¹ For the nineteenth-century visitors and excavators at Alaca Hüyüsee Macridy-Bey, Th., “La porte des sphinx à Eyuk. Fouilles du Musée Impérial Ottoman,” MVAG XIII (1908), 2Google Scholar, n. 1. The gateway in its present arrangement has been dated to the thirteenth century B.C.: Koşay, Hamit Zübeyr, Les fouilles d'Alaca Hüyük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1957), pp. 173–4Google Scholar. The relief sculptures have been dated to the fourteenth century B.C., or even slightly earlier: Bittel, Kurt, Les Hittites (Paris: Gallimard, 1976), pp. 200–1Google Scholar. The observations reported here were made in September 1984 while I enjoyed a research leave granted by the University of Iowa and received the continued encouragement of the American Research Institute in Turkey. The substance of this paper was presented at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washington, D.C., on 29 December 1985.

² Macridy, p. 9: “Ayant minutieusement examiné le sphinx de gauche…nous avons remarqué, à la même hauteur que le précédent [i.e., the inner side of the eastern sphinx pier], un pied chaussé d'une sandale à bout recourbé, avec le bas d'une robe à festons” (I find no traces of the scalloped edges shown in his fig. 12); and Garstang, John, The Land of the Hittites (London: Constable, 1910), pp. 268–9Google Scholar, noting the turned-up toe of the shoe “together with traces of an eagle's head”. Vieyra notes that the figure has almost entirely disappeared: Vieyra, Maurice, Hittite Art, 2300–750 B.C. (London: Alec Tiranti Ltd., 1955), p. 33Google Scholar.

For a large unfinished sphinx observed on the other side of this pier, see Canby, Jeanny Vorys, “The Walters Gallery Cappadocian Tablet and the Sphinx in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C.”, JNES XXXIV (1975), 225–48Google Scholar. The presence of this very large form shows that at one time the Hittites planned a different arrangement of the portal, and perhaps it is evidence of reuse of portions of the sculpture.

³ In addition to the relief in our Pl. XL, a another orthostat bears a queen behind a great king pouring a libation before a seated goddess: Macridy, p. 21 and fig. 27; and Bossert, Helmuth Th., Altanatolien (Berlin: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth G.M.B.H., 1942)Google Scholar, fig. 505. The female figure on the sphinx pier appears in photographs published as early as the 1890s: Chantre, Ernst, Mission en Cappadoce (Paris, 1898)Google Scholar, fig. 4, where the sun highlights the edge of the garment. More recently it appears in Frankfort, Henri, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954)Google Scholar, pl. 128 B; and Bittel, Les Hittites, frontispiece and fig. 209. For the shoe tip in a full circle with the drill hole in the centre at Alaca Hüyük, see Perrot, Georges and Chipiez, Charles, History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria, and Asia Minor (London, 1890)Google Scholar, fig. 337; and Bittel, Les Hittites, fig. 216. Representations of this device are rare. I know only four others: a silver stag rhyton, c. 1400–1200 B.C. (Muscarella, Oscar W., Ancient Art; The Norbert Schimmel Collection [Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1974]Google Scholar, no. 123); a stamp-cylinder seal, Louvre AO 20138 dated to the late thirteenth century B.C. (Alexander, Robert L., “The Tyskiewicz Group of Stamp-Cylinders”, Anatolica V [1973–1976]Google Scholar, fig. 3c); impressions of the seal of Kuzi-Tešub, king of Carchemish about 1200 B.C. (cf. AS XXXVIII 101Google Scholar), excavated at Lidar (best photograph, Mellink, Machteld, “Archaeology in Anatolia”, AJA XCI [1987]Google Scholar, fig. 4); and a Neo-Hittite relief excavated at ‘Ain Dara in northern Syria (Assaf, Ali Abu, “Ein Relief der kriegerischen Göttin Ischtar”, Damaszener Mitteilungen I [1983], 7–8Google Scholar, pl. 1), which clearly shows the toes drawn back and attached to the top of the shoes.

⁴ For the techniques of Hittite sculptors, see Alexander, Robert L., The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazılıkaya (Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1986), pp. 27–31Google Scholar. For a brief period this pier lay on the ground broken: Von der Osten, H. H., Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor, Oriental Institute Communications, 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), p. 35Google Scholar. Weathering, however, was the primary reason for the condition of the surface of the relief. It is more pitted and eroded than the relief of the male figure.

⁵ The lituus can cross over the back profile at the bottom of the robe, about ankle level, as in the relief portrait of Muwatalli at Sirkeli (Bittel, Les Hittites, pl. 195), as high as the buttocks, as on the seal of Shahurunuwa (Beyer, Dominique, “Le sceau-cylindre de Shahurunuwa, roi de Karkemish”, La Syrie au bronze récent [Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1982], pp. 67–78Google Scholar, fig. 10), or at almost any level between the two points. The lituus on the Sphinx Gate is above the knee, slightly higher than the two on the orthostats of Alaca Hüyük. For a similar treatment of the end of the lituus and the bowllike interior shape, see figure 81 at Yazılıkaya (Bittel, Les Hittites, pl. 253). For the early description omitting the lituus, see Perrot and Chipiez, p. 173. Garstang (op. cit. [n. 2], pp. 268–9), on the other hand, saw these traces of the lituus.

