Heirlooms, Aphidrumata, and the Foundation of Cyrene
Reliques, aphidrumata, et la fondation de Cyrène
p. 143-156
Résumés
Parmi les près de 4500 figurines en terre cuite découvertes dans le sanctuaire extramuros de Déméter et Perséphone à Cyrène en Libye, six fragments se distinguent par leur date, au début du viie siècle av. J.-C. Étant donné que Cyrène fut fondée vers 631 et le sanctuaire extra-muros vers 600, les figurines auxquelles ces fragments appartenaient devaient être antérieures d'une cinquantaine d'années environ à la fondation de la ville et d'environ soixante-quinze ans à l’installation du sanctuaire. L'ancienneté de ces figurines provoque des questionnements quant à leurs origines et surtout leurs fonctions éventuelles dans le cadre du sanctuaire.
Among the estimated 4,500 terracotta figurines brought to light at the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya, six figurine fragments are notable for their early 7th century date. Given that Cyrene was founded in 631 BC and the Extramural Sanctuary around 600 BC, the figurines to which these fragments belonged must predate the founding of the city by some fifty years or so and the founding of the sanctuary by some seventy-five years. The antiquity of these figurines provokes inquiry as to their origins and especially their possible functions within the context of the sanctuary.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Cyrène, figurines en terre cuite, Libye, sanctuaire extra-muros de Déméter et de Perséphone, héritage, aphidrumata, Rhodes, Théra, Crète
Keywords : Cyrene, terracotta figurines, Libya, Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone, heirloom, aphidrumata, Rhodes, Thera, Crete
Texte intégral
1Examinations of the function of archaeological artifacts such as terracotta figurines always are accompanied by a modicum of uncertainty, given that rarely is there incontrovertible evidence that can shed light on this aspect of these kinds of objects. Most often the evidence for function is circumstantial. Archaeologists rely on facts, such as the context of the figurine, the character of its co-finds, the physical manipulation of the figurine according to recognized visual data-sets, iconographic elements, and historical data, to infer their meaning and/or function. This is a very inexact science, even though it is all that we have. For example, it is clear that terracotta figurines found in a sanctuary setting in all probability had a votive function. However, exactly what the nature of that votive act was will always remain subject to speculation in the absence of written testimony. A good example of this comprises a small group of 6 terracotta figurine fragments from the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. The facts, or circumstantial evidence, that surround these fragments lend themselves to interpretations of their function that goes beyond that of mere votive offerings, but are these interpretations credible?
2These fragments were brought to light at the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene by the American Archaeological Mission to Cyrene lead by Donald White of the University of Pennsylvania. Excavations there revealed that the dedication of terracotta figurines began with the founding of the sanctuary at the beginning of the 6th century BC.1 However, this small group of 6 terracotta figurine fragments from the sanctuary present stylistic hallmarks that indicate that they should be placed in the first quarter of the 7th century BC.2 This group consists of head fragments of three figurines with mold-made heads (figs. 1-3),3 all reflecting an identical style and typology, one hand-modeled male figure (fig. 4),4 a larger head, broken from a full figure (fig. 5),5 and a large torso from a full figure of considerable size (fig. 6).6 Collectively they form a seemingly insignificant number when considering the total corpus of some 4,500 figurines that has been recovered thus far from the sanctuary.7 However, when viewed as a group these figurines are provocative, and their early date invites inquiry concerning their origin and especially their function.
3The generally accepted date for the founding of Cyrene is 631 BC,8 yet, according to the presently held chronology for early Greek sculpture, some of these figurines could pre-date the founding of the city by some 50 years, or almost two generations. They also could pre-date the establishment of the Extramural Sanctuary by as much as 75 years, or almost three generations. Even though they are chronological outliers they are not completely isolated and they fall in line with a smattering of pre-colonial pottery and other small finds from the early 7th century have been uncovered both at Aziris and Cyrene9. However, the figurines in question differ from these pre-colonial finds in the fact that they comprise sculpture, that they were found in the same location and the same archaeological context, which was a sacred space, and that three reflect an identical typology and style. Although small in number, these early figurines cannot be considered sporadic or casual finds, and that surely must carry some significance. I believe that an understanding of that significance could lead to a greater understanding of their possible functions and the impetus that lead to the choice of these particular figurines in the fulfillment of those functions.
