Vassileva, Maya

New Bulgarian University Scholar Electronic Repository

ПРАКТ1КА ACTES20Y AIE0NOY2 2УМ П02Ю У 2E SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL 0PAKIKQN 2ÜOYAQN DES ETUDES THRACIENNESAPXAIA 0РАКН THRACE ANCIENNEA N  A T Y n  O E X T R A I TЕКЛ02НМОРФЙТЖОУ OMIAOY K0M0THNH2 KOMOTHNH 1997EDITIONDE L’ASSOCIATION CULTURELLE DE KOMOTINI KOMOTINI 1997THRACE AND PHRYGIA.SOME PROBLEMS OF THE MEGALITHIC CULTUREMegalithic monuments are known from many regions, quite different in eth­nic, cultural and historical characteristics. The East-Mediterranean aspect of the megalithic culture problem is of special interest. Thracian dolmens and rock tombs have been already discussed in the light of a Mycenaean tradition and their parallels have been sought in the Caucasian and some of the Anatolian monuments1. Yet little attention is paid to the similarity between Thracian megaliths and Phrygian rock tombs, niches and platforms. Supporting the ancient written tradition about the Thracian-Phrygian kinship2, modern scholars usually seek archaeological proof in the tumuli piled in both regions3. Actually, the rock monuments offer many more possibilities for typological comparisons in function and semantics. These will include the recently reported monuments from Northeastern Greece and from some of the Aegean islands, as well as those logically occurring on Turkish terri­tory in Southeastern part of the Balkan peninsula4. Though the island of Samoth- race is already present in the linguistic Balkan-Anatolian parallels5, little is said about the megaliths.Rock constructions both in Thrace and in Phrygia are poorly dated. Thracian ones are generally situated between the 12th and the 6th century BC6, while the proper Phrygian monuments, due mainly to the epigraphic data, are placed bet­ween the 8th and the 6th centuries BC7.1. Венедиков, И., Тракийските долмени, долмените в Кавказ и гробниците в Мала Азия. -  In: Тракийски паметници 1. Мегалитите в Тракия 1. С., 1976, 76-81; Венедиков, И., Скалните гробници в Тракия М. микенските гробници. -  In: Ibidem, 110-115.2. Hdt., 71, 73.3. Венедиков, И., Тракийските долмени ..., р. 78; Most recent review of the opinions on the Phrygian migration. -  In: Fmncovich, G., de Santuary e tombe rupestri dell’antica Frigia e un’indagine sulle tombe della Licia, Roma 1990, 1-11.4. Triandaphillos, D., La civilisation mégalithique de la Thrace du Sud. -  In: VI Symposium Intemazionale di Tracologia, Firenze 11-13 maggio 1989. Roma 1992, 141-155; Triandaphyllos, D., Les monuments mégalithiques en Thrace occidentale. - Pulpudeva4. 1980, 145-163; Özdoğan, M., A  surface survey for prehistoric and early historic sites in Northwestern Turkey. - National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1979 Projects, 517-541.5. Баюн, Л. С., В. 3. Орел., Лингвистическая и культурно-историческая интерпретация Ситовской надписи. - ВДИ, 1993, № 1, р. 135.6. Венедиков, И., Проблеми на Мегалитните паметници в Тракия. -  In: Ibidem, 31-35.7. Haspels, C. H. E., The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments 1, Princeton 1971, 107-108,The tendency of combining rock tombs, niches and altars in complexes is common for Thrace and Phrygia, though perhaps it is more evident on the Anato­lian plateau. The variety of shapes of the rock tombs in Asia Minor is greater and often their plan is more complicated8. While the quadrangular plan of some of the Thracian tombs parallels Anatolian monuments, the analogous round