GROUP TO RIGHT OF THE FIGURES

î-nt-KFLIXN.c ICv^MMVATS ^ •F CAPPAr^i^^lX ?^S

every way fômilar le» îhi* *»f Rci huVA imo ;ho îî.w of ^ cVuiroh ^t An^lA\-;ftl, Vi^x^r ih^ anciait Andabaiis, 4in;;tsXEof Xicvîe^nd 15 miu>> frvvaivho MU-^^Nf îN^n,^. Ut^v it w^v shown to Ram>ay on July 25 18.\ï \ It has Kvn ohî;>iv\î into « TVMîntî sh.^^v to m,iVi^ a more symmetrical onumaent for the ohurvlu Owiiii: to its jv>Miion it vviiUi not Ix^ photographed, but an impres>i<>n wa^ takon. Tho fra^rmont nu\^s\uvs aIhhU 14 inohos in diameter.

Plate II. — Inscription on a rock two milos in an air-lino fi\>m Hnlgar Mrtdon ^w \\w\\ reads 226*»), about 30 miles due south of the site of T\ ana, and ahout l\\ oho milo« SSl*' of Ulu Kishia. It is on thesummitof a rid^^ which facivs tho ootttral spino of Trt\u\t!< (Bulgar Dagb) across a stream flowing from Bul^ar Madon. Ahoul a thousnt^d fool holow on the bank of the stream is tho hamlet of Ali Ilodja Yokai^Koui» Tho insorihod hvk faces ESE, and is carved in fîve panels. The rock face is in gtmd condition» a IIHlo incrasted at the end of the panels and a littlo water-worn in thn ntiddio : it ovorlu\nfr« slightly. The symbols arc incised, and well eut, but not m roguhuly hn thowo ttt Hot' or Andaval. An unsatisfactory squeezewas takon but no pholograph» and thn accompanving plate dépends mainly on Hôgarth's copy, compared with Hkadi^am^h.

Silver mines are still worked at Bulgar Maden, and diKumnl workitigM oxisl ai Gyumush four miles to the north. Tliis circumstanco probably accoiintH for Ihn prosoncr* of an inscription in so reraote a spot in tho Taurns.

A copy of about a dozen symbols was mado by a friond of tho Knv. K, H. f)AViB In 1876, and published by the latter in « Life in Asiatic Turkry » p. 222, ']*ho flyniti(J« were however quite unrecognisable. Prof. A. II. Sayck mcnlionod tho probablllly of this monument being Hittite in Frasef^s Magazine, Aug. 188().

Plate III and IV, 6g. 3. — The famouM relief at Ivrlz, alK>iit p,\x aùlnn, «onfh of Eregli (ancient Herakleia Kybistraj, diHfy>vered by Ott/^r, a Sw/îd^;, %o.hi ont by the Comte de Maurepas in 1737, re/îxamined in ixiVJ by Major f'i^<^ h^^r w ho a^^cornpfihi^d von Mohke, in 1875 by the Rev. E. L. Davih, and in \^'4 by Sir (Ixhuka Wrr^sON ntu\ W. M. Ramsay. Drawings hâve W;n publinlif-d by \i\\^fT in his Kh-jn/iAÎ^n^ %, i, p], 'f. from Major Fischer s sket/:h, by Mr, Davm in the Trart^o/ftortA of thf> Horietij of ht- Mical Archaeology, 187G, p. Xi6 ar;d in hi^ " IJfe in A^foJir Turkt>ij '\ p. ?iZ^>, and by Ramsay in the Archâolo{jùf^:^te Zeifunyj, 1^^5, p. ^ï^Ï, In \r \Vrt;r,irr'.^ * Empira offhf. Hittites " a représentation T*i* p/'^-i-i'^r-^d, hA-^^^î eu luv:.^' rî.n-v'.r.j-, \\\\\\ the in-irriplion altered in a few yj\z*\* i:,::. H ku^ \y^ '^pv ; a:, 1 ^/* ^r.*r i l.;^- ^s i^i' -m hy FVjm^at, Histoire de tArt, T. iv. p, TaG, H>/\ff:.^ .^..1 îlAAr.r.AvC .. l:. d Ir m J ily 22, MM>, and succeeded in tai^::^ a p '.'.*>,- .n;-. 't-,..,-;. i^ ?-;:rvl..«viî in a r-nincM for:n on Plate rV', fig. 3- O»'!::^' v> •;.> r.^^ir .-*^y:. >,».::-..v>i -f \'^t\s, :a^^>i ){ *lu* /'*lief A'^p^ îo deep ihadow, and it Ttx.f p,rî. ".i^t/,- .- ..v.;x»^w. -/.** v, pi;rî/<.:"iî;ii 'lio v'iolo 'aMîi *VjujiI success. Thesmal.er:,^'--rr:-* i*,\y'rA. y;.' ^ûri li •^.--r r' ^ry i**r;ul )î .iiN.»{;»l>or.it*^ rof>/^ isclearly estabfL»f-r<: I:: "-^ : ■•^^' ',;'-! .-,•■.. 7ï.< :Vpt -v^'^ ^^^ ^hadow. ind *luî inxrx'^p^ion

