AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE FROM A NEAR ELMALI: Cultural Hybridization and a New Anatolian Style Author(s): Tuna Şare Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January-March 2010), pp. 53-78 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835454 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 10:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information and to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions «ESPE..*7,uoio) AN ARCHAIC IVORY P"s"s"s FIGURINE FROM A TUMULUS NEAR ELMALI Cultural Hybridization and a New Anatolian Style

To myfather, Arif Care

ABSTRACT

The extentof culturaland artistichybridization in ArchaicAnatolia is ex- ploredthrough close examinationof an ivoryfigurine of a motherwith two childrenfrom Tumulus D at Bayindir,near Elmali in southwesternTurkey. Alongwith other figurines from that and fromArchaic Ephesos, this familygroup testifies to the late-Tth-century b.c. birthof a westernAnatolian stylein theminor arts that anticipates the Ionian stylein Greeksculpture. The authorsuggests that the figurines served as handlesof sacred implements and thatthey represent elite participants in thecult of an Anatoliangoddess, perhapsArtemis Ephesia.

Amongthe remarkable archaeological discoveries of thepast century is an ivoryfigurine of a motherwith two children recovered from a tumulus adjacentto the village of Bayindir, near Elmali in Antalya province, south- westernTurkey (Figs. 1-4, below).1 Since its discovery in 1987,the group hasstimulated scholarly debate over its date, style, and the workshop that producedit, as as theidentity of the figures itrepresents. The proposed datesfor the figurine range from the late 8th to theearly 6th century b.c. Somescholars consider the group to be theproduct of a Neo-Hittitework- shop,while others suggest an Ionian, Lydian, Phrygian, orLycian workshop; someidentify the figures as theAnatolian Kybele with her children, while othersidentify them as Letowith Apollo and .2 In thisarticle, I reevaluate the existing scholarship on thefigurine in lightof other figurines discovered in thesame tomb, as well as relatedmate- rialfrom Ephesos. I suggestthat the Antalya figurines were carved in an

1. AntalyaMuseum 2.21.87. This areowed to FahriI§ik, and to friends hereto referto theperiod ca. 700-480. articlederives from a case studyin my at ÇanakkaleOnsekiz Mart Univer- 2. The mainpublications concerning dissertation(Care, forthcoming). sity.I am also gratefulto theeditors of thisfigurine are Dörtlük 1988; Özgen I wouldlike to thankLarissa Hesperiaand to theanonymous review- and Özgen 1988;Akurgal 1992; Özgen Bonfante,John Kenfield, Clemente ers,whose suggestions improved this and Öztürk1996; Roller1999; Isik Marconi,Maya Vassileva,and Maya article. 2000; Boardman2000; and Börker- Muratovfor their inspirational support All datesare b.c. unlessotherwise Klähn2003. and helpfulcomments. Special thanks indicated.The term"Archaic" is used

© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 54 TUNA CARE

"Anatolian"workshop and exemplify the cultural and artistic amalgamation of Greekand local traditions that flourished in Anatoliaand developed intowhat art historians call the Ionian style. I alsoargue that the figurines functionedashandles of ritual implements, possibly distaffs orlibation cups, andthat they depict high-status participants in thecult of an Anatolian goddess,possibly Artemis Ephesia. I payspecial attention to the costumes ofthe figurines as evidence for religious and gender-specific roles and status inArchaic . I beginby describing the figurine and its archaeological context. I then reassessthe figurine s date, style, and workshop of production; the iconogra- phyand identity of the subjects represented; the figurine's cult associations; itsfunction within the funerary context; and thepossible identity of the deceased.Adopting Ifik's label, I referto thisfigurine as AntalyaC.3

ANTALYA C IN CONTEXT

TumulusD, fromwhich Antalya C wasunearthed, is one ofover a hun- dredsmall tumuli on the plain outside Bayindir. Only two of these tumuli, C andD, havebeen excavated systematically, both by Kayhan Dörtlük.4 Bothtumuli have revealed similar construction techniques: a burialpit sunkin thehardpan, enclosed within a woodenchamber, with the whole structurecovered by stones forming a . Interestingly, thecontents of - thetumuli represent different traditions in Tumulus C andinhumation in Tumulus D.5 The woodenburial chamber in Tumulus D measures3.25 x 4.50 m andhas a floordecorated with pebbles.6 The skeletalremains of a female in herlate 20s laidout on a woodenkliney with her head facing east, were foundon the north side of the room.7 Surviving elements of the deceased s costumeinclude a largesilver belt over her waist, ten fibulae over her chest,and nine silver fibulae found next to herchin. Scattered around the bodywere two small bronze cauldrons with bull protomes, ivory appliqués(possibly from the k/ine), embossed silver plaques (possibly from a harness),and two iron bits.8 The easterncorner of the chamber yieldedanother silver belt and a largecauldron containing the remains of

3.Isik2000. tumuliare typical of Phrygian burial garmentof the deceased. Börker-Klähn 4. Dörtlük1988. tradition,the most famous example (2003,pp. 70-72), however,believes 5. Both tumuliare similarin size. beingthe so-called Tomb of or thatthe silver plaques belong to a horse TumulusC is 36-38 m in widthand TumulusMM fromGordion; see Gor- saddle,a personalpossession of the 4.20 m in height(at thecenter); and dionI, pp. 79-102; Özgen and Öztürk deceasedwoman that was deliberately TumulusD is 40-45 m in widthand 1996,p. 32; Uçankus2002, pp. 287- damagedand renderedunusable at the 5.10 m in height.See Dörtlük1988, 338. timeof burial. She furthernotes that p. 172. 7. The woodenkline had virtually remainsof such saddles are known from 6. Not muchsurvived of the wooden disintegratedand theremains of the Phrygiantombs at .For golden wallsand theceiling. Eight in deceasedhad fallento thefloor. appliquéssewn onto the garments, see thepebbled floor, 50 cm in depthand 8. The tumulusdid notcontain any Özgen and Öztürk1996, pp. 165-167, 22 cm in circumference,once held the equineskeletal remains. Almost all of nos. 115-119;for a representationofa supportsof the wooden roof. See Dört- theembossed silver plaques are perfo- dressdecorated with appliqués on a lük1988, p. 173.Wooden burial cham- ratedwith holes for attachment. Thus, 7th-centurymedallion, see Özgen and bersunderneath earthen and stone theymay be thesurviving parts of the Öztürk1996, p. 166,fig. 158.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 55

burnedceramics. Antalya C andthree more figurines, two of ivory and one ofsilver, were found in thesouthwest corner in a pileof objects including severalsilver and bronze omphalos cups (some plain, some with petaled decoration);bronze and silver bowls with swiveling ring handles attached to bolsters;a silver ladle and a bronzeladle; small cauldrons of silver and bronzewith ring-handles orbull protomes; and a smallivory cup. Eleven ofthe metal vessels bear incised Phrygian names.9 AntalyaC, 17 cmin heightand 5.4 cmin width,offers a lively rep- resentationof a motherwith her two children (Fig. 1). The familygroup is carvedfrom a singlepiece of ivory. A rectangularhole at thetop of the mothers polos indicates that the figurine was originally attached to an object (Fig.2). The motherstands at thecenter on a shallowbase with her left footforward. She wears a one-piece,sleeved dress with a beltand a large circularcollar band at theneck. The dresshas decorativehorizontal and verticalbands; one ofthe horizontal bands forms the hem. The belthas incisionsimitating metalwork, recalling the two silver belts found in the sametumulus.10 Over the high polos the figure wears a veil,two corners ofwhich are brought to thefront and tucked into the belt; the veil is also heldin placeby a bandtied around the polos in typicalAnatolian fash- ion.11The dress,which responds to the forward movement of the mother s foot,is renderedlonger in thefront and shorterin theback and reveals thebacks of her ankles. Two straight chin-length locks of hair fall in front of herears. She wearsa beadednecklace arranged like a bead-and-reel molding,and spiral bracelets on bothwrists. The figurehas fullrounded cheeks,almond-shaped, slanting eyes, a largerounded nose, and full lips withan Archaicsmile. A smallgirl on theright stands with her left foot forward and holds hermothers hand tightly (Fig. 3). She wearsa sleevedand belted dress witha collarband at the neckline and a beadednecklace like her mother s. The thinnerpleats just above her feet indicate that she is alsowearing an undergarment.The horizontaland vertical bands on her dress are decorated withdouble hooks and hooked swastikas, and her collar band is decorated

9. Dörtlük(1988, p. 173) mentions appears,along with that of Midas, as a musthave had a sacredsignificance; theseinscriptions, but does notidentify dedicatoron Phrygianrock reliefs at perhapsit was a virginalbelt. As dis- thelanguage of the text. The inscrip- Yazilikaya. cussedbelow, dedication of such belts tionswere initially published by Varin- Forthe inscribed small silver caul- as a symbolof the transition to woman- lioglu(1992) and thenby Börker-Klähn dron(Antalya Museum 11.21.87) and hood or motherhoodis wellattested in (2003,pp. 74-77) and Brixhe(2004). thesilver ladle (AntalyaMuseum thecult of Artemis. For representations The inscribedPhrygian names include 43.21.87),see Özgen and Özgen 1988, offibulae, see Muscarella1967; for Sitidos,Ata, Dide, andAtes, the last pp. 187-188,nos. 32 and 34; Özgen typesof Anatolian belts in theArchaic appearingseven times. Börker-Klähn and Öztürk1996, p. 27. period,see Boardman1961-1962 and (2003,pp. 74-77) suggeststhat these 10.These beltsprovide the only Vassileva2005; forthe dedication of cupsdid notcome from the household analogybetween the costume of the beltsto Artemis,see Róceos2000, ofthe deceased but belonged to her deceasedin thetumulus, who had p. 240; Cole 2004,pp. 217-218. survivingrelatives: their names were a largesilver belt at herwaist, and 11. Initiallya partof Neo-Hittite inscribedon theobjects, which were thecostume of Antalya C. Forthe costume,the combination of a polos placedin thegrave as offerings.She deceased'sbelt (Antalya Museum witha longveil whose corners are furtherbelieves that Ates, whose name 71.21.87),see Özgen and Özgen 1988, broughtto thefront and tuckedinto a appearsmost frequently on thecups, p. 192,no. 48. In additionto beinga beltseems to havebeen adopted by the was probablya chiefpriest and a statussymbol, the second silver belt, Ioniansliving in Anatolia;see Özgen relativeof KingMidas; thename Ates foundin theeastern corner of the tomb, 1982,pp. 263-286.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 56 TUNA CARE

Figure 1. AntalyaC, ivoryfigurine of a motherwith her two children. H. 17 cm. AntalyaMuseum 2.21.87. Isik2000, pl. 3. CourtesyAkdeniz University LycianCivilizations Research Center

Figure2. AntalyaC, detailof the mothers head, showinga rectangular Opening. PhotoT. Care,courtesy Turkish Ministryof Culture and Tourism

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 57

Figure3. AntalyaC, detailof the girl. Isik2000, pl. 3. CourtesyAkdeniz UniversityLycian Civilizations Research Center

Figure4. AntalyaC, detailof the boy. Isik2000, pl. 3. CourtesyAkdeniz UniversityLycian Civilizations Research Center

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 58 TUNA §ARE

Figure5. AntalyaA, silverfigurine of a priest.H. 12.4 cm. Antalya Museum 1.21.87. PhotoT. Care,courtesy TurkishMinistry ofCulture and Tourism witha triangularpattern. Her feetare just visible in frontthrough two arches formedby the hem of her dress, while the backs of her feet are completely coveredby thepleats of herundergarment. The figures long hair,incised witha herringbonepattern, falls down theback in fiveseparate locks that end in ringlets.Two shorter,curved locks of hair fallin frontof the ears on both sides.This figuretoo has almond-shaped,slanting eyes, a large roundednose, full rounded cheeks, and lips set in an Archaicsmile. Her youngage is indicatednot onlyby hersize relativeto thatof hermother, but also bythe ringlets at the end of herlong hair. A nude infantboy is seatedon his mother'sleft shoulder in a "riding position"(Fig. 4). The childsecures his balance by holding onto his mother's polos withhis righthand. Even thoughhis head is missing,aspects of his stature,especially his smallfeet and his plumpbody, clearly communicate his youngage. The threefigurines discovered with Antalya C havegreat importance fora betterunderstanding ofthat figurine's artistic context and function. AntalyaA is theonly silver figurine in thegroup (Fig. 5). The controversial

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 59

Figure6 (left).Antalya B, ivoryfigu- rineof a priest.H. 7.6 cm. Antalya Museum 4.21.87. PhotoT. Care,courtesy TurkishMinistry of Culture and Tourism

Figure7 (right).Antalya D, ivory figurineof a woman. H. 16.2 cm. AntalyaMuseum 3.21.87. Photo T. Care,courtesy Turkish Ministry of Cultureand Tourism

issueof the figure's gender is takenup in moredetail below. Antalya A wearsa one-piecebelted dress and a tallpolos with horizontal decorative bands.Clasping its hands in front,the figurine stands stiffly, with large eyesand truncated locks of hair in front of the ears. The styleof Antalya A is slightlydifferent from that of the other three ivory figurines, possibly due to itsdifferent medium and thehollow-cast technique used for its creation. IvoryAntalya B, whose gender is alsocontroversial, wears a one-piece belteddress, a polos,and a longnecklace, which the figurine holds with bothhands (Fig. 6). Shortcurved locks of hairframe the face on both sides.Though details of the face do notsurvive, the overall rendering is reminiscentofAntalya C. BothAntalya A andB weardresses with closely packedfolds, which indicate that the garments are made of softfabric, possiblylinen. AntalyaD is an ivoryfigurine of a womanwearing a dressfringed at thehem, and over the dress a veilwhose edges are tucked into a largebelt (Fig. 7). The figures chin-length straight hair is visiblein frontof her ears.The overallrendering of the face, with its slanting eyes and Archaic

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6o TUNA §ARE smile,is almostidentical to that of Antalya C. Sheholds a birdin her right handand a babyin herleft, although these figures are very fragmentary. The stylisticsimilarities among the three ivory figurines found together, AntalyaB, C, andD, indicatethat they were products of the same workshop. Furthermore,these figurines all haverectangular holes at thetop, which suggeststhat they were attached to somethingsimilar and thus probably hada similarfunction.

DATE, STYLE, AND WORKSHOP

Sinceits initial brief mention in theexcavation report by Dörtlük, An- talyaC, alongwith the other Antalya figurines, has been the focus of many studies,each presenting a different interpretation ofthe figurines' style, date, andiconography. Focusing on the details of the costumes, Akurgal considers AntalyaC as an exampleof the last bloom of Neo-Hittite art in thelate 7thcentury.12 Özgen suggestsan early-7th-century date and proposesa Lydianorigin for the workshop.13 Roller argues for a late-7th-centurydate anda Phrygianorigin for the workshop,14 and she identifies the figures as theAnatolian Kybele with her children.15 Boardman cites Antalya C as an exampleof a 7th-centurystyle in the minor arts of Anatolia that he describes as"Phrygian, gradually becoming Lydian with shifts in political power, but Lydianof a typethat owes nothing important to Greekstyle."16 In his comprehensivestudy of theAntalya figurines, Isik discusses AntalyaC as anexample of the Ionianization of Phrygian and Neo-Hittite formsin Anatolia in theearly 6th century. Isik assigns the figurines to an Ionian,and morespecifically an Ephesian,workshop. He furtherargues thatthe figurine was commissioned by a Lycianand represents Leto with herchildren, Artemis and Apollo.17 In themost recent publication on the Antalyafigurines, Börker-Klähn also identifiesthe group as Leto and herchildren. She datesthe figurines to thelate 8th century, however, and considersthe style an exampleof a SouthAsia Minorartistic koine that is rootedin Syro-Phoenicianstyle but matured in a homogeneousculture in northeasternLycia.18 The varietyin the proposed interpretations ofthe origin of Antalya C is notsurprising. Though Bayindir is geographicallypart of Lycia,19 the archaeologicalcontext in which Antalya C wasfound signals a Phrygianor Lydianorigin. The constructiontechnique of Tumulus D andthe typology

12. Akurgal1992. n. 21, below)and findsfrom the Bayin- 17. Isik2000, pp. 76-79. In addi- 13. Ozgen and Ozgen 1988; Ozgen dirtumuli (Özgen and Öztürk1996, tion,Isik (2000,pp. 80-83) identifies and Öztürk1996. In theformer publi- p. 27). AntalyaA and AntalyaB as representa- cation(1988) Özgen categorizesthe 14. Roller1999, p. 104. In thetext, tionsof an Anatolianmother goddess, Antalyafigurines as Phrygian,but in Rollerdates Antalya C to thelate 7th- and AntalyaD as Aphrodite. thelatter (1996) sheposits a Lydian early6th century, but in thecaptions 18. Becauseof the early date she originfor the workshop. She does not forthe illustrations of Antalya C assignsto thefigurine, Börker-Klähn explainthis change in herinterpreta- (p. 106,fig. 35) and AntalyaA (p. 107, (2003,pp. 90-92) also thinksthat its tion,but it maybe basedon typological fig.36), she specifiesa rangefrom the stylehas no connectionwith either connectionsbetween the looted mate- late8th to the7th century. Greeksor Ionians. rialsfrom the Lydian of the 15. Roller1999, p. 105. 19.This northernpart of Lycia is U§ak-Gureand Manisa regions(see 16. Boardman2000, p. 91. also calledMilyad.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 6l

Figure8. Kubaba relieffrom Carche- mish., Museum ofAnatolian Civilizations10304. PhotoT. Care, courtesyMuseum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara

ofthe belts and metal cups found with the figurines display strong Phrygian affinities,and 11 ofthe metal vessels bear Phrygian inscriptions.20 Similar silvervessels with Phrygian inscriptions from the Lydian tombs of the U§ak-Güreand Manisa regions also suggesta Lydianconnection.21 The typologyand stylistic rendering ofAntalya C, alongwith those of Antalya B and D, recalla groupof ivoryfigurines (the "Oriental group") found as partof a largeassemblage in thefoundation deposit of the Artemision at Ephesos,an Ioniancity with Lydian ties.22 Moreover, several features of - thecostume on theAntalya figurines namely, the polos, large belt, veil - tuckedinto the belt, and locks of hair in front of the ears arespecifically Anatolianand analogous to Neo-Hittite representations ofKubaba (Fig. 8) andPhrygian representations ofKybele (Fig. 9).23 AntalyaC showsstriking stylistic and typological similarities to the "Orientalgroup" within the Ephesianivory figurines, particularly to a

20. Bowlswith petal or omphalos originalcontext of these superb artifacts (inv.no. notknown). embossmentsand swivelingring han- is unknown.The museumreturned the 23. The Neo-Hittitegoddess Ku- dlesattached to bolstersare often con- hoardto Turkish museums in 1993. baba,queen-goddess of Neo-Hittite sideredhallmarks of Phrygian material Ironically,some of the returned artifacts Carchemish,is believedto havederived culture;dozens of such bowls of bronze werestolen from the Manisa Museum fromthe goddessHepat and is werediscovered in severalof the tumuli in 2001. See Özgen and Öztürk1996. oftenseen as theforerunner of Lydo- at Gordion.See GordionI, pp. 11-27, 22. Forthe Ephesian ivory figu- PhrygianKybele. See Hawkins1981; 102-172,199-212; Özgen and Öztürk rines,see Hogarth1908, pp. 155-176; Mellink1983, pp. 358-359; Naumann 1996,pp. 32-35; Uçankus2002, Bammer1985; Carter1985, pp. 225- 1983,p. 18; Munn 2008,p. 159.Yet, pp.288-295. 248. Boardman(2000, p. 90) considers Roller(1999, pp. 44-46) pointsout that 21. Collectivelycalled the Lydian theEphesian figurines to be Lydian eventhough the two goddesses shared Hoard,a numberof goods from ratherthan Ionian. Two othertypo- similarimagery, especially in costume, at leastfour tombs (Aktepe, Toptepe, logicalparallels to AntalyaC and the theircults differed in Hittiteand Phry- Ikiztepe,and Harta)from the modern Ephesian"Oriental group" are an ivory giancontexts. For features of Anatolian Usak-Güreand Manisa regionsof figurinefrom Gordion, carved in less costumein general,see Özgen 1982; ancientLydia were looted in the1960s detail(Young 1966, pl. 74, fig.5), and forrepresentations ofPhrygian Kybele and latersold to theMetropolitan a silverfigurine from the Stanford and Kubaba,see Roller1999, pp. 51, Museumof Art. Unfortunately, the Place Collection,Faringdon, 56-59, figs.4-10.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Ó2 TUNA CARE