4However, before discussing these figurines in detail, it must be noted that archaeological exploration at the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene was limited only to a 9-year period from 1969 to 1978 and was focused on the area of the middle terrace, referred to by Donald White as the Middle Sanctuary. Because of growing political tensions between the United States and Libya after 1981, any further archaeological excavation at the sanctuary was not possible, and the lower and upper terraces of the sanctuary have remained virtually unexplored. It is highly probable that these areas also are rich in votive dedications, among which terracotta figurines could be especially numerous. In light of this, any interpretations of the coroplastic material from the sanctuary as it is known thus far must remain tentative. I also would like to add that all photographic documentation for finds recovered from the sanctuary was halted in 1981. In certain instances the photography is less than ideal, but that is all we have to work with for the present, as the finds from the sanctuary have not been accessible since 1981. It is hoped that with the establishment of the new government in Libya archaeological exploration at the Extramural Sanctuary will resume, and the first-hand study of the terracottas from the 1969 to the 1978 campaigns will be brought to completion.
5That said, let us return to these early 7th century figurines and the issues they raise by their very presence in the Sanctuary. The figurines under discussion were found in a concentrated area of the middle terrace in constructional backfill of an early Imperial retaining wall T10 where deep level soundings were made in gridsquares F13/G13 and F14/GI4. This backfill was made up of architectural fragments permeated throughout with a rich accumulation of pottery, figurines, and stone sculpture fragments, as well as jewelry, seals, gems, various types of bronze objects, lamps, and loom weights, the majority of which dated from the mid-6th to the later 5th century BC.10 The consistent character and relatively limited chronological range of the finds from the backfill strongly suggest that during the earth moving process that accompanied the renovation of the sanctuary the votives contained in that earth were moved in a relatively undisturbed mass not far from their original place of deposition. It should be noted that while terracotta figurines were found in varying concentrations throughout the middle terrace, none of these concentrations was as rich in terracotta figurines as the backfill of wall T10, nor did any of these yield figurines as early as those that are the topic of this paper.
1. Heirlooms
6A convenient explanation for objects found in a given archaeological context that are considerably older than anything else recovered from that context is that they functioned as heirlooms, important personal possessions that were handed down through several generations because they had a particular value to an individual or a family and its customs. While objects of such antiquity have been brought to light at Cyrene, and occasionally even have been referred to as heirlooms,11 no further comment on their meaning or function has ever been made, and they seem to have been dismissed as having no greater importance than that of a casual ancient trinket or heirloom souvenir from an earlier time.
7A good model for the interpretation of heirlooms is provided by Valentino Nizzo in his discussion of objects in an early Iron Age Italic grave whose antiquity is in striking contrast to the later date suggested by the co-finds from this grave. Viewed as objects of familial memory, they are believed by Valentino Nizzo to represent the status of the individual interred, the means by which the life history or memory of the family could be expressed.12 I would like to suggest that in the case of the figurines under review in this paper the essence of these objects from the Extramural Sanctuary also could have been rooted in a more profound and meaningful awareness of their function within the framework of the family and its descendants when they eventually became part of a public ritual. I believe that they could have held the ancestral consciousness, or historical identity, of a family or clan and as such also functioned as repositories of memory.13 Having been passed down through several generations, they could have represented the collective past of a family that, when used in a ritual context, such as in the deposition in a sanctuary, was brought into the present, along with all the social and religious affiliations belonging to that ancestral past. If some, or all, of the 6 figurines in question could be viewed in this light, at least in theory, then their presence as votive offerings in the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone could be interpreted further as an attempt to gain the protection of the goddesses not only for the well-being of the family, but for its descendants as well. Rather than being simply a reflection of a gesture of individual personal piety, the deposition of these figurines in the sanctuary could be interpreted from a social perspective. They might have pertained to a ritual communal act that would have established an important familial link, one that would contain the past memories of that family and at the same time function as a bridge to its future well being.
