Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:30:56.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shaft Monuments and the taurobolium among the Phrygians*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Vecihi Özkaya
Vecihi Özkaya
Affiliation:
Adnan Menderes University, Aydın
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the discovery of the Midas Monument in the nineteenth century, Phrygian civilisation has emerged as an area of great scientific interest, and research has provided important evidence for Phrygian religion by studying the rock monuments, which reflect the artistic discernment of that period by their workmanship and architectural details. Though the connection of these rock monuments with the Great Mother has been made plain, the function of some details has not yet been adequately explained. One of these details is the vertical shafts that are found behind the façades of certain monuments. In this paper it is proposed to discuss the functions and use of these shafts and their relation to the monuments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 47 , December 1997 , pp. 89 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Haspels, , Phrygia, 2 ff.Google Scholar, n. 1. For Abbreviations see p. 103.

2 For more information, see Bittel, K., Kleinasiatische Studien: Kimmerier, Phrygier und Skythen in Kleinasiens (1942), 76Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 1–19Google Scholar.

3 E.g. Körte, A., “Kleinasiatische Studien III. Die phrygischen Felsdenkmäler”, AM 23 (1898), 82 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Gordion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900, JdI Ergz. Heft 5 (1904), 220 f.; Barnett, R. D., “The Phrygian rock façades and the Hittite monuments”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 10 (1953), 80 f.Google Scholar; Akurgal, , PhKunst, 94 ff.Google Scholar; Idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 86 ff.; Haspels, , Phrygia, 73 ff.Google Scholar; Naumann, , Die Ikonographie, 43 ff.Google Scholar; Roller, L. E., “Phrygian Myth and Cult”, Source VII/3–4 (1988), 43 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Haspels, , Phrygia, 76–77, 100Google Scholar, figs. 209–14, 511, 512.

5 Gabriel, , Phrygie IV, 85–89, figs. 41–42, pl. 45 b–eGoogle Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 85–86, 100–1, 103–4, figs. 157–8, 519, 520.1–3Google Scholar.

6 Akurgal, , PhKunst, 95, pl. 39 bGoogle Scholar; idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 114–15, figs. 71–72; Gabriel, , Phrygie IV, 83–84, fig. 40, pl. 42Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 81–82, 100, figs. 124–5, 516, 517.1,4,5Google Scholar; Işık, F., “Zur Entstehung der Tönernen Verkleidungsplatten in Anatolien”, AnSt XLI (1991), pl. 9 aGoogle Scholar.

7 For the shaft, see Gabriel, , Phrygie IV, 84, fig. 40Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 100, figs. 517.1, 4, 5Google Scholar.

8 Haspels, , Phrygia, 92, 95, 100; figs. 221–2, 527.4Google Scholar.

9 For the fortress called Fındık Asar Kale, see Haspels, , Phrygia, 69–70Google Scholar, figs. 215–20, especially 221–2.

10 Haspels, , Phrygia, 92, figs. 228–9, 527.1–4Google Scholar.

11 Haspels, , Phrygia, 31, 95, figs. 230–1Google Scholar.

12 Haspels, Phrygia, figs. 227, 504.11.

13 Haspels, , Phrygia, 86–87, 100, 105, figs. 160–6, 520.4, 521Google Scholar.

14 Young, R. S., “Doodling at Gordion”, Archaeology 22/4 (1969), 270–5Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 100 fGoogle Scholar.

