Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:17:26.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EROS AT JUNNAR: RECONSIDERING A PIECE OF MEDITERRANEAN ART

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2019

Matthew Adam Cobb  and
Fiona Mitchell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1969 on a riverside near the Lenyardi caves (about 5 kilometres from present-day Junnar, in the Indian state of Maharashtra), Dr Satish Deshmukh discovered an alabaster object in the form of half an egg (longitudinally cut) with a young male child lying inside it (with small traces of red paint on the right side of the object). This high-quality oval object (figures 1 and 2) measures about 5 cm × 3.4 cm and is usually interpreted as an item that was originally manufactured in the Mediterranean world before being brought to India, rather than a piece of artwork produced in India itself. One possible, and largely accepted, interpretation is that this figure represents the birth of the god Eros. However, identification of the figure within the egg-like structure is not easily made. While the figure does bear similarities to the putto-style representation of Eros in instances of Greek and Roman art, it does not possess any clear identifying features (such as the wings with which Eros is often depicted). The figure's resemblance to Eros in some of his other iconographic depictions and the egg-like structure around him suggest a possible identification of this infant with Eros and the myth of his birth from an egg. However, without evidence from other iconography of a more clearly identifiable Eros in similar contexts, the figure cannot be said to be him with any certainty. As Dhavalikar notes, this object ‘is the only one of its kind among the classical antiquities so far found in the Indian subcontinent and perhaps has no parallel in the classical world’. Thus the identification of this sculpture as a depiction of Eros in the egg is possible, but not certain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , October 2019 , pp. 203 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to express our profound gratitude to Professor Rosa Maria Cimino for kindly allowing us to include in this article her photos of the ‘Eros of Junnar’ and the Indian ivory from Pompeii. We would also like to thank Lindsey Roberts who generously helped with proofreading this piece.

References

1 Dhavalikar, M. K., ‘Eros from Junnar’, in MacDowall, D. W., Sharma, S., and Garg, S. (eds.), Indian Numismatics, History, Art, and Culture. Essays in the Honour of Dr. P. L. Gupta (New Delhi, 1992), 326Google Scholar; Cimino, R. M., ‘An exceptional find in India: a small sculpture depicting Eros issuing from an egg’, in Parpola, A. and Koskikallio, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1993 (Helsinki, 1994), 171Google Scholar.

2 For this view, see Dhavalikar (n. 1); Vasant, S., Little-Known, ‘A “Caitya” Hall at Junnar’, Ars Orientalis 16 (1986), 107Google Scholar; Brancaccio, P., ‘Sātavāhana Terracottas: Connections with the Hellenistic Tradition’, East and West 55.1 (2005), 58Google Scholar n. 4.

3 The figure bears a resemblance to the depictions of Eros as an infant, particularly those of Eros sleeping: LIMC Eros 780a, 782, 783, 788, 791. These appear in a range of locations in both Greece and Rome from the second century bce to the third century ce (see Ackermann, Hans Christoph, Boardman, John, and Gisler, Jean-Robert, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae [Zürich, 1981]Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Eros’.)

4 Dhavalikar (n. 1), 326.

5 Cimino (n. 1), 171, 174, notes that this theme seems to be paralleled by a carved carnelian piece (H. Russel Collection) in which a winged youth (rather than an infant) is seated between what appears to be two eggshells. She also notes a parallel with a fifth-century bce sculpture from Metapontum which shows a small figure emerging from an egg (though the sex of the individual is difficult to distinguish).

6 For images of Eros/Cupid that appear on objects imported into India from the Mediterranean world, see Suresh, S., Symbols of Trade Roman and Pseudo-Roman Objects Found in India (New Delhi, 2004), 141Google Scholar, 149 (Arikamedu and Taxila). See also Ray, H. P., ‘The Yavana Presence in Ancient India’, JESHO 31.3 (1988), 321Google Scholar; Patel, A. and Rajesh, S. V., ‘Red Polished Ware (RPW) in Gujarat, Western India: An Archaeological Perspective’, Prāgdhānā 17 (2006–7), 97Google Scholar; and Margabandhu, C., ‘Trade Contacts between Western India and the Graeco-Roman World in the Early Centuries of the Christian Era’, JESHO 8.3 (1965), 319Google Scholar (Baroda). See also the bronze statues of a winged Eros at Begram (Afghanistan): Halkias, G. T., ‘When the Greeks Converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical Transfers of Knowledge in Indo-Greek Cultures’, in Wick, P. and Rabens, V. (eds.), Religions and Trade. Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West (Leiden, 2014), 100Google Scholar.

7 For a discussion of this object, see Mehendale, S., ‘Begram: At the Heart of the Silk Roads’, in Hierbert, F. and Cambon, P. (eds.), Afghanistan. Crossroads of the Ancient World (London, 2011), 141Google Scholar; for one of the more detailed literary descriptions of this myth, see Apuleius’ Metamorphosis. The sites of Begram and Taxila were more directly influenced by the legacy of Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek presence in the areas now known as Afghanistan and Pakistan during the last few centuries of the first millennium bce. More broadly, these regions were exposed to a variety of cultural influences through trade, migration, and conquest, which helped foster a wide range of syncretic and eclectic forms of art and architecture, as can be seen by finds from sites such as Tillya Tepe and the Buddhist imagery of Gandhara. It is possible that this made these regions more receptive to ‘Graeco-Roman’ material imported from the Mediterranean, although this can only be conjecture. However, this need not invalidate comparisons with other material found further south in peninsular India. First of all, sites like Begram and Taxila were just as integrated into wider Indian Ocean trade networks as sites like Barygaza, Muziris, and Arikamedu. It is now largely accepted that the Mediterranean imports found at these sites were brought via trade networks connected to the India Ocean, being carried inland from the port of Barbarikon (PME 38–9): see Mehendale (this note), 140. Moreover, parallel finds at a number of sites across the region reveal how widely crafted Mediterranean wares could be distributed, as seen, for example, with the Roman ribbed glass found at Begram, ed-Dur (UAE), and Arikamedu; for references, see Cobb, M. A., Rome and the Indian Ocean Trade from Augustus to the Early Third Century ce (Leiden, 2018), 232–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A second point to note is that there is clear evidence for receptiveness in the Deccan (where the Eros of Junnar was found) to ideas/imagery that originated from Hellenistic/Roman Egypt, resulting in syncretic artistic developments; notably this can be seen in the influence of Bes terracotta imagery and techniques on the production of Satavahana Yaksha terracottas: see Autiero, S., ‘Bes Figurines from Roman Egypt as Agents of Transculturation in the Indian Ocean’, Thiasos 6 (2017)Google Scholar. For further discussion of Mediterranean influence on Satavahana terracotta production, see Margabandhu, C., ‘Roman Influence on the Art of Clay Modelling of the Sātavāhanas: A Study in Cultural Fusion’, Indian Historical Review 32.1 (2005), 165–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To the authors' minds, there seems little reason to exclude the Begram and Taxila material from the discussion.

8 Dhavalikar (n. 1), 326–7. See also Cimino (n. 1), 176–9; Cimino, R. M. (ed.), Ancient Rome and India. Commercial and Cultural Contacts Between the Roman World and India (New Delhi, 1994), 183–4Google Scholar, who notes the possibility that this object could be interpreted in this way.

