[587] A town Teiria, of the ‘Leuco-Syrians,’ is mentioned by Hecatæus of Miletus (Fragm. Hist. Graec., ed. Müller-Didot, No. 194). M. Maspero inclines to the identification of this place with Eyuk (The Passing of Empires, p. 338).
[589] Op. cit., Pl. I. fig. 10.
[590] Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 6.
[591] In this conclusion we differ from Macridy Bey, op. cit., pp. 11, 13.
[592] It may be seen in the photograph, Pl. LXXII., and covers the sculptured block marked e in the plan, extending a little way on either side.
[593] The restoration suggested by Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 11.
[594] Macridy Bey, op. cit., figs. 23, 24.
[595] Cf. the ‘Stadt-thor’ at Sinjerli; Von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli (Berlin, 1902), Pls. XXIX., XXXIV.; and below, p. 274.
[596] The recent excavators failed to see the remains of these sphinxes, op. cit., p. 11, but they are quite plain in profile after the earth has been cleared away; see a photo, Liverpool Annals of Archæology, i. (1908), Pl. III.
[597] Cf. for example, Murray’s Handbook for Asia Minor, p. 27.
[598] Pl. LXXII. Cf. the details of the Sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXII.
[599] Cf. Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, p. 648.
[600] See the photograph in Newberry, etc., Short History of Egypt (ed. 1907), frontispiece. The special feature of the horseshoe-like head-dress occurs on scarabs of the Hyksos period (cf. the same writer’s Scarabs, London, 1906, Pl. XXV. No. 30), another suggestion of Asiatic origins.
[601] Berlin Mus., Etruscan Rooms, No. 1251. Compare also some weathered statues from Sinjerli described below, pp. 297, 298.
[603] Cf. the round altars of Emir-Ghazi, p. 183, and the representations at Fraktin, Pl. XLVII. p. 150.
[604] Cf. Sayce, The Hittites (1903), p. 39, for revised translation of this passage in the treaty: cited below, p. 349.
[605] Cf. Pl. LXVII.
[606] Cf. Pls. LXV.-LXVII.
[607] We cannot accept the theory of an intentional opening (Macridy Bey, op. cit., p. 11).
[608] Cf. p. 105, Pl. XXXIX.
[609] At the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.
[611] The stones of the lower course vary from 3 ft. 11 in. to 4 ft. 2 in.
[612] This is more clearly suggested in a second photograph taken in the afternoon, with the shadows to the right hand.
[613] Traceable easily on the stone, but usually in shadow, owing to the projection of the stone of the upper course.
[614] ‘The bagpipe consists of the skin of a dog apparently, the insufflation pipe being at the tail end, while the drone pipe was probably concealed within the dog’s head, with the vent through its mouth. The same idea was carried out in the Middle Ages in Europe. Cf. Aristophanes, Acharnians (i. 866): ‘you flute-players who are here from Thebes blow the dog’s tail with your bone-pipes’ (Extract from a letter from Miss K. Schlesinger).
[618] MM. Perrot and Guillaume in particular seem to have fallen before the pitfalls of perspective in the picture, and their drawing is misleading (Exploration Archéologique, Cappadoce, Pl. LXIV.; Art in ... Asia Minor, ii., fig. 338). They have been followed by others.
[619] Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit., p. 174, fig. 339.
[621] See Perrot, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii., fig. 341 and fig. 340; Exploration, Pl. LVII.
[622] Macridy Bey, op. cit., figs. 23, 24.
[623] These details were in vogue throughout the whole range of Hittite art at Sinjerli: see pp. 275, 289. Cf. also Pl. XXIV. (ii).
[625] There is no analogy to date this object earlier than the ninth or tenth century B.C. Cf. pp. 210, 301.
[626] Ramsay, Jour. Roy. Asiatic Society (N.S.), xv. p. 116, with sketch plan.
[627] Perrot, op. cit., fig. 335, represents the right-hand figure with head-dress serrated, but this marking seems to be the weathering of the stone.
[628] Perrot, op. cit., fig. 336, Pl. LXIII.; Macridy Bey, op. cit., fig. 28, p. 21.
[629] Loc. cit., also Recueil de Travaux, xiv. p. 91 and fig. 5.
[632] Winckler, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (Berlin, 1907, No. 35), p. 70. Abb. 12, Das Ost-tor. See also above, p. 205.
[633] Messerschmidt, C.I.H., Pl. XXIX., No. 17.
[634] Taken by Perrot for part of a sphinx, and by Macridy Bey for the lower part of a standing upright figure (op. cit., p. 25).
[636] We do not agree with any of the suggested restorations of these motives. Cf. Macridy Bey, op. cit., pp. 27, 28; Chantre, Mission en Cappadoce (Paris, 1898), p. 9.
[637] Von Luschan and others: Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen Sammlungen, Hefte xi., xii., and xiii.; Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i., ii., iii. (Berlin, 1893, 1898, 1907).
[638] Published under the same auspices. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iv.
[640] Not much can be inferred from this fact, inasmuch as the Hittite palaces even of the Aramæan phase were probably based upon earlier models and of much the same plan. There are references to the Hilâni in the time of Sargon.
[642] Cf. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XXXIV.
[643] Compare with the tail of sphinx of Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.