2. Aphidrumata
8However, a second, unrelated function for these pre-colonial figurines also could be suggested by their early date. They could have functioned in a less personal, and more official, capacity as aphidrumata. The word aphidruma, or in its plural form, aphidrumata, is found exclusively in discussions by ancient authors in relation to cult transference. Malkin has argued convincingly that the word aphidruma connotes an object whose function was exercised when it was taken away from somewhere to be brought somewhere else.14 Typically, an aphidruma was a cult object, or even a substance from a cult ritual, such as sacred ashes, cinders, or even sacred fire. This object, or substance, was brought officially from a sanctuary in one city to a newly-designated sacred place in another expressly for the purpose of establishing a new place of worship, often in response to oracular instructions. Such a cult entity in itself was not an aphidruma, but only became one when used to establish the new cult. We know this from Strabo, who told of an aphidruma of Ephesian Artemis, in this instance an image, that on the advice of the Pythia was taken from among sacred things at the sanctuary of Artemis in Ephesos in the early 6th century BC by Phocaean colonists in order to establish a cult of the goddess in Massalia.15 Once set up in Massalia, this image was no longer referred to as an aphidruma, but rather as a xoanon.16
9Might we entertain the possibility that some, or all, of these pre-colonial figurines from the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone could have functioned in some capacity as aphidrumata in the foundation of the sanctuary around the beginning of the 6th century BC? The evidence of their early 7th-century date certainly could support such a supposition. If that were the case, however, then these objects would have had to have been safeguarded in some other context in the city for the 30 years or so that passed between the foundation of Cyrene and the establishment of the Extramural Sanctuary. Alternately, colonists from Cyrene could have sent for aphidrumata once it was decided to establish the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone.
3. The Foundation of Cyrene
10Historical testimony for the make-up of the colonists who founded Cyrene comes from several sources, not all of which are in complete agreement. On the one hand we have a detailed narration in the fourth book of Herodotos,17 elements of which are confirmed by other literary sources and by the Stele of the Founders, an inscription from Cyrene of the 4th century BC.18 According to Herodotos, Cyrene was founded by colonists from Thera lead by a certain Battos, after the Therans were ordered repeatedly by the oracle at Delphi to found a colony in Libya. However, additional information regarding the founding is contained in the 17th chapter of the Lindian Temple Chronicle, an inscription of 99 BC that records offerings to Athena Lindia of Rhodes.19 In this inscription there is mention of gifts presented by “those of the Lindians who, with the sons of Pankis, colonized Cyrene with Battos.”20 This statement has been interpreted to mean that Rhodians were among the settlers of a documented second wave of colonists who arrived at Cyrene ca. 580-570 BC during the reign of the second king of Cyrene, also named Battos.21 As Herodotos in his very detailed account of the founding of Cyrene does not mention Rhodes at all, it is his account that is considered reliable by most scholars, and many discussions of Greek colonization often completely disregard any reference to the testimony of the Lindian Temple Chronicle.22 Yet, at least 3 of the 6 figurines, and possibly a 4th one, find their best parallels among figurines from Rhodes, and this could lend weight to the notion that they may have been brought to Cyrene by Rhodian colonists. Even though Herodotos tells us that the number of the original settlers did not increase during the almost 50 year period between the founding of Cyrene in 631 and the arrival of a second wave of colonists around 580-570 BC, the archaeological evidence tells a somewhat different story. The presence of pottery dating to either the earlier or the later 7th century from Chios,23 Rhodes,24 Corinth,25 and Laconia,26 among other pottery-producing centers, suggests active contact with the larger Greek world, a contact that could have resulted in a more gradual influx of mixed settlers than was admissible by the exclusivity of the Theran tradition, and this mix could have included Rhodians as well.
4. The Terracotta Figurines
11The figurines that appear to refer to Rhodes are represented by the three mold-made heads of identical style and typology broken from full figures (figs. 1-3) and the one hand-modeled figure (fig. 4). The three head fragments very closely relate to a type from the necropolis of Kamiros that is best represented by complete examples now in the Louvre, and British Museums that date around 680 BC.27 These present a female with a mold-made, oversized head, and a coarse, cylindrical or slab-like body with small rounded breasts and pinched stubs for arms. This type underwent a rather long development at Rhodes beginning in the first decade or so of the 7th century, when it replaced late Geometric figurines,28 and it continued to be produced probably well into the early 6th century, to judge from the structural and anatomical evolution of its heads.29
Fig. 1. – Head, broken from a full figure, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 76-492.

Author’s photo.
Fig. 2. – Head, broken from a full figure, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 77-352.

Author’s photo.
Fig. 3. – Head, broken from a full figure, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 73-346.

Author’s photo.
Fig. 4. – Head and upper chest, broken from a full figure, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 77-202.

Author’s photo.
