptions, to be transmitted in like manner together with those inherited. Yet on the fertile plains of Babylonia the seasonal productivity of nature was more conspicuous and almost spontaneous; there indeed, as it seems, man was earlier able to give up his wandering life and settle, noting with satisfaction and gratitude that earth and sunshine with other elemental forces provided him with the means of living. Taking also the evidence as it stands, it would seem that the embodiment of these conceptions in divine form (under the name Istar) is earliest attributable to Babylonia; and from there consequently we are disposed to derive her when found in Asia Minor, whether by general contact, as is historically admissible, or introduced, as seems more probable, by some early migration of Hittite peoples that had already assimilated her to themselves.

The worship of a goddess with virtues so natural and with powers that it was so desirable to propitiate would, in any case, it may be thought, be readily acceptable to a peasant people. It became deeply rooted, and in certain localities took special forms, reflected many centuries later in rites like those of Ma at Comana, Kybele in Phrygia, Artemis at Ephesus, and, latest of all, Semiramis at the post-Hittite city at Carchemish. From the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui[836] it may be seen that, as in Babylonia, there was already associated with her a youth, whose male powers were necessary to complete her own. With her also there appears a lioness or panther whose force and character seemed to be emblematic of hers. Though clearly attributable to an earlier phase of thought, this association may have[356] been made before the cult was localised. There are, however, traces in these sculptures of more primitive conceptions, attributable to older strains of population. From the evidence in general, four or five strata, indeed, may be discerned in the Hittite pantheon. In the lowest of these there appear the purely elemental forms, mountains and streams,[837] earth,[838] sun,[839] moon[840] and star.[841] Passing from the inanimate to the animate, we find the lion,[842] the bull,[843] the eagle,[844] the falcon or dove,[845] the goat,[846] the stag, the serpent[847] and other living creatures, some of them possibly adopted as tribal totems, and all no doubt representing some special virtue or power that later became embodied in the deities associated with them. Upon these substrata the gods of human form appear to be imposed, and first among these the Mother-goddess. Already, as we have noticed in these sculptures,[848] her supreme powers in life and her unfathomable actions had found expression in the semblance of a lion, before she was adopted by the mountain-worshippers; and another class of monument, possibly of later evolution, seems to reveal her in another aspect, as a goddess to be propitiated at death. The two ideas in her case are not far separated; for just as in the simplest conception of her powers through her the dead earth revived, while in her developed cult, her dead son yet lived in her offspring (through her unnatural union with him), so the[357] instinctive belief of humanity in the incompleteness of death found expression in offerings to her for the dead,[849] and in communion of the dead at her table.[850] The idea of a future life after death was inseparable from her worship.

In the sculptures[851] of these times there are associated with the goddess a number of divine attendants and priestesses, each holding as it seems a bent staff upon which she leans. These are not armed, but in them we may see the prototypes of a class of women devoted to the goddess, who in later centuries, on the decline of the Hittite power, at the coming maybe of the Phrygians, at first for the defence of their religion, and later separating in independent action, developed into armed priestesses, and possibly the Amazons of tradition.[852] But that was not yet; nor do we see in any of the shrines of the goddess of this age any sign[358] or suggestion of the orgies and carnal festivals that a thousand years later were celebrated in her name. On the other hand, we see the cult at this age in its simplicity; in some cases the goddess worshipped alone, in others accompanied by the son-consort, whose position in legend and at Boghaz-Keui is secondary to her own. In the latter case, however, she is face to face with another god who is her equal. We have been able to trace in these sculptures to some extent the merging of this religion with the old conceptions, and now we pass to consider its union with the new.

In this fourth phase the male predominates. The new divinity was a god omnipotent, with lightning in his hand. We call him Sandes, from a name surviving in Greek tradition in Cilicia and Lydia; but his real name is unknown. Possibly Tarku was one Hittite form of it; but at this period of his conspicuous individuality Baal or Zeus would suit him better. Like the goddess, he was well known in western Asia under various guises, the Tessub of Mitanni, the Hadad of Syria, the Rimmon of Babylonia. He came into Asia Minor, it seems to us, as guardian deity of the conquering Hatti, clad like their warriors; and in their wake came a limited number of kindred tribes, among whom also he was worshipped under various forms,[853] notably as a God of War with sword in hand.[854] By them he was[359] transmitted as the national god to the other Hittite peoples, whose tutelary deities, however, seem to have been various.[855] In him, the embodiment of manly strength, the nature worshippers saw the sun, ruling in the skies,[856] supreme, a fitting husband for their Mother Earth. It was not hard to reconcile the cults. Just as the sun’s return in spring-time to shine upon the earth was necessary to revivify the dead year; so was the periodic union of the god with the goddess natural and appropriate, that the earth might bring forth her fruits in due season. The sculptures[857] illustrate the rite that arose upon this new ideal, where we see the statue of the god borne upon the shoulders of his priests to the open-air sanctuary of the goddess, and the divine nuptials celebrated with the dancing and revelry that have accompanied marriage festivals through all time.

The conception of Fatherhood, hitherto submerged, now found expression in independent form, wherein the new god was identified with the Bull, the emblem of virility. At Malatia[858] the god rides upon the animal’s back; at Eyuk[859] the animal alone is found, in a scene where his ministers are the royal high priest and priestess, the counterpart to the worship of the goddess herself on the other side of the gateway. In this character food and music and revelry were his delight. There were present all the elements which under other conditions might have led to the development[360] of a special and exaggerated worship of masculine powers. But here the circumstances were unfavourable. So long, indeed, as the warrior kings maintained the throne, their god also retained his individuality,[860] amid an environment, however, too deeply imbued with the older ideals to maintain his separate worship after their downfall. Already we see one way in which his cult was liable to be submerged; for the part he now claimed, as it were, by force, had been hitherto played in esoteric fashion by the son. Hence a new identity arose, in which the attributes of the father-god and the son-god became confused and merged in one.[861] This fact seems to be reflected even in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui, where the cult of a dirk, which each important male figure wears, becomes endowed with a separate ritual.[862] Possibly, however, this may be more particularly an aspect of the son-god, and associated with the ritual of the Mother-goddess. It was, moreover, a national cult, widespread, and revered.[863] In any case the association of the Father-god with the Son-god in the cult of the Mother-goddess, nature’s divine triad, seems to us an essential feature of the religion of these times.

The part played by the king and his queen in this worship is clear in the sculptures of Eyuk[864] and Malatia,[865] and their position as high priest and priestess of the god is defined in the text of the Egyptian treaty.[866] Whether the king himself took an official position in the worship of the goddess is still open to conjecture;[361] for the pictures of the high priest at Boghaz-Keui,[867] though accompanied by the royal insignia, are open to another interpretation,[868] and possibly in her festivals the king’s place was taken by a eunuch-priest of considerable authority, in accordance with a ritual long established and surviving in later times. At Sinjerli there is an interesting suggestion in a certain series of sculptures[869] belonging possibly to this era. In comparing these it seems to us that the king himself is shown impersonating his gods or god in various characters; in one he is the warrior with shield and spear, in another he holds aloft the lightning trident, and in a third we see him like Thor with a magic hammer. In the rites of the various deities the king may possibly have carried these sacred emblems ceremonially.

The position of the Hatti kings in state affairs, the nature of their kingdom and their empire, has been already disclosed in watching how their power was won.[870] The army was the mainstay of their empire, yet no martial scenes decorate the walls of the palaces and temples that have been hitherto unearthed. This may be accounted for by the essentially feudal nature of the constitution, whereby the bulk of the forces would be composed of troops under the more direct command of the vassal kings and chieftains. Within the domain of his own tribe or tribes, though doubtless a royal bodyguard was maintained, it would almost seem that the power of the Hittite king was sustained rather by constitutional[362] rights such as have been indicated. Some of the religious sculptures, however, give an indication, though in somewhat conventional and maybe antiquated form, of the dress and armour of the Hittite infantry; while the general character of their chariots and arms may be gathered from the hunting scenes of later date in Syrian towns. Where the home sources fail, the Egyptian carvings supply a wealth of detail illustrating all branches of the Hittite forces;[871] and these, though drawn as it were from afar, have none the less the advantage of being contemporary evidence, recorded, too, by past-masters in this branch of archivism, who allowed no characteristic detail to escape them.

The freest drawing of a foot-soldier is that from Sinjerli,[872] wherein a warrior is seen armed with a spear and shield; the head of the spear is narrow and ribbed down the middle, and the shaft is about the length of the man; the defensive weapon is of the figure-of-eight shape traditional in Asia Minor, and associated with some branches of the Hittites in Egyptian sculptures.[873] The dirk which is worn, an invariable side-arm of the Hittites, is here shown so long that it looks almost like a two-edged sword; from other sculptures, however, like those of Giaour-Kalesi[874] and Boghaz-Keui,[875] we may be sure that a dirk or dagger is indicated. The crescental hilt and the midrib are noticeable features. That the sword was used, however, may be gathered from other scenes.[876] The dress of the Hittite warrior, like that of his gods, was uniformly the short tunic, short-sleeved vest, shoes with turned-up points, and tall conical hat; the last named is seemingly padded in[363] this instance at the top. Equestrians and charioteers seem to have modified or discarded this head-dress[877] as being unsuitable for rapid motion. In addition to the spear, the bow was doubtless used by both infantry[878] and chariotry;[879] but other implements, originally of an offensive character, like the club, double-axe,[880] mace, and curved dagger,[881] are found only in religious symbolism in such connection that it must be considered doubtful whether they continued to be used in war. The throw-stick is, however, admissible, though found only in sporting scenes.[882] As to the Hittite cavalry the local sources almost fail us. Two stones from Sinjerli show a rider armed with bow and dagger, and possibly a shield decorated with a human face;[883] and a third sculpture from the same site introduces a large round shield and possibly a quiver.[884] There is also a fragment, possibly from Marash, showing a horse rider,[885] though apparently not in that instance a fighting man. In another case a led horse is shown, with attendant groom, as though awaiting his royal master’s pleasure.[886] In Egyptian scenes,[887] however, the Hittite horse-rider is conspicuous, fleeing before the Pharaoh’s arrows, himself armed with a lance; and in two literary passages at least, clear reference is made to the Hittite cavalry.[888]

The chariotry of the Hittites was, however, their[364] chief arm of offence. Unfortunately only one war-chariot is shown in their own sculptures,[889] and this is apparently of later date and employed in an inter-tribal struggle. In this case two persons are shown in the car, the warrior and his driver. The wheel has six spokes, the car is lightly built, and a pair of horses are harnessed to it.[890] The warrior’s arms are the bow and spear. Other chariots appear in hunting scenes, showing little variation except the eight-spoked wheels; but it may be thought from the Egyptian representations that a somewhat heavier car with panelled sides was employed for war. The magnificent appearance of the massed Hittite chariots in attack excited the admiration of their enemies, the Egyptians, who have handed down vivid pictures of them taken from their wars: the assault on a hill,[891] an incident in the battle of Kadesh, shows excellent formation in close order while advancing at a gallop. The Egyptians were unanimous in representing three Hittites in each car, a practice which differed from their own, and so attracted their attention. The third man was a shield-bearer, whose absence from the hunting scenes of the Hittite sculptures is self-explanatory. A square shield, mostly associated with the Syrian allies, makes its appearance in the scene before us; but the Egyptian artists were so much perplexed by the necessity of crowding and showing three men within the tiny car, that they forgot or found no room for the offensive arms of their redoubtable enemy.

