Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:54:12.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Monuments of the Lower Palace Area in Carchemish: a Rejoinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

David Ussishkin
David Ussishkin
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Volume XXII of Anatolian Studies which was dedicated to Prof. S. Lloyd contains (in pp. 87–114) a detailed study by J. D. Hawkins of the Hittite hieroglyphic monumental inscriptions and stone monuments from the area of the Lower Palace in Carchemish. It seems needless to stress the importance of this study which presents a reliable and up to date reading of the inscriptions. The data gathered from them can now be better used in attempts to solve the complex problems of the chronology and arrangement of the associated monuments. This was done by Hawkins who on the basis of the inscriptional evidence came to various conclusions concerning the monuments of the Long Wall of Sculpture and the Great Staircase. Some of his conclusions form the subject of this rejoinder.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 26 , December 1976 , pp. 105 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1976

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

1 All the reliefs are labelled here according to their Plate numbers in the official report of the excavation. Cf. Hogarth, D. G., Woolley, L. and Barnett, R. D., Carchemish, Parts I–III, London 1914–1952Google Scholar. The transliteration of the names of the rulers of Carchemish is after Hawkins, , Iraq XXXVI (1974), p. 70Google Scholar.

2 On the Long Wall of Sculpture and its reliefs cf. Carchemish III, pp. 157–60, 164–7, 171–5, 241–3, Pls. 29–37, 41, B36–B46.

3 Carchemish III, pp. 241–3; Güterbock, , JNES 13 (1954), pp. 104, 108Google Scholar.

4 Laroche, , RHA 59 (1956), pp. 62–8Google Scholar.

5 A private letter, dated 11th April, 1968.

6 A detailed study of the Carchemish monuments was published by Mallowan, M. E. L. in Anatolian Studies XXII (1972), pp. 63–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, concurrently with Hawkins' article. Sir Max considers the attribution of inscription A1a to Suhis as conclusive.

7 Hawkins, , Iraq XXXVI (1974), p. 73Google Scholar.

8 Laroche, E., Les hiéroglyphes hittites, Paris 1960, p. 89Google Scholar.

9 It is worth noting that Laroche (note 4, above) refrains from identifying the author of A1a with Suhis.

10 The following arguments are in addition to those presented by us in Anatolian Studies XVII (1967), pp. 181 ffGoogle Scholar. which will not be repeated here.

11 Carchemish III. p. 173.

12 An unnumbered Plate between p. 29 and Pl. A1. The same plan is reproduced in Naumann, R., Architektur Kleinasiens, Tübingen, 2nd ed., 1971, Abb. 609Google Scholar.

13 The stones which formed the basis for B40 seem to have been restored by Woolley. B40 was discovered standing in situ by Henderson in 1879. In the following year he dug a trench under the relief in order to enable its removal, thus probably damaging this part of the wall. As a result B40 collapsed into the trench and broke, and there it was found by Woolley. Cf. Carchemish I, p. 9, Carchemish III, Pl. 31a–b.

14 On this temple cf. Carchemish III, pp. 167–71, Pls. 29, 34–7.

15 Cf. the recent study of A2–A3 in Meriggi, P., Manuale di eteo Geroglifico, Part II: 1, Rome 1967, pp. 53–7Google Scholar.

16 Carchemish III, pp. 169–70.

17 This can be well seen in Carchemish III, Pls. 29, 36a; cf. also p. 242.

18 Carchemish III, note 2 on p. 167; cf. also Pls. 37b, 41b.

19 It seems that the guilloche border in B38–B39, B41–B46 was carved because the planners wished to adapt them to B40. Curiously, no guilloche border can be seen in B43a.

20 It seems logical to assume that the chariot relief erected adjacent to B40 was carved of basalt, and in this way B40 was adapted to the later limestone-basalt slab arrangement in this wall. Cf. also Carchemish III, p. 241.

21 Hawkins identifies “mighty Tarhundas” which was set up by the author of A1a=B43b with the god heading the procession in B38, and “these gods” mentioned in A1a with the god and goddesses who follow. This suggested identification is a pure conjecture. It seems more reasonable to assume that “mighty Tarhundas” was a colossus placed near by on an animal base.

22 On these lions and their inscriptions cf. Carchemish II, pp. 105, 116–117, Carchemish III, pp. 163–4, 241–2, 260; Güterbock, , JNES 13 (1954), p. 104Google Scholar.

23 This is Woolley's conclusion he reached “judging by the shoulders (of the two lions—D.U.) which alone supply a standard of comparison”. Cf. Carchemish II, p. 105, Carchemish III, p. 163.

24 Christian, V., AfO 9 (1933/1934), p. 18Google Scholar; Akurgal, E., Späthethitische Bildkunst, Ankara 1949, p. 75Google Scholar.

25 Orthmann, W., Untersuchungen zur Späthethitischen Kunst, Bonn 1971, pp. 41–2, 160, 190Google Scholar.

26 B65b is kept in the archaeological museum at Ankara (Mus. No. 149); it is 64 cm. high, 58 cm. wide and 19 cm. thick.