Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T01:27:56.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Ephesian Foundation-Deposit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Paul Jacobsthal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nearly fifty years have passed since Hogarth wrote, and it would be useful and pleasing to comment afresh on the votive offerings from the Artemisium, this treasure of gold and silver, of ivory and amber, with a touch of the gynaikonitis and the East. My purpose is narrower: a study of the objects from the Basis, and narrower still, their chronological implications for the date of the coins found with them. These coins are the only ones from the excavation found in what might be called a closed context. They can in principle be later than their latest co-finds; they can be earlier than the earliest, but it is reasonable to assume that they are contemporary with the majority of the objects associated with them.

A few objects were found outside the Basis under stratigraphical conditions which make their inferior limit of time almost as certain as that of the objects from the Basis, and many pieces from outside resemble Basis types so closely that they can with certainty be dated to the same period (Hogarth p. 235): I think it, however, prudent and safe to leave these, where possible, on one side and to keep to the specimens from the Basis.

The objects from the Basis are almost all of them of the seventh century B.C., a very few are later, and one piece only is possibly of the eighth century, pl. 4. 34. It is silver, gold-plated, ‘most probably detached from a hilt’ (Hogarth p. 114). The description gives no clear idea of technique and purpose: it is too small fora hilt. The decoration consists of engraved zigzags and compass-drawn ‘wheels’: these are no indication of an early date, as they still occur as border-decoration of the chiton of an acroterion figure from the Acropolis, but the whole somehow recalls those aimless designs on Late Geometric bronze sheets from Argos (Waldstein pls. 103, 104).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 71 , November 1951 , pp. 85 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1951

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

1 These pages are intended to be a supplement to the article here on pp. 156 ff. They reflect Ephesian dialogues with Stanley Robinson, horae ferales in Christ Church in the war years and after. Bernard Ashmole repeatedly looked with me at originals and casts of Ephesian objects in his Department, and we discussed problems. The photographs of the ivory statuettes, Pls. XXXIV, f, g, h, and XXXV, a, b, d, are his. Frank Savery kindly read and improved my manuscript. Mrs. Ellen Ettlinger, née Rathenau, obliged me and other students of the subject with a concordance of plates and text in Hogarth's book: copies of this useful instrument are in the Ashmolean Museum and in the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum. Dr. Azis Ogan most kindly contributed the photographs Pl. XXXV, c, and XXXVI, d and f.

I refer to the plates and text of Britisk Museum Excavations at Ephtsus without the title of the book and mostly without the name of Hogarth. Catalogue of Jewellery in the British Museum, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, is quoted by the name of the writer, Marshall.

2 Bronze objects earlier than the seventh century from outside the Basis are the following: the pin pl. 18. 22, insufficiently illustrated and not described; it looks strangely primeval. The pin pl. 18. 24, seems to be Late Geo metric. The fibulae pl. 17. 12, and 13, have been classified by Blinkenberg, Fibules grecques et orientales (p. 62 II, 2 f.; p. 64, II, 4 f.)Google Scholar as ‘submycénien’—which would have consequences for the history of the Ephesian cult, yet this group comprises heterogeneous types: Blinkenberg himself (p. 209) says that Ephesian fibulae such as that pl. 5. 1 (p. 209 fig. 229, group XII, 1 b)—which are obviously of the seventh century—are related to his sub-Mycenaean group II: the two bronze fibulae pl. 17. 12, 13, are no doubt coarse versions of archaic electrum pieces of the type pl. 5. 1, and thus of no interest for the early history of the sanctuary.

The bronze bird pl. 19. 8, looks Late Geometric: its closest analogy is a bronze bird from the Athenian Acropolis, de Ridder p. 85 fig. 55; the bronze birds from Olympia to which Hogarth and de Ridder refer are different in style and purpose.

These Ephesian bronze objects, like the sub-Geometric bronze fibulae pl. 17. 3, 14, 21–5 (Blinkenberg loc. cit. p. 86, III 11 g; p. 101, IV, 11 m; p. 98, IV, 10 e) are votive offerings of people from the islands or from mainland Greece. To the fibulae enumerated by Blinkenberg those from Kato Phana, , Chios, , BSA XXXV pl. 31Google Scholar should be added.

