Ivories - Hittite Affiliations

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

ANATOLIP~ IVORIES - HITTITE AFFILIATIONS

' ( IN LIGHT OF NEW FINDINGS

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Art by Joan Anne Greenfield _/

January 1977 ------.

The Thesis of Joan Anne Greenfield is approved:

Earle Field, Ph.D.

Chairman

California State University, Northridge

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Earle Field, Dr. Birgitta Wohl, and Dr. Jeanne L. Trabold for their generously donated time and guidance throughout the development of this study. An additional expression of gratitude is extended to Dr. Trabold, my committee chairman, graduate advisor and instructor, from whose talents and interest I have gained the necessary stimulus for the completion of this thesis.

------~

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... iii LIST OF PLATES AND SOURCES • . . . . v · ABSTRACT . xiv COLORPLATE (PLATE 1) . . . • Frontispiece Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . • . • . • . ~ • . . • • 1 2. HITTITE ARTISTIC FEATURES IN GENERAL: ROLE OF THE MINOR ARTS IN RELATION TO HITTITE ART AS A WHOLE . • . • . . 21

3. HITTITE CHP~ACTERISTICS IN THE ANATOLIAN SCHOOL OF IVORY CARVING . • • . • • • 61 4. INFLUENCES FROM THE ANATOLIAN SCHOOL OF IVORY CARVING REFLECTED IN THE NEG- HITTITE PERIOD • • • • . . . • • • 116

5. SUMMP~Y AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 163 APPENDIXES ...... 169 COMPARATIVE TABLE 170 MAP. . • • • • . • . . . . 171

CHART ~~ MAP SOURCES. • 172

iv Plates and Sources Plate Page 1. Pratt Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum: Three ivory female sphinxes; hind leg of a lion. Source: Prudence 0. Harper, "Dating a Group of Ivories from Anatolia," Connoisseur, Vol 172, #693, November, 1969, Figure 8...... Frontispiece 2. Figs. (a) and (b): Figurines from the Nimrud Ivories. Source: After R.D. Barnett, "Greek and Oriental Ivories)," Journal of.Hellenic Studies, Vol. LXVIII, 194<:5, Plate III. • • • • • • • • 15 Fig. (c): Ivory sphinx from the Pratt Collection. Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figure 373. . . . • • . . • . • . • . . 15 3. Fig. (a): Ivory Goddess from Kultepe. Source: Seton Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples of P~atolia, London, Thames & Hudson, Ltd., 1967, Figure 49 . • • . . • • . • • • • . • • 17 Fig. (b): Statue of Idrimi. Source: After R.D. Barnett, The Minrud Ivories with other examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum, London, British Museum, 1957t Figure 6a . • . • . • • . . • • 17 4. Figs. (a) and (b): Akkadian Seal Impressions. Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the P~cient Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figure 96 . • . • . . • • • • • . • . • 25 Figs. (c) and (d) Cappadocian Seal Impressions. Source: Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. I, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966, No. 833, Drawings C-D. • • • • • 25

•------··------~-----·------~------·

v ... --· -~------···- -·------~-~------~------· ----. ------. ·------·-- Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 5. Seal Impressions from Anatolia - 19th/18th centuries B.C.

Source: N. Ozgu~, "Assyrian Trade Colonies in Anatolia," Archaeology, November, 1969, Page 253. • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 29 6. Rock Carvings, Yazilikaya. Source: M. Vierya, Hittite Art, London, Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1955, Plate 20 ••• 30 7. Sculptures of the main gallery, Yazilikaya. Source: R. Gurney, The Hittites, Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1964, Figure 8. • • • • • • • 32 8. Symbols of the deities on monuments of Zinjirli. Source: Yigael Yadin, "Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor," Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. James A. Sanders, New York, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1970, Figure 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 9. Fig. (a) Mittanian or Syrian cylinder seal. Source: W.S. Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1965, Figure 154a. . • • • • • • • • 37 Figure (b) Hittite winged disk in royal monogram.

Source: H. Frankfort, C~linder Seals, London, The Gregg Press Ltd., 19 5, Figure 89. • • • 37 10. Sword God, Yazilikaya. Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figures 264 and 265 ••••••• ~ • • 39

Vi Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 11. Fig. (a) Figurines from Carchemish. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 53. • • • . . • • • • . • • . • • • . • • . . 40 Fig. (b) Ivory Mountain God. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 53...... • ...... • • . . 40 12. Fig. (a) Seal of King Muwatalli. Source: M. Vierya, Hittite Art, London, Alec Titanti, Ltd., 1955, Figure 38a. • • • • 41 Fig. (b) King Tudhaliya, Yazilikaya IV. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Origins in the Mediterranean and Near East, New York, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1966, Figure 59 • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 41 13. Seal Impressions of the Kings of the Hittite Empire. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Figure i...... 42 14. Hittite Stamp Seals and Gold Signet Ring. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 52. • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 44 15. Fig. (a) Hittite sign of looped cross. Source: After H. Kantor, "A 'Syro-Hittite' Treasure in the Oriental Institute Museum, 11 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVI,. #3, July, 19 57, Figure 2. • • • • • • • • • • 49

Fig. (b) Egyptian~ sign. Source: J. Greenfield, drawn from a photograph E. Weyes•s Ornament,New York, 1924, Plate XV. 49

vii Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 15. Fig. (c) Drawing of Bulls on relief, Alaca Hoytik.

Source: H. Kantor, "A 'Syro-Hittite 1 Treasure in the Oriental Institute Museum~," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVI, ~3, July, 1957, . r F1gure t:>. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 16. Drawing of niotifs on ivory plaque, Negiddo. Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figure 274. • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • 51 17. Sculptured Shrine, Iflatun Punar. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate XXI. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 52 18. Imamkulu rock sculpture. Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figure 273. . • . . • • . • • • • • • • . 58 19. Lion Gate, Boghazkoy. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate XVI. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 67 20. Fragment of clay rhyton from Alishar (Fig. a.). Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate ~.1. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 69 Fig. (b) Detail of Lion's head, Boghazkoy. Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Anc4ent Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figure 256. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 69

viii Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 21. Lion Gate Figure, Boghazkoy. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate XVII...... 71 22. Fig. (a) Ivory bull-man, Fig. (b) Seated ivory sphinx, both from the Pratt Collection. Source: Christiane Decamps de Mertzenfeld, Inventaire commente des Ivoires Pheniciens et .apparentes :d·&couverts dans le Proche-Orient, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1954, Figures 1081, 1088. 72 23. Ivory lions and lion-demon.

Source: Prudence 0. Harper, 11 Dating a Group of Ivories from Anatolia," Connoisseur, Vol. 172, #693, November, 1969, Plate 3. • • • • • 73 24. Fig. (a:) Old Hittite sealing from Boghazkoy. Fig. (b) Section of ivory plaque from Megiddo. Source: J.V. Canby, "The Walters Gallery Cappadocian Tablet and the Sphinx in Anatolia in the Second Hillennium B.C.," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, #4, October, 1975, Figures 13 and 14. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81 25. Ivories from AcemhoyUk. Source: N. Ozgu9, "Excavations at Acemhoyllk," Anadolu, Vol. 10, 1966, Plate XIX. • • . • • 83 26. Fig. (a) Ivory female sphinx plaque, Pratt Collection. Source: Christiane Decamps de Mertzenfeld, Inventaire commente des Ivoires Pheniciens et ~pParentes d§couverts dans le Proche-Orient, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1954, Figure 1089. • • 86 Fig. (b) Carved ivory horn, Ras Shamra. Source: C.F.A. Schaeffer, "Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit Quinzieme, Seizieme et Dix Septieme Campagnes,(l951, 1952 et 1953)," Syria, Vol. XXXI, 1954, Figure 9. • • • • • • • • • 86

ix Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 27. Gate Sphinxes, Alaca HoyUk... •' Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 88. • • • • . • • • • • . • • • . • • • • . • 88 28. Sphinx Gate Figure from Yerkapi (West). Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Barry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 6 7...... 90 29. Sphinx Gate Figure from Yerkapi (East). Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 66.~...... 91 30. Lion with bull victim, Alaca Hoyuk.• # It Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate, 91...... 99 31. Double-headed eagle with hares, Alaca HoyUk

Source: E. Akurgal, The P~t of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate, 88...... 100 32 •. Ivory Falcon and victims, Pratt Collection. Source: Prudence 0. Harper, "Dating a Group of Ivories from Anatolia," Connoisseur, Vol. 172, #693, November, 1969, Figure 9. • . • . . . . 101 33. Warrior-God Gate Figure, Boghazkoy. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittj_tes, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate 65...... 105 34. Ivory panel from Tell Atchana. Source: R.D. Barnett, The Nimrud Ivories with other examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum, London, British Museum, 1957, Plate CXXIV • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 108

X -~------Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 35. Ivory Bed Panel from Ras Shamra. Source: W.S. Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1965, Figure 57 .•.• 110 36. Ivories from Tell Fakhariyah, Ras Shamra and Tell Atchana. Source: Helene J. Kantor, Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah,ed. C.W. McEwan et al., Oriental Institute Publications, Chicago, University Press, 1958, Plates 62, 67. . • • . • . • . • 112

\ 37. Ivory griffin-demons from Tell Fakhariyah. Source: Helene J. Kantor, Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah, ed. C.W. McEwan et al., Oriental Institute Publications, Chicago, University Press, 1958, Plate. 63. . . • • • • . . . . . 114 38. Pedestal Base, Carchemish; Ivory from Al Mina. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Origins in the Mediterranean and Near East, New York, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1966, Plate 21. . • • . . . • • . • . • • • • . 126 39. Representations of griffin-demons, first millennium. Source: T.A. Madhloom, The Chronology of Neo-Assyrian Art, London, University Press, 1970, Plate LXXXIII. • • • • • • • • • • • • 128 40. Ivory Bed Panels, Nimrud. Source: M.E.L. Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains, New York, Dodd, Mead & Company, 1966, Vol. II, Plate 383. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 130 41. Orthostats from Zinjirli and Carchemish. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Origins in the Mediterranean and Near East, New York, Crovm Publishers, Inc., 1966, Figs. 64, 65, 78, 79. . • • . . • • • . • • • 131

xi ------·------Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 42. Ivories from Megiddo.

Source: Helene J. Kantor, 11 Syro-Palestinian Ivories," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XV., #3, July, 1956, Figure 3. • • • • • 136 43. Fig. (a) Yazilikaya Demon.

Source: H. Frankfort, The Art and ft~chitecture of the Ancient Orient, London, Penguin Books, 1970, Figure 263. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 138 Fig. (b) Ivory Lion, Pratt Collection.

Source: Machteld J. Me1link, 11 The Pratt Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art - Kerma - Chronology and the Transition from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze," American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 73, #3, July, 1969, Illustration #6. • . • • • • • • • • • • 138 44. Ivory Lions from Altintepe. " Source: Tahsin Ozgi.i9, nurartu and Altintepe, 11 ArchaeoloQr, Vol. 22, #4, October, 1969, Illustration on page 259. • • • • • • • • • • 145 45. Kubaba Stele, Malatya. Source: M. Vierya, Hittite Art, London, Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1955, Plate 65 ••• . . . 148 46. Ivory Bed-head from Nimrud. Source: M.E.L. Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains, New York, Dodd, Mead & Company, 1966, Vol. II, Plate 385. • •••••• 149 47. King Tudhaliya, Yazilikaya. Source: E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, Plate XIX. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 150

xii ------Plates and Sources (continued) Plate Page 48. Ivory Fragments from Gordion, Source: Joan Greenfield, drawn from photo graphs, Fig. (a), Rodney s. Young, "A Bronze Bowl in Philadelphia, 11 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, #3, July, 1967, Plate

XXI & • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 152 Fig. (b), Rodney s. Young, "The 1961 Campaign at Gordion," American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 66, #2, April, 1962, Plate 46 • • • . • • 152

xiii ABSTRACT

ANATOLIAN IVORIES - HITTITE AFFILIATIONS IN LIGHT OF NEW FINDINGS by Joan Anne Greenfield Master of Arts in Art

The objective of this study is to re-evaluate the formation of Hittite traditions and characteristics through the medium of ivory carving. Archaeological finds

in P~atolia provided evidence for the provenance and chronology of well-known works of ivories. These find ings presented new historical perspectives in which to view the early development of an Anatolian branch of ivory carving and Hittite traits observable in these minor art • forms. A background is given on the various schools of ·ivory carving operative in the ancient Near East during 'the second and first millennium B.C. The main areas of ivory production are discussed in relation to the early ill1atolian branch.

xiv The nature of Hittite art and its distinctive traits are projected in some detail in order to relate the minor art forms of the Hittites to the monumental works in stone. Ivories found in Anatolia as well as works discovered in areas outside the Hittite capital are related to the general Hittite style through a comparison of stylistic and iconographical details. An extension of Hittite influence is shown in the portrayal of symbols and motifs in ivories and in sculp tural reliefs of the Neo-Hittite period. Evidence is provided to support the hypothesis that Anatolian/Hittite traditions were extensive and far-reaching and that these traditions are observable in the minor art of ivory carving. Recent archaeological discoveries and studies on the finds provide a major portion of the material on which th~s study is based.

XV Frontispiece: Plate I - Ivory hind leg of a lion, three ivory female sphinxes, c. 18th century B.C. Height 13.7cm. (36.152.I, 36.70.I, 32.161.47, 32.161.46. Gift to the Metropolitan Museum of George D. Pratt, Gift of Mrs. George D. Pratt in memory of the late George D. Pratt).

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The intimate relationship that exists between the scholarship of archaeology and art history, whereby new findings necessitate a re-evaluation of current evidence and interpretation of the new, holds particular signifi cance when the interest is focused on Anatolia in the Near East. For our picture of the underlying parts which go to make up the art and culture of this area of the world is far from clear and is of such a nature that it demands constant re-appraisal. This is particularly true for the second millennium B.C. when Anatolia was subject to the infiltration of various cultures and experienced ·the rise and fall of the great Hittite Empire. Recent excavations in this area have considerably ·enlarged our horizon and supplied us with sources to . draw on for further investigation and study. One such excavation was carried out during the years 1962-1965 by ; Professor Nimet Ozguc;...... , While excavating at Acemhoyuk... -t• "• .... ; in Central Anatolia, Professor Ozguc;, together with her • colleagues, discovered evidence to prove the origin and · the chronology of an important group of ivories that

1 2

are at present housed in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. 1 In common with most archaeological discoveries, while providing answers to many problems, these findings at the same time inevitably raise new questions. The .repercussions from the finds at AcemhoyUk are being felt in several areas of study on the art of the ancient Near East for they open up many interesting avenues of speculation. One line of questioning that now invites investigation is directed towards the existence of a school of ivory carving in the Anatolian area in the second millennium B.C. It is the objective of this thesis to consider some of the implications from these new findings on :the minor art of ivory carving in relation to Hittite art .in general and to the significance of ivories as re . fleeting Hittite influence in the Neo-Hittite period. The ivories whose provenance has now been proved, were given to the Metropolitan Museum in the 1930's by ;Mr. and Mrs. George D. Pratt. 2 This heterogeneous group of ivories, consisting of some thirtyfive complete and

1 ,., ,.. rt- "" : Nimet Ozgu9, "Excavations at Acemhoytik," Anadolu, ; (Anatolia), Vol. 10, (1966), pp. 29-52. 2Prudence 0. Harper, "Dating a Group of Ivories • from Anatolia," Connoisseur, Vol. 172, #693, (November, '1969), p. 156. 3

fragmentary pieces, are of exceptional interest. For some time these ivories have presented an enigma for art historians, as until this recent discovery, they were without parallel in ancient Near Eastern art. On stylistic grounds the ivories were considered by M.S. Dimand of the Metro politan Museum to be Syrian,3 but they have at~ times been :termed Phoenician, Anatolian or Hittite.4 The ivories' association with various schools of art illustrates the problems encountered when dealing with complex works of unknovm provenance. Originally assigned to the first millennium B.C., further studies of these ivories inclined Maurice Dimand to re-assign them to the latter half of the second millen :nium B.c.5 Now through the efforts of the archaeologists ' ·at AcemhoyUk, and the subsequent finds of matching or comparable pieces of ivory, we have convincing evidence not only of their origin but of a date assigning them to the late nineteenth or early eighteenth century B.C.,

3M.S. Dimand, HA Gift of Syrian Ivories," Bulletin .of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol. XXXI, (November, ,1936), pp. 221-23. 4'a_Qzgug, '" op. cit., p. 43. 5Harper, op. cit., p. 156.; Henri Frankfort :tentatively assigned these ivories to the first millennium, ,Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient ,Orient, (London: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 315.; .R.D. Barnett, ttPhoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving," Palestine Exploration Quarterl~, (London: 1939), pp. 8-9. 4

which corresponds to a period of occupation by Assyrian merchants at Kultepe (ancient Kanesh) 6 in Anatolia levels ·II or Ib, now kno\vn as the Assyrian Colony Period.7 Implications resulting from this discovery have been hinted at by several scholars including Professor Ozgu9 8 and Prudence Harper.9 Not only do we now have substantial proof of a flourishing school of ivory carvers active in Anatolia at an early date, but this group of ivories, together with the matching pieces found at the source, provides a rich harvest of motifs and designs from , which the blending of influences in the minor art of ivory carving can be verified. Even more significant f?r this particular study is the fact that the ivories, together with other objects discovered at the site, bear witness to • the birth of a native style in representational art. It was this art style evolving in Anatolia at the beginning of the second millennium that was to form the nucleus of

the style kno~~ later as Hittite art.

6The modern term Kiiltepe will be used throughout • this thesis.

1 7 ' II i Ozgug, op. cit., pp. 156-62.; Harper, op. cit., :p. 158.; Macheld Mellink is inclined to date the ivo~ie~ to the later level or the 18th century B.C., seeN. Ozgti~, ' "New Light on the Dating of the Levels of the Karum of · Kanish and of Acemhoyiik near Aksaray, 11 American Journal • of Archaeology, Vol. 72, #4, (1968), p. 320. 8ozguc, trExcavations at Acemhoyllk'-' ,~ p. 46. 9Harper, op. cit., pp. 156-62.

------~- 5

Hittite art, which came into full flower in the ·Empire Period (1450-1200 B.C.), is best known to us from monumental works in stone. For it is in this medium and in ' . this dimension that the full expression of the Hittites is : so vividly displayed and from which their art has received just recognition.10 But the origin of the Hittites, their language, and subsequently their art has been and continues to be a source of much debate. Although we are in posses- sion of numerous records left by the Hittites that reveal much of their religious, moral and legal practices they tell us little of the origin of the people themselves. 11 Now as more evidence is being unearthed, an opportunity presents 'itself to give further consideration to the role which the 'minor arts played in the evolution and development of in ·this instance Hittite art. For the art of the Hittites, :although still bearing traces of earlier Mesopotamian and Anatolian cultures, nevertheless is distinctive and in some ways unique in the ancient Near East. It is in minor 'works such as ivory carvings as well as monumental rock sculptures that this individuality can be detected. How much of the individual traits can be observed

10 l Ekrem Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962), pp. 108-122. 11M. Vierya, Hittite Art, (London: Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1955), p. 2.

