Phrygian Rock-cut Shrines: Structure, Function, and Cult Practice (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East)

Phrygian Rock-Cut Shrines

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor

M.H.E. Weippert Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P.J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 25

Phrygian Rock-Cut Shrines Structure, Function, and Cult Practice By

Susanne Berndt-Ersöz

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berndt-Ersöz, Susanne. Phrygian rock-cut shrines : structure, function, and cult practice / by Susanne Berndt-Ersöz. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; v. 25) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 90-04-15242-3 (alk. paper) 1. Shrines—Turkey—Phrygia. 2. Monuments—Turkey—Phrygia. 3. Cults—Turkey—Phrygia. 4. Turkey—Antiquities. I. Title. BL795.S47B47 2006 299’.19—dc22 2006049930

ISSN 1566–2055 ISBN-10 90 04 15242 3 ISBN-13 978 90 04 15242 7 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

contents

v

For my father

vi

contents

contents

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables, Diagrams and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Introduction 1. Aims and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx 3. State and History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxii Chapter I. Structural Examination of the Archaeological Evidence 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Geographical Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Access to Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The Relation between the Monuments and the Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Specific Topographical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Step Monuments and Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Façades and Niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Niches with and without a Surrounding Building Façade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Niche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Akroterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Roof and Gable Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Side Posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Geometrical Decoration of the Façades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6. Shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Step Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. The Upper Part above the Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Images of Matar, Idols and Other Related Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1. Iconography of Matar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Images of Animals and Other Related Creatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Images of Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Associated Rock-cut Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1. Platform, Shelf, Podium, Bench, Base and Other Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. Bosses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3. Cup-marks and Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4. Small Secondary Niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5. Architectural Constructions Associated with Façades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4 4 7 10 15 16 16 17 19 21 21 29 30 34 35 39 40 40 41 45 48 49 49 53 56 58 59 59 61 62 63 65 67 67 67

viii

contents

9.2. Placement of the Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3. Type and Content of Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4. Epithets of Matar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Archaeological Finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 71 83 86 87

Chapter II. Chronology 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2. Archaeological Evidence Used as Dating Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.1. The Chronology of Midas City and Other Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.2. Excavated Objects and Structures Found Close to Rock-cut Monuments at Midas City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3. The Decoration Used as Dating Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.1. Chronological Aspects Concerning the Geometric Decoration of the Main Field of the Façades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.2. Chronological Aspects of the Architectural Imitations of the Façades . . . . . . . . . . . .105 3.3. Iconographical Evidence from a Chronological Point of View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 4. Inscriptions Used as Dating Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 4.2. Monuments with Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 4.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 5. The Chronology of Other Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 5.1. Step Monuments and Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 5.2. Façades and Niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

Chapter III. Analysis of Function and Cult Practice 1. The Location of Monuments and Its Implication for the Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 1.1. Outdoor and Mountainous Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 1.2. An Eastern Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 1.3. Close to Water Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 1.4. Close to City Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 1.5. Connection to Tombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 1.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 2. Identity of Deities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158 2.1. The Semicircular Disc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158 2.2. The Concept of Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 2.3. Which Deities Can Be Connected with the Different Types of Monuments? . . . . . .170 2.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 3. The Purpose of the Monuments and How They Were Used in Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 3.1. The Purpose of the Step Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 3.2. The Purpose of the Façades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 3.3. The Purpose of the Stoa at the Midas Monument and the Architectural Space at DeÅirmen Yeri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177 3.4. The Purpose of Idols Not Made as a Part of Step Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180 3.5. Cult Practices Connected with the Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 3.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

contents

ix

4. Origins and Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 4.1. Step Monuments and Idols—Sources of Influence and Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 4.2. Façades and Niches—Sources of Influence and Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 4.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

Chapter IV. Summary and Conclusions 1. Phrygian Cult and Cult Practice: The Archaeological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 2. Phrygian Religion in a Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209

Catalogue 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 2. Niches with or without a Surrounding Façade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Western Phrygia with the Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Delikli Taâ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 FÌndÌk Asar Kaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 Kilise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 Kes Kaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Delik Taâ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 DöÅer Asar Kaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 Emre Gölü Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 Demirli Köy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 Köhnüâ Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 Karababa Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 Gökbahçe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 Kümbet Asar Kale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 Midas City (YazÌlÌkaya) and Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 Piâmiâ Kale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239 Germanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239 Central Phrygia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 BöÅürtlen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 3. Step Monuments and Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 Western Phrygia with the Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 FÌndÌk Asar Kaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 Kes Kaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243 Emre Gölü Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243 NallÌ Kaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Demirli Köy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Köhnüâ Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245 Midas City (YazÌlÌkaya) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 Central Phrygia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263 Tekören . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263 Dümrek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 Eastern Phrygian Periphery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266 Karahisar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266 Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .268 1. Niches with a Surrounding Façade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .268 2. Step Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269

x

contents

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271 Indices General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293 Index of Catalogued Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 Index of Palaeo Phrygian Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .308 Index of Palaeo Phrygian Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311

contents

xi

LIST OF TABLES, DIAGRAMS AND FIGURES

Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12. Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20

The location of the monument versus different types of water sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The location of the monument versus the settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Monuments situated together or alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Topographical features concerning the location of monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The appearance of the niche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Dowel hole and other hollows inside the niche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 The inclination and appearance of the roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The number of rafters and their decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The width and decoration of side posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Number of steps belonging to the different step monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 The smallest depth of the steps, and the depth of the top step for each of the step monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The appearance of the upper part of the step monument above the steps . . . . . . . . . . 45 Iconographical features of rock-cut images of Matar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Iconographical features of idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Various rock-cut features associated with all types of rock-cut monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Features of cup-marks and rectangular small basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Niches associated with step monuments/idols and additional niches associated with façades/niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Correspondence between the catalogue numbers and Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Suggested or hypothesized dates of the monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Measurements of the Ankara reliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Diagrams Diagram 1 The orientation of step monuments and idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Diagram 2 The orientation of façades and niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Plates All drawings are derived from published material. The sketched drawings are intended as a help for the reader, and are not measured drawings, as they are based on a compilation of published material (see respective catalogue entry for references). In a few cases measurements are included in the sketches, taken from published sources, in order to provide the reader with a general overview of the monument. All photographs are taken by the author. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Map of Asia Minor. Topographical map of the Phrygian Highlands. Distribution map of Phrygian rock-cut monuments. Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 495).

xii Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22

Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26

Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29

Fig. 30 Fig. 31

list of tables, diagrams and figures Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 499 and Sivas 1999a, pl. 48). FÌndÌk (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 504). DöÅer Asar Kaya (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 503). Kes Kaya (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 506 and Sivas 1999a, pl. 83). Niche (No. 4) at FÌndÌk (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 527:3). Niche (No. 3) at FÌndÌk (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 527:2). Shaft monument (No. 2) at FÌndÌk (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 527:4). Dümrek (after S. Jarvis in Sams & Voigt 1998, 694). Shaft monument Delikli Taâ (No. 1) (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 511). Shaft monument Delikli Taâ (No. 1) (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 512). Shaft monument Delikli Taâ (No. 1) (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, figs. 511:3, 512:4). Façade (No. 5) at FÌndÌk (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 527:1). Niches (Nos. 6 and 7) at FÌndÌk (after Radt 1993, fig. 1). Niche (No. 11) at Kes Kaya (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:3). Façade (No. 10) at Kes Kaya (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 87). Façade (No. 9) at Kes Kaya (a based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:2; b-c after Sivas 1999a, pl. 85). Façade (No. 8) at Kilise (after Körte 1898, fig. 8). Niche (No. 12) at Delik Taâ (a,b based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 517:2; c after Haspels 1971, fig. 517:2 and Sivas 1999a, pl. 165b). Niche (No. 14) at DöÅer Asar Kaya (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 525:4). Façade (No. 13) at DöÅer Asar Kaya (a based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 525:3; b after Sivas 1999a, pl. 111). Façade (No. 19) at Demirli Köy (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 102b). Küçük KapÌ Kaya (façade No. 15) close to Emre Gölü (a based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 524:1; b after Sivas 1999a, pl. 109b). Arslankaya (façade No. 16) close to Emre Gölü (a, b, d based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 523). Büyük KapÌ Kaya (façade No. 17) close to Emre Gölü (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 522). Kumca BoÅaz KapÌ Kaya (façade No. 25) in the Köhnüâ valley (a-b based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 524:2; c after Sivas 1999a, pl. 101). Niche (No. 22) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:7). Façade (No. 29) at Kümbet Asar Kale (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 518:1).

list of tables, diagrams and figures Fig. 32 Fig. 33 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 36 Fig. 37 Fig. 38 Fig. 39 Fig. 40 Fig. 41 Fig. 42 Fig. 43 Fig. 44 Fig. 45 Fig. 46 Fig. 47

Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Fig. 51 Fig. 52 Fig. 53 Fig. 54 Fig. 55 Fig. 56 Fig. 57 Fig. 58 Fig. 59 Fig. 60 Fig. 61 Fig. 62

Façade (No. 32) at Midas City (a based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 518:2; b after Sivas 1999a, pl. 95). Mal Taâ (façade/shaft monument No. 24) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 519). Mal Taâ (façade/shaft monument No. 24) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, figs. 520:1–2). Mal Taâ (façade/shaft monument No. 24) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 520:3). Mal Taâ (façade/shaft monument No. 24) in the Köhnüâ valley (after Gabriel 1965, fig. 41). Bahâayiâ (façade/shaft monument No. 28) at Gökbahçe (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 516). Bahâayiâ (façade/shaft monument No. 28) at Gökbahçe (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, figs. 517:4–5). Panel/niche (No. 27) in the Karababa valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 517:3). Niche (No. 20) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:6). Niche (No. 23) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:5). The Broken Monument (façade No. 33) at Midas City. The upper preserved part of the façade (after Gabriel 1965, fig. 23). DeÅirmen Yeri (shaft monument/façade No. 26) in the Karababa valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 521). DeÅirmen Yeri (shaft monument/façade No. 26) in the Karababa valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 520:4). Niche (No. 21) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:4). Façade (No. 38) at Tonra Patlak, close to Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 518:3). The Areyastis Monument (façade No. 37). Location of inscriptions nos. W-01a-c (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, figs. 514, 601 and Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 37, 40, 42). Niche (No. 40) at Germanos. The Areyastis Monument (façade No. 37) close to Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 514). The Midas Monument (façade No. 30) at Midas City (after Gabriel 1965, fig. 30). The Midas Monument (façade No. 30) at Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, figs. 510:3–5). The Midas Monument (façade No. 30) at Midas City (after Gabriel 1965, fig. 34). The Midas Monument (façade No. 30) at Midas City (after Gabriel 1965, fig. 35). The Hyacinth Monument (façade No. 31) at Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 515). The Hyacinth Monument (façade No. 31) at Midas City (after Gabriel 1965, fig. 25). The Unfinished Monument (façade No. 34) at Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 513:3). Façade (No. 35) at Midas City (a,c after Sivas 1999a, pl. 98; b based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 518:4). Façade (No. 109) close to Demirli Köy (after Sivas 2005, fig. 15). Step monument (No. 54) in the Köhnüâ valley (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 146b). Façade (No. 110) at Kuzören (after Sivas 2003b, fig. 5). Step monument (No. 42) at FÌndÌk (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 156b). From left to right step monuments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 at FÌndÌk.

xiii

xiv Fig. 63 Fig. 64 Fig. 65 Fig. 66 Fig. 67 Fig. 68 Fig. 69 Fig. 70 Fig. 71 Fig. 72 Fig. 73 Fig. 74 Fig. 75 Fig. 76 Fig. 77 Fig. 78 Fig. 79 Fig. 80 Fig. 81 Fig. 82 Fig. 83 Fig. 84 Fig. 85 Fig. 86 Fig. 87 Fig. 88 Fig. 89 Fig. 90

Fig. 91 Fig. 92 Fig. 93 Fig. 94 Fig. 95 Fig. 96 Fig. 97 Fig. 98 Fig. 99 Fig. 100

list of tables, diagrams and figures Step monument (No. 43) at FÌndÌk (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 158). Step monument (No. 48) at FÌndÌk (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 155). Idol (No. 49) at Kes Kaya. Three idols (No. 55) in the Köhnüâ valley. Idol (No. 65) at Midas City. a,c Step monument No. 58; b step monument No. 58 to left, No. 59 to right. Köhnüâ valley (after Sivas 1999a, pls. 149–150). Step monument (No. 61) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 525:1). Idol (No. 63) at Midas City. Idol (No. 62) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 122b). Step monument (No. 50) close to Emre Gölü (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 153b). Step monument (No. 56) in the Köhnüâ valley (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 526:1). Step monument (No. 52) close to Demirli Köy (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 152b). From left to right step monuments Nos. 111, 53 and 112 close to Demirli Köy (after Sivas 2005, fig. 14). Step monument (No. 64) at Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 528:2). Step monument (No. 67) at Midas City (a,b after Ramsay 1889b, fig. 20; c after Ramsay 1889b, fig. 20 and Sivas 1999a, pl. 131b). Step monument (No. 68) at Midas City (a after Sivas 1999a, pl. 132b; b,c based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 529:1). Step monument (No. 69) at Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 529:2). Step monument (No. 70) at Midas City (a-c after Ramsay 1889b, fig. 23). Idol No. 71 to left, double idol No. 72 to right. Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 135b). Step monument with idols (No. 80) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 74) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 76) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 129b). Idols Nos. 81, 82 and 83, from left to right. Midas City (based on drawings by Börker-Klähn in Berndt 2002, fig. 40 and Sivas 1999a, pl. 116b). Step monument (No. 77) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 128). Step monument with idol (No. 84) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 118). Idols No. 86a-b to left, idols No. 87a-d to right. Midas City. Step monument (No. 99) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 138b). a,c. Step monument No. 95 to left and step monument No. 96 to right. b. Step monument No. 95. Midas City (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 528:1). Step monument (No. 85) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 130b). Step monument (No. 101) at Dümrek (b,c after Sivas 1999a, pl. 142b). Step monument (No. 98) at Midas City (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 137). Step monument (No. 100) at Tekören (after Sivas 1999a, pl. 140). Step monument (No. 108) at Karahisar (a after F. Naumann 1983, pl. 11b; b–c after M. Akok in Temizer 1949, pl. 77). Geometric decoration of the Midas Monument, No. 30. The crosses between the different sections are hatched in the illustration (based on Gabriel 1965, fig. 31). Example of the section on which the geometric patterns of the façades are based. Illustration showing how the four different elements of the geometric decoration of Arslankaya, No. 16, can be combined together to form one unit. Restoration of the geometric pattern of DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26. The geometric decoration of the Midas Monument, No. 30. The different sections with crosses between are hatched in the illustration (modified after Gabriel 1965, fig. 30).

list of tables, diagrams and figures Fig. 101

Fig. 102

Fig. 103

Fig. 104

Fig. 105

Fig. 106 Fig. 107 Fig. 108 Fig. 109 Fig. 110 Fig. 111

Fig. 112

Fig. 113 Fig. 114 Fig. 115 Fig. 116

Fig. 117 Fig. 118 Fig. 119 Fig. 120

Fig. 121 Fig. 122

xv

Geometric decoration of Arslankaya, No. 16. The decoration in the illustration continues outside the frame of the actual façade. To the left is ¾ of a geometric section and to the right an example of how the square in the centre is at the same time part of four different sections. Geometric decoration of Arslankaya, No. 16. The decoration in the illustration continues outside the frame of the actual façade. The four different versions of a section are hatched. The section is turned 90°, 180° and 270° around its own axis. Geometric decoration of Mal Taâ, No. 24. The decoration in the illustration is continued outside the actual façade in order to show the structure. The numbers indicate the division into sections 2 x 2. The recessed crosses are hatched in the figure (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 519). Geometric decoration of Mal Taâ, No. 24. The decoration is continued outside the actual façade in order to give an impression of its structure. Eight corner squares are filled in the figure in order to demonstrate how each corner block was part of two different sections (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 519). Geometric decoration of the niche of the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31. Example of a geometric section is filled in the illustration (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 515:4). Relief of idol situated in the fortification wall at BoÅazköy (drawing after photograph in Neve 1993, fig. 19). Hypothetical drawing of a step monument with a semicircular disc at top reconstructed as the head of an idol. The drawing demonstrates how a step monument with a semicircular disc flanked by quarter discs/bolsters can be reconstructed to depict an idol with curled hair. Different types of akroteria. Roof types. Plan of DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26. Illustration demonstrating that the width and location of the right side wall opening corresponds exactly with the width required to light up the niche but nothing else at a certain date of the solar year (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 521). Plan of DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26, illustrating how the locations of the shaft and niche corresponds with the front wall and the back wall (based on Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia © 1971 Princeton University Press, fig. 521). Mini-stele with idol and other figures in relief. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Inv. no. 69/1119 (after Boehmer 1972, pl. 78). Relief of double idol reused in a fountain at Faharet Çeâme (KarayollarÌ Park) outside Ankara (drawing after photograph in Prayon 1987, pl. 15c). Stele with relief of a double idol from Sincan, Ankara. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Inv. no. 11.2.2000 (after Metin & AkalÌn 2000, fig. 1). Statue group of Matar and two musicians found in situ at BoÅazköy. The upper part of the body between waist and head reconstructed by Bittel. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara (after V. Haas 1994, fig. 71b). Stele with Matar from Bahçelievler, Ankara. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara (after Akurgal 1961, fig. 22). Relief of Matar from Etlik, Ankara. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara (drawing after published material in Roller 1999, fig. 9 and F. IâÌk 1999, fig. 32). Inscribed drawings depicting a bird and building façades found on the walls of Megaron 2 at Gordion (after Young 1969, 272). Mini-relief of Matar and a bull from Gordion. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Inv. no. TumC 26/527 S (drawing after photograph in Berndt-Ersöz 2004a, fig. 3). Rock-cut image of Matar inside the niche (No. 12) at Delik Taâ. Matar flanked by lions inside the Arslankaya niche (No. 16).

xvi Fig. 123 Fig. 124 Fig. 125 Fig. 126 Fig. 127 Fig. 128 Fig. 129 Fig. 130 Fig. 131 Fig. 132 Fig. 133 Fig. 134 Fig. 135 Fig. 136 Fig. 137

list of tables, diagrams and figures Niche (No. 20) in the Köhnüâ valley. The unfinished Burmeç façade (No. 18) in the area of Emre Gölü. The Unfinished Monument (façade No. 34) and niche below (No. 35) at Midas City. Niche (No. 36) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 43) at FÌndÌk. Step monument (No. 50) close to Emre Gölü. Idol (No. 62) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 64) at Midas City. Bosses below step monument (No. 67) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 77) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 98) at Midas City. The Midas Monument (No. 30) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 52) close to Demirli Köy. Step monument (No. 70) at Midas City. Step monument (No. 69) at Midas City.

introduction

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is an updated and partly revised version of my Ph. D. thesis submitted in September 2003 at the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Stockholm. During the years it has taken to accomplish this work I have been fortunate enough to receive help, encouragement and support from a large number of people, and it is now my pleasant task to express my gratitude to those who have contributed over the years. I have received a lot of useful comments and help from my colleagues in the seminars at my Department at Stockholm University, and I especially want to thank my tutor, Professor Charlotte Scheffer, who always encouraged and supported me in every possible way. Special thanks also to Kerstin Silfwerbrand, who has helped me in many ways, foremost by being an excellent travelling companion in the Phrygian Highlands. Without the unfailing support of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, this thesis would not have come to an end. The main part of the work was carried out during Dr Roger Matthews’ directorship, for whose support and assistance I am truly grateful. I also want to express my gratitude to his predecessor Dr. David French and the present director Dr. Hugh Elton, who have likewise been of great support and offered me much useful advice. I particularly want to thank Dr. Yaprak Eran, who through the years always assisted and encouraged me, and likewise Dr. YiÅit Erbil and Ms. Gülgün Girdivan for their continued help. The Ankara Branch of the American Research Institute in Turkey has also been a great help to me, and my thanks go to all their present and previous personnel. My extended thanks go to the members of the Gordion research project and especially to its director, Professor G. Kenneth Sams, for taking the time to discuss various aspects of the Gordion material and to guide me around Gordion. I am also most grateful to the late Dr. Keith DeVries for his kind assistance and useful comments. I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at

Ankara, especially Dr. Emel Yurttagül, and to the director of Afyon Archaeological Museum, Dr. Ahmet Ilaslı, for their assistance. I also want to thank Mr. Veysel GündoÅdu, the bekçi (watchman) at Midas City, who has always been very helpful. Over the years the work has benefited from discussions with other scholars. Foremost I want to thank Dr. Geoffrey Summers, who read my manuscript in various stages, offering useful and valuable comments, but I also want to thank Dr. Dietrich Berndt, Dr. Nicholas Cahill, Dr. Gareth Darbyshire, Dr. Gunnel Ekroth, Dr. Garance Fiedler, Prof. Jaan M. Hemelrijk, Prof. Lynn E. Roller, Prof. Elizabeth Simpson, and Dr. Maya Vassileva. I am also most grateful to Dr. Taciser Tüfekçi Sivas for her kind permission to use her drawings, but also for her stimulating discussions on the monuments. The blind reviewer provided many valuable insights and suggestions for improvements, who I also want to thank. My English has been efficiently revised and improved by Dr. Jean Greenhalgh and Ms. Rachel Fenton. The conclusions and any errors remain, of course, my own. Financial support from several foundations have made it possible to carry out this research over the years, and I am very grateful to P. A. Siljeströms stiftelse vid Stockholms universitet, Gunvor och Josef Anérs stiftelse, Håkanssons stiftelse vid Stockholms universitet, Erna och Einar Palmgrens stipendiefond, Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas Minne, Wallenbergstiftelsens fond för yngre forskares resor, Svenska Forskningsinstitutet i Istanbul and Stiftelsen Birgitta Bergquists Stipendiefond. Last, but not least, I want to thank my family for their unfailing support, help and patience during these years; especially my father, who always encouraged me and my son Timur and husband Erdal, who continuously supported me throughout the years and also joined me on numerous visits to Phrygia. Susanne Berndt-Ersöz Ankara, May 2006

xviii

introduction

introduction

xix

INTRODUCTION

The role and importance of central Anatolia during the Iron Age have come increasingly into focus in the last decade. The heritage from the preceding period, i.e. the Bronze Age, and what happened during the so-called Dark Ages before the emergence of the Iron Age societies are questions that are debated and will inevitably be discussed further in the future. One central issue is the role played by the Phrygians during the formative stage of the Iron Age and over the following centuries.

1. Aims and Method The Phrygian rock-cut monuments have been documented by earlier scholars, but they have not been analysed from either a religious or an archaeological perspective. The rock-cut monuments have nevertheless been referred to as cult façades and step altars, i.e. they have been given designations indicating that they were perceived as having been used in (specific) cult activities, but these terms are not supported by any analysis that proves this was actually the case. The main objective of this study is to investigate if and how the monuments may have been used in cult, and to determine their function and religious role. The rock-cut monuments have with a few exceptions not been excavated but they have one huge advantage, they are still in situ allowing for the study of spatial concepts. It is my aim, as far as possible, to define Phrygian cult and cult practices, through a detailed analysis of the rock-cut monuments in their preserved context in combination with other Phrygian (religious) material groups. In order to do this, it is also necessary to clarify the chronology of the monuments. Influences from and parallels with other cultures are also discussed to some extent. The purpose of this study has not been to conduct a survey, but rather to make use of already published and recorded material. Hopefully, future surveys and excavations will bring 1

Hägg 1998, 99–100.

new evidence to fill in the gaps and support or modify some of the theories presented herein. The method used here is basically what R. Hägg outlined in his study on religious rituals in Mycenaean Greece,1 i.e. to use the three different kinds of evidence that are at our disposal, (1) the archaeological evidence, that is the rock-cut structures themselves together with excavated material, (2) the iconographical evidence, that is the rock-cut images found on the monuments, but also other Phrygian images, and (3) the epigraphical evidence, that is primarily the inscriptions of the monuments themselves, but also other Phrygian inscriptions. The material collected, totalling 112 monuments, has been catalogued and described as far as possible, depending on the accuracy and nature of the published sources. I have then approached the material in three steps; a structural examination, a chronological discussion, and, in a third step I have used the results obtained from the two previous phases in order to analyse the purpose and function of the monuments. The structural examination, aimed at specifying the features of the monuments themselves, also takes into consideration the topographical and environmental features. In line with the evidence at our disposal the structural examination also includes an examination of the iconographical and epigraphical evidence. In the analysis, the features noted from the structural examination have been used together with comparative material from other areas and periods. Later material, such as Greek and Roman literary sources, Hellenistic and Roman epigraphical and iconographical material, have, apart from a few exceptions, not been taken into consideration. Greek and Roman literary sources have not been used for several reasons, primarily because these require a study of their own and secondly because I believe that the information directly related to the rockcut monuments that we can obtain from these sources is very limited. Without doubt there is

xx

introduction

valuable information in these sources that can be used in a more general study of Phrygian religion, but this is not the purpose of this work. It is also difficult to judge how reliable these sources might be concerning conditions during the Phrygian period; after all, in many cases they are written considerably later by outsiders. Later epigraphic and iconographical material from Phrygia itself are material groups that also require special examination and have therefore, apart from a few exceptions, not been included in this study. The archaeological material, i.e. the rock-cut monuments, have been collected over a large geographical area, with the majority from the Highlands in the west (the area between Afyon, Eskiâehir and Kütahya) to Karahisar, close to Alaca Höyük in the east. Some archaeological material, such as very insignificant niches, has been omitted from the catalogue, since it is not possible to determine whether these do in fact belong to the Iron Age, nor whether they have any religious significance.2 Stepped structures such as monumental staircases, in some cases interpreted by Haspels to have had religious implications, have not been included in the catalogue, because their main function must have been simply as staircases. Several other stepped structures, where there is doubt about their religious significance and whether or not they date to the Phrygian period, have also been omitted.3 During recent surveys, conducted by T. Tüfekçi Sivas at Andadolu University, new monuments have been discovered. I have included those that have hitherto been published (Nos. 109–112), but it has not been possible to include those which remain unpublished.4 I have, however, included them in the relevant discussions throughout this monograph.

2 For examples of insignificant niches that have not been included in the catalogue, see Berndt 2002, figs. 22, 35, 46, 99 and 103. One façade at Kastamonu in Paphlagonia (von Gall 1966, pl. 5:4) has not been included in the catalogue, since it is questionable whether it should be defined as Phrygian or not. 3 See Haspels 1971, figs. 196, 525.2; Berndt 2002, fig. 50; F. IâÌk 1995a, pl. 7, fig. 13; Sivas 2005, figs. 8–9; T.T. & H. Sivas 2005, fig. 2. 4 There are three façades/niches recorded by Sivas, but as they are not yet sufficiently published to determine whether they actually belong to the Iron Age they have been omitted (T.T. & H. Sivas 2003, pl. 12, figs. 1–2; 2004

2. Terminology and Definitions Phrygians is the Greek term for the Iron Age people that occupied the central parts of Anatolia, with Gordion becoming the capital, but also areas further to the west. According to Herodotos, this group of people originally called themselves Briges, but the name changed to Phryges (Phrygians) when they came to Asia.5 Whether this is originally an ethnic term may be questioned, as, according to other sources, Briges was used by the Lydians in the sense of a free man,6 and may very well have originally had another meaning.7 Regardless of its origin, Phryges became an ethnic designation, and is the term used today by scholars, and the one used by myself as an ethnic term to define the Iron Age population occupying the geographical area of central Anatolia known as Phrygia. It may be that the Phrygians called themselves something else as this term does not appear in any extant Phrygian inscriptions. We can further note that this ethnic group was probably referred to as Mushkians in Assyrian sources and most scholars, including myself, today accept that king Mita of the Mushki, known from the annals of Sargon II,8 probably refers to the Phrygian king Midas, active shortly before 700 BC. Whether the Phrygians are to be considered to have migrated from the West, i.e. Thrace, is another debated issue. The main argument for a migration from the West can be sought in the Phrygian language, which is generally regarded to be closest to Greek. However, since several important Phrygian settlements, such as Gordion, Gavurkalesi and Dorylaion, are located on earlier Hittite settlements, we must not disregard the possibility of some kind of continuity from these earlier settlements.

figs. 10–12). The newly discovered step monuments together with previously known ones were treated in a MA thesis at Anadolu University by R. Tamsü in 2004. For the newly unpublished step monuments see Tamsü 2004, nos. 21–23, 34–38, 43, 48, 50, 55–60, 65–68, 70–82. 5 Hdt. 7.73. 6 Reported by Juba, preserved by Hesychius, s.v. Βρίγες. See also Cramer 1832, vol. 2, 2, n. a. 7 Cramer (1832, vol. 2, 2, n. a) noted that Brig or Briga was a word of Celtic origin. 8 Luckenbill 1927, nos. 8, 16, 18, 25, 42, 43, 55, 71, 80, 92, 99, 118, 214.

introduction

xxi

How we decide upon what should or should not be regarded as Phrygian territory is also a matter of discussion, and suggestions have been made based either on pottery or on inscriptions. In this study we are not going to examine these questions, but will here note that Phrygian inscriptions, for example, have been found over a large area, part of which can hardly be considered as Phrygian in a political sense, and we may suggest that a larger geographical area than what was actually Phrygian territory was to some extent under Phrygian cultural influence. We may speak of a Phrygian eastern periphery that included areas east of the Halys (KÌzÌlÌrmak), such as BoÅazköy, Alaca Höyük, Kerkenes DaÅ, and PazarlÌ, settlements that today are generally not considered to have been included in Phrygian territory, but were undoubtedly culturally influenced by the Phrygians to various degrees, as witnessed by the material remains. In this study I will use the following geographical terms, (1) western Phrygia, which designates the Highlands between Afyon, Eskiâehir and Kütahya,9 (2) central Phrygia, which designates the area from the Highlands in the west to the Halys in the east, i.e. settlements such as Pessinous, Tekören, Gordion, Ankara and Gavurkalesi, and (3) the eastern Phrygian periphery, which is used for the areas east of the Halys River, i.e. the settlements/sites of BoÅazköy, Alaca Höyük, Karahisar, Kerkenes DaÅ, and PazarlÌ (Fig. 3). The Phrygian chronology has recently been revised according to new investigations made at Gordion. New Carbon14 tests seem to suggest that the destruction at Gordion occurred some time between 830 and 800 BC.10 The traditional earlier view that Gordion and Phrygia were destroyed by the Kimmerians in 696 BC is no longer valid and our picture of central Anatolia has changed drastically. The Early Phrygian period, i.e. the period before the destruction, ends at least c. 100 years earlier than previously believed, significantly changing the image of the emerging Phrygian society, which can no longer be considered to be later than the Urartian kingdom, for example, but rather a contemporary force, since the material remains from the period

before the destruction at Gordion show that Gordion had already at the time of the destruction undergone several major rebuilding phases and had an elaborate fortification system. The Middle Phrygian period, the period after the destruction until the Persian invasion in c. 547 BC, has become a considerably longer period, and coincides now with the time of the king Midas known from the Assyrians annals and Greek sources to have been active around 700 BC. He was previously associated with the remains from the Early Phrygian period, i.e. the pre-destruction period, at Gordion, but can no longer be connected with the emerging Phrygian kingdom, but rather with a well established state. The Middle Phrygian period, especially the 7th century, is a period about which we have very little historical knowledge. The Phrygian chronology used in this study is basically the one used by Prayon, but revised according to the new results from Gordion,11 i.e. the Phrygian period has been divided into an Early Phrygian period (EP) (c. 950–830/800 BC), a Middle Phrygian period (MP) (800–550 BC) and a Late Phrygian period (LP), between the Persian invasion and the Hellenistic period (c. 550–330 BC). The Middle Phrygian period has here been divided into Middle I and Middle II. The Middle I period is the period until the Lydian dominion, i.e. 800–600 BC, and the Middle II period is the period under Lydian dominion, i.e. 600–550 BC. Iron Age is used to designate the period up to the Hellenistic period. The rock-cut monuments that constitute the primary material for this study have been divided into four categories: façades, niches, step monuments and idols. Façades and niches are basically similar, the only difference being that the group designated as façades consists of niches surrounded by an architectural or building façade, something the group designated as niches lacks. The term niche is therefore used both in a description of a niche that can be part of a façade monument and as a term to describe the group of monuments that lack a façade. It is usually clear from the written text in which sense the term has been used. Some of the façades have a shaft behind the niche and

9 In western Phrygia, areas west of the Highlands such as Daskyleion should also be included. However, no rock-cut monuments have so far been reported from the areas west of the Highlands. It may also be debated how far west the Phrygian territory reached during different

Phrygian periods. 10 DeVries et al. 2003; DeVries et al. 2005; Voigt 2005, 28–31; cf. Muscarella 2003; Keenan 2004. 11 Prayon 1987, fig. 2.

introduction

xxii

are sometimes therefore called shaft monuments. The stepped monuments are referred to by various terms in the literature, such as step altars or step thrones, but as the interpretation of their function is uncertain, I have here preferred to use the more nonspecific term step monument. The fourth group comprises the rock-cut images of simplified figures with human-looking bodies, i.e. they have a head that is attached to a rectangular body. These images are referred to as idols. I have avoided describing them as aniconic, since they are actually images suggestive of the human body and can hardly be described as aniconic. Likewise the term cult image has been avoided, unless we are certain that it indeed was an image used in cult, and not just perceived as an image of the god.12 In my references to the Mother Goddess, I have followed the system used by Roller,13 i.e. the Phrygian Mother Goddess is referred to as Matar, and the Greek Mother Goddess imported from Phrygia as Kybele, while the Roman version is referred to as Cybele. I also need to clarify some Turkish words, which I have chosen to use concerning the geography, such as kale (castle or fortress), daÅ (mountain) and göl (lake). The settlement at YazÌlÌkaya, whose ancient name is unknown, I am referring to as Midas City, since that is the name generally used in modern literature. ]attuàa is used for the Bronze Age (Hittite) settlement, while the Iron Age settlement is referred to as BoÅazköy. The definitions of some technical terms used frequently are explained in the introduction of the catalogue, pp. 213–214.

3. State and History of Research The rock-cut façades already attracted the attention of European travellers at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and the Highlands continued during the following centuries to be explored by several different expeditions. These earlier

12 For a discussion of the terminology see e.g. Romano 1980, 2–4 and Donohue 1997. 13 Roller 1999, xviii. 14 See e.g. Haspels 1956; Haspels 1971, 3–19; Berndt 2002, 4–5. 15 Ramsay 1882a; Ramsay 1882b; Ramsay 1883a; Ramsay 1884; Ramsay 1888; Ramsay 1889a; Ramsay 1889b; Ramsay 1920. 16 He realized, for instance, that the façades with only a

travellers have been accounted for by several scholars.14 W.M. Ramsay visited the Highlands several times between 1881 and 1907 and is the first scholar who came to concentrate his research on Phrygia and the central parts of Asia Minor. He published two extensive studies, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, London 1890 and The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 2 vols., Oxford 1895–97, which he planned to follow with a third study concentrating on the Highlands, but unfortunately that volume never came to fruition. However, he did publish several reports about the material of the Highlands.15 The Körte brothers made important contributions to our knowledge of Phrygia at the beginning of the century; A. Körte treated several of the rock-cut façades in a more analytical and constructive manner than earlier scholars, and several of his observations are still valid today.16 He also discovered Gordion and initiated the German excavations there; later, in the 1950s, the excavations at Gordion were resumed by R.S. Young, and today the excavations are carried out under the directorship of G.K. Sams and M.M. Voigt.17 With the resumed American excavations at Gordion begins the modern chapter of Phrygian research. In spite of decades of excavations our knowledge about Phrygian history and culture is still very vague and uncertain. There are hardly any general monographs published on Phrygia, except for a few studies about Phrygian art and material remains. E. Akurgal published his study on Phrygian art in 1955, shortly after the American excavations at Gordion had begun, but his work is nevertheless still useful in many aspects.18 F. Prayon’s monograph of Phrygian art from 1987 is a thorough work where influences and chronology are two of the major aspects discussed.19 His work has replaced the previous work of Akurgal as the main standard reference work of Phrygian visual art. A collection of Phrygian material from various sites has also recently been brought together in a more general monograph by the former

niche and no grave chamber behind were not sepulchral as previously assumed, but instead had a cultic or religious role. Körte 1898; A. Körte in G. & A. Körte 1904, 219–226. 17 An internet bibliography of Gordion is provided by R.C. Henrickson on the following web address: http://home. att.net/~gordion/bibliography/bibliography.html 18 Akurgal 1955. 19 Prayon 1987.

introduction director of the Afyon Archaeological Museum, H.T. Uçankuâ.20 The first extensive contribution where Phrygia is discussed from a range of aspects is G. Fiedler’s doctoral dissertation from Université de Provence.21 She discusses the material remains of Phrygian culture, including the rock-cut monuments, but also Phrygian territory, settlement pattern and social structures. Phrygian religion has, with the exception of L.E. Roller’s studies on the Mother Goddess (see below), basically remained an unexplored field. The largest group of material remains connected with Phrygian religion is the rock-cut monuments. Several studies have been made of the rock-cut monuments, especially by C.H.E. Haspels and later by D. Berndt and T. Tüfekçi Sivas, primarily with the aim of documenting the monuments. This has proven to be of uttermost importance, because of rapid erosion and disastrous destruction by treasure hunters. Haspels travelled the Highlands over several years during the forties and fifties, and systematically recorded the monuments. She was accompanied on several visits by J.M. Hemelrijk,22 who also made the majority of the drawings in Haspels’ publication, The Highlands of Phrygia, Sites and Monuments, Princeton 1971. Haspels’ study became and has remained the standard reference work about the Phrygian Highlands. However, her work is for the main part documentation rather than analysis. Haspels also took part in the French excavations of Midas City conducted in the 1930s with A. Gabriel as director.23 Several scholars after Haspels have been studying various aspects of the rock-cut monuments, such as J.M. Mellink who, in a couple of special studies, has looked at rock-cut monuments and

xxiii

other material connected with Matar;24 Prayon discussed several rock-cut monuments together with Matar in his previously mentioned monograph about Phrygian visual art and in a recent article;25 P. Borgeaud included some Phrygian material in his general study of the Mother Goddess;26 F. IâÌk has written several studies and mainly argues for an Urartian influence upon the Phrygian monuments; 27 G. de Francovich published a monograph in 1990 where he interpreted most rock-cut features as cultic and connected with the Mother Goddess, without much of a discussion;28 V. Özkaya wrote a series of articles dealing with Phrygian religion;29 J. Börker-Klähn has discussed several monuments in a series of recent articles;30 M. Vassileva has in several articles been exploring in particular the connection between Phrygian and Thracian rock-cut monuments.31 T. Tüfekçi Sivas published her dissertation in 1999 about Phrygian rock-cut monuments from the Highlands, where her main contribution was to record and publish newly discovered monuments, and also to fill in the gaps left by Haspels in her documentation.32 Tüfekçi Sivas has continued her work in the Highlands with surveys conducted by the Anadolu University at Eskiâehir since 2001.33 A student of hers and survey participant, R. Tamsü, completed her Masters thesis on Phrygian rockcut monuments in 2004, which is a valuable, although unpublished documentation, of newly discovered step monuments (see n. 4 above). D. Berndt has for decades been travelling the Highlands and, after writing a series of articles, in 2002 published a monograph on the monuments at Midas City.34 His volume is an important complement to Haspels’ earlier documentation,

20

Uçankuâ 2002. Fiedler 2003. Certain aspects of Phrygia is also discussed by Wittke 2004. 22 He made a few observations himself about the rockcut monuments, see Hemelrijk 1965; Hemelrijk 1986 and Hemelrijk & Berndt 1999. 23 Chaput 1941; Gabriel 1952; Gabriel 1965; Haspels 1951a. During the 1990s Turkish rescue excavations and restoration work have been carried out at Midas City, see Özçatal 1992; Özçatal 1993; Pehlivaner 1994; Pehlivaner & Özçatal 1995; Tuna & CaÅlar 2000. Haspels also published a series of articles about the Highlands, see Haspels 1951b; Haspels 1962; Haspels 1976; Haspels 1979; Haspels 1981. 24 Mellink 1981; Mellink 1983. See also to some extent Mellink 1993a. 25 Prayon 1987; Prayon 2004. 26 Borgeaud 1996, 19–30. 27 F. IâÌk 1986–87; F. IâÌk 1987a; F. IâÌk 1991b; F. IâÌk 21

1995b; F. IâÌk 1999; F. IâÌk 2003b. 28 De Francovich 1990. 29 Özkaya 1995; Özkaya 1996a; Özkaya 1996b; Özkaya 1997; Özkaya 1999. 30 Börker-Klähn 2000a; Börker-Klähn 2000b. 31 Vassileva 1994; Vassileva 1995a; Vassileva 1995b; Vassileva 1997a; Vassileva 1997b; Vassileva 1997c; Vassileva 1998a; Vassileva 1998b; Vassileva 1999; Vassileva 2001; Vassileva 2005b. 32 Sivas 1999a. She has also published a series of articles about rock-cut monuments, see Sivas 1999b; Sivas 2002a; Sivas 2002b; Sivas 2002c; Sivas 2003b; Sivas 2005. 33 Sivas 2003a; T.T. & H. Sivas 2003; T.T. & H. Sivas 2004a; T.T. & H. Sivas 2004b; T.T. & H. Sivas 2005. 34 Berndt 2002; Berndt 1986; Berndt 1990; Berndt 199495/; Berndt 1996; Berndt 1997a; Berndt 1997b; Berndt 1998; Berndt & Ehringhaus 1994; Hemelrijk & Berndt 1999.

xxiv

introduction

as it both includes documentation of newly discovered monuments and colour photographs of excellent quality of previously insufficiently published monuments. Unfortunately the volume only includes the monuments at Midas City. Except works of documentary character there are few studies on Phrygian religion and the existing ones almost exclusively deal with the Mother Goddess.35 The iconography of Matar has been the focus of some specific studies, with the published dissertation in 1983 by F. Naumann the most extensive and thorough.36 Other iconographical studies of the Mother Goddess include the studies of L.E. Roller, F. IâÌk and E. Vikela.37 The iconography of Matar and the Superior Male god, respectively, have also been 35 There are, however, two forthcoming articles about other aspects of Phrygian religion. M. Hutter (forthcoming) is discussing Phrygian religion from an Anatolian point of view, while I am myself discussing the Anatolian origin of Attis (Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming c). I am grateful to Professor Manfred Hutter, who provided me with an advanced copy of his paper. 36 F. Naumann 1983,

treated by myself in a few separate studies.38 The scholar who in the last two decades has contributed substantially to our understanding of the Phrygian Mother goddess is Roller who in several studies has examined various aspects of her cult and in 1999 presented an extensive study about the Phrygian Mother Goddess and how her cult spread to Greece and Rome.39 Apart from the Mother Goddess, Phrygian cult and religion is, however, a neglected area of research. The only exception, to some extent is an unpublished dissertation by P. Carrington, who in 1976 wrote a thesis about the survival of Phrygian elements, primarily of religious character, into the later Roman period.40 His main emphasis is, however, on epigraphical evidence, rather than the material remains. 37

Roller 1994a; F. IâÌk 1986–87; Vikela 2001. Berndt-Ersöz 2004a; Berndt-Ersöz 2004b; BerndtErsöz forthcoming a. 39 Roller 1986; Roller 1988; Roller 1991; Roller 1994a; Roller 1994b; Roller 1996; Roller 1997; Roller 1999; Roller 2002; Roller 2003. 40 Carrington 1976. He later published a couple of articles, see Carrington 1977a; Carrington 1977b. 38

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

1

CHAPTER ONE

STRUCTURAL EXAMINATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Phrygian rock-cut monuments have been reported from Karahisar in the eastern Phrygian periphery to Delikli Taâ in western Phrygia (Fig. 3), and, in a north-south direction, from Germanos to the EÅirdir Gölü, c. 50 km south of Afyon.1 A concentration of rock-cut complexes is to be found in the Phrygian Highlands, in the area between Afyon and Eskiâehir (Fig. 2). This distri-

bution only partly coincides with the area where Phrygian inscriptions have been found, since the latter have been found over a wider area. Phrygian inscriptions have been found as far west as Daskyleion,2 south of the Marmara Sea, as far south as BayÌndÌr in Lycia,3 and as far south-east as Tyana, south of NiÅde.4 Daskyleion seems to have been, at least to some extent, a Phrygian settlement before it became the capital of the Persian satrap. During the recent excavations at Daskyleion was uncovered a building, which has been interpreted as a temple by the excavator T. BakÌr.5 However, no rock-cut monuments or idols have been reported from Daskyleion. An important explanation for the ‘absence’ of rockcut monuments outside the Phrygian Highlands is that no survey with the focus on Phrygian rock-cut monuments has been conducted outside the Highlands.6 Another reason for the lack of rock-cut monuments is the landscape itself, which in some areas does not provide rock suitable for cutting. In central Phrygia there are examples of Phrygian rock-cut step monuments or façades from at least four sites.7 During a survey in 1990 a step monument together with a rock-cut basin and rock-cut chamber tombs was found at Tekören, 7.5 km north of Pessinous.8 Sivas has reported two rock-cut façades, one at Balkaya, close to Sivrihisar, and one at Kuzören, close to Pessinous.9 At Dümrek, 29 km north of Gordion, there are

1 For the monuments at Karahisar, Germanos and at Delikli Taâ, see catalogue entries Nos. 108, 40 and 1. Several Phrygian rock-cut tombs have been reported from a site overlooking the Hoyran or EÅirdir Gölü in Pisidia (Fiedler & TaâlÌalan 2002). 2 BakÌr & Gusmani 1991; BakÌr & Gusmani 1993; Brixhe 1996; Gusmani & Polat 1999a; Gusmani & Polat 1999b; Brixhe 2004, 68–93, nos. B-06–B-07, B-101–B-108. 3 VarinlioÅlu 1992; Brixhe 2004, 109–118, nos. HP103 – HP-113. 4 See Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, nos. T-01–T-03; ÇÌnaroÅlu 1985; VarinlioÅlu 1985; VarinlioÅlu 1991; Brixhe 2004, 94–103, no. T-03. Possible Phrygian inscriptions have

also been reported at Hama and at Karkamià, see BörkerKlähn 1994; Börker-Klähn 1998. 5 BakÌr 1995, 272–273; 1997, 232–233; BakÌr 2004, 59–60, fig. 7. 6 The surveys conducted by T.T. Sivas (Anadolu University) have mainly focused on the Highlands together with areas immediately west and south of the Highlands. 7 In addition to Phrygian façades and step monuments, Phrygian rock-cut tombs have also been reported from Zey Köy, north of Sivrihisar, see Sivas 2003a, 287, figs. 5–6. 8 Devreker & Vermeulen 1991. 9 Sivas 2003a, 286; Sivas 2003b; here catalogue entries Nos. 41, 110.

1. Introduction The archaeological evidence for the various types of rock-cut monuments will be examined below, with emphasis on their structure and, to some extent, their function. The results will then be used for a further analysis in Chapter III, where the monuments will be set into a wider context and issues such as their purpose, function and use in cult will be addressed. We will begin to examine features common to all monuments, such as their geographical location, topography and orientation, followed by an examination of specific features of the different types of monuments, an iconographical examination, and an epigraphical examination. We will also consider rock-cut features in close proximity to the monuments and, finally, the few archaeological finds.

2. Geographical Distribution

chapter one

2

several rock-cut step monuments.10 In addition to the rock-cut monuments, there is from Ayaâ, c. 50 km west of Ankara, a statue in the round representing Matar,11 and at MihalÌççÌk, c. 50 km north of Sivrihisar, was found an orthostat relief, perhaps of religious significance.12 There are no rock-cut monuments at either Gordion or Ankara, both important Phrygian centres, probably to some extent because of a lack of suitable rock in the cities themselves. However, from both Gordion and Ankara we have a substitute for the rock-cut façades in the form of stelae with reliefs depicting either Matar standing inside a doorway of a façade or of double idols, both types made in a similar fashion to the rock-cut monuments.13 From Gordion we also have figurines of idols, similar to the rock-cut ones.14 The situation is somewhat similar at BoÅazköy in the eastern Phrygian periphery, where no Phrygian rock-cut monuments have as yet been reported, in spite of suitable rock to cut. At BoÅazköy the inhabitants expressed themselves with other types of religious monument. Remains of a built niche in the city gate, where the statue group of Matar and companions were found in situ, is one example (Fig. 116).15 From BoÅazköy we also have at least one small built shrine, dated to the Iron Age.16 In addition, there are several examples of figurines in the shape of idols, similar to the rock-cut idols in their appearance, an example of an idol in relief cut out from the side of a stone socle (Fig. 106), and one idol made on a mini-stele (Fig. 113).17

10

See catalogue entries Nos. 101–107. 11 This was reported in the 1960s, but its whereabouts today are unknown. Bittel 1963, 15, n. 51; Aldan 1965, pl. 9; Bittel 1969, 71f, pl. 40; Naumann 1983, 67f, 295, no. 21; Prayon 1987, no. 5, pl. 2a-b. 12 Prayon 1987, 84–85, no. 29, fig. 16. 13 From Gordion we have one relief of Matar standing in a doorway, found at the Sangarios river bed, and one mini-relief of Matar standing inside a framed niche (Fig. 120; Akurgal 1961, pl. 62; Mellink 1983, pls. 70, 73:4; Güterbock 1974, 97ff, pl. 13; F. Naumann 1983, nos. 19, 27, pl. 5.3; Prayon 1987, nos. 15, 184, pls. 5c, 9c; Kohler 1995, 34, no. TumC 26, pl. 17D; Roller 1999, figs. 7, 13). From Ankara there are two reliefs of Matar standing in a doorway, the Bahçelievler stele, (Fig. 117; Temizer 1959; Akurgal 1961, 97, pls. 60–61, fig. 22; F. Naumann 1983, no. 18, pl. 5.2; Prayon 1987, no. 26, pl. 9a) and the Etlik relief (Fig. 118; F. Naumann 1983, no. 20, pl. 5.4; Prayon 1987, no. 27, pl. 9b; F. IâÌk 1999, fig. 32; Roller 1999, fig. 9). Another relief is today part of the wall of a fountain at Faharet Çeâme, west of Ankara, and has a representation of a double idol (Fig. 114; von der Osten 1929, 59, pl. 5B;

At Salmanköy, 13 km north-west of BoÅazköy, was found the head of a statue, interpreted as Matar.18 From the eastern Phrygian periphery there is, however, one Phrygian rock-cut monument, a step monument situated high up on the mountain Karahisar, No. 108, a few kilometres north of Alaca Höyük. At Alaca Höyük itself there was an Iron Age settlement, showing Phrygian influence, as witnessed, for example, by Palaeo-Phrygian inscriptions found there.19 Traces of Phrygian cult and culture have also been found at Kerkenes DaÅ, south-east of Alaca Höyük, where both Palaeo-Phrygian inscriptions and a stele shaped as an idol have been excavated. The idol-stele was found in situ in one of the city gates, above some steps.20 However, so far no other rock-cut monuments of Phrygian type, other than the step monument at Karahisar, No. 108, have been reported from the area. From northern Phrygia in the area bordering the Bolu mountains there is evidence of a Phrygian presence, but there is only one example of a small rock-cut niche, No. 40, made together with a long inscription, close to Germanos. However, there are other indications of Phrygian cult from this area; from Vezirhan, half-way between Iznik and Eskiâehir, we have a stele with a relief of a probable deity carrying a Palaeo-Phrygian and a later Greek inscription.21 There are also a few more Phrygian inscriptions from this northern area of Bithynia.22 Phrygian inscriptions have also been found at Tyana, south of NiÅde in Cappadocia, but

F. Naumann 1983, pl. 9f; Prayon 1987, no. 47, pl. 15c). A stele from Sincan, outside Ankara, depicts a double idol below a gable field (Fig. 115; Metin & AkalÌn 2000). 14 Kohler 1995, 20–21, 23–24, nos. TumB 17, TumB 33, TumB 34, TumB 35, pls. 11A-B, 12H-M; DeVries 1990, fig. 36; Roller 1999, 77, fig. 15. 15 Bittel 1963. 16 Beran 1963. For a discussion and references to other possible shrines at BoÅazköy, see pp. 179–180. 17 Idol figurines, see Prayon 1987, nos. 57, 58, 59, 71, pl. 16g, h; Boehmer 1972, nos. 1892, 2147, 2148, 2160, pls. 67, 79, 81. Idol on socle, see Fig. 106; Neve 1993, 640, fig. 19. For mini-stele with idol, see Boehmer 1972, no. 2144A, pl. 78; Prayon 1987, no. 183, fig. 26, pl. 35; here Fig. 113. 18 Bittel 1969, 69–72, pls. 36–39; Prayon 1987, no. 8, pl. 3d,e with further references. 19 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, nos. P-01 – P-05. 20 Summers et al. 2003, 11–13, figs. 11, 13–14, 16–17; 2004, 7, fig. 11; G. & F. Summers forthcoming. 21 Neumann 1997; Anatolian civilizations II, 60; Brixhe 2004, 42–67, no. B-05. 22 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, nos. B-01–B-03.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

3

no Phrygian rock-cut monuments have been observed in that area, nor at BayÌndÌr in Lycia, where Phrygian material and inscriptions were found during excavations of tumuli.23 The step monument is the type of rock-cut monument with the largest geographical distribution, since it can be found in the eastern Phrygian periphery at Karahisar, in central Phrygia at Dümrek and Tekören, and in western Phrygia, with numerous examples from the Highlands (Fig. 3). Rock-cut idols made in association with step monuments can only be found in the Highlands, but reliefs of idols have also been found at Ankara, BoÅazköy and at Kerkenes DaÅ (Figs. 106, 114 and 115).24 The Kerkenes idol-stele is, however, set on top of some steps, and may be interpreted as a built version of a rock-cut stepped monument. Figurines in the shape of idols have been found all over Phrygia, at Seyitömer Höyük, Gordion and BoÅazköy.25 Perhaps it is just a coincidence that double idols have so far, apart from the Highlands, been found only at Ankara. The rock-cut niche/façade has been found only in western Phrygia and at Balkaya, close to Sivrihisar, and at Kuzören, close to Pessinous, in central Phrygia, but, as mentioned above, from both the central and the eastern Phrygian periphery we have the same concept expressed in the form of stelae and built niches (Figs. 117 and 118).26 There are only three sites which have a rich representation of all kinds of monument; Midas City, FÌndÌk and the Köhnüâ valley. Midas City has the largest number of monuments of all types, especially a large number of step monuments and idols, but also several large façades. The only type of monument not represented at Midas City is the shaft monument.

