Harvard Divinity School

The Images of Artemis Ephesia and Greco-Roman Worship: A Reconsideration

Author(s): Lynn R. LiDonnici
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 389-415
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510059 .
Accessed: 27/12/2014 05:10

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 technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The hnages of Artemis Ephesia and Greco-
Roman Worship: A ReconsiderationF

LynnR. LiDonnici
TheCollege of Williamand Mary

Tn a recent essay, Nicole Lorauxidentifieda patternof scholarlydepen-

ldence on the origins of a particulardeity for the interpretationof how
humanbeings at various,specific times and places relatedto and used that
figure to meet the needs of their lives.l Shifting social and political con-
ditions, such as the developmentand modificationof the Athenianpolis,
led to changes in people's religious needs and are reflected by modifica-
tions, sometimesradical,in the conceptualization and worshipof theirgods.
Lorauxdiscussed the problemsthat this scholarlyperspectivebroughtto
the study of goddesses in particular,where focus on the origins of many
goddesses in a hypothesizedworshipof a Great Goddess of fertility can
obscureour understanding of the ways in which these figuresmet the needs
of individualsand cities at specific points in antiquity.2

*This study arose from my initial experience at Ephesus as part of the NEH Summer
Seminar for College Teachers, "The Ancient City," Summer 1990. I wish to thank the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities for this opportunity and the seminar directors, Roger
Bagnall and Susan Guettel Cole, for a stimulating and productive seminar. I also thank Sarah
P. Morris, Susan Guettel Cole, and Michelle I. Marcus for careful reading and useful com-
ments on various versions of this paper.
lNicole Loraux, "What is a Goddess?" in Pauline Schmitt Pantel, ed., A Historyof Women,
(trans. Arthur Goldhammer; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 29.
2Ibid., 30-37.

HTR 85:4 (1992) 389-415

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

These observationsare particularlyrelevantfor interpretingthe images

of Artemis Ephesia and the worship that providedtheir living contexts.
Becausethis worshiplastedso long and was transformedmanytimes, along
with the city itself, it may appearthat we have a great deal of evidence
when, in fact, we have meagerevidence spreadout across a millennium.
RichardOster has pointedout that by collapsingthe long durationof the
worshipof ArtemisEphesiainto "one synopticconstruct"we lose the sense
of Artemisas a political goddess intimatelyassociatedwith the historical
and social factors affectingthe city of Ephesusand may therebymiss the
developmentof the goddess which proceeds in tandemwith that of the
city.3 In addition,the tendencyto conflate evidence for this worshipfrom
widely differingtimes andthe introductionof evidencefrom otherreligious
systems can have the effect of masking diversity and making cities and
epochs seem more alike than they actuallywere.
With these problemsin mind, a reexaminationof currenttheoriesabout
the centralimage of the goddess and Ephesianunderstandingsof it over
time is in order.Specifically,it is importantto evaluatemodernideas on
the nature of the image in terms of Ephesianworship, regardedas the
reflectionof religiousneeds generatedby changingtimes. It is also impor-
tant to regardthe worshipof ArtemisEphesiaas a sequenceof moments
in time, ratherthan a rigid continuitywith an "origin"aboutwhich Helle-
nistic and Greco-Romanpeople themselves might have been unawareor
unconcerned.From this perspective,the identificationof ArtemisEphesia
as a multibreastedgoddess, ratherthan being a stumblingblock to our
understandingof this worship,may be a helpful indicatorof a direction
takenby Ephesiansand Ephesianworshipin the laterGreco-Romanperiod.
In the last twentyyears, therehas been much work on the interpretation
and contextualizationof the statues of Artemis Ephesia,both the central
image itself and its numerousrepresentations.4 The images of Ephesian
Artemiswith which we are most familiarreflect the vision of the central
statuefrom the mid-secondcenturyBCE throughRomantimes and beyond.
The numerouscopies or representations of this basic image have been the
subjectof scholarlydispute for many years.

3Richard Oster, "Ephesus as a Religious Center Under the Principate I: Paganism Before
Constantine," ANRW 2. 18/3 ( 1990) 1699.
4The representations have been catalogued most fully by Robert Fleischer in his Artemis
von EphesosundverwandteKultstatuenaus AnatolienundSyrien(EPRO 35; Leiden: Brill,
1973); idem, "Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien,
Supplement," in Sencer Sahin, Elmer Schwertheim, Jorg Wagner, eds., Studienzur Religion
und KulturKleinasiens:Festschriftfur FriedrichKarl Dorner zum65. Geburtstag(EPRO
66; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 1. 324-58 and pls. 111-18.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 391

The general view of most scholarstoday is that what we see in these

representationsof the statue is an underlyingsimple image, possibly an
archaicxoanon, richly adornedwith real clothes, votive objects, and jew-
elry. Accordingto Robert Fleischer, images of this ornate type first ap-
pearedon Ephesiancistophoriccoinageof ca. 159-133 BCE.5 They appeared
in a varietyof shapes,formats,and details and becamemore numerousin
the following years, until the details were eventually"canonized"during
the second centuryCE.
Fleischerand othershave arguedthat the variationsbetweenextant ex-
amplesof the ArtemisEphesiatype, particularly,thoughnot exclusively,in
the adornmentof the chest or midriff area, indicatethat each version was
meantto reflect a single underlyingstatue,whose actual elementsof adorn-
ment were in fact frequentlybeing changed. They regard many of the
characteristicfeaturesof the ArtemisEphesiatype (type of veil/headdress,
animalbands on the torso, etc.) as rooted in the practiceof clothing and
otherwiseadorningextremelyancientcult statuesthroughoutwesternAna-
tolia. These elements of adornmentwere standardizedin Romanimperial
times, resultingin many late representationsthat includedthe adornments
within the fabricof the later representations
themselves.6The objectsclus-
teredin the chest regions of the preservedexamples,therefore,represented
this adornmentand not multiple"breasts"thatwere partof the fabricof the
originalcentralstatue.Threepoints interactto supportthis argument:(1) A
numberof examplesamongthe preservedrepresentations are constructedof
two materials,so that the head and hands of the statues are much darker
thanthe rest of the body, presumablyto acknowledgea darkwoodenstatue
underneathall the adornment.In these examples,the "breasts"are not of
the darkermaterial(fig. 1).7 (2) This motif of chest area adornmentis
found on the religious statues of other cities in Hellenistic and Greco-
RomanAnatolia,both independentof and priorto its appearancein asso-
ciationwith EphesianArtemis.The chief exampleof this is a fourth-century

sThe cistophori before 134/33, however, are undated; see Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos,
39 and pl. 51b; Fred S. Kleiner, "The Dated Cistophori of Ephesos," American Numismatic
Society Museum Notes 18 (1972) 17-32 and pls. 11-15.
6Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos, 393-95; Irene Bald Romano, "Early Greek Cult Images
and Cult Practices," in Robin Hagg, Nanno Marinatos, and Gullog C. Nordquist, eds., Early
Greek Cult Practice (Skrifter Utgvina av Svenska Institutet i Athen,4.38; Stockholm: Svenska
Institutet i Athens, 1988) 127-33; idem, "Early Greek Cult Images" (Ph.D. diss., University
of Pennsylvania, 1980) 241-45; Charles Seltman, "The Wardrobe of Artemis," Numismatic
Chronicle, 6th ser., 12 (1952) 33-44.
7Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos, 8-9 and pl. 11.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
392 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

BCE votive relief of Zeus of Labraunda (figs. 2 and 3).8 Fleischerargued

that since this motif appearsfirst in associationwith anotherdeity, it can-
not have representedsomethingintrinsicto the centralimage of Ephesian
Artemisbut ratherreflecteda style of adornmentfor Anatoliancult statues
that becameincreasinglypopularthroughoutthe Hellenisticperioduntil it
was eventuallyadoptedby the Ephesians.(3) The majorityof the examples
lack nipples.9
Argumentsthat reject the idea that the statue actually representeda
multibreastedgoddess must accountfor the referencesto a multibreasted
Artemis that appearin the third- and fourth-century CE authorsMinucius
Felix and Jerome.l°Both of these referencesoccur in contextsthat suggest
generalknowledgeof this identificationon the partof theirreaders.llThese
references,however, are usually dismissed either as Christianpolemic or
misunderstanding or as being too late to be helpful.l2

8Ibid., 311 and pl. 138. Fleischer's point here is that it is the rigid, draped, and columnar
type of cult statue that was extremely widespread in Hellenistic Anatolia and that within this
category, the motif of chest area adornment does occasionally appear in association with
other divinities.
9Three examples from Fleischer's catalog do have nipples, but these examples do not
appear in his plates; ibid., E 6, E 35, E 61.
l°Minucius Felix Octavius 22.5 (ca. 220 CE); Jerome Commentariorum in epistolam ad
Ephesios proem (PL 26. 441) (387 CE).
llJerome refers to Minucius Felix five times (De viris illustribus 58; Epistulae 49.13;
60.10; 70.5; Comm. in Isa. praefatio 8), and so may have gotten the identification as breasts
from that source. On the other hand, Jerome's transliteratedcitation of a Greek term,polumaston,
in an otherwise Latin document may indicate that he found this identification in some Greek
source and therefore not in Minucius Felix or at least not directly. The context of the claim
in Minucius Felix is a systematic exposition of how Greek philosophers are in harmony with
the Christian point of view, followed by an extended attack on popular religion, which does
not even measure up to its own philosophical tradition. Unlike Jerome, Minucius Felix did
not make any particular attack on the moral character of Artemis Ephesia; rather, his argu-
ment is that the multiple iconographic modes available for Artemis (huntress, Ephesian-type,
guardian of the crossroads) indicates for Octavius the lack of a real referent for all these
symbols. In an argument of this type, it is clearly desirable to discuss the most extreme
examples, but to depart from general understandings of these examples would undercut the
apologetic and almost forensic tone of the work. This would be especially true if the text was
intended to redress the lack of elegantly styled Christian literature in the early third century
CE, as G. W. Clarke has suggested (The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix [ACW 39; New
York: Newman, 1974] 12-32).
l2Oster, "Ephesus as a Religious Center," 1725; Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos, 75;
Seltman, "Wardrobe,"41; Jerome's comment is dated to 387 CE, after the Gothic destruction
of the Artemision in 265 CE. It is possible that after 265 people's ideas of Artemis Ephesia
and Ephesian worship were based solely on the representations, rather than the actual central
statue.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 393

Scholars have proposed several interpretationsof these objects in the

chest area.l3Althoughthese explanationsare too numerousto discuss here,
it would be interestingto analyzethem in terms of the historyof scholar-
ship. In our own time, GerardSeiterle has contributedthe theory that the
objects reflect the practiceof adorningthe centralimage with the severed
scrotalsacs of sacrificialbulls.l4This theoryhas attainedsurprisinglywide
acceptancein populartreatmentslsand apparentlyalso by WalterBurkert,l6
but much of the reasoningbehind it appearsweak, as Fleischerhas dem-
onstrated.l7This theory,however,resonateswith currentacademicdiscourse
on the natureand originof religion,notablywith the workof ReneGirard.l8
In addition,the theory'sradical"masculinization" of the symbolsof Artemis
Ephesiamay reflect twentieth-century Westernconstructionsof genderthat
tend to identifythe categories"power"and "virility"with each other.These
elementsof our own society may explainthe astonishinglyrapidand wide-
spreaddisseminationof Seiterle'sinterpretation,despite the small support
on which it rests. I shall argue below that these and other symbolic and
ideologicaldifferencesbetweenthe Greco-RomanEphesiansand ourselves,
especiallythose involvinggender,power,and £pC05 ("desire"),need careful
interpretationif we are to attemptto understandsymbolsfrom antiquityon
their own terms.

l3Fleischer (Artemis von Ephesos, 75-88) gives a comprehensive overview of the many
and various hypotheses, to which we should now add that of W. Helck, "Zur Gestalt der
ephesischen Artemis," Archaologischer Anzeiger99 (1984) 281-82. Helck understands the
chest area items as a development from a panther-skin neckcloth seen on a figurine from
(:atal Huyuk.
l4GerardSeiterle, "Artemis Die Grosse Gottin von Ephesos," AntikeWelt 10 (1979) 3-
16. The theory was first presented at the 11th International Congress for Classical Archae-
ology, London, September 1978. According to Fleischer, Seiterle at that time presented not
only his theory, but a model on which actual bull scrota were fastened. See Robert Fleischer,
"Neues zu kleinasiatischen Kultstatuen,"Archbologischer Anzeiger98 (1983) 81-93. Seiterle's
later publication of the theory, cited above, was provisional, and the promised "scientific
version" (p. 16) has still not appeared.
lsSee, for example, The Director and the Researchers of the Ephesus-Museum, Ephesus
MuseumCatalogue(Istanbul: Hitit Color, 1989) 113.
l6Walter Burkert, Structureand History in GreekMythologyand Ritual (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1979) 130. Burkert, however, does not elaborate on the theory or
analyze it in detail.
l7The theory is thoroughly critiqued and rejected by Fleischer ("Neues zu kleinasiatischen
Kultstatuen," 81-93).
l8Rene Girard,Violenceand the Sacred(trans. Patrick Gregory; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1977); Walter Burkert, HomoNecans: TheAnthropologyof AncientGreek
Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (trans. Peter Bing; Berkeley: University of California Press,
1983).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
394 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

As Oster has clearly shown, the primaryfunction of Artemis Ephesia

was the protectionand sustenanceof the city of Ephesusand the people in
it.l9 This relationshipbetween goddess and city, far from being unique,
closely resemblesthe religious situationsof many of the cities of Greece
and Anatolia,notablythe relationshipbetweenAthenaand Athens.20Votive
and political inscriptionsconnect the goddess with all aspects of city life,
includingcuresfromdisease,extensionsof credit,protectionof the ephebes,
and citizenshipdecrees.2lThe goddess of Ephesusacted in the realm of
history22as a potent symbol whose involvementwith people and events
may reflect attemptsto understandnew and shifting political realities. A
majorEphesianprocessionalfestival in the Greco-Romanperiodstructured
its route so as to encompassa series of monumentsthat recapitulatedthe
city's historyand joined it to the historyof the goddess.23Treatyrelation-
ships betweenEphesusand othercities were commemorated in coinageand
sculptureby the depictionof the centralimages of the two cities in rela-
tionship, even as shaking hands.24In these representations,the statue of

l9Oster, "Ephesus as a Religious Center," 1700-1706. A great goddess was, however,

worshiped on the Artemision site well before the foundation of the city of Ephesus and the
adoption of the goddess by a particular political system. The identity of this early inhabitant
is unclear, as it was to the Greco-Roman Ephesians themselves; for the present purpose we
can say that the specific personality, "Artemis Ephesia," begins with Ephesus. For a recent
survey of issues relating to the archaic Artemision, see Christopher Simon, "The Archaic
Votive Offerings and Cults of Ionia" (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1986)
27-53.
20On the political dimension of tutelary goddesses and the interpretative problems that
they have posed for Western scholarship, see Loraux, "What is a Goddess?" 11-45. A helpful
discussion of the relationship between Athena and Athens is C. J. Herington, AthenaParthenos
and AthenaPolias: A Studyin the Religion of Periclean Athens (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1955); and now also Jenifer Neils, Goddessand Polis: The Panathenaic
Festival in AncientAthens(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).
2lThe vast majority of the over one thousand inscriptions, public and private, published
in the eight volumes of Die Inschriftenvon Ephesos (Inschriften Griechischer Stadte aus
Kleinasien 11-17; Bonn: Habelt, 1979-84) involve the goddess and reflect these roles.
22There is little indication of universalizing trends in this worship before the Greco-
Roman period. The main element that could be considered universalizing is the "mystery"
mentioned in Strabo Geographia14.1.20. There is little warrant for assigning a major fertil-
ity function to this goddess, other than a peripheral one; obviously, a good harvest is good
for the state.
23Asindicated by the Salutaris inscription, InschriftenvonEphesos,la.27; see Guy MacLean
Rogers, TheSacredIdentityof Ephesos:FoundationMythsof a RomanCity(London: Routledge,
1991).
24Homonoia with Alexandria (relief with Artemis Ephesia and Sarapis, Ephesus Museum,
no. 457; Fleischer, ArtemisvonEphesos,pl. 41a-b); homonoia with Sardis (coin with Artemis
Ephesia and Artemis of Sardis; Fleischer, Artemisvon Ephesos, pl. 79a); others in Oster,
"Ephesos as a Religious Center," 1700-1701 and nn. 308-9.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 395

ArtemisEphesia standsas a centralsymbol for the goddess, the city, and

the people.25
Ephesianmyths also wove the history of the people togetherwith that
of the centralimage;26apartfrom the goddess'sbirthin EphesianOrtygia,
actions by her or events in her biographyappearto have been regardedas
only equalin importanceto events involvingthis image.27The £iKC0V("im-

25Oneiconographicelement that often indicatessuch a relationshipis the muralcrown.

In the case of ArtemisEphesia,however,the muralcrown is not really a typical elementin
the stone copies of the statue,althoughit is somewhatmore frequenton coins. While there
are severalexamplesof representationswith this element,most notablythe Naples example
(Fleischer,Artemis von Ephesos, E 24, pl. 11), all of these with one exception (now lost:
Fleischer,Artemis von Ephesos, E 66) are restorations;see Fleischer,Artemis von Ephesos,
51-52; Seltman,"Wardrobe," 40. ArtemisEphesiamost often wearsa simplepolos andveil,
a largebasket(KakaOo5),or a replicaof a shrineor temple.These templecrownsmay have
political resonanceif, as Seltmansuggests (p. 40), they referto the neocoratetemplesof the
emperorandRomeat Ephesusor to the city's wealth,keptin the treasuriesof the Artemision.
Fleischerbelieves (Artemis von Ephesos, 58) thatthe appearanceof the muralcrownon coins
and on E 66, a statuetteof the first centuryCE,indicatethat a muralcrown was an element
of the central image's adornmentthroughTrajanicand Hadrianictimes. If this is so, its
disappearancein the later RomanEmpiremay be a furtherreflectionof the erosion of the
political dimensionof the Ephesians'understandingof their goddess and its corresponding
universalization;see below, 405-8.
26Formythsof originof the sanctuary,see CallimachusHymnus in Dianam 237-40, 248-
50: "For thee, too, the Amazons, whose mind is set on war, in Ephesus beside the sea
establishedan image (5pexa5) beneathan oak trunk,and Hippo performeda holy rite for
thee, and they themselves, O Upis Queen, aroundthe image danceda war-dance.... And
afterwardaroundthat image was raised a shrineof broadfoundations.Thanit shall Dawn
behold nothing more divine, naughtricher. Easily would it outdo Pytho."This passage is
particularlyinterestingwhen placed in the context of the full hymn,which everywhereelse
discusses the actions of the goddess in foundingsanctuariesand rituals;only here does it
stress the image as the foundationalelement. Accordingto PausaniasDescriptio Graeciae
7.2.6, Pindaralso regardedthe Amazonsas the foundersof the sanctuary,althoughPausanias
does not mentionwhetherPindarstresses the foundationalrole played by the image.
27Thewidely acceptedclaim that Ephesiansthoughttheir image had fallen from heaven
actuallyappearsin only one source,namely,the famousriot scene in Acts 19:35.No epithets
of Artemisor myths dealing with the statuereflect such a belief. While this was, as Walter
Burkertpointsout (Greek Religion [trans.JohnRaffan;Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press, 1985] 91 n. 84), a frequentlyheld belief aboutancientxoana, thereis no othermention
of such a belief for Ephesus.Seltmanproposed("TheWardrobeof Artemis,"33-51) a read-
ing of Acts 19:35 that associated the phrase Kai xou 6tosexous ("and the Zeus-fallen
thing")not with the cult statuebut with some small, additionalobject, perhapsa neolithic
artifact,whichwas also sacredandhousedin the temple.Seltmanregardedthe temple-shaped
headgearof severalimagesof ArtemisEphesiaas representationsof a small shrine(replicas
of which were madeby the silversmithDemetrios)in which such an objectwouldbe housed.
This is an interestingpossibility, especially since it explainsthe mysteriouschangeto mas-
culine genderfor adjectivesmodifyingils eyaBlls 'Apetbos ("thegreatArtemis").I

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
396 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

age")of Artemiswas an importantfocal point of Ephesianself-understand-

ing; its fortunes, appearances,and modificationsparalleledthose of the
polis itself.
The iconographicdevelopmentsin the images of ArtemisEphesiathat
resultedin what was later called her "multibreasted" form are first attested
in coinage of the second centuryBCE, but the transformationis actually
gradual.If we comparecoins, gems, and sculpturesthat Fleischerconsid-
ered to be early, we see thatthe objectsin the chest areaare morerounded
and can sit so low on the figure as to suggest more of a stomachoInament
than a pectoral (fig. 4).28 Study both of Fleischer'scatalog and of the
earlier one by HermannThiersch,29however, indicatesa trend over time
towarditems thatmoreclosely resemblerealistichumanbreastson some of
the statuesthat are of a later date. One importantexample from the first
centuryCE iS the large,prominentlydisplayed,andprobablyofficially sanc-
tioned "GreatArtemis"(fig. 5).3° This statue, along with the "Beautiful
Artemis"(fig. 6)31is thoughtto have stoodin the middleof KuretesStreet,32
on the Ephesianprocessionalroute, outside of the Prytaneion.33 This is an

do not dismiss the possiblity that first-century Ephesians may have believed that their statue
fell to earth; the idea must, however, be placed side by side with Pliny's source, Mucianus,
who seems quite comfortable with the idea that it was created by a great sculptor in the fifth
century BCE. I think that we should take into account the literary program of Acts, which is
interested in setting up a dichotomy between all cult statues, "gods made by human hands,"
and its portrayal of Paul as anti-iconic, as also in Acts 17:16 and 24. If so, the author of Acts
could easily conflate various claims about cult statues into a single example for rhetorical
purposes; Ephesus is the perfect setting for such a debate since its central image was not only
pervasive, but very important in its own right.
28This is especially clear in Fleischer, Artemisvon Ephesos, E 58, pl. 33. Fleischer's
argument relies heavily on this particular statue, which he regards as the earliest of the
freestanding figures.
29HermannThiersch, ArtemisEphesia:Eine archaologischeUntersuchung (Abhandlungen
der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3.12;
Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1935).
30Ephesus Museum no. 712; Fleischer, ArtemisvonEphesos,E 45, pls. 12-17. "Realism,"
however, is a subjective category, and Fleischer does not regard the chest area items of this
particular statue as being any more realistic than those of E 58, because they are flabby and
drooping; see below, p. 411 n. 89.
3lEphesus Museum no. 718; Fleischer, Artemisvon Ephesos,E 46, pls. 18-23 and fron-
tispiece. The value judgments reflected by these names are emblematic of some of the prob-
lems discussed below, p. 411 n. 89.
32Both statues, at any rate, were found in that location; Franz Miltner, "Ergebnisse der
osterreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1955," Anzeigerderphilologisch-histori-
schen Klasse der osterreichischenAkademieder Wissenschaften94 (1957) 13-25.
33The Prytaneion was the headquarters of the priests of the Kuretes who, in addition to
many civic functions, were in charge of several rites for Artemis Ephesia, including the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 397

importantindicationthat the transformativetrendis local to Ephesus,and

not solely an elementof the exportedversionsof the goddess. If Fleischer
is correctthat the early representationsof the elaboratedArtemisEphesia
representednot actual breasts but a pectoralgarmentthat was misunder-
stood (perhapsdeliberately)by Christianauthors,then two factorsneed to
be explained:(1) the adoptionof the motif in representationsin Ephesus
appearingin the second centuryBCE, and (2) the trendtowardincreasingly
realisticallybreastlikeobjects on the statues, which either led to or lent
themselvesto the referencesby MinuciusFelix and Jerome.Both of these
factors, in my view, make the most sense in the context of Ephesianpo-
litical religion and the historical situationat two tutning points for the
Ephesianstate:34first, the catastrophicfire of 356 BCE, followed closely by
the establishmentof the Hellenisticempires;and second,the growinginflu-
ence of Rome in the second centuryBCE and the establishmentin 133 BCE
of direct Romancontrol of the region.

E of e Moff
Adoption
It is clear that a great goddess was worshippedon the Artemisionsite,
probablyas early as the eighth centuryBCE. Architecturaltraces indicate
"mysteries" mentioned in Strabo Geographia14.1.20; see also Josef Keil, "Kulte im Prytaneion
von Ephesos," in W. M. Calder and Josef Keil, eds., AnatolianStudiesPresentedto William
HepburnBuckler(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1939) 1 19-28.
34Thereare two hundred years between both the appearance of the complicated chest area
motif in association with Zeus Labraundos and the assumed practice of this type of adorn-
ment for Artemis Ephesia, and the beginnings of the use of the "complicated Artemis" as the
Ephesian city symbol on coins. I would argue that both changes are significant and reflect
major changes in both eras: in the fourth century BCE, Alexander's conquest of the Persians
and the devastating Herostratos fire; and in the latter half of the second century BCE, the
growing influence of Rome in Anatolian affairs, capped off by the transfer in 133 BCE of all
Pergamene territory to Rome in the Testament of Attalos. It is important, however, to remem-
ber that the second-century evidence itself is the only real indicator of changes for Artemis
Ephesia in the fourth century, and it requires us to use the same evidence for two separate
things. Since she was a city goddess, however, we should look for changes in worship and
understanding in the religion of Ephesian Artemis at precisely those moments at which the
city itself was experiencing change. For the latter half of the second century BCE, we have
both "halves": the changeover to Roman rule and the appearance of the central image as the
city symbol on coins. I think that I am justified both in proposing a strong relationship
between these two and in suggesting this use of the symbol as a response to the potential loss
of identity that resulted from being overwhelmed by the Roman Empire. For the fourth
century BCE, we also have a situation of massive change, but it is only by analogy to (1) the
use of the motif generally in Hellenistic Anatolia and (2) its ultimate appearance on coins in
the latter half of the second century that we can propose a hypothesis of religious and/or
iconographic changes at this time. Many anomalies in the evidence relating to the appearance
of Artemis Ephesia over time, however, are explained best by a change of statue or the
statue's appearance in the early Hellenistic period.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
398 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that this worshipinvolved an image of some type,35and several figurines

found in associated deposits may attest to the appearanceof this early
statue. Althoughthere is argumentover which figurinesrepresentpriest-
esses and which the centralimage,36none has the chest motif typical later
to ArtemisEphesia.It is likely that the early image was a typical archaic
plank-likewooden xoanon.
In the sixth century, accordingto the Roman source Mucianus(pre-
servedin Pliny),37the sculptorEndoioscarveda new cult statue.Endoios's
work is known from Athens and elsewhere;he seems to have been active
in the secondhalf of the sixth centuryscE.38If Mucianusis reliable,39this

35Underneath the later monumental altar are remains of a seventh-century BCE eschara
(monumental statue base), a temple and altar (the "Hekatompedos") with associated animal
bones and pottery sherds, as well as ivory fragments and a small Daedalic terracotta figurine.
Remains of an eighth-century apsidal building have also been found, as well as an eschara
or cult statue base and an associated ramp that all date to the sixth century BCE; see Anton
Bammer, "Recent Excavations at the Altar of Artemis in Ephesos," Archaeology27 (1974)
202-5; a more recent survey is idem, "Forschungen im Artemision von Ephesos von 1976 bis
1981," AnatolianStudies 32 (1982) 61-87; see also Romano, "Early Greek Cult Images,"
241; and the survey of preclassical finds in Simon, "Archaic Votive Offerings," 27-53.
36Thegold, ivory, and electrum figurines are discussed by Simon, "Archaic Votive Offer-
ings," 44 nn. 15-18. It is also possible that none of these figurines represents the central
image; none of them has the outstretched arms that are generally agreed to be a feature of
even the early versions of the Ephesian goddess. There is, however, a small terracotta figu-
rine (Ephesus Museum, Selc,uk no. 20/56/73) that has its arms bent at the elbows and ap-
proaching each other across the torso of the statue; this might be an effective way of rendering
outstretched arms in the small-scale terracotta votive. This figurine also suggests the later
versions of the statue in its headgear; see Bammer, "Recent Excavations," 202-5.
37Pliny list. nat. 16.79.213-16. Pliny says that Mucianus was consul three times; he is
probably to be identified as Gaius Licinius Mucianus, consul in 65, 70, and 72 CE. He would
therefore be a nearly contemporary source for Naturalishistoria,which was published in 77
CE.
38Endoios is mentioned several times in Pausanias, and the name appears in four Attic
inscriptions of the late sixth century BCE. For a full discussion of the construction and
appearanceof this image, see Romano, "EarlyGreek Cult Images," 23649. The name "Endoios"
in the passage from Pliny is, according to Simon ("Archaic Votive Offerings," 47 n. 45), a
restoration based on a corrupt manuscript text. For the present purpose, however, what is
important is not the name of the sculptor but the fact of the Ephesians' memory that the image
was sculpted by a particular individual in the sixth century.
39Pliny was surprised by several elements of Mucianus's description of Artemis Ephesia.
Mucianus claimed that the statue was made of grapevine wood, while Pliny stated that "all
the other writers" said it was of ebony. Mucianus said that the sculptor was Endoios (or
someone) and that the statue had remained the same through seven restorations of the temple.
Pliny was surprised at the identification of the sculptor, since, whether the text reads "Endoios"
or not, whoever it is is too recent, in his view, to have sculpted a statue to which Mucianus
assigned "an antiquity that makes it older than not only Father Liber but Minerva also" (Pliny

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 399

indicatesthat the new statue was made to accompanythe Kroisos temple,

underconstructionaround560 BCE. This may also be the time of burialof
the famousArtemisiondeposit;40if so, the presencein this depositof some
of the figurinesdiscussed above may also indicate that there was a new
statue at this time.4l No sources discuss an earlierstatue,and there is no
indicationthattherewere two statuesin historicaltimes.42It is very likely,
therefore,thatthe sixth-centurystatuereplacedan earlierone thatsomehow
had been lost.43
Several coins, minted by Lucius Hostilius Sasernain the first century
BCE, may bearwitness to the generalappearance of the Endoiosstatue(fig.
7).44Thesecoins representthe centralimageof ArtemisMassaliotike,which,
accordingto Strabo,4swas a copy (atiApl)a) broughtfromEphesusat the
foundationof Massilia,46at approximatelythe same time as the Endoios

list. nat. 16.79.214). This great antiquity must somehow correspond to the seven restora-
tions, which Mucianus seems to have projected back before Endoios, thus causing Pliny's
surprise. Archaeology indicates traces of at least three temples preceding the Kroisos temple;
see Simon, "Archaic Votive Offerings," 30. It is also possible that "remained the same"
means "kept the same form," not "was the same statue," and that this was either misunder-
stood or exaggerated by Mucianus. Since it is unlikely that the statue from the era of Endoios
survived the conflagration of 356 (see below), I think that this is the most likely interpreta-
tion of the passage. Pliny was also surprised that the statue, which was small, had any joints.
The joints, however, are necessitated by the statue's outstretched arms.
40This dating is the subject of continuing debate; see the survey of arguments up to 1986
in Simon, "Archaic Votive Offerings," 27-35, and now also Anton Bammer, "A Peripetos of
the Geometric Period in the Artemision of Ephesos" Anatolian Studies 40 (1990) 137-60.
4lIf any of the figurines represent the statue, their lack of outstretched arms may reflect
the adoption of a new central image with this motif, leading to the burial of these now "old-
fashioned" votives. Fleischer, however, argues (Artemis von Ephesos, 127) that Endoios's
statue was a "faithful copy" of whatever statue had been there before.
42Thereis such an indication, for example, for Hera of Samos; see Romano, "Early Greek
Cult Images," 245 n. 41.
43The sixth-century statue may have been the first image on the site; this is, however,
unlikely; see n. 36, above,
440n the Saserna coins, see Seltman, "The Wardrobe of Artemis," 34-36 and pl. 5, nos.
2 and 11.
45Strabo Geographia 4.1.4.
46Massilia was founded by Phocaeans originally in 600 BCE, but there was an extensive
second wave of colonists who came after the destruction of Phocis by the Persians in 540. It
is therefore unclear which of these waves brought the image of Artemis. In the battles of 540,
Ephesus, though conquered, escaped serious damage; this event would certainly be attributed
to the goddess, making her image a powerful if bittersweet focal point for the second wave
of colonists. This view is suggested by Irad Malkin, "Missionaires pa-iens dans la Gaule
grecque," in idem, La France et la Afediterranee (Leiden: Brill, 1990) 42-52; see also idem,
Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden: Brill, 1987) 69-72.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
400 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

statuewas being carved.47If this statueis the same one as that picturedin
the Sasernacoins, and if ArtemisMassaliotikewas in fact a faithfulrep-
resentationof the statueof ArtemisEphesiain the sixth centuryscE,48then
these coins are evidence of the appearanceof the Ephesiancentralimage
beforethe Greco-Romanperiod.The statuein the coins has the outstretched
armsbent at the elbows, the columnliketorso, the fillets and stag, and the
draping,all of whichare characteristicof ArtemisEphesia.Like the archaic
figurines,however,it does not have the ornatechest area treatment.From
this absence it is argued that the Ephesian statue from which Artemis
Massaliotikewas copied lacked this featureboth at this time49and at any
point in the Greco-Romanperiod since, as Mucianusclaimed, the same
statue was the center of worshipin his day.
The proposition that the Endoios statue was still the tenant of the
Artemisionin Mucianus'stime needs to be reexaminedalongsidethe great
catastrophethat,for Ephesus,usheredin and prefiguredthe Hellenisticage.
One night in 356 BCE (Plutarchidentifiesthe very night as the birthdateof
Alexander50),the Artemisionwas destroyedin a great fire, caused by a
certain Herostratos.5lThe temple built by Kroisos burnedto the ground,
necessitatinga buildingreconstructionprogramthat took over a hundred
yearsto complete.52We need to considerseriouslywhethera small, wooden
statue, alreadytwo hundredyears old at this point and well seasonedby
regularapplicationsof nard,53could have survivedthis conflagration.

47Seltman suggests that Endoios himself may have also carved the copy ("The Wardrobe
of Artemis," 34, with other examples in n. 15).
48Strabo'saccount (Geographia 4.1.4) suggests that the atibpvRa was already in exist-
ence when these events occurred, indicating the possibility of multiple "copies" or, rather,
versions for different applications. This was the case in 104 CE, judging from the multiple
images described in the Salutaris inscription, Inschriften von Ephesos, la.27.
49Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos, 127.
50PlutarchAlex. 3.3-5 .
slAelian Nat. an. 6.40; Solinus 40.24; Strabo Geographia 14.1.22; according to Der
kleine Pauly 2 (1979) s.v. Herostratos, these three authorities get the name from Theopompus,
the only historian to record it. According to Lucian (Pergr. mort. 22), Herostratos was trying
to make a name for himself. While we may question his method, we must note his success
if this characterization is accurate. This claim is also reported in Valerius Maximus (Factorum
et dictorum memorabilium libri 8.14.5), where it is cited as the rationale for the ban on
Herostratos's name; a fit punishment for someone trying to make his name known; other
references can be found in Richard C. Kukula, "LiterarischeZeugnisse uber den Artemistempel,"
Forschungen in Ephesos (12 vols.; Vienna: Holder, 1906-90) 1. 237-77.
52Pliny Ilist. nat. 16.74.
53Mucianus describes the statue as wood and mentions that it was rubbed periodically
with oil of nard to prevent shrinkage and warping (Pliny Ilist. nat. 16.79.215). Even if
Mucianus is unreliable, most wooden statues were regularly either oiled or moistened, de-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 401

It may be possible to judge the extent of the loss in the Herostratosfire

by the reactionsto it. One response,althoughobviouslynot an immediate
one if Plutarch'schronology is correct, was the attitude taken by the
Ephesiansto the process of rebuildingthe temple. In additionto the great
elaborationand magnificenceof the new building,Straboreportedthat the
templereconstructionprojectwas begun with privatefunds raisedfrom the
personalornamentsof individualEphesians,both women and men.54The
privatedimensionof the sponsorshipof the buildingwas still a sensitive
issue thirty years later when Alexanderthe Great offered to pay all the
expenses for the continuing restorationproject but was politely turned
down.55Ephesuswantedto finance and controlits own religiouscomplex.
These attitudestowardthe building project and the fire are delicately
relatedto the tense religiousand political situationof Ephesusin the years
before 356 and immediatelyfollowing duringthe conquestsof Alexander.
AlthoughEphesusfared relativelywell underPersianrule, it experienced
foreign dominationboth in the political and the religious spheres,with the
presenceof Persianofficials in the city, Sardianappropriation of Ephesian
religious artifacts,and the need for Persian priests to be accommodated
diplomaticallywithin the worship of Artemis Ephesia.56The subsequent
rejection of Alexander'soffer may be seen as a reflection of the proud
independencethat followed the loss of the temple built by the original
conqueror,Kroisos, through whose downfall Persian domination came

pending on the climate. Xenophon (An. 5.3.12) describes the statue as gold, but this is usually
interpreted as gilding over a wooden core.
54Strabo Geographia 14.1.22.
s5Ibid. This reaction, however, is also not unique to Ephesus. A similar public fundraising
program attended the restoration of the Athenian Acropolis, with the addition of the Parthenon,
after the Persian destruction; Pericles' offer to pay for the building was similarly rebuffed
(Plutarch Pericl. 14). If we are not simply seeing contaminated mythic traditions about hero-
kings here, then both instances involving city deities testify to the desire of the collective of
individuals to sponsor the honors for their protective gods.
56I interpret the Megabyzos priest as an addition in the Persian era to the Artemision
clergy and as representative of religious diplomacy between Sardis, the ruling city, and
Ephesus, the ruled, although favored, subject. I also read the famous Ephesian death sentence
inscription, Inschriften von Ephesos, la.2, as symptomatic of the disruption of this diplo-
matic-religious relationship upon the end of Persian rule and the beginning of the Hellenistic
empires; the sanctuary of Artemis Ephesia in Sardis may even represent the holding "hos-
tage" of an important Ephesian religious object or image, the removal of which sparked the
"outrage"punished by the inscription; see my article, "The Megabyzos Priesthood and Ephesian-
Sardian Religious Diplomacy" (in process); for a recent discussion of the death sentence, see
George M. A. Hanfmann, "The Sacrilege Inscription: The Ethnic, Linguistic, Social and
Religious Situation at Sardis at the End of the Persian Era," Bulletin of the Asia Institute 1
(1987) 1-8.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
402 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

about.57The great magnificenceof the new precinct,at least technically

created and paid for by the Ephesiansthemselves,58may have been in-
tendedto reestablishthe identityof the city and erase the sense of vulner-
ability broughtabout by the twin calamitiesof Persianrule and the fire.
Plutarch'sassociationof the fire with the night of the birthof Alexander
shows how these political power shifts were understoodas closely related
to the loss of the Artemisionin 356. The rebuildingprojectrenewedthe
internalstructureof the city59at the same time as buildings were being
replaced;healing took place on both fronts, with the new Hellenisticem-
pire playinga role in both. No religiousmemoryof the involvementof the
goddessor her image in these significantchangesexists, however.Thereis
no tale of either miraculouspreservationor heroic rescue of the central
image from the burningbuilding,nor, as far as I can see, a ritualrecollec-
tion of such a rescue. This strangesilence from a city that was otherwise
so focused on its centralimage, togetherwith the ban on any discussionof
Herostratosratherthanthe elaboratedtales of his wickednessthatwe might
expect, indicatea severe traumafor Ephesianself-understanding. The re-
sponse was denial the deliberateerasurefrom public memoryof the vul-
nerabilityof the goddess, and by extension,the city. If this was the case,
the high level of traumashoulddirect our attentionto the possible conse-
quences of this fire for the centralimage itself.
The contentionthat the statuefrom the era of Endoios was lost in this
fire is consistentwith both the images in Fleischer'scatalogand his obser-
vations. Fleischerhas pointed out that the typical ArtemisEphesiaimage
representsa style of ornamentationthat was widespreadthroughoutthe
cities of Hellenisticand RomanAnatoliaand thatthe chest detailsin ques-
tion are also part of this widespreadstyle, appearingon cult statues for
many other gods.60Furthermore, for some reasonthis style of ornamenta-

57Forprotection against the the invading Kroisos the Ephesians dedicated their entire city
to Artemis by physically tying the city to the sanctuary with rope (Herodotus Ilistoriae 1.26).
58Strabo Geographia 14.1.22. This seems to have been an important element for the
Ephesians, but one which occasionally needed to be defended, since Strabo is at pains to
correct rumors that Ephesus had appropriated funds on deposit at the Artemision and diverted
them into the building project. The funds in question would have been huge. The Artemision
had always functioned as a bank, but after his conquest Alexander directed all tribute previ-
ously paid to the Persian Empire to be held on deposit at the Artemision (Arrian Anabasis
1.17.10).
59Thechangeover from Persian to Greek dominance was accompanied by political infight-
ing within Ephesus itself; see Winfried Elliger, Ephesos: Geschichte einerantiken Weltstadt
(Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 1975) esp. 45-48.
60Fleischer is extremely comprehensive here, providing catalogs, plates, and discussion of
these other statues as well (Artemis von Ephesos, 137-385); see also idem, "Artemis Ephesia

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 403

tion beganto be appliedto ArtemisEphesiain the Hellenisticperiod.Icono-

graphicchange is often a reflectionof religious or politicalchange, so the
question remainswhy the Ephesianseither adoptedthis way of adorning
their statue (ritualchange), reflectedin these later images, or the practice
of representingthe imagein this form(iconographicchange).If the Ephesian
statue was replacedat the beginning of the Hellenistic period, however,
severalpuzzlingelementsbegin to fall into place. The detailsof scale (less
than life-size), position of the statue (an upright,rigid lower body and
outstretchedarms), and material(wood) were probablydictatedby tradi-
tion; for whateverreason these details were preserved.Beyond these re-
quirements,however,it shouldnot be surprisingto find the fourth-century
sculptorusing the contemporaryiconographiclanguageof Anatoliawhich,
as Fleischerhas admirablydemonstrated,includedthis complicatedchest
areamotif.6 It appears,therefore,that the Endoiosstatueand its predeces-
sor were intrinsicallyplain in the chest area. If the tenantfrom Hellenistic
times onward,however,was a differentstatue,then the Greco-Romanrep-
resentationsare the only evidence for the appearanceof whateverstatue
stood inside the Artemision.The evidence, unfortunately,is unclear and
ambiguous,and I do not want to suggest that the chest area motif must
have been intrinsicto the post-Herostratean statue.Rather,I suggest that it
is necessaryto considerboth the possibilityof a new iconographicformfor
the new statue and the shifts in religious perspectivethat might have led
to and resultedfrom this change.If ArtemisEphesiais spokenof as many-
breastedin the thirdcenturyCE, the fact that "originally,"some nine cen-
turiesbefore,the Ephesiancentralimagewas not many-breasted, is irrelevant
to the evaluationof this point.
It is clear thatchangesin the mode of representation of ArtemisEphesia
begin in the Hellenisticperiod. It is not clear, however, whetherwhat we
see is the resultof a new iconographicform for the centralimage or a new
custom of reproducingand using as the symbol of the city an image that
was alreadyfamiliar.Althoughthe latterpropositionis more likely,62both

und Aphrodite von Aphrodisias," in Maarten J. Vermaseren, ed., Die orientalischenReligion

im Romerreich(Leiden: Brill, 1981) 298-315. It should be noted that the majority of these
other statues do not have the chest area elements but are similar to Artemis Ephesia in most
other ways, especially in the columnar torso and draping.
6lMuch of this discussion, both here and in Fleischer, centers on the presence of this motif
on the Tegean relief of Zeus of Labraunda, now in the British Museum; see Fleischer, Artemis
von Ephesos, 310-23 and pls. 13741b.
62This is supported by Fleischer's observation (ibid., 310-23) that the surviving represen-
tations vary the number of chest area items considerably, suggesting different pectorals at
different times.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
404 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

are possible. Whicheveralternativewe choose, the resultremainsthe same,

namely,the use and presentationof ArtemisEphesiato the generalpublic
in the adornedform and the adoptionof this form of the statue as the
symbol of the city. By the Romanperiod,therefore,this was the familiar
form in which people encounteredthe goddess of their city on a daily
basis.63This developmentmay have set the stage at a much earlier date
than Fleischer suggestedfor the eventualreinterpretation and transforma-
tion of Artemisinto a many-breastednurturerthatperhapshad meaningfor
Ephesiansin the Romanperiod and clearly did for Christianwriters.

E Trarlsformahons in Life arldArt

I returnnow to the questionof whetherGreco-Romanpeople regarded
the statueof ArtemisEphesiaas havingmanybreasts.I wouldreemphasize
the fact that many of the argumentsthat deny this possibilityare based on
the assumptionthat what we see is a decoratedEndoios statue, which in
turnwas a faithfulcopy of an unadornedstatuerepresentedby the gold and
ivory figurinesof the Artemisiondeposit.64If this assumptionis reevalu-
ated, then the question of the Greco-RomanEphesians'concept of their
goddess needs to be consideredin terms of contemporarysocial and his-
torical situations,not in termsof the earliestevidence of religiousactivity
on the Artemisionsite.

63Surprisingly, the role played by the actual cult statue in Greco-Roman worship is un-
clear, and the frequency with which anyone but the temple wardens would have seen this
ancient image, adorned or not, is an open question. The assumption that the central image was
brought into Ephesus in the Salutaris procession is based, it seems, only on analogies to other
festivals in other cities; the inscription itself, which is very detailed and specific (where it
is not broken), mentions only replicas and type-statues; see Rogers, The Sacred Identity of
Ephesos, 80-126. Several scholars reconstruct a festival called AaiTt5 based on the intersec-
tion between a reference in the Etymologicum magnum (252.11) and a first-century inscrip-
tion, Inschriften von Ephesos, la.14. Etymologicum magnum describes a festival in which the
central image is brought down to the seashore and given a meal of celery and salt; the
inscription records payments made to two individuals designated as akoopos ("salt bearer")
and (76XElVO¢OpO5 ("celery bearer"), respectively. The full context of the inscription, how-
ever, leaves the function of these individuals unclear, and no other sources describe such a
festival, although there is an inscription dedicated to an Aphrodite Daitis in the third century
CE(Inschriften von Ephesos, 4.1202); on this issue, see Romano, "Early Greek Cult Statues,"
242 and 247 n.23; R. Heberdey, "5AITI: Ein Beitrag zum ephesischen Artemiskult,"Jahrheft
des Osterreichischen Archaologischen Instituts 7 (1904) Beiblatt, col. 44; Walter Burkert,
Structure and listory, 129-30. The role, if any, of the central image in the nativity festival
is also unclear; see Oster, "Ephesos as a Religious Center," 1709-11. All of these issues need
fuller consideration than they can receive here; it seems, however, most likely that the central
image itself was rarely if ever seen in the city and that the images in the adorned state formed
the focal point of most peoples' religious speculation.
64See above, p. 399.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 405

It is often surprisingto note that, despite repeatedconquests,Ephesus

was always extremelywell treatedby its new rulers;the city almost ap-
pears to have condescendedto be ruled.65No city, however,could fail to
be affected by the far-reachingsocial changesbroughtabout first by Hel-
lenizationand then by hierarchicaland centrallyorganizedRomanimperial
rule. The individualismand autonomyof cities, includingEphesus,were
increasinglyerodedand modifiedboth by consciousnessof the new power
balancesand focal points and by the sense of being a small part,however
cherished,of a large and impersonalgovernmentalstructure.In addition,
greatercentralizationand controlfrom outside and above meantthat indi-
viduals were frequentlyon the move, enteringand leaving Ephesus.Such
people were themselves under stress to identify religiously with figures,
institutions,and ideas that could meet the needs of their lives. In response
to these demands,many traditionallyland- or city-orienteddeities were
universalized,becomingboth literally portablefor citizens displacedor on
the move and exportable,that is, useful and attractiveto people who had
never had any connectionto these cities.66
In the case of ArtemisEphesia,the city goddess was translatedinto a
general protectressand nurturer.These elements, of course, had always
been a part of the Ephesianunderstandingof their goddess but became
more generalizedand universalizedunderRomanrule. The universalizing
tendencydeprivilegesspecific referencesto places or people and focuses
on the broadercategoriesof a deity's power or influence.The large num-
bers of representations datingfrom the second centuryCE found outsideof

6sKroisos did not destroy the city but instead gave it a monumental temple; Alexander
also wished to give the Ephesians a temple and redirected a tremendous amount of tribute
into the Ephesian temple banking system; Lysimachos made Ephesus his capital and liked it
so much that, instead of just going elsewhere when he encountered environmental problems,
he moved with the city and embarked on a huge and expensive rebuilding project; Rome
made Ephesus the capital of the province of Asia and made it neocorate four times.
66Global consciousness and universalistic deities frequently go hand in hand. Another
example of this phenomenon is found in one trajectory of Hebrew theology and literature,
namely, the transformation of the localized God of Israel of the monarchial period to a
universal God concerned with all of the nations of the world in response to conquest and
empire, reflected in Second Isaiah and elsewhere. This tradition and the exportability of this
God continues, especially in the Diaspora traditions. In Philo, for example, Israel and the
patriarchs continue to be significant but to a large extent they are now understood allegori-
cally. The literature on this subject is voluminous; see, among others, Samuel Sandmel, Philo
of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); John J. Collins,
Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the lellenistic Diaspora (New York:
Crossroad, 1983); Peder Borgen, "Philo of Alexandria," in Michael E. Stone, ed., Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 233-82;
further literature there.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
406 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Ephesusdemonstratethat this occurredfor ArtemisEphesia.67These many

representations indicatea widespreadand nonlocalizedinterestin this god-
dess; manyof themalso have whatappearto be morerealisticallybreastlike
objects in the chest area. Among these statuesis the Naples examplethat
is made of two materials(fig. 1).68
In additionto these universalizingfactors,the practiceof active syncre-
tism, particularlyof political deities, should be borne in mind. Imperial
interests,first Hellenisticand later Roman,had a greatdeal at stake in the
identificationof divine figuresaroundwhompoliticalactivitycenteredwith
the political rulersof the moment,now also understoodon a divine level
in the imperialcult. This identificationprobablytook place in Ephesusas
early as the Persianperiod,69and certainlywithin the Hellenisticand Ro-
man empires.Syncretism,however,is not a one-wayflow from above, but
ratheran organicprocessof developmentof ideas and institutionswithina
multiculturalsociety that is itself in the processof development.Ideas and
identificationsflowed not only into but also amongGreece,Italy, Anatolia,
and Egypt.
By the Roman period, a unity between Isis, Artemis, and Diana was
widely recognized.70ArtemisEphesiaparticipatedin this process of iden-

67Forlocations of finds, see Fleischer's comprehensive catalog (Artemis von Ephesos, 2-

38). The representations are in many media and found throughout the area of Mediterranean
culture, although the largest numbers come from Anatolia; one found in Caesarea is now in
the Israel Museum. I do not think that every representation of Artemis Ephesia found outside
of Ephesus necessarily reflects transplanted Ephesians, although migration could account for
many. Some of them may reflect memorialization of particular processions that were fi-
nanced or sponsored by a given Roman official, as we know could happen from the Salutaris
inscription. It should also be pointed out that there is such widespread interest in Artemis
Ephesia in the second century CE, the precise time for which Fleischer and others must
hypothesize a lack of sincere interest in Artemis Ephesia that permitted amnesia of what the
chest area items are and paved the way for Minucius Felix and Jerome.
68See above, p. 391 and n. 7. This statue is extremely puzzling. The two materials do seem
to refer to a wooden statue covered with ornament, since the "breasts" are not of the darker
material. This factor would seem to argue against the idea that the post-Herostratos statue had
the ornament carved into the fabric of the statue itself. On the other hand, the appearance of
this statue's chest area does not suggest any kind of ornamentation, even bags, but rather a
large number of maternal, nourishing breasts. One possibility is that in the post-Herostratos
statue the chest area items were a part of the fabric of the statue but were gilded. This might
give the effect of the earlier ornamentation that had perished along with the statue.
69Thiswould be so, if the Megabyzos priest does indicate religious diplomacy; see above,
n. 56.
70See Franc,oiseDunand, Le Culte d'Isis dans le bassin oriental de la AfediterranneeI-III
(EPRO 26; Leiden: Brill, 1973); Sharon Kelly Heyob, The Cult of Isis Among Women in the
Greco-Roman World (EPRO 51; Leiden: Brill, 1975); also Reginald Eldred Witt, "The Great
Artemis-Isis," in idem, Isis in the Greco-Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1971) 141-51.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 407

tification,particularlywith Isis.7l The politicalaspectof the pre-Hellenistic

worshipof Isis was very important,as was the case with ArtemisEphesia.
As wife of Osiris and motherof Horus,Isis was intimatelyinvolved with
the life of the Pharaohand was a centralsymbol of Egyptiancivilization,
both in this world and in the afterlife.72As in Ephesus,this political ele-
ment came to be transformedinto general,universalprotectionin the face
of imperialrule, first Greek and then Roman.73
An indicatorof increasinguniversalityin the understandingof Artemis
Ephesiamay be the presenceof the zodiacalneck ornamentthat appearson
many of the preservedexamples.74This featuremay indicatea conceptual
change towardastrologyand impersonaluniversalforces and also reflect
the largerframe of referenceneeded by people living within the vast Ro-
man Empire.The necklacemost often shows only a partof the cosmos, the
constellationsof the springand summermonths,clusteredon eitherside of
the sign of the Crab,which is nearly always at the centerof the figure.75
This sign is most closely associatedwith the moon, so its featuredposition
on representations of ArtemisEphesiamay indicatethe combinationof the
cosmic and specificallylunarelementsof otherdeities. In particular,it may
indicatea link with Isis, since it drawsupon the iconographyand symbolic
field of this goddess.76

7lWilhelm Drexler ("Der Isis- und Sarapis-Cultus in Kleinasien," Numismatische Zeitschrift

21 [1889] 78-94, 390) gives examples of Ephesian coins from 91, 88, 87, 82, and 68 BCE
carrying the image of Isis.
72Baldly stated, the Pharaoh was identified with Horus while alive and became Osiris
upon death; see discussion and references collected in two articles by J. Gwyn Griffiths, "The
Faith of the Pharaonic Period," and "The Great Egyptian Cults of Oecumenical Spiritual
Significance," both in A. H. Armstrong, ed., Classical MediterraneanSpirituality(New
York: Crossroad, 1986) 3-38 and 39-65, respectively.
73Isis, however, retains an association with divine rulership in Ptolemaic Egypt; see H. S.
Versnel, Inconsistenciesin Greek and RomanReligion, vol. 1: Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos,
Hermes:ThreeStudies in Henotheism(Brill: Leiden, 1990) 39-95.
74Itis necessary to bear in mind here, however, that since all the examples date from the
Roman period, it is dangerous to claim that this is a new element that begins at this time.
Fleischer, in fact, sees the zodiac necklace as part of the central statue's adornment as early
as the Hellenistic period (Artemisvon Ephesos,70-72, 410). On the other hand, if Fleischer
is correct, its appearance in the Hellenistic period may indicate a first wave of universalism
brought on by Alexander and the emerging Greek empires that practiced and encouraged an
active syncretism among subject states.
75Ibid., 70-72.
76Thereason for the particular choices of constellations, however, requires further exami-
nation and may prove fruitful. David Ulansey has suggested that in the worship of Mithras,
at least, zodiacal symbols convey important information that communicates a central feature
of the worship (The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries:Cosmologyand Salvation in the
AncientWorld[New York: Oxford University Press, 1989]).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
408 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

One way in which Isis's sustainingrelationshipto the Pharaohand all of

Egyptis expressediconographicallyis throughthe motif of nursing.77Isis's
nurturanceof the Pharaohreflects her specific politicalrole, but also indi-
cates sustenancein general,since the Black Land,the partof Egyptthat is
coveredby the Nile inundationand thereforefeeds the nation,is also rep-
resentedin Isis.
I suggest that as the identificationof Isis and ArtemisEphesiabecame
more and more common,the translationof iconographyand ideas, particu-
larly that of the nursingIsis,78may have suggested to the Ephesiansan
additionalway of understanding theirexistingcentralimage. The Isis motif
may have combinedwith the new religious demandsplaced on Artemis
Ephesiato suggest an extremelynurturant,protective,and sustaininggod-
dess, one with many breasts.I am not saying that the breastswere added
to make this point, inspiredby Isis. I agree with Fleischersufficientlyto
doubtthat multiplicationof the numberof breastswould have occurredto
anyone as a naturaldepictionof the idea of "magnifiednursing."Rather,
becausethe version of their statuethat was most often seen by the people
already had this element in its appearance,this interpretationcould take
place. Such an identificationwas able to exist side by side with others,just
as for Greco-Roman peoplein generalArtemisAgroteraandArtemisLocheia
each had her own purpose.This multivalenceof the symbol of Artemis
Ephesiawouldthenexplainwhy the representations fromthe Romanperiod
differ so markedlyfrom each other,with some examplesclearly suggesting
swollen, nurturantbreasts,while others do not. They may have been in-
tended to representdifferent things, all varieties of religious possibility
availablewithin the category"Artemisof Ephesus."

E GenderIdeologyarldPerceptions of Artmis Ephesia

In the famous speech In Neaeram,Pseudo-Demosthenesmade a func-
tional distinctionbetweenthe social roles availablefor women:"We have
courtesansfor pleasure,concubinesto look after the day-to-dayneeds of
the body, wives that we may breed legitimatechildrenand have a trusty

77See Gail Paterson Corrington, "The Milk of Salvation: Redemption by the Mother in
Late Antiquity and Early Christianity," HTR 82 (1989) 393420; Tran Tam Tinh and Yvette
LaBrecque, Isis Lactans (EPRO 37; Leiden: Brill, 1973); and Theodora Hadzisteliou Price,
Kourotrophos: Cults and Representations of Greek Nursing Deities (Studies of the Dutch
Archaeological and Historical Society 8; Leiden: Brill, 1978).
78Thefamous Etruscan bronze nursing wolf statue in the Conservatori Museum in Rome,
taken over as a potent symbol of Rome, may have also exerted an influence on perception and
interpretation. This bronze, originally a solo piece, had the two suckling babies added to it
when it was adopted as a symbol of the Roman state.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 409

wardenof whatwe have in the house."79Althoughthese distinctionsdo not

exclude the possibility of sexual pleasurewith the legitimatewife,80they
underlinethe division in antiquitybetweensexualityitself8l and the results
of sexual activity, so-called fertility and the propagationof the next gen-
eration,both of which were related to the security of the home and the
state. Nearly all of the roles of Artemisof Ephesussuggest that the god-
dess could be understoodas the legitimate wife of the city of Ephesus
itself: protectressand nourisher;"trustywarden"not only of the things in
people's houses, but also of the financial resources on deposit at the
Artemision;guardianof legitimatemarriage;overseerof the birth of the
next generation,KOVpOTpO¢Oi. These are categoriesof power, intimately
connectedwith the stability and continuationof the family, the city, the
empire, and, conceptually,the universe.They are not, however,primarily
erotic categories, and the figure of Artemis Ephesia in her role as city
goddess was not eroticized.This featuremay, in fact, be connectedwith
her symbolicrole as the legitimatewife, a figure to be respectedand gen-
erally not representedin art in erotic contexts. Where we do see erotic
scenes involving the female figure on vases and in sculpture,these figures
are usually eitherhetaeraeor images of Aphrodite.82 It shouldnot then be
surprisingthatfew of the figuresin eroticarthave full, "matronly" breasts,83

79Pseudo-Demosthenes In Neaeram 1 18-22.

80Sexual pleasure with the legitimate wife, however, is regarded with suspicion; see Aline
Rousselle, "Body Politics in Ancient Rome," in Pantel, A History of Women, 321-23.
8l"Sexuality" as we use the term does not appear to have concerned people in the ancient
Mediterranean; specific acts drew more attention than choices about lifestyle or sexual iden-
tities in the modern sense of identification. On this issue, see, among others, David Halperin,
John J. Winkler, and Froma I. Zeitlin, eds., Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic
Experience in the Ancient Greek World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); Aline
Rousselle, Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity (London: Blackwell, 1988); John
J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient
Greece (London: Routledge, 1990); Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (3 vols.; New
York: Vintage, 1980-86); Paul Veyne, ed., A History of Private Life, vol. 1: From Pagan
Rome to Byzantium (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987) 5-234.
82Note however, that eroticized statues of Aphrodite, such as the Melian or Knidian, were
not "cult statues" and occur in cities for whom Aphrodite is not the tutelary, political god-
dess. In Aphrodisias, for example, where this is the function of Aphrodite, the cult statue is
heavily draped, veiled, and columnar, looking very much like the central image of Artemis
Ephesia except that Aphrodite lacks the multiplication of breasts; see Fleischer, Artemis von
Ephesos, 146-84; and idem, "Artemis Ephesia and Aphrodite von Aphrodisias," 298-315.
83Theone exception with which I am acquainted is difficult to explain. It is a fifth-century
BCE lekythos, the name-vase of the so-called Beldam Painter. On this vase, satyrs appear to
beat a naked woman whose wrists are tied to the tree against which she leans. This figure has
not only extremely large breasts, but a swollen belly suggestive, to me, of pregnancy. It is

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
410 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

given the division of the sexual roles for women implied in In Neaeram.
As early as Herodotuswe encountersuspicionand surpriseat the idea of
a man being erotically obsessed by his own wife,84and Roman sources
regardthe large families of the Jews and others as evidence of the men's
weakness in not being able to stay away from their wives.85While this
particularobjectionmay be a functionof increasinghealthfears associated
with sex, and in particularwith procreativesex,86it underlinesthe conti-
nuity into Romantimes of sexual distinctionsamongcategoriesof women
that are differentfrom our own.
The separationbetween the objects of sexual delight and the cherished
and importantsourcesof progenyand securityhas, I believe, been a source
of confusionfor Westernscholarswhose own social ideology locates both
of these categoriesin one person,the life partneror legitimatespouse.This
ideologicaldifferencemay also have impededunderstanding of the worship
of ArtemisEphesia,87the transformations in understandingof the goddess
over time, and the iconographicchoices in which these transformations are
expressed.ReginaldEldredWitt, for example, finds it "paradoxical"that
Isis and Artemiscan be worshipedby virgins and celibate priestessesand
also by marriedwomen;the paradoxdisappears,however,if both catego-

not at all clear, however, that this is intended as an erotic scene; the suggestion is more one
of revenge and torture against, specifically, a married woman, although this may be inferring
too much. I would point out that the call name of this painter clearly implies the scholarly
assumption that the woman would not be undergoing torture undeservedly; she therefore
must be a "beldam"; John Boardman says she is a "harridan"(Athenian Black Figure Vases
[New York: Oxford University Press, 1974] 149-50 and pl. 277). There is no suggestion of
this characterization in the content of the picture on the vase, however, other than the per-
ceived "ugliness" of the victim, a perception that is possibly more accurate in terms of our
own cultural values and ideals of beauty than in terms of those of antiquity. Abuse of hetaerae
of a variety of ages is, however, a fairly frequent theme in classical vase painting; see Eva
C. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens (New York: Harper &
Row, 1985) esp. 153-228, 300-320. On this issue more generally, see Amy Richlin, ed.,
Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (New York: Oxford University Press,
1992).
84This is the story of Kandaules (Herodotus Historiae 1.8-12). This tale results in the
death of Kandaules, with the connivance of the wife whose position he had outraged. Herodotus
possibly also was using what was to him an outlandish story as evidence of how strange
foreign people are.
85Rousselle, "Body Politics in Ancient Rome," 321-23.
86Rousselle, Porneia, 5-23, 12940.
87Examples of this phenomenon include twisting the Megabyzos priesthood in many di-
rections to accommodate a Cybele, or Ishtar-like concern with wild sexuality into the sym-
bolic sphere of the goddess, or going back several millennia to find the "real" or "true" origin
of the Artemis Ephesia as a "fertility goddess" (an increasingly vague and unhelpful cat-
egory), as Seiterle must do to support his bull-scrota theory.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LYNN R. LIDONNICI 411

ries of women approacheither of these goddessesin her role as legitimate

wife and protectressof family, political, and cosmic stability.88Further-
more, Fleischer'sobservationthat a hangingbreastwas grotesqueto the art
of antiquity89 may also miss the point.It is certainlygrotesquein erotic art,
specificallybecausethe legitimatewife is to be respectedandgenerallynot
representedas a courtesanor hetaera,unless she is somehowguilty of a
betrayalof her marriedstate and thereforesubjectto punishmentften, as
Eva C. Keuls has pointed out, sexual in nature.90Seltman'scommentis
even more telling; the objects on the chest of ArtemisEphesiacannotbe
breastsbecausethey look too much like "ugly, udder-likebags.''9lUdders,
of course,are breasts nurturant breaststhatoverflowwith sustainingmilk.
There is certainlylittle about them that is erotic, but if we separateour
own tendency to eroticize all female categories from the categories of
antiquity,then this observationloses significanceand may hinderthe un-
derstandingof Greco-Romanpeople on their own terms.It is possible that
the tendency to extend erotic categoryjudgmentsto the art of antiquity
makesit difficultfor us to perceivea figure who is both unsexualizedand
at the same time fully gendered;in this respect the two sides of Artemis,
virgin and KOVpOTpO¢OS, intersect.
We should not, therefore,be surprisedto see the genderdistinctionsof
GreekandGreco-Romansociety reflectedin the divinerealm.Justas chang-
ing political realitiesin Ephesuswere broughtwithin the symbolic sphere
of the city's goddess, its social ideology and practiceswere represented
there as well.

88Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, 144.

89This is in fact one of Fleischer's principal reasons for rejecting the identification of the
items as breasts at any period: "A sagging female breast was, in ancient art, regarded as
grotesque and scarcely ever represented" (Artemis von Ephesos, 74).
90Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus, 153-86. Jerome's characterization of Artemis Ephesia
as a "whore," then, can be understood as an additional rhetorical assault upon the stature and
role of Artemis Ephesia as legitimate wife of the city of Ephesus.
9lSeltman, "The Wardrobe of Artemis," 41.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fig. 1: ArtemisEphesia,from Neapolis.
Courtesyof ffie Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
|
* - ..
es .

Fig. 2 (above):Votive relief of Zeus

of Labraunda(fourthcentury BCE).
Reproduced by permission of the
publisher, from Fleischer, Artemis
von Ephesos, plate 138.

Fig. 3 (left):BronzestatueofZeusof
Labraunda.Reproduced,by permis-
sion of ffiepublisher,fromFleischer,
Artemisvon Ephesos, plate 140.

:.
| : x
* _r ,ffi,:

- - -

.b< Fts-;ReS .
X-s-v

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 . i t ....... :: . t* :, . 4 .

Fig. 4 (left):ArtemisEphesia,in
e Anfikenmuseum, Basel.Cour-
tesy of Mr. Dietrich Widmer,
t::! Basel, Switzerland.

..e. ... .

y; ..

9..Wyg:S.. .oES.zY.X:.
L

*..%

,e Z < ie, " .

k * '/. *h+Y 2

,:.Xe:. M::.F
V.datYP \Xs.,tS,#:

* -Z .S,: t x' . F. . ,::.

.i .

F :'f ">.

ts xs;
.: *3 .:

/ f t,

* .:..iJe ,..:c
:. _S c

.S :e
.z .;:

* FlsCz e} ef

< & :. v .S EXA.ic.s.00/l Zr

$ { t t <§z;y u:

&a** ;"os7RX;|iAd.Ue: .'

.. .. .. . . . . . .

Fig. 5 (right):ArtemisEphesia,in 7. X= tMSrXp >VsAS-z: X :c:.y.XiO: .. ....

the Ephesus Museum, Sel,cuk.

;4 . z . ':

* A: e '-:::. . ...S:.

Courtesy of the Osterreichische .:R

i''C',:,5Xa
. ; .i.

Archaologische Institut,Vienna.
* aZk7<{ ajw,$

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fig. 6 (left):ArtemisEphesiasin
ffie Ephesus MuseumsSelSuk.
Courtesyof ffie Diors of ffie
EphesusMuseum,Selsuk.

Fig. 7 (right):Coin of L. Hostilius

Saserna with Artemis of Massalia
(ca. 48 BCE). Reproduced,by per-
mission of the publisher, from
Fleischer, Artemisvon Ephesos,
plate 60B.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:10:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions