Page:History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia.djvu/184

 1 68 HISTORY OF ART IN ANTIQUITY. goes on to say that the distinguishing feature in some of these figures " is a certain ease and grace in their outline, especially in the line of the back." ' All these details put together, as well as variety of pose, would appear to preclude the notion of remote antiquity. We should be inclined to think that the one picture really old is that near the altar (Fig. 101) ; all the rest would be Graeco- Roman sculpture, but due to provincial or, if preferred, rural art. The habit of carving bas-reliefs in the flank of rocks persisted very late in Asia Minor, as in Syria and Persia. Any one interested in the subject will find numerous specimens by turning over the leaves of our Exploration Archdologique, Plate XII., as well as in works of our predecessors, Texier, Le Bas, Stewart, and others who have worked in the same field. On the other hand, we must recognize as a pro- duction of indigenous, of true Phrygian art, the sculp- ture which decorates the northern front of the hy- pogee we have called the Broken Tomb (Fig. 65). It represents two warriors, one on each side of the slab, in conflict with a monster (Figs. 117, 1 1 8). Each carries a heavy circular shield on the left arm; the other is raised, and holds a spear which runs into the head of the enemy. Our knowledge of Phrygian mythology is too scant to FIG. 118. Mas-relief of Broken Tomb. Drawn by St. Elme Gautier after Ramsay. 1 RAMSAY, Studies, p. 7. M. Ramsay does not share our doubts as to the great age of the processional figures (Journal, x. p. 167). The question is not one to be solved away from the monuments or photographs of the same, as in my case. Hard by the figures under consideration is one with two characters in front that would appear to be Hittite. This figure, apparently very different from the others, I engraved in History of Art, torn. iv. Fig. 355, from a sketch placed at my disposal by M. Ramsay ; to-day he produces another drawing, which he declares is more correct than the first, and is intended to show the great similarity of profile common to all these figures (Mithdhmgen Athens, xiv. Fig. 4). Granting the absolute accuracy of his last image, when placed side by side with Fig. 5, it will, perhaps, be found that his hypothesis is weaker than our own. At all events, the worn state of these monuments makes it very difficult to assert one way or another with any degree of confidence.