Page 152 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

ASIA MINOR AND THE IIITTITES
128a), but a detailed study (Figure 50) shows how elaborately their simplicity is modi-
ficd by engraving. The bases of columns in the shape of Hons which were found in
Temple III at Boghazkcuy lack these engravings and are also less forceful; the jaws are
closed and yet the tongue projects; a sign of incipient conventionalism.23
hi the gate figures of Boghazkcuy there is a curious discrepancy betw cen the excellent
modelling of the upper part and the clumsy lifeless treatment of the legs and feet; the
contrast is seen in the sphinxes at Ala$a Hiiyiik (Plate I28b). These are probably
same
meant to be female. Their head-dresses combine a garbled rendering of the headcloth
of Pharaoh with a woman’s fashion of the Middle Kingdom, consisting of two pigtails,
flung forward on either side of the face, with their ends wound round flat circular disks.2*
The Yerkapu sphinxes wear these under their homed cap of Mesopotamian origin. The
necklace of the Ala$a Hiiyiik sphinxes is not known elsewhere. The Hittite sphinxes

Figure 50. Lion, from die Lion gate, Boghazkcuy

probably follow Syrian prototypes, and the deviations from Egyptian usage may be
Syrian. In die period between 1950 and 1750 b.c. Egypt dominated the Levant,23 as we
shall see, and small but beautifully cut sphinxes of Amenemhat III and IV were sent to
Syria and excavated at Ras Shamra and Qatna.
The god carved on the inside of the Royal Gate belongs to the same school as the lions
and sphinxes (Plate 127). If he is less effective dian these and, in fact, disturbing, this is
due to his ambiguous character as a carving. Like other works of ideo-plastic or pre-
Greek art, the figure combines front views and profiles. In the low relief of Egypt or
Assyria the figures seem to move in a world of their own, die flat world of the relief, and
the combination rarely troubles us. But the vigorous and detailed modelling of the
Hittite figure and the emphatic contrast between figure and background emphasize the
abrupt juxtaposition of front-view trunk and profile legs, to name but the most striking
anomaly.26 The sculptor’s contemporaries would not have been struck by this, but t
wc
must allow for it, in order to appreciate the quality of a work which is both vivid and
vigorous. It has a fresh and novel style within an established convention. The modelling
excellently renders the musculature of arms and legs; its care and precision are such tha*t

123