3 Hogarth's suggestion (pp. 111, 114 and 197) that the electrum-plated silver ornaments pls. 4. 5, 7; 7.8, 15; 8. 19, are the caps of dagger-hilts, and the ivory (or bone?) tubes pl. 41. 1, 4, mountings of sword-handles is unfounded. The electrum pin pl. 5. 38, is not a ‘miniature sword’ (see my p. 86 n. 5). The glass handle-knobs pl. 45. 34, 35, are too small for having been pommels of daggers (Hogarth p. 209).

4 Payne and Young pl. 13. 3 and 5; Schrader, Marmor bildwerke text pp. 321 and 322Google Scholar, figs. 369 and 372.

5 Very close to the Ephesian type comes the pin Perachora pl. 76. 8 (p. 175). The electrum pin pl. 5. 38, not from the Basis but from the West Area, is a miniature copy of sub-Geometric Peloponnesian ones such as that from Argos, Waldstein pl. 137, no. 345, or that from the sanctuary of Orthia, ArtemisBSA 13, 110Google Scholar fig. 1, k: a woman from Argos or Sparta, had her—or her mother's or grandmother's—peplos-pin copied by an Ephesian gold-smith, wore it with her Ionian dress, and dedicated it to Artemis: the copy of course defies dating.

6 Blinkenberg pp. 262 ff. gave a list, which could be enlarged. He still dated the fibulae from the Ephesian Basis and from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia before 700 B.C. This is ruled out by the cable patterns and by other considerations. At Olynthus, tomb 516, a bone disc brooch, Olynthus X, 101 no. 340, similar to pl. 20 no. 339, was accompanied by a Corinthian aryballos, similar to the one figured in Olynthus V pl. 44. 3. This would date the burial to the second quarter of the sixth century, but provide only a terminus ante quem for the brooch.

7 Two ivory pins in Cambridge said to come from Ephesus, , RA 31 1930 pl. 6Google Scholar, one with a cross-hatched bud, the other with a hand as head, might be Roman: compare Expl. arch, de Délos XVIII pl. 85, and possibly Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum II pl. 140.Google Scholar 61, 62, 64.

8 Jacobsthal, Early Celtic Art 74Google Scholar; SirFox, CyrilAnti quaries Journal XXVIII (1948), 123 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Inventory of the Samian Heraeum, Michel 832; Bechtel, SGDI 5702Google Scholar; Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings 404Google Scholar; Buschor, Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Textilkunst 44.Google Scholar

10 Cook, JohnBSA XXXV, 205Google Scholar ‘about 700’; Kubier loc. cit. 10 ‘730–720.’

11 John Cook loc. cit. ‘675’; Kübler, p. 12, dates the vase a little earlier.

12 Omitting the well-known Mycenaean examples I mention a few of the seventh and sixth centuries. Most of the lions turn their heads back, and there are other differ ences of posture. Amphora, , Thera II, 213 fig. 420.Google ScholarIvory, , Artemis Orthia pl. 111.Google Scholar Corinthian bronze mirror, Payne, Necrocorinthia 227 fig. 102Google Scholar, Bronze, B. plaques from shields, AM XLI (1916) pl. 4Google Scholar (Noicattaro); Perachora pl. 50. 1, 2 (p. 148). Gold pectoral, Filow, Die archaische Nekropole von Trebenischte p. 14 fig. 10 (pl. 2. 2)Google Scholar; p. 16 fig. 12 (pl. 4. 1). Electrum coin of uncertain Ionian mint, Hill, Guide to the principal coins of the Greeks pl. 1. 13.Google Scholar Clay relief, Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum II, 28Google Scholar fig. 42 (not Mycenaean but sixth century B.C.). Middle Corinthian column crater, Louvre E 628, Payne Necrocorinlhia no. 1169: the lions tread on a bema, as if performing in a circus. Bronze plaque, Ridder, deCatalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l'Acropole d'Athènes 40 fig. 14.Google ScholarTile, , Sardis 10Google Scholar, 1 pl. 5.

13 Kunze, Kretische Bronzereliefs 265Google Scholar; Reichel, Das griechische Goldrelief 55Google Scholar, which should be read with Kunze's, review Gnomon XXI (1949) 5–6.Google Scholar

14 CVA Copenhague 2, III H pl. 73 (= Danemark 74), 5 b, and clearer in the drawing AZ XLIII (1885) pl. 8. 2, whence Furtwängler, Kleine Schriften II, pl. 24. 2.Google Scholar

15 In Early Celtic Art 32 ff. and 57 I have said something on other representations of the story.

16 The fragment fig. 48, with no indication of provenience on p. 220, is no doubt the third of the ‘three fragments of painted pottery from the Basis’, enumerated on p. 234.