12The three heads found at the Extramural Sanctuary appear to be early in the development of this Rhodian type, as we can see when the best preserved of our heads (fig. 1) is compared to the heads of the Louvre and British Museum examples cited above. Obvious similarities are evident in the facial structure and in the delineation of the facial features. In each case, the faces are described by a rounded triangle, have considerable volume and depth, and, most importantly, are not restricted to a frontal plane, but rather are composed of two rounded, vertical planes coming forward from the ears and meeting at the ridge of the nose. The most distinctive feature of these heads, however, is the treatment of the eyes, which are oversized with thick, rim-like lids, which are placed low in the face, and which markedly slant downward towards the ears. Other correspondences are evident in the low forehead with horizontal hairline, the very short nose with broad nostrils, and the elongated chin.
13Compelling features of the head of fig. 1 appear to form a bridge between certain late Geometric figurines from the necropolis of Kamiros and the type of the Louvre/British Museum of the early 7th century.30 This concerns the elongated chin and the treatment of the mouth, with its donut-like lips whose corners swell into a roll, a feature that properly belongs within the Geometric idiom, as can be seen most clearly on a head fragment also from the necropolis of Kamiros.31 In my view, it is highly probable that the three figurines from the Sanctuary to which the heads in question once belonged could be classed with the earliest examples of the Rhodian type as represented by the Louvre/British Museum examples and that they date to the first quarter of the 7th century BC, perhaps around 680 or so.
14However, even though the characteristics of the faces of these three heads are close to the faces of the Rhodian examples just cited, one particular aspect of our three heads is puzzling, as it does not appear on any of the published Rhodian figurines of this Louvre/British Museum type. This is the presence of a polos, which is either low, as in the case of fig. 1, expressed as two tiered in fig. 2, or conceived as a cylindrical form in fig. 3. Given that these heads have an extremely close conceptual and stylistic relationship to each other so as to suggest that they came from the same place, perhaps even at the same time, the presence of a polos in all three stylistically and typologically-related heads infers that it may have been a standard feature. That this feature is absent from the Kamiran figurines cited above does not preclude a possible Rhodian origin for our Cyrene finds, since the only 7th-century figurines of this Louvre/British Museum typology to enter the archaeological record, to my knowledge, are those from Kamiros. Future exploration at other sites on the island, especially early sanctuary sites rather than necropoleis, and publication or reconsideration of finds already brought to light may alter this picture,32 as may certainly be expected from future exploration of the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene. In any case, the polos confers on the image a degree of solemnity and authority that may reflect the station or status of the personage who the figurines were supposed to represent. Does the presence of the polos suggest that these figurines at the moment of creation were intended for a votive context? An early 7th century figurine from Kamiros has arms raised to the head in the gesture of mourning,33 indicating that it was made specifically for a funerary purpose. Consequently, it is perhaps not too far of a stretch to suggest that figurines also could have been made with a specific votive function in mind for which a gesture of mourning would have been out of place but for which a polos would be appropriate.
15The fourth pre-colonial figurine that may have originated on Rhodes is of a completely different typology than the three just discussed. This comprises the hand-modeled head, neck, and upper part of the chest of a figure, whose hair is drawn back in a small mass at the base of the skull (fig. 4). The head is characterized by a flat, up-turned face with pierced eyes, a large nose, a slit for a mouth, and a sharply projecting chin. Traces of black glaze on the chin and hair indicate that a male was the subject. Figurines with conventionally similar heads have been found on Samos,34 Crete,35 Olympia,36 and Rhodes,37 among other places, and illustrate a commonality of expression that crossed ethnic boundaries. Where the body is preserved in these figurines, the subject is most often either a rider or a charioteer, although this head type also is known on at least one figurine of a standing female from Crete.38 Stylistically the Cyrene head appears closest to a head from Lindos, which also has black-painted hair and beard,39 although the eyes are not pierced, while its fabric, fine-grained and buff, is compatible with the early figurine fabrics from the site as well. Admittedly, it is impossible to confirm at present if the Cyrene figurine originated on Rhodes without a more detailed study of its fabric. Yet its similarity to at least the Lindian figurine makes a Rhodian origin probable, and this could lend even more weight to the Lindian evidence for the founding of Cyrene.
16Alternate explanations can be given for the presence at Cyrene of early Rhodian figurines that considerably pre-date the city’s founding, if indeed these figurines did originate on Rhodes. One could contend that indirect trading networks were responsible for their eventual arrival, were it not for their extraordinary antiquity and for the fact that there is no evidence that early Rhodian figurines were traded. One also could propose that Rhodian colonists of the second wave of ca. 580-570 BC brought them to Cyrene either as aphidrumata and/or more personal heirlooms and that they played no role at all in the original settlement. However, by the period of the second wave these figurines would have been some 100 years old or so, a fact that militates against the likelihood that they could survive intact in a domestic or sanctuary context for that length of time, particularly given the practice of the routine cleaning up that took place at sanctuaries. If indeed the four figurines just discussed did originate on Rhodes, a hypothesis that cannot be proven at present, then these would be the only examples of these types known in the archaeological literature outside of Rhodian contexts, and, as already noted, this could be of considerable historical significance for Cyrene’s early history. Their early date argues for their arrival at Cyrene with the first colonists. Could they indeed have functioned as aphidrumata? Or, could they have been repositories of memory, precious family heirlooms offered to the two goddesses in supplication for familial prosperity and longevity?
17The remaining two fragments to be discussed, the sub-geometric head and the torso, are the most noteworthy for their larger sizes and are the most enigmatic for their provenience. Stylistic and conceptual hallmarks clearly place them in the early 7th century. The torso fragment (fig. 6), hollow and partially wheel-made, could have belonged to a large figurine, or statuette, some 25 centimeters, more or less, in height, while the head fragment (fig. 5) suggests that the statuette to which it once belonged may have been some 20 to 25 centimeters. Both torso and head are distinguished by excellent workmanship and a decisive conceptual approach to figurative representation that suggests that they both were produced at a center or centers that had well-developed coroplastic traditions. The larger size and higher level of quality of both of the statuettes to which these fragments once belonged indicates that they represented an elevated level of importance that indeed must have related to their function.
Fig. 5 a-b-c. – Head, broken from a full figure, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 76-332.

Author’s photo.
Fig. 6 a-b. – Torso, broken from a full figure, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 78-250.

Author’s photo.
18The sub-Geometric head, surely broken from a full figure, is hand modeled in-the-round. Described by a pointed “u”-shaped contour, the face has a strong upward tilt and is dominated by overly large eyes only vaguely indicated by flat, amorphous blobs. It also has a short, narrow, up-turned nose, a sharply jutting, pointed chin, and hair rendered as a single row of large “pearls” across the forehead; no ears are indicated. In its present state the head has a distinctly simple, almost abstract, character. But it is conceivable that it was originally painted with more clearly detailed features.
19Exact stylistic parallels that could help identify its place of manufacture are not readily evident in the archaeological record, but, as already noted, the sculptural conventions that define this head are commonly found among sub-Geometric figurines, and the conclusion that it too is as early is compelling. In general conception the head is similar to examples from Crete,40 from Rhodes,41 and even from Cyprus,42 although these differ stylistically. Common distinguishing characteristics concern faces that have a strong up-ward tilt and in profile a deep conchoidal depression between nose and chin created by a prominent, high-bridged nose and sharply jutting chin. The eyes often are large, indistinct forms or blobs, and the mouth is indicated by a slit or by horizontal ridges.
20Even though no compelling comparanda for the Cyrene head of fig. 4 head present themselves in the archaeological record, a number of heads from early Archaic Cretan contexts that approach our head in the expression and manipulation of the facial features strengthen a bias toward a possible Cretan origin.43 This is an appealing prospect for investigation, given the discovery of at least one fragment of an early 7th century Cretan flask at Aziris, the protocolonial experiment on the Libyan mainland prior to the founding of Cyrene,44 and the role that is ascribed by Herodotos to the Cretan fisherman Korobios in guiding a group of Theran explorers to the island of Platea offthe coast of Libya. While it is highly unlikely that the fisherman himself could have been responsible for the presence of this very flask, or the statuette to which the torso belonged, for that matter, it is more probable that the Herodotean narrative concerning the fisherman had etiological origins in the involvement of a number of Cretans in the original settlement contingent.45 Pre-colonial ties to Crete also can be traced through the first Battos, whose mother came from Axos.46 Moreover, as the closest maritime neighbor to Libya, Crete was in the best position to maintain commercial interests in the new colony from its earliest phases.
21The torso fragment comprises a slightly flattened, wheel-thrown form that has broad shoulders and an extremely narrow waist. Hand-modeled arms with abnormally short upper arms are bent and held forward of the body with the elbows pressed against the upper sides of the chest and the forearms projecting forward. A raised band at the waist indicates a belt and a parallel ridge just below it also is suggestive of a garment. At the lower edge of the front a section of the fragment projects forward and suggests the presence of an appendage whose position well below the waist and at the center of the torso begs to be interpreted as a male attribute. Alternately, one could ask if this protuberance could indicate that the torso belonged to a horseman. The absence of modeled breasts also supports the suggestion that a male may have been the subject. However, within the early Iron Age tradition for large, hollow figurines that is represented by examples from Crete,47 from Samos,48 from Rhodes,49 and from Siphnos,50 among other places, male subjects are absent from the archaeological record. A glance at this selection of early Iron Age wheel-made figurines from across the Aegean also emphasizes the stylistic and conceptual distances that exist between each one of these, even when they come from the same site, as well as between the Cyrene figurine and its technically-related cousins. The period during which these were made was one of considerable experimentation and that makes it even more difficult to know which coroplastic center or workshop actually produced the Cyrene figurine until its fabric can be subjected to scientific analysis. Moreover, should the figurine actually represent a male, a premise that admittedly cannot confirmed, one must ask why it would have been placed in a sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone in the first place.
22A striking feature of this torso is the treatment of the arms, whose upper part is extremely short relative to the proportions of the torso, so that the elbows hug the upper sides of the torso just below the shoulders. A similar, although less extreme, presentation of the arms can be seen on a large, hollow terracotta figurine from Samos,51 and that once led me to believe that the Cyrene torso also might be Samian.52 But I have since changed my mind and no longer hold that there is anything but the most casual of similarities between the Samian and Cyrene figurines. Of course, the results of clay analysis could be exceptionally helpful in at least a general localization of the area where the Cyrene figurine originated, but that eventuality will have to wait for a more stabile political climate in Libya.
5. The questions
23So, the questions remain. Could any of these figurines from the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene have functioned as ancestral heirlooms, repositories of familial history and memory, or could they have served as aphidrumata? Could any have been brought from Thera for the purposes of cult transference, or could any have been carried by the Rhodian sons of Pankis mentioned in the Lindian Temple Chronicle?53 And what about the possibility of cult transference from Crete? In the case of Thera, unfortunately, not much evidence is at hand for an understanding of Theran coroplastic activity in the 7th century.54 Three late 7th century figurines of mourners from Sellada have demonstrated that at least by the end of the century there must have been a skilled coroplastic workshop capable of producing well-conceived and technically sophisticated figurines,55 and these must have evolved from earlier models produced on Thera. Can we see in the large torso fragment from the Sanctuary an antecedent to the mourners from Thera? Could this torso fragment have belonged to a figurine that once functioned as an aphidruma in order to bring the worship of Demeter and Persephone to Cyrene? But, was there in fact a sanctuary to Demeter and Persephone on Thera from where an aphidruma could have been taken for the establishment of a cult of the two goddesses at Cyrene? Unfortunately that too is still to be documented. A graffito at a rock-cut shrine on Thera published in 1903 was thought to have mentioned Demeter and Persephone,56 but later readings have confirmed that the inscription names Zeus Damatrios as the object of devotion.57 And what of the tenuous suggestion that the large torso fragment could have represented a male figure? Could it have functioned as a repository of memory, a potent symbol of a familial ancestry placed under the protection of the two goddesses? Obviously, none of these questions can be definitively answered, but in the asking of them at least new avenues for discourse can be opened.
Notes de bas de page
1 D. White, The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports 1. Background and Introduction to the Excavations (1984), p. 23.
2 Peter James (James 2005) has presented a cogent argument for lowering the conventional dates of the Archaic pottery from Cyrenaica by some 35 to 40 years so that it can fit the Herodotean narrative for the founding of Cyrene and the other colonial foundations in Libya and Egypt. Consequently, the dating of Archaic sculpture should follow suit, as he suggests for the figurines under review in this paper. However, in order to apply the James chronology to Archaic sculpture of the 7th and 6th centuries a more detailed examination of the evidence as it relates to sculptural developments needs to be undertaken. Clearly this is beyond the scope of this paper. Moreover, since the dating of the establishment of the Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene is solely based on the pottery found there, according to James’ chronological revision that date too should be lowered by approximately 35 to 40 years, or ca. 565-560, a date that would suggest that there was no cult place for the worship of Demeter and Persephone until well after the second wave of colonization. For the purposes of this paper I prefer to adhere to the generally accepted chronology for the Archaic period, with the understanding that in the long run this may need to be revised drastically. Obviously, in that event, aspects of my argument also will need revision.
3 – Fig. 1: head, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 76-492, h. 2.4 cm, see Uhlenbrock 1992, p. 18, fig. 4 ;
– fig. 2: head, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 77-352, h. 2.8 cm; – fig. 3: head, Cyrene Archaeological Museum 73-346, h. 5.5 cm.
4 Cyrene Archaeological Museum 77-202, h. 4.3, see Uhlenbrock 1985, pl. 25. II.
5 Cyrene Archaeological Museum 76-332, h. 5.6 cm, see Uhlenbrock 1985, p. 298, pl. 25.1 and Uhlenbrock 1992, p. 18, fig. 5.
6 Cyrene Archaeological Museum 78-250; h. 9.1 cm.
7 For an overview of aspects of this corpus see Uhlenbrock 1992, pp. 16-23; Uhlenbrock 2004, pp. 15-26; Uhlenbrock 2007, pp. 721-741; Uhlenbrock 2010, pp. 85-100.
8 For a review of the evidence for the foundation date see James 2005, pp. 2-3; for a relatively recent lengthy discussion of the foundation of Cyrene see Malkin 2003, pp. 153-170.
9 Boardman 1966, p. 151; Stucchi 1984, p. 162. However, see James 2005, pp. 3-6. Lowenstam 1987, p. 14, no. 28, dated early 7th century; Warden et al. 1990, pp. 60-62, for tridacna shells dated early 7th century BC; Luni et al. 2011, pp. 5-6.
10 White 1987, p. 178.
11 Applebaum 1979, pp. 8-9; Lowenstam 1987, p. 14. Reference also is made to heirlooms in G. Schaus, “Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene's Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter”, in A. Villing, U. Schlotzhauer (eds), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (2006), p. 180, note 15; Warden et al. 1990, pp. 60-62, for tridacna shells dated early 7th century BC said in note 53 to be heirlooms. Boardman, Hayes 1966, p. 21; James 2005, p. 11.
12 Nizzo 2010, pp. 63-108.
13 On this topic see R.M. Van Dyke, S.E. Alcock, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction”, in R.M. Van Dyke, S.E. Alcock (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003), pp. 1-13; K. Lillios, “Objects of Memory: The Ethnology and Archaeology of Heirlooms”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6 (1999), pp. 235-262.
14 Malkin 1991, pp. 80-83; Malkin 2011, pp. 182, 185-186. See also Rolley 1997, pp. 35-38.
15 Strabo, IV 1, 4 (Loeb ed.).
16 Malkin 1991, pp. 81-84. See also Anguissola 2006.
17 Herodotos, IV 150-151, 153, 156-159.
18 A.J. Graham, “The Authenticity of the ὅρκιον τῶν οἰκιστήρων of Cyrene”, JHS 80 (1960), pp. 94-111; I. Malkin 2003, pp. 166-170.
19 For a recent discussion see C. Higbie, The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Creation of their Past (2003).
20 Lindian Chronicle XVII 109-117.
21 G. Schaus, The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports II, The East Greek, Island, and Laconian Pottery (1985), p. 102.
22 However, see J. Shaya, “The Greek Temple as Museum: The Case of the Legendary Treasure of Athena from Lindos”, AJA 109 (2005), p. 430, who lumps together in importance the Rhodian founding of Cyrene with that of Gela, Akragas, Phaselis, and Soloi.
23 M. Luni, S.M. Marengo, “Le Dioskourion de Battos découvert à Cyrène dans le quartier de l'agora”, in A. Laronde, J. Leclant (eds), Journée d’hommage à François Chamoux (Mirecourt 1915-Paris 2007) (2010), pp. 112-113.
24 Stucchi 1984, p. 162.
25 Luni et al. 2011, p. 5.
26 Stucchi 1984, p. 162.
27 Besques 1954, B 198, from Kamiros; Higgins 1954, no. 13, from Kamiros.
28 Higgins 1954, no. 5.
29 Higgins 1954, nos. 20-22.
30 See above, note 27.
31 Higgins 1954, no. 5 bis.
32 See D’Acunto 2014.
33 Higgins 1954, no. 14.
34 Jarosch 1994, nos. 868, 889.
35 From Gortyn, Rizza, Scrinari 1968, pl. VIII, no. 46; from Lato, Demargne 1929, pl. XXVIII, no. 6.
36 Heilmeyer 1972, pl. 26, nos. 161-162.
37 Blinkenberg 1931, pl. 80, no. 1861.
38 Rizza, Scrinari 1968, pl. VIII, no. 46.
39 As in note 37.
40 From Hagia Triada: D. Levi, “Arcades. Una città cretese all’alba della civiltà ellenica”, ASAtene 10-12 (1927-1929), p. 614, fig. 647a; on a smaller scale, D’Agata 1999, no. D2.22; Creta Antica. Cento Anni di Archeologia Italiana (1884-1984) (1984), p. 181, fig. 272 (I owe this reference to Dr. Angeliki Lebessi). From Gortyn, Rizza, Scrinari 1968, pl. 9, no. 51. From Karphi, BCH 62 (1938), p. 482, fig. 37.
