A Parasol from Tumulus P at Gordion (2014)

armizzi: Engin Özgen'e Armağan / Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen armizzi: Hititçe “köprü” / Hittite “bridge”. ISBN 978-605-5487-59-1 Düzenleyen / Edited by Atilla Engin Barbara Helwing Bora Uysal Tasarım / Book design by Atilla Engin Ofset Hazırlık / Prepared by Asitan Yayıncılık Matbaacılık Reklam Hizmetleri Ltd. Şti. Kavaklıdere Mh. John F. Kenedy Cd. 103B Bl. D: 8 Çankaya-Ankara 0312 419 10 20 Baskı ve cilt / Printed by Dumat Ofset Matbaacılık Tic. Ltd. Şti. 0312 278 82 00 Kapak tasarımı / Book cover designed by Harun Ş. Taşar Atilla Engin Ön kapak fotoğrafı / Photo on the front cover Prof. Dr. Engin Özgen, Oylum Höyük, 1990. Karkamış kralı Ini-Tešub'un mühür baskısı, Oylum Höyük / Stamp seal impression of Ini-Tešub, king of Carchemish, Oylum Höyük. Arka kapak fotoğrafı / Photo on the back cover Hitit tableti, Oylum Höyük / Hittite cuneiform tablet. 1. Basım / First published 2014. © Asitan, 2014 Kitabın yayım hakkı saklıdır. Tanıtım için yapılacak kısa alıntılar dışında yazarın ve yayımcının yazılı izni olmadan hiçbir yolla çoğaltılamaz. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the publisher except in the context of reviews. A Parasol from Tumulus P at Gordion Gordion'da P Tümülüsü'nden Bir Güneş Şemsiyesi Elizabeth Simpson Özet Pennsylvania Üniversitesi tarafından 1956 yılında, Gordion'da, bir çocuğa ait olan P Tümülüsü'nde yapılan kazılarda, mezar eşyası içinde yer alan ahşap bir şemsiye parçası ele geçmiştir. MÖ 8. yüzyıla tarihlenen mezar, zengin pişmiş topraktan kaplar ve tunçtan kaplar, fibulalar ve aletler ile ince nitelikli mobilyalar ve diğer ahşap eserlerden oluşan büyük bir koleksiyona sahiptir. R.S. Young'un “üç büyük erken tümülüs”ünden biri olan P Tümülüsü, en zengin Frig mezarlarından biridir. Mezarda ele geçen en ilgi çekici ahşap buluntulardan biri, parçalar halinde ele geçen ve daha sonra Gordion Mobilya Projesi ekip üyeleri tarafından konservasyonu yapılan, çocuğa ait güneş şemsiyesidir. Yazarın, P Tümülüsü şemsiyesinin yeni çizimlerini yaptığı bu son çalışma, arkadaşı ve meslektaşı Prof. Dr. Engin Özgen'e hürmeten sunulmuştur. Antik güneş şemsiyeleri ile modern örnekler karşılaştırılarak, bu şemsiyelerin açılıp-kapanma mekanizmalarının ortaya konması ve eksik parçaların rekonstrüksiyonunun yapılması mümkündür. Araştırma, korunan en eski güneş şemsiyesi olan P Tümülüsü örneğinin bir kraliyet sembolü olduğuna şüphe bulunmadığını ve P Tümülüsü'nde gömülen çocuğun bir prens olduğunu öne sürmektedir. 1. Introduction Tumulus P was excavated in 1956 by a team from the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, under the direction of Rodney S. Young (Fig. 1). The excavation and the finds were published in Young's Three Great Early Tumuli, which appeared as a posthumous monograph in 1981. The “three great early tumuli” -Tumulus P, Tumulus MM, and Tumulus W- comprise the most spectacular group of Phrygian royal burials at Gordion. Young dated all three to the eighth century B.C., although he died before he could formulate detailed chronological conclusions. The editors of Three Great Early Tumuli considered Tumulus MM to be the latest in the series, dating to the last quarter of the eighth century B.C., with Tumulus P somewhat earlier 1 than Tumulus MM. The chronology of the site has since undergone revision, based on dendrochronological and C-14 studies; Tumulus MM is now believed to date to ca. 740 B.C., with Tumulus P assigned to the first 2 half of the eighth century B.C. While Tumulus MM and W were the tombs of kings, the sumptuous Tumulus P burial was that of a young child, who has not been otherwise identified in the historical record. This special child was interred with many fine artifacts, including a large collection of furniture and other wooden objects, some of which were small in size and wonderfully endearing. One of these objects, a parasol, has been recently studied and reconstructed in a new drawing - it is this royal parasol that I wish to present to Engin Özgen, my old friend and colleague, as the subject of my offering for his Festschrift. The excavation of Tumulus P was carried out following a season of systematic drilling into the earth of the mound in 1955 in order to determine the location 3 of the burial chamber. In April 1956, a trench was laid out, and digging commenced in the direction of the chamber. When the excavators reached the tomb, they found that the roof had collapsed, crushing the contents 4 of the burial. Only those objects placed near the walls were spared extensive damage, and the wooden artifacts suffered in particular. The wood finds were recovered with difficulty, often identified only by their proximity to particular roof beams or floor boards. Thus, a detailed tomb plan could not be made at the time of excavation. A reconstructed plan was eventually produced, with 5 objects drawn in their approximate positions. Later research revealed that certain objects had been positioned on the plan in the wrong location. 1 Young 1981: 102, 109, 269-270. Here, Tumulus MM is dated ca. 725-717 B.C. by the volume editors, with Tumulus W taken to be the earliest in the series. Tumulus MM is dated ca. 700 B.C.in the chronological chart in Rose and Darbyshire 2011: 165, which is said to outline the Gordion tumulus sequence in the “old chronology.” 2 The chronology of Gordion is still under discussion. For the revised dating, which moves the date of the destruction level on the city mound back to ca. 800 B.C., see Rose and Darbyshire 2011, and Sams 2012. For arguments against the new chronology, see Muscarella 2012 and others. 3 Young 1981: 1-10. 4 Young 1981: Pls. 3-6. 5 Young 1981: Fig. 5. 6 Young 1981: 70-71, pls. 30E-G, 31A-B; Simpson and Spirydowicz 1999: 63-64. 238 Elizabeth Simpson In the northwest corner of the tomb was a carved 6 and inlaid bed, only fragments of which had survived. It was from this region that five teeth were found, the only remains of the four- or five-year-old child buried in 7 the chamber. Not mentioned by Young in his excavation notes, but drawn on the plan in this same area, are 8 the remains of a parasol or “some sort of whirligig toy.” This object cannot now be recognized in the excavation photographs, and no mention of its find spot is given on its catalogue card, but the text of Three Great Early Tumuli states that it came from the northwest section of the bed. The top knob or hub was preserved, along with several ribs and rib fragments. Five of these ribs are pictured in Young's plates; one photo shows a bottom 9 view of the hub, with the ribs placed in the mortises. Nothing more was heard of the parasol/whirligig until 1993, when the fragments were removed from storage in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, for study and conservation by the Gordion Furniture Project team. The work that followed confirmed that the piece was a collapsible parasol. 2. Conservation and Study of the Tumulus P Parasol The wood of the parasol was consolidated in August 1993, under the direction of Krysia Spirydowicz, using the following method. The surface was first cleaned using a 50:50 mixture of ethanol and acetone, applied with cotton swabs or a soft bristle brush. Pieces were then sewn into silk-screen pouches, placed in a large tank, and consolidated under vacuum in a 10% solution of Butvar B-98 dissolved in a 60:40 ethanol/toluene mixture. The pouches were subsequently removed from the solution and wrapped in polyethylene sheet for slow drying during the winter months. In 1994, the hub was unwrapped, and repair was begun (Fig. 2). Final cleaning and repair of the hub and ribs occurred in 10 1995. After the fragile pieces had been stabilized, they could be handled and studied. The hub measured around 8 cm in height and was carved in the form of a 7 Young 1981: 9. 8 Gordion inv. no. 4236 W 39 (TumP 160) (Young 1981: 74-75, fig. 45). The (incorrect) drawing in figure 45 was done by me from photographs. 9 Young 1981: Pl. 32F-G. The ribs shown in plate 32F include short stretchers, which did not extend out from the hub but from the runner (see below). 10 The conservation team for the 1993-1995 seasons is acknowledged here. Team members included Krysia Spirydowicz, head conservator for the project, along with Emily Kaplan, Nancy Love, Anne MacKay, Won Ng, Christine Smith, Marianne Weldon, and James Wermuth. The processes used to conserve the objects from Tumulus P are detailed in Simpson and Spirydowicz 1999; a full report will appear in Simpson, forthcoming. 11 knob with a flaring base (Fig. 3). A recessed channel ran around the top of the knob, and below this were eight mortises cut back from the surface. Small holes in the sides of these mortises allowed for the attachment of the ribs to the hub. A tenon had been inserted into the flaring base and secured with a wood pin, serving to attach the pole or shaft of the parasol to the top hub. Scrutiny of this tenon showed a slight rounded edge, indicating that, while the tenon was square in section, the shaft had been cylindrical. Numerous ribs and rib fragments were recognized, beyond the five illustrated in Young's volume: in total, two long ribs, two short ribs, and 14 more rib fragments, as shown by their tapered ends or the characteristic pin holes in their sides or flat faces (Fig. 4). The wood of the hub and ribs has been identified as boxwood, a fine, light-colored wood used frequently by the Gordion royal woodworkers for 12 furniture and other special items. In 2004, the hub and several ribs were drawn, reproducing these parts as they had looked originally; the drawings were produced in their final versions in 13 2013 (Figs. 5-6). A small pin hole was discovered at the top of the hub, suggesting that the piece might have been made on a lathe, at least in its general form. The subject of the ancient lathe is fraught with difficulty, and it is not always clear whether a piece was fabricated on a lathe or merely finished on a turning mechanism, anchored between two points. Nonetheless, wooden objects were certainly made on a lathe at Gordion, even before the date of Tumulus P. Several plate fragments from Tumulus W show diagnostic tool marks that stop abruptly, indicating the back-and-forth action of the 14 ancient reciprocating lathe. Therefore, it seems likely that the parasol hub was formed on a lathe, with the mortises cut around the periphery by hand. Into these mortises were fit the tapered ends of the eight long ribs that splayed out to provide the frame for the fabric covering. Along these ribs were pin holes that were no doubt used to fasten the fabric to the ribs. The ends of the long ribs had flat, finished faces, with pin holes at their centers: in the end of one rib is a small wooden pin, which was evidently the means of securing the fabric to 11 Greatest preserved measurements for the parasol hub: H 8.2 cm, D 6.85 cm; long ribs: L ca. 37 cm, D 1.2 cm; stretchers: L 15.9 cm, D 1.15 cm. 12 Determinations from Robert Blanchette, University of Minnesota: top hub, Buxus (sample 2011-WS-5); ribs, Buxus (sample 2010-WS-11). The complete wood species analysis for the objects from Tumulus P will appear in Simpson, forthcoming. See Simpson 2010: 197-199, for a discussion of the use of boxwood in Phrygia and adjacent regions in antiquity. 13 I am grateful to Gordion Furniture Project conservator Kimberly Cobb, who studied the parasol ribs and produced a set of preliminary drawings in 2004. 14 Simpson 1999. A Parasol from Tumulus P at Gordion the ends of the ribs. The short ribs or “stretchers” were made the same way, with one end tapered and the other end flat. Small holes near the flat ends of the stretchers indicate that they were pinned to the long ribs to support the canopy frame. 3. Ancient Parasols Clearly, one would like to envision the complete parasol, and understand how the mechanism worked. One important part of the puzzle is missing, and that is the lower ring hub or “runner,” which slid up and down on the shaft as the parasol was opened and closed. This piece would have held the tapered ends of the short ribs or stretchers; their other ends were pinned to the long ribs, as indicated above. A brief look at ancient parasols reveals what this runner was like. Several valuable studies on early parasols were published in a 1999 volume 15 of Source: Notes in the History of Art. In Egypt, a type 16 of “sunshade” was in use as early as the Fifth Dynasty. The sunshade featured a frame of two crossed ribs, over which was stretched a square or rectangular piece of cloth; this was supported from below by a pole, its top attached at the juncture of the two ribs. This was not a proper collapsible parasol, but rather a kind of awning, which typically had an extension hanging down at the 17 back for additional protection. The Egyptian sunshade was never carried by the person who enjoyed its benefits, but rather by a retainer. In his research on the subject, Henry Fischer found that the ancient Egyptian type of sunshade was still in use in modern Egypt, found 18 in Upper Egypt and the Nile Delta alike. In the ancient Near East, representations of apparent collapsible parasols occur as early as the third millennium B.C., beginning with one shown on a fragmentary 19 stele of Sargon I (r. ca. 2334-2279 B.C.). The type was traced by Oscar White Muscarella into the first millennium B.C., with numerous examples shown on Assyrrian reliefs. The Assyrian parasol is always carried by an attendant and may be used when standing or in a chariot. A nice example shades King Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883-859 B.C.) on a relief from Nimrud, although the sculptor did not quite understand the way the stretchers 20 worked to support the top frame. Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon II are also shown with parasols, which have 15 Not addressed in this volume are parasols in ancient China, which are often cited as the earliest, although there is no evidence to support his assumption. 16 McDonald 1999. 17 McDonald 1999: Fig. 1. 18 Fischer 1972. 19 Muscarella 1999: 1, fig. 1. 20 Muscarella 1999: Fig. 3; Orthmann 1975: Fig. 204b. Whether the Near Eastern examples were exclusively sunshades, as in visible stretchers, knobs at the top, and fancy covers with 21 pendant decorations. Perhaps most spectacular are the parasols of Ashurbanipal (r. 668-627 B.C.) illustrated in the reliefs from the North Palace at Nineveh. These have beautifully ornamented fabric covers, carved top knobs, pendant decorations, and feature an extension hanging 22 down at the back, like the Egyptian awnings. As with other Assyrian representations, the stretchers are not depicted with accuracy; the artists' aim was the display of multiple stretchers, so that one often sees them lined up in rows to either side of the shaft. Nonetheless, the renderings give the impression that the stretchers of Ashurbanipal's parasols extend up at an oblique angle from a ring-shaped runner positioned high on the shaft. This runner is shown as a bulbous element, with moldings above and below. In Assyrian depictions, the stretchers typically extend up from the top of the runner, 23 instead of actually fitting into the piece itself. A similar situation obtains with comparable examples illustrated in the arts of neighboring regions. Among the most impressive are the Persian parasols shown in the sculptures of Persepolis. Reliefs of Darius and Xerxes feature parasols with three stretchers extending out at the left and the right of a bulbous runner, curving up gracefully in concert—as though arms of a 24 candelabra—to support the upper portion. A roughly contemporary version from the painted Kızılbel tomb in Lycia (sixth century B.C.) shows an attendant holding a parasol in a ship on the north wall; here, two tiers of 25 stretchers extend up obliquely, with no runner shown. At around the same time, parasols were in use in Greece and Etruria. An interesting view of an Etruscan parasol in a cart occupied (apparently) by two women is shown on a terra-cotta frieze plaque from Murlo (sixth century B.C.). The image here may be likened to a view in section, showing all the components as though one could see inside the assembly. A runner is shown, with four curved stretchers extending up from its top. While parasols were the prerogative of kings in the Near East, and were always held by attendants, in Etruria they were the attributes of women, who held the parasols them26 selves. Finally, parasols appear on Greek vases, the earliest Attic examples on a black figure eye cup in 27 Naples dating to ca. 530 B.C. On each side a man holds a small parasol, sketchily rendered but with a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Egypt, or could protect against rain as well is a matter of conjecture. Orthmann 1975: Figs. 218, 227a. See for instance, Barnett 1976: Pl. LX. Barnett 1976: Slab 9, detail: drawing by W. Boutcher. Muscarella 1999: Fig. 4. Mellink 1998: 27, pls. 13B, XIV. Turfa 1999: 15-16, fig. 1. Miller 1992: 96, pl. 1d-e. 239 240 Elizabeth Simpson runner on the shaft and stretchers extending up obliquely. Textual evidence indicates that women also 28 used parasols in Greece in the archaic period. Much information can be gleaned from this wide range of 29 depictions. But how exactly did the struts attach to the runner to support the top frame of an actual parasol? One can learn more about the runner element from a wooden fragment excavated in 1983 in an ancient well in the sanctuary of Hera on Samos, now in the Archaeo30 logical Museum of Vathi (Fig. 7). This piece was preserved, along with many more wooden finds from the sanctuary, due to its burial at a level below groundwater; the wood was thus saturated and did not undergo normal decay. The context has been dated to the late seventh – 31 early sixth century B.C. The runner has a bulbous profile with moldings at the top and bottom, and ridges on 32 the central and lower part of the body. Eight mortises are cut into the upper section, with small holes drilled into the sides of the mortises, as with the top hub of the Tumulus P parasol. Helmut Kyrieleis believed that the 33 runner was made on a lathe; the mortises would have been cut by hand after its removal from the turning apparatus. He recognized the similarity between the Samos runner and the Tumulus P hub, and noted the Assyrian comparanda, concluding that the Samian parasol had been Near Eastern in type. However, because the wood of the Samian piece was identified as boxwood, “a Mediterranean species,” he initially thought that the Samos parasol had likely been made in Greece; he later 34 suggested that it might be Phrygian. In fact, boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) has a range that extends not only into Turkey but further east, found in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions and the hills of western Syria 35 today. The Samos runner, whether made in Greece or the Near East, is the missing piece of the puzzle, allowing the construction of the Tumulus P parasol to be understood. 4. The Tumulus P Parasol and Modern Comparanda As Henry Fischer observed in modern Egypt, so Helmut Kyrieleis found to be the case in Italy: the ancient parasol types had persisted virtually unchanged 36 into the modern era. Thus, in the case of the Samos 28 See Miller 1992: 96-97, for evidence in the poetry of Anakreon. 29 For a colorful summary of the wider history of the parasol, see Gordon 2011. 30 Kyrieleis 1992: 131, pl. 30:2; 1997: Figs. 1-4. 31 Kyrieleis 1992: 129. 32 Greatest preserved H 9 cm, D 10 cm. 33 Kyrieleis 1992: 131. 34 Kyrieleis 1992: 132; 1997: 134-135. 35 Simpson 2010: 199; Hepper 1996: 6. 36 Fischer 1972: 151, fig.1; Kyrieleis 1997: 137, figs. 7-8. Unfortunately, several figures are mislabeled in Kyrieleis's runner, he was able to envision the form of the parasol represented by this single fragment. Likewise, the Phrygian parasol is still present—perhaps one should say ubiquitous—in Turkey today. These parasols range from simple, practical versions used in outdoor markets and cafes (Fig. 8: Ankara) to deluxe models found on the terraces of upscale restaurants (Fig. 9: Istanbul). The modern parallels, combined with the evidence from the Samos runner, allow the Tumulus P parasol to be reconstructed in a drawing (Fig. 10). The missing runner must have resembled the Samos fragment, although the design would surely have followed that of the top hub. The runner would likely have incorporated a bulbous section supported on a stem, in the manner of the runner on the parasol from Istanbul (Fig. 9). Eight mortises would have been cut into the upper section of the bulb, with holes in the sides of the mortises, as with the hub. For both hub and runner, cord or leather thongs were strung through the holes, and through those in the ends of the ribs and stretchers, and tied tight to pull the struts into the mortises. As the runner was moved up the shaft, the parasol opened; as it was pulled back down, the parasol collapsed. As with modern Turkish examples, the runner was supported in its various possible positions by a pin inserted in one of several holes in the shaft. This series of holes can be posited even though the shaft of the Tumulus P parasol does not survive (or has not been recognized). The long ribs and short stretchers were joined to one another by small pins, with joints that were loose enough to allow the wooden parts to move freely with the raising and lowering of the runner. As with Assyrian parasols, the ribs of the frame were surely covered with lovely fabric; this was sewn to the ribs at various points along their length and secured at the flat ends with pins, perhaps decorated with pendants (see Fig. 8). One can imagine this beautiful cloth—which does not survive but would have been the dominant feature of the original parasol—ornamented with geometric designs such as those on the Gordion 37 wooden furniture. According to the evidence assembled here, the Tumulus P parasol is the earliest actual parasol to survive from antiquity. Where, and why, was it placed in the Tumulus P burial? According to the reconstructed plan published in Three Great Early Tumuli, it was found in the northwest part of the tomb in the area of the 38 bed. However, a carved wooden plate found in a bronze cauldron just east of the tomb's center might article. His last two illustrations, figs. 7-8, show modern Italian parasols in Rome. 37 See Ballard et al. 2013 for a recent summary on Phrygian textiles. 38 Young 1981: Fig. 5 (top left). A Parasol from Tumulus P at Gordion 39 suggest otherwise. This plate is visible inside the cauldron in one of the excavation photographs, lying under a small animal sculpture of a lion and bull in 40 combat. Stuck to the back of the plate is a cylindrical piece of wood with a hole near the end, resembling the short stretchers of the parasol. However, the assembled parasol would have been much too large to fit inside the bronze cauldron; perhaps the original context of the parasol was somewhere in the cauldron's vicinity. And why was it part of the assemblage? As Muscarella has shown in his study, the Near Eastern parasol was the prerogative of kings, used only by royal males (if the depictions can be taken as evidence). Assuming this was the case in Phrygia, then the child buried in Tumulus P was a prince, and his fine parasol signified his royal 41 status. References Ballard, M., B. Burke and E. Simpson 2013 “Gordion Textiles.” T. Tüfekçi Sivas and H. Sivas (eds.), Frigler: Midas'ın Ülkesinde, Anıtların Gölgesinde (Phrygians: In the Land of Midas, In the Shadow of Monuments), 360-375. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Barnett, R. D. 1976 Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668-627 BC). London: British Museum. Mellink, M. J. 1998 Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia. Bryn Mawr College Archaeological Monographs. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Miller, M. C. 1992 “The Parasol: An Oriental Status-Symbol in Late Archaic and Classical Athens.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 112: 91-105. Muscarella, O. W. 1999 “Parasols in the Ancient Near East.” Source 18/2: 1-7. Muscarella, O. W. 2012 “Deconstructing the Destruction of King Midas' Gordion.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 18: 377-390. Orthmann, W. 1975 Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen Verlag. Rose, C. B. and G. Darbyshire (eds.) 2011 The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Sams, G. K. 2012 “The New Chronology for Gordion and Phrygian Pottery.” C. B. Rose (ed.), The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion: Royal City of Midas, 56-66. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Fischer, H. G. 1972 “Sunshades of the Marketplace.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 6: 151-156. Simpson, E. 1999 “Early Evidence for the Use of the Lathe in Antiquity.” P. Betancourt, et al. (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener, 781-785. Liège and Austin: Université de Liège and University of Texas. Gordon, S. 2011 “In the Shade of the Royal Umbrella.” Saudi Aramco World 62/4: 8-15. Simpson, E. 2010 The Gordion Wooden Objects, Volume 1: The Furniture from Tumulus MM. Leiden: Brill. Hepper, F. N. 1996 “Timber Trees of Western Asia.” G. Herrmann (ed.), The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional, 1-12. Mainz: Von Zabern. Simpson, E. Forthcoming The Gordion Wooden Objects, Volume 2: The Furniture and Wooden Artifacts from Tumulus P, Tumulus W, and the City Mound. Leiden: Brill. Kyrieleis, H. 1992 “The Relations between Samos and the Eastern Mediterranean: Some Aspects.” V. Karageorghis (ed.), The Civilizations of the Aegean and Their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000 – 600 B.C, 128-131. Larnaca: Pierides Foundation. Simpson, E. and K. Spirydowicz 1999 Gordion Wooden Furniture: The Study, Conservation and Reconstruction of the Furniture and Wooden Objects from Gordion, 1981-1998 (English and Turkish). Ankara: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Kyrieleis, H. 1997 “Ein Sonnenschirm.” Anadolu 23: 131-143. McDonald, J. 1999 “Egyptian Sunshades.” Source 18/2: 8-14. 39 Wooden plate, Gordion inv. no. 4042 W 14 (TumP 122), Young 1981: 57, pl. 25G-H. 40 Bronze cauldron, Gordion inv. no. 4348 B 701 (TumP 1), Young 1981: 11, pl. 5A. Lion and bull combat, Gordion inv. no. 4036 W 8 (TumP 109), Young 1981: 52, pl. 23A-C. 41 Muscarella 1999: 1, 4. Other finds from the burial support this conclusion, notably the small bronze quadriga, Young 1981: 2126, pl. 13, although it must be admitted that little is known regarding Phrygian gendered artifacts. Turfa, J. M. 1999 “Parasols in Etruscan Art.” Source 18/2: 15-24. Young, R. S. 1981 Three Great Early Tumuli, The Gordion Excavations Final Reports, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 241 242 Fig. 1: View of Tumulus P from the top of Tumulus MM, Gordion. Fig. 2: The parasol top knob or hub from Tumulus P, being repaired by Krysia Spirydowicz, 1994. 243 Fig. 3: The parasol hub from Tumulus P, after conservation and repair, 2004. Fig. 4: Ribs from the Tumulus P parasol, after conservation and repair, 2004. 244 Fig. 5: Drawing of the Tumulus P parasol hub, with section showing the square tenon, E. Simpson, 2013. Fig. 6: Drawings of long and short ribs from the Tumulus P parasol, E. Simpson, 2013. Each rib is shown in two views. 245 Fig. 7: Piece of a wooden parasol from Samos, 1991. Fig. 8: Modern Turkish parasol on the Ankara citadel, 2011. 246 Fig. 9: Detail of a modern Turkish parasol, Istanbul, 2007. Fig. 10: Reconstruction drawing of elements of the Tumulus P parasol when open, E. Simpson, 2013. The shaft, runner, and supporting pin are restored in the drawing.