Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:08:59.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building Inscriptions of Carchemish: The Long Wall of Sculpture and Great Staircase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. D. Hawkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the publication in 1952 of Carchemish, part III, Sir Leonard Woolley attempted to allocate the excavated buildings and monuments to reigns and dates. For the epigraphic evidence of the Hieroglyphic Hittite inscriptions, he relied upon the chapter contributed to the publication by R. D. Barnett. Here Barnett constructed a chronological framework based on the names and genealogies appearing in the inscriptions. He was, however, working in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Karatepe, before even the preliminary publication of the bilingual was complete, so that a number of his readings required subsequent correction. Detailed epigraphic criticism was offered particularly by Güterbock and Meriggi in their reviews of the volume. The efforts of all these scholars considerably advanced our knowledge of the chronology of the buildings and sculpture, and subsequent treatments of the art and archaeology of Carchemish have naturally relied heavily upon them.

More recently however, the study of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, which are for the most part concerned mainly with the erection of buildings and sculptures, has fallen behind that of the monuments to which they relate. This remains true even after the new edition of some of these inscriptions published by Meriggi in what is primarily a philological study. It would therefore seem desirable to present editions of the Carchemish building inscriptions as complete as their fragmentary nature and persistent difficulties interpretation will permit; and on this basis to review the chronology of the buildings and sculptures described therein. It is the purpose of this article therefore to examine the inscriptions relating to the Long Wall of Sculpture and the Great Staircase, which elucidate to some extent the history of the construction of that complex.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 22 , December 1972 , pp. 87 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1972

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 Güterbock, H. G., “Carchemish” (JNES 13(1954), pp. 102–14)Google Scholar; Meriggi, P., “La ricostruzione di Kargamis” (RSO 29(1954), pp. 1–16)Google Scholar. Since this article went into proof Winfried Orthmann's massive Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst has become available. I am happy to find that the conclusions of this article are in general agreement with Orthmann's work, which I hope to review elsewhere. In this article I have been able to add essential references in the footnotes.

2 Meriggi, P., Manuale di Eteo Geroglifico, Parte II/1 (Rome, 1967Google Scholar; hereafter Manuale II/1).

3 Manuale II/1, p.44Google Scholar.

4 Above, page 94, text 2 (i).

5 For this interpretation of the procession, see the reconstruction Fig. 4a, and the notes on it (page 106).

6 In the same way, Araras introduces B 7 a (right-hand figure) with the words, “this (is) the image of Araras”.

7 Woolley, , Carchemish III, pp. 166, 173, 241 ff.Google Scholar; accepted by Güterbock, loc. cit., pp. 104, 108; Ussishkin, D., “On the dating of some groups of reliefs from Carchemish and TilBarsip” (An. St. 17 (1967), esp. p. 183)Google Scholar.

8 Meriggi, , RSO 29(1954), p. 5fGoogle Scholar.

9 For the attestations of these two, see below, p. 98 ff.

10 Güterbock, loc. cit., p. 104. This style is recognized by Orthmann as Karkemis III and referred to as the Katuwas-Gruppe.

11 The similarity was noted by Barnett, , Carchemish III, p. 261Google Scholar.

12 Carchemish III, p. 192Google Scholar. Cf. now also Orthmann, , Untersuchungen, p. 40fGoogle Scholar.

13 It was based on a misreading of CARCHEMISH A 11 a, 4: see below, page 112, note on A 23, §6. There is no reason to associate this remark with the colossus.

14 Carchemish III, p. 163Google Scholar.

15 loc. cit.,p. 104.

16 Ussishkin, D., “Observations on some monuments from Carchemish” (JNES 26(1967), pp. 87–92Google Scholar.

17 Cf. note 15.

18 A good example is the virtual identity of the curse formula in both, in which a writing of the word HAMMER-lá-a unparalleled elsewhere, is employed.

19 A 14 a, §3 – cf. A 2, 2; A 11 a, 2.

A 14 a, §§6,7 – cf. A 2, 2–3.

A 14 a, §8 – cf. A 11 c, 3.

A 14 a, §9 – cf.A 11 a, 6, etc.

19a Indeed Orthmann now accepts the lions as early (Untersuchungen, Katalog, s.v. Karkemis K/19, 20, 21. Cf. also my Notes on the Reconstruction, Fig. 4b (below, p. 108, nos. 5,6).

20 RSO 29, p. 3Google Scholar.

21 CIH I(Berlin, 1900), no. IXGoogle Scholar.

22 Carchemish III, p. 161Google Scholar.

23 Carchemish III, pp. 242, 261Google Scholar.

24 Contrast “this Atarsuhas” (A 11 a, 5); “this Tarhundas”, “these gods” (A 1 a, 4).

25 HH I, nos. 191, 2; 193,1 a.

26 Woolley describes the gap (Carchemish III, p. 161)Google Scholar.

27 Carcḥemish III, p. 261Google Scholar.

28 Kalaç, M., “Die Wettergott-Stele mit Hieroglyphen aus Körkün” (Athenaeum 47(1969), pp. 160–167)Google Scholar.

28a Orthmann also rejects this ascription to Astiruwas (Untersuchungen, p. 191), and considers this style, his Karkemis V, to be the latest.

29 Bossert, H. T., “Zur Geschichte von Karkamis” (RSO 1 (1951), pp. 35–67)Google Scholar.

30 So Bossert, , St. Cl. Or. 1 (1952), p. 57Google Scholar; Meriggi, , Manuale II/1, p. 109Google Scholar.

31 Cf. the Sakçagözü griffins; E. Akurgal, The Art ofthe Hittites, Plate 134; H. T. Bossert, Altanatolien, no. 884. Orthmann now publishes a further fragment of B 35 c (Untersuchungen, Tafel 21 e), which shows the end of the curled lock of hair, and thereby confirms the suggestion of the griffin head.

32 Madhloom, T., The Chronology of Neo-Assyrian Art, p. 114Google Scholar and Plate LXXXV, 26.