This monument is unique in character, and every respect must be paid to the conclusions of one who, being familiar with Hittite works, has studied this one carefully. Having only the photograph and drawings which he published as guide, we naturally hesitate to put forward any alternative view; yet it must be said that there are several fundamental objections to the explanation which has been offered. The most obvious and irremovable is that there is direct evidence on the face of the stone that the carving is all contemporary; for it is all in relief, and in accordance with precedent the background not sculptured must have been cut away, so that it would have been impossible subsequently to carve thereon a figure with the same relief as the rest. Added to this, it is clear that the inscription is arranged with due regard to the small figure, not the reverse. Also the ends of the inscribed bands are coterminous with the dagger, stamping the whole composition as contemporary. It must next be noted that no trace of a great figure is to be seen, nor can its form be conjectured, seeing that the dagger hangs on one side and the tassel on the next, unless indeed the stone formed the lower portion of a somewhat angular statue,[246] about four times its present height. A figure in relief would have occupied part of two sides of the stone including the corner—an unprecedented complication in Hittite sculpture. The analogy quoted by Dr. Messerschmidt of the god-figure discovered in the last excavations at Sinjerli breaks down at this point. That object was carved in the round, representing a deity standing in Hittite fashion upon a base composed of two standing lions, as on the monuments of Carchemish and Boghaz-Keui. He wears a dagger stuck into a belt, and with the trappings there is a large tassel of the kind seen on the fourth side in this instance. From these details Dr. Messerschmidt thinks that the Marash monument only differed in that the dagger must have been worn suspended from the shoulder, on account of the pendent position of the belt. On all analogy, however, the priest-king in this case must be facing the deity he is worshipping. If then no other form of deity can be suggested, we must take the only evidence before us as to its nature, which would lead us to infer that it is here represented by the dagger and tassel. We venture no hypothesis in explanation; the Sacred Dirk[247] as a cult object is known in Hittite symbolism and familiar in the hieroglyphs; and it would be equally accordant with precedent to imagine that the dirk was really emblematic of the deity with whom it was usually associated. Alternatively the object of worship may have been a great divine statue upon the skirt of which these representations were carved.