We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
One of the most curious series of Anatolian inscriptions known to me has been published by Mr. Hogarth in this Journal, 1887, pp. 376 ff. Their importance lies in the fact that they show us the manners and religion of one district hardly affected by Greek civilisation, and almost purely native in character. As the use of the Greek language and knowledge of Greek civilisation spread, the native manners were proscribed as barbarous, and even native mythology was discarded and Greek tales adapted to suit the locality. I have frequently given instances of this. At Magnesia ad Sipylum, for example, if we may judge from the references of Pausanias, the mythology of the district was re-modelled under the influence of the Greek literary tradition of Niobe, and localities had to be found to suit the details of the story.
As to the inscriptions published by Mr. Hogarth, Nos. 12–20, probably no one who reads over the texts can doubt that Greek was strange to the writers. They were native Phrygians, speaking their own language with a smattering of Greek, quite uneducated, but impressed with the belief universal over Asia Minor that Greek was the one language of education, and trying to express themselves in Greek. In every part of the country where the inscriptions enable us to penetrate below the Graeco-Roman varnish, the same inference is forced on us. Greek did not succeed in forcing itself on the native population of Phrygia, Galatia, Lycaonia, and Cappadocia (except in the large cities which were centres of Graeco-Roman civilisation) until Christianity gave it the additional power of being the language of the Scriptures.
page 217 note 1 ‘Antiquities of Southern Phrygia,’ A. II., in Amer. Jour. Archaeol., 1887. To the homes of her worship add (7) the Ormeleis in Kabalis, as is shown by the inscription quoted in the course of the same article, A. VIII., 
page 217 note 2 Compare also the inscription No. 4 in my ‘Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia,’ Part I., J. H. S., 1884.
page 218 note 1 Hogarth's suggestion of fever is very probably right in cases where no other disease is indicated.
page 218 note 2 The probable maximum of letters lost is indicated by the number of dots. The text doubtless continued with the usual formula, 
The following restoration, in which I am aided by suggestions of Hogarth, suits the conditions of space, but I do not insert it in the text, as I do not feel confident of the two words that follow εὐσήμῳ: otherwise I think we have reached the truth: 
‘on behalf of his ox which had been punished (by the god) because he had been late and had not made his appearance (at the temple).’ I felt confident when reading the inscription that the gap in 5–6 began with ι and ended with ω, and the words which I suggest are all technical in these formulae. I have also thought of Ηλίῳ εὐχαριστῶν. Repetitions are very common in the following inscriptions.
page 219 note 1 See Lightfoot, , Ignatius and Polycarp, I. p. 396Google Scholar, II. p. 34.
page 219 note 2 The reproduction by type of such rude texts was of course very imperfect.
page 221 note 1 The inscription ends with Ο. In 10 our first copy, made in 1887, is as published by Mr. Hogarth, the third letter being part of Λ or Α or Δ. In 1888 I thought it was ε.
page 221 note 2 Compare the Phrygian city ‘Bria,’ which literally means ‘the Town.’
page 221 note 3 Apparently however it was rebuilt in the Roman period.
page 221 note 4 The writer of No. 2, who knew more Greek, uses παραγίγνεσθαι rather than παρεῖναι.
page 222 note 1 I would account for the form as the result of pure ignorance or misspelling. Similar reasons, and not a rare dialectic form such as Hesychius would quote, must explain line 3, where Mr. Ellis prefers ἀνάγιον to ἄναγνον (Journal of Philology, XVII. 139). But the analogy of Nos. 1 and 3 points to ἄναγνον.
page 222 note 2 Zeitschrift für Vergleich. Sprachforsch., 1887; Philologus, 1888, p. 755.
page 222 note 3 I read ωΡΙΟΝ in 1888; ωΡΙωΝ is however more probably right, as I did the end carelessly in 1888, and we were very careful in 1887. On the Phrygian dative singular in -ν see my paper in Zft. f. vergl. Sprachforech-, 1887.
page 223 note 1 Unless 
be the intention.
page 223 note 2 In 1888 I examined and measured the stone carefully, and considered that at least one letter was lost at the left of the first line. The second now begins ΙΗΝω. The third now reads ΛΒΙΙω. There is no clue to the number of lines, but each contained about 14 or 15 letters.
page 223 note 3 Usually 
is the form, but sometimes the second ὁ is omitted.
page 224 note 1 Mr. Hogarth's words would seem to imply that his No. 28 was copied by Mr. Sterrett in 1883. This is a mere slip of order. The inscription was copied by Hogarth and myself in 1887.
page 225 note 1 I use the term Anatolian worship, not as indicating identity, but only general similarity in some important features of religion in great part of Asia Minor.
page 225 note 2 I published it in the Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique, 1883, p. 276.
page 225 note 3 In addition to those given in my ‘Cities and Bishoprics,’ § VII. J. H. S., 1883.
page 225 note 4 I have frequently pointed out that there is no real foundation for the view now too deeply engrained in modern literature for me to eradicate, that Koula is an ancient village Koloe. Koula is the Byzantine fortress Opsikion (called by the Turks Koula ‘the fortress’) in the territory of Satala. The inscription now at Koula mentioning the village Koloe, was brought from the Kara Tash district, eight hours distant. Mr.Hicks, , in the Classical Review, 1889, p. 69Google Scholar, doubles the error by actually confusing this Koloe with the lake near Sardis.
page 226 note 1 Conze makes this into two words, taking μήν as a particle. A love for the middle voice is characteristic of Phrygian Greek, see my notes in Philologus, 1888, p. 755.Google Scholar Moreover the compound ἐξομολογέομαι is not found in the active voice.
page 226 note 2 The omission of the names of the sons suggests that the offence dates from the time of Artemon, and that his sons make the restitution. This stone accompanied the preceding.
page 226 note 3 I can merely state the opinion in this place that the inscriptions quoted in these pages give a better idea of the Artemis of Ephesus, the Mother, the Parthenos, than can be obtained from any other source.
page 227 note 1 Perhaps we should read αὐ[δ]ῆς.
page 227 note 2 In a long unpublished inscription of the district I find ἔλουσε (i. e. ἔλυσε) 
(i. e. Ἀρτέμιδι). The date is 119 A.D.
page 227 note 3 Compare 
which identifies two gods of two different districts. Journ. Hell. Stud. 1883, p. 258.
page 227 note 4 My variations are Π or ΙΤ for Γ at the beginning, ΗΚΕ for ΗΕ in 2, and Λ for Δ as the first letter of [Δ]ιολένου: the last is quite clear and certain, κώμη for κώμης, and παδίσχη for παιδίσκη, are also probably errors of the engraver, but Mr. Hicks's copy, which reads ΠΑΙ for my ΠΑ, gives the clue to the above interpretation.
page 228 note 1 
occurs at Satala, No. 
occurs there once also.
page 228 note 2 ‘Antiq. of S. Phrygia,’ &c., in Amer. Journ. Arch. 1887.
page 229 note 1 In 6 read 
page 229 note 2 Probably 
who dedicates to Zeus Mossyneus, belongs to the same family.
page 229 note 3 ‘On miraculous cures in the worship of the Mother of the Gods,’ see Foucart. l.c., p. 98 and 170.
page 230 note 1 At Acmonia he was called Manes Daes (or Daos) Heliodromos Zeus; see ‘Cities and Bishoprics,’ No. 33.
page 230 note 2 Protrept., c. 2; see Foucart, l.c., p. 77.
page 230 note 3 Conze, in Arch. Zeitung, 1880, p. 1.Google Scholar