Figure 9. Kybelerelief from Gordion.Ankara, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations,Gordion 5459/559.Akurgal 1961, p. 98,fig. 62 figurineof "Megabyzos," a eunuch priest of Artemis (Fig. 10). The figure's one-piecebelted dress with a circularcollar and polos is similarto the cloth- ingof Antalya C, whilethe long necklace, the way in which it is held,the curvedringlets in frontof the ears, and the way the toes appear through twoarches formed by the hem of the dress are analogous to featureson - AntalyaB. All threeivory figurines Antalya B, C, and the Ephesian - Megabyzos alsoshare similarities in their facial features: inlaid eyes and eyebrowsslanting upward, rounded noses, and lips set in an Archaic smile. All thesesimilarities might indicate that the Megabyzos figurine and the ivoriesare and to thesame or related 24. Hogarth,director of the exca- Antalya contemporaneous belong his initial in thedate and ofthe can vations,published reports workshops.Thus, workshop EphesianMegabyzos ExcavationsatEphesus in 1908.The be usedas a benchmarkfor determining the date of Antalya C. stylisticcategorization of the ivory The date of the Ephesianivories, however, is controversial.Upon figurinesis treatedtherein by Cecil theirdiscovery in thefoundation deposit of the , which Smith;see Hogarth1908, pp. 155-176. had beencommissioned the Kroisosat around RecentAustrian excavations at Ephesos by Lydianking Ephesos underthe direction of Bammer have 600,Hogarth dated them to theend of the 7th century and divided them revealedfour more one of of theearlier "Oriental that figurines, intotwo groups on thebasis style: group" goldand threeof ivory. Bammer (1985, includesthe Megabyzos, and the later "Greek group."24 Later, Jacobsthal pp. 54-57) also datedthese finds to the claimedthat many of the objects found together with the ivories in the secondhalf of the 7th century. 25. 1951. foundationdeposit, such as pins,brooches, and fibulae, typologically date Jacobsthal fromthe 6th as does thefoundation Most 26. Carter1985, pp. 225-248; see century, deposit.25 recently, also Simon1986, 27-31. Both aftera carefulreview of excavation Carterreasserted pp. Hogarth's reports, Carterand Simonprovide excellent thelate-7th-cenrury date forthe deposit.26Furthermore, by clarifying summariesof the argument over the thestratigraphy ofthe figurines' archaeological context and pointing out dateof the deposit.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 63

howthe rounded forms of the Megabyzos are artistically more advanced thansome of the"Greek group" figurines, Carter disproved the theory thatthe "Oriental group" was an earlierformative influence on thelater "Greekgroup."27 Carter convincingly concluded that the Megabyzos is the workof an Ephesianartist familiar with Eastern forms who was active in thelast quarter of the 7th century, much like the artist(s) of the "Greek group."Considering the Megabyzos s typological and stylistic similarities to AntalyaC, one mayassume that Antalya C also datesfrom the last decadesof the 7th century.28 Ourknowledge of how ivory carving was organized during this period inAnatolia is very limited, but the relatively large number of ivories found at Ephesosmakes the existence of a workshopthere more likely.29 Indeed, in hisinitial excavation reports, Hogarth stressed that there is littledoubt thatthe Ephesian ivories were crafted locally. He attributedthe statuettes to an Ephesianivory workshop because of their Ionic style and alsobe- causeof the unique patterns engraved on theirdresses. These patterns also decoratethe dresses on fragments ofmarble that must have been executedat Ephesos.30 The Ionictouch in the rendering ofAntalya C andthe Ephesian "Ori- entalgroup" can be tracedin their lively, soft, and rounded forms. Yet these featuresare not enough to markthese figurines and their artists as purely Ionian.The Easterncharacter of their costume is indicatedby parallels to Neo-Hittiteand Phrygian fashions represented inAnatolian iconography (seebelow). Furthermore, thedetails of the technique, such as theengraved eyebrowsand carved pupils, are reminiscent ofthe Nimrud ivories.31 Thus, a moreproper label for such a hybridstyle would be "Anatolian,"which graduallydeveloped into the Ionian. As notedabove, Boardman assigns the Antalya figurines, along with theEphesian "Oriental group," to a coherent7th-century Anatolian style in theminor arts, but, surprisingly, he describes this style as characterized by"block-like figures with no sensitivitytoanatomical forms" and by little detailin therepresentation ofcostume.32 It is easyto seethat Boardman s isbased onthe featuresof the silver Figure10. Ivoryfigurine of Mega- generalization heavily stylistic figurine, A. In a detailedreexamination of the as byzos,eunuch priest of Artemis. Antalya fact, Antalyafigurines H. 11 cm. Istanbul,Archaeological a groupshows exactly the opposite. The organictreatment of the forms Museum 2593. Akurgal1961, p. 199, andthe detailed rendering of costume on sucha smallscale are striking, fig.159 especiallyin Antalya C andAntalya D. The naturaltreatment offorms was thedefining characteristic ofEast Greeksculptural styles in theArchaic period.33One ofthe earliest examples of this characteristic isthe Cheramyes Korefrom , often dated to around 570.34 Looking at Antalya C, one

27. Carter1985, p. 232. 34. Almostall surveysof Greek art tuckedinto her belt, follow the Anato- 28. Ifik(2000, pp. 76-80) proposes and archaeologypresent the Cheramyes lianfashion. Karakasi (2003) shows a narrowerdate, between 610 and 590. Koreand IschysKouros from Samos as that21 outof 33 survivingkorai from 2y. tor newmetnods or identifying representativesofthe East Greekartis- Samoshave veils (p. 166,table 11), four ivory-carvingworkshops and determin- ticinterest in soft,fleshy forms as com- outof ninesurviving korai from ingtheir relationship to one another, paredto therigid, linear forms seen in Didymahave veils (p. 167,table 12), seeWinter 2005. earlierexamples of kouroi and korai and sixout of 16 survivingMilesian 30. Hogarth1908, p. 177. fromthe Greek mainland. See, e.g., koraihave veils (p. 167,table 13), but 31. Barnett1957, 1982. Pedley2007, p. 187,figs. 6.58, 6.59. amongAttic korai there is no evidence 32. Boardman2000, p. 88. Not onlythe form, but also thedrapery fora veilworn over the head. 33. Stewart1990, p. 117. ofthe Cheramyes Kore, whose veil is

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Ó4 TUNA CARE can see thatthe origins of the Ionian artistic mentality that informs the SamianKore lie in thevisual arts of Archaic Anatolia. Literaryand archaeological evidence indicates that the Ephesian Ar- temision,like the Samian Heraion, was an internationalsanctuary revered andvisited by Greeks and non-Greeks alike.35 Best attested by Kroisos s dedicationof the columns of the Archaic Temple of Artemis, Lydian in- volvementin the cultat theArtemision was particularlysignificant.36 The continuousintermarriages between the Lydian royals and thelords ofEphesos down to thetime of Kroisosindicate that by the end of the 7thcentury, Ephesos was already a half-Lydian trading outlet on thesea- coast.37According to Herodotos (1.28), by the late 7th century the Lydian kingdomhad subduedall thepopulations of western Anatolia except for theLycians and Cilicians. One canimagine, then, that the subjects of the Lydiankingdom included artists of Phrygian, Mysian, Carian, and Greek originall workingat Ephesosand influencing one another.38The fusion ofthese artistic traditions may have contributed to thebirth of the Ionian style,which eventually became a popularchoice for large-scale , suchas korai and kouroi, that were dedicated in the international sanctuaries ofIonia and elsewhere. Indeed, Rein explains the Anatolian elements in thecostume of the East Greek korai as theresult of the interplay between Anatolianand East Greek arts in the 6th century. Rein links this phenom- enonto thefact that overland travel across Anatolia was madesafer by thepolitical unification ofthe region under the Lydian empire.39 Ridgway, however,points out that the exchange of artists and artistic motifs between Greeceand Anatolia could have taken place already in the7th century.40 Otherintriguing aspects of Antalya C arethe emotional intimacy sug- gestedbetween the mother and thechildren, and theartist s interestin renderingage realistically and capturing a momentary action. The mother protectivelyholds her daughter s hand and herson's leg. The daughters fullupper cheeks and ringletsof hair and theson's plump figure clearly communicatetheir young age. The mothersdress responds to her step for- ward.Such interest in naturalism and movement reaches its maturity only in the"severe style" of 5th-century Greek sculpture.41 Thus, if Antalya C wasproduced in thelate 7th century, it is amongthe earliest examples of suchan artisticmentality in thearts of the ancient Mediterranean.

