[456] On the development of the route through the Cilician Gates, see above, p. 45. [457] Cf. the treatment of the priest-king and other monuments at Sakje-Geuzi. Pl. LXXXI. [458] Cf. Pl. LVI. [459] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, May 1906, pp. 133, 134, and Plate. [460] In the former instance in a compound or variant, _Ay-mi-ny-a-si-s_ (? son of Ayminyas); in the latter instance exactly as at Bor, _Ay-mi-ny-a-s_. The signs are the two last of the first row, and the three below them in the second row, of the inscription behind the king. Cf. the first five signs of the Bor inscription, Pl. LVI. [461] See what is said on this subject in the previous chapter, p. 54. [462] Cf. pp. 238, 240. On the origins and development of this conception of the god, see below, pp. 378, 379. [463] We may pay special tribute to the pioneer work of the Berlin expedition at Sinjerli, to the explorations of Sir Wm. Ramsay and his school in Phrygia and Lycaonia, and to the organised labours of Dr. Winckler at Boghaz-Keui. We shall incorporate also some of the preliminary results of the excavations of the Liverpool Institute at Sakje-Geuzi. [464] _Vide supra_, p. 32. [465] _Vide supra_, p. 13. [466] See _inter alia_, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 103 _et seq._ The name Ptara is suggested by Ramsay, who accepts the identification (_Luke the Physician_, p. 215, note). [467] Herodotus, i. 76. The situation of Pteria is indicated vaguely as κατὰ Σινώπην which is read to mean ‘opposite’ or ‘over against Sinope’; the full context is: ἡ δὲ Πτερίη ἐστὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης τὸ ἰσχυρότατον κατὰ Σινώπην πόλιν ... μάλιστά κῃ κειμένη. [468] We prefer the term ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ to ‘White-Syrian,’ or ‘Leuco-Syrian,’ as a more comprehensive equivalent in our days of the original name Suri. [469] _Supra_, p. 158. [470] Winckler, ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations at Boghaz-Keui, 1907’ (_Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, Berlin, 1907), p. 57-58. See also above, p. 160. See also an earlier article in _Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_, Dec. 1906. [471] See above, p. 53. [472] It had probably been destroyed, as the archives were not transferred to the new building which was placed upon the ruins of the old. The date is based on a calculation of difference in axial direction kindly supplied by Sir Norman Lockyer, _vide infra_, p. 210. [473] _Supra_, p. 37. [474] Herodotus, v. 52. [475] _Supra_, p. 24. [476] As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp. 143, 366. [477] _Supra_, pp. 33, 34. [478] See Pl. LIX. [479] Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian fortresses, _infra_, pp. 273, 300. [480] Pl. LX. [481] Cf. _infra_, p. 226. [482] Report _cit._, Pl. XII. Cf. below, p. 357. [483] A plan is published in Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien_, Pl. XIV., and a revised version in Murray’s _Handbook_, p. 21. [484] Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi, p. 163, Karaburna, p. 154, and Kizil Dagh, p. 178.