[464]Vide supra,p. 32.[465]Vide supra,p. 13.[466]Seeinter alia, Perrot and Chipiez,Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 103et 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 inOrientalistische 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]SeePl.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]Reportcit., 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’sHandbook, p. 21.[484]Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi,p. 163, Karaburna,p. 154, and Kizil Dagh,p. 178.[485]Videthe photograph onPl.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. 108et 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]Seeinfra,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., andp. 311.[501]Ramsay (Luke the Physician, p. 203, in a chapter largely reprinted from a paper in theJour. 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 onThe 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]Seethe plan, p. 221, andPls.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.andp. 139.[506]Cf. pp.111,118.[507]Presumably a sacred stone;videSayce,Proc. S.B.A., 1903, p. 154, No. 11.[508]Pl.LXXII.andp. 255.[509]SeePl.LXVIII.[510]Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, inthe 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 alsop. 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.andp. 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.andPl.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.; andJournal 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, inRecueil 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 RamesesII.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. 257andPl.LXXII.[560]Winckler,Report cit., pp. 57-58; above,p. 159.[561]Cf. Pls.LXXXI.(i)(Sakje-Geuzi), andLXIV.(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. 155andPl.XLIX.[567]Seep. 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; alsoÜber 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 onThe 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.andIII.[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.
[464]Vide supra,p. 32.
[464]Vide supra,p. 32.
[465]Vide supra,p. 13.
[465]Vide supra,p. 13.
[466]Seeinter alia, Perrot and Chipiez,Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 103et seq.The name Ptara is suggested by Ramsay, who accepts the identification (Luke the Physician, p. 215, note).
[466]Seeinter alia, Perrot and Chipiez,Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 103et 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.
[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.
[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.
[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 inOrientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung, Dec. 1906.
[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 inOrientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung, Dec. 1906.
[471]See above,p. 53.
[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.
[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.
[473]Supra,p. 37.
[474]Herodotus, v. 52.
[474]Herodotus, v. 52.
[475]Supra,p. 24.
[475]Supra,p. 24.
[476]As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp.143,366.
[476]As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp.143,366.
[477]Supra, pp.33,34.
[477]Supra, pp.33,34.
[478]SeePl.LIX.
[478]SeePl.LIX.
[479]Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian fortresses,infra, pp.273,300.
[479]Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian fortresses,infra, pp.273,300.
[480]Pl.LX.
[480]Pl.LX.
[481]Cf.infra,p. 226.
[481]Cf.infra,p. 226.
[482]Reportcit., Pl.XII.Cf. below,p. 357.
[482]Reportcit., 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’sHandbook, p. 21.
[483]A plan is published in Humann and Puchstein,Reisen in Kleinasien, Pl.XIV., and a revised version in Murray’sHandbook, p. 21.
[484]Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi,p. 163, Karaburna,p. 154, and Kizil Dagh,p. 178.
[484]Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi,p. 163, Karaburna,p. 154, and Kizil Dagh,p. 178.
[485]Videthe photograph onPl.LVIII., where these features may be seen in the distance.
[485]Videthe photograph onPl.LVIII., where these features may be seen in the distance.
[486]Vide supra,p. 158.
[486]Vide supra,p. 158.
[487]Texier,Description of Asia Minor, i. Pl.LXXX.
[487]Texier,Description of Asia Minor, i. Pl.LXXX.
[488]Perrot and Chipiez,op. cit., pp. 108et seqq.
[488]Perrot and Chipiez,op. cit., pp. 108et seqq.
[489]Winckler,Report cit., pp. 62 and ff.
[489]Winckler,Report cit., pp. 62 and ff.
[490]The best plan was published by Barth,Reise von Trapesunt ... nach Scutari, p. 48.
[490]The best plan was published by Barth,Reise von Trapesunt ... nach Scutari, p. 48.
[491]Pl.LXI.(ii).
[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.
[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.
[493]Perrot and Chipiez,op. cit., p. 115.
[494]Winckler,Report cit., p. 64 and ff.
[494]Winckler,Report cit., p. 64 and ff.
