VWALLED TOWNS AND PALACES
In the foregoing chapter it has incidentally become apparent that the northern capital arose to greatness as the centre of a military organisation rather than as the geographical or economic focus of a country. The alliance between the states, though seen to us mainly as a confederacy in arms, cannot have been without effect in tending to some extent to unify, if not to nationalise, the local customs and institutions. On the other hand, they were separated in many cases by physical boundaries that must otherwise have fostered and emphasised their natural differences. In passing then to examine such of these minor capitals as have been sufficiently disclosed to us by excavation, it will be a special and constant interest to note how far a common or mutual influence in art and architecture can be traced among their ruins. The result is, on the whole, surprising. We can only single out for comparison one site from Asia Minor and two neighbouring sites in the North of Syria; and though the inquiry is rendered difficult through insufficient chronological material, and the result complicated by the intrusion of other influences more potent on the one side than the other, nevertheless we shall find a correspondence in general features and in some detail which is sufficientat any rate to stamp them as products of the same civilisation, all dominated by a common motive, even though separated by some generations or maybe centuries in point of time.
We begin with the site of Eyuk, a village situated some twenty miles northwards from Boghaz-Keui, sufficiently near to have been closely in touch with the activities and culture-progress of the capital, albeit sufficiently far to have maintained some local peculiarities. Here the ruins which we now know to be Hittite were lighted upon by Hamilton,[579]‘the prince of travellers,’ in 1835; subsequently they were visited by Barth[580]and Van Lennep.[581]The account of them given by the last-named, who was for thirty years a missionary in Turkey, was the first attempt to hand down a reliable and complete description, accompanied by a rough plan of a building and sketches of the sculptures which adorned its portico. Then came Professor Ramsay, in 1881, and in the record[582]of his visit to these monuments we have the first scholar’s impression of their meaning and significance. M. Perrot visited the site and incorporated his notes in his great work onExploration Archéologique,[583]and many inquirers have followed in his wake. The Liverpool Expedition of 1907 called here and secured a complete series of photographs and a measured plan;[584]and subsequently in the same year the Ottoman Government was enabled to make some useful clearances infront of the now famous portico of sphinxes, adding considerable information, and bringing to light two interesting sculptures which had lain previously buried.[585]The accounts of these various writers, though in the main agreed as to the nature of the ruins, differ to some extent in their description of details, and very considerably in their interpretation of the meaning of the sculptures. This being so, we shall use our own notes and plans as the basis of our description, indicating so far as possible the places where we differ in our interpretation from one or other of the more recent investigators. In the plan, also, we shall omit the present position of those sculptured blocks no longerin situ, but whose original position is known, because they have been considerably moved in recent years, leading to discrepancies in successive published plans. We shall also for the same reason use letters instead of figures to denote the blocks, in order to avoid further confusion with the various classifications and enumerations that have been published.
The mound which the little hamlet of Eyuk just covers is more or less quadrangular in shape with rounding corners; its length from north to south is about 250 yards, and its width a little more. It is not prominent as one approaches from Boghaz-Keui, as it rises gently from the plain on that side, attaining its greatest height of forty to forty-five feet towards its northern limits, whence it gives way again somewhat steeply to the level ground. The background on this side is a range of low hills, from which, however, the mound is quite distinct and separated. Traces of a wall enclosing the top of the mound may be seen hereand there, and would be readily followed out by excavation. Near the northern brink the masonry is visible inside a stable with a low-lying floor; in fact, the new wall has partly used the old one for a foundation. It is generally similar in construction to some of the roughly polygonal masonry seen in some interior walls at Boghaz-Keui, like that which surrounds Beuyuk Kaleh. Hereabouts also a postern-way is reported, constructed entirely like that on the south slope of the acropolis at Boghaz-Keui, roofed with corbelled masonry, and sufficiently high for a man to walk through it upright. It can be followed in a southerly direction for some fifteen yards, when it turns abruptly westwards and continues for six or seven yards further.[586]In the ridge of the roof there may be noted a flat slab of stone perforated with a circular hole, as for the admission of light, or the drainage of water from above. We are not told to what depth the roof is now buried beneath the surface. About twenty yards westward from this spot, on the mound, there are a number of dressed blocks of stone, one of which at least has a rounded hole in one face, a feature noticeable in several instances at Boghaz-Keui.