For transport in war the Hittites seem to have[365] employed freely a covered wagon on four wheels, a characteristic vehicle throughout western Asia to-day, and drawn then as now either by bullocks or a pair of horses. In addition, the hardy ass was also requisitioned, represented as struggling with the weight of his panniers.[892] Though for the frontier wars with Egypt, fought out mostly near the Lebanon, the Hittite doubtless employed a strategic base in northern Syria, such as Carchemish, yet for his Syrian campaigns, and for the general control of his Syrian dependencies, it becomes almost self-evident that there must have been one route at least available for wheeled traffic connecting with the interior and the capital. But it is by no means easy to determine which of the several passes may have been used for this purpose.[893] The history of these times leads us to infer a system of communication throughout the empire, with Boghaz-Keui as its focus. From this centre, to judge by the disposition of the earlier monuments and other evidence, roads already radiated in several directions. To the north was Sinope,[894] which seems at one time to have been the first port of the country, but to have fallen into decline with Boghaz-Keui itself. To the east we must infer a road connecting the valley of the Halys, whether by way of Sivas or otherwise, with that of the Tochma Su,[895] and so leading down to the frontier at Malatia. A southerly bifurcation of this route led by Albistan down the passes of the Pyramus to Marash,[896] communicating thence severally with Carchemish, Aleppo, and the valley of the Kara Su, wherein lay the cities of Sakje-Geuzi and Sinjerli. A more direct track over the mountains from Mazaca (Cæsarea) to Marash passed by Kuru-Bel near[366] old-time Comana,[897] whence also Dastarkon (near Ferakdin) might be approached. The line of communication from Boghaz-Keui to Mazaca is not known, but a direct road from the former towards Tyana is traceable, and possibly it sent off a branch corresponding with the modern route from Injessu to Cæsarea. Whether in its direct southerly line it continued as a wheel track thus early through the Cilician gates to Tarsus is open to question, though it was clearly open some three centuries later.[898] Westward also there must have been established now or shortly afterwards an embranchment connecting Tyana by way of Ardistama with Iconium; while, as we have already noted,[899] the existence of a main westerly route from Boghaz-Keui to the Lydian coast is testified by the contemporary sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel.

Of the cities which these roads connected there remains little trace. At Boghaz-Keui only the buried remains of the palace built by Mursil[900] and the sculptured sanctuary which we have dated to the age of Hattusil[901] can be assigned with any security to the two centuries[367] that we have been considering. At Eyuk and Malatia the cubical building blocks decorated with sculptures seem to indicate the existence of palaces as early as the reign of Subbi-luliuma.[902] The site of Sakje-Geuzi was already occupied by Hittite people, and probably counted six walled townships and citadels within its neighbourhood;[903] we suspect it to be the centre of the state that later becomes known in the Assyrian records by the name of Iaudi. Sinjerli was also a large and flourishing city,[904] the capital of the kingdom later called by the Assyrians Samalla. Carchemish,[905] Aleppo,[906] and Hamath[907] are also known as Hittite cities from the history of these times, but no remains of buildings have been found within their areas that can be assigned to this period.[908] We may infer, however, from the evidence of the excavations at Sinjerli, and from contemporary Egyptian sculptures, as well as from the designs of late fortifications, that the cities of this age were already surrounded by masoned walls, supported by numerous external towers, and entered through gateways barred by a pair of double doors and guarded by wing towers on either hand. But most of the visible architectural remains of Boghaz-Keui, and nearly all those that have come to light in Syria, including those of Marash, belong upon our evidence to a later period after the disintegration of the empire, when for a while in the development of history the opportunity occurred for a revival of local arts upon the old models among the small kingdoms that survived.

The disintegration of the Hittite empire introduces[368] a new phase of their history. With it was involved the downfall of the Hatti rulers, indicated by the failure of the archives of Boghaz-Keui after the reign of Arnuandas, two generations after the time of Hattusil, and hence probably about 1200 B.C. In the great combine of land and sea powers against Egypt, which Rameses III. resisted and dispersed,[909] the Hittites again figure among the confederates, but this time no longer as leaders; and subsequently they appear no more in Egyptian history. They had held sway over Asia Minor for about two centuries, a lengthy period for an oriental dynasty, and now they were submerged by historical movements, of which the details are wanting so far as it affected them, though the development of events may be traced in outline. As often in the history of Asia Minor, the tide of immigration that had formerly set westward had now turned, and, sweeping irresistibly from Europe southward and eastward over the Greek world and the Ægean Islands, traversed also the peninsula.[910] The wave which Rameses III. turned away from the Egyptian frontier had swept away the Hatti power, and it may be thought that their part in the movement, like that of others, was migratory rather than warlike, pressed onwards by newcomers from beyond.

In the redistribution of power that followed the dispersal of these peoples, the dominant position in Asia Minor seems to have been held by the Muski,[911] whom we presume to be a European people, akin to the Phrygian conquerors of later times.[912] With these[369] newcomers at any rate the Assyrian kings were occupied for half a century. By 1170 B.C., it would appear, they had traversed Asia Minor and descended upon Kummukh, the Hittite state lying around Samsat, between Carchemish and Malatia, upon the Assyrian frontier; and it was not until 1120 that they were driven back by the valorous expeditions of Tiglath-Pileser I. It is possible that the Assyrian king followed up his victories as far as the Black Sea;[913] but in any case the power of the Muski would seem to have been broken and to have gradually declined until reinforced by the Thracian immigrants of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.[914] In the meanwhile the Hittite states found the opportunity for a remarkable revival. The readiness of these peoples, though no longer politically united, to combine against a common enemy is well shown by the experiences of the Assyrian king, who had no sooner crossed the frontier at Malatia, than he was assailed on his right flank by twenty-three chieftains,[915] while in front lay sixty others whose domains extended to the Upper Sea. Though possibly this expedition lay eastward of the boundary of the Hittite lands, the central Hittite states did not escape from the ambitious raids of the Assyrian king, who crossing the Euphrates on rafts of skin, this time nearer to Carchemish, put Mount Bishri[916] to the sword,[370] and advancing northwards, devastated the frontier lands (Muzri), which lay now, as we have seen, beyond Kummukh, nearer to the kingdom of Malatia. The Kumani, dwelling probably in the mountainous region round Comana (Shahr), seem to have gone out to the assistance of their kinsfolk, harassing the Assyrian probably on his left flank. But their native fastnesses and walled cities did not protect them from the vengeance of the Assyrian. Their advanced troops were overcome and imprisoned in the fortress of Arinni; while the remainder of their fighting men, some 20,000 strong, who lay entrenched on Mount Tala, were driven out and pursued as far as the range of Kharusa, on the frontiers.[917] Kibshuna, the capital of the Kumani, surrendered. The states of Syria were the next to fall to the Assyrian conqueror, for a fresh expedition passing up the Orontes seems to have crossed the Lebanon and reached the Mediterranean coast northward from Beyrout.[918]

Though the expeditions of Tiglath-Pileser I. were far-reaching, they do not seem to have established anything like a permanent hold over the Hittite states of Syria. Carchemish, upon the frontier, does not seem to have lost any of its independence, and it may be suspected that after the decline of the Hatti, this state remained the chief centre of the Hittite[371] power.[919] There is indeed a suggestion that its kings were descended from, or early related to, the Hatti rulers,[920] and that at one time, perhaps in the eleventh century, they held sway as far as Gurun,[921] in the valley of the Tochma Su, indicating a kingdom which embraced all the central Hittite states. However that may be, some names of the early kings of Carchemish have been handed down among the archives of the Hatti,[922] under whom it seems clearly to have been already a state of major importance; and its independence was maintained, in name at least, as late as any of which the history is known.

The apparent independence of Carchemish throughout the reign of Tiglath-Pileser is not only a testimony to its own military resources, but an indication that the Assyrian conquests were not secured. The time of the great Assyrian empire was not yet, and as the Assyrian power gradually weakened for a while, so did that of the Hittite states revive. For something like a century and a half, until about 950 B.C., some semblance of Assyrian authority may still be traced on the near side of the Euphrates,[923] but in view of the history of these times it may be said that during the tenth century B.C., until the renewal of Assyrian invasions (about 850 B.C.), the Hittite states of Syria were free, and their works illustrate to us their latent vitality and the revival of their traditions.

It was not only in Syria that this opportunity was afforded, for a parallel development of circumstances upon the plateau of Asia Minor seems to have encouraged the revival of the chief states also by the removal of their embarrassments. The Assyrian invasions had broken the strength of the Muski, who had for some time threatened to overwhelm and submerge the Hittite peoples; and now the gradual withdrawal of both enemies was marked by a cycle of Hittite works which proved how deep-rooted was their civilisation, and later history shows how radical must be the changes that would supplant it in their mountain homes. At Boghaz-Keui a new palace, unadorned, however, with sculptures, sprang up on the site of that of the Great Kings, which was now completely ruined. It is possible that the great walls of the citadel as they are now seen were the product also of this age.[924] They would seem to have been furnished, now or within a few generations, with the great arched gateways decorated with sculptures[925] which are one of their most striking features. Incidentally there is disclosed in the representation of a female warrior upon one of the great jambs[926] the development of, or union with, the[373] Amazons,[927] whose fame lived in Greek history and tradition while the deeds of the old Hatti kings were already buried in oblivion. At Eyuk we have seen there is indication of a corresponding phase of local buildings, involving details of architecture and sculpture peculiarly Hittite.

It would seem, however, that it was not in the old centre of administration that the dominant Hittite spirit most revealed itself. The sculptures of Bor[928] and Ivrîz,[929] and the related inscriptions of Bulghar-Madên[930] and Karaburna,[931] with others on the Kara Dagh and at Bogche, as well as numerous minor works, are all indications of a considerable area united as a single kingdom, the centre of which was Tyana. The Assyrian records of later times tell indeed of a powerful tribe or people named by them the Khilakku, whose geographical disposition seems to correspond with this area. These two facts in association recall the tradition of a great ‘Cilician’ empire, mentioned by Solinus,[932] which was said to have embraced within its sway most of the great states of Asia Minor and of Syria that had formerly acknowledged the rule or suzerainty of the Hatti kings.[933]

Though this renaissance of the Hittite kingdoms may[374] have been short-lived,[934] it was none the less real and general, as the peculiar features and relationship of the monuments of this age testify. Practically nothing is known, however, of the history of this period: their own inscriptions seem to be mostly theocratic or religious, while Egypt and Assyria were too much engaged with home affairs to send expeditions into Hittite-Syria, the records of whose adventures might otherwise have enabled us to penetrate into the obscurity which hides this brilliant epoch from our view. The period falls, however, within the first pale glimmer of Greek tradition, which enables us at any rate to interpret more clearly some aspects of the local monuments of these times. The map of the Hittite world[935] in the tenth century B.C., deduced from the disposition of their monuments, and from the records of the Assyrians when they came again into contact, is also instructive, and seems to us to indicate the home-lands or settling-places of the real Hittite peoples more clearly even than a map of the Hittite empire, based as that would necessarily be on the whole range of Hittite works[936] and the uncertain identification of Egyptian names. Eastward of the Khilakku,[937] the kingdom known by the Assyrians as Tabal seems for part of the time to have embraced most of the cities of the Anti-Taurus from Fraktin to Comana, extending northwards possibly as far as Ekrek and Mazaca (Cæsarea). It included numerous[375] small states,[938] some of which at various times became separately prominent, among which Kammanu seems to be recognisable in Komana (identified with the modern Shahr), while the principality of Shinukhta and the city of Tynne[939] lay nearer to Tyana. On the Tochma Su, Guriania was the name of a minor kingdom seated at Gurun, while lower down old Malatia was the chief town of the kingdom of Milid (Miliddu), which still retained its great importance.[940] Gurgum lay seemingly around Marash, then known as Marghasi, to which we refer below, while Kummukh[941] extended, as we have seen, north-eastward up the near bank of the Euphrates. Several states lay in the valley between the Kurt Dagh and the Giaour Dagh,[942] like Mikhri, bordering on the Pyramus; Iaudi, with its centre (Kullani) possibly at Sakje-Geuzi or at Killiz; and Samalla, farther south, with its capital at Sinjerli; while lower down on the Kara Su was Unki,[943] which probably included Kurts-oghlu and the site of the classical Gindarus. The boundaries of the small states and larger kingdoms alike cannot be fixed, and probably varied continually with the ascendency of this[376] chief or the other. The region last mentioned, for example, seems at one time to have been mostly subject to Samalla,[944] while at other times it was divided between Gurgum and the Hattina, or subject to one or other of these powers. The latter, as their name implies, were a Hittite folk, whose numerous principalities[945] lay in the valley of the Orontes,[946] with Hamath doubtless as their capital. Lastly, the Hatti themselves seem to be represented by the powerful kingdom of Carchemish on the Euphrates,[947] the boundaries of which were indefinite, but reached at any rate to the Khabour River on the south.