35. The discoveryof an Archaic themembers of the Lydian Mermnad goldstatuette of an Egyptianpriest dynastyand theGreek rulers of Ephe- (EphesosMuseum LO.508.534) sos,see Hall 2002,p. 102. impliesEgyptian involvement in the 38. Formulticultural aspects of cult.For a detaileddiscussion of the Ephesianart in theArchaic period, literaryand archaeologicalsources for see Bammer1991-1992. thecult at Ephesos,see Simon1986, 39. Rein 1992. pp. 31-43; forthe Heraion of Samos, 40. Ridgway1993, p. 55, n. 2.52. see Kyrieleis1993. 41. Ridgway1970. In herexami- 36. Herodotos(1.92) mentions nationof the East Greekkorai from Kroisoss dedicationof the columns. theArchaic period, Ridgway (1993, The king'sname appears in fragmen- pp. 136-138) also statesthat the plas- taryinscriptions on thesurviving col- ticityof forms on thesekorai is very umnbases of the Artemision, confirm- similarto themodeling of the "severe ingHerodotos's account. style"sculpture of 5th-century . 37. Forintermarriages between

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 65

ICONOGRAPHY AND IDENTITY

In theabsence of literary testimony, it is difficultto determinewhether AntalyaC representsmortals or deities. Basing their arguments on iconog- raphy,scholars have associated the figure with two different divine families: Letowith Apollo and Artemis, and Anatolian Kybele with her children. As I arguebelow, however, itis notnecessary to identify the figures as deities. Instead,the mother figure may represent a high-status cult participant in theservice of an Anatoliangoddess. Isikand Börker-Klähn identify the subject of Antalya C as Leto and herchildren. Isik suggests that the early cult at Ephesos,which he thinks inspiredthe creation of the Antalya figurines, was relatedto Leto rather thanArtemis.42 He pointsto Ephesiancoins from Roman times showing Leto andher twin children on hershoulders as evidencefor the possible continuationof the Archaic cult of Leto at Ephesos.43Finally, Isik men- tionsthe literary and archaeologicalevidence for the cults of Leto and Apolloin Lycia,namely, in thesanctuaries at Letoonand at Patara,the legendarybirthplace of Apollo. He usesthese examples to illustratethe earlyexistence of the cult of the divine family in Lycia,where Tumulus D islocated.44 Börker-Klähn also cites the Roman-era coins as well as a statue typedepicting Leto with Artemis and Apollo; she considers Antalya C as a 7th-centuryprototype of these Roman images.45 Althoughtheir suggestion is attractive, Börker-Klähns and Isiks iden- tificationofAntalya C as Letowith Apollo and Artemis is notconvincing. First,there is no reasonto link the Archaic Antalya C groupiconographi- callywith representations on Roman coins that appear hundreds of years later.The imageon thecoins may derive either from Euphranor s famous sculptureof Leto escaping from Python with her children on her shoulders (Plin.HN34.77), or from Skopas's sculpture of the same group at Ephesos (Strabo14.1.20 [C 639]).46Second, the archaeological evidence indicates thatthe cult of the divine family in Lycia,particularly in at Letoon,became important only toward the end of the 5th century.47 Roller,on the otherhand, suggests that the figuresin AntalyaC representAnatolian Kybele with her two children.48 It is indeedtrue that - thedetails of themother s costume theveil worn over her high polos - andtucked into a largebelt andthe locks of hair that fall in frontof the earsare typical of representations of Kybele (or Matar) in ArchaicAna- tolia.49Yet noneof thesedozens of imagesshows the Mother Goddess

42. Ifik2000, pp. 80-83.This theearly literary tradition, in which Matarin thePhrygian language, but in suggestionis basedon Bammer's1985 Artemisis presentduring her younger theGreek she was bestknown as article,in whichhe relatesthe early cult brothers birth. Kybele.Greeks seem to haveadopted at Ephesosto Demeterand Leto or 44. Isik2000, p. 81. theAnatolian cult of the Mother - Kybele.Bammer also seesthe Ephesian 45. Börker-Klähn2003, p. 79. desssometime in theearly 6th century. ivoryfigurines as representationsofa 46. Forrepresentations ofLeto with Theygave her a newname, Kybele, goddess,possibly Demeter, Kybele, or Apolloand Artemis,see LIMC VI.l, whichderives from "Kubileya" (Phry- Leto. 1992,p. 258, s.v.Leto (L. Kahil). gian,"of the mountain"), an epithetof 43. Isik (2000,p. 81) also stresses 47. Forthe sanctuary at Letoon, thePhrygian Mother Goddess; see thatApollo and Artemisbecome twins see des Courtiis2003, p. 132. Roller1999, p. 2. ForAnatolian Kybele, onlylater in theliterary tradition. Thus, 48. Roller1999, p. 105. see also Naumann1983; Lane 1996. he arguesthat Antalya C agreeswith 49. The MotherGoddess was called

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 66 TUNA CARE

Figure 11. Carchemishrelief withpriestesses bearing offerings. Ankara,Museum ofAnatolian Civilizations9656. PhotoT. Care, courtesyMuseum of Anatolian Civiliza- tions,Ankara accompaniedby her children.50 In Anatolian representations ofthe goddess, hertypical attributes are a beastof prey, which she usually holds in one hand,and a libationcup in the other hand (see, e.g., Fig. 9).51 The itemsof - - dress thepolos, veil, and large belt thatare common to representations ofboth Antalya C andKybele originate in 9th-centuryrepresentations of theNeo-Hittite goddess Kubaba and showa specificAnatolian fashion (Fig.8). Thereis no reason,however, to regardsuch costumes as exclusively divineattributes. On theCarchemish reliefs, for example, the representa- tionsof priestesses of Kubaba bearing offerings are dressed like the image ofKubaba enthroned that appears on thesame wall (Fig. II).52 The polos is wellknown from its appearance in depictionsof goddesses in ancient Greekart.53 Yet thedepiction of thepriestesses on theCarchemish re- liefsindicates that in Anatoliathe polos was notonly a divineattribute, butalso a partof ceremonial costume.54 Thus, Antalya C maywell be a representationofa high-statusparticipant in thecult, dressed in herbest clothesfor a specialoccasion and accompanied by her children. The figure ofthe mother may thus be comparedto koraiwho were depicted in their

50. The twobeardless male musi- herchildren; see Roller1999, p. 77, general,see Müller1915; Müller ciansaccompanying the famous Bogaz- fig.14. considersthe headdress to be an köyKybele can hardlybe herchildren; 51. Roller1999, pp. 56-58, figs.7-9. exclusivelydivine attribute. theymay be youngattendants; see 52. Forthe Carchemish reliefs, see 54. The historyof the polos in Ana- Roller1999, p. 60, fig.10. The discov- Vieyra1955, pp. 36-44; Ussishkin toliagoes back to theHittite period. eryat Gordionof other reliefs featuring 1967. As earlyas the14th century, the head- beardlessmale youths strengthens the 53. Hera,Persephone, and Demeter dressappears on Hittitegoddesses, best hypothesisthat Matar was servedby areamong the Greek goddesses de- knownfrom the Yazdikaya reliefs. See youngmale attendants who were not pictedwith the polos. For the polos in Akurgal2001, p. 124,fig. 53:a.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 6j

bestclothes and were dedicated in Ioniansanctuaries as embodimentsof high-statuscult participants.55 If thisinterpretation ofAntalya C is correct,then the costume and posesof the two children may also provide clues about gender roles in the socioreligioussphere of the society that produced Antalya C. The young daughter,dressed as ornatelyas hermother, follows in herfootsteps as a youngcult attendant; her presence may signify the continuation of her mothers lineage as wellas herreligious tradition. The nudeyoung boy sitshigh on hismother s shoulder as ifriding a horse,perhaps auguring hisfuture role as a heroand protector of the land.

CULT ASSOCIATIONS

SinceAntalya C wasfound in a tombrather than a sanctuary,itis difficult toidentify the cult with which it should be associated.The tumulusin which thegroup was discovered has strong Phrygian connections both in construc- tiontechnique and in the nature of burial goods. Kybele was the only deity worshippedin PhrygianAnatolia, and thus one mightrelate the figurine toher cult. Yet typological connections between the Antalya figurines and theEphesian ivories point toward the cult of Artemis Ephesia. Börker- Klähnproposed that the figurine was associatedwith the cult of Istustaja andPapaja, Neo-Hittite goddesses of Destiny who were believed to spin thethread of life, and whose cult might have been known at Ephesos.56 Of thesethree possibilities, the cult of Artemis Ephesia, a uniquelyAnatolian goddessassimilated with Kybele at Ephesos,is themost likely candidate. Nonetheless,itis hardto be certain,since the same iconography could have beenused with a slightlydifferent meaning in differentcontexts. Thoughthe literary evidence for Kybele and her cult is abundantin Greece,little is knownof hercult attendants and thespecifics of ritual ceremoniesheld in herhonor in ArchaicAnatolia, from which the cult was imported.57Descended from the Neo-Hittite Kubaba, Kybele was a fertilitygoddess. The frequentoccurrence of her cult on the

55. Compareespecially the korai presentat Ephesos,which is basedon attributein Anatolianiconography. fromthe sanctuaries at Didyma,Mile- thediscovery there of a Hittiteinscrip- Not onlyher attributes and name,but tos,Ephesos, and Samos.The identity tionwritten in Greekletters. But this also herrites seem to havebeen - ofthe Archaic korai is a controversial loneinscription is notenough to prove lenizedthrough connections with issue.For a discussionof Archaic korai theexistence of a Neo-Hittitecult at Greekdeities such as Demeter,Diony- as portraitsof ideal cult participants Ephesos. sos,and Pan.The literarysources indi- or ofpriestesses, see Karakasi2003, 57. Kybeleappears in manyGreek catethat Greek Kybele maintained her pp. 30, 38; Connelly2007, pp. 124- and Romansources, from Euripides' foreigncharacter, unlike divinities of 130. Bacchaeand Aristophanes'Birds to othercults associated with Greek civic 56. Börker-Klähn2003, pp. 91-92. Virgil'sAeneid and Catullus'spoems. identity.In ArchaicAnatolia, however, Sinceshe identifies Antalya C as Leto Importedfrom Anatolia in theearly archaeologicalevidence implies that she withArtemis and Apollo,Börker- 6thcentury, her cult in Greeceseems to was thegoddess of the Phrygian state. Klähnconsiders that Leto and her haveinvolved ecstatic dances of both The scarcityof comprehensible Phry- childrenwere worshipped in connec- maleand femaleattendants accompa- giantexts from Archaic Anatolia makes tionwith the cult of Destiny. Though niedby wild music. In Greecea tympa- it difficultto resolvethese issues; see attractive,this theory depends on the numgradually replaced the beast of Roller1999, pp. 64-70. assumptionthat Neo-Hittites were preythat was thegoddess's customary

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 68 TUNA CARE

- edgesof Phrygian city settlements on wallsand gates, along roads and edgesof settled countryside, near funerary monuments, orin sanctuaries in - remotelandscapes impliesthat she was also the goddess of boundaries.58 Thebeardless musicians accompanying the Bogazköy Kybele, as well as the smallfigurines ofbeardless worshippers discovered at Gordion,show that shehad young male attendants.59 The onlyknown Archaic representations ofher female cult attendants come from the fragmentary reliefs on the miniaturetemple to Kybelediscovered at S ardis,dating to 540.60 A gooddeal is knownof the cult of Artemis Ephesia thanks to lit- eraryand archaeologicalsources. As a fertilitygoddess and protectorof children,Artemis Ephesia had great importance for women from puberty to childbirth.61Indeed, the votive offerings discovered in thesanctuary includedifferent types of jewelry, implements, belts, and fibulae, thusconfirming the prominent role of female votaries in thecult.62 Ac- cordingto Herodotos(1.26), the of the cult went back to thefirst halfof the 6th century, when Ephesians dedicated their city to Artemis to preventits destruction by Kroisos. In additionto thefoundation deposit discoveredby Hogarthin 1906,two separatecult areas were revealed beneaththe precinct of the Kroisos temple by Austrian excavations in the 1980s:a rectangularcult building with an altar,to thewest of the Kroisos temple,dated to the 7th century, and an apsidalcult structure underneath thealtar of the Kroisos temple, dated to thelate 8th century.63 Bammer, thedirector of the Austrian excavations, suggested the earlier existence of a dualcult of Demeter and Leto or Anatolian Kybele at the site, predating thatof Artemis. Later, however, Simon pointed out that the identification ofthe early cult of Demeter at Ephesosis basedsolely on a laterRoman accountand a fewpig bones, an animalusually sacrificed to Demeter.64 On thebasis of the Austrian excavation of the two cult areas, which wereassociated with Late Geometricpottery, Simon traced the cult of Artemisat Ephesosback to theearly 7th century and proposed that the cultsof Artemisand AnatolianKybele coexisted at thesite before the constructionofthe Kroisos temple.65 The popularityof the cult of Kybele in Anatoliaand thediscovery of votives with strong Phrygian and Lyd- ian connectionsin thefoundation deposit of the Kroisos temple seem to proveSimons theory.66 Indeed, these votives, including the aforementioned

58. Her commonattribute, a beast ficultto discernthe dress of the priest- 64. Bammer1982, pp. 81-87; 1985; ofprey, implies that rather than being esses.See Dusinberre2003, p. 105, Simon1986, p. 33. Strabo(14.1.3 specificallya fertility goddess, Matar fig.45. A laterexample is a 5th-century [C 633]) saysthat the cult of Ele- was also thegoddess of the natural relieffrom Thasos thatshows two usinianDemeter was introducedto world,whom people worshipped to gain femaleattendants approaching a shrine Ephesosby its founder Androklos, but controlover nature in ArchaicAnatolia. witha seatedcult statue of Kybele. nowheredoes he connectit with the 59. See Roller1999, p. 60, fig.10 Thoughfragmentary, female attendants cultof Artemis. (BogazköyKybele); p. 77, fig.14 (Gor- seemto be dressedin a similarmanner 65. Simon1986, p. 33. Simon dionfigurines). The beardlessmale as Kybele;Roller 1999, p. 158,fig. 45. (p. 34) also rightlypoints out that if figuresfrom Gordion hold standard 61. Forthe cult of Artemis in gen- therewas a pre-Greekancestor cult at attributesof the Mother Goddess, a eral,see Cole 2004,pp. 198-230. thesite, it was probablythat of Ana- birdof prey and a bowl,implying their 62. Forthe range of votive offerings tolianKybele. roleas attendants. discoveredin theArchaic sanctuary at 66. The foundationdeposit of the 60. The reliefs,on twosides of the Ephesos,see Simon1986, pp. 34-38. Artemisionalso revealedgold and ivory shrinein threeregisters, are very shal- 63. Simon(1986, pp. 30-33) pre- pinsand broochesand bronzefibulae. low and damaged,which makes it dif- sentsa usefulsummary. While therich amount of gold attests

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 69

figurinesand a rangeof jewelry, both with "Oriental" and "Greek" qualities as Hogarthclassified them, may have been intentionally offered together forthe of the Temple of Artemis Ephesia. LikeAnatolian Kybele, Artemis is alsoa goddessof nature and bound- aries.These common features might have brought these deities together in 7th-centuryEphesos, where they blended in the cult of Artemis Ephesia.67 Thus,the figurine Antalya C couldbe relatedto thecult of either Anato- lianKybele or Artemis, or to thecult of Artemis Ephesia. Assuming that Kybeleand Artemis merged relatively soon after they came into contact in Ephesos,it seemsreasonable to associateAntalya C withthe cult of AnatolianArtemis Ephesia. Ascertainingthe identity of thesubjects of AntalyaA and B may strengthenthe associationsbetween the Antalyafigurines as a group and thecult of ArtemisEphesia. Merely identifying the gender of the twofigurines has beena problem,however. Akurgal, Özgen, and Roller consideredthem to be priestsbut did notdiscuss the matter in detail.68 ButI§ik, noting both the figures' "female costume," which also appears on someof the clearly female Ephesian figurines, and the absence of a beard on eitherfigure, identified both Antalya A andB as representationsofan Anatoliangoddess.69 The keyto determiningthe gender of the two figurines is Antalya B (Fig.6). The clearabsence of breasts on thefigurine poses a challengeto I^ik'sargument. If we acceptthat the same artist or workshop carved all ofthe Antalya ivories, it is hardto overlookhis ability to differentiatethe sexes.He clearlyrendered the breasts of Antalya C. Indeed,as thebaby fat on thestomach of the little naked boy indicates, the artist even attempted touse physical features to render age. Thus, it is morereasonable to assume thatthe absence of breasts on AntalyaB is intentional,and that a maleis represented.The long,belted dress with sleeves, the polos, and the curly tressesof hair on either side of the face - allof which I§ik treated as elements - of "femalecostume" andthe clean-shaven face, like that of Antalya A, mayindicate that both figurines are representationsof priests, perhaps eunuchs,in ritualcostume.70 Indeed, male cross-dressing at ceremonies to Lydianconnections, the typology of 68. Akurgal1992, p. 70; Özgen and Polyxenaon thefrieze of the famous thefibulae provides the Phrygian link. Öztürk1996, p. 27; Roller1999, p. 105. Polyxenasarcophagus from Gümüscay Forthe finds from the foundation de- 69. Isik2000, pp. 3-7. See also in northwestAnatolia, dated to 500, posit,see Hogarth1908, pp. 155-176; Bammer1985 in generalfor a reiden- mayalso reflectthe appearance of Jacobsthal1951; Carter1985, pp. 225- tification of all Ephesianivories as eunuchpriests. The old man,who 248; Simon1986, pp. 27-31. representationsofa goddess. leanson a stickand holdshis noseas 67. Forthe deities' association with 70. Akurgal(1992, pp. 70-73) also a signof grief, wears a longdress. His natureand boundaries,see Cole 2004, considersthe hunchbacked appear- prominentposition in themiddle of the pp. 198,201 (Artemis);and Roller anceand claspedhands of Antalya A longfrieze implies his high status, per- 1999,pp. 108-115 (AnatolianKybele). to be a typicalposture for a priest.I§ik hapsin a religiousinstitution at Troy. In hisexamination of the imperial coins (2000,p. 81) disagreeswith Akurgal by His beardlessnessled somescholars fromwestern Asia Minor,Fleischer pointingout that the hunchback is due to identifyhim as a female,but he is (1973,pp. 215-216) tracesthe striking to theearly date of the figurine, and clearlydifferentiated from the females similarityin theArchaic features of the thatclasping of hands is nota gesture in thecomposition by his flatchest representationsofseveral goddesses and uniqueto malerepresentations. and also byhis hunchback.For the positsa commonancestor, an Archaic Thoughunrelated to thecult of Polyxenasarcophagus, see Sevinç1996, Anatolianfertility goddess whom he Kybeleor Artemis, the image of an old pp. 251-255,figs. 2-5; Draycott2007, namesEphesia. beardlessman watching the sacrifice of pp. 97-108.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions JO TUNA SARE honoringArtemis and Dionysosseems to havebeen an Anatoliantradition introducedto the Greekmainland in the 6th centuryvia Ionia.71 Furthermore,eunuchs who dressedand acted like femalesheld im- portantpriestly offices in Anatolia;this custom dates back to the 8thcen- turyor beyond.72Perhaps the best knownof theseeunuch priests are the Megabyzoi,who servedArtemis at Ephesos and are mentionedin many literarysources from Xenophon to Pliny.73Eunuch priestsalso servedin theAnatolian cult of Kybele.Ancient Greek and Roman sourcesindicate thatthe eunuch priesthood was recognizedas a distinctlyshocking ofthe cult of Kybelein Greeceand Rome.74A seriesof epigramsfrom the 2nd centurydescribes a eunuchpriest of Kybele as an emasculatedcharacter dressedin women'sclothes and scentedwith women's perfume, wearing his long hairin daintytresses.75 Althoughthere are manyliterary sources for the eunuch priestsof Artemisand Kybele,there are no certaindepictions of themin art.The onlypossible Archaic image of a eunuchpriest is theMegabyzos figurine fromthe foundationdeposit of the Artemisionat Ephesos (Fig. 10).76 It was the absenceof breaststhat led Hogarthto identifythe figurineas a Megabyzos.In the 1980s, duringthe Austrianexcavations at the site, Bammerdiscovered another ivory figurine, which he named Ephesos D. The figurineis dressedlike the Megabyzos,but has a clear renderingof breasts(see Fig. 14, below). Based on the similarityof costume,Bammer, and Isik and Connellyafter him, reidentified the Ephesian Megabyzos as a female.77This reidentification,however, relies on theapplication of modern gendercodes to thefigurine's costume. West Anatolian/Lydian male dress in theArchaic period had manyelaborate features that looked effeminate to Greekson themainland.78 Even ifvestmental gender codes in Anatolia