----' 6

in the art of the Assyrian Colony Period (circa 1940-1740 . 12 B.C.), . is subject to investigation, but the ivories that have now been attributed to this period and other examples ; found, offer new insights into the stylistic characteris : tics and influences present in this area of Anatolia at this time in history. Now, together with seals, pottery . and other minor art forms, the ivories must be considered as major additions to the wealth of the Colony Period in which lie many of the traditions inherited by the Hittites. As an adjunct to what is known of the various schools of ivory carving in these early centuries, the re

~ating of the •Pratt' ivories is particularly significant. These ivories now appear to be some of the earliest and perhaps the most important of the ancient Near East in so . far as they provide prototypes not only for comparison with later ivory carvings but also as evidence of the characteristics and strength of an Anatolian school. They 'appear as distinct but perhaps closely allied to the great ·schools of applied art that evolved in the coastal cities of Syria and Palestine. Although we have from Egypt numerous examples of :works in ivory that have been assigned to pre-dynastic

12 Nimet Ozgu9,'' H "Assyrian Trade Colonies in .Anatolia,n Archaeology, (November, 1969), p. 250. 7

-.----T3 ------~- tlmes, from other areas of the Near East ivories dated prior to the second millennium are quite rare. 14 It was not until after the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in the sixteenth century B.C., during a great outburst of .artistic and commercial activity, that objects in applied art became in great demand and works in ivory came into their own. 15 It is therefore to the last half of the second millennium B.C. (16th- 13th centuries) and the first millennium (9th- 6th centuries B.C.) that the majority of the finds of Near Eastern ivories belong. The period between the thirteenth and ninth centuries B.C. saw the 'invasion of the Peoples of the Sea, whose presence created a disruption resulting in a gap in our knowledge of the art of these Dark Ages. However, although the majority of ;the ivories fall chronologically within these two periods, studies have shown that there was no complete break with ·tradition, for styles, motifs and techniques bear witness

l3F. Petrie, Objects of Daily Use, (London: British School of Archaeology, 1927), p. 39. 14Ivory was used by the Sumerians as early as ca. · 2100 B. C•. e. g. on doors and a throne for the temple at • Eshnunna ~Tell Asmar), R. D. Barnett, ''Fine Ivory-Work," A History of Technology, ed. C. Singer et al., (Oxford: .University Press, Vol. 1~ 1967), p. 670. A group of ivories from Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba belong to the period before Early Bronze but appear to be unconnected with an ·Anatolian school, J. Perrot, "Excavations at Tell Abu . . Matar," Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 5, #3,(1955),p.l85. 15 i R.D. Barnett, op. cit., p. 6. L__ 8

------to a continuity that was strong enough to withstand this onslaught. 16 The continuity in the ivories is due partly to the use of familiar motifs and themes that confirm the surviv- .al of native legends and beliefs, but also in part to the nature of the ivories themselves. Many of the ivories, it must be noted, were originally part of larger items: plaques or inserts used to decorate such objects as beds, thrones or couches, long since deteriorated, but the original purpose of the ivory as part of a larger object would tend to retain a certain continuity of form. The widespread demand for luxury items by Egypt and other powers led to the specialization of many crafts, :Particularly in the area of the coastal cities of North ·Syria and Palestine. It was the inhabitants of this land, the Canaanites and later the Phoenicians, who became noted as skilled craftsmen and enterprising tradesmen. Thus .it is to these specialists that the major finds of Near Eastern ivories are either attributed or in part associ ated.17 The strategic location of Syria, which included Palestine as its southern extension, made for an ideal

16H.J. Kantor, "Syro-Palestinian Ivories," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XV., #3, (July, 1956), p. 171. l7Gordon Loud, The Megiddo Ivories, (Chicago: The , University of Chicago Press, 1939), p. 1. 9

setting in which the interchange of art styles and cultural affiliations occurred. Placed between the primordial centers of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and open to the Hittite Empire in the north, this region bordering the Mediter- . ranean did not produce monumental works of art in any quantity but rather became the proving grounds for the growth of specialized crafts and for schools of craftsmen who were in demand throughout the Near East. As has been noted by Professor H. Frankfort, it is the ivories of the ancient Near East, perhaps more than any other form of art, that most clearly reflect the mingling influences that were brought to bear on the cultures of this area. The ivories too played a large part in the spread of motifs and styles to the West. 18 Against this background therefore, it is not sur . prising that most of the ivories are of a hybrid nature and that scholars are presented with problems in determin ing evolution and individuality of art styles. The prob- ; lems are compounded by the fact that ivories were collected , by the ancients and often stored in groups, many being i 'heirlooms when they were acquired through trade, booty or :gifts.19 The famous Megiddo Ivories contain individual I ·pieces that have been assigned dates varying between

18Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 263, 310. l9Loud, op. cit., p. 2. 10

1350 and 1150 B.C. and show a complex variety of styles and motifs although archaeological data implies their location in one stratum. We meet the same problem with the Nimrud Ivories from Assyria, which belong to the first millennium, for they too contain many ivories that scholars. believe were ancient when acquired. 20 It is therefore doubly rewarding when we are able to determine both the origin and the date of a group of ivories such as those from Acemhoyuk, Anatolia. These works are however a heterogeneous group showing traces of Egyptian, Syrian as well as Phoenician and Mycenaean con

tacts. As Prudence Harper points out, this rna~ indicate that the ivories were made by craftsmen of different 21 t rad l·t· lOns or ~rom~ varlous. sc h oo 1 s wor k"lng ln. Ana t o1· la. The possibility also exists that they may have been im ported into Acemhoyuk but the links to earlier traditions are evident in many of these ivories and tend to streng then the belief of their local origin. 22 The ivories of the ancient Near East have provided scholars with inexhaustible material for study. Among the most noted scholars in this field of interest is Professor

2°Frankfort, op. cit., p. 312. 21Harper, op. cit., p. 162. 22Jeanny Vorys Canby, "The Walters Gallery Cappa . docian Tablet and the Sphinx in Anatolia in the Second . Millennium B. C., tt Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, :_#4, _(Octo ~er, 197 5) '--=-P-· _2_3_5_.______11

R.D. Barnett, whose studies on these miniature works in ivory have proved invaluable for historians of ancient Near Eastern art. It was Barnett who determined that for ivories of the ninth to the seventh centuries B.C., a stylistic distinction can be made between works carved in a Phoenician (Quasi-Egyptian) style and a North Syrian style, ntypical for the mixed 'Late Hittite• and Aramaic states of northern and inner Syria. 1123 In tracing the two styles of ivories of the first millennium Professor Barnett referred specifically to the Pratt ivories and their importence as providing links in the chain of development of the North Syrian style. This scholar also noted the distinctive traits in these same ivories that could be related to the monumental stone

23Kantor, op. cit., pp. 154-5.; see also R.D. Barnett, 11 Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving," pp. 13-15. R.D. Barnett, "The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians," Iraq, Vol. 11, (1935), pp. 181...;2, 194-96. R.D. Barnett, The Nimrud Ivor-ies with other examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum, (London: British Museum, 1957), pp. 63 ff., henceforth cited as N.I. There are scholars however, who disagree with Professor Barnett's distinction of the North Syrian and Phoenician styles, see Christiane Decamps de Mert zenfeld, Inventaire ~omment~ des Ivoires Pheniciens et ' anuarentes rlecouverts dans le Proche-Orient, (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1954), p. 5. W.L. Brown, review of R.D. ' Barnett 1 s 11 A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories with other examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories," (London: British ' Huseum, 1957), published in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, (1958), pp. 65-69. 12

------·----·--··------··--·-·------··------·---·------··-··------, sculpture of the Hittite Empire Period. 24 Barnett explained the strong Hittite characteristics present in the Pratt ivories as understandable in terms of the historical conditions present at this period in history. But we must remember that until the recent findings made by the archaeologists in Acemhoyuk~· {I these ivories were tentatively assigned to a date no earlier than the thirteenth century B.C.; a time when the Hittites were in power and in close contact with Egypt over territorial claims. As Barnett noted, this would certainly account for the blending of influences in the ivories. But now that it is proven that our ivories are 500 or 600 years older they must be seen in a new light. Rather than mature products of the Hittite Empire age, the ivories from AcemhoyukJl II can now be viewed as early manifestations of Hittite art created under the influences that were present during the cosmopolitan period of the Assyrian trade colonies; a time parallel with the Egypt- ian Middle Kingdom. As such these minor works take on new meaning in relation to Hittite art. The chronological evidence now derived from these ivories, as Machteld

24Barnett, "Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving,n ; pp. 8-9.

i L------13

-~------. Mellink indicates: "encourages us to re-investigate the . formation of Hittite art."25 Egyptian influence on the minor arts of this period is easily understood in terms of the height of development attained by the minor crafts in Egypt under the energetic kings of the Twelfth Dynasty and to the widespread exchange of gifts that appears to be a phenomenon of this age. Important personages travelled widely during this period and with them went, among other things, jewelry, small statuettes and royal sphinxes, which have found 'their way to Palestine, Syria, Knossos on Crete and as far away as central Anatolia. 26 Egyptian influence during this early period may have had further impact on the formation of Hittite art,

25Hachteld J. Mellink, "Observations on the Sculp tures of Alaca Huyuk," Anatolia, Vol. XIV, (1972), p. 18. 26w. Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Inc., 1958), pp. 113-114. The Twelfth Dynasty influence on the genesis of Hittite art is noted by Machteld J. Mellink who sees in the exchange of influences in this period a possible ex planation for the pseudo-Anatolian traits on some of the Kerma pottery, Machteld J. Mellink, "The Pratt Ivories in .the Metropolitan Museum of Art- Kerma- Chronology and the :Transition from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze," America!! Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 73, #3, (July, 1969), p. 285. For additional references to Egyptian influence in the ·minor arts of this period see H.J. Kantor, "The Chronology of Egypt and its Correlations with that of Other Parts of ·the Near East in the Periods before the Last Bronze Age," Relative Chronolo ies of Old World Archaeolo , ed. R.W . . Ehrich, Chicago: University Press, 1954 , pp. 10-15. 14

------~~~------~------·------·------~----·------for the power of a great kingdom and the prestige associated with such power would no doubt leave more than a faint imprint on a developing nation. The minor arts such ' as ivory carvings may well have served as a thread to in- spire or influence the course of Hittite art. The fact that the Pratt ivories contain strong stylistic affinities both with stone sculpture of the Hittite Empire period and ivories of the first millennium in the North Syrian style emphasizes their importance as precursors of motifs and symbols used over a long period of time. During the course of the extensive studies under taken on the Nimrud Ivories, Professor Barnett determined that the center for the production of ivories in the North Syrian style was located in the kingdom of Hamath, S.E. 'Syria. 27 Barnett's finding of a distinct North Syrian ·school or style, was based in part on a comparison of stylistic traits found in ivories from Hama with similar features associated with the Loftus group in the Nimrud ' collection. The facial features, particularly the prom inent nose, receding chin and large eyes discerned in the

; 11 Ladiestt of the Loftus ivories (Figure (a) and (b) Plate 2)

. 27Barnett, N.I. pp. 42-47. An actual ivory work- ' shop has now been discovered at Hama where discards of ·ivory splinters were unearthed by P.J. Riis, cited by Ekrem Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Origins in th~ Mediterranean and Near East, {New York: Crown Publishers • Inc., 1966), p. 157. 15

Fig. (a) and (b)

Figs. (a) and (b), Figurines from the Nimrud Ivories First Millennium B.C. Fig. (c), Ivory sphinx from the Pratt Collection Second Millennium B.C.

Plate: 2 16

were found to be related to certain ivories in the Pratt collection; namely the seated sphinxes (Figure (c) Plate 2), thus extending the roots of the North Syrian style to the thirteenth century B.c. 28 Similar facial features were observed in small stone heads and in the quaint statue of Idrimi, king of Alalakh (Tell Atchana). (Figure (o) Plate 3). The latter was discovered at Tell Atchana in 1939 and dated to the fifteenth century B.c. 29 As indicated by Barnett, the physiognomical traits mentioned above are distinctive Hurrian characteristics. Hurrian art, it is believed, exerted a strong influence on Hittite art, particularly in subjects and proportions as well as some technical details. In light of the revised dating of the AcemhoyukU( Jl ivories the question now arises as to when these influences oc . curred. 30 Among the cosmopolitan group of objects found at Tell Atchana were ivories bearing distinct Hittite

28R.D. Barnett, "Early Greek and Oriental Ivories," Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. LXVIII, (1948), p. 4. 29sir Leonard Woolley, "Excavations at Atchana ·Alalakh," Antiquities Journal, Vol. XIX, #1, (January, ,1939), pp. 16-17. 3°sir Leonard Woolley is of the opinion that Hittite colonization of North Syria began as early as the sixteenth century B.C. An early example of Hittite writing occurs on a monument from this period. Ibid. 17

Fig. (a) Fig. (b)

Fig.(a) Ivory goddess from Kultepe, 18th cent. B.C. -Height 5 em. (2 ins.). Fig. (b) Statue of Idrimi from Tell Atchana, N. Syria, 15th cent. B.C. (British Museum).

Plate: 3 18

characteristics. These works, together with other Hittite ivories found outside Anatolia can now be linked to their predecessors from Anatolia of the Assyrian Col6ny period. In this way a strengthening in the chain of the development of the Anatolian branch of ivory carving is established. The sculpture of Idrimi is a rare example of stone sculpture in the round from Syria, but the primitiveness of its execution exemplifies the fact that "no native tradition of stone carving comparable with those of the minor arts, especially work in metal and ivory,u3l existed in Syria. In line with our thinking on the strength and extent of an Anatolian branch of ivory carving and in view of the importance of the ivories as reflecting early Hit- tite traits, new questions are presented on the interchange of influences between the Hurrians and the Hittites in · North and East Syria in the early part of the second millennium. The Anatolian ivories display a strong plasticity of style and as such the possibility exists that craftsmen working in ivory may have influenced the production of stone sculpture. There is no doubt, from the examples ; we have from Anatolia, that ivory carving had reached a : high level of development during the Colony period of :Anatolian history. It is conceivable therefore that works

31Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 252-3. 19

in ivory provided prototypes for the stonecutters to exe cute on a larger scale.32 Archaeological evidence for the close contact between North Syria and Anatolia at the beginning of the second millennium is now provided from finds discovered at Kultepe'I and Acemhoyuk.; ~ #I Metal objects, pottery and small statues are among the works of art that reveal many North Syrian features. From these finds, together with textual evidence containing references to certain cities situated in Northern Syria, the close relationship between the cul

tures is determined.33 A tiny ivory goddess, found in the grave of a foreign merchant at Kultepe, (Figure (a), Plate 3) and dated to the eighteenth century B.C., while showing some Anatolian features, is strongly related to North Syrian finds,34 and it is with the ivories from AcemhoyUk that she may now be associated. From the foregoing it will be seen that the impli- · cations from the finds in Anatolia, and particularly those ·resulting in the earlier dating of the Metropolitan ivories, are far-reaching and will greatly affect our thinking on

32 ., .. Nimet Ozg1J.c;, "Assyrian Trade Colonies, 11 p. 254. 33Tahsin Ozgu9, HThe Art and Architecture of Ancient Kanish," Anatolia, Vol. 8, (1964), pp. 27-48. 34Ibid. 20

the development of the art in the early second millennium. It is however clear that many influences were present when the Anatolian school of ivory carving was developing in the Colony period. But it is in this amalgam of stylistic traits that the distinctive attributes of the Hittites first make their appearance. It is also the individual nature and purpose of Hittite art that adds a special flavor, which in turn furthers the importance of the minor art of ivory carving in Anatolia. For ivories created in the later periods and attributed to a Hittite style, al though few in number, are distinct and show very little, if any outside influence. Rather, like the other minor arts of the Hittites, they take on new meaning in rela tion to Hittite art as a whole.35

35Frankfort, op. cit., p. 266. Chapter 2

HITTITE ARTISTIC FEATURES IN GENERAL: ROLE OF THE MINOR ARTS IN RELATION TO HITTITE ART AS A WHOLE

In the previous chapter we have seen that new per spectives resulting from archaeological finds indicate that 1) a thriving school of ivory carving existed in Anatolia during the Assyrian Colony Period, and 2) the ivories of this period from Anatolia bear semblances of style to later Hittite art. As our main objective in this thesis .is to consider the ivories in relation to Hittite art, before further investigation of the ivories it is perhaps necessary to take a closer look at the distinctive charac-

teristics that make up the art syle of the Hittites. "Every work of art depends on an existing tradition 1 and upon the circumstances in which it was created." These words by Ekrem Akurgal remind us that originality 'in art, and especially as applied to the art of the ancient Near East, is not easily determined. This is particularly ·true of Hittite art. Unlike Egyptian or Greek art which is . ascribed to a given race or people, the term Hittite as

1Ekrem Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Ori ins in the Mediterranean and Near East, New York: Crown Publish ers Inc., 1966), p. 13.

21 22

·applied to the art style or mode of art associated with the Indo-European immigrants of Anatolia of the second millennium B.C., is perhaps somewhat misleading. Hittite art, in its broadest sense, really applies to the forms of art which arose in a vast cultural complex associated with the highlands and extending from North :Syria to Central Anatolia.2 In the process of the devel opment of Hittite art, many ill-defined ethnic groups play ed their part, but among them were the Hittites who con tributed their share, a share which became the main impetus for the distinctive style that we know as Hittite and associate with the Hittite Empire. As one learns more from excavations in Anatolia and related regions it becomes increasingly evident that the art of the Hittites owes much to the indigenous population of Anatolia, made up in the main of the Hattians, who resided in this area at the end of the third millennium : . B.C., as well as to the conditions in which the Hittites found themselves at the time of their infiltration into • Anatolia. By conforming to local conditions and adopting

J many of the religious and cultural customs of the native ' inhabitants, the Hittites, possessed with a natural organ izational ability, became the mainspring for the formation

2 - . M. Vierya, Hittite Art, (London: Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1955), p. 15. 23

of a new culture. With this new culture the foundation was laid for the creation of a great empire, an empire that was to survive for almost half a millennium.3 Under the conditions of the formation period therefore, it is not surprising that it is difficult to deter mine what is genuinely Hittite and what it is that distin- guishes Hittite art from other art of the Near East. But although we are faced with problems in determining origins there is no question that, taken as a whole, Hittite art displays a marked degree of originality and homogeneity and that it possesses "certain typical forms which make it something entirely different from anything seen in neigh

boring countries. 11 4 These typical forms of Hittite art make their appearance on cylinder seals recovered from Anatolia and • which date from the Colony period. Introduced into the area by the merchants from Assur the seals show not only the existence of various styles of art being employed simultaneously at this time but also the emergence of Anatolian/Hittite art as a separate entity. In the seals attributed to an Anatolian expression distinct innovations in composition are effected. By

3K. Bittel, "The Hittites," Marg, Vol. XXV, #1, (December, 1971), p. 13. 4vierya, op. cit., p. 12.

----·-- 24

placing different scenes on various levels and crowding numerous symbols into a composite whole, the glyptic takes on a distinct variation from the Old Babylonian or Akkadian ; styles. The Anatolian seals are marked by their richness of themes - themes that include "hunting, mythology,

worship and war. 11 5 Whereas the Old Babylonian style shows a concern with the simplification of specific figures in a frieze-like setting; a setting that conforms to the shape of the cylinder, (Figure (a) and (b) Plate 4), the Ana- tolian style shows a composition that pre-empts the height 'as well as the width of the cylinder surface. (Figures (c) and (d) Plate 4). 6 In this way, at this early date- circa eighteenth century B.C., -an original expression is evident within the use of a media alien to Anatolia and the Hittites. Considering the conditions under which this orig : inality evolved, the distinctive nature of Hittite art is ·even more notable. Certain features in art are shared :with all cultures of the ancient Near East for there are many elements that have a common source or sources whose roots lie deep in Mesopotamian or Egyptian soil. Hittite

5Nimet Ozgu,9, "Assyrian Trade Colonies in Anatolia, 11 : .Archaeology, (November, 1969), p. 254. .: 6Briggs Buchanan (ed.), Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, I, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 159, No. 833, drawings C-D. 25

Fig. (a) and (b) Akkadian Seal Impressions

I •

(c)

Figs. (c) and (d) Cappadocian Seal Impressions

Plate: 4 26

------~------art is no exception, for it too shows traces of borrowed forms, but the use of common features should not undermine the worth of the creators for the genius and distinctive quality of the Hittites shows up in the finished products. These end-products reveal the Hittites to have been ex- tremely able adaptors, who, by drawing on outside sources of inspiration succeeded to a considerable extent in ere- ating new, personal and original forms. This is as Vierya states 11 a process which after all is one of the tests whereby a civilization can best be judged and appreciated."? It is therefore, by the means of adaptation of forms for their own individual purpose that the Hittite artists created their distinctive style. The purpose for which the works served is an important factor in separating Hittite art from its neighbors. This applies in particular to the minor arts of the Hittites which take on a specific role in relation to the major works of art such as the monumental stone sculptural reliefs for which the Hittites are noted. The Levantine area specialized in works of applied art. One can say that in this instance, the role of the minor arts was reversed. For by being the main means of expressing or representing a style of the area or culture

7vJ..·erya, op . cJ..·t . ' p . 13 . 27

the works of applied art of the Levantine area may be

considered major. A different situation developed in Anatolia. After the Colony period, and more specifically in the Empire period, when the centralization of power became manifest, Hittite art saw the evolution and creation, 1 of great works in stone sculpture. Although subservient to : architecture these works carved or engraved in rock became the Hittites' main means of artistic expression. 8 It was an art created to express the religious and moral beliefs of a united people as well as to serve as prestigious symbols of the power of a great empire.9 This dual purpose is revealed in the iconography · of Hittite art. While the forms portrayed represent the religious and cult practices expressive of the beliefs of

the people, at the same time, the pictorial im~gery conveys · overtones of a prestigious nature closely linked to the Hittites conscious awareness of the power and need for identity. In the formation and the will to preserve a great empire, art was created to serve a political as well as a religious purpose. Retaining much of the elusive symbolism of early

8Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the 'Ancient Orient, (London: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 221. 9Ekrem Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962), p. 77. Anatolian ideas, the religious expression of the Hittites became concrete in the pictorialization of deities and their attributes aligned above their appropriate animals. The whole thus forming a complex artistic composition. Evident in the seals and seal-impressions of the Colony period (Plate 5), these same forms, which became the hall mark of a Hittite style, are preserved for us in rock carvings of the Empire period (Plate 6), and to some ex tent are reflected in works of the first millennium. 10 ,It is by the use of additional symbols to an already com plex form and from the motive behind the choice of such symbols that the characteristic art style of the Hittites is determined. The Hittites were noted for their religious toler- ance. Together with the indigenous forms adopted by the Hittites, many Hurrian deities and their attributes appear to have played their part in increasing the size and complexity of the Hittite pantheon. The syncretism of Hurrian and Hittite religion was brought to a climax during the latter part of the Empire period. For in the sculptural reliefs of the open-air sanctuary at Yazilikaya, scholars :have been able to identify all the essential deities

10seton Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia, (London: Thames & Hudson, Ltd., 1967), p. 53, figure 51, p. 94. 29

An envelope of clay with cylinder seal im· pressioos from Kiiltepe (19th century B.c.). It enclosed a clay tablet. Height, 6 em.