On the outskirts of the Hittite kingdoms there were already present most of the elements of the powers that later were to submerge them. In the immediate West we place the Muski-Phrygians, but the mutual boundary is indefinable and probably varied constantly.[948] East of the Euphrates, Mitanni was no more, and Assyria was recruiting; while from the south and south-east there had already begun the steady infiltration of Aramæan peoples, who now occupied most of the tongue of land between the Orontes and the Euphrates.[949] Damascus was their centre, and within the Hittite-Assyrian sphere they had already planted strong settlements in the plains westward of the Euphrates. Even the kings of Samalla are early found with Semitic[378] names,[950] a fact which corresponds with the character of a whole series of its monuments.[951] We may suspect from the name in like manner the Aramæan extraction of the dynasty of Bit Adini, which ruled over a broad and numerously peopled Hittite tract extending from south of Carchemish even across the Euphrates, including probably the site of Tell-Ahmar. Shugab lay also on both banks of the river, somewhat further north. In the north-east a new and formidable power akin to the earlier Hittites was gathering strength in the vicinity of Lake Van, by name Urartu; but the Cimmerian hordes had not as yet appeared in the north.

Many of the surface monuments of the Hittites seem to belong to this period of revival: they are linked by various common features in detail, and illustrate at the same time the development of new motives in art. The increasing power of the priest-king is reflected in the prominence now given to his portrait as a chief subject for the sculptures.[952] His dress has now assumed a magnificence of embroidery and tapestry unknown in earlier times, though clearly derived, as regards the close cap, long robe, mantle, and shoes, from the priestly dress of the bygone age. On the rock carving of Ivrîz he pays his devotions to a god of agriculture, who presents so many new features that he might at first sight be taken for an entirely new conception, notwithstanding that his dress is obviously a direct modification only of the time-honoured and sacred costume[379] of the Hatti gods. Yet he is a descendant of the Son-god of Boghaz-Keui,[953] and his new virtues are a product of the Hittite lands. Now he has become the peasant’s god, the patron of agriculture, himself rewarding toil with fruit and corn. In Babylonia, where the grain grew wild, and the harvest was a gift of nature varying only in degree, the function of the consort to the earth-goddess, as the fertiliser, had been a secondary consideration. In the prominence of manhood under the Hatti kings, the god had received his separate local attributes and sanctuary. Now he appears, alone, in a third phase clearly developed upon a soil where the goddess was benign only to those who toiled. Here the clearing of the ground, irrigation, ploughing, sowing, and constant tending were necessary before the harvest could be won; and in this attribution the god is worshipped. The Greeks, when they arrived upon the scene, saw in him their own Hercules as the god of toil. His dress, however, as we have mentioned, betokens his Hittite origin. The tunic and turned-up shoes, though more elaborate, remain essentially the same as of old. The national hat, however, has lost its height, and is also broader; and the same difference may be noted in the newly found Amazon figure at Boghaz-Keui. This change, indeed, may be traced back to the later years of the Hatti period, if reliance may be placed on the Egyptian representation[954] of the Hittite monarch who visited Rameses II. The pigtail, moreover, has disappeared, and from the source last quoted and other considerations we are inclined to believe that even in the Hatti period it was already antiquated, surviving only in religious representations as sanctified by time. For civil purposes it may even[380] then have been replaced by the new style, which at any rate is characteristic of the monuments of the age we are considering, in which the hair is gathered in a thick bunch curling backward behind the neck.[955]

The range of these changes in detail on both sides of the Taurus is another indication of close bonds between the various branches of the Hittite peoples. In the architecture of these times there appears a new and striking motive, equally wide in its distribution, in the lion corner-stone.[956] The lion itself we have seen to have been early introduced into Hittite symbolism, but the earliest examples in the round seem to be the product of this age. The carvings of Sakje-Geuzi, which show the Hittite style just tinged with Assyrian or Aramaic (Semitic) influence, can be assigned with some certainty to the period 900-850 B.C. At Sinjerli the great lions seem to be of earlier date,[957] but in any case there is a remarkable coherence in design and method of employment between all the recorded specimens; as well as a correspondence in treatment of detail with the lions which decorate the chief gateway and the tank at Boghaz-Keui.[958]

One of the lions of Marash is covered with an inscription, the nature of which seems to conform entirely with the dominant theocratic ideals of the age.[959] The monuments and ruins of this place are in themselves evidence of a city of remarkable strength and of conspicuous importance in the Hittite world,[960] of which it was one of the last surviving members. Unhappily for history we must still wait here as elsewhere[381] for the evidences which the excavator’s spade alone can satisfactorily bring to light. The bare references in the Assyrian annals to the capture of this or that city, or to the various desperate coalitions of the Hittite states against the power that threatened their independence, if not their existence, tell us little but the date and manner of their downfall. If one could but penetrate the gloom that enshrouds the story of the Hittites in these stirring times, how many Iliads could be written to delight their readers!

We pass then to the last phase, which covers the period 850-700 B.C., during which the Hittite states were one by one submerged by the various powers that encircled them, and finally the Cimmerians blotted out from Asia Minor the memory of the past. The story is soon told; for we have only the record of the Assyrian[961] and Vannic[962] inscriptions to help in filling the outline of the Hittite story of these last centuries which was sketched in an earlier chapter. These records also are usually either brief and formal, or expressed in terms obviously exaggerated and partial; and the operations of which they tell were for the most part confined to the eastern Hittite states. Such as they are, however, they are welcome.

The story opens about 884 or 885 B.C., with the loss of Tul Barsip, a chief stronghold of the Bit Adini. This was, as it were, the warning of a long series of incursions by the Assyrian forces under Assur-nazir-pal and his successor, Shalmaneser II. The Euphrates was crossed by them on rafts of skin as aforetime. Shangara, King of Carchemish, was awed into sending[382] a handsome tribute to secure the safety of his crown and life. Among his gifts were a royal chariot, objects of gold, silver, copper and iron, bulls of bronze, decorated cups and carvings in ivory. The route of the Assyrian leader lay by way of the Orontes valley, and for a brief moment, Lubarna, who at that time was head of the principalities of the Hattina, seems to have contemplated resistance. Realising, however, the inutility of such a course, he followed the example of Shangara, and paved with presents the way of the Assyrian king, who, with the route now open, passed onwards beyond the Lebanon. But the Hittite leaders were not yet conquered. Somewhere about 860 B.C. nearly all the Hittite states of Syria, including Carchemish, Bit Adini, Gurgum, Samalla, Quë, and the Hattina, leagued themselves in a determined effort to resist, if not to rid themselves of, the Assyrian menace. Taking advantage of the absence of Shalmaneser’s army in the north, where he was assailing the fastnesses of the Urartu, they even crossed the frontier and made considerable inroads upon the Assyrian lands. The vengeance of the Assyrian was swift. The towns of Bit Adini were taken by storm, and the Euphrates was crossed. Gurgum, one of the states first open to attack, seceded from the confederates and submitted. The combined army of Adini, Samalla, and the Hattina was next defeated, and the Assyrian forces pressed once more up the valley of the Orontes, this time in pursuit of the King of the Hattina, Shapalulme, who had escaped. Seizing the opportunity, the King of Samalla collected his troops, and being joined by the King of Carchemish, with reinforcements also from Quë and further west, he prepared to defend his country against the invader. The effort, however,[383] was vain. The fortress of Shapalulme was burnt. It is even possible that the Assyrian passed over the Amanus into Cilicia,[963] being only stopped on the frontiers of the chief Hittite state by ambassadors and presents.[964] Hittite prisoners graced this triumph of the Assyrian conqueror, in his capital, being distinguished by their long robes and cumbrous hats.[965]

Though in the following year Bit Adini once more rebelled, with the result that two hundred villages and six fortresses were taken or destroyed, and Tell Barsip was garrisoned by Assyrian troops, it would seem that five years later the states of Carchemish, Kummukh, Milid, Samalla, Hattina and Gurgum[966] still acknowledged, however unwillingly, the suzerainty of their all-powerful neighbour, and their respective kings attended a conference at his bidding. Aleppo alone stood aloof, and was persuaded accordingly by force of arms. Satisfied apparently with their submission and attitude, the Assyrian king determined to try conclusions with the Aramæan power seated at Damascus. The Hittites of Hamath, Quë, and the Taurus fought against him in the great battle which ensued at Qarqar.[967] The issue was indecisive, but the Assyrian, as the attacker, lost prestige by his lack of success. Carchemish and other vassal states promptly refused[384] to renew their tribute. Shalmaneser was a whole year suppressing this rebellion, and thereafter found it desirable to send an expedition to the frontier each year to maintain his authority.

Thus far, it is clear, the incursions of the Assyrians into the Hittite territory had been rather of the nature of raids for booty and the exaction of tribute; no serious effort had been made as yet to bring the states within the direct government of Assyria, and the operations had been confined practically to the north of Syria. There is a record of 850 B.C. from which it may be thought that a first blow was now aimed at the central Hittite states.[968] In the next year, however, after the Assyrian forces had passed Carchemish and reached the Amanus, and then turning southward had held Hattina to ransom, a league of twelve Hittite kings in the vicinity of Hamath seems to have barred their further progress. These kings are no more mentioned, and possibly their territory was absorbed by Damascus, which had obviously gained influence after the battle of Qarqar. The King of Hamath, however, paid homage to the Assyrian when he once more entered the valley of the Orontes in 842 B.C.

Turning for a moment from the affairs of Syria, the kingdom of Tabal was for the first time invaded in 838 B.C., and the Assyrian claims to have reduced twenty-four of its chieftains to subjection. In Quë the king, Kati, was dethroned and replaced by another named Kirri; while further west Tarsus also fell into the Assyrian hands. At this stage Shalmaneser gave up his military command; for a while the Hittite[385] states had respite, and some of them, like the Hattina, resumed an attitude of independence.

Meanwhile, however, the Vannic kings had been steadily gaining strength and now found themselves powerful enough to more than hold their own. Erelong they began to cause the Assyrians considerable inquietude on their northern frontier, and about 804 B.C. Menuas drove back the Assyrians and attacked the Hittites. Crossing the Euphrates the Urartians exacted tribute from Malatia.[969] The events of the next generation are obscure; but in 776 the Hittite tribes of Syria, notably those under the Amanus, took advantage of the discomfiture of the Assyrians at the hands of the new Urartian king, Argistis of Ararat, to throw off their allegiance; and within a few years most of them were free of the Assyrian yoke. But their freedom was transient. Argistis looms in the history[386] of these times as a great conqueror, and the Hittite states on his immediate frontier, including not only Malatia and Kummukh, but possibly a great part of Tabal, yielded to his authority. After a temporary withdrawal, it would seem, the whole of northern Syria was swiftly brought within the domain of the new power. In 758 B.C. the kingdom of Malatia, which under Khite-ruadas had regained a momentary independence, was invaded once more by the hardy mountaineers: the capital, as well as fourteen castles and a hundred towns, fell into their hands.[970] By 756 B.C. Marash also had probably fallen, for the conquests of the Vannic power extended as far south as had the Assyrian, and the Hittite states of northern Syria were all forced into allegiance. Previous to the year 744 B.C. at any rate, when the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III., with a reinvigorated army, prepared to repel the invaders, Carchemish, Gurgum, Kummukh, Unki and Quë all acknowledged the suzerainty of Sharduris.[971]

The details of the struggle for Syria between two foreign powers can hardly be regarded as Hittite history. The Hittite strength was already gone; their kingdoms in Syria and the Taurus had been broken, ravaged, and weakened by the scourge of constant wars; while in Asia Minor a similar but more vital struggle, all unknown to history, was being waged between the advancing Phrygians and the chief Hittite kingdoms of the interior. All hope of general union was at an end. Yet in the records of the Syrian side of these affairs, it is wonderful to see how the[387] spirit of independence lived on in the old Hittite centres, ready at any time to break out in open rebellion. No ordinary military punishments seemed able to crush it. In 743, Tiglath-Pileser met and routed the great confederate army of Sharduris, with whom fought the Hittite contingents from Agusi, Gurgum, Kummukh, and Malatia.[972] The issue was decisive and momentous. Both kings led their armies in person, and the Assyrian record[973] states that 73,000 of the enemy were slain in battle. Yet undismayed, Matîlu of Agusi, the centre of which was Arpad, seems to have asserted his freedom and to have resisted the Assyrian for nearly three years, when he was overcome and slain in 740 B.C. The downfall of Arpad and the death of its king were not without a reactive effect upon the other states, so that the kings of Kummukh, Gurgum, Carchemish, and Quë came to the victors to humbly tender their formal submission. The Hattina still held out, but the Assyrian moved on their capital, Kinalua, which was carried by assault; and in order to avoid further disturbance in these rebellious quarters, both Agusi and Unki were hereafter administered by Assyrian officers and garrisoned by Assyrian troops. The policy thus initiated, coupled with that of deportation of the natives in large numbers, proved more fateful to the Hittites than the long series of punitive expeditions sent against them.

