Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:57:28.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Neo-Hittite Enclosure in Karatepe1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

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

Extract

The dating of the Neo-Hittite enclosure in Karatepe, discovered about twenty years ago by H. Th. Bossert and his Turkish colleagues, forms a problem of primary importance, the solution of which could have deep repercussions on wide fields of study. Even though Azitawadda, the builder and ruler of Karatepe, has left a relatively long bilingual inscription, it lacks the direct and conclusive evidence which might have proved its dating. It is not surprising, then, that several scholars differ widely on the date of Karatepe.

The dating generally accepted today is the one put forward by Bossert in 1948, who proposed that Karatepe was built, and Azitawadda reigned, during the second half of the eighth century B.C. This dating is mainly based on three arguments each of a different kind: firstly, it was assumed that “Awrikku king of the Dannunites” (Á-wa+ri-ku-s of the Hittite hieroglyphic inscription), whom Azitawadda mentioned as his benefactor, must be identified with “Urikki of Que” who, as related in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, paid a tribute to Assyria probably in 738 B.C. Secondly, a palaeographical analysis of the script of Azitawadda's Phoenician text indicated that the letters are of a rather “developed” and late type, a fact which points to as late a date as possible for this inscription. Thirdly, the artistic style of the reliefs seemed to be late, and as argued by E. Akurgal, to be much influenced by Assyrian art.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 19 , December 1969 , pp. 121 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1969

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

2 For excavation reports see Bossert, H. Th. and Çambel, H.: Karatepe, A Preliminary Report on a New Hittite Site, Istanbul 1946Google Scholar; Bossert, H. Th. and Alkım, U. B.: Karatepe, Kadirli and its Environment; Second Preliminary Report, Istanbul 1947Google Scholar; Bossert, H. Th., Alkım, U. B., Çambel, H., Ongunsu, N., Süzen, I.: Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Karatepe (Erster Vorbericht), Ankara 1950Google Scholar; Belleten 12 (1948), pp. 249–255. 523–548Google Scholar; 13 (1949). pp. 371–374; 14 (1950), pp. 542–546, 655–658, 680–682; 16 (1952), pp. 134–136, 620–628; AS 1 (1951), pp. 9–10Google Scholar; 2 (1952), pp. 19–20; 3 (1953), pp. 12–13; 4 (1954), pp. 17–19; 5 (1955), pp. 17–18. Also see recently Matthiae, P.: Studi sui Rilievi di Karatepe, Rome 1963Google Scholar.

3 Bossert, , Belleten 12 (1948), p. 531Google Scholar.

4 Luckenbill, D. D.: Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Chicago 1926, vol. I, § 769, 772, 801Google Scholar; Tadmor, H., Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), pp. 252 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 See n. 126 below.

6 Akurgal, E.: Spaethethitische Bildkunst, Ankara 1949, p. 147Google Scholar; idem: The Art of the Hittites, London 1962, pp. 140–142.

7 See Lévy, I., La Nouvelle Clio I–II/3 (1950), pp. 105–121Google Scholar; Mellink, M., Bibliotheca Orientalis 7 (1950), p. 148Google Scholar; Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London 1954, p. 187Google Scholar.

8 Obermann, , Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 9 (1948), pp. 46–48Google Scholar.

9 Gordon, , JNES 8 (1949), pp. 108–109Google Scholar.

10 Goetze, , Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16 (1952), pp. 51–52Google Scholar; also see Albright, W. F., BASOR 180 (1965), p. 41Google Scholar; idem, CAH, revised edition of vol. II, chapter XXXIII, fascicle no. 51, 1966, p. 46 where he advocates a dating around 800 B.C. Marcus, R. and Gelb, I. J., in JNES 7 (1948), p. 197Google Scholar, suggested a dating “roughly to about 800 B.C.” However, they later agreed to a date in the eighth century (JNES 8 [1949], p. 116Google Scholar). It should be noted that Bossert at first also considered a ninth century dating for Karatepe (Bossert, and Çambel, : First Preliminary Report, p. 14Google Scholar) and only later changed his opinion.

