Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T13:42:51.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Coins from the Ephesian Artemision Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

E. S. G. Robinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1904–5 the British Museum excavations at Ephesos were resumed under D. G. Hogarth, and resulted in the discovery of what he held to be the foundations of earlier buildings beneath the great Artemision of the Croesus period unearthed by Wood. In these earlier buildings Hogarth distinguished three successive stages:

A. A Central Basis, faced with green schist, standing on virgin sand, and joined in the middle of its west side by a narrow jetty to a second rectangular platform, both of limestone; the whole built, in his view, about 700 B.C., and lasting until it was destroyed by the Kimmerians about 660.

B. A rebuilding and enlargement of the same about 650, the resulting temple lasting till about 600.

C. A further building and enlargement finally superseded by the Croesus temple about 550.

Hogarth's chronology has met with strong criticism, notably from Löwy, who regarded all remains as belonging to the foundations of the Croesus temple.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 71 , November 1951 , pp. 156 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 D. G. Hogarth, British Museum: Excavations at Ephesus, hereafter cited as Ephesus.

2 Wien. Akad. Sitzb. 213. 4. (1932). Picard, , Ephèse et Claros (1922), 14 ff.Google Scholar had followed Hogarth's dating.

3 Liverpool Annals XXIV (1937) 15; with further references.

4 Ephesus 237–8.

5 I owe him much more than this, for we have discussed the problems of the Artemision together intermittently for the past ten years, and without his constant help this article could not have been written. Many of my references are due to him and I must here make my acknowledgements once for all.

6 Almost certainly more; Hogarth (p. 74 note) heard of two concealed and sold by his workmen. One of these may perhaps be the coin described below, p. 167 no. 67.

7 E.g. no mention of them in Hist. Num. under Ephesus, and only an incidental one under Lydia. Their publication was a year too late for E. Babelon's Traité des mon. grecques; Picard, however (ibid. p. 24), was aware of some of the difficulties they raised.

8 Ephesus 74 ff. Pls. 1 and 2. The British Museum possesses electrotypes of nearly all the coins there illustrated and on these, apart from Head's chapter, this article is based. I have not been able to examine the originals in Istanbul, and have relied on his publication for weights and similar details.

9 There are obvious objections to this view: there is no reason to suppose (1) that the coins from all over the site formed a single deposit or (2) that even if so, the deposit was recovered intact; on the contrary, as Picard (op. cit. p. 25) has already observed.

10 Following Ridgeway's, article Coinage in the Cambridge Companion to Greek Studies (1st Ed.), 445.Google Scholar

11 It was this, perhaps, that originally suggested to Head the attempt already mentioned to equate the coins in weight with 10 of the gold staters which Croesus was the first to issue in the form of coin. For Pheidon see below, p. 166.

12 Ephesus 119.

13 Head says 13 (p. 75 Note 2.) and described all as being ‘under B foundations’, the evidence for which does not seem cogent. I can find no trace of the odd one.

14 Petrie, , Tanis II 14Google Scholar, and Naukratis I 28 ff. The Toud, treasure (Syria XVIII 174 ff.)Google Scholar was an ex-voto not a foundation deposit.

15 Hans Schoetz & Co., Berlin, 1931; cp. also Dhorme, E., Les Religions de Babylonit et d'Assyrie 185–6 and 195.Google Scholar

16 Herzfeld, , Trans. Int. Num. Congr. (1936) 413.Google Scholar

17 Susa: Mecquenem, R. de, Mem. Délégation en Perse. VII 61.Google Scholar Khorsabad: Place, V., Niniveh et l'Assyrie I 191.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Dhorme, ibid. p. 185.

19 BCH LXXI–II, 148; Payne, , Perachora, 108Google Scholar (a very odd deposit, this); Regling, , Priene 9Google Scholar; Bell, in Sardis, XI Part I, p. v.Google Scholar

20 640 (22).

21 Akurgal's, E.Spaethethitische Bildkunst 39–79Google Scholar, is now indispensable for the study of Hittite lions and their relations west and east.

