Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:55:15.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Dating of some Groups of Reliefs from Carchemish and Til Barsib1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

David Ussishkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A large number of Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions and Neo-Hittite reliefs were uncovered in Carchemish by the British Museum expeditions. The profusion of Hittite hieroglyphic texts enabled Woolley and Barnett to attribute many of the monuments to different kings and to establish a reliable chronological list of the kings of Carchemish. Sangara, who reigned in Carchemish during the middle of the ninth century, is known from the Assyrian annals only and is not mentioned in even one of the hieroglyphic inscriptions found in Carchemish or elsewhere. Therefore, none of the buildings and monuments unearthed there could be attributed to him and he is not considered to have played a significant role in the history of this Neo-Hittite state. The main purpose of this article is to try to prove that Sangara was an important and prosperous king, victorious in battle and a great builder, to whom a large part of the reliefs found in Carchemish must be assigned.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 17 , December 1967 , pp. 181 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Professors B. Mazar and Y. Yadin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Dr. R. D. Barnett of the British Museum for reading the manuscript of this article and offering their valuable advice.

References

2 Woolley, L. and Barnett, R. D.: Carchemish, Part III, London 1952, pp. 238–249, 259–268 Google Scholar.

3 Luckenbill, D. D.: Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Chicago 1926, vol. 1, § 476 Google Scholar.

4 ibid., vol. 1, § 480.

5 ibid. § 599–600, 633.

6 ibid. vol. 1, § 601.

7 ibid. vol. 1, § 610.

8 ibid. vol. 1, § 567, 651, 667.

9 Barnett, , in Carchemish, Part III, p. 263 Google Scholar and n. 4 there, mistook an inscription of Shalmaneser for one of Ashurnasirpal, and thus in error dated the beginning of Sangara's reign to 874 B.C.

10 Luckenbill: vol. 1, § 476.

11 ibid., vol. 1, § 601.

12 King, L. W.: Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria B.C. 860–825, London 1915, pls. XXXI–XXXVGoogle Scholar.

13 In this article we use the numbering system of the monuments which was used in the excavations report. On this group see Carchemish, Part I, pls. B1–B3, Part III, pp. 194, 196, pls. 42b, 43a, B53a.

14 On this group see Carchemish, Part III, p. 166, pls. 29, 37b, B41–B46.

15 The reliefs in this group, contrary to the reliefs of “The Soldiers' Procession”, are not of a uniform height. B41a is 1·70 m. high; B41b is 1·63 m. high; B42a is 1·75 m. high; B42b is 1·60 m. high; B43a is broken and the upper part missing; B43b is 1·51 m. high; the height of B44a is unknown; B44b is 1·63 m. high; B45a is 1·55 m. high; B46 is 1·69 m. high.

16 Except the fragments of B45b which “were found in the foundations of the Roman wall immediately above the Temple area”. See Carchemish, Part III, n. 1 on p. 165.

17 This relief was probably erected by Suhi, the father of Katuwas. On the inscription of B40 see Laroche, , Revue hittite et asianique 14 (1956), pp. 62–68 Google Scholar.

18 On this group see Carchemish, Part II, pls. B18b–B24, Part III, pp. 197–198.

19 There are twelve men if we assume that the wide slab B24 which is now partly broken and obliterated, depicted three men.

20 The late Professor F. E. Zeuner identified the animals at the author's request. Those shown with horns are males, and those without are females.

21 On this relief see Carchemish, Part II, pl. B26c, Part III, p. 199.

22 See the exact location in Carchemish, Part III, pl. 43a, where in error the relief is numbered B26a.

23 ibid., p. 199.

24 ibid., p. 200.

25 B26c is 0·90 m. high; B60a is 1·08 m. high; B60b is 1·20 m. high.

26 See note 15 above.

27 This interpretation was suggested in Yadin, Y.: The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, London 1963, vol. 2, p. 366 Google Scholar.

28 Carchemish, Part III, pp. 242–243.

29 Albright, W. F.: in Weinberg, S. S. (editor), The Aegean and the Near East, Studies presented to Hetty Goldman, Locust Valley N.Y., 1956, pp. 144–164 Google Scholar.

30 See examples from Ashurnasirpal's reliefs in R. D. Barnett: Assyrian Palace Reliefs, pls. 15, 26–27, and examples from the bronze gates of Shalmaneser in King: Bronze Reliefs, pls. XLI, LII, LXXI–LXXII. We should add that chariots driving in battle over the killed enemies are already shown in the reliefs from Tell Halaf which must be dated a few decades earlier than those from Carchemish. However, it seems that there too their appearance was due to Assyrian influence, which obviously started in Tell Halaf earlier than in Carchemish.