15 The “silo” on the rocks Kümbet Asarkale with its different structure which was a significant fortress in the Kümbet Valley is very striking (Haspels, , Phrygia, 50Google Scholar, figs. 497.2D, 509.4). The “silo”, which has an almost square mouth closed by a lid and a circular base, and has a small door on its west side reached by descending steps on the north side which are cut out in the rock. On the corners of the mouth there are four square holes similar to those at Delikli Taş (Fig. 1 b). Because of these features, the “silo”, with its structure consisting of a door and steps resembling the shafts in which the taurobolium celebrations were performed (fossa sanguinis), as narrated in the ancient literature (Prudentius, , Peristephanon, X, 1006–1050Google Scholar) and exemplified by the shaft with steps found at Ostia (Vermaseren, , Cybele, 62, 103Google Scholar; fig. 24, pl. 45), could explain the function of the Kümbet Asarkale. We may therefore suppose that this “silo” was formed for the taurobolium celebrations. There is another one near the former described as a cistern or silo that has not the same type of door and steps (Haspels, ibid., 50, figs. 497.2C, 509.3). Other examples of silos which were carved in rock in the Highlands of Phrygia (Akpara Kale: Haspels, ibid., 47; figs. 507.1–2), also lack the same features.

16 Akurgal, PhKunst, pls. 36 a–b, 37; idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 88–90, figs. 52–54; Gabriel Phrygie IV, pls. 46, 47 a; Haspels, , Phrygia, 87–88, figs. 186–191, 523Google Scholar; Işık, F., “Zur Entstehung Phrygischer Felsdenkmäler”, AnSt XXXVII (1987), pl. XXVII aGoogle Scholar.

17 Akurgal, Kunst Anatoliens, 116, fig. 73; Gabriel, Phrygie IV, pl. 47 b; Haspels, , Phrygia, 87Google Scholar, figs. 183–4, 522.

18 Haspels, , Phrygia, 89, figs. 185, 524.1Google Scholar.

19 Bittel, ibid. (n. 2), pls. 29, 34; Akurgal, PhKunst, pl. 39 a; Idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 107–8, figs. 67–68; Gabriel, Phrygie IV, pls. 24–31; Haspels, , Phrygia, 73–76Google Scholar, figs. 8–13, 510.

20 For the relief, see Haspels, , Phrygia, 77, figs. 212, 511.2Google Scholar.

21 Haspels, Phrygia, figs. 163–4.

22 Bittel, K., “Untersuchungen auf Büyükkale”, MDOG 91 (1958), 61–72Google Scholar; figs. 60–66; Idem, “Phrygische Kultbild aus Boğazköy”, Antike Plastik II (1963), 7 ff., fig. 8, pls. 1–4.

23 For earlier explanations see Haspels, , Phrygia, 100, n. 146Google Scholar.

24 Körte, , “Kleinasiatische Studien III. Die phrygischen Felsdenkmäler”, AM 23 (1898), 97–109Google Scholar.

25 Körte, ibid., 102 f.

26 Haspels, , Phrygia, 100Google Scholar.

27 Naumann, (Die Ikonographie, 53–54)Google Scholar considers that the shafts might be a symbolic religious member.

28 Işık, F. “Batı Uygarlığının Kökeni, Erken Demirçağ Doğu-Batı Kültür ve Sanat İlişkilerinde Anadolu”, TAD XXXVIII (1989), 21Google Scholar.

29 Showerman, , Great Mother, 5 f.Google Scholar; Vermaseren, , Cybele, 38 f.Google Scholar; Çapar, Ö., “Roma Tarihinde Magna Mater Tapınımı”, DTCFD XXIX/1–4 (1979), 174 f.Google Scholar; Kınal, F., “Karatanrıça Olarak Kybele”, IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi I (1986), 235Google Scholar.

30 Vermaseren, , Cybele, 96–125Google Scholar; Showerman, , Great Mother, 56 ff.Google Scholar; Çapar, ibid., 178 f. The rites which took place on 15–28 March (15 March Canna intrat; 22 March Arbor intrat; 24 March Sanguem; 25 March Hilaria; 26 March Requietio; 27 March Lavatio; 28 March Initium Caiani), were also related with Cybele, see Showerman, ibid., 56 ff.; Vermaseren, Cybele, 113–124; Çapar, ibid., 178 ff.

31 Oppermann, H., “Taurobolia”, RE (1934), 16–21Google Scholar; Showerman, , Great Mother, 60 f.Google Scholar; Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 105 f.Google Scholar; Vermaseren, , Cybele, 101–3Google Scholar; Çapar, ibid., 181–2.

32 Cf. Showerman, , Great Mother, 61 f.Google Scholar; Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 104–5Google Scholar; Vermaseren, , Cybele, 102–3Google Scholar.

33 For more detailed information about this rite, see Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 55–56, 92 ff.Google Scholar; Showerman, , Great Mother, 60 f.Google Scholar; Vermaseren, , Cybele, 103Google Scholar.

34 All of them were published by Duthoy, (Taurobolium, 5–53)Google Scholar. The earliest four examples of these inscriptions are found in Anatolia: one is from Ilion (Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 5, no.1Google Scholar), two are from Pergamon (Duthoy, ibid., 6–7, nos. 2–3), another is from Pinara (Duthoy, ibid., 7–9), another was found in Athens (Duthoy, ibid., 9 f.). Furthermore, see Moore, C.H., “On the Origin of the Taurobolium”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol XVII (1906), 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 1; Showerman, , Great Mother, 61–62Google Scholar; Vermaseren, , Cybele, 103Google Scholar; Çapar, ibid., 181.

35 Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 122–5Google Scholar.

36 Moore, ibid., 43–48; Oppermann, ibid. (n. 31), 16–21; Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 124 f.Google Scholar; Vermaseren, , Cybele, 101 ffGoogle Scholar.

37 For the date of sixth century BC proposed for the monument, see Akurgal, , PhKunst, 94–95Google Scholar; Idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 106–108; Åkeström, Å., Die architectonischen Terrakoten Kleinasiens (1966), 156–7Google Scholar; Young, R. S., “Old Phrygian Inscriptions from Gordion: Toward a History of the Phrygian Alphabet”, Hesperia XXXVIII (1969), 274Google Scholar; Prayon, F., Phrygische Plastik (1987), 86–87Google Scholar; DeVries, K., “Gordion and Phrygia in the Sixth Century BC”, Source VII 3/4 (1988), 53 fGoogle Scholar. For dating of the monument to 8th century BC, see Gabriel, , Phrygie IV, 70–71Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 102–4, 135Google Scholar; Işık, , “Felsdenkmäler” (n. 16), 167Google Scholar; Naumann, , Die Ikonographie, 56–62Google Scholar; Özkaya, V., “Frigler'de Hero Kültü”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 67 (1995), 16 f.Google Scholar; idem, “Attis ve Hayat Ağacı” Arkeoloji ve Sanat (in print).

38 Haspels, , Phrygia, 102–4Google Scholar.

39 Young, R. S., “Doodling at Gordion”, Archaeology 22/4 (1969), 270–5Google Scholar.

40 Haspels, , Phrygia, 103 fGoogle Scholar.

41 Owing to the fact that the rock monuments are imitations of significant architectural structures like temples and palaces (Young, , “Doodling…”, 270 f.Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 100 f.)Google Scholar, the origin of their decoration must be the same. This can be proved by arhitectural terracotta tiles from Pazarlı having the same groups of motives. See Koşay, H. Z., Pazarlı Hafriyatı Raporu (1941), pl. LIXGoogle Scholar; Åkeström, ibid., 156–157, pls. 80, 1–2; 93, 2; Işık, , AnSt XLI (1991) 63 f.Google Scholar; V. Özkaya, “Attis ve Hayat Ağacı”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat (in print).

42 Akurgal, , PhKunst, 94 f.Google Scholar; idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 114–5; Haspels, , Phrygia, 104 f.Google Scholar; Naumann, , Die Ikongraphie, 58Google Scholar.

43 Haspels, Phrygia, fig. 521. For Midas Monument see ibid., 102 and fig. 8.

44 Haspels, , Phrygia, 101Google Scholar.

45 Haspels, , Phrygia, 82 fGoogle Scholar.

46 Gabriel, Phrygie IV, pl. 36; Haspels, , Phrygia, 82, figs. 16Google Scholar and 518.4.

47 Gabriel, Phrygie IV, pl. 35–36; Akurgal, , Kunst Anatoliens, 111, fig. 69Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 78–79, figs. 14–15, 513.2–3Google Scholar. It is at the side of the rock of Midas Monument.