The monuments at FÌndÌk are in general on a smaller scale than those at Midas City, with a great emphasis on step monuments. There are also a limited number of idols, of which some are connected with step monuments.27 In one case two idols are situated next to each other at the upper part of a step monument. There are also a few niches, but only one façade at FÌndÌk. The Köhnüâ valley has primarily façades and niches, but also a few step monuments. The only example of idols observed in the Köhnüâ valley is not of the commonly found type, i.e. a single or double idol, but instead a triple idol. There are no other idols known from this valley. We should also note that there is a large number of monuments at Dümrek, but these are all of one type, the step monument, and none of the step monuments has an idol made in relief on the semicircular disc above the steps. Several monuments appear alone, but are situated in or close to settlements, such as the ones at Piâmiâ Kale, Kümbet, Delik Taâ, NallÌ Kaya, Tekören and possibly at Germanos. Others, such as the monuments at Kilise, Balkaya, Karahisar, Gökbahçe, and Delikli Taâ, have no obvious connection with settlements. Among the settlements with a limited amount of different types of monument we can make a few observations. At Kes Kaya there is no example of a step monument; the majority of monuments here are façades, but there is also one niche and one idol; at Demirli Köy there are both step monuments and façades, but no examples of idols; and around Emre Gölü there are primarily façades with rock-cut images of Matar and a single step monument, but no idols. To conclude, the overwhelming majority of rock-cut monuments are found in a quite limited geographical area, between Afyon and Eskiâehir. One reason for this is probably that the rock

23 For inscriptions from Tyana, see Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, nos. T-01–T-03 (with earlier references); ÇÌnaroÅlu 1985; VarinlioÅlu 1985; VarinlioÅlu 1991 and Brixhe 1991. For the BayÌndÌr tumuli, see Antalya Museum 32–49, 187–195, figs. 29–62; Dörtlük 1989; Dörtlük 1994; Lydian treasure 27, figs. 28–34; VarinlioÅlu 1992; F. IâÌk 2003a. 24 From the Ankara region there are two examples of double idols, from Faharet Çeâme and Sincan (Prayon 1987, no. 47, pl. 15c; F. Naumann 1983, pl. 9f; Metin & AkalÌn 2000; here Figs. 114–115). From BoÅazköy there is an idol in relief made on the socle of the bastion (Fig. 106; Neve 1993, 640, fig, 19; Börker-Klähn 2000a, fig.4). For references to the Kerkenes idol, see n. 20 above. 25 Idol figurines from Gordion and BoÅazköy, see above, nn. 14, 17. From Seyitömer Höyük, see Topbaâ

1993, 4, fÌg. 7; Topbaâ 1994, 300, fÌg.12. Whether all of the idols found at Seyitömer Höyük actually belong to the Phrygian period is uncertain, as e.g. two marble idols, see Topbaâ 1992, 14, fÌgs. 11–12. 26 There is one rock-cut façade at Kastamonu in Paphlagonia, but whether this should be considered as Phrygian is doubtful. The façade, however, has several features in common with the Phrygian rock-cut façades (von Gall 1966, 65–66, pl. 5:4; Bittel & Naumann 1965, 78–79, fig. 8, pl. 13. 27 The rock-cut idols not made as part of step monuments at FÌndÌk are unpublished and not included in the catalogue. These idols are marked on the map by T.T. & H. Sivas (2003, pl. 10) as nos. I 1–5.

chapter one

4

itself here consists of volcanic tuff, which is soft and easy to cut, and it is also only here that we find the huge rock-cut façades. Outside the Highlands, the rock-cut monuments are definitely much smaller in size, and the majority of them are step monuments, perhaps because it is easier to find rock more suitable for making a step monument than a façade, since an expansive rock wall is not required to make a step monument. Three areas in the Highlands, Midas City, FÌndÌk and the Köhnüâ valley have a large number of rock-cut monuments of different types. Of these three Midas City and FÌndÌk have almost the same number,28 however, the main differences between the two sites are that (1) the monuments at FÌndÌk are smaller and more insignificant, and (2) the almost complete lack of façades and niches at FÌndÌk. Outside the Highlands, Dümrek, north of Gordion, is the site with the largest number of rock-cut monuments; they are, however, all of the step monument type. 3. Topography An important aspect of the rock-cut monuments is their location and the surrounding environment. The decision on where to situate a rockcut monument was a deliberate choice, and in order to understand the reasons behind this and what impact it might have had on the cult itself, we will study the topographical features around the monuments.

28 A large number of step monuments and a few idols from FÌndÌk are newly discovered and not published yet. See Introduction, n. 4. 29 Barnett 1953. 30 Haspels 1971, 24, 37–40; Chaput 1941, 91. There are perhaps also springs connected with the system of staircases, labelled F. See Haspels 1971, 39, fig 495, F; here Fig. 4, F. 31 Haspels 1971, 37–39, fig. 495, B, C; here Fig. 4, B, C. 32 Both the Unfinished Monument, No. 34, and the Midas Monument, No. 30, are situated at a distance of c. 120 m from the water sources on the left side of the kale. In Table 1 are some step monuments, Nos. 88–96, listed as being less than 100 m from the water source. These measurements refer to the distance as the crow flies, and not the actual walking distance, which is in this case considerably longer. These monuments are all located on top of the kale, while the water sources are located at the foot of the kale. See

3.1. Access to Water Barnett tried to emphasize the proximity to water sources for the Phrygian rock-cut niches and façades and, accordingly, he interpreted them as spring- or waterside shrines.29 In order to examine this theory, we first have to consider what should be regarded as being close to a monument. Of course all the monuments at Midas City or other settlement areas are more or less close to water sources, since water is a necessity for any settlement. At least five water sources are known from Midas City.30 There are several small springs below the kale on the southern side, and two springs below the kale on the western side, one below staircase B in a cavern and one at fountain C (Fig. 4).31 That locates several monuments at Midas City at a distance of c. 100 m from the closest water source.32 Therefore a relative proximity, that is some hundred metres or less, between a water source and a rock-cut monument may be expected at nearly every settlement with rock-cut monuments (see Table 1). None of the monuments at Midas City or at any other settlement, however, has a direct connection with a spring or other water source. There is only one façade in a settlement area, No. 5 at FÌndÌk, which is directly overlooking a water source. This monument today has a water run-off channel in front. There are also several unpublished idols and step monuments situated on top of this rock massif. Whether the presence of water in front of these monuments is more than a coincidence cannot be determined without more examples supporting a similar location. With the current evidence, at least, this is an exception. It is also uncertain whether the water run-off channel in front of the façade existed during the Phrygian period.33

Haspels 1971, fig. 495; here Fig. 4. 33 T. and H. Sivas have reported that around the corner of the same rock massif, which the run-off channel follows, there is at a higher level, a rock-cut considerably smaller channel (Sivas 2003a, 288; T.T. & H. Sivas 2004a, 158, fig. 9; T.T. & H. Sivas 2003, 9 pl. 11). The sloping rock above the run-off channel has been cut perpendicular and at the rock floor thus created at the foot of the rock massif at a level slightly above the run-off channel, there is a rock-cut channel. There is no obvious connection between the monuments and the rock-cut channel, since the rock-cut small channel is not located below the monuments but further away around the corner. There is, however, a small tiny niche situated towards the north end of the rock-cut channel (see Cat. No. 5). Whether the rock-cut channel belongs to the same period as the Phrygian monuments is uncertain and the entire installation needs to be further investigated before any conclusions can be made.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

5

Table 1. The location of the monuments versus different types of water sources Location of monument

Façades/Niches Cat. No.

Step monuments/Idols Cat. No.

Not connected with settlement facing water source

1*, 26, 28, 110

Connected with settlement facing water source

5, 8?, 22?, 23?, 24?

56?, 58?, 59?

< 100 m to a stream** < 100 m to a spring**

1, 8?, 22?, 23?, 26, 28 24?, 110

48, 57?, 58?, 59?, 106 60?, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

< 100 m to a run-off channel** < 100 m to a lake** > 100 m to a stream**

5

> 100 m to a spring**

30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

> 100 m to a lake**

15, 16, 17, 18

No visible or reported water source in the immediate vicinity

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 25, 27, 29, 37, 38, 39, 41, 109

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 20?, 21?, 40?

42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54?, 55?, 56?, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 97, 98, 99 50 49, 51, 52, 53, 61, 108?, 111, 112

* Only partially faces a water source. ** The distances given above are as the crow flies and do not take topographical conditions into account, i.e. the actual walking distance between a water source and monument may be considerable longer. In most cases the water source can also not be seen from the monument. Catalogue number typed in bold indicate that they are not connected with any known settlement. The monuments at Dümrek, Nos. 101–107, have here been listed as they belong to a settlement, which is, however, uncertain.

The Köhnüâ valley has several springs and a small stream running north-south in the middle of the valley. The rock-cut monuments are cut in the perpendicular rocks facing the valley on both sides. The stream is rather small, and cannot be seen from any of the monuments, and there is no obvious connection between either the stream or the springs and the monuments. The springs obviously provided the settlement on the Köhnüâ kale with water, and probably also a larger settlement below the kale. Some of the monuments in the Köhnüâ valley, located at a distance of more than 1 km from the Köhnüâ kale, Nos. 24, 25, and 61 (Fig. 5), must have been troubled by water, since, especially in spring time, the valley is water-logged. It is probably for these reasons that a groove was cut into the gully

34

Haspels 1971, 85, n. 58.

surrounding the monuments at Kumca BoÅaz KapÌ Kaya, Nos. 25 and 61, although there is no known water source close to them. Whether the shaft monument Mal Taâ, No. 24, is situated in connection with a spring or not is unclear, but Haspels reported water bubbling up continuously during the excavations.34 The step monument at Tekören, No. 100, is at some distance from a stream. However, a large Phrygian settlement has been identified between the stream, and the monument,35 i.e. the monument was chosen to be situated further away from the water source than the settlement itself. The sanctuary at Dümrek, 23 km north of Gordion, is situated very strategically on the Sakarya (Sangarios) River; although Phrygian pottery was found during a survey it is uncertain

35

Devreker & Vermeulen 1993, 271.

6

chapter one

whether there was a Phrygian settlement in the area (Fig. 12).36 The Sakarya River cannot be seen from the area with the step monuments, and the monuments appear not to be directly associated with the river. The monuments are situated on a plateau at a c. 100 m higher altitude than the river. The place has a dramatic beauty and probably the location of the step monuments at Dümrek above the Sakarya River was chosen because of its appearance, naturally different from the surrounding area. A similar location to Dümrek can be found at Germanos situated on the Hamam (or Çatak) River, here also the river is at a lower altitude, c. 50 m below the plateau, where the niche, No. 40, is located. The monument is again not directly associated with the river, which cannot be seen from the rock carrying the niche. The façade is, instead of facing the river, facing the opposite direction. The rock carrying the niche is conical shaped and the façade could easily have been made in the opposite direction, facing the river. The monument today faces south-east, which appears to have been a more important aspect than its location with respect to the river (see below, pp. 17–19). It has been suggested that the settlement at Germanos was a military fortress controlling the passage to the north.37 If this theory is correct then the location of the settlement on the river was based on military reasons rather than religious. Contrary to Dümrek, there is only one cultic monument at Germanos, which emphasizes that the settlement was not primarily an important religious centre. Since settlements are always provided with water sources it is of more importance to study the rock-cut monuments located outside settlement areas, in order to establish the relationship between water and monument (see Tables 1–2 for monuments located outside settlements). Around the Areyastis Monument, No. 37, situated c. 1.7 km from Midas City and slightly closer to Piâmiâ Kale, there is no visible water source. The niche at Tonra Patlak, No. 38, c. 1 km from Midas City, does not have any close water source to my knowledge. There are five monuments around Emre Gölü, Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 50, not connected with any obvious settlement.38 They are, however, at a distance

of approximately 1 km or more from the lake. There is hardly any suitable rock closer to the lake, but none of the monuments are made facing the lake. Today, the lake is visible only from the site of the Burmeç façade, No. 18, at a far distance. The lake is located behind the façade, but it nevertheless contributes to the dramatic and beautiful scenery of the chosen spot. The step monument No. 108, on top of Karahisar, is probably another expression of the Phrygian taste for spectacular locations. The mountain attracts attention from far away, because of its darker colour and its being isolated in the plain. Almost at the foot of the mountain there are some rock-cut steps descending down into an enclosed space, which today is filled up with soil. At the bottom of these steps there may be a water source of some kind. Whether these rock-cuttings are Phrygian or not is difficult to determine. However, a connection between the step monument and the possible water source is unlikely, because of the distance between them. The façade monument at Kilise, No. 8, is situated together with some rock-cut tombs overlooking the Porsuk (Tembris) River. No traces of a Phrygian settlement other than these rock-cuttings have been observed, but Haspels suggested that sherds of an open settlement might have been washed away by the yearly flooding of the Porsuk River.39 It is possible that this location was chosen because of its position along the river. However, the façade here seems rather to be a companion to the tombs, than the other way around (see below, p. 18). There are only four façades, not connected with any known settlement, which face or partially face a stream or spring, that is less than 100 m away (Table 1). Three of these façades are shaft monuments. The only one which is not a shaft monument is the newly discovered façade at Kuzören, No. 110. It is carved into a lone rock in a valley and c. 50 m in front of the monument there is a spring called Tavuk PÌnarÌ. The second monument, shaft monument Bahâayiâ No. 28, is one of the few monuments located directly in front of and overlooking a stream. The third monument, shaft monument No. 26 at DeÅirmen Yeri in the Karababa valley, was similar situated directly in front of a small

36 Burke 2000a; 2000b, 350; Grave, Kealhofer and Marsh 2005, 149. See also Chapter III, n. 24. 37 TuÅrul & FÌratlÌ 1967, 238. 38 There is one Phrygian kale, the KÌrk Merdiven Kale, at

the Emre Gölü, which might be the settlement responsible for these monuments, see Haspels 1971, 64, figs. 180–181. 39 Haspels 1971, 71.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence stream, while the other monument in the same valley, No. 27, is not close to any known water source.40 Below the rocky area with the fourth façade, the shaft monument Delikli Taâ, No. 1, there is a stream. However, the façade is only partially facing the stream. One of the remaining two shaft monuments, the Mal Taâ, No. 24, may as previously mentioned be situated in connection with a spring. The last and fifth shaft monument, No. 2, is not situated outside a settlement, but at the site of FÌndÌk where there is a stream connected with the settlement (Fig. 6). To conclude, all the monuments connected with settlements, with one exception, are never directly associated with a water source. There is only one façade, No. 5, at FÌndÌk, which today overlooks a water source, a run-off channel, but it may not have existed during the Phrygian period. The five monuments around the Emre Gölü, Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 50, are not situated close to a settlement and none of them are facing the lake. They are all at such a distance from the lake that they cannot be considered as waterside shrines. It seems rather that they are located according to where suitable rock to cut could be found. The only monuments that may have been deliberately located in connection with a water source are some of the façades (Nos. 1, 24, 26, 28, 110). The water sources are in these cases, quite close (at a distance of approx. 50 m or less). Four of these, Nos. 1, 24, 26 and 28, are shaft monuments. It may very well be that the spot was chosen because of its natural beauty, but there may have been a conscious decision to place these façades close to water because water was needed during the rituals taking place at these monuments. Regarding the other types of monument we have found no proof that they are directly associated with copious springs or rivers (see pp. 147–148, for a further discussion). 3.2. The Relation between the Monuments and the Settlements It is only at Midas City that rock-cut monuments are found at the kale itself; monuments at other 40

The monuments in the Karababa valley, Nos. 26 and 27, are probably situated close to a settlement in the area, whose exact whereabouts have not been located. The Bahâayiâ Monument, No. 28, is not close to any known settlement. 41 There are a couple of niches on top of the plateau, but whether they should be dated to the Phrygian period or later is difficult to determine. One rectangular-shaped niche is situated at the very southern end of the plateau; the niche may be unfinished because its back wall has not been smoothed;

7

settlements are either outside the kale or by the entrance gate of the kale. Two niches, one at Piâmiâ Kale and one at Delik Taâ, Nos. 39 and 12, are deliberately placed next to the entrance, just before entering the actual plateau. There are also a few step monuments, such as Nos. 48, 67 and 68, located in similar positions. The reasons behind such a location will be discussed in Chapter III, pp. 148–152. In Table 2 below, it can be seen that the overwhelming majority of monuments situated on top of a kale are step monuments and idols and they are all to be found at the kale of Midas City.41 All of these monuments are placed at the outskirts of the kale, among the rocks bordering the kale, with one exception, No. 70 is situated c. 50 m from the entrance ramp. This step monument is the most magnificent of the step monuments at Midas City, and differs from other step monuments, since it has an additional part on its left side (Figs. 80 and 136). This part is made like a bench and above there is an inscription of a public nature (see below, pp. 70–71, 75). When trying to answer the question of why it is only at the plateau of Midas City we can find rock-cut monuments, and why these are all of the same type, i.e. step monuments/idols, we first have to consider the location of suitable rock to use for the different types of monuments. A fairly large vertical rock is needed in order to make a façade, and those rocks are found below the kale along its edges. There are, however, a few lone steep outcrops of rock on the plateau at Midas City, which would have been suitable, but these have not been used. A niche requires a smaller rock, and could have been made easily, but that has not been done either, except in two cases.42 At the other kales, we completely lack any kind of rock-cut monuments on the plateaux, which is probably mainly because of the absence of suitable rock. The only suitable rocks are found along the edges of the plateaux, and therefore usually incorporated into the system of fortification walls. Thus, it seems that one of the main reasons for the lack of rock-cut monuments on the cutting marks can still be seen. Around the corner of this niche is a heavily eroded relief figure; it has been suggested that this was an idol, but not much can be said because of erosion (Berndt 2002, 25, fig. 35; de Francovich 1990, fig. 29). The other niche is small and insignificant, and not made in the usual rectangular shape common in the Phrygian period, see Berndt 2002, fig. 46. 42 See above, n. 41.

chapter one

8

Table 2. The location of the monument versus the settlement Location of monument

Step monuments & Idols Cat. No.

On top of the kale

62, 64, 65, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96

At the entrance of the kale

48, 51, 68

12, 39

Below or outside of the kale/settlement

42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 66, 69, 71, 72, 78, 79, 85, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 111, 112

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 109

Probably situated below or outside of a Phrygian kale/settlement

101–107?

8, 40

Probably connected with a specific settlement, but situated more than 1 km away from the specific settlement

60, 61

24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38

Not connected with any obvious or known settlement

50, 108

1, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28

Façades & Niches Cat. No.

Monuments for which no data exists: Cat. Nos. 41, 100.

top of the plateaux and the fact that only step monuments and idols were made at Midas City was a matter of finding available rock to cut. We can, however, note that none of the stone slabs with reliefs of Matar standing in a doorway has been found in connection with a city mound.43 This fact may only be a coincidence, since none of them was found in situ. Note, however, the earlier mentioned statue of Matar found in situ at the city gate of BoÅazköy (Fig. 116). The two types of rock-cut monuments that can be found on top of the kale, step monuments and idols, can also be found outside the plateau. The idols are always made on top of the plateau or on the rock walls or rocks surrounding the settlement area, i.e. there are no idols situated far away from a settlement and they are always connected with a settlement.44 We should here note also that the step monuments with idols are located either on top of the plateau or close to the kale. There are quite a few monuments located at a considerable distance from the settlement, and

43

Prayon 1987, nos. 15, 26, 27, 184. The absence of idols outside settlement areas might be due to the fact that they have so far not been reported or observed, because of their rather insignificant nature. 44

there are even a few monuments that cannot be connected with any particular settlement. The step monuments at Dümrek, Nos. 101–107, may have belonged to a settlement in the area, perhaps situated on the summit/kale. Early and Middle Phrygian pottery sherds in particular were found during a survey in the area around the kale.45 It is, however, uncertain whether the pottery is evidence of an occupation settlement or should be connected with the sanctuary. Considering the absence of rock-cut monuments at Gordion, a connection between Gordion and Dümrek cannot be ruled out. Such a connection has recently also been supported by ceramic analysis, indicating that the main users of the sanctuary came from nearby Gordion.46 However, the ceramic analysis also suggested that Dümrek was used by visitors from further away. The niche at Germanos, No. 40, probably belonged to a hitherto unrecorded settlement, as traces of walls and Phrygian sherds were observed on a kale close to the niche.47 Among the other monuments we can note two shaft

45 Grave, Kealhofer & Marsh 2005; Burke 2000a; Burke 2000b, 350. 46 Grave, Kealhofer & Marsh 2005, esp. 160. 47 TuÅrul & FÌratlÌ 1967, 238.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

9

Table 3. Monuments situated together or alone Façade/Niche

Façade/Niche Step monument

6&7, 34&35 2&42, 17&50, 25& 61, 31&69, 34&35&85

Single idol-not part of a step monument

Step monument Single idol—not Double idol -not Triple idol part of a step part of a step monument monument

44&45&46, 53&111&112, 58&59, 78&79, 89&90&91&92, 95&96, 98&99 64&65

Double idol-not part of a step monument

81&82&83, 86a-b&87a-d 71&72

Triple idol Situated alone

1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 109, 110

48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 70, 73, 74, 75*, 76, 77, 80, 84, 88, 93, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108

49, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 94, 97

55

The table demonstrates both which types of monuments that can be found together and where multiple monuments of the same type occur together. Figures refer to catalogue entries. Two or more monuments situated together are marked with ‘&’ between the catalogue nos. * There are two unpublished step monuments, c. 7–8 m north-west of this one (see Cat. No. 75).

monuments, perhaps also connected with unrecorded sites, but they also appear to be situated along major routes. The Bahâayiâ Monument, No. 28, is located in a valley along a track used today, and the Delikli Taâ, No. 1, is situated along the main road used today between TavâanlÌ and HarmançÌk. 3.2.1. Different Types of Monument Situated Together Several monuments appear in groups (see Table 3), and we can make a few observations. Step monuments that appear in groups are usually relatively small, insignificant, coarsely made and placed next to each other, such as Nos. 89–92, situated at the summit of a ridge, and Nos. 95–96. The step monuments Nos. 98 and 99 are cut from the same rock. Two further step monuments, Nos. 58 and 59, are cut from the same rock

(Fig. 68). Three step monuments at FÌndÌk, Nos. 44–46 (Fig. 62), are made next to each other. All of the step monuments at Dümrek are fairly close to each other in a limited area. This is also the case with the monuments at Demirli, where both step monuments and façades are located on one group of rocks called Menekâe KayalarÌ, c. 500 m south of Demirli Köy. Three of the step monuments here, Nos. 53, 111 and 112 (Fig. 75), are cut next to each other on the same rock. Idols are usually found together with other idols or more rarely, together with a step monument. Step monument No. 64 and idol No. 65 are situated together on the same rock, and they were probably made close to each other intentionally. We should here note that in other cases the idol is cut as an integrated part of the step monument (Nos. 44, 70, 80, 84, 93, 95, 98). Several idols appear next to each other at Midas City,

chapter one

10

namely Nos. 71 and 72 (Fig. 81) and Nos. 81, 82 and 83 (Fig. 85). From the latter location it is also possible to see another idol, No. 84. A third group of idols made next to each other are Nos. 86a-b and 87a-d (Fig. 88). There are no known examples of idols made close to façades, but step monuments do occur together with façades and niches, for example Nos. 42, 50, 60, 61, 69 and 85. If there is more than one step monument at one spot, they are usually situated side by side, the only exception being Nos. 78 and 79, placed one above the other, probably because of the shape of the rock, which was more suitable for such an arrangement. There could be several reasons for placing them next to each other, but one explanation appears to be that they were all supposed to face the same eastern direction and be situated close to or at the summit of the rock. However, if we examine the step monuments located close to façades/niches, the situation is different. Step monument No. 69 and the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, face different directions and are made at an angle to each other. A similar situation can be found concerning the step monument, No. 50, situated next to Büyük KapÌ Kaya, No. 17; they are also made at angle to each other, both facing an area in front of them. The step monument No. 60 is made behind the shaft monument No. 24 at a distance of 100 m, and they are possibly not connected. 3.3. Specific Topographical Features The topographical conditions around a step monument or in front of a façade/niche/idol may provide some information about the function of the monument and its possible use in cult. Topographical features that may be considered in these respects are the presence of a large open flat area around or in front of the monument, access to the monument, the presence of outstanding natural phenomena, the view over the surroundings and the location of the monument in relation to the rock on which it is located. We will consider below certain topographical features observed in the vicinity of the monu-

48 49 50 51 52

Haspels 1971, 31, n. 13, fig. 126. Haspels 1971, 71 with n. 234, figs. 240, 244. Haspels 1971, 71. Haspels 1971, 58, n. 159. Gabriel 1952, pl. 22; de Francovich 1990, fig. 74.

ments, and also the location of the monuments themselves. 3.3.1. Sheer Lone Rock In several areas with rock-cut monuments a lone sheer vertical rock can be seen. These rocks attract particular interest because of their unusual shape. At the Köhnüâ valley there is a rock called the Sivri Taâ, 8 m high (Fig. 5),48 situated very strategically in the middle of the valley. The rock can be seen from a far distance and attracts attention. The rock-cut monuments are to both the north and south of this rock; the Sivri Taâ forms a kind of focal and central point in the valley. Another site with a dominating sheer rock is Kes Kaya; the rock is here called the Çatal Kaya or Kes Kaya and measures 6.4 m in height and c. 3.5 m in width.49 The rock itself stands on a separate low hill east of the settlement area (Fig. 8). The rock has partly been cut into this shape by the Phrygians, who added a deep vertical groove in the middle, giving it the shape of a two-pronged fork.50 The rock can be seen from a far distance in the area. In the Karababa valley, there is a sheer lone rock called the Gölgele Kaya, 15.5 m in height, and at a distance of 80 m from where the shaft monument at DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26, was situated.51 At Midas City, on top of the kale, there is a sheer lone rock, c. 3.5 m high, standing c. 20 m south-west of step monument No. 70.52 This rock has been artificially cut in a similar manner to the Çatal Kaya. However, we cannot be sure of the period to which these cuttings belong. Perhaps a more outstanding rock is found at Midas City dominating the northern part of the plateau. The rock, standing c. 7–8 m high, is called the Hayvankaya, and is also suggestive of a two-pronged fork especially when viewed from the south (Fig. 4).53 The two prongs, however, are not of equal length. Several step monuments, Nos. 89–92, are situated c. 50 m north of this rock, from where it can be seen well. At Dümrek there is a sheer lone rock, c. 3–4 m high, surrounded by several step monuments at a distance of 10–15 m.

53 Gabriel 1 952, fig. 3, no. 27, pls. 24, 28b; Berndt 2002, 31–32, figs. 45, 48. The rock can also be seen in the distance in fig. 41 in Haspels 1971. The area around the rock was excavated, zone N, and Gabriel reported a possible statue base situated in front, Gabriel 1965, 14–16, fig. 9.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

11

Table 4. Topographical features concerning the location of monuments Topographical feature

Façades & Niches Cat. No.

Step mon. & Idols Cat. No

Sheer lone rock seen from the monument

10, 11, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26

54, 58, 59, 70, 89, 90, 91, 92, 104

Large open space in front/ around

1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11?, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40, 109, 110

48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 80, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112

Limited area in front/around

12, 39

43, 44, 45, 46, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 95, 96

Hardly any or no space in front/ around

47, 65, 73, 74, 78, 79, 93, 94

Flat area in front/around

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11?, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 36

43, 48. 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 75, 76, 77, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107

Gentle slope in front

1, 2, 16, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 42, 110

69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 95, 96, 98, 99

Steep slope in front

20, 28, 33, 37

57, 71, 72, 74, 78, 79

Precipitous slope in front/ around

73, 84, 93

Area covered with smaller rocks in front/around

1, 2, 27, 33,

42, 44, 45, 46, 60, 66, 84

Monument with difficult access

3, 8, 9, 19, 20, 32, 33, 39, 41

47, 93, 108

Step monument not situated on the summit of a ridge or outcrop of rock, but at ground level

48, 56, 68, 69

Monuments cut into a sheer, lone rock

6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 27, 40

78, 79

Niche/idol 2 m or more above ground

3, 7, 8, 9, 16, 19, 20, 22, 32, 39, 40, 71, 72, 63 41?

Monuments for which no data exists

38

55

Several of the features given in the table above are of course of a rather subjective nature, as what should be considered as difficult access, for example, might be debatable. However, even considering subjective perspectives, the entire material has been evaluated from the same personal perspectives, thereby providing useful relative observations. Hardly any or no space in front may allow room for one or two persons. A limited area may provide space for groups of c. 20 persons or less. A gentle slope is one that does not slope so much that it is not relatively comfortable to use, while a steep slope cannot be considered to have been used to stand or congregate at.

Besides these places where a sheer lone rock is standing in the immediate vicinity of the rockcut monuments, there are also several façades and niches cut themselves into outstanding rocks (see Table 4). It is obvious that these rocks have been specially selected for housing a façade or niche. There are also two step monuments, Nos. 78–79, cut into the side of a tall vertical rock, one above the other. These are exceptions, as almost all step monuments are situated on the summit of a ridge or outcrop of rock. The façade Arslankaya, No. 16, has been cut into a very high rock of c. 15 m in height; the 54

Haspels 1971, figs. 186, 189–191.

façade itself is 7 m high. The rock stands in isolation and can be seen from a great distance around the plain of Emre Gölü.54 At Arslankaya there is also a sheer rock to the left of the monument at a distance of 30 m. This rock cannot, however, be seen from the niche, and it therefore seems less likely that it had any connection with the monument itself. Two further monuments in the plain around Emre Gölü have also been cut into sheer rocks; the Küçük KapÌ Kaya (No. 15, Fig. 26) is cut into a rock of c. 4.75 m in height and the unfinished Burmeç façade, (No. 18, Fig. 124) is cut into an isolated rock,55 known 55

Haspels 1971, fig. 175.

chapter one

12

as MuskalÌ Kaya, c. 10– 15 m in height. In front of the Burmeç façade there is also a sheer lone rock, c. 5–6 m high. Among a group of rocks at Demirli, called the Menekâe KayalarÌ, there is one tall conically shaped rock, c. 6 m high, carrying a façade, No. 19. Façade No. 11 at Kes Kaya is cut into an isolated huge sheer rock called Uzun Kaya, 16 m in height, standing next to the höyük.56 At FÌndÌk two niches, Nos. 6 and 7, are cut into an isolated rock of 10–12 m in height, situated next to the kale (Fig. 17). Above the niches are the possible remains of a rock-cut relief of two antithetically placed animals. The side of the rock with the niches and relief can be seen from a great distance from the northern entrance to the valley. Niche No. 40, at Germanos, made together with a long inscription is cut into an isolated conically shaped rock called the Türbe Önü or the YazÌlÌ Kaya, c. 8.5 m in height.57 Several façades and niches are cut into outcrops of rock of no particularly significant height, but no alternatives were available in the immediate vicinity. In this context a sheer lone rock at Çepni, called Gelincik KayasÌ, 50 km south-west of Afyon, should also be mentioned.58 The rock carries a Palaeo-Phrygian inscription of religious character, but there is no rock-cut monument connected with it. Several of these sheer lone rocks are so spectacular and distinctive that they have been given special names by the local Turkish inhabitants. It is evident that the Phrygians paid special attention to rocks that stood out from their surroundings, usually by being tall and sheer, sometimes conical, but in all cases isolated from other rocks and usually seen from a great distance. Since these rocks can either be found in the immediate vicinity of rock-cut monuments or the rock itself has been cut to carry a niche, façade, step monument or inscription, we may assume that these rocks themselves were of religious or cultic importance. These aspects will be further discussed in Chapter III, pp. 143–145. 3.3.2. Space Around or in Front of the Monument We will here examine the topographical conditions and areas around the monuments. Aspects 56 57

Haspels 1971, fig. 241. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, pl. 37:2.

that will be considered are whether the area around/in front is flat or sloping, and whether the space in front is large or limited. The accessibility of the monument will also be considered. A large open space, usually flat or gently sloping, is provided in front or around the majority of monuments of all types (see Table 4). There are several step monuments/idols, but only two niches, with a limited area in front. Both of these niches, Nos. 12 and 39, are situated by the entrance gates to the kales at Delik Taâ and Piâmis Kale, respectively, and therefore have a limited space in front. There are, however, a few façades/niches, such as Nos. 20, 28, 33 and 37, that have a limited flat area in front because they are situated on a slope. The Areyastis Monument, No. 37, has an easy access, but only a small flattened area in front before the slope begins. The façade is very clearly seen from some distance and the inscriptions connected with it can be easily read from the ground. The shaft monument at Bahâayiâ, No. 28, is situated in the middle of a steep slope and has only a c. 0.6 m wide rock-cut platform in front of the façade. This monument can also be seen easily from some distance. The Broken Monument, No. 33, is today hidden behind bushes and therefore not clearly visible. There is a steep slope below, but a rough, almost inaccessible, platform immediately beneath the broken façade. The inscription above the pediment is easily readable from the slope. The fourth niche, No. 20, will be discussed below (see p. 14). The majority of step monuments have a large flat area around them. Several of these, such as Nos. 21, 69, 70 and 108, are of a considerable size and are provided with inscriptions. Step monument No. 108, situated at the top of the small mountain Karahisar, is, however, difficult to reach. There is only one track leading to the monument, with some rock-cut steps made at the steepest parts. Immediately in front of the monument there is a rock-cut platform, below which is quite a large open area. A few of the larger step monuments with large flat spaces around lack inscriptions, such as Nos. 68 and 77. No. 68 is very strategically placed just before entering the plateau and there is open space in front and at the sides. Some of the smaller step monuments, for 58 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 51–55, nos. W-08–W-10, pl. 30:1.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence instance Nos. 89–92, are situated at the summit of a ridge and there is a large flat open area in front of them below the rock. The area immediately below has been artificially levelled, but whether this was done in the Phrygian period or later is not clear. A similar topographic situation is seen for the somewhat larger step monuments, Nos. 53, 111 and 112. One of these, No. 112 also carries an inscription. These have, in addition, a large flat area behind on top of the rather low rock. Step monuments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 64, 67, 88, 95 and 96 all have a limited area in front and around. Almost all of these are quite small in size and lack inscriptions. The three step monuments at FÌndÌk, Nos. 44–46, for example, are situated next to each other on top of the plateau facing the valley, with no natural flat space around them. What seems to have been more important here was to place them facing the view in front. There is a limited space in front of step monument No. 64 due to its placement just at the edge of the plateau and the monument is directed towards or facing the view in front. Close to this step monument, situated further out on the same rock, there is a rock-cut idol, No. 65, below which there is hardly any space. These two monuments can be seen from some distance from certain spots below. Two step monuments placed next to each other, Nos. 95 and 96, are among rocks at the north-eastern edge of the plateau and there is no open flat area in front of them, only a small spot. The monuments can be seen from below, but that was probably not the main intention, since they are not facing the view below. From this spot, on the other hand, another step monument, No. 93, can be seen on a steep rock at some distance behind. This monument has hardly any space around and also has very difficult access, but the view from the monument is good. Step monument No. 74 at Midas City is on the outskirts of the plateau among the rocks descending from the plateau (Fig. 83). In front of the monument there is a pronounced slope that does not provide an area suitable for standing. However, behind the monument there is a rock enclosure and a small, insignificant, roughly-cut niche in its eastern wall, which is of easy access. The monument itself is today partly hidden behind scrubs and bushes, but a good view is provided 59

Berndt 2002, 42.

13

from the spot where a much smaller step monument, No. 73, is situated, at a distance of c. 15 m. No. 73 is located on a strategic projecting rock, that probably functioned as a look-out post over the valley on this side of the kale. There are traces of fortification walls in the rock where the step monument is located, which, as pointed out by Berndt,59 would have blocked the view of the monument, and we may therefore assume that the wall and the monument were not in contemporary use. Step monument No. 47 at FÌndÌk is situated on top of a rock, several metres high, and the monument is inaccessible without climbing equipment. It was obviously not the intention for this monument to be visited. The monument is at the edge of the rock and can be seen from below, where there is an open flat area. Thus, step monuments in such locations that they are either difficult to reach or there is not much space around have one distinct feature in common, they are all at a high elevation, facing a spectacular view, and can usually be seen from below. Idols are usually made with a rather limited area in front. There is basically only one idol, No. 49 at Kes Kaya, that has a large flat area in front. Single idols standing by themselves are usually accessible but with a very limited flattened area, if any, in front, such as Nos. 63, 65, 66, 71 and 72. Two different groups of idols, Nos. 81–83 and 86–87, are both situated in front of a partly cut, partly natural rock platform providing a limited space. Idol No. 84 is on a steep rocky slope, but immediately in front of the idol are a small platform and some rock-cut steps. Another idol at Midas City, No. 62, is located among the rocks bordering the northern side of the plateau and there is a limited open area in front, measuring less than 5 x 5 m. Idol No. 63 is also situated on a rocky slope but in front of the idol is a small rock-cut platform, which, with some difficulty, is possible to reach. 3.3.3. The Location of the Monument versus the Rock on Which It is Situated A few of the monuments are situated high above the ground and, in a few cases, completely out of reach. Several of these also lack an open area in front. Ten or eleven niches/façades or c. 25% of the

chapter one

14

total number of this group, Nos. 3, 8, 9, 16, 19, 20, 22, 32, 39, 40 and possibly 41, are placed at a height above ground of more than two metres, and should be considered as difficult to reach. Four of the niches, Nos. 9, 16, 19 and 40, are placed just below the middle of a sheer rock. The niche of No. 16, Arslankaya, is c. 2 m above ground, but since the rock below the façade is heavily eroded there is a possibility that there once existed rock-cut stairs in front, which have subsequently disappeared. Façade No. 9 at Kes Kaya is placed c. 5 m above the ground on a 16 m high rock. It is, however, possible to climb up to this façade, and there is a rock-cut platform along its entire length, which extends beyond the façade on its right side, where there is also a small insignificant niche. The niche at Demirli Köy, No. 19, is 3.5 m above ground, about half-way up the rock, and the niche is rather inaccessible. The triangular niche at Germanos, No. 40, is situated above the long inscription c. 4 m above the ground, about half-way up the conical rock. The remains of a badly damaged small façade at Midas City, the Broken Monument, No. 33, are c. 4 m above ground. Today, only the akroterion and upper part of the pediment exist, together with an inscription. In front of the façade there is a small natural (?) platform, possible to stand on, but there is no easy access to it. Another small façade on the east side of Midas City, No. 32, is situated very high up, c. 4 m above ground, and it is today impossible to reach the monument. It can clearly be seen from the ground below, and also from some distance because of its high position. We should, however, note that there is a Roman arcosolion tomb below the façade and if we study the rock wall above the tomb it appears as if it has been cut and made more sheer. Probably the rock below this small façade had a different appearance in the Phrygian period, with a more gentle slope, but the façade would still have been more or less inaccessible. Two of the niches in the Köhnüâ valley are situated high up. Niche No. 22 is 2.3 m above the ground, and niche No. 20 (Fig. 123) is 3.5 m above the ground, close to a rock-cut Phrygian tomb. It is impossible to reach the niche without any climbing equipment since there are no traces on the rock wall of any rock-cut steps. The niche 60 61

G. & A. Körte 1904, 223. Haspels 1971, 94, n. 110.

is not placed directly below the tomb; instead it is close to the edge of the rock, thus making it more visible from a distance. The façade monument at Kilise, No. 8, of which today only the akroterion and part of the rafters are preserved, would have been c. 3 m above ground. The function of this monument is discussed below (see p. 22). The majority of façades and niches, however, were obviously made with the purpose of being accessible. One of the façades around Emre Gölü, the Küçük KapÌ Kaya (No. 15, Fig. 26) has, for example, rock-cut stairs in front leading up to the niche and at the top of the stairs a platform. Also, one of the niches at DöÅer Asar Kaya (No. 13, Fig. 24) has rock-cut stairs in front. The niche itself is 1.73 m above ground, but the stairs make it easy to reach. Usually idols are made at a convenient height, one exception being one idol and one double-idol at Midas City, Nos. 71 and 72, cut next to each other in the rock wall, c. 3.8 m above ground (Fig. 81). They are almost out of reach, but on their left side there is a small insignificant niche. It would seem more practical to have placed the idols and the niche at a lower level if the intention was to make the niche easily accessible. Below the idols there is a Roman arcosolion tomb and Körte suggested that the idols were originally part of a step monument, the steps later cut away when the tomb was made.60 Haspels did not agree, partly because there are no pick marks on the rock and partly because she had not come across a step monument without a free-standing back.61 We can make a few further observations; the single idol is carved in deeper relief than the double idol and the idols appear to have been made by different hands, perhaps at different times. There is no known step monument that has a semicircular disc decorated with both a double idol and a single idol. Idols can be cut next to each other in this manner, as we have other examples, such as Nos. 86a-b and 87a-d (Fig. 88), but then they are not part of step monuments. From Ankara we have two examples of a double idol made without an accompanying step monument (Figs. 114 and 115).62 Therefore, taking into consideration the arguments and evidence available, idols Nos. 71 and 72 were most certainly not originally part of a step monument 62 Prayon 1987, no. 47, pl. 15c with further references; Metin & AkalÌn 2000; here Figs. 114–115.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence whose steps were later cut away. Körte is probably right, however, when he assumes that the Roman arcosolion tomb required some rock-cuttings that changed the shape of the original rock from the Phrygian period, and it was probably easier to reach the idols and the niche before the Roman tomb was made. Thus, idols are almost always made against a rock wall at a convenient height and there is no preference to situate them close to the summit of the rock wall. Step monuments are often made on top of an outcrop of rock or, in some cases, on top of a ridge. An outcrop of rock is a suitable piece of rock to transform into a step monument and, in several cases, a rock whose natural shape underlines the shape of the step monument has been chosen. Sometimes the entire rock has been transformed into a step monument, as for example Nos. 50 (Figs. 72 and 128), 60, 70 (Figs. 80 and 136), 76 (Fig. 84) and 100 (Fig. 94). In other cases, where the rock was too big to be used in its entirety, only the upper part was used, as for example Nos. 43 (Figs. 63 and 127), 58 (Fig. 68) and 92. A few step monuments are cut against a rock wall, but a division between those cut against a rock wall and those that are free-standing, as suggested by Haspels, cannot be made; they should rather all be considered as the same type of monument. She referred to those cut against a rock wall as step monuments and the free-standing ones as step-altars.63 Three step monuments, Nos. 75, 78 and 79, all have the characteristics of the free-standing ones, as, for instance, the existence of a semicircular-shaped disc, which instead of being three-dimensional is made in relief against the rock wall. There are four step monuments, Nos. 48 (Fig. 64), 56 (Fig. 73), 68 (Fig. 78) and 69 (Figs. 79 and 137), that were not made on top of a ridge or outcrop of rock, but instead are situated at ground level, usually with a rock wall behind. Two of these, those at Midas City and FÌndÌk, are located next to the entrance of the kale. The other two have inscriptions on the rock wall behind. All four are of considerable size and either have more than one flight of steps or the monument is divided into several parts. Only one of them, No. 48, has

63 64

Haspels 1971, 93–97. See catalogue entry No. 57, Topography; Tamsü

15

a semicircular disc on top, but this is situated above the left part only. Thus we can conclude that it was important to cut the step monuments at the summit of a rock, but this seems not to have played any role in the placement of idols. A few step monuments, such as Nos. 47 and 93, are even placed in such high places that they have to be considered as almost inaccessible. It is clear that the intention was not to climb up to them, but they can both be seen from below. There is also an unpublished step monument in the Köhnüâ valley situated high up on the very top of the Akkuâ YuvasÌ ridge flanking the west side of the valley. The step monument can be seen from a distance across the valley.64 These monuments are, however, exceptions, as almost all step monuments are rather easily accessible. We have further noted four step monuments situated at ground level and not made on top of a rock or ridge. 3.4. Conclusions The association of the monuments with water, as suggested by previous scholars, cannot be supported. There are only a few façades that are facing a water source, usually a small stream. Among the façades it is particularly the shaft monuments that are close to water. Several monuments are close to natural, spectacular, tall, sheer rocks and, in a few cases, these sheer rocks have traces of man-made cuttings. Niches and smaller façades are sometimes situated at sheer lone rocks, usually at a location high above the ground. The larger step monuments have in general a large open area in front and around, while smaller step monuments can be located on top of rather inaccessible rocks, but these ones all face a spectacular view in front. Step monuments are in general located on the summit of a ridge or an outcrop of rock; in some cases the entire rock has been transformed into a monument, while a few larger step monuments are situated at ground level against a rock wall. Idols in general have a rather limited area in front, while façades usually have an open area in front that in several cases is sloping. In the majority of cases different types of

2004, 64–65, no. 43,pls. 71, 69, no. A2.

chapter one

16

N Step monument 76, 98, 100

NW NE

Step monument 64, 75, 78, 93, 95, 96, 99

E

W

Step monument 85

Step monument 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 60, 67, 70, 73, 74, 79, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 105

Step monument 47, 48, 56, 77, 107

Idol 62 65 81 82 83

Idol 71 72 94

SE Step monument 50, 54, 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 80, 102, 104, 106, 108, 111, 112

SW S Step monument 101

Step monument 51, 52

Idol 49 86 87

Step monument 84, 103

Idol 63

Monuments for which no data exists 55, 57, 66, 97

Diagram 1. The orientation of step monuments and idols

monuments do not appear close together, but in a few sacred spaces there is both a step monument and a façade. There is only one case of a step monument and an idol placed next to each other. Instead of different types situated together it is more common to find step monuments grouped together, more rarely idols or niches can be found together.

4. Orientation 4.1. Step Monuments and Idols We can conclude according to Diagram 1 that all idols are oriented east, east-south-east, south-east, or south. There is only one idol, No. 63, that faces south; all the others face east, east-south-east

or south-east. Of 65 idols and step monuments the majority face north-east, east or south-east. Four step monuments face south-east-south or south. There are only two step monuments that face another direction. Let us examine these two more closely. Step monument No. 85 at Midas City faces west-south-west. This monument is situated next to the Unfinished Monument, No. 34, and the smaller façade No. 35 and together they can be regarded as a sacred complex. If this step monument were oriented to the east instead, then it would have faced an uphill slope and the worshippers would have looked down on the monument instead of up, as is the case now. A step monument is never placed so that one is forced to view it from a position higher than

structural examination of the archaeological evidence the monument itself; usually one looks up at the monument from a lower altitude. Another point is that, if this monument were facing east, the morning sun could not have reached it since it is situated below the kale on the west side; its present orientation, i.e. west-facing, made it at least possible for the sun to reach it at some time during the day. Therefore it seems that this step monument faces west-south-west because of environmental reasons and that it was part of a larger complex. Step monument No. 101 at Dümrek faces south-west-south and is the only step monument at this site which has a direction other than east, south-east or south-east-south. For topographical reasons the monument could hardly have been made facing another direction because both behind and on its left side there are large rocks blocking the view. The only free space is at the south-west-south. This step monument is the largest among the step monuments at Dümrek, and it most likely had a public function. Today it is facing the trail leading to the kale, and since this is the natural route to the kale, it is possible that the ancient road also passed the monument, which may further explain its orientation. It is probable that another step monument of similar dimensions and appearance once faced the track but from the opposite side. The remains of a tumbled step monument have been reported from the ridge on the other side of the track.65 This monument, perhaps due to an earthquake, is no longer in situ, but its original location was probably close to its present position. To conclude, the majority of step monuments and idols face either east or south-east. 4.2. Façades and Niches There is a greater variation in orientation among the façades and niches than among the step monuments and idols (see Diagram 2). The majority are oriented north-east, east and south-east, but as many as six façades and niches are west-facing. Since the majority of rock-cut monuments are east-facing, or close to east-facing, this must have been a deliberate choice. Why, then, are a few

65

Burke 2000a. See for example the photo of the Midas kale taken from south-west in Berndt 2002, fig. 25. 66

17

monuments oriented in a completely opposite direction, towards the west? Let us examine these in their environmental context, in order to see if there is any pattern or reasons for their different orientation. No. 34, the Unfinished Monument, is situated below the Midas kale on the west side, and it is impossible for a façade on this side of the Midas kale to have had any other orientation. We should note that the choice of location for the façade on this side of the kale made it highly visible from far away, especially for those approaching the city along the road from south-west.66 Hence, it appears as though the strategic position allowing the façade to be seen from far away and by those approaching the city from the south-west was more important than an eastern direction. For No. 17, the Büyük KapÌ Kaya, it would have been possible to make it facing east. The monument is cut out of a wide outcrop of rock, and could just as well have been cut on the other side. There must, then, be a reason other than a practical one for cutting it on the west side. Five metres in front of the façade, slightly to its north-west, are the remains of a step monument, No. 50, facing south-east. Obviously these two monuments formed a sacred complex and were part of a uniform area. Most probably the step monument antedates the façade monument (see p. 136) and the façade was probably made facing west instead of east because of considerations to create a uniform sacred space. Between the façade and the step monument there are probable traces of an ancient road.67 The modern road or track runs behind the step monument on its western side. If the façade had been made on the eastern side of the rock, the view from the monument would have been very limited since there are several rocks in front of it, blocking its view. The space in front of the façade would also have been limited. A western orientation not only placed the façade towards the road and the step monument, but also made it possible to see it from some distance and the view from the monument itself overlooks the landscape with mountains at the horizon.

67

Deep wheel tracks can be seen in a rock north of the façade and the step monument.

chapter one

18

Niche 3, 21

Façade 15

N

Niche 6 7 Niche 36

NW

Façade 9, 19 31, 37

Niche 14

Façade 8, 17 34, 38

Niche 22, 23

E

W

Niche 20, 39

Niche 27

Niche 4

SW

Façade 10, 18 28, 29 30

Façade 33

SE

Niche 11

Niche 2. 12 40

S

Façade 1,5, 13, 16, 24, 25, 26, 32, 110

Façade 35 Monuments for which no data exists 41, 109

Diagram 2. The orientation of façades and niches

Three niches/façades, Nos. 3, 15 and 21, are north-facing. The Küçük KapÌ Kaya, No. 15, has a considerably better view and display than it would have had facing east. The natural shape of the rock on the north side further underlines the appearance of the façade, as it is tall and steep with a pointed apex, while the eastern side does not give the same impression of being a steep rock, as the rock here is wider than it is high. Most probably the façade was made facing north because the shape of the rock was more suitable for a façade on this side, and also because of the better display at the north side.