A bulla from Acem· hoyiik with a seal im· pression; 18th century B.C. Height, 2.5 em.

Seal Impressions from Anatolia - 19th/18th centuries B.C.

Plate: 5 30

20. Y AZl LIKA YA. The meeting of the gods.

Rock Carvings, Yazilikaya

Plate: 6 31

represented on the walls of the sanctuary with the Hurrian pantheon. 11 (Plate 7). The pictorialization of the complex Hittite pantheon necessitated the use of innumerable symbols and signs for the identification of individual deities and their specific functions. It is this predeliction for identification that further determined the originality of the Hittites and profoundly effected the representational form of Hittite art. Not only were the gods portrayed through divine ideograms but the Hittites often found it necessary to identify the deity by name, his purpose as well as his appropriate cult animal or attribute. The resultant imagery therefore consisted of a multiplicity of forms which not only links the hieroglyphic language of ·the Hittites to their art but in turn becomes a distinguish ing factor in considering an original contribution by the Hittites to Near Eastern art. It should also be noted that the accumulation of signs to identify deities is another aspect of Hittite art that is adopted or held over in the Neo-Hittite period as exemplified on monuments

11The identification of Hurrian deities was made 'by Emmanuel Laroche, cited by Kurt Bittel, Hattusha: . Capital of the Hittites, (New York: Oxford University Press,· 1970), p. 94. E. Laroche, 11Le Pantheon de Yazilikaya," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 6, (1952), pp. 115~23.

'------32

------·------

5 IO lS 20

25 30 35

-~~~~-

so ss 6o Fig. 8- Sculp[ures c.f the nuin gallery, Yaziliby:~

Plate: 7 33

Of ZJ..nJJ..r. . . 1.12J... (Plate 8). The kings too, in Hittite art were accorded their due recognition through divine or royal symbols. Among the more important of the regal signs were the winged sun disk and the Kalmush or long pastoral staff held in the hand of the king. Sedat Alp has connected these staffs .with the crook-shaped pieces of metal found in Early Bronze ,Ag~ graves at Alaca HoyUk. 13 But although the form of the Kalmush may have been familiar in earlier times its adop tion as a symbol of royalty could well be considered as an imitation of Egyptian usage. In Egypt the crook was 11 an ancient attribute of royalty1114 and as such was associated with the power of the Pharaoh. At a time when competition between rival powers was a major political consideration 'the Kalmush would be an appropriate status symbol to borrow for the investiture of a Hittite king. The symbol of the winged disk too deserves special mention. Like the Kalmush discussed above, it is a symbol borrowed by the Hittites from outside sources but which,

12Yigael Yadin, "Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, :Carthage and Hazor,rr Near Eastern Archaeolo in the ;Twentieth Century, ed. James A. Sanders, New York: 'Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1970), pp. 223-4, figure 8.

13cited by E. Akurgal, Art of the Hittites, p. 112.

14Frankfort, op. cit., 270. 34

A B c

lI ~ l I Q I n ~ ! ~ t r-!"1 ·\ \~~~ I 2 I @ g i I ~ ' I I .• ,f' 3 ~ ~';,;.~· n ~ Q I n I i ~ ~ 4 - I ¥ 5 Figure 8. The symbols of the deities on the monuments of Zinjirli and their possible identification: col. a- Ba'al Semed. col. b-Rakkab-El. col. c- fb'al I;Iamman (no. 5-Ba'al };{arran). line 1 - Kilamu ( cf. fig. 1). line 2- Bar-Ra.k.k.ab ( cf. fig. 4) . Ene 3- Bar-Rakkab (cf. figs. 5-6). line 4-Seal impression of Bar-Rakkab (cf. fig. 2). line 5- Bar-Rakkab: the symbol of Ba'al I;Iarran (cf. PL 21)

Plate: 8 35

when pictorialized in Hittite art, takes on new meaning in ·relation to Hittite art as a whole. Derived from Egypt, the form of the winged disk was associated with the god Horus, incarnate in Pharaoh and manifest in the falcon and thus represented as a sun disk between two wings. 15 A popular symbol throughout the Near East, the winged disk was taken over by the Hatti, Mitanni and the Assyrians as well as the Hittites. Al though the symbol no doubt had different meanings related to the beliefs of the individual cultures, the prestige aspect accorded the winged disk was recognized by a11. 16 With the Hittites' adoption of the winged disk the symbol's association with royalty became manifest, but there were obvious political connotations affiliated with the Hittites' borrowing of this motif. From 1400 B.C. on- wards, from the time of the Hittite New Kingdom, and after the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the Hittite kings

used the title 11 my sun" on an equal footing with "my majesty". We are not in a position to determine when the ;winged disk first appeared in the Hittite repertoire, but

l5F:r-ankfort,. op. cit., p. 134.; O.R. Gurney, ~ 'Hittites, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964), pp. 211-12. 16For a discussion of the derivation and adaptation of this symbol see Henri Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, (London: The Gregg Press Ltd., 1965), pp. 208-213; Henri Frankfort, Kingshig and the Gods, (Chicago: University Press, 1965), pp. 37- , note 7 page 355. 36

------, from the period of the Empire it is pictorialized above the hieroglyphs in which the king's name is identified and in this way becomes a part of the royal monogram. 17 The winged disk's display value is obvious, and it is as sumed that the Hittite kings adopted the symbol ''in imi ta tion of Pharaoh the prototype of an imperial monarch.u18 It is interesting to note at this point a certain characteristic of Hittite style in the form of the portra yal of the winged disk, for the ends of the wings show a distinct upward curve, clearly distinquishing the Hittite style from Syrian or other usage. 19 (Figures (a) and (b) Plate 9). The curled-up ends of forms is a stylistic .trait associated with the art of the Hittite Empire and occurs on such forms as the kings' Kalmush, the toes of the !Shoes worn by the gods and the ends of the horns, symbols of divinity that are depicted on the peaked hats of the

deities. An example of the curved horns is shown on the

l?Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, pp. 208-213. 18Ibid.; Note: The winged disk is not connected twith the 'signe royale, as the latter symbo~, sometimes :known as the Cappadocian Symbol, is not specifically as :sociated with kingship but may be a form of government :seal used by the Hittites, Frankfort, Art and Architecture, p. 395 note 48. For a discussion of the design of the Cap- padocian Symbol and its possible relationship to designs on :Egyptian scarabs see G.A. Wainwright, 11 The Cappadocian Symbor;u Anatolian Studies, Vol. VI, (1956), pp. 137-43. l9Frankfort, Art and Architecture, p. 393.

I I !______37

------

Fig. (a)

l\littanian or Syrian cylimll'r st·al

Fig. (b)

Hittite royal name:·. ----·

Fig. (a) Winged disk as portrayed on Hitannian or Syrian Cylinder Seals Fig. (b) Hittite winged disk in royal monogram

Plate: 9 38

------· relief of the sword god at Yazilikaya. (Plate 10). The typical form of the Hittite kings, dressed in their appropriate garb, can be seen in works in miniature such as the tiny gold figurine found at Carchemish and dated to the fourteenth century B.C. (Figure (a) Plate 11), as well as on the rock relief of King Tudhaliya IV at Yazilikaya (Figure (b) Plate 12). Above the outstretched arm of the protective god appears a divine symbol and to the right above the head of the king can be seen the royal cartouche with the winged disk and hieroglyphics identifying the king by name and position. It was the Hittite practice to further differentiate between gods and kings by their dress; the deities wear tall peaked hats and short tunics, whereas the king is most often shown wearing a skull cap and clothed in a long robe. The seals of the great kings were another means of identification and were themselves complex designs often consisting of two or three registers arranged around central motifs of hieroglyphs or representational symbols which further incorporated the language of the Hittites 'into an integral part of their pictorial art. (Plate: 13).20 Although cylinder seals were used in most areas

20Helene J. Kantor, "A 'Syro-Hittite' Treasure in .the Oriental Institute Museum," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVI, #3, (July, 1957), p. 147. 39

Sword God, Yazilikaya

Plate: 10 40

Fig ~ ( a )

Fig. ( b )

Fig. ( a ) Figurines from Carchemis h Fig. ( b ) Bottom center: I vory Mountain God

Plate : 11 41

------

Fig.. (a)

Figure f. The seal of king Muwatalli (jrom H. G. Guterbock, Siegel aus Bogazkoy, I, Berlzn 1940, figure 38a).

Fig. (b)

FIG. ~9- K.J·ng T11thaliya rv, protttied by the god ~ Ytr{iliJ:aya. Suond };:;)j of IJib =rhlry. . . ·-.