71. Miller(1999, pp. 232-236) pro- Smithquestions the very existence of a inscriptionaccompanying the relief videsan excellentdiscussion of cross- classof eunuch priests called "Mega- evengives his name,Gallus Soterides, dressedkomasts on a seriesof Attic byzoi"in thesanctuary of Artemis at "Gallus"being the Roman title for vasescalled "Anakreontic," after the Ephesos,and suggeststhat the account eunuchpriests of the Mother Goddess; Ionianpoet who dressedlike a woman maygo backto thename of one specific see Roller1998, p. 121,fig. 1. and introducedthe fashion to Athens. priest,not necessarily a eunuch, who 77. Forthe initial identification of Millerinterprets the komasts as trans- livedin the4th century, but this theory thefigurine as a Megabyzos,see Ho- vestitesengaged in ritualactivity. She is notwidely accepted. The tradition garth1908, pp. 155-176; forits reiden- seesthe origin of the tradition of ko- ofa eunuchpriesthood at Ephesosis tificationas a female,see Bammer mastictransvestism in Archaic Ana- acceptedby Burkert (1999, pp. 62-63) 1985,p. 57; Isik2000, p. 80; Connelly tolia.DeVries (1973), on theother and Munn (2006,pp. 157-169). 2007,pp. 121-122.For a generaldis- hand,regards these komasts as Athe- 74. Fora thoroughinvestigation of cussionof the Megabyzoi in thecult niansmimicking Lydians, whose fancy theeunuch priests of Phrygian Matar ofArtemis Ephesia, see Smith1996; dresswas consideredeffeminate by and Greekand Romanattitudes toward Burkert1999, pp. 62-63; Munn 2006, mainlandGreeks. them,see Roller1998. pp. 157-169. 72. See Roller1998; Munn 2006, IS.Anth.Pal 6.217-220,234, 237, 78. Foreffeminate-looking western pp. 157-169. esp.6.234.5. Anatoliandress, see DeVries1973, 73. Xenophon{An. 5.3.6) names 76. A laterimage of a eunuchpriest pp. 33-34; alsoWees 2005,p. 46. The "Megabyzos"as thesacristan of Arte- fromAnatolia appears on a votiverelief richlydecorated linen chitons and ear- misat Ephesos.Pliny (HN 35.93-132) fromKyzikos in northwesternAnatolia ringsworn by Anatolian men that are describespaintings of two Megabyzoi and is datedto 46. Dressedin "women's mentionedin Greeksources also appear - by4th-century artists. Quintilian clothes" a longdress and a veilcover- in Anatolianart. The recliningman - (5.12.19-21) citesa Megabyzosas an ingthe head a prieston therelief in thefunerary banquet scene on the exampleof a eunuch,in contrastwith approachesthe altar of Phrygian Matar. early-5th-centuryKaraburun fresco, for thevirile Doryphoros. For a complete The facesof the figures on therelief are example,appears to wearan elaborate listof literary sources mentioning Mega- notclear in detail,but the priest does chiton,a hat,and earrings;see Özgen byzoiof Ephesos,see Smith1996. notseem to havea beard.The Greek and Öztürk1996, p. 47, fig.89.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE JI

weresimilar to thoseof mainlandGreeks, Bammer s reidentificationfails to takeinto account the cross-dressing of eunuch priests for cult practices.79 As Hogarth recognized,the clear absence of breastson the Megabyzos, in contrastwith the anatomyof similarpieces, indicates that the figureis male and presumablya eunuchpriest. AntalyaA and B also look anatomicallymale, despite their "female" costume,suggesting that theytoo representeunuch priests(Figs. 5, 6). The long,beaded necklacesworn by the Megabyzos and AntalyaB are notornamental jewelry but signs of priestly authority.80 IfAntalya A and B representeunuch priests, they were most likely priests of Artemis Ephesia. Thus, it is reasonableto concludethat all fourAntalya figurines, A, B, C, and D, are relatedto the cultof Artemis Ephesia. One mayquestion the Antalyafigurines' association with the cultof ArtemisEphesia on the basis of theirfindspot in a tombin northernLy- cia. Literaryand archaeologicalsources, however, testify to thepopularity of thiscult throughoutIonia and at Anatoliansites.81 Easy to carry,the figurinescould have traveled with cult devotees from the central sanctuary to peripheralsites. Indeed, a similarivory figurine was also foundin the so-calledSouth Cellar accumulation at Archaic Gordion.82 As thefigurines - weremoved from one contextto another forexample, from a sanctuary - to a privateburial theycould have gained slightly different meanings, but becauseof the expensivematerial they are made of,they must have main- tainedtheir intrinsic value as symbolsof prestigeand religiousdevotion.

THE FUNCTION OF THE ANTALYA IVORIES

The rectilinearcuttings at thetop of all threeAntalya ivories indicate that thefigurines were not freestanding votive offerings or objectsof worship in thecult, but parts of implements.83 Özgen speculatesthat these holes may pointto theirfunction as supportsfor a perirrhanterion.84Yet thefigurines aretoo smallto have servedthat function, and becausethey vary in height theycould not have supportedan objectevenly.85 I$ik is not certainabout the functionof these cuttings.Through comparisons with the Ephesian ivories,he suggeststhat the cuttings of the Antalya ivories may have served as pointsof attachmentto necklaces,making them amulets; or thatthey mayhave been attachedto cultimplements, a suggestionconfirmed by a thoroughexamination.86

79. Forcross-dressing in culticac- and Ephesiangroups. On thebasis of 83. The cuttingsare regular and tivityand confusionover the gender of CorinthianGeometric found in measureslightly less than 1 cm2on figureson Anakreonticvases, see Miller thesame deposit, DeVries (2005, p. 42) AntalyaC and D. The cuttingon 1999,pp. 230-236. datedthis piece to thelate 8th century. AntalyaB measuresca. 0.5 cm2. 80. An earliericonographical par- A silverfigurine related to boththe 84. Özgen and Öztürk1996, allelto thisnecklace appears on Ku- Antalyaand Ephesosfigurines in its p. 26. baba,on a broken9th-century relief pose and costumewas lastheld by the 85. The heightsof the three figu- fromCarchemish; see Roller1999, StanfordPlace Collection(see n. 22, rinesare 7.6 cm (AntalyaB), 17 cm (C), p. 50, fig.3. above).The figurinewas on display and 16.2 cm (D). 81. See Fleischer1973. at theMetropolitan Museum of Art 86. Isik2000, p. 76. An anonymous 82. See n. 22, above.Although from1999 to 2006. Unfortunately,the reviewerof this article noted that the carvedin lessdetail, the ivory figurine provenanceof the figurine is unknown. figurescould also havebeen attachedto fromGordion has a costumeand facial I wouldlike to thankMaya Vassileva furniture. featuressimilar to thoseof the Antalya forbringing this piece to myattention.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 72 TUNA CARE

Like theAntalya ivories, the Spinner from the Ephesian "Oriental group"has a rectilinearcutting at thetop of her polos.87 She holdsa dis- taff,which supports a ball of wool, in herleft hand, and a spindlein her right(Fig. 12). The elongatedform of the figurine and the cutting at the topsuggest that the figurine itself may have been part (possibly a handle) ofa distaff,perhaps used for the ritual weaving of a costumefor the cult statue.88In fact,the so-called Hawk-priestess from Ephesos, which is at- tachedat thehead to a longrod surmounted by a hawk,is nowidentified as thehandle of a distaff(Fig. 13).89Bammer s discoveryof Ephesos D, togetherwith a shallowivory double cup that neatly fits on thetonguelike protrusionat thetop of her headdress, may be themost convincing evi- dencethat some Ephesian figurines functioned as handlesof implements (Fig. 14).90Interestingly, Ephesos D appearsto holda doublecup remi- niscentof the one ofwhich she is thehandle, just like the Spinner, who holdsa distaffand probably functions as thehandle of one. The tonguelike protrusionat thetop of the Megabyzoss polos may indicate that he also was thehandle of an object,possibly a libationcup (Fig. 10).91Indeed, alongwith the figurines, Hogarth found several broken ivory cups in the foundationdeposit of the Artemision.92 The onlyivory object found with the figurines inTumulus D atBayin- diris a smallcup, which Özgen identifies in themuseum catalogue as a pyxislid.93 Measuring 2.5 cmin heightand 5.2 cmin depth,the cup has twoextensions: one with a circularpiercing and the other with a verticalslit. The cupwould have had a lidthat swiveled horizontally on a peginserted in thecircular piercing, and could be latchedwith a claspthat fit into the verticalslit. The cupis a typologicalsibling of some of the broken ivory cupsfound in thefoundation deposit of Artemision.94 Drawingan analogybetween the Ephesian and Antalya ivories, one mayassume that the Antalya figurines were the handles of libationor cosmeticcups or of distaffs. The functionalparts of the implements either perishedinside the tomb or were intentionally broken at thetime of the burialto makethem unusable. Whether they supported ornate cups or the ofTumulus D couldnot have been toilet distaffs, ivoryfigurines private Figure 12. Spinnerof Ephesos, ivory. articles. The relatedEphesian group shows that such implements had reli- H. 10.5 cm. Istanbul,Archaeological giousvalue. They could have been sacred objects used in the ritual bathing Museum 2594. Akurgal1961, p. 196, orclothing of the cult statue, or votive offerings donated by worshippers. fig.155 Indeed,surviving inventories from Greek sanctuaries of Artemis indicate thatwomen dedicated their finest textiles, along with the tools they used

87. Hogarth1908, p. 158. listsof votive offerings from Miletos shallowcup; see Barnett1957, p. 226, 88. Weavingclothes for the cult indicatethat the Milesian women also pl. CXXV. statueand "bathing"(i.e., cleaning) it dedicatedtheir own clothing to the 91. Hogarth1908, p. 106. werecommon practices in ancient cultof Artemis Kithone (Artemis 92. Hogarth1908, pl. 41; Bammer Greekreligion. Usually young maidens thechiton-wearer); see Cole 2004, 1985,p. 49, fig.13. or priestesseswere in charge.This must pp. 223-225. 93. AntalyaMuseum 5.21.87: also havebeen the case forthe cult 89. Connelly2007, p. 120. Özgen and Özgen 1988,p. 194, statueat Ephesos.Other famous exam- 90. Bammer1985, pp. 46-51. An no. 58. plesinclude the weaving of the peplos earlierexample (7th century) of an 94. Anothertypological sibling is a forAthena Parthenos for the Panathe- ivorycup with handles in humanform stonepyxis, part of the so-called Lydian naicfestival, and theweaving of the comesfrom Ur. Two nudewomen with Hoard;see Özgen and Öztürk1996, chitonfor Apollo at Amyklai.Surviving theirarms around each othersupport a p. 132,no. 87.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 73

inweaving and spinning,to marktransitional stages of life, such as puberty, marriage,and childbirth.95Because of theirperishable nature, the textiles did not survive,but excavationsin differentsanctuaries of Artemishave revealedjewelry, pins, belts, and fibulae,as well as tools such as spindles and distaffs,usually of preciousmaterial. Most if not all of theseitems of dressalso appear at Ephesos and in TumulusD at Bayindir.They were probablyofferings, and as suchthey may have marked transitions in thelife cycleof cult participants while communicating their social status. Thus, the Antalyafigurines might once have supportedthe balls of preciousthread thatthe tombs occupantused to weave her bridalgown, or perhapsher firstchild's gown; alternatively, they might have supported cups containing sacredliquid, perhaps used forlibation. Althoughthe comparandafor the Antalyafigurines all come from sanctuaries,mainly in Ephesos,where they would have served as votives,the presenceof the figurines in a tombshould not be surprising.The figurines mayhave originated as sacredobjects and subsequentlybeen buried with the deceased;as gravegoods, they would have accompaniedthe woman to the underworldas markersof her social and religiousstatus.96 Indeed, Dörtlük, the excavatorof Tumulus D, thinksthat the cornerof the burialchamber wherethe Antalyafigurines and severalvessels were discovered had been specificallyarranged as a funerarybanquet and votiveoffering.97 The representationof in thedecoration of sacred implements is a popularphenomenon in theancient Mediterranean. Karyatids support libationbowls, bronze ,perirrhanteria, or incenseburners.98 Ac- cordingto Connelly,this use of anthropomorphismin sacreddecoration mayreflect the communalitybetween a sacredimplement and itsuser: in effect,the handle representsthe userwho holds it.99If Connellys theory is correct,the Ephesian and Antalyafigurines, as handlesof ritualimple- ments,may verywell have mirroredthe appearanceof the cult partici- pantswho used them.On special occasions,cult attendantsthemselves

