Archaeology Magazine - July/August 1981 - 60

the statuette in antiquity. These dowels
were inserted into the tree trunk and
Ganymede's neck and right ankle with
a bituminous lime mortar, but other
breaks which occurred at the same time
were not repaired for reasons which are
not certain. Perhaps shortly thereafter
the sculpture was discarded.
Search

for parallels

Other technical evidence suggests
that the sculpture was never displayed
in antiquity, but rather that it broke
while it was being prepared for its intended setting. Some details on the front
were left incomplete; moreover it rests
on an unstable base whose lower surface
slopes steeply, causing the sculpture to
lean forward at a precarious angle.
There are signs that the base was in the
process of being reworked to fit it for a
niche, but in order to mount the sculpture securely, it would have been necessary to place it on a surface that sloped
BoththeCarthageGanymedeand thisfifthcenturystatue of the "YoungerMagistrate"
fromAphrodisiasin Asia Minorexhibit
similar handling of their cloaks,helping
archaeologistsplace the CarthageGanymedein a generalperiod.

ARCHAEOLOGY

in the opposite direction and to fix it in
placed with clamps or cement of which
there are no traces.
The most critical problem posed by
the sculpture is its date. Evidence is provided by the archaeological context and
the style of the sculpture. There can be
little doubt that the fragments of Ganymede were thrown into the cistern at the
same time as the kitchen debris. The
bulk of this debris dates to about the
middle of the fifth century, perhaps extending through the third quarter of the
century, and fragments of the sculpture
were distributed throughout the deposit. The debris was subsequently
thrown down the wellhead some time
after the Byzantine reconquest of Carthage. Its archaeological context suggests that the sculpture belonged to the
owners of the House of the Greek Charioteers, for it is difficult to imagine that
the marble fragments would have been
transported from elsewhere in the city
to be discarded with kitchen refuse or
that the rubbish heap itself would have
been hauled from another location. Indeed, the sculpture would fit in well
with the environment of this sumptuous
dwelling which had undergone complete renovation during the early part of
the fifth century. Walls were rebuilt on
a new plan, mosaic floors were laid and
undoubtedly sculptures were installed.
If the Ganymede group did belong to
this house and if the superb condition of
the marble surface indicates that the
sculpture was new at the time, it might
be concluded that the group had been
made in the early fifth century.
Archaeological evidence, however,
cannot prove this date, since other explanations are possible to account for
the fine condition of the sculpture and
why it ended up in this particular cistern. Additional information, therefore,
must be deduced from its style and technique. The sculptor avoided dramatic
coloristic contrasts in favor of broad,
silken surfaces subtly accented by the
scalloped feathers, the crisp curls of
Ganymede's hair, and the rippling folds
at the end of his cloak. It is clear from
the treatment of the eyes that the group
cannot have been carved prior to the
Hadrianic period (a.d. 117-138) when
the habit of dotting the pupil with a drill
first came into fashion, while the contrast between the textured drilling of
the hair and the glassy polish on most of
the surface would not predate the Antonine period (a.d. 137-61). A search for
stylistic parallels thus begins in the late
second and continues to the mid-fifth
century when the sculpture was most
likely discarded. While similar bucolic
compositions, pictorial effects and contrasts of polished surfaces and drilled
details may be found in varying degrees
of artistic refinement at numerous
chronological intervals within this
broad span of time, it is the facial type of
Ganymede himself which provides the

most telling clues to the actual date of
the piece. Some features of the boy's
face, like the broad facial planes and
straight nose have precedents in classical art, while others, such as the heavy
eyelids and small mouth were particularly favored in Roman art from the Antonine period onward. But it was not
until the reign of Theodosius that they
were integrated and refined in the manner in which they appear here. Among
the best comparisons are the heads of
young officers who appear in the backgrounds of reliefs on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius I (reigned a.d. 34695), probably carved shortly after the
monument was raised in the hippodrome of Constantinople in a.d. 390. Although the coiffures differ, the similarity of the basic facial type is unmistakable. Clearly, the sculptor of the Carthage group was familiar with the
styles and methods of sculptors who had
worked for the Theodosian court in Constantinople. Ganymede's facial type is
closely paralleled in works of art of the
late fourth century, but the highly abstract handling of the cluster of folds on
the shoulder indicates that the sculpture must date no earlier than the fifth
century. The design of the blade-like
looped curves that fall over the left hip
and leg of the so-called younger Magistrate from Aphrodisias, a work of the
first quarter of the fifth century, may be
compared. The schematization of Ganymede's facial features and drapery is
wholly consistent with the geometric
conception of the composition whose
linear abstraction, softened by smoothly finished surfaces and repeated curves
is characteristic of much of Theodosian
art.
Christian

counterparts

This unprecedented find from Carthage has introduced a type of marble
sculpture not previously represented
among the known work of Theodosian
art - that is, small decorative groups
which portray a mythological subject in
a refined, classicizing style. Although
both the style and the pagan theme of
the Carthage group have many close relatives among the ornamental objects
and mosaics made for the elite during
this time, the question remains: are
there other works of this date which belong to the same class of small pagan
marble groups? In fact, the Carthage
Ganymede has Christian counterparts
among the marble vignettes which ornament the façades and elaborate sarcophagi from the fourth and fifth centuries, among them the famous sarcophagus of Junius Bassus dating to a.d.
359. But there are also other pagan
groups that must date to this period. A
number of small marble sculptures of
Olympian deities, including a "Diana at
the Hunt" and a "Venus with Erotes and
a Triton" were found in 1843 among the

Archaeology Magazine - July/August 1981

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - July/August 1981