Ancient and New Interpretations of Anatolian Rock-cut “Thrones”

Abstract

Rock-cut monuments in Anatolia are represented by a wide variety of artificially modified rocky outcrops and stone surfaces. These peculiar places, especially the figurative reliefs and the rock-cut architecture, have attracted plenty of attention — both now and in the past. This is, after all, one of the key aspects of rock-cut monuments: that they are integrated into the landscape, which leads to a continuous interaction with all inhabitants of the territory, even after the loss of their original function, meaning and connotations. Rock-cut features could serve several functions: domestic (foundations for buildings or installations like presses), funerary (cistor chamber tombs), cultic (platforms, altars, monuments for the focus or framing of religious activities). It is this last subset that I would like to examine in my article, in particular the group of monuments which can be called “thrones”. It has to be pointed out, though, that “thrones” are not a strictly defined category of landscape monuments, but rather an intuitive descriptor applied to a range of modified natural stones. At first glance, this is a self-evident category: a natural outcrop cut to resemble a seat; with armrests and a higher back. But this design and seemingly self-explanatory identification shouldn’t be automatically correlated with function. In the existing classification systems, “thrones” are usually included as a variation or symbolic reference point of stepped altars. For example, in Phrygia, where the variety of rock-cut “installations” is the highest, a number of classification systems exist, developed by scholars such as Emily Haspels, Géza de Francovich, Taciser Tüfekçi Sivas, Susanne Berndt-Ersöz and Rahşan Tamsü Polat. Tamsü Polat’s system is based on the formal characteristics of rock-cut altars with important distinctions made according to the placement of the semi-circular “idol” on the top step. The “throne” designation is relegated to “Type II c”, which features “two protrusions on the sides, similar to arm-rests” [25, pp. 207–208]. In Susanne Berndt-Ersöz’s monograph “Phrygian Rock-cut Shrines” (2006), it is stressed that “throne” is not a systemic category, but an interpretative framework [4, pp. 194–196]. However, she agrees that “step monuments recall divine thrones” [4, pp. 174–175, 194]. The interpretation of these monuments as “thrones” has an allure: it allows scholars to include the Anatolian monuments in the broader context of Near Eastern and ancient Greek cultic practices. For these areas we have more sources, so a comparative approach can be pursued1.