838

Theangela Figurines in 4th Century and Hellenistic
Caria: History of Aegean Costume in Comparative
Perspective

in
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
I.A. The Thesis and Literature Review 1
I.A.i. The Thesis and Research Objectives 1
I.A.ii. Literature Review 3
I.B. Design, Fashion and Style 6
I.B.i. Design, Visuality, Fashion and Dress 6
-Design and Visuality 6
-Fashion 7
-Dress 9
I.B.ii. Style 11
I.B.iii. Ethnicity and Dress 13
-The Question of Ethnicity 13
-Ethnicity and Dress 15
II. Historical Framework 18
II.A. General Developments in Art:
Alexander the Great and Hellenism 18
II.A.i. Macedonian Empire and Alexander the Great 18
II.A.ii. The Rise of Hellenism 20
ix
II.B. Caria 24
II.B.i. Luwians, Lelegians and Carians: an Unsolved Debate 24
-Luwians 26
-Lelegians 26
-Carians 27
-Conclusions 29
II.B.ii. Political History of Caria 30
II.B.iii. Halicarnassus, Mausolos and the Mausoleum 32
-Halicarnassus and Mausolos 33
-The Mausoleum 36
II.C. Syangela and Theangela 38
II.C.i. Theories on Syangela and Theangela 40
II.C.ii. Theangela: Lelegian and Hellenistic Elements 42
-Excavations and Surveys 42
-The City 42
-Inscriptions 44
III. The Figurines 46
III.A. The History of Terracotta Figurines in the Aegean 46
III.A.i. From Early Periods to the 5th Century B.C. 47
III.A.ii. The 4th and 3rd Centuries B.C. 48
x
III.B. Examples of Famous 4th and 3rd Century B.C. Figurines 50
III.B.i. Athens 51
III.B.ii. Tanagra 52
III.B.iii. Myrina 55
III.B.iv. Halae 56
III.B.v. Maresha: an Eastern Example 58
III.B.vi. Conclusions 59
III.C. Theangela Figurines: Description and Evaluation 60
III.C.i. Description 60
-Carian Coroplastic Art 60
-The Theangela Figurines 61
-Theangela Figurines and Their Stylistic History 63
-Cults Associated with the Figurines 69
III.C.ii. Evaluation: Coroplastic Art in Theangela 72
IV. Analysis of Theangela Figurines
in the Framework of Aegean Costume 76
IV.A. History of Costume in the Aegean 76
IV.A.i. History and the Components of the Aegean Synthesis 76
xi
-History 76
-Components of the Aegean Synthesis 77
IV.A.ii. Classical Greek Dress:
the Peplos, the Chiton and the Himation 84
-Greek Textiles and Dress 84
-Peplos 84
-Chiton 87
-Himation 91
IV.A.iii. Other Accessories, Motifs and
the Use of Drapery as an Artistic Tool 93
-Accessories and Motifs 93
-Drapery as an Artistic Tool 95
IV.B. Theangela Costumes: Description and Evaluation 97
IV.B.i. Bearded Phiale Carriers in a Himation 97
-Description 97
-Conclusions on Carian Male Fashion 104
IV.B.ii. Hydrophores in a Chiton and a Himation 106
-Description 106
-Conclusions on Carian Female Fashion 116
IV.B.iii. Evaluation: the Fashion Map of the Aegean 119
xii
V. Conclusions 122
V.A. Hellenism and Theangela Figurines 122
V.A.i. Hellenism: “Global” vs. “Local” Culture in Caria 122
V.A.ii. Theangela Costumes: Fashion vs. Ethnic Identity 126
V.B. Fashion: Continuity, Change and Diffusion 128
V.B.i. Greek Hegemony over Dress?
Reassessment of the“Anatolian Tunic” and Continuity of Fashion 128
V.B.ii. Change and Diffusion of Fashion in Antiquity 129
Bibliography 134
iii
Theangela Figurines in 4th Century and Hellenistic
Caria: History of Aegean Costume in Comparative
Perspective

pek Yeginsü
ABSTRACT
This thesis analyzes the costumes of the terracotta figurines found in a
deposit at Theangela, a Hellenistic settlement in Caria, from the viewpoint of
current fashion theory. It presents an overview of the history of Caria and the
scholarly debates on the origins of the Carians, discussing the role of the Carian
cultural identity and ethnic awareness in determining the stylistic characteristics of
Carian coroplastic art. In the light of historical information on Hellenistic notions
of art and the evolution of Aegean terracotta production, macro and micro-level
cultural influences contributing to the figurines’ stylistic vocabulary are identified.
In this way the figurines are contextualized within the framework of the 4th
century B.C. and Hellenistic cultural environment.
The study examines the traditions of the regions that had an impact on
Aegean costumes and outlines the basic elements of Greek dress. Connections
exist between the rise of Hellenism and cosmopolitanism, and the diffusion of
Greek mainstream fashion in Aegean Anatolia. The Carians’ cultural response to
Hellenism and its reflection in costumes, results in the coexistence of Greek and
iv
local stylistic elements and their fusion, giving birth to a local style not completely
isolated from the mainstream 4th century B.C. and Hellenistic fashion.
The project evaluates the findings in the light of contemporary fashion
theory, discussing concepts such as diffusion, media, trendsetters and fashion role
models. Parallels are can be drawn between the modern notion of fashion and
fashion in antiquity, illustrating the persistence of cultural tension and the ultimate
synthesis between the global and the local.
v
4. Yüzyıl ve Hellenistik Dönem Karya’sında Theangela
Figürinleri: Ege’nin Karsılastırmalı Kostüm Tarihi
pek Yeginsü
ÖZET
Bu tez, bir Hellenistik Dönem Karya yerlesmesi olan Theangela’da bir
çukurda bulunan toprak heykelciklerin giysilerini, günümüz moda teorisi ısıgında
inceler. Karya tarihinin genel görünümünü ve Karyalılar’ın kökeniyle ilgili
bilimsel savları sunarak, Karyalı kültürel kimligi ve etnik bilincinin Karya toprak
heykelcik üretim stilindeki rolünü tartısır. Ege’de toprak figürin üretiminin
evrimsel süreci ve Hellenistik sanat anlayısının ısıgında, Theangela
heykelciklerinin biçemsel dagarcıgını etkileyen mikro ve makrokültürel ögeler
saptanır. Böylece figürinler, M.Ö. 4. yüzyıl ve Hellenistik kültürel ortamı
içerisinde zaman ve mekan boyutuna yerlestirilir.
Çalısma, Ege giyim kültürüne etki eden bölgelerin kostüm geleneklerini
inceler ve Yunan temel giyim ögelerini özetler. Hellenizm ve kozmopolitanizmin
yükselisi ve Yunan moda akımının Ege Anadolusu’na yayılısı arasındaki
baglantıların izini sürer. Karyalılar’ın Hellenizm’e verdikleri kültürel tepki ve bu
tepkinin giyimdeki yansımaları, özellikle Yunan ve yerel stil ögelerinin birarada
kullanılarak aynı potada eritilmesi ve M.Ö. 4. yüzyıl ve Hellenistik genel moda
akımından tamamen izole olmamıs bir yerel stilin olusması sonucunu dogurur.
vi
Tez, bulguları günümüz moda teorisinin ısıgında, modanın yayılması,
medya, akım belirleyiciler ve modada örnek alınanlar gibi kavramları da tartısarak
degerlendirir. Küresel ve yerel arasındaki gerilim ve birlesme dinamiginin
kalıcılıgını göstererek, modern ve antik çag moda anlayısları arasında paralellikler
kurmak olasıdır.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I.A. THE THESIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW
I.A.i. The Thesis and Research Objectives
One of the missions of social sciences is to try to identify the relationship
between cultural identity and its reflections in material production. Culture may
find its expression in a variety of media such as paintings and statues as well as in
objects with more daily-life functions, including pottery and costumes. This thesis
analyzes a group of 4th and 3rd century B.C. terracotta figurines found at the site of
Theangela in the region of Anatolia known as Caria, which are currently
preserved in the Bodrum Museum. The figurines, nearly 380 in number, were
obtained by the museum after being rescued in a series of salvage excavations.
The study specifically examines the costumes shown on the figurines from the
point of view of style and fashion, assuming that they reflect the fashion map of
their region and period. Dress is one important way of expressing cultural unity as
well as difference. Therefore, this thesis will analyze to what extent the current
theories of style can be applied to the study of ancient fashion and their correlation
with the expression of cultural or ethnic identity.
2
The figurines’ importance comes from the fact that they were discovered
in Caria, where, especially during the Hellenistic period, a great variety of cultural
environments coexisted or quickly succeeded each other. The very philosophy
behind Hellenistic art, combined with these changes, created a dynamic cultural
atmosphere in Caria. On the other hand, the Carians also managed to create and
maintain a local tradition of their own, identifiable in arts, architecture and
costumes, referred to by ancient authors as the manifestation of a separate
ethnicity.
The intensity of intercultural relations in Caria and in other parts of
western Anatolia, a bridge between mainland Greece and the Near East, is not too
different from what we now call globalization and cosmopolitanism. Hellenism,
i.e. the cultural environment in the eastern Mediterranean during the period 323-
30 B.C., brought many cultural areas into contact and people living in these areas
borrowed stylistic elements from each other in all dimensions of life. The
Hellenistic age cannot be compared to our century in terms of the scale of
communication and the ease of traveling to distant places. Nevertheless, the
underlying principle is the same, and the role of mainland Greece as a trendsetter
can be analogically compared to the leading art and fashion centers of our day.
Yet, each region produced local styles distinguishable from each other, just like
today’s world where micro-cultures resist globalization and diversity is celebrated
within the framework of the “global village”.
The study begins by analyzing the developments in the Hellenistic world,
the history of Caria and more specifically of Theangela. It then makes a general
review of the history of terracotta production in the Aegean, to identify a historical
context in which Theangela figurines can be more accurately positioned, both in
3
terms of sociopolitical climate and artistic environment. The thesis continues with
an analysis of the history of costume in Anatolia and in the Aegean, so that the
costumes of the Theangela figurines can be better evaluated in a comparative way.
The study ends with an evaluation of Theangela figurines in terms of dressing
habits and their local/ethnic vs. global/Hellenistic characteristics, and with the
application of concepts such as style and fashion to these findings.
I.A.ii. Literature Review
The only source directly related to Theangela and the figurines is a book
by Prof. Fahri Isık of Akdeniz University, the head of the Archaeology
Department, entitled “Die Koroplastik von Theangela in Karien und ihre
Beziehungen zu Ostionien zwischen 560 und 270 v. Chr”. Isık’s book is a wellprepared
catalogue of the statuettes, which places them in a chronological and
thematic framework. Except for this book, all the related sources provide a general
overview of Carian history or Aegean art or they are excavation reports from
Carian sites other than Theangela. German archaeological expeditions in Caria are
not few, but since Theangela has never systematically been excavated except for
superficially conducted surveys and salvage excavations, it is difficult to obtain
information as detailed as that which is available for the majority of other
Lelegian or Carian sites. George E. Bean’s “Turkey beyond the Maeander”
provides useful information on Theangela in terms of city plan, history and
architecture.
Ancient authors including Homer, Herodotus and Strabo provide us with
detailed information about the origins of the Carians and the political history of
the region. They often cite each other; they mention specific names and describe
4
specific events. Moreover, inscriptions discovered in Theangela at the beginning
of the 20th century shed light on the city’s political system and diplomatic
relations with other settlements (Hicks 234-237). However, as stated above, there
is no detailed excavation report or an analysis of the findings available for
Theangela except for Fahri Isık’s work.
For evaluating the figurines, studies conducted on similar statuettes from
Tanagra, Attica, Myrina and other centers1 are crucial because they render
possible a comparative analysis. Since these figurines belong to the same
historical period, the similarities in technique and style provide a helpful source of
evidence for tracing the relationships among these geographical areas. On the
other hand, pronounced differences are evaluated as an indication of the existence
of regionally distinguished styles and provide information on the extent to which
the individual artist had a role in determining the stylistic elements of the end
product. Finally, comparing and contrasting these regions provides us with the
general picture of the evolution of Aegean coroplastic art, helping us evaluate the
place of Theangela figurines within this framework in a more accurate way.
A variety of books are available on the costumes of the Greeks.2 They
analyze the developments both in terms of chronology and geography. These
sources inform the reader on the evolution of textiles, the terminology of costumes
and their preparation methods, the contexts in which they were worn and the
1 There are a variety of sources related to the study of terracotta figurines. While some books and
articles analyze them as a data set, others focus on particular examples available in museum
collections. The most useful sources for the purposes of this thesis include two articles by Dorothy
Burr Thompson, “The Origin of Tanagras” and “Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas” and a
study by Salomon Reinach, entitled “Inedited Terracottas from Myrina, in the Museum at
Constantinople”.
2 There are many books presenting a detailed overview of costume in Ancient Greece. However,
they introduce the reader approximately to the same basic concepts and descriptions. Some of the
most useful sources include books by François Boucher, Elif Jülide Dereboy, A. Tahir Gürsoy,
Thomas Hope, Mary G. Houston, John Peacock and Sabahattin Türkoglu.
5
differences between male and female garments. The books also document various
accessories accompanying the costumes, and the patterns and designs used to
decorate them. These sources help to establish a general framework within which
it will be more meaningful to evaluate the costumes of Theangela figurines and to
define them in relation to other regions and contexts. However, “fashion” in
antiquity has rarely been studied. Ancient dressing habits have generally been
analyzed from an archaeologist’s or an art historian’s point of view. There are a
few studies addressing the social meaning of ancient dress and its relation to
culture, but again their theoretical frameworks tend to remain in the realm of
ethnology, ethnography or anthropology. This thesis provides an alternative,
fashion-based framework, trying to fill the gap in the literature on ancient dress.
Books on the general aspects of Hellenistic art are also valuable as sources
of information for placing the figurines within a framework of a more
interregional system of artistic and cultural exchanges3. Therefore, thanks to a
literature review in Hellenistic art, it is possible to establish more accurately the
extent to which Theangela figurines and their costumes belong to the mainstream
Hellenistic style and the extent to which they belong to a more indigenous current.
Finally, books on contemporary fashion theory are helpful in defining concepts
like style and building a theoretical background for the analysis of the historical
findings.4 Let us begin by defining some concepts that will be used for the final
analysis.
3 Books by Nigel Spivey, Claude Laisné, Lucilla Burn, R. Smith and Gisela M. A. Richter are
particularly important.
4 “Design History: a Student’s Handbook”, edited by Hazel Conway is a collection of essays
related to concepts in design and fashion. Similarly, “Moda, Kültür ve Kimlik” by Fred Davis is a
scholarly analysis of fashion theory in the framework of historical changes and social
developments.
6
I.B. DESIGN, FASHION AND STYLE
I.B.i. Design, Visuality, Fashion and Dress
Design and Visuality- The word “design” can be used both to define the
mental process and the production stage as a consequence of which an object
appears (Conway 4). The design of a particular object needs to be evaluated in the
framework of the historical period in which it came into being. Moreover, one of
the greatest challenges for the researcher is to evaluate a set of objects coming
from the same period, which may have a variety of meanings for their period of
origin. For example, their frequency of appearance is in itself a clue about their
importance for the users (Conway 8).
One of the principal aspects of design is visuality. Barnard defines “the
visual” in its broad meaning as “everything that can be seen”. However, to
exclude the natural phenomena from this definition, he adds “everything produced
or created by humans”. Moreover, this “everything” has to contain an element of
functionality or communication as well, from which it follows that it also has to
be “designed”. A problem with this definition is that it excludes artwork from the
realm of the visual, because an artwork does not always have a functional or
communicative purpose. “Aesthetic effect” is one of the elements that can really
put an object in the field of visual culture (Barnard 12-16). Theangela figurines
are artistic objects as well as functional ones (religious or ceremonial); therefore,
the thesis considers both the aesthetic effect these figurines have on the spectator
and the communicative power they possess as examples of cultural production.
A visual artwork narrates a story just like a literary text (Stansbury-
O’Donnell 8). However, visual perception is not universal: different cultural
groups perceive visual data in different ways. It is also a variable that changes
7
through time, i.e. the same group’s perception of an object may be modified over
time (Walker and Chaplin 20). Consequently, visual culture not only requires the
description or appreciation of an object but also its contextualization (Walker and
Chaplin 56).
A visual object can be studied in two ways: from an object-based point of
view (focusing on the object itself and leaving aside the social context in which it
exists) or from a structure-based point of view (focusing on the political,
economic and social environment in which the object was designed) (Barnard 33).
However, it is crucial not to allow the object and the context to overshadow each
other. A balanced analysis is necessary, without overemphasizing one with respect
to the other (Walker and Chaplin 56).
Fashion- Fashion is another crucial term, on the meaning of which there is
no scholarly consensus. For example, George B. Sproles defines fashion as
“temporary cyclical phenomena adopted by consumers for a particular time and
situation” (116). According to William H. Reynolds, fashion is a way in which an
individual adopts social symbols to position his or her own identity relative to the
rest of the society (Miller, McIntyre and Mantrala 143). The only consensus
appears to be that, for a sequence of trends to be defined as fashion, it has to
contain an element of change over time (Davis 26).
According to Fred Davis, fashion has a non-verbal code, but it is much
more implicit and ambiguous, even misleading compared to language or music;
like in the case of design, its perception and interpretation depends on the
individual, the cultural context he or she lives in, and on the time period within
which it is interpreted (18). Considering these research difficulties, different
scholars study fashion in different ways, because they have various purposes and
8
research questions. These works can be categorized in two general groups: the
first group, already mentioned in the literature review, consists of social and
psychological analyses of fashion: they aim at answering what fashion means,
why it exists and how it is related to political and social factors. Some of these
studies focus on fashion consumption as a psychological behavior and they try to
understand the cognitive process behind fashion decisions.
The studies in the second group try to produce solutions relevant for
marketing, economics or management. They aim at understanding fashion
diffusion, consumer behavior, and more particularly, the consumers’ responses to
fashion cycles. Some even claim that a quantitative measurement of fashion
behavior is possible, and they try to formalize fashion theory through the use of
consumer surveys, statistical data and diagrams. For instance, Christopher M.
Miller, Shelby H. McIntyre and Murali K. Mantrala invented a mathematical
formula through which it is possible to measure the role of different variables in
the formation and diffusion of a fashion trend (142). Wolfgang Pesendorfer uses a
similar mathematical approach for correlating consumer demand, price fluctuation
and fashion cycles (775). On the other hand, John O. Summers analyzes the
correlation between an individual’s “opinion leadership” in women’s clothing
fashion (i.e. an individual’s ability to affect the fashion choices of the community
he or she lives in) and her demographic, social and topic-oriented (i.e. interest in
fashion) profile. In his work he makes use of interviews and surveys, and he
converts the collected information into statistical data (178).
Fashion cycles have two types: the long-term cycles consist of trends that
persist for decades or centuries, whereas the short-term cycles include smaller
modifications in the general trend, which are adopted only for a few months
9
(Sproles 116). Since it is nearly impossible to identify monthly cycles in antiquity,
this thesis focuses on the long-term cycles and their adaptations to local cultures.
It uses the term “fashion” particularly as a sequence of changing trends that
affects people in a broad geographical area for a significant period of time; it
focuses on the social and historical aspects of fashion identifiable in material
culture. The studies mentioned above generally analyze contemporary cases, or
those from modern history, in which global economic factors and industrial
dynamics are also involved. Therefore, it is difficult to apply their methodology to
an ancient case like the Theangela costumes. Nevertheless, they provide a variety
of viewpoints for evaluating the data. Specific studies relevant to the purposes of
this thesis, together with elements of fashion theory, will be referred to in the final
analysis of the Theangela costumes.
Dress- When the term “fashion” is used in a text or speech, perhaps the
first item that comes to our mind is dress. Besides being one of the most
overexploited fashion objects, costume can be studied as part of visual culture
(Walker and Chaplin 33). Dress speaks to the viewer in an unwritten language and
defines the wearer in a variety of ways, making him or her express identity (J.
Miller 15). It is an identity marker affordable by all social groups, which makes it
a very available and useful object of study (Barnard 149). However, the message a
dress conveys has to be read particularly in the context of a historical period and
geographical area, the society’s level of technical development and aesthetic
values (J. Miller 15). This is why we first have to understand very well the social
and artistic context in which Theangela figurines existed in the past.
At a more individual level, dress “announces” the social and economic
status of the wearer, sometimes giving luxury priority over functionality. It also
1 0
serves to express belongingness to a group in the case of similar costumes worn
by many people (J. Miller 17). In this way, dress provides many clues about a
group’s identity. On the other hand, differentiation within one group hints at
hierarchy and diversity of functions (Wiessner 112). Dress also has a role both in
drawing the boundaries of and expressing gender identities (J. Miller 16). These
functions of dress are considered in the final analysis of the figurines and their
costumes.
Dress has to be considered also as an artistic form of expression
(Hollander 13). However, collective imagination and norms usually prevail over
individual creativity, even in our century (Hollander 12). Nevertheless, here it
should not be forgotten that visual sources referring to dress, such as statues and
paintings, might mislead the researcher because the artist might have modified the
subject according to his/her own aesthetic preferences (J. Miller 25).
Another problem specifically related to the study of ancient dress is our
lack of knowledge about the economic and distributional mechanisms through
which people in antiquity acquired their costumes, i.e. whether they individually
produced them or received them from a central authority regulating their
distribution. The same argument is valid for Theangela figurines; especially the
lack of detailed information on the city’s political system renders it difficult for
the researcher to conclude whether the figurines’ costumes represent a fashion
choice made by the artists and the consumers or a politically enforced status
marker. Yet we assume that these statuettes reflect the fashion map of the Aegean
in the Hellenistic age, because first of all, as the artists had to be able to sell these
figurines, they had to appeal to the fashion choices of their clients. Second, as
explained in the following chapters, Theangela figurines highly probably represent
1 1
daily life figures performing religious duties, and not specific professional groups
or social classes. Therefore, except for minor details and some exceptions based
on artistic creativity, Theangela figurines should reflect the fashion of their time
period and place of production.
One of the most important variables in analyzing all aspects of visual
culture, including dress, is style. The term “style” can summarize and contain the
visual, the cultural and the artistic elements of an object. Now let us define this
term in more detail.
I.B.ii. Style
The work, the artist and the viewer communicate with each other through
style. Style is highly related to the artist’s individual preferences, but it still has to
remain within the framework of the macro-level narrative values of a society, in
order for the work to be understandable by that society (Stansbury-O’Donnell
103). In this way, style becomes crucial in attracting the spectator’s attention with
aesthetic value, facilitating perception (Wiessner 106).
Another aspect of style and its relation to the artist is about identity. A
difference of style between two artifacts reflects a difference in the way in which
the artist defines his or her own identity against the “other” (Wiessner 107).
Moreover, style provides information on the nature of the relationships among the
members of a group in terms of uniformity vs. diversity and in terms of implicit
symbolisms (Wiessner 110). It allows the integration of groups and creates a
social context (Wobst 327), but at the same time it encourages social
differentiation (Wobst 328). If a society is composed of a multitude of groups,
style assumes an even more important role in pronouncing group identity and
1 2
emphasizing differentiation through visible items such as costumes. Especially
headdresses become crucial, because they are visible from a distance and they can
be worn in all seasons for different functions and in different forms (Wobst 332).
Stylistic characteristics of an object are difficult to isolate from its
functional aspects (Wiessner 105). Style is the communicative dimension of an
object, and it conveys a non-verbal message. However, function by itself can
convey a message as well, which causes the difficulty described above (Wiessner
106). Therefore, both function and decoration have to be treated as elements
embedded in style as both have communicative power (Wiessner 107).
Nevertheless, decorative qualities can sometimes develop at the expense of the
functional ones (Wobst 318).
In Ancient Greek history, style evolved from an abstract to a naturalistic
one; the change in style brings change in narrative and the new vocabulary
introduces new ways in which the artist relates to the viewer and the two relate to
the object (Stansbury-O’Donnell 103). Some scholars prefer to make stylistic
changes overlap with chronological changes. According to others, one
chronological period in a culture can witness the existence of more than one style
(Walker and Chaplin 137). However, stylistic change may not always reflect an
equally pronounced social change and vice versa (Wiessner 107). Style provides
information on social bonds and interactions, but it should not be assumed that it
reflects social change in all cases; sometimes it may simply point at smaller
practical modifications or to differentiation within the same society rather than a
cultural shift in the entire group (Wiessner 108). Style is the exercise of cultural
choice (David and Kramer 219), but it does not always point at a drastic cultural
shift.
1 3
The importance of style in the analysis of Theangela figurines comes from
the fact that it explains both similarities and differences within this data set and
between these artworks and others. Change or continuity in style may point
(though not in all cases) at cultural change or cultural persistence, and more
importantly, may explain the coexistence of highly local and more macro-cultural
elements embedded in these artworks.
I.B.iii. Ethnicity and Dress
The Question of Ethnicity- The relationship between ethnicity and style
and its reflection in material culture is a highly debated issue. Defining an ethnic
group is in itself a difficult task, since the cultural boundaries between groups are
generally blurred, and different groups sometimes share the same style in material
production. Reaching generalized conclusions about this correlation is risky,
because individual cases present specific dynamics. That is why different scholars
approach this question in different ways. For example, the study conducted by
Christopher R. DeCorse on three ethnic groups in Sierra Leone illustrates that
ethnic differences are sometimes not reflected in material culture to the expected
extent. Instead, these schisms are more evident in ritualistic practices (125).
Moreover, despite the similarities in their domestic architecture and pottery types,
these groups perceive themselves as distinct, and the outsiders are aware of this
distinction as well (DeCorse 137).
Ann Osborn’s study in the Andes presents a different picture. In this case,
people with different cultural traits perceive themselves as belonging to the same
group, a legacy related to shared oral tradition (141). The differences among the
subgroups are more evident when they are geographically more distant from each
1 4
other; nevertheless, the general cultural parameters such as language and food
habits are more pronounced than their differences and they have a common ethnic
identity (Osborn 153). Similarly, Lars Larsson recognizes the problems related to
the correlation between ethnicity and material culture. He argues that the
differences in the form and the method of production of an artifact may be more
dependent on the raw material and its accessibility rather than ethnic differences
(210).
Dean E. Arnold’s work focuses on the importance of the population of
craftsmen in allowing the continuity of style in a society’s material culture. He
argues that the intermediary role of the craftsman between the society and the
artwork is generally underestimated, and that the transfer of style from one
generation to the next is achieved through the efforts of this professional group.
He also adds that the local craftsmen are more important than ethnicity in
determining the style of the material culture in a society (182). On the other hand,
Natalie R. Franklin uses in her study the relationship between stylistic variation
and social interaction (278). Like Arnold, she emphasizes the role of the artisans’
interactions in the diffusion of stylistic elements throughout various regions (279).
Wang Ningsheng’s study is particularly important for the purposes of this
thesis, since it uses a similar data set. The author analyzes ethnic diversity in
Yunnan, China, by examining the figures depicted in a group of 300 bronze
statuettes (199). He classifies his data into four ethnic groups on the basis of their
costumes and hairstyle. He also defines some of them as minority groups and as
the enemies of the dominant group (200); but he does not explain on which
findings he bases his assumptions, other than referring to the depiction of some
figures as slaves or war captives in a few instances. He assumes that his data set is
1 5
perfectly illustrative of the society’s ethnic composition, which is too optimistic.
He defends his argument by claiming that in the 1st century B.C., Chinese people
discriminated each other on the basis of dress and hairstyle (202). He compares
his classification with the categories of ethnic groups recorded in Chinese texts
and he concludes that the two data sets overlap (204).
As opposed to Ningsheng’s analysis, in the case of Theangela figurines,
the few available written sources belong to ancient authors who do not give a
detailed account of the Carian material culture except for some specific instances.
Therefore, identifying a definitive correlation between Carian ethnicity and
costumes is not the purpose of this study. To the contrary, this project identifies
some ethnic/local elements and compares them to the global/Hellenistic ones, thus
trying to understand the role and the extent of mainstream fashion vs. local
dynamics.
Ethnicity and Dress- It is not easy to define how dress is related to
ethnicity (Eicher 1). The way a certain form of dress defines an ethnic group
changes over time. This change may be related to geographical movements of
populations as well as to intercultural encounters, with effects on dress that are
observable in time. Legacies of the past are equally important in determining how
a group defines a form of dress as its own ethnic symbol (Eicher 2). Yet some
scholars argue that dress is only a superficial aspect of ethnic identity; according
to them, ethnicity has other and more important defining elements, such as
language and religion (Eicher 5).
Perhaps it would be more suitable to define ethnic dress as a way to
express the cultural heritage of a group (Eicher and Sumberg 299). However,
cultural heritage can also be shared through nationality or religion, or different
1 6
cultural groups may have similar dressing habits due to geographical proximity.
Therefore, this definition can become problematic in analyzing dress in societies
in which multiple ethnic groups coexist or in different societies with some
traditions in common (Eicher and Sumberg 302).
Some scholars think that people’s perception of a form of dress as ethnic
diminishes as they become familiar with the group the dress is associated with
(Eicher and Sumberg 295). Many scholars who study contemporary fashion talk
about “cosmopolitan dress” instead of “ethnic dress”, i.e. a term chosen to
overcome the Western bias towards costumes other than those typically European
or American (Eicher and Sumberg 296). According to other scholars, fashion does
not exist in societies in which dress, in this case the ethnic dress, does not
manifest change in an individual’s lifetime (Eicher and Sumberg 299). They think
ethnic dress resists change and that it is stereotypical (Eicher and Sumberg 301).
To the contrary, although not as quickly as our fashion, ethnic dress manifests
change over time as well (Eicher and Sumberg 303). It also manifests difference
within one group, based on creativity and individual expression. It is not
continuously worn in a standardized form but it is modified in line with the
occasion for which it is worn (Eicher and Sumberg 304).
Another important issue is the way in which the ethnic element in dress is
presented and to whom. If the audience perceives that element as an exotic
curiosity, it becomes a creative asset desirable to adopt; on the other hand, if it has
a negative connotation, it becomes a reason for the alienation of those who wear
it. Similarly, adopting a widespread norm in dress may both enhance
communication among groups or may increase tension between the local culture
and the outside culture, the latter to be considered an intruder. The most realistic
1 7
scenario is that the majority of people do wear and used to wear costumes with
both ethnic elements and with more “fashionable”, macro-cultural aspects (Eicher
and Sumberg 304). This point of view will be adopted in the analysis of the
Theangela figurines and their costumes.
1 8
CHAPTER II
HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK
II.A. GENERAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ART: ALEXANDER THE GREAT
AND HELLENISM
II.A.i. Macedonian Empire and Alexander the Great
The Macedonian Empire became powerful and surpassed Athens in
political importance under the rule of Alexander’s father, Philip II. He would have
attacked the Persians to conquer the Greek cities in Anatolia if he had lived
longer. Instead, Alexander entered Anatolia in 334 B.C., two years after his
father’s death, and defeating the Persians, he moved eastward. His dream was to
create a Macedonian-Persian empire. He took two Persian princesses as wives,
illustrating his decisiveness in his long-term plans (Burn 127).
Cultural interactions between Greece and the eastern provinces of the empire
affected both regions. The Macedonian rulers admired Greek art and philosophy
and initially, their rule did not drastically change the cultural panorama in Greece.
To the contrary, this caused the spread of Greek values. The southwest coast of
Anatolia was one of the first regions to be affected. Especially Caria and Lycia
were the two regions where a complex cultural interaction occurred. However,
even before the conquest by Alexander in 330 B.C., these regions in Anatolia had
already formed a meeting point for cultures much earlier (Spivey 322). As early as
1 9
the 4th century B.C., Carian cities were already under Greek cultural influence
(Brewster 38).
Cultural impacts also came from other areas. Egypt and Syria became part of
the core areas of the Hellenistic cultural sphere, ultimately influencing Greece
(Burn 127). Artistic style became more homogeneous and local particularities
were less pronounced. Artists now brought different styles into the areas they
visited and this gave birth to a synthesis seen in many regions (Burn 128). Thus,
in Hellenistic times, life in mainland Greece was profoundly affected by the
cultural influences from other regions (Boardman, “Greek Art” 216). Examples of
pottery decoration and wall paintings from mainland Greece that depict lions and
hunting scenes, i.e. two typically Assyrian and Egyptian subjects, are not few.
Alexander’s death brought about a political crisis resulting in the empire’s
dissolution (Laisné 159). Cities and villages became the dominant political subunits
(Robertson 157). Kingdoms emerged, ending the autonomy of the polis. Yet,
cities continued to serve the kings as points of interaction with the local
authorities. Kings needed the local rulers for loyalty, and the local rulers needed
them for political legitimacy at home. The latter functioned as intermediaries
between the local people and the kingdom (Demand 332).
The period saw better economic conditions for the common people
especially if they wanted to migrate eastward. Economic prosperity in the East
was reflected in the patronage of grandiose monuments and sponsorship of arts
and sciences (Demand 332). However, mainland Greece was struggling with
economic crisis (Laisné 159); artists were impoverished and they moved to the
other parts of the dissolved empire where they were hired by kings (Laisné 175).
Rulers exploited art to make their authority visible and acceptable; they
2 0
commissioned artists to depict them in the most politically appropriate way
possible. Unlike in the Classical age in which the state or military was above the
individual ruler, the Hellenistic artwork emphasized the ruler’s personal virtues
and skillful leadership (Pollitt 19).
Greeks who migrated to eastern provinces to earn their living found
themselves in an unfamiliar environment in which they experienced adaptation
anxiety. Another source of anxiety was the unpredictable political situation, in
which cities oscillated between one king’s domination and the other’s, and each
time this happened, the new king’s decisions could destroy the citizens’ lives
(Pollitt 1). This anxiety was reflected in art more than in any other media. The
next section analyzes these changes in artistic philosophy and style.
II.A.ii. The Rise of Hellenism
Hellenistic means “Hellen-like”, but not Classical (Spivey 320). The artists
of the Hellenistic period were under the pressure of both the patrons’ demands and
the continuing comparison of their skills to earlier Classical masterpieces
(Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 95). This is why Hellenistic art did not follow a
single line of development. It manifested different paths of evolution depending
on the technical level, the subject and the scale of the artwork. This is in heavy
contrast with the Classical era, in which there was coherence of artistic values and
a narrower range of subjects (R. Smith 269). The late Hellenistic period also saw a
debate between neo-Classical thinkers and Baroque Orientals. The former, who
were settled in Rome and advocated the copying of Classical artworks, criticized
the latter for borrowing stylistic elements from the East and polluting art (R.
Smith 271). On the other hand, some artists created the “Archaistic” style, i.e. a
2 1
style similar to the Archaic but not exactly the same; it reflected the artists’
nostalgia for the simplicity of Archaic art (Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 99).
Hellenistic art elaborated on subjects like heroes, philosophers, rulers and
daily life (R. Smith 269). Now the language chosen by the artist depended on the
individual characteristics of the figure and the message to be conveyed (R. Smith
270). Individualism manifested itself in the artists’ tendency to focus on the inner
worlds of their subjects (Pollitt 7). For instance, unlike the Classical period in
which the artists tried to portray an ideal statesman profile approximately identical
for all depicted individuals, the statue of Demosthenes (fig. II.1) focuses on his
individual appearance and emotional state through a detailed study of his facial
expression. Another important principle was cosmopolitanism and it also brought
universalism (Pollitt 10). Being a citizen of the world was the dominant way of
defining an individual, no more being part of a small community like in the
Classical age (Pollitt 11). Hellenistic art also had a new scholarly approach: the
appreciation of the artwork had two layers. The more superficial layer appealed to
the common spectator with its aesthetic values, whereas its deeper layer included
implicit symbols referring to history or mythology, only to be understood by the
culturally qualified admirers (Pollitt 14).
Regarding subjects, depicting children became fashionable during the
Hellenistic age, particularly in Asia Minor (De Ridder and Deonna 328). This and
the depiction of old age came with the notion that youth was overused in art.
Moreover, death appears to have been perceived more tragically than before, since
mourning figures standing next to the deceased became a popular subject (De
Ridder and Deonna 329). Finally, the period saw a growing concern for ethnic
2 2
diversity being reflected in art: Negroes and Persians were often depicted (De
Ridder and Deonna 330).
Personal likeness in sculpture is a Hellenistic development, and it evolved
as oriental and Greek elements came together (Robertson 183). The enjoyment of
sculpture was a public phenomenon in Greece until this period, when it entered
the houses of the elite as a luxurious ornament (Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 106).
Portraiture entered Greece in the 6th century B.C., probably inspired by Egyptian
funerary art (Pollitt 59). However, Greeks gave equal importance to body details
and proportions, and produced full-length bodies with a head (Pollitt 60).
According to one line of thought, portraiture had its heyday in the Hellenistic
period because the political system became monarchical, with rulers wanting to
promote their individual characteristics as the symbol of political authority (Burn
129). In the first half of the 5th century B.C., Greek portraiture began to substitute
the Archaic type with realistic individuality and facial expression (Richter,
“Portraits” 37). However, the second half of the same century saw a growing
tendency for idealism. In this period the style was a mixture of archaism in
features like the beard, idealism in the absence of facial expression, naturalism in
modeling and realism in individuality (Richter, “Portraits” 40). The resulting style
was less realistic than the Hellenistic sculpture but also less idealistic than the
Classical (Richter, “Portraits” 41). Although the “role portrait” of the Classical
times never disappeared, the new “psychological portrait” was a rising trend, one
of the most appreciated examples being the statue of Demosthenes (fig. II.1)
(Pollitt 62). Instead of his public self-confidence, the artist chose to reflect his
inner state full of anxiety; he made use of body language to convey the message
(Pollitt 63).
2 3
Fig. II.1-Demosthenes, early 3rd century B.C. Source: Richter, “Portraits” 112-113.
The developments in the 4th century B.C. were interpreted by some
scholars as decline and by others as change (Honour and Fleming 146). The
century saw a tendency towards secularization in art, even in the temples
(Robertson 161). Portraits became less idealistic and more individualistic (Richter,
“Portraits” 41). Moreover, unlike in previous centuries, now the individuals other
than the first rank nobles could have their portraits made (Richter, “Portraits” 42).
Starting with the 4th century B.C., animals became an important subject. Beauties
of nature were being rediscovered, after a long age of minimalism in which the
focus had been man and his political, military and religious institutions (De
Ridder and Deonna 331).
Although the direction of the artistic influence was heavily from the Greek
side to the local, the local styles survived and created their own fusions as well
2 4
(Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 99). Caria is one of those regions which produced a
highly Hellenized style without completely abandoning its local traditions.
II.B. CARIA
II.B.i. Luwians, Lelegians and Carians: an Unsolved Debate
The term “Caria” defines the region surrounded by the river Maeandros in
the north, the Aegean Sea in the west, the Mediterranean Sea in the south, and
Lycia and Psydia in the east. Rhodes, Cos, Calimnos and Nisiros were the islands
that remained under Carian influence (fig. II.2) (Evren 193).
Fig. II.2-Map: Caria in Asia Minor. Source: http://www.tgeyacht.com/images/Maps/Caria.jpg (03
May 2007)
It is difficult to talk about an “intact culture”, i.e. a culture or ethnic group
that has no contact with its neighbors. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to
precisely delineate the boundaries of ethnic groups, since they generally share
some characteristics with the neighboring ones. Nevertheless, for the purposes of
2 5
this study, it is possible to talk about certain criteria which give a group an “ethnic
identity”. These criteria include: “continuity”, i.e. a set of traditions that manifest
persistence over time; “contrast”, i.e. the way a group perceives itself and is
perceived by others as distinct from other groups; a common language, and
survival at the face of the same historical event or environment (Weltfish 323-
331).
The question of the ethnicity of people living in Caria is no exception. We
can define the Carians as a cultural group separate from the Greeks or the Lycians
not because we know their ethnic origin is different from them, but because their
cultural identity manifests continuity over time. Furthermore, as illustrated below
by the work of the ancient authors, they are both perceived by themselves and by
outsiders as a separate ethnic group. Their survival in the face of political turmoil,
which will be explained below, is also remarkable. Although the name given to
them changes according to the historical period and the regional circumstances, a
cultural group with a distinct language and military equipment existed in Caria
since the time of the Hittites.
There is an ongoing debate on the origins of the Carians. Some writers
argue that they came to Caria from other places, whereas others associate them
with indigenous Anatolians. The same argument is applicable to the Lelegians,
who, according to some, were the oldest inhabitants of Caria, constituting a
cultural group different from the Carians. Others prefer to rely on Hittite sources,
in which the term “Luwians” is used to define the people living in the southwest
of Anatolia. The reliability of these theories is a question of debate; still, the
presence of the theories, especially the migration stories formulated by ancient
authors, is in itself a message about the way the outsiders saw the political
2 6
environment in Caria and the legitimacy of the Carian presence in Anatolia. Now
let us examine these arguments in three categories: those related to Luwians,
Lelegians and Carians.
Luwians- According to Bilge Umar, Luwians inhabited Caria in the 2nd
millennium B.C., and the Carians who descended from them lived in Caria in the
1st millennium B.C. Lelegians, on the other hand, were a group of Carians who
lived in mountainous areas (2-3). Furthermore, Hittites referred to Caria as part of
Arzawa, which appears from the Hittite texts to be a large region where numerous
polities existed. The Hittites record conflicts with the people of Arzawa (Umar 5).
According to other scholars, the name “Lelegian” has its origins in the Luwian
language, another evidence in favor of the Luwian connection (Bodrum Bagları).
Some argue that Carians already existed in Anatolia in the 2nd millennium B.C.,
and they point to the Hittite documents for evidence. Hittites mention Karkiya and
Karkisa, which, according to these scholars, were terms defining Caria (Tekoglu
230). Some documents refer to treaties between the Hittites and their neighbors in
Karkisa, which was under the control of Wilusa. Moreover, Egyptian sources
mention Karkisa among the allies on the Hittite side in Kadesh (Tekoglu 231).
Lelegians- Homer’s Iliad describes the Lelegians as warlike people (XXI-
102) who fought on the side of the Trojans with relatively disorganized troops (X-
428). They are also described as living in a place rich in vineyards, where they
coexisted with other groups like Caucons and Paions (X-512). However, these
places are closer to Troy, suggesting that the Lelegians came to Caria around the
12th century B.C. from the northern Aegean after the Trojan war (Bodrum
Bagları). Roman historians, on the other hand, describe the Lelegians as slaves
working for the Carians (Bodrum Bagları) like Philippus of Theangela writes in
2 7
the 4th century B.C. Hesiod places them in a more mythological context, in that of
mainland Greece, where another speculatively indigenous group called Pelasgians
moved from Boeotia to Locris, i.e. the settlement where Lelegians lived (Kinkel I-
136). Greeks had prejudices about the indigenous groups in Anatolia, but
according to this argument some Greeks believed that the Lelegians had preceded
them in mainland Greece (Bodrum Bagları). The argument may be valid since the
names of some locations such as Pedasus or Physcus occur both in Caria and in
Greece. Hypotheses include migration between the two regions and a wider
Lelegian culture affecting Greece and Anatolia as a whole (Leleges).
Carians- Homer makes a clear distinction between the Lelegians and the
Carians (X-428). Strabo agrees with him and argues that the Lelegians had to
migrate to Caria and more specifically to Halicarnassus after Achilles destroyed
their settlements during the Trojan war (XIII.1-58).
Some scholars prefer to define the Carians as a mixture of indigenous
Anatolians and Indo-European tribes (Brewster 38). However, according to
Herodotus, the Carians originally lived on the islands and they were called the
Lelegians. They were dominated by the Minoans and they provided them with
troops. Later, Carians had to come to the mainland because the Dorians and the
Ionians invaded the islands (I-171). Strabo cites this argument by Herodotus in his
work as well (XIV.2-27). Herodotus adds that Carians did not like to be
considered as migrants. Alongside with Mysians and Lydians with whom they
shared shrines, they considered themselves the truly indigenous tribes of Anatolia.
Herodotus also describes them as a military-oriented society that invented
practical weapons and military equipment (I-171). Here Strabo disagrees with
him, arguing that Carians were a peaceful society (XII.7-2).
2 8
Thucydides reports that the Carians fought during the Peloponnesian wars,
and that they died in enormous numbers and were buried in Delos; they were
identified by their weapons and particular ways of interment (I-8), a statement
which proves the fact that the Carians were perceived by the Greeks as a separate
cultural group. Thucydides adds that in an earlier period, the Carians had paid
taxes to the Minoans and that they had been expelled from the Cyclades after
Minos had become the dominant king in the Aegean (I-4).
Some scholars argue that Carians were originally Dorian. According to
one such theory, after the collapse of the Minoan civilization around 1400 B.C.,
Anatolia received migrants from Crete, including Carians and Achaeans
(Küçükeren 110). However, 1200 B.C. saw the Dorian invasions, as a result of
which the Anatolian coastline received a second, more serious wave of
migrations: groups of Aeolians, Dorians and Ionians settled in Asia Minor
(Küçükeren 114), the majority of the Dorians having settled in Caria (Küçükeren
116). A similar theory is that before Greeks came to Asia Minor, Carians
inhabited southwest Anatolia and the Lelegians lived in the Bodrum peninsula.
Dorian and Ionian invasions shifted populations southward. Carians originally
lived in a region as northward as Miletus, and Caria was taken over by Ionians in
the north and Dorians in the south (Lelegler). Strabo argues that some Carian
cities including Halicarnassus were founded by Dorians as well (XIV.2-6).
According to a story by Vitruvius, the Carians escaped to the mountainous
areas, and they often attacked the Greeks who settled on the coastline. Greeks
responded by opening a restaurant with delicious food, which no Carian could
resist. Here the local peoples and the newcomers began to interact closely (II.8-
12). This led to the mixture of the two groups also by inbreeding, and Greek
2 9
language and culture ultimately reached into western-central Anatolia (Brewster
39). Intermarriage between Carians and Greeks is visible in the occurrence of
names from both languages within the same family (Bean 81). This development
was facilitated by the fact that the Carians were the peoples least unfamiliar to the
Greeks, and their adaptation to the Greek way of life did not prove to be
drastically difficult (Strabo XIV.2-28).
Conclusions- There is no consensus over the meaning of the terms
“Luwian”, “Carian” and “Lelegian”; yet, it is clear that a cultural group existed in
Caria since the middle of the 1st millennium B.C., and, despite the influence of
Hellenism, the Greeks and the Romans continued to see them as a distinct society.
These findings point at the existence of a Carian ethnic identity. Continuity of
language and customs and contrast with other societies are evident, and these
criteria are much more significant than the bio-ethnic composition of the region.
Moreover, the Carians who traveled to other places preserved their identity, which
means that this ethnic consciousness is not only imposed from the outside, but
also felt by the Carians themselves. Finally, as it will be explained in the next
section, the Carians managed to survive in the face of a very tempestuous political
environment, which indicates their consolidated identity as an ethnic group.
With the rise of Hellenism, the Carians, or at least their rulers, appear to
have changed opinion about their identity. The 4th century B.C. marked the
beginning of the feeling of “Greekness” among Carians (Brewster 39). Mausolos
admired Greek art and architecture and he relied on them in building his cities; he
made Greek his official language. Although the Carians increasingly became
interested in the Hellenistic fashion, the ancient authors continued to refer to them
as Carians. Therefore, we may argue that, during the 4th century B.C. and the
3 0
Hellenistic period, the Carians felt a need to redefine their identity as one closer to
the Greek mainstream culture, which may be related to the fashionable character
of the Greek way of life at that time. Nevertheless, the Greeks did not see the
Carians as part of their society. On the other hand, political developments created
a cosmopolitan atmosphere in which the Carians, although increasingly
Hellenized, remained under the influence of the Persians and other Anatolian
cultures as well. Consequently, they produced a cultural mixture that again
reflected their own historical experience and motivations.
The next section will explain the political history of Caria, i.e. it will refer
to the different cultural groups who had an impact on the history of the region.
II.B.ii. Political History of Caria
As a region squeezed in between Ionia, Lycia and Phrygia, Caria was
under the influence of all its neighbors (Akurgal 295). According to
archaeological evidence, in the 8th century B.C., Carian city-states such as Pedasa,
Nysa, Latmos and Kaunos already existed and they politically resembled their
Greek counterparts (Evren 194). However, Carians were very mobile and not all
of them remained in their hometowns. The 7th century B.C. saw the presence of
Carians in Egypt as mercenary soldiers, where they continued to use their
language, Carian (Herodotus II-154). This language survived well into the 3rd
century B.C. alongside Greek. We know this information thanks to the
inscriptions the Carians left on some rocks and temple walls in Egypt (Evren 194).
To preserve their identity, they cut their faces during the festival to Isis, to remain
distinguishable from the Egyptians (Herodotus II-58). As seen on Darius
3 1
inscriptions, they also went to Achaemenid Persia with the Ionians to work as
mercenaries (Tekoglu 228).
Caria spent the 7th century B.C. and the early 6th century B.C. under
Lydian domination (Bean 84). As Herodotus confirms (I-28), the first political
unity came to Caria with the Lydians, who also conquered the Ionian city-states in
the early 6th century B.C. However, according to Umar, also due to the regional
geography, Lydian rule could never become too coercive: Carians paid them taxes
and provided them with troops, but their internal affairs were conducted by local
governors (5). When the Persians defeated the Lydians in 547-546 B.C., Caria
became Persian territory. Except for Pedasa and Kaunos, Persians did not meet
resistance from local inhabitants. Like the Lydians, they left the administrative
duties to local rulers, now called “satraps”. Each satrap had a number of cities
under his control, leaving the internal affairs to each city’s tyrant (Umar 6).
Akurgal argues that Caria never became completely dependent on the
empire; local governors managed to balance their own interests with those of the
Persian kings, especially during the 4th century B.C. (295). Nevertheless, the
Carians rebelled against the Persian rule in collaboration with some Ionian cities
in 499-494 B.C. (Herodotus V-110 to 122). The Persian army that defeated the
Carian confederation had difficulties in achieving this result. Carians made use of
guerilla warfare, and the mountainous landscape was advantageous for ambush
(Umar 7). However, the Persians managed to restore order and the Carians did not
rebel again (Umar 8).
In the 5th century B.C., the Carians joined forces with the Persians in the
latter’s campaign against Greece (Herodotus VII-93). Together with the Ionians
they provided the Persians with troops (Umar 9). Later, when the Greeks united
3 2
against the Persians, the situation changed: Carians remained stuck in between the
Athenians and the Persians. Between 430 and 411 B.C., the Athenians and the
Spartans attacked Ionia, Caria and Lycia many times, but they were met with
extraordinary resistance. The two Greek cities aimed at raising funds to enhance
their military power against the Persian threat, but they lost many ships and
valuable commanders. Halicarnassus was under Athenian pressure, while the
Spartans kept Kaunos under control (Umar 10). When the Spartans lost the battle,
Carians still had to remain alert for the Persian inter-satrap conflicts followed by
Spartan-Persian aggression (Umar 11).
As illustrated above, Caria saw many conflicts, alliances and interactions:
the area became a battlefield for the Athenians, Spartans and Persians.
Consequently, it can be asserted that these groups must have left their marks in
Caria, which can be traced through the analysis of material culture, i.e. for our
purposes, coroplastic artworks and costumes.
II.B.iii. Halicarnassus, Mausolos and the Mausoleum
In investigating the history of Caria, Mausolos’s rule (377-353 B.C.) is
especially important, because it is the era in which Carian Hellenism reached its
peak. His admiration of Greek artworks affected his choices of architectural and
artistic projects for the Carian cities. Famous Greek artists had a chance to work in
Caria under his patronage (Akurgal 295). Moreover, the city of Halicarnassus,
Mausolos’s greatest achievement, has a crucial role in the history of the region,
and it is one of the greatest examples of Carian Hellenization. However, as to be
seen below, Caria never abandoned its local customs: legacies from the past and
eastern influences continued to balance the Greek ones.
3 3
Halicarnassus and Mausolos- According to Strabo (XIV.2-16) and
Herodotus (VII-99), the founders of Halicarnassus may have been Dorians from
Troezen who arrived to the region around 1,000 B.C. (Bean 78). They probably
took over a small settlement and transformed it into a city (Umar 112). At first,
the city was a member of the Hexapolis, a convention of six Carian cities. Later
Halicarnassus was pushed outside of it because a citizen violated a rule
(Herodotus I-144). However, the true reason may have been the growing Ionian
influence on the city, which reached its culmination in the 5th century B.C. (Bean
79). Despite all these influences, the Carian character of Halicarnassus always
remained visible, even during the Hellenistic era (Bean 81). This culture was
neither too similar to the Greek nor to the Persian or the Lelegian; it was a mixture
of all of them.
Strabo is one of the best sources for tracing the history of Halicarnassus
and the Hekatomnids (XIV.2-17). Hekatomnos was the first of a line of satraps to
rule Caria on behalf of the Persians and his rule facilitated the penetration of
Hellenistic ideas into Caria (Brewster 39). When he died in 377 B.C., two of his
children, prince Mausolos and princess Artemisia, began to rule the region
together. Now they were also husband and wife (Akurgal 295), because Carian
satraps married their sisters to maintain the purity of their dynastic blood
(Robertson 158). Mausolos initially ruled in Mylasa and he aimed at increasing
his sphere of dominance through a series of attacks to other Carian towns (Umar
12). He joined forces with Rhodes against Athens and conquered lands in the
neighboring regions, becoming an important military actor in the Aegean
(Akurgal 295). Persians favored his advance since it meant a politically unified
Caria, which was easier to rule; moreover, unlike other local governors, he never
3 4
rebelled against the Persians (Umar 12). He even prevented a rebellion by a
confederation of Carian cities and Aegean islands (Umar 13).
Mausolos ultimately decided to have Halicarnassus instead of Mylasa as
his new capital. He initiated building projects including city walls, grid-plan
roads, a palace and the famous Maussolleion (Mausoleum) (Spivey 324). In
Mausolos’s time there were eight Lelegian cities in Caria, and the populations of
six of them moved to Halicarnassus with the satrap’s order, except for Syangela
and Myndus (Strabo XIII.1-59). He had city walls and other facilities built in all
Carian towns. He substituted the Carian names of some settlements with the
Hellenistic ones. Highly probably, he even had some old cities evacuated and new
and more Hellenistic settlements were created to welcome their inhabitants, like in
the case of Syangela/Theangela (Umar 14).
Strabo (XIV.2-17) and Vitruvius (II.8-14 to 15) also describe the events
following Mausolos’s death in 353 B.C.: Artemisia took over the principality and
defeated Rhodes in a sea battle. After her death, her brother Idrieus (351-344
B.C.) and his wife and sister Ada became the new rulers. Again the husband died
earlier, and Ada remained as the “Carian Princess”. Tragically, her brother
Pixodaros sent her to exile; he preferred to rule the region in alliance with a
Persian governor (Akurgal 295). In the meantime, Ada remained in Alinda until
Alexander visited her. Ada adopted him and he, in return, made her commander of
the forces that were to besiege the acropolis of Halicarnassus (Brewster 46). The
siege was met with utmost resistance by Pixodaros’s son in law, Orontobates.
However, as Ada’s rule was restored, Alexander gained Carian support. His
strategy required leaving the local affairs to indigenous rulers who would owe him
allegiance, a method similar to the Persian one (Demand 312). Unlike the Greeks
3 5
who underestimated local Anatolians as barbarians, Alexander made clever use of
them and this facilitated his conquest (Demand 314).
During the Hellenistic period, Caria saw the domination of a series of
rulers succeeding Alexander’s death and the dissolution of his empire into smaller
kingdoms: Asandros, Antigonos, Lysimakhos and Seleukos were some of them
(Umar 14). Egyptian Ptolemies ruled Halicarnassus for a short period of time
(Bean 84). The Seleucids and then in 180 B.C. the kingdom of Pergamon took
over the region; finally, in 133 B.C., Caria became a Roman province (Akurgal
295).
Fig. II.3-One of the reconstructions suggested for the Mausoleum. Source: Waywell 119.
3 6
The Mausoleum- The Mausoleum can be read as a visual summary of
what was happening in Caria at the time in terms of cultural exchange (Spivey
326). Local traditions in Caria allowed for the heroization of the deceased couple,
Mausolos and Artemisia, with the building of a family tomb, i.e. a sort of a ruler
cult; this was not a Greek phenomenon. Lycia was rich in grandiose tombs as
well, and in both regions, Greek artists hired by rich families worked on these
projects (Spivey 325). The architectural layout of the Mausoleum also resembled
the Persian royal tombs such as that of Cyrus and the Egyptian pyramids (Spivey
326). The surrounding Ionic columns were reminiscent of a Greek temple,
whereas the tall podium and the pyramid-like structure were eastern inventions
(fig. II.3) (Robertson 158), more specifically, the podium being Lycian and the
pyramid being Egyptian (Waywell 122).
The variety of styles embedded in the Mausoleum should not be blamed on
chronological discrepancies, but on the different styles of the artists working on it
contemporaneously (Robertson 160). Sculptures were made by Greek artists like
Skopas, Bryaxis, Leochares, Timotheus and Praxiteles (Spivey 326). Skopas
worked on the eastern, Bryaxis on the northern, Timotheus on the southern, and
Leochares on the western façades of the building (Waywell 104).
The Mausoleum friezes follow the mainstream Greek sculpture of that
period. However, in the realm of subjects, there is considerable departure from
Greek art: death, afterlife, ruler cults (Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 92), lion hunts
and the actual scenes of siege and conquest are atypical in Greek art and they are
more familiar subjects for eastern peoples (Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 93).
Moreover, the architects, Pytheos and Satyros, also worked in other projects in
Greece and Anatolia (Robertson 158). The Mausoleum and a relief from Tegea in
3 7
Greece depicting Carian dynasts appear to be stylistically connected, suggesting
that the same artists worked in both locations (Robertson 161). These connections
support the argument in favor of an extensive movement of artists and styles
throughout the Hellenistic world.
Fig. II.4-Colossal statues of Mausolos and Artemisia. Source: Spivey 334, 331.
Mausolos himself, although a fan of Hellenism, was not Greek in
appearance (Brewster 41). Two colossal statues from the Mausoleum are of
utmost importance (fig. II.4) (Robertson 159). The agreement is strong on the
fact that the works belong to the 4th century B.C., although some scholars suggest
later periods (Robertson 160). They are believed to depict Mausolos and
Artemisia: the Mausolos statue is a distinguished piece with its naturalistic
drapery and aesthetically outstanding portrait (Robertson 159). It is a perfect
example of art evolving towards Hellenism in personal likeness and naturalism,
3 8
but still preserving some of the elements of Classical idealism in structure
(Robertson 184).
Mausolos is dressed in an oriental costume (Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet
91). Mausolos’s moustache, long hair and costume are not Greek in style,
particularly abnormal for a ruler with a similar status. His wide cloak and very
long robe are not Greek garments (Bruneau, Torelli and i Altet 93): typically
Anatolian with this heavy garment, moustache and long hair, Mausolos demanded
a great monument to cover and protect his grave, a very Eastern idea of a tomb
structure (Brewster 41). This illustrates the extent to which Greek, Egyptian and
Persian artistic influences in Caria created a synthesis with the local customs.
II.C. SYANGELA AND THEANGELA
Fig. II.5-Myndos Peninsula. Source: Bean 91.
Halicarnassus was not the only important city in Caria. There were many
other large settlements including Myndus, Mylasa, Kaunos, Iassos, Pedasa,
3 9
Latmos/Heraklia, and more importantly, Syangela and Theangela (fig. II.5).
Syangela is close to Alazeytin, a neighborhood of Çiftlik Köyü, to the east of the
Myndos Peninsula (Umar 109), whereas Theangela was founded near the
Pınarlıbelen neighborhood in Etrim, to the northeast of Syangela (fig. II.6) (Umar
107). It is situated on a steep hill at the eastern side of Kale Dagı (fig. II.7)
(Bodrum Bagları).
Fig. II.6-PınarlıbelenVillage, Etrim Neighborhood (front). Pınarlıbelen (far left).
Source: www.bodrumbaglari.com (18 October 2006)
Fig. II.7-The hills on top of which Theangela is situated, with a view from
the vineyards on the plain. Source: www.bodrumbaglari.com (18 October 2006)
4 0
II.C.i. Theories on Syangela and Theangela
During the 4th century B.C., the Lelegian cities that survived for the
longest time were Myndus and Syangela (Lelegler). As explained in the previous
sections, Mausolos moved the inhabitants of six Lelegian cities to Halicarnassus,
but he did not apply the same policy to these two settlements. Moreover, Syangela
appears to be somehow connected to Theangela. Thus it would be useful to
summarize the theories that relate the history of these two cities in different ways.
According to one theory, Syangela itself later became Theangela and it
remained under Hellenistic influence (Lelegler); but this theory does not explain
why there are two separate cities in two different places. Fahri Isık, on the other
hand, argues that Theangela’s past goes back to the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., and
that the city was founded in the Archaic period by the invading Dorians just like
Halicarnassus or Myndus (19). This argument is also problematic because the
inscriptions and other artifacts do not confirm the city’s existence as a political
entity before the Hellenistic period.
Umar thinks that Theangela was founded with Mausolos’s order in the
early 4th century B.C. to host the inhabitants of the evacuated city, Syangela (101).
This argument is more logical; it explains why we do not have evidence for the
political existence of Theangela before the Hellenistic period and why Mausolos
did not take the Syangelans to Halicarnassus. In this case, Mausolos must have
founded Myndus and Syangela again in places nearby, so that, together with
Halicarnassus, now he had three Hellenistic settlements, one to the east, one in the
middle and one to the west of the Myndos peninsula (Bean 103). This should have
created a strategic advantage. Even the name of the new city is the hellenized
version of the old. The syllable “sya” or “thea” means “good, beautiful, divine”,
4 1
and it is believed that it addressed the goddess cult (Umar 101). The word
“Angela” means “the road of the mother goddess”. It is also likely that “Etrim”
derived from “Edrima”, which was one of the words used for Adra, i.e. the
husband of the mother goddess (Umar 105).
Even if we assume that Umar’s argument is accurate, it does not mean that
there was nothing in the city’s place before it was founded. Theangela appears to
have formerly been a religious site dedicated to a mother goddess cult (Umar
107). As it will be explained in the next section, some architectural elements in
Theangela appear to be older than Theangela and connected to Syangela.
Therefore, Theangela was not built from nothing; a different kind of built
structure was already there since the Archaic period, but it was not to be called a
city; it later evolved into Theangela as described by the city plan we have.
Dr. Wolfgang Radt suggests another similar story that is not contradictory
but is complementary to Umar’s: Syangela was not in Alazeytin but it was near
Etrim, closer to Theangela. In Etrim he identified a Lelegian site rich in tumuli,
and he argued that these belonged to the local dynasts. He rewrote the city’s
foundation story: the surviving Syangelans moved to Etrim, i.e. near the site to
become Theangela, after a Persian attack destroyed their city around 546 B.C.; but
they did not completely abandon Syangela until Mausolos told them to move to
Theangela, a new city with a Greek plan (Bean 110). This argument can explain
why Theangela has some Lelegian architectural elements (identified in the way in
which the city walls were built) alongside with the Hellenistic ones.
4 2
II.C.ii. Theangela: Lelegian and Hellenistic Elements
Excavations and Surveys- In the 1880s, Syangela and Theangela attracted
the attention of Western scholars. For a long time, they tried to match the located
sites with the site names they encountered in ancient sources. Theangela was one
of the subjects of intense debate, but W. R. Paton argued that a certain site
previously identified as Pedasa was actually Theangela. This area was excavated
by a local resident, and some statues and inscriptions were discovered (C. Smith
and Hicks 139).
Cook and Bean visited Theangela in 1952 (Cook 51). In 1955, Askidil
Akarca and G. E. Bean surveyed the site, especially focusing on producing the
city plan and examining the fortification walls (Mellink 379). In this survey, some
pieces of 5th century B.C. pottery were discovered (Theangela-Kenthaber),
including Attic vases (Cook 51). The year 1965 saw the discovery of a bothros, or
a deposit area on one of the three hilltops within the city (Eckstein 291). The
bothros was discovered by local peasants. Haluk Elbe, the director of Bodrum
Museum at that time, decided to excavate it (Isık 15). The depository was in use
between the mid-6th and early 3rd century B.C. (Eckstein 292). Probably an area
dedicated to religious sacrifices, it contained terracotta figurines with a variety of
subjects but they were the victims of extensive plundering (Eckstein 291). In
1975, the site was illegally excavated (Umar 105); to salvage the remaining
artifacts, archaeologists conducted a salvage excavation in the area (Eckstein 291).
The City- Theangela differs considerably from Syangela in terms of city
plan and architecture (fig. II.8). Syangela was a typically Lelegian town, whereas
Theangela was built as a Hellenistic city; but its fortification walls were designed
in Lelegian style, and they were strengthened with towers and forts
4 3
(Etrim/Theangela). The walls were probably constructed in the late 4th century
B.C. (Lelegler) and they were 2-3 meters thick and more than 3 kilometers long
(Umar 102). An impressive fort on the western hill with a tetrapyrgon plan (D) is
especially strong (Bean 106). Theangela was more vulnerable to attacks on its
southern side. The fort was placed at the western side of this vulnerable area to
support the gate (G) (Lelegler).
Fig. II.8-Theangela city plan. Source: Bean 108.
The inner wall cuts the city into half (P). The area to the east of the wall is
rich in buildings, especially around the peak of the hill enclosed in it. It is believed
that the city area was initially excessive for its population, so to make it more
manageable, Mausolos decided to have the city divided and to have habitation
only on one side (Bean 107). The citadel has a Lelegian tower (N), two cisterns
(S) and a mosaic pavement (T). Outside the citadel but within the inhabited city, a
4 4
well-preserved Lelegian dwelling with three rooms (F) is interesting, in the sense
that its roof was made with a technique called the “corbelled vault” (Bean 107).
Moreover, a stadium-like building (M) is identifiable, smaller than standard
stadiums of the period but highly probably used as a sports center (Bean 108).
A tomb (Q) was discovered on the eastern half of the city. It is a 7-meterlong
chamber with a corbel-vaulted roof, attached to an antechamber at one side.
The tomb produced 5th century B.C. pottery fragments and bones (Bean 108). It
probably belonged to Pigres, a local dynast, and he was buried before Theangela
was founded; at the time the area must have been functioning as a religious or
burial site for Syangela, like Radt argues.
Inscriptions- Inscriptions discovered at Theangela were quickly taken
abroad but their contents are available and they are proof of the city’s identity: one
of the inscriptions was a letter addressing a citizen of Theangela, whereas the
other was related to the honoring procedures of a citizen in the temple to Athena
in Theangela (C. Smith and Hicks 139). This inscription reports the existence of a
decree from Troezen in the Macedonian period. It warned Theangela about
honoring a certain Aristeides. The decree was to be brought from Troezen to
Theangela by a group of envoys and was to be placed in the temple to Athena
(Hicks 235). The decree asserted that the citizen had to be honored on two stelae.
These were to be placed in the temple to Athena in Theangela and in the temple to
Apollo in Troezen (Frothingham 210).
According to these inscriptions, around 300 B.C. Theangela provided the
Athenians with mercenary troops (Hicks 140). Another inscription reveals that
Caria was in a warlike situation and the Theangelans were divided in two camps
regarding the side to support. The dominant side appears to have pardoned the
4 5
weaker side that abandoned the city after being defeated (Hicks 236). Inscriptions
also include grants of citizenship to individuals from other cities, dedications,
sales of priesthood and funerary texts (Searchable Greek Inscriptions).
As illustrated above, Theangela never saw a systematic archaeological
excavation and this creates difficulty in studying the site and evaluating the
findings. Nevertheless, the variety of historical influences on the city has to be
considered in the interpretation of the stylistic data the figurines provide.
4 6
CHAPTER III
THE FIGURINES
III.A. THE HISTORY OF TERRACOTTA FIGURINES IN THE AEGEAN
Terracotta figurines of the Hellenistic period are well known for their
strong facial expressions and the combination of various moulds in their
manufacture, which gives them liveliness and variety (Boardman, “Greek Art”
241). The earlier figurines were used as votives, specifically modeled for each
sanctuary or deity (Richter, “A Handbook” 229). The Hellenistic period saw their
emergence as secular, decorative objects (Honour and Fleming 170). Plato writes
about “keroplasts” or “waxmakers” who used beewax to model statuettes for
domestic decoration, child play, magic spells and game tables (Richter, “A
Handbook” 206).
Artists preferred clay, bronze and marble as production materials
(Thompson, “Three Centuries” 117). Terracotta was much more widespread even
compared to stone or metal, but bronze examples survived in considerable
quantities as well (Richter, “A Handbook” 185). Moreover, there is a parallel line
of stylistic evolution in sculpture and terracotta figurines, from the Archaic to the
Hellenistic period. However, the specific taste of the artist is more visible in
4 7
figurines than in sculptures and these stylistic details provide evidence for their
place of origin (Richter, “A Handbook” 229).
Now let us examine more closely the chronological development of Greek
coroplastic art.
III.A.i. From Early Periods to the 5th Century B.C.
The terracotta statuettes of the Geometric period are found in burials and
religious contexts and they are highly stylized, rarely and only partially moulded
(Richter, “A Handbook” 229). Humans are depicted in military or pastoral
contexts, with chariots or ploughs (Richter, “A Handbook” 231). Water carriers,
horse riders, funeral wagons with mourners, female deities, musicians and people
holding offerings can be seen as well. Offerings range from animal sacrifices to
cups and flowers. Cyprus and Crete are rich in figurines from this period (Richter,
“A Handbook” 232).
The artists’ aim was to produce less heavy figurines with better
evaporation, and they tried to invent better techniques. The statuettes from the
period 525-480 B.C. were thick; they had unmodelled backsides and closed bases.
The 5th century B.C. saw the emergence of bigger evaporation holes and open
bases (Goldman and Jones 372). Moulds began to be used in the 6th century B.C.
The figures were generally produced in two separate parts, the front and the back,
the former being moulded and the latter not; they were attached together later
(Herbert 99). The original example was prepared in clay or wax, and a fired mould
was obtained from it. The mould was then filled with wet clay; as it dried, it lost
volume and could be taken out of the mould; in this way the new figurine
resembling the mould was created. However, the artist did not wait for it to dry
4 8
completely: the base was to be added later, as well as the evaporation hole and
other details. Therefore, as the figurine came out of the mould it was half dry,
which allowed for the modifications to be made after moulding. A white coat was
added before firing, and the figurines were painted after firing (Richter, “A
Handbook” 234).
The temperature of firing increased over time, so the more resistant the
figurines are (i.e. the clay being harder), the later their chronological context is
thought to be (Thompson, “Three Centuries” 123). Fine finish generally points at
a later date, whereas coarser texture means the figurine may date back to the 5th
century B.C. or earlier. Finally, the figurine’s condition is highly correlated with
its age, the most well preserved often being the youngest (Thompson, “Three
Centuries” 125).
The late 5th century B.C. was rich in statuettes representing draped women,
usually in a peplos (Richter, “A Handbook” 236). Both daily life, and to a greater
extent mythology, are frequently seen subjects (Richter, “A Handbook” 237).
Votive offerings addressing heroes are widespread as well as reclining males.
However, this period produced a poorer variety of subjects and styles compared to
the centuries before and after it, but it produced them with high skills and in large
numbers (Richter, “A Handbook” 239). Anatolia, Rhodes, Samos and Greece
were important production centers in the 6th and 5th centuries (Richter, “A
Handbook” 235), and Boeotia and Rhodes were famous in the 5th century B.C.
(Richter, “A Handbook” 240).
4 9
III.A.ii. The 4th and 3rd Centuries B.C.
The 4th century B.C. marks the beginning of the golden age of the
terracotta statuettes (Richter, “A Handbook” 240). The era saw the transformation
of the female figurine from a dedicant in a temple to an individual in daily life
(Thompson, “Three Centuries” 128). In other words, the votive function of the
figurines lost importance and daily life depictions became the focus of attention.
Tombs from this period are rich in figurines but it is unlikely that they had a
religious meaning (Richter, “A Handbook” 241). Figurines produced in series now
had individual characteristics as works of art in their own right (Thompson, “the
Origin” 53).
Artists began to produce anatomical parts separately, i.e. the head or the
limbs vs. the body. This allowed for variety (Herbert 99). Multiple moulds were
utilized to obtain slightly different poses, accessories and head-body combinations
(Richter, “A Handbook” 241). Moreover, the 4th century B.C. saw a considerable
change in pose and style, which became more naturalistic (Thompson, “the
Origin” 52). Females draped in tunics and mantles, holding children or objects and
standing in spiritual poses became the favorite theme (Richter, “A Handbook”
241). Other popular subjects include dolls, males, women’s heads, seated women,
comic figures, poorly made votives, masks and animals (Thompson, “Three
Centuries” 126-147). This does not mean that offering a particular figurine to a
deity was a completely abandoned tradition (Thompson, “Three Centuries” 154).
Eleusinian votives were widespread, but votives used as offerings were less finely
made, in contrast to the figurines produced as decorative items (Thompson,
“Three Centuries” 155).
5 0
Olynthos, southern Russia (some burials studied by K. Schefold), Corinth
and Halae are centers famous with their figurines of the late 4th century B.C.
(Thompson, “Three Centuries” 118-119). Alexandria is also known for figurines
discovered in burials. Some statuettes used for making other copies and dating
back to this period come from garbage contexts, which informs the researcher on
the diversity of the moulds utilized by the artists; used over and over again, they
lost their functionality and they were ultimately thrown into the garbage
(Thompson, “Three Centuries” 120).
The Hellenistic age, i.e. 323-30 B.C., produced figurines in a similar
fashion (Richter, “A Handbook” 241). Athens, Sicily, Myrina, Smyrna, Tarsus
and Pontos were important centers, and combinations of two or more figures
standing or sitting in lively positions and depicting dolls or actors were
widespread. Some deities were popular, especially Nike, Eros and Aphrodite
(Richter, “A Handbook” 242). A more detailed analysis of figurine production in
the Hellenistic period will be given in the section on Theangela figurines.
III.B. EXAMPLES OF FAMOUS 4TH AND 3RD CENTURY B.C.
FIGURINES
Stylistic differences among figurines do not only originate from
chronological differences. Their place of origin has an important role in defining
their characteristics. So it is necessary to review some production centers in
Greece and Anatolia to be able to evaluate Theangela figurines in a comparative
framework.
5 1
III.B.i. Athens
The quality of Athenian coroplasts is higher than those of the other regions
in the Aegean produced at the same time or even in later times (Thompson,
“Three Centuries” 156). For instance, Alexandrian figurines from a later period,
when compared to their Athenian counterparts from an earlier one, display lower
technical sophistication (Thompson, “Three Centuries” 157). Moreover, items
fashionable in Athens became popular in other regions slightly later; at that point,
they lost relevance in Athens (Thompson, “Three Centuries” 155). Earlier
figurines were generally votives and Athens exported them (Thompson, “the
Origin” 53). Yet Athens was the first place where the votive tradition began to
lose ground with the emergence of the more secular fashion in coroplastic art, also
with the inspiration the artists drew from large sculptures (Thompson, “Three
Centuries” 158).
The Athenian style generally affected the countryside and not vice versa.
However, Athenians were not interested in producing figurines to the extent of the
Boeotians, at least until the 4th century B.C. In this century, both the quantity and
the quality of figurines reached their high point throughout Greece, Boeotia
having already become the leading terracotta producer in the Aegean (Thompson,
“the Origin” 53). The best Boeotian examples are the famous Tanagra figurines.
Some suggest that they imitated the Athenian style, while others argue that the
figurines themselves were produced in Athens (Thompson, “the Origin” 51). In
spite of these arguments, it is undisputable that the Tanagra style affected the
entire Aegean and became popular in its own right.
5 2
III.B.ii. Tanagra
The Tanagra style appeared in its mature form and pushed other styles out
of fashion in the late 4th century B.C., more specifically between 340 and 330 B.C.
The following decade, 330-320 B.C., was its golden age in Greece (Thompson,
“the Origin” 54). The term is used by some scholars to define all Greek
terracottas; according to others, there are considerable regional differences, so it
would be better not to broaden the term’s definition to other regions (Robinson 8).
According to some scholars, Tanagra statuettes belonging to the same
decade were not all created by the same artist, and others even argue that not all of
them were produced in Boeotia but they came from neighboring settlements (Fox
313). Yet it is evident that they created a style also widespread outside Greece.
Especially in Anatolia, similar figurines were produced (Boardman, “Greek Art”
242). Other imitations were made in Egypt and Italy, but none could approximate
the quality of the Boeotian ones (fig. III.1) (Thompson, “Three Centuries” 130).
Fig. III.1-Examples of figurines from Tanagra. It is evident that they have much higher quality
with respect to their counterparts in other regions with their naturalistic pose, elaborate details in
drapery, variety of accessories and aesthetic sophistication. Source: Boucher 107.
5 3
The Tanagras mark a departure from the Classical style and a tendency
towards Hellenism (Thompson, “the Origin” 63). Realism is evident in these
figurines, which describe regional differences in appearances and costumes rather
than elaborating on the ideal Greek citizen depicted in the previous centuries
(Boardman, “Greek Art” 243). Some were inspired by statues, but they are not
simply the miniature imitations of them (Thompson, “the Origin” 62). They also
drew inspiration from metal statuettes. The figurines’ dimensions, the forms of the
bases and the sharpness of facial details and drapery all point to a considerable
influence of metalwork (Thompson, “the Origin” 54).
The length of the Tanagras remained between 12 and 30 centimeters. Their
backsides were not left unmodelled, and several moulds were employed in their
production (Thompson, “Three Centuries” 130). Artists slightly modified them
after production, thus each figure gained a personality of his/her own. Facial
expressions and body language were used to make the figure belong to a social
setting, i.e. a procession or a ceremony (Fox 312). Accessories were added after
the moulding stage and the figurines were completely colored (Fox 313). The
statuettes were discovered in burials, used as gifts for the deceased. In spite of this
fact, the artists made use of a broad range of secular subjects (Herbert 105).
Mythology and religion are rarely depicted, with only some examples identified as
Aphrodite, Dionysus and Eros (Robinson 8). The figurines are descriptive of daily
life and ordinary people. It is argued that they were conceptualized as home
decoration and that they accompanied the deceased so that he or she could enjoy
the pleasures of this world after death (Fox 314). Some continue to interpret them
as representations of deities. However, others claim that their image evolved from
a votive into a domestic one in later periods (Fox 315).
5 4
The figurines depict lower-middle classes living in the cities (R. Smith
86). The majority of them are women (Fox 316) but they elaborate on three main
subjects: young males, young females and children (Robinson 8). Females
represent ordinary women participating in religious festivities and temple
processions. They are dominated by an emotional aura rather than being idealized
models. Gestures are overwhelmingly pronounced, and the variety of colors is
evidence for how much emphasis the artists placed on the aesthetic aspects (R.
Smith 86).
Drapery reflects continuity throughout the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C. (R.
Smith 86). The majority of the figurines wear a chiton and a mantle, with the hair
fixed at the back of the head. While some wear a hat, others wrap the edge of the
mantle around the head. They hold fans or wreaths in their hands (Burn 133).
Tanagras also exemplify a style widespread in the 3rd century B.C., in which
double-layer drapery is depicted to enrich the texture. The layer underneath is
made thicker, and its folds are visible through the thinner, upper layer of cloth
(Robertson 199).
The figurines were exported to many places, including Italy, Alexandria
and southern Russia (Thompson, “the Origin” 62). Alexandria was also rich in
Tanagra-inspired figurines depicting urban middle-class females in a variety of
poses. There are also votives dedicated to ruler cults, representing kings. The
Alexandrian style strongly resembles that of the other major centers in Anatolia in
that period (R. Smith 210), including Myrina.
5 5
III.B.iii. Myrina
The necropolis at Myrina was excavated between 1880 and 1882 (Reinach
413), and the figurines were discovered in a burial context, with examples ranging
from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. (Kingsley 82). Each Anatolian
city had its particular coroplastic style, and Myrina was famous with its finely
modeled and highly fired figurines, extraordinarily detailed in composition (Burn
134). It is possible to see on them the stamps of the particular artists or
workshops, suggesting that they became a famous brand name (Burn 135).
However, their golden age was the 3rd and the 2nd centuries B.C. (Kingsley 82). It
is probable that they were inspired by the Tanagra figurines like the Alexandrian
ones, but they differ from them in some aspects (Robinson 8).
Like the Tanagras, the majority of them are women; however, unlike the
secular Tanagras, it is believed that relatively more of them represent Aphrodite.
Other figures are thought to represent Erotes and Winged Victories (fig. III.2). On
the other hand, some works have peculiar compositions, such as the conversing
women or doll-like figures probably representing a more eastern version of
Aphrodite (Burn 135). Other examples are believed to be the replicas of statues
that no longer survive to us today (Reinach 416). On the other hand, the seated
females, although similar in pose to the standing ones, have different details in
headdress, accessories and garments. Nude figures are widespread as well: a
unique example depicts a female bather (Reinach 417), and may be the replica of
a large Venus statue (Reinach 418).
5 6
Fig. III.2-Hellenistic Nike from Myrina, with her wings missing. Source: M.E.P. 213.
Other figures appear in various poses, often interpreted as having symbolic
meanings. It is not necessarily the case: it can simply be the artist’s creative
choice (Reinach 420). In this sense, according to some scholars, Myrina statuettes
manifest greater variety than the Tanagra figurines (Reinach 415). According to
others, Athenian, Alexandrian and Myrinian figurines were more archetypal
compared to the individualized Tanagras (Erlich 2); what is obvious is that the
Myrinian ones are technically inspired by the Boeotian examples, remaining
slightly less impressive in quality but at least as impressive as them in variety.
III.B.iv. Halae
The figurines from the necropolis of Halae constitute an ideal data set for a
comparative analysis, containing samples from a period extending from the 6th
century B.C. to the 3rd (Goldman and Jones 365). They are not drastically different
from those at Boeotia, Locris or Phocis. Especially the Boeotian style deeply
influenced Halae; some moulds at Halae appear to have been directly brought
from Boeotia (Goldman and Jones 370).
5 7
The earlier terracottas may have had religious purposes such as keeping
the divinities happy so that they did not harm the living. The appearance of the
statuettes became more secular in time, and their function became more difficult
to identify, especially in the 4th century B.C. (Goldman and Jones 373). One group
of figurines dating back to 525-480 B.C. includes representations of divinities,
deceased heroes and priestesses (Goldman and Jones 376). The second group
dating back to 480-450 B.C. is less Archaic in style (Goldman and Jones 384).
The third group from 450-420 B.C. displays a considerable degree of stylistic
progress (Goldman and Jones 385) and the fourth group from 420-390 B.C. has
higher bases and displays greater quality (Goldman and Jones 391). The fifth
group from 390-350 B.C. marks the disappearance of the taste for the seated
women (Goldman and Jones 398). The standing women become more popular,
depicted in a variety of dynamic poses, and they are the immediate predecessors
of the Tanagra style (Goldman and Jones 399). The sixth group from 350-335
B.C. represents a style slightly closer to the Tanagras, and young girls become a
dominant subject (Goldman and Jones 407). The seventh group from 335-280
B.C. indicates that the evolution of the standing woman in Halae has reached the
Tanagra stage (Goldman and Jones 408).
5 8
III.B.v. Maresha: an Eastern Example
Fig. III.3-Examples of figurines from Maresha. Source: Erlich 4.
Maresha is an eastern example of a Hellenistic site situated in present
Israel and rich in terracotta figurines. The city probably flourished in the 3rd and
2nd century B.C., where nearly 600 statuettes related to daily life and religion were
discovered (Erlich 1). The majority of them appear to have been produced in situ.
They are blurred and not detailed, suggesting their use in the production of
moulds, a process which deteriorated their condition. The backsides are generally
left unmodelled and facial details are difficult to distinguish (Erlich 2). There is no
white undercoat, retouches are coarse and they manifest poor artistic quality
(Erlich 3). The majority of them were directly copied from their predecessors, yet
it is not impossible to encounter unique examples and deviations from the
conventional types, suggesting the presence of local influences (Erlich 10).
Maresha figurines illustrate that poor technical skills affect style through
the absence of an iconography typical for the site and sometimes misguide the
viewer in the identification of the figure through its attributes, which become
5 9
undistinguishable due to blurred details (Erlich 7). The reason could be that the
majority of coroplastic artists in Maresha, as well as in other places like Corinth,
Black Sea, Egypt and Samothrace, were part-time terracotta artisans not
specialized in statuettes. Another reason could be the function of the figurines,
their treatment being more careless if they were meant for a practical and seasonal
use. However, the problem in Maresha appears to be more closely related to its
geographical distance from the famous terracotta production centers in Greece
(Erlich 8).
Subjects include Eros, seated women, mothers carrying children, lovers,
deities, Athena and cavaliers (Erlich 2-10). Unlike the Tanagras, they do not
manifest a dominant interest in secular subjects, and they may have been inspired
by local motifs. Yet they must have had a function or a symbolic meaning, since
the choice of subjects and structures do not appear to be accidental (Erlich 9).
Nevertheless, Maresha statuettes are examples of minor art and cannot
approximate the Tanagras in artistic quality (fig. III.3) (Erlich 12).
III.B.vi. Conclusions
If we compare Maresha figurines to the ones in other centers in Greece and
Anatolia, we can assert that the quality of the figurines is negatively correlated
with the distance of their site of provenance from mainland Greece, which means
that Greece is where the high quality workmanship in coroplastic art first
emerged. Hellenism contributed to the movement of these artistic values and the
artists themselves, which homogenized stylistic vocabulary in the Hellenistic
world. Secularization in coroplastic art and the use of the terracotta objects for
6 0
decoration was the consequence of the spread of Hellenistic principles in art as
well.
As illustrated above, terracotta production in Anatolia and Greece was
heavily influenced by the Boeotian style. However, local differences were still
highly pronounced, and Tanagra influence did not reach every location at the
same time or to the same degree. Therefore, when analyzing Theangela figurines,
one has to keep in mind that their characteristics are a combination of local
dynamics, the artists’ personal choices and a variety of influences from Greece as
well as from other centers. The same line of argument should be applicable to the
realm of costumes, where local traditions and interregional influences combined
to give birth to a synthesis of ethnic, functional and aesthetic preferences.
III.C. THEANGELA FIGURINES: DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
III.C.i. Description
Carian Coroplastic Art- Before analyzing the Theangela figurines it
would be useful to look at the general trends in Carian coroplastic art. First of all,
Halicarnassus may have been the leading coroplast producer in Caria, because
when compared to the figurines found in other Carian cities such as Kaunos or
Iassos, and island settlements such as Cos, findings from this capital city have
better quality (Isık 16). Second, the development of Carian coroplastic art can be
analyzed in two broad chronological categories:
-The period comprising the 6th and the 5th century B.C.;
-The era represented by the late 5th century, the entire 4th century B.C. and
the Hellenistic period (323-30 B.C.).
6 1
In the 6th and the 5th century B.C., the Carian terracottas generally
followed the trend associated with centers like Rhodes, Miletus and Samos.
Large-scale Ionic sculpture was equally important as a source of inspiration and it
evolved hand in hand with the coroplastic art. However, in both realms, Ionia did
not see an innovative leap during these centuries. Isık (20) associates this
phenomenon with the chaotic situation the Persian invasions brought about,
because of which many artists left Ionia and went to mainland Greece for security.
The late 5th century B.C., on the other hand, saw an improvement in the quality of
the Carian coroplastic artworks. Now the Carian artists turned to Attic sculpture
for inspiration, in addition to the continuing influence of Rhodes. Yet, some
figurines, particularly with their typically Carian costumes and accessories, appear
to be exclusively local inventions, which illustrates that Caria already had a local
coroplastic tradition of its own (to be explained in detail in chapter 4) (Isık 21).
Finally, the 4th century B.C. and especially Alexander’s age saw the coexistence
of highly local terracotta types and the more “globally” fashionable Attic
imitations (Isık 22).
The Theangela Figurines- As opposed to the other Carian examples, the
Theangela figurines are darker. The white undercoat and colors, usually red and
brown in a variety of tones, survive very poorly. Their back and front sides were
attached together after moulding (Isık 16) and the backsides were generally left
not modeled. Their dimensions change between 13 and 16 centimeters (Isık 17).
Ranging from the Archaic to the late Hellenistic, they are extremely abundant:
105 bearded male phiale carriers, 122 female hydrophores, 25 women without a
hydriae, 60 figures with a polos (either male or gender unidentified) and 60
figures either headless or sitting. Therefore, for Fahri Isık, the fact that some of
6 2
them had been taken away did not drastically affect the usefulness of this data set
(15).
Isık placed the figurines in strictly defined chronological categories by
comparing them with examples from other centers such as Halicarnassus, Athens
and Rhodes. His classification is very precise: he even claims to have made a
distinction between the figurines from two consecutive decades. In conducting his
analysis he relied on very particular details such as the position of the limbs
relative to the body, the inclination of the head and the legs, the angle of the knees
and the head-body proportion. He gives specific examples of figurines or statues
from other centers and he identifies stylistic parallels between them and his
figurines. This makes his chronological analysis very multidimensional, and thus,
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this thesis.
Fahri Isık identifies stylistic connections between Theangela figurines and
some statues in Anatolia and Greece, like the Athenian reliefs, Alexander
Sarcophagus, depictions in coins from Cilicia, figurines from Iassos, Cos and
Halicarnassus, and more importantly, from Lindos in Rhodes (113-129).
Theangelan artists obviously drew inspiration from other fields of artistic
production and from other regions, a phenomenon not unique to them; examples
are available from Myrina and Tanagra as well. The phenomenon of imitating a
famous artwork can be evaluated as a way for the workshops to attract more
customers, by making reference to a popular object. The motivation of the
Theangelan consumer to prefer such an object can be analogically compared to an
art fan having the statuette version of Michelangelo’s David or a Picasso
reproduction at home. On the other hand, the strong connection with Rhodes is
parallel with the theories on the origins of the Carians, which traces them back to
6 3
the Aegean islands. However, this connection was, more probably, a result of the
cultural interactions and trade relations between the island and the mainland in the
4th century B.C. and in later periods. Having seen each other’s works, the artists in
both regions may have been inspired by each other, creating a “Carian mainstream
fashion”, neither too Greek nor too Carian or city-specific.
Theangela Figurines and Their Stylistic History- The two dominant
themes are the bearded male phiale carriers and the female hydrophores (Isık 17).
The hydrophores have in common the right arm carrying a jar and a piece of cloth
hanging from the right shoulder (Isık 109). Carian females look younger than their
Greek counterparts and this is also visible in the Theangela hydrophores (Isık 95).
On the other hand, the male phiale carriers with a mantle fastened on the hips are
only found in Caria (fig. III.4). They became more widespread starting from the
4th century B.C.; before that, female figurines were much more frequently seen
(Isık 17). Although some scholars think they are similar to some figures on the
Parthenon frieze, the Carian method of fastening the mantle is different: the edge
of the mantle hanging down at the left shoulder is grabbed by the left hand.
Similar figurines were produced in Halicarnassus, but there are important stylistic
differences. For instance, the anatomy is more geometric in the examples from
Theangela (Isık 97). In the later decades of the 4th century B.C., their pose became
more dynamic (Isık 122). In the early 4th century B.C., some artists in
Halicarnassus also produced female phiale carriers, with the same attributes they
used for the males (Isık 95).
6 4
Fig. III.4 (left)-Male phiale carrier with a mantle and exposed chest, early 4th century B.C.
Fig. III.5 (right)-Hydrophore, with parallel legs but asymmetrically positioned feet, early 4th
century B.C.
The 4th-century B.C. Theangela figurines initially manifested no stylistic
coherence. Especially the earliest ones did not have a particularly identifiable style
(Isık 100). In the following decades, the pose changed considerably and it gained
a more standard form, the upper body being given more intense inclination.
Furthermore, in some examples, the kouros-like position in which one leg was
slightly behind the other was abandoned. However, unlike the legs, the feet were
not parallel. This new posture became the popular form in Theangela, especially
in hydrophores (fig. III.5) (Isık 107). This particular example is connected with
the phiale carriers in terms of drapery but its pose is more similar to the style of
the Nereid monument in Lycia, i.e. illustrating the complexity of influences
6 5
already in place in the early 4th century B.C. (Isık 100). Slightly later, the
fashionable pose changed again; a return to the asymmetrically positioned legs
took place (Isık 114). If we assume that the chronological categories are correct,
this suggests that a form of “fashion cycles” may have existed in Carian
coroplastic art. Yet, it may also be due to the different stylistic approaches of
workshops or artists, and not necessarily chronology.
Fig. III.6 (left)-Headless figure with a naturalistic pose but monotonous drapery, late first, early
second quarter of the 4th century B.C. Fig. III.7 (right)-A figure inspired by Praxitelian sculpture
in pose and gesture, second half of the 4th century B.C.
The mid-4th century B.C. saw the tendency of depicting the body in a more
relaxed position and with a more freestanding drapery (fig. III.6) (Isık 108).
However, the same tendency was accompanied by the depiction of the drapery
with more rhythmic lines (Isık 109). On the other hand, the late 4th century B.C.
witnessed the increasing influence of large-scale statues on the Theangelan artists.
For instance, this figurine belongs to the Praxitelian school, with the inclined
6 6
upper body as opposed to the perpendicular lower body (fig. III.7) (Isık 131).
Moreover, the statues of Mausolos and Artemisia (fig. II.3) appear to have
influenced the Theangelan terracotta artists especially in the second half of the 4th
century B.C. The movements of the drapery, the position of the legs and the
rhythmic movement of the body can be traced in some Theangela figurines such
as the following example (fig. III.8) (Isık 133).
Fig. III.8 (left)-The figurine with the drapery and costume similar to the statues of Mausolos and
Artemisia, second half of the 4th century B.C. Fig. III.9 (right)-A typical hydrophore, 330s B.C.
6 7
Fig. III.10 (left)-The statue of Sophocles, 340, 330 B.C. Source: Richter, “Portraits” 208.
Fig. III.11 (center)-Theangela figurine inspired by the statue of Sophocles, late 4th, early 3rd
century B.C. Fig. III.12 (right)-Hydrophore reminiscent of the Tanagra style, with her slimmer
anatomy and more pleasant pose, 325-315 B.C.
Alexander’s age witnessed an even more complicated network of
influences, in which the Carian element and the impact of famous Aegean
artworks coexisted. This hydrophore is dressed in typical Carian female costume:
the chiton with a diagonally worn himation (explained in detail in chapter 4) (fig.
III.9). The pose and the drapery details are both reminiscent of the Agora reliefs
and some Halicarnassian reliefs, suggesting a stylistic connection among all the
three artworks (Isık 136). The Alexandrian age also saw the explicit impact of
Greek sculpture (Isık 140). For instance, the males completely covered with a
mantle (fig. III.11) are extremely rare in Theangela, but this example appears to
have imitated the statue of Sophocles (fig. III.10) (Isık 157). Finally, the statue of
Demosthenes (fig. II.1) was another important source of inspiration. Some
6 8
examples from Theangela are reminiscent of it with the distorted pose and the
costume, i.e. the mantle passing under the chest (Isık 169).
According to Isık, the figurines from this period reflect the first stage of
the Tanagra style (140). The hydrophores took this form in the early Hellenistic
age (fig. III.12). They became slimmer and the body curves, particularly the hips,
became more pronounced; drapery details became finer but more intense (Isık
143-146). Yet they wear the polos and the Carian diagonal mantle, i.e. still
manifesting local characteristics (Isık 143). Probably due to the increasing
influence of Greek fashion, this is a period in which some radical changes took
place, and the new figurines have increasingly fewer stylistic elements in common
with their predecessors. They have more realistic proportions, a more naturalistic
pose and drapery details more harmonious with the figure’s movements (Isık 137).
It is also worthy of attention that, until this period, the artists did not try to make
the drapery details of the himation match those of the chiton inside (Isık 138).
This further supports the argument that the Theangelan artists increasingly began
to evaluate the stylistic aspects of their work with the Greek criteria in coroplastic
fashion. Yet, in terms of accessories and attributes, they preserved certain local
preferences.
Starting from the 310s B.C. some Theangelan coroplastic artworks
departed from the Alexandrian stylistic evolution. The anatomy and drapery were
simplified, and the movements of the drapery did not match the movements of the
figure (Isık 149). Furthermore, the head-body proportions were lost, with
excessively big heads being produced (fig. III.13) (Isık 151). In the later decades
of the 3rd century B.C., the simplification of the drapery and the anatomy reached
its peak (fig. III.14) (Isık 164). On the other hand, some artists continued to
6 9
successfully copy the figurines made in previous decades and to develop even
more naturalistic poses by imitating the Tanagra style. The data set from this
period is rich in figurines with fine proportions, resembling the examples given
for the previous decades.
Fig. III.13 (left)-The male phiale carrier from 310s B.C., with an excessively big head and
distorted body proportions. Fig. III.14 (right)-Hydrophore from 310s B.C., with very roughly
made details. Notice the extremely erroneous proportions of the right arm and the lack of drapery
depiction on it.
Cults Associated with the Figurines- Isık thinks that these figurines are
associated with some deities and cult practices. The Theangela inscriptions do not
contain information on this subject except for the reference to the temples to
Athena and Aphrodite in the Hellenistic age. However, we know that a great
majority of the cities in Caria and in Rhodes worshipped Demeter. Since the
coroplastic art manifests similarities in all these settlements, Isık believes that
their cult practices should be similar too (179). The Carian cities often organized
7 0
common religious festivities, and this also explains the similarities both between
their figurine types and their deities.
The Theangela figurines began to wear a polos, i.e. a cylindrical cap with a
flat top, as early as the 5th century B.C. (Isık 174). It was already in use in
Anatolia in religious contexts, and compared to mainland Greece it is much more
often seen here. The sitting mother goddess theme with a polos is as old as the 6th
century B.C. Even Aphrodite was sometimes seen on coins with a polos, and the
gods worshipped in Anatolia in the Classical period were often depicted with this
attribute. The goddess worshipped in Halicarnassus in the 4th century B.C. is no
exception. Even the Anatolian Zeus was depicted with a polos on numerous
Roman coins, a fact that illustrates the persistence of this motif in Asia Minor in
the depiction of gods and goddesses (Isık 180). The high version of the polos was
widespread in Rhodes, whereas the Theangelan ones were produced in a variety of
heights (Goldman 378).
In Theangela, both the young and the old male phiale carriers with a polos
probably referred to a deity or the priests dedicated to the deity. The polos is an
Anatolian religious symbol whereas the phiale points at sacrificial procession (Isık
195). This deity can be either Dionysus, like in Lindos, or Zeus (Isık 196). The
women with a phiale, on the other hand, may represent Demeter, since before her
arrival to Anatolia, the mother goddess had been often represented with the phiale
(Isık 197). Apollo was another popular deity in Hellenistic Caria, and the figurines
carrying a lyre or a chitara probably represent his cult (Isık 198). Hermes was
another important mythological figure in Caria, worshipped as the fertility god
(Isık 199). The Carians also admired Heracles and dedicated shrines and temples
to him as well as some terracotta figurines (Isık 200).
7 1
Some attributes carried by the hydrophores, such as garlands and baby
pigs, are interpreted as a reference to Demeter and Dionysus (Isık 184). The
archaeological findings from Carian settlements indicate that the sacrifice of baby
pigs was an established tradition for the Carian Demeter cult; furthermore, the pig
bones were nearly always found in the same context with some terracotta figurines
(Isık 189). On the other hand, the kurotrophos, i.e. the children’s nurse, was also
related to Demeter (Isık 192). It was invented in Attica, but starting from the 4th
century B.C., it was widespread in a variety of places including southern Russia
and the Aegean islands. The examples from Theangela strongly resemble their
counterparts in Greece and Myrina (Isık 96).
The hydrophore theme was associated with Demeter’s cult in the entire
Aegean. However, while some examples may have been made for describing
mythological figures such as nymphs, others may have been related to more
mundane subjects, such as girls bringing water to the temple for a procession (Isık
181). The probability of a nymph cult having existed in Caria is very high. They
were associated with nature and they did not have an artificially built temple; they
were worshipped in caves or rivers, and this explains why we do not have a
temple dedicated to them in Theangela (Isık 185).
Not all the figurines mentioned so far necessarily represent deities
themselves. Erika Diehl thinks that such objects generally describe ordinary
people involved in daily religious activities (Eckstein 293). The way Isık
deciphers the connection between a certain attribute and a deity is very useful, but
it does not mean that the figure itself represents the deity in all cases. It is more
logical to interpret some of them as people worshipping those deities, because it is
the worshipper and not the deity itself who carries water to the temple and makes
7 2
sacrifices during processions. Also considering the fact that the Hellenistic period
saw the secularization of art, it would be a more balanced approach to think of
Theangela figurines as both religious and decorative objects describing deities in
some cases and ordinary people in others.
III.C.ii. Evaluation: Coroplastic Art in Theangela
Archaeologists and anthropologists define culture in different ways
throughout history. Yet, except for some scholars who defined culture in terms of
mental constructs and ideas (Watson 685), a great majority of these definitions
include the concepts, “continuity” and “manifestation in art and artifacts”. In other
words, many scholars described and continue to describe culture as a persisting
tradition, the manifestations of which are identifiable in artworks (Watson 683).
Even some of those scholars who did not consider the actual artifacts as culture
and who focused on mental processes, had to admit that these artworks were a
form of the “objectification” of culture (Watson 685). Therefore, an approach that
would balance the artifact-oriented and the cognition-oriented ways of evaluating
the past appears to be more suitable for the analysis of objects like the Theangela
figurines (Watson 689).
In the 4th century B.C., the quality of terracotta production in Theangela
was not as high as that of the Attic centers, and the examples directly imitating the
Attic artworks were not too many when compared to the more local inventions
(Isık 17). Still, in considerably early decades of the same century, some
Theangelan artists did not hesitate to copy some famous Greek statues. Influences
from other regions like Ionia, Lycia and Greece were also welcomed, but a local
flavor was added to the structure of the final product (Isık 100). On the other
7 3
hand, in time, some artists in Theangela began to depict more simplified costumes
and drapery: the mantles became much more basic and the drapery details became
much less decorative and rather schematic (Isık 97). Counterintuitively, the pose
became more naturalistic (Isık 98), illustrating how the Theangelan artists
combined contrasting aesthetic elements in one object.
It is also necessary to emphasize that some scholars tend to exaggerate the
impact of the Tanagra style on other Aegean centers. Theangela figurines are
similar to the Tanagras in pose but they have more distorted body proportions and
less sophisticated drapery. The influence of the Tanagras definitely increased
during the latter’s golden age, i.e. 4th century B.C., but still local examples
continued to exist. This can be interpreted as an indication that the Theangelans
followed the mainstream fashion in coroplastic art only to a certain extent, and the
local artists continued to be effective in combining various influences and their
own ideas in their artworks. In the Hellenistic age, the influences were much more
complicated and the artists appear to have been much more confused on which
styles to adopt and how to combine them in their works. Still, they did not
completely abandon the local tradition.
We may summarize the variety of influences on the 4th century and
Hellenistic Theangela figurines in the following list, from the macro to the microlevel:
-Hellenistic principle of naturalism and famous large-scale sculptures in
the Hellenistic world (Sophocles, Demosthenes, etc.), with some artistic
tendencies that had already emerged in the early 4th century B.C. (Mausolos);
-Tanagra style;
7 4
-Themes borrowed from the neighboring regions (Ionia, Lycia, Rhodes,
Cos, etc.), such as lyre players or kyrotrophos;
-Carian tradition (Iassos, Halicarnassus, etc.), especially in costume
details;
-Theangelan tradition coming from the previous decades;
-Creative contributions of individual artists or workshops.
The Theangela figurines exhibit variety and consistency at the same time.
Isık’s analysis illustrates this point with numerous examples. Some figurines from
different periods are very similar, while others produced within one period are
very different and they rather resemble objects from other production centers.
Continuity may have two reasons: first of all, some local stylistic elements must
have preserved their “fashionable” character throughout time. Second, some
artists or workshops may have developed a style of their own and this may have
continued for decades. Similarly, change can be explained in two ways. First,
shifting trends in fashion, especially in Greece, may have changed the aesthetic
expectations of the consumers. Second, the individual artists or workshops may
have wanted to enhance variety, both for meeting demand and for further
developing their artistic vocabulary, by experimenting with combinations of
various moulds. Sometimes the heads are identical but the poses are different. In
other cases the same costume and pose is completed by a different head and
portraiture. In other examples, the costumes are identical but the position of the
leg or the hand and the attributes are different. Highly probably, the Theangelan
artists had to respond to the mainstream fashion, the local consumers’
expectations and their “original brand image” at the same time and in a balanced
way, reflecting the “artistic anxiety” of the period. In chapter 4, we will try to
7 5
understand if this complex network of influences and anxieties were also present
in the realm of costumes or not.
7 6
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THEANGELA FIGURINES
IN THE FRAMEWORK OF AEGEAN COSTUME
IV.A. HISTORY OF COSTUME IN THE AEGEAN
IV.A.i. History and the Components of the Aegean Synthesis
History- According to Boucher, with the collapse of the palace based
Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations at the end of the Bronze Age, there was a
period of migration and cultural change. Consequently, the developments in
textile production in Ionia, which took place as a result of close interactions with
the Egyptians and the Phoenicians through sea trade, reached mainland Greece
and the industry flourished between the 6th and 4th century B.C. These
developments gave birth to Classical Greek dress; the new stylistic fusion was to
be exported to the colonies all around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (106).
The Dorian style was considered the truly Greek one, while the Greeks who
settled in southwest Anatolia are believed to have borrowed the more Asiatic Ionic
style from the Carians (Herodotus V-88) and these two costumes ultimately
became the inseparable elements of the Classical Greek fashion5.
5 Here it is necessary to clarify a terminological preference. Some sources prefer calling the peplos
the “Dorian chiton,” and they use the term “Ionic chiton” to define the chiton. This study uses the
term “peplos” to define the Dorian costume, and “chiton” to define the Ionian one.
7 7
The period of cultural change described by Boucher coincides with what
ancient authors define as the period of the migration of the Carians or Lelegians
from the islands to mainland Anatolia, as explained in chapter 2. Therefore, it is
possible to argue that the synthesis in costume referred to by Boucher, which
came into being in Anatolia after this migration period, can be used to identify the
variety of influences on the costumes of the Theangela figurines. So it is first
necessary to fully understand the components of this synthesis.
Components of the Aegean Synthesis- During the 1st millennium B.C.,
Anatolia was inhabited by a great variety of cultural groups, some of them also
having established political entities. The Hittite Empire collapsed around 1200
B.C., but the Hittite material culture continued to survive at least for five
centuries, especially in the areas dominated by the Neo-Hittite settlements.
Moreover, the Phrygians (750-300 B.C.) and the Lydians (700-546 B.C.) in
western Anatolia and the Urartians (860-580 B.C.) in eastern Anatolia created
their own artistic styles. The Persians, on the other hand, entered Anatolia in the
6th century B.C. and left their mark in all dimensions of cultural life.6 All these
groups had an impact on the Ionians living on the Aegean coastline and the
Ionians consequently affected the cultural developments in mainland Greece.
Therefore, it is necessary to review the basic elements of costume these cultural
groups adopted in the 1st millennium B.C., to be able to fully understand the
complexity of the influences on Aegean fashion.
The Hittites extensively used short and long tunics combined with mantles,
and Neo-Hittites continued to wear them. The mantle was wrapped around the
6 The chronological information is taken from Akurgal’s book, entitled “Anadolu Kültür Tarihi”.
The dates are considered to be approximately correct, although not definitively fixed.
7 8
body; it passed under the left arm and the edge of the cloth was left hanging from
the right shoulder. The wearer held the edge of the garment with his or her right
hand. They also belted the tunics in a variety of ways, sometimes with more than
one girdle (Türkoglu 38). The elites preferred long garments whereas slaves and
lower classes wore shorter, simpler tunics (Gürsoy 35). Neo-Hittites preferred
long, belted tunics (Gürsoy 28) and they deeply influenced the Greeks starting
from the 8th century B.C. (fig. IV.1) (Gürsoy 24).
Fig. IV.1 (left)-A Neo-Hittite king (8th century B.C.) with a tunic and an Assyrian shawl. Source:
Türkoglu 37. Fig. IV.2 (right)-A Neo-Hittite/Phrygian (7th century B.C.) ivory statuette from
Elmalı, wearing a polos. The veil attached to the polos is visible. It is interesting to observe how
similar her dress is to the Anatolian folkloric costumes of our day. Source: Türkoglu cover.
The fez-like hat, polos, was a widespread tradition among the Neo-Hittites
and the Mesopotamians (Türkoglu 38). It was used by both sexes and was
7 9
decorated with geometric patterns (Türkoglu 39). Moreover, women often used a
very long, semi-transparent type of veil attached to the polos, which was left
hanging on the back and its edge was inserted between the girdle and the tunic
(fig. IV.2). Female tunics were generally long. They were made by sewing two
identical pieces of cloth that formed the front and the back of the costume. They
were decorated with vertical pleats on the skirts or borders on the sleeves and
collars (Türkoglu 40). Other patterns include geometric forms, crosses and tufts
attached to the edges of the skirts. Especially Ionia was deeply affected by these
traditions, also through relations with the Phrygians (Türkoglu 41). Greek
accessories influenced by the Hittites include the long hair locks hanging on the
two sides of the head, the polos, and some girdle types (Türkoglu 43). Urartians
may have had an equally important impact on Greek costumes, especially on
decorative patterns: geometric shapes, flowers and leafs were the most popular
Urartian motifs replicated in Greek art. Like the Hittites, Urartians wore simple
tunics decorated in a variety of ways and the use of the polos and the long veil
was widespread (Türkoglu 47). Heavily ornamented mantles or shawls
accompanied the tunics (fig. IV.3). Elite males preferred long tunics while the
lower classes wore shorter garments. Long hair and shortened beard were a norm
among males (Türkoglu 48).
Phrygians functioned as a bridge between the Greek and the eastern cultures
(Gürsoy 38). Lydian and Phrygian males wore short tunics with meandered
borders (Türkoglu 67). Some scholars argue that the Lydians were the first people
to color the fabrics with chemically treated solutions (Türkoglu 68). On the other
hand, Phrygians depicted goddess Kybele in a long polos, decorated with diagonal
lines and flower motifs (Türkoglu 51). Phrygians also invented the use of gold in
8 0
weaving and embroidery. Like their Hittite and Urartian counterparts, Phrygian
males had long hair and a short beard (Türkoglu 56); the most popular headdress
was the Phrygian cap, a type of wrinkled hat with its pointed top inclined towards
the front (fig. IV.4) (Hope 26).
Fig. IV.3 (left)-Urartian deity Teisheba, with an elaborate polos and a decorated mantle. Source:
Gürsoy 34. Fig. IV.4 (right)-Midas (?) with a Phrygian cap, discovered in Afyon. Probably a 2nd
century replica of an older statue. Source: Türkoglu 56.
The Achaemenid Empire ruled in Persia between 550 and 330 B.C., and its
territorial gains included Anatolia and some Greek islands. Persepolis became a
center where a variety of artistic styles gave rise to a new synthesis. Greek
stoneworkers and woodworkers were invited to the city to work on construction
projects (Soudavar 16). The architectural remains in Persepolis indicate a strong
multicultural influence (Ferrier 31): Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Ionian
elements were combined to give birth to a new and grandiose style (Ferrier 32).
8 1
On the other hand, the depiction of drapery in Persian art is strongly influenced by
the Greeks, with elaborate pleats and diagonal motifs (Ferrier 39).
The flow of influences also came in the opposite direction. The Persians
came to Anatolia with Darius in the late 6th, early 5th century B.C. (Türkoglu 76).
During the Achaemenid rule, Anatolia was under strong Persian cultural
influence. The Greeks could not ignore these new styles emerging in their
neighboring region. They imitated elements of the Persian art, especially some
pottery and seal types. After the 5th century B.C., the hostile political relations
between Greece and the Persians did not disrupt the Greco-Anatolian trade; to the
contrary, trade flourished, especially in the 4th century B.C. In the meantime,
Anatolian ethnic groups were trying to adapt to the new cultural environment by
adjusting their stylistic vocabulary accordingly, but producing different responses
depending on local variations (M. C. Miller 2007).
The Lydians, the Lycians and the Carians were the three important groups
that responded to the Persian influence in different ways. The locally produced
Lydian pottery began to reflect a reinterpretation of the traditional style within the
new Persian notions of taste. Lycians were heavily influenced both by the Greeks
and the Persians, particularly in the realm of funerary art and iconography. Still,
their costumes and accessories were Anatolian or styles commonly used by the
Persians and the Anatolians. On the other hand, the 4th-century B.C. Carians
remained culturally more autonomous. They intermarried with the Persians and
they were particularly affected by the Achaemenid architecture, as seen in the
Mausoleum; yet, in other areas such as jewelry and coinage, the Carians managed
to create a balance between the Anatolian and the Persian aesthetic tastes (M. C.
Miller 2007).
8 2
The most important Persian costume, as seen on the Alexander
Sarcophagus, was kandiz, a jacket with open sleeves hanging on the back (fig.
IV.5). They also used shawls and conical caps (Türkoglu 78). On the other hand,
the most famous hat worn by the elite was a cylindrical cap called tiara, the width
of which decreased towards its base (Türkoglu 79). In the Parthian era, another
cylindrical cap named mitra was known by Greeks. Later, the conical cap called
cidaris was more popular (Hope 26).
The Persian kings wore heavily decorated robes ornamented with metal
appliqués (fig. IV.6). The robes were multicolored and embroided, with floral
motifs or depictions of buildings and animals, particularly lions (Ferrier 46).
Greeks despised the pantaloons they saw on the Persians. They regarded them as
uncivilized garments until the late Roman period (Türkoglu 73). Some Anatolian
indigenous groups adopted long pantaloons as well, made of animal skin or fine
fabrics. They were often decorated, and they could be both fitting or loose. The
upper body was dressed in a costume similar to a waistcoat with buttons on the
front. The costume was complemented by a tunic worn on top, fastened on the
shoulders and generally double-belted (Hope 25), with a piece of cloth stuck in
between the belts. The external part of the costume was a thick mantle with a
fringe (Hope 26). Since the Persian influence in Anatolia was at its peak in the 4th
century B.C., during this century and the Hellenistic era, local people adopted
more extensively some of these elements (Türkoglu 79).
8 3
Fig. IV.5 (left)-A Persian soldier from Alexander Sarcophagus. The sleeves of the kandiz flying
around are visible, as well as the pantaloons under the short tunic. Source: Türkoglu 74. Fig. IV.6
(right)-A Persian king from 600-500 B.C. with a heavily embroidered, long and belted tunic.
Source: Peacock 19.
Finally, Lycian costumes were a synthesis of the Persian and the Greek
styles. Their tunics were typically Archaic Greek in style, but the accessories,
including the hairstyle, were Persian (Türkoglu 70). Long tunics with girdles and a
kolpos i.e. a thick layer of cloth left hanging above the girdle, polos-like caps,
veils and long hair were already widespread in western Anatolia in the 6th century
B.C. (Türkoglu 59).
As seen above, the people living in mainland Greece and in Anatolia had
important cultural interactions in the realm of costumes. Particularly the
popularity of the “tunic” in all these societies suggests a strong connection
between the eastern and the western cultural spheres in the Aegean in terms of
fashion. Now let us examine the basic elements of the Classical Greek textiles and
costumes in more detail, to be able to distinguish the Greek and the other cultural
elements in the garments of the Theangela figurines.
8 4
IV.A.ii. Classical Greek Dress: the Peplos, the Chiton and the Himation
Greek Textiles and Dress- Weaving was an important domestic activity
for Greek women (Woodford 14). The most important materials were wool and
linen (Gürsoy 70). Wool was obtained from sheep and it was spun and then
woven. Color was applied on woolen costumes, whereas linen was generally used
in white (Richter, “A Handbook” 382). Besides wool and linen, Greeks used silk
to a smaller extent (Richter, “A Handbook” 380), while cotton arrived into
Anatolia in the Hellenistic era (Türkoglu 91). In other words, chronological
development of Greek fashion is identifiable for the materials. On the other hand,
it is relatively more difficult to draw a precise chronological line for the stylistic
evolution, because many styles coexisted within the same period and one style
may have persisted throughout several centuries. Still, the basic style and structure
do not manifest drastic changes even when comparing the Archaic and the
Hellenistic ages. The modifications over time, generally inspired by eastern
neighbors, were not major changes (Houston 36). Nevertheless, the analysis of the
Theangela figurines will provide us with an insight into the most important
changes in the Aegean fashion map.
In societies in which textiles are rare and difficult to produce, people are
inclined to design costumes with little cutting and seaming so that there is
minimum loss of cloth during the preparation process. The Indian sari is a perfect
example for this phenomenon (J. Miller 35). Having reviewed the sources of
influence on Aegean dress, now let us examine the three basic types of Greek
costume, all with minimum cutting and seaming in their production.
Peplos- The peplos was a popular Dorian costume, especially in the 5th
century B.C. (Houston 58). It came to Anatolia from mainland Greece (Türkoglu
8 5
64) and women wore it as a rectangular piece of woolen cloth that could be draped
and fastened in a variety of ways: fastened on a single shoulder or on both, belted
or not belted (Boucher 107). The costume hung on the wearer’s shoulders with the
help of two gigantic pins fastening the two edges of the garment, back over front.
Another individual had to assist the wearer in belting the costume so that the skirt
would not hang asymmetrically (Houston 42). The piece of cloth was longer than
the height and wider than the width of the wearer, in a way to leave a flap hanging
on the stomach (fig. IV.7) (Houston 40).
Fig. IV.7 (left)- A typical peplos. Source: Hope pl. 64. Fig. IV.8 (center)-Open peplos. Source:
Houston 11. Fig. IV.9 (right)-A tunic with both a peplos-like flap and a chiton-like, pronounced
kolpos, in this case with the backside of the flap covering the head. Chiton/peplos hybrid popular
in caryatids and goddesses. Source: Hope pl. 72.
The first type of peplos was open on one side: the cloth fastened with two
fibulae was neither stitched together on the thigh nor belted (fig. IV.8). Later,
because of the more conservative social position of Greek women, the open side
8 6
was seamed. The closed peplos was thus invented. The upper part of the peplos
could also be folded in a way to cover the face or the head (fig. IV.9) (Boucher
109). Greek women preferred wide collars leaving the neck and the shoulders
exposed. They sometimes decorated the edges of their skirts and their neck with
bands and ribbons (Gürsoy 70).
The peplos remained popular until the 6th century B.C. (Dereboy 27). It
was later replaced by the linen tunic of the Ionians. Herodotus reports that this
shift in style was due to a historical event, i.e. the Aegina Disaster. The Ionic
chiton was forced by law on Greek women after they killed a soldier of the
defeated Athenian army with the brooches of their peplos. Since the Ionic version,
originally a Carian invention, did not need brooches, Athenian lawmakers thought
it was an ideal punishment and a safe alternative (V-87). The true reason was
probably related to a general shift in style and fashion, and more specifically, an
aesthetic preference in favor of the Ionic costume, which developed in time and
not through a suddenly made political decision. First of all, while Athenians
banned the brooches, their enemies in Aegina made them longer by law
(Herodotus V-88). Second, visual sources sometimes present the peplos and the
chiton in the same context, which proves the fact that the two types coexisted for
some time until the chiton became more popular. Even then the peplos did not
completely disappear but became much less widespread.
The basic male costume in Greece was a tunic. It was formed with a
seamless, rectangular and woolen piece of cloth. They usually fastened the two
edges on the left shoulder, sometimes with ribbons or pieces of cloth, and used a
belt to keep the two lateral edges together. They sometimes stitched together the
two sides that left the thighs exposed (fig. IV.10). Other times they directly
8 7
wrapped the cloth around the body if they did not belt, stitch or fasten it. This
costume was called the exomis (fig. IV.11) (Boucher 109). Exomis later became
popular among slaves and lower classes in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. (Gürsoy
71). In other words, the exomis was a simplified version of the chiton (Türkoglu
82), and in time, it also gave way to the himation (Boucher 109). The exomis was
shorter than a chiton and the extra fold on the belted waist was more pronounced.
The left shoulder was exposed and the favorite color was white. Dark colored ones
were saved for mourning (Gürsoy 72).
Fig. IV.10 (left)-Typical male tunic with a decorated belt. Source: Hope pl. 81.
Fig. IV.11 (right)-Exomis, with the highly pronounced kolpos. Source: Gürsoy 72.
Chiton- The word chiton probably derived from the Accadian katoni or the
Assyrian kutanum, which, keten in Turkish, means linen (Gürsoy 29). Linen may
have arrived to Greece from Egypt. In time, better weaving techniques rendered
linen more transparent and pleated (Dereboy 27). According to some scholars, the
8 8
Carians borrowed the chiton from the traveling Phoenicians, and the Greeks
borrowed it from the Ionians (Türkoglu 62).
Fig. IV.12 (left)-A typical chiton with sleeves, a girdle and a kolpos. Source: Peacock 14.
Fig. IV.13 (center left)-A double-belted chiton with two layers of kolpos. Source: Peacock 13.
Fig. IV.14 (center right)-An athletic variation of the chiton. Source: Hope pl. 124.
Fig. IV.15 (right)-The simplest and most typical Amazon garment, with the difference that the
fastening is on the left shoulder. Source: Peacock 15.
A chiton was finer and ampler than a peplos, allowing it to be richer in
folds (Woodford 14). It was generally made of quasi-transparent linen and it was
devoid of flaps. A typical 5th century B.C. Ionic chiton was a tunic with the
armholes on the same line with the collar, and the drapery hanging from the
underarm creating a beautiful effect. The edges of the garment could be sewn
together on the arms to form sleeves (fig. IV.12) (Houston 47). The female chiton
generally had wide sleeves, and thick stripes were seen on the sleeves and collars
8 9
(Gürsoy 71). In some variations from the 6th century B.C. the clasps on the
sleeves were replaced by seams, and the sleeves were longer and tighter (Houston
52). The wearer could also seam the two edges of the chiton on the shoulder
instead of fastening them (Türkoglu 63).
As an alternative to the peplos, this garment was more sophisticated: the
sides were not left unseamed. The shoulders and the arms could be completely
covered. Therefore, the piece of cloth had to be very large. Moreover, belts could
be used (Gürsoy 71) and the individual could choose to leave or not to leave a
kolpos, i.e. an extra fold of cloth, on the belted waist (fig. IV.13) (Boucher 109).
The kolpos was also widely used in the later versions of the peplos. Weights
attached to the skirts made the costume hang in a more aesthetical manner
(Woodford 15).
Females could also wear a shorter, double-folded version of the chiton for
athletic purposes, with one layer covering the upper leg and the shorter layer
falling on the hips (fig. IV.14). A type of 5th century B.C. short chiton, generally
referred to as the “Amazon” type, was even shorter than the athletic chiton
previously described, and with only one fastening point on the right shoulder. The
garment was sometimes belted with a thick piece of cloth (fig. IV.15) (Houston
48). Other Amazon-type variations included a double-shoulder chiton with a
diagonal belt surrounding the upper body (fig. IV.14) and a long tunic shortened
with double-belt and with a very thick kolpos (Houston 50).
The 5th century B.C. saw a more sophisticated form of the chiton. Now,
instead of one, two pieces of rectangular cloth were stitched together, one to cover
the front, the other to cover the back part of the body. This narrower form was
also supported with sleeves (Boucher 109). Especially in this century the variety
9 0
of styles in female garments increased substantially: long chitons with sewn
edges, no sleeves and an immense kolpos, supported by a diagonal belt on the
shoulders to keep the dress in position; double-belted hybrid forms with the
Dorian flap and the Ionic kolpos used together (fig. IV.9) (Houston 53). Other 6th
and 5th century B.C. forms included a transparent chiton worn under a thicker
Dorian costume, the latter being fastened on one shoulder; a typical Ionic chiton
worn under a linen corselet and with a Dorian extra fold on the neck (Houston
54); and an Ionic chiton with an ornamented collar worn under a Dorian one
(Houston 55).
Male chitons were much less tight and they left the right shoulder exposed
(Dereboy 27). As the male tunic evolved into a chiton, the difference was that the
lateral part was completely seamed and it was usually belted. The fastening on the
left shoulder or on both was now made with a pin or a cord, and the belts, now
doubled, could form a kolpos (Boucher 108), although the males did not use the
kolpos as often as the females (Türkoglu 82). Otherwise one could unbelt the tunic
and use it as a long skirt, either as a ceremonial garment or a night costume
(Boucher 108). It was also practical for cold weather (Boucher 109).
The chitons’ length gives information on the wearer’s age, sex, social rank
and status. Except for the elderly and the elite, male costumes were extremely
simple and they did not cover the body as much as the female ones (Dereboy 26).
Young males preferred shorter and narrower chitons (Gürsoy 70) and working
classes fastened the chiton only on the left shoulder to be able to freely move the
right arm (Houston 68). Lower classes generally wore chitons ending at the knees
whereas the elite had their legs covered completely (Dereboy 26). Males with
ceremonial duties wore long tunics (Houston 68). The elite had a taste for chitons
9 1
prepared in different colors or with geometric patterns (Dereboy 27). Finally,
female servants had chitons with long sleeves (Türkoglu 81).
Himation- Multi-purpose shawls always existed in Greece and Anatolia,
although their names changed according to time, place or context. For instance,
the peplum was a shawl used both by men and women to cover themselves
thoroughly during funerals or religious ceremonies. Its large version wrapped
around the body twice was called the diplax. It also served to cover the head
during winter (Hope 32). On the other hand, its shorter and clasped version was
called a chlamys, which was practical for travelers and workers (fig. IV.16) (Hope
33). It was popular among horse-riding males and it usually accompanied short
chitons. In winters women also wore a pharos, a pinned cloak diagonally wrapped
around the body (Dereboy 27). It could be used in combination with a scarf
formed by folding the pharos diagonally (Boucher 110).
Outside, the woolen peplos could keep the wearer warm, of which the flap
on the back could be reversed to cover the head in winter. In extreme conditions,
the costume could be supplemented with a cloak (Houston 64). On the other hand,
the thin Ionic chiton needed a supplement (Houston 65). The solution, the
himation, is the most famous type of shawl in Greek dressing culture. It was a
rectangular piece of cloth (Boucher 104) whose thickness changed according to
season (Türkoglu 63). The very big piece of cloth was usually made of fine wool.
Without fastenings, fringes or seams, it was draped around the body in its entirety,
and it was less rough than a shawl (Boucher 109). It could also be fastened on one
shoulder with a pin (Boucher 110). When reaching the left underarm, the
remaining piece of fabric would be pulled to the right shoulder and pinned or it
would be left hanging on the arm (fig. IV.17) (Dereboy 267).
9 2
Fig. IV.16 (left)-Chlamys, with a traveler’s hat. Source: Hope pl. 80. Fig. IV.17 (center)-
Himation worn without an undergarment, generally preferred by philosophers. Source: Hope pl.
107. Fig. IV.18 (right)-One version of the pleated and sophisticated himation worn on top of a
fine and pleated tunic. Part of it is used to cover the head. Source: Hope pl. 52.
In later periods, the himation was arranged in more sophisticated shapes.
The cloth was first pleated and then it passed under the left arm, the back and
front edges to be fastened on the right shoulder with a brooch (Houston 65). The
remaining drapery could then be attached together with smaller brooches on the
upper arm. Finally, a frill would be formed by pulling the extra fold on the pleats
upon the breasts. The simple usage had variations too. Depending on the size of
the cloth, the extra drapery could be left hanging on the shoulder (fig. IV.18)
(Houston 66). Leaving the right shoulder exposed was a norm among individuals
with religious or political duties (Türkoglu 83). In other contexts, the himation
could cover one shoulder, two shoulders or the entire upper body (Boucher 109).
A way to simplify it was to omit brooches. Moreover, in some examples, the right
9 3
shoulder is replaced by the left. In the Classical period, the arrangement was
simpler, with no pleats or extra folds (Houston 66). It would sometimes be
supplemented with a flap like in a peplos. The most simplified form required no
clasping at all and it was only gently wrapped around the figure. The 4th and 3rd
century B.C. also saw the use of himation like a headscarf (Houston 67).
The himation was worn over the Ionic chiton (Houston 60), but males
sometimes wore it without an undergarment or sewing (Woodford 14) and a much
larger piece of fabric was required (fig. IV.17) (Houston 68). However, in the 1st
century B.C. it was inappropriate to wear it without a tunic underneath (Boucher
109). The elite began to adopt double or triple-piece costumes with sophisticated
seaming techniques (Türkoglu 76). Starting from the 5th century B.C., they used
the himation as a short cloak, or chlamys. It usually accompanied a thin and
pleated Ionic tunic underneath (Houston 69). The length of the cloak also
changed, made longer for travelers in 5th century B.C. (Houston 70).
IV.A.iii. Other Accessories, Motifs and the Use of Drapery as an Artistic Tool
Accessories and Motifs- Greek textiles were rich in decorative patterns
and colors (Richter, “A Handbook” 380). Color was the most important tool for
creating variety (Woodford 15) since the male costumes were not as decorated as
the female ones (Richter, “A Handbook” 382). Cloaks were sometimes decorated
with border stripes (Woodford 15). Female garments could have flowers,
geometric patterns and figurative scenes depicted through embroidery, weaving or
painting (Richter, “A Handbook” 382). In some cases, the tunics’ side seaming
was either enhanced or camouflaged by the use of ornamental designs (Houston
9 4
46). Finally, some patterns on elaborate costumes were borrowed from
architectural motifs (Dereboy 27).
During the Classical age, Greek fabrics were less heavily decorated
(Houston 37). However, the Hellenistic age saw a growing tendency for more
sophisticated costumes with a greater diversity in forms. Golden and silver effects
in seaming, combined with richly decorated Persian fabrics, satisfied the elite
passion for expressing luxury and individual taste (Dereboy 27). The Greek elites
also borrowed some costume types from the Persians and, through this
appropriation, they enriched their wardrobes (M. C. Miller 2007).
According to the Greeks, a large forehead was not aesthetically preferable;
so the hair was modeled in a way to make the forehead look narrower (Dereboy
28). Having long hair with ondulae was a must, and braiding it was a fashionable
choice (fig. IV.12) (Gürsoy 72). The ondulae and the braiding were greatly
inspired by the Hittites (Gürsoy 25). In later times, collecting the hair on the back
and leaving one or two locks on the front became fashionable among women. This
was later replaced by a tendency to collect the hair further up and to leave the
neck exposed, with very neat arrangements on the front (fig. IV.13) (Hope 29).
The 7th and 6th centuries B.C. saw the use of valuable accessories such as
golden or silver objects or pearls in hair design. This became irrelevant in 5th
century B.C. when women began to cluster their hair in golden nets. Later,
ribbons or triangular pieces of cloth were used to shape the hair in a conical way.
Diadems were popular both among males and females (Dereboy 28). The 4th
century B.C. saw an immense variety in female head dressing, ranging from nets
and bands to free-flowing long hair (Houston 80).
9 5
In 5th century B.C., males began to prefer short hair and long beard.
However, the long beard lost popularity in the Hellenistic period (Gürsoy 72). The
appeal of Alexander’s appearance made the majority of the male population
shorten their beards or abandon them completely (Gürsoy 73). Interestingly, in
Sparta, young boys had short hair and the elderly had long hair; vice versa was the
case in Athens (Houston 80). The most popular male headdress was the pylos. It
was a sharp-pointed hat with a high, oval top. In later centuries it became wider
and more flat on the top, and it was popular among seamen (Gürsoy 72). It was
also worn by soldiers under their helmets (fig. IV.10) (Dereboy 28).
Drapery as an Artistic Tool- Greeks preferred to manipulate the effects of
drapery in their garments as much as possible (Houston 37). All three types of
Greek costumes, i.e. chiton, himation and chlamys, allowed for dynamism and
variety since they were only attached at the shoulders. The variety of the material,
be it wool for the Dorian peplos or linen for the Ionian chiton, added immensely to
the variety of alternatives possible to obtain in terms of shapes the cloth could
take, depending on the material’s weight (De Ridder and Deonna 220). Moreover,
for Greeks, drapery was in itself a form of artistic expression (De Ridder and
Deonna 221). Especially in depicting women, artists focused on drapery to add
movement to the artworks. This happened also because women did not appear
nude, whereas male nudity was acceptable in artwork and there the artistic focus
was on the muscles (De Ridder and Deonna 221). As mentioned in chapter 1,
artworks are helpful visual sources for studying costumes, but it should be
remembered that artists modified drapery for aesthetic purposes, so their works do
not reflect reality in its purest form (Houston 37).
9 6
Hellenistic principles of beauty and artistic value affected all activities
related to creativity; this is especially visible in the depiction of the drapery.
Sometimes it developed at the expense of the figure’s anatomy and vice versa,
depending both on the individual artist and the trends of the time. For example,
the peplos was usually depicted with three-dimensional folds, reflecting a more
naturalistic movement (De Ridder and Deonna 223). The folds of the chiton were
usually fine and vertical, whereas those of the himation were large and oblique.
The combination of the two created a pleasant contrast. However, in the 4th
century B.C., folds became intersecting, asymmetrical and complicated, like in the
Tanagra figurines, the statues decorating the Mausoleum, and the early 4th century
B.C. Theangela figurines (De Ridder and Deonna 224).
In the Hellenistic period, using the movements of the drapery to describe
the movement of the figure itself became widespread. This rendered possible to
reveal some body parts that could not normally be shown, thanks to the wind
lifting the garment in line with the movement. Some artists overexploited this
physical rule and they added similar effects also in cases in which the movement
did not dictate such a shape (De Ridder and Deonna 233). The Tanagra figurines
also reveal that the artists overexploited drapery to such an extent that they began
to lose track of its harmony with the anatomy. The body began to be
overshadowed by the costume (De Ridder and Deonna 234).
In the case of the Theangela figurines, as explained in chapter 3, the
Hellenistic period saw the emergence of finely detailed drapery followed by an
oversimplified style. Therefore, we may argue that the depiction of drapery in
Theangela followed “fashion cycles”, a period of exaggeration and sophistication
(early 4th century B.C. and Alexandrian age) followed by an era with the
9 7
emergence of oversimplification and monotony (mid-4th century B.C. and early
Hellenistic). However, we should not forget that in the latter period, sophistication
and simplification survived side by side, illustrating the artists’ growing desire for
variety and their undecided attitude and anxiety. This caused a growing need for
artistic experimentation.
IV.B. THEANGELA COSTUMES: DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
The costumes of the Theangela figurines manifest a synthesis of Carian
and mainstream Greek elements. The methods of wrapping the cloth, its position
on the body and other stylistic details give us information about the fashion map
of the Aegean and Caria’s place in it. It will be more useful to examine the two
dominant groups in the data set, the bearded phiale carriers and the hydrophores,
with visually comparable examples that will make the observations more
comprehensible. The figurines from other subsets are fewer, making
generalizations more difficult and less reliable.
IV.B.i. Bearded Phiale Carriers in a Himation
Description- The basic variants of costume in Theangelan bearded males
can be summarized as follows7:
1-The horizontal himation exposing the stomach and covering one
shoulder and one arm, 16 in number (fig. IV.19);
2-The diagonal himation exposing the stomach and covering one shoulder
and one arm, 7 in number (IV.20);
7 The sum of the figurines in these groups does not match the total number of the male phiale
carriers, because some examples are poorly preserved and it is impossible to distinguish their
costume details. Therefore, they are excluded from the classification. The same problem emerges
with the female hydrophores as well.
9 8
Fig. IV.19 (left)-Example for group 1, 370s and 360s B.C.
Fig. IV.20 (right)-Example for group 2, 370s and 360s B.C.
Fig. IV.21 (left)-Example for group 3, 350s B.C. and later.
Fig. IV.22 (right)-Example for group 4, early Hellenistic (320s and 310s B.C.).
9 9
3-The horizontal himation passing under the chest and covering one
shoulder and one arm, 9 in number (fig. IV.21);
4-The diagonal himation covering more than half of the chest and covering
one shoulder and one arm, 56 in number (fig. IV.22).
In time, the bearded phiale carriers became increasingly covered. The
majority of the earlier ones have the himation on their hips and the stomach is
exposed (1 and 2). However, a significantly greater portion of the examples from
the late 4th century B.C. and the Hellenistic period have their himation either
diagonally pulled up on one shoulder in a way to completely cover the stomach
and sometimes half of the chest, or horizontally wrapped around the stomach to
cover it entirely (3 and 4).
Fig. IV.23 (left)-Marble figure from Olympia, late 5th century B.C. Source: Robertson 85. Fig.
IV.24 (center)- Athenian marble relief, last decade of the 5th century B.C. Source: Robertson 134.
Fig. IV.25 (right)- Capitoline Cynic, mid-3rd century B.C. Source: R. Smith 41.
10 0
All the four kinds of himation coexisted in Greece for centuries, but their
frequency of appearance in artwork is what becomes relevant for our purposes.
Although having emerged two or three decades earlier than in Theangela, the
tendency towards decreasing body exposure has its parallel in Greek large-scale
sculpture depicting bearded males and philosophers. For group 1, a marble figure
from Olympia has only his hips covered (fig. IV.23). For group 2, the bearded
male on a marble relief from Athens has a diagonal mantle and his stomach is
partially exposed (fig. IV.24). The himation worn by Demosthenes, from the early
3rd century, (fig. II.1) is a good example for group 3. Other examples for this
group include the Capitoline Cynic (fig. IV.25) and the man in himation from Cos
(fig. IV.26).
Fig. IV.26 (left)-The man in himation from Cos, 3rd-2nd century B.C. Source: R. Smith 252. Fig.
IV.27 (center)-Aischines, early Hellenistic (late 4th century B.C). Source: R. Smith 48. Fig. IV.28
(right)-Seated philosopher, 3rd century B.C. Source: R. Smith 41.
10 1
Group 4 is slightly more complicated. This diagonal himation was in use
in Greece since the Archaic age, but it is generally encountered in the depictions
of Zeus or philosophers (Houston 69). It is more difficult to encounter the exact
correspondent of this diagonal shape in Hellenistic sculpture. In addition to
Sophocles (fig. III.10), the statue of Aischines (fig. IV.27) and the seated
philosopher (fig. IV.28) can be mentioned as examples of completely covered
bearded males. Still, in the case of Sophocles and Aischines, the way the himation
is wrapped around the shoulders and arms is significantly different, covering the
entire upper body and the limbs. Furthermore, the decline in exposure in mainland
Greece appears to have saturated around group 3, and the diagonal mantle
remained moderately in use. In the Hellenistic epoch, it is more often seen in
females wearing a chiton underneath, like the Archaic kore. Also considering the
very high number of examples from this group in the data set, it can be argued that
the Theangelan artists selected to depict this style from the range of available
styles offered by the Greek mainstream fashion, which suggests that this shape
was more fashionable in Caria in the Hellenistic period compared to the other
Greek himation shapes.
The situation is even more interesting in young males without a beard.
Body exposure was socially much more acceptable for the young males in
Classical and Hellenistic Greece. However, in Theangela, it is surprising to notice
that the majority of them are covered as in group 4 and very few of them have an
exposed stomach (fig. IV.29). Nearly all the young males with a phiale are
dressed like the old males of group 4. Moreover, exposure continued to decrease
in Caria to a point in which we see artworks like the statue of Mausolos or the
example of a statue of a young man from Cos (fig. IV.30). This immense quantity
10 2
of cloth, with the excess wrapped around the stomach as a girdle, remained more
popular in Hellenistic Caria compared to the other side of the Aegean. The
Romans would later adopt the use of excessive cloth in their toga.
Fig. IV.29 (left)-Young male with a phiale, early 3rd century B.C. Fig. IV.30 (center)-
Young man from Cos, 3rd-2nd century B.C. Source: R. Smith 252. Fig. IV.31 (right)-The figure
with a himation triangularly fastened on the stomach, late 4th century B.C.
Some interesting exceptions are worthy of being mentioned as examples
similar to current Anatolian folkloric dress. The first exception is represented by a
figurine with a himation triangularly folded on the stomach (fig. IV.31). A similar
one is found among the females as well (fig. IV.32.a). This triangular design has
no counterpart in Greece and it is much more similar to Anatolian, and more
specifically, Aegean folkloric costumes (fig. IV.32.b). The veil hanging from the
woman’s polos has its exact correspondent in contemporary Anatolian dressing
culture (fig. IV.32.c). An example from Cyprus is equally interesting, suggesting
10 3
that this triangular shape was widespread as an Eastern Mediterranean fashion
(fig. IV.33). The double-folded mantle of the man from Cos (fig. IV.26) is also
reminiscent of this tradition.
Fig. IV.32.a (left)-Female with a triangularly folded himation, late 4th-early 3rd century B.C. Fig.
IV.32.b (center)-Woman from a village near Mylasa. Source: Erden 265. Fig. IV.32.c (right)-Girl
with a head veil and a polos from Afyon. Source: Erden 32.
The second exception: this bearded man with a stick is unique in
Theangela (fig. IV.34). His costume completely covers his body and he is holding
a t-shape stick. As opposed to the other males he does not wear a polos, and he is
believed to represent the only real-life figure in the data set, and a figure with
authority (Isık 201). He is probably a Persian satrap or representative. His tunic is
similar to the Persian style (fig. IV.6) and he does not have any of the religious
attributes the other figurines have. This is the proof of the fact that not all the
Theangela figurines were produced for religious purposes.
10 4
Fig. IV.33 (left)-Young worshipper from Cyprus, 3rd century B.C. Source: R. Smith 221.
Fig. IV.34 (right)-The figure of a man of authority.
Conclusions on Carian Male Fashion- From the 5th century B.C. to the
3rd, there were various ways for a male in the Aegean to wear a himation, which
were contemporaneously in use. However, some methods became more
fashionable than others in different times and in different places. The general
trend points at an increasing urge to cover the body, but even as late as the mid-
Hellenistic period, the Greeks found it sufficient to cover themselves as in group 3
and they occasionally used the style in group 4. As seen in the chronological
analysis of the figurines, the bearded phiale carriers from Theangela adopted the
changing fashion in Greek himation styles slightly later than the Greeks.
However, in the Hellenistic age, they began to exaggerate this tendency to cover
the entire body. The Carians began to use an excessive amount of drapery, their
costumes becoming more reminiscent of the Hittite and the Persian tunics. While
the diagonal mantle remained in Greece as a classical attribute for gods or
10 5
philosophers, it became regularly depicted in Theangela figurines. This may also
be due to the fact that the majority of the Theangelan bearded males represent
people of high status, because the length or the tunic and the lack of exposure are
positively correlated with age and social rank. Nevertheless, when compared to
the depiction of gods and philosophers in the Hellenistic Greece, they appear to be
more covered.
Mainstream dress comes with an available range of alternatives. Among
these alternatives, an ethnic group selects the most appropriate one for expressing
its own identity, modifies the stylistic details accordingly, but still remains under
the umbrella of the macro-culture (Barnard 150). Similarly, different cultural or
ethnic groups in the Hellenistic world selectively used or modified elements of the
Greek dress in accordance with their already existing cultural habits. It follows
from this explanation that the Carians borrowed from the mainstream Greek
fashion the elements that they found more suitable for their own traditions. If their
aim was to cover the greatest area possible, the artists could simply imitate the
statue of Sophocles in all the figurines they produced. Instead, they preferred the
diagonal mantle, which means it was a preferable design for them.
The Carians did not ignore the less exposing Anatolian and Persian
costume tradition in deciding which aspects of the Greek dress to adopt, despite
the fact that, initially, they also adopted the styles of group 1 and 2. The latter may
be due to the fact that in the 370s and 360s Mausolos was the Carian ruler, and his
admiration of Greek style of life may have pushed these relatively more exposing
styles to the top of the Carian fashion agenda. However, after his death in 353
B.C., the tendency to cover the body increased, and the developments in Greece
10 6
were parallel, if not as intense. Ironically, Mausolos’s own statue depicted a fan of
Hellenism like him in a heavy costume similar to the Anatolian tunic.
IV.B.ii. Hydrophores in a Chiton and a Himation
Description- Theangela females generally appear in a chiton and a
himation. The hydrophores do not wear a polos; wearing it is the norm among the
phiale carriers, both male and female (Isık 17). Female fashion in Theangela
manifests immense variety. The basic costume designs of the Theangela
hydrophores can be categorized as follows:
Fig. IV.35 (left)-Female with her himation used like a thick girdle, 350s B.C. Fig. IV.36
(center)-Bronze statuette from Ephesus, 600-580 B.C. Source: Richter, “A Handbook” 189. Fig.
IV.37 (right)-Maiden from Attica, 580-570 B.C. Source: Richter, “A Handbook” 65.
1- The pleated chiton with a pleated himation vertically hanging on the
shoulders, and the right edge of the mantle wrapped around the stomach like a
10 7
thick girdle (6 in number): This style has no counterpart in Greece. A good
example from the data set is this hydrophore with her voluminous drapery (fig.
IV.35) (Isık 128). The depiction of the pleats is reminiscent of a much older
bronze statuette from Ephesus (fig. IV.36). This may signify that this kind of
drapery depiction remained as a long-standing tradition in the Anatolian Aegean.
It is also similar to the maiden from Attica, nearly contemporary to the example
from Ephesus (fig. IV.37). This means that the style became fashionable in
Greece and in Ionia nearly at the same time, but it lost relevance in Greece while
it persisted in Caria. However, the way the mantle is used as a girdle has no
counterpart in Greece, suggesting it was a Carian tradition.
2- The combination of a v-collar chiton and a diagonally wrapped
himation (58 in number): This is one of the most typical hydrophores from
Theangela (fig. IV.38) (Isık 116). Probably the most widespread and classical
style in Greek female dress, this originally Ionic combination is seen in an endless
number of artworks from the entire Aegean. The Carian women appear to have
adopted it with enthusiasm, perhaps because it was already present in Anatolia
before it became fashionable in Greece. If what Herodotus says is true, this style
was first invented in Caria and then it went to the mainland Greece to become its
most fashionable and basic form of dress. A variation of this costume from half a
century later has a more closely fit himation with a thick edge and her v-collar is
very difficult to distinguish (fig. IV.39). The figure itself is reminiscent of the
Tanagra style with her more gracious body curves and more aesthetic pose.
Another version has the diagonal himation left hanging loose on the stomach and
the chest is exposed (fig. IV.40). In this particular example, the short sleeves of
the chiton are clearly distinguishable.
10 8
Fig. IV.38 (top left)-Typical combination of v-collar chiton and diagonal himation, around 375
B.C. Fig. IV.39 (top right)-The variant of the previous combination, 325-315 B.C. Fig.IV.40
(bottom)- The variant with a loosened collar, around 375 B.C.
10 9
Fig. IV.41 (left)- Marble kore from Samos, 570-560 B.C. Source: Laisné 66. Fig. IV.42 (center
left)-Figure from a marble relief in Rhamnus, Attica, late 4th century B.C. Source: Robertson 138.
Fig. IV.43 (center right)-Priestesses Nikeso from Priene, 300-250 B.C. Source: Pollitt 266. Fig.
IV.44 (right)-Detail from the Pergamum Great Altar, northern frieze. Source: R. Smith 177.
Examples for group 2 include the kore from Samos (fig. IV.41), the
woman from Rhamnus (fig. IV.42), the priestesses from Priene (fig. IV.43) and
the frieze from the Pergamum Great Altar (although with a peplos inside) (fig.
IV.44). As illustrated by these examples, this costume was worn in a very large
geographical region within a very broad time period. We can define it as the most
“mainstream fashion” in the Aegean, adopted by a great variety of cultural groups.
3- The himation covering the entire body and the limbs (15 in number):
This is another basic form of dress, not only in the Aegean but also in all of
Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean (fig. IV.45.a). The figurine’s variant from
half a century later has more complicated drapery details and better proportions
(fig. IV.45.b). This form of dress is less related to fashion and more related to
11 0
practical function. It may have been used to cover the relatively lighter chiton
worn as an undergarment. In other cases it may be a winter precaution or simply a
dress that keeps women comfortable in social environments by covering them up
to their wrists and ankles. This last hypothesis is related to the fact that, since the
time of the Hittites, Anatolian women were relatively more covered than men, and
their exposure was not socially appropriate. Other variants include the himation
with a more loosely wrapped collar partially exposing the chest (fig. IV.46) and
the himation covering the head (fig. IV.47).
Fig. IV.45.a (left)-The figure completely covered by the himation, 310 B.C.
Fig. IV.45.b (right)-The variant from the early 3rd century B.C.
Outside examples for this group include the marble statue of a woman
from Delos (fig. IV.48) and the Tanagra women in fig. III.1. They all resemble
each other across time and space. In terms of the frequency of appearance, there is
11 1
no significant difference between periods and locations, and there is no correlation
between the extent of body exposure and the time period. The wearer’s preference
in favor of a particular style probably depends more on the occasion for which it is
worn rather than the dominant trend in fashion. In case of rain or in a funeral, the
wearer may have preferred to cover her head, whereas during the summer, the
collar may have been left looser.
Fig. IV.46 (left)-The figure with a himation looser on the chest, 280s B.C. Fig. IV.47 (center)-
The figure with the headscarf, 325-315 B.C. Fig. IV.48 (right)-Woman from Delos, late 4th or
early 3rd century B.C. Source: Robertson 171.
4- The pleated peplos with a v-shape collar and a girdle with a kolpos,
accompanied by a himation hanging on the shoulders (16 in number): This is
one of the few categories in which we can see the details of the undergarment.
Interestingly, here we encounter the basic version of a peplos, sleeveless and
simple but with a small kolpos. In some examples the himation is used as a veil
11 2
and it covers both the hair and the shoulders, hanging from the back (fig. IV.49).
The curves of the small kolpos create a beautiful effect. The details of the drapery
are even more observable in this variant (fig. IV.50). Considering the date of these
figurines, it is possible to argue that the peplos in Theangela survived well into the
4th century, although these are the last hydrophores in the data set with a peplos
(Isık 135).
Fig. IV.49 (left)-The woman with a peplos and a himation used as a head veil, around
350 B.C. Fig. IV.50 (right)-The variant with more visible drapery details.
11 3
Fig. IV.51 (left)-Athenian Artemis with a belted peplos with a kolpos, 410 B.C. Source:
Boardman, “Greek Sculpture” 200. Fig. IV.52 (right)-Bronze incense burner from Delphi, 475-
450 B.C. Source: Richter, “A Handbook” 200.
Similar examples include the Athenian Artemis (fig. IV.51) and the
incense burner from Delphi (fig. IV.52). It is interesting to notice that Artemis,
produced half a century later than the bronze statuette with a plain peplos, has a
delicate, chiton-like kolpos. In the 5th century B.C., one version of this style
became particularly fashionable in the entire Aegean. This Classical variant,
represented in the data set with 4-5 figurines and also shown in fig. IV.9, has both
a very highly pronounced chitonic kolpos and a peplos-like flap, i.e. a hybrid
costume (fig. IV.53). The Theangelan example is from the 5th century B.C. as
well, suggesting that this Attic style quickly reached Caria. The Parthenon friezes
and the Erectheion are very rich in examples like the following (fig. IV.54).
11 4
Fig. IV.53 (left)-The hydrophore dressed in a hybrid costume, 5th century B.C.
Fig. IV.54 (right)-A caryatid from the Erechtheion, 410 B.C. Source: Boardman, “Greek Art”
153.
Fig. IV.55 (left)- Grimani statuette, 420 B.C. Source: Boardman, “Greek Sculpture” 218. Fig.
IV.56 (right)-Woman from Pergamum, 450-440 B.C. Source: Boardman, “Greek Sculpture” 223.
11 5
Other examples for this costume include the Grimani statuette from Crete
(fig. IV.55) and the woman from Pergamum (fig. IV.56). As seen above, the
examples come from a variety of regions but all from the same century. This can
be interpreted as a specifically 5th-century B.C. mainstream Greek trend that was
also admired in Anatolia and the Aegean islands. However, it became less
frequent, i.e. out of fashion at the end of the century and the more traditional
chiton/himation combinations with the kolpos but without the peplos-like flap
survived for a much longer time period in the entire Aegean.
5- Exceptional cases: Some figurines from the data set are unique with
their costumes. One of them is a woman with a polos. Her exception comes from
the way she wears her himation, just like the bearded males of group 3 (fig.
IV.57). Perhaps she can be considered a variant of group 1, but she does not use
her himation as a girdle. Another interesting aspect of this figurine is the immense
quantity of cloth used in the costume, which is a Carian phenomenon. Moreover,
it is unclear whether she is wearing a tunic under the mantle or not; she probably
did but it was poorly preserved.
This particular type of hydrophore only found in Theangela and
Halicarnassus represents another exception (Isık 134) (fig. IV.58). Her mantle is
very large and a great portion of it hangs from her left arm. This is again a
typically Carian phenomenon, similar to the style of drapery in the colossal statues
of Mausolos and Artemisia. While trying to keep up with the mainstream Greek
fashion, the Carian females appear to have created a local style as well. However,
in the previous section on male fashion we have observed that the excessive
drapery became more frequent after 350s B.C. In the females this trend may have
11 6
emerged a little earlier, because they were always more covered relative to the
males.
Fig. IV.57 (left)-Woman with a horizontal himation, 360s B.C. Fig. IV.58 (center)-Woman with
excessive drapery, 350s B.C. Fig. IV.59 (right)- Lyre carrier with a long-sleeved chiton with
horizontal pleats, 280s B.C.
The third exception belongs to the early 3rd century B.C., a lyre carrier
with a chiton (fig. IV.59). She has the long sleeves of her chiton reaching her
wrists and the pleats on her upper body are horizontally depicted. This is an
example for a very Hellenistic chiton but also a very Archaic way of depicting the
drapery, and it is surprising to find such an example in such a late period. The fact
that it is unique in the data set suggests that it was not a fashionable item; it may
be a personal preference of the artist with a taste for this kind of costume
depiction, or he may have wanted to make reference to an Archaic figure.
Conclusions on Carian Female Fashion- The female fashion in
Theangela manifests much greater variety with respect to male fashion. Regarding
11 7
exposure, the Carian women appear to have always remained more covered
relative to the males, even in the earlier centuries, like their Greek counterparts.
Nevertheless, they always found ways to add variety to their costumes through the
use of drapery details. Like the Carian males, some designs they wore manifested
a typically Carian characteristic, i.e. the use of triangular shapes (fig. IV.32),
specifically eastern headdress and excessive drapery (fig. IV.57 and 58).
In Theangela, also in the case of women, the Carian and the Greek
elements were selectively taken and combined in a variety of ways. For instance,
while group 1 represents an exclusively Carian way of using the mantle as a
girdle, group 2 represents a form of dress persistent and widespread in the entire
Aegean, quickly adopted by both the Carian and the Greek women. Group 3 does
not represent an exclusively Carian or Greek trend; this method of covering the
entire body with a large piece of cloth was seen in a vast geographical area
including eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia. We may consequently argue that,
regardless of its specific meanings in specific societies, this kind of dress had
more functional purposes, be it physical (related to climate) or social (related to
ceremonies such as funerals).
Group 4 is very interesting, in the sense that it illustrates the period of
transition from a peplos-dominated fashion to a chiton-dominated fashion. The
hybrid form that became a phenomenon in the 5th century B.C. in the entire
Aegean, slowly left its place to the chiton with sleeves: first the flap disappeared,
the peplos becoming finer and less closely fitted in 350s B.C. (fig. IV.49 and 50),
and then vanishing. It is possible to see the peplos in Caria in the 4th century B.C.,
but it is evident that it was not as often used as the design in group 2. The peplos
survived slightly longer in Greece, because the chiton was an Ionic invention later
11 8
adopted by the Greeks. This is why the Carians may have been more eager to
adopt the Hellenistic version of the chiton/himation combination. It also became a
typical dress for the Attic and the Tanagra female figurines. In the example of a
woman from the Acropolis, wearing a chiton and a himation, the chiton vertically
falls upon the legs and the himation covers the thighs (Thompson, “the Origin”
59).
Fig. IV.60 (left)-Western Anatolian woman in a bindallı. Notice the head veil and the polos placed
on it, and the triangular pieces of excessive cloth on her stomach. Source: Erden 46. Fig. IV.61
(right)-Working woman from the Black Sea region, in traditional footwear and headdress but also
in a jean skirt. Source: Erden 200.
The use of the polos and the symmetrically braided hair (seen in Greece in
the Archaic kore and no later) are crucial Anatolian identity markers in the
Hellenistic Theangelan females. None of the outside examples cited above has
two braids of long hair symmetrically hanging on the shoulders like the
Theangelan women, and none of them except one (fig. IV.37) wears a polos. This
11 9
kind of headdress, including the veil hanging from the polos, is still seen in
Anatolian tradition (fig. IV.60) and it distinguishes the Carian woman from the
Hellenistic Greek, despite her great interest in following the mainstream trend.
Her case is similar to that of an Anatolian rural woman wearing jeans but still
carrying her traditional headdress (fig. IV.61).
IV.B.iii. Evaluation: the Fashion Map of the Aegean
The analysis above illustrates that the Aegean, during the 4th century B.C.
and the Hellenistic period, was under the influence of the mainstream Greek
fashion at the macro-level; however, at the micro-level, specific geographical
regions had their own traditional ways of clothing and thus they adjusted the
Greek style to their own cultural norms. The increasing network of interactions
affected mainland Greece as well. The Greeks had already borrowed the linen
chiton from the Carians in the first place. In the 4th century B.C. they also began to
embrace a greater variety of forms and styles from other regions (Boucher 103).
The Hellenistic period is rich in the depictions of local people in Greek costumes
and Greek people in local costumes (Türkoglu 88). Nevertheless, the basic
principles of Greek clothing did not drastically change (Türkoglu 86) and the
direction of influences remained heavily from the Greek center to the Anatolian
periphery. Finally, during this period, the extent to which the Greeks covered
themselves, including the head, increased substantially (Türkoglu 88). The same
tendency is visible in Caria as well.
It appears that the Carians had a complicated attitude towards dress. They
selectively adopted elements of the mainstream fashion and modified its
characteristics in accordance with the Anatolian tradition. The Persian impact is
12 0
not as powerful as expected, but since it is also partially similar to the Anatolian
style, we can consider it part of that sphere of influence at the beginning of
Hellenism. On the other hand, the connections with the contemporary Anatolian
folkloric dress do not appear purely coincidental. The examples illustrated above
are taken from relatively more isolated rural areas, with relatively less interaction
with the “global” culture, and they represent costume types that exist since the
Ottoman period. Furthermore, we cannot assume that the entire populations in
these areas were replaced by new ones each time the political authority changed
hands, be it Roman, Byzantine or Ottoman. Local people continued to preserve
some characteristics of their costumes and the ruling elites borrowed elements
from them.
Fig. IV.62 (left)-Detail from Edessa mosaics in Urfa, 2nd century B.C. Source: Türkoglu 100. Fig.
IV.63 (center)- Byzantine princess, 10th century A.D. Source: Houston cover. Fig. IV.64 (right)-
Hürrem Sultan, 16th century AD. Source: http://users.skynet.be/pierre.bachy/huremsultan.jpg
(April 10 2007).
12 1
For instance, the Romans depicted the “barbarian” populations under their
rule in Anatolia with costumes definitely not Roman (fig. IV.62). The woman’s
polos/veil combination is clearly visible. It is slightly different from its western
Anatolian counterparts but very similar to the version from Ottoman Istanbul,
worn by Hürrem Sultan (fig. IV.64). The Anatolian polos survived as an elite
form of headdress under the Byzantine rule (fig. IV.63) and in the form of fez
under the Ottoman rule. This illustrates that continuity in dress was not only
limited to the rural and local populations and its impact in Anatolia is still visible
in our day.
12 2
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
As seen in previous chapters, Theangela figurines reflect the tension and
the interaction between the local and the mainstream Aegean cultural
developments in Caria, both as coroplastic artworks and as objects documenting
the costume tradition of their epoch. The first part of this chapter discusses the
developments during the 4th century B.C. and the Hellenistic age and their impact
on Carian local culture, evaluating the findings related to coroplastic art and
costume within the framework of this historical context. The second part applies
current fashion theory to the 4th century B.C. and the Hellenistic notions of dress,
particularly focusing on the concept of continuity and change, fashion diffusion
and role models.
V.A. HELLENISM AND THEANGELA FIGURINES
V.A.i. Hellenism: “Global” vs. “Local” Culture in Caria
Starting from the 4th century B.C., Aegean coroplastic art increasingly
reflected a line of evolution parallel with the developments in mainland Greece.
The same century was also the golden age of the Tanagra figurines, which, in turn,
inspired the terracotta producers in the entire Aegean and became the “mainstream
fashion” in the realm of coroplastic statuettes. The Tanagra case, explained in
12 3
chapter 3, clearly illustrates how certain aspects of the social environment of the
time found their reflection in various artworks, and not only in those large statues
erected in public spaces, but also in the smaller objects entering people’s
households.
Despite the growing impact of Greek principles in art, the Hellenization of
culture throughout Greece, Anatolia and the Middle East did not take place in a
similar fashion in all areas. Some regions were more intensely affected than
others, whereas some places experienced these developments later than their
neighbors. This is also seen in the case of the Tanagra influence reaching different
places in different periods or with different intensity, depending on the proximity
of the region to mainland Greece and the strength of the local culture already
established there. As illustrated by the examples presented in chapters 3 and 4,
local cultural legacies never completely disappeared; the artists combined the
“mainstream fashion” with their own aesthetic preferences and with local or non-
Greek demands and habits.
It is generally argued that different peoples in the Mediterranean began to
culturally interact with each other only as late as the Hellenistic period. However,
these interactions only intensified an already existing network of cultural
exchanges. The developments that scholarly literature places within the
framework of Hellenism actually started much earlier in the 4th century, and that is
why this thesis chose to analyze the 4th century B.C. and the following centuries in
their entirety. It is impossible to think that ethnic or cultural groups are completely
isolated entities. Nevertheless, we can argue that the 4th century B.C. marked the
beginning of a new level of cultural cosmopolitanism and interactive environment,
in which the mainland Greece and the more eastern regions in the Mediterranean
12 4
began to have a more intense communication in the realm of art and visual
culture.
The principal aspects of Hellenistic art and philosophy can be summarized
as follows: homogenization of culture, universalism, individualism, realism,
cosmopolitanism, psychological portraiture and secularized subjects. These terms
both indicate a greater importance placed on the individual’s own identity and his
or her ability to express it, and the emergence of a macro-culture that unites all
these individuals under the umbrella of certain common aesthetic values. This
definition is strongly reminiscent of today’s notion of globalization. However,
neither globalization nor Hellenism should be perceived as a series of completely
positive developments. The chaotic political situation in all the affected regions
made life difficult for the common man in the 4th and 3rd century B.C., and some
elites were concerned about the negative effects of cosmopolitanism on the
“purity” of their culture. Furthermore, we cannot confidently tell to what extent
the “global” developments in art affected the daily lives of the common people.
We can only argue that these developments in artistic philosophy were, at least to
a considerable degree, reflected in material culture. This, in turn, should have had
an impact on the aesthetic preferences of the consumers, both in the realm of
coroplastic art and costumes.
Like in Hellenism, in our society, globalization affects different regions
and peoples in different ways, and in the majority of the cases, cultural groups
produce material objects and visual artworks as a result of a synthesis of this
macro-culture and their own micro-cultural elements. Within the context
described above, Caria has a particularly important place. With its advantageous
geographical position, favorable climate, fertile lands, abundant rivers and natural
12 5
harbors, Caria was an extremely attractive place to settle for a great variety of
peoples; from the Persians to the Greeks, from the Macedonians to the islanders,
Caria saw waves of migrations and a tempestuous political environment. Yet, the
word “Lelegian” and later “Carian” continued to be used by ancient authors to
refer to a particular group of people. With their specifically designed helmets,
weapons and still not deciphered dialect, they were always seen as a separate
cultural group locally established in Caria, both by themselves and by outsiders.
The Carians often traveled to other places in the Mediterranean for
military purposes, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia; this introduced them to new
cultural and artistic environments. Yet it is clear from ancient sources that they
preserved their cultural identity through their language and military costumes. As
illustrated in chapter 2, it is very difficult to determine who the Carians really
were; but they gave the impression of a society sharing common cultural values
and perceiving themselves as a distinct group. Their self-perception matters more
than their true ethnic origin to understand their artwork, and Theangela figurines
illustrate how a great variety of cultural influences, including the Hellenistic one,
were intermingled to give way to a “Carian” synthesis. As an ethnic group is
invaded by the dominant macro-culture, it develops a reaction to it by redefining
that culture in its own terms. Similarly, the Carians, invaded by the Persian and
Greek cultural hegemony, borrowed elements from these macro-cultures and from
other Anatolian groups, and redefined these elements within the framework of
their own ethnic identity. In this way they both adapted themselves to the
mainstream culture and prevented their local traditions from disappearing.
The modern professional, who has to travel to distant places and adapt to
new ways of life in other countries, experiences the same anxiety the artist in the
12 6
4th century B.C. and Hellenistic age experienced when he or she moved to other
cities in the Hellenistic world to find a better job. We do not know if the terracotta
artists in Theangela traveled as well, but they certainly had to understand the
different aspects of the cultural system and they were in contact with a variety of
cultural environments. They had to balance the local demands and traditions, the
Persian and Anatolian influences, and the effects of the mainstream Greek
coroplastic fashion against each other. These different layers of influence
combined to produce a new style, neither completely Hellenistic, nor entirely
local.
V.A.ii. Theangela Costumes: Fashion vs. Ethnic Identity
Despite the leading role of Greece in setting trends, it is evident that its
influence is not equally visible in coroplastic art and in costumes. In the realm of
terracotta figurines, Attica and Boeotia had a more determinant role (still not to be
exaggerated), whereas in the area of costumes, Anatolia was more autonomous.
The situation in the realm of terracottas can be analogically compared to a
situation in our times: a style becomes fashionable in the western fashion centers,
and Turkish consumers demand that style. However, Turkish retailers do not only
import it; Turkish textile producers also imitate the style, adding into it elements
of the local culture, so that the end product is not exactly identical to the original.
Similarly, Theangelan artists imitated the Tanagra figurines and some famous
large-scale statues to attract the attention of their consumers, but still they had to
appeal to local traditions to remain authentic and to reach a broader audience
within their region.
12 7
We do not have sufficient knowledge on the costume production and
distribution system in Theangela, and the role of the political authority or social
hierarchy in determining textile fashion. Still, comparative analysis illustrates that
the costumes of Theangela figurines have their parallels in examples of artwork
coming from a variety of regions and contexts. Thus, assuming that there was an
approximately similar system of production and distribution in the entire Aegean
would not be too optimistic. Hopefully, as findings from new studies on the textile
sector in antiquity will be available, these questions will be much easier to answer.
Furthermore, Theangela figurines represent a cult tradition with ceremonies to
which both people with religious duties and common citizens could participate,
and thus this thesis assumed that the statuettes did not represent only a distinct
professional group. In other words, the costumes of the Theangela figurines are
assumed to reflect the fashion trends in 4th century B.C. and Hellenistic Caria.
This assumption is still questionable; as new information on costume and textile
production in antiquity will be available to us through new discoveries, we will
have fewer difficulties in answering these questions.
In the light of these assumptions, we can observe that the Carians were
under the influence of a complicated system of stylistic interactions in making
their consumption decisions. They combined exclusively local elements of dress
with the more widely fashionable forms of costume. For instance, the Carian
males became increasingly covered like their Greek counterparts, but, unlike
them, they preferred the diagonal mantle. They even brought the tendency to
minimize physical exposure to a much higher point, using excessive amounts of
drapery. On the other hand, the females used a great variety of costumes, but they
heavily preferred the v-collar chiton and himation combination, expressing their
12 8
willingness to adopt the mainstream fashion. The design was originally Ionian, i.e.
Anatolian. This is why, during the 4th century B.C. and the Hellenistic period, it
was probably not difficult for the Carians to adapt to the mainstream fashion
without losing their ethnic identity. As explained above, this adaptation can even
be considered as an instrument for survival as a distinct cultural group within the
functioning of the macro-cultural dynamics.
V.B. FASHION: CONTINUITY, CHANGE AND DIFFUSION
V.B.i. Greek Hegemony over Dress? Reassessment of the “Anatolian Tunic”
and Continuity of Fashion
The terms “tunic” and “mantle” generally remind the scholar of Ancient
Greek costumes. However, as illustrated in chapter 4, these elements had already
existed in Anatolia and in Mesopotamia at the time of the Hittites. Moreover,
according to ancient sources, the Ionic chiton came to Greece from Caria. Some
fashion theorists define the invention of fashion by an ethnic group as “subcultural
innovation”. The group invents a style of its own by making use of its past
traditions and creativity, and sometimes this trend becomes fashionable in the
entire society, like in the case of the chiton (Sproles 119). Therefore, we may
argue that Greece itself borrowed elements of costume from Anatolia, created a
synthesis out of them and then exported this product to the rest of the
Mediterranean as if it was completely its own invention. The instrument available
to the Greeks was art: public statues, reliefs, pottery and other forms of visual
communication functioned like our media.
Ironically but not unexpectedly, the perceptions of what was fashionable
changed quickly: the Anatolian people, especially those in the more eastern
12 9
regions, began to adopt the Persian pantaloons while the truly “indigenous-
Anatolian” tunics were readapted and redefined, to be worn of top of the new
garment. The tunic never completely disappeared: it was like the “jeans” of our
day, often redefined and redesigned but never completely lost. Thus it is not
surprising to encounter its various forms in the Roman, Byzantine, Seljuk and
Ottoman Anatolia, including the contemporary rural culture. Highly probably, its
persistence was both due to its functional advantages and its very-well established
position in local tradition. In this case, continuity of style in fashion prevailed over
change.
V.B.ii. Change and Diffusion of Fashion in Antiquity
Fashion requires both continuity and change. Continuity of a trend in a
significantly broad geographical area for a significant period of time and its
replacement with another trend after a certain period of time is what fashion really
means. In the light of this definition and of our findings on the fashion map of the
Aegean, let us analyze the 4th century B.C. and the Hellenistic age by examining
the concepts that are included in the discourse of fashion.
First of all, fashion is not just a consequence of the Industrial Revolution;
it is an urge to consume that derives from perception, regardless of the scale of
production and distribution. According to Sproles, the role of the fashion industry
is indispensable for the propagation of fashion but the consumers are still the final
decision makers, who favor certain styles to others by choosing among the
available range of alternatives. In this way they have the opportunity to express
their own individuality (118). Moreover, today the mass media is heavily
responsible for the creation of demand for fashion consumption. However, this
13 0
does not mean that it is the only source of fashion consciousness. Social life and
encounters with different groups of people and objects similarly push the
individuals to observe, evaluate and adopt certain stylistic habits. These
encounters were not absent in the 4th century B.C. and the Hellenistic age.
Depictions of dress in public monuments and artworks, the costumes worn by
their peers, and the garments they saw on foreigners must have affected people’s
perceptions of what was fashionable or not. Especially in the case of the Carians,
we see a very intense network of interactions and reciprocal influences reflected in
the costumes of the Theangela figurines. The Carians adopted a form of dress that
was not a contrast to the mainstream Greek fashion but it was not its exact copy
either. Therefore, the existence of such a variety of influences points at the
effectiveness of the consumers themselves in adopting and readapting fashion
trends through social interactions. In other words, even if a political authority
determining the dress code existed, its behavior was in line with the other political
centers in the Aegean.
People do not only perceive what they should wear to express a certain
social position. They also tend to categorize people by looking at what they wear.
“Snob”, “immigrant villager”, “intellectual”, “rocker”, “rapper”, “recently
enriched but ignorant” are some of the remarks we often make about the members
of our society by looking at their costumes. So why should not the ancient
societies do the same? Their mental categories were probably more ethnicityoriented
or status-oriented than our categories that are more directly related to an
individual style, i.e. a combination of economic, educational and social factors.
Nevertheless, it can be asserted that, also in antiquity, dress gave an observer a
13 1
great amount of clues about the wearer’s identity, including his/her region of
provenience.
Second, fashion theorists often talk about the presence of a geographical
region that functions like a trendsetter. In our society, the trendsetter can be
identified as the Western world, particularly cities like Paris, London, Milan,
Barcelona and New York. There was certainly a trendsetter in the ancient world in
the realm of coroplastic art: mainland Greece, more specifically Attica and
Boeotia. By creating colonies and by exporting artists and artworks to other
places, Greece became the main source of influence in the realm of terracotta
production. Although Greece was not immune to influences from other regions, it
affected them more than it was affected by them. In other areas of cultural life
such as dress, however, Greece borrowed elements from other places and
appropriated them as its own, like in the case of the Ionic chiton. Ultimately, it
became known as part of the mainstream Greek style, and was marketed all
around the Hellenistic world as such through its depiction in public monuments.
The “fashion leaders” can be as effective as a trendsetting region in
determining fashion (Sproles 116): a role model, like a pop star or a politician in
our society. The example of Alexander the Great making the beard unfashionable
among his contemporaries indicates that this phenomenon was not devoid of
parallels in antiquity. The only difference was that Alexander the Great did not
have his photographs printed on magazines or did not appear on television, but his
statues and his depictions on coins were more than sufficient to spread his image
as a fashionable role model all around the Hellenistic world and approximately at
the same time.
13 2
Third, fashion’s definition includes an element of change, which was not
absent in antiquity either. Fashion manifests historical continuity, in the sense that
no fashion trend is completely independent from its predecessor. It borrows
elements from it and elaborates them with a new perspective. In the contemporary
world, radical changes in fashion are difficult to adopt for the consumers and risky
to implement for the producers (Sproles 117). Nevertheless, a certain style may
become out of fashion for several reasons: boredom, loss of relevance, negative
connotations associated with the style, or social change (Sproles 120). To predict
which stylistic elements would persist and which ones would perish must have
been difficult in antiquity as well. Some elements may become “anti-fashion”, i.e.
a way for the individual to challenge the mainstream, and others may be part of
the main trend, i.e. a way for the individuals to position themselves as members of
a society. Furthermore, some aspects of style may mean one thing in a certain
period to a certain cultural group, and this meaning may change in time or space
depending on the changing aesthetic values and perceptions. The example of long
hair vs. short hair in Sparta and in Athens is clearly illustrative of how some
aesthetic preferences can change even from city to city within the same region.
Finally, the fact that we are not able to trace each and every variation in a form of
dress does not mean that individuals did not modify a basic form of costume for
their own tastes and preferences. Consumers do not resist small modifications as
strongly as the changes in the mainstream trend (Sproles 117). Therefore, change
in fashion appears in a variety of ways in antiquity as well.
Fourth, some people consider fashion as a threat to culture; according to
them, fashion develops at the expense of cultural values and it ultimately replaces
them (Davis 214). It would not be surprising to find people in the Hellenistic
13 3
world who despised the Hellenistic cultural and artistic hegemony and who feared
the loss of their local cultural values. As explained in chapter 2, there were a
variety of artistic currents competing against each other during the late Hellenistic
period, some of them advocating a return to Archaic principles and others a
revival of Classical idealism. Nevertheless, the so-called “Hellenistic” style
managed to prevail over these currents and became the mainstream fashion of that
time period, although redefined and re-evaluated by local dynamics.
In conclusion, different theories on the diffusion of fashion blame its
hegemony either on the designers, the communities or the role models/opinion
leaders. However, since the sources of diffusion are increasingly decentralized, it
is more complicated to trace the direction of the correlation between fashion and
its creators. Diffusion is increasingly due to the role of all these actors (Crane 15-
16), and Theangela figurines illustrate that the same was true for fashion in
antiquity.
13 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akurgal, Ekrem. Anadolu Kültür Tarihi. Ankara: Tübitak, 2005.
Arnold, Dean E. “Patterns of Learning, Residence and Descent among Potters in
Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico.” In Stephen Shennan (Ed.), Archaeological
Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Routledge, 1994. 174-184.
Barnard, Malcolm. Art, Design and Visual Culture: an Introduction. London:
Macmillan Press, 1998.
Bean, George E. Turkey beyond the Maeander. London: John Murray Publishers,
1989.
Boardman, John. Greek Art. London: Thames & Hudson, 1996.
---. Greek Sculpture: the Classical Period. London: Thames & Hudson, 1985.
“Bodrum Bagları.” www.bodrumbaglari.com. 18 Oct. 2006.
<http://www.bodrumbaglari.com/Yoremiz.html>
Boucher, François. 20,000 Years of Fashion: the History of Costume and Personal
Adornment, Expanded Edition. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Publishers, 1987.
Brewster, Harry. Classical Anatolia: the Glory of Hellenism. New York: I.B.
Tauris, 1993.
Bruneau, Philippe, Mario Torelli, and Xavier Barral i Altet. Sculpture: from
Antiquity to the Present Day, Vol.1. Köln: Taschen, 2006.
Burn, Lucilla. The British Museum Book of Greek and Roman Art. New York:
Thames & Hudson, 1992.
“Caria” [online]. Available:
<http://www.tgeyacht.com/images/Maps/Caria.jpg> (May 03, 2007)
Conway, Hazel. “Design History Basics.” In H. Conway (Ed.) Design History: a
Student’s Handbook. London: Routledge, 1992. 1-14.
Cook, J. M. “Greek Archaeology in Western Asia Minor.” Archaeological
Reports, 6 (1959-1960): 27-57. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul.
22 October 2006
13 5
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=05706084%281959%2F1960%290%3A6%
3C27%3AGAIWAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9>
Crane, Diana. “Diffusion of Fashion: A Reassessment.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, the Social Diffusion of Ideas and
Things, 566 (November 1999): 13-24. JSTOR. Koç University Library,
Istanbul. 15 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
7162%28199911%29566%3C13%3ADMAFAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8>
David, Nicholas, and Carol Kramer. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Davis, Fred. Moda, Kültür ve Kimlik. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi, 1997.
DeCorse, Christopher R. “Material Aspects of Limba, Yalunka and Kuranko
Ethnicity: Archaeological Research in Northeastern Sierra Leone.” In
Stephen Shennan (Ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.
London: Routledge, 1994. 125-140.
Demand, Nancy. A History of Ancient Greece. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies, 1996.
Dereboy, Elif J. Kostüm & Moda Tarihi. Ankara: Özel Güzel Sanatlar Stilistlik
Ltd., 2004.
De Ridder, André, and Waldemar Deonna. Art in Greece. London: Routledge,
1996.
Eckstein, Felix. “Terracotta Sculpture from Theangela in Caria and Its
Relationship to East Ionia between 560 and 270 B.C.” Mundus, 19-4
(1983): 291-294.
Eicher, Joanne B. “Introduction: Dress as Expression of Ethnic Identity.” In
Joanne B. Eicher (Ed.), Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and
Time. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1995. 1-5.
Eicher, Joanne B., and Barbara Sumberg. “World Fashion, Ethnic, and National
Dress.” In Joanne B. Eicher (Ed.), Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across
Space and Time. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1995. 295-306.
Erden, Atilla. Anadolu Giysi Kültürü. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı, 1998.
Erlich, Adi. “Terracotta Figurines of Hellenistic Maresha: between Art and Craft”
[online]. Available:
<http://www.tau.ac.il/arts/publications/assaph%209/Erlich%201-16.pdf>
(December 4, 2006)
13 6
“Etrim/Theangela.” Ministry of the Aegean University of Athens, Archaeological
Atlas of the Aegean. 17 Sept 2006.
<http://www.ypai.gr/atlas/thesi_uk.asp?idthesis=468>
Evren, Adil. “Tire Müzesi’ndeki Karia Kökenli Kaplar.” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi,
29 (1991): 193-225.
Ferrier, Ronald W. The Arts Of Persia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Fox, A. Lane. “Exhibition of Votive Statuettes Found at Tanagra, Boeotia.” The
Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 6
(1877): 310-316. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 29 September
2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0959-
5295%281877%296%3C310%3AEOVSFA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X>
Franklin, Natalie R. “Research with Style: a Case Study from Australian Rock
Art.” In Stephen Shennan (Ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural
Identity. London: Routledge, 1994. 278-290.
Frothingham, A. L. Jr. “Archaeological News.” The American Journal of
Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts, 5-2 (June 1889): 198-
233. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 25 September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1540-
5079%28188906%295%3A2%3C198%3AAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M>
Goldman, Hetty, and Frances Jones. “Terracottas from the Necropolis of Halae.”
Hesperia, 11-4 (October 1942): 365-421. JSTOR. Koç University Library,
Istanbul. 12 November 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-
098X%28194210%2F12%2911%3A4%3C365%3ATFTNOH%3E2.0.CO
%3B2-E>
Gürsoy, A. Tahir. Dünden Bugüne Giyim Kültürü ve Moda. stanbul: Mithat
Giyim A.S., 2004.
Herbert, Kevin. “Terracotta Figurines at Bowdoin College.” The Classical
Journal, 55-3 (December 1959): 98-111. JSTOR. Koç University Library,
Istanbul. 29 September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-
8353%28195912%2955%3A3%3C98%3ATFABC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N>
Herodotus. The Histories. London: Penguin Books, 1996.
Hicks, E. L. “Inscriptions from Theangela.” The Classical Review, 3-5 (May
1889): 234-237. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 25 September
2006
13 7
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-
840X%28188905%291%3A3%3A5%3C234%3AIFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-
R>
Hollander, Anne. Sex and Suits. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1994.
Homer. “Iliad” [online]. Available:
<http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/homer/iliad_title.htm>
(December 21, 2006)
Honour, Hugh, and John Fleming. A World History of Art, 7th Edition. London:
Laurence King Publishing Ltd., 2005.
Hope, T. Costumes of the Greeks and Romans. New York: Dover Publications
Inc., 1962.
Houston, Mary G. Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume. New York:
Dover Publications Inc., 2003.
“Hürrem Sultan, 16th century AD” [online]. Available:
<http://users.skynet.be/pierre.bachy/huremsultan.jpg> (April 10, 2007).
Isık, Fahri. “Die Koroplastik von Theangela in Karien und ihre Beziehungen zu
Ostionien zwischen 560 und 270 v. Chr.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 21
(1980). Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth.
Kingsley, Bonnie M. “A Myrina Figurine in Malibu.” American Journal of
Archaeology, 76-1 (January 1972): 81-82. JSTOR. Koç University
Library, Istanbul. 19 October 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
9114%28197201%2976%3A1%3C81%3AAMFIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I>
Kinkel, Gottfried (Ed.). Hesiod. Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Leipzig:
Lipsiae, 1877.
Küçükeren, C. Canan. Carian Civilisation: Southwest Anatolia. stanbul: Ray
Sigorta A.S., 2000.
Laisné, Claude. Art of Ancient Greece: Sculpture, Painting, Architecture. Paris:
Terrail, 1995.
Larsson, Lars. “Ethnicity and Traditions in Mesolithic Mortuary Practices of
Southern Scandinavia.” In Stephen Shennan (Ed.), Archaeological
Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Routledge, 1994. 210-218.
“Leleges.” www.answers.com. 17 Sept. 2006.
<http://www.answers.com/topic/leleges>
“Lelegler.” www.felsefe.gen.tr. 22 Oct. 2006.
13 8
<http://www.felsefe.gen.tr/lelegler.asp>
Mellink, Machteld J. “Archaeology in Asia Minor.” American Journal of
Archaeology, 60-4 (October 1956): 369-384. JSTOR. Koç University
Library, Istanbul. 22 October 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
9114%28195610%2960%3A4%3C369%3AAIAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3>
M. E. P. “Greek Terracottas.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 18-9
(September 1923): 212-215. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 29
September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-
1521%28192309%291%3A18%3A9%3C212%3AGT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-
I>
Miller, Christopher M., Shelby H. McIntyre and Mantrala K. Murali. “Toward
Formalizing Fashion Theory.” Journal of Marketing Research, 30-2 (May
1993): 142-157. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 15 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-
2437%28199305%2930%3A2%3C142%3ATFFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S>
Miller, Josephine. “The Study of Dress and Textiles.” In H. Conway (Ed.) Design
History: a Student’s Handbook. London: Routledge, 1992. 15-37.
Miller, Margaret C. “Greco-Persian Cultural Relations” [online]. Available:
<http://www.iranica.com/articles/v11f3/v11f3002b.html>
(March 20, 2007)
Ningsheng, Wang. “Ancient Ethnic Groups as Represented on Bronzes from
Yunnan, China.” In Stephen Shennan (Ed.), Archaeological Approaches to
Cultural Identity. London: Routledge, 1994. 195-206.
Osborn, Ann. “Multiculturalism in the Eastern Andes.” In Stephen Shennan (Ed.),
Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Routledge, 1994.
141-156.
Peacock, John. The Chronicle of Western Costume: from the Ancient World to the
Late Twentieth Century. London: Thames & Hudson, 1991.
Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. “Design Innovation and Fashion Cycles.” The American
Economic Review, 85-4 (September 1995): 771-792. JSTOR. Koç
University Library, Istanbul. 15 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00028282%28199509%2985%3A4%3C77
1%3ADIAFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y>
Pollitt, J. J. Art in the Hellenistic Age. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1986.
13 9
“Regions: Asia Minor, Caria, McCabe, Theangela.” Searchable Greek
Inscriptions. 17 Sept. 2006.
<http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/gis?region=8&subregion=27&
bookid=530>
Reinach, Salomon. “Inedited Terracottas from Myrina, in the Museum at
Constantinople.” The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History
of the Fine Arts, 4-4 (December 1888): 413-420. JSTOR. Koç University
Library, Istanbul. 29 September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1540-
5079%28188812%294%3A4%3C413%3AITFMIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M>
Richter, Gisela M. A. A Handbook of Greek Art. London: Phaidon Press, 1994.
---. The Portraits of the Greeks. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984.
Robertson, Martin. A Shorter History of Greek Art. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1981.
Robinson, Edward. “New Greek and Roman Acquisitions. I. Terra-Cottas.” The
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 2-1 (January 1907): 5-9. JSTOR.
Koç University Library, Istanbul. 29 September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-
1521%28190701%291%3A2%3A1%3C5%3ANGARAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
-5>
Smith, Cecil, and E. L. Hicks. “Theangela.” The Classical Review, 3-3 (March
1889): 139-140. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 25 September
2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-
840X%28188903%291%3A3%3A3%3C139%3AT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M>
Smith, R. R. R. Hellenistic Sculpture: a Handbook. New York: Thames &
Hudson, 1991.
Soudavar, Abolala. Art of the Persian Courts: Selections from the Art and History
Trust Collection. New York: Rizzoli, 1992.
Spivey, Nigel. Greek Art. London: Phaidon, 1997.
Sproles, George B. “Analyzing Fashion Life Cycles: Principles and Perspectives.”
Journal of Marketing, 45-4 (Autumn 1981): 116-124. JSTOR. Koç
University Library, Istanbul. 15 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00222429%28198123%2945%3A4%3C11
6%3AAFLCPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7>
Stansbury-O’Donnell, Mark D. Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
14 0
Strabon. Geographika: Antik Anadolu Cografyası. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları, 2000.
Summers, John O. The Identity of Women’s Clothing Fashion Opinion Leaders.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 7-2 (May 1970): 178-185. JSTOR. Koç
University Library, Istanbul. 15 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-
2437%28197005%297%3A2%3C178%3ATIOWCF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I>
Tekoglu, Recai. “Karca’nın Çözümlenmesi ve Kaunos Çiftdilli Yazıtı.” Anatolian
and Thracian Studies in Honour of Zafer Taslıklıoglu, Volume 1. Istanbul:
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 1999. 227-256.
“Theangela (Mugla-Bodrum).” Kenthaber. 17 Sept. 2006.
<http://www.kenthaber.com/Arsiv/AntikSehirler/Mugla/Bodrum/AntikSeh
ir_115.aspx>
Thompson, Dorothy Burr. “The Origin of Tanagras.” American Journal of
Archaeology, 70-1 (January 1966): 51-63. JSTOR. Koç University
Library, Istanbul. 29 September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
9114%28196601%2970%3A1%3C51%3ATOOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L>
---. “Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas.” Hesperia, 21-2 (April 1952):
116-164. JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 29 September 2006
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-
098X%28195204%2F06%2921%3A2%3C116%3ATCOHT%3E2.0.CO%
3B2-E>
Thucydides. History of Peloponnesian War. London: Penguin Books, 1972.
Türkoglu, Sabahattin. Tarih Boyunca Anadolu’da Giyim-Kusam. stanbul: Garanti
Bankası Yayınları, 2002.
Umar, Bilge. Karia: Bir Tarihsel Cografya ve Gezi Rehberi. stanbul: nkılap
Kitabevi, 1999.
Walker, John A., and Sarah Chaplin. Visual Culture: an Introduction. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1997.
Watson, Patty Jo. “Archaeology, Anthropology, and the Culture Concept.”
American Anthropologist, New Series, 97-4 (December 1995): 683-694.
JSTOR. Koç University Library, Istanbul. 05 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
7294%28199512%292%3A97%3A4%3C683%3AAAATCC%3E2.0.CO
%3B2-J>
14 1
Waywell, Geoffrey B. “The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus.” In Peter A. Clayton
and Martin J. Price (Eds.), The Seven Wonders of the World. London:
Routledge, 1988, 100-123.
Weltfish, Gene. “The Question of Ethnic Identity, an Ethnohistorical Approach.”
Ethnohistory, 6-4 (Autumn 1959): 321-346. JSTOR. Koç University
Library, Istanbul. 06 March 2007
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-
1801%28195923%296%3A4%3C321%3ATQOEIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6>
Wiessner, Polly. “Is There a Unity to Style?” In M. W. Conkey, C. A. Hastorf
(Eds.). The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990. 105-112.
Woodford, Susan. “Introduction.” Greek Designs: British Museum Pattern Books.
London: the British Museum Press, 2003. 7-20.
Wobst, H. Martin. “Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange.” In Charles E.
Cleland (Ed.), Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. Michigan:
University of Michigan, 1977. 316-342.
Vitruvius. “De Architectura” [online]. Available:
<http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vitruvius.html>
(December 21, 2006)