LETTRE DE M. GOLÉNISCHEFF SUR SES DERNIÈRES DÉCOUVERTES

—**-r) et Khargeh. En fait d* « antikah », je n'ai absolument rien trouvé dans la Grande Oasis.

B, Ma principale trouvaille pendant le dernier voyage consiste en trois manuscrits de la XXI* dynastie :

1° Manuscrit hiératique lisiblement écrit, mais diflBcile à déchiffrer à cause des déterminatifs abusifs, des mots nouveaux et des fautes évidentes de la part du scribe, qui s'y rencontrent. Ne m'étant que peu occupé de ce manuscrit, je ne dirai que très peu sur son compte. Jusqu'à présent, je dois l'avouer, le sens général de ce manuscrit m'échappe. Au commencement, il y a quelque chose qui ressemble au passage du Papyrus Prisse, où on parle de la vieillesse. Puis quelqu'un dit avoir parcouru les oasis. D'après le titre, ce manuscrit n'est que la copie d'une lettre d'un scribe à un autre.

2** Papyrus contenant une copie du même texte qui se retrouve dans le Papyrus Wilbour que vous avez étudié. Mon manuscrit est plus développé, car, après avoir reproduit avec quelques variantes le texte du Papyrus Wilbour, il mentionne encore ime certaine quantité de titres, après lesquels viennent des noms de peuples étrangers (partie abîmée du papyrus), ensuite une liste de villes de l'Egypte (!) en commençant du sud au nord (plus de quatre-vingt-dix noms, partie très importante du manuscrit) ; puis viennent des termes de construction, des noms de terrains, de céréales, de pains, de boissons, et enfin des noms de différentes parties du corps.

3^ Manuscrit excessivement curieux, contenant la relation de voyage d'un Égyptien parti de la ville de Tanis ( j /ws^^a o, ou serait-ce peut-être po la ville de Pelusium ?) par mer pour la Phénicie, afin de rapporter des poutres destinées à construire une barque pour le dieu Amon à Thèbes. Hir-Hor (sans doute le grand prêtre) est nommé comme maître de l'Égyptien, qui était mCn^^uQp=^ au temple d'Amon.

L'Egyptien débarque à Diro, <z=> 1 , ou plutôt | , ville des

Zak(k)aro, où on lui vole une partie de ses biens. Pendant que le prince du pays instruit Tenquète afin de découvrir le voleur, l'Égyptien est forcé de rester dans cette ville. Tout d'abord le prince le reçoit poliment, mais ensuite il tâche de s'en débarrasser et lui ordonne de s'en aller. Puis, au moment où l'Égyptien veut partir, le prince le retient. 11 le traite môme assez durement et refuse de lui livrer le bois avant que l'Égyptien n'ait envoyé en Egypte chercher de nouveaux présents. L'Égyptien envoie un messager en Kgypte, et lorsque celui-ci revient, le prince permet à l'Égyptien de prendre les poutres demandées. Ensuite le prince laisse partir l'Égyptien, mais celui-ci, au lieu de rentrer en Egypte, est jeté par des vents contraires sur la côte du pays (donc le pays est près de la mer !!!) {MArosa [VAlasia des tablettes de Tell el-Amarna). Là il se met sous la protection de la reine du pays. La fin du manuscrit manque malheureusement. Ce manuscrit, un des plus curieux que je connaisse, contient une masse de détails plus intéressants les uns que les autres. Pour le moment, je n'insisterai que sur un point, c'est que la ville de Diro devait se trouver dans le voisinage de Kapouna-Gebeil, et que le^ Zak(k)aro seraient donc tout simplement les « Phéniciens ».

C. Lorsqu'il y a quelque temps j'entrepris de faire une transcription hiéroglyphique du Papyrus n"* lllG de l'Ermitage Impérial, j'y trouvai à la dernière page le curieuï

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA 89

passage suivant : « Un roi viendra du Sud, Améni le véridique de nom. Il sera fils de femme (ou fils d'une femme (?): le mot « femme » = ^t^Jf), de la Nubie (^^^1 .NT^ r^^r-,'^)- n naîtra dans f ^^ }^. H prendra la couronne de la Hauteiiigyple et élèvera la couronne rouge de la Basse- Egypte. Il réunira la double couronne et il posera les deux diadèmes sur le urs support s (? places ? ^^ ) parcourant le Sud

en travaillant de la rame dans K^^^'^^i. Les ejens de répoque du fils de Thomme

\ ^*^ AAAAA. ^ I / ^^ réjouiront au point de perpétuer son nom à toute éternité. Ils seront loin du mal. Aussi les impies abaisseront-ils leur bouche de crainte de lui. Les Aïïmou tomberont devant ses coups, et les Tamahou tomberont devant sa flamme. Les impies dépendront de ses décisions, les révoltés de sa puissance. L'uraeus à son front calmera les révoltés. On bâtira un mur, celui du prince, afin de ne pas laisser entrer les Aâmou dans rÉgypte. »

Si, comme je le suppose (voir V Inventaire), ce manuscrit date d'une époque voisine de Thoutmès III ou de son successeur, il est curieux de relever qu'une espèce d'idée messianique (il est vrai sous l'aspect d'anciennes légendes) se faisait jour dans la littérature égyptienne vers le XV* siècle avant notre ère, et cela à peu près à l'époque où nous rencontrons ailleurs (à Louqsor) la légende de la naissance miraculeuse d'Amenhotep III, qui, d'après la judicieuse remarque de Sbarpe, est d'un parallélisme frappant avec maint passage de l'Écriture- Sainte. Faut-il, dans tout cela, voir une influence de la Syrie (ou de la Palestine)*, qui était vers l'époque indiquée dans de si fréquentes relations avec l'Egypte?

GOLÉNISCHEFF.

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCL^.

BY

Ramsay and Hogarth '

m (coniinued from col. XIV, p, 94)

Among the Tyana monuments we find ourselves in a much more developed style of art. When we compare this group with those of Eyuk, Fraktln and Pteria we feel at first that something is to be said in faveur of Professer Hïrschfeld, who dénies ail connection between the groups, except in so far as each bas borrowed éléments from a common source. But, when we go on to compare thèse monuments with the remains of other ancient Oriental art, then we begin to appreciate the family resemblance that exists between the whole set of early Cappadocian monuments. The différences between them sink into insignificance in comparison with the gulf that divides them ail from Egyptian and Assyrian art in spite of the indubitable analogies which they présent with both one and the other.

(1) In thèse papers, it is perhaps beat to indicatc the share of the two wrilers. Paris 1 and III are by Ramsay. Parts II, IV and V by Hogarth.

90 PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

The opinion then to which we incline is that, while the différences between Tyana and Fraktîn are undeniable, they are due only to development in an art which was practised continuously in the country for a long tiine. Tyana art is later, but itis divided by no gulf from that of Eyuk, Fraktîn and Pteria.

In the development of Cappadocian art from the sculptures of Fraktîn and Pteria to thôse of Tyana, the most striking advance is in the représentation of the huraan face, and in this point the resemblance to the sculptures of Nimroud occurs to every one, and will no doubt be thoroughly discussed by Orientalists. The profile of the face at Fraktîn is very rude, and no attempt is made to indicate détails. Even hair and beard are practically unrepresented ^ ; and the line of the face (which at Eyuk is in some cases little more than two straight lines, meeting at an obtuse angle at the tip of the nose, similar to the primitive sculptures at the Midas-city in Phrygia) is indicated in the simples! fashion. Similarly, as M. Perrot remarks about the Pterian sculptures, " toute indication certaine du sexe fait défaut", owing to the same failure in détails. The aim of the artist is to place a picture before the spectator, and, content with the gênerai effect, he sacrifices truth in the minor détails.

But at Ivrîz the faces of the figures are indicated with such attention to featiu-e and outline as to suggest, not merely the natural internai development of a native art, but its development under the influence of external models. If that be so, the model is not doubtful : between the âge of Fraktîn and that of Ivrîz, the artists of Asia Mincfr had been affected by the art of Assyria in the stage which is seen on the sculptures at Nimroud of Assurnazirpal, B. C. 884-860.

We now come to a question, which we should, if it were possible, gladly avoid : can any approximation be made to assigning the date of thèse sculptures ? The preliminary questions, before this can be answered, are : when did the hieroglyphic system of writing cease to be employed at Tyana, and what system was substituted for it ? The last question practically comes to this : was it the Greek, the Semitic,or the Cuneiform, System of writing that displaced the old Tyanean hieroglyphics? No proof isknown that Cuneiform writing was ever practised at Tyana', and it cannot therefore be taken into account. Greek writing was used on Cilician coins in the fifth century ; Greek coins without legend were struck on the Cilician coast even in the sixth century : coins of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia with Greek legends were struck in the early years of the fourth century. But the use of Aramaic legends on the coins of many Persian satraps of the interior of Asia Minor, during the fourth century, may be taken as an indication that the Semitic writing was known in the country, and was favoured by the satraps, in opposition to the Greek system and in résistance to Greek influence. It is therefore probable that Semitic writing was introduced at Tyana and substituted for hierogljT)hs,

(1) We cannot consîder that, in monuments of an art so rude and primitive, the omission of a beard is due to the artificial and civilised custom of shaving having been gênerai.

(2) " Vannic " inscriptions in cuneiform at Malatia do not affect this statement, nor the cuneiform tablets purchased at Kaisarîyeh, but not known to a well-informed native as having ever been found in the district of Tyana.

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA 91

and that Greek writing, introduced by the spread of Greek commerce, was in compétition with Semitic during the fourth and probably even during the fifth century, and Ihat finally the latter triumphed about 350 B. C. At what period then was Semitic writing introduced? It was probably older than the Persian conquest; forthereisno spécial reason why the Persians should introduce Semitic. That writing might naturally spread over Commagene and Cilicia into Cappadocia by peaceful diffusion, and is known to hâve been in use in Commagene as early as 730 B. C. This is proved by the discoveries at Sinjirli \ where the writing is in raised, not engraved, letters, apparently proving that it had been recently introduced among a people who had previously practised writing only in relief, and applied this method even in using the Semitic characters.

Now the use of relieved symbols was disused at Tyana, and that of incised symbols introduced, before the hieroglyphs were finally abandoned. This incised System had apparently not spread to Sinjirli', but certainly had spread to Marash, the frontier town in the north of Commagene. May we infer from this that the hieroglyphic System was in a state of change at this supposed epoch earlier than 700, and that the Semitic was creeping into Commagene from the south, while the incised hieroglyphics, originating in Cappadocia, were being introduced on the north west? Let us suppose that this epoch at Sinjirli was about 750; then we might infer that the incised hieroglyphic period in Tyana may hâve begun as early as 800, and lasted until about 700 or 650 B.C., when Semitic writing was introduced. This is nothing more than a guess, but it may serve as a working hypothesis to be tested as further évidence is collected.

If we could assume that the Semitic System of writing spread rapidly, we should then hâve an approximate date, B. C. 700-650, when the Semitic alphabet was in process of introduction at Tyana. During the seventh century bilingual inscriptions were perhaps made. Monuments with no Semitic writing are likely to be earlier than 700-650; and the monument of Ivriz, in which the older system of relief writing was still employed must be still earlier, but from the style of art can hardly be older than 850. Speaking in the most rough way, we might then date the latter about B. C. 800, and the Tyana monuments about 750-700. Proportionately earlier must be placed the sculptures of Fraktln and Pteria; but as yet no criterion exists to détermine what was the rate of development of this art, which may perhaps hâve continued for a long time in an almost stationary condition. Our présent investigation throws no light on the point.

In our previous article certain monuments discovered near the holy cities, Tyana and Dastarkon, hâve been described, together with two inscriptions of Gyurun. It has

(1) See Ihe reports in the Berliner Philologische Wochenschri/Ï, 1891, of D' Sachau's reading.

(2) If we may argue from the fact that no incised inscriptions hâve yet been found south of Marash ; but this is of course a very uncertain argument.

92 PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

been known for some years past that in the région south and east of the latter town there exist other monuments of the " pre-Hellenic " period, and in 1891 Hogarth went to the Anti-Taurus with J. A. R. Munro of Lincoln Collège, Oxford, in the hope of finding them, in addition to the remains of the Roman frontier défonces, whose discovery was the main object of the expédition.

The existence of the Gyurun monuments first suggested to Ramsay that the earliest route from north- western Cappadocia to the trans-Euphratean région went by way of the Valley of the Tokhma Su. His hypothesis has now received considérable further confirmation by our discoveries, for in the same valley^ about twenty miles lower down and six miles from the right bank of the stream, a group of pre-Hellenic monuments occurs, consisting of two stone lions (at Arslan Tash), and a small lion and inscribed statue (at Palanga), to be described hereafter. Native report says further that a '' lion" exists at Haiiz, a village whose exact situation we could not learn, but lying apparently not far to the north of Derende; while a drawing of a stèle, very similar to one at Marash, published by Humann and Puchstein (Reisen in Nordsyrien, Tafel XLV, 2) has been forwarded recently. to Professer Sayce from Malatia. Both the valley of the Tokhma Su and the plateau east and north east of Kaisarîyeh need to be explored further for links in that ohain which seems to connect Pteria with the fords of the Euphrates at Malatia : but enough hâve been found to indicate the gênerai direction of the road.

No pre-Hellenic monuments hâve been found yet between Kaisarîyeh and the northern end of the Jihan pass to Syria, along the line of the great trade-route and military road of later times, whichjtraversed the Kuru Chai pass and the valleys of the Saros and Gyuk Su \ At Izgin, however, where the line of this route meets that of another coming from the north into the Jihan pass, a remarkable pre-Hellenic monument was seen some years ago by Mr. Marsden of Marash. It is a wedge-shaped pillar inscribed on ail sides with a text in relief, and is now at Albistan, where Hogarth and Munro saw and photographed it (see Plates I and II infra). If the traveller folio ws the north road from the pass for two hours, he will reach the village of Ashagha Yapalak, where Sterrett saw in 1884 a " badly-defaced Hittite inscription* ". In three hours more along the same northern line, by traversing a natural dépression between the foothills of Anti-Taurus and the rough mountains dividing the basins of Jihan and Euphrates, he will come to the Lions of Arslan Tash and the line of the eastern route down the Tokhma Su.

Hère, therefore, is a short chain of monuments, Arslan Tash — Yapalak — Izgin, leading directly from the eastern road to the mouth of the great pass, through which Ramsay assumes in his *'Historical Geography" (p. 35) that a road passed in the earliest times, Connecting Cappadocia with the kindred civilisation of northern Syria. This line affords a route so much more direct from the centre of pre-Hellenic civilisation

(1) See Ramsay, Historical Geography, p. 49, and an article to be published shortly by Hogarth in Jioy, Soc. Geog. Supplementary Papcrs.

(2) Epigraphical Journey, p. 299

in north-westem Cappadocia, than the road Mazaka-Kokusos, that it is quite unnecessary to suppose that the latter road existed at ail in early times. Pteria is an earlier capital than Mazaka, and the earliest roads east and soiith-eastward would start from the former : and further Comana is not so old a hieron, that it wpuld condition the course of the earliest road, whatever it might do in later times.

This view is certainly supported strongly by the entire absence of early monuments between Kaisariyeh and Izgin, a région in which careful search has been made : and it gains additional confirmation from the very fact that it was the Jihan Pass that was chosen so early as the trade-route to Syria, instead of the easier pass which leads direct from Kokusos to Germanikeia (Marash), and affords a much shorter route from Mazaka. When the traveller from Kaisariyeh reaches Gyuksun (Kokusos) at the présent day, he never dreams of making a détour of 4 1/2 days by the Jihan Pass, but crosses directly to Marash in two days by a road which is stated by ail testimony, European and native, to be much easier than the famous route of former days. Nevertheless the Kokusos- Germanikeia pass was not used until quite récent times, for in 877 A. D. the Eniperor Basil, when forced to traverse it, had to eut a way throûgh uncleared forest\ Why then did merchants and armies, coming from Cœsareia or Ariaratheia, not take the shorter and easier route ?

The explanation can only be that the latter route had not been the shorter and easier in the earliest times and therefore had never been brought into use. A road had been made long before through the Jihan Pass, the fact of whose existence was sufficient to keep trade flowing along the old Une, long af ter the point of departure had been shifted and an easier route had become also the more direct. The case is parallel to that of the ' Royal Road', which, as Ramsay has shown, continued for centuries to foUow a long and difficult course, af ter the change of political centre from Pteria to Susa had made naturels road up the Mœander far more direct. As by the '' Royal Road" the narrow Hermus valley and the difficult pass above Philadelpheia continued to be traversed, so the trade-route to Syria continued to run through the Jihan Pass, which affords at this day the most difiîcult bf roads though the Taurus, and could only hâve been made passable for heavy traffic in antiquity by costly and elaborate engineering*.

The distribution of our monuments, therefore, may be held to show that Pteria was in communication "with the east by way of the Tokhma Su, and with Syria by the Jihan Pass. It is also a notable fact (though in the présent state of our local knowledge too much weight must not be attached to it) that we found in 1891 that, as soon as we had left the Tokhma Su to the south of us, ail trace of pre-Hellenic monuments vanished. The Pterian civilisation of which such clear vestiges exist on the routes to Mesopotamîa and Syria, whether by Tyana to the Cilician Gates, by Gyurun to Malatia, or by Izgin to the Jihan Pass, has left no memorials of itself , so far as we know, in the direction of Armenia. Its stream flowed between Cappadocia and Syria only.

(1) Ramsay, Historical Geography, p. 276.

(2) See, for a description of this pass and a discussion of the course of the ancient road, Hogarth in Supplementary Papers of Royal Gcographical Society, cit. supra.

94 PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

The much debated question, whether Cappadocia or Syria is to be regarded as tbe fountain head will, it appears, be better elucidated by the German discoveries at Sinjerli thanby ours. We may, however, call attention to the fact that it is certainly less probable that a civilisation, spread over a wide area in the south, should narrow to one point, when extended northwards, than that, originating in a small area in the north, it should spread out over a wide area in an extension southwards : and, therefore, on the whole that our increased knowiedge of the distribution of pre-Hellenic remains in Cappadocia makes for the support of Ramsay's original view that pre-Hellenic art is at home at Boghaz-Koi (Pteria), and exotic in Syria. The large number of monuments which it has left in the latter région may be readily accounted for by the favorable conditions under which it must hâve developed in the southern plain-land.