[644] Cf. a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii), and one from Marash, p. 115. So also the eagle-headed monster described above.
[645] See above, pp. 203, 253, and Pl. LX., and plan, p. 247.
[646] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, ii. p. 122 (Koldewey).
[647] Corresponding in the main with the scheme of publication in Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. pp. 208-229, to the illustrations of which we refer in the footnotes.
[648] Pp. 133, 134; Pl. XXXIX. and p. 105.
[649] Op. cit., iii. Pl. XXXIX.
[650] See Pl. LXXV. (ii), reproduced by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt. Cf. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XL.
[651] As the band is in each case doubled, it does not seem probable that this is merely the detail of an upper part to the shoe. Cf. the monument of Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.
[652] Compare the shield of the Hittite warrior shown on the north wall of the temple of Rameses II. at Abydos, Egypt; below, Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).
[654] Compare Pl. LXXXI.
[655] But not projecting beyond it as with the lions of Eyuk, p. 263, and Marash, Pl. XLII., Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.: compare the lion reliefs of Angora, p. 162.
[656] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XLIV. (ii).
[657] For Nos. vii.-xv. see Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XXXVII.
[658] See Pl. LXXV. (i) (by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt).
[661] Compare a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, p. 105; also Pl. LXXXI.
[662] For a photograph of the sculptures ix.-xv., in situ, see Pl. LXXVI., reproduced by courtesy of Professor A. H. Sayce and the S.P.C.K., from The Hittites, p. 70.
[663] This wall, it will be borne in mind, faces to the south, being the inner wall of the inner pilaster. For the sculptures xvi.-xxxii., see Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii. Pl. XXXVIII.
[664] Cf. No. ii. above, Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[665] No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[666] Compare the sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (i).
[667] In Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pl. XXXVIII., at the top, these sculptures are aligned artificially with others for the photograph.
[670] See Pl. LXXVII. (i); and Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, ii., Pl. XLI. (i).
[671] Cf. the sculptures of Marash, p. 111, and of Boghaz-Keui, p. 217, Pl. LXIII. (ii).
[672] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pl. XLIV.
[673] Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pl. XLIII. No. 1.
[674] Letter from Miss K. Schlesinger, October 4, 1909.
[675] In the Camp Scene, Brit. Mus.
[676] Cf. the musicians of Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (ii).
[678] Compare the features of the warrior, No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii), with the god-figures, Pls. LXXV. (ii), LXXVII.
[679] Below, Pl. LXXIX.; and Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, iii., Pls. XLVI., XLVII.
[680] Op. cit., iii. p. 236 (with figs. 142, 143, 144, 145), where they are ascribed to Byzantine origins.
[681] Above, p. 254 and Pl. LXXII.
[682] By the Liverpool expedition of 1908. Liv. Annals of Archæology, i. (1908), pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.
[684] Only the base or pedestal of the column was preserved, and the excavators found reason to believe that, after the destruction of the building, it had served some other purpose, possibly as an altar.
[686] See Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.; and compare the lions of Marash (Pl. XLII.), of Eyuk (p. 263), and of Sinjerli (p. 297). Also of Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LX. and p. 210.
[687] Compare the treatment of the mounds upon which stands the priest-dynast in the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, No. 22 R., Pl. LXVIII.
[688] On the subject of this emblem, cf. Ridgeway, ‘The Origin of the Turkish Crescent,’ Jour. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxxviii., ii. (1908), p. 241.
[690] Cf. p. 253 and Pl. LXXII.
[691] In the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is a small stela of Egyptian work dating from about the twenty-eighth dynasty, on which a standing sphinx is portrayed; the tail of this creature is made to represent the head of a cobra. Compare also a sculpture from Sinjerli, p. 275.
[693] Especially in representations of the priesthood. Cf. Boghaz-Keui, (Pl. LXVIII.), Eyuk (Pl. LXXII.).
[694] The treatment of this bird is very similar to that on the small monument from Marash, p. 118, illustrated in Humann and Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien, Pl. XLVII., fig. 2; and Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. p. 68, fig. 2, and p. 181. It is interesting to compare it also with the bird sculptured on an archaic statue from Asia Minor of the sixth century B.C., No. 1577, Berlin Museum, Stehende Frau.
[695] See p. 255, Pl. LXXII.
[696] Compare the head-dress of the priest-king just described. The horns are wanting on the similar sphinx-base from Sinjerli (Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, ii., Pl. XXXIII.), and in this case an extra short wing is shown descending behind the shoulder: otherwise the details of treatment correspond. It is interesting to compare these bases with one of purely Assyrian style, published by Layard (Monuments of Nineveh, i. Pl. XCV.); in the latter case there are three pairs of horns, and the rendering of the idea differs in nearly every detail.
[697] See Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i., p. 54, fig. 16; and Berlin Vorderas. Mus., No. 3012.
[698] See Chapter III., p. 141, and Pl. XLV., and cf. p. 142, note 4.
[699] In the Berl. Vorderas. Mus., vide Ausgrabungen, etc., iv.
[700] In this opinion we differ somewhat from Dr. Messerschmidt, Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung, Sept. 1909, pp. 378, 381, where he reviews the results of the excavations made by us at Sakje-Geuzi.
[701] See Liverpool Annals of Archæology, vol. i., No. 4, Pl. XLIII., and p. 112, etc.