chambers can be sought in Mycenaean Greece and in some of the earlier tombs. The structural link between the dolmens and the rock tombs has been already emphasized9. An important difference is the lack of dolmens on the plateau. But one can see cham­ber, entrance, antechamber and niches in the walls that were cut in the living rock both in Thrace and in Phrygia10. The same practice is attested in the Caucasus11. A dolmen was found in the Sakar Mountain with a niche in one of the slabs12, while in another case the rock was used for the back wall of a dolmen. Thus, it can be concluded that in Phrygia the dolmens were cut in the rocks and were not made of slabs, while in Thrace similar architectural elements were achieved by stone slabs and earth.The funerary bed cut in the rock, which appears only in the Eastern Rhodope monuments, is another parallel to the tombs in Phrygia and Paphlagoriia13.The structural link between the rock monuments and the tombs built in stone was also established both in Thrace and in Phrygia14. The difference is in the tumular tombs. While the firmly closed wooden chambers, «sealed» by huge clay and earth embankment, were evidently meant for a single burial of an important person15, some of the later Thracian stone tombs were regularly visited and played the role of a sanctuary or mausoleum16. However, the Phrygian approach parallels some of the earlier Thracian dolmens, which were made as chambers without ent­rance or opening17.Rock-cutting skills were more advanced in Phrygia. Every element of the wo­oden constructions was repeated in the rock.146.8. Haspels, C. H. E., op.cit., 2, fig. 549,556, etc.9. Венедиков, И., Долмените и скалните гробници. -  In: Ibidem, 106-109.10. Венедиков, И., Скалните гробници в Североизточна България и тези в Родопите In: Ibidem, р. 104-106; Haspels, C. H. E., op.cit., fig. 164-166.11. Венедиков, И., Тракийските долмени .... р. 76; Марковин, В. И., Дольмени Западного Кавказа, Москва 1978, 179-181, fig. 105, 25, 26.12. Венедиков, И., Долмени. -  In: Ibidem, fig. 49-51.13. Венедиков, И., Долмените ..... р. 108; Венедиков, И., Скалните гробници в Тракия .... р. 114; Haspels, C. H. Е., op.cit., р. 129.14. Venedikov, /., L’architecture sépulcrale en Thrace. -  Pulpudeva 1, 1976,52-62; Венедиков, И., Могилните гробници в Тракия. -  In: Ibidem, 115-125; Haspels, С. H. Е., op.cit., fig. 121, 123.15. Young, R. S., Three Great Early Tumuli. Pennsylvania 1981,4-7, 85-100, 194-196, 270.16. Kitov, G„ The domed tombs near the village of Ravnogor in the Rhodopes. -  Talanta, 22-23, 1990-1991, 36-37.17. Венедиков, И., Долмените като паметници на тракийската култура. -  In: Ibidem, р.This results perhaps from the aspiration to represent the house of the dead or the deity regardless of the material. The rock-cutting tradition in Thrace was also demonstrated by the practice of digging in an already piled embankment in order to construct a tomb, or by piling the tumulus over a rock18.The sepulchral character of Thracian megaliths is almost generally accepted19. The impressive Phrygian rock façades, behind which there are shafts, were first de­termined also as sepulchral20. However, the written sourse analyses and the rock complexes point to open-air cult places and sanctuaries. Thracian, Phrygian and Samothracian cult practice did not always require temple building. It is not clear whether there was a permanent temple building in Samothrace even in the 5th century BC21. The rocky island itself was considered to