Quick viewing(Text Mode)

CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES in the DECAPOLIS “What Athens

CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES in the DECAPOLIS “What Athens

, 23 (2011) 467-488. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.23.0.2959669

CLASSICAL GREEK IN THE

Prof. Dr. THOMAS M. WEBER (University of – )

“What has to do with ” is the title of a book honouring a renowned Decapolis scholar. For my paper I would like to raise the question: “What does Athens have to do with the Syrian Decapolis?” This enigmatic group of the Ten Cities beyond the river Jordan, the topic of the present con- ference, was reputed for its devotion to Greek culture. In Jewish Rabbinic litera- ture the Greeks were classified as pagans as the presence of human imagery and marble was considered a condemnable allusion to paganism. Idolatry practised in the urban temples and rural shrines in the Decapolis anticipated cultural inter- action, both by Jews and by Christians, with the inhabitants of the Hellenized cities along the Phoenician littoral and inland , at least in the opinion of the orthodox adherents of Semitic religions.1 Concerning the production and presentation of figural , the Hel- lenized Poleis of southern Syria still remain widely unexplored. This is due to the lack of basic study, especially due to the lack of museum catalogues and Corpora comparable to those of other provinces of the Imperium Romanum. In my contribution to the present conference on the Syrian Decapolis I will undertake the task to trace some selected motifs back to their Greek roots in order to investigate the dependence of local sculptures on alien prototypes. One should not ignore the fact that Oriental artists drew on a pre-Hellenistic cultural tradition of their own, which included figural art. For an understand- ing of the indigenous production of sculpture2 within the Decapolis we must

1 It would be a futile endeavour to give a full bibliographical account of this complex problem. I confine myself to quoting two recent studies dealing with the relationship between Jews and Greco-Roman culture, with emphasis on the problems of imagery, A. Oppenheimer, The Jews in the Roman World, in: The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion, volume 9, Y. Z. Eliav – E. A. Friedland – S. Herbert (eds.), Luvain 2008, pp. 51-66. and Y. Eliav, Viewing the Sculptural Environment: Shaping the Second Commandment, in: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture III. Ed. P. Schäfer. (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum) Tübingen 2003, pp. 241-277. 2 On this topic see E. A. Friedland, Roman Marble Sculpture from the : The Group from the Sanctuary of at (Panias). PhilDiss Ann Arbor: The University of Michi- gan 1997; eadem, Art as Cultural Artifact: Roman Sculpture in the Semitic East, in: One Hundred Years of American Archaeology in the Levant: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Centannial Celebration, Washington, DC, April 2000, eds. D. Clark – V. H. Matthews, Boston 2003, 327-340. For the pre-Hellenistic indigenous production of marble sculpture in the

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 467 11/02/13 08:30 468 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

pay inevitable tribute to these two components. Also, it must be emphasized here that marble is a rock largely alien to the quarries of the Middle East, so it had to be imported from the Aegean either as working material or as ready-made sculpture. The following questions may be discussed in this context: When did the Syrian littoral make its first acquaintance with Greek marble? Which icono- graphical patterns were transferred, and what was the purpose of this? How far were Greek classical masterpieces known in the Hellenized cities of Syria? The latter question gains special interest since the work of Pheidias, the lead- ing personality of Greek classical art, shines through in a number of works of sculptural art in the Levantine area.3

ARCHAIC GREEK MARBLE SCULPTURE IN SYRIAN HARBOUR CITIES

According to Pausanias4 the Hellenistic polis Laodikeia at the northern Syrian littoral had been richly decorated by the first Seleucid ruler soon after its foun- dation. He dedicated one of the oldest and most prestigious Greek cult statues,

Levant see R. A. Stucky, Die Skulpturen aus dem Eschmun-Heiligtum bei : Griechische, römische, kyprische und phönizische Statuen und Reliefs vom 6. Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert nach Chr. 17. Beiheft Antike Kunst. Basel 1993. 3 The statue of Asklepios at Berrhoia / Aleppo, for instance, was compared (rhetorically) for its beauty with the works of and similarity to the portrait of Alkibiades, cf. Libanios, Or 30 (pro templis) 22-23, E. Perry, “Divine Statues in the Works of Libanius of : The Actual and Rhetorical Desacralization of Pagan Cult Furniture in the Late Fourth Century C.E.”, in: The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion, volume 9, Y. Z. Eliav – E. A. Friedland – S. Herbert (eds.), Luvain 2008, pp. 437-441. Also, a legend of the arrival of the apostle Paulus on the island of Arados, alludes two to “columns” with the work of Phidias: Homilienus XII, 1-2 (B. Rehm, Die Pseudo-Klementinen. Die griechischen christlichen Schrift- steller der ersten Jahrhunderte, XLII. ed. J. Irmscher, 3rd ed. Berlin. 1992, 180 XII): “Tauta toÕ Pétrou eîpóntov e˝v tiv t¬n ên ™m⁄n tolmßsav ântì pántwn parekálesin aûton aΔrion ôrqríteron eîv ‰Aradon tj katénanti n±son eîspleúsai, triákonta o˝mai aûdˆ ∫louv âpéxousin stadíouv, Üv êpì ïstoría t¬n êke⁄ âmpelínwn dúo stúlwn mégista ∂xontjn páxj | êkbántev de toÕ skáƒouv eîsßeimen ∂nqa oï âmpélinoi stúloi ¥san, öm¬v †ma aûto⁄v ãlloiv ãllo ti t¬n Feidíou ∂rgwn êqeÉrei.”. The commentary of Flavius on the cult statues in the Augusteion at is well known, comparing the representa- tion of the Emperor with the Phidian Zeus of Olympia, cf. Th. M. Weber, “Der beste Freund des Kaisers. Herodes der Große und statuarische Repräsentationsformen in orientalischen Heiligtü- mern der frühen Kaiserzeit”, in: – der Blick von Außen. Die Wahrnehmung des Kaisers in den Provinzen des Reiches und in den Nachbarstaaten. Akten der internationalen Tagung an der Johannes Gutenberg- Universität , ed. D. Kreikenbom – K.-U. Mahler – P. Scholl- meyer – Th. M. Weber. Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen VIII. Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 249–269, esp. 253–258. 4 Perieg. III 16,8: “tò gàr êk Braur¬nov êkomísqj te êv SoÕsa kaì Àsteron Seleúkou dóntov Súroi Laodik±v êƒ ˆ ™m¬n ∂xousi.” Transl.: “For the image at Brauron was brought to Susa, and afterwards Seuleucus gave it to the Syrians of Laodicea, who still posses it.” (pp. 100- 101 II, LCL ed. Jones – Omerod 1966).

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 468 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 469

the idol of Artemis Brauronia, in a sanctuary of this goddess within that city, which was for the Greeks a highly venerable reliquiary. The old (possibly wooden) image (Greek xóanon) originated in Greek myth: it was reported to have been brought by Iphigenia and Orestes, the children of Agamemnon, from far-off Tauris to the the shores of Attica. It was subsequently set up in the godesses’ shrine at Brauron. From here, it was carried off by Xerxes (486-425 BC), son of Dareios I. (521-486 BC) during the Persian campaign to Attica in 480 BC. According to Pausanias, the xóanon of Artemis was abducted by the Persian king5 and brought to the Achaemenid palace-town of Susa. The Brauronian xóanon was recaptured during the campaign of , and subsequently presented by Seleukos to the “Syrian Laodikeans”. It was obviously still preserved in their town more than half a millenium later in the days of Pausanias. A local sanctuary of the goddess is indirectly attested by the inscription of Sosipatra and the epitaph of Iulia Berenike, both priestesses of Artemis in the reign of Traian.6 Local coins minted in the reigns of Caracalla (197-217 AD), Philippus I. junior (244-249 AD), and Trebonianus Gallus (251- 253 AD) depict on their reverse this archaic Greek of Artemis (fig. 1),7 frontally standing in a long chiton, chlamys and a polos as headdress, bearing a small round shield in her left hand and a small sickle in her raised right hand. Behind her, the goddess’ sacred animal, a stag, is standing shown in the profile to the right. Three other Archaic sculptures support Pausanias’ record on the Brauronia:8 Two of them were found near Djebleh, ancient Gabala (fig. 2),9 the third one in a cache within the spring sanctuary of Amrith, ancient Marathos (fig. 3):10 Beside Laodikeia, Gabala figures among the few Syrian poleis mentioned in the itinerary of Pausanias. He testífies to a sanctuary of the Nereid Doto in the city, where the peplos of Eriphyle, the spouse of Amphiaraos, was shown.11

5 V. M. Strocka, V. M.: Kunstraub in der Antike, in: V. M. Strocka (ed.): Kunstraub – ein Siegerrecht?: Historische Fälle und juristische Einwände, Berlin 1999, pp. 9-26. 6 IGLS IV, 24-26 Nr. 1263-1264. 7 For the numismatic evidence of the Artemis Brauronia at Laodikeia see: Münzen & Medai- llen Deutschland GmbH., Auction 20 (10. October 2006) Lot 717; SNG Copenhagen Nr. 367; BMC Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria, ed. W. Wroth (Bologna 1964) 263 Nrs. 113-114 pl. XXXI 5; cf. G. M. Cohen: The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley – Los Angeles 2006, 112; 114 note 7. 8 K. Lembke,, Beutekunst oder Auftragsarbeiten? Drei Marmorkoren in und der Beginn der Hellenisierung Phöniziens, in: Archäologischer Anzeiger 2003, pp. 173–182. 9 Lembke, Beutekunst pp. 173-175 figs. 5-8. 10 K- Lembke, in: Tartus und sein Hinterland. Archäologische Forschungen in der syrischen Küstenregion von der Antike bis ins Mittelalter ( 2001) p. 19 fig. 10; eadem, Beute- kunst, pp. 176-178 figs. 9-12; eadem, Die Skulpturen aus dem Quellheiligtum von Amrit. Studie zur Akkulturation in Phönizien.(Damaszener Forschungen XII, Mainz 2004) p. 154 Nr. 19 pl. 4a 11 Pausanias, Perieg. II 1, 8: “DwtoÕv dè ên Gabáloiv ïerón êstin °gion, ∂nqa péplov ∂ti êleípeto, Ωn oï ÊElljnev ˆEriƒúljn légousi êpì t¬ç paidì labe⁄n ˆAlkmaíwni.” “In Gabala is a holy sanctuary of Doto, where there was still remaining the robe by which the Greeks

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 469 11/02/13 08:30 470 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

At the time when he wrote his itinerary, the city was protected by a strong rampart and a still-well-preserved theatre rising in the centre of the urban settlement which was arranged in an orthogonal grid of streets and lanes according to Hellenistic Seleucid prototypes. As a Phoenician city, Gabala joined the con- federation of Arados, and in the period of the Achaemenid realm, belonging to the starapy of Transeuphratene, its outer and inner harbours provided anchorages for the mercantile fleet and the military navy. The latter most likely joined the Persian punitive expedition against the uprising Ionian cities in western Asia minor. K. Lembke linked these historical events with the three Greek marble korai found in northwestern Syria. The style of these late archaic Greek sculptures, easily comparable with parallels from Samos and Miletos, leads to the assumption that they were products of an eastern Ionic workshop. Lembke concludes that they had origi- nally been erected in Miletos, the leading city of the Ionian revolt, or in one of the neighbouring Greek allied communities. According to her theory, these items were brought to the Syrian littoral as spoils, taken by allied Phoencian troops marauding after the Persian sack of the city in 496 BC. This implies the conclusion that Greek marble sculpture arrived already by the mid-first millen- nium BC12 at the Syrian littoral when the cities of the later Decapolis were not yet re-founded and still entirely oriental communities. To our present knowledge, these trophies from the Achaemenid wars against the Greek insur- gents did not penetrate the Levantine hinterlands.

THE IMPACT OF PARTHENOS ON THE DECAPOLIS

The undisputed climax of marble imports to Syria, , and Arabia was achieved more than half a millenium later in the advanced Roman imperial period. Artistic centres in and Asia Minor traded a great number of marble sarcophagi during the second and third centuries AD to the har- bours of Syria and Palestine.13 The crucial question which is debated by mod- ern scholarship is the problem of locating the provenances of imports and of evaluating their impact on local products.14 How far were indigenous Oriental

say that Eryphyle was bribed to wrong her son Alcmaeon.” (252-253 I, LCL, ed. W. H. S. Jones, London – Cambridge/Mass. 1964). 12 For the arrival of the first Greek marbles at the Levantine coast around the middle of the first millennium BC see also R. A. Stucky, Griechischer Marmor in der Levante. Zur Zeitstellung phönizischer Baureliefs und Architekturelemente aus Marmor, in: Festschrift A. Furtwängler (forthcoming). 13 Cf. G. Koch, Sarkophage im römischen Syrien, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1977, 388-295; idem, Der Import kaiserzeitlicher Sarkophage in den römischen Provinzen Syria, Palaestina und Arabia, Bonner Jahrbücher 189, 1989, pp. 161-211. 14 A thorough discussion of this problem has been published by Friedland, Roman Marble Sculpture (note 2), pp. 57-61.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 470 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 471

workshops actively involved in the production of marble statuary? Local products in the area of the Decapolis, best recognizable by indigenous rocks such as dark-blue basalt or white-yellowish limestone, had been inspired by models from the Greco-Roman world. This fact may best be proved by sculp- tural representations of the Aphrodite Heliopolitana, an interpretatio Graeca of the Phoenician Astarte. In the statuary of the Beqa’a the image of the god- dess is preserved in both a marble and a local limestone specimen, which are interdependent.15 Another subject for a case study on this problem is the Arab divinity Allat who appears already during the first century AD in an entirely Greek guise. The prototype for a large series of southern Syrian chiselled out of local basalt was one of the most famous statues of antiquity: the chrysele- phantine image of Athena Parthenos (fig. 4) forming the state treasure of the Attic-Delian league in the goddess’ main temple on the Athenian Acropolis.16 The colossal statue consisted of components worked separately out of pre- cious materials such as ivory and gold. It was created in an atelier headed by the brilliant artist Phidias and finished several years prior to the temple’s inauguration in 432 BC. The original, of course, is lost today. Its splendour survives in literary descriptions and some Roman copies of reduced size with substantial simplifications. Nevertheless, they allow for an approximate recon- struction. The virgin goddess Parthenos was shown in a relaxed upright stance slightly advancing her left thigh under a long garment. Her left hand grasps the upper rim of an oval shield, the lower rim resting on the floor. The outer surface of the shield is adorned with a gorgon’s head. The right hand is stretched out and bears a figurine of a gliding victory. The goddess appears wrapped in a Doric peplos with an overfold, girded above the waist. The scale-shaped covers both breasts bearing another Gorgoneion in the middle of the lower rim, bordered by twin snakes. The goddess wears a sumptuous helmet of Attic type, the lateral crest-holders having the shapes of cantering winged pegasi, the central one supported by a crouching sphinx. The cheek-pieces of the helmet are open. One of the most accurate reproductions of the Pheidian Parthenos is an early Roman statuette named after its previous owner Lenormant and today on display in the National Museum at Athens (fig. 5). 17 It is considered to be a

15 Cf. Feix, S., Two Seated Goddesses from and Yammoune: An Iconographical Approach, in: , Hors Série IV: Baalbek / Heliopolis. Results of Archaeological and Archi- tectural Research 2002-2005. German-Lebanese Colloquium 2006, ed. M. van Ess ( 2008) pp. 255-270. 16 G. Nick, Die Athena-Parthenos, ein griechisches Kultbild, in: Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis. Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin (Berlin 1997), pp. 22-24; eadem, Die Athena Parthenos. Studien zum griechischen Kultbild und seiner Rezeption (Mitteilun- gen des Deutschen Archäologischen instituts. Athenische Abteilung, Beiheft XIX, Mainz 2002). 17 N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (2002), p. 106 Nr. 190.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 471 11/02/13 08:30 472 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

religious souvenir sculpted by an Athenian workshop. Reduced copies of the Parthenos, most of them of humble quality, were produced in a large number, bought by pilgrims or tourists, and distributed all over the ancient world. One remarkable marble fragment of the Parthenos of reduced size reached as far as to the Decapolis. It was found in the Decapolis city of Philadelphia, modern Amman (fig. 6).18 Only the upper part of the body is preserved, but the shape of the aegis and the drapery of the girded chiton correspond so closely to the Lenormant specimen that the proposed identification is beyond doubt. The workmanship of the Amman fragment is rather fine. If it were more com- plete, it would surely eclipse the famous Athena Lenormant. Pieces such as the Amman fragment transferred knowledge of this famous Athenian masterpiece to the Syrian hinterlands. Athenas worked by local artists are best represented by a fragmented torso which came to light at the shrine at Sahr al-Ledja (fig. 7)19. It was dedicated by a local cleric named Gamos, son of Nasr. The style of the statue points toward the end of the first century AD. All important iconographical features of the Parthenos-prototype are repeated, such as the calm pose, the lowered arms, the girded Doric pelos, and the aegis. In accordance with the Parthenos prototype, the Sahr Athena also originally grasped the upper rim of the shield. A smaller fragment, apparently also from the territory of one of the southern Syrian Decapolis cities, displays the same motif. Undeniable differences of these local basalt Athenas are the stiffness of the pose, the coarse carving of the drapery, and the hybrid elongation of the trunk emphasized by the belt tightened high underneath the breasts. The latter is definitely the result of an artistic develop- ment during the centuries after Alexander’s death, as is proved by the coinage from Seleucid Syria or Pamphylia in Asia Minor. According to a reconstruction proposal developed after three campaigns of archaeological fieldwork at Sahr al-Ledja, this statue of Athena was displayed on a chariot pulled by two lionesses (fig. 8). The composition of this group is remarkable. A cubical block with wheels in relief at the sides serves as a base for the statue of the goddess. The frontal part is prolonged in the shape of jumping animals, all worked out of one piece of basalt. A second chariot was ridden by a corresponding male divinity, but drawn by horses. On both sides of the podium statues of gliding victories held laurel wreaths to crown these travelling divinities. The style and historical circumstances of this statu- ary monument lead to the conclusion that these statues had been raised toward

18 Weber, Th.M., Decapolitana. Untersuchungen zur Topographie, Geschichte und der Bildenden Kunst einer ‘Polis Hellenis’ im Ostjordanland (Gadara – Umm Qês I = Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, volume 30, Wiesbaden, 2002) pp. 505 Cat.-No. D 1 pl. 147 B-D. 19 Weber, Th.M., Die Skulpturen aus Sahr und die Statuendenkmäler der römischen Kaiserzeit in südsyrischen Heiligtümern, IV: Sahr al-Ledja, recherches syro-européennes 1998-2008, Vol. 2, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique Tome 184 (Beirut, 2009) pp. 40-42 fig. 57-58.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 472 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 473

the end of the first century AD, probably in the context of a major renovation project applied to the entire sanctuary as a consequence of the Herodian settle- ment policy under king Agrippa II in southern Syria. The statues of the divine chariots were combined with a parade of horsemen wrapped in Oriental garments and armours. Based on a notice by Flavius Jose- phus, these riders may be identified with this king Agrippa II accompained by his cavalry body guards maintained by Babylonian military settlers of the Zamaride tribe. The entire monument occupied an important location in the forecourt of the sanctuary. The composition of the divine chariot is striking because it has direct Oriental ancestors. In a Turkish village south of Adana a statuary group (fig. 9) was found accidently in 1997 representing the Hittite weather-god Tarhunzas riding a chariot drawn by bulls. According to the bilingual Phoencian and Luwian inscription, this monument was dedicated by Urikki, an Assyrian client king of the Mopsos dynasty, towards the end of his reign before 702 BC.20 Other basalt statues from southern Syria represent Athena in a similar way, but the workmanship is coarse and of a distinctive nature. The drapery follows a pattern also common to other sculptures from the region. The only way to identify the divine personality is the divine attribute of the aegis and the shield embossed with the head of Gorgo.

ATHENA AREIA IN THE PALMYRENE, PALESTINE AND THE DECAPOLIS

The motif of the Phidian Parthenos occurs also in the Palmyrene area. In the Polish excavations of the Sanctuary of Allat, a fine marble statue (fig. 10)21 was uncovered. The aegis and the helmet on the female head confirm the statue’s

20 R. Tekoglu, – A. Lemaire, – I. Ipek, – A. K. Tosun, “La bilingue royale Louvito-Phénicienne de Çineköy”, in: CRAI, 2000, pp. 962–968; Weber, Sahr p. 34 fig. 46. 21 J. Starcky, “Allath, Athèna et la déesse syrienne”, in: Mythologie Gréco-Romaine – Mytho- logies Périphériques. Études d’Iconographie, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche scientifique Nr. 593, Paris 17. mai 1979, ed. L. Kahil – Chr. Augé (1981) pp. 119-130, esp. 124 with note 22; A. J. N. W. Prag, “New copies of the Athena Parthenos from the East”, in: -Kongress Basel, Referate und Berichte, 4.-8. April 1982 (Mainz 1984) I 182 pl. 10.1- 2; II 406-408 A. Schmidt-Colinet, , Kulturbegegnung im Grenzbereich. Zaberns Bild- bände zur Archäologie, XXVII (Mainz 1995) p. 28 fig. 31; K. Parlasca, Auswärtige Beziehungen Palmyras im Lichte archäologischer Funde, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Station Damaskus, 6, 1992, 257-265; Weber, Gadara Decapolitana (note 18), p. 208 note 1639; M. Sartre, D’Alexandre à Zenobie, Histoire du Levant antique, IVe siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Paris 2001) 904 (fig.): O. Stoll, Zwischen Integration und Abgrenzung. Die Religion des Römischen Heeres im Nahen Osten. Mainz 2001, 341; Gawlikowski, M., “The Statues of the Sanctuary of Allat in Palmyra”, in: The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Reli- gion, volume 9, Y. Z. Eliav – E. A. Friedland – S. Herbert (eds.), Luvain 2008, 397–412.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 473 11/02/13 08:30 474 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

identity as Athena. It had already been observed by its excavator Michel Gawlikowski that this imported marble statue is not a pure Roman copy of the Parthenos but a sort of Pasticcio combining two different statuary types: The head (fig. 11) closely follows the famous classical Parthenos. The Attic helmet has cheek-pieces with hinges. The narrow visor above the forehead is crowned with a row of cantering pegasi, while the missing crest was supported by the figurine of a squatting sphinx. The same head type with an Attic helmet showing a reduced number of pegasi is represented by the so-called Varvakion figurine,22 which is considered an accurate but simplified replica of the Parthe- nos. Another Roman copy of the same type is preserved in the collection of the Ny Carlsberg-Glyptotek at Copenhagen.23 Concerning the Parthenos head we may assume that this was also known in the cities of the Decapolis by three-dimensional copies made of it. The Jordanian Department of Antiquities at Amman keeps a small marble head (fig. 12),24 badly damaged by chipping and corrosion, but displaying the borders of the visor and the traces of the squatting sphinx on the top of the Attic helmet. Above the goddess’ right ear two holes bear the remains of corroded iron rivets originally holding the opened cheek-piece. Again, an attribution to the Parthe- nos is beyond doubt. Unfortunately the provenance of this object is not known, but it probably comes from one of the ancient cities in the north of the country. The body of the Palmyra Athena depicts an iconographical type distinguished from the Classical Parthenos.25 The main difference is the arrangement of the aegis which is drawn slanting as a sash across the upper part of the body. Also, the movement is altered, as the goddess was shown lifting her right arm holding what was probably a spear in the hand. Michel Gawlikowski and other scholars have pointed out that the Palmyrene torso has a close analogy in a late Classical torso found at the Athenian Agora.26 Here again the aegis is reduced to the proportions of a diagonal strap to support the head of the . The snake heads that bordered the aegis were bronze and have been wrenched from their sockets. On the back of the figure the writhing serpents are worked in marble. The right arm of the goddess was thrust out, presumably to hold her spear. The left hung down, probably to rest on the shield. The style of this fragment suggests a date of about 420-410 BC, and it seems obvious that the Palmyrene torso was copied at Athens from this late Classical original. The Agora torso was found in a Byzantine wall 18 metres to the south of the temple of Ares. It thus may be the statue seen by Pausanias in the nearby sanctuary. He attributed the statue of Athena Areia to “a man of Paros, Locros

22 Nick, Parthenos (note 16), pp. 167-160; 240 Nr. A 15 (with further bibliography); pl. 19, 1-2. 23 Nick, Parthenos, p. 244 Nr. A 21 (with further bibliography). 24 Nick, Parthenos p. 252 Nr. A 44 (with further bibliography); Weber, Sahr (note 19) p. 41 fig. 59. 25 Prag, New Copies (note 21), pp. 182. 26 Prag, New Copies, pp. 182.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 474 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 475

by name”. He must have been a contemporary of Alkamenes, a of Phidias, who created another Athena for the temple of Hephaistos. Also, this statue alludes to the Phidian masterpiece. We may thus conclude that the archetype of the Parthenos inspired other Greek artists only one generation after Phidias to create similar statues with minor alterations. The iconographical type of the late Classical Athena Areia of Locros must have arrived during the Roman imperial period via marble copies at the Levan- tine shore, the hinterland of the Decapolis and the desert city of Palmyra. One copy comes from Caesarea Maritima (fig. 13),27 the major harbour of Palestine. Another replica, but with the movement inverted mirrorwise, was found at the theatre of Philadelphia/Amman (fig. 14).28 In both cases the late Classical original of the Athenian Agora is only vaguely reflected. The proportions of both copies are different from their classical Athenian forerunners and point to a pre-Roman artistic interlude in a copyist workshop somewhere in the central Mediterranean.

A PAN HIMATIOPHOROS FROM SYRIA

To conclude this study on Classical Greek influences on Syria, let me men- tion another specific Attic god, who was transferred by marble imports to the Deca polis. A basalt relief in the Damascene National Museum29 represents the frontal upright-standing Shepherd god Pan (fig. 15), nude with goat legs, bearded and with the horns of a ram. In his left hand he holds a syrinx, with his right he shoulders a sort of wooden boomerang used by the Greeks to hunt hares and rabbits, a lagobolon. This relief comes from the Decapolitanian city of Canatha, modern , where it probably served to adorn the stage of the Odeion. Pan had been a distinctive Athenian god since 490 BC because he dispersed the Persian enemies at the legendary battle of Marathon by panic, in Greek the Panikos tromos. Since that date he was venerated in Athens and in various rural shrines all over the Attic hinterland. How did such a local Greek god find his way to southern Syria, and what was his message to the Decapolis citizens of Canatha?

27 R. Gersht, The Sculpture of Caesarea Maritima (PhD Tel Aviv 1987, non vidi!), No. 16; eadem, Representations of Deities and the Cults of Caesarea, in: Caesarea Maritima: A Retro- spective after two Millenia, ed. A. Raban – K. G. Holum. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui XXI (Leyden 1996) 319-320 note 72 fig. 16. 28 Weber, Gadara Decapolitana p. 505 Cat.-Nr. D 2 pl. 148 a-C. 29 S. Abdul-Hak – A. Abduk Hak, Catalogue illustré du Département des Antiquités Greco- Romaines au Musée de Damas (1951) p. 66 Nr. 29; B. Zouhdi, Musée National de Damas: Départe- ment des Antiquités Syriennes aux époques Grecque, Romaine et Byzantine (1976) p. 97; LIMC VIII (1997) p. 939 No. 293 (J. Boardman); Th. Weber – Q. al-Mohammed, Sculptures from I (Worms 2006) p. 96 Nr. 71 pl. 52.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 475 11/02/13 08:30 476 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Pan is variously attested in the marble statuary found in the sanctuaries and Phoenician harbour cities along the eastern Mediterranean coast. Examples come from the Echmouneion near Sidon,30 Berytos,31 Askalon,32 and from the god’s main Oriental sanctuary at the Paneion / Paneas33 (also Neronias, at the southwestern foothills of the Hermon mountain range). As one of the two Askalon specimens, a limestone mask from / Qwelbeh34 in the Decapolis was clearly funerial in function. The storage rooms of the Damascus National Museum hold a large fragment of a goat-legged Pan, holding the syrinx, and wrapped in a short cloak, a hima- tion (fig. 16).35 The provenance is unknown, but one must assume that it comes from one of the hellenzied poleis of Syria. The iconographical type is called Pan Himatiophoros36 and is well known from various parallels found in mainland Greece, especially in Attica (fig. 17). These replicas reproduce a famous statue of the early fourth century BC, which can probably be linked to one of the god’s shrines in Athens. Athenian sculpture workshops reproduced this archetype in large numbers, sometimes functionally altered as a table stand, a trapezophoros.37

CONCLUSION

Even though it was geographically away from the mainstream of Roman Imperial art, the Decapolis participated in its own intriguing way in the distri- bution of sculptural ideas. From the early fifth century BC onwards, important Greek sculptures were on display in cities and sanctuaries on the Syrian littoral, but their impact on local production seems to have been scarce. This situation

30 Lower part of the statue of Pan sitting on the nebris and a rock: R. A. Stucky, Die Skulp- turen aus dem Eschmun-Heiligtum bei Sidon: Griechische, römische, kyprische und phönizische Statuen und Reliefs vom 6. Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (XVII. Beiheft Antike Kunst, Basel 1993) p. 81 Nr. 90 pl. 20, 90. 31 Ch. Virolleaud, Les travaux archéologiques en Syrie 1922-1923, Syria 5, 1924, p. 119 pl. XXX, 1; from Berytos also a bronze statuette, quoted by D.K. Hill, Catalogue of Classical Bronze sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore 1949) p. 39 Nr. 78 pl. 19. 32 M. K. Fischer, Marble Studies. Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade (Xenia XL, Konstanz 1998) p. 139 Nr. 107-108. 169 with figs. 107-108. 33 Friedland, Marble Sculpture (note 2), pp. 74-75. 82-84. 86-90. 34 J. D. Wineland, Ancient Abila – an Archaeological History. BAR Intern. series 989 (Oxford 2001) 184 fig. 42 (above), 200 Abb. 65 (rechts); Weber, Gadara Decapolitana (note 18), p. 481 Cat.- Nr. A 73 pl. 116 A-C 35 Damascus, National Museum, Inv.-No. 5069/1123, provenance unknown (Syria), acquired 1947. H 64 cm; W 28,2 cm; D 20,5 cm. Head and both lower legs lost, with middle grained marble. Unpublished. 36 LIMC VIII (Zürich – Düsseldorf 1997) 928 Nr. 101 (P. Weiss). 37 Th. Stefanidou-Tiveriou, Doppelbild eines eingehüllten Pan, in: Kanon. Festschrift E. Berger. XV. Beiheft Antike Kunst (Basel 1988) pp. 262-264; eadem, Trapehoƒóra me plastikß Diakós- mjsj. J Attikß Omáda. (Demosieumata tu Archaologiku Deltiu, Vol. 5. Athens 1993) pp. 102-103 Nr. 2. 4. 1.; 261-264 Nr. 80-90 pls. 42-44; Kaltsas, Sculpture (note 17), p. 263 nos. 550-551.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 476 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 477

changed drastically in the post-: official art in the Roman Imperial Decapolis on display in public spaces made use of marble with a distinct iconographical repertoire, strongly influenced by prototypes from the “central” Mediterranean areas such as Greece and Asia Minor. The knowledge of masterpieces such as the Athena Parthenos in these Syrian inland cities was managed through imported copies which do not differ stylistically from those of other provinces of the Empire. What still remains enigmatic is the quantitative factor. In number, marble works of the Decapolis cannot compare at all with their neighbouring provinces in Asia Minor or northern Africa. Is the lack of information due to ideological or economical factors, or is it just a gap caused by thorough destruction or the coincidence of archaeological finds? These prob- lems will have to be discussed in a wider frame after a careful registration of all sculptural artefacts carved in marble from Syria.38

CAPTIONS OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: Ps-autonomous Coin of Syrian Laodikeia struck under Caracalla showing the Brauronian Artemis on its reverse (after BMC Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria, ed. W. Wroth (Bologna 1964) 263 Nrs. 113- 114 pl. XXXI 5). Fig. 2: Torso of an Archaic Greek kore, marble, Tartous, Archaeological Museum (Nôtre Dame de Tortose), Inv.-Nr. 482, from Razjun near Tar- tous. H 43 cm; W 19,5 cm; D 13 (after Lembke, Beutekunst (note 8) pp. 173-174 figs. 1-4) Fig. 3: Torso of an Archaic Greek kore, marble, Tartous, Archaeological Museum (Nôtre Dame de Tortose), Inv.-Nr. 823, from Amrit. H 42 cm; W 19 cm; D 14 (after Lembke, Beutekunst (note 8) pp. 176-178 figs. 9-12). Fig. 4: Modern reconstruction of the chryselephantine statue of Athena Par- thenos created by Phidias before 432 BC., New York, Metropolitan Museum, The Willard Collection (after Nick, Parthenos pl. 24, 2). Fig. 5: Roman marble reproduction of the Athena Parthenos in statuette format, the so-called Athena Lenormant, found in 1859 in the environs of the Pnyx, Athens, National Museum, Inv.-Nr. 128 (Photo by the author).

38 Together with Detlev Kreikenbom and Karl-Uwe Mahler, the author is currently running a project on behalf of the Institute of Classical Archaeology at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany aiming for a comprehensive documentation of marble sculpture from Syria. This endeavour is generously supported by various international cooperators such as Susan Downey (University of California, Los Angeles), Elise A. Friedland (George Washington University), Andreas Kropp (Nottingham University), Caterina Maderna (Johannes Gutenberg-University), Andreas Schmidt-Colinet (Vienna University), Rolf A. Stucky (Basel University), and Dagmara Wielgocz (presently Catholic University, Louvain).

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 477 11/02/13 08:30 478 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Fig. 6: Fragment of a Roman marble reproduction of the Athena Parthenos in statuette format, found at Philadelphia of the Decapolis / Amman (Photo by the author). Fig. 7: Fragmented torso of Athena standing upright, close to the Parthenos type, basalt, from the sanctuary of Sahr al-Ledja, “made (scil.: dedi- cated) by Gamos, son of Nasros, the hieródoulos” according to the Greek inscription on the pedestal. Der’a, Archaeological Museum, Inv.-Nr. unknown (Photo by the author). Fig. 8: Lion chariot ridden by Athena, basalt, from the sanctuary of Sahr al- Ledja. Der’a, Archaeological Museum, Inv.-No. unknown (Photo by the author). Fig. 9: The Hittite Weather-God Tarhunzas standing on a chariot base drawn by two bulls, from Çineköy, south of Adana, votive of King Urikki (End of the 8th century BC), Adana, Archaeological Museum, Inv.- No. unknown (after: Tekoglu, –Lemaire, –Ipek, –Tosun, “La bilingue royale” [note 20], pp. 963 fig. 1). Fig. 10: Athena from the sanctuary of Allat at Palmyra, Tadmor, Archaeo- logical Museum, Inv.-No. B 2302 / 8497 (after Prag, New Copies [note 21] pl. 10, 1) Fig. 11: Marble head of Athena, a copy of the Athena Parthenos by Phidias. Tadmor, Archaeological Museum, Inv.-No. B 2302 / 8497 (after Prag, New Copies pl. 10, 2) Fig. 12: Fragment of a small female marble head wearing an Attic helmet, copy of the Athena Parthenos by Phidias. Amman, Jordan Archaeological Museum, without Inv.-No., provenance unknown (Jordan, photo by the author). Fig. 13: Copy of the Athena with diagonal aegis (“Athena Areia”), from Cae- sarea Maritima (after Gersht 1996, fig. 16). Fig. 14: Copy of the Athena with diagonal aegis (“Athena Areia”), from the theatre of Philadelphia, Amman, Jordan Archaeological Museum, Inv.-No. J. 6384 (photo by the author). Fig. 15: Basalt relief depicting Pan standing upright with an animal skin falling over his back, knotted at his neck, holding the Syrinx in his right hand and shouldering a wooden hunting stick (lagobolon). From Canatha / Qanawat. Damascus, National Museum, Inv.-No. 5047 / 11099 (after Weber – al-Mohammed, Sculptures pl. 12). Fig. 16: Torso of Pan standing upright wrapped in a cloak (himation), holding the syrinx in his right hand. Damascus, National Museum, Damascus, National Museum, Inv.-No. 5069/1123, provenance unknown (Syria), acquired 1947 (photo by the author). Fig. 17: Torso of Pan standing upright wrapped in a cloak (himation), holding the syrinx in his right hand. Athens, National Museum, Inv.-Nr. 252, from Sparta (after Stephanidu-Tiberiu, Trapezophora pl. 42.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 478 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 479

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2. Fig. 3.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 479 11/02/13 08:30 480 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Fig. 4.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 480 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 481

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 481 11/02/13 08:30 482 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Fig. 7.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 482 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 483

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 483 11/02/13 08:30 484 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Fig. 10.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 484 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 485

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 485 11/02/13 08:30 486 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Fig. 13. Fig. 14.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 486 11/02/13 08:30 T.M. WEBER 487

Fig. 15.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 487 11/02/13 08:30 488 CLASSICAL GREEK SCULPTURES IN THE DECAPOLIS

Fig. 16.

Fig. 17.

94097_ARAM_23_22_Weber.indd 488 11/02/13 08:30

Top View