The statue and two torsi in the Museum of Silifke depict Dionysos. Pan is accompanying the statue Dionysos; Pan is carved out as a relief on the trunk-like support of the statue. Grapes fall down from the left hand of Dionysos and reach Pan, who is looking upwards to the grapes. All these characteristics support the identification as Dionysos. The two torsi, with similar hair strands falling down the neck to the shoulders, must have once depicted similar Dionysos statues. Dionysos, with his young, unbearded and athletic look, first appears in the east pediment of the Parthenon temple and spreads widely with this look from the 5th century B.C onwards; he will be known thereafter with his hairstrands falling to the shoulders and his ‘S’ shaped body which is quite feminine. The ‘S’ form of the male body, developed with the Sauroktonos of Praxiteles was copied frequently during the Roman period. We can observe this stance more or less in many Roman copies of Dionysos. Despite this soft stance, thick and rough legs, as in the Silifke Dionysos, can appear. This shows us the sculptor was aware of the iconographical features but was not able to take distance from local characteristics. The ‘Ny Carlsberg’ Dionysos is a good parallel to the Silifke Dionysos, with its stance and as it is offered for him, the Silifke Dionysos may also have held a rhython or kantharos at his right hand or he could have held grapes also at his right hand, as seen at the ‘Napoli Dionysos’. Grapes at the left hand as suggested for the ‘Ny Carlsberg Dionysos’ are anyway preseved at the Silifke Dionysos. As the broken right arm of the Silifke statue was not highly raised, it makes him look more like the ‘Woburn Abbey’ type. This type is dated to the 2nd century B.C by Furtwaengler and is interpreted as a continuation of Praxiteles. Traces of the Apollon of Praxiteles can be seen here. The number of replicas and variations (‘freie Nachbildung’) of this type show that it was a beloved style. The most similar replica is the ‘Dionysos of Basel’; it is even suggested that they both go back to the same type. Berger identifies the ‘Woburn Abbey’ type as the “classical new creation” (klassistische Neuschöpfung) of the Hadrianic – early Antonine period. The Silifke Dionysos shows similarities with the ‘Woburn Abbey’ type, not only by its stance, but also by the fingers of his left hand as they are laid over the grapes. Other similarities are the body, which has gained movement through the ‘S’ curve; the position of the legs are quite close to each other and the slightly sideways move of the body is also a similarity. But ‘Woburn Abbey’ Dionysos is not accompanied by Pan and on the support, nebris and snake are carved out. Except for the panther, the Dionysos – Pan group from Soloi Pompeiopolis in Cilicia is a good iconographical parallel for the Silifke Dionysos. It is important to note that even the head is well preseved. The head is slightly turned to the right and the hair is divided from the middle and falls to both sides and to the back from the neck downwards in fein strands. He also posseses a diadem with ivy leaves and flowers, as well as grapes. That pan has raised his head upwards and holds a lagobolon, is parallel to the Silifke group. As to Tulunay, the Soloi group does not have a replica and has to be considered together with the Dionysos ‘Kophenhagen Group’ and the ‘Kyrene-Woburn’ type. It is possible to find many parallels for the hair of Dionysos falling to his shoulders in fine strands The hair of the statue Dionysos in Silifke looks quite thick and heavy, while the strands of the first torso (Yenibahçe Köyü) reflect a movement and are very fine, like the strands of ‘Eros Centocelle’. This is a characteristic of the 2nd century A.D. Taking the Silifke Dionysos statue together with the two torsi into consideration, it attracts our attention that the first torso shows very fine body details and hair strands. Its marble is also of good quality. These characteristics also can be partly observed on the second torso, but the marble is more veined. The Dionysos statue is rougher than both torsi, with his hair and static look; the details of his body are reflected only roughly. Even the grapes are more schematic. All these details make the statue stable, and especially, the thickness of the legs give accent to this stability. According to these points, we can suggest the sculptor of the first torso belonged to a more experienced school outside Cilicia, or that he was carved by experienced Cilician sculptors. The second torso is more weathered, but it is still possible to say that it is a local work despite its similarity to the first torso; the breast muscles are not carved so much in detail and the hair is more schematic. We can say that the Dionysos statue was produced by Cilician sculptors after the observation of the two torsi (which of course were once statues). During the process of copying, the iconographical characteritics were applied, but stylistic details were lost and a local look and taste occurred. In spite of this, a ‘Woburn Abbey’ type has been represented in Cilicia which shows that Roman Imperial taste was attempted in Cilicia. As for the fact that the details are no longer well preserved and do not support a stylistic study, it is difficult to talk about the time span and sequence of production between the two torsi and the statue. Furthermore, the commen criteria for dating can not be applied because of the local characteristics. Despite these facts, it is possible to offer a dating for both torsi and the statue to the 2nd cen