One façade, No. 8, and two niches, Nos. 20 and 21, are made together with rock-cut tombs. The façade No. 8, facing west, is situated among the cliffs overlooking the Porsuk River. Among the same cliffs there are several rock-cut chamber tombs, of which at least one is Phrygian (see below, p. 22, for a discussion of this niche). The two niches are cut among the rock tombs in the Köhnüâ valley and oriented north and west respectively. Their placement among the tombs is probably not accidental, since at least one of the niches (No. 20) appears to have been made specifically in connection with a Phrygian rock tomb. This niche is 3 m above ground, diagonally below

structural examination of the archaeological evidence the high-placed rock tomb (Fig. 123).68 No. 21 can be reached from the ground and is situated on the adjoining rock next to the rock-cut tomb, Arslan Taâ, but there is also a chamber tomb a few metres directly above the niche (see below, p. 23, for a discussion of the specific features of this niche).69 Because of their connection with tombs, they are made facing the same direction as the tombs. Tombs frequently face north or west, although other orientations also occur (see pp. 152–157, for a further discussion).70 Niche No. 3, facing north, is cut among several other religious monuments in the so-called religious zone at FÌndÌk and the rock chosen for the niche is located at a strategic point. In front there is a natural open flat area and on a rock on the eastern side of this open area there are two more niches, No. 4 and a small insignificant niche, both facing south-west.71 Obviously these three niches were part of a sacred complex. Two further monuments, Nos. 38 and 39, face west. No. 38, the small façade at Tonra Patlak, is probably destroyed today,72 and therefore it is hard to make any comments on its orientation. No. 39 is situated next to the southern entrance of Piâmiâ Kale, and the niche is an example of a niche made in connection with the city gate. Similarly placed niches or step monuments can be found at other Phrygian city gates (see pp. 148–152, for a further discussion). Niche No. 11 at Kes Kaya, today destroyed, faced south-south-west and was situated next to a rock-cut chamber tomb. There might have been a connection between the two, but since neither the niche nor the chamber tomb survives today, as a result of stone quarrying, we cannot make any further observations. 4.3. Conclusions All monuments at Midas City face an eastern or southern direction, except for one façade and one step monument. These two monuments are on the western side of the kale and, together with a third monument, form a sacred complex. Considering the large number of monuments at

68

Haspels 1971, figs. 139–140. Probably the tomb is the one Haspels (1971, 121, n. 28) refers to as no. 9. 70 Haspels (1971, 112–138) gives the orientation of almost 69

19

Midas City it is obvious that an east, south-east or south orientation was preferred. In the Köhnüâ valley there are two niches facing a direction other than east or southeast and they are both made in connection with rock-cut tombs. Also, the façade at Kilise, No. 8, faces west and is situated among rockcut tombs. All the step monuments and niches not made in connection with rock-cut tombs in the Köhnüâ valley face east or south-east, while the rock-cut tombs usually face west or north. Two of the façades around Emre Gölü face a direction other than east. As discussed above, the one facing west is probably made so as to form a uniform complex, and the monument facing north because of the shape of the rock and the superior display facing north. At FÌndÌk all step monuments face east, except one which faces south-east, so obviously great attention was paid to the orientation of the step monuments at this site. Three niches face a direction other than east, all of them situated close to each other surrounding a natural open space and it seems to have been more important to place the niches together in a religious setting than to pay too much attention to their orientation. At Dümrek all step monuments in situ face east, south-east or south-east-south, except for one that faces south-west-south. In general, a preference for the monuments, especially the step monuments and idols, to face east or south-east can be observed. There are actually only two step monuments that differ with a south-western orientation, probably because they are part of sacred complexes and another orientation was impossible. All idols face east or south-east. Concerning the niches and façades, there are eleven niches/façades, of a total of 41 monuments, facing north, west, south-west or southwest-south. Of these, four are made close to rockcut tombs and a probable connection between the niche and tomb may explain the different orientation. Four niches/façades with a western or northern direction are made in association

all of the rock-cut tombs published or reported by her. 71 Berndt 1986, 10; Haspels 1971, 92. 72 The niche is reported as destroyed by Börker-Klähn (2000a, 45–46).

chapter one

20 Table 5. The appearance of the niche Cat. No.

Height x Width x Depth in m

Surrounding of niche

Shape of niche: Front/Plan

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 109. 110.

1.8x1.3x0.65 1.16x1.06x0.06 1.06x1.1x0.3 0.67x0.47x0.18 0.52x0.38x0.24 0.88x0.95 1.32x1.02 0.4x0.75x0.8 0.63x0.43x0.1 0.58x0.5x0.1 0.82x1.07x0.86 1.27x1.32x1.46 1.2x0.85x0.55 0.78x0.83x0.94 1.32x0.9x0.18 2.4x1.8–2.29x1.43 1.8x1.55x0.7 Unfinished 0.54x0.42x0.13 0.36x0.31x0.1 0.77x0.75x0.55 0.65x0.7x0.17 0.7x0.77 2.48x2.0x1.7 1.15x0.69x0.32 PH 0.92x0.77x0.17 0.88x0.6x0.04 2.03x1.55x0.9 1.2x0.82x0.14 2.31x2.44x1.31 2.08x1.33x1.09 0.85x0.12x0.15 NP Unfinished 0.48x0.38x0.2 PH 0.7x0.85x0.55 0.34x0.25x0.1 0.34x0.07x0.06 0.4x0.55 0.6x0.45x0.5 ND 0.72x0.66x0.25 0.77x1.0x0.15

Door-frame Frame Frame Frame Façade Frame Frame Façade Façade Façade Plain Plain Façade Plain Façade Façade Façade Façade Façade Traces of frame? Plain Plain Plain Façade Façade Façade Plain Façade Façade Façade Façade Façade Façade Façade Façade Plain Façade Façade Frame 2 incised lines (frame) Façade Façade (pediment) Façade

Rect/Trap Rect Trap/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Trap/Rect Trap/Rect Scirc/? Scirc/> Scirc Trap/Trap Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Trap Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Trap/Rect Trap/Trap Rect/Trap Rect/Trap Rect/Rect Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Trap Rect/Rect

Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Rect/Rect Triang/Triang ≈Square Rect/Rect Rect/Rect

Depth in % related to height 36 5 28 27 46

200 16 17 105 115 46 120 14 60 39 24 28 61 26 69 28 5 44 12 57 52 18

42 29 18 83 35 19

Rect – Rectangular; Trap – Trapezoidal; Scirc – Semicircular; Triang – Triangular. The column noting the shape of the niche gives both the shape of the niche as seen from the front and the shape of the floor of the niche. NP—not preserved; PH – preserved height; ND – no data exists.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence with other religious monuments and are therefore not facing east. One niche has been made next to the city entrance and is for that reason west-facing rather than east-facing.

5. Niches with and without a Surrounding Building Façade We will below examine the different rock-cut features connected with both niches lacking a surrounding image of a building façade and niches with a surrounding building façade. Features to be considered are the niche itself and the surrounding façade with its architectural details and geometric decoration. A comparison will also be made between the façades and actual buildings, and the features of the shaft found behind some façades will also be examined. 5.1. Niche Some of the niches are surrounded by a large imitation of a façade; other niches have a smaller façade, where the façade has been reduced to a mere architectural frame for the niche. The niche is the focal point, and the most important feature of the façade.73 There are also many monuments consisting only of a niche, with no surrounding façade; most of these, however, have a simple frame made in low relief. 5.1.1. Shape The shape is considered as seen from the front without frames or recesses. There are 43 façades/ niches, of which Nos. 18 and 34 are unfinished façades, and therefore have no niche. One façade, No. 33, is destroyed and its niche no longer survives.74 Twenty-four niches are rectangular, where the height is greater than the width. Four of these, however, are almost square. Six niches are trapezoidal in shape, Nos. 3 (Fig. 10), 9 (Fig. 20), 10 (Fig. 19), 13 (Fig. 24), 22 (Fig. 30)

73

Two monuments are unfinished and therefore have no niche, see Nos. 18 and 34 (Figs. 56 and 124). Two monuments have a very shallow niche that may better be described as a recessed panel, see Nos. 2 and 27 (Figs. 11 and 39). 74 It has been suggested that this monument was left unfinished, but this cannot be confirmed today, since the entire main field and lower part of the pediment is destroyed (Berndt 2002, 54).

21

and 23 (Fig. 41),75 but they all give an almost square or rectangular impression. Six niches, Nos. 6 (Fig. 17), 8 (Fig. 21), 14 (Fig. 23), 30 (Figs. 50, 51a), 39 and 110 (Fig. 60a), are rectangular but with a greater width than height. With all of them, except No. 8, however, the difference is not significant and they give a square impression. The shape of niche No. 8 will be discussed below (see p. 22). Two niches, Nos. 11 (Fig. 18) and 12 (Fig. 22), are semicircular. The triangular-shaped niche No. 40 (Fig. 48) is an exception and it plays a secondary role to the long inscription carved on the same rock. The shape of the niche may perhaps be explained by its being rather late in date (see p. 132). The niche itself is not in the shape of a doorway, but the incised lines surrounding it nevertheless recall the architectural features of a frame. In general the shape of the niche harmonizes with the rock used for the monument, as for example No. 17, the Büyük KapÌ Kaya (Fig. 28), where the wide and relatively low shape of the rock itself dictates the shape of the niche. The rock did not provide enough space to make a complete façade, i.e. with a gable field; instead the akroterion was situated directly above the niche. Another example is the niche of the Midas Monument, No. 30, which is actually wider than it is high, but this shape is in complete harmony with the surrounding geometric decoration (Fig. 50). Considering the shape of the floor of the niche, the majority of niches have a rectangular plan, but a few have a slightly trapezoidal plan, i.e. they are wider at the back than at the front. The semicircular-shaped niche at Delik Taâ (No. 12, Fig. 22c) also has a semicircular floor, corresponding with the shape of the niche. Probably the niche at Kes Kaya (No. 11, Fig. 18) also had a similar floor that corresponded with the shape of the niche.76 Thus, the rectangular shape, with a greater height than width, is the most common. The niche has the form of a doorway. Usually, the rectangular niches without a surrounding façade

75

The drawing of Haspels (1971, fig. 526:5) of niche No. 23, here Fig. 41, is not quite accurate, as the niche is actually trapezoidal in shape and not rectangular as shown in her drawing. 76 The niche is today destroyed and cannot be examined regarding this aspect. Unfortunately Haspels did not provide a plan of the niche, only an elevation and a vertical section, see Haspels 1971, fig. 526:3.

22

chapter one

instead have a frame, recalling a door-frame. We can here note that the two niches with a semicircular shape, not made in the shape of a doorway, also lack these frames. 5.1.2. Depth In order to comprehend more easily the depth compared to the size of the niche, a percentage figure of the depth in relation to the height of the niche is given in Table 5 above, also making it easier to compare the relative depths of the niches. It can be observed that the larger niches with a height of at least 1.65 m are comparatively deeper than smaller niches (see Nos. 1, 16, 24, 28, 30 and 31). These niches have a depth roughly half the height of the niche (between 36–68%). The smaller niches have as a general trend a depth approximately a quarter of the height. Variations, however, can be seen. Four niches, Nos. 8, 11, 12 and 14, have a greater depth than height. The niche at Kilise (No. 8, Fig. 21) measures 0.4 x 0.75 x 0.8 m, i.e. the height is about half of both the width and depth. The depth is far greater than that of the other three niches. The measurements are not ideal for a niche intended to house an image of a supposedly standing deity, where a taller niche would be required and such a depth would be unnecessary. Considering that the niche is situated c. 3.5 m above the ground, it is not possible to see anything other than the front part, so what was the purpose of such a deep niche? There is no dowel hole to confirm that it had once been used for an image. The size and the possible placement of the niche in the middle of the façade suggests more the entrance of a rock-cut chamber tomb than a niche intended to house the image of a god. Façades and niches made on a rock wall, rather than on a sheer lone rock, are usually at a lower altitude, but a few are situated at a higher level, as with Nos. 32 (4 m above ground), 20 (3.5 m above ground) and 22 (2.3 m above ground). However, No. 32 probably originally had an easier access than today (see above, p. 14). The Kilise façade is located among other rock tombs, with no obvious connection with a specific tomb, as the other two niches situated among tombs, Nos. 20 and 21, might have had. The combination of the evidence, i.e. the unusual measurements of the niche, the location among other rock-cut tombs without any obvious con-

nection with any of them, and the high inaccessible location, may be explained by the possibility that this monument was originally planned as a rock-cut chamber tomb that was left unfinished before the grave chamber was completed, perhaps because the façade was already collapsing during construction, and it was therefore abandoned. The façade is today collapsed, and only the akroterion and upper part of the gable field survive (Fig. 21). A possible explanation for these unusual measurements may therefore be that it was not originally planned as a niche but as a chamber tomb. The other three niches, Nos. 11, 12 and 14, are slightly deeper than high, and two of them are semicircular in shape. Another niche of immoderate depth is the triangular niche at Germanos, No. 40. Several of the shallow niches, with a depth between 0.04–0.15 m, such as Nos. 10, 15, 29 and 110, have a rock-cut image still in situ. Possibly the shallow niche of No. 9 also once had a rock-cut image, today almost completely disappeared (see cat. entry). Since these niches had a relief image cut out of the living rock there was no need to make them any deeper than the rock-cut image required. We may assume that a free-standing sculpture in the round required a somewhat deeper niche. The niche in front of the shaft at DeÅirmen Yeri (No. 26, Figs. 43–44) is also shallow, 0.17 m deep. This niche differs in several ways from other niches; for example, the back wall is divided into squares by thin bars. This feature, together with other features discussed below, indicates that this niche was not intended to be an imitation of a doorway. To conclude, larger niches are comparatively deeper than smaller niches. The three niches with an unusual shape, i.e. semicircular or triangular, have a considerable depth compared with other niches. One niche, No. 8, stands out as being extremely deep, and it has been suggested that its unusual depth might be explained by it being the remains of an unfinished grave chamber, this is further supported by its location among other rock-cut tombs and its elevated position, characteristic of rock-cut tombs. Shallow niches tend to have relief images cut out of the living rock, while the ones with freestanding images required a deeper niche.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

23

5.1.3. Door-frames and Other Frames Niches made without an accompanying façade are usually equipped with a surrounding frame. There are eight such niches in the material collected. In a few cases, the surrounding surface is quite eroded and it is difficult to determine whether there had originally been a frame or not. For example, No. 20 has what seems to be slight traces of a very broad frame, but Haspels recorded it without a frame in the drawing (Figs. 40 and 123).77 The frames are generally simple and made in low relief without decoration. Seven niches are plain, without any kind of frame. Of these, two are semicircular in shape (Nos. 11–12, Figs. 18 and 22) and were probably not intended to imitate a doorway. Niche No. 21 (Fig. 45), situated among the tombs in the Köhnüâ valley, has no frame, but does have what might best be described as a threshold along the floor inside the niche. This niche has several features that differ from other niches; as observed earlier, it faces north, perhaps explained by its presence among the rock-cut tombs, and it may be connected with the one situated immediately above. However, another explanation is more likely considering (1) its roughly cut rear wall, which has not been smoothed and appears to be unfinished, (2) the threshold along the floor, (3) the dimensions of the niche, measuring c. 0.77 x 0.75 m, i.e. in accordance with the entrances of several rock-cut tombs in the valley,78 (4) the niche is made with a smaller opening, and expands both lengthwise and widthwise inside, which is not the case with other niches but does accord with the entrances of rock-cut tombs,79 (5) the long and narrow shape of the hollow situated immediately behind the threshold is not found at any other niche, but occurs at least in one rock-cut tomb in the same valley,80 and (6) the arrow-shaped ‘king post’ above the niche is not found at any other niche, but occurs in several rock-cut tombs (see pp. 153–154). Hence, all these features, except

of course the unfinished rear wall, can be found with rock-cut tombs and we may therefore suggest that this niche is an unfinished tomb rather than originally intended as a niche. However, we may not exclude the possibility that the monument came to be used as a niche connected with the tomb above, similarly to niche No. 20. Niche No. 7 (Fig. 17) at FÌndÌk has a frame whose upper part continues c. 0.8 m beyond the side frames and ends at each side in a rounded projection. Perhaps that upper part of the frame is intended to represent a lintel, but what the intention of the two rounded projections was is not clear. The frame seems to continue on both sides below the niche itself. This seems also to be the case with the niche immediately to its left, No. 6. The surface of this rock is badly eroded, and it is difficult to determine any further details. The niche at Germanos (No. 40, Fig. 48) has a double triangular frame made by double incised lines around the niche. The two lines closest to the niche cross each other above the triangular apex and end with inward curving lines (see below, pp. 29–30 for a further discussion). The façades usually have an elaborate decoration around the niche. The larger façades, such as Nos. 1 (Figs. 13–15), 16 (Figs. 27 and 122), 24 (Fig. 33) and 30 (Figs. 50–51), have what should probably be interpreted as true imitations of built doorways. In one case, at the Arslankaya Monument (No. 16, Fig. 27d), the door leaves themselves are made in low relief, visible inside the niche. The niche is represented as a doorway with both door leaves open, in which the Mother Goddess is visible. Because of this imitation of doors at Arslankaya, we can assume that other similar façades with niches also represent doorways. Let us examine more closely the architectural features of the similar-looking doorways of Nos. 1, 16, 24 and 30. They all have a double frame with double lintel and at each end of the lintel there is a rectangular block. At the Midas Monument,

77 Compare Haspels’ photographs (Haspels 1971, figs. 139–140), where a broad frame is visible, with her drawing of the niche, made without a frame (Haspels 1971, fig. 526:6). 78 The majority of rock-cut tombs recorded by Haspels have a more or less square opening, usually measuring between 0.6–0.8 m in height and width. See e.g. the entrance of Hamamkaya, measuring 0.85 x 0.7 m (Haspels 1971, fig. 531:1–2); the entrance of tomb no. 2 in the Köhnüâ valley,

measuring 0.8 x 0.8 m (Haspels 1971, fig. 538:2,4); the entrance of tomb no. 11 in the Köhnüâ valley, measuring 0.7 x 0.65 m (Haspels 1971, fig. 539:1–2). 79 See almost all the recorded rock-cut tombs in Haspels 1971. 80 Tomb no. 11 in the Köhnüâ valley has a similar cutting immediately behind the threshold, see Haspels 1971, fig. 539:1–2.

chapter one

24

Table 6. Dowel hole and other hollows inside the niche Cat. No.

Hole in floor

3. 4.

See back wall See back wall

5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1 circular See back wall 1 circular 3 holes

Hole in ceiling

Hole in side wall

1 egg-shaped continuing into floor 1 oval-shaped continuing into floor

1 circular continuing into floor

2 circular ‘peg holes’ 1 arch-shaped against ceiling

1 T-shaped 2 square 4 circular 2 rectangular

14. 17. 20.

Hole in back wall

2 x 3 grooves Left corner 1 hole. See back wall 1 rectangular

21. 22. 23.

See back wall

24. 30. 31.

1 rectangular 1 rectangular 2 circular

35. 36.

1 rectangular

37. 38.

1 hole

1 narrow vertical recess continuing into floor 1 narrow vertical recess 2 square ‘peg holes’ 1 rounded depression continuing into floor 1 square 1 circular 1 circular

1 T-shaped 1 narrow vertical recess 2 square ‘peg holes’

1 circular

For specific measurements, see respective catalogue entry.

No. 30 (Figs. 51 and 134), and the Delikli Taâ, No. 1 (Fig. 13), both the frames and the rectangular blocks at both ends of the lintel recede in stages and no part of the door-frame projects in front of the surrounding façade. At Arslankaya, No. 16, the outer frame and upper lintel are slightly protruding compared with the main field around, and at Mal Taâ, No. 24 (Figs. 33, 34a, 35–36), the three blocks of the lintel project from the surrounding façade. Both the Delikli Taâ and Mal Taâ each have three protruding blocks on the upper lintel. A third block has been added in

81

Haspels 1971, 74, 76–77. Haspels (1971, 74, n. 10) gave the Coptic church at Debra Damo in Ethiopia as an example of an identical construction method of doorways and windows. See Matthews & Mordini 1959, 10, pls. 4c, d, 6a, b.

the middle above the niche. These oblong blocks placed at the end of each lintel or in the middle have been determined by Haspels to represent actual construction techniques. She interpreted them as the ends of crossbeams, projecting from the inside of the building.81 The excavated megara at Gordion, dating to the period before the destruction, were built of a mixture of materials, where a wooden framework of vertical wooden posts and horizontal beams served to strengthen the walls built of crude sun-dried bricks or poros blocks.82 Probably the door and window openings

82

Young 1960a, esp. 6. A rock-cut façade at EÅirdir Gölü gives a good imitation of this building technique. This façade, however, lacks any geometrical decoration in the main field, see Fiedler & TaâlÌalan 2002.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence were framed, and the projecting blocks of the lintel, as seen on the rock-cut façades, are imitations of transverse crossbeams passing through the wall at each corner of the doorway, possibly intended to stabilize the wall surrounding the door entrance. The three projecting blocks above the niche at Mal Taâ have a different appearance from the ones represented at the other façades. They may perhaps best be described as each consisting of a horizontally placed ‘tree-trunk’ with a sloping ‘roof’ above (see Fig. 35). The circular short ends are decorated with concentric circles and the long sides with groups of parallel lines. Haspels suggested that these projecting blocks represent the ends of crossbeams, each consisting of a piece of tree-trunk set at right angles against the crossbeam.83 However, she also pointed out their close resemblance to Greek capitals of the Ionic and Aeolic order (see p. 114, for a further comparison).84 What we have here at Mal Taâ are most probably the beam-ends of transverse timbers, since they are situated in the same spots as the ones at Delikli Taâ, with a decoration that may very well be an attempt to imitate Greek capitals.85 5.1.4. Dowel Holes and Other Hollows We will here examine more closely the rockcut holes or cavities inside the niches. They have usually been interpreted as dowel holes for images,86 and there is no reason to question such an interpretation for the majority of cavities inside niches, especially the rectangular ones with flat bottoms. However, we can not assume that all the rock-cut hollows served the same purpose. The holes where the function is not obvious will be further discussed in Chapter III, pp. 187–188. Rock-cut holes can primarily be found in the floor of the niche, and at smaller niches also in the back wall. There are also a

83

Haspels 1971, 86. Haspels 1971, 85. 85 Several Phrygian images depicting the Greek order exist, such as one Ionic column placed as a king post in the interior of a rock-cut chamber tomb at YapÌldak Kale, two columns with palmette capitals inside the rock tomb YÌlan Taâ (Haspels 1971, figs. 119, 150, 152, 532, 544), the small temple (?) model from Daskyleion, with two painted columns with capitals on each side of the door niche (BakÌr 1995, fig. 23), an Aeolic capital in ivory relief from Tumulus D at BayÌndÌr (Antalya Museum, 48, 194, fig. 56) and a painted column with Aeolic capital from the wall painting of the Subterranean building at Gordion (Young 1956, fig. 18). 84

25

few examples of holes in the ceiling and the side walls. We will first study the façades with large niches, and then the smaller niches. Three façades with large niches (Nos. 30, 31 and perhaps 24) have a rectangular or square dowel hole either in the ceiling or in the floor.87 The Midas Monument, No. 30, has a square, rather small dowel hole in the ceiling close to the back wall and since the floor is not intact we do not know whether there was a dowel hole there also (Fig. 51b). The Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, has a large rectangular dowel hole in the floor and there is also a circular hollow in the ceiling close to the back wall (Fig. 54b–c). The rectangular hole in the floor was obviously intended for the base of a statue and the rougher circular hollow in the ceiling was probably also made for the same purpose since it is situated exactly above the rectangular hole in the floor. The dimensions of the dowel hole in the floor are quite interesting since it is only 0.4 m wide but extends 0.64 m backwards into the niche. This, however, does not mean that the base of the statue measured 0.4 x 0.64 m. We can assume that the height of the statue was the same as the height of the niche, since reliefs of Matar always cover the entire height of the niche (see below, pp. 49–53). The hollow in the ceiling of the Hyacinth Monument further indicates that the statue once reached the ceiling. The shape of the dowel hole in the floor indicates that the statue must have been placed on a flat base similar to the base of the statue found above fountain C, below the Midas kale.88 In order to place the statue inside the niche, i.e. if it was made in one piece, one would need a dowel hole longer than the actual base, since a manoeuvre space is needed, otherwise it is practically impossible to put it into its place. At the same time it would be very easy, if not necessary, to damage the

86 Haspels 1971, 75, 80, 90–91, 93, 99; F. Naumann 1983, 43, 47–49; Prayon 1987, 100–101; Roller 1999, 86. 87 The data concerning niche No. 24 are disparate and it is not clear how the niche really looks. It is today covered by soil. A dowel hole was recorded by Gabriel, but not by Haspels. Compare Gabriel 1965, figs. 41–42 with Haspels 1971, fig. 520:2; here Figs. 34a and 36. However, Haspels and Hemelrijk never reached the bottom of the niche, because of difficulties caused by water continuously appearing. Personal correspondence with Prof. J.M. Hemelrijk. See also catalogue entry No. 24. 88 Haspels 1971, fig. 53; Haspels 1951a, pl. 47a.

chapter one

26

upper part of the back wall during the positioning of the statue and one would expect damage similar to what can be seen at the back wall of the niche today. Comparisons from other large façades are limited, since these are either unfinished or have an image made in situ. One exception is the niche of the Mal Taâ Monument, No. 24, which, according to Gabriel’s plan, has a dowel hole similar to that of the Hyacinth Monument, that is, it is longer than it is wide, measuring 0.42 x 0.76, and 0.27 m deep (Fig. 36). The measurements are analogous with the dowel hole of the Hyacinth Monument, i.e. the extended length was necessary as a manoeuvre space to get the statue into place. We may assume that the base of a statue inside a niche had a greater width than depth, as the preserved base of the sculpture found close to fountain C at Midas City shows, with its width of 0.55 m and depth of 0.42 m.89 According to Gabriel, there was on the right wall of the niche a vertical slanting groove, wider at the top than at the bottom, extending into the ceiling,90 but according to Hemelrijk this information is entirely wrong.91 Unfortunately we cannot determine the true appearance of the niche because it is today buried in soil. However, if the groove does exist then it is possible that this slanting groove was used during the process of positioning the statue. The floor of the niche at Bahâayiâ (No. 28, Figs. 37–38) is partly eroded, especially the middle part where one would expect a dowel hole to have been placed. There are, however, no traces of a dowel hole in the remaining floor, and it seems unlikely that there ever was one. There is no dowel hole in the ceiling. The façade at DeÅirmen Yeri (No. 26, Figs. 43–44) had a very shallow niche, only 17 cm deep, and since the back wall of the niche was divided into squares resembling more a window than a door entrance,92 it is likely that the niche never contained an image. The smaller façades, Nos. 32 and 38, are similar; both have receding door-posts, leaving a very narrow and high niche in the middle, only 0.12 m and 0.07 m wide, respectively, compared to their heights of 0.85 m and 0.34 m, respectively. 89

Haspels 1951a, 154, pl. 47a. Gabriel 1965, 88, fig. 41; here Fig. 36. 91 Hemelrijk 1989, 727. 92 Berndt-Ersöz 1998, 89. 93 Sivas 1999a, 175, pl. 159. Whether this niche should be regarded as belonging to the Phrygian period or not 90

There is hardly any space left for a statue, at least not in the innermost recess of the niche. Perhaps a statue was placed in the second recess of No. 32 (Fig. 32), measuring 0.35 m in width; there is however no dowel hole to indicate this. The other niche, No. 38 (Fig. 46), actually has at the bottom a hollowed out space, only 3.5 cm deep, and that hollow continues in front of the niche, which perhaps indicates that the image was not placed inside the narrow niche itself but instead placed in front. However, we should also take into consideration that the hole perhaps was not intended for an image at all, but used for another purpose (see pp. 187–188, for a further discussion). The small façade No. 35 (Fig. 57) has at the back wall of the niche a T-shaped rock-cutting and in the ceiling there is a small rock-cut hollow in the middle, just in front of the back wall, and it seems most likely that an image was placed there. No other plausible reason can be found for the rock-cut hole in the ceiling in that particular spot. At the back wall of niche No. 22 (Fig. 30) there is a long and narrow hollow or recess, situated 0.14 m above the floor of the niche. Just above this hollow on each side there is an additional small square hole. A similar arrangement can be found at No. 36 (Fig. 126), which has a similar long narrow hollow in the back wall of the niche, 0.11 m above the floor, with an additional small square hole on each side. Another similar arrangement can be found at Midas City, a small niche measuring c. 0.35 x 0.2 x 0.1 m with four square holes arranged in a horizontal line above.93 What were these long narrow hollows used for? The possibilities are that either a small image was placed inside the hollow or the hollow was used as a dowel hole to secure a larger image. The holes have a similar depth of c. 10 cm. Similar additional small holes as the ones on each side of the long narrow hole can also be found on each side of a statue in situ, No. 10 (Fig. 19). Probably these holes were used to attach something to the back wall by putting nails or pegs into them. The small façade at Kes Kaya, No. 9, is slightly different because there are three holes in the is unclear. The arch-shaped area around the small niche would rather point to a later date. Several niches of this long narrow type can be found at Midas City, but without accompanying small holes on the sides, see Berndt 2002, figs. 93, 99 and 103.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence floor of the niche (Fig. 20); whether all or any of them are original or not is difficult to determine. Greek letters, presumably of a later date, have been observed inside the niche; and whether the base in front of the niche is contemporary or not has been questioned.94 The middle hollow is not centralized; it is situated too far to the right, which might suggest that it was not part of the original niche. Further, there are indications that the niche once contained a rock-cut image similar to the other façade at Kes Kaya, No. 10, because in the middle of the ceiling, where a supposed polos would have been, the rock is not completely cut away at a 90 degree angle, but instead there are traces of what might have been a polos. If we assume that these observations are interpreted correctly, as being traces of a rock-cut image, then, accordingly, at least the hollow in the middle must be a later addition. At Büyük KapÌ Kaya, No. 17, the image of Matar was cut out of the rock and was until some years ago still preserved in situ (see cat. entry). On either side of her there was a small base (Fig. 28). Haspels reported small grooves containing traces of bronze above each base on the side walls.95 However, today there are no traces of bronze left. These bases were possibly used for separately made companions of Matar.96 A similar case can perhaps be suggested for one of the niches at DöÅer, No. 14 (Fig. 23), where the deep niche is flanked by a high base on each side, each base with an almost square hole in the centre, measuring 7 x 9 x 6 cm. The depth of the niche suggests that it was used for a statue, and the holes in the bases probably functioned as dowel holes for smaller statues flanking the main figure in the niche. The above-mentioned façade at Kes Kaya (No. 9, Fig. 20) has something similar, with a long narrow base in front of the niche and a further raised rectangular area at each short side. The previously mentioned peg holes found in the three niches, Nos. 10, 22 and 36, may also have served to fasten flanking companions of Matar. The niche at Kes Kaya (No. 11, Fig. 18) had two dowel holes, one T-shaped in the floor and one corresponding hollow in the back wall/ceiling directly above. Since the niche had the shape of a quarter sphere, thus making the height of 94

MAMA V, 143; Haspels 1971, 92, n. 98. Haspels 1971, 87. These grooves are also reported by Hemelrijk 1986, 9. 96 Examples of Matar flanked by two companions can be found at Arslankaya, No. 16, where she is flanked by a 95

27

the niche at the back less than at the front, a right-angled hollow was cut out at the back where the wall and the ceiling met, in order to provide space for the image. The statue was probably not taller than the hollow in the ceiling/back wall of the niche allowed; otherwise it would not have been possible to put it in place. A similar situation can be found in the niche at Delik Taâ (No. 12, Fig. 22), which has a similar shape; although the image here is cut out of the living rock, it is of a similar height to what the supposedly freestanding statue at Kes Kaya would have had. The image at Delik Taâ has two square cut holes in the floor in front, obviously not intended as dowel holes for the image of the god. The purpose of these holes will be discussed further in Chapter III, pp. 186–187. A few niches, Nos. 3, 4, 6, 20 and 23, have a cavity in the back wall that continues below the floor level. The cavities of Nos. 3 (Fig. 10), 4 (Fig. 9), 6 and 23 (Fig. 41) are quite similar in their appearance, as they are rounded rather than flat at the bottom, and they are hollowed out at the bottom of the back wall where the wall meets the floor. They can best be described as a kind of rock-cut bowl or cup-mark. Niche No. 20 (Figs. 40 and 123), situated above a rock-cut tomb, has at the back a long narrow cutting, which continues into the floor and almost covers the entire height of the niche. It resembles the shape of the cutting found in the back wall of niche No. 22 (Fig. 30), but the former continues below the floor level, and has a slightly rounded bottom. On the left side of this there is another small cavity in the floor, c. 6 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep (This niche will be further discussed in Chapter III, p. 152). Another niche situated among the rock chamber tombs in the Köhnüâ valley is No. 21 (Fig. 45). This niche has at the bottom a large, flat, rectangular rock-cut cavity; its unusual shape and dimensions have been explained above by this monument most likely being an unfinished tomb (see above, p. 23). The only façade at FÌndÌk (No. 5, Fig. 16) has a small flat-bottomed hole in the middle of the rear part of the floor. It seems likely that this hole functioned as a dowel hole, partly because of its flat-bottomed shape, partly because this is the only niche made as a façade at FÌndÌk, raised lion on each side; the sculpture group found in situ at BoÅazköy represents Matar with a small musician on each side, see Fig. 116 (Bittel 1963; Prayon 1987, 202, no. 7 with further references).

chapter one

28

and partly because there is an inscription above, where the word matar can be read. These features point to a public monument, where one would expect an image of Matar. The niche No. 7 at FÌndÌk has a differently made interior. The lower part of the niche is not as deeply cut as the upper part, thereby creating a shelf 0.35 m above the floor (Fig. 17). Into the middle of this shelf was cut a 10–15 cm deep hole with a rounded bottom. 5.1.5. The Location of the Niche As mentioned above, the niches of the façades can be interpreted as representative of doorways. The excavated megara at Gordion always have the entrance on the short side of the building, corresponding to the rock-cut façades.97 The incised drawings of Megaron 2 at Gordion show three gabled buildings (Fig. 119),98 one without a door or window, one with what can be interpreted as an entrance with two door leaves, made of wood since the doors have vertical lines indicating wooden deals held together with a cross-bar, which is also indicated. The doors are closed. However, the third gable has in the middle of the façade a square, which may not represent a doorway since it is not at floor level, but instead placed in the middle of the façade. It may be interpreted either as a niche or as a window. Let us examine the exact location of the niche in relation to the floor level of the façades. The majority of niches incorporated into an imitation of a building façade are situated at floor level. There are only four exceptions, Nos. 26, 28, 35 and 37. Probably a fifth niche can be added to this group, that is the ruined façade at Kilise (No. 8, Fig. 21). The estimated floor level of this façade should be considerably below the floor level of the niche, but since the entire main field of the façade is missing, with only the niche and upper part of the gable field preserved, we can not be sure of the original appearance, and should therefore leave this façade outside the discussion. If we look at the remaining four niches, the niche at DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26, is situated 0.5 m above floor level and is very shallow, only 12 cm deep. Its back wall was divided into squares (Figs. 43–44), each square with its own frame created by a 5 cm recession. The vertical post in the middle was 14 cm wide compared to the 8 cm wide bar at the 97 98

See e.g. figs. 4, 5, 7, 16 in DeVries 1990. Prayon 1987, fig. 28a; Young 1969, fig. p. 272.

sides and the horizontal bar. If this is an imitation of true architecture, a door would not be placed at such a high level. Considering the height and the division into squares, it is better interpreted as a window or light opening. This monument differs from the other rock-cut façades, since the niche appears at the back wall inside a rock-cut enclosure, and in order to reach the niche, the visitor had to enter the courtyard or building and was, so to speak, indoors facing the niche. The indoor perspective further underlines that the niche should rather be interpreted as a window/light opening than a doorway. It is of course possible to have a door also on the other side of the building, but this is less likely here because of the high position and appearance of the niche. Another monument should be mentioned here, the small shaft monument at FÌndÌk (No. 2, Fig. 11) which has some features similar to those of the niche at DeÅirmen Yeri. The area in front of the shaft consists of a 6 cm deep ‘niche’ or panel surrounded by a broad frame at the sides and top. The frame is similar to the one made around the niche at DeÅirmen Yeri; both frames extend horizontally beyond the bottom part of the ‘side posts’ on either side of the niche. Definitely the ‘niche’ at FÌndÌk does not represent a doorway, but whether a window/light opening is intended is also doubtful. The second niche, No. 28 (the Bahâayiâ Monument, Fig. 37), is 0.69 m above the floor level of the façade. The niche is 0.8 m deep and at the back wall there is a double frame and in each corner, at least in the upper two, there is a square block, similar to the protruding blocks of the lintels at the Midas Monument, No. 30, Delikli Taâ, No. 1, Mal Taâ, No. 24, and Arslankaya, No. 16. Possibly these are supposed to imitate transverse timbers. If we examine the decoration of the façade, we observe that the actual decoration begins just below the floor level of the niche. What is situated 0.69 m below the niche is the rock-cut platform, and perhaps the platform should not be interpreted as the floor level of the building imitated. A similar representation can be found at the Küçük KapÌ Kaya, No. 15, where the actual façade is 0.28 m above the rock-cut platform/stairs below (Fig. 26). We should further note that the Bahâayiâ Monument has several rock-cut details that do not seem to 99

104).

A phenomenon also observed by Haspels (1971, 81,

structural examination of the archaeological evidence be true imitations of actual architecture,99 and the niche may not be regarded as a true architectural imitation either. The monument should be dated among the later façades, when perhaps the original idea to truly imitate real buildings was no longer prevalent (see Chapter II). The third niche, No. 35 (Fig. 57), is situated 1.29 m above the bottom of the façade; in fact the niche is placed just below the tie-beam. The niche probably once hosted an image (see above, p. 26). The position of this niche has no equivalent among the other façades. The fourth niche, No. 37 (Fig. 49), the Areyastis Monument, is very tiny and its dimensions do not accord with the rest of the façade. The niche is placed as much as 2.87 m above the floor level of the façade. The façade is, however, unfinished, as borne out by the unfinished state of the side posts, and we cannot presume that the original concept was to incorporate such a tiny niche. Possibly a larger niche in accordance with the façade was planned, but because the façade remained unfinished only a small substitute was made (see below, pp. 34–35, 70, for further discussions of the unfinished state of the façade). To conclude, apart from a few cases, the intention was to imitate a doorway with open door leaves, as in the Arslankaya Monument. In a few cases, the niche should perhaps rather be interpreted as a window or light opening.

29

5.2. Akroterion Of a total of 25 façades imitating the front of a gabled building, 17 are represented with an akroterion.100 In three of the façades, Nos. 24, 25 and 110, the top of the pediment, where an akroterion would have been situated, is not preserved.101 Five façades, Nos. 13, 19, 28, 41 and 109, can be confirmed to have been made without an akroterion. The 17 preserved akroteria can be divided into

basically four groups according to their appearance (see Fig. 109). One group, which we may call inward-curving volute akroteria (Fig. 109, I), comprises Nos. 30 (Fig. 50), 34 (Fig. 56) and 37 (Fig. 49). The akroteria of the last two are very similar; they are more stylised than the akroterion of the Midas Monument, No. 30, and both have a rosette in the centre. All three are made according to the same principle. The bottom lines of the principal rafters are extended and continued as inward-curving volutes. Since the pediment at the Midas Monument is lower than those of the other two, this creates an akroterion with a wider gap between the volutes. Unfortunately, the akroterion at the Midas Monument is destroyed in the middle, so its original appearance does not survive. The akroteria of the Broken Monument (No. 33, Fig. 42) and the façade at Tonra Patlak (No. 38, Fig. 46) should also be included in this group. Only the outlines of the akroteria are made or partly made, but they follow the same principle, with the extended bottom lines of the principal rafters continuing into volutes. A second group of akroteria may be called horned or wing-shaped akroteria (see Fig. 109, II). There are four examples of these, Nos. 16 (Fig. 27a), 32 (Fig. 32), 35 (Fig. 57) and 18. The horns are placed not at the top of the pediment, but a little further down on the principal rafters; however, they do not continue as extensions of the principal rafters. The unfinished façade at Burmeç, No. 18, has a very eroded akroterion, similar to the one at Arslankaya, No. 16.102 A third group of akroteria are simple ones, placed directly on top of the pediment (see Fig. 109, IIIa-b) as Nos. 5 (Fig. 16), 8 (Fig. 21), 9 (Fig. 20), 10 (Fig. 19) and 15 (Fig. 26). They are either slightly curved, or in one case, completely straight, and usually give the impression that the principal rafters continue into an akroterion. Here, the simple niche at Germanos, No. 40, should also be mentioned. The niche is triangular but has an

100 The façades of Nos. 1 and 26 are not included in this group, since the façade of Delikli Taâ, No. 1 (Fig. 15), is not made as a complete imitation of an entire building façade. Only the niche together with its door-frame is made as a true imitation, while the rest of the façade has merely been smoothed into an even surface, even though the triangular shape of the top was probably intended to recall the upper part of a building. The niche of No. 26, DeÅirmen Yeri, is inside a building and can therefore not be considered to imitate the outdoor façade of a gabled building; in addition the upper part of the façade is not preserved (Fig. 43).

101 At Mal Taâ, No. 24, the area just above the king post is destroyed, but to judge from the remaining architecture there is hardly any space left for an akroterion, unless it was a very small one of the type placed just above the pitch of the roof (Fig. 33). That model, however, is only found on the smaller façades and not on a façade as large as Mal Taâ. 102 See the photograph (fig. 175) in Haspels 1971, where traces of the left side of the akroterion and the middle part of the right wing can be seen. Today, the right half of the akroterion is missing because treasure hunters have destroyed this, together with parts of the gable field (Fig. 124).

30

chapter one

incised frame around (Fig. 48). Above the niche there is incised an almost heart-shaped figure, which was probably intended to imitate a simple inward-curving akroterion.103 The side lines of the frame continue into the akroterion. A fourth group consists of floral akroteria, and there are only two examples, Nos. 29 and 31 (Figs. 31 and 54a). The Büyük KapÌ Kaya façade (No. 17, Fig. 28) is on such a low rock that there was no room for a gable field, although there is still an akroterion, immediately above the niche. It is not possible to determine the type of this akroterion because of erosion. Haspels, however, reported it as disc-shaped,104 which is possible, judging from the traces remaining. 5.3. Roof and Gable Field All façades are represented with a pitched roof, except for No. 17, and that was probably because the rock was not big enough to provide space for a gable field.105 We will below examine the appearance of the roof, the king post, rafters and shutters. 5.3.1. Inclination and Appearance of the Roof Before examining the roofs, we should remind ourselves that the rock-cut façades are only imitations of buildings, and there is a danger of regarding them as true copies in every sense; we may assume that the smaller and more simply made façades are particularly less trustworthy in that sense. There appear to be at least two different roof systems that are imitated on the rock-cut façades, one where the sloping sides of the gable end in line with the side posts (Fig. 110, I), and the other, usually called Chinese,106 with horizontal eaves where the sloping sides of the gable do not extend to the ends of the tie beam (Fig. 110, II). On the more elaborately made façades the eaves project beyond the outer edge of the walls, as on Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 32 (Figs. 31–33, 37). On the more simply made façades, Nos. 13 and 19, the horizontal eaves end in line with the walls (Figs. 24–25). These may not reflect

103 Börker-Klähn (2000a, 47, fig. 48) has suggested the curving lines to be the image of the head of an idol. However, the figure above the apex has more the shape of a heart than a circle as the curving lines above the apex appear not to be attached. See also the photograph (pl. 37:3) in Brixhe & Lejeune 1984.

true architecture, but should perhaps rather be regarded as a simplified image of the same roof construction as on the more detailed façades with horizontal eaves. We can make some further observations; the roofs with horizontal eaves, with the exception of Mal Taâ (No. 24), all have an inclination between 31 and 53 degrees (see Table 7). Roofs with a lower inclination between 18 and 30 degrees lack horizontal eaves (with the exception of Mal Taâ) and are usually made with wide side posts, as on Nos. 25 (Fig. 29), 30 (Fig. 50), 31 (Fig. 54), 34 (Fig. 56), 35 (Fig. 57) and 37 (Fig. 49). Four of the monuments with a small inclination carry the same type of decoration, a four-lozenge pattern, on the side posts (see below, pp. 34–35, for a further examination). Thus, we have two distinct groups of roof system, but there appears also to be a third group with a pitched roof of an inclination of 30 degrees or more, but without horizontal eaves and wide side posts, as seen on Nos. 5 (Fig. 16), 9 (Fig. 20), 10 (Fig. 19) and 15 (Fig. 26). These façades, however, all belong to the group of smaller façades, and whether the inclination or other details are correct imitations of true buildings is difficult to determine. It is, for example, possible that a smaller façade was made with a steeper and higher roof in order to increase the height and size, so that the rock-cut façade would appear more impressive. Different types of roof system existed during the Phrygian period as the archaeological evidence from Gordion shows. One type of roof, in use at least during the Early Phrygian period, was made of wood, reeds and clay: a wooden framework of beams over which there was a layer of reeds covered with a protecting layer of clay.107 Possibly this roof was flat. The megara at Gordion probably had gabled roofs, as indicated by a completely preserved poros akroterion whose lower parts follow the outline of a pitched roof, and three double-pitched poros blocks found at Gordion.108 Gabled buildings are also seen in the drawings incised on the exterior walls of Megaron 2 (Fig. 119), are inscribed on potsherds from

104 105 106 107 108

Haspels 1971, 87. Regarding No. 26, see above, n. 100. Cummer 1970, 42. Young 1960a, 7. Sams 1994a, 212, fig. 20:2, pl. 20:3:1, 20:3:4.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

31

Table 7. The inclination and appearance of the roof Catalogue No.

Degrees of roof inclination

Horizontal eaves (Chinese roof)

30. 30. (stoa) 24.* 33. 35. 34. 37. 18. 16. 25. 38.** 31. 28. 10. 32. 15. 19. 29. 8. 5. 1. 9. 13. 41. 109. 110.

18° 15° 20/22° 21˚ 21˚ 23˚ 23.5˚ c. 24˚ 26˚ 28˚ 26–32˚ 30˚ 31˚ 36˚ 37˚ 37˚ 38˚ 42˚ c. 43˚ 45˚ 45˚ 49˚ 53˚ ? 45˚ 26˚

x NP x x x x NP x x -

*The different figures of inclination refer to different drawings, Gabriel 1965, fig. 41, and Haspels 1971, fig. 519. ** The inclination is different on each side of the akroterion. NP – not preserved.

Midas City, and represented by three building models.109 During the Middle Phrygian period another type of roofing was introduced, the tiled roof. The different roof systems will further be discussed from a chronological point of view in Chapter II, pp. 108–109. 5.3.2. King Post In almost all cases, except Nos. 13, 19 and 109, the pediment has a king post.110 Possibly the king post was left out because these façades, at least Nos. 13 (Fig. 24) and 109 (Fig. 58), were rather

109

Roller 2005, fig. 3; Haspels 1951a, pls. 35a1–2, 45d; BakÌr 1995, fÌg. 23; Haspels 1971, fig. 57. The third building model was found close to SandÌklÌ, south of Afyon, and is exhibited in the Afyon Archaeological Museum.

simply made. The king post, except for Nos. 8, 16, 24, 28 and 41, is usually undecorated. The king post of No. 8 (Fig. 21) has a checkerboard pattern and the king post of Mal Taâ, No. 24 (Fig. 33), has a pattern of lozenges. Three of the façades have protruding ‘bolsters’ on the king-post. The ‘bolsters’ probably represent the beam-ends. Nos. 16 and 24 both have one at the bottom and one at the top of the king post (Figs. 27a and 33). The façade at Bahâayiâ, No. 28 (Fig. 37a), is more elaborate and has five ‘bolsters’. Here it seems that their original function is forgotten and they

110

The pediment of No. 110 (Fig. 60) is almost completely destroyed and it is therefore unclear whether there was a king post or not.

chapter one

32

have become purely decorative.111 The Balkaya façade, No. 41, has remains of red paint on the king post as well as on the rafters, tie-beam and around the niche. This is the only known example of a rock-cut façade with traces of a painted decoration. We can, however, also note that a mini-relief from Gordion of Matar, standing inside a niche, still has traces of red and yellow paint (Fig. 120).112 We may assume that these two were not the only examples of a façade or niche that originally carried a painted decoration, but whether the rock-cut façades in general had painted decoration is not possible to comment on without more evidence.113 The king post of No. 41 has a small base at the bottom and the upper part is arrow-shaped. This type of king post cannot be found on any other façade connected with a niche. Niches with a surrounding building façade usually have either a king post that joins the principal rafters at the upper part, as for example Nos. 9 (Fig. 20), 10 (Fig. 19), 15 (Fig. 26), 32 (Fig. 32), 38 (Fig. 46), or the king post has a horizontal conclusion at the upper part, corresponding with the bottom part (see for example Nos. 16 and 28, Figs. 27 and 37a). None of the surrounding façades of a niche has a king post placed on a small base. This type of king post can, however, be found on other façades connected with rock-cut tombs, as for example a tomb at YapÌldak and tomb no. 5 in the Köhnüâ valley. (see pp. 153–154, for a further discussion).114 Let us now consider other features of this monument; the rear wall of the niche is very roughly cut, where the pick marks are still visible, and it is apparent that the niche has remained unfinished. Therefore we do not know whether the original intention was to make a niche or a rock-cut tomb. There

111

Projecting beam-ends on the king post can also be found on the Bahçelievler stele from Ankara (Fig. 117). The Etlik relief (Fig. 118) has a projecting rectangular area on the preserved end of the tie-beam, almost in the corner where it meets the principal rafter, supposedly representing a beam-end (Prayon 1987, 204, nos. 26, 27, pl. 9a,b with further references). The same arrangement with beam-ends at the king post can also be found inside some rock-cut chamber tombs, e.g. at the YÌlan Taâ (Haspels 1971, figs. 151, 544:1). Bolsters in other architectural contexts have also been found at PazarlÌ (Koâay 1941, pl. 33), Kerkenes DaÅ (Summers et al. 2003, fig. 10g–h) and on Lydian door stelae (Roosevelt 2006, 71, figs. 5–6, 13–14). For further examples, see Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming b. 112 Güterbock 1974, 97–99, pl. 13; Kohler 1995, 34, no. TumC 26, pl. 17D. 113 During the French examination of the Midas Monument, No. 30, they searched the façade for traces of paint,

are some indications, other than the shape of the king post, that favour an interpretation of the monument as an unfinished tomb, such as the dimensions and shape of the niche, and its location several metres above ground, features that accord with rock-cut tombs.115 Hence, it is possible that this niche is another example of an unfinished tomb.116 One of the façades at Kes Kaya (No. 9, Fig. 20) has an additional beam on each side of the king post, dividing the triangular area in two. The beam is located between the bottom of the king post and the middle of the principal rafters. This arrangement cannot be found at any other façade. We may here also mention a niche, No. 21 (Fig. 45), made among the tombs in the Köhnüâ valley and earlier suggested to be an unfinished tomb (see p. 23). The niche has no frame, but above it, exactly in the middle, there are barely discernible traces of a vertical post, perhaps with an arrow-shaped top, possibly to be interpreted as a representation of a king post, although no other traces of a gable field or façade can be seen.117 However, other interpretations are also possible; a comparison can be made with the tomb Arslan Taâ situated at the rock immediately on the left side of this niche. Directly above the entrance of the tomb is a similar-looking vertical arrow-shaped post.118 5.3.3. Rafters The gable field can have one, two, three or four rafters and some of them are decorated. We will here examine more closely the rafters and their relationship with the façades. The smaller façades, usually more simple, have only one rafter framing the gable field, such as

but the result was negative (Gabriel 1965, 72). 114 Haspels 1971, figs. 118, 532:1, 535:2. 115 The measurements of the niche have not been published, but a rough estimation based on published material suggest that the niche measures something like 0.75 x 0.75 m (Sivas 2002c, p. 110; Sivas 2003a. 286, fig. 3). For references to the shape and dimensions of the opening of rockcut tombs, see p. 23 and n. 78. 116 This monument has not yet been adequately published; we lack for example information about the monument’s orientation. A non-eastern orientation would further support the unfinished tomb theory. 117 These features were also recorded by Haspels (1971, fig. 526:4). 118 Haspels 1971, figs. 131–132. Note also a similar post at the façade of the tomb at YapÌldak; this one is situated in the position of a king post (Haspels 1971, figs. 118 and 532:1).