17 Of the two bands which decorate the fragment of the bowl, fig. 47, the bottom one occurs in various styles of the seventh century (Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens 117–8Google Scholar); it is found in the Samian–Ephesian group, AM loc. cit. pl. 11. 1 and pl. 12. 3–8 (Rumpf, JdI XLVIII (1933) 70Google Scholar, III, a, 4 and 5). The upper band is formed by serpentines with fillings. A roughly contemporary example occurs on a bronze shield from Idalion, Perrot 3, fig. 636, whence AJA 54 1950, 294 fig. 2. Sixth century: Late-Clazomenian Northampton vase (Beazley, PBSR XI (1929) pls. 1. 2, 4Google Scholar; the pattern, Endt, Jonische Vasenmalerei pl. 2. 16Google Scholar). More floral, on the Droop, cup JHS LII (1932) 69 fig. 11Google Scholar: the cup might have been painted in the second quarter of the sixth century; the Northampton vase is dated by Beazley to 540 B.C.

18 Rumpf, JdI XLVIII (1933), 65.Google Scholar

19 P. 207, and Pieper, quoted by Gjerstad op. cit. 30.

20 Buschor, Altsamische Standbilder 213, 216, 217 (p. 57)Google Scholar; Dunkley, BSA XXXVI 194.Google Scholar

21 Rodenwaldt, Korkyra II, 177 ff.Google Scholar figs. 154–165.

22 Relief from Khorsabad, , Louvre, , Enc. Photogr. I, 304, 305Google Scholar; stone head of a lion from Sippar (Abu Habbah) in the British Museum, fig. 2 on p. 160 below; both are of the later seventh century, B.C. See also Rodenwaldt loc. cit. 143 ff.; Akurgal, EkremSpäthethitische Bildkunst 52 ff., 56, 57. 78.Google Scholar

23 From a photograph by Raymond S. Kleboe, by permission of Picture Post.

24 Besides the pieces illustrated here there are the following others:

Cup spiral plaques, pl. 8. 11 (Marshall pl. 9. 880), 12, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29; pl. 10. 33.

Cup spirals in openwork, pl. 9. 33–6, 38, 41–8 (Marshall pl. 9. 840).

Lozenges, pl. 8. 5 (Marshall pl. 9. 883), pl. 12. 26 (Marshall pl. 10. 1049), silver.

Engraved on the chiton of the hawk-priestess, p. 156 fig. 30.

25 Cecil Smith (p. 169 no. 39) says that the griffins with wide-open jaw look back over their shoulder: in fact they are looking straight on, and what Smith took for an open jaw is an aigrette.

26 I have on p. 89. quoted the Ephesian ivory roundel pl. 38. 12—not from the Basis—because of the cup spirals on its obverse, but not mentioned the coarsely engraved decoration of the reverse, pl. 38. 10, an alternation of lotus flowers and buds: the flowers with five leaves are the type common in Milesian–Rhodian pottery of the late seventh century; the buds have ovaries, characteristic of roses, frequent on Chalcidian vases (Jacobsthal, Ornamente griechischer Vasen 165Google Scholar). I do not know earlier examples and am at a loss to date the roundel.

27 See p. 93.

28 Miss Richter Archaic Greek Art fig. 70 (where the caption should read Istanbul instead of London); Matz, Geschichte der griechischen Kunst I pl. 70.Google Scholar a (pp. 162 and 516 n. 140); Riis, Berytus IX (1949) pl. 19. 3 (p. 86)Google Scholar. Rumpf, Griechische und römische Kunst 18.Google Scholar The very carefully executed facsimile in the British Museum shows traces of gilding: it is at present not possible to check this in Istanbul.

29 The chitons of the ivory statuettes, Pl. XXXVI, d–e, f, made at a time when drapery-folds were current, are now foldless but it is likely that the folds were painted on.

30 Kunze loc. cit. 259 noticed the un-Greek character of no. 6.

31 On p. 161 no. 12 Cecil Smith classifies it under ivories but says that the material of this and of the similar bird, pl. 25. 6 (p. 161 no. 13) appears to be wood. Hogarth in the list of wooden objects (p. 217) has omitted both, and the hawk, pl. 25. 1, is not in his list of the contents of the Basis (pp. 233–4, nos. 7 and 13).