22 Akurgal ibid.; p. 41, for the ear-wart, and passim for the stylised pattern.

23 For Hittite lions with this feature see Akurgal, ibid. p. 46 Abb. 35, 38, 39; for Greek lions see, for example, the so-called Menekrates (Rodenwaldt, , Korkyra II, 176 ff.Google Scholar) and the lion's head spout from Samos (Buschor, , Altsamischer Standbilder 216Google Scholar).

24 Jacobsthal has an exhaustive study of griffin's knobs in his forthcoming work on Pins. Cf. for the normal form Buschor, , Plastik der Griechen, Pl. 21Google Scholar (Olympia); a very early knob is stylised as a kind of flower (recalling that of Tiamat for which see below) on an early seventh century krater from Samos, (AM 1933 Pl. 2. p. 86)Google Scholar cf. also Larisa II Pl. VIII 18; occasional absence of the bulb may be due to damage (e.g. Ridder, de, Bronzes de l'Acropole, I. 150Google Scholar No. 436); but there are certainly no bulbs on, e.g. a pair belonging to a griffin on an early b.f. lebes (BMC Vases II. 80 B 101, described as a ‘large bird with two crests’); and on the griffins on a bowl from Olympia (IV. Pl. XLIX b); for knobs without stem see the bronze from Delphi (de la Coste-Messelière, Delphes fig. 13)—here perhaps imitating the lion's nose-wart, and paired with a knob of normal form; also later coins of Abdera, (BMC Gk. Coins Thrace 65. Nos. 3–4, etc.).Google Scholar

25 Furtwaengler, s.v. Gryps in Roscher, Lexikon, who, however, derives the knob from the wart on the coins we are discussing: for the excrescence on the monster Tiamat see below. Barnett, (JHS LXVIII 10)Google Scholar has suggested a Hittite origin for the knob, deriving it from the lock of hair occasionally worn by similar monsters (e.g. ‘bird-men’ Akurgal, ibid. p. 80, fig. 52).

26 Hall, , Bab. and Ass. Sculpture in B.M., Pl. XVIII.Google Scholar

27 Ibid. Pl. LIX. Professor Sidney Smith kindly gave me this date.

28 Ibid. Pl. XLVII and Encycl. Photog. (Louvre) II Pl. 7. 8. (I understand from Mr. Gadd that the attribution there given to Sennacherib is incorrect.)

29 Payne, , Necrocorinthia Pl. XV 7–8 and 11Google Scholar (c. 640–25 B.C.).

30 Kunstgeschichte in Bildern II Pl. 54a, Koldewey, , Wiedererstehende Babylon, Abb. 16Google Scholar (whence fig. 3).

31 Encycl. Photog. (Louvre) II 69 No. 22 (here reproduced, fig. 4, by permission of Editions ‘Tel’). I owe the date to the kindness of Professor Frankfort, who tells me that it is not the only motif from Susa which disappears completely to re-emerge a millennium or more later.

32 Hall, ibid. Pl. XXII.

33 Thureau-Dangin, Til-Barsib, Plate LIII; cf. the coin no. 66*.

34 MemAmAc III No. 23 Pl. XVI and AD II 25.

35 Shoulder: on a bronze bowl, Layard, , Nimroud. II 68.Google Scholar Shoulder and cheek, the Bernadini bowl just cited. Paw, , Lazard, Mon. Nin. I. Pl. 3 and 4.Google Scholar

36 Cantor, Helene, ‘Shoulder Ornament on Near Eastern Lions’, J. Near East Studies VI (1947) 250 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, ; Arslan-Tash 70–2.Google Scholar

38 Encycl. Photog. (Louvre) I. 225; Pézard-Pottier, , Ant. de Susiane 60Google Scholar, No. 52.

39 B.M. (recent acquisition).

40 Payne, Necrocorinthia Pl. I, 7 and pp. 67 ff.Google Scholar where the Hittite and Assyrian elements in the type were first distinguished.

41 AM XXIII (1898) Pl. III p. 27; delightful picture in JHS, 1882, Pl. XVIII. Akurgal however (ibid. pp.43 and 56) places this piece in mid-sixth century, and at the same time postulates Achaemenid prototypes for it. This is too difficult for me.