Samalla was next in arms. Profiting by the absence of the Assyrian forces on their own north-eastern frontiers, Azriyahu, who appears to have been a native prince, laid claim to the throne, though it was occupied by[388] Panammu II.,[974] a Semitic ruler who had been set up by the Assyrian king. Tiglath-Pileser hastened back to restore order, laying waste Kullani[975] on his way. He then passed southwards up the valley of the Orontes, ravaging as he went. Hamath yielded, and the kings of Carchemish, Malatia, and Tabal, with others, were convinced by these exploits that it was their best policy to tender their complete submission and to send their tribute. The Assyrian supremacy was now complete, and it was demonstrated by an arduous expedition which penetrated to the walls of the Urartian capital, in the mountains of the north. The Vannic power was broken, and thereafter its warriors only appear like those of the Hittites, in a series of vain struggles against the greater power that was steadily overwhelming them. In 732 B.C. the fall of Damascus at last laid open the way to the founding of the greatest Assyrian empire.

Our tale is nearly told; the inevitable issue is traceable in a bare statement of the chief events of a dozen years. A last combine in 720 B.C. of the Hittites of Tabal and Carchemish, reinforced by the Urartians, only tended to precipitate the end. In 718 the troops of Sargon passed northwards through the Cilician gates,[976] beyond which Tyana no longer represented the[389] chief Hittite centre, but was now a frontier stronghold of the Phrygian Midas.[977] This monarch was obviously perplexed by the Assyrian advance, and made overtures to Pisiris of Carchemish, who openly revolted. But Midas failed him: his kingdom became an Assyrian colony, and the greatest Hittite stronghold of Syria, that had so long retained a semblance of real independence amid the submergence of the states around, was now garrisoned with Assyrian soldiers.[978] The Tabal were again in arms in 713 B.C., though the rebel leader was a protégé of Assyria.[979] He was duly punished, and his fief was annexed to the Cilician province. Following an incursion led by Tarkhunazi of Malatia, the eastern portion of the Tabal, around Comana, was in 712 B.C. fortified as an Assyrian frontier state, with five forts on the Urartian side, two towards the north, and three as protection against the Phrygians. The kingdom of Malatia itself was in 710 put under the rule of Mutallu of Kummukh, and the whole mountain region was renamed Tulgarimme. Gurgum, with its stout fortress of Marash, was the last to succumb. For something like thirty years its last king, Tarkhulara, had retained his throne by diplomatic presents and submission first to the Urartian, and then to the Assyrian. Upon the outbreak of local hostilities, however, in 709, this state also was created an Assyrian province, and with that event the last element of Hittite freedom disappeared.

In the mountains of Taurus, in the kingdom of[390] Tabal, the smouldering fire might still burst from time to time[980] into a flame. But the Cimmerian hordes put out that spark, as they had done for the Urartu, and did in due time for the Muski; and before they could be driven back the course of history was changed. The story of the Hittites was ended; ‘Meshech and Tubal’[981] were destroyed, and ‘the Land of the Hittites’ became a memory of the past.[982]

EPOCHS OF HITTITE HISTORY

2000 B.C.[983] Settlements in southern Syria; overthrow of the 1st Dynasty of Babylon (p. 323). Horse and chariot used in Asia Minor (p. 320).

1380 B.C.[983] Subbi-luliuma annexes N. Syria (p. 330) and invades Mesopotamia (p. 331).

1370 B.C.[983] Amorite vassalage (p. 336); Treaty with Egypt (p. 337); Mitanni a protectorate (p. 338).

Palace[984] on Beuyuk-Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui; local palaces at Eyuk and Malatia; sculptures of Fraktin and (?) Sipylus (p. 339).

1271 B.C. Hattusil concludes treaty with Egypt (p. 347). Diplomatic relations with Babylonia (p. 350). [984]Sculptures of Iasily Kaya, Giaour-Kalesi, and Kara-Bel (p. 366). [? Fortifications of Boghaz-Keui constructed] Hittite cities at Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Malatia, Comana; confederate states in western and southern Asia Minor.

1200 B.C.[983] Invasions by the Muski-Phrygians; fall of the Hatti and (?) Boghaz-Keui (p. 368).

1000 B.C.[983] to 900 B.C. Revival of the Hittite kingdoms. [984]Sculptures of Bor, Ivrîz, Eyuk, Malatia, Marash, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi; inscriptions of Bulghar-Madên and Karaburna (p. 373). Road opened through Cilician Gates (p. 366). Palace reconstructed at Boghaz-Keui; Amazon sculpture (p. 372).

750 B.C.[983] N. Syria and Taurus subject to the Vannic kings (p. 386). [984]Plateau of Asia Minor subject to Phrygia.

FOOTNOTES

[1] We regard, however, the sculptures of Mount Sipylus (Pl. LIII.) and of Kara-Bel (Pl. LIV.) as witnesses to the possession of inland passes leading to the Lydian coast.

[2] In particular the Lycians (Lukki), who appear among the Hittite allies in the time of Rameses II., and later with the sea-peoples in the reign of Merenptah.

[3] There is no evidence to enable us to include the ‘Vannic’ monuments. Cf. Sayce’s Herodotus (London, 1883), App. iv. p. 424 and below, pp. 54, 385; we exclude also as capable of other interpretation isolated discoveries of moveable monuments, like those at Kedabeg (Messerschmidt, Corpus Inscrip. Hettiticarum, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1900, Pt. v. No. 1.), at Babylon (op. cit., Nos. 3, 4, 5), and Nineveh (ibid., Pl. XXXIX. Nos. 2-9), etc. The inscribed stone reported as found near Erzerum, now in the museum at Constantinople, No. 1193, is of doubtful provenance (op. cit., 1906, Pt. v. pp. 7, 8).

[4] These Hittite sites are shown on the map, to face p. 390.

[5] Mr. Hogarth, writing in the Recueil de Travaux, xvii., records that during his journeyings up through the valley he never saw nor heard of any pre-Hellenic monuments on the north side of the river.

[6] For these routes see Hogarth, Recueil de Travaux, XV. p. 29, and in Macan’s Herodotus (1895), App. XIII. § 9; also Ramsay, Historical Geography, pp. 35, 46 ff.

[7] For the modern condition and ancient importance of this region, see further: Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 94; Peters, Nippur, i. p. 81; Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations (London, 1896), pp. 144 and ff.; and The Passing of Empires (1900), p. 35, with an illustration.

[8] Here also the Euphrates is still our eastern boundary; for Tell-Ahmar, the scene of Mr. Hogarth’s recent discoveries (p. 129), though on the further side, is on the water’s edge; and the few monuments found further east, like the seal from Urfa (Messerschmidt, op. cit., C.I.H. 1900, Pl. XLI. No. 3), and the palace sculptures of Tell-Halaf (Von Oppenheim, Der alte Orient, 1908, Heft 1), which owe something to Hittite influence, are not definite enough to imply Hittite occupation. That the river separated the land of Mitanni from the Hatti is substantiated by the archives of Boghaz-Keui (Winckler, Mitteilungen der D. Orient.-Ges. 1907, No. 35). On the relation of Mitanni to Hittite see below, pp. 58, note 1, 324, note 2.

[9] Pronounced Afreen.

[10] See Plates XXXV., XLIII.

[11] We noticed this effect especially at Karadinek, August 1907.

[12] Pl. LXXXIV. (i), p. 320. This is clearly the old Amorite-Hittite type as represented on the Egyptian temple sculptures, temp. Rameses II., then apparently most prevailing in the Lebanon region. See Petrie, Racial Types, No. 147, and Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, p. 147 and fig.; cf. also W. Max Müller, Asien und Europa, pp. 229, 233, and the Book of Joshua, x. 6, and xi. 3. The type is now more widely dispersed, as seen from this example and Pls. XV. (ii), LXXXVI. below.

[13] A local tradition says that 120,000 men were drawn from this region in the time of Alexander.

[14] Von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i.; and Liverpool Annals of Archæology, i. p. 99.

[15] Including the kingdoms of Unki, Samalla, and Jaudi: see the map, p. 375.

[16] Cf. Plate LXXIV.

[17] The coast route to Alexandretta was in course of reconstruction in 1907. Formerly the rocky promontory known as Pylæ Syriæ et Ciliciæ presented a formidable obstacle, over which carts could pass only with great difficulty; while for travellers on horseback the easiest passage was by wading in the sea at the foot of the cliffs. The Bogche route is that contemplated for the new section of the railway heading for Baghdad.

[18] A silvered copper seal, cylindrical in shape, is recorded as from Haifa (C.I.H. 1900, Pl. XLI. 2), but no argument can be based thereon. Other small objects from this region are a seal and archaic bronze figure from Latakia (C.I.H. loc. cit. No. 6, and Peiser, Die Bronze-figur von Schernen, aus Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges. Prussia, Heft 22, p. 428), and a similar archaic bronze from Homs, said to have been found in the Orontes (Peiser, op. cit.).

[19] See Plate LXXXIV. (ii), reproduced from a sketch by Mr. Horst Schliephack. The subject was an Arab-speaking carriage driver, resident in Hamath, who said that his birthplace was Urfa. Cf. the types Pls. LXXV., LXXVII.

[20] Ramsay, Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc., xv. p. 100.

[21] Cf. Livy, Bk. xxxviii. 18, etc., for the contrast between Phrygia and the plains.

[22] This feature also is historic. Cf. Strabo XII. viii. 8.

[23] For the general geographical conditions affecting life on the plateau, cf. Hogarth, The Nearer East (London, 1902), pp. 246 ff.

[24] For mineral and other resources consult inter alia, Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor (London, 1842), vol. i. chs. xvi., xx., xxiii.; likewise Van Lennep, Travels in ... Asia Minor (London, 1870).

[25] It is of interest in this connection to notice that one of the earliest historical references to the Hittites occurs in the Babylonian chronicles (King, Chronicles of the Early Babylonian Kings, London, 1907, pp. 72 and 148).

[26] Witness the group of monuments in the Kara Dagh, p. 90.

[27] A barrier, that is, to general migration in ancient times. As a political boundary its importance is clear from the fact that it divided the Median and Lydian empires (Herodotus, i. 72).

[28] Loc. cit., Strabo (XII. iii. 9) speaks of ‘the “Leuco-Syrians” whom we call Cappadocians.’ See also p. 92; and Ramsay, Historical Geography, pp. 32, 33.

[29] Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, vol. ii. ch. xliii.

[30] Liverpool Annals of Archæology, i. (1908), p. 6, Pls. VIII., IX.

[31] It is noteworthy that Strabo (XII. ii. 7), describes Mazaca (then the capital of the Cilician province) as being in a ruinous state without walls, while its land remained unfertile and uncultivated.

[32] See Pl. IX.

[33] See Pl. LXXXVI.

[34] Professor Ramsay (Historical Geography, p. 35) already argued the necessary antiquity of such a route before the Hittite monument on the mountain pass was brought to light.

[35] See below, pp. 45, 366, note 2; and cf. Macan’s Herodotus, App. XIII. §§ 7, 8, 9.

[36] Liv. Annals of Arch., i. (1908), p. 11.

[37] Cf. Pl. XXIV. (i).

[38] See below, Pl. XXV. (iii); and Liverpool Annals of Arch., i. pp. 10, 13.

[39] At Andaval, C.I.H. (1900), Pl. XXXI.; and at Bor, ibid. (1906), Pl. XXXIII. See below, p. 91.

[40] See p. 233.

[41] See pp. 33, 38.

[42] See p. 143.

[43] See Pl. II. (ii).

[44] Cf. Strabo, XII. xi. 8.

[45] We noticed in passing an aged pair working together in their small garden of vegetables. It was summer-time, and their sleeping-place was a bower of branches and twigs covered entirely with pink roses.

[46] To be distinguished from the Bogche, which gives its name to the pass over the Giaour Dagh (p. 14).

[47] Herodotus, i. 75, and v. 52; Ramsay, Historical Geography, p. 29; but see below, p. 38, note 1.

[48] Cf. Pls. XII., XIII. (ii). We are alluding to the poorer classes. There is a considerable degree of refinement and simple luxury among the more prosperous Turkomans. See, for example, Davis, Life in Asiatic Turkey, pp. 223-4.

[49] Pl. XVII.

[50] Cf. Pls. XIV., XVIII.

[51] The Yazîr Daresi.

