... χειμῶνι δὲ τρίγλην
ἔσθι’ ἐνὶ ψαφαρῇ ληφθεῖσαν Τειχιοέσσῃ
Μιλήτου κώμῃ.—Archestr. ap. Athen. l. c.
[31]. Colonel Leake (Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor, Lond., 1824, p. 239) has given an account of this chair, and suggests that the arrangement of these statues is similar to that of the avenues of the temples in Egypt. In a note to p. 342 of Colonel Leake’s work, is a brief memoir by the late C. J. Cockerell, in which he suggests that the temple at Branchidæ was never completed, as the flutings of the columns are not finished (see, also, pp. 347, 348). There is an engraving of this chair in the “Ionian Antiquities.”
CHAIR FROM BRANCHIDÆ.
We cannot discuss here the character of the inscriptions quoted above, but all palæographers admit that the writing belongs to the earliest Greek period, not improbably anterior to the year B.C. 520. It may be still earlier, as, on the lion inscription, we find the name of Hegesander and another name, which, though the first letter has met with an injury, we agree with Mr. Newton in thinking, must be read as Thales, while, on the detached block, we have that of Anaximander. Now it is certainly remarkable that on two adjoining stones, found close to the most sacred temple of the Milesians, the names of two of the most celebrated philosophers of that town should occur. If, then, these be really the names of those philosophers, they may be supposed to have joined with other citizens of Miletus in dedicating the figure of the lion, and of the object (whether statue or otherwise) once attached to the second inscription; and, if so, the dates of these works would be between B.C. 470 and B.C. 560. Anaximander was born about B.C. 610, and Hegesander was probably the father of Hecatæus, who was himself born about B.C. 520.
It is worthy of remark that, unlike so many other early Greek works, these sculptures exhibit no trace of an Asiatic or Assyrian origin. The only style they recall is that of Egypt, while the only Assyrian monument they resemble is the semi-Egyptian seated figure brought by Mr. Layard from Kalah Sherghat. Mr. Newton has justly pointed out that the resemblance to Egyptian work “is seen not only in the great breadth of the shoulders, but also in the modelling of the limbs, in which the forms of the bones and muscles are indicated with far greater refinement and judgment than at first sight seems to be the case ... the subdued treatment of the anatomy contributes to the general breadth and repose for which these figures are so remarkable, and suggests the idea that they were executed by artists who had studied in Egypt.” We know that the Greeks were intimately connected with Psammetichus I., Amasis, and Neco; while the tombs at Cameirus, in Rhodes, have yielded works almost certainly imitated from Egyptian prototypes by early Greek artists. We have, too, the statement of Diodorus, that Theodorus of Samos and his brother Telecles of Ephesus, the sons of Rhoecus, derived the canon of their sculptures from Egypt. The general character, however, of the ornamentation, the mæander-pattern, and the lotos and borders on the garments of the seated figures, agreeing, as these do, with the same patterns on early Greek vases, tend to show that their actual artists were Greeks. Thus, too, the archaic statue of Athene in the Acropolis at Athens is essentially Greek, and not Egyptian. Pliny has further noticed that two Cretan sculptors, Dipænos and Scyllis, were the first artists (about B.C. 580) of note, as workers in marble: it is, therefore, quite conceivable that they may have been the actual artists of these monuments.
We shall now say a few words of Thyateira, Magnesia ad Sipylum, Philadelphia, and Tralles with some rather fuller remarks on the celebrated city, Sardes, the capital of Lydia.
Thyateira was a place of considerable importance, and probably of early origin, but of no great rank among the surrounding towns till the time of the Macedonians; its best known name, according to Steph. Byzant., being due to Seleucus Nicator. To us, its chief interest is its connection with early Christianity, as the home of “Lydia the seller of purple” (Acts xvi. 14), and as one of the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse. There are still, according to Sir Charles Fellows, remains of a considerable city; and it is also, under the name of Ak-Hissar, a flourishing commercial town. Close to the Lake Gygæa, not far from Sardes, was the sepulchral mound of Alyattes, considered by Herodotus one of the wonders of Lydia. This remarkable tumulus, which is about 280 yards in diameter, has been recently excavated by M. Spiegenthal, who discovered in its centre a sepulchral chamber of highly polished marble blocks, and of about the same size as that of the tomb of Cyrus. Such tumuli are common in Asia Minor; indeed, round the same lake, are three or four more, probably, as Strabo has suggested, the tombs of other early Lydian kings. Sir Gardner Wilkinson has pointed out that their structure—a stone basement with a mound of earth above—resembles the constructed tombs of Etruria.