42 Emycl. Photog. (Louvre) II. p. 93, no. 132 (reproduced here, fig. 10, by permission of Editions ‘Tel’ where it is described as Neo-Babylonian. My colleague Mr. Barnett tells me that the second is more likely.

43 Who may be the eponym of Sardis: see the discussion in Roscher, , Lexikon IV. 2. p. 319Google Scholar and P.W. Suppl. III s.v. ‘Herakles’ p. 972.

44 Traité Pl. X for Croesus's lion and bull coinage. Herodotos I. 84, I. 50.

45 Ann. Soc. Fr. Num. IV 173, No. 9, etc.

46 Numismata Orientalta: Coinage of Lydia & Persia, p. 15, corrected in BMC Gk Coins Ionia, p. xvi and Lydia p. xviii.

47 Traité II. 1. pp. 45–54. A fuller discussion was promised in Vol. I. 2, a part which never reached publication.

48 I have heard of them in the plain of Sardis and in the Troad and have myself been offered one at Lycian Patara. No. 66 (B.M. from the Cunningham Coll.) probably came from the East.

49 BMC Gk Coins Lydia 2, No. 5, etc.

50 Six, Num Chron, 1890, p. 202.Google Scholar

51 Cf. Buckler, in JHS XLVI 36Google Scholar and Jongkees, Mnemosyne 1938, p. 25Google Scholar, where all the material is collected.

52 Steph. Byz s.v. quoting from Aristotle Politeiai: F. H. G. (Müller) II. 191. (sic)

53 Götze, A., Mitt. der vorderasiatischen Gesellsch. XXXII (1927, publ. 1928) 40 ff.Google Scholar, the suffix is apparently -ttas not -attas.

54 B.M. Guide to the Coins of the Greeks, Pl. I. 10.

55 Larisa II Taf. 58, first quarter of sixth century.

56 Ephesus 200, fig. 39. Head called our type a griffin, but comparison with this terracotta leaves little doubt of its identity.

57 It is of course possible to cut pieces of metal offa bar or lump and to use them as currency, and some primitive currency was in fact made in this way, e.g. the leaden lumps of the 2nd millennium B.C. from Ashur, (Num. Chron. 1922 pp. 179–80)Google Scholar; but the weight would then be more difficult to regulate, and it was from the cast dump that the earliest coins were developed. The mysterious silver half-shekels of Sargon and Sennacherib, some apparently bearing a head of Ishtar, were also cast, ibid. pp. 177–8 and 182.

58 Cp. Evans, in Corolla Numismatica 365.Google Scholar

59 The touchstone would only record the quality of the envelope.

60 Ephesus 80–1 and 89. For a cock stater still from the same obverse die cp. Naville Sale IV (1922) lot 836.

61 Num Chron, 1912, p. 140 No. 11 (B.M.); another example in the American Num. Soc. (Museum Notes III Pl. II 9). The daimon (for whom cp. the ivory plaque Artemis Orthia Pl. CLX, 2) moves in the conventional archaic scheme, and striations run up to the underside of his outspread arms where they have been sometimes taken for feathers, and the daimon wrongly credited with two pairs of wings. Other striations appear round the outside of the field, and perhaps formed a frame for the upper part of the figure. The flans are too small to show the whole design.

62 E.g. for goat Necrocorinthia No. 539, Pl. 26, 4, aryballos with chimaera, and No. 746 Pl. 24. 2; for cock (with comb swept back) b.f. fragment from the Agora, , Hesperia Suppl. II (1939) 119Google Scholar, B.34, fig. 85; and Necrocorinthia No. 780, Pl. 26. 9.

63 Necrocorinthia No. 158, Pl. 11. 2.

64 Pollux IX. 83.

65 The coinage of Pheidon has recently been treated from this point of view in an excellent article by Brown, Llewellyn in Num. Chron. 1950, pp. 177 ff.Google Scholar, with important conclusions for the early coinage of Corinth also.

66 Not further described or illustrated by Head.