[542] Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.
[543] No. 72.
[544] Nos. 73, 74.
[545] No. 2 R.
[546] Nos. 22 R., 9 L.
[547] No. 22 R.
[548] See particularly Perrot and Chipiez, Art in ... Asia Minor, ii. pp. 149-153; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, chap. vi.; and Journal Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv., New Series (1885), pp. 113-120; Hamilton, Researches, etc. (i.) p. 394; and for an illuminative anthropological point of view, Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris (Golden Bough, iv. 2nd ed.), bk. I. chap. vi., § 4, pp. 105-110.
[549] These, it seems to us, have been too much neglected in attempts which have been made to elucidate the meaning of the sculptures.
[550] Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris (The Golden Bough, iv., 2nd ed.), p. 107, reminds us that the deities associated with animals are probably derived from a more primitive conception when the god was indistinguishable from the beast. Doubtless the lioness (or panther) and the eagle were cult objects, if not totems, before they were humanised. In fact, in the sphinx and human-headed eagle, there is seen the intermediate anthropomorphic stage. The human forms were already developed in Babylonia, whence they may have been derived, being superimposed on the pristine native beliefs and fetishes. (On the relations with Babylonia and kindred cults, see pp. [323], [355 ff.]) We may assume that the evolution of the mountain-god was similar, though inanimate. The ‘high place’ on Kizil Dagh, with image of the god carved on the rock, ([p. 181]) is an illustration. Probably also the altar on Kuru Bel ([p. 147]), may be most naturally explained as dedicated to the spirit of the mountain or of the pass.
[551] We do not deal with these symbols in detail, as the reading of some of the signs is doubtful, and being isolated groups, they present special pitfalls to attempts at translation. It is interesting to note, however, that such priests and priestesses commonly received a special sacred name as a mark of their office.