The Phrygian god Bas

Among the gods identified in the Phrygian corpus, Bas stands out because of the lack of a Greek counterpart. Indeed, Matar equates, more or less, to Κυβέλη, Tito Ζεύς1, Artimitos (B-05) 2 to Ἄρτεμις,3 Διουνσιν (88) to Διόνυσος, and Μας (48) to Μήν.4 Yet Bas remains without a clear equivalent and seems to only appear in Phrygian texts. He occurs almost eight times in different contexts of both the Old Phrygian (OPhr.) and New Phrygian (NPhr.) corpora. This makes Bas

The oldest occurrence of this theonym is documented in the Luwian city of Tuwanuwa in Cappadocia (called Τύανα in Greek, and currently called Kemerhisar). The name of Bas can be read on a fragment of a severely damaged stele discovered in 1908 (T-02b). Although most of the monument is lost, its shape is believed to be parallelepiped with a semicircular summit, similar to the Neo-Assyrian style. 5 C. Brixhe interpreted the significance of this document as a signal of Phrygian suzerainty of this country in the late eighth century BC. 6 In that case, the historical 5 CIPPh, 253-68. Another very similar stele was found in modern times also in Tyana (T-03): see A. Çınaroğlu and E. Varinlioğlu "Eine neue altphrygische Inschrift aus Tyana," Epigraphica Anatolica 5 (1985): 5-11. Phrygian contacts with Tyana are also evident in the İvriz relief, where the king Warpalawas (known to be ally of Midas) is depicted wearing Phrygian ornaments (his belt, fibula and, very likely, his tunic). See C. Brian Rose, "Fieldwork at Phrygian Gordion, 2013-2015," American Journal of Archaeology 121 (2017): 159. 6 C. Brixhe, "Les inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes de Tyane: leur intérêt linguistique et historique," in La Cappadoce Méridionale background of the Phrygian presence in such a place must be Midas' campaigns for hegemony over the Syro-Hittite states, and against Sargon II as recorded by Assyrian sources. 7 Despite the opaqueness of this fragmented text, T-02b contains the highest number of words readable in all fragments from Tyana, and is the only known preserved and datable text contemporaneous to King Midas in which he is mentioned (l. 3). The fragment reads as follows: Unfortunately, little can be said about this inscription. The sequence tesan was dubiously identified as borrowed from the Lydian taśe -, "stele," 8 agreeing with the adjective a ion in sg.acc. However, this Lydian word must be read as taiẽ ν, 9 and Phrygian tesan can be considered a pronominal cluster similar to esai-t (W-01b, sg.dat.), 10 and analyzed as t-esan (sg.acc.), if not an a-stem noun. In addition, perhaps [---]-ṭumida is a personal name in sg. acc. followed by the term memeuis, attested as memevais in M-01b and M-02 (in both inscriptions, a possible patronymic). In any event, these interpretations are precarious because of the lack of parallels, and because the sole verifiable information of T-02b is the reference of Bas appearing for the first time in a Luwian country.
This god perhaps appears in two other OPhr. inscriptions. The first one, the inscription B-04 (from Bithynia, fifth or fourth century BC), seems to contain jusqu'à la fin de l'époque romaine. État  the accusative of this theonym, but the text is hard to read and its context is unclear. 11 The other inscription from a little bit later (fourth century BC), the graffito G-221 incised on a sherd from Gordion, could be adduced here, but the pertinent sequence is read as bata ? m ? by CIPPh, 12 and the meaning of the whole text remains unclear.
The other seven occurrences of the theonym Bas are recorded in the NPhr. sub-corpus, from the second and third century AD. He is featured six times as the agent of three different curses against tomb desecrators, always mentioned in their apodoses. 13 Note that curses are by far the most common kind of text in the NPhr. corpus, since only 13 of the 117 known inscriptions contain anything more than a curse. 14 Two inscriptions contain the first imprecative formula mentioning Bas, 33 and 36, both found in Sinanlı: The meaning of this text roughly translates to: "and let him and his οροκα (offspring?) be at the mercy of Bas τευτους." Some of these words are comprehensible: αυτος equates to Greek αὐτός, κε is the copulative conjunction (< PIE *k u ̯ e, "and"), ουα is the 3sg.fem. possessive pronoun (< PIE *su ̯ e-), and γεγαριτμενος is the masc.sg.midd.-pass.part. (parallel to Greek κεχαρισμένος with specific imprecative sense found in Anatolia). However, οροκα remains obscure as well as τευτους, which does not seem to have a good explanation. The latter has been equated to the discussed word *teu ̯ téh 2 -, "people," attested only in the Italian, Celtic, German, and Baltic branches of Indo-11 Brixhe, "Corpus des Inscriptions Paléo-phrygiennes. Supplément II," 41. 12 CIPPh, 179. 13 A common curse can be divided into two different parts: protasis and apodosis. Protases indicate who the potential addressee of the curse is. A standard protasis in NPhr. says as follows: ιος νι σεμουν κνουμανει κακουν αδδακετ. . . ("who[ever] does harm to this tomb. . ."). Apodoses mention the punishment considered to happen to the addressee of the curse, and very often name a god or group of gods as the agent(s) of that punishment (normally Τι-, only substituted by Bas as we will see, and once by Dionysos). A common NPhr. apodosis reads in this way: με δεως κε ζεμελως κε α Τιε τιττετικμενος ειτου ("let him be accursed by Zeus in the sight of gods and men"). 14  European languages. 15 For this reason, this Phrygian word has been often considered a borrowing from Galatian. 16 Since these two inscriptions, as indicated above, were found in Sinanlı in the most northeastern point where NPhr. texts are documented, on the border with Galatia, 17 this explanation seems likely. However, in light of the few occurrences of this word in the poorly-attested language of the Galatians (see, e.g., the tribal names Ambitoutus, established near Gordion according to Plin. HN 5.146, and Toutobodiaci, associated to Tectosages according to Plin. HN 5.146), which shows that in this language *teut-became tout-, this suggested borrowing can easily be refuted. Consequently, a new interpretation must be given. Because it appears in a position where a verb in the imperative mood is expected (see, e.g., 88: τιγ|γεγαριτμενος ιτου), very likely τευτου-ς is the verb of this imprecative apodosis. 18 Thus, the sequence -του corresponds to the 3sg.impv. ending, although its attached sigma and meaning remain unexplained. Either way, τευτου is the only word of this apodosis which can be interpreted as a verb.
The second imprecative apodosis with references to Bas is contained on two inscriptions, found in two cities near by one another in the north of the NPhr. epigraphic area, Güney and Erten respectively: The components of this apodosis are relatively clear: the sg.nom. Bas is the subject, ιοι is a pronoun in sg.dat., βεκος is the word for 'bread' (a neut.sg.acc.), με is the prohibitive particle, 19 and βερετ the verb 15 R. S. P. Beekes, "The origin of Lat. aqua, and of *teutā 'people'," The Journal of Indo-European Studies 26/3-4 (1998): 461-65. 16 First proposed by W. M. Ramsay, "Neo-Phrygian Inscriptions," Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 8 (Beiblatt) (1905), 97, it was still considered by Ligorio and Lubotsky in " ," 194. 17 A third occurrence of this word might be τευτωσι (NPhr. 116), found in an obscure sentence of a funerary stele not related to the imprecative part of the text. 18 This possibility was suggested to me by an anonymous reviewer of this paper whom I would like to thank. However, I must add that a second anonymous reviewer was not convinced by this possibility because of the "enigmatic" -s attached to τευτου. 19 In the light of the Phrygian shift *ē / *eh 1 > ā and the preposition με (in the formula με δεως κε ζεμελως κε), the communis opinio considers me (B-05) / με a preverb against O. Haas's previous identification of it as inherited from the PIE particle *meh 1 in 3sg.pres.subj. which goes back to PIE *b h er-, "to bear" (LIV 2 76-77). 20  According to Hämmig, βεκος can be equated to καρπὸν, βερετ to φέροι, με to μή, and Βας to γῆ.
Although this interpretation is convincing, the equation Βας ~ γῆ, first argued by Haas, 23 is, as she admits, difficult to support from a linguistic point of view. The Greek word is not a t-stem noun, and the correspondence between Phrygian β and Greek γ is not defensible (note that Greek γυνή, "woman," corresponds to Phrygian knays). Of course, this parallel is not necessarily phonetic, but only semantic regardless of the etymologies. However, these expressions look like a specific formula from Caria (76, 121, and (Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmaler [Sofia, 1966], 95). Nevertheless, during the last Phrygian Conference, Hämmig and I argued that before the verbs of the imprecative apodoses, με makes more sense as the Phrygian counterpart of Greek μή, Sanskrit mā , Tocharian A and B mā, etc. Even OPhr. mekos (B-07, the Phrygian stele from Daskyleion) can be analyzed as the combination of the prohibitive particle with the indefinite pronoun kos (< PIE *k u ̯ os) with the meaning "no one, nobody" (I will return to this issue in my forthcoming PhD dissertation). It must be said, however, that the reason why the Phrygian shift *ē / *eh 1 > ā did not operate here (instead of *mā) remains unclear. 20  Moreover, the only γῆ featured in a Greek imprecation is Strubbe's no. 223, which shows a similar idea, but gets expressed in a different way: οὗτος μὴ ἐγῆς καρπὸν ἀνέλη|ται, "and may he not take up fruit from earth." Here the subject is not the earth, and this is an essential detail. In Phrygia, the earth never appears personified, and the provider of crops is Zeus, as will be seen below. Thus, Bas is somehow related to Zeus rather than to earth. Nevertheless, the Greek parallels adduced by Hämmig are useful to understand the Phrygian formula (leaving aside the question of "earth"), and Βας ιοι βεκος με βερετ can be translated as: "may Bas not produce food to him." 24 Following our analysis, another apodosis type from Erten shows Bas related to bread: The words are more or less the same; they only differ in the presence of the copulative conjunction κε (< PIE *k u ̯ e) and the verb τοτοσσειτι, 3sg.pres.subj., whose root has been recently identified by Hämmig as going back to *deh 3 -, "give." 25 Consequently, the meaning of this sentence is: "and may Bas not give him bread." Here, "bread" also refers to "food" via synechdoche.
As one of the most common formulae, the meaning of this passage is generally accepted, although it is the only occurrence of the kind in which there are two guarantees: "let him be accursed in the sight of gods and men by Bas and the Keeper(?)." Here the accusative is governed by the preposition ας (< PIE *h 1 n ̥ s), and replaces the more common ας Τιαν ("by Zeus"). 27 Moreover, it is also coordinated with the sg.acc. ορουεναν, whose sg.nom. is ορουαν, attested in NPhr. 48. In this last text, a quasi-bilingual Greek-Phrygian, this term has been equated to the Greek πατήρ, "father," by Lubotsky, 28 who reconstructed it as *sor̯ uḗn, a form related to Greek οὖρος "watcher, guard(ian)," < *sor-u ̯ o. According to Lubotsky, it is an epithet of Phrygian Zeus. 29 The formula με δεως κε ζεμελως κε τιττετικμενος ειτου, as Lubostky suggested, follows a Luwian apodosis attested in KARKAMIŠ A 2+3 §24: let him be made accursed by Tarhunzas in the sight of(?) God and men!" 30 Additionally, during the last Phrygian Conference, I adduced a Greek text contemporary to the NPhr. one, 31 an inscription found in a house at Seferihisar (Sevri Hissar), near ancient Teos (Ionia): καὶ γενήσεται παρὰ | θεοῖς καὶ ἀνθρώποις ἐπικατά|ρατος, "and let him become accursed in the sight of gods and men": (Strubbe, no. 32). This curse confirms the unclear meaning of the Luwian*366-na-na and Phrygian με through its equivalent position to Greek παρά + dative.
Finally, the last occurrence of Bas appears in NPhr. 48, in a short list of three divine names mentioned in the Greek part as τοῖς προ|γεγραμμένοις θ̣ ε|οῖς, "the inscribed gods": the author for kindly sending me a draft of this paper prior to its publication. 27  Here, Bas appears in the nominative and is qualified with the word Πουντας (probably related with the Pontic region, a genitive of this toponym?). According to Lubotsky, Bas-as well as Μιτραφατα and Μας Τεμρογειος, the latter epithet probably deriving from the region of the Tymbris-is the subject of the verb ενσταρνα̣ , which traces back to the PIE root *steh 2 -, "stand, make stand" (LIV 2 590-92; see, e.g., ἐνίστημι, "to be in, to stand in, to be appointed"). 32 Consequently, partially applying Lubotsky's interpretation, the approximate meaning of this sentence is: "Mitrafata and the Tem(b)rogic Mas and the Pontic Bas were appointed." In all inscriptions, only two forms of the theonym Bas are documented: the nominative Βας (48, 86, 99, and 111) and the accusative Batan (almost in T-02b) / Βαταν (21, 33, 36). Despite the scarce number of preserved cases, its accusative shows that this is a t-stem noun. Indeed, its ending -t-an must go back to *-t-m ̥ , with the preservation of the final nasal sound and the change *-m > -n. A suitable parallel is the recently identified word nevotan (B-04) < PIE *népotm ̥ , the accusative form of the nominative nevos (B-05) < PIE *népōts. 33 Moreover, this nominative also shows the shift *-t-s > -s, so Βας must be understood as a simplification of *bat-s (see Table 1).
Therefore, the inflection of this theonym has been identified, but its etymology is uncertain. Until now, only three possibilities have been suggested. First, Haas 34 argued the similarity between Bas and the PIE root b h eh 2 -, "speak" (LIV 2 69-70), e.g., Greek φημί, φάναι, "id." or Latin for / fari, "id.". Nevertheless, Haas compared Βας with the Greek γῆ, "earth. interpretation, 35 and even Brixhe has considered this possibility, although he was not entirely convinced by this interpretation, and ultimately abandoned it. 36 K. Witczak introduced into the discussion two obscure Mycenaean terms: pa-de-i and pa-de. 37 He read them as *Φας, Φαδος, and equated them to Old Polish Boda and dubiously with Old Indian Bhadrā. The result of his comparison reverted the translation to the reconstructed root *b h ad-, "fortunate, happy, prosperous; good" (IEW 106), and attributed a Bithynian origin of this theonym in order to avoid the phonetic problems of his etymological proposal. However, Lubotsky dismissed Witczak's argumentation as ungrounded. 38 With these inconclusive interpretations, and having verified that the word Bas does not exist in surrounding languages, only determining the internal reconstruction remains in order to identify the origin of this theonym. Thus, I propose that the theonym Bas is a Phrygian derivative t-stem from the PIE root *b h eh 2 -, "shine" (LIV 2 68-69). 39 According to its inflection, it can be a primary t-stem formation, but it only fits with the acrostatic type, e.g., PIE *nók u ̯ -t-/ *nék u ̯ -t-, "night." Therefore, the form *b h óh 2 -t-/ *b h éh 2 -t-can be assumed as the origin of this theonym. However, the nom. Βας presents a problem. If the laryngeals in Phrygian work in the same way as they seem to in Greek, a nominative **βως and accusative **βωταν would be predictable. Nevertheless, the nominative and accusative root vowel may have been levelled from oblique cases, where e-grade is expected. Unfortunately, they are not attested. However, this is not the only levelling assumed in Phrygian, since A. Kloekhorst recently argued such a levelling for the word   40 where the expected o-grade of the PIE root has been substituted for the e-grade of the oblique cases (neither attested). Additionally, these morphological considerations fit the context. These formations are considered verbal abstracts in origin, which often become concrete nouns, e.g., PIE *doh 3 -t-, "giving" > Latin dōs, -ōtis, "dowry." Therefore, the development from "shining" into "the shine" and later "the shining one" can be considered, forming a suitable name for a god.
Here, the Greek word φώς, φωτός, "man, hero," can be adduced to support this new interpretation. K. Brugmann and B. Delbrück 41 equated this word with the Vedic s-stem bhā s-, "light, splendor, power," and assumed that the Greek word was indeed a secondary t-stem noun, as well as many others in this language. After a century during which this explanation remained more or less unaccepted, 42 M. Peters improved the formal analysis of this etymology and opened the possibility of an ancient t-stem agentnoun without excluding an original radical noun. 43 On its meaning, he considered that the word developed from "shining," adducing some Indo-European formulae which associate this concept with heroes (consequently, the meaning "man" is a secondary one). He also considered the Greek personal names in -φως, -φοος, and -φωσσα, equivalent to Old Persian -farnah-and Avestan -xvarənah-, in order to show this association. More recently, A. Vijūnas has argued that this Greek word originated from a primary tstem, 44 the same kind of formation suggested here for the Phrygian word (see also NIL 7-11), 45 where the whole Greek paradigm has levelled the o-grade of the root from the nominative and accusative singular (the opposite way of the Phrygian word, see Table 2). Although in ancient times φώς, φωτός was related to "light" (as Apollonius the Sophist showed), 46 this etymology is not commonly accepted. Some scholars refute it because they consider it "semantically implausible." 47 Indeed, no satisfactory explanation of this suggested semantic development has been proposed and, what is worse, it seems that there is no synchronic evidence which points out the semantic shift "light" > "hero" > "man." Therefore, in order to accept the suggested etymology, the meaning of the development of φώς, φωτός from the proposed prehistoric meaning "the shining one" to "hero, man" must be explained.
It is clear that φώς, φωτός is basically a poetic word rarely occurring in prose. It means that the use of this noun was restricted to the elevated style of epic or tragedy, far from common language usage. Certainly, the two usual meanings, "hero" and "man," are inferred from the context. Φώς means "hero" when it is used to qualify some characters such as Achilles (Iliad 2.239), although in other occurrences it clearly conveys the meaning "man, mortal," e.g., εἷμα δ' ἔχ' ἀμφ' ὤμοισι δαφοινεὸν αἵματι φωτῶν, "the clothing upon her shoulders showed strong red with the men's blood" (Iliad 18.538).
In light of this last context, it is clear that the word was not comprehensible to the audience of the Homeric poems. Moreover, it can be deduced that the original meaning is not the generic "human," because it is never said of a woman, so it likely means "man." However, in many contexts it is used to refer to warriors and, especially in singular, to the important ones. Thus it can be concluded that this word, despite its poetic value, is a semantically empty archaism.
Before explaining the consequences of such a conclusion, a similar case can be adduced. There is another archaism understood as "men" despite the lack of a clear etymology: μέροπες. Although its original meaning is unknown, 48 in Homer it is always used in the plural as an epithet of ἄνθρωποι, "men" (e.g., Iliad 18.288) and, sometimes, of βροτοί, "mortal men" (Iliad 2.285). In other texts, it is attested with λαοί, "men, people" (Aeschylus, Suppliant Women 90). In such cases, it was understood as "mortal." However, in the works of tragic authors and later poets, the word occurs as a noun with the meaning "men." Finally, it is reported to be the name of a bird (Aristoteles, History of Animals 615b.25). Leaving aside this bird name, it is evident that μέροπες did not have a clear meaning for ancient Greek speakers, and the meaning "men" is only inferred from its relation with ἄνθρωποι in Homer.
The same could then be said of φώς: its original meaning was unclear, but it was understood as "men" or "hero" because it appeared in relation to them. Indeed, 48 Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek,933. what happened here is a well-established phenomenon called "productive misunderstanding" by M. Leumann, "iconism" by M. S. Silk (from a literary perspective) and, equating it to modern languages, "irrational resemantization" or "irrational polysemy" by Méndez Dosuna. 49 Certainly it has been claimed for archaic words in Homer which later speakers misunderstood, but, because of the importance of their literary tradition, were still used with a new meaning deduced from context. It is the case for many adjectives and (especially) epithets, since they play a peripheral role in sentences.
A good example of this process is found in the adjective αἰόλος, which combines the meaning "quick, nimble, shimmering" with "variegated, colorful," two meanings not conceivable with a natural semantic shift. According to Méndez Dosuna, it originally meant "variegated, colorful" 50 and, as a later invention of the glossographoi, it was understood also as "quick." Another paradigmatic example of such a misunderstanding is κύμβαχος, earlier used as a technical noun ("crest of a helmet"), and later as an adjective ("falling head-first"). 51 Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between φώς and μέροπες. Indeed, while the latter is far from being etymologically explained, φώς can be analyzed as an inherited PIE word with a primary meaning: "shining, radiance." Thus, its unnatural semantic shift is a parallel process to the meanings of αἰόλος.
. . . and [Athena], the divine among goddesses, about his head circled a golden cloud, and kindled from it a flame far-shining. As when a flare goes up into the high air from a city from an island far away, with enemies fighting about it who all day long are in the hateful division of Ares fighting from their own city, but as the sun goes down signal fires blaze out one after another, so that the glare goes pulsing high for men of the neighbouring islands to see it, in case they might come over in ships to beat off the enemy; so from the head of Achilleus the blaze shot into the bright air.
Consequently, the "shining warrior" can be considered a Homeric motif which provides a context in which heroes are φώτες, "the shining ones." As 53 On this Old Irish collation see Brend, Heroic saga and classical epic in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 2011), 222-23. Leaving aside the textual problems related to lúan láith, it could be lately influenced by Classical literature. 54 Translation of Iliad and Odyssey passages are given according to The Chicago Homer (Lattimore's and Huddleston's, respectively): http://homer.library.northwestern.edu/. is shown in these two instances, the divinity (here Athena) gives to the warriors an attribute which is considered divine: brightness. Certainly, the Greek gods are known to be imbued with a brilliant aura when they appear in their true form. 55 A good description of this feature is found in the Homeric Hymns. See, e.g., how Demeter is depicted at Keleos' house (Hymn to Demeter, 187-88 and 277-80): ἣ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπ᾽ οὐδὸν ἔβη ποσὶ καὶ ῥα μελάθρου κῦρε κάρη, πλῆσεν δὲ θύρας σέλαος θείοιο.
[. . .] ὀδμὴ δ᾽ ἱμερόεσσα θυηέντων ἀπὸ πέπλων σκίδνατο, τῆλε δὲ φέγγος ἀπὸ χροὸς ἀθανάτοιο λάμπε θεᾶς, ξανθαὶ δὲ κόμαι κατενήνοθεν ὤμους, αὐγῆς δ᾽ ἐπλήσθη πυκινὸς δόμος ἀστεροπῆς ὥς: But the goddess walked to the threshold: and her head reached the roof and she filled the doorway with a heavenly radiance. [. . .] Beauty spread round about her and a lovely fragrance was wafted from her sweet-smelling robes, and from the divine body of the goddess a light shone afar, while golden tresses spread down over her shoulders, so that the strong house was filled with brightness as with lightning.
Hektor of the shining helm leads all of the Trojans here. Then why does my own heart within me debate this? When a man, in the face of divinity, would fight with another whom some god honours, the big disaster rolls sudden upon him. Therefore, let no Danaan seeing it hold it against me if I give way before Hektor, who fights from God. Yet if somewhere I could only get some word of Aias of the great war cry, we two might somehow go, and keep our spirit of battle even in the face of divinity, if we might win the body for Peleïd Achilleus. It would be our best among evils.
In this soliloquy, Menelaus is afraid of fighting with Hector because the Trojan hero fights with divine aid. Then in vv. 98-99 he states: ὁππότ' ἀνὴρ ἐθέλῃ πρὸς δαίμονα φωτὶ μάχεσθαι ὅν κε θεὸς τιμᾷ, τάχα οἱ μέγα πῆμα κυλίσθη, "When a man [= ἀνὴρ], in the face of divinity, would fight with another man [= φωτὶ] whom some god honours, the big disaster rolls sudden upon him." Note that here Hector is clearly equated to this φώς, who is honored by a god, and Menelaus to the plain ἀνὴρ, who cannot beat his great adversary.
In conclusion, what happened to φώς is that at one moment the use of this word was restricted to epic verses and later misinterpreted by Greek speakers. Nevertheless, because of its literary significance, φώς was reused with its apparent sense "hero, man." According to this consideration, the etymology φώς < *b h óh 2 -t-s, "shining," is a valid one.
Leaving aside the Greek word, the interpretation suggested for the Phrygian theonym provides a suitable scenario which aligns with an Anatolian divinity. Indeed, common epithets of the Storm-God in Hittite texts are the adjectives piḫaim(m)i-, piḫam(m)i-, and piḫaššašši-, derived from a Luwian word piḫa-(attested in the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription KARATEPE 1 §52). 56 According to CHD s.v. piḫaim(m)i-, 57 since sometimes these adjectives are placed in juxtaposition, their meaning must be different; but this distinction cannot be substantiated because all forms share origin and context. CHD then compares their meaning with the difference between English "joyful" and "joyous," and interprets these epithets as "imbued with splendor/might." Therefore, Phrygian Βας is very likely a calque of the Luwian epithets used to qualify Tarhunt. At this point, it must be said that S. Bernd-Ersöz suggested that evidence existed for a Storm-God in Phrygian monuments, 58 and that this god was called