DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4945#0343
332 The Archaic Artemisia oe Ephesus.
but, occurring in so many different places, it rather suggests that the lines were
not copied from any actual perpendicular objects, such as props or fillets.
(c) The lines in certain cases end below in, or rest on, tripod-shaped objects
(pi. lii, nos. 4, 17)—e.g., at Ephesus (Gardner, Types, pi. xv, 4); or in indeterminate
swellings—e.g., Colophon (B.M.C. /0112a, pi. viii, 12)—which have been explained
as "urns," by R. S. Poole. Similar swellings also are shown at the lower end
of the " fillets " on coins of Magnesia (B.M.C. Ionia, pi. xix, 7), and Caesarea-
Mazaca (B.M.C. Galatia, pi. viii, 3) ; but their nature cannot be made out with
any clearness on the specimens in the British Museum. These finials may be
conventionalised tassels (dvaavol); but the best preserved representations do not
favour this interpretation, (d) The lines in question, in certain representations,
are continued above the hands, in such a way that it is clear they were understood
by the engravers of particular dies to be objects of a wand-like nature held by
the figure. On a coin of Pergamum (Commodus) their projection above the
hands is clear (B.M.C. Mysia, pi. xxxiii, 4) ; but there is nothing discernible on
the upper ends of the wands (pi. lii, no. 16). On an alliance coin of Mytilene,
however (B.M.C. Troas, pi. xliii, 4), the cultus-figure, presumably " Artemis " of
the allied Perga, holds dotted wands ending above in finials, which seem rightly
interpreted as the heads respectively of a sceptre and a torch (pi. lii, no. 12).
It seems impossible, therefore, to maintain that in all these instances the
cultus-statues are represented with either fillets pendent from, or props
supporting, the hands. Neither explanation will suit the representations in our
fourth category of coins, and neither satisfactorily interprets those in our
third. The representations in our first category are not in question, "fillets"
being lacking to them altogether; and for the remaining category, the second,
neither explanation is without difficulty. There remain many coin-types in
which the lines in question fall perpendicularly from the hands to the ground,
and do not rise above the hands, i.e., are represented in a manner consistent
with their being interpreted either as fillets or props, or a combination of the
two. In a few of these cases there is no doubt fillets are really intended,
e.g., a coin of Magnesia Mae. (pi. lii, no. 9), which shows double lines
pendent from the wrists of the figure and clearly representing tassel-like
fillets ; and a coin of Pergamum, which shows the lines as composed of
alternate beads and bands, and exactly representing wool-fillets bound at
intervals.1 In only one type, known to me, does it appear strongly probable
that props are intended. This is the Colophonian representation of Artemis
Claria (B.M.C. Ionia, pi. viii, 12), already quoted, where the lines, resting
1 Cj>. also similar representation on a coin of Cyme (B.M.C, Troas, pL xxiii, u).
but, occurring in so many different places, it rather suggests that the lines were
not copied from any actual perpendicular objects, such as props or fillets.
(c) The lines in certain cases end below in, or rest on, tripod-shaped objects
(pi. lii, nos. 4, 17)—e.g., at Ephesus (Gardner, Types, pi. xv, 4); or in indeterminate
swellings—e.g., Colophon (B.M.C. /0112a, pi. viii, 12)—which have been explained
as "urns," by R. S. Poole. Similar swellings also are shown at the lower end
of the " fillets " on coins of Magnesia (B.M.C. Ionia, pi. xix, 7), and Caesarea-
Mazaca (B.M.C. Galatia, pi. viii, 3) ; but their nature cannot be made out with
any clearness on the specimens in the British Museum. These finials may be
conventionalised tassels (dvaavol); but the best preserved representations do not
favour this interpretation, (d) The lines in question, in certain representations,
are continued above the hands, in such a way that it is clear they were understood
by the engravers of particular dies to be objects of a wand-like nature held by
the figure. On a coin of Pergamum (Commodus) their projection above the
hands is clear (B.M.C. Mysia, pi. xxxiii, 4) ; but there is nothing discernible on
the upper ends of the wands (pi. lii, no. 16). On an alliance coin of Mytilene,
however (B.M.C. Troas, pi. xliii, 4), the cultus-figure, presumably " Artemis " of
the allied Perga, holds dotted wands ending above in finials, which seem rightly
interpreted as the heads respectively of a sceptre and a torch (pi. lii, no. 12).
It seems impossible, therefore, to maintain that in all these instances the
cultus-statues are represented with either fillets pendent from, or props
supporting, the hands. Neither explanation will suit the representations in our
fourth category of coins, and neither satisfactorily interprets those in our
third. The representations in our first category are not in question, "fillets"
being lacking to them altogether; and for the remaining category, the second,
neither explanation is without difficulty. There remain many coin-types in
which the lines in question fall perpendicularly from the hands to the ground,
and do not rise above the hands, i.e., are represented in a manner consistent
with their being interpreted either as fillets or props, or a combination of the
two. In a few of these cases there is no doubt fillets are really intended,
e.g., a coin of Magnesia Mae. (pi. lii, no. 9), which shows double lines
pendent from the wrists of the figure and clearly representing tassel-like
fillets ; and a coin of Pergamum, which shows the lines as composed of
alternate beads and bands, and exactly representing wool-fillets bound at
intervals.1 In only one type, known to me, does it appear strongly probable
that props are intended. This is the Colophonian representation of Artemis
Claria (B.M.C. Ionia, pi. viii, 12), already quoted, where the lines, resting
1 Cj>. also similar representation on a coin of Cyme (B.M.C, Troas, pL xxiii, u).