be both the home and the incarnation of the Goddess.For non-literary societies, whose Pantheon was dominated by the Great Mo­ther-Goddess in her mountanous hypostasis, every protruding rock, open platform, stone pillar or any natural peculiarity of the mountain was a cult place.In terms of Thracian Orphism, the sepulchral and cult functions of the megali­thic monuments do not contradict. The mountain, the rock and the tumulus are images of the Great Mother-Goddess, in whose womb her doctrinal son would be buried22. The grave and the burial can be symbolic when the son of the Goddess is concerned on a mythological level. From a religious perspective, the sacred place in the mountain is the scene of the supreme ritual, in which the king is both subject and object23.This idea is perfectly illustrated by the most impressive Phrygian rock façade, known as “Midas Monument”, where Midas is both the author and the object of two votive inscriptions24. His dedication is to the Great Mother-Goddess (mater - М-Old). Greek literary sources related the Thracian cult and religious practice in the story about the high construction near Libethra, where the urn with Orpheus’ ashes was placed25. About Phrygia the same meaning can be found in the evidence about the Agdistis mountain (the other name of the Great Goddess), where Attis should be buried26. The connecting link is Strabo’s text about “the sanctuary of18. Kitow, G„ Thrakische Hügel. -  In: Atti del VI0 Congresso Internazionale di tracologia - VII0 Symposium di Studi Traci. Palma da Mallorca, 24-28 marzo 1992. Nagard, Roma, Milano (sotto stampa).19. Венедиков, И., Пробелеми на мегалитните паметници в Тракия. -  In: Ibidem, 31-35.20. Haspels, C. H. E., op.cit., 99-100; Haspels, C. H. E., Western cognizance of Inner Phrygia in earlier days. -  In: The Aegean and the Near East. Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman. New York 1956, 317-318.21. Cole, S. G., Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great Gods at Samothrace, Leiden 1984,6-8.22. Фол, А., Политика и култура в древна Тракия. С,, 1990, р. 174; Фол, А., Тракийският Дионис. Книга първа Загрей. С., 1991, 58-59.23. Фол, А., Политика .... 166-167, 193.24. М-0 la, d: Brixhe, Cl., М. Lejeune, Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes, 1, Paris 1984, p. 8, 14.25. Paus. 9, 30,4-12.26. Paus. 1,4, 6.Tereus” on the Tereia mountain in the Troad27. Thus, the place where the Great Mother-Goddess was worshipped, the heroon and the ruler’s grave coincided.Worship of the mountain / the rock was widespread in the Mediterranean world and in the ancient Near East. In Minoan Crete, the ruler was the supreme priest in the peak sanctuary28. Political and religious aspects of the rock cult are demonstrated by the investiture scene engraved on a ring-seal from Knossos, as well as by the rock-shaped back of the stone throne in the Knossian palace29. Pro­bably the same religious ideas are conferred by the rock thrones in Thrace and Ph­rygia. Their religious and political implications derive from the inscriptions found on some of the Phrygian thrones: vanak is mentioned in M-04 and a deity is ob­viously meant in M-0630.Scholars concluded that a young male deity was worshipped in the Cretan peak sanctuaries31. The male god of the mountains is preserved in the Hittite and Hur- rian tradition. The image of Teshub in the rock sanctuary of Yazilikay is represe­nted above a mountain32. The site itself combines a chamber dedicated to the cult