Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:29:57.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Asiatic or Winged Artemis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

M. S. Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The identification and origin of this early type of Artemis, in which the goddess is represented standing erect and with wings on her shoulders, while in either hand she grasps an animal or bird, has long been the subject of much discussion, chiefly due to the fact that the archaeological evidence hitherto available, although consisting of some fifty representations, has come from various localities. The literary evidence likewise gives no sure clue, for the only certain mention of this type occurs in the description of the Chest of Cypselus, where Pausanias admits that he knows no reason why Artemis should be winged. Recently, however, at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta numerous examples of this type have been found, which, besides including several new and interesting variants both winged and unwinged, also extend the chronological range beyond the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Moreover, the numerical superiority of this series over the total number of examples previously known, together with the fact that the earliest representation was found with geometric pottery, seems to show conclusively that Sparta is a prominent early centre of this most interesting type. Consequently in the present paper the question of the identification and origin of the ‘Winged Artemis’ will be considered in the light of the recent evidence from Sparta.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , 1909 , pp. 286 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1909

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.)

References

2 Paus. v. 19. 5.

3 Several of the goddess types have previously been published in B.S.A. xiii. pp. 78 ff. (Dawkins, R. M., ‘The Carved Ivories’)Google Scholar; for the cult objects generally, see Bosanquet, R. C., B.S.A. xii. pp. 331Google Scholar ff.

4 For the chronology of Laconian pottery cf. Droop, J. P., B.S.A. xiii. pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar, xiv. p. 46.

5 Cf. similar examples from Lusoi (Jahresh. iv.); and for Sparta, see Farrell, W. J. in B.S.A. xiv. p. 53Google Scholar, fig. 2a.

6 Ash. Mus. Cat. No. 194.

7 Cf. Jahrb. 1888, p. 357, also Walters, History of Pottery, vol. i. Fig. 86.

8 Fig. 5.

9 Fig. 6.

10 Fig. 7.

11 Cf. Fig. 8, ivory plaque from Sparta where it is shown in connexion with the larger series.

12 Fig. 7.

13 Brit. Mus. Cat. ‘Rings and Gems,’ No. 31, where it is described as chariot and horses.

14 Winter, Antik. Terracott. vol. i. Pl. III. No. 7.

15 Fig. 9.

16 Fig. 9. This type begins early and continues for a long period.

17 Fig. 9. It is possible that these were offered in groups, but there is no evidence to support such a view.

18 Apparently without any special significance, cf. B. S. A. xiv. p. 24, Fig. 9.

19 C. I. G. 1444.

20 B. S. A. xii. p. 334, Fig. 1.

21 Cf. B.S.A. xiii. p. 107, Fig. 33.

22 Cf. B.C.H. 1891, Pl. II.

23 Fig. 12; cf. also Hoernes, , Urgeschichte, pp. 396, 397Google Scholar.

24 Fig. 13.

25 B. S. A. xiv. p. 23.

26 Olympia, iii. pp. 26 ff.

27 Cf. Greek Votive Offerings, passim.

27a A few references have been inserted to his Cybébé, although it did not reach the writer's hands in time to be made use of for this paper.

28 Several examples of course may be meaningless importations. Thus the Tharros gem is no evidence for Sardinia.

29 This gap is not confined to the goddess type. All the Spartan finds clearly point to a break in Sparta between the earliest Hellenic and latest Pre-hellenic cultures.

30 Cf. Furtwängler, , Ant. Gemmen, Pl. II. 29Google Scholar.

31 Cf. Furtwängler, op. cit. Pl. II. 27.

32 Cf. Evans, A. J., J.H.S. xxi. p. 163Google Scholar.

33 That is, assuming Homer writes of a sub-Mycenaean age and not of a Mycenaean age proper.

34 Cf. Evans, A. J., J.H.S. xxi. ‘Tree and Pillar Cult.’Google Scholar

35 The absence of wings is significant, but not a definite proof.

36 Cf. Evans, A. J., J.H.S. xiii. pp. 197 ffGoogle Scholar.

37 Cf. Hoernes, op. cit. p. 415.

38 Paus. iii. 14. 2.

39 The origin of both these cults, which may be Aegean rather than Phoenician, for our present purpose does not matter. Their provenance along the island route to the East is the point we wish to emphasize.

40 Paus. v. 19. 5.

41 Paus. v. 27. 5.

42 Tacitus, Annals, iii. 62Google Scholar.

43 Cf. Jones, Stuart, J.H.S. xiv. pp. 46Google Scholar ff.

44 Paus. i. 33. 3.

45 Paus. iii. 16. 7; cf. Frazer, ad hoc.

46 Cf. Tzetz., Lycophr. 1374Google Scholar; Apollodorus, , Epitoma, 6. 26Google Scholar.

47 Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, Num. Comm. on Paus., Pl. N. XI, XII.

48 Porphyry, de Abstin. ii. 56Google Scholar.

49 Cf Farnell, Cults of Greek States, Artemis throughout.