From these general indications of an ancient walled town[587]we pass to the more famous sculptures, which are found on the lowest part of the mound towards the south-east, about twenty yards only from the cultivated plain. These decorated the lowest course of the façade of a gateway which in plan resembles closelythat of the Lion-gate on the acropolis at Boghaz-Keui. This plan is shown to scale on the opposite page, so that we do not need to give detailed measurements of the blocks where the arrangement involves no reconstruction. Fortunately, though exposed for long ages, the alignment of the stones remains almost intact, so that the plan of this interesting gateway may be determined without much difficulty. It remains also unique hitherto among Hittite works of Asia Minor.
As in the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui this entrance has an outer and an inner doorway. The nearer one lies back from the frontage of the main wall a distance of just over thirteen feet. The width between the corners of the approach (E, G), making allowance for a slight displacement of the corner-stones, is almost exactly twenty feet: this is reduced between the great monoliths which form the jambs to a few inches over eleven feet. The interval between the faces of the outer and inner monoliths on either side is about twenty-six feet, which must have been approximately the distance from one door to the other. Between the two gateways the space widens out to the same width as the approach outside; but inside the inner gate the walls return at once on either side (II, KK) without any approach on that side corresponding to that from without. Thus the projection of the walls flanking the approach beyond the gates becomes by comparison with the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui an established feature of Hittite military architecture, designed to protect the gateway by enfilading fire from above.[588]
PLAN OF THE SPHINX-GATE AT EYUK.References—A, B, C, D, sculptured monoliths forming the jambs of the two gates; E, F, G, H, line of the outer wall; II, KK, line of the inner return; X, Y, ends of a lower wall;a-g,l-n, sculptured blocks forming the lowest course of the wall on either side of the approach;h,i,k,o,p, sculptured blocks notin situ, of which the place ofhandkis ascertained;q,r, sculptures on the sides of the sphinx-monoliths A, B;x,y, two sculptured blocks recently found in excavation.
PLAN OF THE SPHINX-GATE AT EYUK.
References—A, B, C, D, sculptured monoliths forming the jambs of the two gates; E, F, G, H, line of the outer wall; II, KK, line of the inner return; X, Y, ends of a lower wall;a-g,l-n, sculptured blocks forming the lowest course of the wall on either side of the approach;h,i,k,o,p, sculptured blocks notin situ, of which the place ofhandkis ascertained;q,r, sculptures on the sides of the sphinx-monoliths A, B;x,y, two sculptured blocks recently found in excavation.
The recent excavations conducted by Macridy Bey have thrown light on several important features not previously determined. From the plan which he publishes[589]it would seem that the frontage to the approach, on the left side at any rate (E, F), is really the outer wall of the gate tower and external to the main wall. We are thus confirmed in our conclusion that the entrance was flanked on either side by extra-mural towers, as later well known in Roman military forts and mediæval architecture of Europe. Unfortunately the excavators did not carry on their inquiry to ascertain (as might have been done with little difficulty) the line of frontage of the main wall of the whole building or enclosure. This we suspect would be in line with the nearer monoliths, though from a suggestion upon the plan it may have been a little nearer the interior—a position which from several reasons would not be probable—and, indeed, such a wall must have been much stouter than anything marked upon the plan.
From the foundations preserved it would seem that each tower was designed with chambers. Two other strong oblong chambers or vaults may be noted in the thickness of the wall, and there seems to be indication in the plan of a continuation to the series. The excavators were troubled by the fact that no door openings were found to these rooms.[590]As no section is given by them to show the relative levels of the different walls, it is not possible to form an opinion as to whether they are at all preserved above the lower courses. It is in any case interesting to observe that in military Roman forts of later days (in the earlier system of the first and second centuries) the chambers on the lower floors of such guard-rooms were often merely vaults or cellars, gained from the upper floor(which was nearly level with the sentry-go upon the wall) by means of an internal ladder.
There is a still more important fact revealed by this recent excavation, the full significance of which does not seem to have been noted. This is the discovery, on the left hand, of a lower frontage wall or foundation (X, Y), upon which the upper one partly rests. Now between these upper and lower walls there is, according to the plan, a clear angle of deviation amounting to five degrees. The masonry of the lower wall corresponds with the roughly ‘polygonal’ system of walling illustrated on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui and elsewhere, while that of the upper consists entirely of large square blocks of granite, nearly uniform in height and mostly five or six feet in length, bound together by means of ‘joggles,’ and backed by a revetment of rough stones, making the whole about two metres thick. So far as one can judge from the published evidence, there is clear suggestion of two different building periods, as we noted in regard to the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui. The earlier one is seen in a stout military wall of polygonal type, the later in the line of sculptured blocks which was built partly over the remains of the other. The monoliths and other sculptures, and the visible remains in general, belong to this later series.
Before passing on to a consideration of the sculptures there are two or three architectural points to be noted. In the large cubes for the frontage wall, it is noticeable, particularly in the interior, that their faces are dressed only for a width of five or six inches around the edges, while the rest of the face projects considerably beyond this dressed line. This seems to have been a regular mason’s method of treatment, for the same may benoticed in the smaller stones in the main wall at the approach to the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui (Pl.LX.). It is clear that in the latter case no sculptures were contemplated, hence this feature does not necessarily imply that such stones were left by the mason for the sculptor, and remained for some reason unfinished, nor even that the sculptures were wont to be carved after the stones had been placed in position.[591]If the latter was true, it must be proved from other evidence; the contrary conclusion seems to be more probableprima facie, and to be borne out to some extent by the general completeness of the group of sculptures upon each stone individually, and by the care with which the bottom-most details of the reliefs are executed, features which would have tended to be neglected had the stone been already in position on the ground. Another point is the reconstruction of the doorway, whether as a cantilever archway, as at Boghaz-Keui, or by a single massive lintel. The great size of the granite block which marks the threshold shows that the latter method was possible to the engineers, and part of the lintel may perhaps be seen in a huge square-cut mass of granite (i), with a few hieroglyphs upon it, which lies, unclaimed for any other purpose, in front of the gateway, where it might easily have fallen. On the other hand, the clear space between the jambs is nearly twelve feet in length, and it may be thought that the jambs are not designed of sufficient relative proportions to support a mass and weight so great as would have been required of a single stone that spanned them. In the preserved upper part of the left-hand monolith also (B) it may be seen that the horizontal portion declines a little as though to form the offspring of an arch, while thevertical stop is inclined slightly outwards, as though designed to receive the direct thrust of an arch, whether of two large stones or of many small ones. The thrust would be further taken by a backing of masonry behind the monoliths, which may be seen from the plan to have been included in the original design. Notwithstanding these considerations, the material evidence in this case is in favour of a great stone lintel, of strength and size proportionate to the width of its span.
A third point is the reconstruction of the upper courses of the building, and this involves a consideration of the mutual relation of the upper and lower walls of the frontage (EF and XY). With regard to the upper wall (EF), a dressed block of the second course remains seemingly not much out of its original position.[592]This prepares us for the restoration of the whole course in stone, and possibly another fallen block (lying just in front of that markedf) might be fitted into place to the left hand of the former. This creates for itself a precedent, for in other sculptured walls that are known, as at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the wall was carried up in brick. In those cases, however, the sculptures were carved on facing slabs merely, not on cubical building blocks, so that for architectural analogy we must look rather to the palace at Boghaz-Keui. The latter, however, furnishes no direct evidence on the point, though M. Perrot suspected that it was carried up on a timber frame. We must, then, accept the suggestion of this single stonein situ; but we must hesitate to accept without clear proof the theory that there were sculptures also on the second tier,[593]a feature forwhich we have no analogy in Hittite works. The two sculptured blocks (x,y) recently found at a lower level, in front of the lower wall (XY), represent subjects entirely different to thosein situ, and seem from the published photographs[594]to illustrate a phase of art as different as the early and later reliefs of Sinjerli. Measurements taken of stones irregular in outline are apt to be deceptive, and not until these, when tried, are found to fit accurately into the position suggested, alongside that which isin situ, on the second course of the upper wall, can we believe that such was their original position. It has been noted that these blocks were found in the excavation which disclosed the lower wall. Now there is clear suggestion, in plan and photograph, that the lower wall was antecedent to the upper, and bearing in mind the later level, which is best seen in the threshold between the sphinxes, it is highly improbable that the lower wall remained exposed to view at the time when the upper one was in use. It was probably already hidden by débris and ruins. The analogy of the palaces of Boghaz-Keui is entirely accordant. We are inclined, therefore, to believe that the two sculptured blocks in question (x,y), representing scenes of the chase, belong to the earlier period coeval with the lower wall. However that may be, the evidence before us tells of two distinct phases in the history of the Hittite Eyuk: the first when the site was surrounded by a town wall, possibly with a decorated gateway;[595]the second after the earlier works had been ruined (like the neighbouring palace of the Hatti at Boghaz-Keui), and in their place a palace was constructedwith its entrance over the remains of the older gateway. Later in this chapter we shall find indication in an unplaced corner-stone (p) of still a third building period, to which alternatively the newly found blocks (x,y) may possibly be assigned.
PLATE LXXIIEYUK: SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT FRONTAGE OF PALACE ENTRANCE(See pp.253-261.)
PLATE LXXII
EYUK: SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT FRONTAGE OF PALACE ENTRANCE
(See pp.253-261.)
