DOI Heft:
Nr. 1-2
DOI Artikel:Ramsay, William Mitchell; Hogarth, David George: Pre-hellenic monuments of Cappadocia, [1]
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12259#0106
PHE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA
93
meeting is représentée! in the central scène have before tbeir faces small complexes of
symbols ; but thèse might quite reasonably be interprétée! as merely objects grasped in
their hancls symbolical of their character, just as in Greek sculptures Zeus might bear a
tbunderbolt anel Hermès a caeluceus. Now however it seems safe to maintain that even
in the few cases where the symbols are actually helel in the hanels of the deities1 they
are intended to indicate their liâmes, precisely in the same way as larger groups of
symbols are employed in the same sculptures and still larger groups in the long inscrip-
tions of Cappadocia anel Syria.
One inference may at once be drawn from this. The opinion 5 advanced by Ramsay
about the taller figure with arm affectionately turned round the priest's neck in the
scène shown in Perrot, plates 50, 51 (H. A., fig. 321) is erroneous. This figure bears
the same name as the youthful god, who walks belind the great goeldess in the central
scène (P., pl. 38, 44, 45 [vin, and 313]). The Rev. Father Cesare A. de Cara has
recently argued that bis name is Sutekh.
Can we identify the deities of Fraktin with any of those which are represented on
the rocks at Boghaz Keui ? This question is peculiarly important ; but at présent it can
not be answered. No identification can be accepted as certain, unless the names corres-
ponel in the two cases. The inscriptions at Boghaz Keui bave never been copied. They
are so much worn that many of them can only be distinguished by an eye well trained
to this class of rock-sculptures. Just as a practised eye will read at a glance a Greek
inscription which an unpractised scholar will find wholly illegible, just as the former
will decipher an inscription where the latter cannot recognise even that an inscription
has ever existed, even so it requires a certain amount of spécial practice to catch the
form of the symbols in relief on the Cappadocian monuments. It is certain that many
inscriptions at Boghaz Keui might yet be read. Ramsay's MS. copies give many
symbols which are not shown in any published drawings ; and lie could certainly now
read far more than he could in 1881, when unused to this class of monuments.
There is indeed a marked resemblance in gênerai type between the god at Fraktin
and the god who walks immediately behind the leader in the central scène at Pteria :
moreover the god at Pteria seems to have the same single symbol before bis face. But
there are really more symbols in front of hïm, though ail but one are undeciphcrable 3 ;
moreover be carries a spear in bis left hand, not the small object that the Fraktin god
bears, holds a sceptre not a lituus in bis right, and he plants bis feet on two mountains.
Thèse points of différence make it impossible in the présent state of our knowleelge to
assert the identification.
The pointed head dress of the goddess at Fraktin makes a marked distinction bet-
(1) " Histor. Rel. bette. Phryrfia and Capp. ", in Journ. R. Asiat. Soc, 1883, p. 18-19. The Btriking likeness
between this flgure from Carchemish, proved to be féminine in spite of its masculine appearance by the lshtar
emblcm over the hat, is therefore deceptive. The figure is publised by Dr. Hayes Ward in Amer. Journ. Are/i.,
188S, pl. VIII.
(2) The latter case is literally true.
(3) This is expressly stated in the MS. notes made on the spot in 1881 by Ramsay, who tried iu eaoh case
to make oui as many symbols as he could.
93
meeting is représentée! in the central scène have before tbeir faces small complexes of
symbols ; but thèse might quite reasonably be interprétée! as merely objects grasped in
their hancls symbolical of their character, just as in Greek sculptures Zeus might bear a
tbunderbolt anel Hermès a caeluceus. Now however it seems safe to maintain that even
in the few cases where the symbols are actually helel in the hanels of the deities1 they
are intended to indicate their liâmes, precisely in the same way as larger groups of
symbols are employed in the same sculptures and still larger groups in the long inscrip-
tions of Cappadocia anel Syria.
One inference may at once be drawn from this. The opinion 5 advanced by Ramsay
about the taller figure with arm affectionately turned round the priest's neck in the
scène shown in Perrot, plates 50, 51 (H. A., fig. 321) is erroneous. This figure bears
the same name as the youthful god, who walks belind the great goeldess in the central
scène (P., pl. 38, 44, 45 [vin, and 313]). The Rev. Father Cesare A. de Cara has
recently argued that bis name is Sutekh.
Can we identify the deities of Fraktin with any of those which are represented on
the rocks at Boghaz Keui ? This question is peculiarly important ; but at présent it can
not be answered. No identification can be accepted as certain, unless the names corres-
ponel in the two cases. The inscriptions at Boghaz Keui bave never been copied. They
are so much worn that many of them can only be distinguished by an eye well trained
to this class of rock-sculptures. Just as a practised eye will read at a glance a Greek
inscription which an unpractised scholar will find wholly illegible, just as the former
will decipher an inscription where the latter cannot recognise even that an inscription
has ever existed, even so it requires a certain amount of spécial practice to catch the
form of the symbols in relief on the Cappadocian monuments. It is certain that many
inscriptions at Boghaz Keui might yet be read. Ramsay's MS. copies give many
symbols which are not shown in any published drawings ; and lie could certainly now
read far more than he could in 1881, when unused to this class of monuments.
There is indeed a marked resemblance in gênerai type between the god at Fraktin
and the god who walks immediately behind the leader in the central scène at Pteria :
moreover the god at Pteria seems to have the same single symbol before bis face. But
there are really more symbols in front of hïm, though ail but one are undeciphcrable 3 ;
moreover be carries a spear in bis left hand, not the small object that the Fraktin god
bears, holds a sceptre not a lituus in bis right, and he plants bis feet on two mountains.
Thèse points of différence make it impossible in the présent state of our knowleelge to
assert the identification.
The pointed head dress of the goddess at Fraktin makes a marked distinction bet-
(1) " Histor. Rel. bette. Phryrfia and Capp. ", in Journ. R. Asiat. Soc, 1883, p. 18-19. The Btriking likeness
between this flgure from Carchemish, proved to be féminine in spite of its masculine appearance by the lshtar
emblcm over the hat, is therefore deceptive. The figure is publised by Dr. Hayes Ward in Amer. Journ. Are/i.,
188S, pl. VIII.
(2) The latter case is literally true.
(3) This is expressly stated in the MS. notes made on the spot in 1881 by Ramsay, who tried iu eaoh case
to make oui as many symbols as he could.