[495]Seeinfra,p. 312.
[495]Seeinfra,p. 312.
[496]From calculations supplied from our rough data by Sir Norman Lockyer.
[496]From calculations supplied from our rough data by Sir Norman Lockyer.
[497]Above,p. 159; for our date, see below,p. 339.
[497]Above,p. 159; for our date, see below,p. 339.
[498]Perrot and Chipiez,op. cit., p. 114.
[498]Perrot and Chipiez,op. cit., p. 114.
[499]By Dr. Winckler’s excavations,Report cit., figs. 3, 4; pp. 54-55.
[499]By Dr. Winckler’s excavations,Report cit., figs. 3, 4; pp. 54-55.
[500]Infra, Pls.LXXIX.,LXXX., andp. 311.
[500]Infra, Pls.LXXIX.,LXXX., andp. 311.
[501]Ramsay (Luke the Physician, p. 203, in a chapter largely reprinted from a paper in theJour. 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 onThe 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.
[501]Ramsay (Luke the Physician, p. 203, in a chapter largely reprinted from a paper in theJour. 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 onThe 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]Seethe plan, p. 221, andPls.LXIII.-LXVIII.
[502]Seethe plan, p. 221, andPls.LXIII.-LXVIII.
[503]Cf. Malatia sculptures, etc.,Pl.XLIV.
[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.
[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.andp. 139.
[505]Compare the winged deity of Malatia,Pl.XLIV.andp. 139.
[506]Cf. pp.111,118.
[506]Cf. pp.111,118.
[507]Presumably a sacred stone;videSayce,Proc. S.B.A., 1903, p. 154, No. 11.
[507]Presumably a sacred stone;videSayce,Proc. S.B.A., 1903, p. 154, No. 11.
[508]Pl.LXXII.andp. 255.
[508]Pl.LXXII.andp. 255.
[509]SeePl.LXVIII.
[509]SeePl.LXVIII.
[510]Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, inthe plan, p. 221. For position of the group, see the photograph,Pl.LXIV.
[510]Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, inthe plan, p. 221. For position of the group, see the photograph,Pl.LXIV.
[511]No. 17.
[511]No. 17.
[512]No. 12.
[512]No. 12.
[513]Nos. 14, 15.
[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.)
[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.
[515]Nos. 19, 20.
[516]Nos. 22, 25.
[516]Nos. 22, 25.
[517]Nos. 23, 24.
[517]Nos. 23, 24.
[518]No. 21.
[518]No. 21.
[519]Nos. 26, 27.
[519]Nos. 26, 27.
[520]Nos. 28-30.
[520]Nos. 28-30.
[521]No. 31 of the whole series.
[521]No. 31 of the whole series.
[522]Nos. 32-43.
[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.).
[523]A schedule of the figures with our reference numbers may be of use:
[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.
[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.
[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.
[526]A similar detail is noticeable on a familiar Etruscan design.
[527]Cf. the sculpture from Sinjerli,Pl.LXVII.(ii). See alsop. 104.
[527]Cf. the sculpture from Sinjerli,Pl.LXVII.(ii). See alsop. 104.
[528]Cf. the sculpture at Eyuk,Pl.LXXII.
[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.).
[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.andp. 268.
[530]At Eyuk they clutch hares,Pl.LXXII.andp. 268.
[531]Clearly stony hilltops, as on the gates of Balawat.
[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.
[532]Arranged, as Professor Ramsay suggests (Luke the Physician, p. 212) to resemble a ναΐσκος.
[533]Possibly, suggests Prof. Sayce, a sort of fringe.
[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.
[534]Nos. 66-67. The presence of sculptures at the spot was noted by Perrot and Chipiez.
[535]Cf. pp.101 ff.andPl.LXXV.(i).
[535]Cf. pp.101 ff.andPl.LXXV.(i).
[536]No. 68.
[536]No. 68.
[537]No. 69.
[537]No. 69.
[538]The broad end is not altogether enclosed, but leads to rocky broken ground.
[538]The broad end is not altogether enclosed, but leads to rocky broken ground.