of the dead, or a burial chamber (probably of Tudhaliyas IV), and many cult con­structions33. Anatolian and ancient Near Eastern parallels include the «divine child»34, born from a rock35. All these correspond to the evidence about Thracian and Phrygian religious practice. The idea of a male cosmogonic mountainous divi­nity can be seen in the graffito «Sabas» on a solitary rock in Phrygia36, as well as DIN - / DEN- on the Samothracian sherds37. The reading of DIN as Dyonyssos in-27. Strabo, 13, 1, 17.28. Levi, D., Features and Continuity of Cretan Peak Cults. -  In: Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, Jerusalem 1981,39-40.29. Niemeier, W.-D., On the function of the “Throne Room” in the palace at Knossos. -  In: The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984. Stockholm 1987, p. 167; Rutkowski, B., Cult Places in the Aegean World, Warsaw 1972, 172-175.30. Actually, modrovanak is mentioned: Brixhe, CL, M. Lejeune, op.cit., 22-23; Баюн, Л. С., В. Э. Орел, Язык фригийских надписей как исторический источник. I. -  ВДИ, 1988, № 1, 180-181.31. Levi, D., op.cit., p. 39; Rutkowski, B., op.cit., p. 179.32. Laroche, E., Les dieux de Yazilikaya. -  RHA, 1969, 27, fsc. 84-85, 66-67; Bittel, K., Bildbeschreibung. -  In: Boğazköy-HattuSa, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. IX. Das hethitische Felsugiligtum Yazilikaya, Berlin 1975.33. Bittel, K., Zusammenfassung und Ergebnisse. -  In: Boğazköy-HattuSa, p. 255; Bittel, K., Hittite temples and high places in Anatolia and North Syria. -  In: Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, Jerusalem 1981, p. 73; Masson, E., Les douze dieux de l’immortalité, Paris 1989, 117-118.34. Canby, J. V., The child in Hittite iconography. -  In: Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Development. Essays in Honor of Matcheid J. Mellink, 1986, 66-67; Фол, А ., Тракийският Дионис..., р. 142.35. Cf. the story of Kumarbi: Güterbock, H., The Hittite version of the Hurrian Kumarbi myths: Oriental forerunners of Hesiod. -  AJA, 52, 1948, No. 1, 123-134.36. M-08: Brixhe, CL, M. Lejeune, op.cit., 27-28.37. Lehmann, K., Documents of the Samothracian language. -  Hesperia, 1955,24, No. 2, No. 4, 7, 10, etc., p. 97-98.stead of Zeus is supported in Bulgarian literature38. Single letters Д and H are inscribed on the rocks near Boğazköy, which have not been interpreted yet39. The human images and some other engravings in the Southern Rhodope Mountains and in the Pangaion can probably be included in the same context after a more detailed study40.Similar considerations would be appropriate for the two discs on some of the rock thrones in Phrygia. An opportunity for their further interpretation can be of­fered by the use of the word Jtâpeôpoç, «one who shares the same seat» in Greek mythological texts. Pindarus calls Dionysos ttàpeôpoç of Demeter, Aphrodite sha­res the same place with Bacchus in an Orphic hymn, while the Kouretes are зтаре- ÔQOL of the Mother of Gods, Rhea, in a later text41. Thus, a hypothesis can be adv­anced that the cosmogonic male god, more probably Sabazios rather than Attis, sits next to the Great Goddess on the mythological level, while the seat it reserved for the king-priest in doctrinal terms42.The political and religious relations between the palace and the peak sanctuary had been known since Minoan time in Crete, as well as from Hittite Anatolia43. The complex Phrygian archaeological, epigraphic and written sources reveal much the same situation. The