31 See examples in King: Bronze Reliefs, pls. XXXVIII, XL, LVI.

32 Almost all the scenes in the bronze gates are depicted as processions; see a general photograph in Barnett: Assyrian Palace Reliefs, pls. 138–139, and details in the following plates and in King: Bronze Reliefs.

33 These Assyrian chariots can be seen in Budge, E. A. Wallis: Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum, Reign of Ashur-Nasir-Pal, London 1914 Google Scholar, and in King: Bronze Reliefs. See also Yadin, : The Art of Warfare, vol. 2, pp. 297–302 Google Scholar, and Vieyra, M.: Hittite Art, London 1955, pp. 45–47 Google Scholar.

34 Due to the absence of inscriptions it is impossible to prove that B53 and the reliefs of the west part of the “Herald's Wall” (B10a–B14b) were erected by Katuwas, but this may be concluded from the style and circumstantial evidence. A13d and B25 were erected by Katuwas as shown by inscriptions A8 and A13d. Base B53 is almost identical to base B25, and B10a–B14b are carved in the style of B25, A13d and B53 (compare, for example, the heads of the lions, and the demon in B10a, with B25, B53). B10a–B14b have a similar style to that of the reliefs of the “Inner Court” (B55–B59) which were incorporated in the structure of the “King's Gate”. This gate was built by Katuwas who mentioned it in inscription A8 which was placed there. Not far from the “Herald's Wall” A12, a broken monument of Katuwas, was found. Woolley suggested (in Carchemish, Part III, p. 187) that originally it stood against the “Herald's Wall”. This also supports our conclusion that B10a–B14b must be attributed to Katuwas.

35 Carchemish, Part III, p. 193; see also photograph in Part I, pl. B1a, Part III, pl. 42b.

36 See photograph showing them as found in situ in Carchemish, Part I, pl. B1.

37 This can be clearly seen in a photograph of B3b published in Yadin, : The Art of Warfare, vol. 2, plate on p. 368 Google Scholar.

38 Carchemish, Part III, p. 194.

39 It is impossible to prove this conclusion as the statue was never fully restored and no evidence now exists as to its exact position on the base. However, we can use indirect evidence. Woolley saw the fragments of the broken statue and pointed out (in Carchemish, Part III, p. 192) that it was “standing upright” and “is a replica” of the god's statue from Zincirli ( Von Luschan, : Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, pp. 288–289, 362–369 Google Scholar, Abbildungen 173, 194, 261–268, Tafel LXIV). The god's statue from Zincirli is standing in the centre of its base (see it clearly in Akurgal, E.: The Art of the Hittites, London 1962, pl. 126Google Scholar). The god in B25 is shown seated and not “standing upright” as in the case of B53. Also here, however, the only preserved photograph of the god's statue taken from the side shows that it is placed in the middle of the base and its back side is not in one line with the back side of the base (see Carchemish, Part III, pl. 47a). It seems, then, that the position of the statue on base B53 was as in B25, and the god's statue in Zincirli.

40 See note 17 above.

41 Woolley, : Carchemish, Part III, p. 173 Google Scholar.

42 On the inscription see Hrozný, B., Les inscriptions hittites hiéroglyphiques, Prague, pp. 195–203 Google Scholar.

43 Hrozný interpreted the inscription in a different way. For reference see note 42 above.

44 Carchemish, Part III, p. 166.

45 On Araras and the “Royal Buttress” see Carchemish, Part I, pls. B1, B4–B8, Part III, pp. 192 ff., 244, 262–263, pls. 42–44. See also Bossert, : Studi Classici e Orientali, Pisa, 1 (1951) 1 pp. 35 ffGoogle Scholar.

46 Carchemish, Part I, pl. B8, Part III, p. 194.

47 See Carchemish, Part III, pp. 192 ff. Woolley's suggestion cannot be accepted as no archaeological evidence pointing to the existence of a “Royal Buttress” prior to Araras's reign was found. The fact that the older relief of the band B17b was found incorporated there can hardly be used as a supporting argument, as originally it was probably placed elsewhere and only later brought by Araras to be placed against the “Royal Buttress” (see also note 53 below). The same applies to the other orthostats of the buttress which are old reliefs reused by Araras.

