Much obscurity hangs over the origin of the unhewn stone representation of deity. It has been generally held that that origin is to be found in the primitive fetish worship of which many illustrations have been collected by Prof. Tylor* and other writers from Africa, India, and ancient Hellas. Theophrastus (4th cent. B.c.) describes the superstitious Greek as passing the anointed stones in the street, taking out his oil-phial and pouaneais contents on them, and then, after falling on his knees to worship, going on his way (Char. xvi.). Survivals of stone-worship were to iis found even in quite recent times among the remote mountain peasants of Norway (Tylor, id. p. 167). Accordingly the employment of the stone-symbol among the primitive Semites may be regarded as
art of a well-nigh universal tradition of antiquity. n ancient Arabic polytheism we find the stone nusb or the group of ansdb. The blood of the sacrificial victim was smeared upon the stone. The idea involved in this act was evidently, as Robertson Smith suggests, that of bringing ‘the offering into direct contact with the deity, and in like manner the practice of stroking the sacred stone (e.g. that of the Kaaba) with the hand is identical
* Primitive Culture, vol. ii. p. 161ff. It is by no means easy to define the meaning of ‘fetish.’ Usually it is explained as meaning the material thing, as a stone, which is made the object of worship. Others deny this, treating the fetish ag a magical ‘medium whereby one is placed in chee connexion with the deity, and in which divine powers reside.’ See Chan- tepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch.? i. p. 14. This writer remarks with much truth that it is not any or every object of sense-perception to which the term can be applied, ‘but only the individual, one might say, accidental object which attracts the attention of the savage.’ There is no essential distinction between the fetish and the idol. The distinction is merely one of external form. The former is a rude natural object accidentally found, the latter is carved or painted by human hands. In both cases the spirit, which is the object of worship and whose help is sought, is supposed to be in some way incorporate in the material. Siebeck, Lehr- buch der Religions: philosophie, p. 64, contrasts this view with the more mayennad conception which regards the idol as the symbol and not the seat of deity. It may here be remarked, in order to prevent misunderstanding, that the expression ‘stone- symbol’ Is not used in this exclusive sense in this article. The stone among the early Semites not only represented but incor porated the numen of the deity. See Robertson Smith, RS p. 2041.
880 PILLAR
with the practice of touching or stroking the gar- ments or beard of a man in acts of supplication before him.’
The stone might represent a male or female deity, but it must not be inferred that the plurality of stones represented always a plurality of deities. Probably it represented as a rule a single object of worship, just as the twelve stones erected by Joshua at Gilgal (Jos 45), and the same number by Moses (on the occasion of the covenant sacrifice at Sinai, Ex 242), for the twelve tribes of Israel, represented the one God, Jehovah. According to Wellhausen (Reste arab. Heid.* p. 102) it was customary in oaths to swear ‘by the angab which stand around such and such a god.’ In an interesting passage in which Herodotus describes the mode in which the ancient Arabs ratify a solemn covenant (iii. 8), he speaks of seven stones on which the sacrificial blood was smeared in honour of Dionysus and the heavenly (goddess), probably meaning the sun and moon (so Abicht). In the interesting narra- tive of Nilus quoted by Robertson Smith (RS? p. 338), the anal, chosen as a victim is bound upon a rude altar of stones piled together. Probably this may be regarded as the most primitive type of Arabian or Semitic sacrifice.
The sacred stone (or stones) was not conveyed by the nomadic clan from place to place in its wanderings, like an ark or some movable simula- crum, but remained stationary, since the stone may be considered to have focussed the presence and personal power of the deity that owned and occu-
ied the Temenos, Kodesh (or Haram), as the hal- owed spot was named by Greek or Semite respec- νον, Such a spot was frequently one of posit fertility accompanied by a sacred s ed and tree. Frequently the mazzeba eonestel of a large natural upright rock of arog ale shape. The two pillars of Heracles (the Greek equivalent of Baal) consisted probably of enormous cliff-like rocks situated by the Straits of Gibraltar. Numerous examples of such natural blocks of stone in situ are given in RS? p. 110 (see especially the foot- note). Among these is the notable stone-symbol of the goddess al Lat (see Kinship and Marriage, p. 292 ff.). Doughty gives a description of his visit to et-Tazf, where he saw this and two other sacred The inter-
stones (Arabia Deserta, ii. p. 515 ff.). esting fact that goddesses were also worebinped at
under these stone -symbols clearly proves t Movers is wrong in ascribing to them a phallic origin and character.* They can only be explained as one of the many forms of fetishism out of which mo yeheiets cultus grew.