Professor Garstang, Whose excavations and geographical studies have so notably increased sources of information about, and our knowledge of, eastern Cilicia in early times, will have watched with interest, and perhaps with amusement, the way in which, in modern studies of texts, locations proposed for Ursu have jumped about over a considerable area, in which physical features might be expected to restrict the possibilities. As the story of Ursu in the second millennium ends just before that of Qizzuwadana begins, so far as our present information goes, it may not be inappropriate to dedicate a brief account of the development of evidence about, and the changes of opinion concerning, the situation of the city and the land to the friend who has often discussed Qizzuwadana with me during the last thirty years; the course taken is not without its lessons for criticism, which should be a form of intellectual discipline.

The reason for believing that Ursu was a city in the mountainous region Ibla was an inscription of GU.DE.A, that for identifying Ibla with part of the Amanus was based on texts concerning Naram-Sin. The argument seemed simple and logical enough for Peter Jensen to identify Ursu with Arsuz, by which, probably, he understood no more than a location on the coastal strip west of the Bailan Pass.

Intimate Connections Between Anatolia and Thrace had been suspected ever since Kazarov published his finds from Kyrillovo. Despite the peculiarities in their handles, the vases and bronzes look so distinctively Anatolian that Thrace seemed just a provincial extension of the Early Troadic Bronze Age culture as known in 1914. Since 1945 new finds from Mikhalits, taken in conjunction with Mikov's discoveries at Karanovo and those of Hamit Zubeyr Koşay, at Büyük Güllücek have put these relations in an entirely new light. Mikhalits, near Svilingrad where a depas amphikypellon had been found in 1941, lies so close to the present frontier that fuller excavation since 1945 has been impracticable. But the observations made in that year alone are sufficiently illuminating. The site is not a tell, but occupies the crest of a natural ridge, and was defended by a stone wall enclosing an area of 80–90 m. in diameter.

Two good friends have supplied me with the material for a note which I dedicate, with kind wishes, to a third.

Michael Ballance inaugurated the epigraphical harvest of our journey in 1954 with the discovery of two remarkable inscriptions at Emircik near Beyce Sultan (territory of Eumeneia). One of these served to clinch an argument in Anatolian Studies, V, 1955, p. 38. The second is no. 1 below.

A few days later Habip Zebir Ağa, itinerant tinker of Sandıklı, called at the excavation headquarters to remind me of an earlier encounter which I had forgotten. He had visited Synnada in the exercise of his craft in 1930 while the American Society's expedition was working there, and I had taught him how to copy Greek inscriptions and urged him to make copies of any monuments he might find in the course of his work in central Phrygia. He brought with him a bundle of copies he had made during the intervening years, mainly from Synnada, the Pentapolis and the Eumeneticus Campus. A number of these copies are of known monuments and show that, for one ignorant of Latin and Greek, he is a careful and reliable copyist. One of his copies is no. 2 below.

Among the works of Professor John Garstang, The Land of the Hittites (1910), with its new version The Hittite Empire (1929), will remain a classic. What makes this book most valuable is the emphasis laid upon the setting of the Hittite monuments. It therefore seems appropriate to devote these pages, which are meant as a small token of gratitude to the master, to problems of this kind.

A mon vieil ami, le Professeur J. Garstang, en souvenir de nos visites archéologiques aux sites bibliques de jadis.—E. Dhorme.

Si J'associe ces deux dieux dans une même étude, c'est non seulement parce qu'ils représentent l'un et l'autre une conception similaire de la divinité dans les anciennes religions sémitiques, mais aussi parce qu'ils ont subi, l'un et l'autre, un même traitement de faveur, ou plutôt de défaveur, dans la transmission du texte massorétique appuyée par le grec des Septante. En revanche, si la personnalité du Baal n'a fait que s'agrandir en se précisant, grâce surtout aux découvertes de Ras Shamra, l'ancienne Ugarit, celle du Moloch a été l'objet de contestations énergiques depuis une vingtaine d'années, au point qu'une brochure, parue en 1935, annonçait dans son titre “la fin du dieu Moloch”. Nous allons donc examiner les faits qui, selon nous, exigent la présence de Moloch à côté de Baal dans le plus ancien panthéon sémitique attesté par la Bible.

Je saisis avec empressement l'occasion qui m'est offerte d'exprimer toute ma sympathie, qui date de près d'un demi-siècle, et mon admiration pour l'infatigable travail archéologique que le professeur John Garstang a accompli depuis le Soudan jusqu'en Anatolie. Son séjour prolongé en Palestine comme directeur du Service des Antiquités m'autorise à lui offrir une courte note concernant l'A.T. dont le texte a aussi été l'objet de ses études. J'évoquerai ainsi I'heureux temps où il travaillait en Terre Sainte avec la regrettée Madame Garstang, qui fut sa fidèle collaboratrice sur les champs de fouille.

Que le sens primitif de 'î soit “côte, rivage”, et non “île”, un premier indice tient à ce que le mot étant commun au cananéen et à l'égyptien ('iw), son usage est fort ancien et remonte à une époque où les Sémites n'avaient aucune connaissance des îles proprement dites. Les lexiques ne l'ignorent pas, mais - les traducteurs, sacrifiant à la forme littéraire, l'oublient souvent.

When Professor Garstang excavated part of the Middle-Late Bronze Age Necropolis at Jericho between the years 1930–1936, he made special mention in one of his reports of a scarab in a group of six from Tomb 13 (LAAA., XX 1933, pp. 36–7 and Fig. 11). He described it briefly as follows:—

“Figure of a Canaanite wearing robe and cap with Syro-Hyksos hieroglyphs in the field.”

Twenty years have elapsed since then, and other scarabs have come to light which show figures wearing the same type of dress, so that it does seem worth while to assemble them on one page to see if they form a consistent and instructive group.

Ever since the discovery of the Palace of Kapara by Max von Oppenheim in 1911, there has been a debate—often acrimonious—with respect to its date. As late as 1934 there was a variation of some two millennia among active discussants. With the death of Ernst Herzfeld, who stood out until the end for a date in the third millennium, the debate seems to have closed, at least for the time being. In 1954 the late H. Frankfort came out explicitly for a date during the ninth century, preferably in its second half, for the age of Kapara. The same date, though with a higher upper limit, was maintained by A. Moortgat in the official publication of the sculpture of Gozan which appeared the following year. K. Galling had all along favoured such a dating, which he now espouses without reservation. The present writer has also maintained a date between 1100 and 900, concentrating for the past fifteen years on the tenth century.

There are as yet no temples in Western Anatolia prior to the first millennium; no counterparts for the Hittite temples further east. This may be an illusion which further discoveries will dispel, but more probably it is because the west had not yet been brought into contact with the architects and religions which influenced their eastern neighbours. Crete, Greece and the islands built no temples either in those early days: shrines, principally in palaces or private houses, were used for worship instead. There were undoubtedly shrines, as opposed to temples, in Anatolia as well; mostly from private houses, some better authenticated than others, differing in character according to time and place. It may be useful to review the evidence for shrines both in the western and the eastern regions, though with more emphasis on the former, to deduce as much as we can about their nature, and to decide which of them have acceptable claims.

Situated about fifteen miles north of Karaman the Kara Dagh is an isolated volcanic massif which rises out of the Lycaonian plateau to a height of nearly 7,000 feet. In the first decade of the century Sir William Ramsay and Gertrude Bell spent three seasons surveying the archæological remains in the area. These include a great number of Byzantine churches and monasteries which have earned the Kara Dagh the name of Bin Bir Kilisse (“Thousand and One Churches”). Apart from the churches, however, the two authors recorded a majestic Hittite monument on Kızıl Dagh at the northern edge of the massif, and other evidences of a longstanding occupation in pre-Byzantine times which suggested that the Kara Dagh might preserve the remains of a continuous succession of cultures.

The Second Excavating season at Beycesultan lasted from 1st May to 6th July, 1955. As a result of a motor accident on 30th April Mr. Seton Lloyd was unable to take charge of the work until 21st May and his place was taken by Mr. James Mellaart, Institute Fellow for 1955–56. The field staff also included Mr. G. R. H. Wright as architect and surveyor, Mrs. Wright as housekeeper and registrar, Mr. T. Burton Brown as visiting adviser, Mr. Maurice Cookson, whose services as photographer were kindly lent to us by the London Institute of Archaeology, and Mr. John Carswell as draughtsman. The Turkish Antiquities Department was represented by Bayan Nihal Dönmez, who relieved the Director of much administrative work. The expedition was once more housed in tents and rented accommodation in Menteş, village: thanks are again due to the Turkish Ministry of Education for the loan of the local school building as museum and workshop.

The season's work divided itself into three distinct phases. The first part of the excavations was confined to the eastern summit of the mound, where the great Burnt Palace had been discovered in 1954 (see Fig. 1), and consisted in the successive examination and clearance of the four uppermost levels (I–IV) over an area about thirty metres square, in order to gain access to the palace beneath. This work occupied the expedition throughout the greater part of May. The second phase was concerned with the extension of the palace excavations themselves in a north-westerly direction.

There are two well-defined varieties of the Cappadocian Symbol; one with bosses and one without. It is the first type that is considered here.

Apart from the presence or absence of the bosses there is a fairly well-defined difference in the curved members, Figs, 1, 2. Those with the bosses almost invariably curve upwards and inwards as if embracing the limb of the cross, while those without the bosses are so strongly recurved outwards as to double back on to the other limb of the cross, and perhaps were finally thought of as belonging to it.

The two types very rarely combine, but on one occasion we have a curious case where there are only four bosses inside the curves and the curves themselves are very strongly bent backwards in the manner of those without the bosses. On yet another occasion we have a case which again only has the four bosses within the curves, but here the latter have come completely apart from the cross and lie almost on the horizontal limbs, see Figs. 6, 7 infra. As will appear later on, these seem to provide a link between the two types, that with the bosses and that without.

Hitherto these articles have been concerned with texts which were at least partially known to Assyriologists from other sources. The composition now presented is not only new but unique in character, and it gives me great pleasure that the translation of this, in some ways the showpiece of the Sultantepe collection, should appear in a volume which is planned as a tribute of admiration and gratitude to the founder and President of the Institute.

It has been said that “the man of Mesopotamia was a stranger to laughter: never, it seems, did he learn to relax”. The present text belies this statement, for it is nothing less than a humorous tale, recognizable as the prototype (at least in part) of one actually preserved in a manuscript of the Arabian Nights.

In the year A.D. 451, Nestorianism was formally condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. Amongst the metropolitans and bishops who attended from all over the Empire were representatives of the eight sees of Cilicia Prima, the western part of the province known to the Romans as Cilicia Campestris. One of these bishops was Theodorus of Augusta. Nothing further is known of Theodorus, and it was not until recently that anything more was known of his bishopric. This is not surprising, since Augusta was never one of the great cities of the ancient world, and after the rise of Islam soon sank into obscurity. Indeed, apart from the fact that it was almost certainly one of the cities visited by St. Paul when, according to Acts, “he went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches,” its recent discovery at Gübe, about 16 km. north of Adana, is not perhaps of great historical significance.

That part of northern Anatolia known in Greek and Roman times as Bithynia and Paphlagonia comprises a number of high ridges running from west to east, through which the rivers break their way in their tortuous courses down to the Black Sea. The region discussed in this article in fact comprises Paphlagonia, the eastern half of Bithynia and part of Phrygia, from the lower Sakarya to the mouth of the Halys; but, since these names do not apply to the Bronze Age, the whole will be termed northern Anatolia. As far south as the crest of the main ridge bounding the Anatolian plateau along its north side the land has a maritime climate quite different from that of either the plateau or the Mediterranean coast: rainfall is abundant, even at times in the summer; deciduous forests cover these north-facing slopes, right to the top. Sinop provides the best natural harbour on this coast. The change to the steppe country of the plateau is abrupt.

In this article we bring together for the first time four bronze bulls' heads of impressive size and weight which seem to form a series. One is in the collection of Mr. J. J. Emery, of Cincinnati, another is in the Fogg Museum, a third is in Cleveland (Plates XVII–XVIII), and the fourth (Plate XIX) is in the Louvre. In 1954 Mr. Emery generously lent his piece to the Fogg Museum for the exhibition of “Ancient Art in American Private Collections” and, through the good offices of Miss Dorothy G. Shepherd, the Trustees of the Cleveland Museum of Art consented to send the Cleveland bull's head for a brief period. Thus I was enabled to examine and compare three of the four heads of this series. For the piece in the Louvre, which I have not seen, I am making use of photographs and measurements supplied by A. Parrot.

As R. D. Barnett was the first to point out to me, two bulls' heads of this kind were found in 1905 in the village of Guşçi, on Urmia Lake. An account of this discovery was given by “Atrpet” in the Armenian periodical Azgagrakan Handess, Revue Ethnographique publiée par la Société Ethnographique Arménienne, XXIII, Part 2, 1912, pp. 114–124.