Woolley's suggestion that stairs leading to a doorway which opened into the building were built in the recess beside the “Royal Buttress” cannot be accepted either. It is hard to believe that such a small insignificant doorway would be constructed in such a monumental building, and not far from a magnificent gateway. Furthermore, if the top of the back wall of the recess was a threshold as Woolley suggested, then the floor level of the building would have been nearly one meter above that of the “street” outside, with the outer walls serving as supporting terraces. This conclusion is hard to accept. It seems rather, that the recess was created when the buttress was built by Araras, because the difference in height resulting from the natural slope made it difficult to connect the newly built “Royal Buttress” with “The Kubaba Procession”. Instead, the recess was left and partly filled, so that B17b was nearly covered.

48 Carchemish, Part I, pl. B3b, Part III, p. 202, pl. 43a.

49 The author wishes to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to publish this photograph.

50 Von Luschan, : Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, pp. 288–289, 362–369 Google Scholar, Abbildungen 173, 194, 261–268, Tafel LXIV.

51 Carchemish, Part I, pls. A9–A10, Part III, pp. 202–203, pls. 43a, 47b.

52 On the function of this building at the time of Araras see also Bossert, , Studi Classici e Orientali, Pisa, 1 (1951), pp. 35 ffGoogle Scholar.

53 Another theory may be advanced here. The relief of the band B17b was found in secondary use in the “Royal Buttress”. Its original place was probably not far away. The relief resembles the relief of the band B18b, which is the first orthostat of “The Kubaba Procession”. The style of B17b is similar to that of the reliefs assigned to Sangara and all the men depicted there have the short beards and square lower jaws which are so typical of Sangara's reliefs. It is tempting to suggest that also B17b must be assigned to Sangara. Its original place was probably at the head of “The Soldiers' Procession” from where it was transferred when the “Royal Buttress” was built. B17b is a limestone orthostat, and it could have stood beside basalt slab B3b. The dimensions of B17b fit those of the soldiers' reliefs: its thickness is approximately 0·30 m. and theirs is 0·30–0·40 m.; its height is 1·22 m. and theirs is 1·30–1·33 m. The small difference in height may be due to the slope on which the wall was built.

If this reconstruction be accepted, we have two religious processions advancing from opposite directions towards the monumental gate and each is preceded by a band.

54 Thureau-Dangin, F. et Dunand, M.: Til-Barsib, Paris 1936, p. 138 Google Scholar, pl. IX, no. 1.

55 ibid., p. 138, pl. IX, no. 3.

56 ibid., p. 139, pl. X, no. 9.

57 ibid., p. 160, pl. X, no. 10.

58 ibid., pp. 138–139, pl. X, no. 4.

59 Hogarth, : AAA 2 (1909), p. 182 Google Scholar. See also Thompson, : Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, London, 34 (1912), p. 69 noteGoogle Scholar.

60 Til-Barsib, pp. 137–138, pl. X, no. 3.

61 King: Bronze Reliefs, pls. VII, XXXVIII–XXXIX, XLVIII.

62 Luckenbill: vol. 1, § 560, 602, 608, 620.

63 See Thureau-Dangin, : Til-Barsib, p. 134 Google Scholar; Barnett, : Carchemish, Part III, p. 263 Google Scholar and Anatolian Studies 3 (1953), p. 91 Google Scholar.

64 Luckenbill: vol. 1, § 474–475.

65 ibid., vol. 1, § 474–475, 559–561, 599–602, 608, 620–621.

66 Hrozný, (in Les inscriptions hittites hiéroglyphiques, n. 4 on p. 466 Google Scholar) and Barnett (in Carchemish, Part III, n. 10 on p. 263) suggest the identification of Ahuni with the father of the king who erected Stele B in Til Barsib.

67 Luckenbill: vol. 1, § 475.

68 Parts of lions are depicted on the fragments published in Til-Barsib, pls. IX, no. 4, X, no. 8, X, no. 6, X, no. a. They are identical to lions assigned to Katuwas (see B13a, B14a, B25). In the fragment published in Til-Barsib, pl. IX, no. 2, a human head wearing a horned cap, identical to that in B14a, is carved. A similar horned cap can be seen in Til-Barsib, pl. X, no. 5.

69 Luckenbill: vol. 1, § 443.

70 See note 34 above. It seems that among others A13d, B10a–B14, B25, B53, B55–B59, have to be assigned to Katuwas.

71 Akurgal, E.: Spaethethitische Bildkunst, Ankara 1949, especially pp. 139 ffGoogle Scholar.