[52] The Beuyuk Kayanin Daresi. See Pl. LIX.

[53] Herodotus, i. 76, says that Crœsus enslaved the inhabitants, and took also the adjacent places, expelling the population.

[54] We do not attempt to distinguish any but the types that recall the various Hittite representations in contemporary sculptures, particularly those which decorate the walls of Egyptian temples. Such resemblance may be accidental, but it is of interest. In the deeper inquiry, there is a wonderful field of material for a trained ethnographist. Probably no ‘nation’ on earth to-day is composed of so many and varying elements as is that of the Turks. A walk through any market town, where the people are brought together, or even a glance out of the carriage window at the people on the platform of a busy railway station, will bring forth visions of Tartars and Mongols, Greeks and Jews, even occasionally Hindoos and Arabs, as well as the dominant Turkoman, Circassian and Armenian types, all of which under Nature’s gentle and wonderful influence seem to blend quite fittingly together. There is nothing, moreover, that astonishes the reason; for this country was not only the battlefield of nations, but the natural pathway between two continents. Cf. Pls. XV., LXXXV.-LXXXVII.

[55] Cf. Pls. LXXXIV., LXXXVI. (i). On the subject of surviving types, cf. Wilson (Sir Charles) in the Quart. Statement Pal. Expl. Fd., Jan. 1884.

[56] And thence in ancient times to Sinope. Ramsay, Hist. Geog., p. 28; see also Curtius, Griech. Gesch., ed. 5, i. 408, and Herodotus, i. 76, in reference to which cf. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Sardinia ... Syria and Asia Minor (Engl. ed. 1890), ii. p. 103.

[57] E.g. Herodotus, ix. 27; and Strabo, XI. ch. v. 4.

[58] See Pl. L.

[59] Ramsay, Historical Geography, p. 31, and Jour. Roy. As. Soc., XV. pp. 100-112; also Crowfoot, Jour. Hell. Stud., XIX., i. p. 50.

[60] Herodotus, i. 72. But cf. also Homer, Iliad, iii. 187, and xvi. 719.

[61] Ramsay, Historical Geography, pp. 29, 30. See Pl. XXIV. (i).

[62] Herodotus, i. 75, quotes a general doubt (in which, however, he does not share) that the Halys was not yet bridged in the time of Crœsus. There are, however, suitable fords northward from Cheshme Keupru still freely used for the summer routes leading from Angora across the river eastward; and that the bridge was in use in Persian times seems to be clear (ibid., v. 52).

[63] Vide Ramsay, Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (Aberdeen, 1906), pp. 177-180.

[64] The Hittite horses were called by the Egyptians abari, strong or vigorous (Anastasi Pap., iv., Pl. XVII., ll. 8-9), but we may suspect that the reference here and elsewhere is to the breeds of Syria (vide Annals of Thothmes III.); Maspero (Struggle of the Nations, p. 215, note 4, and p. 352, note 4) seems divided in his view, referring the passage in one place to Cappadocia and in the other to Syria. Cf. also his Passing of Empires (1900), p. 205. There was a special breed in Cilicia, it would appear, in Persian times, from the reference in Herodotus, iii. 90.

[65] It is, however, full of interests, as any student of Professor Ramsay’s researches will know.

[66] Professor Ramsay’s Luke the Physician, pp. 129 ff., tells of numberless neglected irrigation works in the desert and on the slopes of Taurus. The country must, at one time, have presented quite a different appearance.

[67] See below, p. 56, and Pl. XXV. (iii).

[68] Cf. Ramsay and Hogarth, Recueil de Travaux, xiv. (1893), pp. 74 and ff.

[69] See Pl. LV.

[70] Locally called the Bozanti Su or Ak Su, from the names of important points along the route; it is a main tributary of the Sarus, which it joins after uniting with the Korkun as it nears the plain.

[71] See frontispiece.

[72] It is stated, however, by Aucher-Eloy, Relations de Voyages en Orient de 1830 à 1838, i. p. 160, that a rock sculpture (of uncertain character) which he had seen in the Cilician Gates was destroyed in 1834.

[73] We may reasonably suspect that this dates from the revival of the Hittite state with Tyana as its centre, in the tenth century B.C. (See above, p. 24, and below, p. 373.) On this question see Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul (London, 1907), pp. 114 and ff., also Pauline and other Studies (London, 1906), ch. xi.; cf. also, for a description of the route, Davis, Life in Asiatic Turkey (London, 1879), ch. viii.

[74] Roadside rest-houses. Cf. Pls. XIII., XX.

[75] Built or rebuilt it would seem by Ibrahim Pasha.

[76] We cannot accept as Hittite, from the evidence before us, the doorway and carved lintel from Lamas near Aseli-Keui; Langlois, Voyage en Cilicie, p. 169; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 57; Messerschmidt, C.I.H. (1900), Pl. XXXIII. B.

[77] Among works readily accessible, we may refer the reader to Mr. Hogarth’s summary in the introduction to Murray’s Handbook; to the articles by Winckler and Brandis in vols. iii. and iv. of The World’s History, Ed. Helmolt (London, 1902); and for the materials to Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890).

[78] For a detailed account, with the sources, see below, Chapter VI.

[79] The identification of Mita of Muski with Midas of Phrygia was first pointed out by Winckler, Ostorientalische Forschungen, ii. 71 ff. Our inference is that the Muski of the Assyrian Annals, the Moschoi of Herodotus (iii. 94), were really akin to the Phrygians of later history.

[80] About 1170 B.C.

[81] Fifty years later, in the reign of Tiglath Pileser I.

[82] See the Maps accompanying Chap. VI. pp. 375, 385.

[83] Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, i. p. 383; Ramsay, Jour. Roy. As. Soc., XV. p. 123.

[84] See Pl. XXV. (iii), from Liv. Annals, i. Pl. XIII. The name of Midas in this inscription was first recognised by Prof. Myres, op. cit., p. 13.

[85] Cf. Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, pp. 591, 643.

[86] In the reign of Assur-Nazir-Pal; cf. Maspero, The Passing of Empires, p. 16.

[87] Regarding, that is, the successive appearance of the Mitanni, the Hittites, and the Urartu (the Vannic power) as analogous movements. Cf. Winckler, Mitteil. d. Deut. Orient-Ges., December 1907, pp. 47 ff.; and in The World’s History, vol. iii. p. 113 etc.

[88] See especially Ramsay, ‘A Study of Phrygian Art,’ in the Jour. Hell. Stud., ix. (1887-8), pp. 350-352, and an earlier article in vol. iii. pp. 1-32; and Maspero, The Passing of Empires, pp. 328-335.

[89] Cf. Homer, Iliad, iii. 187; xvi. 719.

[90] On this point, see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1895), i. p. 7.

[91] Ramsay, loc. cit. Cf. the central group of Hittite sculptures at Iasily Kaya, Pl. LXV., where, however, the Father-god, the consort of the Mother-goddess, is seemingly derived from Babylonian origins. So, too, the Storm-god of the Hittites has clearly a Babylonian prototype in Hadad. On the subject of the Hittite deities, see below, pp. 356 ff.

[92] Herodotus, ii. 2.

[93] Homer, Hymn. Aphr. 111 and ff.

[94] Φρυγίης εὐτειχήτοιο. Cf. Ramsay, loc. cit.

[95] In this opinion we may appear to differ from Hogarth, Ionia and the East (Oxford, 1909), p. 70, but the standpoints are different.

[96] In addition to the Phrygian inscriptions at Eyuk, cited above, the story of Daskylos, the fugitive Lydian prince (B.C. 720), indicates close political relation between the two sides of the Halys at this time; for when fearful of remaining in Phrygia at the accession of Myrsos to the Lydian throne, for greater security he crossed the Halys and took refuge with the ‘White Syrians.’ Cf. Nicholas of Damascus, Fragm. Hist. Grec. (ed. Müller-Didot), No. 49. On the relationship with Pteria and the Chalybes see also Radet, La Lydie et le Monde Grec, pp. 63, 111.

[97] Pls. XXIV., XXV.

[98] Cf. Pls. LX., LXXVIII.

[99] Pl. XXIV. (ii); cf. pp. 121, 265, 289.

[100] Our newest authority for this period is Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon (New York, 1908).

[101] If the Tuna of the Assyrians be really Tyana, there is clear evidence of Phrygian supremacy there in 714, in the fact that Matti of Tuna disclaimed his allegiance to Assyria and turned to Midas. If, however, Tuna is to be located somewhat further east (cf. the Tynna of Ptolemy V., 6, 22, and Maspero, The Passing of Empires, p. 239, note 2), or south-east at Faustinopolis (Ramsay, Hist. Geog., p. 68), then the inference is equally clear that the Phrygian sphere reached at least to Tyana, if not beyond. This evidence is supplementary to that of the inscription already mentioned (Pl. XXV.).

[102] Herodotus, iv. 11, 12. We follow the story as worked out by Maspero, op. cit., p. 345.

[103] Strabo, XIV. i. 40.

[104] Cf. Maspero, op. cit., p. 336; also Sayce, Empires of the East, i. p. 427.

[105] Herodotus, i. 7. On the way in which the date is derived, see Schubert, Gesch. der Könige von Lydien, p. 8.

[106] For the character of the early names and their relation to the Hittite see Sayce, loc. cit.; cf. also Hall on Mursil and Myrtillos, Jour. Hell. Stud., xxix. (1909), pp. 19-22; and on the same point, Winckler in the Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung, Dec. 1906.

[107] Gelzer, Das Zeitalter des Gyges, Rheins. Mus., vol. xxxv. (1880), pp. 520-524; cf. Radet, La Lydie et le Monde Grec, etc., pp. 90, 91.

[108] Cf. the position of the Hatti kings, pp. 340, 361 ff.; and of the kings of Comana, of Pontus, and other states (Strabo, Bk. XII. ch. iii. sec. 32). On this subject see also Ramsay, in Recueil de Travaux, vol. xiv. pp. 78 ff., on ‘The Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia.’

[109] For the double axe in Hittite symbolism, see Pl. LXV.; and for the relation of the God-of-the-double-axe to Hercules, see pp. 195, 240.

[110] On this question, and on the whole subject of Hittite influence surviving in the civilisations of the western coast, see the brilliant survey by Hogarth, Ionia and the East, especially pp. 74 ff. and 101-2.

[111] Op. cit., pp. 101-2.

[112] Excavations at Ephesus: I. The Archaic Artemisia p. 173.

[113] Above, p. 37; see also below, p. 338, and Pls. LIII., LIV.

[114] Herodotus, i. 76.

[115] On this subject see Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire (London, 1909), pp. 120, 123.

[116] Pl. LV.

[117] Pl. XXVII.

[118] This place was visited by Drummond, Travels ... in Parts of Asia to the Euphrates (London, 1874), who gives a sketch plan (No. 9 to f. p. 201). Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History mentions three inscriptions over the gate, as well as a castle, a ‘very superb’ Theatre, a Basilica, Temple, and other buildings; cf. also Maundrell, A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem (ed. 1799), p. 158.

[119] For these see a paper by the Rev. W. M. Linton Smith, in the Liv. Annals of Arch., 1910.

[120] Pl. XXVIII. Cf. the Mausolée Pyramidal de Maktar, published by Gauckler, Les travaux d’Art ... en Tunisie, in Revue Générale des Sciences (Paris, November 30, 1896), p. 971, fig. 15. Also tombs at Arles and in Algeria, published by Gsell in Les Monuments Antiques d’Algérie (Paris, 1901). For these references we are indebted to Professor Bosanquet.

[121] Pls. XXIX., XXX.

[122] The old Aramæan name for Heliopolis; it is really just south of the historic Hittite frontier in the Lebanon.

[123] For photographs of the ruins and city of Tarsus see Pl. XXII., XXIII.; cf. also Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, Part II., with Pls. II.-V.

[124] See Pl. XXXIV. (ii).

[125] Pls. XXXII., XXXIII.

[126] On the importance of this aspect of study, cf. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris, in the Preface; and Hogarth in Authority and Archæology, 2nd ed. (London, 1899), Preface, vii.

[127] Sayce, The Hittites (London, 1888), 3rd ed., 1902, p. 67.

[128] As well as other sculptured and inscribed stones; see Winckler: Preliminary Report of Excavations at Boghaz Keui, 1907. (Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 35, Dec. 1907), figs. 6, 7, pp. 57, 58.

[129] Hist. Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia (Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc., xv., Pl. I.), p. 124.

