(2) Thrones.—The ancients mention many stones in Greece which were said to derive their sacred character from having been the seat of deities or heroes (who in these cases may usually be regarded as deities degenerated in popular legend). Such were the Agelastos Petra at Eleusis (or at Athens) on which Demeter sat sorrowing for her lost Kora,* or, as another iegend said, where Theseus sat before descending to Hades; the chair of Manto at Thebes, the stone of Telamon at Salamis, ete. The bed of Acton at Plateea and various other stones may be classed with these. The Omphalos at Delphi is often represented with Apollo sitting on it.
In Asia Minor there are examples of rocks cut to the rough form of a seat. The ‘Throne of Pelops’ in Sipylus beside Magnesia (Pausanias, v. 13. 7) is probably to be identified with the rock-cutting, forming a sort of broad seat, or platform with a back, on the highest point of an early rock citadel on the slope of Sipylus, about 4 or 5 miles east of Magnesia.
Dr. Reichel has elaborated these facts into a theory of Throne-worship: viz., that the Divine nature, not yet represented in personal human form, was symbolized by the throne or seat, which was regarded as an indication of its presence.
Some of Dr. Reichel’s examples of Divine thrones rest on his own far-fetched and almost certainly erroneous explanations ;+ in other cases the re- corded story about a Divine or heroic throne may be only a later popular explanation of an older religious fact, no longer understood. But whether that aspect of his theory is only pressed too far and applied to unsuitable cases, or whether it is wholly erroneous, there is, at any rate, another and a true side to his theory. He is right in his view that before the period of images and image-worship we must admit the existence of an imageless wor- ship in the Aigean lands and Asia Minor generally : a Divine power invisible to man was approached
* A similar stone and legend probably existed in Asia Minor ; and a Christian form was given to it later ; see Journ. of Hell. Stud. 1882, p. 349.
+ See A. J. Evans in Journ. of Hell. Stud. 1901, p. 189; Fritze in Rhein. Musewm, 1900, p. 588.
and adored ; it was felt in the phenomena of the world, in the growth and life and productivity of nature; its presence and power were symbolized and envisaged to its worshippers in varlous ways, but the symbols were not considered as images or likenesses of that Divine nature, but rather as its home or residence, or as an effect and exemplifica- tion of its power. The statement of Nicol. Dam. Synag. fr. 19 (p. 148), and Stobeeus, Serm. xlii.
. 292, that the Phrygians did not swear or exact rom another an oath (by any god), probably has some reference to this belief in a Divine nature without images.* On this topic see further, § V (1).
Dr. Reichel has erred, as we believe, only in the direction in which he has developed a correct observation. It was not the seat or throne of the formless and invisible Divine nature that was in the beginning worshipped; for the very idea of a seat already involves the attribution of something like form and personality to the power which needs and uses a seat. The fundamental idea was that of the home and abode, or the origin of Divine power. Out of this springs all the symbolism and all the earlier phenomena of Anatolian religious observances. The sacred stone or the sacred tree is the home of the Divine nature: the cave among the wild mountains, the simple shrine, are easy developments of the same idea.t
(3) Weapons.—Other inanimate objects besides stones were made the object of worship. The Alani, a rude barbarian tribe south-east of the Black Sea, are said to have worshipped a naked sword, which they fixed for the occasion in the ground. This might be disregarded as a savage custom which had come in from Central Asia, were it not that one of the reliefs—among the most important, to judge from its size—portrayed on the walls of the adytwm before the eyes of the initiated at Boghaz-Keui (Pteria probably), east of the Halys,t represents a gigantic sword stuck in the ground, with only the hilt and a small part of the blade protruding. The hilt in itself is evi- dently a symbol or representative of Divine power, composed of two pairs of animals, evidently lions, surmounted by a human head wearing the tall
ointed hat characteristic of the supreme god. It is therefore not open to doubt that the custom of the Alani in the 4th cent. after Christ was the same as the ancient Anatolian custom. We see clearly that the sword was regarded not as a god in and for itself, but as a symbol of a vague per- vading Divine power. That power resides mainly in the hilt, not in the blade, and is moulded not altogether unlike the human form, and yet differ- ing essentially from it, full of the terror and strength of savage nature embodied in the four lions, but human-headed.
If some tribes worshipped the sword, others re- garded the battle-axe as sacred. The difference obviously arises from difference of warlike custom: the weapon to which the tribe trusted especially in battle was esteemed by it the home of the Divine strength by which they conquered and hoped to conquer. In Caria and in Crete the axe appears as a Divine symbol. We may confidently assume that it was made the object of a special cult, like the Sword-god among the Alani. Though this is not exactly proved definitely by the evidence, yet the importance of the Carian name Labrys (bipennis, ‘battle-axe’) in Carian religion leaves little doubt on the point: Labranda was one of the chief centres of the worship of the Carian god, who was actually called Labraundos,§ and one of