95. Bestknown are theinventories and so it is hardto tellwhether the ofthe sanctuaries of Artemis at Brau- figurineshe holds is partof an imple- ron,with duplicates from the Athenian ment,but given its position as theonly Acropolis.The listsof dedications to attributein a youngwoman's hand, Artemisalso survivefrom Miletos, a it surelymarks a transitionin the sitevery close to Ephesosand famous deceasedgirls life. forits cult of Artemis Kithone. For 97. Dörtlük1988, p. 173. Brauron,see Linders1972; forMiletos, 98. For a fineexample of a silver see Günther1988; forsources and pitcherwith a karyatidas a handle,see generaldiscussion, see Cole 2004, Özgen and Öztürk1996, pp. 150-151, pp. 213-218. no. 106; fora karyatidsupporting a 96. A 3rd-centurysarcophagus of bronzeincense burner from Delphi, a pregnantwoman and a childfrom see Connelly2007, p. 129,fig. 5:8; for Ephesosalso containeda bone spindle bronzekaryatid mirrors from ancient and distaff;see Trinkl 1994. A Late Greecein theArchaic and Early ClassicalBoiotian funerary relief, the Classicalperiods, see Congdon1981. so-calledGrave Stele of Polyxena in Congdon(1981, pp. 12-18) also dem- Figure13. Hawk-priestessof Berlin(Antikensammlung SK 1504), onstratesthat some of the karyatid Ephesos,ivory. H. (withoutthe also showsa youngwoman holding a mirrorswere used forcult purposes, rod) 10.7 cm. Istanbul,Archaeo- figurinewith a base verymuch like sinceat leastsix of them were found logicalMuseum 2596. AfterAkurgal thoseof the Antalya figurines. The dedicatedin sanctuaries. 1961,p. 206,fig. 169 upperpart of the relief is damaged, 99. Connelly2007, p. 122.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 14. Ephesos D, ivoryfigurine withdouble cup. H. 8 cm (16.5 cm withthe cup). Istanbul,Archaeologi- cal Museum (no inv.no.). Isik2000, fig.15. CourtesyAkdeniz University Lycian CivilizationsResearch Center mayhave imitated the appearance of the deity they served, as attestedin someliterary sources.100 Justas priestsand priestess serve as intermediariesbetween the human andthe divine, the handles operate as intermediarydevices for reaching thedivine through ritual. This mediatory aspect of the Antalya ivories may alsobe tracedin thedetails of their iconography. All threeappear to be holdingor touching something with their hands: Antalya B holdsa long ritualnecklace with both hands, Antalya C holdsher daughter s hand and herson s legwhile her son touches her high polos, and Antalya D holdsa birdand a baby.This tactilemotif in thefigurines may echo their actual functionin thehands of cult members.

THE IDENTITY OF THE DECEASED

The valueof theburial goods in TumulusD, especiallyevident in the abundantuse ofsilver and ivory, implies not only the sacred character of theimplements but also thehigh status of thedeceased woman.101 She wassurely a memberof an elitefamily, but her ethnicity is uncertain. The Phrygiancharacter of the tumulusis evidentfrom its constructionas - - wellas fromthe silver vessels somebearing Phrygian inscriptions and

100. Larson(1995, p. 118) mentions tationof the divine through their dress and electrumare also knownfrom a heroinenamed Aspalis whose cos- and attributeswas alreadya common BronzeAge tombsof females at tumedbody became a cultobject of featureof ritual drama in Archaictimes. Anatoliansites such as Alacahöyük, Artemis.Connelly (2007, pp. 104-115) 101. Markingthe high status of Horoztepe,and Karatas,; see Barber establishesthat the cult attendants' imi- theirowners, spindles of gold, silver, 1994,pp. 208-209.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE 75

Phrygianfibulae found within the tomb. Yet the tumulus islocated in north- ernLycia, outside the recognized sphere of Phrygian or Lydianculture. The absenceof any known ancient settlement near Baymdir complicates thesituation even more. In lightof the silver objects and the construction ofthe tomb as well as theiconography ofthe figurines, which recall Phrygian representations of Kybele,Dörtlük assumed that the deceased was Phrygian.102Börker- Klähnalso consideredthe deceased to be Phrygian,a princess married to a Lycianelite.103 Yet thesescholars disregard the fact that the ethnic identityof the deceased might have differed from the ethnic identity of theartisans in theworkshops where the figurines were made. Thus, for example,the silver vessels might have been made by a Phrygian,and the figurinesmight be Lydianimports. Despitethe Phrygian connections of theburial, I§ik identifiesthe deceasedwoman as a Lycian.His argumentrests on twofactors: the find- spot,and hisown identifications ofAntalya C as Leto withApollo and Artemis,and of Antalya D as Aphroditewith the infant Eros. According to I§ik,the depiction of these deities in thetomb of a Phrygianis impos- sible,since Phrygians worshipped only Kybele and did nothave a large .104As discussed above, however, there is no needto identifythe Antalyafigurines as divinities;in fact,their function as handlessuggests thatthey represent humans who were high-status participants in thecult, perhapspriests and priestesses.105 There is alsono needto associatethese figurineswith a specificethnic group. Instead, the figurines and thede- ceasedwoman they accompanied may simply be identifiedas Anatolian. Boththe woman and the figurines may have served in thecult of Artemis Ephesia,a hybridgoddess who emerged from the fusion of Greek Artemis andAnatolian Kybele. Previousscholarship sought to identifyIonian, Phrygian, Lydian, or Lycianfeatures of the Tumulus D burialand its figurines. The absenceof a consensuscan bestbe explainedby acknowledging the "mixed" nature of ArchaicAnatolia itself. The hybridizationof thematerial culture of Anatoliamay also indicate the hybridization ofits people. Indeed, inter- marriagesbetween the members of theruling Lydian and Greekelites, likeearlier unions among elite Phrygian- Greek families, testify to the 102. Dörtlük1988, pp. 173-174. of ethnicboundaries in westernAnatolia in the7th 103. Börker-Klähn 103. blurring century.106 2003,p. to Herodotos theend of the 7th the 104. Isik2000, pp. 85-86. According (1.28),by century Lydian 105.There are not many well- tyrantAlyattes of the Mermnad dynasty had achievedcontrol of all the knownexamples of handles that rep- Phrygian,Ionian, Aeolian, Mysian, Dorian, Carian, and Pamphylian cities resentdeities. Bronze handles ofwestern Anatolia; only Lycia (where Tumulus D is located)and Cilicia fromArchaic Greece show draped remainedfree. But who were the Lydians? Speaking a languagebelonging femalefigurines that are sometimes identifiedas or Helen of to theAnatolian branch of the Indo-European family, the Lydians were Aphrodite Anatolianswhose became firstaround the ofS ardis Sparta,but there is no agreement tyrants powerful city on thisissue. See Congdon1981, andeventually across western Anatolia. Inheriting the cultural, economical, pp. 13-18. andreligious legacy of the Phrygians, the Lydians intermarried with Greeks 106.A fragmentof Aristophanes andintermingled with other non-Greek populations, such as Cariansand (611.37) mentionsthe Phrygian king The didnot come from far theirculture was a fu- Midas's to a Greek Mysians. Lydians away; marriage princess sionof and as cultureitself fromKyme. For intermarriages between local,Greek, Phrygiantraditions, just Phrygian Greeksand Anatolian locals in general, wasa fusionof Thracian and local Neo-Hittite traditions. Such fusion and see Hall 2002,p. 102. hybridizationcharacterized most ancient cultures in Anatolia.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions j6 TUNA CARE

CONCLUSION

- The label"western Anatolian" ratherthan Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, - Greek,or Neo-Hittite bestdescribes the style of Antalya C, as wellas theidentity of thewoman in whosetomb the figurine was discovered. The distinctivefeatures of the costume worn by the mother in the figurine - - group theveil worn over a polosand tuckedinto a largebelt reflect Anatolianfashion. Parallel finds from the Archaic sanctuary at Ephesos establishthe figurine s date at the end of the 7th century b.c. and attest to itsreligious function. The figurineserved as thehandle of an implement, perhapsa distaffor a vessel,that was probablyused in ritualactivities relatedto thecult of Artemis Ephesia. Dressed in herfinest clothes and accompaniedby her children, the figure of the mother in Antalya C echoes an idealizedcult participant who might herself have held such a figurine in religiousceremonies. Thus, one mayconsider this Antalya figurine as a self-referentialreligious object, reflecting the role and the status of the deceasedwoman with whom it was buried.

REFERENCES

Akurgal,E. 1961.Die KunstAnatoliens theGenesis ofAchaemenidArt, vonHomer bis Alexander, Berlin. New York.

. 1992."Zur Entstehungder Börker-Klähn,J.2003. "TumulusD ostgriechischenKlein- und Groß- von Bayindirbei Elmalials histori- plastik,"IstMitt Al, pp. 67-81. scherSpiegel," in Licia e Lidiaprima

. 2001. TheHaitian and Hittite delVellenizzazione.Atti del convegno Civilizations,Ankara. internazionale,Roma, 11-12 ottobre Bammer,A. 1982."Forschungen im 1999,ed. M. Giorgieri,M. Salvini, Artemisionvon Ephesosvon 1976 M.-C. Trémouille,and P. Vannicelli, bis 19S1 "AnatSt32, pp. 61-88. Rome,pp. 69-105.

