JMR 16, 2023 89-110 Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler Stéphanie DERWAEL* (Received 31 August 2022, accepted after revision 10 August 2023) Abstract The aim of this paper is to investigate the evolution of the use of half-human half-vegetal figures, the so- called Rankenfrau and Rankengott, in the pavements of the Eastern Mediterranean, from their appearance in the Classical period to their appropriation in the Roman and Christian times. The contextualised analysis of this corpus, combined with a comparison to other media such as architectural sculpture, provide a good opportunity to better understand to what extent the motif varied at different times and how the worldview of the commissioners of the decors can, or not, affect their meaning. In the Classical and Hellenistic contexts, vegetalisation of the human body seems to plastically translate the prerogatives of different divinities of wild nature, growth, and life. Through the mastery of their primitive savagery, these deities allow the coexistence of two different natures and bring divine prosperity into everyday life. In Roman times these figures inherited from the Greek world went through an unprecedented formal and syntactic diversification. A new variant is even created: the foliate head, which concentrates the force of a vital principle and appears as the metonymic representation of its primordial and spontaneous fecundity. In Eastern pavements, bearded and beardless foliate heads are associated with young foliate boys in the peopled scroll borders of the public rooms of rich houses. They evoked the mastery of a vital impulse that is made beneficial for wealthy owners. During the 6th century AD, whilst the foliate heads survive in the pavements of Christian monuments, the Rankenfrau and the Rankengott seem to disappear from the Eastern repertoire. Keywords: Half-human half-vegetal hybridity, Rankenfrau, Rankengott, foliate heads, Eros/Amor. Öz Bu makalenin amacı, Rankenfrau ve Rankengott olarak adlandırılan yarı insan yarı bitkisel figürlerin Doğu Akdeniz döşemelerindeki kullanımının, Klasik dönemde ortaya çıkışlarından Roma ve Hıristiyanlık dönemlerinde kendilerine mal edilmelerine kadar geçirdiği evrimi incelemektir. Bu külliyatın bağlamsal analizi, mimari heykeltıraşlık gibi diğer medyalarla yapılan karşılaştırmayla birlikte, motifin farklı zamanlarda ne ölçüde değiştiğini ve dekorları yaptıranların dünya görüşünün anlamlarını nasıl etkileyip etkilemediğini daha iyi anlamak için iyi bir fırsat sunmaktadır. Klasik ve Helenistik bağlamlarda, insan bedeninin bitkiselleştirilmesi, vahşi doğa, büyüme ve yaşamın farklı ilahlarının ayrıcalıklarını plastik bir şekilde tercüme ediyor gibi görünmektedir. Bu tanrılar, ilkel vahşiliklerinin ustalığıyla iki farklı doğanın bir arada var olmasını sağlar ve ilahi refahı gündelik hayata taşırlar. Roma döneminde Yunan dünyasından miras kalan bu figürler eşi benzeri görülmemiş bir biçimsel ve sözdizimsel çeşitlenmeye uğramıştır. Hatta yeni bir varyant yaratılmıştır: yaşamsal bir ilkenin gücünü yoğunlaştıran ve onun ilksel ve kendiliğinden doğurganlığının metonimik temsili olarak ortaya çıkan yapraklı baş. Doğudaki döşemelerde, sakallı ve sakalsız yaprak başları, zengin evlerin kamusal odalarının kalabalık parşömen bordürlerindeki yapraklı genç erkeklerle ilişkilendirilir. Bunlar, zengin sahipler için faydalı hale getirilen hayati bir dürtünün ustalığını çağrıştırıyordu. İS 6. yüzyıl boyunca, yaprak başları Hıristiyan anıtlarının döşemelerinde varlığını sürdürürken, Rankenfrau ve Rankengott Doğu repertuarından kaybolmuş gibi görünmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Yarı insan yarı bitkisel melezlik, Rankenfrau, Rankengott, yapraklı kafalar, Eros/Amor. DOI: 10.26658/jmr.1376718 (Research Article / Araştırma Makalesi) * Stéphanie Derwael, PhD (Chargée de recherche F.R.S.-FNRS – Université de Liège; Chercheuse associée IFEA – Istanbul). Service d’histoire de l’art et archéologie de l’Antiquité gréco-romaine, Université de Liège, 1b Quai Roosevelt (Bât. A4), B-4000 Liège, Belgium https://orcid.org/0000- 0003-4346-5134. E-mail: s.derwael@uliege.be https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4346-5134 90 Stéphanie Derwael Half-human half-vegetal figures1 first appeared in the Classical period and have since profoundly marked the Art History of our Mediterranean societies, and even beyond. In this paper, I would like to focus on a part of their history: a period of almost a thousand years, during which they were transmitted, manipulated, forgotten, or even sometimes ignored. Their exact identity, and the reasons for their hybridity, often remain questions veiled in mystery. From the Greek world to the Roman and Christian times, the pavements of the Eastern Mediterranean are characterised by a very specific use of these vegetalised figures; a context which thus provides a good opportunity to explore to what extent this motif varied at different times, and how the worldview of the commissioners of the decors can, or not, affect their meaning. 1. The Greek World – Creation & Conceptualisation In a mosaic from the house B V 1 in Olynthos (Figs. 1-2), four vegetalised figures decorate one of the concentric borders. Each of them occupies the middle of a side, between two sphinxes in ‘split perspective’ (Guimier-Sorbets 1999: 23)2 and corner palmettes. They are frontal, and the lower part of their bodies takes the form of two volutes which each give rise to a high half palmette in the interstice formed by the tails of the adjacent sphinxes. Their arms are raised in an Atlantean posture. The schematic drawing of the mosaic, made with pebbles, does not allow to determine the gender of the figures. This pavement is amongst the first occurrences of the motif; it is dated towards the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th century BC. During that time, half-human half-vegetal figures appeared simultaneously in various parts of the Mediterranean, which was a major crossroad of exchanges and influences, making it complicated to trace the paths taken by some motifs, enriched here and there with iconographic or semantic elements. It is therefore difficult to determine the contexts in which the motif was created, although it is generally considered that it came from the East, possibly from the Ionian coast3. Regardless of the exact place where the vegetalised human figures were created, the geographical and chronological dispersion of the documents reveals that the motif benefited from commercial and cultural exchange during the Classical and Hellenistic periods, spreading throughout the Mediterranean basin4 as a result of the diffusion of the Greek iconographic repertoire, which strongly influenced the arts of Thrace, 1 Half-human half-vegetal figures of the Roman iconography are being collected in the database ‘Diphuès – Iconothèque de l’hybride humano-végétal’: it is a research, exchange, and dialogue tool made available to the international scientific community in open access (http://cipl-cloud09.segi.ulg. ac.be/diphues/). 2 ‘perspective éclatée’. 3 For different hypotheses on the origin of the motif and its diffusion around the Mediterranean, see Furtwängler 1893: 205-206; Curtius 1928: 292; Robinson 1941: 34; Curtius 1957: 196; Schauenburg 1957: 218-219; Stoop 1960: 56-57, 63; Laws 1961: 34-35; Valeva 1995: 346-347; Guimier-Sorbets 1999: 28, 30; Rupp 2007. 4 For a map with the distribution of vegetalised female figures in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, see Pfrommer 1990: fig. 7. Figure 1 Mosaic from the house B V 1, Olynthos. Photo from Robinson 1933: pl. 15. Figure 2 Detail of the mosaic from the house B V 1, Olynthos. Photo from Guimier-Sorbets 1999: pl. 1.1. http://cipl-cloud09.segi.ulg.ac.be/diphues/ http://cipl-cloud09.segi.ulg.ac.be/diphues/ Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 91 Scythia5, Magna Grecia and Etruria, where vegetalised figures can be found. In the second half of the 4th century BC, the motif is found on another pavement, in the Palace of Vergina (Figs. 3-4). It decorates the four corners of the mosaic, around a vast central vegetal carpet. Here, the life size figures are clearly women: they wear delicate earrings and a chiton, which develops into acanthus 5 Where the motif finds a beautiful field of expression thanks to the existence of the local anguiped goddess. With the exception of Ludwig Curtius, authors generally explain the success of the vegetalised form in Scythian lands by its assimilation to the Anguiped mother-goddess described by the classical authors. Figure 3 Drawing of the mosaic from an andrôn of the Palace, Vergina. Photo from Ginouvès et al. 1993: fig. 103. Figure 4 Detail of a Rankenfrau, mosaic from an andrôn of the Palace, Vergina © University of Bologna – Byzantine. Archaeology at UNIBO Archive - IB 92 Stéphanie Derwael leaves from which emerge a palmette and two tendrils, giving rise to fine floral volutes that they grasp with both hands. These two pavements are both from Northern Greece6. But half-human half-vegetal