9 For the debate over ‘Roman’ or indigenous ownership of items like fine wares and glassware at the Indian sites of Arikamedu (probably the site called Poduke in classical literature) and Pattanam (probably Muziris in classical literature), see Wheeler, R. E. M, Ghosh, A., and Deva, K., ‘Arikamedu: An Indo-Roman Trading Station on the East Coast of India’, Ancient India: Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India 2 (1946), 39–40Google Scholar; Wheeler, R. E. M., ‘Roman Contact with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan’, in Grimes, W. F. (ed.), Aspects of Archaeology in Britain and Beyond. Essays Presented to O. G. S. Crawford (London, 1951), 148–9Google Scholar; Suresh, S., Roman Antiquities in Tamilnadu (Chennai, 1992), 44Google Scholar; Suresh (n. 6), 113–14; Cimino (n. 1), 177; E. J. Strauss, ‘Roman Cargoes: Underwater Evidence from the Eastern Mediterranean’, PhD thesis, University College London (2007), 266; Stern, E. M., ‘Early Roman Export Glass in India’, in Begley, V. and De Puma, R. D. (eds.), Rome and India. The Ancient Sea Trade (Madison, WI, 1991)Google Scholar; Gurukkal, R., Rethinking Classical Indo-Roman Trade. Political Economy of Eastern Mediterranean Exchange Relations (New Delhi, 2016), 189–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more qualified view that these items could be appreciated by both foreigners and local elites, see Tomber, R., ‘The Roman Pottery from Pattanam’, in Mathew, K. S. (ed.), Imperial Rome, Indian Ocean Regions and Muziris. New Perspectives on Maritime Trade (London, 2016), 389–91Google Scholar.

10 On this view, see Suresh (n. 9), 47; Suresh (n. 6), 105; McLaughlin, R., Rome and the Distance East. Trade Routes to the Ancient Lands of Arabia, India and China (London, 2010), 56Google Scholar; Cimino (n. 8), 164; Broekaert, W., ‘Going Mental: Culture, Exchange and Compromise in Rome's Trade with the East’, in Teigen, H. F. and Seland, E. H. (eds.), Sinews of Empire. Networks in the Roman Near East and Beyond (Oxford, 2017) 13–14Google Scholar. However, on the appreciation of fish sauce by certain Indian cultures, see Seland, E. H., ‘Ports, Ptolemy, Periplus and Poetry: Romans in Tamil South India and on the Bay of Bengal’, in Seland, E. H. (ed.), The Indian Ocean in the Ancient Period. Definite Places, Translocal Exchange (Oxford, 2007), 70Google Scholar; Puranannuru 374; Porunarattrupadai 250–60. See also Tomber, R., ‘Beyond Western India: The Evidence from Imported Amphorae’, in Tomber, R., Blue, L., and Abraham, S. (eds.), Migration, Trade and People, Part 1. Indian Ocean Commerce and the Archaeology of Western India (London, 2009), 47–8Google Scholar; Tomber (n. 9), 388–9.

11 Warmington, E. H., The Commerce Between the Roman Empire and India (London, 1928), 271–318Google Scholar; Miller, J. I., The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire 29 b.c. to A.D. 641 (London, 1969), 216–22Google Scholar; Raschke, M. G., ‘New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 9.2 (1978), 672–3Google Scholar; Casson, L. (ed. and trans.), Periplus Maris Erythraei (Princeton, NJ, 1989), 30–1Google Scholar; Gupta, P., ‘Coins in Rome's Indian Trade’, in Jha, A. K. (ed.), Coinage, Trade and Economy. Third International Colloquium (Nashik, India, 1991), 125Google Scholar.

12 The adjective ‘Roman’ is used here as a convenient shorthand for merchants from the Mediterranean world who were participating in the Indian Ocean trade in the early centuries of the first millennium ce. The cultural-ethnic background of those involved was varied (whether they were merchants, sailors, or financiers), and included peoples from Egypt, Italy, and elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Greek appears to have been used as a lingua franca.

13 See also Cobb, M. A., ‘Balancing the Trade: Roman Cargo Shipments to India’, OJA 34.2 (2015), 193–7Google Scholar.

14 Brancaccio (n. 2), 58 n. 4, briefly makes reference to this idea. The topic is explored more extensively in West, M., ‘Ab ovo: Orpheus, Sanchuniathon, and the Origins of the Ionian World Model’, CQ 44.2 (1994), 289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar; López-Ruiz, C., When the Gods Were Born. Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East (Cambridge, MA, 2010)Google Scholar; and Mitchell, F., ‘The Universe from an Egg: Creation Narratives in Ancient Indian and Greek Texts’, in Cobb, M. A. (ed.), The Indian Ocean in Antiquity. Political, Cultural and Economic Impacts (London, 2019)Google Scholar.

15 For transcultural adaptation, see Maran, J. and Stockhammer, P. W., ‘Introduction’, in Maran, J. and Stockhammer, P. W. (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford, 2012), 1–2Google Scholar. See also Huteheon, L., A Theory of Adaptation (London, 2006), 145–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Autiero (n. 7).

16 Margabandhu (n. 6), 318; Suresh (n. 6), 103; S. Bhandare, ‘Historical Analysis of the Satavahana Era: A Study of Coins’, PhD thesis, University of Mumbai (1999), 211–15, 241, 244–7, 252–4, 259–61, 266; McLaughlin (n. 10), 47; Shastri, A. J., The Sātavāhanas and the Western Kshatrapas. A Historical Framework (Nagpur, India, 1998), 54–5Google Scholar, 64–8, 145–8.

17 PME 41, 50–2.

18 McLaughlin (n. 10), 46–7.

19 For a description of the western coast known to Greek-speaking peoples as the Dachinabades (the area south of Barygaza and before one reaches the coast of Limyrike [roughly the Malabar Coast]), see PME 50–3. Lead from western Mediterranean mines was possibly being used in the central Deccan for the minting of coins prior to the rise of the Satavahana dynasty (founded between the late third and first century bce), as suggested by isotope analysis: see Seeley, N. J. and Turner, P., ‘Metallurgical Investigations of Three Early Indian Coinages: Implications for Metal Trading and Dynastic Chronology’, in Allchin, B. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology (Cambridge, 1984), 331–3Google Scholar; Ray, H. P., The Winds of Change. Buddhism and the Maritime Links of Early South Asia (Oxford, 1994), 78Google Scholar; Tchernia, A., ‘Winds and Coins: From the Supposed Discovery of the Monsoon to the Denarii of Tiberius’, in De Romanis, F. and Tchernia, A. (eds.), Crossings. Early Mediterranean Contacts with India (New Delhi, 1997), 261Google Scholar; Tchernia, A., The Romans and Trade, trans. Grieve, J. with Minchin, E. (Oxford, 2016), 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Suresh (n. 6), 103, 183.

21 R. D. De Puma, ‘The Roman Bronzes from Kolhapur’, in Begley and De Puma (n. 9), 95. De Puma argues that the Roman bronzes from this hoard were intended for disposal at a nearby foundry – i.e. they should be seen as raw material rather than objects appreciated for their craftsmanship and artistic value. However, this is unlikely since the hoard contained different metals, such as lead and iron, suggesting that it had not been assembled for smelting: see Suresh (n. 6), 125.

22 Suresh (n. 6), 125.

23 De Puma (n. 21), 101–2; Suresh (n. 6), 128; Tomber, R., Indo-Roman Trade. From Pots to Pepper (London, 2008), 131Google Scholar. See also the statuette of Poseidon found at Kolhapur.

24 S. B. Deo, ‘Roman Trade: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Western India’, in Begley and De Puma (n. 9), 41.

25 Singh, A. K., Indo-Roman Trade (New Delhi, 1988), 87–8Google Scholar (bronze); Margabandhu (n. 6), 320–1; Gupta, S., Williams, D., and Peacock, D., ‘Dressel 2–4 Amphorae and Roman Trade with India: The Evidence from Nevasa’, South Asian Studies 17 (2001), 11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Williams, D. and Peacock, D., ‘The Eruption of Vesuvius and Campanian Dressel 2–4 Amphorae’, in Pollini, J. (ed.), Terra Marique. Studies in Art, History and Marine Archaeology in Honor of Anna Marguerite McCann on the Reception of the Gold Medal of the Archaeological Institute of America (Oxford, 2005), 140–8Google Scholar (amphorae).

26 Gupta, Williams, and Peacock (n. 25), 15; Singh (n. 25), 87–8.

27 Stern (n. 9), 115.

28 Suresh (n. 6), 136; see also Margabandhu (n. 6), 321.

29 PME 39, 49, 56. It was frequently cheaper to import raw glass or cullet for melting and remoulding rather than making glass from scratch. Moreover, South Asian glass tended to be brittle and low quality: see Carboni, S., ‘Glass from Mantai (Sri Lanka) and Its Trade in the Indian Ocean’, in Allan, T., Gur, D., and Barr, F. (eds.), BRISMES Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference on Middle Eastern Studies (Exeter, 1991), 222Google Scholar.

30 Margabandhu (n. 7), 178–9.

31 For a map showing a distribution of these finds, see Cobb (n. 7), 217.

32 The figure from Pompeii is often identified as Lakshmi, goddess of prosperity, and may have formed part of a handle or stool: see Gupta (n. 11), 124; Cimino (n. 8), 119–22; Berry, J., The Complete Pompeii (London, 2007), 200Google Scholar; contra Evers, K. G., Worlds Apart Trading Together. The Organisation of Long-Distance Trade Between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean (Oxford, 2017), 22–46Google Scholar, who suggests that this ivory may not originally have served either function, but was probably a ‘decoration, with or without supporting effect, integrated into a larger piece of furniture’. This statuette is similar in style to ivories found at Begram, Bhokardan, and Ter: see Mehendale (n. 7), 137.

33 Evers (n. 32), 46–7. By contrast, Cimino (n. 1), 177, assumes that the ivory simply represents a personal possession brought back by a Mediterranean merchant who had resided in India for a period of time. Evers’ notion is feasible, albeit difficult to assert with certainty given the uniqueness of the Pompeii find. In any case, it is likely that a significant amount of ivory was imported, unworked, in order to be carved by Mediterranean craftsmen to suit local fashions – something that Ovid alludes to in the Medicamina faciei femineae and can probably be inferred from the Muziris Papyrus.

34 PME 51.

35 Besides the Eros at Junnar, a few other stone objects reached India and Central Asia, including a Roman alabaster dinner plate and a number of porphyry pieces (including a vase) found at Begram (Afghanistan): see Mehendale (n. 7), 133 (alabaster); P. Cambon, ‘Begram: Alexandria of the Caucasus, Capital of the Kushan Empire’, in Hierbert and Cambon (n. 7), 150, 153 (porphyry).

36 Dio Chrys. Discourses 35.22.

37 H. P. Ray, ‘Trade in the Deccan under the Satavahanas: Numismatic Evidence’, in Jha (n. 11), 60; Ray, H. P., ‘Early Coastal Trade in the Bay of Bengal’, in Reade, J. (ed.), The Indian Ocean in Antiquity (London, 1996), 354–5Google Scholar; Ray, H. P., ‘Maritime Archaeology of the Indian Ocean. An Overview’, in Ray, H. P. and Salles, J.-F. (eds.), Tradition and Archaeology. Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean (New Delhi, 1996), 4Google Scholar. On the strict sailing schedules, see Seland, E. H., ‘The Persian Gulf or the Red Sea? Two Axes in Ancient Indian Ocean Trade, Where to Go and Why’, World Archaeology 43.3 (2011), 398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cobb, M. A., ‘The Exchange of Goods from Italy to India during the Early Roman Empire: The Range of Travelling Times’, Ancient West & East 13 (2014), 89–116Google Scholar.

38 Keay, J., The Spice Route (London, 2005), 10Google Scholar; Seland, E. H., ‘Red Sea and Indian Ocean: Ports and Their Hinterland’, in Starkey, I., Starkey, P., and Wilkinson, T. (eds.), Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea (Oxford, 2007), 217Google Scholar. On the networks connecting Muziris to the interior, see P. Malekandethil, ‘Muziris and the Trajectories of Maritime Trade in the Indian Ocean in the First Millennium ce’, in Mathew (n. 9), 348–51.

39 Pliny HN 12.25.12, 12.29.13; Dalby, A., Dangerous Tastes. The Story of Spices (London, 2000), 85Google Scholar, 104.

40 Maimekalai 19.1.45; Mulleippattu 5.49, 85; Nedunalvadei 101–3; Perumpanarruppatai 311–19. This is, of course, Tamil literature from southern India, but there is no reason to doubt that such appreciation was possible in the Deccan region.

41 Suresh (n. 6), 79–81, 138–9; Vickers, M., ‘Nabataea, India, Gaul, and Carthage: Reflections on Hellenistic and Roman Gold Vessels and Red Glossed Ware’, AJA 98.2 (1994), 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Suresh (n. 6), 58–66, 77–81; Darley, R., ‘Self, Other and the Use and Appropriation of Late Roman Coins in Peninsular India (4th–7th Century ce)’, in Ray, H. P. (ed.), Negotiating Cultural Identity. Landscape in Early Medieval South Asian History (New Delhi, 2015), 60–84Google Scholar; S. B. Majumdar, ‘Money Matters: Indigenous and Foreign Coins in the Malabar Coast (Second Century bce–Second Century ce)’, in Mathew (n. 9), 421–2. The use of these coins for jewellery is apparent from the double piercings which allowed them to be used in necklaces or attached to pieces of clothing.

43 Brancaccio (n. 2), 55–69; Suresh (n. 6), 81.

44 Suresh (n. 6) 21; Cobb (n. 13), 197.

45 See Dhavalikar (n. 1), 326–7; Cimino (n. 1), 176–9; Cimino (n. 8), 183–4.

46 Balasubramanian, C., A Study of the Literature of the CERA Country (up to 11th Century a.d.) (Chennai, 1980), 14Google Scholar; Ray (n. 6), 312; Ray (n. 19), 83–4; Ball, W., Rome in the East. The Transformation of an Empire (London, 2000), 126Google Scholar, 131; Parker, G., The Making of Roman India (Cambridge, 2008), 173Google Scholar; Fauconnier, B., ‘Graeco-Roman Merchants in the Indian Ocean: Revealing a Multicultural Trade’, Topoi supplement 11 (2012), 95Google Scholar; Yang, J., ‘Hellenisation or Indianisation: A Study of the Yavanas’, Ancient West & East 16 (2017), 177–8Google Scholar, 180–1. More generally, we need to be cautious about employing labels such as Greek or non-Greek in relation to the evidence we find in the East, as Mairs has pointedly demonstrated in her discussion of figures such as Sōphytos, who left a Greek inscription at Kandahar, and Heliodorus, who is recorded as an ambassador of King Antialkidas of Taxila, on a pillar inscription from Besnagar. Mairs notes that ethnic identity cannot simply be reduced to ‘observable behaviour’ such as language use and material culture (dress, ceramic forms, etc.), and that identities are ‘constructed, defended, and ascribed’. Mairs, R., The Hellenistic Far East (Oakland, CA, 2014), 102–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 183.

47 For the Sangam texts mentioning Yavanas, see P. Meile, ‘Les Yavanas dans l'Inde tamoule’, JA (1940–1), 232; K. Zvelebil, ‘The Yavanas in Old Tamil Literature’, in F. Tauer, V. Kubičková, and I. Hrbek (eds.), Charisteria Orientalia. Praecipue ad Persiam pertinentia (1956), 401–9; Gurukkal (n. 9), 82–90.

48 Akananuru 149.9. See also Purananuru 343.1–10 (dates c.200 bce–100 ce); Cobb (n. 7), 164–5.

49 Ptol. Geog. 7.1.6; Johnston, E. H., ‘Two Notes on Ptolemy's Geography of India’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3 (1941), 208–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fauconnier (n. 46), 100–1. See also B. G. Gokhale, ‘Bharukaccha/Barygaza’, in G. Pollet (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture Before a.d. 650 (1987), 72–3.

50 Margabandhu (n. 6), 322; Dhavalikar (n. 1), 326–7; Ray (n. 37), 314–15; McLaughlin (n. 10), 47; Fauconnier (n. 46), 99; Halkias (n. 6), 97 n. 97.

51 Ray (n. 37), 315–17; Ray (n. 19), 84. For an overview, see Ray, H. P., ‘Early Historical Urbanization: The Case of Western Deccan’, World Archaeology 19.1 (1987), 99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Epigraphica India, vol. 8; Cimino (n. 8), 71; Deo (n. 24), 43; Ball (n. 46), 126–7; McLaughlin (n. 10), 47. See also claims about a triskelion design carved onto an arch of a caitya at Junnar and its possible link with Graeco-Romans present in the area: see Vasant (n. 2), 106.

53 Ray, H. P., ‘The Yavana Presence in India: Reprint of JESHO 1988 with an Addendum’, in Boussac, M.-F. and Salles, J.-F. (eds.), Athens, Aden, Arikamedu. Essays on the Interrelations between India, Arabia and the Eastern Mediterranean (New Delhi, 1995), 79–80Google Scholar. On the use of shared religious practices in helping to facilitate cross-cultural interaction between merchants of different origins, see Broekaert (n. 10), 11–15.

54 In fact, Shastri notes that the religious liberalism of the Satavahana period led to the sangha receiving generous endowments, but that this did not necessarily reflect strong religious leanings on the part of the dedicator: Shastri, A. M., ‘Yavanas in Western Indian Cave Inscriptions’, Yavanika 3 (1993), 58–66Google Scholar. Margabandhu argues that there was a strong association between patronage of Buddhism and the commercial elite of the Satavahana kingdom: see Margabandhu (n. 7), 166.

55 Meile (n. 47), 85–123.

56 Tieken, H., ‘The Yavanas’ Clothes in Old Tamil Literature’, Indo-Iranian Journal 46 (2003), 261–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Strauch, I. (ed.), Foreign Sailors on Socotra. The Inscriptions and Drawings from the Cave Hoq (Bremen, 2012), 348Google Scholar; Strauch, I., ‘Indian Inscriptions from Cave Hoq at Socotra’, in Boussac, M.-F., Salles, J.-F., and Yon, J.-B. (eds.), Ports of the Ancient Indian Ocean (New Delhi, 2016), 91Google Scholar; Ray, H. P., Beyond Trade. Cultural Roots of India's Ocean (New Delhi, 2015), 141Google Scholar.

58 It should be noted that, given the uncertainty surrounding the dating of the Eros figure at Junnar, it cannot be ruled out that this object may have been Hellenistic rather than Roman in date, opening up the possibility (however hypothetical) that it is in some way connected to an individual associated with the mixed ethnic/cultural group(s) of the north-west subcontinent, i.e. peoples who inhabited regions which had come under the sway of the Indo-Greek rulers (and subsequently the Sakas and Kashana), and who might potentially have been perceived (or self-identified) as Yavanas. Moreover, it is not impossible that the object could have derived from the north-west, rather than being an import from the Mediterranean world (this point is noted as food for thought, and is not intended as a definitive assertion).

59 Mahābhārata 6.9; Thapar, R., Ancient India Social History. Some Interpretations (London, 1978), 147–8Google Scholar; Yang (n. 46), 185.

60 Kârla Inser no. 17; Rawlinson, H. G., Intercourse between India and the Western World from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Rome, second edition (Cambridge, 1926), 85Google Scholar; Shastri (n. 16), 68. See also the Cilappadigaram, 29 ucalvari, 11–12, for poetic allusions to the rich countries of the Yavanas.

61 Cobb (n. 7), 167.

62 Sites integrated into wider Indian Ocean trade networks where we might be more confident of identifying the presence of foreign merchants include the Egyptian Red Sea ports of Myos Hormos and Berenike. Here we see examples of (particularly first-century ce) southern Indian cooking wares (along with Indian scripts, particularly Tamil-Brahmi). Similarly, the port of Qana’ on the southern Arabian Peninsula has also revealed examples of Egyptian coarse wares (alongside other material from the Mediterranean world). See Cobb (n. 7), 149–56.

63 For example, finds of Greek pottery connected to eating and drinking habits at Al-Mina are sometimes taken as evidence to support the presence of Greeks at this Levantine port, although this is not a universally shared interpretation. See A. Vacek, ‘Greek and Related Pottery from Al Mina: A Case Study of Production, Consumption and Distribution of Greek Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 9th to the End of the 7th Century bc’, DPhil thesis, University of Oxford (2012), 30–1, 200, 215; also Luke, J., Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant (Oxford, 2003), 23–30Google Scholar.

64 A ‘wind-egg’ is an unfertilized egg, which would not normally produce any offspring.

65 Greek text from Hall, F. W. and Geldart, W. M. (eds.), Aristophanis Comœdiæ vol 1 (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar. Translations of Greek texts are by F. Mitchell unless otherwise stated.

66 See Edmonds, R. G. Redefining Ancient Orphism. A Study in Greek Religion (Cambridge, 2013) 27–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; West, M. L., The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983) 18Google Scholar, 77, 81–2.

67 Greek text of the Orphic theogonies is from Bernabé, A. (ed.), Poetae epici Graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta. Pars 2 Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Fasciculus 1 (Munich, 2004)Google Scholar.

68 Vermaseren, M., Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 695. The marble sculpture dates to approximately 125–150 ce and is probably of Roman production. It is currently in Galleria Estense, Modena, inv. no. 2676.

69 F. Mitchell, ‘Monsters in Ancient Greek Cosmogony, Ethnography and Biology’, PhD thesis, University of Bristol (2015), 85–7.

70 Vermaseren (n. 68), no. 860. The stone sculpture was found at Housesteads and dates to 43–410 ce. Great North Museum, object no. NEWMA: 1822.41.

71 Schofield, A., ‘The Search for Iconographic Variation in Roman Mithraism’, Religion, 25.1 (1995), 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Leda and Zeus appears in Eur. Hel. 256–61. Nemesis and Zeus appear in Cypria Fr. 11. Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7 gives both versions.

73 R. Blondell, Helen of Troy. Beauty, Myth, Devastation (Oxford, 2013), 47–8. E.g. LIMC Helene 7–9.

74 LIMC Helene 10–13.

75 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, F2430, Beazley 10222.

76 See Morenz, S., Egyptian Religion,  trans. Keep, A. E. (London, 1973), 177–9Google Scholar; Lesko, L. H., ‘Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmology’, in Shafer, B. E. (ed.), Religion in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, NY, 1991), 95Google Scholar.

77 López-Ruiz, (n. 14), 153; West (n. 14), 4–9.

78 López-Ruiz, (n. 14), 161.

79 For a discussion on the dates of the Laws of Manu, see Olivelle, P., Manu's Code of Law. A Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-Dharmásāstra (Oxford, 2005), 20–3Google Scholar. On the dating of the Matsya Purana, see Dikshitar, V. R., The Matsya Purana. A Study (Madras, 1935)Google Scholar.

80 For a more detailed exploration of the use of this narrative in Greek and Indian sources, see Mitchell (n. 14).