Appendix IX Incubation Reliefs beyond Attica?

In addition to incubation oracles in Greece, the North Aegean and Asia Minor that are attested reliably, several other cult sites have been suspected of also having been visited by those seeking to engage in divinatory incubation, but in each case the evidence is less than conclusive. In contrast to these sanc- tuaries that have been linked to incubation by one or more scholars based on problematic archaeological remains or written sources,1 there are four cases of iconographic evidence that might likewise link a cult to incubation: reliefs possibly showing a dreamer and one or more gods evidently seen in the dream, the interpretation of which is uncertain and subjective.2 The earli- est of these, a broken dedicatory relief from the late-fifth century BCE that is thought to be Peloponnesian in origin and quite possibly non-Attic in terms of its style, shows a figure lying on the ground beneath the goddess Leto, who is made identifiable by the palm tree behind her.3 Since only the right portion of the relief survives, it is impossible to tell what has been lost from this scene, but it has been suggested that Apollo and Artemis originally occupied the left .4 While there is no reason to doubt that the relief represents a sleep- ing figure, it is unclear whether the rest of the scene was intended to reflect

1 See Appendix I. 2 On reliefs with scenes of divine epiphany in dreams, most of which are from the Attic Asklepieia and Oropos, see van Straten 1976, 1–6 and van Straten 1993. See also Platt 2011, 31–76 et pass., applying a theoretical approach. Of the reliefs discussed here, only the first and last have previously been associated with incubation, though the second has been inter- preted as showing a dream. 3 Louvre Ma 3580 (= Mitropoulou, Attic Votive Reliefs, 56, No. 98 + fig. 146 = Hamiaux, Sculptures grecques I:141, No. 134 + photo = Comella, Rilievi votivi, 214, “Mantinea 2,” cf. p. 81 + fig. 75 = Vikela 2015, 217, No. L 1 + Pl. 52). In tentatively linking this relief to Mantineia, Annamaria Comella follows Hans Möbius, who noted similarities with the Diotima relief (Athens, N.M. 226 (= Svoronos, Nationalmuseum III:662, No. 422 + Pl. 199 = Comella, ibid., 214, “Mantinea 1,” cf. p. 81 + fig. 74)) and suggested the temple of Leto mentioned in Paus. 8.9.1 as a point of origin for both (Möbius 1934, 47–48 (pp. 34–35 of 1967 reprint)). Scholars have been split on whether this relief, which after all was carved from Pentelic marble, was made in Attica: for example, whereas Hamiaux believes it to be an Attic work, Vikela considers its style more likely to be Peloponnesian (Vikela, ibid., 139). 4 This was first suggested by Charles Dugas (Dugas 1910), and generally accepted by later scholars.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004330238_019 Incubation Reliefs beyond Attica? 655 the contents of a dream. Ever since the relief was first published, it has been taken for granted by most scholars that it alludes to incubation, despite the fact that its composition is unlike that of any of the known incubation reliefs.5 This lack of parallels raises the possibility that even if the relief does represent a god-sent dream it was not deliberately sought at a sanctuary, but since there are no incubation reliefs from the Peloponnesus to serve as comparanda it can- not be ruled out that this is the first to have been found.6 However, the relief is no less likely to portray a mythological scene, perhaps a tale in which one or more individuals came under the protection of Leto.7 A somewhat simi- lar composition can be found on a dedicatory stele from modern , near Miletopolis in , which dates to the second or third century CE and features a relief of an aedicula flanked by a herm and Zeus on a pedes- tal brandishing a thunderbolt, while a recumbent figure lies at the bottom of the panel (Fig. 57).8 Unlike the Leto relief, this one bears an inscription which reveals that the dedication was made in compliance with a divine command, though the medium of communication is unspecified: “Tiberius Claudius Syntrophus dedicated this to Zeus Hypsistos Brontaios according to a com- mand from his own resources” (Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος | Σύντροφος Διὶ | Ὑψίστῳ κατ’ ἐπιτα|γὴν ἐκ τῶ<ν> ἰδί|ων ἀνέθηκεν | Βρονταίῳ). The combination of an appar- ently sleeping figure, an aedicula, a cult statue, and a herm possibly repre- senting a boundary marker points to dream-divination in a temple context. However, the relief does not necessarily show the contents of the dream:

5 Dugas first proposed incubation, mainly depending on unreliable sources (Dugas 1910, 238– 239). Those who have accepted this conclusion (or reached it themselves) include: Möbius (supra, n. 3); van Straten 1976, 4–5 (suggesting that Apollo was the god from whom dreams were solicited); Hamiaux (supra, n. 3) (assuming that the sleeping person is ill and seeking a dream of the Apollinian triad); and Comella, Rilievi votivi, pp. 80–82. The early dissenting view of Ludwig Curtius, who instead proposed that the object was a funerary relief and the sleeping figure a slave in a garden (Curtius 1923–24, 485), was disputed by Möbius, ibid., 47n.6 (p. 34n.13 of reprint). See also Vikela 2015, 148–149, noting the difference from conventional incubation reliefs. 6 Comella has argued that the relief’s distinctive composition may be attributed to regional variation, since Peloponnesian reliefs tended to emphasize divinities rather than worshipers to a much greater degree than Attic reliefs, and for this reason it does not conform to tradi- tional Attic incubation reliefs (see Comella, Rilievi votivi, p. 82). 7 See Vikela 2015, 139–140, suggesting the possibility that the figure may be one of the two Niobids whom Leto saved. 8 , A.M. Inv. No. 3 (= LIMC VIII, “Zeus (in peripheria orientali),” No. 141 + photo; inscription I.Kyzikos II 5 + Pl. 3). I am grateful to Fritz Graf for sharing his insights into this dedication.