32 Cecil Smith (p. 172) thinks it possible that the ivory statuette of the spinning woman, pl. 24. 1 (here Pl. XXXV, a, b), carried a hawk-topped pole, fitted into a hole sunk in the crown of her head. This is unlikely, if my interpretation of the maidens with hawks is correct.

33 Hogarth, p. 342, index s.v. ‘hawks’. Stanley Robinson draws my attention to a bronze hawk (sixth century?) from the Artemisium at Cyrene, , Africa Italiana IV (1931), 196Google Scholar no. 2, figs. 22, 22a.

34 Hawks displayed. Flat: pl. 4. 16; pl. 7. 19, 20; Marshall pl. g. 1041, whence Pl. XXXIV, e. In relief: pl. 4. 21–4, 27, 28; pl. 7. 27, 28; pl. 11. 10 (silver).

Hawks in profile. Only pl. 11. 9 (silver) is a cut-out silhouette; the others are in the round: Gold, pl. 4. 36; pl. 6. 62 (Marshall 1042), here Pl. XXXIV, d, both from the Basis. Silver pl. 11. 1–6, 8. Bronze, pl. 15. 14–6. Terracotta, pp. 200, 201, figs. 39, 40. Fayence, pls. 43 and 44, several. On the ivory hawks see above in the text.

35 Picard, , Ephèse et Claros 490Google Scholar ‘deux e'perviers entourés de bandelettes et tenus sur chacune de ses mains: the bandelettes are in fact the crossed tips of the wings, for which the gold hawk, pl. 4. 36 (p. 96), gives an analogy.

36 Langlotz, Frühgriechische Bildhauerschulen 118 ff.Google Scholar gave a list of these works, which he then attributed to Samos.

37 Kunze, Kretische Bronzereliefs 258.Google Scholar The oinochoe in her right hand and the dish in her left neither confirm nor contradict this date. The dish is of a type of which three examples, bronze, have come down to us: New York, Richter 538, from Cyprus. Akurgal, Ekrem, Bayrakli (Zeitschrift der philosophischen Fakultät Ankara VIII, 1950) pl. BGoogle Scholar, two, one from Ankara, one from Manisa. Akurgal adduced the dish of the hawk priestess. The vessels are Greek rather than Phrygian, as Akurgal is inclined to believe: Payne's, remarks, Perachora p. 161Google Scholar are instructive. Such a dish with studs on the top surface of the rim, is carried upright by a woman represented in an ivory statuette, Olynthus X pl. 2. 8; pp. 14, 15 figs, 1a, 1b. The piece, possibly Ionic, is not much earlier than 480 B.C. David Robinson considered phiale, wreath, or tympanon as possible interpretations of the object and decided for the second. By the way, comparison of the statuette with the marble statue, Buschor, Altsamische Standbilder 160–2Google Scholar (p. 14, n.73) is misleading. The handle of the vessel has nothing to do with those of the bowls referred to on p. 15, n.76, nor can I see what the studded dish of the ivory figure has in common with the lead disc Olynthus X pl. 159 no. 2536.

38 Barnett, JHS LXVIII (1948) 20Google Scholar, took the figure for a male eunuch, spinning as Herakles did when in the bondage of the Lydian Omphale: I wonder whether this is not dis proved by the breasts.

39 I owe the photographs to the kindness of Mr. Carl Winter, Keeper of the Fitzwilliam Museum.

40 My sketch differs from the views put forward by Langlotz and Barnett. Langlotz loc. cit. 118, 119 (nos. 16, 18) included Pls. XXXIII, h, i, and XXXVI, a, b, c in his list of Samian works. Barnett's, last contribution to the subject is in JHS LXVIII (1948) 17 ff.Google Scholar I can here only refer to this important paper without entering into a discussion of the points on which we disagree.

41 In the following list the objects, if not stated otherwise, are pottery. I owe valuable additions to this list to the interest of Mr. Llewellyn Brown.

42 I owe a photograph to the courtesy of M. Charbonneaux.

43 Jacobsthal, Early Celtic Art pl. 268Google Scholar, pp. 74–5.

44 Bronze coins, Evans, JohnThe Coins of the Ancient Britons pl. 4. 2, 3.Google Scholar Cast handle of bronze implement, Strena Buliciana p. 198, strangely reminiscent of the piece from Fondo Arnoaldi just quoted. In mosaics of the second century A.D. the rhythm is latent in some of the then popular peltae ornaments: JdI XLIII (1928) pl. 14.