Plate: 12 . · ~8£..~ . >.Yv...,-.. r ~?:2-x~"?./t~~ .

~~~=-~~fr~', nr Q!5'l> : ".• . L · ~ \gJ _..• ·-...... ··· ...... _...... ·

I. Seal impressions of kings of the Great Empire Above, left: Suppiluliuma I and Queen Tawananna. Centre: Mursili II. Right: Hattusili III and 'i ·' Queen Puduhepa I Below, left: Hattusili III and Queen Puduhepa. Centre: Urhi-Teshup (Mursili III). Right: Tudhaliya IV and his tutelary deity (right) and female divinity (left) Plate: 13 + [\) 43

--~---~-~------~----~~----~------throughout the ancient Near East, the shape as we have noted, was alien to the Hittites. The use of the knob handled stamp seal was preferred by the Hittites and has led some scholars to consider the stamp seal as a true Hittite feature. 21 (Plate 14). Should the stamp seals constitute a true Hittite trait they provide ample support for the theory that Hittite characteristics extend to the Colony period. For stamp seals have been unearthed in abundance from sites in Anatolia at levels dated to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. As the ivories from this period now provide us with fresh insights on the extent of Egyptian and Anatolian contacts it is of interest ·to consider, at this time, the remarkable stamp seal of lapis lazuli that was found at Toud in Upper Egypt.

Discovered in the found~tion deposit in the temple of Amenemhat II (1929-1895 B.C.), the stamp seal was found among imports from Crete and Babylon. 22 Believed to have been of Syrian provenance, the face of the seal bears a motif of a winged bird with a bearded human head. Human _headed creatures are however familiar motifs in Hittite

21Vierya, op. cit., p. 12., Akurgal, Art of the ,Hittites, plate 52. 22R.D. Barnett, The Nimrud Ivories with other exam les of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum, London: British Museum, 1957 , p. 3 • 44

Top: Gold Signet Ring -Hittite Empire Period Bottom: Hittite Stamp Seals

Plate: ;L4 45

art and can be traced back to seal impressions from Acem h~yuk dated to the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries. 23 In light of our new thinking on Egyptian and Anatolian con tacts, and considering the stamp seals as Hittite or at least Anatolian in origin, perhaps this seal from Egypt provides further evidence of a link between these two cul tures at this early period in history. It may well be that the provenance of this seal found in Egypt was Anatolia rather than Syria. During the Hittite Empire period it was common practice for the Hittites to use the stamp seals on diplomatic correspondence. By combining inscriptions and representational elements the seals were both a political and a cultural influence. At Ugarit, among the diplomatic correspondence recovered are documents dispatched by Hit- tite kings installed at Carchemish when this territory was part of the Hittite Empire. The documents show a variety of seals of the type that was in use in the thirteenth century B.C. and may have been one means of spreading the knowledge of Hittite culture in Syria.24 Like Hittite art in general, the origin of the

1 hieroglyphics used by the Hittites for inscriptions is not

23Nimet Ozgu<;, uExcavations at AcemhoyUk," Anadolu, Vol. 10, (1966), p. 40. 24Kantor, op. cit., pp. 154-5.

'------46

at all clear. It is related to, but differs from, the Indo European language used by the scribes of Hattusas. For these official records from Hattusas are inscribed in Mesopotamian derived cuneiform script. The hieroglyphic language, most scholars believe, is closely related to the Luvian dialect which was in common use throughout South West Asia Minor. 25 But whereas the Hittites adopted the cuneiform script for their official purpose, hieroglyphics, on the other hand, were used almost exclusively for display purposes. 26 It has been pointed out by Akurgal that the use of hieroglyphics or picture-writing would obviously appeal to .an illiterate population and it is possible that the hieroglyphics were meant to convey not a single idiom but to communicate in several languages. 27 This would certainly be in line with the prestigious outlook of the Hittites and their need to further their importance. But for what ever reason the hieroglyphs or ideograms were used there is no doubt that these 'drawings' (as they were looked upon

25Akurgal, Art of the Hittites, p. 38. . 26Maurice Pope, "The origins of Writing in the Near East," Antiquity, Vol. XL, #157, (March 1966), pp. 20-1 • . The earliest hieroglyphic signs have been found at Karum Kanesh (K1.iltepe) and are dated to the eighteenth century B.c., Akurgal, Art of the Hittites, p. 38. 27Ibid. 47

. by the scribes) or ~~~-eal-~ writ larg~-r~ 2-s~added t~~~-d became part of the multiplicity of forms and imagery that became the stamp of the authentic Hittite style. From this pictorial expression, serving both a, religious and in a sense a political purpose, the art of the Hittites crystalized into a form of prescribed imagery that followed a set of conventions laid dovm from the be ginning of the Empire period.29 ••• it is in the art of the Hittites, less in its subject matter than its style and in the conventions which dictate its imagery, that one recognizes the criteria and hallmark of collective individuality.30 This distinct style of the Hittites, whether re flected in a composition consisting of numerous gods and their attributes, or a single motif such as a king's staff enables one to recognize a Hittite contribution not only to the overall field of the art of the ancient Near East but within the narrower context of ivory carving. Even where Hittite influence had penetrated into Syria, Palestine or areas further afield the Hittite stylistic elements, particularly in the minor arts, are clearly discernable.

28Pope, op. cit., p. 20. 29A canon was formulated for the representation of !deities and set down in a number of Hittite texts, Vierya, op. cit., p. 30. 3°Lloyd, op. cit., p. 69. 48

---· ------·-·------As Frankfort has noted, in respect to the craft of ivory carving; Hittite influence, in contrast with that of Egypt and the Aegean, was not assimilated by the ivory carvers. They treat Hittite themes as alien subjects which do not lose any of their native character in the process.31

On an interesting gold disk, now in the Oriental Institute Museum of Chicago, localized by Helene Kantor as coming from Syria, the Hittite motifs among the many hybrid forms are clearly differentiated. A few of the characteristics on the disk, recognized as Hittite are a hieroglyphic sign of a looped cross (Figure (a) Plate 15), which occurs on Hittite seals of the Empire period, and the patterning of the bodies of the bulls; notable the long "hooked line" extending from the left foreleg to the haunches and which can be seen on sculptured orthostats of the fourteenth - thirteenth centuries B.c. at Alaca Hoyuk.32 (Figure (c) Plate 15). It is interesting to note at this point, the similarity of this stylistic pattern on the bulls with the depiction of the curved staff or Kalmush associated with

31Frankfort, Art and Architecture, p. 266. 32Helene J. Kantor, op. cit., pp. 145-155, figures 2 and 6. The similarity of the Hittite looped cross to ;the Egyptian~ sign of good fortune or 'life' has been :noted by several scholars, (Text: Figure (b) Plate 15), ~see Kantor, ttSyro-Hittite Treasure," p. 151. See also Barnett N.I., p. 102- the Ankh sign occurs on Syrian ,seals as-a-filling motif. 49

------

(a) ::::: Fig. - Fig. (b) 1

Fig. (c)

Fig. (a) Hittite sign of looped cross

Fig. (b) Egyptian P~kh sign Fig. (c) Drawi!lg of bulls on relief carving Alaca Huyiik

Plate: 15 50

the Hittite kings, further illustrating the curving forms characteristic of the Hittite style. The bull-men supporting the winged disk also form part of the decoration of this gold disk. Although ulti mately derived from Mesopotamia, where this motif was asso

ciated with the sun god,33 the bull-men acting as a support 1 is a familiar symbol of the Hittite repertoire and is combined to form a complex composition of atlantid figures on the famous Hittite ivory plaque from Megiddo (Plate 16) as well as appearing on the monumental rock sculpture at the fountain shrine of Iflatun Plinar.34 (Plate 17).

The appearance of the sa~e or similar iconography in minor works such as ivories on monumental stone carvings brings us to consider the somewhat unique role the minor arts of the Hittites played in relation to the large-scale 'sculpture. For in our consideration of the Hittite con tribution in Near Eastern ivories, the function of the works in miniature may be of equal importance to the representa tional imagery or motifs reflected in the works themselves. It goes without saying that all forms of art pro duced by a specific culture, whether minor or major works would share fundamental characteristics representative of the art style of the culture as a whole. In some instances

33Kantor, op. cit., pp. 145-55.

34Ibid. 51

Drawing of motifs on the ivory plaque found at Megiddo, Palestine.

Plate: 16 52

Sculptured Shrine I flatun Punar

Pl ate: 17 53

------however, other factors enter into the creation of the fin .ished work. One factor would be where the artists' aesthet-i ic sense of form might dictate the choice of design as is evident on Greek vases, or the craftsmen may take liberties with motifs for decorative purposes, which is characteristic of many of the works attributed to the hands of the Phoeni- cians. In Hittite art however, symbolism is clearly a determinative factor in the choice of motifs. The con- ventionalized form of Hittite art, whereby each pictorial element is an integral part of the language of their art, results in an almost parallel relationship of iconographical details between major and minor works. This leaves one to consider the possibility that the minor arts served as prototypes for the pictorialization of the imagery or the transference of motifs to large-scale works. It is generally acknowledged that the seal-cutters provided much of the imagery that was adopted by the Hit- :tites, and as Gurney points out: • • • the use of these motifs for bas reliefs may well be secondary, for they are found also on seals and it may be that the original inspiration of these ideas should be credited to the Hittite seal-cutters, whose work, as we have seen is attested from very early times.35 The noted archaeologist and authority on Hittite art, Kurt Bittel, has drawn attention to the importance of

35Gurney, op. cit., p. 212. 54

the role of the minor arts as providing prototypes for sculptural reliefs particularly in relation to the carvings .at Yazilikaya. As he points out the individual deities that appear on the reliefs were known from the eighteenth century B.C. as shown on lead figurines, and the pre cursors for the great sculptural procession may well be .found in the minor arts.36 There is an uneven quality in the sculpture at Yazilikaya, regardless of the impressive compositional development of the whole, but some individual

·figures stand out as 11 real masterpieces11 .37 One in partie- ular is the group representing King Tudhaliya in the embrace of the young god Sharrumma (Figure (b) Plate 12). We find this identical motif represented in the beautiful seal of King Muwatalli. (Figure (a) Plate 12). The motif, as Bittel has shown, was known to us indirectly for a long time as the seal is described in the Egyptian version of the treaty concluded by Ramesses II with King Hattushili III (circa 1270 B.C.). The Seal is described as follows: What is in the middle of the tablet of silver. (sicJ On the front side: a figure consisting of the image of Seth, embracing an image of the Great Prince of Ratti, surrounded by a border inscribed with these words:'The seal of Seth, the ruler of Heaven, the seal of the treaty, which Hattushili made, the great Prince of Ratti, the mighty, the son of Murshili, the Great Prince of Ratti, the mighty.•38

36Bittel, op. cit., p. 100. 37vierya, op. cit., p. 29. 38cited by K. Bittel, op. cit., p. 103. 55

Although the silver tablet is not preserved, its description fits the seals showing the motif of the tutelary god embracing and guiding the Great King and was used from at least 1300 B.C., proving, as Bittel indicated, that it was adopted in monumental art. Vmether the minor works are cast in metal, sculptured in clay or carved in ivory, the imagery in these tiny works find their counterparts on a monumental scale in rock carvings. We have seen an example of this transference in the figure of the king on the small gold plaque (Plate 10) and his large-scale image at Yazilikaya. Other figurines in bronze and gold are identical with those carved in reliefs. The group of miniature kings and deities, found 'in a tomb at Carchemish, are "exquisitely carved in stea- tite or lapis lazuli set in gold caissons" and described by Seton Lloyd as "component pieces from _some large art work,"39 (Plate 11), which may indicate that they were originally combined to form a composition which could have

39seton Lloyd states that these pieces are from a :14th century tomb whereas in fact the tomb itself was of ,the Iron Age (7th century B.C.), Lloyd, op. cit., p. 77, figure 77. For a discussion on the possible explanation ,for the appeara~ce of Hittite objects in this late-dated tomb see H.G. Guterbock, 11 Carchemish," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XIII (1954), #1, pp. 102-114. References to Carchemish as an important center for art in the thirteenth century, and the attribution of the origin of these miniature works are made by Helene J. Kantor, .op. cit., p. 154. 56

--~------provided a prototype for a large-scale work in stone. As Sir Leonard Woolley points out, it may well be "that the

sculptor borrowed from the goldsmith and not vice versa, 11 40 Further credence for the theory of the minor arts serving as 'blueprints' for the sculptures in stone is provided by the stylistic and technical variety of Hittite 'sculptures. For this variation in style and technique that has been observed in Hittite sculpture implies "that stone-carving on a large scale had no long history behind . 41 _it," and as we have no clear record of the origin of the artists who were employed ln producing these monumental works,42 the artists may well have been, as Woolley notes :"either Hurri (or Hurrian trained) or those accustomed to such small-scale work as seal engraving or jewelry.u43 An ivory example of a miniature deity is provided for us in a finely chiselled figurine carved in the round of a Hittite mountain god. (Figure (b) Plate 11). Dis covered at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas), and dated to the ·thirteenth century B.C., the specific deity is recognizable

, 4°Leonard Woolley, The Art of the Middle East, (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1961), pp. 146-7. 4libid. 42A letter exists from a Hittite king of the 13th century, Hattusilis III, requesting a king of Babylon to ,lend him a sculptor, cited by H. Frankfort, Art and Archi ,tecture, p. 222, n. 21. See B. Landsberger, Sam 1 al, (Ankara: 1948), p. 113, n. 269. 43woolley, op. cit., p. 146. 57

by the rounded protrusions attached to his tunic. He wears the typical peaked hat with horns attached which indicates his divinity as well as his rank.44 Originally derived from Mesopotamia, the semi- anthropomorphic representation of mountain gods was adopted ; by the Hittites as an integral part of their religious repertoire. From Hittite writings we are informed that moun tains were objects of worship.45 The weather-god, the chief divinity of the Hittites, is often portrayed standing . on a mountain peak, with the mountains taking on an anthro pomorphic form. Again we can refer to Yazilikaya for a figural representation of this conception. (Figure (b) Plate 6). Several other rock carvings of the Hittites depict deities personified as mountains. Among the sites

t~: •l . where we find this feature are Hanyeri and Imamkulu, the latter showing three mountain gods supporting the weather- god in his chariot. (Plate 18). But perhaps the most impressive of the Hittite ivories to reflect motifs in sculptural reliefs is the tiny plaque found among the Megiddo Ivories from Palestine. (Plate 16). Although discovered far from the center of the Hittite Empire, it is recognized by scholars as a pure

44Akurgal, Art of the Hittites, p. 117. 45rbid., p. 77. 58

Imamkulu, rock sculpture

Plate: 18 59

Hittite work, "without the slightest trace of a foreign

. hand·. 11 46 The importance of this ivory for our study at this time is in consideration of its relationship to stone monuments. Again, as with the mountain god discussed above, we can find counterparts for most of the imagery in the Megiddo plaque on carvings in stone. The accumulation of supportive figures is a specific, Hittite element.47 We have met with the king in his typ ical dress and crowned by the winged disk in individual minor works as well as on the major reliefs. One sees these same designs in an heraldic form on this ivory plaque from Megiddo, complete with bull-men, mountain gods and sphinxes. As was indicated earlier in reference to the bull-men as supporters of the winged disk, part of this repertoire is repeated in an almost identical form on the badly weathered fountain shrine at Iflatun Punar (Plate 7), and much of the same imagery is to be found on the Imamkulu ·rock sculpture (Plate 18). From this repetition of motifs

6 4 n. Kantor, 11 Syro-Hittite Treasure," p. 149.; ;Frankfort, Art & Architecture, p. 236.; Gordon Loud, the ;discoverer of the Megiddo Ivories, considered this plaque !to have been locally made, but most scholars now consider it to be Hittite, G. Loud, The Megiddo Ivories, (Chicago: !The University Press, 1939), p. 10.; Helene J. Kantor, i "Syro-Palestinian Ivories~ 11 Journal of Near Eastern Studies,· Vol. XV., #3, (July, 1956;, p. 155, n. 8. 47Frankfort, Art & Architecture, p. 236. 60

between miniature works such as ivories and large-scale reliefs in stone both the continuity and the individuality of Hittite style becomes firmly established. By implying that the minor works may have served as blueprints for the sculptures in stone, the suggestion is made that the small art forms referred to, or similar works must have been produced earlier than the sculptures. This of course is difficult to prove for we have no specific .dates for either the works in miniature or the large-scale sculpture. The dating of Hittite sculpture is a much de .bated subject among scholars and the uncertainty of this question leaves open the possibility of the works such as .ivories being of an earlier date than some would believe. This is an important point particularly in reference to the re-dating of the Pratt ivories, the implications of which were referred to in the previous chapter. For we can now return to these early ivories from Acemhoyuk for a consideration of their relationship to sculpture in stone, as they now provide us with cause for further speculation on the significance of the role the ivories may have ,played in relation to large-scale sculpture as well as on 'their position within the Anatolian branch of ivory carving :as a whole. Chapter 3

HITTITE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ANATOLIAN SCHOOL OF IVORY CARVING

The individual nature of Hittite art and the com

ponent parts which made up this individuality, discussed in the previous chapter, provide one with a foundation for determining stylistic affinities prevalent in ivories attributed to an Anatolian school. In our consideration of the total context of the art of the Hittites we have noted that the role of the minor arts may have been somewhat unique in its relationship to the major art forms. These two observations - the typical forms characteristic of the

Hittit~ style and the relationship of ivories to stone ;sculpture are major considerations in the following dis cussion of individual works or groups of ivories assigned to the second millennium. Special emphasis has been placed in this study on

1 the motivations, both religious and political which prompted :the creation of the art of the Hittites. It is important :for the purpose of identifying stylistic and iconographical links in the minor arts to bear this point in mind. When dealing with applied art and especially with works that evolved under the conditions of commercial trading centers such as Kultepe in Anatolia, it is often difficult to

61 62

·----·---·------determine whether motifs were merely borrowed or whether they constitute an individual contribution to the mainstream of a style. The choice or adaptation of a partie- ular motif or symbol is often the means whereby an attribution to a specific style or culture is substantiated. The apparent predilection of the Hittites to use motifs in minor works such as ivories for transference to monumental reliefs can now be considered in relation to the ivories of the Assyrian Colony Period. Both the group of Pratt Ivories and the latest Acemhoyllk hoard contain evi dence of symbols and stylistic traits that relate to the sculpture of the Empire period. We are not in a position to ascertain whether the Hittites were the instigators of . the use of monumental stone carving in Anatolia or whether they were adopting earlier traditions. At Kultepe a fragment of a massive stone lion's jaw, displaying distinct Anatolian features has been unearthed. 1 From this find, dated to level lb, one may conclude that stone-carving on a massive scale existed before the Hittite rule. But as we know the Hittites were in Anatolia from at least the begin ning of the second millennium B.c.,2 the possibility exists

1Prudence Oliver Harper, "Dating a Group of Anatolian Ivories," Connoisseur, Vol. 172, #693, (November, 1969), p. 159. . 2Kurt Bittel, "The Hittites," Marg, Vol. XXV, #1, (December, 1971), p. 13. 63

that the Hittites were the first to adopt this monumental means of artistic expression. It is therefore plausible that from a very early period ivory carving had a direct influence on carvings in stone. The quality of the workmanship and the plasticity of the style displayed in several works of the Pratt group are evidence of the degree of development that the craft of ivory carving had attained by the beginning of the second millennium. In portraying form and details the ivories far surpass any works in stone of this same period that have so far been recovered. The use of large blocks of stone for architectural

purposes, and which Akurgal considers 11 an expression of

primitive monumentality 11 3 became a custom in Anatolia with the Hittite immigration. It is interesting that this same 'Cyclopean' style occurred in the contempory buildings of Mycenae. The Minoan/Mycenaean influence in Syria in the fifteenth century is well known. One may speculate, however on the influences that were present in Anatolia in this period and on the direction these influences flowed. For a parallel to the relationship between small and large : scale carvings may be found in the Mycenaean area.

3E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962), p. 107.; Buildings of the 'megaron' tyP,e which relate to the Mycenaean style were un covered at Kultepe, see Seton Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia, (London: Thames & Hudson, Ltd., 1967), p.40, figure 34. 64

Among the Megiddo ivories are griffin plaques that display a similarity of workmanship and style to the famous 'Lion Gate sculpture at Mycenae. As Helene Kantor has indicated, analogies for various details of modelling on the stone sculpture and the ivories are very pronounced. It is Kantor's opinion that "The Megiddo griffins represent the 1 same school of carving that produced the monumental relief."4 Although one cannot be certain, in this instance, as to whether the small carvings in ivory or the large scale ones in stone developed first, it is pointed out that in quality and detail some of the ivories rival the monumental gate sculptures thus suggesting the ivories as precursors for the stone relief. As Kantor notes: The relationship of small and large carvings is reminiscent of that between Mycenaean pictorial pot tery and mural painting except that the latter was clearly the leading craft.5 It is of interest to note that scholars are of the opinion that the Hittites also employed wall decoration either painted in flat designs or painted over stucco relief: :"resembling Minoan wall reliefs of the second palace period

, 4Helene J. Kantor, "Ivory Carving in the Mycenaean ;Period," Archaeology, Vol. 13, #1, (March., 1960), p. 19. 5 - "i, Kantor, op. cit.,p. 21. 65

in the Mycenaean area may have preceded the minor crafts, in Anatolia the reverse may have occurred. In the finds of ivories from Anatolia we now have important evidence to support the hypothesis that the minor arts, and in particular ivory carvings, were the progenitors of much of the style and workmanship of Hittite monumental art. Among the ivories in the Pratt collection are several that call for special attention since their af- filiation with Hittite imperial art is unquestionable. Some of the most important for our study are plaques in the form of seated lions and ivories carved in the round representing seated sphinxes. The latter, described as "the gems of the collection"? have been referred to earlier (supra, page 16) in relation to their links to the North Syrian style of the first millennium. It is however, the Hittite characteristics in the ivories that are our main concern at this point. Both sphinx and lion are motifs employed in portal sculpture by the Hittites during the Empire period. At

