[485] _Vide_ the photograph on Pl. LVIII., where these features may be seen in the distance. [486] _Vide supra_, p. 158. [487] Texier, _Description of Asia Minor_, i. Pl. LXXX. [488] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 108 _et seqq._ [489] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 62 and ff. [490] The best plan was published by Barth, _Reise von Trapesunt ... nach Scutari_, p. 48. [491] Pl. LXI. (ii). [492] We are indebted to the courtesy of Dr. Winckler and his colleagues for the facilities which enabled us to study this site during the progress of the excavations. [493] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 115. [494] Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 64 and ff. [495] See _infra_, p. 312. [496] From calculations supplied from our rough data by Sir Norman Lockyer. [497] Above, p. 159; for our date, see below, p. 339. [498] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 114. [499] By Dr. Winckler’s excavations, _Report cit._, figs. 3, 4; pp. 54-55. [500] _Infra_, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX., and p. 311. [501] Ramsay (_Luke the Physician_, p. 203, in a chapter largely reprinted from a paper in the _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._ 1882) makes the remarkable suggestion that most of the figures apparently male are those of females in disguise (_e.g._ of Amazons); but we have found nothing in our study of these sculptures to support this view. With all deference to a great scholar’s first impressions, we believe that if he revisited the monuments, and viewed them in the light of the new comparative material, he would find no reason to maintain the point of view which may have seemed warranted twenty-seven years ago. One of the chief arguments is the delicacy and femininity of face seen in some of the sculptures; yet on the same argument several of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasty would appear to have been female. The refinement is clearly that of the sculptor. The same point of view is taken in reference to the Amazon sculptures recently discovered (_Expository Times_, Nov. 1909), in an article on _The Armed Priestesses of the Hittite Religion_; but in our judgment these belong to a phase of art quite distinct, and several centuries later in date. On this point, see below, p. 357. [502] See the plan, p. 221, and Pls. LXIII.-LXVIII. [503] Cf. Malatia sculptures, etc., Pl. XLIV. [504] This is a common feature on Hittite sculptures, and on several well-preserved instances from here [cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii)] and elsewhere, notably from Sinjerli [cf. Pl. LXVII. (ii), and Berlin V.-A. Mus., Cast No. 199], it seems to be due to a plain metal or otherwise stiff attachment rising from or continuous with the brim of the hat. [505] Compare the winged deity of Malatia, Pl. XLIV. and p. 139. [506] Cf. pp. 111, 118. [507] Presumably a sacred stone; _vide_ Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, p. 154, No. 11. [508] Pl. LXXII. and p. 255. [509] See Pl. LXVIII. [510] Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, in the plan, p. 221. For position of the group, see the photograph, Pl. LXIV.