Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:40:06.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploration in Galatia cis Halym

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. W. Crowfoot
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fragments of pottery are very plentiful upon most of the ancient sites in Galatia, but those who cannot excavate can hardly expect to find anything at all complete. We were very fortunate therefore in obtaining at the village of Sarilar, the ancient Sykeon, an almost perfect pot and a photograph of an ‘Idol.’ Both jug and idol had been found by a peasant in a small mound between the bridge and the village: together with these he discovered a circular macehead of dark green stone and a square piece of copper. In Bey-bazâr we had previously been shown a small saucer-shaped cup, which came from the same village and no doubt from the same excavation: it was hand-made and of the same clay as the pot, (for its shape cf. Dörpfeld, Troja, 1893, Fig. 29).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 19 , November 1899 , pp. 34 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1899

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.)

References

page 35 note 1 See Part II, I. §9.

page 35 note 2 I saw it only by night, and cannot speak positively about the material.

page 36 note 1 I owe this observation to Mr. Anderson. Cf. the shrine of Cybele at Arslankaia near Liyen, (Reber, Die Phrygischen Felsendenkmäler (München, 1897) p. 32Google Scholar, and Körte, , Ath. Mittheil. 1898Google Scholar, Taf. II.) and the still more primitive Sipylos ligure (Humann, , Ath. Mittheil. 1888Google Scholar, Taf. II.)

page 37 note 1 This is characteristic of ‘Hittite art: we see it upon the Saktschegözü monument now at Berlin (Humann, and Puchstein, —Reisen in Kleinasien, Berlin, 1890, p. 372–380Google Scholar) about 700 B.C. in date. It is the same probably as the ‘wreaths of chainwork for the chapiters which were upon the tops of the pillars’ (Kings I. vii. 17) made by a Tyrian craftsman for Solomon c. 960. And it recurs later of course upon early Samian pottery and Klazomenian Sarcophagi: did it reach Ionia by land or by sea? Puchstein regards it as originally Assyrian and traces it back to Assurnasirpal 884–860, but the Tyrian example is earlier, if I am right in my identification of it: the originality of the Assyrian has suffered more than one blow of late. (Cf. Jahrbuch des Instituts, 1893, p. 1, foll.)

page 37 note 2 For the situation of the various localities mentioned, see the Map (Pl. IV.) and Part II.

page 38 note 1 I do not of course wish to suggest that this was necessarily imported from Cyprus.

page 42 note 1 I am indebted to Mr. Bell, the assistant keeper of this Museum, for casts of these seals: they come from the collection of the Rev, Greville Chester and have been in the Museum since 1889.

page 43 note 1 Jensen (op. cit. p. 166) has no hesitation in saying that his series of reliefs (Marash, Sendjirli, Fraktin) represents religious not funeral rites: the rock sculpture at Fraktin and the Oxford seals could hardly be explained as funeral representations, but a combination of the two ideas is not improbable elsewhere.

page 43 note 2 On which see Körte, , Ath. Mittheil. 1898, p. 139Google Scholar.

page 45 note 1 Puchstein (op. cit. p. 16) connects them) with the northern allies of the Libyans in their invasion of Egypt in the reigns of Meneptah and Ramses III., but the majority, perhaps all, of these seem to have come from the seaboard and the islands. To Ramsay's term ‘Syro-Cappodoeian’ there is only one objection—it tells one nothing, and as a geographical expression omits perhaps the most important section of all—Cilicia. No orientalist, so far as I know, has expressed himself in favour of M. Theodore Reinach's suggestion, the Mitanni-Matianians, (Revue des Éludes Grecques, 1894, p. 313Google Scholar) and Jensen's Hatians have not yet passed through the final ordeal of criticism. The dates, which he obtains from his study of the inscriptions, agree entirely with those suggested above (for Boghaz keui he proposes, op. cit. p, 192, 850–800 B.C.), but I cannot estimate the value of his arguments. I have accordingly retained the conventional term ‘Hittite’ in discussing these works.

page 47 note 1 The omission of the sexual organs in animals which are otherwise male, for instance, is common to both, but I admit, with Perrot, that there are great differences, and also that sobriety of treatment, in contrast with Persian and Assyrian works, is characteristic of Pteria. For maned lionesses however see Körte (p. 136).

page 48 note 1 [It is similar to the lions discovered by von Vincke near Arslan-tash, between Albistan and Derende (Ritter, Erdkunde xix.). J.G.C.A.]

page 49 note 1 Our photograph of the Yarre head is hardly distinct enough to be of much service here, but so far as it goes, it points in the same direction—the thick nose is characteristic both of ancient Sam'al and modern Armenia, and also, one may add, to some extent of archaic Greek art, early Boeotian pottery for instance, and the Attic Diskophoros. And if we are not deceived by the coiffure, the skull is certainly high.