6Machteld J. Mellink, "Observations on the Sculp tures of Alaca Huyu.k," Anatolia, Vol. XIV, (1972), p. 18. ·Although wall paintings of the Hittites are as yet undis covered the belief that this type of art existed is based · on finds of relief decorated vases such as those from Bitik and Inandik. ?Harper, op. cit., p. 160. 66

the Hittite capital of BoghazkHy, the famous Lion Gate exhibits lion protomes that functioned as guardians at the sides of the entrance to the city. (Plate 19). Yerkapi, the highest point in the fortification of the capital, was also subject to monumental gate sculpture in the form of at least two stone sphinxes. 8 Sphinxes too form part of the artistic repertoire at Alaca Hoyllk. Although the mon umental sphinxes at Alaca Hoyuk display considerable variation in style from the Yerkapi works both styles of sphinxes portray details which relate to the early ivories. The gate sculptures at Boghazkoy, which include those of the King's Gate, are generally considered to be the earliest of the known monumental sculpture of the Hit tites.9 As the city wall was standing in 1400 B.C. most scholars date the sculptures to the fourteenth/thirteenth centuries B.C., but there is no firm evidence to support . 10 these dates.

8The two well-knovm sphinxes from Yerkapi are now in museums - the east sphinx is in Berlin and the west sphinx is in the Istanbul Museum, Turkey. For sphinxes in situ cf. Otto Puchstein, Boghaskoi, Die Bauwerke, WVDOG, ,Vol.l9, (Leipzig, 1912), pl.l2, cited by J.V. Canby, 11 The Walters Gallery Cappadocian Tablet and the Sphinx in Ana .tolia in the Second Millennium B.C.," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, #4, (October, 1975), p. 243, n.65. 9Akurgal, op. cit., p. 109. 10some scholars are of the opinion that the sculp tures should be dated earlier; see Canby, op. cit., p. 243, n. 65, and Kurt Bittel, Hattusha, The Capital of the Hit tites, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 60 ff. 67

Lion Gate , Boghazkoy

Plate: 19 68

The pronounced plasticity of the carving of Hittite monumental sculpture has created an enigma for historians. For, as was noted earlier, there is no precedent for the vigorous thoroughly plastic relief that is characteristic of this art form of the people of Anatolia. Unlike Egypt- ian or Assyrian relief which is marked by a flat, subtly modelled surface, the lion protomes, like the other Hittite gate figures, display remarkable qualities of modelling. The main effect of these gate figures is therefore one of vigor contained within a simplicity of forms. But, as Henri Frankfort has pointed out, a closer look at a portion of the sculpture, for example the lion's head (Figure (b) Plate 20), reveals that this simplicity of the major forms is enhanced or modified by what appears to be almost an engraved technique. 11 Although engraving is us~lly as- :sociated with metal-working, this concern on the rart of the craftsmen with the elaboration of details in some parts ;of the stone(sculpture may well be a hold-over of the working in miniatu~ such as the artisans who created works in ivory may have practiced. The elaboration of details in parts of the stone lion protomes is restricted to the upper part of the animal 'form, whereas the lower part, particularly the legs, is

11Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, (London: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 223, ,figure 256. 69

Fig. ( a)

Fig ( b)

zs6. Boghazkoy, Lion Gate, head of lion (cf. z ~ Sl

Fig ~ (a) Lion' s head. F~agment of clay rhyton from Alishar, c. 1700 B.C.

Fig . (b ) Detail of head from gate lion, Boghazk~y, c . 14th century B.C. Plate: 20 70'

executed in a stiff almost lifeless manner. (Plate 21). It is not only in the lion sculptures that this discrepancy occurs for this same variation of carving can be observed in the sphinxes at Alaca H0yllk. 12 Wha~s significant for our study is that the ivory sphinxes and lions from the Pratt collection also appear to show similar variation between the detailing of the heads and the stiff block like treatment of the legs. (Figure (b) Plate 22). A stylistic feature shared by the ivories and the Hittite portal lions and sphinxes is the clear demarkation line between the mane and the top of the legs ending at the middle of the body of the animal. (Figures (a), (b) and (d), Plate 23). Prudence Harper has pointed out that this stylization of the demarcation line on the animal form may have derived from Egypt. 13 Should this be the case we have one further example of Egyptian influence on the Anatolian ,style of the early second millennium; an influence which,. in turn, infiltrated into and became reflected in the art of the Hittite Empire. Intricately carved, the manes of the ivory lions :show a number of curled tufts which take on a similar form in the stone lions. The ears of the lions, shaped like

12Ibid.

l3Harper, op. cit., p. 159. 71

Lion Gate Figure , Boghazkoy

Pl a te: 21 72

Fig. (a) Ivory bull-man Pratt Collection, Metropolitan Museum

t"[ Ill[ TIO'OUIA~ "U~ l U 1)1 .... , 19;

1081

Fig. (b) Seated ivory sphinx showing block like treatment of legs~ Pratt Collection, - :c.o . .: l- Metropolitan Museum . - '":' ..

1088•

Plate:_ 22 73

• ...... ~ , ..

( a )

( b )

( c ) ( d ) I vory Lions and Lion-Demon

Pl ate: 23 74

volutes, are also conventions shared by the works in ivory and the monumental gate lions. One of the most pronounced traits linking these images of different media and chronology is the carving of the lions' gaping mouth. The open jaws forming a rounded curve and with the tongue folded over the lower lip is re cognized as a distinct Anatolian convention,14 and can be seen in the drawing of the lion's head from Boghazkoy, (Figure (b) Plate 20). Although works of art from the Old Hittite period are far from numerous, enough evidence remains to confirm the continuation of this Anatolian stylization of the animal.•·s open jaw. Part of a clay rhyton in the form of a lion's head was discovered at Alishar.l5 Dated to c. 1700 B.C., this work in pottery measuring three inches in height, displays the same form of the open mouth as seen in the lions in ivory and the stone protomes. (Figure (a) Plate 20). In this way a link or reinforcement is provided for the continuity of this stylistic convention. One may digress for a moment to again consider the display purpose behind the Hittites' choice of motif. The l :lion, symbol of royalty, was a well-known motif used

14Ekrem Akurgal, The Art of Greece: Its Origins in ·the Mediterranean and Near East, (New York; Crown Publishers .Inc., 1966), p. 103. l5Akurgal, Art of the Hittites, p. 58. 75

throughout the Near East. In Hittite art, the stone lions function mainly as guardians of the cities• gates or are displayed as supportive figures on statue bases. 16 Lions also serve as attributes of the gods. How appropriate the lion symbol is, when used to· occupy the imposing entrances of the fortified cities of the Hittites is underscored when we read in Hittite texts of the exploits of the Great King Hattushili I, who reigned shortly before 1600 B.C.: In those days he set forth. Like a lion the Great King crossed the river Puran. The city of Hashshu(wa) he overwhelmed like a lion with his paw.l7 We also learn from the same texts that the king "came home

·to Hattusha, 11 which scholars have determined has established Boghazkoy (Hattusha) from about 1600 B.C. as the capital of a ruling Hittite Great King. Nowhere perhaps is the com bined association of the lion with royalty and royalty with the power of the 'king of the beasts• more explicitly expressed than in Hittite art. This is especially true for the art of the Hittite capital where the monumental beasts remain as reminders of the might of the kings of an ancient

16Akurgal, Art of the Hittites, p. 113. l7The cuneiform text written in Akkadian and Hit •tite was discovered at Boghazkoy in 1957. Describing the 'King's military campaign, the text also gives information on the booty captured and the votive offerings made to :deities, Bittel, op. cit., PE· 3-6, plate 1. Tablet of :Hattushili I, MDOG, No. 91, (1958) pp. 75-84, (H. Otten). 76

empire. It is interesting to speculate on the possibility .of tiny works in ivory being the harbingers of motifs and symbols used later in the impressive monumental sculptures of the Hittite capital. For some time the general consensus has been that motifs common to both Syria and Anatolia of the Old Hittite period occurred as a result of a transference of influence from Syria to Anatolia.18 This acceptance of Syria's role as an intermediary has come about largely because the material evidence from Syria was numerous whereas finds from Anatolia were almost non-existent. With the discoveries

cl , ,, from Kultepe, AcemhoyUk1 and elsewhere historians are re- evaluating native Anatolian traditions and Hittite and Syria's roles in the adoption or transference of motifs common to both cultures. The sphinx is one such form that may have been adopted by the Hittites in imitation of Egyptian usage with out the intermediary role of Syria. Now that we have the revised dating for the Pratt ivories the ivories provide us with some support for this theory. Like the lion the sphinx is a major form used by the Hittites for their mon- :umental stone sculpture. As we have noted, the Pratt :collection contains ivory seated sphinxes. Although the :ivories were possibly once used as parts of furniture the

18Frankfort, op. cit., p. 223. 77

carvings show some interesting stylistic and iconographical relationships to the large-scale works in stone. Another point that is worth noting is "that of all her neighbors only the Hittites used sphinxes as subjects for monumental sculpture as Egypt used hers. 111 9 Like the winged disk, the sphinx would obviously be associated with the power of the Great King and thus this borrowing of the sphinx symbolr it is suggested, occurred from the original source rather than through a modified form supplied by Syria. A recent study has been undertaken by Jeanny Vorys Canby on the Anatolian portrayal of the sphinx in the art of the second millennium B.c. 2° From this in-depth study on the use of the sphinx motif in seals, ivories and sculp .ture, it was determined that several factors indicate that the Anatolian sphinx form can be distinguished from this same motif portrayed by the Syrian artist. Among the fac tors that determined this distinction were 1) the Anatolian convention of the differentiation made between species, and 2) the non-arbitrary use of the sphinx symbol by the

. 19canby, op. cit., p. 246, where credit is given ito A. Dessenne for this suggestion. For a study of the !iconography and adaptation of the sphinx symbol see A. :nessenne, Le sphinx, ~tude iconographigue I •.des origins '~ la fin du second millenaire, Bibliotheque des &coles fran;aises d'Ath~nes et de Rome, fasc. 186, (Paris, 1957). 20canby, op. cit., pp. 225-248. 78

Anatolian craftsmen as opposed to the simple copying and decorative adaptation of motifs without regard for their meaning which is usually associated with Syrian work. 21 From the observations made by J. Canby one conclu- sian arrived at was that it may well have been Anatolia which first adopted the sphinx, borrowing, as we have in dicated, directly from Egypt, and that it was Syria which, in turn, used a modified Anatolian form. These findings are in line with this present study and the views of this writer whereby the emphasis is placed on the recognition of Hittite individuality in the field of Near Eastern art by their choice of motifs for prestigious as well as sym bolic purposes. A consideration of the symbolism and the form of the Anatolian sphinx gives further support to this :View. In Egypt the sphinx, as a symbol of the all-embracing power of the Pharaoh, was represented, at least until the 18th Dynasty, in almost all cases, as male. 22 The ,feminizing of the sphinx, by the adoption of the "Hathor" :style spiral-curled hairdress, (a form which was itself an adaptation of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom hairstyle), has usually been attributed to Syria's modification of

21canby, op. cit., p. 246.; Frankfort, op. cit., p. 244. 22R.D. Barnett, The Nimrud Ivories with other exam les of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British 'Museum, London: British Museum, 1957 , p. 4. 79

the form. 23 Studies indicate however, that perhaps it is Anatolia which should be credited not only with adopting the sphinx directly from Egypt but also with the adaptation , of the male sphinx form to the feminized Near Eastern version of this symbol. What is significant for our study is that it is in the ivories from Acemhoyuk, and particularly the Pratt ivories, that this changing of the species occurs. Now that the ivories are placed in a new archaeological context the importance of these findings takes on new emphasis when one relates the ivory sphinx forms to the· same motif used in Hittite imperial stone sculpture. The differentiation of the sphinx species which Canby credits to an Anatolian origin, first appears on Anatolian style cylinder seals from the earliest phase of the Assyrian Colony period. 24 Whereas one type of sphinx shown on the seals retains many of the characteristics of the Egyptian form, it nevertheless departs from the proto type by having a raised tail that follows the contours of the back. Bearded and wingless this type of sphinx differs from another form represented in the Anatolian seals which

23Helene J. Kantor, Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah, ed. C.W. McEwan et al., Oriental Institute Publications, (Chicago: University Press, 1958), p. 59; see also R.D. • Barnett, op. cit., p. 84. 24canby, op. cit., p. 234. 80 is shown without a beard, wearing a skull-cap and in one instance bearing a bird-head on the end of the tail. 25 An impression from an Old Hittit-e stamp seal (Figure (a) Plate 24) shows two sphinxes opposing each other beside a stylized tree. One sphinx wears a high rounded cap from which an ear flap (?) seems to dang~e, whereas the other sphinx is shown adorned with a tall conical ridged hat with horns in the front and back. We may see here a relationship to and an early example of the two styles of head gear worn by the gods and kings in Hittite imperial art. For another example of two types of sphinxes in Anatolian art, or in this instance Hittite art, one may return to the Megiddo ivory plaque (Figure (b) Plate 24). Superimposed twice on either side of the plaque are seated sphinxes showing distinct differentiation of species. In profile the upper sphinx displays the tall conical hat and on his chest a lion's head protrudes. 26 Underneath this. creature appears a seated sphinx with head 2n face showing heavy Hathor locks which spring from a head-band. An Egyptian feature retained in the latter sphinx is the way

ser., 81

------·----·

Fig. (a) Old Hittite sealing from Boghazkoy

Fig. (b) Section of ivory plaque from Megiddo

Plate: 24 82

.the tail curls up under the back leg and across the thigh. A sphinx wearing a conical hat and with a lion's head protruding from its chest, similar to the motif on the Megiddo ivory, appears on the famous goldtsignet ring, (Figure (a) Plate 14) dated to the Empire per·od. It is to the early ivorie, from Acemhoyuk however that one must return for the evidence of the evolution of

the adaptation of the male s~hinx into the female sphinx form. We have noted that one type of Anatolian sphinx departs from the Egyptian prototype by having a tail that follows the outline of the back. This same characteristic occurs on the ivory lion from AcemhoyUk (Figure (a) Plate 25), and on the seated sphinxes in the Pratt collection (Plate 1). The plasticity of the form of the ivories enables one to follow the details of the carving and the de- liniation of the mane and forelegs. For in the working of the ivories the change in species is accomplished by an ingenious combining of forms. 27 In the ivory sphinxes the Hathor style headdress is shown as having the front part of the hair pulled to the sides of the head to form spiral curls over the chest,

1 Whereas part of the hair remains at the back to form a

27canby, op. cit., p. 235. ( . I

F ig ~ (a) " j, ( .

Fig. ( b )

I vories from AcemhoyUk

Plate: 25 84

plg. t al"1 • 28 The Egyptian uraeus is replaced by a single curl on the forehead. On three of the sphinxes in the Pratt collection, the backs of the heads closely resemble the Egyptian sphinx form whereby the creature would be depicted as wearing the royal male headcloth ending with

11 11 a short Zouf • .The artist who created t'e three i vary sphinxes however, has combined the tail tfat followed the contours of the back with the tail of the headcloth. By utilizing the local pigtail, the raised tail aligned to the back of the form (Anatolian conventions), and by com bining these forms with the male Egyptian headcloth to form Hathor locks, as Canby has observed, the ivory sphinxes take on a feminine form and show the incorporation of several traditions. 29 It may well be that it was in the working of the 'ivories' and in the hands of itinerant craftsmen working under local demands that the change in form from the male ,sphinx, symbol of the power of the Pharaoh of Egypt to the ... feminized Near Eastern sphinx first occurred. It could also be that it was the Hittites, whose presence was being felt in Anatolia at this early stage in history, and who, with their concern with identity and their need to assert

28As Prudence Harper has noted the Egyptian Hathor :hairstyle always consists of a single curl either side of the head, Harper, op. cit., p. 161. 29Ibid. 85

------their own ideas in religious and political areas, were the instigators of the adaptation of this borrowed symbol. A further modification of the sphinx hairstyle is shown in two ivory plaques depicting sphinxes in relief. These ivories are also part of the Pratt collection. In addition to the Hathor curls at the side of the face a row

of curls supported by a band ov~ the forehead is arranged on top of the head, (Figure (a) P\ate 26). The curled end of the tail too combines to form a "pattern of reversed spirals." Prudence Harper, in studying this unusual hairstyle has observed that curls on the top of the head in this manner appear on wall paintings of the Minoan and , mainland Greek palaces but must now be considered later than these works in ivory.3° One can but speculate on the ··possibility of Hittite wall paintings having shown similar forms in their repertoire. The retention of this spiral-curled headdress motif is however in evidence on a carved ivory horn found at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) and dated to the fourteenth century B.c.31 Carved on the horn is a naked goddess and : at her side a winged sphinx is shown wearing spiral curls : similar to the hairstyle of the early ivory plaque figures.

3°Harper, op. cit., p. 161. ' 3lclaude F.A. Schaeffer, "Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit Quinzieme, Seizieme et Dix-Septieme Campagnes , ( 1951, 1952 et 1953)," Syria, Vol. XXXI, ( 1954), p. 62, r figure 9. 1 86

,·

1089 Fig. (a)

Fig. (b) Fig. (a) Ivory female sphinx plaque, c. · 18th cent. B.C. Pratt Collection, Metropolitan Museum, N.Y. Fig. (b) Drawing of carved ivory horn: Ras Shamra, 14th cent. B.C.

Plate: 26 (Figure (b) Plate 26). Other distinct Hittite motifs were observed among the ivories discovered at this same site thus providing evidence not only of the extent of Hittite influence during the Empire period but also of the importance of ivories as a means of transmitting styles and motifs of the Anatolian school that reach back to the beginning of the Becond millennium. \ .I The two styles of headdresse1 on the ivory sphinxes, the simpler Hathor style and the more elaborate curled-on the-top style, show interesting affiliations with the mon umental stone sculpture of the Hittite Empire period. Sev eral kinds of sphinxes appear in the large-scale works of the gate sculptures of the Hittites. The Hathor style ; headdress is characteristic of the two famous Alaca Hoytik 'sphinxes, (Plate 27). Measuring about ten feet in height both sphinxes are carved out of huge monolithic blocks. As Frankfort notes: these sphinxes "are probably meant to be female" and display the most Egyptian of all Anatolian ' 32 Hathor headdresses. With their coiffures curving in great cowls over the shoulders the monumental sphinxes : continue the tradition observed in the early ivories of • combining the headcloth of the Pharaoh with the feminine ' hair fashion of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. The Alaca Hoyuk sphinxes however still retain

32Frankfort, op. cit., p. 223. 88 89

remnants of the early Anatolian hairstyle. Above the cowl is a conical area which shows a bosse and "dangling ribbon" which may be equated with the details of the local pigtail~3 The more elaborate coiffure found on the ivory plaques finds a similarity in the complicated spiral headdress set over a headband on the large sphinx gate figure from Zinjirli. A peculiar double ribbon on the front of this

basalt sculpture may be explained, suggests Canby, 11 as the edge of the mane similar to the protruding piece on the Acem HoyUk relief sphinx.u34 Although the pair of Alaca Hoyuk gate sphinxes appear to be identical, the sphinxes that once occupied the gate tower at Yerkapi are believed to be representations of different species. Both the Yerkapi sculptures have long locks which curl over the chest simulating the Hathor 'style seen in the ivories. But differences in the two gate sphinxes are pronounced. Particularly noticeable is the variation of the headgear. One sphinx (the west one) :(Plate 28), wears a tight-fitting hat with curving horns over the forehead., whereas the east sphinx (Plate 29), as I 'presently reconstFucted, is shown with an elaborate

33canby, op. cit., p. 243. 34canby, op. cit., p. 237. For details of the sphinx gate figure found near the city wall of Zinjirli see 'U. Bahadir Alkim, Anatolia I. From the Beginnings to the End of the Second Millennium B.C., J. Hogarth, trans., ,Ancient Civilization Series, (London: 1969), fig. 158, lP· 220. 90

Sphinx fro~ Yerkapi (West)

Plate: 28 91

Sphinx from Yerkapi (Eas t )

Pl a te : 29 92

spiraled headdress.35 We may see here a possible relation-. ship to the complicated hairstyle on the ivory relief sphinxes. A feature shared by the Yerkapi monumental sphinxes and the tiny ivory figures is a rectangular piece protruding down from under the headdress in front of the ears, interprete.d by Canby "as a sort of securing de vice.1136 At Yerkapi too a protome of a stone figure also existed on the gate on the opposite side of the tower from the sphinx gate. There is some question as to whether this figure should be considered a sphinx or a lion.37 Although the head is missing, traces of Hathor curls exist on the chest which has led most scholars to label this creature a sphinx, but Hathor curls also occur on lions as evidenced on the figure of a winged lion observed on the openwork ivory plaque found in the Hittite levels at . Boghazkoy.38 From the foregoing it is apparent that several forms of sphinx and possibly of lion figures were . employed by the Hittite artists as subjects in the creation of their sculpture. At Yesemek, in the Amuq plains, a basalt quarry

35Akurgal, op. cit., plates 66 and 67. 36canby, op. cit., p. 243. 37Ibid. 38Ibid., figure 12. 93

was discovered in 1890, but excavations at this site did not take place until 1955. The results of recent explora- tions have however, unearthed a sculptors• workshop; "the

richest known in the ancient Near East. 11 39 It would appear from the finds from this site that this workshop specialized

in, among other things, the making of portal stone sculp~ ture, and that it was from this workshop that customers from places such as Zinjirli and Sakgagozu in the plains area were supplied. Significant from these findings was the discovery that several different types of the same sculptural subjects were created. Among the variety of forms discovered at this site were four types of lions, three types of sphinxes and three of mountain gods. All of these motifs are represented in ivories as we have noted, and emphasizes the importance of the early Anatolian ivories :as being precursors of designs and subjects to be used many centuries later. The style of the partly finished products of Yesemek suggest that some of them date from the last quarter of the second millennium B.C., whereas others are of a ;later date, possibly the first quarter of the first mil- : 40 lennium. But the appearance of several types of the same

39Alkim, op. cit., p. 219.

4°Ibid. p. 220. 94

motif indicates a relationship to the Anatolian or Hittite tradition of additions or changes to forms for the purpose of identification or association for a specific role. The role of the sphinx in Hittite art may have had more than one function and brings us to consider one of the most important recent discoveries to have bearing on the relationship of the early Anatolian ivories to Hittite monumental art. We now have unequivocal evidence that . seated sphinxes, such as are displayed in the Pratt ivories, were used as subjects for monumental sculpture by the early Hittites.

\.. if From Yerkapi and Alaca Hoyuk we have sphinx gate sculptures that are attributed to the Empire period. As we have shown these monumental carvings reflect some of the . earlier tre.i ts found in the ivory forms. There appears .however to be an earlier form of a stone sphinx carving which may provide a link in the chain of the transference of this symbol from small-scale to large-scale carvings. As a result of a recent visit to Alaca Hoyuk, J. Canby recognized the outline of a massive seated sphinx, , (one third larger than the imperial sphinxes) on the outer i I face of the monolithic block on which the western sphinx I ;Of the city gate is carved.4l Left unfinished, this sculp-' ture is only visible under a special light which, as Canby