The sculptures decorating this palatial entrance are of two classes: there are the great monoliths forming the jambs of the gateway, fashioned like sphinxes (A, B, C, D), and there are the reliefs with which the walls of the frontage and the approach-way are adorned. The outer sphinxes (A, B) are almost identical: each is over seven feet in height, while the blocks of which they form a part are about ten feet high in all. The inner sphinxes must have been similar but smaller.[596]Only the forepart of the sphinx is represented, and that is in bold relief. The breast and fore legs are those of a large animal; this is generally supposed to represent a bull,[597]though that on the left has five toes or claws. There is a bagginess as of pendent flesh between the legs. The upper part is a human face, surrounded with a wig or head-dress of sorts, which has the shape of a horse-shoe, ending in front of the shoulders in a completed outward curve within which is an inner concentric circle. At the sides of the head this feature comes outwards and forwards like a hood to protect the ears and neck. It is fitted to the head by a broad band around the brow; from this there descend in front of the ears two long attachments to support a collar which forms a band under the chin. That on the left is plain; but that on the right is ornamented withthree rosettes, each with six hollow loop-like petals. The ears are human, but large and too low down. The eye-sockets are hollowed as for insetting the eyes separately. The face is too weathered to preserve much character; it may be judged to have been full and round, especially in the upper part of the cheeks. The photograph speaks more clearly than any length of description.[598]
It has been supposed by early writers,[599]and repeated by many, that these sphinxes are of Egyptian suggestion. But the sphinx in general is not necessarily Egyptian: no one has traced any indigenous development of it as an artistic motive or as a religious symbol. It is much commoner in the Euphrates valley, where also it is found in greater variety of form. Its meaning in those more life-like representations becomes clearer. There the strength and dominion of the monarch are symbolised by the movement and force of the noble beast upon which his features are portrayed. But in Egypt the Sphinx is, for the most part, conventional and lifeless, an adaptation to the religious after-death symbolism which is the dominant motive of surviving Egyptian art. The familiar posture in early examples is sitting, and even the face is represented with so much conventionality and death-like mystery that it has given rise to an adjective in our language in the word ‘sphinx-like,’ implying an unvarying aspect of potential and mysterious serenity. Finally, no example of this class of sphinx, where the body is that of a bull, seems to have been found in Egypt, which could then hardly have provided the model for these standing ponderous bull-sphinxes of Eyuk.
The face carved upon the sphinxes may be that ofthe royal and priestly law-giver who dwelt within the palace which they guarded, or it may be a conventional type; upon that point there is no evidence. We have disclaimed any Egyptian motive in these sphinxes on general grounds, but there are found two curious and unexplained resemblances when we come to consider the facial type portrayed and the manner in which it is adorned. The one is in the portrait-statue[600]of Nefret, a queen of Egypt in the middle of the twelfth dynasty (before or about 2000B.C.) a sculpture which represents a type exceptional, indeed almost unique, in Egyptian art. There is something to be borne in mind, however, in making a comparison, namely, that this statue may have been carved in the Delta, and that ancient monuments of Lower Egypt are so rare that their standard character is little known. Hence it is not certain whether this peculiar monument merely reproduces a type of which no other examples have survived, or whether it was itself worked from a model strange even to the Delta. In the latter case the interesting explanation offers itself, that perhaps as early as the twelfth dynasty the Egyptian kings intermarried with Mesopotamian or Hittite princesses, as was done during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. The other resemblance is found in an Etruscan monument,[601]which presents a general similarity in subject and treatment at once striking and noteworthy.
Turning now to the reliefs that adorn the frontage-walls, it is seen that, as at Iasily Kaya, two main series are opposed to one another in the composition of thewhole. In both the main themes are religious. On the left-hand side the shrine of a Bull is represented, with priest and priestess and attendants bringing up smaller animals to be sacrificed. On the right-hand side the centre of worship appears as an enthroned goddess, twice depicted; and other stones in the row are decorated with a bull and lion of magnificent proportions. The cult-deity occupies in each case the naturally prominent place, namely, the front face of the corner-stones on either side, facing towards the worshippers and others who follow in their train.
The bull (a), the object of adoration on the left, stands on a panelled pedestal with projecting cornice. His dewlap, hair, full chest, and heavy shoulders are delineated, and he seems to bear some special marks upon his flank and quarter. His generative organs are represented, but not in exaggeration when allowance is made for the tendency of old-time sculptors to enlarge on details. He stands the emblem of earthly strength and virility; and it is reasonable to infer from his counter-position to the Mother-goddess, that he here separately embodies the essentially masculine powers of her divine consort, with whom indeed he seems to have been originally identified.[602]
In front of the bull, the nearest object, on the next stone, may be taken for an altar, the precise form of which, however, is not apparent. It was presumably round. Its pedestal narrows towards the top, and is crossed by lateral bands, the alternate ones being decorated by transverse lines in alternating series.[603]The figure who leads the worshippers is the priest-king, a type familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui and Malatia,only here he lacks the winged emblem which seems in the former case to denote his sovereignty. Here, however, his dignity at the head of the procession is apparent. He wears the same skull-cap, toga-like robe, earrings, and shoes with upturned toes. In his right hand is the reversed lituus, while his left, with the thumb prominent, is stretched out towards the altar. He is followed or accompanied by a female, the chief priestess, his queen. We do not hesitate in this identification, derived from general considerations, because this office is associated with the queen in the description of the seal of the treaty concluded between the Hittite and Egyptian kings[604]to which we have previously alluded. Her dress is interesting. She wears a skirt with oblique curving pleats, and tightly fitting vest. Her hair seems to descend behind as a pigtail almost to the ground, though some stray plaits may be seen also falling over the ear. The earring is plain: so too are the turned-up points of her shoes. The arms are in a curious position, and not easy to trace upon the stone: it seems probable, however, that the left one is folded under the right, and that it rests near the elbow upon a staff, which may be seen to be inclined thence obliquely towards the left foot, which is advanced. The head of this staff is not visible, and it cannot be said, therefore, whether it resembles those used similarly by the priestesses in the right-hand series of sculptures at Iasily Kaya;[605]it may be seen, however, to be decorated by a series of short transverse parallel lines down its whole length. The head-dress is broken away. The face of this figure also is not well preserved, but it may be seen to resemble that of the leader in thestraightness of the nose, which is in line with the receding forehead, a feature repeated too deliberately and too often to be accounted for merely as a defect in drawing.[606]
Then here follows a gap from which a smaller stone is missing; to have escaped from the joggles that fixed it in position it must have been broken, and has so disappeared.[607]The third stone (c) is well filled by a scene representing a ram and three sheep led forward by a man as to the sacrifice. The latter holds the ram by the horns, and two of the sheep appear as an upper register, in the usual convention which was intended to convey the impression of distance; by this arrangement it is possible that a flock of sheep is symbolised, as suggested by M. Perrot, but it is noticeable that the number of animals is the same as the number of priest-shepherds (or attendants), of whom three more are shown following this group on the next stone (d). These are clad uniformly in similar fashion to their leader, and the only feature in this respect that distinguishes them from the chief priest is the fall of their cloaks, which ends almost in a point behind the foot. One hand of each is raised before the face, but the other is employed differently in each case. The leading attendant, it was noted, grasps the horn of one of the animals. The first figure of the group that follows (d) seems to be holding a cord or whip, the continuation of which cannot, however, be traced on the stone in front. The second holds up an object which is worn away at the top, but ends below, level with his elbow, in an outward curl. The last is represented similarly with both hands raised, but nothingcan now be seen to have been held by them. The head of this figure, too, is almost wholly obliterated.
Then follows, on the fourth stone, one of the most curious representations of the series. This consists of two small figures of men, one of whom is mounting a ladder of twenty rungs, which rises obliquely from the ground-level and ends at two-thirds of the height of the stone. M. Perrot suggests that these were clowns, which seems to be an unnecessary complication: it is more natural to suppose that there is here commemorated some scene familiar in the rites, or in the representation of them. The men are clad in short tunics, and other details noticeable in their dress are the helmet-like hat[608]of the man upon the ladder, the skull-cap and earrings of the other, the girdle-knot of both. The position of their hands is very curious and interesting, and enables us to divine with some certainty the real meaning of the group. In the several photographs before us,[609]taken from different points of view in different lights, we get (as is commonly the case) a comparative effect of great assistance in eliminating the unessential features on the stone. It may be seen[610]that the man upon the ladder is not holding the ladder in order to climb up higher. There is plain to careful scrutiny of the photograph a small thin implement projecting below the clenched hand, which is just clear of the ladder near the top. The right hand is raised aloft and grasps a rounded implement (more clearly seen in another picture), in a natural attitude of striking a blow. He is working with a chisel and mason’s hammer; it must be the simplicity of the interpretation that has so long deferredit. Now the courses of this wall are about four feet in height,[611]so that a ladder of ordinary tread with twenty rungs would rest approximately against the fourth course or the fifth. If the man stood about the middle of the ladder, which was nearly twice his own height, as is suggested in the picture, he would be working on the third or fourth course, or at the equivalent height. In either case it is implied that he is dressing the wall face, as was commonly done after the blocks had been fitted, and this being a last stage of the building, the completion of the palace is commemorated by the sculpture. The possibility that the sculptor here represents himself at work, as was not unknown in Oriental mural decorations, seems to be excluded by several considerations, the first being the use of a long ladder, which would have been unnecessary even for a second course of sculptures, and the second the absence of any design on that part of the stone where the chisel is at work. The figure standing on the ground-level is seen to be at work in similar fashion upon the lowest courses; he is represented in the act of striking his blow, the hammer being in contact with the chisel.[612]
PLATE LXXIIIEYUK: SHRINE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESSSculpture decorating right frontage of palace entrance. (Seep. 262.)EYUK: MUSICIANS WITH BAGPIPE AND GUITAR
PLATE LXXIII
EYUK: SHRINE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESS
Sculpture decorating right frontage of palace entrance. (Seep. 262.)
EYUK: MUSICIANS WITH BAGPIPE AND GUITAR
On the same block there is depicted one of three musicians, all of whom face in the reverse direction, towards the left. They are presumably taking part in another scene, not connected at any rate with the groups of worshippers. The one in question is a trumpeter, his instrument being a plain straight trumpet with expanding end.[613]His dress is the shorttunic, skull-cap, and tip-tilted shoe. He wears an earring, and the pigtail is thick and conspicuous, ending in a curl well below the shoulder. The other musicians are found on the next block (e). The middle one is clad like the former, but his instrument is different. It is an inflated skin, into which he is clearly blowing, but no pipe is represented: we must suspect a drone effect, the invariable accompaniment of Oriental music.[614]The third instrument is again different, being a fine specimen of guitar, twanged, it would seem, by the fingers. It is attached by a cord to the waistbelt of the operator, and is decorated by loose ribbons which flutter from the end.
On the last block (f) an ox is represented in outline facing the original direction. Two round objects accompany the scene, the one hollowed in the centre, the other a plain disk. Upon the back of the animal there is a load, the top of which projects. It is impossible to say what the motive of this sculpture was, but being prepared for a non-religious interpretation by the scenes which precede it, it may be explained as a beast of burden, bringing a load towards the building of the palace. Possibly the round objects represent the wheels of a wagon which could not be introduced owing to lack of space upon the wall, which here comes to an end.
The series of sculptures on the right hand, which corresponds with those we have just described, opens with the representation of a religious rite. In this case it is a female deity, enthroned, that is the object ofadoration; but we miss any distinctive features among those who worship. The goddess is presumably to be recognised here, again, as the prototype of Kybele, the same who is similarly enshrined on Mount Sipylus,[615]and described by Pausanias as the Mother-goddess. We have been able to identify her in the representations of Iasily Kaya,[616]and on the rocks at Fraktin;[617]and on the other side of Taurus she is found in Hittite mythology at Carchemish. She was plainly a deity acceptable to all branches of the Hittite peoples, indeed under other names and guises her worship was almost general throughout the ancient east. In this case (l) we find her seated, facing right, upon a low-backed chair. Her dress is a long robe reaching to the ankles, and beneath it, upon a low stone, her feet may be seen, the left advanced, clad in shoes, the toes of which turn up and back in a completed curve—a unique instance. She wears a threefold collar, and her hair falls in a long pigtail reaching to the seat of the chair between its back and her body. The nose is angular and in line with the receding forehead, but the head-dress is broken away. With her right hand she holds something to her mouth, and with her left she holds aloft a drinking-cup in the form of a goblet, the stem of which is partly hidden by the hand, and not drawn straight. The chair on which she sits has four legs, the feet of which turn forward: the seat is slightly curved, and the frame is supported by a spindle.
The worshippers (m) are three in number, and seem to be all similar to one another; unfortunately their faces are obliterated. They stand with one foot forward, which is probably the right, as they are turned to the left towards the goddess. They seem to be clad in thetoga-like garment, as worn by the priest and his attendants in the corresponding scene on the opposite side. The front edge of this garment, however, is bordered in some way and so prominently displayed that it has misled many observers. The right arms of these figures are advanced with hands uplifted.[618]The left elbow is by the side and bent, and the hand, opposite the middle of the chest, clasps a straight staff about its middle, with the upper end resting upon the shoulder in a natural position. The top end does not curve (as suggested by M. Guillaume’s drawing), and if there was any embellishment it was in the addition near the middle of the crescental object seen better on a sculpture (a²) in the left hand of the approach, which is described below. The feature is not clear in this case, however. This block is followed by a third (n) stillin situ, on which there may be faintly made out the representations of three other figures similar to those which precede. The next block (o) is out of place, and somewhat lower than those of this façade: none the less it is sufficiently near in position and in size for it to be probable that it followed next in the series. Upon it there is depicted with magnificent realism a bull,[619]with lowered head, as in the act of charging or preparing to toss. Another stone (p), though at hand, is separated from its neighbours, and standing now on end, does duty as the jamb of a doorway into the public wash-house of the village. This is carved with equally vigorous realism, the subject being a lion holding down a ram with his forefeet; the hind legs, too, areoutstretched as though he had not recovered from his spring. The tail is down and curls outwards. The lion faces left, and the ram is transverse to the latter’s profile. This block must have served as corner-stone, from the analogy of similar monuments at Sakje-Geuzi[620]and elsewhere, in which the body of the lion is carved in relief, with the head and forepart in the round. Upon his back there is to be seen a squared surface for the reception of the upper corner-stone. In this case the ram also is in high relief, with head in the round, as the length of its body corresponds with the thickness of the stone.[621]The treatment of detail on the flank and quarters of the ram obeys a definite Hittite convention, which is further illustrated by the two loose stones recently discovered. These were found[622]below and in front of the lower frontage-wall on the left (x,y). Each is carved in an upper and lower register. On the one, in the upper part, a man is represented kneeling, taking aim with bow and arrow against a wild boar which is charging him. His dress is the short tunic and skull-cap; the bow is only medium length, but the arrow is long and barbed. The animal is depicted with considerable realism, especially the snout and bristles: the tail ends in a treble point. In the register below, a stag, facing left, is nibbling at some herbage; the artist has been short of space in height, and has squeezed his subject so that the animal seems to crouch. It is followed in series by another huntsman figure, who was represented in the same attitude as the one above, but the stone at this place is very much worn, and only the arrow point and outline can be distinguished.The second stone is in sequence to the left; in the upper row only a tree can be plainly made out towards the left, but the remainder may be believed to have been a continuation of the scene of chase. In the lower register the herbage (remarkably like gentian) appears to be continued on the right, and facing it is another standing stag. Two smaller but similar animals face the other way, and in the distance (shown high in the scene and small in size) there may be seen another, running left but with head turned back.
In the treatment of these animals the same peculiar conventions are observed, particularly in the delineation of the shoulder muscles, that we have noticed on the small animal under the lion’s paws (p) described above: the three sculptures are not, however, necessarily contemporary.[623]As stated previously, it seems probable that the newly found reliefs (x,y) belong to the earlier building period,[624]by reason of the circumstances of their discovery and the scenes depicted upon them. Moreover, the lion block (p) is a corner-stone, and fits no visible position in the palace entrance that we have been considering; so that there is indication of still a third building period, which was presumably the latest.[625]
Two sculptured blocks have been displaced from the walls that line the approach leading to the sphinx-gate (EB, GA), but they have been recognised from their dimensions among those lying loose about the entrance.[626]There are only two blocks on either side,whereof the corner-stones remainin situ, with their ends to the line of frontage (a¹ andlin the plan); so that the loose stones fall into place between the corner-stone and the sphinx on each side (h,kin the plan). On the left hand the faces of both stones are sculptured (a²,h). The nearer one is the corner-stone, on the end of which there appears, as we have seen, the image of the bull upon a pedestal. On the short side, however, the subject is quite different; and we see two pairs of male figures, the members of each pair facing towards one another. On the left each member grasps a staff: the one figure is taller than the other, so that his hand is found above the other, the staff resting on the ground and rising vertically between them. Each figure is clad in a short tunic, but little else can be made out except the earring and prominent receding nose of the taller. As in the case of the bull last described (g), the carving does not seem to have been executed in anything but outline, though that is fairly deep, and the background has been cut away. The smaller figure, which is to the left, has partly disappeared with the broken corner of the stone, and the upper part has also been considerably damaged.[627]The group on the right of the same stone is not quite the same. The taller figure faces left in this case also, but he is clad in the long toga-like garment, with skull-cap, earring, and tip-tilted shoes, and he alone touches the staff which he holds aloft with both hands, the right above the left. Projecting from the middle of the staff, and at the very place where the left hand grasps it, there is a crescental object, with interior peak, resembling in the drawing a certain kind of axe-headfound in Egypt, which was affixed at three points to the staff. It is difficult to form any opinion as to what this really is intended to represent; an axe-head would hardly be fixed to the middle of a staff, even though only for ceremonial purposes; while, on the other hand, by the old conventions of perspective, the curving outer edge may really represent some solid object that was round in the plane perpendicular to the surface of the stone, as seen for example in the trumpet depicted on the outer façade (d). The smaller figure in this case is very indistinct, and is represented as standing some distance beyond the greater, though facing it (his feet being shown, that is, on a higher level than the rest).
The next block (h) shows six figures.[628]These sculptures are in a poor state, but some details may be gleaned. The men are in procession or in line, all turned towards the right, facing, that is, the sphinx and the entrance to the palace. They seem to be clad in short tunics, and they wear tip-tilted shoes. Their head-dress is possibly helmet-like, as worn by the mason on the ladder described above. The knot of their girdle-rope is seen in some cases. The left hands seem all to be held up in symmetry, with their right hands near the middle of the waist, and their right elbows bent.
The counterpart to this group on the opposite side (k) is of special interest, but was not published by M. Perrot. As pointed out by Professor Ramsay,[629]who first rolled this block over and so found the sculpture, there is on the right hand of the picture the clear outline of a seated goddess, resembling in most respects the goddess adored in the front group (l), which wehave described and identified with Kybele. In this case the stone is broken, and only the knees and hands are seen, with part of the stool, but the analogy is sufficient. Any object that may have been held in her hand is no longer visible, and a row of points has been drilled at some time across the stone as though to sever that end from the block. The next feature of interest is the reappearance of the chief priest and priestess, whom we suppose to have been the local king and queen, and whose figures we have seen previously, on the left front (b), conducting the rites at the shrine of the Bull. Only in this case an oblation scene is represented, such as we have noticed at Malatia and at Fraktin.[630]In the restored scene the priest pours out the liquid offering with his left hand into a vase held by the goddess; while the priestess poises some large object like a pomegranate aloft. Unfortunately in this case again the head-dress of the queen cannot be made out. She is followed by two weathered figures, who resemble the attendants in the previous instance, wearing the same toga-like garment with prominent front edge.
The inner face of the corner-stone (l) on this side is not sculptured at all; but on the side of the great sphinxes (A, B) that flank the entrance, there have been considerable reliefs, among which that which remains on the right hand (q) is of special interest. Here we find a repetition of the double eagle which we last met with in the sculptures of Iasily Kaya.[631]In this case the talons of the bird are fixed on two hares, the faces of which turn outwards. There was apparently only one figure represented upon his back; whether this was male or female it is difficult to say. The form ofthe skirt trailing behind would well agree with those of Iasily Kaya; but there are no vertical pleats. On the other hand, a scrutiny of the photograph suggests that there may be detected traces of the loose end of a toga and of the curved end of a reversed lituus, features which suggest a male figure clad like the priest-king now familiar in these sculptures. One detail is quite clear, namely the turned-up toe of the shoe, and this may be seen upon the corresponding side of the opposite sphinx, together with traces of an eagle’s head. The inner ends of these monoliths (removed, that is, from the front of the sphinxes) are too broken to detect any sculptures upon them, but in the corresponding places on the inner sphinxes (s,t) there may be found deep down the feet of a man wearing the tip-tilted shoe, and turned towards the gateway. There seems to be an analogy to the warrior figures recently found adorning a gateway at Boghaz-Keui.[632]
There are no other carvings foundin situ: of those lying about we may mention a large block with a few hieroglyphic signs[633]upon it, lying near the threshold (iin Plan); another stone with a border on two sides, and a figure in high relief upon it, which seems to us to be possibly the body of a seated goddess, though in another sense it looks like a crude crouching lion.[634]It lies in a garden not far from the gateway.[635]There are also a pair of large stones that seem to have formed part of the local series, but are now irrecognisable.[636]They lie a mile away on the rising ground, where they have been arranged at some forgotten date to serve as the jambs of an entrance which may be still traced below the soil.
Excavations conducted during three seasons at Sinjerli by the German Orient Committee[637]have thrown a flood of light upon the archæology of Northern Syria. They have also contributed a great series of monuments to our list of Hittite works; and the later history of the city and neighbourhood are further illuminated by the discovery of several inscribed monuments, which though not dealing with the period of Hittite domination, nevertheless establish for us definite historical landmarks from which to work backwards in our argument. The monuments and architectural remains discovered belong to three main periods, which may be distinguished, terminologically at any rate, as the Hittite, Aramæan, and Phœnician. With the monuments of the two later phases[638]we are not concerned, except so far as they throw light upon the story of the Hittite occupation of the site: yet even in them the dominant feeling is derived from the Hittite prototypes.