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

behind him is quite invisible in the photograph. Of the larger figure only the features, breast and left arm were in good light ; the rest of the upper part of his body is visible in the photograph with the exception of the top of the head dress. From the girdle downwards he was in such deep shadow that little beyond an outline can be distinguished on the négative. The inscription to the right of his head is easily distinguished in the photograph. The low.est inscription we copied as far as we could, but at both ends the action of the running stream^ which sometimes flows over it, has destroyed the symbols.

The surroundings of the monument hâve been described previously ; it is connected beyond question with the remarkable spring which gushes up about fifty yards above it, in such volume as to produce a véritable river, which fertilises the valley as far as Eregli. The village of Ivrîz and ail the banks are bowered in fruit trees and vines, typified by the gifts of corn and grapes granted by the god to his worshipper, who, if we may judge by the remarkable coincidence of his dress, the fashion of his hair, and his features, with those of the figure on the Bor stèle [Plate I, fig. 1-3], is a priest king of Tyana.

Ivrîz is situated in the south western corner of Cappadocia, about forty miles from Tyana, at the extrême southern limit of theplain of the latter city. The sculptured rock is on a spur of the main chain of Taurus, hère caltéf-Bulgar Dagh.

Plate V, figs. 1 and 2. — The inscribed stone three miles from Kôlitolu Yaila (reads 139*^) and about eight miles from Ilghin (reads 279^) in Lykaonia, and about 300 yards to the left of the high road from the latter place to Kadyn Khan. It was discovered in 1884 by the expédition under Count Lanckoronski, and re-examined by Ramsay in 1886 ; M. Sokolowski's copy has been published in the Beoue archéologique, 1885, t. v, p. 262. Ramsay has given another copy in the Athenische MittheHimgen, 1867, p. 180. The photograph hère published was taken by Hogarth on August 26. Headlam and he both copied the stone : Ramsay was not présent at that time, having been compelled to return to collège duties in Aberdeen. The stone is a calcareous block of reddish colour, 0°» 80 X V^ 79.

It lies in the open country, in a shallow pit recently dug on the crest of a slight eminence on which unmistakeable signs of a fortification can be traced. No other lai^ block of stone is to be seen anywhere in the neighbourhood. The symbols are in high relief, and in the main well preserved.

Attention should be drawn to the similarity of the ibex head on this stone to that at Eyuk (Perrot, Explor. Arch., pi. 60) : there can be little doubt this inscription belongs to the northern, not the Tyanean, class of remains.

The copy published in fig. 2 is that taken by Hogarth^ from the stone, and has not been altered by comparison with the photograph.