⁶ The original figure would have risen well above the sphinx protome, as does the unfinished sphinx on the west pier (cf. Canby, fig. 11). The monolith originally was high enough for such a figure (cf. Macridy, fig. 1). In the two preserved images of the king on orthostats the bent elbow does not break the back contour as it does in all other representations of this image, evidence perhaps of the individuality of the master sculptor at Alaca Hüyük. His work is marked also by the use of large, sweeping curvilinears, not only in the long trains of the two pier figures, but in other figures and animals as well.

⁷ For the suggestion that the male figure is the “priest-king”, see Garstang, loc. cit. It is described as a human figure (as opposed to animal?) in Vieyra, pp. 66–7, and Macqueen, J. G., The Hittites (1975; London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1986), p. 139Google Scholar. While the female figure on the sphinx pier was virtually unknown, some scholars interpreted the male figure as a goddess, apparently by analogy with goddesses 45–6 at Yazılıkaya who are supported by a two-headed eagle; see Frankfort, p. 127; and, with some question, Mellink, Machteld J., “Observations on the Sculptures of Alaca Hüyük”, Anadolu XIV (1972), p. 26Google Scholar. For figures 45–6 at Yazılıkaya, see Bittel, Kurt et al. , Die hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazılıkaya (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1975)Google Scholar, pls. 26, 31.

⁸ For examples of the two-headed eagle at the capital city during the Assyrian Colony period, see Beran, Thomas, Die hethitische Glyptik von Boǧazköy (Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1967)Google Scholar, nos. 32–40; and Boehmer, Rainer Michael and Güterbock, Hans Gustav, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boǧazköy (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987)Google Scholar, nos. 44, 61. Many more are known from such sites as Kültepe and Karahüyük (Konya). See discussions of the history of this motif in Bittel, Kurt, Yazılıkaya (1941; repr. Osnabruck: Zeller, 1967), pp. 125–7Google Scholar; and Güterbock, Hans Gustav, Siegel aus Boǧazköy 2 vols. (1940; repr. Osnabruck: Biblio-Verlag, 1967), II: 19–20Google Scholar; also Laroche, Emmanuel, Les hiéroglyphes hittites, Pt. 1, L'écriture (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1960), no. 127Google Scholar; and Alp, Sedat, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1968), p. 146Google Scholar. One Neo-Hittite relief shows this motif under a group of figures; see Ingholt, Harald, “Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama 1932–8 & 1940 en Syrie”, Arkaeologisk-Kumthistoriska Meddelelser, Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab III (1949–1950)Google Scholar, pl. 26. Concerning another representation of the motif reported by Chantre, see Macridy, pp. 25–9. For examples of the two-headed eagle grasping its prey on either side, see Beran, no. 75; and Boehmer and Güterbock, no. 61.

⁹ On the secondary role of the Sun-god in the Hittite pantheon, see Beckman, Gary, “A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Babylonian Collection”, AS XXXI (1981), 135Google Scholar with bibliography. Many Hittite cylinder seals bear the image of the king topped by a winged sun-disk, a representation often considered that of the Sun-god: Bittel, , Yazılıkaya (1975), pp. 138–9Google Scholar, for figure 34 at the sanctuary; see also Hans G. Güterbock, in ibid., p. 174. Laroche sees the image on seals as the king with his title “Mon Soleil”, the king as patron from whom the owner of the seal derived his authority: Laroche, Emmanuel in Claude F.-A., Schaeffer, Ugaritica III (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1956), pp. 124, 142Google Scholar; see also Laroche, Emmanuel, “Les dieux de Yazılıkaya”, RHA XXVII (1969): 73–5Google Scholar. Because this figure often carries an ankh in his outstretched hand, Beyer (p. 77) interprets “Mon Soleil” as guarantor and dispenser of the vital forces of the empire. For Beckman (p. 135) the figure may be the Sun-god as guarantor of justice, but it may as well be the king, his representation legitimizing the actions taken in his and the gods' behalf by the owner of the seal.

¹⁰ For Tarsus 42, see Goldman, Hetty, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956)Google Scholar, pl. 407. For the Yale seal, see Beckman, , AS XXXI, pp. 129–35Google Scholar; see table on p. 131, no. 25 for Tarsus 42 left, the seal owner identified as Pu-ka-n with the title L254. The compositional formula has been discussed by Laroche who distinguished nine types in the majority of which the major figure is the Storm-god; Ugaritica III pp. 141–2, with Tarsus 42 as his fifth type. Beckman (pp. 134–5) points out the stereotypical nature of these compositions.

¹¹ For the figures and small feet on the inner walls of the Sphinx Gate, see Chantre, pp. 7–8 and figs. 7, 9; Macridy, p. 9 and figs. 13, 14; Garstang, pp. 268–9; and Mellink, , “Observations on the Sculptures of Alaca Hüyük”, p. 26Google Scholar, with the interpretation as a procession.

¹² For an over-all plan of Alaca Hüyük, see Koşay, Hamit Zübeyr and Akok, Mahmut, Ausgrabungen von Alaca Höyük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1966)Google Scholar, pl. 1.

¹³ For the representation of the Hittite pantheon, see Bittel, , Yazılıkaya (1975)Google Scholar, pl. 8. For Šarruma and Tudhaliya IV (figure 81), see ibid., pls. 48, 49. For a partial reconstruction of the gateway composition at Alaca Hüyük and interpretation of the programme of the reliefs, see Mellink, , “Observations on the Sculptures of Alaca Hüyük”, Anadolu XIV (1972), pp. 15–27Google Scholar.