[130] Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. etc., pp. 214 and ff.; also Hamilton, Researches, etc., ii., pp. 350, 351; and Revue Arch., 3, v. pp. 257-264, and Pls. XI., XII.

[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.	⎱	Pl. LXV.
⎧	4.	One similar, but not raised aloft.
⎪	5.	One winged.	⎫	Pl. LXIII. (ii).
⎨	6, 7.	Two females as a group.	⎬
⎪	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.).	⎱	Pl. LXIV.
⎩	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.	⎱	Pl. LXV.
⎩	3, 4.	Two similar to first, forming a group on double eagle.
	5-21.	Seventeen in procession resembling 1 R. (Pl. LXVII.).
	22 R=65.	One with lituus, toga, and winged rosette, etc., in hand, standing on two stony mounds (Pl. LXVIII.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[536] No. 68.

[537] No. 69.

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

[539] Nos. 70-81.

[540] Nos. 32-43 L.

[541] Pl. LXIX. (ii).

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

[543] No. 72.

[544] Nos. 73, 74.

[545] No. 2 R.

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

[547] No. 22 R.

[548] See particularly Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 149-153; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, chap. vi.; and Journal Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv., New Series (1885), pp. 113-120; Hamilton, Researches, etc. (i.) p. 394; and for an illuminative anthropological point of view, Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris (Golden Bough, iv. 2nd ed.), bk. I. chap. vi., § 4, pp. 105-110.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[555] No. 22 R.

[556] No. 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[567] See p. 269.

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

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

[570] Nos. 5, 7.

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

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

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

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

[575] Nos. 14, 15.

[576] Nos. 32-43.

[577] Professor Frazer, op. cit., p. 108.

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

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

[580] Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari, pp. 42 and 43; also Über die Ruinen bei Hejuk (Arch. Zeit. 1859, pp. 50, 59).

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

[582] Ramsay on The Early Historical Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia, Pt. 11 (Journal Royal Asiatic Society, xv., London, 1883), pp. 116.

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

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

[585] Macridy Bey, La porte des sphinx à Euyuk (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 3).

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

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

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

[589] Op. cit., Pl. I. fig. 10.

[590] Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 6.

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

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

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

[594] Macridy Bey, op. cit., figs. 23, 24.

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

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

[597] Cf. for example, Murray’s Handbook for Asia Minor, p. 27.

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

[599] Cf. Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, p. 648.

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

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

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

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

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

[605] Cf. Pl. LXVII.

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

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

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

[609] At the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.

[610] Pl. LXXII.

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

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

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

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

[615] Pl. LIII.

[616] Pl. LXV.

[617] Pl. XLVII.

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

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

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

[621] See Perrot, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii., fig. 341 and fig. 340; Exploration, Pl. LVII.

[622] Macridy Bey, op. cit., figs. 23, 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[629] Loc. cit., also Recueil de Travaux, xiv. p. 91 and fig. 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[637] Von Luschan and others: Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen Sammlungen, Hefte xi., xii., and xiii.; Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i., ii., iii. (Berlin, 1893, 1898, 1907).

[638] Published under the same auspices. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iv.

[639] See the Map on p. 375.

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

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

[642] Cf. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XXXIV.

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

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

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

[646] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, ii. p. 122 (Koldewey).

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

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

[649] Op. cit., iii. Pl. XXXIX.

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

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

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

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

[654] Compare Pl. LXXXI.

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

[656] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XLIV. (ii).

[657] For Nos. vii.-xv. see Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XXXVII.

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

[659] Cf. pp. 101, 111.

[660] P. 135.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[672] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pl. XLIV.

[673] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pl. XLIII. No. 1.

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

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

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

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

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

[679] Below, Pl. LXXIX.; and Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pls. XLVI., XLVII.

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

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

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

[683] Cf. p. 205.

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

[685] See Pls. LXXVII., LXXXI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[705] Les Premières Civilisations (Paris, 1909), p. 198, note 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[713] Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi, 1907, by Hugo Winckler; Mitteil. der Deuts. Orient-Ges., 1907, No. 35. Also an article, Die in Sommer 1906 ... Ausgr., in Orient. Lit.-Zeitung, ix., No. 12, pp. 621 ff.

[714] See above, p. 312.

[715] See above, p. 313.

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

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

[718] This type may be freely recognised, e.g. in the Ramesseum and at Abydos, Petrie, Racial Types, pp. 146-148, republished in his History of Egypt, iii. p. 48, fig. 17. Cf. our ‘living Amorite,’ Pl. LXXXIV. and p. 12, n. 1.

[719] Petrie, Racial Types, pp. 55, 143-145, in his History, iii. p. 48, fig. 17 (i); Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, p. 353; Sayce, The Hittites, 1903, p. 11.

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

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

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

[723] Cf. p. 313.

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

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

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

[727] Cf. W. Max Müller, Asien und Europa, pp. 328, 372; Lenormant, Les Origines d’Histoire (who infers a northern origin), iii. p. 299.

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

[729] Cf. pp. 13, 298.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[748] Winckler, T. A. Letters, No. 21.

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

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

[751] Fragment of treaty, Winckler, B. K. Tablets, p. 35.

[752] See below, and cf. Winckler, T. A. Letters, Nos. 132, 139.

[753] Winckler, loc. cit.

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

[755] Mitanni treaty preamble, Winckler, op. cit., p. 32. Cf. Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, pp. 358 ff.

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

[757] Winckler, B. K. Archives, op. cit., pp. 33, 34.

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

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

[760] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 34.

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

[762] Khalpa in Hittite, Khalman in Assyrian.

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

[764] Winckler, T. A. Letters, No. 132.

[765] Ibid., No. 146.

[766] Winckler, T. A. Letters, No. 139; Winckler, B. K. Tablets, p. 34. The parallelism between the archives of Tell el-Amarna and Boghaz-Keui is remarkable and instructive.

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

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

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

[770] Winckler, T. A. Letters, No. 27.

[771] Ibid., No. 87.

[772] Ibid., No. 50.

[773] Ibid., No. 51.

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

[775] Winckler, T. A. Letters, No. 52.

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

[777] Preamble Amorite treaty, temp. Hattusil, Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 43.

[778] Preamble Amorite treaty, temp. Mursil; ibid., p. 44.

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

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

[781] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, B. K. Tablets, p. 36.

[782] Ibid.

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

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

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

[786] See pp. 159, 205.

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

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

[789] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.

[790] P. 249.

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

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

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

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

[795] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 35.

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

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

[798] E.g. Gasga (Assyrian Kaskâ), Tibia, Zikhria; cf. Winckler, op. cit., p. 18.

[799] ? Manapa-Sanda.

[800] Winckler, op. cit., pp. 19, 44.

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

[802] Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, p. 608; Johns, in Hastings’ Abridged Dictionary (1909). We adopt the latter’s chronology.

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

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

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

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

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

[808] For an exhaustive study of the strategy of the Egyptian leader, and a critical examination of the authorities, see Breasted, The Battle of Kadesh (Chicago, 1903). Cf. also E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, pp. 288 f.; Maspero, Histoire (1875), pp. 220 ff., and Struggle of the Nations, pp. 392 ff.

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

[810] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 45.

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

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

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

[814] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 24.

[815] Winckler, op. cit., p. 21.

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

[817] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 23.

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

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

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

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

[822] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., pp. 23, 24.

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

[824] Winckler, op. cit., p. 26.

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

[826] Winckler, op. cit., p. 28.

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

[828] Winckler, B. K. Tablets, op. cit., p. 15 and p. 19.

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

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

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

[832] P. 235, Pl. LXV.

[833] P. 262, Pl. LXXIII.

[834] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.

[835] P. 168, Pl. LIII.

[836] Pl. LXV.

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

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

[839] Cf. Pl. LXVIII.

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

[841] Ibid.

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

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

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

[845] Pp. 118, 151, 165.

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

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

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

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

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

[851] Pl. LXVII.

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

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

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

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

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

[857] Pl. LXV.

[858] Pl. XLIV.

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

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

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

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

[863] Cf. p. 170.

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

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

[866] P. 349.

[867] Pls. LXVIII., LXXXI.

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

[869] Above, p. 297.

[870] Above, pp. 326 ff.

[871] See Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, pp. 356 f.; and cf. W. Max Müller, Asien und Europa, pp. 324-329.

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

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

[874] P. 163.

[875] Pls. LXV., LXX.

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

[877] Cf. pp. 274-5.

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

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

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

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

[882] P. 283.

[883] Pp. 274-5.

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

[885] P. 122.

[886] P. 121.

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

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

[889] P. 279.

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

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

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

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

[894] See p. 34, note 2.

[895] See p. 143.

[896] See pp. 6, 24.

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

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

[899] Pp. 37, 38.

[900] Pp. 208, 342.

[901] P. 233.

[902] See p. 339, note 2.

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

[904] P. 272.

[905] See p. 123.

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

[907] See p. 94.

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

[909] Inner wall of the second pylon of the temple Medinet Habu at Thebes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[919] Cf. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung, pp. 225-236. Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, pp. 589, and note 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[930] P. 190.

[931] P. 154.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[942] See p. 13.

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

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

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

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

[947] Cf. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung, pp. 221, 236.

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

[949] Cf. Maspero, The Passing of Empires, p. 589.

[950] E.g. Akhuni, c. 860 B.C., and Khaiani, c. 859 B.C.; see also p. 272.

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

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

[953] Cf. pp. 222, 240.

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

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

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

[957] Cf. above, p. 297.

[958] Pp. 203, 210.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[965] Maspero, op. cit., p. 64.

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

[967] Cf. Maspero, op. cit., p. 71.

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

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

[970] Sayce, The Cuneiform Inscr. of Van; op. cit., xiv. p. 642-649, also xx. pp. 18, 19.

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

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

[973] Annals of Tiglath-Pileser, iii. ll. 59, 73.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[983] Date approximate.

[984] Date inferred.

Barth, Reise von Trepesunt nach Scutari. Über die Ruinen bei Heyuk (Arch. Zeit., 1859).

Davis, E. J., On a New Hamathic Inscription at Ibreez. (Trs. Soc. Biblical Arch., vol. iv. 1876.)

Frazer, Prof. J. G., The Golden Bough, iv.; Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 2nd ed. (London, 1907.)

Hilprecht, Research in Bible Lands. (Edinburgh, 1905). Professor P. Jensen in same: ‘The so-called Hittites and their Inscriptions’ (755-793).

Hirschfeld, Die Felsenreliefs in Klein-Asien und das Volk der Hittiter (Abhandlungen der Akademie in Berlin, 1887).

—— —— (ii) Appendix xiii., § 9, in Macan’s ed. of Herodotus. (Oxford, 1895.)

Jeraphanion (Gu. de), Two new Hittite Monuments in the Cappadocian Taurus. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XXX. (1908, Feb.).

Liverpool Annals of Archæology, vols. i. ii. iii. (Liverpool, 1908 et seqq.) [Abbr. Liv. Annals.]

Luschan, Von, and others, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i. ii. iii. (Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen Sammlungen, K. Museen zu Berlin.) Berlin, 1893, ’98, 1902.

Macridy Bey, La porte des Sphinx à Euyuk. (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 3, Berlin.)

Messerschmidt, (i) Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum. (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.) Berlin, 1900, 4 and 5; 1902, 3; 1906, 5. [Abbr. C.I.H.]

—— (ii) The Hittites. (Ancient East Series VI.) (London, 1903, being transl. of Die Hittiter, Der alte Orient, Leipzig, 1903.)

—— (ii) Der Bündnis-vertrag Ramses II. und des Chetiter-Königs. (Berlin, 1902.)

Olmstead, Western Asia in the days of Sargon of Assyria, 722-7 B.C. (New York, 1908.)

Peiser, Die Bronze-figur von Schernen (Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges. Prussia. Heft 22.)

Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Sardinia ... Syria and Asia Minor ii. (Engl. ed. London, 1890). [Abbr. Art in ... Asia Minor.]

Ramsay, Prof. Sir Wm., (i) On the early Historical Relations between Phrygia and Cappadocia, i. ii. iii. (Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc. N. S. XV., 1883.)

—— and Hogarth, Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie[394] et à l’archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes, xiv. xv. xvii. [Abbr. Recueil de Travaux.]

Ramsay (ii) Studies in Asia Minor, i. and ii. Jour. Hellenic Studies, iii. (London 1883), also ibid., ix. p. 372.