11 On the dating of Kilamuwa's reign see n. 114 below.

12 Rosenthal's, F. translation in ANET2, p. 501Google Scholar.

13 Another point should be mentioned here. The “house of mpš” (Mu-k(a)-sa-sa-n of the hieroglyphic text) to which Azitawadda belonged was probably connected with Móψos, the second millennium hero of Greek mythology (see Alt, A., Forschungen und Fortschritte 24 [1948], pp. 121–124Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D., JHS 73 [1953], pp. 140–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar; recently also Houwink Ten Cate, Ph. H. J.: The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period, Leiden 1961, pp. 44–50Google Scholar). The connection between Azitawadda and the Greek dynasty of Mopsos seems to be established although the latter was earlier in date by a few hundred years. The identification of the “house of mpš” with the house of Mopsos indicates that the beginning of Azitawadda's dynasty should be looked for in the twelfth and the eleventh centuries B.C., a conclusion which may, perhaps, support an early ninth century date for Azitawadda, rather than a late one.

14 See Gordon, , JNES 8 (1949), pp. 108–109Google Scholar. The conclusion that the process of “Aramaeanization” at the end of the ninth and the beginning of the eighth century took a course in Karatepe parallel to that in Sam'al, may be supported by the inscription of Zakir king of Hamath and Lu'ash, dated to about the same time. Zakir relates (ANET 2, p. 501) that the kings of Que and Sam'al participated in a coalition headed by Barhadad king of Aram which attacked Zakir's kingdom. This fact seems to indicate the introduction of Aramaean influence in both Sam'al and Que during that period.

15 The following references are based on the North-Gate copy (C) of Azitawadda's inscription. The translated quotations are after Rosenthal, , ANET2, pp. 499–500Google Scholar.

16 It should be noted that another short inscription of Kilamuwa abo mentions his name without a title (ANET 2, p. 501). On the other hand, the royal title is mentioned in later inscriptions of similar character relevant to our subject (Zakir: “I am Zakir, king of Hamath and Lu'ash”; Barrekub: “I am Barrekub, the son of Panamuwa, king of Sam'al”—see ANET 2, p. 501).

17 See Jean, C. F. and Hoftijzer, J.: Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l'ouest, Leiden 1965, p. 5Google Scholar. The verb adr is used again in the later part of Azitawadda's inscription. Significantly, it does not recur in other inscriptions of the periods relevant to our subject, unless we count its doubtful appearance in the inscription of Eshmunezer (usually dated to the fifth century B.C.).

18 The complicated issue of the Dannunites and their land is beyond the scope of this study. For a full discussion on it and for references to facts concerning the Dannunites mentioned by us see Bossert, : Second Preliminary Report, pp. 29–30Google Scholar; O'Callaghan, , Orientalia 18 (1949), pp. 193–197Google Scholar; Albright, , AJA 54 (1950), pp. 170–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laroche, , Syria 35 (1958), pp. 263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 A. Goetze argues (in JCS 16 [1952], pp. 51–52Google Scholar) that the name Que was applied to that part of Cilicia as a substitute for the former term Danuna/Dnnym, in about the middle of the ninth century. For that reason he advocates an early dating for Azitawadda's inscription. Acceptance of his view, however, necessitates a late date for the biblical verses describing Solomon's commerce with Que (I Kings 10 28; II Chron. 1 16).

20 See Obermann, , Supplement JAOS 9 (1948), pp. 46–48Google Scholar; Gordon, , JNES 8 (1949), pp. 108–109Google Scholar; Rosenthal, , ANET2, p. 499Google Scholar.

21 Luckenbill: vol. I, § 599–600.

22 ibid., vol. I, § 577; on a recently discovered inscription which mentions this campaign see Safar, F., Sumer 7 no. 1 (1951), p. 19Google Scholar; Houwink Ten Cate: p. 19; Goetze, , JCS 16 (1962), n. 19 on p.51Google Scholar.

23 Luckenbill: vol. I, § 582.

24 ibid., vol. I, § 583.

25 Belleten 14 (1950), pp. 657–658, 681Google Scholar; 16 (1952), pp. 622–623; Anadolu 1 (1951), pp. 27–28Google Scholar; AS 1 (1951), p. 10Google Scholar; 3 (1953), p. 12.

26 Alkım, (in Belleten 14 [1950], p. 681Google Scholar; 16 [1952], p. 135; AS 2 [1952], p. 19Google Scholar) mentions “two architectural levels” in Azitawadda's enclosure. It seems that the additional level was not discovered everywhere, and we are inclined to regard it as a mere phase of minor importance.

27 These facts are not discussed in detail in the available brief excavation reports, but they are referred to several times. See, for example, Belleten 12 (1948), pp. 253–254Google Scholar; 14 (1950), p. 545; 16 (1952), pp. 621–622; RHA no. 50 vol. 9 (1948–1949), p. 27Google Scholar.

28 It should be noted that another campaign against Que may have taken place after the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III, when Que was finally annexed to Assyria. Que is mentioned as being part of Assyria in the annals of Sargon II (Luckenbill: vol. II, § 16, 18, 42, 92, 206). Forrer, E. (in Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches, Leipzig 1920, p. 71Google Scholar) and Landsberger, B. (in Sam'al, Ankara 1948, pp. 72, 77–79Google Scholar) concluded that Que was annexed by Shalmaneser V whose reign is not documented by any Assyrian historical inscription.

29 On the dating of his reign see n. 114 below.

30 For interpretation of the text see Bossert, , Belleten 12 (1948), p. 530Google Scholar; O'Callaghan, , Orientalia 18 (1949), p. 175Google Scholar; Gordon, , JNES 8 (1949), p. 113Google Scholar; Rosenthal, , ANET2, p. 499Google Scholar. The parallel Hittite version is translated by Gelb, I. J. (in Bibliotheca Orientalis 7 [1950], p. 132Google Scholar) as follows: “and I filled the Paḫ(e)ra-ian buildings”.

31 Michel, E., Die Welt des Orients, Heft 2 (1948), p. 58Google Scholar. On this identification there now seems to be universal agreement about. See Bossert, , Belleten 12 (1948), pp. 530–531Google Scholar; Gordon, , JNES 8 (1949), p. 113Google Scholar; Marcus, and Gelb, , JNES 8 (1949), pp. 118–119Google Scholar.

32 See Bossert, , Belleten 12 (1948), p. 531Google Scholar; Rosenthal, , ANET2, n. 2 on p. 499Google Scholar; Goetze, , JCS 16 (1962), p. 53Google Scholar.

33 See Çambel, H., Oriens 1 (1948), pp. 147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See Albright, , BASOR 149 (1958), p. 32Google Scholar and Stern, E.apud Liver, J. (editor): The Military History of the Land of Israel in the Biblical Times, Tel Aviv 1964, n. 21 on p. 409 (Hebrew)Google Scholar who compare the ground-plans of the Karatepe gates to that of a gate in Mirsim, Tell Beit (AASOR XXI–XXII [1943], fig. 1 on p. 16)Google Scholar. See also Naumann, R.: Architektur Kleinasiens, Tübingen 1955, p. 310Google Scholar, who compares the fortifications of Karatepe to those of the Büyükkale in Boğazköy.

35 Woolley, L. and Barnett, R. D.: Carchemish, Part III, London 1952, pp. 192–204Google Scholar.

36 On the dating of these gates see n. 114 below.

37 See Ussishkin, D., BASOR 181 (1966), pp. 15–23Google Scholar.

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

39 Albright, , BASOR 180 (1965), p. 41Google Scholar; idem, CAH, revised edition of vol. II, chapter XXXIII, fascicle no. 51, 1966, p. 46.

40 See, for example, Hogarth, D. G.: Carchemish, Part I, London 1914, pls. B9–B16Google Scholar.

41 See, for example, ibid., pls. B1–B8.

42 For a contrary opinion of Akurgal see n. 6 above.

43 Königliche Museen zu Berlin; Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Hefte XI–XV, Berlin 1893–1943Google Scholar: Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli I–V; see vol. IV, pls. LX–LXII, LXVII and Garstang, J.: The Hittite Empire, London 1929, pls. XXXIII–XXXIVGoogle Scholar.

44 We cannot agree with Barnett, (JHS 68 [1948], pp. 8–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar that the Ivriz relief should be considered as Phrygian. It contains all the typical elements of Neo-Hittite art carved under strong Assyrian influence. Various details shown in the Phrygian fashion, such as patterns of embroidery, cannot change the above conclusion.

45 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 85; Matthiae: pl. XXVI.

46 See, for example, Carchemish, Part III, pls. B41–B43a, B60.

47 See chariots in Budge, E. A. Wallis: Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum, Reign of Ashurnasir-pal, London 1914Google Scholar; King, L. W.: Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, London 1915Google Scholar. See also Yadin, Y.: The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, London 1963, vol. II, pp. 297–302Google Scholar.

48 See Barnett, R. D. and Falkner, M.: The Sculptures of Tiglath-Pileser III, London 1962, pls. IX, XVI, XLIV, LXIX, LXXIGoogle Scholar.

49 See Braidwood, R. J.: Mounds in the Plain of Antioch, Chicago 1937, p. 33 and fig. 7Google Scholar; Garstang: Hittite Empire, pl. XLVI; also Ussishkin, D., BASOR 181 (1966), pp. 18–21Google Scholar.

50 See Wreszinski, W.: Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, Leipzig 1935, vol. II, pl. 21Google Scholar (seventh chariot from right on upper row and extreme right one on lower row).

51 von Oppenheim, M. Freiherr: Tell Halaf, vol. III, Berlin 1955, pl. 42aGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that another relief from Tell Halaf (ibid., pl. 41b), which portrays a chariot driving in battle over the mutilated body of an enemy, is already carved in the Assyrian fashion.

52 Wallis Budge, pls. XVII no. 2, XVIII no. 1; Yadin, : The Art of Warfare, vol. II, p. 386Google Scholar. It should also be mentioned that a bronze model of a chariot having eight-spoke wheels was found in a grave in the recently drained area of Lake Sevan. This grave is dated by the Russian excavators to the thirteenth or twelfth century B.C. (Mnatskanian, A. O., Sovyetskaya Archeologiya 1957, no. 2, fig. 8 on p. 149Google Scholar; idem, Kratkiye Soobshcheniya 85 [1961], fig. 24 no. 2 on p. 69).

53 Bossert, H. Th.: Altanatolien, Berlin 1942, nos. 748, 750Google Scholar.

54 ibid., nos. 563, 778; Frankfort: fig. 56 on p. 129, pl. 133B.

55 See a detailed study in Akurgal, : Spaethethitische Bildkunst, pp. 39–79Google Scholar.

56 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 70–71, 73; Ceram, C. W.: The Secret of the Hittites, New York 1956, pl. XXXGoogle Scholar; Bossert, , Orientalia 28 (1959), pls. LV–LVIGoogle Scholar.

57 See Carchemish, Parts I–III, pls. B11, B13a, B14a, B19a, B25, B32, B53, B54b, B55a; Sendschirli III–IV, pls. XLIV–XLVI, LXIV–LXV. It should be noted that a full discussion on the stylistic development of the Neo-Hittite lions is beyond the scope of this article and therefore we will refrain from discussing the possible exceptions to the general statements expressed here.

58 See Sendschirli III–IV, pls. XLVII, LVII; Garstang: Hittite Empire, pl. XLVIII: Akurgal: Art of the Hittites, pls. 132, 134–135.

59 In addition, many of the Assyrian monuments portray the two ends of the moustache as spirals.

60 These types of beards are arbitrarily labelled below as types B, C, and D. The “type A” label is reserved for another type of beard which is irrelevant to our subject but which the author hopes to discuss on another occasion.

61 See Tell Halaf, vol. III, pls. 10b–12, 102a, 103.

62 See Carchemish, Parts I–III, pls. A13d, B10a, B11a, B25, B42a, B43b, B54a; Sendschirli III–IV, pls. XL–XLII, LXVI; Przeworski, S., Syria 17 (1936), pl. IXbCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Sendschirli I, pp. 49–52, fig. 19, pls. VI–VII.

64 See Ussishkin, , BASOR 181 (1966), pp. 15–23Google Scholar.

65 See Sendschirli IV, pls. LX, LXII, LXVII; Garstang: Hittite Empire, pls. XXXIII–XXXIV; Akurgal: Art of the Hittites, pls. 106–107, 131, 140.

66 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 55, 100; Matthiae: pls. I, XXXI. In addition, another Karatepe relief (Matthiae: pl. VII) portrays a rounded beard without a moustache. It should also be noted that our definition of the beards in the Karatepe reliefs is based on a study of photographs and not of the reliefs in question.

67 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 78, 89; Matthiae: pls. XXIII, XXV.

68 von Bissing, W. F., Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung, 2 (1952–1953), pp. 88–91Google Scholar.

69 Tell Halaf, vol. III, pl. 10a.

70 Akurgal, : Spaethethitische Bildkunst, pp. 27–29Google Scholar.

71 See Parrot, A.: Sumer, Paris 1960, pls. 267, 335Google Scholar.

72 On the attribution of this stele to Kilamuwa see n. 121 below.

73 Thureau-Dangin, F. and others: Arslan-Tash, Paris 1931, pl. XXXIII no. 43Google Scholar.

74 See Akurgal: Art of the Hittites, pls. 107, 131, 133, 139–140.

75 It is interesting to note that almost certainly these curls were introduced to Assyrian art as the result of Neo-Hittite and Syrian influence. This conclusion is based on the fact that in the Assyrian monuments which preceded the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III these curls are entirely missing (see, for example, plates in Wallis Budge). They appear in several reliefs of Tiglath-Pileser III (see, for example, Barnett and Falkner: pl. XXXVI) and only later became common in the Assyrian monuments.

76 Sendschirli III, figs. 107, 118–119, 131, pl. XXXIVf–g.

77 Akurgal, : Art of the Hittites, pp. 140, 142Google Scholar.

78 Tell Halaf, vol. III, pl. 131.

79 See Alkım, , RHA no. 50 vol. 9 (1948–1949), pp. 18–20Google Scholar, figs. 14–15b. A similar pedestal was also found in neighbouring Domuztepe. See Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 139–144.

80 Carchemish, Parts II–III, pls. B25, B53a; Sendschirli IV, pl. LXIV. On the latter's dating see n. 121 below.

81 Two eighth century statues were fixed to square pedestals on which no animals were carved (Delaporte, L.: Malatya, Arslantepe, fasc. I: La porte des lions, Paris 1940, pp. 35–38Google Scholar, pls. XXVI–XXXI; Carchemish, Part II, pp. 92–93, pl. B27a). Other ninth and eighth century royal statues were found (Przeworski, S., Syria 17 [1936], pp. 38–41, pl. IXb–dCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sendschirli I, figs. 16–17, 19, pl. VI) but their pedestals are missing.

82 Matthiae: pls. II, IV.

83 Bossert: Altanatolien, nos. 535, 537, 775; Carchemish, Parts II–III, pls. B19a, B33.

84 Barnett, R. D., Iraq 10 (1948), pp. 122–137, pl. XIXGoogle Scholar.

85 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 57; Matthiae: pls. II, X–XI, XV.

86 Carchemish, Part III, pls. B55b, 856b; Sendschirli III, fig. 128, pl. XLV.

87 This motive appears in a few other undated reliefs. See Bossert: Altanatolien, nos. 816–818.

88 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 64, 82–83, 100; Matthiae: pls. VI–VII, XXXI.

89 Carchemish, Part I, pls. B2a–B3b.

90 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 71; Matthiae: pls. XVIII, XXII.

91 Carchemish, Part I, pls. B11a, B15a, B16a; Tell Halaf, vol. III, pls. 37, 39.

92 Compare Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 79; Matthiae, pl. XXIII to Carchemish, part I, pl. B13b.

93 Compare Matthiae, pl. XXII to Carchemish, Part I, pl. B13a.

94 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 79; Matthiae: pl. XXIII.

95 Bossert: Altanatolien, nos. 521–522.

96 Tell Halaf, vol. III, pl. 109a; Carchemish, Part III, pl. B59b; Sendschirli III, figs. 108–109, pls. XXXIVg–h, XXXVII; Delaporte: Malatya, pl. XXXII1; in the latter relief the hunter is riding in a chariot.

97 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 80–81; Matthiae: pl. XIX; Çambel, , Türk Arkeologi Dergisi 6 no. 2 (1956), pl. XIII figs. 12–13Google Scholar.

98 See Carchemish, Parts I–III, pls. A13d, B16a, B26b, B53a, B55b, B56b; Sendschirli III–IV, figs. 265–266, pls. XLIV–XLV; Przeworski, , Syria 17 (1936), pl. IXdCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Carchemish, Part I, pls. B4–B5, B7a.

100 Garstang, , AAA 1 (1908), pl. XL fig. 2Google Scholar; ibid.: Hittite Empire, pl. XLIX no. 2; Bossert: Altanatolien, nos. 887–888.

101 Albright, , AS 6 (1956), pp. 75–85Google Scholar. We should add that Prof. H. Tadmor, as he kindly informed the author, found additional evidence indicating that Kapara's reign must have antedated the Assyrian conquest of Bit Adini in 856 B.C., this strengthening Albright's view.

102 Frankfort: p. 175.

103 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 72, 91; Akurgal: Art of the Hittites, pls. 144–145; Matthiae: pl. XXIV.

104 Tell Halaf, vol. III, pls. 110–112.

105 J. W., and Crowfoot, G. M.: Early Ivories from Samaria, London 1938, pl. VGoogle Scholar; Arslan-Tash, pl. XXX.

106 See ANEP no. 31; Bossert: Altanatolien, no. 759.

107 On the portrayal of these features in gates A and D in Zincirli see n. 120 below.

108 Compare, for example, Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 91 (Matthiae: pl. XXIV) to Tell Halaf, vol. III, pls. 71a, 72b, 78b.

109 Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 64; Matthiae: pls. VI, XVI; Tell Halaf, vol. III, pls. 25–26; Sendschirli III, figs. 96, 130, pls. XXXIV–XXXV, XXXXIV.

110 Sendschirli II–III, pp. 122–127, 208–229, figs. 102–136, pls. XXXVII–XLV.

111 ibid., pp. 111–115, 202–208, figs. 94–101, pls. XXXIV–XXXVI.

112 ibid., pp. 203–204, fig. 93; Bossert, , Orientalia 29 (1960), pp. 104–105Google Scholar, pl. 24 no. 2.

113 Many scholars consider the gate A reliefs to be more primitive and thus older in date than those from gate D. We believe that the reliefs from both gates, generally showing similarity in their composition, style and subjects (see n. 120 below), are contemporary. The difference between the two groups seems to lie mainly in the standard of workmanship. The gate A reliefs were probably carved by inferior artisans and they are cruder and uglier, but that does not imply a chronological difference. For opinions on the dating of the reliefs see Von Bissing, , Archiv für Orientforschung 6 (1930–1931), pp. 166 ff.Google Scholar, 200; Bossert: Altanatolien, nos. 889–890; Vieyra, M.: Hittite Art 2300 750 B.C., London 1955, p. 78Google Scholar; Albright, : in The Aegean and the Near East, n. 19 on pp. 149–150Google Scholar; Akurgal, : Spaethethitische Bildkunst, pp. 133, 143Google Scholar; Frankfort: n. 69 on p. 257.

114 This attribution is based on the following argumentation. The dates of the reigns of Hayya, Sha'il and Kilamuwa can be fixed with certain accuracy. Hayya is mentioned in the annals of Shalmaneser III's first, second and sixth years, 858, 857, 853 B.C. respectively (Luckenbill: vol. I, § 599–601, 610). Kilamuwa probably was reigning already by 840 B.C. and anyway not later than 835 B.C. as one of Shalmaneser III's campaigns against Que in 839–833 B.C. is almost certainly mentioned in Kilamuwa's inscription as an event occurring during the latter's reign. We must allow for a short period between the reigns of Hayya and Kilamuwa, namely between 853–835 B.C., for the reign of Sha'il, Kilamuwa's brother, who is mentioned in the latter's inscription (on the dating of these kings see also Landsberger: Sam'al).

When turning to the reliefs in question we see that two of them indicate an unmistakably Assyrian artistic influence. The first, a gate D relief (Sendschirli III, pl. XXXIX—see pl. XIIIb), contains a chariot similar to those of Shalmaneser III (see King: Bronze Gates). The second, a gate A relief (Sendschirli III, pl. XXXV), portrays a horseman holding the decapitated head of an enemy soldier. The portrayal of decapitated heads is an Assyrian motive which appears in Shalmaneser's bronze reliefs (see King: Bronze Gates, pls. XVIII, XXXVIII, XL–XLII). The Assyrian artistic influence in Sam'al could have started only after the beginning of Assyrian political influence in that country, if we follow Albright's concept (see n. 38) which was discussed above. This influence started in 858 B.C. when Shalmaneser III encountered the king of Sam'al for the first time. Therefore this date serves as terminus post quem for dating the reliefs of gates A and D.

