VI The Story of the Hittites
In this concluding chapter we shall endeavour to relate the material evidences of Hittite handiwork to the story of their doings. The monuments have been described, their disposition noted, and in some cases the materials for dating them have been defined; but the outline of Hittite history as sketched in the second chapter remains to be filled in with such details as can be gleaned from the literary sources both old and new. The old sources are well known. They include the letters found at Tell el Amarna,709 the decorative scenes and inscriptions on the walls of Egyptian temples,710 and the archives of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings. In our use of these we must rely on the published translations and critical discussions of philologists,711 which we can do with more reliance in that this branch of investigation is associated with such names as Maspero, Meyer, Müller, Sayce, Winckler, Hommel, Knudtzon, Reinach. The new sources are the archives of the Hatti kings, the first dynasty of the Hittites yet visible to history, discovered recently amid the ruins of their capital at Boghaz-Keui.712 These documents are at the beginning contemporary with the Tell el Amarna letters, which they supplement and substantiate, and they range in date practically as far as the Egyptian references, by the side of which they provide a series of important synchronisms. These new archives have not yet been published in full, so that we do not reap the advantage of others’ criticisms in this case. But Dr. Winckler has given the world the first fruits of his labours,713 which embody the materials for many long-lost pages of oriental history. These we have endeavoured to analyse, for they are difficult and obscurely put forward, and we shall express them in what appears to us to be their historical sequence and relationship.
As usual, however, in these investigations, the purely archæological evidences throw light on the settlement of the Hittites long before the earliest literary allusions. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi,714 at the southern foot of Taurus, illustrates the development of local culture during a continuous occupation of the site throughout a period which is not overestimated as beginning before 3000 B.C. and lasting down to the time of Assyrian domination. We have already seen that the earliest settlers shared some features of their neolithic culture in common with Susa on the one hand and the Troad and even Crete on the other.715 Was all western Asia and the Ægean infused with a common germ of civilisation in those days, or was this settlement in remote antiquity an incident in a migration from one point to the other? Unfortunately we have no collateral evidence as to the plateau of Asia Minor to help in answering these questions; yet if the Hittite culture had taken root in the north of Syria before the second millennium B.C., it may readily be believed that it had been planted equally long upon the tableland, where in historic times its chief power is found. The high standard of Hittite culture, as revealed by their own archives and monuments at the dawn of their history in the fourteenth century B.C., argues in itself a long period of settlement and development under civilised conditions; while a long contact with the culture of the Euphrates valley is indicated also by the fact that their earliest international correspondence was conducted in the Assyro-Babylonian language, while their scribes had sufficient intimacy with the cuneiform system of writing to be able to apply it to their own language, which was radically different. The great deities of the Hittite pantheon also have their prototypes in Babylonia.
Of what stock, then, were these early settlers, and whence did they come? Did they form part of a great migration from the East, like the Turks in modern history, according to an old school of thought? were they Semitic? or did they pass like the Phrygian conquerors, from Europe into Asia, absorbing and adopting Eastern thought and habits, a veritable mirage orientale? That the Hittites were not autochthonous, if such a term has any meaning, is apparent already, and will become more clear as we proceed, from the complexity of their pantheon and the mingled elements of their peoples. We must from the outset beware also of the pitfall of inconsistent terminology. The name Hittite is commonly employed in three senses which we must distinguish: it may be used in reference to the whole confederacy of peoples as depicted in the Egyptian scenes, or to the smaller and more homogeneous band of Hittite tribes, or to the dominant tribe of Hatti within the Halys, which seems to have given its name in antiquity to the whole. The Egyptian artists indeed recognised the mixed character of the confederates in their day, and noted some of their peculiarities, but did not distinguish between them with sufficient clearness or consistency for our purpose. Two types which we reproduce716 will serve to illustrate the wide difference of racial character among the Hittite allies obvious to the Egyptians in the time of Rameses the Great. The one is Mongoloid, characterised by a definite pigtail,717 oblique eyes, high cheek-bones; in short, a recognisable Tartar type. We are inclined to place it in the vicinity of Carchemish, if not beyond the Euphrates, upon the main trade route with the East. The other is a clean-cut proto-Greek type, with a special form of shield, which we are tempted to assign to Lydia or some part of western Asia Minor. The Amorites, an Aramæan (Semitic) people, are also conspicuous among the allies of these times, being distinguished by a projecting beard, receding forehead, and other features.718 These vast differences among the peoples united under the Hatti leadership in the thirteenth century B.C. are now explained historically, as will become evident later in this chapter. They reveal to us a population of the Hittite lands no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day. They do not, however, throw any light upon the question of the original race of the Hittite tribes. These are commonly identified with another type with a long head, long nose, and receding forehead, deep-set eyes somewhat obliquely placed, and yellow, wrinkled skin. A sharp, firm line runs down from beside the nostril on either side of the lips.719 On the walls of the Ramesseum, where it is best seen, this type is associated with Aleppo, and we must recognise in it an element of the Hittite peoples; but on comparing it with the Hittite sculptures of Sinjerli, Boghaz-Keui, and elsewhere, we must regard it as still hypothetical whether even the central Hittite states were strictly homogeneous in race. The Hatti themselves, indeed, we look on as a dominant conquering element, differing again, maybe, considerably from other Hittite peoples720 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 of the temptation of the pigtails on the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,722 and the description of a pigtailed leader as a royal Hittite, lest we should push the argument there—from further than might be warranted. We may regard these facts, however, as a general indication of relationship with the East. The contact with Babylonia has been already argued, and we must recall the singular relations between the painted pottery of Sakje-Geuzi with that of Turkestan, extending over a long range of post-neolithic culture.723 Another link, not previously mentioned, is the early employment by the Hittites of the horse, dating from at least the beginning of the second millennium B.C.,724 and the antiquity of the remains of horses found equally in the mounds of Turkestan.725 Another item of evidence on this question may be found in the footgear of the Hittites, which, except in the later sculptures of North Syria, is always represented, as we have seen, as a shoe or boot with upturned toe.726 This feature is now specially characteristic of the Tartar peoples, and hence another eastward connection is suggested. But it is not so exclusively; the Arabs (who borrowed it in the Middle Ages from the Turks) employ it in the desert sands, and in the more special form in question it may be found in many mountain countries, for example Greece, and it has long been used in Crete. It is commonly supposed to be the natural form of snow-shoe for highland regions, though the shepherds of the Pyrenees, who also use it, believe it to be specially adapted to walking upon broken and stony ground. However that may be, most scholars are agreed that it argues a mountain origin for its Hittite wearers,727 and this suggestion is borne out by the mountain cults found in the Hittite pantheon.728 The mountains by which the Hittites reached the plateau of Asia Minor are not far to seek; they lie eastward, in Armenia, the Caucasus, and the Taurus.
We do not press the argument of these suggestions, but only regret the paucity of evidence available. For the present we must be content that we have been able to find some evidence as to the antiquity of the Hittite settlement. We cannot suppose that the mounds of Sakje-Geuzi stand alone: indeed a myriad others, that remain unexamined,729 are evidence to the contrary, and considerable inference may be made with these as basis from the disposition of the Hittite tribes as revealed by the first light of history. One powerful branch must have early seized the position of Carchemish, while others settled in the plains that lie westward of the Euphrates. Others again found their homes in the valleys of the Kara Su and the Orontes, while some branches passed the Lebanon and mingled with the aboriginal people of southern Syria, where they were gradually submerged. If we are right in our argument, the habitable valleys of the Taurus and anti-Taurus regions must have been earlier peopled; and to judge from the relationship we have indicated, the western extension of these tribes in Asia Minor must have been considerable even as early as neolithic times. Whether the Hatti rulers themselves were part of a later immigration is still open to consideration; upon that point we await further evidence. The Hittites would seem to have brought with them (sooner or later) a new cycle of deities, with Babylonian prototypes, including their national Sandes or Sandan, lord of heaven, a god of the skies with lightning in his hand, in one of his various forms; and they seem to have absorbed into their pantheon a number of acceptable nature-cults, like the worship of mountains and streams and of the mother-goddess of earth, already practised by an earlier population whom they overlaid. The sun-god they seem to have received from contact with the Semite, and to have identified him with their own chief god. With regard to other aspects of their primitive culture, we can argue from the one site of Sakje-Geuzi alone, and from the reflected witness of later times. There is only one general assumption, therefore, that we make, that once settled in a metal-producing country, in contact with the rich mines of the Caucasus,730 and the copper sources in Cyprus and the Taurus, their civilisation would share to the full in the stimulus of the copper and bronze ages as these arose. It is at the latter stage that they emerge into the full light of history731 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 movements in western Asia some five or six centuries before. These references are naturally scanty, but they occur in the records of three different peoples, and are in a sense parallel to one another, so that the main facts bear the stamp of historical accuracy. From the Babylonian archives it appears that about 1800 B.C., or before, the Hittites were chiefly responsible for the overthrow of the first dynasty that ruled at Babylon;732 while of even earlier date in the same dynasty are references to the king of the Hittites and his doings, contained in the great Babylonian work on astrology,733 and there is an allusion of possibly much older date.734 The mention of the Hittites at the beginning of the second millennium is almost synchronous with the earliest dated reference from Egyptian sources, in an inscription of the twelfth dynasty,735 from which it would appear that settlements of the Hittites had been established in southern Syria, and that these were among the objectives of a military expedition. The historical setting of this record is apparent, and it is confirmed and amplified by the references in Hebrew history, which claim our consideration no less than the inscriptions carved by loyal subjects of the Pharaoh. These passages show us that in local tradition of the time of the Patriarchs the Hittite settlements were no matter for special comment.736 On the other hand, their name was practically synonymous with that of Canaanites,737 and, like the Amorites, they were long looked upon as one of the settled peoples of the land.738 For some centuries, however, we are without dated records, nor is there any direct evidence as to the history and doings of the Hittites until the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty. One thing, however, is clear, that the ‘Hyksos’ peoples who overran Egypt in the meanwhile were deeply imbued with the elements of a culture which, if not purely Hittite nor directly traceable to them at this date, was still largely shared by the Hittites in historic times.739 The people that had overthrown the dynasty of Babylon was clearly an established power already organised.
Though the earliest kings740 and dynasties of the Hittites remain unknown, the nature of the Hittite organisation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. is now made clear by the archives recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui. These cover the reigns of six generations of the Hatti dynasty of kings, making allusion in all to eight of their sovereigns. They include treaties with internal states in Syria and elsewhere, with Mitanni, with the Amorites, and with Egypt, most of them prefaced by historical notes of events leading up to the conclusion of the treaty in question. There is also correspondence of a diplomatic character with the courts of Thebes, of Babylonia and of Mitanni, and other documents of varied sorts. These are written in cuneiform, and the language employed in foreign affairs is the Assyro-Babylonian: only in some internal matters the Hittite language is used. Though the documents have not yet disclosed the full nature of their contents, the archives as a whole741 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 Arzawa744 and Khali-rabbat,745 which lay on either side of his pathway, were already allied with him in one or other of these ways, before he descended to the north of Syria, and ventured to enter the political arena of western Asia, where the older powers were stationed to resist his oncoming. The whole of Syria as far northward as Aleppo had indeed for something like a century been within the sphere of influence of the Pharaohs. It is claimed for the Egyptian monarch Thothmes I. that before the close of the sixteenth century B.C. he had set up the boundary of his empire somewhere near Carchemish on the Euphrates, in the ‘land of Naharain.’ Three of his successors by occasional expeditions, beginning with that of Thothmes III. about 1469 B.C.,746 had sought to retain this boundary, and had come into conflict with the Hittite tribes already settled in these regions. These seem to have submitted like other northern states, nominally at any rate, to the Egyptian supremacy, and to have regularly sent their tribute to the Pharaoh. But though Amenhetep III. inherited the full power and dominion of his predecessors, he seems to have found it necessary to send an expedition at the beginning of his reign to maintain his suzerainty.
These frontier states indeed occupied at this time a position of considerable difficulty, where all the diplomacy of their chieftains was required to maintain the security of their inheritance. The reins held by the Pharaoh on his distant throne at Thebes may, it is true, have been only lightly felt: an occasional present or diplomatic letter to the court would generally secure respite from that direction; but their anxieties were not thereby ended, for in the East a nearer power claimed their allegiance also, before the arrival of the Hatti leader added to their perplexities. This power was the kingdom of Mitanni, which was firmly established in northern Mesopotamia, from the Euphrates to the Tigris. Tushratta, who now occupied the throne, represented the fourth generation of his illustrious house,747 the authority of which had been strengthened through the foresight of his predecessors by intermarriage with the royal family of Thebes. His father’s sister had been wife of Thothmes IV., and his own sister was married to the ruling Pharaoh. He clearly realised that the continued support of Egypt would be necessary to him if he was to save his kingdom from being crushed by the increasing pressure of Assyria on the one hand and of the Hittite on the other; so that with some alacrity on his part748 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 states751 that were included in this district. The king, Sarrupsi, fled, but his relatives were made prisoners, and a servant of the dethroned king was set up in his stead, doubtless as a vassal. The conqueror was turning his attention to the district of Abîna, being disposed to leave Kinza unmolested, when the king of the latter district, Sutatarra, and his son Aitakama, with their war chariots, bore down upon him and gave battle. Though he had been prepared to respect these adversaries, Subbi-luliuma was not slow to respond to and punish this provocation: the king and his son, together with many of the chiefs, were taken prisoners and sent in triumph to the capital. The fate of Sutatarra is unknown, but Aitakama reappeared later, reinstated in his kingdom, and a faithful ally of the Hittite, who entrusted him with the command of the Syrian armies.752 The land of Kinza is unplaced, but it seems to have lain westward, possibly on the lower Orontes, corresponding with the district of Hamath or the kingdom of the Hattina in later times. It was probably peopled with a Hittite tribe, to judge from the nature of these chieftains’ names and the position subsequently accorded to Aitakama. Realising in these incidents the constant influence of Mitanni, and attributing them to the hostile attitude of Tushratta, Subbi-luliuma now deemed it desirable to establish his prestige, and so turned eastward, ready, if necessary, to join issue with Tushratta. In a single year he added to his territory the whole region of the plains lying between the mountains and the Euphrates.753 In this campaign he seems to have overrun the Aramæan district of Am (or Amma), and with the aid of his allies to have captured several cities.754 But the real objective of the Hittite leader was the destruction of the Mitannian supremacy and power. Therefore crossing the Euphrates755 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 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 Aleppo762 and the neighbouring lands and cities of Nî and Katna763 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 Pharaoh765 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 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 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 chief772 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 peremptory summons, in spite of shifts and subterfuges, Aziru appeared ultimately at Thebes774 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 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 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. 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 Eyuk788 and Fraktin789; 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 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-Tessub799 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 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 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, 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: 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; 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, 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 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 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 replied822 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 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 Assyria823 was the problem of the moment, and a reply of Hattusil824 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 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-Tessub827 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 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 interregnum830 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 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 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-Keui836 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 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 moon840 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 serpent847 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 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 sculptures851 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 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 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 sculptures857 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 Malatia858 the god rides upon the animal’s back; at Eyuk859 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 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 Eyuk864 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; 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 sculptures869 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 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-Kalesi874 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 this instance at the top. Equestrians and charioteers seem to have modified or discarded this head-dress877 as being unsuitable for rapid motion. In addition to the spear, the bow was doubtless used by both infantry878 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 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 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 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 Mursil900 and the sculptured sanctuary which we have dated to the age of Hattusil901 can be assigned with any security to the two centuries 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 Hamath907 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 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 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 Bishri916 to the sword, 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 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 sculptures925 which are one of their most striking features. Incidentally there is disclosed in the representation of a female warrior upon one of the great jambs926 the development of, or union with, the 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 Bor928 and Ivrîz,929 and the related inscriptions of Bulghar-Madên930 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 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 world935 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 works936 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 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 Tynne939 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 Kummukh941 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 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 principalities945 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 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 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 representation954 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 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 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 Assyrian961 and Vannic962 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 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, 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 Gurgum966 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 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 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 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 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 record973 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 Panammu II.,974 a Semitic ruler who had been set up by the Assyrian king. Tiglath-Pileser hastened back to restore order, laying waste Kullani975 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 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 Tabal, the smouldering fire might still burst from time to time980 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).
1400 B.C.983 Hatti kings established at Boghaz-Keui (p. 326).
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).
Empire in Asia Minor and N. Syria.
Palace984 on Beuyuk-Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui; local palaces at Eyuk and Malatia; sculptures of Fraktin and (?) Sipylus (p. 339).
1350 B.C.983 Reign of Arandas. 1340 B.C.983 Accession of Mursil (p. 341).
1330 B.C.984 Lower palace at Boghaz-Keui constructed (p. 342).
1320 B.C.983 Assyria takes Mesopotamia and Malatia (p. 342).
1310 B.C.983 Egypt reconquers N. Syria (p. 343).
1295 B.C.984 Accession of Mutallu (p. 343).
1288 B.C.,[983] Battle of Kadesh (p. 343).
1271 B.C. Hattusil concludes treaty with Egypt (p. 347). Diplomatic relations with Babylonia (p. 350). 984Sculptures 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.
1258 B.C. Hittite king (? Dudkhalia) visits the Pharaoh (p. 351).
1220 B.C.983 Arnuanta, cadastral survey (p. 352).
1200 B.C.983 Invasions by the Muski-Phrygians; fall of the Hatti and (?) Boghaz-Keui (p. 368).
1170 B.C.983 Muski reach the Assyrian frontier; 1120, repelled (p. 368).
1120 B.C. et seqq. Assyrian invasions of N. Syria and Taurus (p. 369).
1000 B.C.983 to 900 B.C. Revival of the Hittite kingdoms. 984Sculptures 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).
885 B.C. Invasions by Assyria as far as (838) Tabal and Tarsus (p. 384).
750 B.C.983 N. Syria and Taurus subject to the Vannic kings (p. 386). 984Plateau of Asia Minor subject to Phrygia.
743 B.C. Assyrian supremacy re-established (p. 387).
718 B.C. Fall of Carchemish; Assyrian troops enter Asia Minor (p. 388).
712 B.C. Tabal (Taurus) conquered; 709, fall of Marash (p. 389).
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. | ⎱ | |
| ⎧ | 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.). | ⎱ | |
| ⎩ | 16-18. | Three with scimitars. | ||
| ⎧ | 19-20. | Two with maces like the leaders. | ||
| ⎪ | 21. | One with arms and hat forward. | ||
| ⎪ | 22. | One with mace. | ||
| ⎨ | 23, 24. | Two with no weapons visible. | ||
| ⎪ | 25. | One with mace. | ||
| ⎩ | 26-27. | Two with arms and hat forward. | ||
| ⎧ | 28. | One indistinct (tunic and hat). | ||
| ⎨ | 29-31. | Three robed and bearded. | ||
| ⎩ | 32-43. | Twelve in line, running. | ||
| Right. | ||||
| ⎧ | 1 R. | One female on back of panther. | ⎰ | Pl. LXV. |
| ⎨ | 2. | One youthful male with double axe. | ⎱ | |
| ⎩ | 3, 4. | Two similar to first, forming a group on double eagle. | ||
| 5-21. | Seventeen in procession resembling 1 R. (Pl. LXVII.). | |||
| 22 R=65. | One with lituus, toga, and winged rosette, etc., in hand, standing on two stony mounds (Pl. LXVIII.). | |||
524 See the photograph, Pl. LXV. The head-dress was commonly employed by the Phrygian women. Its shape is recalled by the modern hat of the Turkoman women, which is worn covered by a shawl to serve at times as a veil.
525 These emblems are composed in each case of pictorial or hieroglyphic signs, and in them doubtless lies the clue to the identification of the figures. A sign like a divided oval (which Professor Sayce believes to represent a sacred stone) is found at the commencement of each group accompanying a divine or exalted personage.
526 A similar detail is noticeable on a familiar Etruscan design.
527 Cf. the sculpture from Sinjerli, Pl. LXVII. (ii). See also p. 104.
528 Cf. the sculpture at Eyuk, Pl. LXXII.
529 Cf. a similar detail ornamenting the emblem above figs. No. 9 L. and 22 R. (Pl. LXVIII.).
530 At Eyuk they clutch hares, Pl. LXXII. and p. 268.
531 Clearly stony hilltops, as on the gates of Balawat.
532 Arranged, as Professor Ramsay suggests (Luke the Physician, p. 212) to resemble a ναΐσκος.
533 Possibly, suggests Prof. Sayce, a sort of fringe.
534 Nos. 66-67. The presence of sculptures at the spot was noted by Perrot and Chipiez.
535 Cf. pp. 101 ff. and Pl. LXXV. (i).
536 No. 68.
537 No. 69.
538 The broad end is not altogether enclosed, but leads to rocky broken ground.
539 Nos. 70-81.
540 Nos. 32-43 L.
541 Pl. LXIX. (ii).
542 Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.
543 No. 72.
544 Nos. 73, 74.
545 No. 2 R.
546 Nos. 22 R., 9 L.
547 No. 22 R.
548 See particularly Perrot and Chipiez, Art in... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 149-153; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, chap. vi.; and Journal Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv., New Series (1885), pp. 113-120; Hamilton, Researches, etc. (i.) p. 394; and for an illuminative anthropological point of view, Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris (Golden Bough, iv. 2nd ed.), bk. I. chap. vi., § 4, pp. 105-110.
549 These, it seems to us, have been too much neglected in attempts which have been made to elucidate the meaning of the sculptures.
550 Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris (The Golden Bough, iv., 2nd ed.), p. 107, reminds us that the deities associated with animals are probably derived from a more primitive conception when the god was indistinguishable from the beast. Doubtless the lioness (or panther) and the eagle were cult objects, if not totems, before they were humanised. In fact, in the sphinx and human-headed eagle, there is seen the intermediate anthropomorphic stage. The human forms were already developed in Babylonia, whence they may have been derived, being superimposed on the pristine native beliefs and fetishes. (On the relations with Babylonia and kindred cults, see pp. 323, 355 ff.) We may assume that the evolution of the mountain-god was similar, though inanimate. The ‘high place’ on Kizil Dagh, with image of the god carved on the rock, (p. 181) is an illustration. Probably also the altar on Kuru Bel (p. 147), may be most naturally explained as dedicated to the spirit of the mountain or of the pass.
551 We do not deal with these symbols in detail, as the reading of some of the signs is doubtful, and being isolated groups, they present special pitfalls to attempts at translation. It is interesting to note, however, that such priests and priestesses commonly received a special sacred name as a mark of their office.
552 Cf. Ramsay, in Recueil de Travaux, xv. (1890), p. 78, on the priest-classes of Asia Minor.
553 E.g. excluding Nos. 29-31 from the whole series, 19-43.
554 Or servants of the temple. Cf. Strabo on the rites at Comana, bk. XII. chap, xi., § 3.
555 No. 22 R.
556 No. 9.
557 The treaty of Rameses II. with Hattusil.
558 This analogy was first pointed out by the late De Cara, Gli Hethei Pelasgi (Rome, 1894), i. p. 192.
559 Cf. below, p. 257 and Pl. LXXII.
560 Winckler, Report cit., pp. 57-58; above, p. 159.
561 Cf. Pls. LXXXI. (i) (Sakje-Geuzi), and LXIV. (Malatia).
562 Cf. Winckler, Report cit., p. 36 (below, p. 338), where the same custom is illustrated in a treaty with the Mitanni.
563 Incidentally it is of interest to note that an eagle was associated with the rites of Sandon of Tarsus, identified with the Son-god, who here precedes the eagle-deities. Cf. Frazer, op cit., p. 99.
564 Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum (Königl. Mus.), No. 977.
565 Letter from Professor A. H. Sayce, July 23, 1909.
566 See above, p. 155 and Pl. XLIX.
567 See p. 269.
568 Cf. Herodotus, i. 199; Strabo, XVI. i. 20.
569 Independently Professor Sayce informs us that he has recognised in the symbol accompanying the first of these the emblem of the kingdom of Kas, the second state of the confederacy.
570 Nos. 5, 7.
571 Compare especially No. 5 with the winged deity of Malatia. Pl. XLIV.
572 In view of the proposition of Sayce (Proc. S.B.A. 1904) that there were nine chief Hittite states, it is remarkable to notice that the figures preceding this priest may be regarded as representing seven different gods or cults, while two are represented in the opposite series. On this subject see also below, p. 348.
573 For a full insight into these cults see Frazer, op cit., pp. 97, 110.
574 Cf. the rites of Comana (Pontus), Strabo, bk. XI. chap. iii. § 32; and in the temple of Mabog, Lucian, De Dea Syria.
575 Nos. 14, 15.
576 Nos. 32-43.
577 Professor Frazer, op. cit., p. 108.
578 Cf. Sculpture of Marash, p. 110, also the translations of Professor Sayce, Proc. S.B.A. 1904-5.
579 Researches in Asia Minor, etc. (London, 1842), i. pp. 382-3.
580 Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari, pp. 42 and 43; also Über die Ruinen bei Hejuk (Arch. Zeit. 1859, pp. 50, 59).
581 Travels in Little-known Parts of Asia Minor (London, 1870), pp. 129-148.
582 Ramsay on The Early Historical Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia, Pt. 11 (Journal Royal Asiatic Society, xv., London, 1883), pp. 116.
583 Also Perrot and Chipiez, Art in... Asia Minor, vol. ii. pp. 153-158.
584 Liv. Annals Arch., i. (1908), p. 3, and Pls. II. and III.
585 Macridy Bey, La porte des sphinx à Euyuk (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 3).
586 First noticed by Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 2.
587 A town Teiria, of the ‘Leuco-Syrians,’ is mentioned by Hecatæus of Miletus (Fragm. Hist. Graec., ed. Müller-Didot, No. 194). M. Maspero inclines to the identification of this place with Eyuk (The Passing of Empires, p. 338).
588 Cf. the citadel gateway of Sinjerli, p. 278.
589 Op. cit., Pl. I. fig. 10.
590 Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 6.
591 In this conclusion we differ from Macridy Bey, op. cit., pp. 11, 13.
592 It may be seen in the photograph, Pl. LXXII., and covers the sculptured block marked e in the plan, extending a little way on either side.
593 The restoration suggested by Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 11.
594 Macridy Bey, op. cit., figs. 23, 24.
595 Cf. the ‘Stadt-thor’ at Sinjerli; Von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli (Berlin, 1902), Pls. XXIX., XXXIV.; and below, p. 274.
596 The recent excavators failed to see the remains of these sphinxes, op. cit., p. 11, but they are quite plain in profile after the earth has been cleared away; see a photo, Liverpool Annals of Archæology, i. (1908), Pl. III.
597 Cf. for example, Murray’s Handbook for Asia Minor, p. 27.
598 Pl. LXXII. Cf. the details of the Sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXII.
599 Cf. Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, p. 648.
600 See the photograph in Newberry, etc., Short History of Egypt (ed. 1907), frontispiece. The special feature of the horseshoe-like head-dress occurs on scarabs of the Hyksos period (cf. the same writer’s Scarabs, London, 1906, Pl. XXV. No. 30), another suggestion of Asiatic origins.
601 Berlin Mus., Etruscan Rooms, No. 1251. Compare also some weathered statues from Sinjerli described below, pp. 297, 298.
602 Cf. Pl. XLIV. See also what is said about this cult on p. 359.
603 Cf. the round altars of Emir-Ghazi, p. 183, and the representations at Fraktin, Pl. XLVII. p. 150.
604 Cf. Sayce, The Hittites (1903), p. 39, for revised translation of this passage in the treaty: cited below, p. 349.
605 Cf. Pl. LXVII.
606 Cf. Pls. LXV.-LXVII.
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.