throne altars are clustered near the so-called Midas City, which, whatever the discussions, was an important royal residence44.Megalithic culture resulted from wide ethnic and cultural interactions in the Mediterranean, facilitated by sea routes. The monuments were made by seafarers. This could hardly be said about the inhabitants of the Central Anatolian plateau. However, the presence of Phrygia in Diodorus’ list of Thalassocracies, as well as the parallels already discussed, speak in favour of typological «sea» characteri­stics45.Nevertheless, megaliths offer one more evidence for the common cultural and ethnic zone comprising Thrace, Samothrace and Phrygia.38. Фол, А., Тракийският орфизъм. С., 1986, p. 165.39. Unal, A., Zu neu endeckten kuriosen Graffiti in der näheren Umgebung von Bogazköy-Hattuäa. -  In: Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz 1983,523-535.40. Moutsopoulos, N. C ,  op.cit., fig. 12,13; Triandaphillos, D„ La civilisation mégalithique . . . ,  fig. 10, 11; Фол, А., Тракийският Дионис .... р. 57.41. Pind. Isth. 7, 1-7; Orph. Hymn. 55, 7; Stob. Eclog. 1,2 31.42. Василева, M., ПАРЕДР01 или оше веднъж за фригийските скални тронове. -  In: Сборник в чест на проф. Александър Фол. С., 1994 (forthcoming).43. Rutkowski, В., op.cit., 175; Karetsou, A., The peak sanctuary of Mt. Juktas. -  In: Sanctuaries and Cult Places in the Aegean Bronze Age, Stockholm 1981, p. 145; Neve, P., Schalensteine und Schalenfelsen in BogaZköy-HattuSa. - Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 27/28, 1977/78, 1, p. 71.44. Haspels, С. H. E., the Highlands...., 93-96; Prayon, F., Phrygische Plastik, Tübingen 1987, p.102.45. Vassileva, M„ The “Catalogue” written tradition about Thrace and Phrygia. -  Thracia Pontica 5, Sozopol 1991. Sofia 1994 (forthcoming).Maya Vassileva0РАКН KAI ФРУГ1А, MEPIKA ПРОВЛНМАТА TOY МЕГАА101КОУ ПОЛГП2МОУTa [XEyaÀxBixd |xvx][x£ia eîvai yvoaoxd ало лоМ-éç лерю/ёд, oi олоие? ла- pouoid^auv [ХЕха^ тЗ хоис; цеуа^ед ôiacpopeç оха лоХххюхшх, eBvixd xai шхо- pixd xagaxxriQioxLxd. IôiaîxEpo evôiacpépov лароиаю^охп' xa |i£ya)a0ixd (jLvtj- ixeîa xr]ç AvaxoXixiîç MeooyEiou. Ta Bpaxixd vxo)i[xév xai oi Xa^euxoî axo ßpa- XO xdqjoi éxouv охо JtaQ£X,0öv oavôeBeî [xe щ [xaxrivaïxfi ларабоаг) xai éxovv лараШ^юхе! це jivrpeıa xou Кагжаоои xai xr|Ç AvaxoXXaç.ПароХа auxd jxéxpi стгцхера Нут) лроаохл éxel ôoBeî oxıç o|xoıöxrıx£ç avd- IXEOa axa [X£yaÀ.i0ixd цлчцМа xriç ©pdxriç xai a ’ auxd xr)ç Opuyîaç. H xpovoÀ.c>- yriori xoav [XEyaÀ,i0ixobv x^vrpEioov Eivai tôiaîxEpa npoß)trpaxixf|. 2e yEvixéç ypaji i^éç xa Opaxixd |xvri|X£ia xpovoXoyoûvxai avdjxEoa axov 12o xai oxov 60 ai. л.Х., Evco xa cppuyixd холо0£хоггуха1 avdjxEoa oxov 80 xai oxov 60 ai. л.Х.Ta apxiiExxovixd oxoïxEÎa xœv (xvtiixeîoov xoav ôûo ЛЕрюхоау |iaç ларёхо^ eu pu ЛЕ0ю auyxpiOEoav. Baoixfi ôiacpopd avdjXEôd xouç алохЕМ xo yEyovôç oxi oxriv ©pdxri xa vxoÀ,|xév xaxaoxEuà^ovxav ало (X£ydA,Eç xMxeç, evcû ахг| Фриуьа ^a^EÔovxav oxov ßpdxo.2 xoixEio бихфоролоСлап? олохе^е! е л 1от15 о ßeßonooptevo5 xacpixoç xapa- xxfipaç xoav Bpaxixœv vxoX[xév лои ôev oopicpcovEÎ алоХиха [хе xov À,axp£uxixo xai 0рт|ох£ихixö xapaxxfipa xoav vxoà,[xév xriç Фриуьас;. Qoxöoo охо лкх1ою xr]ç 0pr]OX£iaç xou орфЮ^хохЗ о хафьход xapaxxfipaç öxi fxövo ôev épxexai ое avxiBsori ак\а |x.dÀAov ouvôud^Exai [хе xov kxxpEUXixô.

Thrace and Phrygia. Some problems of the megalithic culture

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

New Bulgarian University Scholar Electronic Repository