On the other hand, Kilamuwa's reign and monuments form a terminus ante quem date for these reliefs. The style of Kilamuwa's monuments (see n. 121 below) is already remarkably different from that of the reliefs in question, a fact indicating that the date of the latter reliefs cannot be lowered to Kilamuwa's reign. Summing up, it seems that the reliefs of gates A and D are later than the beginning of Assyrian influence in Sam'al and are earlier than the reign of Kilamuwa. They probably date, then, to the middle of the ninth century and were erected under the orders of Hayya or Sha'il.

115 Compare Sendschirli III, figure on p. 209 and pl. XXXVIIIb with Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 70, 84. On the application of the inscriptions in Karatepe see below.

116 Compare Sendschirli III, pl. XLIV upper with Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 57.

117 Compare Sendschirli III, pl. XXXVIIIb (left relief) and c (right relief) with Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 93.

118 Compare Sendschirli III, pl. XXXIVe, i with Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, figs. 79, 92, 94.

119 Compare Sendschirli III, pl. XXXVIIIa with Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, fig. 90.

120 Hogarth, D. G. (in Kings of the Hittites [Schweich lecture 1924], London 1926, pp. 8–10Google Scholar) noted a difference between gates A and D in the portrayal of the human features in question. In the reliefs of the former people are shown beardless, as in Karatepe, while in the reliefs of gate D they possess beards, resembling the people from Tell Halaf (pls. XIIa, XVId).

121 Several monuments can be attributed to Kilamuwa: firstly, the orthostat bearing Kilamuwa's inscription and image (Sendschirli IV, fig. 273); secondly, a stele (ibid., pl. LXVI—see pl. XIIb): its attribution to Kilamuwa is based on its resemblance to the portrayal of Kilamuwa on the above orthostat; thirdly, two gate-lions incorporated in a gate (gate Q) leading to the courtyard of Kilamuwa's palace J (ibid., pp. 270–271, figs. 151–152, 177, 269, pl. LXV) and fourthly, a statue (pl. XVc) found with its pedestal on which a pair of lions was carved (ibid., pp. 288–289, 362–369, figs. 265–268, pl. LXIV). It was erected against a wall of Kilamuwa's palace J and the foundation stones on which it was placed seem to have been attached to that wall.

The Assyrian influence in Sam'al left its mark on the style and portrayal of the king on the two monuments mentioned above (pl. XIIb). The king's image resembles that of an Assyrian king and the strong Assyrian influence is felt in all its details. The statue's pedestal and the gate-lions are carved in a style characteristic of the Carchemish lions of the ninth century (Carchemish, Parts II–III, pls. B25, B53, B54b), a style alien and different to that of the reliefs of gates A and D.

122 We deliberately exclude Domuztepe from our discussions and Table I. So far brief preliminary reports on the excavation were published by Alkım, (Ausgrabungen, Karatepe, pp. 64–71Google Scholar; Belleten 12 [1948], pp. 254–255Google Scholar; 14 [1950], pp. 546–549, 655–657, 680–681; 16 [1952], pp. 135–136, 238–250; AS 1 [1951], pp. 9–10Google Scholar; 2 [1952], pp. 19–20) and it seems advisable to wait for the final report of the excavation before a detailed discussion takes place.

123 For published photographs of the inscriptions see Alkım, , Belleten 12 (1948), pls. CXXXIII–CXXXIVGoogle Scholar; O'Callaghan, , Orientalia 18 (1949), pls. XXII, XXVIGoogle Scholar; Ceram: The Secret of the Hittites, pl. XXXI; Akurgal: Art of the Hittites, pls. 146–149.

124 It is interesting to note that two artisans even added their “signature” to the Hittite inscription. See Laroche, E., Syria 35 (1958), pp. 275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 ANET 2, p. 500.

126 See, for example, O'Callaghan, , Orientalia 18 (1949), p. 191Google Scholar; Starcky, J.apud Dupont-Sommer, M. A.: Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré, Paris 1958, p. 137Google Scholar.

127 It should be noted that both Gordon, (in JNES 8 [1949], n. 7 on p. 109Google Scholar) and Goetze, (in JCS 16 [1962], n. 11 on p. 51Google Scholar) who advocate an early date for Karatepe discard the use of palaeography for dating Azitawadda's inscription.