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

33

Table 8. The number of rafters and their decoration Cat. No. 5. 8. 9. 10. 13. 15. 16. 18. 19. 24. 25. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 37. 38. 109. 110.

1 rafter

2 rafters

3 rafters

4 rafters

undec/undec undec eroded undec undec undec undec/meander undec/undec undec undec/lozeng/undec undec/undec undec/undec/undec/undec* lozeng lozeng/lozeng undec/undec/undec undec undec lozeng/undec lozeng lozeng/undec undec. undec undec

* A protective roof can be seen above the principal rafter. undec – undecorated; lozeng – lozenges.

with Nos. 8 (Fig. 21), 9 (Fig. 20), 10 (Fig. 19), 13 (Fig. 24), 15 (Fig. 26), 19 (Fig. 25), 29 (Fig. 31), 32 (Fig. 32), 33 (Fig. 42), 35 (Fig. 57), 38 (Fig. 46), 109 (Fig. 58) and 110 (Fig. 60). The larger and more elaborate façades usually have two rafters. The principal rafter might be decorated, while a narrower, recessed rafter below was left undecorated, as in Nos. 34 and 37 (Figs. 56 and 49), or both rafters are undecorated, as in Nos. 5 and 25 (Figs. 16 and 29). The unfinished façade at Burmeç (No. 18, Fig. 124) has traces of a second rafter above the preserved one on the left side. The Arslankaya (No. 16, Fig. 27a) is different since the rafter below the principal rafter is the decorated one and carries a meander, a type of decoration not found on any other façade. The Midas Monument (No. 30, Figs. 50 and 134), being the most impressive and carefully executed façade, has both rafters decorated with lozenges. Only three façades have three or more rafters. All rafters of the Hyacinth Monument (No. 31, Fig. 54a) are undecorated and the third

one is very narrow and functions more as a frame for the second rafter. The other two façades, the Mal Taâ and the Bahâayiâ, Nos. 24 and 28, have three and four rafters, respectively (Figs. 33 and 37a). They have several features in common. Bahâayiâ does not have an akroterion and most probably the same was the case for Mal Taâ, and both have a roof of the so-called Chinese type. 5.3.4. Shutters Three of the façades, Nos. 31 (Fig. 54a), 34 (Figs. 56 and 125) and 37 (Fig. 49), have in their gable field a pair of shutters, or attic windows. The latter two are very similar and the rock-cut imitations are made as true copies of shutters. One attic window is placed on either side of the king post and each window has a pair of shutters closed by a bolt through a socket on each shutter. Probably they imitate shutters made of wood, enforced with metal strips, that provided the building with air circulation and light. The Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, has two geometrically

chapter one

34

Table 9. The width and decoration of side posts Cat. No.

Width of side post in % compared with total width of façade

Decoration

16. 17. 24. 30. 34. 35. 37.

5% 1.4–2.3 %* 2.5 % 13 % 13.8 % 12 % 17.6 %

Row of lozenges Row of lozenges Row of lozenges Variation of 4-lozenge pattern Squares with 4-lozenge pattern Undecorated Squares with 4-lozenge pattern

* The two side posts are not equal in width.

decorated squares situated in exactly the same manner as the shutters of Nos. 34 and 37, and doubtless the squares of the Hyacinth Monument are supposed to represent shutters.119 The majority of façades have no shutters or other decoration in the pediment. Exceptions are the Arslankaya, No. 16, and the unfinished façade at Burmeç, No. 18, both with a standing sphinx on each side of the king post. The Unfinished Monument, No. 34, and the Areyastis Monument, No. 37, have a decorative rosette on each side of the king post, next to the shutters. These sphinxes and rosettes will be discussed below (see pp. 54, 113–115). 5.4. Side Posts Several of the façades, in particular the smaller and less detailed ones, do not have distinctive side posts. These façades usually have a large niche that occupies more or less the entire area below the gable field, and there is no architectural space left surrounding the niche. What might be interpreted as a side post merely functions as a frame for the niche and we may therefore assume that these façades are not true copies of building façades. There are, however, some niches which are represented with a rather large architectural space on both sides, which may be a reflection of wide side posts, but the niche occupies the entire height of the façade below the gable field and there is no or hardly any architec-

119 One Phrygian rock-cut tomb in Pisidia has a triangular-shaped area on either side of the king post, probably also representative of shutters (Fiedler & TaâlÌalan 2002). The tomb chamber of a newly excavated tumulus tomb close to Sardis, dated to the 6th century BC, has painted architectural decoration with shutters in the gable field

tural space left above the niche. Examples of this type are Nos. 31 (Fig. 54a), 28 (Fig. 37a), 25 (Fig. 29a) and 10 (Fig. 19). Two of these, Nos. 28 and 31, have a similar decoration, the four-lozenge pattern, found on several other side posts, and may therefore be a reflection of side posts, but cannot be considered to be true imitations of buildings.120 We will therefore only discuss the monuments where there is no doubt about the intention to imitate side posts in a more or less realistic manner, i.e. Nos. 16, 17, 24, 30, 34, 35 and 37 (see Table 9). The side posts can be divided into two groups according to their width; one group consisting of side posts with a relative width between 12 and c. 18 % and the other group with narrower side posts, between 1.4 % and 5 % in relative width. One more observation that can be made is that the narrow side posts are all decorated in the same fashion, i.e. with a vertical row of lozenges, while those in the other group have squares with an identical pattern of four lozenges placed in two rows of two. At the Areyastis façade, No. 37 (Fig. 49), the squares on the post at the right are arranged in two vertical rows, while there is only one row on the post on the left, but the decoration of this side post is most probably unfinished, since space was left for a second row. The decoration of the bottom three

(Greenewalt 2001, 417; DedeoÅlu 2003, fig. p. 79). 120 The decoration of Bahâayiâ, No. 28, is discussed elsewhere, and suggested not to be a true imitation. The shutters of the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, are not true imitations as the ones of Nos. 34 and 37.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence squares of the right side post are also unfinished. The decoration of the side posts of the Unfinished Monument, No. 34 (Fig. 56), is also unfinished; only the upper square of each side post has been made. These squares have an additional narrow vertical frame on each short side. The Midas Monument, No. 30 (Figs. 50 and 134), has a variation of the four-lozenge pattern. The side posts have two vertical rows of lozenges, each row arranged with a repeated group of four lozenges placed around a central small square of the same size as the lozenges. There are no actual lines dividing the groups of lozenges on the side posts into squares, unlike with the horizontal row of lozenges situated below the gable field, which are divided by vertical lines. Neither are the lozenges attached to each other as on the other façades, and one further difference is that the lozenges and the small square in the middle of the Midas façade are recessed, contrary to the lozenges of the other façades. As mentioned above, two more façades, Nos. 28 and 31 (Figs. 37a and 54a), have an identical pattern with squares of four lozenges at both the sides of the niche and above, similar to the other façades with this decoration. To conclude, we may suggest that we have two different decorations of the side posts, the wide side posts decorated with the four-lozenge pattern and the narrow side posts decorated with a row of lozenges. Possibly these two groups reflect two different kinds of building technique, further discussed in Chapter II, pp. 108–112. 5.5. Geometrical Decoration of the Façades We will here discuss the geometric decoration in the main field of the façades and the geometrically decorated niche at the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31. The geometric decoration found on the side posts and gable field have been discussed above. There are basically five monuments which have a decoration completely covering the main field between the side posts.121 It is possible that a sixth monument, No. 8, belongs to this group; the decoration of that façade is today completely disappeared, but a drawing by Körte from the end of the 19th century indicates that the main field once had a geometric decoration (Fig. 21).

121 The decoration found at the façade of the Bahâayiâ Monument, No. 28, has been discussed above (see pp. 34–35), since it is of the same type usually found on side posts. 122 Gabriel 1965, fig. 31.

35

The five monuments considered here are the Midas Monument No. 30, the Mal Taâ No. 24, the DeÅirmen Yeri No. 26, Arslankaya No. 16, and the Büyük KapÌ Kaya No. 17. One monument, the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, has a geometrically decorated niche, which will also be discussed here. 5.5.1. The Midas Monument, No. 30 The geometric decoration of the main field is based on a division of the area into three rows of three sections (Fig. 96). Each section consists of five squares. One square is placed in each corner and these surround the fifth square in the middle (Fig. 97). The sections of the upper two rows are connected both vertically and horizontally by crosses (Fig. 96), which unite the main field in a continuous pattern (Fig. 100). The measurements between the different rows are slightly different.122 The sections of the uppermost row have the greatest vertical measurement, 3.15 m, while those of the middle row are 2.67 m high, and those of the bottom row are 2.75 m high. The difference in height, however, cannot be discerned with the naked eye and its purpose was probably to correct the optical error which occurs when looking at something situated at a high altitude.123 The large central niche takes the place of the middle section of the bottom row, and the two sections flanking the niche have been adjusted in size accordingly, measuring 2.75 m in both width and height. This has been achieved in a very intelligent manner, without distorting the overall harmony of the monument. 5.5.2. The Mal Taâ Monument, No. 24 The decoration of the main field of Mal Taâ has a pattern based on the same motif as the decoration of the Midas Monument, a section constructed of five squares, one square in each of the four corners and the fifth square in the middle. Each square is recessed and outlined by a raised band. The band itself is filled with a row of recessed tiny squares. Each section is connected to another in the same way as on the Midas Monument, i.e. with a cross connecting the different sections both vertically and horizontally (Fig. 103). The gap created between the

123 If the optical error had not been corrected, the upper section would have appeared shorter than its actual height.

36

chapter one

arms of respective crosses is filled with a square. The geometric decoration of Mal Taâ is, however, more complicated and refined than that of the Midas Monument, since each corner square of a section is also a corner square of another section (Fig. 104). The square placed in the gap between two adjacent crosses is therefore also the central square of a partly overlapping section (Fig. 104). Consequently this pattern is interlaced to a much higher degree and is more complicated than the decoration of the Midas Monument. The main field of the façade is divided into two rows of two sections, if we disregard the overlapping sections (Fig. 103). The niche occupies the main part of the two lower sections. 5.5.3. DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26 Of the DeÅirmen Yeri monument, No. 26, there are no remains to be seen today (see catalogue entry), and already in the time of Haspels it was difficult to get an overall picture of the geometric decoration. Today we are left with the documentation made by Haspels and Hemelrijk, with photographs and drawings being the only sources of information, and it is difficult to get a comprehensive view of the pattern. We can, however, make some observations, based on the documentation. An attempt to restore the geometric pattern is presented in Fig. 99. The pattern is composed of recessed crosses, and small and slightly larger squares. The area around the niche has a different pattern, consisting of recessed squares and rectangles of different sizes (Fig. 43a).124 Recessed crosses appear at regular intervals, arranged on both horizontal and vertical lines. The horizontal is emphasized by the horizontal rows of larger squares between each horizontal row of crosses. The pattern is, however, held together in an uniform design by the crosses. Regarding the style, the decoration is suggestive of the decoration of Mal Taâ; both have a pattern constructed of only recessed squares and crosses. The geometric structure of the pattern at DeÅirmen Yeri is not as complicated as the one of Mal Taâ, since the sections of the DeÅirmen Yeri pattern are not interlaced with each other. Moreover, the pattern at DeÅirmen Yeri has a horizontal division, while the Mal Taâ decoration is identical both horizontally and vertically. 124 For the pattern around the niche, see also Haspels 1971, figs. 163–164.

5.5.4. Arslankaya, No. 16 The construction or system behind the geometric decoration of Arslankaya is not evident at first sight. It requires a lot from the viewer to grasp the underlying structure, i.e. how the decoration is constructed. Today the surface of Arslankaya is eroded, which further contributes to an indistinct impression. In spite of the erosion, it is clear that the geometric decoration of this monument must originally have given a more dissolved and restless effect than the more monumental decoration of primarily the Midas Monument, but also the Mal Taâ. The purpose was probably to create a more disintegrated image, as will be proved below. Still, regarding the decoration, Arslankaya has several features in common with both the Midas Monument and the Mal Taâ, which may not be evident at a first comparison. The geometric decoration of Arslankaya is constructed of raised bands and recessed squares, according to the same principle as Mal Taâ. The recessed squares at Arslankaya are comparatively larger and placed more closely, but the number of squares per section is the same, as we can see below. In order to get an comprehensive view of the geometric decoration it is necessary to make a drawing of the pattern as it would have looked if it had been continued outside the given frame of the façade (Fig. 101). We can then observe that the pattern is constructed of a three-quarter part of a section of the same type as on the Midas Monument and the Mal Taâ, i.e. three squares are placed along the exterior of a right angle with equal legs (Fig. 101). This figure is repeated from four different angles, i.e. the figure is reproduced turned at 90, 180 and 270 degrees around its own axis (see Fig. 102 for the four different versions). We can here make a parallel with the two wooden screens from Tumulus MM at Gordion, which have been studied in detail by E. Simpson, and where she observed a similar phenomenon, i.e. how one or more basic figures have been repeated by being turned at different angles.125 One section consists of four angles around a central square (Fig. 101). If we combine these four different angles and put them together in one

125

Simpson 1988, 29–34.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence figure, a familiar and clear pattern appears, consisting of one section of five squares surrounded by a cross on each side (Fig. 98), the same basic pattern as represented on the Midas Monument and the Mal Taâ. The difference and consequently the different images the geometric decorations of the façades produce can be expressed in the following way. Each section with its five squares at the Midas Monument is incorporated into only one image and the different sections are connected by crosses. At Mal Taâ the pattern has been further complicated, since each square in one section could also be part of another section. At Arslankaya the square is situated in the centre of four angles incorporated into four different sections (see Fig. 101). In order to achieve this, one is forced to disintegrate the basic section in the way it has been done in the Arslankaya façade. What we have here is the result of an advanced optical ‘game’, which demands a lot of the observer. To conclude, the decoration of Arslankaya is made according to the same principles as the Midas Monument and the Mal Taâ Monument, but at Arslankaya the section is dissolved. In order to get a figure with five squares two sections have to be combined, and in order to get four crosses four sections need to be combined. In other words, the basic section could be described as an ∟-shaped figure surrounded by three squares. The fourth square always belongs to another section overlapping one corner of the section. 5.5.5. The Büyük KapÌ Kaya, No. 17 Büyük KapÌ Kaya has a geometric decorated field on each side of the niche (Fig. 28). Since the façade lacks the superstructure above the niche we are left with only two sections, one on each side of the niche. Each section consists of four large crosses with a square in the centre. Each large cross has a smaller one recessed in its centre. If the façade had been taller, the pattern could easily have been continued, by repeating the section of four crosses next to another section. This pattern differs from the other façades, because here the crosses are connected to each

126

Haspels 1971, 80.

37

other with squares, instead of the other way around, as on the other façades. Furthermore this decoration is the only one made in three different depths. The smallest crosses are recessed into already recessed crosses. In other respects this façade is less carefully made than the other four. The rows of lozenges along the side posts differ in size, and the lower border on the left side of the niche is not horizontal, but rather slanting. 5.5.6. The Hyacinth Monument, No. 31 This monument consists of a niche which is basically flanked only by side posts and there is no main field left as on the other five façades described above. However, the niche itself is decorated with a geometric pattern, which originally covered all three walls, but today less than half of the decoration is preserved (see Fig. 105). The geometric pattern might appear at first sight as a variation of a checkerboard pattern, but it is not a true checkerboard, with alternating dark and light squares; instead the pattern is constructed from overlapping sections of five (dark) squares, each outer square also being part of another section, according to the same principle as the decoration on the Mal Taâ façade (Fig. 105). A few of the squares have been cut incorrectly (Fig. 105), or at least Haspels has interpreted those squares as incorrectly cut.126 They could very well have been cut incorrectly by mistake, but considering the highly developed and skilful geometric decoration of the Phrygians, they could perhaps also be considered as deliberate ‘mistakes’. However, I have not been able to see a system in the ‘mistakes’, which may be because not enough of the decoration is preserved to give the general picture required to see such a system. 5.5.7. Is the Geometric Decoration a Reflection of Buildings Decorated as Such? It has been suggested by previous scholars that the Phrygians imitated their most imposing building, the megaron, in their rock-cut façades. The architectural features of the rock-cut façades, such as the akroteria, the rafters, the tie-beams, the door niches, all seem to be true copies of Phrygian building elements, therefore it seems likely

38

chapter one

that the geometric decoration of the main field is also an imitation of the façade of a Phrygian megaron. There is, however, no proof of this. The only representations we have of Phrygian buildings, apart from the rock-cut façades themselves, are the sketched drawings from Megaron 2 (Fig. 119), three building models and a couple of sketchy façades scratched on pottery from Midas City, and none of these carry any geometric decoration.127 However, because of the sketchy nature of the inscribed drawings, the ‘artist’ perhaps simply did not bother to indicate any decoration. It has been suggested that the geometric pattern covering the rock-cut façades are imitations of textiles or carpets. Comparisons have been made with carpets hanging on walls.128 As discussed above, all the façades have a decoration based on vertical and horizontal lines, and in no case are there any diagonal lines. The preserved textiles from Gordion, however, have geometric patterns where diagonals play a significant role; the reason for this is probably that the weaving technique is more suitable for diagonal lines than vertical lines. Vertical lines create chinks in the weaving, unless the weft is wrapped over a single warp thread, which creates a thicker and more clumsy texture and also a more diffuse line. In woven carpets, so-called kilims, the former system is chosen, but in order to avoid bigger chinks, the pattern does not consist of long vertical lines, as on the geometrically decorated façades. Thus, the geometric patterns of the façades are not suitable for woven textiles. Such a theory is also unlikely for other reasons; for instance, the entire monument at DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26, was covered with the same pattern both on the inside and the outside, but also on smaller spots such as beneath the niche, on the threshold at the right side of the courtyard, and at the main entrance, places that could hardly have been covered with

127 Prayon 1987, fig. 28a; Roller 2005, fig. 3; Haspels 1951a, pls. 35a1–2, 45d; BakÌr 1995, fÌg. 23; Haspels 1971, fig. 57. See also above, n. 109. 128 von Reber 1871, 166–167; Ramsay 1882a, 27; Ramsay 1884, 244; Perrot & Chipiez 1892, esp. 188–192. Haspels (1971, 103) does not refer to wall hangings, but states that the geometric pattern of the façades are similar to the pattern found on textiles from Gordion. See also Hirsch 1989, 59–60, pl. 26:6. 129 R. Ellis in Young et al. 1981, 302. 130 Mellink (1991, 641) suggested that the geometric decoration of the rock-cut façades may represent wooden carved panels.

textiles. Textiles do seem to have been used as wall hangings to some extent, but preferably indoors; Tumulus P, for example, had wooden pegs on the walls inside the wooden chamber, and one textile sample was taken from one of these pegs.129 However, we do not know whether the textile sample originated from a textile ribbon or from a larger wall hanging. We would further not expect textile wall hangings to have been used as a permanent decoration outdoors, because of the rainy climate during the autumn and spring. Thus, it is highly unlikely that textile motifs were the original source of inspiration for the geometric façades. There are other more plausible alternatives, such as a decoration painted on a wall first covered with slip, or a wooden framework that could have been added to the façade.130 We should, however, keep in mind the possibility that the geometric decoration of the main field of the rock-cut façades may have been something that existed only on the rock-cut versions without a parallel in the Phrygian buildings. We can here make a comparison with Greek terracotta temple (?) models decorated with geometric patterns. The geometric designs painted on these are of the same type seen on contemporary vase paintings and may not reflect any true architectural decoration. There appears to be a tradition of geometrically decorated temple models dating to the Early Iron Age and later; there is one example from Archanes (Crete), dated to 1100–1000 BC, of a round building completely covered with different patterns, and inside seen through the door is a seated deity.131 Several later examples all with geometric decoration are known from Perachora,132 Argive Heraion,133 Ithaka,134 and Thera.135 They are usually believed to be votive offerings, and most of them are dated to the second half of the 8th century. Thus, considering these building models made with a decoration

131

Schweitzer 1971, 220, pl. 238. Perachora I, 34–42, fig. 7, pls. 8–9, 119–120; Schweitzer 1971, 220, fig. 129. 133 Müller 1923, pls 6–7; Schweitzer 1971, 221, fig. 130. 134 Robertson & Heurtley 1948, 101–102, pl. 45, no. 600a-g. 135 Boardman 1993, 40, no 23. The previously mentioned Phrygian building models are all made of stone and lack decoration. The Daskyleion model has traces of paint, in the shape of columns or pillars. See above, n. 109 for references. 132

structural examination of the archaeological evidence that probably does not reflect true buildings, but imitates true buildings in other respects, an analogous situation is not impossible for the rock-cut façades, which in a sense could be considered as life-size models of buildings. We should, however, note that Megaron 2 at Gordion must have had a different kind of wall on its front than at the other three sides. The front wall was considerably narrower, only 32 cm thick, than the other three walls, and accordingly Young suggested that this cannot have been more than a screen wall,136 and a possibility is that the front wall was made of wood only. One more aspect may be taken into consideration; the rock-cut decoration is threedimensional, as it is cut in two or three different levels, and this may better be interpreted as an imitation of a wooden decorated surface or of a wall decorated with architectural tiles rather than an imitation of a painted surface. The side posts have a four-lozenge pattern that can be found on preserved architectural tiles (see below, pp. 109–112, for a discussion), but as the geometric decoration of the main fields cannot be found on any preserved terracotta tiles, I am inclined to believe that the geometrically decorated main field does not reflect a building with terracotta tiles in the main field. To conclude, it is not possible to determine whether the geometric decoration of the main field imitates a kind of decoration found on megara or not. If it did indeed imitate a true architectural feature, that decoration was most probably made in wood, even though a painted pattern cannot be excluded. 5.6. Shaft A shaft can be found behind five façades, Nos. 1 (Figs. 13–15), 2 (Fig. 11), 24 (Fig. 34), 26 (Figs. 43–44) and 28 (Figs. 37–38). 137 The shaft is always situated behind the niche; in three cases the niche is of the doorway type, one niche, No. 26, resembles more a window (see above), and the niche at FÌndÌk is very shallow and may be better described as a framed panel. The measurements of the shafts always correspond with the size of the façade in front. Four of the shafts have a considerable depth, roughly between 3 and 9

136

Young 1957a, 322; Young 1958, 142–143. The shafts and their function have been examined in a previous study, and here only a summary is given of their specific features, see Berndt-Ersöz 1998. For a recent discussion of the shaft monuments, see Fiedler 2003, 238–247. 137

39

m, but the shaft at FÌndÌk is only 1 m deep and may be better described as a pit.138 The deeper the shaft, the wider it is. Mal Taâ is the deepest and widest of all, measuring 2.2 x 1.7 m, while the shaft at DeÅirmen Yeri measured 0.85 x 0.86 m. The shaft/pit at FÌndÌk measures only 0.37 x 0.27 m at the top but extends somewhat towards the bottom. The shafts have several features in common; they are all square or rectangular, the shaft always reaches the bottom level of the niche in front, they are all provided with ledges, and they have today a connection, i.e. a hole, between the shaft and the niche. The rectangular shape may be related to the fact that they are provided with ledges. The ledges were most probably arrangements for lids, with which the shafts could be closed. A rectangular shaped shaft is a more suitable shape than a circular shaft, if the intention was to open and close the lid with some regularity. According to Körte, the rock-cut features are of such a character that only wooden lids could have been used,139 a further indication of the intention to open and close the lids, as a lid of stone would not be so suitable for such a purpose. The connecting holes between the niche and the shaft are in all cases of a rather crude character, but more or less circular and situated in a similar manner and at a similar height above the floor of the shaft at all façades, except at DeÅirmen Yeri where the circular hole was located at the bottom of the shaft. At FÌndÌk the entire wall between the shaft and niche has been erased, at least partly as a result of erosion. The crude character of the holes without doubt contributed to the theory that they were made in later periods by treasure hunters, but we may not exclude the possibility that the holes were originally smaller and neater, and later became enlarged in a rather rough manner by treasure hunters or others. There are several indications to support this. At DeÅirmen Yeri, at the same level as the other circular holes, there were two square corresponding holes, measuring 8 x 8 cm, situated at the same level c. 0.28 m apart

138

Besides the catalogue entries, see Berndt-Ersöz 1998, table 1 for a comparison of the various measurements of the shafts. 139 Körte 1898, 99–101.

40

chapter one

(Figs. 43–44). Hence, we have evidence for the existence of an original connection made between the shaft and the niche in one case. The holes at the other façades are at a similar height above the floor level of the shaft and also centred in the middle of the niche. The location of these holes corresponds with the square holes at DeÅirmen Yeri, and we may therefore consider the possibility that one or perhaps two smaller holes existed originally at the other façades also. Further, the fact that the shaft never ends above the niche, but always reaches the same level as the niche in front, supports an actual correspondence between them. The purpose of the shafts will be further examined in Chapter III, pp. 191–193. 5.7. Conclusions Most niches are more or less rectangular, but examples of semicircular-shaped niches exist. The latter have a considerable depth compared with the rectangular ones. One rectangular niche, No. 8, is particularly deep compared with other façades, and it is suggested that this may be due to an original plan of making a grave chamber, that remained unfinished, a theory that is further supported by its location among other chamber tombs. Niches surrounded by façades imitate door openings, as at Arslankaya, No. 16, where the opened door leaves are depicted inside the sides of the niche. Other niches have imitations of projecting beam-ends supporting the door-frame, as with the Midas Monument (No. 30) and Delikli Taâ (No.1). A few niches, however, because of their location and appearance not in accordance with a doorway, should rather be interpreted as windows or light openings. Façades made without a rock-cut image have in several cases a dowel hole in the floor or ceiling of the niche to stabilize a statue. Niches without a surrounding building façade have in several cases a hole in the bottom of the niche, sometimes rounded at the bottom. Some niches also have a long narrow cut in the back wall of the niche. The akroteria above the gable field can be divided into four different types, (1) inwardcurving akroterion, (2) wing-shaped akroterion, (3) the crossed rafters continuing into a simple akroterion, (4) floral akroterion. Possibly three different roof systems are represented among the façades, (1) a pitched roof with a low inclination, supported by wide side posts where the

roof ends in line with the side posts, i.e. it does not extend outside the side walls, (2) a roof of the so-called Chinese type, i.e. with horizontal eaves, and (3) a pitched roof with a steep inclination of 30 degrees or more, made without horizontal eaves and not supported by wide side posts. Façades with a roof of the first type usually have the side posts decorated with rectangular areas with a four-lozenge pattern, while narrow side posts are usually decorated with a vertical row of lozenges. Three façades have shutters, one on each side of the king post. The geometric decoration of the façades at the Midas Monument, No. 30, Mal Taâ, No. 24, Arslankaya, No. 16, and the niche at the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, are all based on a similar section consisting of five squares, four corner squares and a fifth in the centre. These sections are then connected both vertically and horizontally by crosses, which run from one section and continue into the adjoining section. As described above, the underlying system becomes increasingly more complicated, as each section can also be part of another section or several. This can be seen as a chronological development. The Midas Monument should be seen as the earliest of these five monuments. Here each section stands on its own. At Mal Taâ each square of a section is also part of another section and at Arslankaya each square of a section is actually part of four different sections. In order to achieve these later patterns, the overall image becomes more disintegrated and less monumental. DeÅirmen Yeri and Mal Taâ have a similar stylistic approach and are therefore possibly to be regarded as products of roughly the same period. However, considering the less complicated geometric structure of DeÅirmen Yeri, it should perhaps be regarded as the earlier of the two. The geometric decoration of Büyük KapÌ Kaya, No. 17, is slightly different, as the pattern here is made up of crosses connected to each other with squares, a pattern that could also be continued forever both horizontally and vertically. See Chapter II, for a further chronological discussion.

6. Step Monuments The distinction between step monuments and idols are in some cases not very clear, as seen with Nos. 80, 84, and 93, and we should be aware

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

41

Table 10. Number of steps belonging to the different step monuments Total amount

Catalogue No. Platform 1 step 2 steps 3 steps 4 steps 5 steps 6 steps

57, 58, 47, 64, 42, 45, 48,

59, 75, 90, 73, 74, 80, 54, 61, 68, 70, 77, 78, 43, 52, 53, 101, 103 50

96, 84, 91, 79, 60,

106 89, 92, 93, 95, 112 107, 111 99, 100, 102, 104 67, 69, 76, 85, 88, 108

6 10 7 9 11 3 2

Only step monuments where all the steps are preserved or can be traced are listed in the table. The step monuments not listed are Nos. 44 (with one preserved step), 46, 105 (with at least three preserved steps), and 98 (with traces of at least six or more steps). The number of steps of No. 51 was not recorded before it got destroyed.

that this distinction was possibly not made by the Phrygians; nevertheless, the division helps us in our interpretation of the monuments. No. 80 may not be regarded as a step monument but rather as a double idol with platforms in front, because the size and the appearance of the platforms of this monument differ from the steps made at a step monument, since the latter are regularly cut and always centralized below the semicircular disc or seat (Fig. 82). All the steps of a step monument always have the same width; here the upper platform is twice as wide as the lower one. The natural shape of the rock was probably just levelled off into two different levels or platforms, but not with the intention of creating a step monument. In order to make idols the rock has to be cut vertically to create a vertical flat area, and consequently a platform is produced in front of the idols. The lower platform is quite small and irregular in shape and only partly situated below the idols. The idols on top of the step monuments will be examined below (see pp. 56–58). 6.1. Steps A step monument is characterized by the steps, varying in number, and above there are different kinds of rock-cut features, usually a semicircular disc or a kind of rock-cut seat. We will here examine more closely the steps, the number of steps, their measurements, and any specific rock-cut features connected with them, before we examine the upper part above the steps.

6.1.1. Number of Steps There is quite some variation in the number of steps, and there is no standard figure for this number. There are also a few monuments that are described as step monuments but in reality lack steps, having instead only a rock-cut platform in front of the semicircular disc of the same type as the other monuments. Single idols usually appear without any steps, while double idols are usually situated on top of a step monument. There are 53 step monuments; of these there are six ‘step monuments’ which are made with only a platform below the semicircular disc. These monuments are all quite small and insignificant. Four of them, Nos. 75, 79, 96 and 106, have an adjoining bolster on each side of the semicircular disc (Fig. 90a). No. 90 has five semicircular discs next to each other on a line. This is the only example of a step monument made with a series of adjacent semicircular discs. We can, however, note a similar phenomenon above the platform above No. 87, where there appear to be three eroded semicircular discs next to each other, with only a platform below (Fig. 88). These two monuments should perhaps be interpreted as a series of adjacent step monuments, rather than being one monument with three and five discs, respectively. There are eleven step monuments with four steps in front, which seems to be the preferred number of steps. In general, though, the number of steps is quite evenly spread between step monuments with just a platform, one step, two steps or three steps; each group with between six

42

chapter one

to ten monuments. There are only five monuments with as many as five or six steps, in addition to two step monuments (not listed in Table 10) with seven steps or more, and I am not able to see any specific features concerning those steps. Step monument No 98 probably had seven steps originally, but the monument is too eroded to determine the amount with certainty. The second step monument with seven or more steps is a tiny unpublished monument at Midas City.140 6.1.2. Measurements of the Steps In order to determine the role or purpose of the steps, let us examine their measurements and their relationship to the environment. The measurements vary, usually smaller steps for smaller monuments. The steps of an individual monument can vary quite a lot. In general, the step at the top is bigger, i.e. has a greater depth than the steps below, which are usually of similar measurements, while the width is the same for all steps. The steps below are in many cases of too small a depth to be considered functional, with a depth of less than 0.1 m; their purpose must therefore be sought elsewhere. However, in a few monuments the dimensions of all the steps are similar, around c. 0.35 m in depth and 0.5–0.6 m in width, i.e. there is no difference between the uppermost step and the ones below. Before comparing the measurements of the steps of the monuments, let us determine the common depth and height of a rock-cut step used for climbing. The majority of treads in rock-cut stairs have a depth of c. 0.3 m and the risers a height of c. 0.2–0.3 m.141 Treads less than 0.15 m in depth can hardly be considered as functional and eight monuments have at least one such tread. There are further five monuments with treads between 0.16 and 0.2 m in depth, which is smaller than treads known from preserved steps of rock-cut staircases. From Table 11 we can conclude that approximately half of the step monuments have steps with a depth of 0.2 m or less, i.e. not made as deep as steps intended for climbing. We should further note that we lack measurements for several of the smaller step monuments, such as Nos. 73, 78, 79,

89, 92 and 105, but since it is clear that they all have treads too small to have functioned as true steps, we may conclude that the majority of step monuments have treads that are too small to have functioned as treads to climb on. There are, however, a few monuments that have treads with a ‘functional’ depth, such as Nos. 44, 50, 53, 60, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 77, 80, 85, 111 and 112. Let us look more closely at these in order to try to determine whether they could have fulfilled a functional purpose. Four of them, Nos. 44, 50, 60 and 80, have the first step c. 1 m or more above the ground, which does not accord with the idea that the steps would have functioned as stairs to climb on. If that had been the purpose, one would expect the stairs to begin at ground level or slightly above. There is of course a matter of where the ground level during the Phrygian period actually was, but it should not have been higher than the ground level of today. The area in front of No. 77 has been excavated and today there is a big hollow in front giving the impression that this monument was situated at a higher level than the ancient ground level. However, the later temple of Agdistis was built in front of this monument and the rock next to step 1 was used for making square depressions to hold beams for the temple, and therefore we might assume that this was the ground level during the ancient period, i.e. the step monument was made at ground level. Step monument No. 53 is situated c. 0.9 m above the ground in front, but has a platform behind the steps and the monument can also be accessed easily from the plateau behind. The other monuments are all situated at ground level or just above, which would make them suitable as steps in that sense. Let us consider the height of these risers. Several of the monuments have risers around 0.3–0.4 m in height, the only exception being No. 64 where the risers are considerably lower, between 0.09–0.17 m. Risers around 0.3–0.4 m are a bit too high to be considered as purely functional. A height around 0.2 m is normal for a riser. Of course a higher riser could still be used as a step, but there should be a

140 Tamsü 2004, 56, no. 26, pls. 53, 26, no. A8. See also catalogue entry No. 76. 141 Comparisons with Phrygian stairs, used as staircases: concealed staircase at YapÌldak, D. c. 0.32 m, H. 0.23; concealed staircase at Kümbet D. c. 0.45 m, H. c. 0.3 m; concealed staircase at Demirli Kale D. c. 0.35 m, H. c. 0.35 m;

concealed staircase at Piâmiâ Kale D. c. 0.25 m, H, c. 0.35 m; staircase of a cistern at Kümbet D. 0.35 -0.4 m, H. 0.2 m. The measurements are based on figs. 508:1, 508:2, 508:3, 508:4 and 509:4 in Haspels 1971. No. 15 has stairs in front of the niche, the steps measuring 0.2 m in height and 0.21–0.4 m in depth.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

43

Table 11. The smallest depth of the steps, and the depth of the top step for each of the step monuments Cat. No.

42. 43. 44. 45. 47. 48. 50. 52. 53. 54. 58. 60. 61. 64. 67. 68. 69. 70. 74. 76. 77. 80. 84. 85. 91. 95. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 108. 111. 112. Total amount

5–10 cm

11–15

16–20

21–25

x x

o

26–30

31–35

36–40

41–45

46– c. 100

o x

x

x o

o x

o*

o x

x

o

o x

x

o

o x x o

x

o x x/o x

o

x x x x

o o** o** o

o

o x

o

x x x x

o

o x x

o o o

x x x

o x

x

o o

x

o x

2x

9x 1o

6x 3o

3x 3o

o 4x 5o

x 6x 2o

3x 4o

1x 4o

1x 9o

x-the smallest depth of all steps, excluding the top step o-the depth of the top step Step monuments with just a platform are not included in the table. The following monuments are excluded from the table as no or insufficient data exist for them Nos. 46, 51, 56, 73, 78, 79, 88, 89, 92, 93, 98, 105, 107. Step monuments with only one step are marked with x for the depth of that step. * refers to the depth of the left wing of stairs. ** refers to the platform at the top.

44

chapter one

reason to make it that high instead of a more comfortable height of around 0.2 m. One reason might be aesthetic; since the depth of the treads are around 0.3–0.4 m, the intention may have been to make the height correspond to the depth, but it is also possible that they had a function other than being regular steps. If we consider the appearance of the remaining monuments, that is Nos. 53, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 77, 85, 111 and 112 they have certain features in common. The majority of these monuments, with steps of a functional kind, do not have the usual semicircular disc above the steps. Three of the monuments, Nos. 67 (Fig. 77), 68 (Fig. 78) and 85 (Fig. 91), have instead a rectangular cutting in the uppermost step. No. 77 has a raised rectangular area rather than a depressed rectangular area (Figs. 86 and 132). In the rock wall behind the upper step of No. 69 is a small shallow niche, in front of which there is a depressed rectangular area (Figs. 79 and 137), which can be compared with those of Nos. 67 and 68. Two of these monuments have a semicircular disc at the top, but not of the ordinary undecorated type. No. 70 has a disc decorated with the image of a double idol (Figs. 80 and 136), and the disc of No. 64 resembles a cube rounded above rather than a disc (Figs. 76 and 130). Nos. 111 and 112 both have what might be described as an elevated semicircular shaped area at the upper part. The elevated area resembles a semicircular disc in a horizontal position, instead of the usual vertical raised position. These elevated areas resemble seats, but may in spite of that be interpreted as semicircular discs that were intended to be seen from above by looking down. An indication that that was the purpose is given by No. 112 which has an inscription located on the tread at the step immediately below the disc. In order to see and read this inscription it is necessary to stand on the platform below the single step and read it by looking down. No other step monument has an inscription situated in such a position, requiring that you both climb the monument and are forced to look down to read it. Hence, we may suggest that in these two cases the steps of No. 111 and the platform of No. 112 were actually intended to be stepped on in order to see both the inscription and the semicircular discs. Monument No. 53 is situated between these two

but has, contrary to the other two, a normal raised semicircular disc. This monument also has steps of similar dimensions to the flanking monuments. However, these steps were probably not primarily intended to be stepped on. We can note that there is a rather large natural (?) platform below the monument, suitable for a few people to stand on. Thus, the step monuments with steps of greater dimensions are not made with the ordinary, undecorated, standing semicircular disc. It appears that in no case, except perhaps Nos. 111–112, the steps were made with the sole intention of being only steps to climb on, even if they could also have been used as such steps in some cases. This matter will further be discussed in Chapter III, pp. 173–176.

142 There are 32 step monuments listed in Table 10 with more than one step. In addition to these there are three

partly preserved step monuments, Nos. 46, 98, 105, which have more than one preserved step.

6.1.3. The Top Step There are 35 step monuments with more than one step and of these we lack measurements for seven;142 of the remaining 28, the uppermost tread is in 24 cases deeper than the ones below. The remaining four monuments are Nos. 42, 52, 67 and 69, but there is usually another difference at these monuments between the top step and the ones below. It is not only the depth that differentiates the upper step from the ones below. The upper step is in a few cases of a different height than those below, for example, Nos. 42 (Fig. 61), 50 (Figs. 72 and 128), 53 (Fig. 75c), 54 (Fig. 59), 64 (Fig. 76), 67 (Fig. 77) and to some extent 108 (Fig. 95). The top step is usually of a lower height than those below. It was obviously of importance to differentiate the upper step from the ones below, and we might assume that some special importance was accorded to this step. In a few cases, the upper step is further differentiated by having so-called elbow-rests, usually a rectangular cut block at each end of the step; such as with Nos. 42 (Fig. 61), 79, 99 (Fig. 89), 100 (Fig. 94), 101 (Fig. 92) and 104. Nos. 58 and 108 (Figs. 68 and 95) have a reclining animal at each end of the upper step, which is quite a distinctive way of emphasizing the importance of this step (see below, p. 54, for a discussion of these animals). Step monument No. 70 consists of two parts, one ‘throne’ part and one bench/podium part

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

45

Table 12. The appearance of the upper part of the step monument above the steps

Semicircular disc, without image Relief of double idol/two idols Semicircular disc with a bolster on each side Rectangular seat/hollow Single idol Platform

Catalogue No.

Amount

43 (?), 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 64, 73, 74, 78, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 99 (?), 102, 103 (?), 104, 105, 108, 111*, 112* 44, 70, 80, 95, 98

26 5

53, 54, 57, 75, 79, 96, 101, 106, 107

9

60, 67, 68, 69, 77, 85 42 (?), 46 (?), 84, 93, 100 (?) 48, 61, 76

6 5 3

* The semicircular disc is not standing but situated in a horizontal position. No. 56 is not listed in the table as the upper part cannot be determined because of erosion.

(Figs. 80 and 136). The steps are the same for both parts, but are differentiated by having different heights. The uppermost two steps of a total of three below the double idol are elevated, the top step raised 0.15 m and the one below 0.04 m. A similar approach can be seen on step monument No. 77 (Figs. 86 and 132), where the uppermost two steps have an elevated rectangular area in the middle of each, 0.1 m for the top step, and 0.08 m for the one below. Step monument No. 67 has, in the centre of the top step towards the back, a rectangular clearing cut into the platform above the step, thus creating a feature resembling a seat. Step monument No. 64 also has a marked area in the middle of the top step (Figs. 76 and 130). The semicircular disc above the top step is inserted 5 cm into the platform at the top, thus creating a kind of ‘seat-like’ area in the middle of the top step. The semicircular disc gives the appearance of serving as a backrest. The uppermost step of No. 69 also resembles a seat, but here the seat is instead projecting forwards. Thus the upper steps are differentiated in different ways from the steps below, by having a smaller height, a greater depth, ‘elbow-rests’, a ‘seat-like’ area, or by having an elevated area in the middle of the step. 6.1.4. Step Monuments with Two or Three Flights of Steps A few of especially the larger step monuments are provided with more than one flight of steps, either two or three flights. There are only two monuments that have two flights of steps, Nos. 70 (Figs. 80 and 136) and 108 (Fig. 95), and in both cases the left flight has the appearance of being a podium or bench, while the right part

resembles a throne. The different flights of steps can either be situated next to each other, as in Nos. 56 (Fig. 73), 69 (Figs. 79 and 137), 70 (Figs. 80 and 136), 74 (Fig. 83), 103 and 108 (Fig. 95), or they can be situated at a 90 degree angle to each other, as with Nos. 61 and 68 (Figs. 69 and 78). At least three, and probably four, of the monuments with three flights of steps (Nos. 61, 68, 69 and possibly 56) lack the usual semicircular disc above the steps. Only in two of these, Nos. 74 (Fig. 83) and 103, the different flights of steps definitely could not have had much of a practical function, at least not as steps to climb on. The risers of the three flights of No. 103 all have a very insignificant height of c. 3 cm and the monument is cut out of an unusual low rock at ground level. Perhaps the low height of the rock was compensated for by dividing the stairs into three flights and thereby creating a wider step monument than usual. The treads of No. 74 are very shallow, and this is further confirmed by the location of this monument, on a slope with difficult access. The monument has further features not found at other step monuments. Behind the steps and the semicircular disc there is a rock enclosure with a small roughly cut niche in one wall, and because this area has an easy access we may assume that activities that perhaps normally took place in front of or below a step monument in this case were carried out behind in the rock enclosure. 6.2. The Upper Part above the Steps The step monuments can be divided into different types according to their appearance above the steps (Table 12). The different features found

chapter one

46

above the steps are semicircular discs, sometimes with the image of a double idol in relief, a single idol usually in relief, rectangular cuttings, like a seat, or what may best be described as a platform. These different versions will be more carefully examined below. 6.2.1. Semicircular Disc The majority of step monuments have a simple undecorated semicircular disc above the steps. Whether the discs were originally undecorated we cannot determine; none of the discs today have traces of paint, but we cannot rule out the possibility that there was once a painted decoration. Five monuments have an image of a double idol or two single idols in relief on the semicircular disc. No. 80 (Fig. 82) has two rock-cut steps, or rather platforms, below the double idol and may not be described as a step monument. Partly because of the lack of a semicircular disc and partly because the steps are not made as a flight of stairs, but rather as if the rock has been levelled off into two platforms. There is one further example of a double idol from the Highlands not connected with a step monument, No. 72 (Fig. 81). The double idol is made in relief on the rock wall with no steps in front. A few of the semicircular discs, Nos. 50 (Figs. 72 and 128), 64 (Figs. 76 and 130), 74 (Fig. 83), 75, 92, and 101 (Fig. 92), are almost cubic in shape, i.e. they have almost the same depth as height and width. The majority have a considerable depth, and in some cases the depth is greater than the height, as with No. 53 (Fig. 75). Usually the back is slightly rounded, but in a few cases, such as Nos. 64 and 74, the back has a flat vertical surface, in accordance with the front (Figs. 76 and 83). Nine monuments have on each side of the semicircular disc a rock-cut feature resembling a bolster seen from the side. In addition to these nine monuments there are also two unpublished step monuments at FÌndÌk with bolsters.143 Seen from the front the bolsters are usually shaped as a quarter circle, although in one case, No. 54 (Fig. 59), it is more than a quarter circle. These bolsters are always joined to the semicircular disc, i.e. they are not free-standing. This type of semicircular disc is to be found at Dümrek, Midas City, Demirli Köy, in the Köhnüâ 143

128.

Tamsü 2004, 76, 81–82, cat. nos. 67, 82, pls. 107,

valley and at FÌndÌk. The semicircular discs, with only a couple of exceptions, are made in a similar manner, with the upper part of the disc protruding and freestanding. Usually the protruding part is only the upper half or less. In two cases, Nos. 78 and 79, the semicircle is not free-standing, but instead is in low relief against the rock wall above the steps. At Nos. 111 and 112 the semicircular disc is not standing, but laying horizontally, as discussed above (see p. 44). One step monument, No. 90, has five semicircular discs placed next to each other. As mentioned above, a similar phenomenon may be found next to No. 86, with three adjacent semicircular discs (Fig. 88). These two monuments have one thing in common; they lack steps in front, and have merely a rock-cut platform. The step monuments with a semicircular disc above the steps are usually situated on or close to the summit of an outcrop of rock or ridge, i.e. they are not at ground level. 6.2.2. Single Idol The shape of the disc, discussed above, is, with one or two exceptions, exactly half a circle or less. The disc of monument No. 93 is more than half a circle, and the rock below the disc is cut with straight sides, thus creating the image of an idol. At least one more step monument, No. 84, has a single idol at the upper part; this is a rock-cut idol made in deep relief above the single step (Fig. 87). Both these monuments have just one step. One monument, No. 46 at FÌndÌk, is quite eroded at the upper part, but the preserved remains suggest a single idol in relief (Fig. 62). A tiny rectangular-shaped niche is cut into the preserved trunk and lower part of the head. Such a location for a niche is unusual and considering that it is cut into the idol it may not be contemporary with the idol but a later addition. This type of niche will be further discussed below (see pp. 63–65). The original shape of two other step monuments at FÌndÌk is difficult to determine because of erosion. No. 42 has been interpreted as having had a double idol above the stairs;144 however, such an interpretation cannot be confirmed by the surviving rock-cuttings (Fig. 61). Because of 144

Haspels 1971, 95.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence the heavy erosion, we are inclined to see shapes in the rock, which can, however, not be confirmed as the original cutting and shape. There are rockcut traces of what can be interpreted as more than half a circle, and we may have the remains of a single idol made in relief, but we cannot rule out a double idol or even a semicircular-shaped disc. The other step monument at FÌndÌk, No. 43 (Figs. 63 and 127), has also been interpreted as having two circular discs at the top, i.e. only the heads of a double idol; however, the rock is eroded, and as there are no remaining rock cuttings to support two circular discs, it rather appears that it had one semicircular disc at the top (see catalogue entry). One further observation may be noted regarding step monument No. 100 at Tekören. The upper part is eroded and it is not possible to determine the original shape, but the remains suggest either some kind of semicircular-shaped top or a single idol. At the backrest above the steps there are features that may be interpreted as the remains of a trunk made in relief. The trunk is rectangular, c. 0.46 m wide and protrudes slightly. There are, however, because of erosion no remains of a head, which would have allowed us to more securely identify an idol. 6.2.3. Rectangular Seat or Hollow There are six step monuments that have a kind of rectangular area marked at the top, in one case, No. 77, described above, placed as an elevated area in the middle of the upper step. Four monuments, Nos. 67 (Fig. 77), 68 (Fig. 78), 69 (Figs. 79 and 137) and 85 (Fig. 91), have a rectangular area cut out from the uppermost step or platform, that resembles a rock-cut seat. One step monument, No. 60, has what was probably originally a rectangular hole placed above the steps. Today the hole is partly eroded at the front, but the surviving traces exclude the possibility that it was made like a seat. Two of these step monuments (Nos. 68 and 69, Figs. 78–79) are cut against a rock wall, and two of them (Nos. 69 and 77) are extremely wide. No. 69 is more than 6 m wide and No. 77 (Figs. 86 and 132) is close to 5 m wide. There are few other step monuments this wide; the width of No. 56 (Fig. 73), for example, is just over 5 m. This monument is so badly eroded that it is not possible today to determine whether or not it had a similar rock-cut seat, but the monument has several features in common with No. 69, which

47

may suggest that it once had a similar appearance. Both are made against a smoothed rock wall, have three flights of stairs with a higher central set and are provided with an inscription on the rock wall behind. Step monuments made against a rock wall do not usually have a semicircular disc, which is further indication of a rock-cut seat at No. 56. There are only two other monuments, Nos. 70 and 108, with a width of over three metres; both are of the same type, consisting of two parts, one long bench and one throne part, and both have inscriptions. No. 68 has stairs on three sides, and a division of the stairs into three parts, as with No. 69. Certain features of these step monuments, such as their monumental size, the division of the steps into three flights, the inscriptions and their strategic location, indicate that they had a public character. No. 68 is situated just at the top of the entrance ramp to Midas City, next to the relief frieze bordering the ramp, at the very corner before entering the plateau. No. 67 is c. 50 m north-east of the entrance ramp and No. 69 is immediately below the entrance ramp, below No. 68. No. 77 is situated on top of the plateau, very close to the grassy slope on the western side, where, for a stretch of c. 50 m, there are no rocks bordering the kale. Whether there was an entrance to the kale here or not is unclear, but it would have been a logical situation for an entrance. Today this side is used as the easiest way to enter the kale. No. 85 is situated in connection with the Unfinished Monument, No. 34, and there is no obvious entrance close to it, although it is possible to enter the plateau from this point. The ancient road must, however, have passed just below these monuments, as wheel tracks in the rock are to be found a short distance (approx. 50 m) to the south of the monuments. There was another gate with a rather steep approach on the north-east side, and just above and overlooking this entrance is another rather large step monument (No. 64, Fig. 76), 2.85 m wide. Another step monument of monumental size and with an inscription, No. 70, is situated c. 50 m in front of the entrance at the top of the plateau. These latter two both have a semicircular disc, but also in front there is a rectangular area, which has been specially marked, like a seat (see above). We can conclude that almost all step monuments of this type are made very close to an entrance and probably situated at these strategic

48

chapter one

places for specific reasons, obviously connected with the city gates. 6.2.4. Platform There are two step monuments, Nos. 61 and 76, that have above the steps nothing other than a flat area, best described as a platform (Figs. 69 and 84). There is, however, no doubt about their religious significance, since No. 61 is situated immediately to the left of a façade monument, No. 25, and No. 76 has below the stairs at ground level one rock-cut boss still in situ, analogous with the other step monuments (see below, pp. 61–62). The area on top of the latter is more roughly cut at the back than at the anterior part. In fact there is a distinct line between the smoothly cut part at the front and the roughly cut part behind. Of the supposedly original three bosses, only one remains; the other two were most probably cut away in a later phase (see below), as this area has rock-cut features that must date to a later period, and it is possible that the upper part, which is more roughly cut, underwent some re-cutting at the same time, and that the upper part of the monument originally had a different appearance. No. 48 is divided into two parts above the steps (Fig. 64); the left part has the usual semicircular-shaped disc, while the right part has a small rectangular platform. Several of the other step monuments, such as Nos. 67 (Fig. 77), 68 (Fig. 78), 69 (Figs. 79 and 137), 77 (Figs. 86 and 132) and 85 (Fig. 91), have a platform behind the rectangular seat. One monument, No. 64, has a levelled area or platform behind the semicircular disc (Figs. 76 and 130). These platforms are big enough to have allowed some kind of activities to be performed here. No. 69 has at the back of the platform against the rock wall a rock-cut niche, which is a further indication that this platform was actually used. This niche will be discussed below (see p. 65). 6.3. Conclusions We have two main groups of step monuments, the first consisting of those with a semicircular disc at the top, and the second comprising those without a semicircular disc. The ones without a

145 There are elbow-rests also at the step monument at Tekören, No. 100; whether this monument originally had

disc usually have a rectangular seat instead. A couple of monuments end in just a platform at the top, or a single idol; one has a rectangular hollow. Step monuments with a semicircular disc are usually situated on top of rocks or close to the summit, while those without a disc are always at ground level. The only exception in the latter group is No. 60, which is at the summit of a rather small outcrop of rock. However, there is a difference between this step monument and the others lacking a disc. This step monument is the only one with a rectangular hollow with four sides, i.e. like a dowel hole. We can thus conclude that the ones without a disc but with a ‘seat’ at the upper part are all situated at ground level. It is only step monuments with a semicircular disc that appear in groups, usually placed next to each others in a row. The number of steps appears not to be of much importance. The preferred number of steps is four. The number ranges between just a platform and at least seven steps. The steps of the majority of the step monuments have a depth which should be considered too small to have been functional. The depth of at least one tread of 17 monuments is less than 0.21 m. The group without a semicircular disc at the top tends to have steps with a greater depth, usually between 0.3 and 0.4 m. The top step is almost without exception considerably deeper than those below, while the width remains the same. In several cases, the height of the upper riser is also less than those below. The upper step is sometimes differentiated from the ones below, by having at each end a rock-cut so-called elbow-rest. These appear only on the monuments with a semicircular disc.145 A few step monuments have more than one flight of stairs, parallel or set at an angle. There are only two monuments with two flights of stairs, and they both have a semicircular disc, but they also have a marked seat-shaped area at the upper step. For the step monuments with three flights of steps, they probably all had a seat-shaped area at the upper part, except in one case, where the stairs are not intended to be used as steps to climb on. All step monuments which have a kind of ‘backrest’ at the back of the upper step are

a semicircular disc or not cannot be determined today.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence made in the same shape, i.e. in the shape of a semicircular disc. The upper part of the disc is usually free-standing. Also, the step monuments with the relief of a double idol usually have the same semicircular disc on which the double idol was made. In one case, the disc is more than semicircular and made like a single idol. At least one, but probably two or three more examples of a single idol above a step monument can be found. Nine step monuments have a bolster on each side of the semicircular disc, seen from the front usually in the shape of a quarter circle, and in one case more like a complete circle. These are always joined to the semicircular disc, and not free-standing. Several, especially the more monumental step monuments, are situated close to city entrances, and the majority of these have a seat at the top.