Plate IV, figs. 1 and 2 and Plate. V, figs. 1 and 2. — Copy of the lower inscription and copy of the higher inscription at Gurun, situated in eastern Cappadocia, east of the Anti-Taurus. It lies on the modem road from Sivas to Albistan. The river

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA 87

Tokhma Su, a tributary of the Euphrates, flows through the town, which now contains 10,000 inhabitants, partly Armenians.

The inscriptions are NW of the town, at the lower end of a very narrow gorge through which the Tokhma Su forces its way. Both are a short distance up the slope on the nght bank of the stream. No. 1. is eut on the face of acliff, hanging slightly over a natural recess : a little to the left is a small spring. The inscription is about 15 feet above the ground : the symbols, eut in high relief, are disposed in four panels and cover a space of about four feet by three. The uppermost panel is almost wholly illegible, and the right and centre of the other panels are very much effaced, the whole surface of the rock having peeled away. The lowest panel has been preserved by the peut of the diff. We procured a ladder and impressed and copied the symbols, which were often only to be recovered by the slight discoloration of the limestone where they had worn away : but the copy we publish will show how sraall success we attained af ter many hours work.

No. 2. is eut, not like no. 1 on the cliffs through which the river makes its way, but on the face of a mass of rock, which projects amid the débris in front of the cliff , a little higher up the slope than no. 1. The symbols are in six panels, and worn almost entirely away, so much so that on the rotten surface of the stone they appear rather as dépressions than projections. They are largerthan in no. 1. and less carefuUy eut. We took photographs and an impression, but neither availed much, and the copy subjoined is based on a common examination of the stone.

Both inscriptions face south east towards the town of Gurun. Mr. Headlam was not with us when we visited thèse monuments. They were discovered by Sir Charles WiLsoN in 1879 and mentioned by him in Wright's « Empire ofthe Hittites », p. 111, but no copy has hitherto been published.

Plate VI. — A relief discovered by us on August 10 in a ravine half a mile NNE of FVaktin, a village lying due south of the central peak of Argaeus and 12 miles in a southerly direction from Everek. A Greek of Nevsheher gave a report of this monument to Mr. Calvert of Rhodes about forty years ago ; and Prof. A. H. Sayce alludes to it as a possibly Hittite sculpture in Fraseras Magasine Aug. 1880. We made search south and east of Kaiseriyeh and succeeded after a good deal of diflSculty in finding the village, whence we were guided to the relief. It is eut on a convex face of rock, looking west; the total length of the sunken panel in which the figures stand is 9 feet 8 inches, and including a group of symbols rudely eut to the right is 13 feet 10 inches. The figures range from 3 feet to 3 feet 4 inches in height and the panel is about 4 feet from the surface of the ground. The cliff on which they are eut is from 15 feet to 20 feet high ; and rises above a sluggish stream, which flows in front of the sculptures. No sign of a grave or of any ancient remains is to be seen among the rocks or anywhere in the neighbourhood. The relief stands eut 2 in. from the face of the panel : the rock has been eut away round the figures and the outlines left sharp and square. The sculpture is in admirable condition, with the exception of the upper part of the head of the figure on the extrême left. The left hand group is finished with much surface détail : the right

hand group shows no surface détail, and the figures are mère silhouettes. The symbols

above the figures are ail well finished, but those in the separate panel are very roughly eut and seem to hâve been left incomplète. A deep shadow cast by a spur of rock has made some of the latter invisible in the photograpb. Illustrations are appended hère of a seal bought by Hogarth in Bor, and now in the Ashmolean Muséum at Oxford, lis former owner asserted that it had been found near certain silver mines in the Kara Dagh, sixty miles west ' ; but the reports of other natives created the impression that it was found at or near Ekùzli-Hissar, the site of Tyana.

The head of the seal is of silver (fig. 1) : the three lions paws, forming the stem, are fixed to the head and to a staple by a silver solder, A broken ring passes throngh the staple, pierced at its ends to admit of suspension by a cord. The ring and staple seem to be of

baser métal than the rest, throngh no part is of very pure silver.