41canby, op. cit., p. 237. 95

indicates, probably accounts for the fact that the sculpture has remained undiscovered for so long. The outline of the sphinx, as described by the observer, displays the upright position of the figure squatting on its haunches, the de markation line of the mane and the feet close together, all of which recall the form of the ivory sphinxes from • Acemhoyuk.42 As the sphinx was left unfinished and the enormous block on which it was carved used as part of the · la1ter imperial sphinx gate a date ante quem is provided for this enormous partly completed sphinx. It is of course ; impossible to say how much earlier this relief might be than the familiar imperial Hittite sculpture but the relief is important evidence of the use by the early Hittites of · a subject found in ivories of the Colony period for monumental works in stone. In the opinion of J. Canby, the unfinished sphinx at Alaca Hoyllk was never meant as a gate guardian but · rather was to have served a special role possibly as_ an observer of some religious ceremony. This is suggested from observations of the architectual layout at Alaca Hoyuk .which indicate that the relief could not have fitted into ·the plan of the gate. The Yerkapi sphinxes too, it is

42The photographs taken by Jeanny Canby clearly show the outline of the sphinx form, Canby, op. cit., p. 238, figure 11. 96

pointed out, may have been created to serve as focal points of some great procession rather than perhaps playing a lesser role as guardians of the gate. A sphinx's role is in evidence, as observer of the nbattle of the gods," on an Old Hittite relief from Boghazkoy, and it may be that a similar role was intended for the massive carving at Alaca Hoyuk.43 The foregoing emphasizes the importance placed on symbolism in both major and minor works of the Hittites and illustrates the distinctive purposeful charac ter of Hittite imagery. Recent studies of the sculptural reliefs found at Alaca HoyUk indicate that the Hittites used motifs and techniques familiar in the minor arts for the sculptural decoration of the orthostats. In their original position the orthostats appear to have been scenes of religious ritual once set in superimposed friezes. "The date of the

Alaca HuyUk sculptures has not yet been adequately stu~ died.u44 But as Mellink has observed, the revised dating of the AcemhoyUk ivories calls for a closer look at the evolution of Hittite art. From observations made of the

, 43canby, op. cit., p. 240. For the Old Hittite :relief see Boehmer, Kleinfunde, pl. 77, no. 2137, pp. 204, iff.; Kurt Bittel, 11 Ausgewa"hlte Funde von Byyukkale,tt ;MDOG, 86 (1953): 25.ff., figs. 9 a.b.; cited by J. Canby, p. 240, note 55. 4~ellink, op. cit., p. 18. 97 I • sculptured orthostats it appears that the artists who created these works at Alaca HoyUk were following a narrative tradition well known in the minor arts of the Old Hittite period. Relief vases recovered from the sites of Bitik and Inandik dated to the sixteenth/fifteenth cen- .turies B.C., as well as other fragments discovered, reveal that the Hittites were familiar with and practiced the illustration of rituals in continuous narrative strips.45 But it is the ivories from Acemhoyuk that provide the ear liest forms of Hittite art,46 and it is the ivories perhaps that can now be considered as the strongest link to the pictorial expression and sculptural tradition of the Hit- tites. As we have seen the protomes of the sphinx and the lion gate figures are related to the ivories in subject, style and to some extent technique. Further consideration of the subjects depicted in the sculptures at Alaca Hoyukt I I ( indicate other similarities between the small-scale carv

·ings and the monumental works in stone. An unusual feature

, I t j of the Alaca Hoyuk site is the pictorialization of the in- volvement of gate guardians in subsidiary action.47 one

. 45Ibid.; Tahsin Ozgu9, "The Bitik Vase," Anatolia 2 (1957), pp. 57-78; Kurt Bittel, .Eine hethitische Reliefvase aus Kappadokien, 11 Festschrift Weickert, (Berlin: 1955), pp. 22-33. 46Mellink, op. cit., p. 25. 47rbid. 98

instance of this action is where the corner lion of the gate complex is involved in the subjection of a small bull victim under the lion's paws. (Plate 30). Mellink sees this feature of animal and victim as a link between the large-scale carvings and the early ivories for among the .Pratt group are "renderings of seated lions in quiet pose 'with their victims (stags) held firmly in their jaws."48 {Figure (b) Plate 23). A bird of prey is another subject found in relief on the inner jambs of the sphinx gate at Alaca HoyUk. Con- sidered now to be part of a ritual frieze, a well-preserved carving shows a double-headed eagle supporting a figure while at the same time "subdues two hares under its talons," . (Plate 31).49 Again the ivories provide us with a parallel • of subject. Jl..mong the early ivories is a falcon and its crouching victims. (Plate 32). Partly restored, the falcon conveys overtones of Egyptian influence in the stylization of the feather pattern of the head. But the wings of the bird, as Prudence Harper has pointed out, find a similarity ; to the wings on the Yerkapi monumental sphinxes whereby ; "the primary feathers spread out from a plain covert area."5?

48Mellink, op. cit., p. 25. 49Ibid., p. 26.; Akurgal, op. cit., p. 118, plate

5°Harper, op. cit., p. 162. As Prudence Harper •points out, birds of prey attacking victims are common sub : jects that appear on the seals of the Colony period. ! • 99

Lion with bull victim, Alaca HoyUk

Plate: 30 • 100

Double-headed eagle with hares , Alaca H~ylik

Plate: 31 • 101

Ivory Falcon and victims, Pratt Collection

Plate: 32 102

Looking at the ivories from the new archaeological context in which they are now placed we can view these miniature works from Acemhoyuk as providers of individual subjects and motifs which in turn were to be employed to form comprehensive representations of a particular subject. The limestone relief depicting 11 a battle of the gods'9 and the Bitik and Inandik relief vases are dated to the Old Hittite period,5l and are the earliest works of the Hittites so far recovered, that can be said to represent the begin nings of a narrative tradition in the sculptural style. But from these isolated examples, which form a link between the early ivories and the later monumental sculptural reliefs at such sites as Alaca HoyUkJ./ •• and Yazilikaya, a picture is beginning to emerge of the narrative tradition behind the great sculptural art of the Hittites. The fore going gives ample support to the observations made by Professor Bittel that the precursors for the great sculp tural procession at Yazilikaya should perhaps be looked for in the minor arts.52 In the preceding discussion we have observed that :the sculptures at Alaca Hoyuk, Yazilikaya and Boghazkoy,

5lFor references to the early limestone relief see Maurice Vierya, Hittite Art, (London: Alec Titanti, Ltd., ,1955), pp •. ~2~3.; For the latest dating of the relief vases see Nimet Ozgu~, "New Light on t~e~,Dating of the Levels of the Karum of Kanish and of Acemhoyuk near Aksaray " .American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 72, #4, (19G8), p.320. 52Bittel, Hattusha, p. 100. 103

the three main sites of the Hittite Empire period, show affinities with the early Anatolian ivories. Particular attention has been paid to the sphinx and lion gate figures; the reason being that similar forms were found in the collection of ivories. One should not neglect however, one other famous monumental relief sculpture - that of the king or warrior-god carved in high relief on the King's Gate at Boghazkoy. For this figure too displays details, the prototypes of which may be detected in the ivories. An ivory bullman in the Pratt collection is analo- gous with the sphinxes of the same group by conforming to the local adaptation of the Hathor headdress. The hair style of this tiny figure parallels the sphinxes in that two spiral curls are shown falling over the chest. (Figure (a) Plate 22). Part of the hair, however, remains at the back of the head in the form of two long pigtails.53 Run .ning obliquely up the right side of the back haunch is a small ridge, which, as Prudence Harper reminds us, is most probably the remnant of a tail.54 Although the facial treatment of this bull-man differs from that of the seated .sphinxes, notably by the sharply receding chin, this half human half-animal figure shows close proximity in certain

53canby, op. cit., p. 236. 54Harper, op. cit., p. 164, figure 7. 104 details to the monumental stone figure of the Warrior-God. (Plate 33). Prominent features on the tiny ivory figure are the way the fist is shown with the projecting horizontal thumb, the pronounced muscles of the upper arms and the type of plain wide belt encircling the waist. All of these details are reflected on a monumental scale in the relief of the gate figure. An ivory hand, in the form of a clen ched fist, was recovered among the latest finds from Acem hoyllk. Although in a badly burned condition, a notable characteristic of this fist is the way the fingers and nails are carefully rendered.55 (Figure (b) Plate 25). Again we can find a parallel for such detailing in the stone sculpture at Boghazkoy. On a par with the gate lions, already referred to, the large-scale relief of the god shows "the care and precision" undertaken by the carvers with such details "like the cuticles of the nails," where, as Frankfort had indicated, "a great deal of engraving is added."5G In technical and stylistic terms the monumental art of the Hittites owes much to the tiny works in ivory. The extent of the Hittite Empire during the four teenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. and the scope of

55Nimet Ozgii~, "Excavations at Acemhoyuk," Anadolu, Vol. 10, (1966), p. 43, .plate XIX. 56 . Frankfort, op. cit., p. 224. • 105

Plate Warrior-God from the King' s Gate , Bogazkoy, 14th century B.C. - Ankara

Plate: 33 106

commercial activity practiced during this period, made it inevitable that minor works of art would find their way to places far from the Hittite capital. We have noted several ivories that have been found outside Anatolia proper and dated to the second millennium, as being related to the Anatolian/Hittite style. In technique many of the ivories of the ancient Near East share a common heritage of crafts manship but in motifs or stylistic adaptations the Hittite mark is clearly in evidence among the hybrid forms which characterize much of the works in this cosmopolitan medium of ivory carving. The Megiddo plaque is perhaps the most representa tive example of Hittite style in ivories found in outlying areas. This miniature work has served to illustrate two major concerns of this study; namely the individuality of the Hittite style and the relationship of small-scale and large-scale carvings. Other Near Eastern ivories that bear the imprint of Hittite influence have been found at several North Syrian sites. A few are particularly pertinent to this study and 'should be considered in relation to the early ivories from :Acemhoyllk as well as to Hittite art in general. Among the Syrian sites that have produced significant ivories are Tell Atchana, Tell Fakhariyah, and Ras Shamra - all sites within the Hittite sphere of influence. From Atchana comes a small fragmentary ivory plaque 107

which shows the now familiar conical-hatted sphinx with a lion's head protruding from its chest.57 (Plate 34). We have met this motif on the Megiddo plaque and on the famous gold signet ring where, in the latter example, the creature is shown supporting a deity. Although the exact meaning of this symbol escapes us, its Anatolian or Hittite origin is assured. The popularity of this motif was firmly established during the Empire period and was to be retained or to re-occur in the Neo-Hittite period.58 Atchana has also produced an ivory in the form of a seal representing the Hittite •royal signe•.59 The use of this characteristic motif, as Frankfort notes, dates from the Colony period, .. 60 and is found impressed on clay pots from Kultepe. Seal impressions from AcemhoyUk, found by N. Ozgu9, further re .veal this official imprint. 61 Appearing almost as a trademark, this Hittite motif becomes an identifying mark among the ivories found at Ras Shamra. We have observed the appearance of the spiral-

57Sir Leonard Woolley, 11 Excavations at .Atcha.na Alalakh," Antiquities Journal, Vol. XIX, (1939), plate XIV, .PP· l-37. . 58canby, op. cit., p. 242. Examples of the use of this motif on stone reliefs occur at Tell Halaf, Carchemish, . and Zinjirli. 59see below, Chapter 2, page 36, note 18. 60Fra.nkfort, op. cit., p. 395, note 48. 61 .. ., N. Ozgu9, op. cit., p. 42, plate VIII, figure 2. 108

Panel in Hittite style, from Atchana XlVth century B.C.

Plate: 34 109

curled headdress of a sphinx found•on an ivory horn from this same site and noted its relationship to the Pratt sphinxes. Among the important group of ivories found by M. Schaeffer at Ras Shamra were several ivory bed panels. 62 One of the panels from the bed depicts a horned goddess who is shown offering her breasts to two mortals. On the forehead of the goddess, between the horns, is arrayed the Hittite emblem. (Plate 35). Further links to Hittite art noticeable in this hybrid work are the similarity of the Hathor headdress of the goddess to the Alaca HoyUk sphinxes

and the type of short k~lt . worn by the male figures on the panel, which, as W.S. Smith has noted, closely resembles the Hittite style of dress worn by the Warrior-God gate ·figure. 63 The use of the Hittite 'royal signe• in ivories must have been commonplace at this time in history for Ras Shamra also produced the motif on a seal or small plaque similar to the one found at Atchana. (Figures (b) and (c) Plate 36). Mention should also be made of the appearance of this famous sign in the ivory winged disk found at

62Claude F.A.Schaeffer,"Les Fouilles de Ras-Shamra Ugarit," Les Annale Archeolo i ues de S rie, III, 1953, and in Syria, Vol. XXIX, 19;i4), pp. 37. ff. and plates VIII-X. 63william Stevenson Smith, Interconnections in.the ,Ancient Near East, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 33, figure 57. 110

I vory Bed Panel from Ras Shamra

Pl ate: 35 111

Tell Fakhariyah. Believed to be the earliest example of an ivory winged disk found so far, the fragmentary parts which make up this motif were discovered among a group of ivories found below the Iron Age palace at this North Syrian site.64 Although the Hittite sign appears in the disk in a somewhat modified form from the examples recover ed from Atchana and Ras Shamra (Plate 36), its appearance within the winged disk and the winged disk's specific identification with Hittite usage tends to confirm the ivory's association with a Hittite source of inspiration. It should also be noted that the wings of the sun disk are related in style to the wings of the ivory falc.on in the Pratt collection as well as to the wings on the monu ·mental Yerkapi sphinx. In each of the cases mentioned the primary feathers are shown as radiating from a plain area. A theme found among the ivories from Tell Fakhariyah is that of the griffin-demons in atlantid pose. There may be reason enough to assign this particular motif and thus the ivories depicting this theme to a Hittite source. Al though the origin of the motif of griffin-headed human- bodied monsters is usually attributed to Syria due to its appearance on cylinder seals of the First Syrian group, 65

64Kantor, Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah, op. cit., p. 57. ~5Ibid, p. 61.

~------112

•

D Fig. -(b)

Fig. (a) c Fragment of . Fig.- (c) Fig. (a) Tell Fakhari~~~ryNwi~ge~ disk· from Hittite . ' · yrla. Fig. (b) lVOry · from Ras Sh amraslgne c ..,...... ~·" Fig. (c) H'tl tlte. sign from' • Plate: 36 1;1.,3

the form, whereby the griffins act as a support is, as Helene Kantor points out, probably a Hittite characteristic. The symbolic nature of Hittite ..art tends to support this theory. In Hittite iconography atlantid figures play an important role and are represented in both minor and major works of art. The prominence of representations of such supportive figures has been observed by Kantor-. who states: In the reliefs decorating the fountain shrine of Iflatun Pinar several standing demigods hold up winged sun disks below which are enthroned a god and a goddess; there are three atlantid demons in the rock relief of Imamkulu, and two bull-men support the moon at Yazilikaya. (43) On a small scale the motive appears on the Hittite plaque of the Megiddo hoard, where we find both standing and kneeling atlantid figures. (44). 66 Added to the fact that the role of the griffin demons was important in Hittite iconography is the relation 'ship of certain details of the Fakhariyah ivory figures to .the Hittite sculptural tradition. The demons are shown

with 11 V-shaped neckline, bare upper body, and kilt with pendent flap.tt (Plate 37). Prototypes for these features are provided in the figure of the Warrior-God from Boghaz koy and a bronze figurine from the same site. 67 (Plate 33). ,Thus from the individual Hittite characteristics found in the minor arts, whether they be from Anatolia or elsewhere, :and the relationship of the works in miniature, particularly'

66Ibid., p. 62. 67Ibid., plate 68 D. 114

- __ .:::::-:__ I"\ 17 ,-...... -.._ -_-:.. ----::::., 11 I I ' 11----\ --' '...:·I I' 1\ I '\ ·. ' I ,, ' I 'I\ 1 I • I I \ \ \ I \ I I I I I I 1 I I \ \ \ \ I , ,, \ ,,,11\ ' I .I \ 1 I \ I \ I \ '\ ~ ,I .._ \ \ \ \ \ \ \"'• ..... - \. ' \ '. { r:,· --- _., ' - / ss + 56

,,,., ::: ~ :,, ,.· '', . '\ J ·,· ' I ' • I

'--·I I

ijfi I I I_- I

I I ' ' ' ,. .. _ ~; ------HJK 57 57

Ivories from Tell Fakhariyah

Fn.\G~1F.NTS OF GmFFJK-DEMON T'U•O'.' BS wiTH SuGGESTED RECONSTRUCTIONS, ACTUAL SIZE.

Plate: 37 115 the ivories, to the major monumental art forms of the Hittites, our knowledge of the length and strength of Anatolian/Hittite artistic traditions is becoming increasingly enhanced.

------Chapter 4

INFLUENCES FROM THE ANATOLIAN SCHOOL OF IVORY CARVING REFLECTED IN THE NEO-HITTITE PERIOD

It is significant that ivory carving was widely practiced both before and after the period of the Dark Ages. This medium of ivory carving served an important role in transmitting older traditions down to the first millennium B.C. In the previous chapter our focus has centered on the early Acemhoytik ivories from Anatolia, whereas other works of the second millennium that are affiliated with the Anatolian/Hittite school have been treated in a peripheral manner. The purpose was to show that the historical con text in which the Acemhoytik ivories fall, that is the Colony Period (19th-18th centuries B.C.), establishes the roots of a distinct Anatolian branch of this ancient craft. Furthermore, these early ivories, by their close iconographic and stylistic relationships to Hittite imperial art, reveal the strength and length of Hittite traditions. The conclusions reached at this point in our study indicate 1), that the characteristics marking the Anatolian branch of ivory carving of the second millennium are stamp ed by the individuality of the Hittites, and 2), in Anato- lia the craft of ivory carving appears to have preceded

116 117 ' .

the development of stone carving. It remains for us to consider the impact of our findings on the art of the early part of the first millennium B.C., or the period known as Neo-Hittite. Since 1912, when Poulson first recognized a sub division in Near Eastern ivories attributed to the first millennium, 1 scholars have been concerned with determining stylistic threads distinguishable from the mainstream of North Syrian and Phoenician works. Anatolian influences ·in ancient ivories have long been acknowledged and recognized as having played an important role in contributing to the spread of motifs to the West. Professor Barnett, in his significant work The Nimrud Ivories (1957), expres sed the opinion that a branch of ivory carving was opera tive in Anatolia as early as pre-Hittite times. 2 However, the meager evidence from Anatolian sources at the time, compared with works bearing the Syrian or Phoenician im print, made it difficult to trace the continuity of an Anatolian branch.

1F •. Poulson, Der Orient und das fruh riechishe Bildkunst, (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 3 -53. See also Irene J. Winter, 11 North Syria in the Early First Millennium B.C., with special reference to Ivory Carving," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 1973, pp. 259-60. 2R.D. Barnett, The Nimrud Ivories with other exam les of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum, London: British Museum, 1957 , p. 35. 118

As we have shown there is now ample evidence that a center for ivory production was active in Anatolia under the Hittites. In addition to material proof, textual evidence has been made available through the studies of Hans G. Guterbock. In his translation of Hittite texts, Professor GuterbockI' was able to determine that texts • • • attest about all the uses of ivory one expects by analogy of other times and areas, but of which not all are archaeologically attested for the Hittite empire. Furthermore the texts add the distinction between 'white' and 'red' ivory.3 The latter point is of particular interest as the Pratt ivory sphinxes with which we have been concerned still re tain traces of red coloring (Plate 1), and therefore show that as early as the 18/19th centuries B.C. the coloring or staining of ivories was practiced.4 Another scholar writing on ivories of the first millennium B.C. points out:

3 ,, Hans G. Guterbock, "Ivory in Hittite Texts," Anadolu, Vol. XV, (1971), #15, pp. 1-7. 4It is of interest to note that the predominant colors of the Bitik vases and the limestone relief of the Old Hittite period are red and white which suggests a symbolic link between the ivories of the Colony period and these later works, Hans G. Guterbock, "Narration in Anato lian, Syrian and Assyrian .Art," American Journal of Archae ology, Vol. 61, (1957), p. 63 •. 119

Although ivory carving is a luxury craft on a minor scale with less need to be politically didactic, one has the feeling nevertheless that one is in the presence of the efficacious or the meaningful in the Syrian representation.5 Following Barnett's line of reasoning that ivories of the first millennium may be separated into distinct schools, ·much of Winter's study is concerned with attempting • • • to distinguish the group designated as North Syrian from the group generally regarded as Phoenician in the corpus of knowp ivory carving of the early first millennium B.C.b The efficaciousness or purposeful nature of North . Syrian ivories, according to Winter, is a major deter minative factor in assigning ivories to the North Syrian ' school. While this may appear at first glance to be in . opposition with the opinion expressed in this present . study, in that the very characteristics ascribed above :have been applied, in the course of this thesis, to distin guish Anatolian from Syrian traits, further reflection implies a different viewpoint. In order to bring the points of view in line it is necessary to envisage the historical and geographical perspectives with which we are now faced.

, 5winter, op. cit., p. 282. Irene Winter's doctoral 'dissertation "North Syria in the Early First Millennium B.C., with special reference to Ivory Carving," is concern ed with the cultural and historical backgrounds as well as the sources of distribution of North Syrian ivories. 6Ibid., p. 257. 120

The existence of a Syrian artistic tradition from early times is undeniable but, as Barnett points out, its center or centers in the late third or early second millennium B.C. are obscure. Syria, as we have noted, appears to have served as an intermediary in the transference of motifs and ideas between larger cultural areas rather than to have established its own artistic basis. During the height of Hittite power, ca. 1360 B.C., almost all of 'Syria was incorporated as vassal states into the Hittite Empire. 7 The state of Carchemish, on the dividing line between the mountains and the great North Syrian plain, remained free from domination only to succumb eight years later. By 1352 B.C., therefore, all of North Syria was :under Hittite control, a control that was to last until the collapse of the Empire around 1200 B.C. Although important Hurrian and Hycenaean/Minoan elements were incorporated into the art of Syria, it was .inevitable that Syrian art of the period under Hittite domination would be effected by Hittite influence. Ivories,, seals, and other objects recovered from such sites as Tell Atchana, Ras Shamra and Carchemish attest to the marriage 'of Hittite and Syrian cultural traditions in the second millennium B.C. It follows that these Hittite elements in Syrian art would be carried through to later periods.

7Ibid., p. 83. 121

It is proposed therefore, in light of our study on the re lationship of Anatolian ivories to Hittite art, that the term purposeful or meaningful as applied to ivories of the North Syrian school of the early part of the first millennium is applicable, to a large extent, as a result of Anatolian/Hittite influence from the second millennium. 8 The new culture that was formed in Northern Syria and parts of Anatolia in the first quarter of the first millennium depended on antecedents of the Syro-Hittite, Luvian civilization of the second millennium B.c.9 New contributions however, were added in the form of Aramaeans, Assyrians, Phoenicians and others. The primary ingredient in this cultural milieu was nevertheless provided by the "Hittite heritage from earlier times. 1110 A common link between the numerous states that made up the nucleus of the Neo-Hittite culture was the "continued use of the language, institutions, hieroglyphics and art forms of the older Hittite Empire. 1111 The cement needed to strengthen