48 Haspels, , Phrygia, 78Google Scholar.

49 Ussishkin, D., “Hollows, ‘Cup Marks’, and Hittite Stone Monuments”, AnSt XXV (1975), 100 f.Google Scholar; Neve, P., “Schalensteine und Schalenfelsen in Boğazköy-Hattuša”, Ist.Mitt. 27/28 (1977–1978), 61 ff.Google Scholar; Wagner, H. Hellenkemper-J., “The god on the stag. A late Hittite rock-relief on the River Karasu”, AnSt XXVII (1977), 173Google Scholar; H. Gonnet-Bağana, “Frigya'da Geç Bronz Çağı'na Tarihlenebilecek Kaya Eserleri Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler”, IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi I (1986), 276 f.Google Scholar; Işık, “Demirçağ …” (n. 28), 21; idem, Belleten 200 (1987), 525 f.

50 Neve, ibid., 65 f.; Ussishkin, ibid., 85–95, figs. 1–13.

51 Ussishkin, ibid., 95 f., figs. 14–19.

52 Hellenkemper-Wagner, ibid., 167–173, fig. 1, pls. 31–34.

53 Cf. Neve, ibid., 65 f.; Gonnet-Bağana, ibid., 277 f. Cf. Işık, , Belleten 200 (1987), 526 f.Google Scholar; idem, “Felsdenkmäler …” (n. 16), 177 f.; Idem, “Demirçağ …” (n. 28), 21.

54 CTH 331 = KUB XXXIII 66 III 17Google Scholar; CTH 481= KUB XXIX 4 IV 36Google Scholar; CTH 671 = KUB XXXVI 89 Ro 4Google Scholar. Cf. Gonnet-Bağana, ibid., 277, n. 24.

55 CTH 449 = KBo XVII 94 III 26Google Scholar. Cf. Gonnet-Bağana, ibid., 277, n. 25.

56 CTH 671 = KUB XXXVI 89 Ro 10Google Scholar; KUB XLI 28 + I 2. Cf. Gonnet-Bağana, ibid., 277, nos. 27 and 28.

57 Hoffner, H., “Second Millenium antecedents to the Hebrew “ÔB”, Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967), 390CrossRefGoogle Scholar, KUB XV ii 6–26Google Scholar.

58 Hoffner, ibid., 391, KUB X 63 I 17–28. See also Gurney, O. R., Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (1977), 30Google Scholar, n. 4. For the Hittite api see also Vieyra, M.RHA 69 (1961), 47–55Google Scholar.

59 AnSt XXV 86Google Scholar, XXVII 173, Pl. XXXIV a,b.

60 Gordon, E., JCS 21 (1967)Google Scholar.

61 Hawkins, J. D., “The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa”, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Beiheft 3 (1995), 10, 44–45, Abb. 13Google Scholar.

62 Suggestion made by Prof. Gurney in correspondence. That the channel slopes away from the bothros is clearly stated by Neve, P. in his book Hattuša, Stadt der Götter und Tempel (1993), 70Google Scholar.

63 Akurgal, , PhKunst, 111 f.Google Scholar; idem, Kunst Anatoliens, 3.

64 Barnett, , “Rock Façades …” (n. 3), 80 f.Google Scholar; Özkaya, V., İÖ Erken Birinci Binde Frig Boyalı Seramiği (1995), 137–43Google Scholar.

65 Sams, G. K., The Phrygian painted pottery of early Iron Age Gordion and its Anatolian setting (1971), 188 f.Google Scholar; idem, “Phrygain painted animals: Anatolian orientalizing art”, AnSt XXIV (1974), 170 ff.; idem, “Sculpted orthostates at Gordion”, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of T. Özgüç (1989), 449 f.; Özkaya, ibid., 137 f., 156 f.

66 Burney, C. A., “Urartian Relief at Adilcevaz, on Lake Van, and a Rock Relief from the Karasu, Near Birecik”, AnSt VIII (1958), 218, pl. XXXIV bGoogle Scholar; Hellenkemper-Wagner, ibid., 167–73, fig. 1, pls. XXXII a, XXXIII–XXXIV. The monument has now been destroyed.

67 Haspels, , Phrygia, 30–31, 69, 92Google Scholar; figs. 228–9, 232, 527.1–4.

68 Haspels, , Phrygia, 73 ffGoogle Scholar.

69 Hellenkemper-Wagner, ibid., 172 f.; fig. 1.

70 See Özkaya, ibid., (n. 64), pls. 31–33, 35–36.

71 Naumann, Die Ikonographie, pl. 5.4.

72 Laroche, E., “Koubaba, déesse anatolienne, et le probléme des origines de Cybéle” Eléments orientaux dans la religion grecque ancienne (1960), 113–28Google Scholar; Hawkins, J. D. and Bittel, K., s.v. “Kubaba” in RLA VI (1981)Google Scholar.

73 Orthmann, Untersuchungen, Malatya B/4; Akurgal, E., Späthethitische Bildkunst (1949), 107–8Google Scholar; Naumann, Die Ikonographie, pl. 1.2; Hawkins, J. D., AnSt XXXI (1981), 169–171Google Scholar; RLA VI (1981), 259Google Scholar; Bittel, K., RLA VI (1981), 263Google Scholar.

74 Sams, G. K., The Phrygian painted pottery (n. 65), 213 ff.Google Scholar; idem, AnSt XXIV (1974), 169–96, figs. 6–8; Özkaya, ibid., pls. 39–42.

75 Kohler, E. L., “Phrygian Animal Style and Nomadic Art”, in Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 B.C., ed. Mellink, M. J. (1964), 59, pl. 17.1Google Scholar; F. Prayon, Phrygische Plastik (1987), pls. 24 e–g; Akurgal, E., Anadolu Uygarlıkları (1990), Fig. 64 aGoogle Scholar.

76 Akurgal, , PhKunst, 69, 76 f.Google Scholar; pls. 52–53; Åkeström, Å., Die Architectonischen Terrakoten Kleinasien (1966), 165 f.Google Scholar, pl. 89; Prayon, Phrygische Plastik, pls. 38 c–d.

77 Roller, ibid. (n. 3), 44, fig. 3.

78 Naumann, Die Ikonographie, pl. 9 e.

79 Duthoy, Taurobolium, 114, n. 3.

80 Naumann, , Die Ikonographie, 53Google Scholar.

81 Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 61, n. 13–19Google Scholar, 21–23, 30, 33–34, 60–62, 70, 72–75, 88, 90.

82 Duthoy, Taurobolium, no. 36, 54, 68, 71, 77, 78.

83 Showerman, , Great Mother, 60, 63, 67Google Scholar; Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 61. n. 14Google Scholar.

84 Showerman, , Great Mother, 63Google Scholar; Duthoy, , Taurobolium, 61Google Scholar.

85 Lambrechts, P., Attis: van herdersknaap tot God (1962), 6 f.Google Scholar, 38 f.; Haspels, , Phrygia, 111Google Scholar.

86 Huxley, G. L., “Titles of Midas”, Gr.Rom.Byz.Stud. 2/2 (1959), 85–89Google Scholar; Haspels, , Phrygia, 289–290Google Scholar; Lejeune, C. Brixhe—M., Corpus des Inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes (1984)Google Scholar, M.01a, M.01d.; Özkaya, , Arkeoloji ve Sanat 67 (1995), 16–22Google Scholar.

87 Brixhe, C.—Drewbear, T., “Trois nouvelles inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes de Çepni”, Kadmos 21 (1982), 64–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Pausanias, VII, 17; Arnobius, V, 5–7. Cf. Vermaseren, M. J., The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art (1966), 2 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Cybele, 29 f.