Chapter 30

[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) identifiesKatashman-turguof the letters withKatashman-buriash, and hence synchronises these events with the period of ShalmaneserI., 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 aboutB.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 readEni-Sandaby 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 inOrient. 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. 348andPl.LXV.[838]Cf.p. 348andPl.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, andPl.LXV.[843]Pls.XLIV.,LXXII.,p. 256.[844]Pls.XLIX.,LXV.,p. 236.[845]Pp.118,151,165.[846]Pl.LXV.andp. 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 (seep. 213), whointer aliaranks 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 1200B.C., though there are detailed descriptions of Hittite allies (cf.Pl.LXXXIII.), and down to 1150B.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 onp. 233), being somewhat more conventionalised than those of probably earlier phase (compare the lightning emblem of fig. 1L,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 1150B.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, seep. 361, note 2.[853]Cf. The Sutekh cycle of the nine states in the Egyptian treaty,p. 348.[854]Cf. figures 2Land 3Lat 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 thenaiskosare 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) andPl.LIV.(Kara-Bel).[879]Cf.Pl.XXXIX.(Sakje-Geuzi), and there are earlier confirmatory scenes described on pp.133,134.[880]Pl.LXV.andp. 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 RamesesII.at Abydos.[892]Abydos temple, N. wall, the Hittite prisoners.[893]Cf.p. 5, note 1.[894]Seep. 34, note 2.[895]Seep. 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’sHerodotus, 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]Seep. 339, note 2.[903]P. 298, andLiv. Annals of Arch., i. Pl.XXXIII.[904]P. 272.[905]Seep. 123.[906]See pp.7,97, andPl.XXXVIII.[907]Seep. 94.[908]In regard to an inscription from Carchemish, see, however,p. 371.[909]Inner wall of the second pylon of the templeMedinet Habuat 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.

[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) identifiesKatashman-turguof the letters withKatashman-buriash, and hence synchronises these events with the period of ShalmaneserI., 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 aboutB.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 readEni-Sandaby 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 inOrient. 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. 348andPl.LXV.

[838]Cf.p. 348andPl.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, andPl.LXV.

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

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

[845]Pp.118,151,165.

[846]Pl.LXV.andp. 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 (seep. 213), whointer aliaranks 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 1200B.C., though there are detailed descriptions of Hittite allies (cf.Pl.LXXXIII.), and down to 1150B.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 onp. 233), being somewhat more conventionalised than those of probably earlier phase (compare the lightning emblem of fig. 1L,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 1150B.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, seep. 361, note 2.

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

[854]Cf. figures 2Land 3Lat 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 thenaiskosare 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) andPl.LIV.(Kara-Bel).

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

[880]Pl.LXV.andp. 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 RamesesII.at Abydos.

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

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

[894]Seep. 34, note 2.

[895]Seep. 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’sHerodotus, 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]Seep. 339, note 2.

[903]P. 298, andLiv. Annals of Arch., i. Pl.XXXIII.

[904]P. 272.

[905]Seep. 123.

[906]See pp.7,97, andPl.XXXVIII.

[907]Seep. 94.

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

[909]Inner wall of the second pylon of the templeMedinet Habuat 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.

Back to Index Next