7. Images of Matar, Idols and Other Related Figures 7.1. Iconography of Matar The only Phrygian deity scholars have so far been able to identify is Matar, the Mother Goddess. There are nine or ten more or less preserved rock-cut images of her, all except one from the Highlands. In addition, there is about

146

The iconography of Matar, including all known images, have been discussed in a paper given at the 2nd International Conference at Pisidian Antioch, July 2000, and will be published, see Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming a. We can here note briefly that the other recognised and known images of Matar are 1. the Bahçelievler stele from Ankara (Fig. 117; Prayon 1987, no. 26), 2. the Etlik relief from Ankara (Fig. 118; Prayon 1987, no. 27), 3. a relief from Gordion (Prayon 1987, no. 15), 4. a mini-relief from Gordion (Fig. 120; Prayon 1987, no. 184), 5. a sculpture from Ayaâ (Prayon 1987, no. 5), 6. a sculpture group from BoÅazköy (Fig. 116; Prayon 1987, no. 7), 7. a sculpture head from Salmanköy (Prayon 1987, no. 8), 8. an ivory figurine from Tumulus D at ElmalÌ (Antalya Museum, no. 42). A relief from Altar Mevkii, close to Amorium, is most probably also a representation of Matar (Lightfoot and Ivison et al. 1995, pl. 19b). In addition, a second ivory figurine from ElmalÌ (F. IâÌk 1999, fig. 57), should probably also be interpreted as Matar. The two statues from Midas City, where only the lower parts of two female statues without any attributes are preserved, are probably also representations of Matar (Prayon 1987, nos. 1, 2). A similar statue from ÇavdarlÌ, now in the Afyon Museum (Prayon 1987, no. 4), is possibly also Matar. There are two quite eroded, partially preserved rock-cut reliefs at KÌrkinler, close to Iscehisar, both depicting a frontal standing figure that may

49

the same number of other known representations of Matar.146 None of the images is identified by an inscription. It is only her attributes together with her dominant position in the niche which have made us come to the general conclusion that they represent Matar. Inscriptions where Matar is mentioned are connected with a few niches,147 although none of these have a preserved image of the goddess. There is, however, no reason to question this assumption.148 Let us examine the rock-cut images of Matar from an iconographical point of view. Unfortunately, the majority are too heavily eroded to allow us to examine any details such as attributes, jewellery or details of the dresses. In a few cases the images are almost obliterated, while others have been partly destroyed by treasure hunters in recent years. In Table 13 below, only the images that can be conclusively identified as Matar and where there are unmistakable traces of her image in situ have been included. There are five monuments not included in the table, which should be mentioned. Façade No. 9 at Kes Kaya might once have had a rock-cut image, of which only very slight traces of the polos can still be seen at the back wall against the frame. The shaft monument at Delikli Taâ, No. 1, has generally been accepted to have had a rock-cut image, of which

be Matar, see above for discussion (T.T. & H. Sivas 2003, 9, pl. 12.2; T.T. & H. Sivas 2004a, 158, figs. 11–12). The Vezirhan stele from Bithynia has on top a roughly made relief image of a deity, possibly to be interpreted as a local version of the Mother Goddess or perhaps of Artemis, as the latter appears to be mentioned in the inscription of the stele (Neumann 1997; Anatolian civilisations II, 60). A different iconographical type of Matar, showing strong Greek influence, can be found in two later representations from the Highlands; one statuette of a seated Matar from Takmaköy close to Eskiâehir, and one grave stele with a relief image of Matar from Hamidiye, close to Eskiâehir, both dated to c. 500 BC (F. Naumann 1983, nos. 31, 47). There is also an unrecorded rock-cut image of Matar standing inside a niche in the southern extension of the Köhnüâ valley, north of KayÌhan village. 147 Nos. 5, 30, 37, 40 and possibly No. 24. 148 The examples of the Phrygian Matar listed by F. Naumann (1983, nos. 11–30) cannot all be identified as Matar, such as a statue fragment from Gordion (F. Naumann 1983, no. 22), which has a completely different appearance and has also been interpreted as a male attendant by Mellink, Roller and myself. See Mellink 1983, 352; Roller 1999, 76–77, Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming a, F. Naumann 1983, 293–97, nos. 19–30.

chapter one

50

Table 13. Iconographical features of rock-cut images of Matar

Veil/mantle

Not tucked into belt

Placed beneath polos

? ? x x x x ? x

? ? x x x x ? x

? ? ? x ? ? ? ?

x x x x x x

only very eroded traces remain. However, there are no remains left to confirm such a theory. The surviving niche would rather suggest that there never was a rock-cut image, since there are no traces of a polos against the upper frame of the niche next to the ceiling, an area that is sufficiently protected from the weather to still leave some trace of an eroded figure.149 Instead, this part is neatly cut and shows no signs of weathering or that a figure has been cut away in a later phase. What survives of a supposed image is a less heavily eroded area in the middle of the floor of the niche, which might be interpreted as the base of a statue. The base could, however, have been used for a free-standing image. The so-called remains of a figure on the lower part of the wall cannot be confirmed as the remains of a rock-cut image; the wall here is simply slightly less weathered than the rest of the back wall. There might be several reasons for this; either the back wall was here protected by a separately attached statue, as suggested by Haspels,150 or the rock at this particular part of the wall is harder, and has therefore not eroded as much as the rest. This could perhaps also explain the appearance of the ‘base’ at the floor of the niche. The ‘base’ has

149

This issue has been discussed previously, see BerndtErsöz 1998, 89–90. 150 Haspels 1971, 253. 151 Berndt 1997a, 147–150.

x x x

x x x? x

x

x

?

Lions

Polos x x ? x x x x? x

Attendants

Attendants

Short hair ? ? ? x ? ? ? ?

Shoes

Feet not depicted

Arms in front ? x x x x x x x

x

Dress

Pointed

Frontal ? x x x x x x x

x

Veil

Pleated

Head dress

Plain

Body position

Niche

10. 12. 15. 16. 17. 25. 29. 110.

Surrounding features Entrance

Cat. No.

x ?

x x

no preserved signs of rock-cutting and it is possible that the rock here has eroded less because it is harder, which would explain why the base is at least partly situated below the original floor level of the niche. The third monument is a relief figure in the Karababa valley (No. 27, Fig. 39), which has been interpreted as an idol image, but, as has rightly been pointed out by Berndt,151 the image has several features, such as a polos and an elongated body, which are not in accordance with other idol images, and he suggests that the figure is a representation of Matar. The elongated body gives the figure similar dimensions to those of a human figure. Another important difference between this image and rock-cut idols is the rectangular area around the image that has been cut like a shallow niche.152 Whether there was an actual frame around the niche is difficult to determine today because of erosion and damage caused by treasure hunters. We may suggest that this image is an attempt to give the idol a more human appearance and, as the polos suggests, an interpretation of the image as Matar is possible, but we cannot exclude the possibility that it may be a representation of a deity other than

152

This image is, however, not the only example of an idol placed within a framework of some kind, as the stele from Sincan has a double idol situated below a gable field (Fig. 115).

structural examination of the archaeological evidence Matar.153 A polos is, at least in other cultures, associated with several deities, both female and male. There are two further rock-cut reliefs from KÌrkinler, just outside the Highlands close to Ischehisar, that to some extant resemble the Karababa relief and may also be depictions of Matar.154 Both figures are very simplified and their bodies resemble the trunk of an idol. The head of one figure is missing, while the head of the other figure is partially preserved. The headless figure has a surrounding rectangular frame whilst the other lacks one. They may both be depictions of Matar and date to the Phrygian period, but since both of them lack distinct features that would positively identiy them as Matar, and all the other known monuments at the site date to the Byzantine period, their identification as Matar remains uncertain.

51

(see above). The shallow niche or panel at the shaft monument at FÌndÌk, No. 2, is much too shallow to have held a statue (Fig. 11).

7.1.1. Surrounding Features In seven examples Matar is set into an architectural environment, that is she stands in the doorway of a gabled building. The image from Karababa valley (No. 27, Fig. 39) is made inside a very shallow niche, or rather a panel. Whether there are traces of a surrounding frame or not is uncertain. The image at Delik Taâ, No. 12, is set inside a semicircular-shaped niche, without any architectural features (Figs. 22 and 121). The surrounding building façades of Matar show similar architectural features, i.e. the building is gabled, usually crowned with a central akroterion, and some façades have a geometric decoration (for a more thorough analysis of the façade, see above). In one case, at Arslankaya, No. 16, the door leaves are depicted (Fig. 27d). Both door leaves are made in relief against the side walls of the niche, i.e. the doors are shown in an open position. Several façades and niches have no rockcut image and are today empty, but at least the niches that have a dowel hole either in the floor or in the ceiling must originally have had a separately attached statue. However, not all niches once had an image, as shown by the very shallow niche at DeÅirmen Yeri (No. 26, Figs. 43–44); here the niche was probably made to imitate a light opening rather than a doorway

7.1.2. The Appearance of Matar Matar is always depicted standing in a frontal position with both feet together, holding both hands in front of her body, and her polos is touching the upper door-frame. To represent her in this manner should be interpreted as a conscious decision, since there are several examples of Phrygian human figures in other positions, such as walking, fighting or sitting. The stance could of course have been influenced by the artistic spirit of the time; compare the same frontal stiff postures of Greek korai. However, she is represented in such a manner that she completely controls and dominates the passage into the building, and this was most probably the intention. Matar always wears as a head garment a polos in combination with a veil or mantle. Unfortunately, all the preserved rock-cut images of Matar from the Phrygian Highlands are so poorly preserved that all the details of the poloi are today lost. However, a few remarks can be made. Where it can be determined, they appear not to have a totally cylindrical shape since they are wider at the top than at the bottom, i.e. the outline of the polos is trapezoidal, as for example the polos of Matar at Büyük KapÌ Kaya (No. 17, Fig. 28), at Kumca BoÅaz KapÌ Kaya (No. 25, Fig. 29), and probably at Kes Kaya (No. 10, Fig. 19), at Kuzören (No. 110, Fig. 60) and Arslankaya (No. 16, Figs. 27c, 122). The latter polos appears also to be slightly rounded at the top, rather than being cut straight across. Two head garments, those found on Matar at Nos. 12 and 15 (Figs. 22a, 26a and 121), have a circular shape. Whether the relief of Matar on No. 15 actually wears a polos or not cannot be determined, since only the outlines of the head are preserved today in the form of a circle. However, the circle appears a bit too big to depict only the head, so it is possible that she had a kind of polos. The figure of No. 12 has a circular shaped object on top of the head, which given its position should be interpreted as a polos. However, a similar circular shaped object is found on a relief from Altar Mevkii, close to Amorium.155

153 The upward-pointed shoulders may be an indication of the male gender, see below pp. 58, 161. See also Hutter forthcoming. 154 These images were recently discovered in 2002 by

T. and H. Sivas and have not been sufficiently published yet (T.T. & H. Sivas 2003, 9, pl. 12.2; 2004a, 158, figs. 11–12). 155 Lightfoot and Ivison et al. 1995, pl. 19b.

52

chapter one

This relief has a rather coarse image but the details are better preserved than on No. 12. The frontal image of a standing woman on the relief from Altar Mevkii, most likely to be identified as Matar, is depicted with short straight hair, above which there is a horizontal ridge probably representing the veil. On top of the ‘veil’ is the circular disc. As the disc is not as wide as the head at the lower part connected with the head it is uncertain whether this is intended to be a representation of a polos. The circular object rather resembles a sun disc, but as the relief is rather crude it cannot be determined whether it is a polos, a sun disc or something else. Almost all details of the dresses are gone, but some features can still be discerned. The veil is probably fastened beneath the polos at Matar at Arslankaya (No. 16, Figs. 27c and 122). The veil can clearly be seen on each side of the head and since the outline of the polos is oval the veil must have been placed beneath it. If it had been draped over the polos, the outline of the polos would have been different. The other images are too badly damaged to determine the arrangement. The veil on the images of Matar from central and the eastern Phrygian periphery is usually tucked into the belt on one side.156 On the rock-cut images, the arrangement seems to be different. On the images at Arslankaya (No. 16, Figs. 27c and 122), Küçük KapÌ Kaya (No. 15, Fig. 26), and Kumca BoÅaz KapÌ Kaya (No. 25, Fig. 29), the mantle/veil can be seen along both sides of the dress, showing that it was not tucked into the belt. The figures at Büyük KapÌ Kaya (No. 17, Fig. 28) and Kuzören (No. 110, Fig. 60) seems to depict Matar wrapped in a mantle, where the dress underneath can be clearly seen at the lower part not covered by the mantle. The lower parts have vertical ridges, 17 cm in length at No. 17 and 12 cm at No. 110, along the entire hem,157 both probably indicating a pleated dress; no horizontal curved lines of a veil tucked into a belt can be seen on any of them.158 We can only get a slight idea of how the hair

of Matar was arranged from one rock-cut image, the Arslankaya façade. Most of the hair is covered by the veil, but as much as can be seen at front appears to be short and straight, reaching the cheek in length (Figs. 27c and 122). Other better preserved images of Matar, from areas outside the Highlands, usually depict Matar with the same hairstyle.159 In three cases Matar is depicted without her feet showing; only in one case, at Büyük KapÌ Kaya, No. 17, is she represented wearing pointed shoes. Similar pointed shoes are found on other images from the Highlands, for example on two female statues, one from Midas City and one from ÇavdarlÌ.160 As mentioned earlier, in all images Matar most probably holds both hands in front of her breast, but unfortunately all the images are so badly preserved that no attributes can be discerned. Roller suggested that Matar at Arslankaya holds a lion cub by its hind leg in her left hand.161 However, her entire front body is eroded, and there are no features left to confirm such an interpretation; the eroded parts on her left side might misleadingly give the impression that she holds something. To conclude, Matar is depicted as standing alone in the entrance of a building. She is probably always wearing a polos, and, where it can be confirmed, with the veil fastened beneath it. The outline of the polos is trapezoidal (wider at the top than at the bottom) where it can be determined. The veil/mantle is not tucked into the belt but can be seen hanging on both sides of her long dress. She is in most cases depicted without her feet showing, but in one case she wears pointed shoes. Her hair is for the most part covered by the veil, and in the only instance where enough is preserved to determine her hairstyle, it is short and straight, reaching the cheek in length. Both hands are held in front of her breast, and probably once held attributes; today these are completely eroded. The iconography of Matar from different parts of Phrygia has been examined in a separate study,

156 Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming a. See e.g. the images from Bahçelievler, Etlik, Gordion, BoÅazköy and Altar Mevkii (Prayon 1987, nos. 26, 27, 15 and 7; here Figs. 116–118; Lightfoot and Ivison et al. 1995, pl. 19b). 157 F. Naumann 1983, 45. 158 A similar outline may be found on the image of Matar close to the KayÌhan village, see above, n. 146. Unfortunately this image has been destroyed by illicit diggers so that only the outlines of the figure remain.

159 Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming a. See e.g. the Bahçelievler stele, the Etlik relief, the Gordion relief, the Ayaâ statue, and the two ivory figurines from ElmalÌ (Figs. 117–118,; Prayon 1987, nos. 26, 27, 15, 5; Antalya Museum, no. 42; F. IâÌk 1999, fig. 57). See also the relief from Altar Mevkii (Lightfoot and Ivison et al. 1995, pl. 19b). 160 Prayon 1987, nos. 1, 4, pl. 1a. 161 Roller 1999, 85–86.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence with the conclusion that two different iconographical images exist, one from western Phrygia, and one from central/eastern Phrygia.162 The difference is in how the veil was arranged, either tucked into the belt or left hanging free down the back. In images from central Phrygia and the eastern Phrygian periphery the veil is tucked into the belt on her left side in front, thus creating horizontal curved lines on the left side of the skirt. On her right side the skirt itself, usually pleated, can be seen.163 The chronological implications of these two different dress arrangements are discussed below, see pp. 116–118. We should here also note the attributes of Matar. It is only the images from central Phrygia that are preserved well enough to determine the objects she holds in her hands. She is usually depicted holding a predatory bird in her left hand, and a bowl or jug in her right. In the small relief from Gordion she holds a rounded object in one hand, possibly a pomegranate (Fig. 120).164 Perhaps the same attribute was held by the figure from BoÅazköy, unfortunately not preserved in its entirety for this to be determined for certain, although the object she holds is rounded at the preserved lower part.165 At none of the rock-cut images is it possible to determine the objects held in her hands, but we may suggest that she at least held something, because of the position of her arms. She holds both hands in front of the body in accordance with images from central/eastern Phrygia (see below for a discussion of the attending animals found next to Matar in the Highlands). 7.2. Images of Animals and Other Related Creatures The majority of monuments have been made with no images of animals or other creatures. Where animals are depicted they are often so badly eroded that it is no longer possible to determine the species. At the Arslankaya niche, No. 16, Matar is

162

Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming a. This type of arrangement can be found on the Bahçelievler, Etlik, Gordion, BoÅazköy and Altar Mevkii reliefs (Prayon 1987, nos. 26, 27, 15 and 7 with further references; Lightfoot and Ivison et al. 1995, pl. 19b). 164 The object has been interpreted as a pomegranate by some scholars, while others prefer not to specify the object. F. Naumann (1983, 87) interpreted the object as a pomegranate, while Kohler (1995, 34) in the excavation report only referred to it as an object. 165 Most of the object is missing so the interpretation as a pomegranate made by Bittel (1963, 9) is far from certain. 163

53

accompanied by two lions, one on each side (Figs. 27c and 122). Each lion stands facing her raised on its hind legs on a small base, with its front paws placed against her head. We can draw a few conclusions from this iconographical image; by being placed inside the same niche as Matar and by directing their entire attention to her, as they are facing her instead of the viewer, there is no doubt that they are her subject companions, over which she has complete control. However, their height, equal to that of Matar, and the fact that they are placed on a base, indicate that they were also looked upon with respect and as worthy companions of Matar.166 At Arslankaya, there is one more similar-looking lion, executed in relief on the same tall outcrop of rock as the façade, situated around the right corner of the façade. Its original size must at least have been as high as the façade itself. It is therefore much bigger than the lions situated inside the niche, being almost 5 m in height, in spite of the eroded head. Iconographically the lion is very similar to the ones inside the niche, and they should all be part of the same programme, further underlined by the fact that this lion is actually made in accordance with the façade, i.e. it is facing the same direction as the niche, it stands on its hind legs which are almost on the same level as the floor of the niche, with the front paws at the same height as the pediment, touching its edge. The lion today still gives a monumental impression, but must have done even more so originally. On the opposite side of this monumental lion, around the left corner of the façade, there is another relief figure. This animal (?) is much smaller in size, c. 1.5 m in height, and is so badly eroded that it is impossible to determine its species. It is a four-legged creature placed upon a base, situated at about the same height as the upper part of the niche. Also this figure appears to be directed towards the front. The figure has been suggested to be a griffin, an unfinished sphinx or perhaps a lion.167

See also Roller 1999, 110, 114. In an earlier reconstruction by Bittel (1958, fig. 63) the rounded object was interpreted as one of the goddess’s breasts (see Fig. 116). 166 Haspels (1951b, 233) described the lions as adorants. 167 Suggested to be a griffin by Ramsay (1884, 247) and Haspels (1971, 89) but Brandenburg (1906, 673–674) questioned this and thought it partly resembled a lion. See, however, Brandenburg 1907b, 21, where he described it as a griffin. Suggested to be an unfinished sphinx by Prayon (1987, 98).

54

chapter one

A pair of female sphinxes are represented in profile at the pediments of both the Arslankaya and the Burmeç façades, Nos. 16 (Fig. 27) and 18. They are standing antithetically on each side of the king post. Their faces are turned to face the viewer at Arslankaya; at Burmeç the heads were not well enough preserved to determine which direction they were facing even before the sphinxes were destroyed by treasure hunters in recent years (Fig. 124). All four sphinxes are/were very weathered but some details can be discerned on the sphinxes at Arslankaya, which are somewhat better preserved than the ones at Burmeç were; they have elongated bodies, big ears and the long hair appears to be hanging down the back behind the ears. We do not have any other examples of sphinxes associated with Matar either from the Highlands or from other parts of Phrygia. Two of the step monuments have sculptured animals, in both cases suggested to be images of lions.168 No. 58 has one animal on each side of the semicircular disc (Fig. 68). Unfortunately they have both lost their heads and almost all details are gone, making interpretation difficult. They appear to be standing on very short front legs; of the hind legs and feet nothing can be seen. Seen from above, the body is almond-shaped. Considering the short sturdy front legs, the apparent absence of hind legs, and the almond-shaped body, an identification as lions seems unlikely. A reclining, or crouching, lion should have the forelegs extended in front of the body, similar to the animals on step monument, No. 108 (see below). If the creature were seated on its hind legs, the hind legs would still be seen. It seems more likely that we are dealing with a creature with only two legs. The shape of the body, which narrows at the back, does not resemble the body of a quadruped. The eroded state does not permit us come to any definite conclusions, but we can note a close parallel with images of predatory birds that are made with short rather sturdy legs

and a similar body shape. There is one sculpture of a predatory bird, probably Phrygian, from the Lipchitz Collection, with legs similar to those of the figures of the step monument.169 Similar legs can also be seen on a predatory bird from BoÅazköy, and one from Gordion; these two, however, have lost their feet.170 The second step monument with animal sculptures is the monument at Karahisar, No. 108 (Fig. 95). Here we have one animal lying on each side of the semicircular disc situated on top of the ‘throne’, and two animals lying above the podium at the left. Let us first consider the right part. The animals are reclining, since the forelegs are stretched out in front of the body. Actually, only one foreleg of each animal is preserved and perhaps on account of this the forelegs have been wrongly interpreted as the feet of a supposed image of Matar.171 The heads are unfortunately missing. It is difficult to determine today whether the bodies of the animals were originally made in full or only as protomes. An interpretation of the creatures as lions is possible, considering the forelegs, but other possibilities cannot be excluded. The two animals on top of the podium at the left part are even less well preserved. What can be suggested is that the animals are reclining, and that they are possibly quadrupeds, since features suggestive of four legs can be seen. These two have also been interpreted as lions, which is perhaps the most plausible interpretation considering the context, but the remains of the animals themselves give no clear indication of the species. Above the two niches Nos. 6 and 7 at FÌndÌk, there are very eroded remains of a possible relief, suggested to represent a couple of lions (Fig. 17).172 What may possibly be seen are the remains of a relief of two antithetically placed lions in profile, raised on their hind legs, with their front paws resting on a raised level in the middle. The lions (?) appear to be within an arch-shaped area. The rock is too badly eroded

168 For No. 58 see Sivas 1999a, 170, 190. The animals of the monument (No. 108) are generally believed to be lions, see e.g. Akurgal 1955, 62; F. Naumann 1983, 97; Prayon 1987, 47. These two monuments are also discussed in a separate paper, see Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming b. 169 Prayon 1987, no. 75, pl. 18f; Mellink 1964a, photo p. 29. 170 Prayon 1987, nos. 73–74, pl 18c-e; Boehmer 1972,

208–210, no. 2161, pl. 81; G. & A. Körte 1904, 168f, fig. 150. 171 The misinterpreted feet were first reported by ArÌk (1937, 24) and later again by Brixhe & Lejeune (1984, 242, no. P-06), Vassileva (1995a, 271) and Roller (1999, 79). Vikela (2001, 76 with n. 31) noted the different information given by different scholars. 172 Radt 1993.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence to be certain whether or not there actually is a rock-cut relief here, but the arch-shaped area does stands out against the surrounding rock. One more relief with animals should be mentioned; at Büyük KapÌ Kaya (No. 17, Fig. 28) there are very slight remains of a relief once situated at the front face of the rock-cut platform in front of the façade. All that in fact remains is the leg of what appears to have been a walking feline (?).173 We should here note that Matar was probably accompanied by attendants, lions or other figures at this monument, since there is a rock-cut base on each side of her inside the niche and, above these, small dowel holes on the side walls probably for securing such images. Probably also the rock-cut corners on each side of the niche No. 14 (Fig. 23) at DöÅer was intended for accompanying figures, since each base is provided with a small dowel hole. To conclude, there are a few monuments that have reliefs of animals or other related creatures. There are three façades in this group, Nos. 16, 17 and 18, all situated around the Emre Gölü. Two step monuments, one in the Köhnüâ valley and the other at Karahisar in the eastern Phrygian periphery, have animals flanking the semicircular disc. None of the monuments at Midas City have images of animals. This may be related to the fact that the only rock-cut images of Matar are to be found around Emre Gölü, in the Köhnüâ valley, at Delik Taâ, Kes Kaya or Kuzören and there are no rock-cut images of Matar from Midas City. The only confirmed attending animals of Matar are the lions from the Arslankaya niche, and, as pointed out by Roller, we lack images of Matar associated with lions from central Phrygia.174 However, we do have evidence of lions in cultic contexts from the eastern periphery of Phrygia. In the small shrine at BoÅazköy, a bronze shield with the relief image of a lion was found, and from Karahisar we have the previously mentioned step monument No 108 with possible images of lions.175 Whether these lions may be connected with Matar or not is discussed in Chapter III (pp. 164, 171). A similar composi-

173 174 175

F. Naumann 1983, 45; Haspels 1971, fig. 522. Roller 1988, 45; 1994a, 191; 1999, 104. Beran 1963, fig. 12; Boehmer 1972, no. 171, pl.

9. 176

Prayon 1987, fig. 14a; E.-M. Bossert 2000, 53, 62–65,

55

tion to that on the Arslankaya relief can be found on a partly preserved dinos from BoÅazköy.176 Depicted is a standing woman in a frontal position, flanked by two lions. She does not hold any objects; instead she touches the heads of the animals with her hands. She is dressed in a fulllength, pleated simple robe, but does not wear a polos or veil. In spite of the lack of polos, veil and attributes, other than the lions, the woman can hardly be interpreted as anyone other than the Mother Goddess, considering her dominant position between the two lions and that she is standing frontally covering the entire height of the register in the same posture and manner Matar stands in her niche. We should also comment briefly on three rather late images of the Mother Goddess from the Highlands, depicting her with lions and other animals. The first one is the previously mentioned stele from Vezirhan, dated to the end of the 5th century BC, which has a relief of a goddess at the top, a Palaeo-Phrygian inscription below, and further below a Greek inscription added later.177 The goddess, seen in a frontal position with outstretched arms, has on each shoulder a seated bird, and beneath each arm a crouching lion. Only the upper part above the waist is represented. On top of the head she has a palmettelike adornment. No hair can be seen. The style is rather coarse and, based on her attributes, the lion and the predatory (?) bird, and the fact that Artemis is mentioned in the text below, we may suggest that the goddess is a local version of the Mother Goddess. The second example is a grave stele, dated to c. 500 BC,178 from Hamidiye, c. 30 km south-east of Eskiâehir. It depicts on one side a woman dressed in a chiton and wearing a polos, but without a veil. She has long hair and wings and holds a lion by its front legs in one hand, and therefore she is usually interpreted as Pothnia Theron. She is depicted in profile, not standing frontally. On the other side of the stele there are reliefs in two registers. The upper register depicts a horseman, interpreted as the deceased person, and in the lower register a man is shown behind

no. 272, pls. D, 109. 177 Anatolian civilisations II, 60; Neumann 1997. 178 F. Naumann 1983, 297, no. 31 (with further references); Hiller 1975, 62–63, 167–169, no. O 23, pl. 13.

56

chapter one

a cart drawn by horses. The woman is to be interpreted as a goddess, because of the wings, the polos and the lion, but the goddess is different from the Phrygian Matar as she is not standing frontally, she has long loose hair, wings and no veil. The figure might be of East Greek origin, since it shows clear Greek affinities in the dress for example.179 We here meet a more hellenized version of Matar, which can also be observed in the relationship between the lion and the goddess. In true Phrygian images the lions are seen as part of nature; they are still wild beasts, dominated by the Mother Goddess, but without being suppressed. In the Hamidiye stele, the lion has been transformed into a small harmless animal, held by the goddess as if it were a domesticated animal and not a wild lion. The third image is a statuette of a seated goddess from Takmaköy, close to Eskiâehir, dated to the end of the 6th or beginning of the 5th century BC. The goddess, interpreted as the Mother Goddess, holds a hare in her lap with one hand, and in the other hand what has been suggested to be a pomegranate or perhaps a rose. At the short side of her throne, between its legs, there is a seated lion.180 Unfortunately, neither the head nor the other side of the throne are preserved. This image has several features more closely related with the East Greek images of Kybele than with the Phrygian images of Matar, as she is represented as a seated goddess and the lion is a harmless companion seated next to the throne as on the Greek images. Further, the presence of an innocent animal such as the hare has parallels in Greece, with images of different goddesses and korai holding animals such as hares, doves etc.181 These two latter representations are examples of how the Phrygian images have come under Greek influence and the original Phrygian attend-

ing lion has been reduced to a humble companion, or rather an object, functioning as an attribute.

179 Hiller (1975, 62ff, 135) regards the grave stele to be an East Ionian work, but ordered by a Phrygian man, explaining its unusual picture theme. Stylistically the work is Ionian or at least is made under Ionian influence, for example the chiton, the hair, the polos, the manner of holding the lion and the standing position of the goddess, but the underlying theme or motive is proof of Phrygian consciousness. 180 F. Naumann 1983, 122–124, 300, no. 47, pl. 15:2–3. 181 There is, for example, a female statue from the sanctuary of Hera at Samos, dated to 575–550 BC, represented with a hare in her left hand, and another female statue found at Miletos, dated to c. 550 BC, holds a bird (‘partridge’) in her hand (Richter 1968, nos. 56–57, figs. 186–193). An upper female torso from the surroundings of

Alanya represents a woman holding a pomegranate in her left hand and a bird in her right. Unfortunately the head of the bird is missing, but the body of the bird indicates that it is an innocent bird rather than a predatory bird (F. IâÌk 1998, figs. 1–6). 182 A double idol appears on the Sincan stele (Fig. 115), and a single idol on the mini-stele from BoÅazköy (Fig. 113). A stele with a single idol was found in situ inside the city gate chamber at Kerkenes DaÅ (Summers et al. 2003, 13, figs. 16–17; G. & F. Summers forthcoming). A double idol at Faharet Çeâme outside Ankara might originally have been part of a stele (Fig. 114). At the lower part of the bastion of BoÅazköy is an idol made in relief (Fig. 106). Stone figurines of idols have been found at Seyitömer Höyük, at Gordion and at BoÅazköy. For references see above, nn. 14, 17.

7.3. Images of Idols Idols are schematically simplified images of the human body. Depicted is the head, usually in the shape of a circular disc, placed directly on a rectangular body. Legs and arms are not depicted. Rock-cut idols appear both as single reliefs cut straight out of the rock wall or as part of step monuments, situated above the steps. Idols also appear on stelae, in one case on a stone block of a city wall, or made as separate stone figurines.182 Two step monuments at FÌndÌk, Nos. 42 (Fig. 61) and 43 (Figs. 63 and 127), have been interpreted as having representations of idols above the steps. However, as discussed earlier (see pp. 46–47), because of the heavy erosion we are inclined to see shapes in the rock which cannot be confirmed as the original cutting or shape. We will therefore exclude these two monuments from the discussion. The stepmonument at Tekören, No. 100, has also been excluded as it is uncertain whether it had a single idol above the steps or not (see p. 47). The most common type is the single-headed idol but there are several double-headed idols, so-called double idols. A few idols are something between two single idols and a double idol, such as No. 80 (Fig. 82), which has two single idols, each with its own body, but combined together with a common hair lock. Step monument No. 44 likewise appears to have two very eroded single idols of equal size situated next to each other. Whether they also once had a common hair lock cannot be determined today because of erosion. They have no visible signs of any hair. In a few cases we have several single idols of equal size

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

57

Table 14. Iconographical features of idols

Single idols Double idols Idols made next to each other Hair Neck Straight shoulders Pointed shoulders Sloping shoulders Concave body sides

Cat. No.

Amount

46?, 49, 55, 62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86a-b, 87a-d, 93, 94, 97 70, 72, 80, 95, 98? 44?, 55, 71 & 72; 86a-b, 87a-d 55, 70, 72, 80, 95 46?, 55, 95, 98 44?, 46?, 62, 63, 65, 71, 83, 87d 84 66, 82, 86a-b, 87b, 87c, 93 49, 63, 71, 72, 83

21 5 5 groups 5 4 8 1 7 5

There are a few cases where it cannot be determined whether there is an idol or not, such as with Nos. 42, 43 and 100; these have therefore not been included in the table. To be regarded as a single idol, it cannot have a shared body, or a hair lock shared with the idol at its side.

made separately, but placed next to each other in a row, as with Nos. 86 a-b, and 87a-d (Fig. 88). In one case, No. 55 (Fig. 66), we have three idols of different sizes made together, separate in the sense that they have their own body and hair, but their bodies are overlapping. There is only one confirmed case of a freestanding single idol situated above a step monument (No. 93); all other single idols are made in relief against a rock wall, sometimes above a step monument, such as No. 84 and probably No. 46. There is also at least one unpublished step monument of this type at FÌndÌk.183 However, most single idols are made without an accompanying step monument.184 Double idols, on the other hand, are more frequently connected with step monuments; there is only one rock-cut double idol not associated with a step monument. We should here, however, note that neither of the two reliefs with images of double idols from Ankara (Sincan and Faharet Çeâme) was part of a step monument (Figs. 114–115).185 A couple of the step monuments with double idols, Nos. 70 and 95 (Figs. 80d, 90a and 136), carry an inscription, while no single rock-cut idol has so far been found with an inscription.186

7.3.1. Features of the Head and the Body The head is usually circular or almost circular and usually placed directly on the body, without a neck. At two monuments short necks are shown; the double idol No. 95 (Fig. 90) has short necks, and of the three idols situated together at the Köhnüâ valley, No. 55 (Fig. 66), at least the two smaller idols have visible necks. Two circular heads at step monument No. 98 (Fig. 133) have unusually long necks, but here no remains of a body can be seen, which might be because of the eroded state of the relief. We may assume that the heads were part of a double idol in accordance with other step monuments, but it is also possible that the heads belonged to two single idols placed next to each other. There are no facial features marked on any of the rock-cut idols, in contrast to some of the idol figurines from Gordion, BoÅazköy and Seyitömer Höyük, which have nose, eyes and mouth marked.187 The majority of those idols, however, lack facial features. The majority of idols are made without hair; hair is represented only on idols at six reliefs, five of which are double idols, and the sixth, No. 55, is the one from the Köhnüâ valley with the three idols made together. There is no single

183 Tamsü 2004, 73, no. 60, pl. 96. A second possible idol has also been reported by Tamsü (2004, 89–81, no. 80, pl. 125). She has also identified a third idol of this type, next to No. 46 (see cat. entry; Tamsü 2004, 75, no. 64, pl. 104). The remains are, however, too eroded to allow the identification of an idol. There is further one possible unpublished double idol made in relief above a step monument at FÌndÌk (Tamsü 2004, 80, no. 78, pl. 122). 184 In addition to these, there are also a few unpublished single idols at FÌndÌk (T.T. & H. Sivas 2003, 9, pl. 11,

fig. 1, marked as nos. I 1–I 5 on the map, pl. 10). 185 See above, n. 13. 186 There is one small idol figurine from Gordion, carrying an inscription on the body (Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 154, no. G-178, pl. 84:1). 187 Boehmer 1972, nos. 1892, 2147, 2160, pls. 67, 79, 81; Prayon 1987, nos. 57, 59, 71, pl. 16g,h; Kohler 1995, 23–24, no. TumB 33, pl. 12H, I; Topbaâ 1993, fig. 7; Topbaâ 1994, fig. 12:2–3.

58

chapter one

idol, from the Highlands or elsewhere, represented with hair. We can here make an interesting observation; in one case we have one single idol placed next to a double idol, Nos. 71 and 72 (Fig. 81), where the single idol is made without hair, while the double idol does have hair. The same principle appears to have also been applied to idols found outside the Highlands; the two other known double idols (Faharet Çeâme and Sincan, Figs. 114–115), both from Ankara, are made with hair.188 Thus, all double idols are depicted with hair. The only exception might be No. 98, but, as discussed above, we cannot determine for sure that we here have a double idol since the body is missing. It is also possible that no hair can be seen today because of erosion, since it is even difficult to see the outlines of the idols. The hair is executed in the same fashion on all idols, as a single or double scroll following the outline of the head, and at the sides just above the shoulders it ends with an outward turning curl. In a few cases the relief is too badly eroded to determine whether there was a curl or not. In all cases where it can be confirmed, the hair locks are not shown separately for each head of a double idol, but they unite the two heads (for example, see Figs. 80–82 and 114–115). The hair lock follows the contour of the outer sides and upper parts of the heads, but the lower part between the two heads has no hair. The idols of No. 80 (Fig. 82) have separate bodies, but are united with a combined hair lock, as with the double idols. We should further note that the hairstyle is the same for both heads, i.e. there is no indication of gender concerning the rendering of the hair. The body shape is rectangular, of different heights. In only one case, No. 98, can no body be confirmed, perhaps because of erosion. The sides of the body are usually straight and parallel. In five cases, idols are provided with inward curving concave lines, as if to indicate a waist or perhaps to accentuate the shoulders. This phenomenon appears on both single and double idols, for example on Nos. 71 and 72 (Fig. 81).

On two idols, Nos. 86a-b (Fig. 88), the sides of the body narrow towards the base. Shoulders are either straight or slightly sloping. In one case, No. 84, the shoulders are accentuated by being pointed upwards (Fig. 87) as also found on two idols from BoÅazköy (Fig. 113).189 These idols, both the rock-cut one and the figurines, are well made and there is no doubt that accentuating the shoulders in this manner was intentional. Besides the upward-pointed shoulders, there are also some idols, like No. 49, which have rounded features, best described as bolsters, in the position of shoulders. I have, elsewhere, discussed these features and suggested that they represent locks of hair.190 These locks of hair are further discussed below, see p. 159. In one case, No. 87a (Fig. 88), there is no distinction between the body and the head. The other three idols on its right side have cuttings marking shoulders and necks, and we may assume that this idol, the last one in the row, was left unfinished. The outlines of the idol were made in a preliminary phase. A similar-looking figure, where merely the outlines have been incised in rather shallow lines, can be found on the back or north-eastern side of the rock with the Unfinished Monument, No. 34,191 and we may assume this cutting was also intended as a rock-cut idol, but left unfinished in a similar manner to No. 87a. The apparently unfinished state of these two idols indicate that idols were made by first giving them outlines suggestive of a rounded stele, and then carving the shoulders. Such a technique is confirmed by the fact that most idols do not really have necks, but the head is placed directly upon the body. All idols, except No. 62, are made without a base, No. 62 (Fig. 129) has at the bottom part of the body what may be interpreted as a small base protruding a few centimetres on each side.192

188 The double idol at Faharet Çeâme has visible hair locks, best preserved between the heads, as a thick scroll (Fig. 114). These, however, have not been indicated on the drawing by Naumann but can be seen on the photographs. The geometric pattern on the body of the right idol is also not recorded correctly; the thick frame surrounding the pattern has been omitted. Compare the photograph in Prayon (1987, pl. 15c) with the drawing by F. Naumann (1983, pl.

9f). The double idol from Sincan has well preserved locks of hair, see Metin & AkalÌn 2000, pls. 4–5; here Fig. 115. 189 Boehmer 1972, no. 2144A, pl. 78; Prayon 1987, no. 183, fig. 26b, pl. 35b. 190 Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming b. 191 Berndt 2002, 18, fig. 22, no. 6. 192 The base is not indicated on the drawing by Sivas (1999a, pl. 122b); here Fig. 71.

7.4. Conclusions Nine façades have or once had a rock-cut image of Matar in the doorway. In at least one case

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

59

Table 15. Various rock-cut features associated with all types of rock-cut monuments

Platform Steps Bench/podium Shelf/ledge Base/pedestal Bosses Cup-mark/circular hollow Rectangular or square basin/hollow Niche

Catalogue No.

Amount

1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 15, 17, 18, 25, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 84, 85, 86, 87, 97, 108 1, 13, 15, 84 48, 62, 67, 70, 81–83, 108 7, 19, 39, 40, 65, 66, 82 9, 14, 17, 69 53, 67, 76, 84, 86, 87, 92, 111 1, 24, 31, 44, 52, 68, 70, 73, 84, 85, 89, 109

30 4 6 7 4 8 sets 12

62, 64, 77, 95–96, 99, 100

6

1, 9, 16, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, 43, 46, 56, 67, 69, 71–72, 74, 81–83, 84

18

The platforms given in the table refer to platforms other than those found below the steps of a step monument. The steps given in the table refer to steps other than the ones belonging to a step monument. The ledges given in the table refer to those other than the ones of a shaft. Hollows situated inside niches are not listed in the table, see Table 6 for these. The niches refer to additional niches made in association with façades, step monuments and idols.

she is not depicted in the doorway. She always appears as standing, facing the viewer, and in all images where it can be determined, she wears a polos with a veil fastened beneath, which in the Highlands hangs down both sides and is not tucked into the belt, in contrast to the images from central Phrygia and the eastern Phrygian periphery where the veil is tucked into the belt at one side. Thus, two different iconographical images of Matar exist. The images are too badly destroyed by erosion to determine any attributes she might have held. At Arslankaya, No. 16, she is attended by two lions, and in one or two more cases she was possibly accompanied by unidentifiable figures. Lions also flank the step monument at Karahisar, No. 108. The rock-cut idols are very simplified forms of the human body, consisting of a circular head and rectangular body, in a few cases with a neck. There are no facial features nor any clear indications of gender. The shoulders can be straight, sloping or pointing upwards. Straight and upward-pointing shoulders are usually found on idols that are made with more care, whereas sloping shoulders are usually found on the more crudely made idols. A double idol consist of two heads and one body. Both heads are identical, and they always have hair, while single idols are usually without.

The hair always combines the two heads of a double idol. Double idols are further usually associated with step monuments, while single idols are in general not. Inscriptions occur only with double idols.

8. Associated Rock-cut Features We will here examine the rock-cut features that appear in association with the four types of monuments, façades, niches, step monuments and idols. 8.1. Platform, Shelf, Podium, Bench, Base and Other Steps That the rock is levelled off into a plane surface, i.e. a platform, in front of a monument situated at ground level is hardly surprising. The façades usually have a levelled-off area, i.e. a platform, of varying size in front. Platforms or shelves in front of façades and niches were also necessary in order to make the monument; the rock wall had to be cut vertically straight, and at the same time they functioned as working platforms during the construction of the monument, as for example the ones in front of the Unfinished Monument, No. 34 (Figs. 56 and 125), and the Burmeç façade,

chapter one

60

No. 18 (Fig. 124). Two façades, Nos. 13 and 15 (Figs. 24 and 26), are also provided with steps in front. A couple of platforms are connected with the shaft of a shaft monument, Nos. 1 and 2 (Figs. 14a and 11a). There are further rock cuttings associated with Delikli Taâ, No. 1; on the right side of the façade there is a flight of steps that were once probably used as true steps, as suggested by their dimensions, and in front there are some rock-cuttings, perhaps indications of walls, but whether these are Phrygian or later is difficult to determine. Byzantine traces have, for example, been found at Delikli Taâ.193 They appear further not to be physically linked with the façade, since the area in front of the façade is sloping and scattered with outcrops of rocks. The step monuments situated on top of isolated rocks with a semicircular disc do not have a levelled-off area that can be described as a platform. The more monumental step monuments situated at ground level, perhaps partly for more natural reasons, have a levelled-off area in front. A couple of step monuments have raised platforms, for example No. 69, which has a platform above the steps and in front of the rock wall, where there is a small niche (Figs. 79 and 137). A platform made in connection with idols is situated either immediately below the idol or at ground level where the rock has been levelled for the purpose. No. 63 has a platform several metres above the ground (Fig. 70), which is big enough to stand on and probably functioned as a working platform during the cutting of the idol. However, it is rather difficult to reach and if it had been intended for frequent cult activities, then some adjustments may easily have been made to facilitate access. I am therefore inclined to interpret this platform as not made primarily for cult activities, but as a working platform for the cutting of the idol. The rock below No. 84 (Fig. 87) and in front and below idols Nos. 86a-b and 87a-d (Fig. 88) has been levelled into platforms at ground level. Both these platforms have bosses cut on top of them, and it is of course possible that the rock has been levelled only for the purpose of making the bosses. However, the levelled areas extend far beyond the area with the bosses, so it seems

193 194

Haspels 1971, 253–254. Ramsay 1882a, 41; Haspels 1971, 98 with n. 133;

that the rock was levelled into a flat area for other reasons as well. No. 84 has several steps in front, one roughly cut just below the idol. This step does not have the usual symmetry of steps belonging to step monuments, since the tread has a greater depth at one end. Below this step at an angle there are more neatly cut, although quite eroded, steps; the first step (the lowest) is situated just at the corner of the rock, facing a precipice in front. It is therefore difficult to see that they had a practical purpose, which is quite surprising, since they have the measurements of functional steps and give that impression. We should therefore consider the possibility that there might originally have been wooden stairs at right angles to the rock-cut steps, leading down to the platform below. Below the body of idol No. 65 (Fig. 67) is a shelf, only 9 cm deep and 36 cm wide, that has been interpreted as representing the lap of the idol.194 However, the shelf does not extend along the entire width of the idol; it ends at the left side in line with the body, but on the right side it is shorter than the body. If the shelf were indeed the lap of the idol we would expect it to extend along the entire body, and therefore we may look for another interpretation. It could have been used as a shelf to hold objects, or it had a symbolic value, perhaps recalling the steps of a step monument. There are two more idols, Nos. 82 (Fig. 85) and 66, which have what may be described as a ministep or shelf below their trunks. The step/shelf below No. 66, for example, measures only 6 cm in depth. This step was probably not intended to be used as a shelf since there is a larger platform immediately below it. The step/shelf below No. 82 is extremely small, more of a ridge than a shelf. Therefore these shelves/steps can hardly have had a practical function, i.e. as a shelf on which to put items, and we may rather interpret them as symbolic steps. There are also some rock-cut features, found together with step monuments or idols, which can best be described as rock-cut benches or podiums. They are all between 0.33 and c. 1 m in height, the length ranges between c. 1 and 2.3 m, and the depth between 0.35 and 0.95 m. In five cases the bench is made as part of a step monument, in four cases situated to the left

CCCA 1, no. 171.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

61

of the steps. No. 67 has on the left side a rockcut corner, where a raised platform or bench has been cut (Fig. 77).195 No. 68 has a similar construction with a raised small platform on the left side of the steps.196 This step monument is situated next to the entrance to Midas City, and at FÌndÌk we have a similarly placed step monument, No. 48 (Fig. 64); this one is also provided with a bench, here made in front instead of beside the steps, but both extend along the rock wall. The step monuments Nos. 70 (Figs. 80 and 136) and 108 (Fig. 95) have a similar construction. To the right is the ‘throne’ and to the left is the bench/podium. At No. 70 the steps continue into the left part, but are separated from the right throne part by being slightly elevated (see above, pp. 44–45). On top of the podium there are several circular depressions and along the front is a long inscription. The other monument, No. 108, has on top of the back wall above the podium two recumbent lions (?) sculpted from the rock. At the left corner of the bench there is a slightly elevated rectangular area and above this, at the same level as the lions, what appears to be a channel. This monument also carries an inscription, on the front of one of the steps of the right throne part. The fact that these two carry an inscription, as well as being large in scale and elaborately made, one with lions and the other with a nicely made double idol, tell us that they are more than ordinary step monuments. There are a few rock-cut features associated with the benches situated below idols, such as a rectangular hollow cut on top of the bench at No. 62 (Figs. 71 and 129), and a small niche above the short end of the bench at No. 82 (Fig. 85). These features indicate a form of activity, which will be discussed further below and in Chapter III. The small, usually square, bases found at four monuments (Nos. 9, 14, 17 and 69) are always duplicated, with one base in each corner or on each side of the niche. As suggested earlier these bases probably functioned as pedestals for smaller statues, which flanked a bigger one in the centre of the niche (see p. 27).

8.2. Bosses In front of some of the step monuments and idols there are rock-cut features best described as circular protruding objects, which I have chosen to refer to as bosses (see Fig. 131). They are made in the shape of a half sphere and are placed in groups of three, arranged as the corners of an equilateral triangle. They occur six times in relation with step monuments, Nos. 53, 111, 112 (Fig. 75), 67 (Figs. 77 and 131), 76 (Fig. 84), 84 (Fig. 87), and 92.197 No. 76 has only one preserved boss, of which a corner has been cut straight off in a later phase, probably together with the other two bosses. These groups of bosses are all placed in a similar relationship to the step monument, at its foot on the left or right side, providing free access to the monuments. At Demirli Köy there are two groups of three bosses and three step monuments (Fig. 75). One group is immediately to the left side of No. 53, and the other to the left side of No. 111, i.e there is one group of bosses situated between Nos. 112 and 53 and one group between Nos. 53 and 111. Either each group of bosses was associated with one step monument in particular, or, perhaps more likely, could be associated with either of the two step monuments on its left and right side. We can further note that there are three more step monuments, Nos. 89–91, situated to the left of No. 92 and it is possible that the bosses of No. 92 were related to all four monuments. However, as noted earlier, the rock below these step monuments has been worked into a roughly levelled surface, perhaps in a later period, and the rock where the three bosses are located is on the right side of No. 92, just outside this roughly levelled area; it is therefore possible that bosses related to the other three step monumenets existed originally, and were destroyed as a result of the levelling, if of course the levelling was done in a later period. In this context we should also note the three cup-marks placed in a similar fashion below step monument No. 68 (Fig. 78). These cup-marks are of similar dimensions as the bosses, and they are arranged as a triangle to the left of the stairs at ground level. The concept behind seems to be similar, except they are depressions instead of protrusions.

195 A somewhat similar construction can be found at a step monument close to the niche with Matar north of the village of KayÌhan. See above, n. 146. 196 The platform is not included in the drawing by

Haspels (1971, fig. 529.1), here Fig. 78, but does appear in the drawing by Ramsay (1889a, pl. 6). 197 There is also one set of three unpublished bosses at FÌndÌk (Tamsü 2004, 80–81, pl.125b).

chapter one

62

The bosses made in connection with idols are situated at a rock-cut platform below the idols. There are three bosses on the left side of the platform below No. 84 (Fig. 87), and at the platform below Nos. 86 and 87 there are two groups of three bosses, one group on each side of a natural crack dividing the platform in front of the idols (Fig. 88). Also at Midas City, there is an example of three bosses placed in an identical manner, as an equilateral triangle on a platform, but without an idol or step monument connected with them.198 They are located on top of the plateau, just by the edge next to where the fortification wall must once have been, because there are cuttings in the same rock indicating where the stone blocks of the wall were embedded.199 The bosses of No. 67 measure 0.3 m in diameter, those of No. 76 are 0.27 m in diameter, No. 84 are 0.18 m in diameter, No. 92 are 0.15 m in diameter, No. 53 are 0.2 m in diameter, No. 111 are about 0.4 m in diameter and those below Nos. 86–87 are 0.10—0.15 m in diameter. The cupmarks below No. 68 are c. 0.35 m in diameter. The bosses situated alone, close to the fortification wall, measure c. 0.35 m in diameter.200 As we can see, the diameter ranges between 0.1 and 0.4 m. The larger ones are found connected with the larger step monuments, and probably the size of the bosses was intentionally in accordance with the size of the monument. 8.3. Cup-marks and Basins The cup-marks are rounded at the bottom, like a bowl, which differentiates them from postholes and sockets. Some of the square holes or depressions listed in Table 15, namely the ones found at step monuments Nos. 64 and 77, are probably postholes. These postholes may be later than the monuments themselves. The basins are rectangular and have a flat bottom. Hollows inside niches have been discussed above (see pp. 25–28). There are thirteen areas with idols or step monuments that have associated cup-marks or basins. We should here note that in two cases where cup-marks occur, there is more than one step monument close by. At FÌndÌk there are three step monuments constructed next to each other, 198

Berndt 2002, 37. Haspels 1971, fig. 27 gives a good overview of the platform with the rock-cut traces of the fortification wall. The platform with the bosses is situated on top of these vestiges. See also Haspels 1971, 36; Berndt 2002, fig. 59. 199

Nos. 44–46, and the cup-mark is on top of the rock above the monument at the left, i.e. all three step monuments are situated to the right of this cup-mark. A similar placement can be observed at Midas City, where one cup-mark is on top of the rock to the left of No. 89, and all the step monuments here (Nos. 89–92) are situated to the right of this cup-mark. Cup-marks are usually made without a channel. One of the few examples of a cup-mark with a channel is the one next to the rock-cut platform below No. 84.201 This cup-mark is very well made, with thick, carefully executed side walls, and a small channel runs from the depression to the ground. These will be further discussed in Chapter III, pp. 183–185. In at least five cases we have more than one depression. At No. 68 (Fig. 78) there are three cup-marks arranged as a triangle, in a similar fashion to the bosses. On top of the podium of No. 70 are about seven artificial or natural circular depressions, of varying sizes. The biggest ones are probably man-made, but some of them might be natural formations. There are only a few recorded examples of a rectangular or square basin/hollow associated with a monument. No. 62 (Figs. 71 and 129) has a rectangular hollow on the bench at the left side of the idol. There is a rather small square depression next to step monument No. 96. Whether the larger basin situated immediately below the steps of No. 99 is contemporary with the monument is, however, doubtful. No other step monument has an arrangement like this, or of another kind, limiting free access to the steps. We may therefore consider this basin to be a later addition. According to Haspels’ plan, there is a rectangular depression with three rock-cut sides and a connecting channel on the platform next to the shaft of the Delikli Taâ, No. 1 (Fig. 14a).202 We should in this context also mention a rock-cut installation at Tekören, close to step monument No. 100, consisting of two connected basins. The larger basin is at a higher level and is connected to the lower basin by a circular cut hole. The purpose of this basin will be further discussed in Chapter III, pp. 189–190. Considering cup-marks and basins in general, 200

Berndt 2002, 37. This cup-mark is not indicated on the drawing by Sivas (1999a, pl. 118); here Fig. 87. 202 Haspels 1971, fig. 512. 201

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

63

Table. 16. Features of cup-marks and rectangular small basins

circular circular oblong circular circular circular rect. circular circular circular circular circular circular square rect. circular

D. 0.17 ?

? ?

-

D. 0.15–0.4 ? D. 0.7 0.3x0.3 D.c. 0.35 ? ? D. 0.15 ? ? ? ? D. c. 0.5

0.1–0.3 ? 0.68 c. 0.1 c. 0.15 ? ? 0.2 ? ? ? ? c. 0.5

1x x x?

31. 44. 52. 62. 68. 70 73. 84 85. 89. 96. 99. 109.

1 2 1 5 1 1 1 3 c. 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Below steps

1. 24.

Location

Above steps

Channel

Bench

Depth

Next to

Size

Below

Shape

Platform above shaft/ façade

Cat No. Amount

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

All measurements are in m. D. – diameter; rect. – rectangular.

both those at niches/façades and those at step monuments/idols, we can conclude that they appear more commonly in combination with step monuments and idols. There are no basins or rectangular hollows found in the environment of façades/niches. The only cup-marks associated with the façades are the ones situated above a shaft, and these must obviously have played a role related with the shafts. A similar placement above the façade is found at No. 109 close to Demirli Köy. A rather large circular depression is situated immediately above the gable of the niche. There is a rock-cut (?) opening or channel between the depression and the rock wall above the façade. The location of the depression, straight above the façade, indicates that there is a connection between them. The circular depressions below and in front of the Hyacinth Monument (No. 31, Fig. 55) may be cultic, but considering that they are placed in a row at almost equal intervals and at least three of them are partly cut into the rock wall behind them, as if to provide support for wooden beams, there is a possibility that they 203

Hemelrijk 1989, 727. See also Haspels 1971, 91.

are part of another, perhaps later, construction at this spot. Apparently step monuments and idols are part of settings with cult activities to a much higher degree than façades and perhaps also smaller niches. This matter will be discussed further in Chapter III. 8.4. Small Secondary Niches Several monuments of all types, i.e. façades, niches, step monuments and idols, have a small, rather insignificant niche associated with the monument. In a couple of cases (Nos. 16 and 30) the niche is rather large, but these are exceptions. The niche situated behind Arslankaya, No. 16, on the same outcrop of rock is possibly later as suggested by other scholars.203 The niche situated at the short end of the stoa next to the Midas Monument, No. 30 belongs to the stoa rather than being an accompanying niche of the façade. This niche together with the stoa will be discussed below, see pp. 65–66. In 16 cases, a small insignificant niche is

chapter one

64

Table 17. Niches associated with step monuments/idols and additional niches associated with façades/niches Cat. No.

Measurement of niche HxWxD

Shape of niche

Relation to monument

Niche accessible

1. 9. 16. 25. 30.

0.51x0.9x0.36 0.3x0.16x0.12 1.5x0.7x1.1 0.38x0.35x0.33 3.1/2.95x2.48x0.8

arched rectangular arched arched rectangular with slanting roof long and narrow circular long and narrow rectangular rectangular circular rectangular rectangular arched arched arched arched rectangular rectangular

platform above shaft at monument right side behind behind left side at short end of stoa

with ladder yes with ladder yes yes

right side c. 10 m left side around corner 10m around corner, right side above at monument, above. at monument right side at monument above steps around corner around corner next to bench at monument, at platform at monument right side behind above bench at right angle

hardly yes no no ? yes yes yes yes yes not today yes yes yes

31. 32. 33. 40. 43. 46. 56 67. 69. 71,72 74. 81, 82, 83 84.

0.2x0.17.0.08 diam 0.35, depth 0.25

0.45x0.47x0.18 0.35x0.16

0.14x0.14x0.06

found close to a larger, more elaborate monument. These niches generally have an obvious connection with the monument; the distance between the small niche and the ‘main’ monument is usually less than 0.5 m, but in a few cases the distance between them is several metres. The niche at No. 74 is a few metres behind the step monument, but incorporated into the same small rock enclosure as the monument itself, and they clearly belong to the same religious setting (Fig. 83). Whether the niche situated several metres around the corner of step monument No. 56 was connected with that step monument or not is more difficult to determine. Because of the size of this niche, considerably larger than other niches connected with specific monuments, and the greater distance, it is possible that there was no connection between them. There is probably also no connection between the niche situated around the corner from No. 32 considering its location. This niche is both unaccessible as it is situated several meters above ground and cannot be seen from the façade since it is around the

204

Haspels 1971, 94, n. 110.

corner. The niche could easily have been cut closer to the façade if the intention had been to make it serve as an accompanying niche to the façade. The small niche should rather be seen as a small separate monument. On each side of the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, there is a small niche, each at a distance of c. 10 m from the monument, and there is no obvious connection between them and the façade, especially for the circular niche which is situated around the corner on the left side. That niche is today 2 m above ground, it is hardly accessible and also has a different appearance from other niches; it may in fact not have functioned as a niche for religious purposes, since it is circular and very deep. The niches in Table 17, except Nos. 16 and 30, measure between 0.14 and 0.45 m in height and are very simply made, rectangular, arch-shaped or circular, completely without decoration, roughly cut, and some still with visible cutting marks. All of the niches lack a dowel hole. The niche next to Nos. 71–72, however, has at the bottom a cavity reported by Haspels.204 Regarding the

structural examination of the archaeological evidence measurements, the rectangular-shaped niches are smaller than the others, except for the one at No. 56. All are quite shallow, the depth corresponding with the other measurements, except for the circular niche at No. 31, mentioned above. We can here note that several of them are arch-shaped in contrast to the ‘main’ niches, which are always rectangular or, in one case, triangular. They are all accessible except the ones above/ next to Nos. 1 (Fig. 14a-b), 32, 33 and 71–72 (Fig. 81). However, we may assume that some kind of access to the niche of No. 1 was provided for, indicated by several features at the platform where the niche was situated. A ladder, for example, could have been used to reach the platform, from where also the shaft descends.205 The niche next to the idols of Nos. 71–72 was probably accessible during the Phrygian period, before the construction of the Roman arcosolion tomb beneath. Seven niches are located next to a step monument or idol, but two step monuments, Nos. 46 and 69 (Figs. 62 and 79), have a niche above the steps with the same characteristics as the other niches, being insignificant and rather small. They probably had a similar function, the only difference being that these two niches are situated above the steps, instead of being next to them. One is cut against a rock wall, while the other is cut into what may be the remains of an idol. Both niches are comparatively small in relation to the size of the monument. The niche of No. 69 is arch-shaped and on each side of the niche, on the platform in front, there is a small rock-cut base. Since step four here is made like a seat, the niche and the platform are actually placed behind the step monument. The platform is between 0.5 and 0.9 m wide, providing ample space for some activity here. The small niche of No. 46 is more problematic as it is cut into what appears to be the remains of an idol or less likely a semicircular disc. A similar arrangement cannot be found at any other idol or semicircular disc and we may consider the niche to be a later addition. However, there is nothing in the environment to indicate that this niche functioned as anything other than part of a sacred context. A solution may

205 The access to the shaft itself must have been via the platform. There are further cup-marks, channels and other hollows indicating some kind of activity at the platform. 206 Haspels 1971, 75. 207 Haspels 1971, 236 with n. 117.

65

be that this particular step monument changed its religious role at the time when the niche was cut. 8.5. Architectural Constructions Associated with Façades In front of a few monuments there are rockcut features indicating that some architectural installations were constructed in these areas. At the Midas Monument, No. 30, on the left side of the open area in front, there are foundations of a stoa, partly rock-cut and partly built (Figs. 50 and 52–53). In front of the niche at DeÅirmen Yeri (No. 26, Figs. 43–44) there was a rock-cut enclosure, either open to the sky or with a built roof. Immediately on the left side of the façade of the Midas Monument a 17 m long and c. 2.75 m wide stoa was constructed. The floor, side walls, part of the back wall and five rectangular bases were cut out of the living rock. At the short end next to the façade there is a niche with an inscription just below the sloping ceiling. The preserved rock-cut features indicate that the stoa must have been covered with a sloping roof (Fig. 50).206 The inclination of the roof is only 15 degrees. Obviously the five bases provided support for columns, which were presumably wooden. The rock-cut niches in the back wall, together with channels and hollows in the floor, are all to be dated to the Byzantine period, when the stoa was reused as a foundry, according to Haspels.207 Since the lower part of the stoa is today covered by soil, it is not possible to examine these features, but there is no reason to doubt her conclusions. It has been suggested that a similar stoa was also built on the other side of the façade.208 There are, however, no features to support this theory. It has been suggested that the rock-cut steps at the right end of the rock carrying the façade are linked with a second stoa.209 These steps may, however, be related to the cutting of inscription no. M-01b, which is situated at this level.210 The area in front of the stoa slopes towards the right side of the area in front of the façade and is c. 1.5 m lower at the right

208

Sivas 1999a, 57, pl. 23. See also Berndt 2002, 10,

fig. 14. 209

Sivas 1999a, 57. For inscription, see catalogue entry No. 30 or Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, no. M-01b. 210

chapter one

66

side.211 If a stoa had been constructed here, substructures would have been necessary, but there are no rock-cut features indicating any substructures; instead, the rock at the right corner below and beside the façade has not been cut away; this corner was later used in the Byzantine period to make a rock-cut room, which is at a lower level than the façade, a further indication that there was no earlier construction at this spot. In front of the Byzantine room, below where it has been suggested that there was a second stoa, there are some rectangular depressions measuring three-four metres in each direction (Fig. 52).212 These depressions have not been dated, but they might be connected with the Byzantine room. Even so, they do indicate that this area was not occupied by a Phrygian built stoa with substantial substructures. Thus, the area in front of the façade probably originally had only one stoa on its left side. The installation at DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26, unfortunately no longer survives. We have only the documentation by Haspels to use in our examination, which is not adequate, but we can nevertheless make some important observations. In front of the niche there was a rock-cut enclosure measuring roughly 2 x 3 m (see catalogue entry for exact measurements). Whether the area was covered by a roof originally is not possible to determine, but perhaps the cuttings on top of the two side blocks flanking the entrance into the courtyard were used in the spanning of a roof (Fig. 43b).213 We can, however, not exclude other possible functions of these cuttings. A huge stone block found in the middle of the courtyard, suggested by Haspels to be the lintel above the entrance,214 is proof that this installation was not only cut out of the living rock, but also consisted of built parts. Beside the niche there are three other openings in the walls surrounding the courtyard (Fig. 43b). The opening opposite the

211

See Gabriel 1965, pls. 24b and 27 for the slope in front. 212 Gabriel 1965, fig. 34, pl. 34b. 213 Sivas (1999a, 83) has suggested that a roof may have covered the courtyard. See her pl. 47 for a reconstruction drawing. 214 Haspels 1971, 86. 215 According to Haspels (1971, 86–87, n. 64) the groove is post-Phrygian. 216 There is no geometric decoration indicated on the plans, and the photographs are unfortunately quite dark in these spots, but they appear to be undecorated. See e.g. fig. 160 and the part of the wall lit by the sun in fig. 165 (Haspels 1971, figs. 521, 160, 165). Haspels (1971,

niche was doubtless the entrance to the courtyard. The opening in the wall at the right side is almost one metre wide, approx. 0.15 m above the floor of the courtyard. The opening in the wall at the left is narrower, c. 0.38 m wide, and appears to be attached to a roughly cut groove made in the floor of the courtyard. This groove and the circular hole at the bottom of the niche possibly date to the same period,215 and may indicate a later reuse of the monument, perhaps for another purpose. Haspels did not comment on whether these openings in the left and right walls are to be considered original or not. None of the surfaces inside the openings appear to carry any geometric pattern, but that cannot be determined for sure.216 There are, however, other indications that these openings belonged to the original plan; the dimensions of the block flanking the south side of the opening in the left wall are almost identical to those of its counterpart flanking the opening in the right wall, and the surfaces inside the openings are smoothed on both blocks.217 We may therefore suggest that the openings in both the left and right side walls were original; however, they both show signs of erosion and perhaps later reworking. The right opening appears to have a neat rock-cut channel along the northern side, possibly also original.218 The plan may appear to be somewhat irregular, but a closer examination allows some observations that to some extent explain the outline of the plan. We will begin by examining the opening in the right side wall, which has the exact width and location to allow, at least in theory, the rising sun on the vernal equinox and autumnal equinox to reach the wall with the niche, since the outer corner of the right stone block and the inner corner of the northern face of the opening are on an exact west-east line (see Fig 111).219 Furthermore, the opening has

87) notes that the two side blocks were decorated on the outside, but she does not mention any decoration on the sides facing the openings, so they probably did not have any decoration here. 217 See Haspels 1971, figs. 160–162 and 164–165, where these areas appear to have been cut and smoothed; these areas are also indicated as cut on the plan, fig. 521; here Fig. 43b. 218 See Haspels 1971, figs. 520:4 (here Fig. 44) and 164. 219 We have to consider the possibility that some physical hindrance such as trees, mountains etc., could have blocked the way for the rising sun.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence exactly the width needed to light up by the rising sun only the niche, and no other part of the wall, at two certain days between the vernal and autumnal equinox (Fig. 111). During the period between the autumnal and vernal equinox, no sunlight would enter through the opening in the right side wall. The opening in the left side wall is considerably narrower than that at the right, and it is not wide enough to let the setting sun through, at least during the summer half-year. The niche must, however, during the entire year have been lit by the sun through the entrance opposite the niche, as long as the entrance was sufficiently high and not closed. Thus, we may suggest that the openings in both side walls are planned in accordance with the solar year. We can make one more observation regarding the layout. The niche is situated exactly in the centre of the back wall, while the shaft is not placed directly behind the niche, but instead located c. 17 cm to the right of centre. On the other hand, the shaft is exactly in the centre in relation to the entrance/front wall (see Fig. 112). We can speculate on possible explanations for these placements, and perhaps the oblique position of the right side wall, which does not form a right angle with the front wall, as the left side wall does, was a consequence of the positions of the niche and the shaft not being in harmony with each other. One explanation might be that the shaft was initially made according to an original plan, where it was intended that both side walls form right angles with the back wall, but for some reason this plan was abandoned, and the niche was made according to a later plan. Altering a plan during work in progress may be a consequence of incorrect cutting or the rock cracking in a non-desirable manner. We may consider other reasons as well; perhaps it was not suitable to make a shaft directly behind the niche because of the shape of the rock, or perhaps the fact that the shaft is situated exactly in the centre in relation to the entrance is just a coincidence. 8.6. Conclusions A rock-cut bench or podium usually occurs together with either idols or step monuments without a semicircular disc.

220

Manning et al. 2001, 2534.

67

Bosses always occur in groups of three arranged as a triangle. They can be found with both idols and step monuments. The bosses are always placed below the monument at ground level; they are next to the steps, never in front, providing free access to the monument. Cup-marks or other hollows are usually made in connection with idols or step monuments, but four façades also have cup-marks and other hollows. Two of the façades are shaft monuments, where the cup-marks are located at the platform, from where the shaft descends. A few cup-marks or hollows have a cut channel. Small insignificant niches are found associated with façades, idols and step monuments with and without semicircular discs. The majority of façades and step monuments with a semicircular disc, however, lack this small niche. Two monuments have a kind of architectural space connected with the façade; in one case, at the Midas Monument No. 30, this was a partly rock-cut, partly built stoa, and the other façade, DeÅirmen Yeri No. 26, had a rock-cut enclosure in front, possibly with a built construction at the upper part, and perhaps roofed. The layout of this installation suggests that it was carefully planned according to the solar year.

9. Inscriptions 9.1. Introduction The Phrygian texts are divided into Palaeo-Phrygian and Neo-Phrygian, according to the script. The Palaeo-Phrygian inscriptions are written using the Phrygian script, basically the same as the Greek alphabet, but with some additional characters. The earliest inscriptions that can today be firmly dated are the ones from Tumulus MM at Gordion, dated after 740 BC.220 This script was in use at least until the 4th century BC. No Phrygian inscriptions are known from the last three centuries BC and the 1st century AD. Inscriptions in Phrygian from the 2nd century AD are written with the Greek script and are known as Neo-Phrygian inscriptions.221 The corpus of Palaeo-Phrygian texts collected by Brixhe and Lejeune was published in 1984, after which several additional Palaeo-Phrygian

221

Brixhe 1993.

68

chapter one

Table 18. Correspondence between the catalogue numbers and Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes Catalogue number

Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes

The Midas Monument, No. 30 Step monument at Midas City, No. 69 Step monument at Midas City, No. 70 The Broken Monument, No. 33 Step monument at Midas City, No. 95 The Areyastis Monument, No. 37 Kümbet façade, No. 29 Arslankaya, No. 16 Step monument at Köhnüâ valley, No. 56 Mal Taâ, No. 24 Façade at FÌndÌk, No. 5 Niche at FÌndÌk, No. 3 Niche at Germanos, No. 40 Step monument at Karahisar, No. 108 Step monument at Demirli, No. 112

nos. M-01a-f no. M-03 no. M-04 no. M-05 no. M-06 nos. W-01a (I-III), b-c no. W-02 no. W-03 no. W-04 nos. W-05a-b no. W-06 no. W-07 no. B-01 no. P-06 --

inscriptions have appeared. These have, with a few exceptions, been collected and published as Supplements by Brixhe.222 The majority of Palaeo-Phrygian texts contain only one word and appear mainly as graffiti on pottery from Gordion. Texts of some length are the rock-cut inscriptions, probably exclusively of a religious nature and most of these are associated with façades or step monuments. Since most of them are more or less weathered, the transcription itself can pose a problem. Since no bilingual text of some length exists,223 the Phrygian language is basically not well understood. It is an Indo-European language, with Greek generally regarded as the most closely related language. However, both Hittite and Luwian personal names can be found in the inscriptions. 224 Place names of Hittite origin also appear to have been used in Phrygian periods.225

Several scholars have been and are working on the Phrygian language and the rock-cut inscriptions have especially been the object of several attempts at translation. Unfortunately the translations are many times quite divergent, and there is little agreement among the scholars. For a non-philologist like myself, it is difficult to evaluate the different translations. My intention when analysing the inscriptions has been to examine them in relation to the monument on which they are inscribed, and not to separate them from their archaeological context, which has often not been considered in relation to the inscriptions. The inscriptions are referred to by the numbers used by Brixhe and Lejeune in their corpus. The inscriptions are cited in my catalogue under their respective monuments.

222 Brixhe 2002b; Brixhe 2004; Brixhe 1989–90. For inscriptions not included in these supplements, see Brixhe & Sivas 2002; Brixhe & Sivas 2003. In addition to these several Phrygian inscriptions and graffiti have been excavated at Kerkenes DaÅ since 2003. These will be published by Cl. Brixhe in Kadmos (in press). Some of the inscriptions have been published with photographs, see Summers et al. 2003, figs. 11, 13; Summers et al. 2004, fig. 11 or their web page http://www.metu.edu.tr/home/wwwkerk/. Three inscriptions suggested to be Phrygian have been reported from Karkamià and Hama (Börker-Klähn 1994; Börker-Klähn 1998). A possible Phrygian inscription has

also been reported from Tavium (Strobel & Gerber 2001). See also Gusmani 2001 for a general overview of inscriptions that have appeared in recent years. 223 There is a very short bilingual text in Phrygian and Aramaic from Gordion (Brixhe & Lejenue 1984, no. G-157). The stele from Vezirhan has both a Phrygian and a Greek inscription; these, however, are not identical and the Greek inscription is probably a later addition (Neumann 1997). 224 E.g. tuvatis and mamutas (Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, nos. G-133, G-229). See also Neumann 1988, 17; Brixhe 1993, 339; Neumann 1995, 135. 225 Neumann 1988, 17–18.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence 9.2. Placement of the Inscriptions In this section we will study the inscriptions purely from an archaeological point of view, their position in relation to the monument itself, and then we will discuss whether or not the inscription is contemporary with the monument. 9.2.1. Façades and Niches The monuments with inscriptions in this category are all façades, except for one niche at FÌndÌk and one at Germanos. This is hardly surprising because a large monument such as a façade required more financial resources than a simple niche and could hardly have been made without well-planned organization. In many cases their strategic location indicates that they were meant to be seen by a lot of people. In such a context it is natural to find dedicatory inscriptions, as a kind of manifestation. There are seven larger façades lacking inscriptions; these are the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31; the Unfinished Monument, No. 34; Büyük KapÌ Kaya, No. 17; Küçük KapÌ Kaya, No. 15; Burmeç, No. 18; Bahâayiâ, No. 28 and Delikli Taâ, No. 1. We cannot exclude the possibility that the Hyacinth Monument once had an inscription above the gable field, but today that part has disappeared because of erosion (Fig. 54a); Büyük KapÌ Kaya may also have had an inscription above the niche, again no longer visible because of erosion (Fig. 28). The other four probably never had an inscription. The Unfinished Monument and the Burmeç façade probably lacked inscriptions because of their unfinished state. There are four larger façades with inscriptions, three of which have more than one each, and three smaller façades, each with one inscription. The Midas Monument, No. 30, has three public inscriptions, of which two are related to the façade and one to the adjoining niche/stoa, and four graffiti; the Areyastis Monument, No. 37, has three inscriptions; Arslankaya, No. 16, has one inscription; Mal Taâ, No. 24, two or maybe three inscriptions. Smaller façades with inscriptions are the Broken Monument, No. 33, the Kümbet façade, No. 29, and the FÌndÌk façade, No. 5. At FÌndÌk there is also a niche, No. 3, with an inscription. At Germanos there is a long inscription with a rather insignificant niche, No. 40.

226

Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 47, no. W-05.

69

The inscriptions associated with the larger façades are in different spots. The most common location for an inscription of a façade is on the rugged rock above the gable field, i.e. on the unworked or very roughly trimmed part of the rock next to the monument but not part of the monument itself. For such a placement, see inscription no. M-01a of the Midas Monument (Fig. 50), nos. W-01b, W-01aII, and W-01aIII of the Areyastis Monument (Fig. 47), no. M-05 of the Broken Monument (Fig. 42), no. W-02 of the Kümbet façade (Fig. 31), and no. W-06 of the FÌndÌk façade. These inscriptions can be divided into two groups, one of which comprises the inscriptions on the rugged or roughly trimmed rock above, but not in physical contact with the pediment, such as inscriptions nos. M-01a (Midas Monument), W-01b (Areyastis Monument), and W-02 (Kümbet façade). The inscriptions in the other group are more closely related with the façade and the gable field itself, as these are placed immediately above the triangular gable field, using its main rafters for the bottom lines for the text, and the rock is smoothed to create a plaquette for the inscriptions, as in inscriptions nos. W-01aIII, W-01aII, M-05, and W-06. Inscription no. W-02 at the Kümbet façade is something in between the two since the rock has been smoothed, forming a sort of plaquette, not attached to the façade (Fig. 31). Another common location for inscriptions on façades and niches is on the tie-beam above the façade, as in inscriptions nos. W-01aI (Areyastis Monument, Fig. 47), W-03 (Arslankaya, Fig. 27a), and W-06 (the FÌndÌk façade). A fourth location for inscriptions is on the side posts or next to them, where the inscriptions are written vertically, as in nos. M-01b (Midas Monument, Fig. 50), W-01c (Areyastis Monument, Fig. 47) and W-05a (Mal Taâ, Fig. 33). Inscriptions can also appear on the lintel/frame above the niche, as with inscriptions nos. W-05b (Mal Taâ), W06 and W-07, the latter two at FÌndÌk. Gabriel reported an inscription below the niche of Mal Taâ; this, however, could not be confirmed by Brixhe and Lejeune.226 Inscription no. M-01f is placed inside the niche of the stoa associated with the Midas Monument, following the outline of the three sides of the niche, along the ceiling. Inscriptions can also be found inside the central

chapter one

70

niche of the Midas Monument (nos. M-01c and M-01d). These, however, are not public inscriptions, but graffiti, and no. M-01e, situated below the geometric decoration of the monument, may also be graffiti. We should here note that the Midas Monument is the only monument with inscriptions of graffiti character. At Germanos, the long inscription no. B-01 is the main focus, occupying a larger area than the rather small and insignificant niche above and to the left. The niche appears to be of subordinate importance to the inscription. We can conclude that there are a few preferred spots for the inscriptions, such as above the gable field, on the horizontal tie-beam and down the side posts. Of crucial importance, in order both to understand the significance of the inscription in relation to the monument and for the dating of these monuments, is whether the inscriptions are contemporary with the monuments or not. As recently discussed by Börker-Klähn, the building method of the façades can help us to understand the chronological relationship between the inscriptions and the façades.227 Since there are no rock-cut holes or other traces of scaffolding, the façades must have been made without scaffolding, as also proved by unfinished examples of façades. The unfinished façades, such as Nos. 34 and 18 (Figs. 124–125), demonstrate that the work began at the top, using the uncut rock as a working platform, and proceeded towards the bottom of the façade. Using such a building method without the use of scaffolding, the inscriptions could hardly have been made after the façades were completed, at least the ones situated as high up as above the pediment or at the tie-beam. The Areyastis Monument, No. 37, provides us with further evidence that the inscriptions are contemporary with the façades. This façade, as discussed earlier, is unfinished and the inscriptions should therefore be contemporary with the façade, since it would not make much sense to add inscriptions to an unfinished monument at a later date. It is further worth noting that at this façade there is a huge trimmed area below the tie-beam and between the side posts, which would have been the most suitable place for the inscriptions; however, this area is left empty

227

Börker-Klähn 2000b.

(see Fig. 47) and the inscriptions are made at the same spots as on the other façades, a further indication that they were made at the same time as the upper part of the façade. The empty field in the middle was most likely intended for a large niche, but the work at the façade was interrupted before that niche was made (for a further discussion see pp. 34–35, 79–80). A newly found inscription at Midas City may also be evidence of this working method,228 i.e. a façade was cut from top to bottom. In this case has only the inscription or a part of it been completed, there are no traces of a building façade. The slanting one-line inscription is cut at the upper part of the rock giving the impression that it was intended to be situated above the sloping right part of a pediment. The rock above the inscription is untrimmed while the rock below the inscription has been trimmed as if to prepare for a façade that was never cut. 9.2.2. Step Monuments Inscriptions occur with step monuments only in six cases, four of these on step monuments of considerable size. Step monuments Nos. 70 (Figs. 80d and 136) and 108 (Fig. 95a), with inscriptions nos. M-04 and P-06, are similar in their construction, consisting of a podium part and a throne part. Step monuments Nos. 69 (Figs. 79a and 137) and 56 (Fig. 73), with inscriptions nos. M-03 and W-04, are similarly made against a rock wall and each consists of three flights of steps. The inscriptions here further underline that these step monuments probably had a public character. The fifth step monument, No. 112 (Fig. 75), is also rather large, measuring more than two meters in width. The monument only has one step but there is an additional rock-cut surface on each side of this step. The sixth step monument, No. 95 (Fig. 90a), with inscription no. M-06, differs in character from the other five, which are larger and more prominently situated. This monument has only one step, above which is a semicircular disc with a relief of a double idol, and it stands on top of Midas City among the outskirts of rocks bordering the plateau. The majority of step monuments have no inscriptions, and there are none at all on the type consisting of only a plain, standing semicir-

228

Brixhe & Sivas 2003, 70–71, figs. 6–7.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence cular disc at the top and steps below. Idols not associated with step monuments also have no inscriptions.229 We should further note that the step monuments at Dümrek, north of Gordion, and at FÌndÌk completely lack inscriptions. The step monuments with inscriptions appear to have only one inscription each. Whether the inscription no. M-06 is one statement or two, however, cannot be determined.230 Inscriptions related to step monuments appear at four different spots; on the vertical rock wall behind the step monument, on the vertical rock above the podium/bench, on one of the risers or treads of the steps. The two step monuments Nos. 69 and 56 have their inscriptions, nos. M-03 and W-04, on the rock wall behind and above the steps (Figs. 73, 79 and 137). This places the inscriptions high up, making them more visible, and it was also possible to make the inscriptions larger in size than if they had been inscribed on the smaller steps. Inscription no. M-03 follows a natural crack in the rock wall very much in the same way as inscriptions nos. M-01a and W-01b, above the Midas Monument and the Areyastis Monument respectively, following the untrimmed rock above the monument. The other inscription, no. W-04, begins directly above the right corner of the central flight of stairs in front (Fig. 73). This inscription is not too well planned considering that the last word, or the end of it, had to be made on a separate line below since there was not enough space left on the upper line. Furthermore, the inscription is not made in a straight line, which could easily have been done since the rock here had been worked into a nicely smoothed rectangular wall. In two cases, nos. M-06 and P-06, the inscription is placed on the riser of a step. Inscription no. M-06 (Fig. 90a) could hardly have been placed elsewhere, but at monument No. 108 (Fig. 95a) there is a podium at the left side, which could have been used in a similar way as for the fifth inscription, no. M-04, which is inscribed on the vertical rock above the podium/bench on the left side of the ‘throne’ part (Fig. 80d). This is the inscription that best harmonizes with the monument itself and appears to be a deliberately 229 There is one idol figurine from Gordion carrying an inscription on the body, see Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, no. G-178.

71

planned element of the monument, with a specific space reserved for it. The inscription is neatly made in two lines and uses the entire space of the vertical rock above the podium of the left flank of the monument. It is of course possible that this area was empty at the beginning and later used for an inscription. However, considering the well used space, it seems more likely that it was part of the original plan. One monument, No. 112 (Fig. 75), has the inscription placed on the tread of the single step. Such a position prevented the inscription from being read from any other position than immediately in front of the step where you had to look down on it from above. Such a position is in contrast to all other known inscriptions on both step monuments and façades/niches, which are all read by looking up to the monument. However, as discussed earlier the unusual horizontally positioned semicircular disc at this monument, likewise forced you to look down in order to see its shape (see pp. 44, 46). This solution was probably necessitated by environmental factors. The rock where this and the other two step monuments are situated is rather low and did not allow for No. 112 to have a standing semicircular disc and more than one step. Likewise the step monument on the other flank, No. 111, also has very low steps and a similarly positioned disc at the top. It is only the step monument in the centre, No. 53, between these two which has a standing semicircular disc and more steps, probably because the rock here allowed that. The inscription itself is in three rather unorganized lines. The third line is eroded towards the end but is probably shorter than the other two. Because of both irregular lines and letters, the inscription is not easy to read. 9.3. Type and Content of Inscriptions Let us study the inscriptions according to their content and try to establish what sort of different types of inscriptions we have on the rock-cut religious monuments. 9.3.1. Inscriptions at Midas City The inscriptions of the Midas Monument, No. 30, all appear to be dedications. There are three 230

Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 26.

72

chapter one

public inscriptions and four graffiti. Inscription no. M-01a, the main inscription above the façade, is a dedication by Ates to Midas. Both the names of Ates and Midas are followed by their titles or designations. Ates is followed by arkiaevais and akenanogavos. Arkiaevais is usually interpreted as a patronym (son of Arkeaevas), but also as a title.231 Akenanogavos occurs in several inscriptions of public character. It appears twice on the Areyastis Monument, No. 37, in inscription no. W-01a, and as akinanogavan in inscription no. M-04 of the main step monument No. 70 at Midas City. In inscription no. W-01aIII of the Areyastis façade it follows upon bonok, the latter usually interpreted as the name of the dedicator.232 Akinanogavan in inscription no. M-04 is probably accusative and, according to Lubotsky, a feminine variant of the same word.233 Akenanogavos should probably be interpreted as the title of both Ates and Bonok, probably an important religious title. As has been pointed out, the word is a compound and Lubotsky suggests that it may be semantically related to the sphere of foretelling.234 For a further discussion of Ates, see Chapter II, p. 130. Midas’ name is followed by two titles, lavagtaei and vanaktei. Vanaktei is in the dative, to be translated as ‘king’ or ‘ruler’, while lavagtaei, also dative, is probably related to the Mycenaean title lawagetas.235 Since Midas is the dedicatee, there has been some debate as to how he should be interpreted in this context.236 It is clear from his titles that he is addressed as a human being. The second inscription of the Midas Monument, no. M-01b, is placed down the right side post of the façade. This is also a dedication, this time by Baba who dedicated an object referred to as sikeneman. The dedicatee is not mentioned. Baba is followed by three designations, memevais, protaivos and kΦiyanaveyos. The first is probably a patronym, the second a title, and the third perhaps an ethnic.237 Probably the same person appears in another inscription at Midas City, no. M-02, also a dedication. This inscription is situ-

231 Huxley 1959, 86; Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 8; Orel 1997a, 10. 232 Lubotsky 1988, 12; Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 63, no A7; Orel 1997a, 33–36. 233 Lubotsky 1988, 12; Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 23. 234 Lubotsky 1988, 12–13. 235 Huxley 1959; DeVries 1988, 57. 236 Roller 1988, 48; DeVries 1988, 57–58; Roller 1999, 69–70. See also Sams 1995, 1156. 237 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 10.

ated on what has been described as an altar,238 but may not in fact be an altar. The inscription is made on a vertical side of an outcrop of rock, and only the area containing the inscription has been worked into a rectangular panel. There are no traces of rock-cutting on top of the rock; the only indication of use is a small shallow simple niche around the right corner.239 What perhaps appears as peculiar is the vast amount of rock that has been prepared for the inscription, measuring 1.83 m in height and 2.54 m in width,240 as the inscription itself only occupies roughly the upper half of that area, and the lower half is left empty. It is of course possible that the lower part once had a painted decoration. This rock is located at quite a strategic point among several different religious monuments. The rock is just a few metres below the upper part of the ramp with the step monument No. 68 and the relief along the entrance ramp. It is also just c. 10 m south-west of step monument No. 69. It is possible that the inscription was associated with something situated close by, but it seems hardly likely that it should designate the unworked rock itself. The dedicator must in any case have been an important person, since he made two dedications at Midas City. The object dedicated in inscription no. M-01b of the Midas Monument is written as sikeneman. Si is interpreted as a suffix and keneman as the noun.241 The meaning of the word is not clear, but must refer to a part of the complex since it is the dedicated object. We may suppose that the main inscription no. M-01a refers to the façade itself as being the dedicated object; sikeneman should therefore refer to another part of the complex. Si has been suggested to be a demonstrative suffix; there are, however, no other known cases to confirm such a suffix. Earlier research suggested a word division of both inscription no. M-03 and no. P-03, which gave the same suffix si;242 later research, however, proved that the segmentations of these inscriptions most probably were wrong.243 We may therefore consider the

238

Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 18; Orel 1997a, 22. The niche measures 0.27 x 0.27 m and faces northnorth-east (Berndt 2002, 49). 240 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 18. 241 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 10; Brixhe 1978, 15. 242 For no. M-03, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 62, no. A5; O. Haas 1966, 191. For no. P-03, see O. Haas 1966, 182. 243 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 20–21, 233. See also Neumann 1997, 19. Gusmani has, however, suggested that in a 239

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

73

possibility that si is not a suffix, but the beginning of the word sikeneman, as implied also by the word division of vertical dots. Before considering such a probability, let us approach the problem from another point of view, by considering possible dedicated objects that the inscription could refer to. Sikeneman, as stated above, is most probably not a reference to the façade itself or to the stoa, since the latter carries its own dedication, and we have to look for other possibilities.244 It has been suggested that keneman refers to the niche,245 which can of course not be excluded, but rather than referring to the niche itself, which must after all be considered as a part of the façade, it would make more sense as a reference to the image situated inside the niche. At the Midas Monument, the image must have been made separately, as indicated by the dowel hole in the ceiling of the niche, and could therefore not be considered as part of the façade in a constructional sense. Other possibilities that may be considered are, for instance, other installations or arrangements in front of the façade or along the sides of the open area in front. However, the area in front of the façade has been excavated and there are no reports of any architectural installations or traces of anything other than the stoa. The placement of the inscription on the side post of the façade gives us some indication of the nature of the dedicated object itself. A dedication is usually situated on the dedicated object itself, which cannot, however, be the case here. Therefore, we may assume that for some reason this was not suitable or there was no desire to put the dedication on the object itself. The fact that the dedication was not put on the object itself may also explain why it was necessary to specifically mention the object by name. We may also assume that the dedication refers to a major undertaking that accords in importance with the inscription. The image inside the niche must be considered as a major undertaking corresponding well with the manifestational dedication. If the

dedication refers to the statue it could explain why the inscription is not made on the image itself, but instead situated on the right side post, a suitable place close to the niche holding the image. The natural place for a dedication of a statue would seem to be the plinth or the base. However, none of the Phrygian statues with a preserved base have a dedication there.246 The preserved examples of bases are also too small to house a dedication of the magnitude of those that appear on façades, i.e. a dedication that was as big as the inscription along the side post and could be read from some distance. Since the floor of the niche of the Midas Monument is not preserved, we do not know whether the statue once made for the niche had a dowel or not. In niches with preserved images of Matar, the statue covers the entire height of the niche, and there is no base upon which she stands, and we may therefore suggest a similar appearance for the separately made statues as well, a fact further confirmed by a partly preserved statue from Midas City, which has a dowel at the bottom and therefore no base.247 Hence, if we assume that the dedication actually refers to the free-standing image once made for the niche, can there then be a connection, as already suggested by Börker-Klähn, with the Syrian sikkanum,248 referring to a baitylos or stele that represented the god? The concept of cult stelae was well spread in earlier periods in Anatolia, among the Hittites for example, and it has been reported that sikannu appears in Hittite texts.249 Börker-Klähn suggested that sikeneman refers to the entire façade because the façade itself was looked upon as a stele.250 However, as discussed above, the dedication probably refers to something other than the façade. We do not know for certain whether the image that once stood inside the niche was anthropomorphic or not, but considering other surviving in situ images of Matar in anthropomorphic form, we may be fairly certain that that was also the

couple of cases where only the letter s is found immediately in front of a word, this may be a variation of a suffix si (Gusmani & Polat 1999b, 155). 244 Greek sources refer to a dance of Satyrs called σίκιννῐς. Arrian, preserved as a fragment by Eustathios, referred to it as a Phrygian dance, named after a nymph of Kybele, but performed in honour of Zeus Sabazios (FGrHist 156 F 106; Eust., Il. 16, p. 1078), while Athenaios does not mention a Phrygian connection (Ath. 14. 630 b). Σίκιννῐς might recall sikeneman, but Brixhe (1982, 238) has rejected the idea of a connection between them. See also Gusmani

1958, 868–869. 245 Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 61–62, no. A2. 246 Preserved statues with bases are (1) the lower part of a female statue found close to fountain C at Midas City; (2) the statue group with Matar from BoÅazköy and (3) the lower part of a female statue from ÇavdarlÌ, close to Afyon (Prayon 1987, nos. 1, 4, 7, pls. 1a–c, 3a). 247 Prayon 1987, no. 2, pl. 1d–f. 248 Börker-Klähn 2000b, 91, n. 30. 249 Hutter 1993, 91; Börker-Klähn 2000b, 91, n. 30. 250 Börker-Klähn 2000b, 90.

chapter one

74

case here. Is it then possible that a term that originally described aniconic images of deities was also used for anthropomorphic images? This possibility cannot be excluded since Matar most probably was originally made in idol shape, and the term could also have been applied to later anthropomorphic images. We should further note that not all Hittite cult stelae were aniconic, as some texts refer to anthropomorphic images.251 To conclude, it is attractive to suggest that the word sikeneman refers to the image that once stood inside the niche. However, whether there are any philological obstacles for a connection between sikeneman and sikkanum is beyond my knowledge. The third public inscription of the Midas Monument, no. M-01f, is placed inside the niche belonging to the stoa next to the façade.252 The inscription is partly illegible, but probably the last word is edaes, and it is a dedicatory inscription of public character. The dedicated object should correspond to the word totin, a word of unknown meaning appearing immediately in front of the verb, and the first word, destroyed except for the ending –as, is probably the name of the dedicator, as nominative is indicated by the ending -as.253 An interpretation of the three words in the middle is more problematic, but one would expect the recipient of the dedication to be named here. Esuryoyo has been suggested to be both a verb and a personal or divine name.254 Thus, we cannot determine to whom this dedication is addressed and who the dedicator is. It is possible that the dedication refers to the stoa itself because of its location, but other possibilities should not be excluded. There are several graffiti at this monument which most probably are to be dated later than the other inscriptions. It is interesting that it is only in these that we find the Mother Goddess.255 She is mentioned in all graffiti, and we may assume that she was the deity worshipped here. Graffiti inscription no. M-01c, inside the niche on the left side wall, consists of two parts, the first of which is simply mater[..]. It is uncertain whether there are any more letters after mater

251

Hutter 1993, 91–93, with references to Hittite

texts. 252

Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 15–17. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 17. 254 Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 135; Orel 1997a, 22, 429; cf. Lubotsky 1988, 19. 255 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 11–15, nos. M-01c, 253

or not, but since there is enough space left for a couple of letters,256 and since the nominative form is matar, we may suggest a possible original reading of materei or materey, i.e. matar in the dative, in which case it is possibly a dedication to Matar. Whether the second part of the graffiti inscription no. M-01c is part of the same inscription is not clear, because the two parts are not on a continuous line. As observed by Brixhe and Lejeune the first part (mater) was probably inscribed later than the second part.257 After the initial two letters of mater the inscriber made the letters smaller and turned the line upwards, probably in order to avoid a collision with the already inscribed part beginning with atatas. The ‘horizontal’ stroke of the letter a is also written differently in the two parts, a further indication that they are not made by the same hand. The second part begins with what may be the name of a dedicator, atatas. The second graffiti inscription, no. M-01d, is on the opposite side of the niche, on the right side wall. This inscription is also divided into two parts, apparently unrelated. The first part consists of three lines; the first line consists of one word, midas, followed by smateran on the second line. Midas is in the nominative, while materan is the accusative of matar; s is more obscure. Midas as a personal name probably occurs in an inscription made on a Phrygian grey ware vase at Gordion,258 and should perhaps be interpreted also here as a personal name (of the author of the graffiti?) rather than as a reference to a king Midas.259 Of the second part of inscription no. M-01d there are only two partly preserved words, of which the first is matera[ , again mater in the accusative. These graffiti are made next to where the image of Matar presumably stood. Despite the fact that they probably are later additions, it is still surprising to find them inside the niche next to the image of Matar, a place one would expect to be sacred and not possible for everyone to enter. We may therefore consider that these inscriptions were made by persons of some standing, possibly connected with a religious office. The last graffiti inscription of the Midas Monument, no. M-01e, is below the façade on the

M-01d, M-01e. 256 Brixhe and Lejeune 1984, 12; Orel 1997a, 14–15. 257 Brixhe and Lejeune 1984, 12. 258 Brixhe and Lejeune 1984, 125–126, no. G-137. 259 For later references to Midas as a personal name, see Zgusta 1964, 314, § 912.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence right side; only a few letters at the beginning are legible, and at the end ..]materey_ap?a[… can be read. Here we might have a dedication to Matar, since it is in the dative. The word ap?a[ will be discussed below (see pp. 84–85). Thus, at the Midas Monument we have at least three public inscriptions, all of which are dedications. It is possible that the graffiti inscriptions are also dedications; at least some of them appear to be so. In the main inscription, no. M-01a, there is no mention of the object that has been dedicated to king Midas, but we may assume from its position above the façade that the dedication refers to the façade itself. The second inscription, no. M-01b, does mention the object that has been dedicated, sikeneman, which might refer to the image placed inside the niche. Of the third inscription, no. M-01f, we can only be certain that it is a dedication, and regarding its placement inside the niche at the short end of the stoa, we may assume that it refers to the stoa itself. The niche itself appears too small and insignificant to have been the object of this dedication, since the inscription itself is written with letters of some size, between 0.4 and 0.45 m in height, the same size as those of inscription no. M-01a above the façade. Whether the inscription no. M-04 at the main step monument No. 70 at Midas City is a dedication or not is not clear since the verb edaes is missing, but the statement does not seem to have any verb, so it is possible that edaes was implied. The entire inscription reads akinanogavan tiyes modrovanak [?]avara[?]. Tiyes has been suggested to be both a personal name and a theonym.260 It has been connected with the Neo-Phrygian Τιος (gen.), Τιαν (acc.), Τιε (dat.), which has been suggested to refer to a god of that name.261 It has further been compared with the remark by Stephanos of Byzantium that a Bithynian city Τίειον was named after a god.262 Tiyes (with variations) was, however, also used as a personal name in Phrygia and in this particular inscription that appears to be a more plausible interpretation, since Tiyes apparently is connected with modrov-

260 For Tiyes as a personal name, see Orel 1997a, 26; Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 23; Zgusta 1964, 513–514, § 1558. For Tiyes as a theonym, see Witczak 1992–93, 265–267; Lubotsky 1989a, 85; Hutter forthcoming. See also Brixhe 2002a, 60–61. 261 Lubotsky 1989a. 262 Steph. Byz. s.v. Τίος.

75

anak. The latter is obviously a compound and can probably be translated as king/ruler of Modra.263 Modra is mentioned by Strabo as a city along the Gallos in Hellespontine Phrygia,264 and Zgusta situates it just on the border between Bithynia and Phrygia.265 Vanak is a title that has so far not been attested to apply to deities, but has rather been used as the royal title of mortals, which appears to be the most plausible interpretation of the word in this inscription. Both tiyes and modrovanak are nominative forms, while akinanogavan is accusative. Akinanogav- is most probably the same title as the one in inscription no. M-01a of the Midas Monument, where it is spelled akenanogav-. It was suggested above that the title possibly designates a high (?) priest. Lubotsky suggested that akinanogav- is the feminine form, and that it probably refers to the Mother Goddess herself.266 There is, however, no reason why it should be interpreted as a title applied to Matar; she is not mentioned in the inscription and in other extant inscriptions this title is always applied to mortals. Thus, I am rather inclined to propose, on condition that the interpretation as a feminine form is correct, that the title refers to a female holding a high religious office (priestess). The last word ]avara[ is uncertain, but may be the personal name of the akinonagavo-.267 It has been suggested that the inscription, instead of being a dedication, is to be translated as ]avara[ (was appointed) as akinanogavan by Tiyes, the king of Modra.268 Such a translation is possible, but without the verb we cannot be certain. Nevertheless, we may propose that in this inscription we have one person, perhaps a female, holding the same title, possibly of a religious nature, as in the inscription of the Midas Monument, and we have a king/ruler possibly named Tiyes associated with the monument. Compared with the Midas Monument this ruler holds only one title, which might be an indication that he was a less powerful ruler than the king Midas in inscription no. M-01a, perhaps a local leader. There are three more inscriptions from Midas City associated with rock-cut monuments,

263

Neumann 1988, 9; Orel 1997a, 27. Strabo 12.3.7. See also Neumann 1986. 265 Zgusta 1984, 391–392, § 823. 266 Lubotsky 1988, 12. 267 Orel 1997a, 27; Bayun & Orel 1988a, 180. See also Vassileva 1995a, 269. 268 Orel 1997a, 27. 264

76

chapter one

inscriptions nos. M-03, M-05 and M-06. They are more or less fragmentary and it is not possible to determine whether they were dedications or not. Inscription no. M-03 is written on the rock wall above step monument No. 69 (Figs. 79 and 137) and is not quite complete; perhaps the first letter of the first word is missing, and it is not clear how much is missing at the end, since immediately following the last letter there is a lacuna where a part of the rock wall has fallen off and it is therefore possible that the inscription continued with an estimated five or six letters at the most. After the lacuna the rock is again well preserved but there are no more inscribed letters. However, at least the end of the last extant word is missing. There are no word boundaries and different suggestions have been made for the word division.269 Brixhe and Lejeune proposed a transcription as abas iman akio,270 in which case the first word is probably a personal name in the nominative. Αβας and Αββας appear as personal names in Pisidia and Caria.271 However, some scholars prefer to read the first word as baba, the same name that appears in other inscriptions from Midas City.272 The second word has been suggested to be iman, a word that occurs several times in inscriptions, especially inscriptions of a religious nature.273 Iman has been the subject of several discussions.274 It can be confirmed as a personal masculine name in later periods in both Phrygia and Pisidia,275 and in some of the Phrygian inscriptions it most probably appears as an anthroponym, as in inscription no. G–210.276 Orel suggested that iman should be translated as ‘cultic substitute, image’ etc., etymologically related to the Hittite himma- (imitation, substitute, model) and Latin imago.277 Brixhe concludes that because of the absence of evidence the ques-

tion has to remain open.278 Iman occurs also on the Vezirhan stele, where Neumann suggested a translation as ‘Stein, Anlage, Ehrenmal’ or ‘Inschrift’.279 Assuming that the inscription is more or less complete, originally consisting of only three words, where the first word abas is a personal name in the nominative, it appears unlikely that it should be followed by another personal name also in the nominative. Iman should perhaps rather be interpreted as a reference to the monument, and it is possible that the inscription is a dedication. The rather small step monument with a double idol No. 95 (Fig. 90a) at Midas City has one inscription, no. M-06, consisting of two lines, the first line inscribed immediately below the double idol and the second line on the riser of the single step. Whether the inscription consists of one or two statements is not clear; it is unfortunately rather eroded and the letters are difficult to read. The first line has a word division made in the usual way of three or four vertically placed dots between the words, but the second line has no word divisions, so it is possible that we are dealing with two statements made by different writers; the graphic style of the two lines is, however, similar. The second line reads davoiiman, and a word division into davoi and iman may be suggested. Davoi appears to be dative, which might be indicative of a dedication, but since we lack the verb edaes (dedicate) we cannot be certain. Davo- also occurs in the second line of another Palaeo-Phrygian inscription on the Vezirhan stele from Bithynia.280 The reading is not quite clear but probably davoi is the correct reading. Orel suggests that Davos is a wolf-god.281 Vassileva thinks that a deity is implied, although not necessarily a wolf-god.282 Hesychios explains

269 Diakonoff & Neroznak (1985, 62, no. A5) suggested [b]aba si manakios/n; Sayce (1926, 32, no. 4) suggested Baba siman aki[nan]; O. Haas (1966, 191) suggested [b]aba si manakio. 270 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 21. Orel (1997a, 24) suggested the same transcription. 271 Zgusta 1964, 43–44, § 1. 272 Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 62, no. A5; Sayce 1926, 32, no. 4; O. Haas 1966, 191–192; cf. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 20–21, no. M-03 and Orel 1997a, 24–25, no. M-03. Baba occurs in inscription no. M-01b at Midas City and in inscriptions nos. G-121, G-184 from Gordion. Compare also inscriptions nos. G-253, G-06 and M-02 (Brixhe & Lejeune 1984). 273 It appears on another rock-cut step monument, No. 95, in inscription no. M-06, also this time without word boundaries, but the word iman should probably be read.

A small predatory bird in alabaster from Gordion carries inscription no. G-136 (Brixhe & Lejeune 1984) where the word iman occurs. This bird may be interpreted as a votive gift. 274 Brixhe 1974; Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 125; Orel 1990, 107–108; Bayun 1992; Vassileva 1995a, 269–270; Orel 1997a, 432–433. 275 Zgusta 1964, 195–196, § 466. 276 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 171–172, no. G-210. 277 Orel 1997a, 432–433. 278 Brixhe 1974, 250. 279 Neumann 1997, 20. 280 Neumann 1997, 18, 20; Brixhe 2004, no. B-05, pp. 55, 65. 281 Orel 1997a, 422. 282 Vassileva 1995a, 270.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence

77

δάος as the word used in Phrygia for λύκος.283 The Phrygian word davos recalls δάος, and if this correspondence is correct, should we then interpret davo- as a wolf or should we rather interpret it as a name? Daos (Latin Davos) was a common personal name for slaves, metics and other foreigners in Greece and Rome, found on documents from the 4th century BC onwards, but it is not clear where they came from.284 Daos is generally regarded as a personal name of Thracian origin,285 but Masson has proposed that Daos is of Myso-Bithynian origin rather than Thraco-Dacian origin, since the name occurs in inscriptions from the territory around Kyzikos, but can also be found in other places in Mysia and Bithynia, and he concludes that Daos recalls a hero or is a local eponym.286 There is an inscription on an altar from Akmonia or the Upper Tembris valley in Phygia, dated to the Late Roman period (AD 314), to consider in this respect.287 The inscription mentions a god named Manes Daos Heliodromos Zeus. This is the only known example of a god called Daos. Both Manes and Daos were common names of slaves in Greece, but Manes was also a Lydian hero. According to Herodotos he was an early Lydian king, according to Dionysios of Halikarnassos the first Lydian king, and at the same time the son of Zeus and Ge.288 A Greek inscription found at Gökçe Ayva, c. 40 km north-west of Sivrihisar, names four children as Amon, Apollo, Manes and Matar.289 Since Amon, Apollo and Matar are all divine names, it would seem likely that the fourth child had also been given a divine name, which would imply that Manes was regarded as a god at that time. In the Phrygian period Manes was

perhaps not a divine name, but should rather be looked upon as the name of the mythological founder or maybe a hero of Lydian rather than Phrygian origin. We can further note that Manes occurs, probably as a personal name, in a newly found Palaeo-Phrygian inscription on a grave stele from Daskyleion, dated to the first half of the 5th century BC.290 The name Daos should perhaps be sought in a similar context. No hero called Daos is mentioned in mythological or historical texts, but that does not exclude the possibility. A possible hero (or less likely a god) named Daos can probably be seen in the place name Daokomi/Daoukomi from northern Pisidia.291 There is a place name Sagoudaoi in Bithynia, but here it is not clear whether we have the name of a god, a hero or a personal name.292 Thus, we might suggest that Daos was a local hero (or less likely a god) in the Phrygian/Bithynian region, and it is tempting to identify davo- from the Phrygian inscriptions with Daos, although this cannot be ascertained. We should also consider the other possibility, that davo- in the Phrygian inscriptions should be interpreted as a wolf, as implied by Hesychios, rather than a name, which is the interpretation suggested by Orel.293 Considering that davoi is probably dative, this would suggest that a wolf was the dedicatee, and it then follows naturally to interpret this as a kind of worship of a specific wolf or wolves in general. Wolf cults did exist in the Greek world;294 an Anatolian wolf cult cannot, however, be supported by either epigraphical or iconographical sources.295 There are no known images of wolves in Phrygian iconography to support such a worship.296

Hsch. s.v. δάος. Masson 1995, 326; Solin 1995, 439, 441. See also Bäbler 1998, 261, no. 86. 285 Detschew 1957, 116–117; Solin 1995, 435, 444, n. 36. 286 Masson 1995, 325–327. 287 Ramsay 1883b, 419–422, no. 33; Cumont 1913, 158–163, no. 136. See MAMA VI, 148, no. 152* for a bibliography. 288 Hdt. 1.94; 4.45; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.27. 289 Anderson 1899, 84, nos. 58–59; Zgusta 1964, 288, § 858–1. 290 Gusmani & Polat 1999b; Brixhe 2004, 73–85, no. B-07. 291 Zgusta 1984, 152, § 238. 292 Zgusta 1984, 524–525, § 1143–2. See also 152, § 238. 293 Orel 1997a, 29–30. 294 The wolf cults in Greece were connected especially with Apollo or Zeus. Apollo Lykeios was worshipped particularly

in Argos, but also in Athens and other places in the Peloponnesos. An early wolf cult connected with Zeus existed in Arkadia and is suggested to date from pre-Dorian periods, and Peloponnesos is suggested as the origin of the cult (RE XIII.2 [1927], 2268–2270 s.v. Lykeios [Kruse]). 295 Masson 1995, 327. Ramsay (1920), however, suggested that a wolf cult existed in Pisidia/Phrygia, on the basis of the previously mentioned inscription from Akmonia, with a deity named Manes Daos Heliodromos Zeus. This inscription is, however, not enough evidence to prove that such a god existed. Ramsay used also another inscription from a Pisidian gravestone where the words Εδα Γδαβος can be read, and he tried erroneously to interpret it as the title of the chief wolf priest (Ramsay 1920, 197–202; Ramsay 1927, 72–83; Zgusta 1957, 609, no 11). Zgusta later correctly interpreted Εδα Γδαβος as personal names (Zgusta 1957, 570–610; Zgusta 1964, 133, 156, § 206, § 318). 296 There are two images of animals that could be wolves, but they have both been interpreted as dogs. The first is found on the mini-stele from BoÅazköy and the animal is situated

283 284

78

chapter one

Considering the facts given above, it is not possible to conclude whether davoi in the Phrygian inscription no. M-06 implies a wolf-god, a hero, a personal name or perhaps something else. There are, however, no traces of a wolf cult in Phrygia, and therefore an interpretation as a wolf-god seems less likely; an interpretation of davoi as the name of a Phrygian hero (?) appears more attractive, but cannot be more than a qualified guess. The Broken Monument, No. 33 (Fig. 42), is a small façade at Midas City with one inscription, no. M-05, above the pediment. The last part of the inscription is not completely preserved and it is not clear whether the inscription continued along the entire right side of the pediment or not. The beginning of the inscription reads apelan (vac.) mekastevano[ , where it appears that apelan is one word. The reading apelan is not secure, and a reading as apelam is also possible; according to Brixhe and Lejeune, the reading apelan seems preferable.297 It is, however, also possible to read the last letter as g. Mekastevano should probably be divided into mekas and tevano[, as mekas occurs in several other inscriptions.298 Apelan has been compared with Apollon and suggested to be a theonym.299 Let us consider this suggestion. The earlier pre-homeric form Apellon for Apollo is closer to the Phrygian word, but even closer is the Dorian apella ‘assembly’, apellai in the plural, signifying an annual reunion of the adult tribesmen where young men were introduced into the community.300 This apella has been suggested to be the origin of the cult of Apollo.301 The common Phrygian spelling uses

a single l, instead of double consonants as in the Greek, a practice still seen in a Hellenistic Greek inscription from Gordion, where Aπολα is written with a single lambda.302 Considering the context of this inscription, i.e. its location above a façade, an interpretation of apelan as a theonym is a bit problematic, since all known building façades are associated with the Mother Goddess, and in several cases her image is still in situ. It would be surprising to find Apollo as the god mentioned in the inscription if this façade was made for Matar. However, there is one stele from Sincan (Fig. 115) which has a double idol situated below the pediment, and as discussed in Chapter III, pp. 161–166, we may consider that at least one of the idols is not a representation of Matar. However, we do not have any other indications that Apollo was worshipped in Phrygia during the Iron Age. Apelan for example does not occur in any other known Phrygian inscription, and there are no known traces of him in the iconographical record. If apelan is to be interpreted as a name, it may also be a personal name, as Diakonoff and Neroznak have suggested,303 but it does not necessarily have to be a name at all. We should, however, note that Apollo was in the later Roman periods one of the most commonly worshipped gods in the Phrygian Highlands, since we have a substantial amount of both epigraphical and iconographical evidence for his worship from this area.304 When the worship of Apollo came to Phrygia is a subject for future investigations and falls outside the scope of this study.305 We can, however, note that Apollo must have been known in Phrygia

above a horseman (Fig. 113). The head of the animal is missing but because of its proximity to the hunter, it should rather be interpreted as a dog than a wolf (Boehmer 1972, no. 2144A, pl. 78: 2144Ad). The other animal is very crudely made and it is almost impossible to determine the species. It appears together with a relief of a man at the entrance of the ‘Treppentunnel’ F at Midas City, and again the proximity to a human figure indicates a domesticated animal rather than a wolf (Haspels 1971, fig. 55). 297 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 25, no. M-05. 298 See inscriptions nos. G-111, G-147 and P-03 in Brixhe & Lejeune 1984. 299 Orel 1997a, 27–28. 300 OCD3, 118 s.v. Apellai (P.A. Cartledge), 122 s.v. Apollo (F. Graf). 301 Burkert 1985, 144–145. Cf. below, n. 305. 302 Roller 1987, 116, no. 15. 303 Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 93. 304 Carrington 1976, 84–99, 282–284; Drew-Bear 1976, 249–251, 260–262, 264, Drew-Bear & Naour 1990, 1933– 1939; Haspels 1971, 169–170, 202. Statuettes of Apollo

have in recent years been found at Han, 22 km north of Midas City (Pehlivaner & Özçatal 1995, fig. 19), and at AnÌtkaya village close to Afyon (İlaslÌ & Üyümez 2002, 90, fig. 12). At ÇavdarlÌ, close to Afyon, there was a shrine of Apollo (S. Mitchell 1993, vol. 2, 13, 28–29). Several of these statuettes of Apollo are exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of Afyon. For Apollo in Phrygia, see also RE II.1 (1895), 83–84 s.v. Apollon (Wernicke). S. Mitchell (1993, vol. 2, 11–31) gives a general overview of pagan cults in Anatolia, including Apollo as one of the most important, from the first three centuries. 305 The possibility that Apollo had an Anatolian origin has been suggested by several scholars, based on the socalled Alaksandus and Muwatallis treaty (KUB XX.1 iv 27–29). In this treaty, between Hatti and Wilusa (Troy), gods of each country are listed as witnesses, and among the deities of Wilusa, Appaliunas is included, suggested to be identified with Apollo (Güterbock 1986, 42–43 with earlier references; Korfmann 1998, 475–476; Brown 2004). For the latest discussion of the identification of Wilusa with Troy, see Hawkins in Easton et al. 2002, 94–101.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence at the end of the 8th century as, according to Herodotos, Midas dedicated his throne to Apollo at Delphi.306 9.3.2. The Areyastis Monument, No. 37 The partly unfinished Areyastis façade, No. 37, has three inscriptions, nos. W-01a, W-01b and W-01c. Inscription no. W-01b is situated above the façade on the rugged rock itself, roughly following the outlines of the pediment below, and continues in a second line above the second half of the first line (Fig. 47). Inscription no. W-01a is written along the three sides of the pediment, and is referred to as W-01aI (on the horizontal tie-beam), W-01aII (above the right gable), and W-01aIII (above the left gable). The inscription should be read anti-clockwise. Inscription no. W-01c is written vertically along the right side post, beginning about half way up the façade, and continues along the horizontal bottom line of the façade. As discussed earlier, all inscriptions should be regarded as being contemporary with the façade.307 There have been several discussions and suggestions concerning the order in which the different inscriptions should be read,308 and no solution has been agreed on. The main discussion concerns the order of the three parts of no. W-01a and how this inscription is related to no. W-01b. If we began to look at the problem from an archaeological point of view, we know from several unfinished monuments that the building technique followed the same principle, i.e. they began to cut the rock at the top and worked towards the bottom, where the remaining uncut rock functioned as a platform during the work. Such a method must have been used for this façade, since there are no traces in the rock for the securing of scaffolding. The inscriptions themselves further support such a building method, as it would otherwise be surprising to find all these inscriptions connected with an unfinished façade. The inscriptions are situated at the places where inscriptions usually occur; the big plain main field is not used, since that area was probably originally intended to hold the niche, which, however, was never

306

Hdt. I.14. See also Börker-Klähn 2000b and Innocente 2000. 308 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 38–39; Lubotsky 1988, 11, 25; Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 63, no. A7; Orel 1997a, 33–34; Innocente 2000; Vassileva 2005b, 84–85. 309 Lubotsky 1988, 11; Janda 1997, 271; Innocente 2000; O. Haas 1966, 194–195. 307

79

made. Considering the fact that the inscriptions must have been made at the same time as the façade, then inscription no. W-01b would be the first inscription to be made, followed by the inscription around the pediment, no. W-01a, and inscription no. W-01c as the last one. Such a theory would mean that no. W-01b was made before the work of the façade itself had begun, and that would explain why the inscription does not follow the outlines of the pediment better, i.e. the peak of the inscription is not above the peak of the actual pediment below and has a higher inclination than the pitched roof (Fig. 47). Instead of following the outlines of an actual existing pediment, the inscription followed the outlines of a conjectured pediment that did not yet exist. The reading order of no. W-01a has been suggested by several scholars to begin with part W-01aII, followed by W-01aIII and finally W01aI (Fig. 47).309 This order seems logical, especially considering that the inscription continued outside the façade itself on the adjoining rock wall at the corner. Different translations have been proposed for inscription no. W-01b. It is probably a curse formula,310 and comparisons can be made with curse formulas that became common in later periods in Phrygia. No. W-01b reads yosesait _ materey _ eveteksetey _ ovevin _ onoman _ daΨet la | kedokey _ venavtun _ avtay _ materey. The inscription begins with yosesait, where the first part yos-, meaning who, is a common beginning of curse formulas.311 It is followed by materey eveteksetey, where matar in the dative is probably followed by an epithet, to be discussed below. There are a few other words in this inscription which scholars have also agreed upon, such as onoman, related to the Greek ονομα, name, and avtay equivalent to the Greek αὐτο-; accordingly, avtay materey could be translated as ‘by the Mother herself’. DaΨet is probably a verb in the third person singular.312 Inscription no. W-01a is probably a dedication by Bonok to the Mother Goddess. Bonok is followed by his title akenanogavos, suggested to be a high priest probably associated with oracles (see below, p. 84, for discussion).313 If we

310

Lubotsky 1988; Janda 1997; Orel 1997a, 33–40; Innocente 2000. 311 Janda 1997, 272ff; Lubotsky 1988, 16. 312 Lejeune 1978, 785; Lubotsky 1988, 20–21; Janda 1997, 273; Orel 1997a, 38; Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 41. 313 Lubotsky 1988, 13, 16.

chapter one

80

follow the suggested order, then follows vrekun, which has been identified by Lubotsky and others with Hesychios gloss βρέκυν τὸν Βερέκυντα, τὸν Βρίγια. Βρίγες γάρ οἱ Φρύγες Βερεκύνδαι· δαίμονες. οἱ Φρύγες Lubotsky explained the word as the name of one of the Phrygian tribes and he proposed a translation of vrekun as an ethnikon, specifying the title in front, “of the Briges”.314 The epithet areyastin will be discussed below (see p. 84). The third inscription, no. W-01c, probably begins with a personal name ataniyen followed perhaps by a title kuryaneyon, suggested by Lubotsky to be related to the Greek κοιρανέων “giving orders, ruling” and he translates it as “commander”. The verb tanegertoy is less clear, but Lubotsky sees the sentence as a type of dedication, “X made this monument”.315 If this is correct, then we have two dedicators, which is perhaps possible, considering that the Midas Monument has two dedicators. On the latter, however, Baba is specific about what he dedicated. To conclude, the inscriptions of the Areyastis Monument seem to be of two types, dedication and malediction formulas. 9.3.3. Köhnüâ Valley There are two monuments with inscriptions in the Köhnüâ valley. The façade Mal Taâ, No. 24, has two recorded inscriptions, nos. W-05a and W-05b. Inscription no. W-05a is situated along the left side post and is most probably not completely preserved since it seems to have continued after the last legible letter a. There are no word boundaries indicated and no proposed translations have been made. The second inscription, no. W-05b, is on the lintel above the niche and is partly missing, making an interpretation difficult. The inscription reads ]nst[ ]daespormate[ . Also here there are no word boundaries. It is possible that daes could be restored as edaes (dedicate), and the following pormate could perhaps be divided and restored as por and mater, where por might be a preposition.316 Orel, however, prefers to translate it as “dedicated to Pori(i)mates”.317 Ποριματις is a Lycian anthroponym.318 However, the verb is

usually placed at the end, as in the dedicatory inscriptions nos. M-01a, M-0b, M-01f, M-02, and W-02. Without the entire text preserved, it is not possible to determine the content or type of inscription. Gabriel reported a third inscription below the niche,319 but this could not be confirmed by Brixhe and Lejeune.320 Above an almost obliterated step monument, No. 56, is inscription no. W-04. Nothing much is preserved of the inscription other than the epithet kubileya of Matar, which will be discussed below. 9.3.4. Demirli On top of the tread of the single stepped monument No. 112, close to Demirli Köy, there is an inscription in three irregular lines. The inscription is rather eroded and not all letters are preserved or legible. The inscription does not use all the space on the tread, the first visible letter on each line begins c. 10 cm from the left side,321 while the entire length of the tread is used on the right side at least for the first line. We can note that it is only on the left side that there is an elbow-rest, while there is none on the right side, but there is a space reserved for one. Either there was originally an elbow-rest on this side, which was later cut away perhaps to provide more space for the inscription, or equally possible, that there was never an elbow-rest on this side. The latter may be suggested because on the right there is a difference in level between the step and the rectangular levelled area next to the step and semicircular disc. The step is here situated at a higher level, while on the left side there is no difference in height between the step and the levelled area next to it. The left elbow-rest therefore functions as a border between the step/semicircular disc and levelled area on the right side. The incription reads (first line) [?]y[?]agaua, (second line) [?]tatae(?)[..?] and (third line) [?]e[?. The rock is quite eroded and partly missing after the last legible letter e so there is a possibility that at least one more letter followed. There are no word boundaries, but there is a possibility that there is only one word on each line, which would mean we have a sentence with three words. However,

314

318

315

319

Lubotsky 1988, 13–14. Lubotsky 1988, 22. 316 Lubotsky (1989b, 151) suggested por to be a preposition, meaning “for”. 317 Orel 1997a, 45.

320 321

Zgusta 1964, 437, § 1292. Gabriel 1965, 89, fig. 41. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 47. Brixhe & Sivas 2002, 105.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence other word boundaries are also possible. If this inscription is a normal dedication we would expect to find the verb for dedicate, edaes, as the last word, preceded by the dedicatee (in the dative) and at the beginning the dedicator. This is the normal order for a dedication as found in other inscriptions, as for example no. M-01a. It is possible that the last legible letter e was part of the verb edaes. If the last legible letter e marked the initial e in edaes we have to suppose that the remaining letters are lost because of erosion, or alternatively that they were never written, perhaps because those letters had to be quite small in size as there was not much space remainining on the tread below the upper two lines. Earlier scholars have also discussed this issue without coming to a definite solution.322 An alternative explanation would be that edaes began on line two with a word boundary between tata and edaes, in which case the initial part of the world, eda-, was written at the end of line two, but as Brixhe pointed out himself, there is not enough space for the letter -a- to have been written at the end of line two, nor for that matter, any trace of it. Because the beginning of line one is probably missing and it is uncertain whether the word continued on line two or not, it is difficult to come to any conclusions whether the sentence began with the dedicator or something else. The second line contains the only word that can be identified, Tata or alternatively Ata depending on the word boundaries. Because of the uncertainty with the word boundaries we do not know whether the line should be read tatae or tata e-. If there was a word boundary after e in tatae then the word would be in the dative. As I have discussed elsewhere ata or tata both probably mean father and may be compared with the Hittite word for father atta, and the Luwian name for father tati.323 Both atta and tati were used to recall the Father god or a divine father in Hittite and Luwian respectively and a similar interpretation in the Phrygian language is possible. Considering that tata in this inscription may be written in the dative and therefore the dedicatee strengthens the indication that we indeed have a Phrygian deity called Father. This matter is further discussed below, see pp. 164–166.

322

Brixhe & Sivas 2002, 108. Berndt-Ersöz 2004a, 50–52; Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming b. 323

81

Because of the many uncertainties regarding this inscription we cannot exclude the possibility of other interpretations. In fact not enough is preserved to positively identify it is even a dedication. 9.3.5. Kümbet Above the façade at Kümbet Asar Kale, No. 29, there is one inscription, no. W-02. Today the inscription reads iketaios _ pseik --?ed?[a]e?s. It is not clear whether this is the entire inscription or not. After the last visible letter s, the rock is quite eroded, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the inscription continued. As for the beginning, there appear to be no traces of letters in front of iketaios, which is remarkable considering that a lower cut band or panel has been made to accommodate the inscription; iketaios is not placed at the beginning of this prepared area, instead it is situated further up, leaving a c. 0.75 m empty space before the inscription begins (Fig. 31). An explanation for this, if the preserved inscription represents its original entirety, might be that the writer wished to place the inscription symmetrically above the pediment; as it is now, the inscription extends approximately equally on both sides of the pediment. However, that is not the case with inscription no. M-01a above the Midas Monument. There is only one word boundary, marked by a vertical line of four dots, but one would expect a second division marked between pseik-- and edaes, if the last word is correctly restored as edaes. There are traces of letter(s) after pseik which should be read either as a, and restored as pseika, or as ei and restored as pseikei. A reading as ei would fit better with the inscription if edaes is correctly restored; then pseikei would indicate dative, the recipient of the dedication, and iketaios should be the subject, i.e. the dedicator. Orel suggested a transliteration as pserkei instead of pseikei, even though he admitted that nothing more than the single stroke of the proposed letter r is visible, on the basis of a comparison with a Phrygian stamp seal bearing the word pser?keyoyatas.324 He suggested that pserk is a theonym, perhaps a god connected with lions,

324 Gusmani & Poetto 1981; Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, no. Dd-101; Orel 1997a, 41, 454.

chapter one

82

because the stamp seal bears a figure of a lion. As further proof for the theonym pserk, he referred to a Pisidian place name Ψερκιοκωμη.325 There are no reasons to doubt that any letter other than i was originally written as the fourth letter of pseik, since there are no signs of erosion at this spot. Considering the nature of this monument, it would be surprising to find a dedication made to a deity other than Matar, since this is a façade, where the traces of her rock-cut image can still be seen, but a dedication similar in nature to no. M-01a above the Midas Monument is also possible for this monument. 9.3.6. Arslankaya, No. 16 The only preserved inscription in the Emre Gölü area is no. W-03, carved on the tie-beam of the Arslankaya Monument, No. 16 (Fig. 27a). The inscription is virtually illegible and only a few letters can be determined; it is therefore not possible to make any interpretation. Earlier scholars have reported reading materan;326 however, the transcription made by Brixhe and Lejeune does not allow such a reading. A second inscription, on the base below Matar in the niche, was first reported by Haas and he refers to a photograph in a publication by Akurgal.327 He reads the last word of the inscription as manka. Brixhe and Lejeune did not include the inscription in their corpus, but do discuss it briefly.328 The only inscription I am able to detect on the photograph is on the eroded part below the niche, and here manka can perhaps be read, but as pointed out by Brixhe and Lejeune, there are letters in front of manka, where they read the Latin form of the letter S, probably preceded by an `. Since this is written on the eroded part of the niche, it is obvious that we are not dealing here with a Phrygian inscription, and I would prefer to suggest that we here have a modern Turkish graffiti, where perhaps the name İsmail can be read.

325

Zgusta 1984, 661, § 1440; Orel 1997a, 41, 454. Körte 1898, 93; O. Haas 1966, 197, no. XI; Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985, 64, no. A11. Haspels (1971, 294, no. 20), however, stated that the inscription was illegible to her, and she cited the interpretation made by Körte. 327 O. Haas 1966, 198; Akurgal 1961, fig. 54. 328 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 45. 326

9.3.7. FÌndÌk We have two inscriptions from FÌndÌk. No. W-06 is carved above one of the principle rafters of the small façade monument No. 5, and no. W-07 is on the lintel above niche No. 3. Inscription no. W-06 is quite eroded and the only word that can be read is ]matar[ , probably in the nominative. The other inscription, no. W-07, is also quite eroded and only parts of two words can be seen, ]esagas _ akenas?[ . Brixhe and Lejeune reported traces of letters on the left side of esagas, although no traces are visible on the published squeeze; instead traces of letters can be seen on the right side of akenas[ , a possible a followed by at least two more letters.329 Haspels also reported that the inscription continued on the right side.330 Not enough is preserved to indicate the type of inscription. 9.3.8. Germanos Inscription no. B-01 is the longest known PalaeoPhrygian inscription, associated with a small niche, No. 40. This is the only example where the inscription plays the dominant part and the niche appears to be of subordinate importance. The word boundaries are not marked as vertical lines of dots in the usual way; instead the different words appear to have been separated by spaces, except for the end of each line, where the space between each letter increases, obviously with the purpose of filling up the line.331 The second line contains the word edaes, making it clear that the beginning of the inscription is a dedication, but the text is not preserved well enough to determine either the dedicator or the dedicated object. On the third line we can read matar kubeleya in the nominative, followed by ibeya, which may be another epithet. These epithets will be discussed below. Matar in the nominative occurs once more, in the last line, and probably the deity worshipped here was Matar (kubeleya). It is possible that in the second part of the inscription

329 Compare the left side of the squeeze made of the left side of the lintel, pl. 29:1, which appears to have no traces of letters, and the right part of the squeeze made of the right side of the lintel, pl. 29:2 (Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 50–51, pl. 29:1–2). 330 Haspels 1971, 294, no. 17. 331 Lubotsky 1993, 94.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence we have a malediction formula, as indicated by the structure of lines four and five.332 Thus, we may have both a dedication and malediction formula here, as on the Areyastis Monument. 9.3.9. Karahisar There are a few Palaeo-Phrygian inscriptions from Alaca Höyük and also the step monument No. 108 at Karahisar, close to Alaca Höyük, has an inscription, no. P-06. This inscription is in a very bad condition and its present state does not allow us to form any conclusions about the content or type. 9.4. Epithets of Matar Different epithets of Matar have been suggested but there are only two epithets, kubileya and areyastin, that are generally agreed upon. We will now examine the various proposed epithets of Matar that occur in the inscriptions connected with our monuments. Matar appears eleven times in these inscriptions, as matar (nom.) in inscriptions nos. W-04, W-06 and twice in no. B-01, as mater (voc.) in no. M-01c, as materan (acc.) in no. W-01a and twice in no. M-01d, and as materey (dat.) in no. M-01e and twice in no. W-01b. In three cases, nos. W-06, M-01c, and M-01, the text is not preserved after mater, and therefore we do not know whether it was followed by an epithet or not. In several cases, as suggested by some scholars, an epithet stands alone without matar. 9.4.1. Kubileya/Kubeleya Kubileya/kubeleya is the only epithet that occurs twice and in different geographical areas, once in the Köhnüâ valley in the Phrygian Highlands (no. W-04) and once at the Germanos inscription (no. B-01) in Bithynia. The origin of this epithet has been the subject of much discussion and the issue is not settled. A phonetic resemblance between

332

Lubotsky 1993, 97. Laroche 1960. See also Albright 1928–1929. 334 Brixhe 1979. This theory has also been accepted by several scholars, see Zgusta 1982; Roller 1994a; Roller 1999, 44–53; Borgeaud 1996, 24 ff; Rein 1993, esp. 10–11; Rein 1996, 226–227. 335 Berndt-Ersöz forthcoming a. See also Roller 1994a. 336 Brixhe 1979; Roller 1999, 66–68. See also Brixhe 2002a, 52–53. 333

83

Kubaba and (Matar) Kubile made Laroche suggest that Kubaba was to be considered as the forerunner of Matar.333 However, the linguistic relationship between the two was later re-examined by Brixhe, who concluded that Kubaba and Kubileya are not related.334 The iconographical resemblance between these two goddesses has also been examined, with the conclusion that they have very few iconographical features in common.335 The origin of the epithet kubileya has been researched, first by Brixhe and then by Roller, who conclude that the term may have been the Phrygian word for mountain or it may refer to a specific mountain.336 An alternative attractive explanation of the origin of Kybele has, however, recently been proposed by M. Munn.337 He presented a theory aimed at explaining how the epithet Kubileya is derived from Kubaba via the Lydian language. In Lydian the adjectival suffix -(e/a)il- was added to the goddess name, which would give the unattested form Kubeb(e)li-. Munn suggested that in the Phrygian language the Phrygian adjectival suffix –eya was further added, giving Kubeb(e)leya, from which the form Kubileya developed, meaning the place or person of Kybebe. Munn’s theory would, providing there are no philological obstacles for it, explain the presence of Kybebe at Sardis and why there are hardly any iconographical features shared between Matar and the Syro-Hittite Kubaba. The theory would also imply that the Greeks got their name Kybele from the Phrygians and not through a Lydian transmission. We can further note that Kubile also appears as an epithet of Meter in a Greek votive text from Chios, indicating that in Greece as well as in Phrygia it was perhaps regarded originally as only an epithet,338 and over time it instead became the Greek name for the goddess.339 We can conclude that the epithet kubileya was probably one of the most important of Matar’s epithets, supported by the fact that it was known over a large area and is the epithet that survived

337 He presented a paper titled “Kybele as Kubaba in a Lydo-Phrygian context” at the conference Hittites, Greeks and their neighbors in Ancient Anatolia, organized by Emory University in September 17–19, 2004. For an abstract see http://www.mesas.emory.edu/anatconf.abstracts.htm. See also Munn 2006, 120–125. 338 Forrest 1963, 59–60, no. 11= Engelmann & Merkelbach 1973, 365–366, no. 211; Roller 1999, 68–69. 339 Concerning the Lydian Kybebe, see Chapter III, nn. 421, 426.

84

chapter one

into the Greek world as the name of the goddess. The epithet may either be connected with mountains or was derived from Kubaba via the Lydians. 9.4.2. Areyastin This epithet occurs in inscription no. W-01a at the Areyastis façade, No. 37, together with matar in the accusative. Areyastin is of unknown meaning, and there has been some discussion concerning its origin,340 but no convincing theory has been provided. The word is considered to be of Anatolian origin, and is usually explained as the name of a local mountain, whose whereabouts have not been ascertained.341 Perhaps the same stem ariyo- occurs in another inscription, no. G–221 from Gordion.342 This text is heavily damaged but the next readable word on the line below is ]ke?no?[- ,which is interpreted by Orel as a part of the word akena- or akenanogavo-.343 The word akenanogavos has previously been explained as a title of a high priest, possibly associated with oracles, and can also be found in inscription no. W-01a.344 Thus, in the two texts where the stem ariyo- occurs we may also find the word akenaor akenanogavo-. It is perhaps therefore possible to seek a connection between the Hittite verb ariya- , usually translated as ‘consult an oracle’,345 and the epithet areyastin. However, whether there are any philological arguments against such a connection is beyond my knowledge. The stem ariyo- can also be found in the Hittite nouns ariessesa (divination) and ariyasessar (oracle) in Hittite oracular texts.346 Kimball discussed the exact meaning of ariya-, and suggested a translation as “investigate using divination”, i.e. to question an oracle.347 At least in some text ariya- appears to describe a type of divination that is not natural,

340 Orel 1997a, 36, 414; Orel 1997b, 43; Lejeune 1969b, 35–36 with n. 74; Lubotsky 1988, 11; Brixhe 1979, 42, n. 17. Earlier scholars interpreted the reading as Arezastis and therefore suggested the name to be of Persian origin, see e.g. O. Haas 1966, 193–194. 341 Orel 1997a, 36; Lubotsky 1988, 11. An unattested Luwian cuneiform word ariyatti- is translated as mountain or mound by Starke (1979b, 253, n. 27; 1990, 64, notes 1031, 1897). This word has been suggested to be connected with an epithet of the Storm God, ariyaddali-, known from cuneiform Hittite texts (KUB XII, 58i 58–59). See also Hawkins 2000, 350, 444; Hutter forthcoming. 342 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 178–179, no. G-221. 343 Orel 1997a, 222, no. G-221. 344 Lubotsky 1988, 13. 345 HED 1 (1984) 136, s.v. ariya-, arai-. 346 HED 1 (1984) 137, s.v. ariya-, arai-.

i.e. where artificial methods were required.348 Thus, considering that the Phrygian inscription no. W-01a contains the supposed title of a priest associated with oracles, it would not be surprising to find an epithet of Matar that reflects her oracular aspects in the same inscription. We may therefore, providing there are no philological obstacles, suggest an alternative interpretation of areyastin as an epithet referring to the oracular aspects of Matar, and with a type of divination possibly dependent on artificial methods. 9.4.3. Other Suggested Epithets In inscription no. B-01 at Germanos, we can read matar kubeleya ibeya at line three, and several scholars have suggested that ibeya is an epithet.349 According to Orel it may be connected with a Lydian toponym, Iβιδος κώμη, a place close to Sardis.350 However, we can note that the similar forms iben and ibeyn occur in the inscription of the Vezirhan stele,351 also from Bithynia, and Neumann noted that we probably have the same word-stem in these three cases. He did not mention a toponym, however, but instead proposed that it may designate something like “hiesig” or “ähnlich”.352 Thus, considering the position of ibeya next to kubeleya and the fact that both are in the nominative, like matar, it is plausible that ibeya is also an epithet of matar; its meaning, however, remains obscure. Apa has been suggested to be an epithet of Matar.353 In the graffiti inscription no. M-01e below the Midas Monument, materey ap?a[ could be read. Here we should note that the word does not end with a but that there are traces of several more letters, and the reading of p in apa is not certain; it could possibly also be read as g. The word apa[ does not occur in any other pre-

347

Kimball 2000, 138–147. Kimball 2000, 134ff with references to Hittite texts. According to Cicero, there were two kinds of divination; he made a distinction between divination dependent on nature, i.e. natural phenomenon interpreted as signs from the gods, and divination that was dependent on art, i.e. artificial means were needed (Cic. Div. I.VI.12). 349 Lubotsky 1993, 96; Orel 1997a, 141; Vassileva 2001, 51. 350 Orel 1997a, 141; Zgusta 1984, 191–192, § 359. 351 Neumann 1997, 20, 24; Brixhe 2004, 42–67, no. B-05. Iben occurs in line two, and ibeyn in line ten. 352 Neumann 1997, 20, 24. 353 Orel 1997a, 19–20, 414. Orel also interpreted the second graffiti of no. M-01d as possible remains of the same epithet apa. However, the only legible letter after Mater is a. 348

structural examination of the archaeological evidence served inscription. It is not possible to determine whether the word was part of an epithet or not, and if it really represents an epithet it cannot be more than the beginning of it. The suggested epithet bonokaua is found in the second part of the graffiti inscription no. M-01c at the Midas Monument.354 The first part of the graffiti reads mater[--] and it is unclear whether it is connected with the second part reading atatasm?onokaua.355 Atatas might be a personal name, but the second part is more obscure.356 The first letter of the second part is unclear and several suggestions have been made. Haspels suggested that it was an unfinished b,357 an interpretation accepted by Orel who proposed that bonokaua might be an epithet or a divine name of Matar, of uncertain meaning.358 Βονοκιᾶτις appears once as an epithet of Agdistis on a small marble stele, dated to between 150–210 AD, with a possible provenience from the Highlands.359 However, there is no reason why we should have an unfinished letter in the middle of the inscription; other possibilities suggested by Brixhe and Lejeune are l, g, v, n and m, where m is preferred.360 However, according to the squeeze, a reading as p also seems possible.361 Considering that there is no reason why we should read this as an unfinished b, we may have another word here. Furthermore, we do not know whether or not this second part of the inscription is connected with the first part. Thus we can not support the suggested epithet bonokaua. Eveteksetey follows upon materey in inscription no. W-01b of the Areyastis façade. Both Lubotsky and Orel interpret it as an epithet. Janda writes that the meaning is unknown but it might be an epithet.362 Both materey and eveteksetey are in the dative. The meaning is obscure, but Lubotsky

354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362

Orel 1997a, 15–16, 420. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 12. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 12. Haspels 1971, 290, no. 4. Orel 1997a, 15. Frei 1986. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 12. Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, pl. 2:3. Lubotsky 1988, 20; Orel 1997a, 37; Janda 1997,

273. 363

Orel 1997a, 37. Evememesmeneya and evbokayan, both in inscription no. B-01; see above for discussion. The other two suggested epithets are eveya- and evtey(o)-/evteya. Orel (1997a, 311, 430) suggested the reading (ev)ea(y) of inscription no T-02c, which he interpreted as the epithet eveya- written in 364

85

suggests that the prefix ev- is identical with the Greek εύ- ‘well’. Orel translates it as beneficent, and also interprets it as a compound, where the first element is ev-.363 To conclude, the position of the word after mater- and the fact that the ending –ey is identical with that of materey, suggest that it might be an epithet of Matar. However, it does not provide us with much information about the nature of the goddess, even if the first element ev- means good or well. Four more proposed epithets begin with ev-. However, two of these cannot be considered as epithets in their present contexts, either because the suggested reading cannot be confirmed or it is uncertain whether the inscription is in Phrygian.364 In the Germanos inscription no. B-01 we have two suggested epithets of Matar beginning with ev-. Lubotsky proposed that ev[e]m[e]mesmeneya in line six is probably an epithet, and he suggested a possible translation as “well-remembering”.365 The word, however, is not preceded by Matar. Orel suggested a different word division and he transcribed it as evememes meneya, where he interpreted the second word as an epithet of Matar, and suggested a connection with the Greek εύμένεια “favour, benevolence”.366 Haas, on the other hand, translated this passage as a name, “Minnis Minneos (filia)”.367 The word boundaries are uncertain, but no space is left intentionally between evememes and meneya. According to Brixhe and Lejeune, the readings of the third and fifth letter are not clear.368 To conclude, the uncertainty concerning the transcription and word division makes it difficult to make any further comments. The other suggested epithet beginning with evof the Germanos inscription, no. B-01, is found on the last line. This line reads pakrayevkobeyan-

the dative. However, not enough is preserved to support such a reading; the only letters which can be confirmed are ?]ea-[ . The other epithet evtey(o)-/evteya- is suggested by Orel (1997a, 147–49, 431) to be found in inscriptions nos. B-02 and B-03. Inscription no. B-02 belongs to a stele of Graeco-Persian type and the inscription is possibly Phrygian, but not enough is preserved to make any elaborations. Inscription no. B-03 is both legible and in Phrygian but there are no indications of its content nor that it should be connected with Matar (Brixhe and Lejeune 1984, 68–71, nos. B-02, B-03). 365 Lubotsky 1993, 97. 366 Orel 1997a, 139, 144. 367 O. Haas 1969, 77–78. 368 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984, 64–65.

chapter one

86

epaktoy and both Lubotsky and Orel proposed a word boundary after pakray and one before epaktoy. Orel suggested that the middle part, evkobeyan, is an epithet of Matar probably meaning “victorious”.370 As Lubotsky observed, the word division of this line is rather shaky,371 and despite the fact that the proposed word boundaries seem logical, such a division is not in accordance with the space left between the letters. Considering the insecure word division of this line, not much can be said about the content of this part of the inscription. 9.5. Conclusions The rock-cut monuments with inscriptions are either larger façades or larger step monuments of public character. In general niches and smaller step monuments with a semicircular disc lack inscriptions. The rock-cut inscriptions may appear as placed haphazardly on the rock, but in fact follow certain rules, such as being situated above the gable field, on the tie-beam or on the side post of a façade. Step monuments have the inscription either above on the rock wall behind or on the riser or tread of one of the steps. The inscriptions are likely to be contemporary with the monuments. When it is possible to determine the nature of the inscriptions they appear to be mainly of two types, either dedications or, less commonly, curse formulas. The dedicatory inscriptions are mainly found on the façades, as the inscriptions connected with step monuments cannot be confirmed as dedications. Usually a dedication mentions both the recipient and the dedicator, but in a few inscriptions no dedicatee is mentioned; the name of the dedicator appears to be the most important message of the inscription. In several inscriptions, the recipient appears not to be Matar; she is in fact never explicitly the recipient of any extant dedication of public character. Although, she is mentioned in several inscriptions of public character, it is unclear whether she is addressed as the dedicatee or not. The word matar usually appears in the nominative or accusative. We should, however, admit that several of the inscriptions containing the word matar are only partly preserved and the grammatical structure cannot be determined. It is 370 371

Orel 1997a, 430. Lubotsky 1993, 97.

only in the graffiti where a dative form of the incomplete cases of matar is possible to restore. The dedicatee could instead be a mortal, as king Midas is thus addressed once. Other inscriptions indicate other mortals or heroes as the recipients. Among the dedicators the names Ates and Baba are found. Later written sources confirm that the name Ates/Attis is related to Kybele (for a further discussion see below, p. 130). We should of course be extremely careful in drawing any general conclusions, considering the fragmentary and mainly unknown content of the Phrygian inscriptions, but we may suggest that façades with this type of dedication, not addressed to Matar, perhaps should be interpreted as religious monuments of manifestation character. However, these monuments, besides being religious monuments dedicated to important persons, were probably also, at least to some extent, used for the worship of Matar. The Midas Monument, No. 30, may be interpreted as a public monument to honour the king Midas, but the graffiti inscriptions, i.e. the ones of a less public character, show that Matar was indeed worshipped here. At least three different titles can be confirmed, two political or military titles, lavagtaei and vanaktei, and one probably religious title, akenanogavos. Protaivos is probably also a title, of unknown value. Kuryaneyon has also been suggested to be a title, translated as ‘commander’.372 We are not able to confirm any more epithets of Matar, other than the already confirmed kubeleya/kubileya and areyastin. Ibeya appears as a possible epithet, so far attested only in Bithynia. Eveteksetey is also a likely candidate for an epithet of Matar, but its meaning is unfortunately obscure. The other suggested epithets of Matar cannot be proved either to be connected with Matar or to be epithets at all. In most cases there are several question marks about their transliteration. Kubeleya is the only epithet that occurs twice and in different geographical areas. This epithet may confirm the mountainous character of Matar. Areyastin is probably of Anatolian origin and can be suggested to be semantically related to the Hittite ariya-, to consult an oracle. If so, this is further proof of the oracular aspect of Matar. Matar is the only Phrygian deity we have so far been able to securely confirm from the 372

Lubotsky 1988, 23–25.

structural examination of the archaeological evidence epigraphical records, but she can hardly have been the only one. A possible dedication to (T)ata, probably the Superior Male god, can be found on one step monument. There are, however, no obvious references to other deities in the epigraphical material connected with the rock-cut monuments. We can note a couple of possible references to other deities or heroes, such as davos, which appears twice and could be the name of a hero. We can further not exclude the possibility that apelan refers to a male god. We have here, however, only discussed the inscriptions connected with the rock-cut monuments and the possibility remains that there are more traces to be found in the entire corpus of Phrygian inscriptions.

10. Archaeological Finds It is only the area around some of the monuments at Midas City that have been excavated, and there is of course the problem of whether any of the excavated material can be linked with the monuments. We can, however, make a few observations when we compare the excavated areas around the monuments with the excavated areas without rock-cut monuments. From the areas around Nos. 30, 31, 69, 76 and 77,373 the amount of painted fine ware is relatively higher than in other areas. The painted ware is usually imported from western Anatolia, for example Lydia, or Greece. Painted imported ware has also been found in the excavated areas without monuments, but the amount is relatively less than the amount of coarse ware. Ceramic shapes that occur more than once in the areas of the rock-cut monuments are trefoiled jugs, bowls sometimes with a foot, kraters, jugs and amphoras.374 However, these shapes also occur in areas without rock-cut monuments. There are two ceramic objects found close to the monuments that differ from other excavated objects. In the area around step monument No. 77 was found a carinated bowl with handles, in grey ware, and of unusually large size, compared with other similar-shaped vessels.375 It measures c. 0.3 m in 373 374 375 376 377 378

See catalogue entries for references. See catalogue entries for references. Haspels 1951a, 69, pl. 29:28. Haspels 1951a, 67, 124, pl. 13e. Haspels 1951a, 21, pls. 31a 2, 3; 31b 2, 3. Haspels 1951a, 97, 99–100, pls. 42a4, 43a4, 43a6.

87

diameter. In the area in front of the Hyacinth Monument, No. 31, an object of unusual character was found, a piece of a miniature tripartite pot.376 For a discussion of whether this object may have had a cultic role connected with the façade, see below, pp. 184–185. The date of the pottery found in connection with the rock-cut monuments will be discussed in Chapter II. There are only three terracotta figurines predating the Hellenistic period that have been found at Midas City and these are all from areas connected to the rock-cut monuments. One bull figurine was found in front of the Midas Monument, and fragments of two birds both attached to ceramic vessels, as a handle and as a knob, respectively, were found in section U2a, north of step monument No. 77.377 The exact location of the figurines in relation to the monuments are not given in the excavation report. Their date will be discussed in Chapter II. Architectural painted terrracottas have been found in three locations at Midas City, and one of these areas is in front of the Midas Monument, No. 30. The architectural terracottas will be further discussed in Chapter II, p. 93. From the area in front of the main step monument, No. 70, there are only three objects that have been reported and published. 378 These are all of metal, one bronze arrow head and two iron knives. They may all date to before the Achaemenian period, and parallels can be found for the knife with a convex curved back at Gordion, Sardis, Deve Höyük, Karahöyük and Karkamià.379 Four of the knives from Gordion are found in the Terrace buildings in the destruction level, the others are from other and later contexts. The earliest should be dated before the destruction of c. 800 BC. There are four or five knives from Sardis found among puppy burials or pothoards and dated to c. 575–525 BC. These burials have been interpreted as the remains of ritual meals. The knife from Deve Höyük was found in a grave, dated to the Persian period; the knife from Karkamià was found in House G at the outer town. Therefore, this type of knife has been found in several different contexts of different periods. It has been suggested that the 379 Haspels 1951a, pl. 43a6; McClellan 1975, 144–48, 153, 157, 163, cat. nos. 89, 95, 101, 107, 122, 132, 154, inv. nos. ILS 344, 555, 549, 528, 68, 18, 575, pls. 6–7, 11; Burke 2005, 79, fig. 6–9; Waldbaum 1983, 54–55, nos. 175–179, pl. 14:175; Woolley 1914–16, 121, 128, pl. 24h; T. & N. Özgüç 1949, 81, pl. 38:7; Carchemish II, 132, pl. 23:10.

88

chapter one

knives from Gordion may have been used for food preparation,380 and this is further supported by the Sardis examples. It is, however, not possible to make any interpretation of the knives from Midas City because of lack of stratigraphy and context. Further, as pointed out above, there may not be any connection between the knives and the step monument. We may note the absence of animal bones around the excavated monuments. However, the absence of published bone material may not reflect the actual situation. In a few cases animal bones were reported by Gabriel,381 but these, however, were not included in the final publication. The only published bones from the areas

connected with the monuments are two bones from a goat or sheep found close to step monument No. 77 (see cat. entry). It can also be noted that traces of ash have been reported from the platform at the foot of the rock with niche No. 40 at Germanos (see cat. entry). To conclude, none of the objects found close to the monuments can be determined to be directly related to the monuments, even though the material is of a slightly different character to the material from other areas, as it contained more painted fine ware, especially imported fine ware. Some types of objects have also been found only in areas surrounding the monuments.

380 McClellan 1975, 190. Burke (2005, 79) has, besides a food preparation use, suggested that the Gordion knives may have been used to cut off the knotted threads of carpet weaves in carpet production.

381 Fragments of animal bones were reported from the area in front of the Hyazinth Monument, No. 31, and the Areyastis Monument, No. 37, by Gabriel 1965, 45, 80.

chronology

89

CHAPTER TWO

CHRONOLOGY

Ever since the discoveries of the first rock-cut monuments the subject of their chronology has been discussed and no uniformly acceptable dates have been agreed upon. They have been dated over a five hundred year period from the beginning until the middle of the first millennium BC.1 One important reason why no solution has been reached is the absence of stratigraphic evidence for the majority of the monuments. Only a few of the rock-cut monuments have been the subject of archaeological excavations, and the excavated material is neither sufficient in itself nor recorded well enough to be of any substantial chronological use. Scholars have generally not considered the archaeological material, but instead tried to date the monuments purely on their decoration, sometimes in connection with existing inscriptions. Niches, smaller step-monuments and idols usually lack both decoration and inscriptions and have not been the subject of any discussions on chronology. As mentioned in the Introduction, on the basis of new evidence, the destruction of the City Mound at Gordion has been determined to have occurred considerably earlier than the previously accepted date of c. 700 BC. Carbon14 analyses of newly excavated material give a date for the destruction of 830–800 BC.2 This carries important chronological implications concerning not only Phrygian material, but also Iron Age material from central Anatolia and beyond. Archaeologically we do not have any evidence at all that a Kimmerian invasion occurred in Gordion or in Phrygia. The Early Phrygian period has been moved back at least 100 years, and we can conclude that we

have a developed Phrygian state already in the 9th century BC if not earlier, i.e. the Phrygian state should be considered as contemporary with, for example, the Urartian kingdom. Haspels drew historical parallels between Midas City and Gordion and wanted to see a similar Kimmerian destruction at Midas City around c. 700 BC. This destruction, she argued, was a major one and had such an impact that rock-cut façades were not made for a period of 100–150 years, and accordingly she divided the façades into two groups, one earlier group dated to the end of the 8th century and a second group dated to the first half of the 6th century. In the first group she included the Midas Monument (No. 30), Delikli Taâ (No. 1) and the Mal Taâ (No. 24). In the second group she included the Unfinished Monument (No. 34), Areyastis (No. 37), Hyacinth (No. 31), Bahâayiâ (No. 28), DeÅirmen Yeri (No. 26), Arslankaya (No. 16), Küçük KapÌ Kaya (No. 15) and Büyük KapÌ Kaya (No. 17).3 Haspels’ suggested chronology of the earlier group was based on comparisons with decoration found on furniture and textiles from Gordion, in addition to the inscriptions of the Midas Monument. The chronology of the second group of monuments was primarily based on influences from and comparisons with East Greek material.4 New soundings from Gordion have proved that the massive rebuilding of Gordion followed immediately upon the destruction.5 The rebuilt Gordion was even more monumental than the one destroyed. This shows that the Phrygian society could not have been significantly weakened by the destruction, but was still a strong society, with enough resources to carry out a massive rebuilding program. The new date for the destruction of

1 Akurgal 1955, 87–93; Akurgal 1961, 106–108; Haspels 1971, 102–108; F. Naumann 1983, 56–62; F. IâÌk 1987a; Prayon 1987, 99–102; DeVries 1988, 53–58; Sams 1995, 1156; Roller 1999, 98–102; Sivas 1999a, 206–208; Fiedler 2003, 252–257. For references to other scholars’ suggestions, see respective catalogue entries.

2 DeVries et al. 2003; Voigt 2005, 28–31; DeVries et al. 2005. Cf. Muscarella 2003; Keenan 2004. 3 Haspels 1971, 102–108. 4 Haspels 1971, 103–108. 5 Voigt & Henrickson 2000, esp. 39, 51–52; Voigt 2005, 32–35. See also Voigt 1994.

1. Introduction

90

chapter two

Gordion is considerably earlier than previously believed and with no destruction around 700 BC and no evidence for a subsequently weakened society, the main argument pursued by Haspels for the division of the façades into two groups with a long chronological gap between can no longer be supported by the archaeological evidence. We should therefore approach the problem of dating and chronology of the rock-cut façades without a chronological gap of 150 years dividing them into two groups.6 The chronological terms that will be used here begin with Early Phrygian (EP), which designates the period before the destruction at Gordion, c. 950–830/800 BC. The Middle Phrygian period (MP) is the period after the destruction at Gordion until the Persian conquest. This period is divided into Middle Phrygian I and II. Middle Phrygian I is the period until the Lydian dominion, c. 830/800–600 BC. Middle Phrygian II can be described as the Lydian period, c. 600–550 BC. The Late Phrygian period (LP) is the period of Persian control, c. 550–330 BC. On the basis of the archaeological evidence and the above-mentioned criteria, such as the decoration and the inscriptions, the chronological order and dates of the monuments will be examined below.

2. Archaeological Evidence Used as Dating Criteria 2.1. The Chronology of Midas City and Other Settlements Apart from a small excavation at Piâmiâ Kale, Midas City is the only excavated settlement in the Highlands.7 The entire plateau has not been excavated; in fact the excavated areas of the plateau cover less than ten percent of its

6 Haspels (1971, 112–138) accordingly classified also the rock-cut tombs into two different groups and dated these two groups in the same manner as the rock-cut façades, one to the 8th century, contemporary with the earlier tumuli at Gordion, and the second to the first half of the 6th century. Besides the fact that her division into two different groups can be questioned, the chronology of the rock-cut tombs in Phrygia needs revising, considering new archaeological data, but this task falls outside the scope of this study. 7 Midas City was excavated between 1936–1939 by the French Archaeological Institute at Istanbul, directed by A. Gabriel. The excavations continued between 1948–1951, directed by H. Çambel. The pre-war excavations have been published, except for the preliminary dig in 1936; see

total area. Areas below the plateau have also been excavated, but this again is only a very small area. The architectural remains from the excavated areas on top of the plateau belonged to one single settlement. Since this settlement was built on the bedrock itself, there were no preserved structures of the earlier settlements. The houses excavated were of domestic type, irregularly planned and of inferior quality. The walls were made of loosely attached stones at ground level, while the upper walls were probably built of sun-dried bricks.8 This settlement has been dated to the 5th and 4th centuries BC, i.e. the Late Phrygian period. The excavated evidence suggested that the population abruptly abandoned the settlement towards the end of the 4th century BC. The earliest datable object excavated, belonging to the settlement of this period, was a fragment of an Attic plate, dated to c. 450 BC.9 This settlement has been referred to as the Persian settlement, probably when the Persian satrap Cyrus the Younger controlled this part of Asia Minor. Among the excavated material, there are remains belonging to a settlement earlier than the one of the Late Phrygian period. In excavation zone P (Fig. 4), two earlier architectural fragments were reused as building material for the walls of domestic buildings, one half of an Aeolic capital and one corner volute, both made in local tuff stone.10 In zone R3 (Fig. 4), the area close to the main step monument No. 70, were found several painted architectural terracottas.11 Since the majority of the architectural terracottas came from the same excavated area, this might imply that they once were part of a not unimportant structure erected at this part of the plateau. These terracottas, together with the architectural fragments of the Aeolic order, have been dated to the 6th century.12 To this period belong also

Chaput 1941; Haspels 1951a; 1981; Gabriel 1952; Gabriel 1965. For the excavation between 1948–1951, see Gabriel 1951, 32–36; Çambel 1951, 240; AnatSt 1, 1951, 18; AnatSt 2, 1952, 17. During the last ten years some rescue excavations and restoration work have been carried out at Midas City by the Eskiâehir Museum. See Özçatal 1992; Özçatal 1993; Pehlivaner 1994; Pehlivaner & Özçatal 199; Tuna & CaÅlar 2000. 8 Haspels 1971, 140. 9 Haspels 1951a, pl. 9d, 1–2. 10 Haspels 1951a, pl. 45e, f. 11 Haspels 1951a, 149–150, pl. 40. 12 Haspels 1951a, 93, 110.

chronology the lower parts of two free-standing stone sculptures.13 The remaining evidence for this period is not abundant, but it is enough to imply that the Middle Phrygian II settlement was probably more prosperous than the Late Phrygian settlement. It is evident that the Middle Phrygian II settlement at Midas City must have suffered a serious blow, most probably to be placed somewhere between 550 and 450 BC. The evidence for this includes the fact that the Late Phrygian settlement was rebuilt on bedrock, using building material from the earlier settlement; moreover, the inferior quality of the buildings, only of domestic type, was not comparable to at least some of the buildings from the previous settlement that had made use of both architectural terracottas and Aeolic capitals. The two fragmentary statues also point to a more prosperous preceding period. It is also from this period that we have the earliest imported material at Midas City; Corinthian and East Greek ware, some of which dates to the end of the 7th century, but the majority belongs to the 6th century.14 Phrygian material dating to periods earlier than the Middle Phrygian II were also excavated, including spouted jugs with sieves, made of fine glossy black ware,15 similar to those found in Tumuli III and MM at Gordion. These finds indicate that the city existed at least to some extent in the 8th century. We should here also note a few more reported finds that might date to the 8th century or earlier, such as fragments of stamped pottery, and several fibulae.16 There are no indications in the excavated material of when the Phrygian settlement at Midas City was first established. We can note, however, that Haspels does not mention any

13

Haspels 1951a, 111–116, pl. 47. Haspels 1951a, 31, 38. 15 Haspels 1951a, 84, pl. 20. Unpublished similar material was also reported to have been found in section F4 during the post-war excavations (Haspels 1971, 142). 16 Haspels 1951a, pls. 33, 41a; Muscarella 1967a, 18–20, 38. Caner (1983, 15–16) suggested that all the fibulae date either to the 8th or the 7th century BC. 17 Haspels 1971, 285; Mellink 1993a, 153. 18 Piâmiâ Kale was partly excavated during one season in 1939 and only a few very short preliminary reports have been published (Gabriel 1965, 80–81; Haspels 1971, 40–45, 139–140, 271–272). The finds, however, date mainly to the post-Phrygian reoccupation of the kale (Haspels 1971, 41, n. 43). Three shaft monuments have also been excavated but no finds have been published. Mal Taâ, No. 24, was excavated by the French excavators of Midas City, and the only finds reported are some Archaic potsherds found at 14

91

Hittite or Late Bronze Age material from Midas City. The site must have been inhabited in the Early Bronze Age, since an Early Bronze Age necropolis was excavated below the kale, and prehistoric material was also found on the plateau and below,17 but there are no indications of a continuous occupation from the Early Bronze Age into the Phrygian period. There are no reports about a settlement later than the so-called Persian settlement, but there can be little doubt that the kale continued at least to some extent to be inhabited in later periods, as there are numerous rock-cut tombs dating to the Roman period, along with later inscriptions and excavated material dating to Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods. Of the other Phrygian settlements in the Highlands, it is only Piâmiâ Kale that has been partly excavated.18 Piâmiâ Kale is a rather small settlement, but with its own defence system, probably dating back to at least the Middle Phrygian period. Later on, this kale was reused during the Byzantine and Medieval periods.19 The only rock-cut monument here, except for a Phrygian chamber tomb,20 is a rather small and insignificant niche, No. 39, situated next to the Phrygian entrance gate, which should probably be dated to the same period as the Phrygian fortified walls. The excavation conducted on the plateau in 1939 produced material only from the later Medieval period, except for one pottery fragment. However, a lot of Phrygian sherds were observed on the slopes of Piâmiâ Kale.21 Haspels does not give any information to which Phrygian period they might have belonged. As for the rest of the Phrygian settlements in the Highlands, there are very few chronological

the bottom of the shaft (Gabriel 1965, 86). These sherds could easily have fallen into the shaft at any point, and may not be connected with the monument at all. The Bahâayiâ Monument, No. 28, was also excavated by the French team, and has been published, but there is no mention of any finds whatsoever in the publication (Gabriel 1965, 83–84). The DeÅirmen Yeri, No. 26, was excavated by the Turkish authorities, but nothing has been published, and there are no finds at the Afyon Museum from this excavation; information kindly provided by the director of Afyon Archaeological Museum Dr. Ahmet İlaslÌ. 19 Haspels 1971, 40ff. 20 Haspels (1971, 128) classified the tomb as belonging to Group II of chamber tombs and dated it to the first half of the 6th century. However, as discussed above, the chronology of the rock-cut tombs needs revising, considering the new data from Gordion. 21 Haspels 1971, 41, n. 43; 45 with n. 68.

92

chapter two

data for them, since they have not been excavated. The majority of the sites are fortified and situated on top of rock plateaux. The rock-cut monuments themselves, chamber tombs, fortification walls and pottery fragments tell us that the settlements existed in the Middle Phrygian period, but there is little evidence to show whether they also existed in the Early Phrygian period. A few settlements, such as Kes Kaya, are situated on the open plain. This settlement appears to be spread over a large open area with low hills. The site has not been excavated, but it was recorded by Haspels.22 A tall rock with a deep cut in the middle stands on top of a low hill and the area around is full of Phrygian sherds.23 Haspels noted that the sherds at Kes Kaya are similar to the ones from the Late Phrygian period at Midas City, and she argued that this, together with the fact that there was no need for fortifications, was evidence for a Persian settlement at Kes Kaya.24 The monuments should be contemporary with the site, i.e. Late Phrygian if Haspels’ interpretation is correct. However, there is also one chamber tomb at Kes Kaya, classified by Haspels as belonging to group I,25 which should, according to her own chronology, belong to a much earlier Phrygian phase (see however, above and n. 20, where these classifications and dating are questioned). Besides Phrygian settlements, there is evidence for considerably earlier settlements dating to the Chalcolithic period and/or Early Bronze Age at Kümbet, FÌndÌk and Kes Kaya.26 There are, however, no reports about any Late Bronze Age settlements except for some Hittite sherds noted by Haspels at Kümbet.27 A large number of sites were again reoccupied during the Byzantine period. At Kümbet, façade No. 29 was reused in the Byzantine period, probably

in connection with a rock-cut church hewn out of the same rock.28 Also the façade No. 15, the Küçük KapÌ Kaya, bears evidence of later reuse, as Christian crosses have been carved on the frame surrounding the niche.29 On the same outcrop of rock as Arslankaya, No. 16, but on the back side, there is a niche perhaps dating to the Byzantine period.30 Haspels also noted that the Delikli Taâ monument, No. 1, was reused in the Byzantine period.31 DöÅer Asar Kaya, the Köhnüâ valley, NallÌ Kaya, Delik Taâ, FÌndÌk and Demirli Kale were all reoccupied during the Byzantine period.32

22 Haspels 1971, 71, 92–93, 125–126, 145, 273, figs. 240–41, 243–44, 246, 506; here Fig. 8. 23 Haspels 1971, 71. 24 Haspels 1971, 145. 25 Haspels 1971, 125–126. 26 Haspels 1971, 285–287. 27 Haspels 1971, 286; Mellink 1993a, 153. 28 A rock-cut Phrygian tomb at Kümbet was reused and re-modelled in the Roman period. Kümbet continued as a village in the Roman period and by the fifth century it had gained city rights, and should probably be identified with Metropolis (Haspels 1971, 128–129, figs. 96, 543). 29 Haspels 1971, 254. 30 Hemelrijk 1989, 727. 31 Haspels 1971, 253–254.

32 The kale at DöÅer Asar Kaya is a small one (57 x 16 m, see Haspels 1971, fig. 503; here Fig. 7), and there is no proper plateau that could have housed a settlement. The kale is very narrow and has a rugged surface. Part of the kale is collapsed and that must have happened at least to some extent before the Phrygian period, since in the area below the kale on the south and south-west side lie several large blocks which are probably parts of the collapsed kale, some of which have been worked in the Phrygian period. During the Byzantine period several stories of rooms, connected by tunnels, were cut into the side of the kale. Most of these rooms are broken away today. The Köhnüâ valley also has traces of Roman occupation (Haspels 1971, 61–62, 65, 175, 208, 225, 227, 229, 232–233, 243, 247, 248, 253, 287). 33 Haspels 1951a, 29, 31, pl. 8a3.

2.2. Excavated Objects and Structures Found Close to Rock-cut Monuments at Midas City In Chapter I we discussed the type of finds that have been excavated in the immediate areas below or around the rock-cut monuments at Midas City. Unfortunately, none of the finds can be confirmed as being directly related with the monuments, but some of them possibly are, and we will here discuss the finds that are interesting from a chronological point of view which might give us some indications of the dates of the monuments (for a complete list of finds that have been found close to the monuments, see respective catalogue entries). 2.2.1. The Midas Monument, No. 30 From the excavated area immediately in front of the façade, section A1, came only one object which carries some chronological interest, a polychrome painted pottery fragment of an amphora or a jug with floral decoration, probably an import from the west and dated not later than the 6th century BC.33 In the area in front of the stoa, section A2, was found grey ware along

chronology with heaps of iron slag, the latter dating to the Byzantine foundry. A piece of an architectural terracotta dating to the Middle Phrygian II period was also found here.34 There is also a section named A2bis, which, according to the excavation report, is a fill found in a crack in the rock below the southern wall of the stoa.35 Exactly what is meant by that is unclear since the southern wall of the stoa itself is cut out of the rock, and it is not possible to determine whether this fill predated the stoa or not. The fill contained a few more interesting finds, such as a further piece of architectural terracotta, a fragmentary terracotta bull figurine, a spear head and a bronze vase.36 According to Åkerström, 15 fragments of architectural terracottas have been discovered at Midas City.37 Twelve were found during the pre-war excavations, ten of which have been published by Haspels, and three were found during the unpublished postwar excavations. The majority of these, eleven fragments, came from the excavated section R3 situated on top of the plateau, one came from section F4, one was found at the southern part of the plateau, and two came from the area next to the stoa.38 In addition, two more fragments were found in 1992 in section F.39 The two fragments that came from section A have an identical pattern, a meander, and it appears that they may have come from the same frieze or building. There is therefore a possibility that they may have belonged to a building from this area, especially considering that there are in this section architectural remains from a building predating the Late Phrygian period, the stoa itself, and we should consider the possibility that they were part of the architectural decoration of the stoa. The roof of the stoa had a low inclination of 15% (see Table 7), suitable for a tiled roof (for a further discussion of tiled roofs, see below, pp. 108–109). We should, however, not disregard the possibility that these two terracottas may have fallen down from the plateau, and 34

Haspels 1951a, 92–93, 149, pl. 40a1. Haspels 1951a, 9–10. 36 Haspels 1951a, pls. 40a4, 37a, 42a1, 41d7. 37 Åkerström 1966, 133–134. 38 Åkerström 1966, 133–134; Haspels 1951a, 92–93, pl. 40. 39 Pehlivaner & Özçatal 1995, figs. 5–6. 40 Haspels 1951a, 97–98. 41 Haspels 1951a, 89. 42 Romano 1995, no. 6, pl. 3. 43 Troy IV, 264, no. 38–127, fig. 290. 35

93

originally belonged to another building. However, if they actually were part of the stoa, then we would have an important piece of evidence for at least the dating of the stoa and the niche next to the façade, as being constructed in the Middle Phrygian II period or later. Two of the other objects from the fill A2bis, the spear head and the bronze vase, were both dated to the period of the excavated settlement,40 that is the Late Phrygian period. It is possible that the terracotta bull figurine dates to the Late Phrygian period, as suggested by Haspels,41 but an earlier date is also possible, since similar bulls from earlier periods exist. From Gordion we have a fragment of a bull-headed vessel that has been dated to no later than the 5th century BC, but probably belongs to an earlier period.42 A fragment of a terracotta bull figurine was also found in the Upper Sanctuary at Troy, belonging to settlement VIII.43 Another example of a similar-looking bull, but in the shape of a rhyton (?), from Büyük Güllücek, north of Alaca Höyük, probably belongs to an early Phrygian period.44 A similar bull is found next to Matar on the small relief from Gordion, to be dated not later than 540 BC.45 This is admittedly not a figurine, but the shape of the eye and the nose are similar to the ones on the bull from Midas City. It is possible that the bull figurine had a cultic association with the Midas Monument and the stoa (see p. 164).46 If there is a direct link between the figurine and the monument, then the date of the figurine becomes more important, but unfortunately the stratigraphy, or rather lack of stratigraphy, does not help us, and it is not possible to determine a more specific date. To conclude, there are no reported finds from section A connected with the Midas Monument that could be dated any earlier than the Middle Phrygian II period.47 But we should bear in mind that earlier Phrygian finds could very well have disappeared completely during the Byzantine reoccupation or at any other time. 44 Koâay & Akok 1957, pl. 8٫2; Prayon 1987, 149–150, 215, no. 129. 45 Kohler 1995, 34, no. TumC 26, pl. 17D, here Fig. 120. 46 The small relief from Gordion shows Matar standing next to a bull. We can also note here the fact that bull figurines were found at the Upper Sanctuary at Troy, a sanctuary that seems to have at least some affinities with Kybele (Rose 1993, 97–98; Rose 1994, 78; Rose 1998, 87–90). 47 A prehistoric stone axe was found in front of the Midas Monument (Haspels 1951a, 153, pl. 44d4).

94

chapter two

2.2.1.1. The Architecture of the Stoa Next to the Midas Monument. The stoa next to the façade is, as has been discussed in Chapter I, unique; it is the only example, except for DeÅirmen Yeri, of a building connected to a façade. The stoa itself must be regarded as a direct influence from Greek architecture. We have several examples of Archaic stoas from the Greek cities of Asia Minor, such as the South Stoa at Didyma, three stoas at Larisa on the Hermos, two stoas at the Heraion at Samos, the Hall of votive gifts at Samothrace, and perhaps two small stoas at Old Smyrna.48 When comparing our stoa with these examples, the closest parallels are the stoa at Didyma and the North Stoa I at Larisa, both dated to c. 600 BC.49 The Midas stoa is 17 m long and 3.5 m deep, and the stone bases for the wooden (?) columns or pillars are c. 3 m apart. The South Stoa at Didyma is 15.5 m long and 3.6 m deep, with a probable intercolumniation of 2.4 m; the colonnade was probably of wood.50 The North Stoa I at Larisa measures 18.7 m in length and 4 m in depth, and probably had wooden posts.51 The other two stoas at Larisa are also of similar dimensions; the East Stoa is 11.55 m long and 4.9 m deep, and the North Stoa II is 20.85 m long and 6.5 m deep. The latter was possibly two-aisled, and is also dated later, after 600 BC.52 The two stoas at Samos are considerably longer, (c. 70 m and c. 59 m respectively), and at least one of them is two-aisled. The South Stoa has two rows of pillar base slabs for the colonnade of wooden posts, with an intercolumniation of 2.28 m, and is dated to the late 7th century. The other, the Northwest Stoa, is dated to c. 570–560 BC.53 Considering the stoas at Didyma and Larisa, a date after 600 BC can be suggested for the stoa at Midas City, based on the architectural remains. The architectural terracottas excavated close to the stoa would support such a date, providing that they once belonged to the building.

48 Coulton 1976, 236, 250–251, 279–281, 284, figs. 20, 62٫1, 77, 105:1, 105:4, 106:2, with further references. 49 Coulton 1976, 236, 250. 50 Coulton 1976, 236. 51 Coulton 1976, 250. 52 Coulton 1976, 251. 53 Coulton 1976, 279–280. 54 Haspels 1951a, 28, pl. 8d2.

2.2.2. The Hyacinth Monument, No. 31 Section G, the area in front of and below the Hyacinth Monument, produced a few dated pottery sherds, including one piece of imported painted pottery,54 dated to the first half of the 6th century BC, that is the Middle Phrygian II period. There was also a piece of a tripartite miniature pot, probably belonging to a period earlier than the Late Phrygian period,55 and one fragment with stamped decoration,56 similar to the one found in section D (see below for a discussion of its date). To conclude, disregarding the prehistoric sherds dated to the Early Bronze Age, the earliest evidence that can be firmly dated belongs to the first half of the 6th century BC. 2.2.3. The Unfinished Monument, No. 34, Façade No. 35 and Step Monument No. 85 From excavation zone D came grey ware potsherds, and one pottery fragment with stamped triangular decoration.57 Sherds with stamped decoration have also been found at other places at Midas City. Vessels with stamped decoration have especially been found at Gordion, dating from the Early Phrygian period onwards. A few examples of stamped pottery have also been found at Troy, and it is from here that we have a sherd with decoration identical to the sherd from the excavation zone D. The sherd from Troy came from the Upper Sanctuary, from a disturbed context, but this type of ware was in use at Troy during the 7th and 6th centuries.58 Similar stamped pottery was also among the grave goods of the Great Tumulus at Ankara.59 Pottery with triangular stamped decoration probably continued to be made for a long period, and it is therefore difficult to determine a more precise date for this particular sherd. The pottery fragment cannot, in any case, be directly linked with any of the three monuments, and could very easily have fallen down from the upper plateau.

55

Haspels 1951a, 15, 84, pl. 13e1, 13f. Haspels 1951a, 141–142, pl. 33b 11. 57 Haspels 1951a, 13, 141, pl. 33b3. 58 Troy IV, 253, 264, fig. 291:1. 59 Buluç 1979, pl. 21, no. BT.1. The material from the tumulus, including the stamped pottery, is exhibited at the METU Museum at Ankara. 56

chronology 2.2.4. Step Monument No. 69 A fibula was found in a crevice to the left of the step monument.60 According to Muscarella, the fibula belongs to group XII, 7A.61 Several of the fibulae in this group are from Tumuli W and K-III and K-IV at Gordion and, according to the new chronology, should therefore be dated between the second half of the 9th and the first half of the 8th century BC.62 This at least indicates a similar date for the fibula from step monument No. 69, but without a context it is impossible to suggest a more specific date. According to the excavator, this fibula had probably fallen down from the rock above,63 and if this is the case it cannot be of any help in dating the monument. Three more finds, all sherds, are documented from section H, in front of the monument. Two of these are dated to the 6th century, and both are imports from Greece or western Anatolia.64 The third is part of a vessel with a spreading ring foot.65 Only the foot is preserved, but fragments from similar vessels have been found at Midas City and a carinated bowl with a high spreading foot appears to be the most likely shape for this vessel.66 Vessels of this shape have also been found at Gordion, BoÅazköy and Sardis.67 The ones from Gordion are dated either to the time of the destruction or to the Middle Phrygian period, and the ones from BoÅazköy all belong to the “jungphrygische Zeit” (BK 1b and BK 1a) i.e. 650–547 BC.68 The example from Sardis is dated to the beginning of the 7th century. A similar date for the ones found at Midas City appears likely, that is they all date to the period pre-dating the excavated settlement. Haspels did

60

Haspels 1951a, 15, 93–94, 150, pl. 41a5. Muscarella 1967a, 17–18 with n. 19. 62 Because of the newly suggested date for the destruction at Gordion, the dates of the tumuli have to be revised, but the earlier suggested sequence of the tumuli should still be more or less valid. Tumulus W is regarded as the earliest and, based on stylistic comparisons with Early Phrygian material, should be dated as Early Phrygian. Tumuli K-III and K-IV have been placed in a sequence between Tumulus W and Tumulus MM. For the sequence, see Kohler 1995, 192, table 4. 63 Haspels 1951a, 15. 64 Haspels 1951a, 29ff, 38, pls. 8a4, 9d3. The latter is an Attic black-figured sherd. 65 Haspels 1951a, 135, pl. 29:24. 66 Haspels 1951a, pl. 29:15–24. 67 Sams 1994b, nos. 435–439; 444, 447, 452, 456–458, 460, pls. 14, 16–18; G. & A. Körte 1904, 66, nos. 34–38 (from Tumulus III); Young et al. 1981, nos. TumP 60, 61 61

95

not suggest a date, even though she compared them to similar ones dating to this period from both Gordion and BoÅazköy.69 To conclude, the pottery found in this excavation zone should be dated no later than the 6th century, and one fragment, the ring foot, possibly even earlier. However, we cannot be certain of the connection between these sherds and the step monument. We should, however, note that two of the sherds belonged to imported painted vessels, and were, we may assume, not intended for everyday use. If there is a connection, the excavated material indicates a date in the 6th century or earlier. 2.2.5. Step Monument No. 70 Section R1, the area in front of the step monument, contained some fragments of plain grey ware and three metal objects. These metal objects consisted of a bronze arrow head and two iron knives that might pre-date the Late Phrygian period (see pp. 87–88). The area behind the step monument, section R2, provided some earlier material, such as sherds dated to the Middle Phrygian II period. One of the sherds came from a painted imported oinochoe, and another from a small amphora or jug.70 There were also two sherds of a painted cup decorated with wavy lines with concentric circles both on the exterior and interior.71 The shape is similar to a skyphos, although not in the strictest sense of the term. Haspels dated these fragments to the 5th or 4th century BC,72 but this motif occurs earlier at both Gordion and Ankara.73 At Gordion, the earliest vessels (jugs and dinoi) with this motif are from the destruction level, but continue into

(from Tumulus P), pl. 17I, J; E.-M. Bossert 2000, nos. 1084–1091, fig. 43, pl. 129; Mellink 1971, 176, pl. 40, fig. 15. 68 The dates of BK 1a and BK Ib are according to the chronology of E.-M. Bossert (2000, 168, fig. 43). 69 Haspels 1951a, 68. 70 Haspels 1951a, 28–29, pls. 7d2, 8a7. 71 Haspels 1951a, 121, pl. 9a3, 9b1. 72 Haspels 1951a, 34–35. 73 Sams 1994b, 155, nos. 29, 707, 799, 969, 970, pls. 89, 72, 90, 140. The Great Tumulus at Ankara contained at least one vessel with this type of decoration, exhibited in the METU Museum at Ankara (Buluç 1979, pl. 16, no. BT. 16). Buluç (1979, 133–134) drew parallels between the material from the Great Tumulus at Ankara and Tumuli W, K-III and P at Gordion and suggested a similar date, i.e. with adjustments to the new chronology at Gordion, possibly at the beginning of the Middle Phrygian period.

96

chapter two

post-destruction levels. Mellink dated these particular sherds from Midas City to the 8th century BC, based on comparisons with material from Gordion according to the earlier accepted date of the destruction.74 However, this motif does not appear on cups decorated both on the exterior and interior at Gordion from this early date, and therefore a later date seems more plausible for the Midas City cup. To conclude, we have finds dating back at least to the 6th century BC from the area around the step monument, but none of them can be confirmed to be related to the step monument itself. We can, however, note that the earlier finds are painted pottery and in two cases imported, i.e. pottery that is indicative of some sophistication. 2.2.6. Step Monuments Nos. 76 and 77 On the north side of No. 76 is section U1 (Fig. 4), and among the excavated objects interesting from a chronological point of view is the leg of a tripod and a pottery fragment with stamped decoration.75 The leg of the tripod should probably be dated earlier than the Late Phrygian period.76 Similar tripods or tripods legs have been found at BoÅazköy, Kerkenes DaÅ and Gordion. The tripods from BoÅazköy are dated to BK II, i.e. c. 800–650 BC.77 The tripod bowls from Kerkenes DaÅ should probably not be dated later than the mid-6th century.78 From Gordion we have fragments of tripod plates from a deposit dated to 620–600 BC, in Tumulus J,79 and also examples of tripod ring-stands,80 but this example from Midas City seems rather to have belonged to a bowl/plate than a ring-stand. The stamped fragment has a decoration of squares filled with small lozenges.81 An identical pattern is also found on another fragment 74

Mellink 1993a, 153–154. Haspels 1951a, 125, 140, pls. 15e6, 33a10. 76 Haspels 1951a, 84 77 E.-M. Bossert 2000, nos. 1092–1099, pl. 93. Genz (2000, 44, fig. 1; 2004, 9, table1) dates level BK II c. 800–650 BC, while Bossert (2000, 168, fig. 43) dates it 760–674 BC. 78 Schmidt, 1929, 261, fig. 55; Summers et al. 2000, fig. 15;Summers 1997; Summers 2000. 79 Kohler 1995, 70, nos. TumJ 50, TumJ 51, pl. 40.H, I. The deposit is dated as contemporary with the burial, 620–600 BC (Kohler 1995, 59). 80 Young 1955, pl. 1, fig. 4; G. & A. Körte 1904, from Tumulus III: 67, no. 45, fig. 42; from the City Mound: 197, no. 89, fig 196; from Terrace Building 3, destruction level, Sams 1994b, 281, pl. 106, no. 864. 75

from Midas City,82 together with another pattern, a square X panel stamp. The latter pattern is known from Gordion on stamped pottery dated to the destruction level.83 A similar date for the stamped fragment from Midas City is therefore possible. Section U2a, south of No. 76 and north of No. 77, had confused layers,84 but contained two painted fragments dated to the 6th century BC, a piece of an imported Greek 5th century alabastron, and some fragments of Hellenistic terracotta figurines.85 The finds from section U2b, on the west side of No.77, in contrast to the ones from the area in front (U4) where the Hellenistic Agdistis shrine was built (see below), consisted mostly of pottery fragments from the Phrygian period. The earliest firmly datable piece is part of a small painted cup dated to the second half of the 7th century or the beginning of the 6th.86 The piece is decorated with a fish immediately below the rim on the interior. A close parallel to the fish can be found on a skyphos from Sardis, probably of local manufacture, dated to c. 575–540 BC.87 A fibula found in section U2b might,88 however, date to an earlier period. The fibula belongs to type XII.13, according to Muscarella.89 This type of fibula is known already from Tumulus W, the earliest known tumulus at Gordion, to be dated well before the destruction, but the type continued in use perhaps as late as the 3rd or 2nd century BC.90 A close parallel to the fibula from Midas City is a pair of fibulae from Tumulus N at Gordion.91 Tumulus N was dated to the second quarter of the 7th century BC, based on comparisons both with similar fibulae from the clay fill above the destruction level and with pottery from Tumuli P, MM, H and Z.92 However, considering the revised date of the destruction, the date of Tumulus N should probably 81

Haspels 1951a, pl. 33a10. Haspels 1951a, pl. 33a9. 83 Sams 1994, no. 1003. 84 Haspels 1951a, 21. 85 Haspels 1951a, 27–28, 102, pls. 7d1, 8d4, 44a8, 37c2, 4. 86 Haspels 1951a, 28, pl. 7e2. References to other finds from section U2b, see catalogue entry No. 77. 87 Greenewalt 1972, 118–19, no. 4, 128, 145, pl. 4:1, 5:1. 88 Haspels 1951a, pl. 41a6. 89 Muscarella 1967a, 22, n. 38. 90 Muscarella 1967a, 22–23. 91 Kohler 1995, 87, no. TumN 4, pl. 50B. Also noted by Muscarella (1967a, 32, n. 38). 92 Kohler 1995, 86. 82

chronology be adjusted to an earlier date. The fibula from Midas City appears to be contemporary with the ones from Tumulus N and, considering their close parallels with fibulae from the clay fill, a date after 800 BC is possible for the fibula from Midas City, although without proper stratigraphy this cannot be proved. In front of step monument No. 77 is section U4 (Fig. 4), and here, immediately in front of the monument, a Hellenistic sanctuary of Agdistis was constructed. It continued to be in use during the Roman period. The sanctuary was actually built after the settlement of the Late Phrygian period ceased to exist. A part of the step monument was reused for the small shrine. The left corner of the lowest step was probably cut away to provide space for a square posthole situated here. This indicates that the step monument itself was probably no longer in use during the Hellenistic period, but the location for the Hellenistic shrine is probably not accidental, chosen because of its earlier importance as a cultic area, and we may suggest that we have continuous cultic activity here from the earlier Phrygian periods into the later Hellenistic and Roman periods. The cult itself continued, but in a transformed Hellenized manner. The finds of section U4 are almost all associated with the later Agdistis shrine.93 There were a few sherds from the Middle Phrygian I period, such as one imported Attic black painted sherd, and another painted fragment.94 There was also part of a large pot with stamped decoration, whose date is less secure, but it could very well date to the Early Phrygian or the Middle Phrygian I period.95 See above for discussion of other fragments with stamped decoration. Next to section U4 is section U3 (Fig. 4), an area bordering the south side of the Hellenistic sanctuary. The layers with Hellenistic and Phrygian material here were mixed.96 Among the material dating to the earlier Phrygian period were two pieces of stamped pottery (see above for discussion), a foot of a tripod, two shallow bowls in grey ware, and fragments of two bowls on a pedestal foot. 97 The shallow bowl with a base as well as another shallow bowl, have 93

See catalogue entry No. 77 for further references. Haspels 1951a, 38, pls. 9d4, 8a5. 95 Haspels 1951a, pl. 33b2. 96 Haspels 1951a, 21. 97 Haspels 1951a, pls. 33a8, 33b4, 15e5, 27h=28,11; 28٫6; 29:19; 29:23. 94

97

several parallels from BoÅazköy.98 Tripod feet and carinated bowls on a pedestal foot have been discussed above. To conclude, section U3 understandably has material related to the Hellenistic sanctuary constructed immediately to its south, but the section also produced quite a few pieces dating to earlier periods, although again we lack a stratigraphy connecting them with the step monument. Considering the other excavated areas around these two step monuments, we can conclude that the area produced several finds of some quality (painted or imported pottery, figurines, and a fibula) from the periods pre-dating the excavated Late Phrygian settlement. The earliest piece of evidence is dated to the end of the 7th century BC, but there are a few pieces that may be considered to belong to an even earlier period, such as the fibula, perhaps dated to shortly after 800 BC, and the pottery with stamped decoration. A connection between the Middle Phrygian material and the step monument seems plausible, considering the amount and the quality of the material. This area produced a large amount of painted imported ware compared with other excavated areas, especially those not situated close to a rock-cut façade or step monument. Step monument No. 77 seems to have lost its active role in the Hellenistic period, although the monument and the area itself continued to function as a sacred space, since it was chosen as the site of the Hellenistic sanctuary. In spite of being a monumental step monument, there is no inscription connected with No. 77, contrary to the majority of step monuments of this size. Considering this, and the fact that there are indications in the excavated material from the surroundings of finds perhaps dating to the Early Phrygian period, step monument No. 77 might be dated to a period before the script was introduced or still was in its infancy, and should then perhaps be interpreted as the earliest among the step monuments on the plateau; a date around 800 BC or the beginning of the 8th century BC might be suggested, but cannot be proved.

98 Haspels 1951a, pl. 27h has close parallel in bowls from BoÅazköy, both dated to BK 1 (650–547 BC) by E.M. Bossert (2000, nos. 1015, 1019, pls. 84, 128). Haspels 1951a, pl. 28:6 is similar to no. 865 at BoÅazköy, see E.-M. Bossert 2000, pl. 74.

98

chapter two

The other step monument in section U, No. 76, seems also to have lost its importance in a later period, since part of the monument was cut away in a later phase. The main part of one boss is still in situ, but presumably there were originally three bosses, two of which were probably cut away in order to create a levelled area in front of the step monument. 2.3. Conclusions Because of the lack of excavation and systematic survey in the Phrygian Highlands, we are left with a very poor view of the Phrygian period in this area. From Midas City we have some evidence from the end of the Early Phrygian period, but the picture is obscure for the rest of the Highlands. At least from the Middle Phrygian period there seems to have been a widespread Phrygian population, which continued into the Late Phrygian period, but to what extent is unknown. Since most of the kales are rather small, they could only have accommodated small settlements. The Middle Phrygian II settlement at Midas City may have come to an end as the result of some kind of destruction caused by invaders since the Late Phrygian settlement appears to have been reduced both in prosperity and in size compared with the earlier settlement, i.e. the society suffered a serious blow. The archaeological evidence does not give a precise date for the change, other than that it must have happened some time between c. 550 and 450 BC, but it is tempting to draw a parallel with the destruction at Gordion which has been proved archaeologically to have occurred c. 550 BC and was possibly related in some way with the Persians.99 The Late Phrygian settlement at Midas City appears to have been abandoned temporarily at the end of the 4th century, but the Agdistis sanctuary at the plateau continued in use into the Roman period. There are several rock-cut Roman tombs both at Midas City and at other sites in the Highlands, which testify to continuous occupation in the Highlands. Several Phrygian sites were (re)occupied during the Byzantine periods, and several again in the later periods of Ottoman domination. Because of the lack of stratigraphy, none of

99

Mellink 1993a, 154. The other main reason has been that the name of king Midas appears in the inscription above the façade. For this argument, see below, pp. 126–131. Scholars who have 100

the finds from the excavated areas around the monuments at Midas City can be confirmed as being directly linked with the monuments themselves. The excavated sector that produced the most material is the area around step monument No. 77, where the earliest securely dated find belongs to the second half of the 7th century BC, with some possible finds dating to around 800 BC. The monument was probably not in use during the Hellenistic period since the later Agdistis sanctuary reused part of it and blocked access to the step monument. Step monument No. 76 must also have lost its religious function in a later period, since part of it was cut away, although when this occurred is unclear. The finds which have been dated to the Phrygian periods before 600 BC are very few and none of these was found close to a rock-cut façade or step monument with an inscription, except for one fibula found in a crevice next to step monument No. 69. That fibula, however, appears not to have had any connection with the step monument.

3. The Decoration Used as Dating Criteria 3.1. Chronological Aspects Concerning the Geometric Decoration of the Main Field of the Façades 3.1.1. Introduction One of the main arguments put forward to date especially the Midas Monument, No. 30, to the 8th century has been the geometric decoration.100 The decoration has been compared with that found primarily on the wooden furniture from Tumulus MM at Gordion. Let us now compare the geometric decoration of the façades with the geometric decoration found on other Phrygian objects and try to establish if there are any differences, and if there are, how we should interpret them. Are there any chronological implications? The geometric decoration of the rock-cut façades has been discussed in Chapter I, and there we came to the conclusion that there is an elaborate system behind the decoration of the main field, an underlying system that gradually becomes more complicated when different sections of the

argued for a 8th century date are Haspels 1971, 102–104, 135; F. IâÌk 1987a; F. Naumann 1983, 56–62; Sivas 1999a, 206–08; Börker-Klähn 2000b, 89–90 and Berndt 2002, 11–14.

chronology pattern are more intricately intermingled with each other. The development of the geometric decoration of the façades should be seen as a chronological development, with the Midas Monument, No. 30, as the earliest of the monuments with a geometrically decorated main field. The Midas Monument is followed by the Mal Taâ, No. 24, and, lastly, Arslankaya, No. 16. The step monuments completely lack any geometric decoration. 3.1.2. The Geometric Decoration on Wooden Furniture The material group that the rock-cut monuments are generally compared with concerning their geometric decoration is the wooden furniture from the tumuli at Gordion.101 There is furniture with geometric patterns preserved from three tumuli. The earliest evidence for wooden furniture with geometric decoration comes from Tumulus W, which is also considered to be the earliest among the tumuli at Gordion, and should be dated to the Early Phrygian period, well before the destruction that occurred around 830–800 BC.102 From this tumulus came wooden fragments (of a serving-stand?) decorated with bronze studs in a geometric pattern. The pattern is divided into sections, most of which have a simple checker decoration, while a few have a rosette decoration.103 Most of the furniture with geometric decoration comes from Tumulus P and Tumulus MM, both belonging to the Middle Phrygian I period. Tumulus P should be dated some time after the 800 BC destruction and before Tumulus MM. Tumulus MM must be dated some time after 740 BC, according to dendrochronology.104 These pieces of furniture have a geometric decoration based on squares of equal size placed next to each other with some space left between them as if to emphasize that they are separate units. If the decoration covers a large area, several rows of squares are placed beneath each other. 101 Haspels 1971, 103–104; Bittel 1976, 294; F. IâÌk 1991a, 64; Mellink 1993a, 154. Simpson (1998, 634, with n. 19) notes some resemblance between the geometric pattern of the Midas Monument and the wooden screens, especially the one from Tumulus P, but she does not state that they are contemporary. See also Simpson 1996, 198–200. 102 Previously Tumulus W was dated c. 50 years before the destruction, at c. 750–740 BC (Kohler 1995, 192, table 4). 103 Young et al. 1981, 217–218, no. TumW 80, pl. 94G, fig. 129.

99

Almost all the furniture is decorated according to this principle. The two screens, the ‘pagoda’ table from Tumulus MM and the screen from Tumulus P, may be given as examples.105 Each square is filled with a different geometric pattern. The geometric decoration of all pieces of furniture contains to some extent either curved or diagonal lines. Besides the geometrically decorated squares, several pieces of furniture are also decorated with other shapes, such as circles, rosettes or variations of semicircles. We should here note a wooden inlay from Tumulus P that has the same basic pattern that can be seen in more advanced forms at the façades.106 This is a square area consisting of groups of five squares, one square in the middle surrounded by four squares, one at each corner, and between the sections there is a cross which both joins and separates the sections horizontally. It is of course not possible to determine whether the intention was to link them with each other or if the different sections were simply placed next to each other, but the result is the same. A further conscious development of this pattern can be seen on the Midas Monument, where the different sections are joined together both vertically and horizontally. To conclude, all the decoration of the furniture is strictly divided into adjacent, but untouching, separate sections. The geometric decoration itself consists of vertical, horizontal and diagonal lines, semicircles, circles and rosettes. The decoration of rock-cut façades is not divided into separate adjacent sections; instead the different sections are interconnected and form a coherent pattern. At the façades we do not find diagonal lines, circles, semicircles or rosettes;107 instead the pattern is strictly made up of vertical and horizontal lines. Therefore there is a major difference in the structure of the geometric pattern found on the furniture dating to the Early Phrygian and Middle Phrygian I period and the decoration of the main field of the façades. 104

Manning et al. 2001, 2534. Young et al. 1981, nos. MM 378, MM 388, figs. 104, 110; Simpson 1996, fig. 7; Simpson & Spirydowicz 1999, figs. 7, 31, 63. 106 Young et al. 1981, 75 no. TumP 162, fig. 46. 107 At the Unfinished Monument, No. 34, and at the Areyastis Monument, No. 37, there are rosettes in the gable field, but not as part of a geometric decoration. 105

100

chapter two

3.1.3. Bronzes and Other Metals Several belts with geometric decoration made of bronze or leather with bronze studs were discovered in the tumuli at Gordion. At BayÌndÌr two silver belts and several silver plaques with geometric decoration were recovered from Tumulus D. From Tumulus W at Gordion there are fragments of at least one leather belt decorated with bronze studs.108 Because of its fragmentary state, we can only conclude that the pattern was made in sections divided by decorative borders and the sections were filled with curved and diagonal lines; there are no traces of vertical or horizontal lines. There are three bronze belts from Tumulus P at Gordion, all with an engraved geometric decoration.109 The decoration is basically made according to the same principles as most of the furniture, i.e. separated squares filled with different geometric patterns. The pattern consists of horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines. Different dividing borders can be seen between the squares, for example, zigzag lines or a row of circles. From Tumulus MM at Gordion there are several pieces of leather decorated with bronze studs; it is uncertain whether they were all part of belts, but in any case a geometric pattern has been restored for some of the pieces.110 The restored or preserved parts give only a hint of the original pattern, but it follows the same division into square sections filled with geometric decoration. The silver belt from Tumulus D at BayÌndÌr has a pattern consisting of three rows with the same design.111 Each row is made of squares connected to each other. The different rows, however, are not connected. What we have

here can be seen as something in between the separated square pattern found on the furniture and other goods from Tumuli W, P and MM at Gordion and the continuous pattern covering the main field of the façades. The silver plaques from BayÌndÌr are decorated with separated squares,112 each decorated with a geometric pattern. Tumulus D has been dated to the beginning of the 7th century BC, based primarily on parallels with Phrygian material from Tumulus MM.113 However, Tumulus D at BayÌndÌr should probably be dated later than Tumulus MM at Gordion, and a date of the late 7th or early 6th century BC may be suggested, based on close affinities between one of the statuettes from the chamber tomb and the so-called Megabyzos statuette from the Artemision at Ephesos.114 The use of silver in making several of the items from Tumulus D at BayÌndÌr also indicates a chronological difference from the goods of Tumuli P and MM at Gordion, which did not contain any silver objects.115 To conclude, none of the metal objects with geometric decoration could be found to have a parallel in the rock-cut decoration. The belts from the Gordion tumuli were all made according to the same principles as the wooden furniture from the same tumuli, i.e. divided into separate sections, each section with its own pattern, made up of circles, semicircles, and diagonal, vertical and horizontal lines. The objects from Tumulus D at BayÌndÌr show similarities to some extent with the rockcut façades; the decoration of the small number of items was made up of only vertical and horizontal lines, as on the rock-cut façades. There are no diagonal lines, circles or semicircles. The pattern of the BayÌndÌr belt was not divided into square sections; instead three separate lines or rows were made, and each row had a continuous

108 Young et al. 1981, 207–208, no. TumW 25, fig. 126. For a recent study on Phrygian belts, see Vassileva 2005a. 109 Young et al. 1981, 19–20, nos. TumP 34, TumP 35, TumP 36, figs. 9–11. 110 Young et al. 1981, 147–154, nos. MM 170–179, figs. 94–96, pls. 73–74. 111 Antalya Museum, 44, no. 48. 112 Antalya Museum, 46–47, nos. 53–54. 113 Lydian Treasure, 27. These parallels were based on the earlier suggested date of c. 700 BC for Tumulus MM. 114 Roller (1999, 104) has also suggested a similar date based on the parallels with the Megabyzos statuette.

Compare the BayÌndÌr figurine (Antalya Museum, no. 42) with the Megabyzos figurine (Hogarth 1908, pls. 21:2, 24:7, 11). F. IâÌk (2003, 35) dates the BayÌndÌr statuettes between 620 and 590 BC. 115 Silver omphalos bowls are known from both Lydia and BoÅazköy. The BoÅazköy examples are from layer BK 1 (E.-M. Bossert 2000, 151, no. 1364, pl. 144). E.-M. Bossert (2000, 168, fig. 43) dated BK 1 674–547 BC, but her chronology was based on the earlier assumption that the destruction at Gordion occurred c. 674 BC. The socalled Uâak treasure contained several silver objects, dated to the Lydian period, i.e. around 500 BC (Lydian Treasure, 29–30, 64, 87–99, nos. 33–47).

chronology pattern. The three rows were, however, separated and not intermingled with each other as on the rock-cut façades.

101

ning of the rebuilding phase, but has not been published sufficiently to definitely determine its date.119 Floor mosaics also covered several rooms of the Mosaic Building that was built at an undetermined date after the destruction, possibly in the later Middle Phrygian period.120 These are quite well preserved and consisted of rows of meanders. To conclude, the Early Phrygian floor mosaics differ significantly from the later geometrically decorated objects from Tumuli P and MM, and are very different from the organized and planned geometric decoration covering the main field of the façades. The Middle Phrygian floor mosaics lack circles and are divided into lengthwise sections filled with checkers or meanders.

3.1.4. Mosaic Several megara at Gordion had floors covered with mosaics with geometric decoration.116 The best preserved mosaic covered the main room of Megaron 2 and belongs to the Early Phrygian period.117 The mosaic seems to be constructed without an overall system or organisation. The floor consists of more or less rectangular areas of different sizes, each filled with its own geometric decoration. Each rectangular area joins directly with the next one and gives the impression of a piece of patchwork. The impression is unorganized, and the only sign of any systematic planning is the rosette situated exactly in the middle of the floor. If we study the separate patterns, there are motifs such as checkers, swastikas, patterns with mainly diagonal lines, but also with horizontal and vertical lines, and a couple of circles. The mosaic includes one nongeometric figure of a four-legged animal. Two further Early Phrygian floor mosaics consisting of geometric patterns, but only preserved in fragments, covered the floor of Megaron 9 and the outer room of Megaron 1,118 and at least the floor of Megaron 1 appears to have had a geometric decoration similar to the mosaic of Megaron 2. There are also mosaic floors at Gordion dating to the Middle Phrygian period. Fragments of a mosaic were excavated in the ante-room of Megaron H; the mosaic appears to have been divided into lengthwise sections, each filled with checkers. This floor possibly dates to the begin-

3.1.5. Pottery On Early Phrygian pottery the geometric decoration usually covers the upper half of the vessel and is either divided into bands with a simple decoration, such as wavy lines, triangles or lozenges, or the decoration is made in sections with different geometric motifs, such as triangles, lozenges, concentric circles, herringbone, crosshatching, checkerboards, or diagonal lines.121 Pottery from the destruction level at Gordion uses the same basic geometric figures, only a bit more advanced. New additions appear to be meanders and between the geometrically decorated sections there are panels with animals.122 From the Middle Phrygian I period, we find the same basic elements as in the earlier geometric decoration, i.e. meanders, checkers, triangles, rosettes, lozenge-panels, zigzags and semicircles. The pottery from Tumulus P is usually more or less completely covered with geometric

116 Young 1965; Salzmann 1982, 93–94, nos. 46–56, pls. 2–6. 117 Young 1965, figs. on pp. 10–11; Salzmann 1982, nos. 47–48, pls. 2:2, 3:1, 3:2, 4, 5. Young (1965, 12) suggested a date in the middle of the 8th century for the mosaic floor considering that the destruction occurred around 700 BC; with the newly suggested destruction date the mosaic should be dated well before 830 BC. 118 Salzmann 1982, nos. 46, 49, pls. 2:2, 3:3; Young 1965, 9. 119 According to Young (1965, 7–9) the mosaic floor was made at the same time as the thick layer of clay was laid down above the destruction level, i.e. the mosaic floor should belong to the reconstruction phase that followed more or less immediately upon the destruction. Salzmann (1982, 94, no. 50) dated it to the first half of the 6th century BC, according to the earlier chronology with a destruction date of c. 700 BC.

120 DeVries 1990, 392; Salzmann 1982, 94, nos. 52–56, pl. 6:3–4; Young 1965, 6–7. Young (1965, 7) dated the mosaics of the Mosaic Building to the 5th/4th century BC. 121 The decorated pottery from the Early Phrygian period is mostly preserved in fragments, except for the finds from the early tumuli. For a ceramic sequence of the Early Phrygian period, see Sams 1994b, 178–187. See also Sams 1978. Examples of Early Phrygian pottery with geometric decoration, see Sams 1994b, nos. 29, 60, 113, 114, 134, 137, 165, 166, 167, 182, 183, pls. 37, 89, 115, 135, 158; Young et al. 1981, nos. TumW 61, TumW 62, pl. 92. 122 For a description of pottery from the destruction level, see Sams 1994b, 187–192. See also Sams 1978, esp. 230–232; 1974, 169–175. Examples from the destruction level, see Sams 1994b, nos. 617, 638, 640, 803, 804, 808, 882, 898, 928, 931, 933, 935, figs. 23, 24, 28, 29, 36, 37, 41–44, pls. 53, 59, 60, 91, 110, 115, 125, 127.

102

chapter two

decoration, and now we can find vessels completely covered with checkers and a few examples of large sections with a single pattern.123 The pottery from the Phrygian period at BoÅazköy has recently been published, and during the Middle Phrygian period some new geometrical motifs appeared, some of which have a more complicated version of the earlier pattern.124 However, none of the new motifs bear any resemblance to the decoration of the rock-cut façades. The decoration is still very much divided into sections or as continuous bands around the vessel. To conclude, the geometric decoration of the pottery is usually divided into sections. The only decoration not div