8It is pointed out by Winter that Barnett based • his distinction of the North Syrian style of ivories, in • part, on the Hurrian and Hittite elements left over as a ·heritage from the second millennium, Winter, op. cit.,p.260. , 9Ekrem ·Akurgal, The Art of Greece, Its Origins in • the Mediterranean and Near East, (New York: Crown Publishers, :Inc., 1966), p. 67. 10winter, op. cit., p. 152. 11R.D. Barnett, "Early Greek and Oriental Ivories," Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. LXVII, (1948), p. 8. 122

this bond may have been provided by the minor arts such as ivory carving, for it is in these works that many of the earlier traditions are preserved. Considering the hybrid nature of the art produced in this area of the Near East at this period of its history, as Winter points out, it is not easy to isolate specific instances of Hittite Empire tradition in the North Syrian ivories. Nevertheless, one feels that the significance of the role of the minor arts under the Hittites justifies further investigation of some of the traits that may be . reflected in ivories of the early part of the Neo-Hittite period. In this way it will be shown that through the ·medium of ivory carving the Hittites left more than a trace after their demise in the second millennium. As it is beyond the scope of this study to explore · all the numerous channels opened up by the exposure to Anatolian traditions in ivory carving, our direction will be narrowed to a consideration of motifs and stylistic : elements that have proved most significant in the pre- . ceding discussion. Several of these motifs appear to lend themselves for further investigation along the line of : enquiry proposed. I It is almost impossible to discuss the Near Eastern ivories, and particularly the ivories attributed to the North Syrian school, without reference to stone sculpture, as these minor works have long provided scholars with 123

stylistic references and a means of comparison for dating

the sculptural reliefs~ In many instances the ivories have

been considered superior, both technically and stylisti~ . 12 cally, to the works in stone. This in itself calls to mind the tradition carried over from the second millennium where, if our conjectures are right, Anatolian ivories also provided "blueprints" for the stone carvings of the Hittites. In the following discussion of specific motifs, attention will again be given to the appearance of the same or similar elements in both mediums and dimensions - small-scale carvings in ivory and large-scale works in stone. In summarizing the characteristics that distinguish the North Syrian ivories from their counterparts of the Phoenician school, .Winter makes two observations which ·are particularly relevant to our study. First there are the noticeable close ties that exist between the North Syrian ivories and the schools of ivory carvings of the second millennium, particularly the school that produced

12 Helene J. Kantor, 11 Syro-Palestinian Ivories," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XV, #3, (July, 1956), : pp. 172-74. The same style characterizing.the sculpture at ; Tell Halaf recurs on ivories. Helene Kantor has ably dem- : onstrated that the ivories preceded the development of the ·stone sculpture. See also David Ussishkin, "On the Date 'of a group of Ivories from Nimrud, 11 Bulletin of the 'American Schools of Oriental Research, #203, (October, 197U, pp. 22-27., who argues convincingly that the ivories in fluenced the reliefs at Sak9~gozu instead of vice versa. 124

the ivories from Tell Fakhariyah. Secondly, Winter stresses the sense of purpose or objectivity displayed in the works themselves. This last factor is achieved, according to Winter: • in the disregard for a notion of empty space and a canon of proportions as in the more elegant Phoenician works, in favor of a sense of the power of the image, ready to burst the boundaries of the space that contains it.l3 Noting that this same substantive quality is ·present in the stone sculptures of the main Neo-Hittite sites, particularly in the gateway lions, Winter reminds us that this forcefulness is a holdover from earlier times when gate figures produced by the Hittites were always in tended to be impressive. It is pointed out by Akurgal, and pertinent to note . at this point, that lions and griffin-demons are two motifs which retained their traditional forms perhaps longer than , any other symbols in the repertoire of Neo-Hittite art. 14 This is an indication that the meaning associated with the ,motifs still held strong appeal to the populations of the 'Neo-Hittite states. We may add to this the fact that evidence has now been provided to show that gate lions of • the early part of the first millennium were accorded ritual

l3winter, op. cit., p. 282. l4Akurgal, op. cit., pp. 60-2.

------~ 125

------burials, thus stressing the significance of this popular symbol. 15 From the foregoing one may conclude that the symbolism expressed in much of the pictorial art of this period, and the conceptual approach taken by the artisans, was a result of the retention of earlier ideas - ideas . or traditions that are owed in part to the Hittites. The retention of the traditional forms of lions and griffin demons in the art of the early first millennium provides us with a framework and a source of reference on which to . base a discussion of the continuation of Anatolian tradi- tiona. Many of the subjects forming the decoration of the orthostats at the major sites of North Syria and parts of Anatolia were provided by such portable objects as bronzes

and ivory inla~. Frankfort has cited the griffin-demon as :an example of a motif that found its way via the minor arts to the decoration of the stone reliefs in the Neo Hittite period. 16 (Plate 38). Representations of griffin-

demons came in a variety of forms and were corr~onplace symbols in North Mesopotamian art from the Middle Assyrian

l5David Ussishkin, "The Syro-Hittite Ritual Burial of Monumentst" Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. #2, (April, 1970;, pp. 124-8. 16Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the _Ancient Orient, (London: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 297. 126

Above and below left: Pedestal Ba s e - Carchemis h Below right : I vory from Jl.l Hina

Flate: 38 127

period (1300- 1000 B.C.). Although variations in the forms of these creatures are evident, a shared stylistic feature

of these composite creatures 11 is the side locks which end in spirals hanging at the back of the neck."l7 In the early part of the first millennium, the ~ · side lock feature of the griffin-demons takes on a distinc-

tive form. The form is characterized by an 11 S11 shaped tendril culminating in a curl on the top of the head. (Plate 39). So common is the appearance of this trait in the various representations of griffin-demons in the art of the Neo-Hittite period that the tendrils have become a . stylistic determinative. 18 For our purpose, this feature may provide us with a link not only to Hittite traditions ·but also with a possible connection to the early Pratt ivories. It is appropriate that we left our discussion of the second millennium ivories with the finds from Tell Fakhariyah. Special attention was given to the strong ties that exist, both stylistically and symbolically, be tween the ivories (fragments of griffin-demons and winged ·disk) and Hittite imperial art. As Kantor observed "the

l7The earliest form of these side locks :appear on a Mesopotamian dragon ca. late 3rd millennium B.C., T.A. Madhloom, The Chronoloyv of Neo-Assyrian Art~ (London: University Press, 1970 , p. 106. ..

l8Akurgal, op. cit., p. 62 and p. 105. 128

Fig. (a)

_ Fig. (b)

Fig. (c) Fig. (d) - . Fig. (a) Winged griffin-demon on a relief, Ankara Fig. (b) Winged griffin-demon, Sak~~gozu Fig. (c) Ivory griffin from Altintepe Fig. (d) Ivory griffin from Toprak Kale Plate: 39 129

costume and the bodies of the Fakhariyah demons were borr~wed from Hittite prototypes. 111 9 Winter, in the process of determining North Syrian characteristics in the first millennium ivories, noted the common vocabulary that appears between the winged Fakhariyah demons, representa tions of this creature on the sculptural reliefs at Neo- . Hittite sites, and certain ivories of the Nimrud collection' I from Fort Shalmaneser. 20 (Plate 40). We pointed out however that it is the atlantid form of this demon that can be attributed to Hittite derivation. The popular use of this motif in Hittite art . and the significance of the symbol has been well documented by Kantor and discussed in the preceding chapter. At' both · Carchemish and Zinjirli, the atlantid form of the demon is retained. (Plate 41). Thus, like the two-headed sphinx also found on orthostats at these sites, these forms, to

quote Akurgal, 11 hark back to the day.$ of the empire.n21 A study on the development of the various forms of griffins and griffin-demons has been undertaken by Bernard

l9Helene J. Kantor, Soundings from Tell Fakhariyah, 1ed. C.W. McEwan~ al., Oriental Institute Publications, (Chicago: University Press, 1958), p. 62.

20Particularly on the reliefs at Carchemish, Tell Halaf and Sak9egozu, Winter, op. cit., p. 280. 21Akurgal, op. cit., p. 96. 130

Ivory Bed Panels 1 Nimrud

Plate: 40 131

Fig. (a) Orthostats from Zinjirli

Fig. (b) Orthostats from Carchemish

Plate: 41 132

Goldman. Two types of demons that came under Goldman's scrutiny are the eagle-headed and the lion-headed species. In Goldman's opinion, these two forms eventually became crossed during the first part of the first millennium evolving into the open-beaked screaming griffins. It was this latter form that became the prototype for the protomes of vessels, vessels that found their way to the West during the Orientalizing Period. 22 The precise period in which the crossing of these forms occurred is not clear, but Akurgal has shown that the Aramaeans played a major part in adapting the rounded form of the lion's mouth (a Hittite characteristic trace- able to the early Acemhoyuk ivories), to the open-beak of the eagles' head. The hybrid creatures, however, still

·retain 11 qualities of lions and birds" and as Akurgal notes

11 are pictorial types ultimately based on Mitannian and Syro-Hittite models.n23 Although slight modifications in style occur, the spiral tendril is a consistent feature of this symbolic ,beast. The long side tendril culminating in a curl on the . top of the head is particularly prevalent among represen-

22 Bernard Goldman, 11 The Development of the Lion Griffin," American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 64, #4, ,(October, 1960), pp. 319-328. 23Akurgal, op. cit., p. 97. 133

~~--~------~------~------tations of griffins dated to the early part of the first millennium- The human-bodied type of demon from Carchemish and Zinjirli (Plate 41), as well as the lion-bodied crea ture from a relief at Ankara (Figure (a) Plate 39), reflect this feature. Under Assyrian and Aramaean influence, the plain spiral tendril takes on a corkscrew effect equated with the type of .Aramaean/Assyrian hairstyle of the time. The development of the spiral tendril on griffin- demons is of particular interest in view of our consideration of stylistic links between the ivories of the second millennium and works of the later period. To find early evidence of the appearance of curled locks on eagle-headed demons we may retrace our steps to the second millennium. As Goldman points out, almost the only source of information for early examples of griffins are cylinder seals, which, although they may distort in minor details, present "a reasonable index to the representation of the griffin in ancient art. 1124 VIe may now however turn to the ivories as a supplementary source not only for representations of this creature but also for a pictorial record of the evolu- _tion or adaptation of features associated with the griffin :motif. The Tell Fakhariyah ivories provide us with griffin- demons of the eagle-headed type. Human-bodied, the

24Goldman, op. cit., p. 322. 134

creatures are winged and present the atlantid pose affili ated with Hittite art. (Plate 37). At the side of the head of these creatures are two curls turned towards the face. It is possible that in these renditions of demons we have a link in the evolution of the spiral-curled ten drils that characterize the demons in Neo-Hittite art. The ivory fragments of the small plaques which present this motif, as reconstructed by Helene Kantor, lack a sec tion that would show the top of the head. We cannot dis- . count the possibility therefore that a curl or curls once existed on the top of the heads of these creatures from Tell Fakhariyah. What is significant for our study, beside showing a possible relationship to the portrayal of griffin-demons ·in sculpture and ivories of the later period, is the close ·affinities shown between the curls on the Fakhariyah demons and the curls on the heads of the Pratt ivory sphinxes. Like the griffins, the sphinxes are composite creatures sharing attributes of different species. The early ivories and lions from _4natolia have provided us with evidence of the adoption and modification of forms in the hands of the craftsmen of ivories. Emphasis has been placed on the adaptation of the Hathor hairstyle and the Anatolian pig tail. We also observed that in an ivory of the Hittite Empire period winged lions and sphinxes were provided

.. 135

--~------·------···------··--·------with spiral locks for example the ivory plaque from Boghazkoy (supra, page 92). Among the ivories from Tell Fakhariyah were small plaques displaying female heads wearing the Hathor locks. 25 The presence, in this group of ivories from Fakhariyah of the winged disk, atlantid demons and Hathor locks, indi cates their intimate connection with the iconographic traditions of the ivory carvers of Anatolia. Anatolia therefore may have provided the source of motifs, and ivories the means of execution needed to bring about the evolution of the spiral locks common to Neo Hittite griffin-demons. It should be noted at this point, however, that the development of this spiral tendril was not necessarily a one way street. The use of spiral orna ments or side locks, as Mellink observed, 26 was part of the Aegean repertoire. Crested griffins, which Frankfort denotes as the hallmark of the school of ivory carving of the 14-13th centuries B.C. in the Levantine area, are characterized by spiral curls that edge the top of the wings. 27 (Plate 42).

25Kantor, op. cit., plate 61. 26Machteld J. Mellink, "The Pratt Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art - Kerma - Chronology and the transition from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze, 11 American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 73, #3, (July, 1969), p. 285. 27Frankfort, op. cit., p. 263. 136

c FIG. a.-Ivories from Megiddo {scale 1: 1; drawn from originals)

. ;

Plate: 42

------~ 137

However, studies have shown that the long tendril displayed on the side of the head, common to the human bodied griffins of the early part of the first millennium, may have evolved, not from the crested Aegean form, but rather from the lion-headed demon. 28 The lion-headed demon therefore may be the necessary link to show the re

lationship between our early Acemhoyuk ivories, the Fakhari~ yah eagle-headed demon with side curls, and their counter parts in the Neo-Hittite art wearing the long spiral tendril.

A lion-headed demon appears in the sculptural re~ liefs at Yazilikaya. (Figure (a) Plate 43). Wearing the typical Hittite dress and wide belt, and closely related to the Fakbariyah ivory demons, the creature.is winged and displays the atlantid pose. Noticeable on this demon from Yazilikaya is a double tendril which appears to start at the edge of the mane and end in two curls on the chest. This detail of tendril and mane on this lion-headed creature is providential for it offers support for Goldman's hypo thesis that "the dropped tendril develops from the •s• ·shaped sweep of the ruff of the lion's neck. 1129 The close relationship, in dress and pose, between the lion-headed demon and the eagle-headed ivory representation from

28Goldman, op. cit., pp. 322-4. 29Ibid., p. 324. 138

------~~------· ------· --· ------

Fig. (a) 1azilikaya Demon

. ------. --- - .

Fig. (b) Ivory lion Pratt Collection

Plate: 43

------139

· Fakhariyah as well as the symbolism associated with Hittite representations of demons warrants consideration of Ana- tolia and the Hittites as being the directional and moti- vating forces for the amalgamation of such forms as griffin- demons. A closer look at one of the lions in the Pratt collection offers further support for the above-mentioned hypothesis. (Figure (b) Plate 43). A lion is portrayed with a stag victim in its mouth. Two holes were formed on the top of the plaque, perhaps for affixation to a larger object. The edge of the mane of this ivory lion is marked by an area that graduates around the neck narrowing into ·a slight tendril shape. A comparison of the Yazilikaya demon with the ivory lion and the griffin-demon on the orthostat from Zinjirli (Figure (a) Plate 41) shows how this Neo-Hittite tendril may have evolved. The eagle motif is a necessary feature for the metamorphosis from a lion-headed creature to an eagle- headed form to emerge. Hittite art, in the form of stone sculpture and ivories, offers this symbol among its reper . toire. On the Alaca HoyUk relief we find the double-headed eagle clutching the hare in its talons. (Plate 31). Fea tures common to both the Alaca Hoyuk eagle and the ivory

demons from Fa?~ariyah are the shape of the beaks and the •band or bands around the neck of the creatures. The two symbolic eagle-type demons from Carchemish, which follow 140

the prototype of the Fakhariyah figures, are, as Bittel points out, directly related to the eagle at Alaca Hoyuk and thus to Hittite art of the Empire period.30 It should be noted that the stylization of the wings on the Carche- mish figures are paralleled in the ivory falcon of the Pratt group and the Yerkapi gate sphinxes. Among the numerous pieces of ivory in the Pratt collection, an additional motif is provided in the form of a horned winged griffin which is engraved on a tiny ivory plaque.3l In style and details this creature finds its counterpart on a seal impression from level lb at Kliltepe.32 The repertoire for the various forms of demons, whether they be lion-headed or eagle-headed, animal-bodied or human-bodied, was well entrenched in Anatolia in the second millennium B.C. In light of our study on the adaptation of Hathor locks in the forms of the sphinx figures and the role the ivories played in portraying this adaptation, we are justi fied in considering the modification of forms of demon

30K. Bittel, "The Hittites," Marg. Vol. XXV, #1, (December, 1971), p. 45. 31Prudence Oliver Harper, "Dating a Group of Ivories from Anatolia," Connoisseur, Vol. 172, #693, (Nov ember, 1969), p. 162, figure 13. 32Nimet Ozgug, "Excavations at Acemhoyiik," Anadolu, Vol. 10, (1966), p. 44. i L_ 141

figures as an additional contribution of the ivory carvers

of .~atolia. The combined features of the curls familiar on the ivory sphinxes, the Anatolian pigtail (which is associated with both man and beast), and the mane of the · lion, may well have provided the basic elements for the stylization of the heads of the demons pictorialized in Neo-Hittite art. Irrespective of the stylistic affinities observed between the representations of demons in the second and first millennium B.C., perhaps the firmest hold to Hittite traditions should be seen in the obvious apotropaic sig nificance of the motif. The frequent appearance of griffin- demons in Neo-Hittite art, as Mallowan indicates: "is an · impressive witness to the widespread belief in its potency

throughout western Asia. 11 33 Winter observed, in her study on North Syrian ivories of the first millennium, that motifs of composite creatures such as griffin-demons, sphinxes and chimaera, even when used to decorate such diverse . objects as bed panels, pyxides or horse trappings, were chosen with a "protective" function in mind.34 As we have shown, guardian figures played an im , portant role in the service of Hittite religion. We find

33M.E.L. Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains, Vol. II, '(New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1966), p. 594. 34winter, op. cit., p. 332. 142

------·------··------·-·-- the king in the embrace of the god, the bullmen supporting the winged disk and sphinx and gate figures on guard at the entrance to the cities, all signifying the prophylactic nature of their roles. Atlantid forms of griffin-demons, and therefore the type most closely linked to Hittite traditions, are represented in ivory examples from Urartu. Among the many objects of ivory recovered from Toprak Kale and dated to the eighth century B.C. are two fine ivory plaques display ing the eagle-headed, human-bodied form of genii.35 (Figure (d) Plate 39). These creatures are portrayed with their hands raised in the supportive pose. The heads of these griffins display a pair of long 'S' shaped tresses, the top of which ends in curls over the head similar to the sculptured figures at Carchemish. Kantor has drawn attention to the stylistic relationship that exists between · the ivory griffins from Urartu and the Tell Fakhariyah demons of the second millennium, thus foreseeing a direct link to Hittite traditions.36 The Urartian site of Altintepe has also provided ·examples of ivory griffin-demons. (Figure (c) Plate 39).

35M.N. Van Loon, Urartian Art, Its Distinctive 'Traits in the Light of New Excavations, (Leiden: Nether lands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1966), p. 134. 36Kantor, ~·soundings from Tell Fakhari;zah, p. 65. 143

Almost identical with the Toprak Kale creatures, the Altintepe figures however display the bucket and cone which are associated "with the so-called fertilization ritual11 37 familiar on Assyrian reliefs. Features in common between the Toprak Kale demons and the Carchemish sculptures, besides the atlantid pose and side tresses are the short tunic, which is worn under a! long robe on the Urartian figure, and the 1 V1 shaped neckline. Both of these features stem from the style of dress shovm in Hittite traditional art. The foregoing offers strong support for Winter's observation that the stimulus for the Urartian works may well have come by way of North Syria with its close ties to Hittite traditions.38 Where- as Urartian art reflects distinct stylistic influences from Assyria, the ivories of Urartu, as Van Loon has pointed out, clearly show a Syrian influence. It is not without reason that we add traditions from the Hittites to be included in the influences that are observable in Urartian art. From Urartu comes examples of ivory lions. Both Toprak Kale and Altintepe have produced works displaying this motif. As we pointed out earlier, the Hittite type

37van Loon, op. cit., p. 135. 38winter op. cit., p. 297. 144

of lion, like the griffin-demon, retained its traditional form well into the early centuries of the first millennium. The characteristics of the lion that are retained in Neo- Hittite representations are the gaping mouth, voluted ears and the overlapping tongue - all features that are familiar to us from at least the early Hittite period. Although the traditional form of the Hittite lion in stone carvings is featured at several Neo-Hittite sites, Carchemish provides us with the best example and can be . seen on the pedestal base (Plate 38). A tiny ivory lion was recovered from the North Syrian coastal city of Al Mina. Carved in the round the details on this miniature head, as Akurgal points out, are exactly in keeping with the style of the second millennium.39 (Plate 38). The examples of ivory lions from Altintepe offer some interesting parallels to works of the early second millennium B.C. Most significant is the watchful pose of the lion seated on its haunches. (Figure (b) Plate 44). The mane and ruff that surrounds the head of this beast, under the hands of Urartian craftsmen or craftsmen working :under' Uratian directions, is indicated by a series of cross-hatchings thus differing from the usual Hittite representation of the mane as wavy tufts. The wavy tufts

/ 'however, are displayed in a stylized form on the couchant

39Akurgal, op. cit., p. 181, figure 77. 145

Fig . (a)

F ig~ ( b )

Ivory Lions from Altintepe Plate: 44 146

------. lion. (Figure (a) Plate 44). More significant as a pos sible link to Hittite tradition is the stance of the lion shown in Figure (b). The stiff block-like treatment of the legs in opposition to the life-like turn of the head reminds one of the similar treatment in the sphinxes and lions in the Pratt collection. Unlike lions used to decorate Urartian bronze shields, which are usually represent ed in a docile, almost playful attitude, the ivory lions such as the two discussed above, display the watchful pose and ferocity necessary for the role they were intended to portray. Found in the gallery of a temple next to the entrance, the upright seated lion with its head Qn face is an imposing creature which belies its diminutive size.4° One of the most important symbols to retain its · potency in the first millennium is the winged disk. The observation has been made that the frequent appearance of the winged disk motif in ivories and sculpture in the Neo-Hittite period can be viewed as a distinct contribution of the Hittites.41 This familiar symbol is represented in reliefs at such sites as Malatya and Carchemish where

i :it retains its traditional form. The winged disks' association with divinity is exemplified by its appearance

4°Tahsin Ozguc;, 11 Urartu and Al tintepe," Archaeolog;y i . Vol. 22, #4, (October, 1969), pp. 256-63. (H.lOcm. W.4.5cm. i. 41winter, op. cit., p. 301. 147

------over the head of the goddess Kubaba on steles at Birecik and Malatya. (Plate 45). A stylistic feature of the winged disk which re flects the ties to Hittite traditional art is the circle around the disk that ends in volutes. The curled forms of the volutes are typical of the Hittite Empire style which we have seen on such forms as the curving ends of the kings• staff or the curving toes of the shoes worn by gods and kings. In most ivory examples of the winged disk of the Neo-Hittite period the style of the volutes is retained. Examples from the Nimrud collection show this curled volute, -(Plate 46), and, as Winter notes, the volutes are the direct descendents of the Hittite winged sun disk used as _the royal symbol of King Tudhaliya (1250-1220 B.C.) • . (Plate 47). One of the most interesting finds of ivories in recent years has come from Gordian in Anatolia. Discovered by Rodney S. Young in 1961, these works have been dated to 'the eighth century or the pre-Kimmerian period.42 Consis- ting of numerous fragments, the ivories constitute front : lets and cheekpieces that were designed as decoration of horses' harness or trappings. According to scholars, the

. 42Rodney S. Young, "The 1961 Campaign at Gordion " : American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 66, #2, (April, 19~2), pp. 153-68, plate 46. te li. m t

151

ivories are unrelated t.o the local Phrygian style which has led to the opinion that the pieces must have been imported into Gordion. Nevertheless these ivories display certain features that link them to earlier Anatolian traditions. Their relationship to similar forms of horse trappings found among the Nimrud ivories and affiliated with the North Syrian ivories has been noted by Professor Mallowan, who suggests that the Gordion works may have been imported from South East Asia Minor or North Syria.43 For our study the motifs displayed on these ivory fragments are of exceptional interest. The frontlets, which appear to be identical, display a winged goddess

with arms extended holding up sphinxes by their hind legs . . Above the goddess, across the top of the plaque is dis- . played a Hittite winged disk, (Figure (b) Plate 48). The • disk is recognized as Hittite and described by the finder of the ivories as ••• divided into eight quadrants by four straight and four bent spokes, winged at either side, and de corated above and below by voluted floral ornaments.44 Thus we find represented on these fragments of ivories a ·variant of the Hittite trademark of the second millennium, ·or the symbol associated with the signe royale.45

43Mallowan, op. cit., p. 476. 44young, op. cit., p. 166. 45The symbol is also shown on monuments in stone e.g. on a stele from Carchemish, Winter, op. cit., p. 303. 152

------

Fig. (a)

Fig. (b) Drawings of ivory fragments from Gordion Fig. (a) Ivory horse's cheekpiece Fig. (b) Winged Disk from horse's frontlet Plate: 48 153

The motifs on the cheekpieces are of equal significance as they portray symbols that are directly linked to the Anatolian/Hittite repertoire. On the cheekpiece (Figure (a) Plate 48) can be seen a chimaera=like creature

which represents 11 a winged lion in profile walking left; from his shoulder blades grows, as it were, a female human head, facing."46 We have met this double-headed creature on the gold signet ring and the Megiddo plaque (supra, pp. 80-2), both of which date to the Hittite Empire period. Whereas the female head of this composite creature on the . cheekpiece is facing to the front, thus differing from the ·other examples referred to, the frontally facing sphinx is a motif found on the Megiddo plaque, all of which suggest a Hittite derivation for the symbolism of the Gordion works. Notable too is the tail of the creature on the ivory cheekpiece which terminates in a bird's head. This feature is also met on orthostats at Neo-Hittite sites - such as Carchemish and Zinjirli. (Plate 41). We may recall however, that from the Colony period a similar motif

46Rodney S. Young, "A Bronze Bowl in Philadelphia 11 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, #3, (July, 1967~, p. 149. A comparison of the motifs on the ivory trappings ·with the symbols on a bronze bowl in the University of Pennsylvania Museum is discussed in the above-mentioned .article, pp. 145-54. 154

appeared on a seal in the form of a sphinx bearing the bird-head on the end of its tail, (supra, page 80). From such fragments as the ivories from Gordion that show representations of forms or motifs so well en trenched and significant in Hittite art, a firm claim can . be made that the branch of ivory carving, whose roots sprouted in Anatolia at the beginning of the second millen nium B.C., was strong and active well into the first millen nium. The potential for further study on the last men tioned finds is extensive for like the discoveries from AcemhoyUk that started us on this route, the implications from such encounters are wide and far reaching. They are beyond the scope of this study. Our investigation of some ·archaeological finds has shown that despite the complexity ·of ancient Near Eastern art, certain features of a culture · portrayed through symbols, whether through the medium of ivory or stone, were powerful enough to hold their potency over a millennium. At the same time the symbols reveal the individuality of the culture whose ideas they express. Chapter 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Carved ivories have provided the medium and archaeology the chronological evidence for the approach taken in this study on aspects of the formation and sig nificance of Hittite art. Our knowledge of the art from the Anatolian area of the early second millennium B.C. is far from complete. From the new historical perspectives presented during the unfolding of this thesis however, several points have been projected that shed some light on the role the minor arts played in the emergence of a distinctly national artistic style. Of major importance to our study was the finding of ivories in Acemhoyllk, Anatolia. Their stylistic and chronological links to the well-known ivories in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, provided a clear affirma tion of the existence and development of an early branch : of ivory carving in the Anatolian area, specifically during :the Colony period (19th-18th centuries B.C.). One of the main points that evolved from this study was the revelation of the length and strength of Hittite ·traditions. The minor arts, in the form of ivories played

155 156

a major role in revealing characteristics that mark the art style of the Hittites. The confirmation of an Anatolian branch of ivory carving operative in the early part of the second millen nium, one that was distinct from the main ivory production centers in the coastal areas of Syria and Palestine, placed. new perspectives on the development of Hittite art. For the ivories from this area of the ancient Near East showed distinct relationships to the art of the Hittite Empire period (1400-1200 B.C.). Although seals, seal impressions and other objects confirm that Hittite traditions extended to the Colony period, ivories have the advantage over the glyptic by possessing qualities of plasticity and malleability. These two qualities of the medium of ivory were contributory factors in relating miniature works in this medium to the monumental stone carvings of the Hittites. The plastic quality observable in the earliest ivories from Anatolia, particularly in such forms as bull-men, sphinx and lion figures found in the Pratt collection, is a characteristic . shared by the sculptures of the Hittites and shows up in ·impressive monumental gate figures of the Empire period. This feature of plasticity associated with the large-scale sculpture of the Hittites is distinctive and one that has no apparent precedent in the art of the ancient Near East. The close relationship shown between the ivories. 157

and the sculptures in this respect, and the degree of de- . velopment of the early ivories gave rise to the premise that, in Anatolia, ivory carving may have preceded the creation of stone carving. The malleable quality, a characteristic of the . working in ivory, provided another means of detecting distinctive traits and important innovations. For in the carving of this media, the artisans displayed the means by which modifications and adaptations of forms arose. In this way new forms came into being that held meaning for and were identifiable with the culture from whom the inspiration for creating new forms was first transmitted. One of the more important points of interest to emerge from this study was involved with the question of

·Syria and Anatolia 1 s roles• in adopting, modifying and transmitting motifs common to both cultures. It was sug gested that Anatolian craftsmen, working in ivory, may well have been the first to adapt the male sphinx form associated with Egypt, to the Near Eastern version of the feminine form of this famous symbol. Evidence to support , this theory came from the study of the variations of the 'hairstyles shown in some of the Pratt ivory figures as well as related modifications of forms in works in stone. Other evidence came from the Anatolian convention of portraying sphinxes of different species. These points, together with the observable direct ' influence from Egypt 158

on the pictorial art of the Hittites, offered strong sup port for the above-mentioned hypothesis. It became evident, during the process of this study that a close ·rapport existed between miniature works in ivory and monumental stone carvings. It also became clear that this rapport extended to a similarity of technique and stylistic traits, which, in spite of the difference in the size and significance of the works of art, brought the two mediums close together and in tune with the total concept of Hittite art. An important aspect in considering the individual nature of Hittite art, together with the role the minor arts played in portraying this individuality, was the choice of the motifs displayed in the works. For the motifs were pictorial expressions of the ideas of the culture and made for the unique repertoire associated with Hittite art. For this reason, considerable attention was given to the constitution of Hittite art. It was deemed necessary to present a background of the nature of this art of the Hittites and to point out the purpose for which the art was produced. Hittite art was based on a complex ideology, :an ideology that incorporated earlier traditions and assimi . lated fresh ideas from neighboring cultures. But the in- • centives which determined much of the content of Hittite

art was provided by the need for asserting their own identi~ ty, an identity worthy of a great nation. 159

------· One of the great empires of the ancient world was formed by these Indo-European inhabitants of Anatolia, but in so doing the Hittites met competition from rival powers. Egypt in particular, was a power the Hittites faced and one which influenced the choice of motifs or symbols used

in their art. But although borrowings of symbols occur~ed, the Hittites imbued these borrowings with an identity of their own. The hieroglyphic language of the Hittites, seals, minor works as well as monumental carvings were brought into play to form a standardized vocabulary through . which their ideas were communicated. This total make-up of Hittite art, and the dual role, political and religious, that the art served, re- sulted in set canons which were reproduced in all forms and media of the arts of this culture. Tiny works in ivory were in many instances only replicas in miniature of motifs carried out in a larger scale. The Megiddo plaque is a perfect example of the extent this form of conventionalization had taken. Symbols • appearing in this tiny work were duplicated on rock carvings at religious sites. \¥hereas the small ivory plaque was 1 ·probably created to decorate a simple box, the symbolism displayed in the work must have held the same potency for the original owner as the great religious rock sanctuaries which carried a duplicate representation of forms. 160

The close relationship observed between the motifs displayed in the minor arts and the sculptural gate figures and reliefs gave rise to the opinion that miniature works such as ivories and seals provided the prototypes for much of the iconography executed on a monumental scale. This opinion had been expressed by several scholars prior to the re-dating of the Pratt ivories. By reason of the new chronological evidence provided by the ivories, and from the close stylistic and technical links that were observed to exist between the works in stone and ivory, the possibi lity that the minor arts served as models, for at least individual motifs used in the Hittites' stone sculptures, becomes almost a certainty. Together with the motifs which were identifiable with the Hittite culture, these inhabitants of Anatolia developed a stylistic characteristic which provided an additional mark or stamp of their style. The character istic showed up in the curving ends of forms. A peculi arity which is distinctively Hittite, these curved forms appear in such features as the dress and attributes of the deities and kings. The symbol of the winged disk is easily recognizable as Hittite by the curved ends of the wings and the volutes under the disk. From the complex but individual art style of the Hittites a national status was attained - a status that survived outside the geographical boundaries of their 161

homeland and beyond the time limits of their existence. Our study has shown that the traditions of the Hittites, which are reflected in ivories and stone monuments alike, appear to have been retained well into the early part of the first millennium B.C. Much of this was due to the concepts associated with the motifs which were powerful enough to hold meaning for the cultures that evolved in the area previously occupied by the Hittites. It is the potency of the symbols that enables us to make claim, with some justification, that Anatolian traits are discernable among the general corpus of known ivory carvings of the first millennium. Monuments in stone and carvings in ivory display motifs that are reminders of the power and potency of symbols that were held in the highest regard by the Hittites. Although many of the works in ivory that display such symbols as the traditional forms of lions, griffin demons and the winged disk are associated with the North Syrian school of ivory carving (understandable in light of the close ties, culturally and geographically between North Syria and Anatolia), the concept associated witn the : motifs, as we have shown, derived from the distinctive ' purposeful nature of Hittite art. Viewed in this light, it may be possible in the future to distinguish a clear

Anatolian branch of ivory carving, one that although re~ 162

lated to the other schools operative during the Neo-Hittite period, nevertheless retained its identity from the Hit tites. Evidence was presented in this study to show that distinct links existed between the adaptation of forms or features such as in the composite creatures of griffin- demons to the Hittite repertoire and the modification of forms in the earliest ivories from the Colony period. Symbols and motifs bearing distinct Hittite characteristics were shown to exist on fragments of ivories recovered from areas including Gordion in Anatolia. From the foregoing it became clear that the roots of the Anatolian school of ivory carving which sprouted in the early part of the se cond millennium B.C., and the Hittite traditions reflected in these works, extended over a millennium. With some certainty we may conclude that the minor craft of ivory carving in Anatolia was of monumental importance in portraying Hittite traditions. Fragments of ivories such as those displaying composite creatures recovered from Tell Fakhariyah and Gordion serve as symbols of the complex interplay of the cultures of the ancient ; Near East, while at the same time these tiny works are , reminders of a nation, the extent of whose influence is · yet to be determined.

I ' ~'------BIBLIOGRAPHY

L______

163 164

·------

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books

Akurgal, Ekrem. The Art of Greece: Its Ori~ins in the Mediterranean and Near East. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1966. • The Art of the Hittites. New York: Harry N. --~-Abrams, Inc., 1962. Alkim, U. Bahadir. Anatolia I, From the Beginning to the End of the Second Millennium B.C., trans. by James Hogarth. Ancient Civilization Series, London: 1969. , Barnett, R.D. "Fine Ivory Work." A History of Technology, ed. C. Singer., and others. Oxford: University Press, 1967, Vol. I. The Nimrud Ivories with other examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1957. Bittel, Kurt. Hattusha: CaPital of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. ·Bossert, Helmuth Th. Altanatolien. Berlin: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth, G-.J1:B~H., 1942. ·Buchanan, Briggs (ed.). Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. de Mertzenfeld, Christiane Decamps. Inventaire commente des Ivoires Pheniciens et apparentes decouverts dans le Proche-Orient. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1954. Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967. ! Frankfort, Henri. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient ; Orient. London: Penguin Books, 1970. Cylinder Seals. London: The Gregg Press Limited, 1965. 165

. Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University Press, 1965. • Gurney, R. The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964. Kantor, Helene J. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C. Bloomington: The Archaeological Institute of America, 1947. ----· "The Chronology of Egypt and its Correlations with that of Other Parts of the Near East in the Periods before the Last Bronze Age." Relative Chronologies of Old World Archaeology, ed. R.W. Ehrich, Chicago: University Press, 1954.

----~· Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah, ed. C.W. McEwan., and others, Oriental Institute Publications, Chicago: University Press, 1958 • . Lloyd, Seton. Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia. London: · Thames & Hudson Ltd., 1967. Loud, Gordon. The Megiddo Ivories. Chicago: University Press, 1939. Madhloom, T.A. The Chronology of Neo-Assyrian Art. London: University Press, 1970 • • Mallowan:; M.E.L. N-i mrud and its Remains. 2 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1966. Moscati, S. The Face of the Anc-ient Orient. Chicago: • Quandrangle Books, 1960. :Parrot, Andre. Sumer, The Dawn of Art. New York: The Golden Press, 1961. , Petrie, F. Objects of Daily Use. London: British School of Archaeology, 1927. [ :Poulson, F. Der Orient und das fruhgriechishe Bildkunst. · Leipzig: 1912.

; Schaeffer, Claude F. A. '~Les Fouilles de Ras-Shamra-Ugari t. ", · Les Annales Archeologigues de Syrie, III, 1953. Smith, Sidney. The Statue of Idrimi. London: British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, .. 1949. 166

Smith, W. Stevenson. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Inc., 1958. Interconnections in the Ancient Near East. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965 • . Van Loon, M.N. Urartian Art, Its Distinctive Traits in the Light of New Excavations. Leiden: Netherlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1966. • Vierya, M. Hittite Art. London: Alec Tiranti, Ltd., ' 1955. · Winter, Irene J. "North Syria in the Early First Millen nium B.C., with special reference to Ivory Carving." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Columbia, 1973. Woolley, Leonard. The Art of the Middle East. New York: • Crown Publishing Co., 1961. Yadin, Yigael. "Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Razor." Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. James A. Sanders. ·New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1970.

· 2. Journals and Periodicals Barnett, R.D. "Early Greek and Oriental Ivories," Journal of Hellenic Studies. LXVIII, (1948), 1-25~ --=-.,.._..· "Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving," Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1939, pp. 4-19. Bittel, Kurt. "The Hittites," Marg, XXV, No. l. (December 1971), 12-16 Brown, W.L. Review of R.D. Barnett, The Nimrud Ivories with other examyles of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories (British Museum • Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1958, pp. 65-69. Canby, Jeanny Vorys. "The Walters Gallery Cappadocian Tablet and the Sphinx in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C.," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 34, No. 4 (October 1975), 225-248. 167

·------'Dimand, M. S. "A Gift of Syrian Ivories," Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, XXXI (November 1936), 221-3. Goldman, Bernard. "The Development of the Lion-Griffin," American Journal of Archaeology, 64, No. 4 (October 1960), 319-28. :Guterbock, H. G. "Carchemish," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XIII (1954), 102-14. "Ivory in Hittite Texts," Anadolu, XV (1971), 1-7.

--~~· nNarration in Anatolian, Syrian and Assyrian Art," American Journal of Archaeology, 61 (1957), 62-71 . . Harper, Prudence, Oliver. "Dating a Group of Ivories from Anatolia," Connoisseur, 172, No. 693 (November 1969),_ 156-62.

Kantor, Helene J. "Ivory Carving in the Mycenaean Period, 11 Archaeology, 13, No. 1 (March 1960), 14-25. --=--· "A 'Syro-Hittite' Treasure in the Oriental Institute Museum," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XVI, No. 3 (July 1957), 145-62 . • "Syro-Palestinian Ivories," Journal of Near --~E-a-s~tern Studies, XV, No. 3 (July 1956), 153-74. Mellink, Machteld J. "Observations on the Sculptures of · Alaca Huyi.ik," Anatolia, XIV, (1972), 15-27.

--~~· "The Pratt Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art - Kerma - Chronology and the Transition from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze," American Journal of Archaeology, 73, No. 3 (July 1969), 285-7 . . Ozgu9, Nimet. "Assyrian Trade Colonies in Anatolia,H Archaeology, November 1969, pp. 250-55. . ---=-=--=· "Excavations at Acemhoyuk," Anadolu, 10 (1966), 29-52. --=--· "New Light on the Dating of the Levels of the Karum of Kanish and of Acemhoyuk near Aksaray," American Journal of Archaeology, 72, No. 4 (1968), 319-20. 168

,. ,, Ozgug, Tahsin. "The Art and Architecture of Ancient Kanish," Anatolia, 8 (1964), 27-48. ____ • "The Bitik Vase," Anatolia, 2 (1957), 57-78.

--~-.,..· "Urartu and Altintepe, 11 Archaeology, 22 (October 1969), 256-63. Perrot, J. "Excavations at Tell Abu Matar," Israel Exploration Journal, 5, No. 3 (1955), 184-7. Pope, Maurice. "The Origins of Writing in the Near East," ~~tiauity, XL, No. 157 (March 1966), 19-22.

· Schaeffer,, Claude F.~. "Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit Quinzieme, Seizieme et Dix-Septieme Campagnes (1951, 1952 et 1953)," Syria. XXXI, (1954), 37-65. Ussishkin, David."On the Date of a group of Ivories from Nimrud," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 203 (October 1971), 22-27.

---:::---· "The Syro-Hittite Ritual Burial of Monuments 11 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, No. 2 (April 1970~ 124-8.

• Wainwright, G. A. "The Cappadocian Symbol, 11 Anatolian Studies, VI (1956), 137-43. . Woolley, Sir Leonard. "Excavations at Atchana-.Alalakh," ' Antiquities Journal, XIX, No. 1 (January 1939), 1-37.

Young, Rodney S. "A Bronze Bowl in Philadelphia 11 · Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 26, No. 3 ~July 1967), 145-54.

--~-· "The 1961 Campaign at Gordion," American Journal of Archaeology, 66, No. 2 (April 1962), 153-68. APPENDIXES

169 ,---·-·--··------·· I -, WI\STF.RN ANATOUA (:I·:NTRAI. AND EASTI!RN ANATOI.JA UPPER MI!SOPOTAMIA EGYPT

35"'' Hadlar 3500 I I u u :s:.::1 0 Earlier NegAde :.::1:s u Civilization 3000 I u0 OJ 9000 OJ tJ 0 Jemdet-Nur-Period Archaic Period ut-2nd Dynuty g, Mesilim-Period 2!j00 I Troy I ~.., Ur 1-Pcriod !1500 N Old Kingdom ------·-· t:: 0 3rd--6th Dynasty Trnyll CCI'"' Dynasty of Akkad I >· -a Royal Graves of 1-4 Ala ca Hi.lyilk, Horoztcpe 2000 3rd Dynasty of Ur !1000 Troy Tll--V Middle Kingdom I!JOO Oltl Assyrian Empire 1 1-12th Dynasty rgoo Ulol 1!Joo Assyri~n Trade Scttl«~mcnts. r8oo l'irst appl':a~ !nee uf the Hittites Mari-l'criod 1700 Hyksos Period 1700 l(inn Troy VI llittitc lid Kingdom 1600 1500 ----·--·- - Mitanni-Kingdom 1500 1400 New Kingdom 1400 Grcall illite Empire 13"" 17th-2oth Dynasty 1300 ___ Tr'~Y..Y~-- J D edinc l~u

------·--~------The Ancient Near East. Comparative Table

f--J --..J 0 171

·-- -•

..; . ·-a"

. ·~ .

. . -.

.. ;· Chart and Map Source Page The Ancient Near East. Comparative Table: Ekrem Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1962, p. 144 ••••••••••••••••••••• 170 Main Ancient Hittite Sites: . M. Vierya, Hittite Art, London, Alec Titanti, Ltd., 1955, frontispiece •••••••••••••••••. 171

172