figures are also found in a wide variety of contexts and in other media, like ceramics (Fig. 5), sculpture, painting, or metalwork. They can be female, male, or even androgynous, they have a multitude of accessories and appear in different positions, sometimes isolated, or inserted into a larger composition. Generally, they are winged and seize the surrounding plants or animals. But what was their exact meaning? The German neologisms usually used to refer to them, Rankenfrau or Rankengottin for women and Rankengott for men, show the difficulty that researchers have in identifying them. The vegetalisation of the human body appears to be a new development in the iconography of the so-called ‘Masters of Animals’, the πότνια θηρῶν and her male counterpart. As early as the 8th century BC, they are sometimes represented winged or with the lower part of the body replaced by an animal component7. In archaic sanctuaries, representations of the ‘Mistress of Animals’, even in a non hybrid shape, could be offerings linked to various rites of passage (Mazet 2016). Through her mastery of wild nature, the goddess accompanied the dedicant to an unknown, and therefore potentially dangerous, place. However, these images were not representations of the goddess herself, but represented the ‘mastery function’ of her activity. In the same way, the different kinds of hybridisation, combining human and vegetal or animal components, seem to function as ‘iconographic epithets’: they plastically translate a field of activity, or an intrinsic quality of a divinity. Vegetalised figures do not seem to be hybrid images of divinities, but rather plastic translations of their prerogatives, and can thus be used for different divinities of wild nature, growth, and life8. It can refer to Dionysos, Sabazios, Artemis, Aphrodite, etc., whose identification depends on the context. The vegetal part of these hybrids is always made of acanthus and does not permit the identification of the deity to which it alludes. This choice seems to be impartial, as it can be transposed to all characters and contexts without being reducible to one of them. The acanthus, a weed that grows even in the most arid lands, appears to be a guarantee of rebirth, of the triumph of life over death (Gros 2010: 133). Its vital power manifests a form of hope, sustainability, and prosperity. There seems to be no explicit mention of vegetalised figures in Graeco-Roman texts, but the most common adjective used for hybrid beings is διφυής, a term denoting the simultaneity of two fundamentally distinct natures in one entity9. These hybrid shapes thus seem to emphasise the tension that can exist between the two natures that compose them, between the two forces they reconcile: hybridity distinguishes without excluding. Half-human half-vegetal figures 6 Figures emerging from an acanthus base also appeared on mosaics, like on a pavement from Dyrrhachion (Guimier-Sorbets 1993), and other media. But whilst these different forms of human- plant associations were part of the same overall semantic field, they were not necessarily synonymous: the same deity may be represented in different forms, but that does not mean that these forms were interchangeable. 7 The πότνια θηρῶν is the subject of an extensive scientific literature: see in particular Christou 1968; Icard Gianolio 1997; Mazet 2016. On her male counterpart, sometimes called δεσπότης or πότνιος in modern literature, see Lambrinoudakis 1997. Although he underwent similar formal developments to those of the πότνια θηρῶν, he is less frequently attested in the material that has come to us, and he seems to have disappeared from the documentation between the 7th to 5th centuries BC: Nilsson 1927: 442; Hinks 1937: 263-264. 8 They inherit this aspect from the πότνια θηρῶν, whether or not she was represented in a hybrid shape. 9 On the vocabulary used in the Greek world to describe the monstrous, see Piettre 1996: 20-22; Boudin 2005; Aston 2011: 12-16, 33-34; Baglioni 2013. Figure 5 Apulian nestoris, Varrese painter, around 340 BC (Antikensammlung – Kunsthalle, Kiel) © Kiel, Antikensammlung Inv. B 724. Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 93 represent a subversive nature, prolix but potentially dangerous, and which must be canalised. A creative force that, if kept in balance, can be made beneficial. Thus, it is not surprising to find these figures in the margins of decorations, or on ‘connecting elements’, like in the border of pavements, on gold headdresses, or on architectural elements that mark the transition between earth and sky, gods and men10. The deities referred to using hybrid shapes were thought to operate at the crossroad of several worlds, and to allow the coexistence of two different natures and the transition to another reality through the mastery of their primitive savagery. These figures represented a form of otherness, just like the other monsters of Greek art, which are thus relegated to the extremities of the oikoumene (Sauron 2000: 198; Li Causi 2003; Icard-Gianolio - Szabados 2009: 351; Baglioni 2013: 26). In Olynthos (Figs. 1-2), the Rankenfrauen are moreover associated with the sphinx, also known as an exotic, transitional figure, living at the margins of the inhabited world. In Vergina (Figs. 3-4), they give birth to, and seize, the acanthus scrolls from which different species of leaves, sprouts and flowers emerge. The same composition also decorates the centre of the pavement. This combination of acanthus, vine, flowers, sprouts, and leaves represents a form of hybridity. Besides, the acanthus scroll does not even exist in reality: it is a creation of Greek craftsmen. It refers to the spontaneous, and even supernatural, growth of vegetation. The scrolls, promptly associated to divine power (Castriota 1995: 58), give a suprahuman dimension to the decorative program of the pavement. It could be an evocation of a divine meadow, theios leimôn, an ‘expression found in poetic vocabulary and in contexts where relations between the world of flowers and the world of the gods are interwoven’ (Etienne 2002: 32)11. It could also refer more specifically to a divinity, like Dionysos in the andrôn (Guimier-Sorbets 2004: 914-915). This kind of supranatural hybrid vegetation knows a great development during the Hellenistic period, especially in Macedonia: flowered carpets, scrolls, or isolated motifs like anthemions spread to all types of decors. They all are phyto- morphic evocations of the divine power and bring a suprahuman dimension to the decoration (Etienne 2002: 24 36; Nalimova 2017: 28-32). Moreover, the strong three dimensional illusion demonstrates a wish to merge art and reality, perhaps as a way of bringing the divine into everyday life, or as a way of placing the lives of humans within the myths and the world of the gods. On the pavements in Vergina and Olynthos, the vegetalised figures appear in the andrôn, the public room which was at the heart of the social practice (Guimier- Sorbets 2011: 437-438). The decoration of the floor was oriented towards the guests, reclining on benches, and immersed them into a divine reality centred on the ritual of the symposion. This is the power of the immersive image, where the transitional half-human half-vegetal figures have their part. In Olynthos (Figs. 1-2), the Rankenfrauen seem to mark the crossing into the domain of the divine, accompanying the guests through a visual and experiential journey. In Vergina 10 In this context, it might be interesting to investigate the association with the motifs of the waves and meanders on the two pavements of Olynthos and Vergina: readable in both directions, towards and from the centre of the pavement, they may play a role in reading the decoration. Michel Fuchs, after having already questioned the meanders (Fuchs Michel, La Maison d’Amour et des Saisons. Construction et décor d’un quartier d’Avenches. L’insula 10 Est et la peinture murale sévérienne, Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lausanne, 2003, 490-494), asks the question of the meaning of the waves associated with the dolphin in his lecture Du dauphin au lierre, du sol blanc au décor à réseau : ornementation en contexte public entre Kymé, Myrina et Gryneion, Turquie, given on January 28th 2021 as part of the seminar « Décor & architecture antiques d’Orient & d’Occident » (AOROC, Paris). 11 ‘(…) l’expression que l’on retrouve dans le vocabulaire poétique et dans des contextes où se tissent des relations entre ce monde des fleurs et le monde des dieux’. Roland Etienne connects these decorations of divine meadows with the Eleusinian Demeter and Korè: Etienne 2002: 33-35. 94 Stéphanie Derwael (Figs. 3-4), they are larger than life and enclose the whole room, marking in some way the symbiosis with the divine, the immersion in an idyllic nature enjoyed, until then, only by gods and heroes. According to Anne-Marie Guimier-Sorbets, in the Greek andrôn, the divine would be none other than Dionysos, represented metaphorically in the centre of the pavement by the floral element (Guimier- Sorbets 2004: 914-922; Guimier-Sorbets 2011: 440-443). The abundance of vegetation in the Hellenistic art was a fertile ground for the development of formal games in which human forms and acanthus are combined in many ways, hybrid or not, in sometimes very original compositions (Picard 1963; Castriota 1995). In the frieze of the mosaic from the Palace V in Pergamon (Fig. 6), dated from the middle of the 2nd century BC, the vegetal border is formed by acanthus leaves forming cornucopiae, a symbol of abundance, that give birth to various flowers and sprouts amongst which winged Erotes and various insects are represented. The scroll certainly refers to Dionysos, the god of life (Guimier- Sorbets 2011: 440), since the ‘leafy grapevine with succulent grape clusters on the bottom border’ is ‘a powerful Dionysian metonym’ (Castriota 1995: 52). This Hellenistic pattern of the polycarpophoric (a mixture of several plant species) and polytheriotrophic (a mixture of several animal species) scroll enjoyed a certain success in the Late Republican and Imperial periods. Craftsmen of the Roman world will give a new life to this peopled scroll border (Toynbee -Ward Perkins 1950), into which they will frequently incorporate various kinds of half- human half-vegetal figures, as the origin or end points of the vegetation. 2. The Roman World – Diversification & Diffusion From the end of the 3rd century BC, Rome gradually established itself as the new economic and political centre of the Mediterranean. Works of art, mostly spoils of war, arrived from all sides, symbols of the Romans’ hold on Greek culture. They filled the private collections of rich families and invaded the public domain. Soon, these artifacts imported from the Greek world were no longer enough to satisfy the Romans’ devouring appetite for Greek past. To meet the important edilitary and decorative demand, a new market emerged: copies12. 12 On the question of Roman ‘copies’ of Greek works, see in particular Gazda 2002: 99-293; Huet - Wyler 2005; Dardenay 2013; Capus - Damay 2019. Figure 6 Mosaic of Palace V, Pergamon. Photo: CC Wolfgang Sauber (GNU Free Documentation License). Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 95 Numerous copyist workshops of Greek origin developed in Greece and Rome, and Roman craftsmen soon followed their lead. However, the Greek and Roman notion of ‘copies’ is different from ours, as it is the reference to the artistic authority of an original that matters, and not the exactitude of the copy. Roman copies of Greek artworks thus correspond to a range of material realities, from faithful copies to imitations, quotations, or appropriations. Different models can even be combined in the same artifact. An eclectic art was born, a true figurative synthesis of different styles from the past, combined with Greek, Eastern, and Medio-Italic traditions of the time13. The Neo-Attic workshops established in Rome were particularly in demand14, especially for their classicist and archaistic production. These two styles were especially favoured during the 1st century BC, but their aesthetic value alone does not explain their success. This retrospective taste for forms from the past can make sense: the classicist style can thus be used to reflect maiestas or dignitas, whilst the archaistic style can express a form of pietas (Dardenay 2013: 124-125). In a market where ‘originals’ and ‘copies’ exist side by side, the very notion of ‘original’ tended to fade. As a result, it is not always easy for the modern day researcher to distinguish one from the other. The famous marble throne found between the peristyle and the pronaos of the Parthenon is a good example: it is sometimes considered to be a Classical or Hellenistic original from the 4th century BC, and sometimes as a Roman Neo Attic copy, maybe from the Antonine period, inspired by a lost original15 - of which three copies are preserved in Boston, Rome, and Berlin (Fig. 7). Besides, should we name these occurrences copies, imitations, or cross quotes? Half-human half-vegetal hybrids spread in Roman decors from the middle of the 1st century BC onwards (Toynbee - Ward Perkins 1950: 7; Floriani Squarciapino 1957: 279-280; Laws 1961; Sauron 2000). They inherit formal, symbolic, and religious elements from their Greek counterparts, but they also display an unprecedented formal and syntactic diversification, which reflects a symbolic renewal. Alongside the traditional Rankenfrau and Rankengott figures, a multitude of individuals or animals are now being vegetalised, in different postures, and with various accessories16. The strictly frontal pose is often abandoned in favour of a slightly turned or profile position that reflects an action or an interaction with other protagonists in the image. Often, such vegetalised figures are subordinated to a central deity, which is represented in a strictly frontal position. The second half of the 1st century BC was a period of creative effervescence. 13 On the formation of Roman art, see in particular Coarelli 1970-1971; Pensabene - Sanzi di Mino 1983: 34; Giuliano 1996: 600-606; La Rocca 1996; Bianchi Bandinelli 2010: 56-249; Sauron 2013. 14 On these workshops, see in particular Becatti 1941; Fuchs 1959; Börker 1973; Coarelli - Sauron 1978; Sauron 1979; Sauron 1981; Queyrel 1991; Sauron 2000: 132-160; Bianchi Bandinelli 2010: 203 249; Sauron 2013: 69-72, 260-262. 15 The gaps in the throne preserved in the National Museum in Athens can be filled by a cast from 1868 (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden) and the three replicas of the Antikensammlung of the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, San Gregorio al cielo in Rome, and the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. The style of the decoration, the shape of the throne and the inscription on the upper plinth of the back side ([Ἐπὶ ......]ρατο ἄρ[χ]οντο[ς]) suggest that it dates to the 4th century BC. It has been proposed to restore the names of the archons Demostratos (393/392), Phanostratos (383/382), Lysistratos (369/368) or Kallistratos (355/354). Gisela Richter suggests that there are four imperial copies of a Hellenistic original, rather than one classical Greek original and three Roman replicas: Richter 1954. See also Curtius 1928: 292; Langlotz 1932: 181; Hinks 1937: 264; Robinson 1941: 32-33; Stoop 1960: 54; Laws 1961: 32; Delplace 1980: 163; Valeva 1995: 337, 345; Guimier- Sorbets 1999: 27 note 80; Ustinova 1999: 104. 16 See, for example, the frescoes of the Villa Farnesina (Palazzo Massimo, Rome): Bragantini - De Vos 1982; Moormann - Mols 2008. Figure 7 Marble throne from Rome (Antikensammlung – Staatlichen Museen, Berlin) © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, Photo: Universität zu Köln, Archäologisches Institut, CoDArchLab, 2342,18_FA-SPerg000699-19_Philipp Groß. 96 Stéphanie Derwael In this context of renewal of forms borrowed from Greek art, the craftsmen of Augustean Rome even created a new variant, the foliate head. The marble frieze of the lacus Iuturnae, attributed to the Augustan restoration of the monument, seems to be amongst the first preserved examples (Fig. 8). This new motif appears as a combination of different iconic units inherited from Greek art, in particular the foliate ‘skirt’ of the Rankenfrau and Rankengott, applied here to the beard, and the palmette hairstyle (Derwael in print: chapter I). Vegetalisation still functions as an iconographic epithet, applied to various deities17. Half-human half-vegetal figures are, moreover, enriched with an additional level of interpretation, reflecting the way in which the Romans of that time perceived the creative and fearsome forces of nature. The multitude of small vegetal beings that invaded the Late Republican and Early Imperial decors are related to the controversial repertoire of hybrid monstra, a representation of a subversive and undifferentiated nature, born or reborn, evoking the origins of the world18. The Rankenfrau, Rankengott and foliate heads represented, for their part, divine entities that embodied a natural power, and were thus depicted in a sovereign and solemn attitude befitting their status. They allude to deities who channel the power of vegetation and the cycle of plants, who make wild nature fertile and beneficial: gods of major importance, especially in a society where agricultural prosperity represents a model of felicitas and where plant rebirth in spring is a manifestation of a primordial vitality (Gury 2016: 68-69). At the same time, the sacral-idyllic landscapes of private decors also celebrated a mastered prodigal nature, but a sacred nature of the origins where the first humans, guided by pietas, lived in harmony and without conflict thanks to nature’s gifts (Fabre- Serris 2008, 2009). These decors celebrated respect for the sacred, and piety, which is a central value of Roman identity. In this context, the vegetalised figures seem to celebrate a prosperous nature, feared but revered, a prodigal original nature made beneficial and calling for 17 Sometimes, the use of the emblematic plant of a god allowed its identification, such as the vine of Dionysos on a Campana plaque from the British Museum (Inv. n°1805,0703.306). Von Rohden - Winnefeld 1911: 73 pl. 24.2; Curtius 1957: 200; Jucker 1961: 167 fig. 50; Stuveras 1969: fig. 68; Castriota 1995: 75. 18 Whether one looks at it from the point of view of prodigies announcing bloody confrontations, of a fashion sustained with a subversive aim by virtue of a metacosmesis revealed by the oracles, or of a contrast between chaos and the cosmos, used to enhance the stability of civilisation. For a full examination of this issue, see in particular the demonstration of Gilles Sauron: Sauron 1990; Sauron 2000: 132-176; Sauron 2013: 245-269; Sauron 2016. Figure 8 Fragment of the marble frieze of the lacus Iuturnae, Rome (Museo del Foro, Parco Archeologico del Colosseo, Rome). Photo: © Su concessione del Ministero della Cultura – Parco Archeologico del Colosseo. Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 97 rebirth. They emphasise the benefits of a pious relationship with nature and its divinities, a connection with the sacred, and were seen as a powerful guarantee of renewal. The archaising style of the frieze of the lacus Iuturnae (Fig. 8), and of the Rankengott on the marble thrones (Fig. 5), as we have seen, can celebrate pietas (Dardenay 2013: 125), and would reinforce this veneration of nature. The different forms of reception and appropriation of Greek art, closely conditioned by a context of emulation, contribute to ‘build Rome as a specific cultural entity’19 (Huet - Wyler 2005: 6). Half-human half-vegetal figures are part of the construction of the Roman identity. They allow us to better understand the relationship the Romans developed towards nature, the sacred, and the world. The mastering of the creative but subversive power of nature is an expression of the victory of order. After endless civil wars, this order was finally accomplished by Augustus: it maintained and defined the nature-pax romana relationship specific to the Roman world. The Roman power did not hesitate to use vegetalised figures to serve the propaganda by associating them with the theme of the return of the Golden Age, a central theme in Roman ideology. They became a leitmotif in Roman art: they spread throughout the provinces, as part of a valorising Roman repertoire, and individuals appropriate its message. These hybrid figures are transitional, they accompanied the Romans in various aspects of their present lives, and afterlives. Rapidly, local trends developed in the use of the motif, and local cultural specificities and iconographic traditions determined different levels of appropriation, particularly in the Eastern provinces. On the East side of the Mediterranean, the Greek Rankenfrau is still part of the visual landscape (Fig. 9). Roman examples mark the continuity with the ancient cults of the ‘Mother Goddesses’ and indicate a wish to claim the Greek religious heritage. On the cult statue of the Ephesian Artemis (Figs. 10a-b), known from numerous Roman copies found throughout the Empire, the Rankenfrau 19 ‘construisent Rome en tant qu’entité culturelle spécifique’. Figure 9 Drawing of a fragment found in the cella of the Hellenistic Temple of Artemis, Sardes. Photo from Yegül 2020: fig. 2.316. Figures 10a-b Cult statue of the Ephesian Artemis (Ephesus Museum). Photo: Stéphanie Derwael. 98 Stéphanie Derwael motif appears on both sides of the ependytes, alongside other ‘emblems’ of the goddess. The diffusion of these statues seems to have helped maintain the motif’s association with ancient cults that were highly sacred and respected: in this case, a mystery cult, whose secrets were not to be revealed, but which involved the rebirth of the initiates. Moreover, in the decoration of the so-called ‘Temple of Hadrian’ on Curetes Street in Ephesus, the Rankenfrau is repeated on the frieze of the entablature (Quatember 2017: 148-149) and decorates the lunette above the entrance to the cella (Fig. 11), where it marks the passage to the goddess’ domain (Quatember 2017: 101). On the other hand, the use of the foliate head, a Roman innovation, indicates a true renewal of the local repertoire. In sculpture, they are found in the same contexts than the foliate bodies, on capitals, friezes, or pediments of some public and religious buildings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, on the Levantine coast and in Asia Minor (Fig. 12). In mosaics, there are few examples from Bithynia or Cyprus (Derwael 2021: 106-114), but it is mainly used by mosaicists from the Levantine coast, in the peopled scroll borders of domestic pavements, where bearded and beardless heads often coexist. This illusionist border is an adaptation of a Hellenistic pattern popularised by the mosaic from Palace V in Pergamon (Fig. 6). By their insertion in this type of peopled scroll, which is a highly representative motif from the claimed Hellenistic tradition, the foliate heads testify to the importance of Roman influence on the Eastern provinces, despite the strong local Greek identity. Figure 11 Pediment at the entrance of the cella, ‘Hadrian Temple’, Ephesus, AD 117-118. Photo: Stéphanie Derwael. Figure 12 Capital of the front colonnade of the Basilica, Hierapolis in Phrygia, AD 125- 150. Photo: Stéphanie Derwael. Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 99 Furthermore, there seems to be very few figures with foliate bodies in Eastern Roman mosaics. In Kadıoğlu, on the Turkish Black Sea coast, a Rankenfrau occupies the four corner panels of a pavement also decorated with a scroll border issuing from four foliate heads and peopled with hunting Erotes. In many aspects, this pavement is an exception in the repertoire of Eastern mosaics (Eraslan 2022). So far, all other occurrences are found on the Levantine coast: they are all young foliate boys, inserted in a scroll border already peopled with foliate heads and hunting Erotes. In the ‘Mosaic of the Female Musicians’ in Mariamin (Fig. 13)20, four foliate and winged boys are positioned in each of the corners of the border. Two of them, diagonally, seem to represent Seasons: Spring holding a young goat (Fig. 14), and Autumn bearing fruits (Zaqzuq - Duchesne-Guillemin 1970: 95-96 fig. 5, 12; Balty 2011: 75). The other two protect themselves from a panther, one with a shield, the other with a stick. In the middle of the four sides of the border, the foliate heads are alternately bearded and beardless. Hunting Erotes animate the scrolls of the foliage. In a mosaic from Cyrrhus (Fig. 15)21, the two preserved corners are also decorated with young foliate boys presenting the attributes of the Seasons, but they are wingless. In the only preserved corner of the Hercules mosaic from Emesa (Fig. 16)22, a wingless young foliate boy grasps the leaves of the scrolls. Finally, on the Plutos Mosaic from Shahba (Fig. 17)23, the motif appears only once, in the centre of the border below the central painting: the young man wears a calathos, a bulla necklace, and holds the tendrils of the scroll in both hands. In a domestic context, we could interpret these motifs on different layers. These vegetalised figures take place in scrolls constituted by the opposition between the leaves and plant windings forming cornucopiae, symbols of abundance. The scrolls also combine several plant and animal species, which are metonymic allusions to the divine (Castriota 1995: 58). They emphasise prosperity and abundance that derive from the owners’ lifestyle and ensure its continuity: it is the expression of an eternal Golden Age. As we have seen, the foliate figures 20 Datation: AD 245-275 (Duchesne-Guillemin 1975), end of the 4th – beginning of the 5th century AD (Balty 2011). 21 Datation: 3rd century AD (Abdul Massih 2009). 22 Datation: first half of the 3rd century AD (Abdallah 2011), Severan period (Balty 1995), 4th century AD (Bowersock 1998). 23 Datation: 3rd century AD (Ovadiah - Turnheim 1997), AD 244-249 (Talgam - Weiss 2004), middle of the 3rd century AD (Balty 2011), AD 245-260 (Duchesne-Guillemin 1975), first quarter of the 4th century AD (Lavagne et al. 2000), AD 316-317 (Darmon 1980). Figure 13 Mosaic of the Female Musicians, Mariamin (Hama Museum). Photo: Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies. Figure 14 Young foliate boy (the Spring?), detail of the Mosaic of the Female Musicians, Mariamin (Hama Museum). Photo from Balty 2011: fig. 2a. 100 Stéphanie Derwael symbolise the mastery of a vital impulse and a prodigious original nature made beneficial for the patron of the house. But we can go further in the interpretation, as the Romans probably did24. A first question comes to mind: is there any difference between the foliate heads and the young foliate boys? The fact that only a head is depicted, and not the whole body, is meaningful. The Latin term caput refers to the human head, but it can sometimes also refer to the root of a plant, or the source of a river (Onians 1951: 125; Vadé 1977: 35). If the attitude of the Rankenfrau and the Rankengott emphasises their ‘mastery function’25, the foliate head seems to represent the origin of this revered but feared nature 24 On the visual habits of the Romans and their taste for interpretatio, see in particular Sauron 2009: 277 283. 25 Itself inherited from the potnia theron. Figure 15 Young foliate boy, detail of a mosaic from Cyrrhus (Alep Museum). Photo from Abdul Massih 2009: fig. 12. Figure 16 Young foliate boy, detail of the Hercules Mosaic, Emesa (Ma‘arrat An-Nou‘man Museum). Photo from Abdallah 2011: fig. 4. Figure 17 Mosaic of Plutos, Shahba/Philippopolis (Suweida Museum). Photo from Balty 1991: pl. D. Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 101 that must be canalised to benefit from all its gifts. It is the very essence of the vital impulse, exploited and exhibited, like a gorgoneion. On the mosaics, the alternation of bearded and beardless foliate heads could represent two aspects of the same deity, such as Dionysos dimorphos, which Diodorus defines as ‘a double epiphany, bearded and beardless, of the same god’ (Turcan 1958: 293)26. It could also evoke the two genders, or refer to a form of natural cycle, to the succession of ages in life put in parallel with the Seasons (Derwael 2021: 112)27. Unlike the foliate heads which are static and inactive, the young foliate boys are active. In Roman art, they are usually winged and represented in action, performing ritual acts, or hunting (Fig. 18)28. Here, they fight against wild animals and bring the gifts of the Seasons. They take part in a transitional action and celebrate its beneficial results. But who are they? For the Romans, the infant, infans, is a wild and shapeless being that is more animal than human. The acquisition of coherent speech marks the beginning of his education (Néraudau 1984: 53-55; Valette-Cagnac 2003: 2). At around seven years old, he thus becomes a child, puer, who is perceived as a fragile and pure being that must be protected (Valette-Cagnac 2003: 9), as nature or human condition (Néraudau 1984: 226). Childhood is seen as an initiation leading to rebirth (Néraudau 1984: 248), children are therefore associated with the renewal of the year and of the Seasons, and with the perpetual rejuvenation of the world. In Roman art, both the winged and wingless boys symbolise idealised versions of young people: as never-aging children, they allude to perfection and prosperity (Currie 1996: 154- 156). The child, through its innocence, purity, and sacredness, is also associated with the Golden Age, a time of original innocence. However, he may be a witness of this Golden Age, but not its creator (Néraudau 1984: 121-135). 26 Diodorus (Bibliotheca historica IV, 5, 2). On Dionysos dimorphos, see Turcan 1958; Turcan 2007. 27 On the numerous parallels established between the human and vegetal natures, and in particular between botanical growth and hair growth, see Forbes Irving 1990; Aubriot 2001; Brulé 2008; King 2008; Brulé 2015. 28 There are many examples. In scientific literature, they are rarely granted with more than a few lines. Figure 18 Frieze fragment from the colonnade of the temenos of the Temple of Trajan, Trajan’s Forum, Rome (Museo Pio Gregoriano Profano, Vatican Museums). Photo from Packer 1997: fig. 80. 102 Stéphanie Derwael Since vegetalisation is an epithet applied to various entities, could the foliate boys evoke the Rankengott aspect of Eros? The god represents an idealised vision of childhood (Blanc - Gury 1986: 1043-1044) and is represented as a winged or wingless child29, making it sometimes difficult to distinguish him from a human child. The multiplication of Eros into several Erotes, which can be traced back to the 6th century BC (Rosenmeyer 1951: 16-17), is not surprising since it is commonly used to express diversity in unity, like in the example of the Seasons (Blanc - Gury 1986: 1043)30. Moreover, in the Hesiodic tradition, Eros is the first cosmic element born out of chaos, the love god which unifies the opposite elements of nature and thus becomes the true creator of the organic world, leaving chaos behind. The Rankengott motif could therefore refer to the Cosmogonic Eros (Curtius 1957: 202). According to another tradition dating back to the Homeric poems, Eros is born after Aphrodite and is often her son (Rudhardt 1986: 18 24). In a completed world submitted to the order of Zeus, Eros becomes a ‘preserving power’ whose ‘function is to perpetuate things and keep them as they are, despite the wear and tear of time’ (Rudhardt 1986: 24)31. He now has a predominant role, not in the formation of the universe, but in maintaining its order and balance. As Jean Rudhardt formulated it, ‘these well- known myths (...) signify the constant resurgence, in new forms, of forces from which society and the entire universe derive’ (Rudhardt 1986: 33)32. Besides, the power of Eros is often related to the fecundity of nature in Roman thinking: the vital impulse, in its vegetal, Erotic or Bacchic expression, is potentially destructive, it represents ‘a danger to the order of the city, a danger that must be canalised and kept away’ (Gury 2014: 173)33. But once mastered, ‘this energy is good enough to be invited into the world of men to enliven the house and make it fruitful’ (Gury 2014: 173)34. The young foliate boys found on Eastern domestic pavements could refer to the ambiguity between Eros and the child figure. A parallel seems to be established between the mastery of the vital impulse, and the mastery of infantile savagery, as the means of access to an ordered, civilised, and prosperous life. The wild animal hunting scenes that complete border decorations also corroborate this idea35. Therefore, the peopled scrolls on these borders would exalt the prosperous lifestyle and values of the owners of the house, represented in the central panels of the floor. The mosaic from Shahba (Fig. 17) is here of particular interest. The central panel reflects a desire to attract and maintain the benefits of the earthly powers of fertility over the house. The figures are identified by their names in Greek capital letters. Plutos (ΠΛΟΥΤΟC), crowned with leaves and a calathos, and a figure 29 On the iconography of Eros/Amor, see in particular Stuveras 1969; Blanc - Gury 1986. 30 ‘The experience of the divine meets a force, not an individuality’: ‘l’expérience du divin rencontre une force, non une individualité’ (Veyne 1976: 583). 31 ‘puissance conservatrice (…) pour fonction de perpétuer les choses et de les maintenir telles qu’elles sont, en dépit de l’usure du temps’. 32 ‘Ces mythes bien connus (…) signifient la constante résurgence, sous des formes nouvelles, de forces dont la société procède comme l’univers entier’. 33 ‘un danger pour l’ordre de la cité, danger qu’il convient de canaliser et de tenir à distance’. 34 ‘cette énergie est suffisamment bonne pour être invitée dans le monde des hommes à vivifier la maison et la rendre féconde’. Françoise Gury speaks here of gardens and their representation in Roman houses, but this remark can be applied to the rich vegetal decoration in domestic contexts. 35 The nudity of children/Erotes could also represent a form of heroisation (Néraudau 1984: 124). On the relationship between hunting and education, see Aymard 1951: 483-502. On the relationship between hunting and ritual, see Estienne 2009. The association of youth and hunting continued into the Middle Ages: Van den Abeele 2009 : 239. Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 103 holding a plate with fruits, frame a couple reclining on a bed. The woman holds a rhyton and wraps her arm around the shoulders of the man, from whose name remain only the letters OC. In the lower register, the Earth (ΓΗ), crowned with wheat ears and a calathos, is accompanied by children representing the Seasons. Only Summer (ΘΕΡΟC), Spring (ΑΙΑΡ), and Autumn (ΜΕΘΟΠωΡΑ) have retained, at least partially, their names. The central couple, to which Gê and the Seasons present themselves, could correspond to Opora, the force of Summer, and Agros, the field (Duchesne-Guillemin 1975: 106-109). In the border, a single young foliate boy gives rise to the acanthus scroll, which he masters by grasping it with both hands. He stands under the central panel, in the centre, under the couple honoured by Gê and the Seasons. He is wearing a calathos, which refers to the fertility of the earth. He is also wearing a bulla, a necklace used to symbolise, honour, distinguish, and protect the puer (Néraudau 1984: 146). This bulla is certainly present to insist on the puer, an innocent and sacred child who has survived the dangers of infancy and who receives the education that will make him the worthy heir of his father, thus perpetuating the family line and its values (Néraudau 1984: 134). He represents a perfect child who offers the potential for development, synonymous with generational renewal of prosperity, and at the same time, he symbolises the mastering of Eros as a dangerous force that must be canalised, and which is thus made beneficial for the owner’s earthly life. In this context, the meaning of the alternation of bearded and beardless foliate heads36 appears more clearly: it is a reference to the succession of ages in life, put in parallel with the renewal of the Seasons, and an everlasting Golden Age assimilated into the owners’ earthly life. 3. The Christian Contexts – Simplification In Judea and Arabia, mosaicists in charge of decorating Christian churches and funerary monuments of the 6th century AD inherited the repertoire used by their predecessors in the domestic context. Most of the pavements incorporating foliate heads in their acanthus borders (Fig. 19) were made by mosaicists of the 36 The heads of the upper border are both beardless, whilst on the lower border one is bearded and the other beardless. The upper border may be the result of a later repair, because the leaves are thicker and less flexible than in the rest of the scroll. According to Marcelle Duchesne-Guillemin (Duchesne- Guillemin 1975: 107), this difference can be explained either by the cooperation of two craftsmen on the mosaic or by an ancient restoration of the pavement. Janine Balty initially dates this restoration to around AD 320 (Balty 1977: 24), but then opts for a dating to the Tetrarchy (Balty 2011: 85), which had already been suggested by Rina Talgam and Zeev Weiss (Talgam - Weiss 2004: 109-110). Figure 19 Detail of the mosaic from the Chapel of the monastery, Amman. Photo from Piccirillo 2002: 193. 104 Stéphanie Derwael Madaba School (Derwael 2021: 114-116 fig. 15)37. The heads are bearded and beardless and occupy the corners of an acanthus scroll on a black background, increasingly stylised, which acts as a geometrical vegetal grid. The vine occupies the centre of the pavement, on a white background, and forms volutes decorated with pastoral, hunting, or harvest scenes. During the same period, the bearded foliate heads are also used in the Bosphorus and its surroundings, especially in Constantinople. They decorate capitals and parapet pillars that were certainly parts of church complexes, or the famous mosaic of the Great Palace (Derwael 2021: 116-122). In the churches and funerary monuments on the Levantine coast, although the decoration has no apparent theological content, the different motifs are being reread in the light of biblical texts and Christian faith (Avi-Yonah 1936; Van Elderen 1970; Piccirillo 1982; Ovadiah 1984; Piccirillo 1984a-c; Ovadiah - Ovadiah 1987; Piccirillo 1989a-c; 1995; Hachlili 2009: 229). The same can be said about style and syntax: the disappearance of depth, perspective, or movement, reduces the points of comparison between images and tangible reality, and thus detaches the viewer from his tangible reality to get him closer to divine reality (Grabar 1951: 128). In this context, the vine peopled scroll certainly evokes the Earth, God’s vineyard, whereas the motifs related to the cycles of nature and time represent the prosperity of the people. Scenes from daily life, animals, and fruit trees hint to the multiplicity of Creation and suggest that God is visible through the things he has created, whilst the scenes of hunting and capture of wild animals seem to refer to the defence against hostile beings; once tamed, these dangerous animals will manifest the coming of the ‘Peace of God’ (Grabar 1963: 79; Grabar 1979: 53). The foliate heads are presumably part of the celebration of God’s power and goodness, but it is difficult to identify their exact meaning38. They were probably used because they were part of a repertoire considered as representative of the prestigious Roman cultural heritage. On the mosaic of the Great Palace in Constantinople, which is likely contemporaneous (Derwael 2021: 117-118), they appear as a strong motif of the ancient culture and heritage of the Roman Empire which are valued in the pavement. They also certainly reinforce the themes of prosperity and idyllic harmony conveyed by the central panel. As previously, they are used in a peopled scroll combining several plant and animal species, which is a metonymic allusion to the divine, expressing an eternal Golden Age. Or perhaps they were seen as personifications of some natural element or phenomenon, underlying ‘the role of God as the creator of Heaven and Earth’ (Hachlili 2009: 197)? Whilst the foliate heads continued to be associated with the themes of abundance and divine peace in the repertoire of Eastern craftsmen, the foliate bodies seem to disappear from the iconography. Were they still thought to be closely related to pagan divinities connected to the Creation and the power over living beings? Pagan motifs are then still in use as personifications, or Orpheus, so it is not a question of rejecting pagan origins, but rather of rejecting pagan divinities. In Christian iconography, a kantharos or a cross can give rise to scrolls (Bucci 2001), and the cross itself can even be vegetalised, as we can observe on some 37 Piccirillo 1984a-b; 1989a-c; 1995; 2002; 2003. 38 On bone plates found in the south service room of the north church of Hesban and that originally decorated a wooden box (Archaeological Museum, Madaba), the five remaining foliate heads stand alongside vegetal motifs and a marine monster eating a fish: see Piccirillo 1986: n°47. They thus also decorated contemporaneous everyday objects used in a Christian context. Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 105 Armenian cross. The mastering of nature is now in the Christian god’s hands, and the life steps are guided by the Church. Maybe the change of divine governance alone explains the disappearance of the half-human half-vegetal figures. In conclusion, from the Greek world to the Roman and Christian times, half- human half-vegetal hybrids take advantage of previous formal experiences and are enriched with new meanings, forged by new ideologies, new socio-cultural contexts, and by the personal background of the viewers. They reveal man’s relationship to nature and mark a connection with the divine. They represent the mastery of feared natural forces, which are made beneficial and become a source of renewal. Christian faith welcomes some of these figures as part of a prestigious cultural heritage, meanwhile they seem to progressively disappear from the Eastern repertoire. Whilst in the East a non-figural and aniconic art will develop during the 7th and 8th centuries AD, in the West the motif will benefit from the impulse of the Carolingian ‘Renaissance’ and become definitively established in the Western repertoire (Derwael 2017: 490-492). 106 Stéphanie Derwael Bibliography – Kaynaklar Abdallah 2011 K. Abdallah, “Mosaïque d’Héraclès découverte à Homs (Syrie centrale)”, M. Şahin (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, Bursa, 1-13. Abdul Massih 2009 J. Abdul Massih, “La fortification polygonale et les mosaïques d’une maison romaine à Cyrrhus (Nebi Houri). Notes préliminaires”, Syria 86, 289-306. Aston 2011 E. Aston, Mixanthrôpoi. Animal-human hybrid deities in Greek religion, Kernos Supplément, 25, Liège. Aubriot 2001 D. Aubriot, “L’homme-végétal : métamorphose, symbole, métaphore”, V. Pirenne-Delforge - E. Delruelle (eds.), Kῆποι. De la religion à la philosophie. Mélanges offerts à André Motte, Kernos Supplément, 11, Liège, 51-62. Avi-Yonah 1936 M. Avi-Yonah, “Mosaic Pavements at El Hammam, Beisan”, QDAP V, 11-30. Aymard 1951 J. Aymard, Essai sur les chasses romaines des origines à la fin du siècle des Antonins (Cynegetica), Paris. Baglioni 2013 I. Baglioni, “Note alla terminologia e al concetto di « mostruoso » nell’antica Grecia”, I. Baglioni (dir.), Monstra, Costruzione e Percezione delle Entità Ibride e Mostruose nel Mediterraneo Antico, II L’Antichità Classica, Rome, 15-32. Balty 1977 J. Balty, Mosaïques antiques de Syrie, Bruxelles. Balty 1991 J. Balty, “Les mosaïques du musée de Suweida”, J.-M. Dentzer - J. Dentzer-Feydy (eds.), Le djebel al-Arab. Histoire et Patrimoine au musée de Suweida, Paris, 81-84. Balty 1995 J. Balty, Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient. Chronologie, iconographie, interprétation, Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 140, Paris. Balty 2011 J. Balty, “Le rinceau d‘acanthe à fond noir dans la mosaïque syrienne : l‘exemple de Mariamin”, H. Meyza - I. Zych (eds.), Classica Orientalia. Essays presented to Wiktor A. Daszewski on his 75th Birthday, Warsaw, 73-88. Becatti 1941 G. Becatti, “Lo stile arcaistico”, La critica d’arte VI, 32-48. Bianchi Bandinelli 2010 R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome. La fin de l’art antique. L’art de l’Empire romain de Septime Sévère à Théodose Ier (1970) Paris. Blanc - Gury 1986 N. Blanc - F. Gury, “Amor/Cupido”, LIMC III, 1, 952-1049. Boudin 2005 F. Boudin, “Monstres sans image. Images de monstres. Représentations et non représentations des monstres sur les vases”, Dieu(x) et Hommes. Histoire et iconographie des sociétés païennes et chrétiennes de l‘Antiquité à nos jours, Mélanges en l‘honneur de Françoise Thelamon, Rouen, 537-568. Bowersock 1998 G. W. Bowersock, “The rich harvest of near eastern mosaics”, JRA 11, 693-699. Börker 1973 C. Börker, “Neuattisches und pergamenisches an den Ara Pacis-Ranken”, JdI 88, 283-317. Brangantini - De Vos 1982 I. Brangantini - M. De Vos, Museo Nazionale Romano, Le Pitture, II, 1, Le decorazioni della villa romana della Farnesina, Rome. Brulé 2008 P. Brulé, “Promenade en pays pileux hellénique : de la physiologie à la physiognomonie”, V. Dasen, J. Wilgaux (eds.), Langages et métaphores du corps dans le monde antique, Rennes, 133-151. Brulé 2015 P. Brulé, Les sens du poil (grec), Paris. Bucci 2001 G. Bucci, L’albero della vita nei mosaici pavimentali del vicino oriente, Bologna. Capus - Damay 2019 P. Capus - C. Damay, “L’art grec revisité”, Les sculptures de la villa romaine de Chiragan (Online), Toulouse. Connection on 16th Augustus 2022. https://villachiragan.saintraymond.toulouse.fr/partie-03 Castriota 1995 D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art, Princeton. Christou 1968 C. Christou, Potnia Theron : Eine Untersuchung über Ursprung, Erscheinungsformen und Wandlungen der Gestalt einer Gottheit, Thessalonique. Coarelli 1970-1971 F. Coarelli, “Classe dirigente romana e arti figurative”, DialA 4-5, 241-280. Coarelli - Sauron 1978 F. Coarelli - G. Sauron, “La tête Pentini. Contribution à l‘approche méthodologique du néo-atticisme”, MEFRA 90, 705-726. Currie 1996 S. Currie, “The Empire of adults: the representations of children on Trajan’s arch at Beneventum”, J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture, Cambridge, 153-181. Curtius 1928 L. Curtius, “Sardanapal”, JdI XLIII, 281-297. https://villachiragan.saintraymond.toulouse.fr/partie-03 Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 107 Curtius 1957 L. Curtius, “Die Rankengöttin”, J. Moras (dir.), Torso: Verstreute und Nachgelassene Schriften von Ludwig Curtius, Stuttgart. Dardenay 2013 A. Dardenay, “Rome, les Romains et l’art grec. Translatio, interpretatio, imitatio, aemulatio…”, A. Dardenay - C. Bonnet - F. Bouchet (dir.), Translatio : traduire et adapter les Anciens, Rencontres, 52, Paris, 109-137. Darmon 1980 J.-P. Darmon, Nymfarum Domus. Les pavements de la maison des Nymphes à Néapolis (Nabeul, Tunisie) et leur lecture, Leiden. Delplace 1980 C. Delplace, Le griffon de l’archaïsme à l’époque impériale. Etude icnongraphique et essai d’interprétation symbolique, Bruxelles-Rome. Derwael 2017 S. Derwael, “Des Blattmasken dans la Rome carolingienne. Entre remploi et imitation”, Actes du IXe Congrès de l’Association des Cercles francophones d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Belgique et du LVIe congrès de la Fédération des cercles d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de Belgique, Liège, 479-492. Derwael 2021 S. Derwael, “The peopled scroll of the Great Palace Mosaic in Constantinople. New perspectives”, JMR 14, 101-126. Derwael in print S. Derwael, La tête végétalisée dans les décors romains. Origine d’un thème ornemental, PhD Thesis, Université de Liège – Sorbonne Université, Turnhout, Brepols. Duchesne-Guillemin 1975 M. Duchesne-Guillemin, “Etude complémentaire de la « Mosaïque au Concert » de Hama et étude préliminaire d’une mosaïque inédite de Soueida”, MemLinc XXX, 99-112. Eraslan 2022 Ş. Eraslan, “Zonguldak Kadıoğlu Mozaiğindeki Maskların İkonografik Değerlendirmesi”, JMR 15, 105-118. Estienne 2009 S. Estienne, “Festa Venatica. Quels rituels pour la chasse dans le monde romain ?”, J. Trinquier, C. Vendries (dir.), Chasses antiques. Pratiques et représentations dans le monde gréco-romain (IIIe s. av. – IVe s. apr. J.-C.), Rennes, 203-214. Etienne 2002 R. Etienne, “La Macédoine entre Orient et Occident : essai sur l’identité macédonienne au IVe siècle av. J.-C.”, Ch. Müller, F. Prost, Identités et cultures dans le monde méditerranéen antique (Online), Histoire ancienne et médiévale, 69, Paris, 253-275. Connection on 24th April 2022. http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/20437 Fabre-Serris 2008 J. Fabre-Serris, Rome, l‘Arcadie et la mer des Argonautes. Essai sur la naissance d‘une mythologie des origines en Occident. Mythes, imaginaires, religions, Villeneuve d‘Ascq. Fabre-Serris 2009 J. Fabre-Serris, “Figures romaines de Dionysos à la fin du Ier siècle av. J.-C.”, R. Duits - F. Quiviger (eds.), Images of the pagan gods. Papers of a conference in memory of Jean Seznec, Warburg Institute Colloquia, 14, London, 281-296. Floriani Squarciapino 1957 M. Floriani Squarciapino, “Il fregio del Tempio del Divo Giulio”, RendLinc VIII-XII, 270-284. Forbes Irving 1990 P. M. C. Forbes Irving, Metamorphosis in Greek Myths, Oxford. Fuchs 1959 W. Fuchs, Die Vorbilder des neuattischen Reliefs, Berlin. Furtwängler 1893 A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik, Leipzig-Berlin. Gazda 2002 E. K. Gazda (ed.), The Ancient Art of Emulation. Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity, Supplements to the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 1, Michigan. Ginouvès et al. 1993 R. Ginouvès - I. Akamatis - M. Andronicos - A. Despinis - S. Drougou - A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets - M. Hatzopoulos - L. Kahil - G. Karamitrou-Mendessidi - K. D. Lazaridou - D. Pandermalis - O. Picard - M. Sakellariou, La Macédoine de Philippe II à la conquête romaine, Paris. Giuliano 1996 A. Giuliano, “L’influence grecque sur l’art italique”, G. Pugliese Carratelli (dir.), Grecs en Occident, 591-606. Grabar 1951 A. Grabar, “La représentation de l’intelligible dans l’art byzantin du Moyen Âge”, Actes du VIe congrès international d’études byzantines II, Paris, 127-143. Grabar 1963 A. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople (IVe-Xe siècle), Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut français d’archéologie d’Istanbul, XVII, Paris. Grabar 1979 A. Grabar, Les voies de la création en iconographie chrétienne. Antiquité et Moyen Age, Paris. Gros 2010 P. Gros, “La notion d’ornamentum de Vitruve à Alberti”, Perspective (online) 1, 130-136. Connection on 10th February 2021. Guimier-Sorbets 1993 A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, “La mosaïque hellénistique de Dyrrhachion ; sa place dans la série des mosaïques grecques à décor vegetal”, P. Cabanes (dir.), Actes du IIe Colloque international sur l’Illyrie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’Antiquité, Paris, 135-141. http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/20437 108 Stéphanie Derwael Guimier-Sorbets 1999 A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, “Echos des arts d’Orient dans la mosaïque et l’art décoratif grec des IVe et IIIe siècles av. J.-C.”, M. Ennaifer (ed.), La mosaïque gréco-romaine. VIIe colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Tunis, 19-37. Guimier-Sorbets 2004 A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, “Dionysos dans l‘andrôn. L‘iconographie des mosaïques de la maison grecque au IVe et au IIIe siècle avant J.-C.”, MEFRA 116, 895-932. Guimier-Sorbets 2011 A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets “Les thèmes dionysiaques sur les mosaïque hellénistiques d’Asie Mineuse (Turquie)”, M. Şahin (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, Bursa, 437-446. Gury 2014 F. Gury, “Les jardins romains étaient-ils bien entretenus ? Une esthétique du négligé ou l’expression d’une vitalité victorieuse ? Le dossier de la peinture romano-campanienne (30 avant-79 après J.-C.)”, E. Morvillez (dir.), Paradeisos genèse et métamorphose de la notion de paradis dans l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque international organisé par Eric Morvillez, Orient & Méditerranée – archéologie 15, Paris, 131-176. Gury 2016 F. Gury, “Du décor éphémère au décor pérenne en Campanie. Une sacralisation de l’espace domestique ?”, F. Fontana - E. Murgia (eds.), Sacrum facere. Atti del III Seminario di Archeologia del Sacro. Lo spazio del ‘sacro’: ambienti e gesti del rito, Trieste, 59-97. Hachlili 2009 R. Hachlili, Ancient Mosaic Pavements. Themes, Issues, and Trends. Selected Studies, Leiden-Boston. Hinks 1937 R. Hinks, “The Master of Animals”, JWCI I, 263-265. Huet - Wyler 2005 V. Huet - S. Wyler, “Copies romaines d’un original grec, ou les arts grecs revisités par les Romains”, Dossier : Et si les Romains avaient inventé la Grèce ? (Online), Paris-Athènes. Connection on 16th Augustus 2022. http:// books.openedition.org/editionsehess/2152 Icard-Gianolio 1997 N. Icard-Gianolio, “Potnia”, LIMC VIII, 1021-1027. Icard-Gianolio - Szabados 2009 N. Icard-Gianolio - A.-V. Szabados, “Monstra”, LIMC Supplement, 339-359. Jucker 1961 H. Jucker, Das Bildnis im Blätterkelch. Geschichte und Bedeutung einer römischen Porträtform, Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, III, Lausanne-Fribourg. King 2008 H. King, “Barbes, sang et genre : afficher la différence dans le monde antique”, V. Dasen - J. Wilgaux (dir.), Langages et métaphores du corps dans le monde antique, Rennes, 153-168. Lambrinoudakis 1997 V. Lambrinoudakis, “Despotes Theron”, LIMC VIII, 554-559. Langlotz 1932 E. Langlotz, “Dionysos”, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen VIII, 170-182. La Rocca 1996 E. La Rocca, “« Graeci artifices » dans la Rome républicaine: brève histoire de la sculpture”, G. Pugliese Carratelli (dir.), Grecs en Occident l, 607-626. Lavagne et al. 2000 H. Lavagne - E. De Balanda - A. Uribe Echeverria, Mosaïque, Trésor de la latinité. Des origines à nos jours, Quetigny. Laws 1961 G. A. Laws, “A Herodotean Echo in Pompeian Art ?”, AJA 65-1, 31-35. Li Causi 2003 P. Li Causi, Sulle tracce della manticora. La zoologia dei confini del mondo in Grecia e a Roma, Palumbo. Mazet 2016 C. Mazet, “La Πότνια Θηρῶν ou les frontières de l’Autre. Réflexion archéologique sur la signification d’une image homérique en Grèce orientalisante”, Kentron 32, 17-58. Moormann - Mols 2008 E. M. Moormann - S. Mols, La Villa della Farnesina, Le pitture, Florence. Nalimova 2017 N. Nalimova, “The Origin and Meaning of Floral imagery in the Monumental Art of Macedonia (4th–3rd centuries BC)”, N. Nalimova - T. Kisbali - A. Zacharova (eds.), Macedonian – Roman – Byzantine: The Art of Northern Greece from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Proceedings of the conference, Moscow, 13-35. Néraudau 1984 J.-P. Néraudau, Être enfant à Rome, Paris. Nilsson 1927 M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion, Acta regiae societatis humaniorum litterarum Lundensis 9, Lund. Onians 1951 R. B. Onians, Origins of European Thought: About the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate, Cambridge. Ovadiah 1984 A. Ovadiah, “Mosaic Pavements Discovered in the Last Decade in Israel (1970-1980)”, R. Farioli (ed), III colloquio internazionale sul mosaico antico II, Ravenna, 309-320. Ovadiah - Ovadiah 1987 A. Ovadiah - R. Ovadiah, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israël, Rome. Ovadiah - Turnheim 1997 A. Ovadiah - Y. Turnheim, “The Female Figure in the Dionysiac Mosaic at Sepphoris”, RdA XXI, 107-116. Packer 1997 J. E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan in Rome. A Study of the Monuments, I, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford. http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/2152 http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/2152 Half-Human Half-Vegetal Hybrids in Eastern Mosaics / Doğu Mozaiklerinde Yarı İnsan Yarı Bitkisel Melezler 109 Pensabene - Sanzi di Mino 1983 P. Pensabene - M. R. Sanzi di Mino, Museo Nazionale Romano, Le Terrecotte III, 1, Antefisse, Rome. Pfrommer 1990 M. Pfrommer, “Wurzeln Hermogeneischer Bauornamentik”, W. Hoepfne - E.-L. Schwandner (eds.), Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 28. Bis 29. Juli 1988 im Rahmen des XIII, Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Seminar für Klassische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin, Mainz am Rhein, 69-80. Picard 1963 C. Picard, “Acrotères, antéfixes, chapiteaux hellénistiques à décor mêlé, humain et végétal : de Samothrace à la vallée du Pô et à Glanum”, RA II, 113-187. Piccirillo 1982 M. Piccirillo, “Il complesso monastico di Zay el-Gharbi e la diocesi di Gadara della Perea”, G.C. Bottini (dir.), Studia Hierosolymitana. Volume III, Nell‘Ottavo Centenario Francescano (1182-1982), Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 30, Jerusalem, 359-378. Piccirillo 1984a M. Piccirillo, “The Umayyad Churches of Jordan”, AAJ 28, 333-341. Piccirillo 1984b M. Piccirillo, “Eglises locales des provinces Palestrina Prima et Secunda”, Le monde de la Bible 35, 8-12. Piccirillo 1984c M. Piccirillo, “Gerasa”, Le monde de la Bible 35, 17-21. Piccirillo 1986 M. Piccirillo, “Catalogo”, M. Piccirillo (dir.), I mosaici di Giordania, Rome, 219-233. Piccirillo 1989a M. Piccirillo, “Les mosaïques de Justinien à Yazid II”, M. Piccirillo (ed.), Mosaïques byzantines de Jordanie, Catalogue de l’exposition du Musée de la civilisation gallo-romaine de Lyon, février-mai 1989, Lyon, 27-140. Piccirillo 1989b M. Piccirillo, “L’école de mosaïques de Madaba”, M. Piccirillo (ed.), Mosaïques byzantines de Jordanie. Catalogue de l’exposition du Musée de la civilisation gallo-romaine de Lyon, février-mai 1989, Lyon, 141-148. Piccirillo 1989c M. Piccirillo, Madaba. Le Chiese e i Mosaici, Milano. Piccirillo 1995 M. Piccirillo, Il mosaico pavimentale di Giordania come fonte storica di un’epoca : III (1985-87), L. Roger (ed.), Fifth international colloquium on ancient mosaics held at Bath, England, JRA supplementary 9, 65-87. Piccirillo 2002 M. Piccirillo, L’Arabie chrétienne, Paris. Piccirillo 2003 M. Piccirillo, “Evolution de l’architecture chrétienne en Jordanie d’après les monuments de la région de Madaba”, N. Duval (ed.), Les églises de Jordanie et leurs mosaïques. Actes de la journée d’études organisée à l’occasion de l’inauguration de l’exposition « Mosaïques byzantines de Jordanie » au Musée de la Civilisation gallo-romaine de Lyon en avril 1989, Beyrouth, 3-15. Piettre 1996 R. Piettre, “Le dauphin comme hybride dans l’univers donysiaque”, Uranie VI, 7-36. Quatember 2017 U. Quatember, Der Sogenannte Hadrianstempel an der Kuretenstrasse, FiE XI/3, Vienna. Queyrel 1991 F. Queyrel, “C. Ofellius Ferus”, BCH 115-1, 389-464. Richter 1954 G. M. A. Richter, “The marble throne on the Akropolis and its replicas”, AJA 58, 271-276. Robinson 1933 D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus X, Metal and minor miscellaneous finds, an original contribution to Greek life, Baltimore. Robinson 1941 D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus V, Mosaics, vases, and lamps of Olynthus found in 1928 and 1931, Baltimore. Rosenmeyer 1951 T.G. Rosenmeyer, “Eros-Erotes”, Phoenix 5-1, 11-22. Rudhardt 1986 J. Rudhardt, Le rôle d’Eros et d’Aphrodite dans les cosmogonies grecques, Paris. Rupp 2007 W. L. Jr. Rupp, “The Vegetal Goddess in the Tomb of the Typhon”, EtrSt 10, 211-219. Sauron 1979 G. Sauron, “Les modèles funéraires classiques de l’art décoratif néo-attique au Ier siècle avant J.-C.”, MEFRA 91, 183-236. Sauron 1981 G. Sauron, “Aspects du néo-atticisme à la fin du Ier siècle avant J.-C. : formes et symbols”, L’Art décoratif à la fin de la République et au début du principat, Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome 55, Rome, 285-319. Sauron 1990 G. Sauron, “Les monstres, au coeur des conflits esthétiques à Rome au Ier siècle avant J.-C.”, Revue de l’Art 90, 35-45. Sauron 2000 G. Sauron, L’histoire végétalisée. Ornement et politique à Rome, Paris. Sauron 2009 G. Sauron, Dans l’intimité des maîtres du monde. Les décors privés des Romains, Paris. Sauron 2013 G. Sauron, L’Art romain des conquêtes aux guerres civiles, Paris. Sauron 2016 G. Sauron, “Ornement et politique à Rome, de la crise de la République à l‘avènement du principat augustéen”, Les cahiers de l’ornement 1, 23-37. 110 Stéphanie Derwael Schauenburg 1957 K. Schauenburg, “Zur Symbolik unteritalischer Rankenmotive”, RM 64, 198-221. Stoop 1960 M. W. Stoop, Floral figurines from South Italy. A study of South Italian terracotta incense burners in the shape of human figures supporting a flower, of the fourth century and the Hellenistic period, their origin, development and signification, Archivum Archeologicum 2, Assen. Stuveras 1969 R. Stuveras, Le putto dans l’art romain, Latomus, XCIX, Bruxelles. Talgam - Weiss 2004 R. Talgam - Z. Weiss, The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Qedem 44, Jerusalem. Toynbee - Ward Perkins 1950 J. M. C. Toynbee - J. B. Ward Perkins, “Peopled scrolls : a hellenistic Motif in Imperial Art”, BSR XVIII, 1-43. Turcan 1958 R. Turcan, “Dionysos Dimorphos : une illustration de la théologie de Bacchus dans l‘art funéraire”, Mélanges d‘archéologie et d‘histoire 70, 243-294. Turcan 2007 R. Turcan, “Dieux barbus du cycle bachique”, JSav 1, 87-112. Ustinova 1999 Y. Ustinova, The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom. Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God, Religions in the graeco-roman world 135, Leiden-Boston-Cologne. Vadé 1977 Y. Vadé, “Sur la maternité du chêne et de la pierre”, RHistRel 191, 3-41. Valette-Cagnac 2003 E. Valette-Cagnac, “Être enfant à Rome. Le dur apprentissage de la vie civique”, Terrain (online) 40, March 2003. Connection on 18 Augustus 2022. http://Journals.openedition.org/terrain/1534 Valeva 1995 J. Valeva, “The Sveshtari Figures (an Attempt to Specify Several Hypotheses)”, K. Jordanov - D. Popov - K. Porozhanov (dir.), Studia in Honorem Alexandri Fol, Thracia 11, Sofia, 337-352. Van den Abeele 2009 B. Van den Abeele, “Un regard de médiéviste sur les chasses gréco-romaines”, J. Trinquier - C. Vendries (dir.), Chasses antiques, Pratiques et représentations dans le monde gréco-romain (IIIe s. av. – IVe s. apr. J.-C.), Rennes, 237-241. Van Elderen 1970 B. Van Elderen, “The Byzantine Church at Swafieh”, AAJ XV, 25-27. Veyne 1976 P. Veyne, Le pain et le cirque, Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique, Paris. Von Rohden - Winnefeld 1911 H. Von Rohden - H. Winnefeld, Architektonische römische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit, Berlin – Stuttgart. Yegül 2020 F. K. Yegül, The Temple of Artemis at Sardis, Cambridge-London. Zaqzuq - Duchesne-Guillemin 1970 A. R. Zaqzuq - M. Duchesne-Guillemin, “La mosaïque de Mariamin”, AAS XX, 93-125. http://Journals.openedition.org/terrain/1534