41 From Kamiros, Breitenstein 1941, pl. 11, no. 113.
42 Karageorghis et al. 2000, no. 212.
43 I owe this suggestion to Katja Sporn, to whom I am grateful for the subsequent interest that she has taken in these figurines and the issues of provenience that they raise.
44 Boardman 1966, p. 151.
45 Applebaum 1979, p. 12.
46 Herodotos IV 154.
47 D. Levi, “Gli scavi del 1954 sull'acropoli di Gortina”, ASAtene 33-34 (1955-1956), p. 246, fig. 43.
48 Jarosch 1994, among others see pl. 61, no. 664, pl. 62, nos. 665, 1172.
49 Blinkenberg 1931, pl. 82, nos. 1877, 1882, pl. 83, nos. 1878, 1879.
50 Brock, Mackworth Young 1949, pl. 6, 1-2, pl. 7 a-c. For a mid-century example from Despotikó see, Kouragios, Burns 2005, figs. 28, 29.
51 Jarosch 1994, pl. 61, no. 664.
52 In private correspondence to Donald White.
53 Zervoudaki 1988, p. 1, for the identification of a Demeter sanctuary on Rhodes, although the evidence thus far is from the Hellenistic period. See also A. Chaniotis, H.W. Pleket, R.S. Stroud, J.H.M. Strubbe, “Rhodes. Dedication to Demeter, 4th cent. BC”, SEG 49-1079, an inscription on a bronze ladle.
54 The evidence for coroplastic activity in the early 7th century is meager. See Dragendorf 1903, fig. 494a-b for two rudimentary, presumably female, figurines. Terracottas were brought to light during N. Zaphiropolou’s excavations in the Sellada necropolis on Thera between 1961 and 1982, but these have largely remained unpublished.
55 Dragendorff 1903, figs. 56-58; N. Kondoleon, “Theräisches”, AM 73 (1958), pls. 83-84.
56 F. Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Thera I. Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1895-1902 (1903), p. 200.
57 A. Kose, “Die Höhle Pilarou beim Felsheiligtum Christos”, in W. Hoepfner (dir.), Das Dorische Thera 5, Stadtgeschichte und Kultstätten (1997), pp. 74-76.
Auteur
-
Jaimee P. Uhlenbrock
State University of New York at New Paltz, USA.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le mythe Néron
La fabrique d'un monstre dans la littérature antique (ier-ve s.)
Laurie Lefebvre
2017
Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine
2 - Iconographie et contextes
Arthur Muller et Ergün Laflı (dir.)
2015
Corps, travail et statut social
L’apport de la paléoanthropologie funéraire aux sciences historiques
Anne-Catherine Gillis (dir.)
2014
Figurines grecques en contexte
Présence muette dans le sanctuaire, la tombe et la maison
Stéphanie Huysecom-Haxhi et Arthur Muller (dir.)
2015
Boulogne et Thérouanne au temps de César
Approche toponymique de la cité des Morins
Hubert Le Bourdellès
2009
Figures d’empire, fragments de mémoire
Pouvoirs et identités dans le monde romain impérial (IIe s. av. n. è.–VIe s. de. n. è.)
Stéphane Benoist, Anne Daguet-Gagey et Christine Hoët-van Cauwenberghe (dir.)
2011
Boulogne-sur-Mer antique, entre terre et mer
Gesoriacum-Bononia, le port et son arrière-pays
Olivier Blamangin, Angélique Demon et Christine Hoët-van Cauwenberghe (dir.)
2020
Choses vues et entendues par Pausanias
Guide des croyances de la Grèce antique
Jacques Boulogne, Marion Muller-Dufeu et Maude Picouet-de Crémoux (dir.)
2015
« Quartiers » artisanaux en Grèce ancienne
Une perspective méditerranéenne
Arianna Esposito et Giorgos M. Sanidas (dir.)
2013