[539]Nos. 70-81.
[539]Nos. 70-81.
[540]Nos. 32-43 L.
[540]Nos. 32-43 L.
[541]Pl.LXIX.(ii).
[541]Pl.LXIX.(ii).
[542]Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.
[542]Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.
[543]No. 72.
[543]No. 72.
[544]Nos. 73, 74.
[544]Nos. 73, 74.
[545]No. 2 R.
[545]No. 2 R.
[546]Nos. 22 R., 9 L.
[546]Nos. 22 R., 9 L.
[547]No. 22 R.
[547]No. 22 R.
[548]See particularly Perrot and Chipiez,Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 149-153; Ramsay,Luke the Physician, chap. vi.; andJournal 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.
[548]See particularly Perrot and Chipiez,Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 149-153; Ramsay,Luke the Physician, chap. vi.; andJournal 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.
[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.
[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.
[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, inRecueil de Travaux, xv. (1890), p. 78, on the priest-classes of Asia Minor.
[552]Cf. Ramsay, inRecueil 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.
[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.
[554]Or servants of the temple. Cf. Strabo on the rites at Comana, bk.XII.chap, xi., § 3.
[555]No. 22 R.
[555]No. 22 R.
[556]No. 9.
[556]No. 9.
[557]The treaty of RamesesII.with Hattusil.
[557]The treaty of RamesesII.with Hattusil.
[558]This analogy was first pointed out by the late De Cara,Gli Hethei Pelasgi(Rome, 1894), i. p. 192.
[558]This analogy was first pointed out by the late De Cara,Gli Hethei Pelasgi(Rome, 1894), i. p. 192.
[559]Cf. below,p. 257andPl.LXXII.
[559]Cf. below,p. 257andPl.LXXII.
[560]Winckler,Report cit., pp. 57-58; above,p. 159.
[560]Winckler,Report cit., pp. 57-58; above,p. 159.
[561]Cf. Pls.LXXXI.(i)(Sakje-Geuzi), andLXIV.(Malatia).
[561]Cf. Pls.LXXXI.(i)(Sakje-Geuzi), andLXIV.(Malatia).
[562]Cf. Winckler,Report cit., p. 36 (below,p. 338), where the same custom is illustrated in a treaty with the Mitanni.
[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.
[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.
[564]Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum (Königl. Mus.), No. 977.
[565]Letter from Professor A. H. Sayce, July 23, 1909.
[565]Letter from Professor A. H. Sayce, July 23, 1909.
[566]See above,p. 155andPl.XLIX.
[566]See above,p. 155andPl.XLIX.
[567]Seep. 269.
[567]Seep. 269.
[568]Cf. Herodotus, i. 199; Strabo,XVI.i. 20.
[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.
[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.
[570]Nos. 5, 7.
[571]Compare especially No. 5 with the winged deity of Malatia.Pl.XLIV.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[575]Nos. 14, 15.
[576]Nos. 32-43.
[576]Nos. 32-43.
[577]Professor Frazer,op. cit., p. 108.
[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.
[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.
[579]Researches in Asia Minor, etc. (London, 1842), i. pp. 382-3.
[580]Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari, pp. 42 and 43; alsoÜber die Ruinen bei Hejuk(Arch. Zeit.1859, pp. 50, 59).
[580]Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari, pp. 42 and 43; alsoÜber die Ruinen bei Hejuk(Arch. Zeit.1859, pp. 50, 59).
[581]Travels in Little-known Parts of Asia Minor(London, 1870), pp. 129-148.
[581]Travels in Little-known Parts of Asia Minor(London, 1870), pp. 129-148.
[582]Ramsay onThe Early Historical Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia, Pt. 11 (Journal Royal Asiatic Society, xv., London, 1883), pp. 116.
[582]Ramsay onThe 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.
[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.andIII.
[584]Liv. Annals Arch., i. (1908), p. 3, and Pls.II.andIII.
[585]Macridy Bey,La porte des sphinx à Euyuk(Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 3).
[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.
[586]First noticed by Macridy Bey,op. cit., p. 2.