—— (iii) The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. (London, 1890.) Royal Geog. Soc. Suppl. Papers. Vol. iv. [Abbr. Historical Geog.]

—— (iv), Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (Aberdeen, 1906); V. T. Callander. Exploration in Lycaonia and Isauria, 1904. [Abbr. Stud. History and Art].

Robinson, W. A., A monument from Tsok-Goz-Kupruköe. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XXX. 1. (1908, Jan.)

Rott, Hans, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler (Leipzig, 1908), Messerschmidt in do., pp. 175-8, figs. 1, 2, 3.

—— (iii) The Hittites Inscriptions, in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology; 1903, March, May, June, Nov., Dec.; 1904, Jan., Nov.; 1905, Nov.

—— (iv) Inscriptions from the Kara Dagh. (Ibid., vol. xxxi., 1909, March.)

Sayce, A Hittite Cuneiform Tablet from Boghaz-Keui. (Publ. jointly by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, and Liv. Inst. of Arch., Oct. 1908.)

Winckler, H., Vorläufige Nachrichten über die Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Keui in Sommer 1907. (Mitteilungen der deutschenorient. Gesellschaft zu Berlin. No. 35, Dec. 1907.) [Abbr. Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K., 1907.]

—— Note on Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K., 1906, Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung, ix.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1902), pp. 13 and Pl. XIX.; Recueil de Travaux, xv. p. 30 and Pls. I., II. Now in the Constantinople Museum.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 4, Pl. III. A; Quart. St. Pal. Expl. Fd., 1873, p. 73; Wright, Empire, p. 142, Pls. V.-VII.; Proc. S.B.A., v. (1883), p. 146, and 1908 (June); Liv. Annals of Arch. i. (1908), p. 8 and Pl. IX. (iii).

Alexandretta: Small Stone, inscribed both sides, possibly from Marash, p. 99, note 1.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 27 and Pl. XXXI. C.; Recueil de Travaux, xiv. p. 84 and Pl. I.

Bibl.: Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Asia Minor, ii. p. 202 and fig. 352; Jour. Hell. Stud., xix. pp. 45-48 and fig. 5.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 32 and Pl. XXXVI. A; Mitt. d. Deut. Arch. Inst. Athen., xiv. (1889), p. 181; Jour. Hell. Stud., ix. p. 372; Murray’s Handbook for Asia Minor, p. 135.

Bibl.: (i) C.I.H. (1900), p. 22; Perrot, Exploration, ii., Pl. XXXV.; Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg. (1889), xiv. p. 170. (ii) Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient. Ges. Berlin (1907), 35, pp. 57, 58, and figs. 6, 7. (iii) The Name: Herodotus, i. 76; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 103; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 215, note. Excavations: Chantre, Mission en Cappadoce, pp. 13 ff.; Winckler, Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient. Ges. (1907), pp. 57, 58; Winckler, Orientalistische Lit. Zeitung (1906), Dec. (iii and iv) Descriptive: Barth, Reise ... nach Scutari, pp. 44-52; Humann and Puchstein, Reisen in Kl. A., pp. 54 ff. and Pls. VII. ff.; Perrot, Exploration Archéol., ii. Pls. XXXV. ff.; Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit., pp. 108 ff.; Texier, Description de l’Asie Mineure, i. Pls. LXXX. ff. (iv) Religion: Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit., pp. 149-153; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, ch. vi.; Ramsay, Jour. Roy. As. Soc., xv., N.S. (1885), pp. 113-120; Expository Times, Nov. 1909; Hamilton, Researches in A.M., i. p. 396; Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris, i. vi. pp. 105-110. Sculptures and Hieroglyphs: C.I.H. (1900), Pls. XXVII.-XXIX.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1906), p. 3 and Pl. XXXIII.; Recueil, xiv. Pl. I.; Proc. S.B.A., xxviii. (1906), p. 94 and Pl. III.; Hogarth, Wandering Scholar, p. 16. Now in Constantinople Museum, No. 857.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 27 and Pl. XXXII.; Recueil, xiv. p. 85 and Pl. II.; Proc. S.B.A. (1905), p. 229. Casts at Oxford (Ashmolean Mus.) and Berlin (Vorderas. Mus.). Large-scale photographs at Liverpool (Inst. Arch.).

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 32 and Pl. XXXVI. B; Jour. Hell. Stud., iii. (1883), pp. 6-11 and fig. 2; Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg. (1889), xiv. p. 182, Pl. VI.; Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit., ii. p. 206 and fig. 353.

Bibl.: Hamilton, Researches, ii. pp. 350, 351; Revue Arch., 3ᵉ ser. vol. v. pp. 257-264 and Pls. XI., XII.; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 224, fig. 356.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 26, Pl. XXXI., and ibid. (1906), pp. 2, 3, Pl. XXXI. A. Now in Constantinople Museum, No. 1217.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1906), p. 9 and Pls. XLIX., L.; Proc. S.B.A., xxvii. (1905), pp. 21-23, Pls. I.-III., and ibid., xxviii. (1906), p. 134; Ramsay, History and Art of the Eastern Provs. of Rom. Emp., p. 178 and Pls. IX., X., XI.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), pp. 24, 25; Hamilton, Researches, i. pp. 382, 383; Barth, Reise ... nach Scutari, pp. 42, 43; Arch. Zeit. (1859), pp. 50-59; Van Lennep, Travels in ... Asia Minor, pp. 129-148; Perrot, Exploration, ii. Pls. LIII. ff.; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 153-158; Chantre, Mission, p. 1; Maspero, Passing of Empires, p. 338; Struggle of Nations, p. 648; Humann and Puchstein, Reisen, p. 82, Pl. VII.; Recueil de Travaux, xiv. p. 91, fig. 5; Jour. Roy. As. Soc., xv. p. 116; Mitteil. d. Vorderas. Ges. (1908), 3; Liv. Annals of Arch., i. (1908), p. 3, Pls. II., III.

Bibl.: Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 222, 223. Illustr.: Cities of St. Paul, p. 134, fig. 7.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), pp. 25, 26, and Pl. XXX.; Recueil de Travaux, p. 87 and Pl. XIV.; Chantre, Mission, p. 125 and Pl. XXIII.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 15 and Pl. XVIII.; Recueil de Travaux, xiv. p. 86 and Pl. IV.; Wright, Empire, p. 57; Sayce, Trans. S.B.A., vii. p. 305; Proc. S.B.A. (1903), p. 148.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), pp. 6-8 and Pls. III. B-VI.; Wright, Empire, pp. 139-141 and Pls. I.-IV.; Sayce, Hittites, pp. 60-64; Burckhardt, Travels in Syria ..., p. 146; Burton, Unexplored Syria, p. 335; Palestine Expl. Fund, Q. S., 1871, p. 173; ibid., 1872, pp. 74,[398] 199; ibid., 1873, pp. 35, 61, 74; Amer. Pal. Expl. Soc. (1871), p. 31; Trs. S.B.A., vii. p. 429; Proc. S.B.A. 1903 (March), ibid., 1905 (Nov.), p. 218. Now in the Constantinople Museum, Nos. 831-834.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 30 and Pl. XXXIV.; ibid. (1906), p. 5 and Pl. XXXIV., and pp. 19, 20; Davis, Trs. S.B.A., iv. (1876). pp. 336, 346; Life in Asiatic Turkey (1879), pp. 245-260; Hamilton, Researches, ii. pp. 304-307; Ramsay and Hogarth, Recueil, xiv. pp. 71-85, Pls. III.-IV.; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, pp. 171, 179, and Pl. XXI.; Ramsay, Pauline, etc., pp. 172, 173; Sayce, Proc. S.B.A. (1906), pp. 133, 134, and Pl.; Frazer, Adonis, etc. (1907), pp. 93-97. Cast in the Berlin Vorderas. Museum.

Jerablus, Site of Carchemish. Inscribed Stela with relief and fragments of the others. Inscription with Winged Figure. Inscribed Corner-stone: Inscribed Column. Inscribed Fragments of Stone. Relief showing Figures on Lion’s Back. Relief showing ‘Adoration of Kybele.’ Relief showing Priest between Warriors, pp. 123-129.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), pp. 9-12 and Pls. IX.-XV.; ibid. (1902), pp. 2-12 and Pls. X.-XV.; Wright, Empire, pp. 143, 148, Pls. VIII.-XIII., also XIX.-XXII.; Trs. S.B.A., vii. p. 435; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 62, figs. 276, 277, and p. 281, with figs. 390, 391; Ball, Light from the East, pp. 141-143; Proc. S.B.A. (1905), pp. 201 ff.; The Graphic, Dec. 11, 1880; Liv. Annals of Arch. (1909), ii. pp. 165-171, with fig. 1 and Pls. XXXV., XXXVI. (i); Maspero, Struggle, p. 145; Maundrell, Journey to Euphrates (1749); Drummond, Travels to ... Euphrates (1754), p. 209. The Inscriptions now in British Museum (Guide, p. 27).

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 37, Pl. XXXIX.; Sayce, Hittites (1903), p. 67, with Pl.; Texier, Description, ii. Pl. CXXXII.; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 229 and fig. 362; Wright, Empire, p. 155 and Pl. XVIII.; Revue Archéol. (1866), xiii. Pl. XII.; Trs. S.B.A., vii. pp. 266, 439; Proc. S.B.A., XXI. p. 222; Herodotus, ii. p. 106.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1902), pp. 17, 24, Pl. XLVI.; Jour. Hell. Stud., xxi. (1901), pp. 328-332, with Pl.; Proc. S.B.A. (1905), p. 217.

Kara-Dagh: Rock Passage, with two Inscriptions. (Kizil-Dagh): Fortress, with three Inscriptions; Rock Altar, with Inscription: Rock Throne, with Figure and Inscription, pp. 177-181.

Bibl.: Ramsay, Luke the Physician, pp. 160 ff. and Pls. XIV.-XVI. Proc. S.B.A. (1909), xxxi. p. 86 and Pls. VII. and VIII.

Kellekli: Eight miles north of Jerablus. Recently found: (i) Relief of Human Figure in long robe. (ii) Stela showing relief of two Figures facing, inscribed on face and two sides.

Bibl.: Hogarth in Liv. Annals of Arch. (1909), ii. p. 172, figs. 2, 3, and Pl. XXXVI. (ii, iii).

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 8 and Pl. VII. Now in Berlin Vorderas. Museum, No. 3009.

Bibl.: Proc. S.B.A. (1908), xxx., Pt. II., p. 42 and Pl. I. [Remains in situ.]

Malatia: Three Reliefs of Lion Hunt, Stag Hunt, and Ceremonial Feast, with Inscriptions. Four Reliefs with Deities and Oblation Scenes, etc., pp. 135-140 and Pl. XLIV.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 13, Pl. XVI. (A, B); ibid. (1906), p. 7, Pl. XLVII.; Heuzy, Les Origines Orientales d’Art, i. Pl. X.; Liv. Annals of Arch., i. (1908), Pls. IV., V.; ibid., 1909, p. 180 and Pl. XLI.; Hogarth, Recueil, xviii., with Pl., p. 25; Proc. S.B.A. (1905), p. 212; ibid. (1904), xxvi. p. 13. Lion Hunt and Feast now in Constantinople Museum, 846, 847; Stag Hunt in the Louvre Museum, Paris.

Marash: (a, b) Two Lion Corner-stones (one Inscription), pp. 108-111 and Pl. XLII.

Inscribed:—(c) Relief of Ceremonial Feast, pp. 111-112. (d) Portion of a Statue, p. 113. (e) Fragment of a Statue, p. 113. (f) Royal Stela, p. 114. (g) Four-sided Monument, pp. 115-117. (h) Fragment of Basalt, p. 118.

Uninscribed Reliefs:—(i) Woman seated with Child, p. 118. (k) Ceremonial Feast, p. 119. (l) Warrior before Table, p. 119. (m) Adoration Scene, p. 120. (n) Chariot and Horse, p. 121. (o) Musician with Pipes, p. 122. (p) Horse-rider, p. 122.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), pp. 18, 19, and Pls. XXII.-XXV.; (1902), pp. 15, 16, and Pl. XXI.; (1906), p. 2 and Pl. XXII.; Humann and Puchstein, Reisen, Atlas, Pls. XLVII.-XLIX.; Recueil, xv. p. 32 and Pl. II. B; Wright, Empire, p. 162 and Pl. XXVI.; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. fig. 268 and pp. 64 ff.; Proc. S.B.A. ix. (1887), p. 374; (1905), p. 225.

Now a at Constantinople Museum, No. 840; Cast at British Museum; d, n, o at Berlin (V.A. Museum, Nos. 973, 974); f, h, l Metropolitan Museum, New York, Nos. 1904-6-5; l, k, m Casts at Berlin (V.A.G., 61, 63, 62); g at Constantinople Museum, No. 1625.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 17 and Pl. XX; ibid. (1906), pp. 1, 2, and Pl. XX.; Recueil, xv. p. 95 and Pl. III.; Proc. S.B.A., xxviii. pp. 93, 94, and Pl. II. Now in Constantinople Museum, No. 1215.

Sakje-Geuzi: (a) Reliefs of Lion Hunt, Ceremonial Feast, and fragments of Lions, etc., pp. 102-105 and Pl. XXXIX. (b) Walled Mounds, Palace Ruins, and Reliefs, pp. 298-314 and Pls. LXXVIII.-LXXXII.

Bibl.: (a) Humann and Puchstein, Reisen, Atlas, Pl. XLVI. Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 64 and fig. 279; Liv. Annals of Arch., pp. 101, 102, and Pl. XLV.; (b) ibid., pp. 97-117 and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX. Now Lion Hunt at Berlin; casts of a at Liv. Inst. of Arch.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), p. 14 and Pl. XVII.; Humann and Puchstein, Reisen, Atlas, Pl. XLIX. (1-3).

Sinjerli: Walled Town and Citadel: Gate Sculptures, Ruins of Palaces, Carvings, pp. 270-297 and Pls. LXXV.-LXXVII.

Bibl.: Luschan and others, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Now half gate sculptures at Berlin and half at Constantinople.

Sipylus: Rock Sculpture of Mother-goddess, with Inscription, pp. 168-170 and Pl. LIII.

Bibl.: C.I.H. (1900), pp. 33-36 and Pls. XXXVII., XXXVIII.; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 234 ff. and fig. 365; Weber, Le Sipylus, pp. 36 ff.; Jour. Hell. Stud., iii. pp. 33-68; Proc. S.B.A., iii. p. 49; ibid., vii. Pl. V.; Academy (1879); Pausanias, III. xxii. 4.

Bibl.: Rott, Kleinas. Denk., p. 178, fig. 3; Jeraphanion, Proc. S.B.A., xxx. (1908), pp. 43, 44, and Pl. II.

Tell-Ahmar: Mounds of Hittite Site, East Bank of Euphrates, south of Jerablus, pp. 129, 130. (i) Stela in Black Basalt, round topped, upper half; figure wearing polus, and clasping object. (ii) Six broken Blocks of Basalt, with hieroglyphs, forming a four-sided monument, with male Hittite deity standing on bull upon the face, and an inscription in eight lines of hieroglyphs in relief upon the sides and back. [Measures about 200 × 90 × 90[401] cms., tapering slightly.] (iii) Broken Slab, two draped figures, with fringed robe and upturning shoes. (iv) Broken Slab with two figures in relief, clad in tunics and upturned shoes with objects in hands. (v) [Gigantic Lion sculptures, inscribed in cuneiform.] (vi) [Uninscribed large Block, with relief of two rampant horse-demons.] (vii) [Slab, T-shaped, with relief of a bull.] (viii) [Broken Block, relief of forearm and hands.] (ix) [Basalt Block, relief of eagle-headed winged deity in Assyrian attitude.]

Bibl.: Hogarth, Liv. Annals of Arch. (1909), ii. pp. 177-183 and Pls. XXXVI.(iv)-XL.

Bibl.: Proc. S.B.A. (1908), p. 27 and figs. 1, 2; Liv. Annals of Arch., i. p. 5 and Pls. VI., VII.

CLASSICAL AND BIBLICAL WRITINGS, Etc., QUOTED.

Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to His Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press

CHAP.		PAGE
	INTRODUCTORY NOTE: By the Rev. Professor A. H. Sayce, LL.D., D.D., D.Litt.	vii
	AUTHOR’S PREFACE,	xi
I.	A CHAPTER OF GEOGRAPHY,	1-50
	Boundaries and physical features (pp. 2-4); eastern Taurus and Anti-Taurus (p. 5); northernmost Syria: the plains, the valleys of the Afrîn and Kara Su (pp. 6-13); Passes of the Amanus (pp. 14-15); Valley of the Orontes (p. 16).
	Plateau of Asia Minor, boundaries and features (pp. 17-19); five regions (pp. 20-21); position of Cæsarea, the roads (pp. 22-25); the Halys River (pp. 26-28), its basin (pp. 29-31); position of Boghaz-Keui and Eyuk (pp. 32-33); northern roads and rivers (pp. 34-35); western regions, Angora, Phrygia, Konia (pp. 36-40); south-eastern region, Kara Dagh, Ivrîz, Tyana (pp. 41-42); Taurus: the Bulghar Dagh (pp. 43, 44), the Cilician Gates (pp. 45-47); Cilicia (pp. 48-50).
II.	SOME PAGES OF HISTORY,	51-73
	Outline of Hittite period: the empire, revival and final submergence (pp. 52-55); survival of customs (p. 56). The Phrygians, in Assyrian and Greek history (pp. 57-58), their civilisation and monuments (pp. 59-61); the Urartians and Cimmerians (p. 62). Lydia (pp. 63-64); Greek colonies (pp. 65, 66). Persian rule (p. 67). Alexander and Hellenising influences (pp. 67, 68). Roman period: Seleucids, kings of Pontus, Cilicians; organisation (pp. 69-70); monuments (p. 71). The Saracen (Arab) conquests (p. 72); the Seljûk Turks (p. 73).	[xvi]
III.	MONUMENTS OF THE HITTITES,	74-195
	Preliminary: method of study (pp. 74-76), chronology (pp. 77-79), classification (pp. 80-82), disposition (pp. 84-91).
	Section a.—Monuments of the north of Syria: Hamath, Restan, Aleppo (pp. 93-97); Kurts-oghlu, Sinjerli, Kara-burshlu, Sakje-Geuzi (pp. 98-106); Aintab, Killiz, Marash (pp. 107-122); Jerablus (Carchemish), Tell-Ahmar, Samsat, Rum-Kale (pp. 123-131).
	Section b.—Monuments in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus: Malatia, Derendeh, Palanga, Gurun (pp. 132-144); Arslan Tash, Albistan (pp. 132-146); Kuru-Bel (p. 147); Ekrek, Tashji, Fraktin (pp. 148-151).
	Section c.—Monuments of the Halys Basin: Asarjik, Suasa (pp. 152, 153); Karaburna, Bogche, Yamoola (pp. 154-157); Boghaz-Keui, Denek Maden (pp. 158-160).
	Section d.—Monuments of the West: Angora, Giaour-Kalesi, Yarre (Chesme Keupru), Doghanlu, Bey-Keui (pp. 161-167); Sipylus, Kara-Bel (pp. 168-172); Kölit-oghlu, Eflatoun-Bunar, Fassiler (pp. 173-176).
	Section e.—Monuments of the South-East: Kara Dagh, Kizil Dagh (pp. 177-182); Emir-Ghazi, Ardistama (pp. 183, 184); Tyana, Bor, Nigdeh, Andaval (pp. 185-189); Bulghar-Madên (p. 190); Ivrîz (pp. 191-195).
IV.	THE NORTHERN CAPITAL: A Description of the Ancient City at Boghaz-Keui and the Sculptures called Iasily Kaya,	196-241
	Part i.—Identity with Pteria (p. 197); history, economy, and situation (pp. 198-200); the acropolis ramparts, gateways and defences (pp. 201-205), Nishan Tash and other monuments (p. 206); the Lower Palace (pp. 207, 208); chronological evidences (pp. 209-211).	[xvii]
	Part ii.—The Rock-sculptures called Iasily Kaya: Situation, description of sanctuary and decorative scheme (pp. 211, 213); leading figures of gods (pp. 214-216); a priest-figure (p. 217); procession of male figures (pp. 218-220); plan and schedule (p. 221); the leading goddesses, etc. (pp. 222, 223), procession of females (p. 224), the Priest-king (p. 225); ceremonial feast and monsters (p. 226). The Inner Gallery: the moving figures (p. 227); Dirk-deity (p. 228). General survey (pp. 230-232); historical considerations (pp. 233-234); the divine triad (pp. 235-241).
V.	WALLED TOWNS AND PALACES,	242-314
	Part i.—The Palace and Sculptures of Eyuk (pp. 242-269). Researches (pp. 242, 243): the site (pp. 244-245); the Sphinx-gate (pp. 246-248); buildings and masonry (pp. 249-252). The Sculptures: sphinxes, bull-god, priest and priestess, masons, musicians (pp. 253-262); the mother-goddess, lion corner-stone, groups (pp. 263-266); oblation scene, double eagle (pp. 267-270).
	Part ii.—The Town and Sculptures of Sinjerli (pp. 270-298). Excavations, summary of results (pp. 270-273); reliefs from city gate, eagle-headed deities, horse-riders, winged monsters, male figures, bowman, hare and stag (pp. 274-276); citadel gate (pp. 277-278); reliefs—(i) charioteer and victim, (ii) warrior, (iii) lion, (iv) God of Chase, (v, vi) lion and monster (pp. 279-283); (vii) man bearing kid, (viii) Ceremonial Feast, (ix, x) three male figures, (xi) archer, (xii-xiii) stag and kid, (xiv) winged lion rampant, (xv-xvi) figures with double hammer (pp. 284-288); (xvii) warrior and sphinx, (xviii) monster, (xix) figure of woman (pp. 289-291); (xxiv, xxv) bull and horse-rider, (xxvi-xxvii) bull and man with clubs (pp. 292-294); (xxviii-xxix) pair of deer, (xxx) winged lion, (xxxi) warrior, (xxxii) hunter, (xxxiii) dog, (xxxiv) musician, (xxxv) male [xviii] figure, (xxxv, xxxvii) pair of goats (pp. 295-296); reconstruction of gateway, lion corner-stones, two peculiar busts, the sphinx-bases (pp. 297-298).
	Part iii.—The Mounds and Palace-portico of Sakje-Geuzi (pp. 298-314). Local history and research, walled citadel (pp. 298-300); palace entrance, decorations, lion corner-stones (pp. 301-302); reliefs, eagle-headed deity, fertilising tree, sphinx, king-priest, attendants (pp. 303-308); sphinx-base (pp. 309-311); historical results, stratification, pottery, foreign relations (pp. 312-314).
VI.	THE STORY OF THE HITTITES,	315-391
	The Authorities (pp. 315-316). The Hittites, their coming and settlement, early culture, earliest historical allusions (pp. 317-325). The Hatti rulers; conquests of Subbi-luliuma, treaties with Mitanni, the Amorites, and with Egypt (pp. 326-336). Empire of Subbi-luliuma, reign of Mursil; Mutallu and the battle of Kadesh (pp. 337-343); Hattusil, the Egyptian treaty and foreign politics; his successors (pp. 346-352). Survey of Hittite civilisation under the Hatti; the position of women, religion, organisation, the army, roads and cities, sculptures, and architecture (pp. 353-367). The European migrations, disruption of the Hittite empire, the Muski, the Assyrians, Carchemish (pp. 368-371). The great revival, the ‘Cilician’ empire, disposition of the Hittite kingdoms, with map, the balance of power (pp. 372-377). Changes in decorative and religious art; Semitic influence in Syria (pp. 377-380). Oncoming of Assyria, coalitions of Hittite states, battle of the Qarqar, fall of Tarsus (pp. 381-384). The Vannic kings, conquests in Syria, decisive battle with Assyria; supremacy of Assyria in Syria; fall of Carchemish, Marash and the Tabal (pp. 385-390). Epochs in Hittite history (pp. 390-391).	[xix]
	Appendix A.—Bibliography of Hittite Archæology,	392-394
	Appendix B.—Index to Hittite Monuments, with a Bibliography,	395-401
	Author Index, Classical and Biblical References,	402-403
	General Index,	404-416

1350-1300 B.C.	Period of the earlier lower palace.
1300-1200 ”	Main fortifications built, temp. Hattusil.
1200-1100 ”	First Phrygian invasions.
1100-1000 ”	Lower palace reconstructed.
1000-850 ”	Period of Lion-sculptures.
850-700 ”	Phrygian domination.
700-600 ”	Cimmerians.
Circa 550 ”	Fall before Crœsus.