The diameter of the head is 7/8 in. : the height, when standing

face downwards, 1 in., and the weight 1 oz. 14grs. Ablackish

deposit has coUected in the lines forming the figure (fig. 2),

which is clearly, but not finely, engraved, and produces a

rather indiffèrent impression. The limbs show through the

drapery : the hands are empty , the head is covered by a close

fitting cap with slight peak, or bound with a fiUet ? and the

feet are shod with upturned shoes. Fig- 2.

Fig. 1.

m. — EXPLANATION OF THE SCULPTURES.

In attempting to explain the intention of thèse monuments, and to draw the most obvions conclusions with regard to their date and their relations to each other, we shall begin with the sculptures at Fraktln, which are in many respects the most suggestive. We intentionally refrain from discussing analogies with oriental art, leaving this to scholars who are able to do it more completely and with higher authority *. We make only those observations which are suggested by the other monuments of eastern Asia Minor.

The sculpture at Fraktin consists of two scènes, obviously similar in character. Each scène shows two figures, with an object of peculiar shape between them : in each the figure on the left is marked by greater size as superior to the figure on the right, and the latter is in each case represented as holding some object in the extended right hand. Our view is that in each case the subject is a libation scène : the deity is on the left, the strange object in the middle must be an altar, and the figure on the right is a priest

(1) This was a pure invention, for there are no silver mines in the Kara Oagh.

(2) For example the striking resemblauce between the sculptures of Ashur-nazir-pal and the monument of Ivriz leads to wide fleld of comparison and reasoning. Is this resemblauce due to direct imitation of the one by the other, or to a common influence exercised on bolh by some other cause or causes ?

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

pouring a libation in honour of the deity. We shall proceed to state the analogies that suggest themseives. The altar is of remarkable shape; it consists of a pedestal, which is shaped like a draped woman represented from the waist downwards, and of a broader part supported by the pedestai. The whole is not uniike a table. There are adjuncts however, which are less easy to understand : the doubt is whether they are inséparable or separable parts of the altar.

In the sculptures at Eyuk, we see an altar of somewhat similar type. It is shown in Plate 56, fig. I, of M. Perrot's, Exploration archéologique en Galatie ^ . We feel bound to express, though it may seem almost needless to do so, how much

fssssssssssssssa

'tiiuiifruiifa/fifiiii

we owe to the excellent illustrations and to the admirably sober and ^kkkvkWA^^s î k saggggg

judicious remarks on the interprétation of the sculptures contained in ^^^^^^ Z^^ff^^^ff^ ^^'^^

that work. The proportions, however, of the altar at Eyuk are perhaps

really more similar to those of the altar at Fraktîn, than they are shown

to be in the drawing of M, Perrot, which is not founded on a photo-

graph (v. p. 360) as the position of the block on which the altar is

sculptured made a photograph impossible. A sketch hère given (Fig. 3)

differs a little •. We should not hâve ventured even to mention the very

slight différence, were it not that his sketch makes the resemblance to

the Fraktln sculpture more striking. In the ornamentation the sketch

agrées exactly with Plate 56 I, and it differs only^in representing the

upper part as measuring much more inbreadth than in height, whereas *^'

it is more nearly square in 56 I. Therefore we reproduce the sketch hère, fuUy acknow-

ledging the probability that it may not be so accurate as 56 1.

But even if the latter should be hereafter proved to be absolutely accurate, still the différence of shape between the altars in the sculptures at Fraktln and at Eyuk is not so great that it might not be attributed to the détective art of the sculpter. The altar in both cases is of the same gênerai forra, though the pedestai at Fraktln differs in ornamentation from that at Eyuk, and is more raarkedly like a female figure. Is not this resemblance to the human figure intended to convey the idea that the altar partakes in the divine nature and is a living thing? The stage of religions thought which it implies is midway between the fetish stage, when an inanimate object is conceived as divine and powerf ul and offerings are made to it and poured on it, and the fully developed personal stage, when the altar is merely a stone or sod on which offerings to the divinity are laid, but does not in any sensé partake of the nature and character of the divinity.