. 1985."Neue weibliche Statu- Brixhe,C. 2004. "Corpusdes inscrip- ettenaus demArtemision von tionspaleo-phrygiennes: Supple- Ephesos,"ÖJh 56, pp. 39-57. ment2," Kadmos 43, pp. 108- . 1991-1992."Multikulturelle 118. Aspekteder frühen Kunst in Arte- Burkert,W. 1999."Die Artemisder misionvon Ephesos,"ÖJh 61, Epheser:Wirkunstmacht und pp. 17-54. Gestalteiner Großen Gottin," in Barber,E.J.W. 1994. Women'sWork: 100 JahreÖsterreichische Forschungen TheFirst 20, 000 Years.Women, in Ephesos.Akten des Symposions Cloth,and Societyin Early Times, Wien1995, ed. H. Friesingerand New York. F. Krinzinger,, pp. 59-70. Barnett,R. D. 1957.A Catalogueof the Carter,J. B. 1985. GreekIvory-Carving NimrudIvories, with Other Examples in theOrientalizing and Archaic ofAncient Near Eastern Ivories in the Periods,New York. BritishMuseum, London. Cole, S. G. 2004. Landscapes,Gender,

. 1982.Ancient Ivories in the andRitual Space: The Ancient Greek MiddleEast (andAdjacent Countries) Experience,Berkeley. (Qedem14), . Congdon,L. O. K. 1981. Caryatid Boardman,J. 1961-1962. "Ionian Bronze Mirrorsof : Technical, Belts,"Anatolia 6, pp. 179-189. Stylistic,and Historical Considerations

. 2000. Persiaand the West: ofan Archaicand Early Classical AnArchaeological Investigation of BronzeSeries, Mainz.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN ARCHAIC IVORY FIGURINE JJ

Connelly,J. B. 2007. Portraitof a Priest- Karakasi,K. 2003.Archaic Korai, Los Pedley,J. G. 2007. GreekArt and Ar- ess:Women and Ritual in Ancient Angeles. 4thed., New York. chaeology, " Greece,Princeton. Kyrieleis,H. 1993."The Heraionat Rein,M.J. 1992. Anatolianism'and des Courtils,J. 2003. A GuidetoXanthos S amos,"in GreekSanctuaries: New theCostume of the East Greek andLetoon:Sites Inscribed on the Approaches,ed. N. Marinatosand Korai,"AJA 96, pp. 342-343 UNESCO WorldHeritage List, R. Hägg,London, pp. 125-153. (abstract). Istanbul. Lane, E. N., ed. 1996. Cybele,Attis, and Ridgway,B. S. 1970. TheSevere Style in DeVries,K. 1973."East MeetsWest RelatedCults: Essays in Memory of GreekSculpture, Chicago.

at Dinner,"Expedition 15:4, M.J. Vermaseren,Leiden. . 1993. TheArchaic Style in Greek pp. 32-39. Larson,J. 1995. GreekHeroine Cults Sculpture,2nd ed.,Chicago.

. 2005. "GreekPottery and (WisconsinStudies in Classics), Róceos,L. J.2000. "Back-Mantleand GordionChronology," in TheAr- Wisconsin. Peplos:The SpecialCostume of chaeologyof Midas and thePhrygians: Linders,T.1972. Studiesin theTreasure GreekMaidens in 4th-Century RecentWork at Gordion,ed. L. Keal- Recordsof Artemis Brauronia Found Funeraryand VotiveReliefs," hofer,Philadelphia, pp. 36-55. inAthens (SkrAth 4°, 19), Stock- Hesperia69, pp. 235-265. Dörtlük,K. 1988."Elmali Bayindir holm. Roller,L. E. 1998."The Ideologyof TümülüsleriKurtarma Kazisi," Mellink,M.J. 1983."Comments on a theEunuch Priest," in Genderand Kazi SonuçlanToplantisi 10, Cult Reliefof Kybelefrom Gor- Bodyin theAncient Mediterranean, pp. 171-174. dion,"in Beiträgezur Altertumskunde ed. M. Wyke,Oxford, pp. 118- Draycott,C. 2007. Imagesand Iden- Kleinasiens,ed. R. M. Boehmerand 135.

titiesin theFunerary Arts of Ana- H. Hauptmann,Mainz, pp. 340- . 1999.In Searchof God the tolia,600-450 b.c.: ,Hel- 360. Mother:The Cult of Anatolian Cybele, lespontinePhrygia, " (diss. Miller,M. C. 1999."Reexamining Berkeley. OxfordUniv.). Transvestismin Archaicand Classi- Care,T. Forthcoming."Dress and Iden- Dusinberre,E. R. M. 2003.Aspects cal Athens:The ZewadskiStam- tityin theArts of Western Anatolia: ofEmpire in AchaemenidSardis, nos,"AJA 103, pp. 223-253. Fromthe 6th through the 4th Cen- Cambridge. Müller,V. K. 1915. Der Polos:Die grie- turyB.c.E." (diss. Rutgers Univ.). Fleischer,R. 1973.Artemis von Ephesos chischeGötterkron, Berlin. Sevinç,N. 1996."A New Sarcophagus undverwandte Kultstatuen ausAna- Munn,M. H. 2006. TheMother of the ofPolyxena from the Salvage Exca- tolienund Syrien, Leiden. Gods,Athens, and theTyranny ofAsia: vationsat Gümüscay,"Studia Troica GordionI = R. S. Young,Three Great A Studyof Sovereignty inAncient 6, pp. 251-264. EarlyTumuli {The GordionExcava- Religion,Berkeley. Simon,C. G. 1986."The Archaic

tions:Final ReportsI), Philadelphia . 2008. "Kybeleas Kubabain a VotiveOfferings and Cultsof Ionia" 1981. Lydo-PhrygianContext," in Ana- (diss.Univ. of California, Berkeley). Günther,W. 1988.'"Vieuxat inutilis- tolianInterfaces: Hittites, Greeks, and Smith,J. 1996. "The High Priestsof able'dans un inventaireinédit de TheirNeighbours. Proceedings ofan theTemple of Artemis at Ephesos," Milet,"in Compteset inventaires InternationalConference on Cross- in Cybele,Attis, and Related Cults: dansla citégrecque. Actes du colloque CulturalInteraction, September Essaysin Memory ofM. J. Vermaseren, internationald'épigraphie tenu à 17-19,2004, Emory University, ed. E. N. Lane, Leiden,pp. 323- Neuchâteldu 23 au 26 septembre Atlanta,Georgia, ed. B. J.Collins, 335. 1986 enVhonneur deJacques Tréheux, M. R. Bachvarova,and I. C. Ruth- Stewart,A. F. 1990. GreekSculpture: An éd. D. Knoepflerand N. Quellet, erford,Oxford, pp. 159-164. Exploration,New Haven. Geneva,pp. 217-237. Muscarella,O. W. 1967."Fibulae Rep- Trinici,E. 1994."Ein Set aus Spindel, Hall,J. M. 2002. Hellenicity:Between resentedon Sculpture,"/iV£S26, Spinnwirtel,und Rockenaus einem Ethnicityand Culture,Chicago. pp. 82-89. Sarkophagin Ephesos,"ÖJh 63, Hawkins,J. D. 1981."Kubaba at Naumann,F. 1983.Die Ikonographieder pp. 80-86. Karkamisand Elsewhere,"AnatSt Kybelein derphrygischen und der Uçankus,H. T. 2002.Ana TannçaKy- 31, pp. 147-176. griechischenKunst (IstMitt-BH28)> beleve KralMidas in ÜlkesiPhrygia, Hogarth,D. G. 1908.Excavations at Tübingen. Ankara. :The Archaic Artemesia, Özgen,1. 1982."A Studyof Anatolian Ussishkin,D. 1967."On theDating London. and East GreekCostume in the of Some Groupsof Reliefsfrom Isik,F. 2000. Die Statuettenvon Tumu- IronAge" (diss.Bryn Mawr Col- Carchemishand Til B&rsib"AnatSt - lusD beiElmali ElmaliTümül- lege). 17,pp. 181-192. usüYontucaklan (Lykia Anadolu Ozgen,I., and E. Ozgen. 19SS.Antalya Varinlioglu,E. 1992."The Phrygian AkdenizKültürleri 5), Antalya. Museum,Ankara. Inscriptionsfrom Bayindir," Kadmos Jacobsthal,P. 1951."The Date ofthe Ozgen,I, andJ. Oztürk. 1996. The 31, pp. 10-20. EphesianFoundation-Deposit," Lydian Treasure:Heritage Recovered, Vassileva,M. 2005. "The Beltof the JHS 71, pp. 85-95. Istanbul. Goddess:Phrygian Tombs versus

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 78 TUNA §ARE

GreekSanctuaries," in Stephanos ed. L. Cleland,M. Harlow,and andImages in Contact:Studies on Archaeologicosin HonoremProfessons L. Llewellyn-Jones,Oxford, EasternMediterranean Art of the LudmiliGetov, ed. K. Rabadzhiev, pp. 44-51. FirstMillennium b.c.e. (Orbis Bibli- Sofia,pp. 91-101. Winter,I. J.2005. "EstablishingGroup cus et Orientalis210), ed. C. E. Vieyra,M. 1955.Hittite Art, 2300- Boundaries:Toward Methodolog- Suterand C. Uehlinger,Fribourg, 750 b.c.,London. ical Refinementin theDetermina- pp. 23-42. Wees,H. 2005. "TrailingTunics and tionof Sets as a PriorCondition to Young,R. S. 1966."The Gordion SheepskinCoats: Dress and theAnalysis of Cultural Contact Campaignof 1965,"AJA 70, Statusin EarlyGreece," in The and/orInnovation in FirstMillen- pp. 267-278. ClothedBody in theAncient World, niumB.c.E. Ivory Carving," in Crafts

Tuna §are Rutgers University DEPARTMENT OF ART HISTORY 71 hamilton street new brunswick, new jersey o89oi

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University department of art history ÇANAKKALE 17IOO [email protected]

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions