This book is an updated and partly revised version of a 2006 dissertation presented at the University of Vienna. In its published version it takes into account finds from Ephesus up to 2012, while the latest bibliographic entry dates from 2014. The volume opens with a brief introduction explaining its structure, which consists of four main chapters and several subchapters, plus a catalogue of sculptures considered. Out of the 97 entries of the catalogue (pp. 147–72) 38 represent herms and busts previously unpublished. The material is organised according to its morphology: A. bust herms (‘Schulterhermen’), B. body herms (‘Körperhermen’), C. small-size herms (‘Kleinformatige Schulterhermen’), D. herm fences (‘Hermenzäune’).
The inclusion of specific herms in the relevant category or their rejection is not always convincingly explained. Thus, for instance, no evidence is provided that the strategos head A25 ever belonged to a herm (pp. 57–61). There seems to be a consensus in dating the Ephesus strategos to the Antonine period, but H. does not discuss the date of the original it copies. I believe that the socio-political and military circumstances during the years of the Peloponnesian War, to which W. Gauer and D. Pandermalis have ascribed the prototype of the Ephesus-Berlin strategos, were not favourable for such a creation in Athens and even less anywhere else. A date around the middle of the fourth century bc, as proposed by A. Stewart (Art, Desire and the Body [1997], p. 155) and S. Dillon (Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture [2006], p. 110) seems much more plausible. Conversely, the herm in the Izmir Archaeological Museum inv. 3224 is excluded from the catalogue as not coming from Ephesus (p. 27 n. 101) despite its attribution to this city by J. Dedeoğlu (Izmir Archaeological Museum [1993], p. 53) and S. Aybek et al. (İzmir heykel kataloğu [2009], p. 61, though uncertain on p. 194).
This last publication, a catalogue of the sculptures in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir, not cited by H., offers a variety of previously unpublished comparanda to the herms of Ephesus: (i) a Severan period janiform herm of the Alcamenes-Ephesus-type (Aybek, op. cit., pp. 62–3, inv. 22607); (ii) two small-scale headless body herms draped in a himation and a chlamys respectively from Knidos; the first one belonging to the same type as B1 (Aybek, op. cit., p. 64, inv. 3457, 3458); (iii) a Dionysus herm wearing a mitra from Klazomenai dates from the second half of the second century bc and resembles C6 (Aybek, op. cit., p. 65, inv. 1005). Another similar Dionysus herm comes from Hierapolis (F. D'Andria, Hierapolis of Phrygia [2003], p. 144, fig. 127). This particular type must copy a prototype of the second half of the fourth century bc, the best replica of which seems to be a janiform herm found in Eleutherna. P. Themelis (in: N. Stampolidis [ed.], Eleutherna [2004], pp. 185–6) believes that the original was related to Praxiteles, whilst he dates the replica to either the Hadrianic or the Severan period. Yet another janiform herm, found in the area of the Acropolis Metro Station in Athens, combines a different type of Dionysus head with Hermes of the Alcamenes-Pergamon-type and dates rather to the first half of the second century ad (V. Christopoulou, in: N. Stampolidis [ed.], The City beneath the City [2000], pp. 109–10). For the most recent accidental discovery of a Pergamon-type herm in Athens in November 2020, see https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-bust-hermes-was-discovered-drainage-duct-180976320/.
In Chapter B no distinction is made between the stand-alone body herms sculpted in the round and those standing against a pillar and integrated in architectural settings (B7, B9), while Chapter D comprises bust herms used in architectural settings. However, only the originally intended use seems to count, since herms A5 and A9, showing traces of integration into some structure (second use?), are still kept in Chapter A. There is a body herm (unpublished?) in the Archaeological Museum of Megara closely resembling B3. Regarding the Heracles-with-the-lion-skin body herms (B5–7) it is worth mentioning a headless exemplar from Pyri, near Thebes, dated to the second century bc (V. Aravantinos, Archaeological Museum of Thebes [2010], p. 317 with ill.) and an exceptionally well-crafted exemplar of the second to first centuries bc in a private collection (LIMC IV, Heracles 1138, depicted in Christie's New York, 16/06/2020, sale 19058, lot 21). Although slightly different in design, they both show the type of antecedents the Ephesus Heracles pillars might have had.
An unavoidable issue in any discussion about herms is the identification of a statue of Hermes in the entrance of the Athenian Acropolis as a herm and its attribution to Alcamenes. H. treats the subject rather conventionally (pp. 41–5), following earlier discussion by T. Brahms and E. Krämer. Despite citing J. Francis (Rewriting Attributions [1998]) and A. Stewart (ZPE 143 and 145 [2003]), she does not really address the questions raised by these authors. Stewart responded to Francis’s attempt to disconnect Alcamenes, the cult of Hermes in the Propylaia, and two herms found respectively in Pergamon and Ephesos and bearing inscriptions, which attribute them to Alcamenes. Stewart suggested that both (slightly different) types could have been creations of Alcamenes. Maybe E. Gagliano, ASAthene (2014), appeared too late to be included in the discussion, but neither does E. Lippolis and G. Valarino, Alkamenes: Problema di chronologia (2010), pp. 264–5. In the early nineteenth century K. Pittakis reported a now lost inscription from the Acropolis documenting the cult of Hermes Propylaios. Nevertheless, I would add another element in support of an official cult of Hermes and the Charites in the Propylaia. Epigraphic evidence from the early Imperial period attests the existence of a priesthood of Hermes Pyletes and Charidotes, held by the genos of Kerykes (IG II2 3664, 3–4), while other inscriptions document the common priesthood of Charites and Artemis Epipyrgidia, again held by the Kerykes clan (IG II2 5050; SEG 30:93, 9–10). K. Clinton (The Sacred Officials [1974], pp. 94, 96) already connected the dots. Artemis under this specific epithet was worshipped next to the Propylaia, and her statue was a work of Alcamenes. This makes perfect sense, that Alcamenes has been commissioned for both the Hermes and the Artemis statues, especially since their priests were closely connected. Concerning the paternity of the Pergamon and the Ephesus types of herms, recent scholarship on Hellenistic sculpture has reshaped our concepts of original and replication. Although the discussion is still ongoing, there seems to be a growing consensus that even among bronze ‘originals’ there was a lot of replication, both by the creator as well as by subsequent disciples and admirers, sometimes with minimal alterations, sometimes leading to considerable divergence form the archetype, which could have been further accentuated through the transition to other media and techniques, such as for instance the transition from the additive plasticity of the wax models for casting to the subtractive process of marble cutting.
What one would expect in a volume that is the second instalment of the series dedicated to the sculptures of Ephesus is some discussion of the herms in connection with other sculptures found in the city. Did the herms come from the same workshops that also created other works? Which ones? Or did they represent a specialised separate output? Does the morphological classification reflect different approaches for each class of herms or were their artists volatile and multitasking? Can we identify anything as a local school at any period covered by the herm finds? On another register, the publication of the herms from the metropolis of Asia would have been a wonderful opportunity to discuss, even briefly, their presence in the urban and socio-cultural landscape of Asia Minor, by both their distribution within the physical space and their place in the visual universe of athletic performances, cultic practices and the creation of elite self-awareness narratives. On the sculpted frieze of the Zoilus monument in Aphrodisias (R.R.R. Smith, The Monument of C. Julius Zoilos [1993]), for instance, a herm occupies the central position by both dividing and uniting the visual and conceptual space of Romanitas and imperium on one side and of Greekness and civic values on the other.
Regardless of the above points of criticism, the book is a welcome addition to both the field of Ephesus studies and that of sculpture of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. It will serve, no doubt, as a starting point for future research on sculptural workshops, stylistic trends and the socio-cultural implications of hermaic imagery and cult.