The inter-resemblance of the altars at Eyuk and Fraktln shows that the additional features of the latter are adjuncts, not intégral parts. We must interpret then the objects which lie on the right side of the table as offerings laid on the altar. The curved object hanging from the left side of the altar indicates perhaps a décoration of some kind, a ribbon, or festoon, or wreath of flowers.

(1) Histoire de l'Art, IV, flg. 328.

(2) Made by R\m8ay in 1881, so that the analogy to Fraktln is necessaiily unintentional.

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

The scène represented at Eyuk shows clearly that this table is an altar. M. Perrot has analysed the scène in a most convincing manner. The altar is placed in front of a buU, standing on an elevated pedestal of peculiar shape : this buU is the embodiment of the divine power. A cortège of figures, headed by the chief priest and the chief priestess, approaches the altar as if to offer homage to the god, represented as a buU. As our view is that the ancient Cappadocian sculptures represent scènes and figures in the ritual of a religion which can be traced over the greater part of Asia Minor, modified by local circumstances and by the character of the varions peoples in différent districts, but still in essence always the same, we may quote from the description given by Clemens Alexandrinus ^ of secret rites which had at least the closest analogy to the Phrygian mysteries,

One point which illustrâtes this scène, and connects it with the ritual of a Phrygian cultus may be noticed. Attendants are represented behind the chief priest and priestess conducting a goat and a flock of sheep • towards the altar. The goat as the leading victim recalls the part played by the same animal at Dionysopolis and Laodiceia, whose religious rites we consider to be closely analogous to each other. At Dionysopolis eating goat's flesh entailed impurity, and the animal was sacred, and might not be offered as a Oyjtria*. This has been interpreted as implying that the animal, being sacred, was the purificatory victim, whose flesh was not eaten, but was forbidden as an ordinary ôuffîa, of which the flesh was eaten by the worshippers. At Laodiceia the types on coins prove a close connection between Zeus Aseis and the goat, which often accompanies him. It is perhaps justifiable to infer that the scène at Eyuk, where a single goat is led as the foremost victim, implies some important purificatory effect.

At Fraktin, in the right-hand scène, a bird is represented sitting on the offerings which lie on the altar. We interpret this bird as the companion of the goddess before whom the altar is placed. It is sacred to the goddess of Fraktin just as doves were sacred to the Phoenician Astarte and are so often represented as perched on her shrine or accompany ing her. We know no similar case in Cappadocia ; but at Marash, at the southern end of the great pass over Taurus, a bird is represented in a strikingly similar fashion, perched on an object which is laid on a table in front of a seated female figure *. The table differs in shape from that at Fraktin, being supported on crossed legs instead of on a single central pedestal but we look on it also as an altar (Fig. 4).

In both the scènes at Fraktin the altar stands between F>g- 4.

(1) Protrept.,2. M. Foucart's Asson.Relig.^ p. 75 ff., will naturally be consulted on this subjectby every one.

(2) There are three sheep represented; but from the arrangement M. Perrot infers (cbrrectiy as we think) that the intention is to suggest a large number. The first animal has distinctly the head and the tail of a goat and its horns are consistent with this : M. Perrot says •* un mouflon ou bouquetin ".

(3) To û/îov aôvTov aryorô/xcov, v. Ramsay " Artemis-Leto " in Journ. Hell, Stud,, 1889, p. 229.

(4) HuMANN and Puchstexn, Reisen in Kleinasien and Nordsyrieny Tafel XLVII, 2; compare an ana-

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA

two figures : we think that in each case the figure on the right is a priest (or priestess) pourîng a libation before, not upon, the altar. Hère again we find a similar scène at Eyuk, which bas not y et been published. The large block of stone on which it is sculptured bas been seen only by Sir Charles Wilson and Ramsay in 1881 ; it lies with its face on the ground, and when M. Perrot visited Eyuk, another large block, marked 17 on his plan^ was resting on it. Sir C. Wilson had the upper block moved, and the lower ovèrturned. We give hère an outline of the scène sculptured on it : thé drawing is founded on a detailed description of the whole accompanied by sketches of several parts, made by Ramsay in 1881 (Fig. 5).

The position of this block * shows its importance. It is on the right hand as one approaches the door of the palace, guarded by the two sphinxes; and the scène representedon it must surely be one of central interest. It shows a procession of figures moving towards the left, approaching a goddess seated on a high-backed chair and resting her feet on a stool. The procession is headed by the same priest and priestess who lead the cortège that approaches the altar and the bull in the scène just described; and the priest pours from an oinochoe which he holds in his left hand a libation that falls on the foot of the goddess. The procession is represented in the sculptures both to left and to right in the dromos as one approaches the door of the palace ' : the priest and priestess

logous représentation, Ibid., fig. 4, where the bird does not x^ercb on tbe table, but on the hand of a human figure standing in front of the table.

(1) I bave to apologise to Prof. E. Hirschpeld for having misstated his opinion about thèse symbols, as stated in his Folsenreliqfs in Kleinasien. 1 stated in the Athcnaeurrty 1890, October, p. 518, that he ** bas denied that thèse symbols are an inscription ". He bas assured me that this was not the case. 1 had understood that the intention of his paper was to show that the symbols in Boghaz Keui were used in a totally différent way from the symbols in tbe Hamathite inscriptions; and this I believed to mean that he denied the existence of inscriptions accompanying tbe figures at Boghaz Keui. A chief object in my " Syro-Cappadocian Monuments ", Athen. Mittheil. 1889, p. 171 ff., was to show that inscriptions existed at Boghaz Keui and many olher parts of Asia Minor similar in type to the Hamathite inscriptions, thougb generally much shorter. W. M. R.

(2) See the plan, Ewpl. Archéol., pi. 55 : Hist. de VArt, fig. 324. The block was tumed on its face again by the villagers, who expressed their hope of making an annual inrome by turning it and showing it to travellers willing to pay the price.

(3) In tbis respect we hâve to differ from M. Perrot, who in HUt. de l'Art, IV, p. 673, but not in Ewpl. Areh., p. 363, connects the figures on the left of the dromos with the scène of sacrifice to the bull. He attributes the fact thaï the six figures of fig. 336 (E. A., pi. 63) are moving away from the bull, to the turning of the block by the explorers. But this statement is probably only a slip of memory : he màkes no such statement in Eofpl. Arch.^ written while tbe sculptures were fresh in his memory, and the turning of tbe block eannot affect the direction of the figures on it, which march towards the right and turn their backs to the bull.

are followed by two figures on the same slab. Behind thèse there corne eight more figures on a separate slab on the left : and behind them are four enigmatic figures, two facing left and two right, on a third slab.

This striking analogy leaves no doubt that the Fraktln sculptures also represent two libation scènes. The scène on the left is in itself obviously so; but that on the right is more difiîcult, as the action of the priestess is not easy to understand. On the whole it seems most probable that she holds out an oinochoe in her right hand, and with her left raises some object towards her face. A longobject which falls from her left elbow toher feet is peculiarly hard to explain. Similar objects are represented on the reliefs at Eyuk and Boghaz Keui \ They are apparently intended to represent the thicker border at the outer edge of the cloak. The borders of the tunic worn by the priest at Ivriz are similarly represented by a very prominent band in relief across the breast and on the arm.

If the preceding steps in our interprétation are correct, it foUows that the left hand scène represents a god with his priest offering sacrifice and libation to him. The two figures, god and priest, are represented as wearing an exactly similar dress and tall hat, girt with the sword at their side, andbearing a curved stick like a iituus in one hand. The god bears this Iituus in his right hand over his shoulder, while the priest carries his in his left hand, in exactly the same attitude in which the priest at Boghaz Keui and Eyuk carries a similar lituns'. The priest wears the dress, andmust therefore represent the character of the god. When one of them appears alone in a sculpture, it must be diflScult to détermine which is meant; or rather the intention of the artist in some scènes is that the priest is the incarnate god, embodied in visible human form to his worshippers.

At Fraktin a symbol is placed in front of the god's face : it stands alone, and the perfect préservation of the surface shows that it never was connected with any other. Similarly there are placed bef ore the face of the goddess two symbols, one of which is identical with that which is before the god. Even if Prof. Sayce had not already explained the value of the symbol which occurs in both cases as the determinative prefix of divinity, any one would naturally conjecture that at Fraktin it means ' God '. Before the maie figure it is used, perhaps, as 6 Otôç is in the Greek inscriptions of Asia Minor at a later period, to indicate the chief deity of the district; and before the goddess it is prefixed to the symbol which indicates her name.

The analogy of Fraktin makes it clear that the symbols attached to many figures in the sculptures at Boghaz Keui indicate their names *. The great group of gods whose

(1) V. Pbrrot, Ewpl. Arrh,, pi. 40,45, 56 I. 59, etc. {Hùst. de VArt, lV,figs 312, 313, 32S, 333, etc.). M. PBRiuyr describes this object as ** un bâton Tertical ". We identify it, in thèse doubtful cases, with the similar objeot in pi. 42, 47, 50, E. A. 314, 321, where it is obviously the band or border of the garment falling from the upper arm.

(2) Prrrot, E. a., pi. 47, 50, 51, 56 (314, 321, 32S) : see also our figure n* 4. The slight différence in the shape of the Fraktin priest's stick is therefore due to a fault of the sculptor, and is not intended to indicate any différence in the character of the object.

(3) In the great majority of cases the symbols are not held in their hands, in some the précise relation la the hands is doubtful, and in two cases the M S. notes made by Ramsay on the spot in ISSl positively assert that the symbol is grasped in the hand. In the A thenaeum, 1S90, p. 51S, he has expressed himself inaccurately on this point, in a letter written from memory.

PRE-HELLENIC MONUMENTS OF CAPPADOCIA 93

meeting is représentée! in tbe central scène bave before their faces smali complexes of symbols ; but thèse might quite reasonably be interpreted as merely objects grasped in their hands symbolical of their character, just as in Greek sculptures Zeus might bear a thunderbolt and Hermès a caduceus. Now however it seems safe to maintain that even in the few cases where the symbols are actually held in the hands of the deities ^ they are intended to indicate their names, precisely in the same way as larger groups of symbols are employed in the same sculptures and still larger groups in the long inscriptions of Cappadocia and Syria.

One inference may at once be drawn from this. The opinion " 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 goddess in the central scène (P., pi. 38, 44, 45 [vni, and 313]). The Rev. Father Cesare A. de Cara bas recently argued that bis name is Sutekh.

Can we identify the deities of Fraktln 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 correspond in the two cases. The inscriptions at Boghaz Keui bave never been copied. They are so much wom 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 aglance 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 bas 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 be 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 Fraktln and the god who walks immediately behind the leader in the central scène at Pteria : moreover the god at Pteria seems to bave the same single symbol before his face. But there are really more symbols in front of him, though ail but one are undecipherable * ; moreover be carries a spear in his left hand, not the small object that the Fraktln god bears, holds a sceptre not a lituus in his right, and he plants his feet on two mountains. Thèse points of diflference make it impossible in the présent state of our knowledge to assert the identification.

The pointed head dress of the goddess at Fraktln makes a marked distinction bet-

(1) •• Histor, Rel. bettv. Phrygia and Capp, ", io Journ. R, Asiat. Soc,, 1S83, p. lS-19. The striking likeness between this figure from Carchemish, proved to be féminine in spite of its masculine appearance by the Ishtar emblem over the bat, is therefore deceptive. The figure is publised by Dr. Hayes Ward in Amer. Journ. Arch., 1888, pi. 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 in each case to make oat as many symbols as he could.