Citation
The Origins of the Kouros

Material Information

Title:
The Origins of the Kouros
Creator:
DUNHAM, REBECCA ANN ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeology ( jstor )
Armor ( jstor )
Artists ( jstor )
Bibliographies ( jstor )
Excavations ( jstor )
Museums ( jstor )
Pottery ( jstor )
Sculptors ( jstor )
Sculpture ( jstor )
Statues ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Rebecca Ann Dunham. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2015
Resource Identifier:
658201965 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE ORIGINS OF THE KOUROS By REBECCA ANN DUNHAM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Rebecca Ann Dunham

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my mom.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 DEFINITION OF THE KOUROS TYPE....................................................................1 Pose........................................................................................................................... ....2 Size and material...........................................................................................................2 Nudity......................................................................................................................... ..3 Body Shape and Treatment of Musculature.................................................................3 Execution...................................................................................................................... 4 Function....................................................................................................................... .5 Provenances..................................................................................................................7 Variations..................................................................................................................... .8 Motivation for creation.................................................................................................9 2 INDEPENDENT DEVELOPM ENT IN GREEK ART.............................................19 Interest in the Human Body........................................................................................19 Influence of Greek Armor..........................................................................................20 Aniconic Statuary.......................................................................................................21 The Orientalizing Period and Daedalic Style.............................................................22 Summary.....................................................................................................................25 3 NEAR EASTERN INFLUENCE...............................................................................36 Part One: Near Eastern Origin of the Kouros.............................................................36 Assyria.................................................................................................................36 Syria.....................................................................................................................41 Lydia....................................................................................................................43 Phoenicia.............................................................................................................45 Part Two: Historical Argument for Near Eastern Influence.......................................48 Literary Evidence for Greeks in the Near East....................................................48 Archaeological Evidence for Greek s in the Near East: Al Mina.........................49 Location and history of excavations.............................................................49 Pottery and other finds.................................................................................51

PAGE 5

v Structures......................................................................................................53 Function of Al Mina.....................................................................................55 Archaeological Evidence for Greeks in the Near East: Tell Sukas.....................57 Location and history of excavations.............................................................57 Pottery, finds, and structures........................................................................58 Function of Tell Sukas.................................................................................59 Archaeological Evidence for Greeks in the Near East: Minor Sites...................59 Part Three: Other Exchanges be tween Greece and the Near East..............................61 Part Four: Summary....................................................................................................62 4 EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE.........................................................................................76 Part One: Egyptian Origin of the Kouros...................................................................76 Part Two: Historical Argume nt for Egyptian Influence.............................................84 Literary Evidence for Greeks in Egypt................................................................84 Archaeological evidence for Greeks in Egypt: Naukratis...................................89 Location and history of excavations.............................................................89 Pottery..........................................................................................................90 Sculpture.......................................................................................................91 Structures......................................................................................................93 Function of Naukratis...................................................................................95 Archaeological Evidence for Greeks in Egypt: Minor Sites...............................96 Part Three: Summary..................................................................................................97 5 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................111 APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF KOUROI.....................................................................118 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................139

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. Front view of New York kouros.................................................................................11 1-2. Kleobis and Biton.......................................................................................................11 1-3. Anavysos kouros.........................................................................................................12 1-4. Right side view of New York kouros.........................................................................12 1-5. Front view of New York kouros.................................................................................13 1-6. Left side view of New York kouros...........................................................................13 1-7. Back view of New York kouros.................................................................................14 1-8. Right side view of New York kouros.........................................................................13 1-9. Front view of kouros, from Thera..............................................................................15 1-10. Back view of kouros, from Thera.............................................................................15 1-11. Front view of kouros torso, from Thera...................................................................16 1-12. Back view of kouros torso, from Thera....................................................................16 1-13. Upper torso of kouros, from Delos...........................................................................17 1-14. Lower torso of kouros, from Delos..........................................................................17 1-15. Map of Ancient Greek world....................................................................................18 2-1. Plastron of a bellcorselet, from Argos.......................................................................27 2-2. Dos of a bell-corselet, from Argos.............................................................................27 2-3. Plastron of a bell-co rselet, from Olympia..................................................................28 2-4. Dos of a bell-corselet, from Olympia.........................................................................28 2-5. Greaves................................................................................................................... ....29

PAGE 7

vii 2-6. Apollo, from Dreros...................................................................................................29 2-7. Syrian relief pl aque of Astarte....................................................................................30 2-8. Relief plaque of woman..............................................................................................31 2-9. Front view of Lady of Auxerre...................................................................................32 2-10. Left side view of Lady of Auxerre...........................................................................32 2-11. Back view of Lady of Auxerre.................................................................................33 2-12. Right side view of Lady of Auxerre.........................................................................33 2-13. Right side vi ew of Nikandre.....................................................................................34 2-14. Front view of Nikandre.............................................................................................34 2-15. Left side view of Nikandre.......................................................................................35 3-1. Map of the ancient Near East.....................................................................................64 3-2. Assurnasirpal II.......................................................................................................... .65 3-3. Detail of Assurnasirpal II...........................................................................................65 3-4. Shalmaneser III........................................................................................................... 66 3-5. Detail of Shalmaneser III............................................................................................66 3-6. Seated statue of Shalmaneser III................................................................................67 3-7. Unknown Assyrian King............................................................................................67 3-8. Detail of unknown Assyrian King..............................................................................68 3-9. Nabu deity................................................................................................................ ...68 3-10. Box holder............................................................................................................... .69 3-11. Atlas figure............................................................................................................. ..69 3.12. Lamassu.................................................................................................................. ..70 3-13. Colossal head............................................................................................................ 70 3-14. Assyrian troops fording a river.................................................................................71 3-15. The King in his chariot on the ferry.........................................................................71

PAGE 8

viii 3-16. Hebrew prisoners laid out fo r flaying by Assyrians soldiers....................................72 3-17. Aerial view of Bin Tepe...........................................................................................72 3-18. Dromos and burial cham ber, Tomb of Alyattes.......................................................73 3-19. Detail of masonry in Tomb of Alyattes....................................................................73 3-20. Detail of masonry in Tomb of Alyattes....................................................................74 3-22. Map of Phoenician trade routes................................................................................75 3-23. Map with Al Mina....................................................................................................75 4-1. Map of Mediterranean Basin with Greece and Egypt................................................99 4-2. Menkaure and his wife Khamerernebty......................................................................99 4-3. Front view of Thutmosis III.....................................................................................100 4-4. Front view of New York Kouros..............................................................................101 4-5. Right side view of Thutmosis III..............................................................................101 4-6. Right side view of New York kouros.......................................................................102 4-7. Rahotep and Nofret...................................................................................................102 4-8. Memnon colossi........................................................................................................103 4-9. Court at funerary temple of Ramesses II..................................................................103 4-10. Fragment of colossal kouros, from Delos...............................................................104 4-11. Menkaure and his wife on the grid for the Egyptian canon of proportions ...........105 4-12. Figure on hypothetical New Kingdom 18-square grid (solid lines) and Dynasty 26 21.25-square grid (dotted lines)........................................................................105 4-13. Diagram with kouros inside Egyptian canon of proportions..................................106 4-14. Irukapta................................................................................................................. ..106 4-15. Seneb and his family...............................................................................................107 4-16. Statue of a man.......................................................................................................107 4-17. Hor...................................................................................................................... ....108

PAGE 9

ix 4-18. Map of ancient Egypt.............................................................................................109 4-19. Map of Naukratis....................................................................................................110

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE ORIGINS OF THE KOUROS By Rebecca Ann Dunham August 2005 Chair: Barbara A. Barletta Major Department: Art and Art History The kouros (kouroi) is a large scale, ha rd stone, freestanding, nude male Greek sculpture. It was the dominant form of ma le statuary in the Gr eek Archaic period, which was from 650 to 480 BC. The kouros is a pr oblematic type of sc ulpture because it has features not used in previous Greek sculpture, it was made for a relatively short amount of time, and the earliest examples have diffe rent styles and charact eristics. It is not known why Greek artists created the kouros and from wh ere they derived its form. Scholars have proposed ideas that fall into two schools of thought. One theory states the kouros developed from the Greek tradition of sculpture. The features of kouroi are either derived from previous forms of Greek statuary or are new characteristics created by Greek artists. The second hypothesis holds that foreign sculptural traditions provided models for th e kouros. Archaeologist s adhering to this idea think the Near East or Egypt influe nced the features of the kouros.

PAGE 11

xi While scholars have proposed these id eas, few have actually researched the hypotheses in depth. This document does ex actly that. It id entifies the defining characteristics of the kouros and analyzes bo th theories by compari ng the characteristics of the statue to the Greek, Near Eastern, and Egyptian sculptural traditions. It also reconstructs the historical relationships between Greece and the N ear East and between Greece and Egypt to establish the location a nd time when artists would have had the opportunity to view foreign art and po ssibly absorb its characteristics. After analyzing the two theo ries, it becomes apparent that Greek artists gathered ideas from a variety of sources to create the kouros. Each theory by itself does not account for all of its character istics. Evidence indicates Gr eek sculptors took ideas from foreign traditions and combined the ideas with features of their nativ e tradition to create a new, uniquely Greek form of sculpture. Greek art seems to have provided the standi ng pose, small scale, use of soft stone, and Deadalic features of some early kouroi. The Near Eastern culture of Lydia most likely gave Greek sculptors a new set of iron tools and carving techniques. Egypt probably influenced the walking pose, larg e scale, use of hard stone, body shape, treatment of musculature, canon of propor tions, and function of the kouros. It is important to note that Greek ar tists did not adopt all of the features of foreign art, but only the characteristics that translated well into the Greek tradition. The kouros appears to have originated not only from the Greek sculptural tradition, but also from the artistic traditions of the Near East and Egypt.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 DEFINITION OF THE KOUROS TYPE kouros (kouroi): boy, lad, son, warrior. (Greek English Lexicon , Liddell and Scott) In 1895, Greek archaeologist V. I. Leonardas first used the Greek word “kouros” to describe the large scale, hard stone, freesta nding, nude male ancient Greek statues (Figs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3).1 The kouros was the dominant form of male statuary in the Archaic period, which was between around 650 and 480 BC. The kouros is a problematic form of statuary because the Greeks made the kouros for a relatively short amount of time, it lacks a direct predecessor in Greek art, and the earliest ones have different styles and forms. Archaeologists debate where Greek artists received inspiration to develop the kouros. Two major schools of thought offer explanations: internal development and foreign stimuli. The first theory states the kouros evolved from the Greek tradition of sculpture, while the second holds that art from foreign cultures, partic ularly the Near East and Egypt, provided models for the kouros. It is necessary to define the features of early kouroi and compare its characteri stics to the different sculptur al traditions to determine whether the kouros evolved from Greek scul pture, foreign traditions, or both. The following definition is largely based on Gisela Richter’s research but does not strictly adhere to her ideas. 1 Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, The Ar chaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Chicago: Ares, 1993), 61.

PAGE 13

2 Pose A compact sculpture, the kouros reflects a clearly establis hed pose since its creation. The kouros stands erec t in a frontal pose and its shoulders, waist, and hips are square to the front, which restricts any turn ing or twisting of the figure. Locked or slightly relaxed arms rest at the side of the sculpturesÂ’ body and clenched fists wrapped around a roll of material touc h its thighs. The kouros stan ds with one foot slightly advanced (usually the left) w ith feet parallel to one anot her and flat on the ground. In a profile view, the legs form an isosceles tr iangle, indicating the st atue distributes its weight evenly on both legs, which are equal in length (Fig. 1-4).2 But some kouroi stray from the general pose. A handful of small s cale metal figurines have their arms stretched outward or raised above their heads (catal ogue of kouroi numbers 8, 9, 11, 62, 63, 64). A few metal (1, 6, 63, 64, 69) and soft stone exam ples (70) also sta nd with their feet together rather than with one leg advanced. To modern day viewers kouroi appear stiff and immobile, but a contemporary Archaic a udience probably viewed the kouros as an active figure. Because both legs carry an equal amount of weight, the kouros may capture a walking man. Size and Material Early kouroi have different sizes. A majo rity of the statues are colossal (2, 4, 5, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 42, 56) and over life-size (34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 59), but some are approximately life-size (25, 26, 32, 37, 38, 47, 52, 55, 60, 67, 68) and smaller than lifesize (33, 48, 53, 54). It is important to note th at sculptors made early kouroi in a variety of sizes at the same time; large scale kouroi did not prec ede small scale kouroi but 2 Andrew F. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 108.

PAGE 14

3 emerged simultaneously. Nevertheless as time elapsed, the kouros gradually becomes smaller in scale, shifting to life-size and sli ghtly smaller than life-size representations by the end of the Archaic period. Sculptors carved a majority of early kouroi in marble (2, 4-5, 15, 25-26, 28-49, 5260, 67-68). Greece had marble sources in Eastern Greece and in Greece proper and artists preferred island marble, partic ularly Naxian and Parian marble.3 The Greeks also carved early kouroi from granul ar soft stones such as alab aster (18, 21-24), limestone (12, 13,16, 20, 50-51), and sandstone (19). Soft st ones required a different set of tools (carpentry tools) than marble and sculptors working with softer stones used the same style and technique as marble kouroi. Soft stone kouroi are smaller than marble ones and represent smaller than life-size figures. Artists working in the minor arts also created kouroi in bronze (1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 27, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69), lead (6, 66), terracotta (65, 70), and wood (3, 7). Nudity The kouros represents a nude fi gure, and long hair and a lack of facial hair indicates kouroi depicted young men in the prime of thei r lives. The bold, frontal walking pose also emphasized the nude quality of the kouros. Body Shape and Treatment of Musculature Sculptors carved the strictly frontal kouros with a four-s ided block-like shape that invites the viewer to analyze the statue from four points of view: the front, back, and both sides (Figs. 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8). They also gave early kouroi a slim athletic build that emphasized a fit physique, not an overly musc ular body. Artists constructed early kouroi 3 Gisela Richter, Kouroi , (New York: Hacker Art Books, 1988), 7.

PAGE 15

4 by using geometric shapes to create symmetrical, but unnatura lly perfect figures. They deconstructed the body into angular shapes such as a rectangle, square, and trapezoid to represent the head and musc les in the arms, torso, and legs. Early kouroi did not represent a naturalistic portrayal of men, but archaic artistsÂ’ interpretations of the male body. Sculptors indicated facial features a nd musculature not by soft modeling, but by incised lines and shallow relief that created ab stract details. A ma jority of early kouroi had similar proportions and body shapes, whic h suggests Archaic Gr eek artists used a systematic method for measuring the proporti ons of the human body. But not all early kouroi adhere to the formulaic shape. A few have more triangular shaped features (Figs. 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14). After its in itial creation, the kouros becomes more natural later in the Archaic period. Execution No literary evidence survives to describe the tools and techniques of early Greek sculptors, and the surviving pieces are the be st source of evidence for Greek sculptural processes.4 Stonemasons quarried blocks of stone using iron saws and wedges and trimmed the blocks according to artistsÂ’ spec ifications with an iron trimming hammer and point.5 Because stonemasons outlined the basic shape of statues, they probably understood how to measure the proportions of the male body.6 Stonemasons shipped the sheared blocks to artists, w ho carved the trimmed blocks of stone at their workshops. Archaic artists probably made preliminary m odels and sketches, but did not use live 4 Carl Bluemel, Greek Sculptors at Work, Trans. Lydia Holland (London: Phaidon, 1955), 11-12; Stanley Casson, The Technique of Early Greek Sculpture (Hacker Art Books: New York, 1970), 66. 5 Casson, Technique , 94. 6 Richter, Kouroi , 11.

PAGE 16

5 models because they had the chance to see unclothed men at the gymnasium and athletic competitions.7 Greek artists used iron tools, such as the point, mallet, and flat and round chisels, to carve marble kouroi. They also used emery and pumice as abrasives and the square and simple drill as measuring tools. Greek sculptors sometimes carved pieces of a kouros separately (heads and arms) and atta ched them by drilling holes and placing metal dowels or stone tenons in the spaces.8 Lead also helped ensure a tight bond between two joined pieces. 9 On the rare occasion, flat surfaces such as an upper and lower torso or two vertical halves were also connected with mortar and cement.10 In order to produce a life-like figure, artists applied a reddish-bro wn color to the surface of marble and soft stone kouroi to imitate human skin.11 Artists added body details with red, blue, yellow, black, brown, and green paint.12 Function Archaeologists originally believed kouroi represented Apollo because Greek artists depicted the god as a youthful, beardless man. But find spots and in scriptions indicate kouroi did not represent cult statues of Apollo or any other male deity.13 Scholars have also suggested that kouroi are warriors, hero es, family ancestors, victors in athletic games, the aristocracy, or provide homosexual titillation, but the th eories lack written 7 Richter, Kouroi , 11. 8 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 46. 9 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 46. 10 Shelia Adam, The Technique of Greek Sculpture (London: Thames and Hudson, 1966), 81. 11 Robert Manuel Cook, Greek Sculpture : Its Development, Character and Influence (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1972), 93. 12 Cook, Greek Art , 93. 13 Richter, Kouroi , 1-2.

PAGE 17

6 evidence and a specific context to corroborate the possible meanings.14 A majority of kouroi functioned either as votive of ferings or as grave markers. Even though the kouros was not a cult stat ue, it still maintained a religious role outside of the temple as a votive offe ring to honor the gods (5, 10, 14, 28, 31, 40, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 66).15 The ancient Greeks commissioned votive kouroi to thank a deity for favors and for answering pr ayers. Private citizens (men and women) and groups dedicated kouroi and placed the statues in religious precincts of both male and female deities.16 Archaeologists found kouroi in th e sanctuaries of Apollo, Poseidon, Hera, Athena, and Artemis.17 When a kouros functioned as a funerary statue, it was placed over the burial site of a man and onl y one statue marked a tomb (32, 38, 45, 46, 51). The statue did not represent the deceas ed or capture his physical likeness, but offered a remembrance of the man.18 Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway suggests that the kouros also served a dual f unction in a funerary context: not only did the sculpture commemorate the life of the dece ased, but it also symbolized Apollo as the protector of the dead.19 Kouroi were not pieces of art in the modern sense, but fulfilled practical functions in Greek society. 14 Stewart, Greek Sculpture , 110. 15 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 43. 16 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 66; E. Homann-Wedeking, Art of Archaic Greece (New York: Crown Publishers, 1966), 66. 17 John Boardman, Greek Sculptur e: The Archaic Period: A Handbook , (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 22. 18 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 68. 19 Archaic Style , 74.

PAGE 18

7 Provenances The distribution of kouroi is uneven.20 The kouros did not appear at the same moment of time in different regions of Greece; material finds indicate the kouros emerged in one region and spread to ne ighboring areas. The Cycladic Islands, specifically Thera, Delos, Naxos, and Paro s, and Ionian Samos first created and experimented with the type, which later sp read to mainland Greece and lastly to the peripheral regions of Greece (Fig. 1-15). The size and material of kouroi also vary in different parts of Greece. Only Eastern Greece and Attica created colossal figures and Attica and Northern Greece made slightly larg er than life-size kouroi. Attica, Boeotia, Northern Greece, and the Peloponessus carved life-size statues and Asia Minor, Attica, and Boeotia sculpted smaller than life-size figur es. Attica had the widest variety of sizes. As the kouros spread, the size decreased and th e range of materials used to carve kouroi increased. The earliest kouroi were carved from marble. On ly marble kouroi survived from Attica. Asia Minor, Rhodes, and Egypt created soft stone kouroi, with the one exception of Boeotia in Greece proper. Ea stern Greece, mainland Greece, and Magna Graecia also used terracotta and metal. The location of the kouros could affect also its purpose. While Athens usually used the kouros in a funerary context, Boeotia u tilized the kouros as a votive offering and the Aegean basin made statues for both purposes.21 Each region of Greece did not produce the same number of kouroi; the Greeks in Boeotia, Attica, and the Aegean heavily 20 Richter, Kouroi , 1. 21 Stewart, Greek Sculpture , 109.

PAGE 19

8 favored the type, but Western Greece, th e Peloponessus, and Crete produced few pieces.22 Variations According to the strict definition of a kouros, the statue has no attributes or individualizing characteristics. But some kouroi do have extr a features such as a hair fillet (2, 12, 29, 35, 38-40, 44, 45-47, 50, 52, 54, 59, 62, 68) or belt (3, 26-27, 36, 63-64, 66). The Delphi statues depicting Kleobis a nd Biton (59) wear boots, several statuettes wear hats or helmets (63, 66, 69), and one example also wore a chiton (3). Hollow sockets in the hands of a few kouroi indicate th e statues held cylindrical objects, possibly a bow.23 Some kouroi have inscriptions (13, 28, 31, 51, 59, 67), and one statue had three animals, a ram, lion, and Gorgon head, carved on its base (31). Artists also created two sub-categories of the kouros type: offering-bearers and draped figures. The sub-categories borrowe d the general characteristics of the kouros type, but incorporated an o ffering or drapery. Asia Minor and the Aegean created offering-bearers (2, 37) and only one example comes from mainland Greece in Attica (49).24 The figures carried an offering, usually an animal or a small object, and it is unknown whether the statues represented a human giving an offering to a deity or a deity accepting one.25 Asia Minor and the Aegean carved draped kouroi with the exceptions of 22 Stewart, Greek Sculpture , 109. 23 Stewart, Greek Sculpture , 109. 24 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 89. 25 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 90.

PAGE 20

9 a few from Athens and one from Syracuse.26 A majority wear two types of garments, a chiton underneath a mantle, which draped fr om left to right across the figures body leaving the left side exposed.27 Two figures in relief scul pture also adopted the kouros pose (51, 70). Motivation for creation Archaeologists believe the Greeks did not produce the kouros from a desire to create a cult image.28 But Ridgway thinks the creation of the kouros is directly linked with the cult of Apollo.29 Eastern Greece adopted the cult of Apollo from the Near East and the Greek islands, closely located to th e area where the Greeks adopted the eastern cult, created the earliest kouroi.30 Artists needed a new sculpt ural form to represent their new cult of Apollo, which resulted in the kouros.31 Ridgway believes Eastern Greek artists created the kouros to re present the new deity and that the characteristics of kouroi are indicative of a divine being. 32 But Ridgway’s theory implies that artists established the kouros solely as a means to depict Apo llo. The hypothesis fails to explain the votive and funerary functions of the kouros, its features not found in earlier Greek sculpture, and the short duration of the type. It is more likely that Greek artists were interested in 26 Barbara A. Barletta, “The Draped Kouros Type and the Workshop of the Syracuse Youth,” American Journal of Archaeology 91.2 (1987), 233. See Barletta’s Appendix (pg. 244-246) for a complete list of draped kouroi. 27 Barletta, “Draped Kouros,” 235. 28 Robert Manuel Cook, “Origins of Greek Sculpture,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 87 (1967), 30-31. 29 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 30. 30 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 30. 31 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 30. 32 Archaic Style , 30.

PAGE 21

10 exploring new artistic ideas and perhaps the origins of the kourosÂ’ features will account for why Greek artists created the type.

PAGE 22

11 Figure 1-1. Front view of New York kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Source: http://www.kzu.ch/fach/as/material/kg_gr/plastik/pl01.htm , Last accessed May 1, 2005). Figure 1-2. Kleobis (B) and Biton (A), 580 BC, marble, island marble, A=2.16 m, B=2.18 m, from Delphi. (Source: http://www.archeologia.wsh.edu.pl/skr ypty/Ancient%20Greece/grecjarzym/00 58.jpg , Last accessed May1, 2005).

PAGE 23

12 Figure 1-3. Anavysos kouros, 530 BC, Parian marble, 1.94 m, from Anavysos, Attica. (Source: http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/a rth/Images/109images/greek_archaic_ classical/sculpture/kouros_kroisos.jpg , Last accessed May1, 2005). Figure 1-4. Right side view of New York kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi, fig. 27).

PAGE 24

13 Figure 1-5. Front view of New York kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi, fig. 25) Figure 1-6. Left side view of New York kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi, fig. 26).

PAGE 25

14 Figure 1-7. Back view of New York kouros , 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi, fig. 28). Figure 1-8. Right side view of New York kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi, fig. 27).

PAGE 26

15 Figure 1-9. Kouros, 615-590 BC, Naxian marble , 47 cm, from Thera. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 97). Figure 1-10. Kouros, 615-590 BC, Naxian marb le, 47 cm, from Thera. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 99).

PAGE 27

16 Figure 1-11. Kouros, marble, 1.03 m, from Thera. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 100). Figure 1-12. Kouros, marble, 1.03 m, from Thera. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 102).

PAGE 28

17 Figure 1-13. Kouros, Naxian marble, from Te menos of Apollo, Delos. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 87). Figure 1-14. Kouros, Naxian marble, from Te menos of Apollo, Delos. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 89).

PAGE 29

18 Figure 1-15. Map of Ancien t Greek world. (Source: http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Greek/map_new50.JPG , Last accessed May1, 2005).

PAGE 30

19 CHAPTER 2 INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT IN GREEK ART According to one school of thought, the kouros evolved from the Greek tradition of sculpture. The theory states that Greek artist s did not receive ideas fr om foreign cultures. The characteristics of kouroi ar e either found in previous form s of Greek sculpture or are new features created by Greek artists. Interest in the Human Body One idea explaining the internal developmen t of kouroi states that artists received inspiration from the athletic male body to create the form of the kouros. During the Archaic period, the Greeks did not dissect human bodies. 1 They learned about the anatomy, the structure, and the inner worki ngs of the body by directly observing people in motion.2 Sculptors had the opportunity to view unclothed men at the gymnasium and athletic festivals.3 Artists utilized the data stored in their minds about the human body and created a generic but idealized kouros without the aid of a living model.4 According to this proposal, artists were interested in the nude male form and created kouroi to represent immortal images of the archetypal Greek man.5 While early kouroi depict stylized interpretations of the male b ody, later kouroi are more naturalistic. 1 Gisela Richter, Kouroi (New York: Hacker Art Books, 1988), 11. 2 Richter, Kouroi 11. 3 Richter, Kouroi 11. 4 Richter, Kouroi 11. 5 Robert Manuel Cook, Greek Art: Its Development, Character and Influence (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1973), 94.

PAGE 31

20 Influence of Greek Armor There is also a striking similarity between the anatomy of the kouros and the shape of Greek armor, and John Fawcett Kenfield believes Greek armor influenced the shape and musculature of the kouros. 6 Metal smiths had made piec es of armor since the early Geometric period, and during the first half of the seventh century BC, major city-states adopted hoplite tactics and equipment. 7 The most popular pieces of equipment were the bell corselet and greave (Fig s. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5).8 Corselets and greaves were produced in the thousands throughout the Greek world.9 The armor probably represented the most frequently viewed representations of a nude man.10 Following the contour of the male body, the armor emphasized musculature a nd anatomical details. In order to fit the body accurately, armor makers probably created the pieces by hammering out the metal according to defined measurements of the male body.11 Kenfield argues that artists borrowed the most readily available representation of male anatomy, armor, and transferred the propor tions and features of the armor to statues of men.12 The technique of hammering armor is similar to the sphyrelaton technique of sculpture, which suggests artists adopted th e technique of hammering armor to create 6 John Fawcett Kenfield III, “The Sculptural Si gnificance of Early Gree k Armor,” Opuscula Romana 9 (1973), 151. 7 Kenfield, “Significance,” 149. 8 Roland Hampe and Erika Simon, The Birth of Greek Art (New York: Oxford Univ ersity Press, 1981), 255. 9 Kenfield, “Significance,” 149. 10 Kenfield, “Significance,” 152. 11 Hampe and Simon, Birth , 255. 12 Kenfield, “Significance,” 156.

PAGE 32

21 sculpture by hammering metal around a wooden co re (Fig. 2-6). Not only did sculptors adopt the techniques of armor makers, but th ey also copied body shape and anatomy or armor, which influenced the form of the kour os. Kenfield believes that armor makers may have carved early kouroi and Roland Ha mpe and Erika Simon think armor makers were the forerunners to kouros sculptors.13 Either way, it appears that early Greek armor may have had an impact on the shape, the tr eatment of musculatur e, the proportions, and nudity of the kouros. Aniconic Statuary It is also possible that th e kouros evolved from the Greek tradition of aniconic statuary. The earliest type of Greek sculptur e is referred to as xoanon (xoana). Since no xoana survive, archaeologists rely solely on written records for information about them.14 Of the ancient authors, Pausanius described xoana the most and a majority of authors stated that xoana represented wooden aniconic cult images.15 Even though not all of the literary resources referred to xoana as representa tions of deities, they do appear to have a strong religious connotation.16 A. A. Donahue points out th at modern day scholars often place too much emphasis on written documents as archaeological evidence for xoana without taking into account the background of ancient aut hors and their historical context.17 Descriptions of xoana do vary and it is possible that they did not even exist.18 13 Kenfield, “Significance,” 156; Hampe and Simon, Birth, 255. 14 A. A. Donahue, Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 1. 15 Donahue, Xoana , 4. 16 Donahue, Xoana , 4. For a complete list of ancient authors who refer to xoanon, please refer to Donahue’s Appendix I Testimonia and her additional list on pg. 172. 17 Xoana , 8.

PAGE 33

22 But the written documents do suggest a long trad ition of sculpture in Greek art that would foster growth and experimentation. The sour ces also propose a progression of materials used by Greek artists.19 The written accounts imply that artists created sculpture in wood first because it was easy to acquire and manipulat e, and then they made statues in metal, ivory, terracotta, soft ston e, and finally hard stone.20 While a progression of materials follows a logical argument, there is no eviden ce that clearly shows whether Greek artists made sculpture from wood before other materials. Xoana might also help explain the functi on of kouroi as votive offerings or as possible representations of Apollo. Accord ing to ancient testimony, xoana originated from religious practices of worshipping aniconic objects, and because kouroi have religious functions, the religious co ntext may have evolved from xoana. 21 It is difficult to assess the influence of xoana on the Ar chaic kouros, and because no examples exist and the only source of information come s from ancient literary passages. The Orientalizing Period and Daedalic Style The strongest argument for the Greek devel opment of the kouros is that the kourosÂ’ characteristics evolved from the Daedalic st yle of the Orientalizi ng period. After the isolation and poverty of the Dark Ages, Greece resumed contact with the Near East. The new relationship fostered an exchange of artis tic ideas that led to the Greek Orientalizing 18 Xoana , 8. 19 Donahue, Xoana , 208. 20 Donahue, Xoana , 208 21 Donahue, Xoana , 7.

PAGE 34

23 period and the Daedalic style. 22 Phoenician merchants initia lly played an important role in the transmission of eastern ideas to Greece, acting as intermediaries between the east and west. Later, Syrians and Phoenicians migrated west when Assyria conquered the Levant in the ninth century BC. They settled at Crete, C yprus, Rhodes, Thasos, Samos, Thera, and Anaphe.23 The transplanted easterner s included artists, who quickly established art workshops and they con tinued working in their native styles.24 The workshops specialized in metalworking and terr acotta plaques and figurines. The Syrian and Phoenician terracotta works inspired Gr eek artists, who adopted and adapted their forms and styles, thereby creating th e Daedalic style (Figs. 2-7, 2-8). 25 The Near East had a long tr adition of creating clay pla ques and figurines since the end of the twelfth and beginning of the eleventh centuries BC.26 Artists created pieces using three general methods: hand modeled, thrown on a potter’s wheel, or from a mold.27 The small pieces depicted female figures standing with their feet together, either clothed or nude, and artists painted the cylin drically shaped pieces with red and black 22 Evelyn Harrison, “Sculpture in Stone,” The Human Figure in Early Greek Art , Ed. Jane Sweeney, Tam Curry, and Yannis Tzedakis (Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture, 1987), 50. 23 Sarah P. Morris, Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 136-137; Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Chicago: Ares, 1993), 25. Syria and Phoenicia had previously visited these sights for the purpose of trading. The islands were rich with metal resources, a highly prized commodity in th e Near East. The Syrians and Phoenicians probably chose to settle at the islands because they had al ready established relations hips with the sites. 24 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 25. 25 Robert Manuel Cook, “Origins of Greek Sculpture,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 87 (1963), 29. 26 Anna Maria Bisi, “Terracotta Figurines,” The Phoenicians , Ed. Sabatino Moscati (Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988), 328. 27 Bisi, “Terracotta,” 328.

PAGE 35

24 paint.28 The Greeks adopted the Near Eastern standing, clothed female figure and the tools and techniques used to make the terracotta figurines. They refined the processes to create Greek terracotta plaques and figurines in the Daedalic style.29 Greek artists soon applied the female form and daedalic style to sculptures in wood, ivory, and bronze. They also experimented by carving Daedalic statues out of soft, granular limestone, which became the preferred material for the Daedalic style (Figs. 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12). Soft stones required only carpentry tools a nd artists skilled in woodworking could take advantage of applying the new st yle and female type to stone.30 They also made small scale figurines from marble and increased th e size of sculpture to create large-scale figures in wood, limestone, and marble. The slightly larger than life-size Nikandre statue represents the earliest large-scale marble statue depicting a clot hed, standing female figure in the Daedalic style (Figs. 2-13, 2-14, 2-15). Nikandre is considered to be an Archaic figure, but she was produced in the Daedalic style. The sculpture rev eals that artists created large-scale marble sculptures in the Daedalic st yle and it is possible that artists also applied the Daedalic style and standing pose to statues of men to create the kouros. But to date, no male Daedalic figures survive from the Orientaliz ing period, which would show an established tradition for male Daedalic figures before th e Archaic period. Nevertheless, a lack of male Daedalic figures does not mean they did not exist. The earlie st examples of kouroi are from the Cycladic Islands and Samos, wh ich is where Near Eastern artists migrated, 28 Bisi, “Terracotta,” 328. 29 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 26. 30 Ridgway, Archaic Style , 26.

PAGE 36

25 established art workshops, and influen ced the creation of the Daedalic style.31 The Daedalic style could explain why these kouroi wear belts and have triangular body shapes and features. Summary Even though Greek artists may have had an affinity for the heroic nude male body, their interest in the male form had little impact on the creation of the kouros. The characteristic of nudity was not a new featur e in Greek sculpture, as Greek artists had already made representations of unclothed men. The idea also offers no underlying motivating factor for why Greek society needed a new type of stat ue representing men. The influence of Greek armor also provides li ttle insight into why artists created a new type of statuary, but armor could have influenced the body shape, treatment of musculature, proportions, and nudity of early kouroi. There is no direct evidence connecting the evolution of the kouros from the aniconic xoana. The ancient literary sources place xoana at the be ginning of the Greek sculptural tradition, but the aniconic wooden cult images have little if any pa rallels to kouroi other than a religious connotation. The argument that kouroi originated from the Orientalizing Daedalic style is based on stylistic similarities. It is possible that the kouros reflects the Deadalic frontal facing standing figure and that some of the earliest examples have Daedalic body shapes and belts. Early kouroi and the Daedalic styl e have too many differe nces to conclude the kouros developed from the Orientalizing style, but it appears that some characteristics of the Deadalic style li nger in the earliest Archaic ko uroi. The ideas promoting the independent evolution of the kouros emphasize form, but do not explain all the features 31 Cook, “Origins,” 29; Ridgway, Archaic Style , 25.

PAGE 37

26 of the kouros and do not provide information a bout the role of kouroi in Greek society. Some features of the kouros did not orig inate from the Greek tradition of art and archaeologists turn to foreign traditions, specifically the Near East and Egypt, for evidence of foreign influence.

PAGE 38

27 Figure 2-1. Plastron of a late geometric bell -corselet, from Argos. (Kenfield, “The Sculptural Significance of Early Greek Armor,” fig. 1). Figure 2-2. Dos of a late geometric bell-corsele t, from Argos. (Kenfield, “The Sculptural Significance of Early Greek Armor,” fig. 3).

PAGE 39

28 Figure 2-3. Plastron of a bell-c orselet, sixth century, from Olympia. (Kenfield, “The Sculptural Significance of Early Greek Armor,” fig. 7). Figure 2-4. Dos of an early bell-corselet, fr om Olympia. (Kenfield, “The Sculptural Significance of Early Greek Armor,” fig. 6).

PAGE 40

29 Figure 2-5. Greaves, early seve nth century, from Achaea. (Kenfield, “The Sculptural Significance of Early Greek Armor,” fig. 15). Figure 2-6. Apollo, c. 700 BC, bronze (sphyr elaton), 31.5cm, from Dreros, Crete. (Source: http://www.hartzler.org/cc307/ geometric/images/035.jpg , Last accessed May 1, 2005).

PAGE 41

30 Figure 2-7. Syrian relief plaque of Astarte, 7th century BC, terracotta, from Corinth. (Boardman, The Greeks Overseas , fig. 72).

PAGE 42

31 Figure 2-8. Relief plaq ue of woman, 7th century BC, terracotta, from Crete. (Boardman, The Greeks Overseas , fig. 74).

PAGE 43

32 Figure 2-9. Front view of Lady of Auxerre, 640-630 BC, limestone, 65 cm (with base 75 cm). (Richter, Korai , fig. 79). Figure 2-10. Left side view of Lady of Auxerre, 640-630 BC, limestone, 65 cm (with base 75 cm). (Richter, Korai , fig. 78).

PAGE 44

33 Figure 2-11. Back view of Lady of Auxerre, 640-630 BC, li mestone, 65 cm (with base 75 cm). (Richter, Korai , fig. 76). Figure 2-12. Right side view of Lady of Auxerre, 640-630 BC, limestone, 65 cm (with base 75 cm). (Richter, Korai , fig. 77).

PAGE 45

34 Figure 2-13. Right side view of Nikandre, c. 650 BC, marble (Naxian), 1.5 m, from the Sanctuary of Artemis, Delos. (Richter, Korai , fig. 25). Figure 2-14. Front view of Nikandre, c. 650 BC, marble (Naxian), 1.5 m, from the Sanctuary of Artemis, Delos. (Richter, Korai , fig. 26).

PAGE 46

35 Figure 2-15. Left side view of Nikandre, c. 650 BC, marble (Naxia n), 1.5 m (with base 2.0 m), from the Sanctuary of Artemis, Delos. (Richter, Korai , fig. 27).

PAGE 47

36 CHAPTER 3 NEAR EASTERN INFLUENCE It is important to examine the statuary of Near Eastern cultures contemporaneous to archaic Greece to determine if Greek artist s borrowed sculptural ideas from the Near East. Assyria, Syria, Lydia, and Phoenicia were the cultures with the strongest artistic traditions before and during the emergence of th e kouros type (Fig. 3-1) . An analysis of their sculptural traditions will reveal whether Greek sculptors copied features of foreign art to create the kouros type. It also important to recons truct the relationship between Greece and the Near East to establish when and where Greece had the opportunity to view and adopt the characteristic s of Near Eastern sculpture. Part One: Near Eastern Origin of the Kouros Assyria The dominant political power in the Near East, Assyria was the only culture with a strong sculptural tradition in the area and th erefore had the most potential for influencing the creation of the kouros. While a large amount of Assyrian relief sculpture has survived, few pieces freestanding have. This is probably because Assyrians rarely made round sculpture and because the Babylonian s and the Medes also purposely destroyed Assyrian statues when they conquered the Assyrian Empire in 612 BC.1 Of the few remaining freestanding pieces, the royal statue s of Assurnasirpal II (883-858 BC), two of his son Shalmaneser III (858-823 BC) (one standing and one sitting), and an unknown 1 Leonard Woolley, The Art of the Middle East (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), 180.

PAGE 48

37 king, as well as statues of the Nabu deities, box carriers, and a caryatid are the best preserved pieces (Figs. 3-2, 3-3, 34, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11).2 The most striking similarity between the Assyrian statues a nd the kouros is the pose. With the one exception of a seated stat ue of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian statues depict a frontal facing male figure in a standing pose like the Greek kouros. But a few differences appear in the tw o traditions. The Assyrian pieces stand with their feet together, not separated like the kouros, and show no indication of movement. While some of the Assyrians statues have their arms resting at their side s, others hold objects across their abdomen or clasp their hands in front of their chest. The arms of Greek kouroi typically lie at their si des and do not usually carry ob jects. The Greeks probably did not borrow the stiff, inanimate pose of th e Assyrian figures, and the shared frontal view does not provide enough evidence that Gr eek artists adopted an Assyrian pose. Another point in the argument for the Near Eastern origin of the kouros is the use of hard stone. Assyria had a natural supply of easy-to-cut soft stones such as alabaster (also called Mosul marble) and limestone.3 Artists also imported harder stones such as basalt, but they preferred to work with their native soft stones.4 Sculptors carved all the discussed examples of Assyrian sculpture fr om either limestone or alabaster except for the seated statue of Shalmaneser III, which is made of basalt. Their indigenous soft stones proved easy to work with and stone masons quarried the stone with picks and 2 Andre Parrot, The Arts of Assyria (New York: Golden Press, 1961 ), 15-16; Julian Reade, Assyrian Sculpture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 23, 44. 3 Georges Perrot and Charles Chipiez, A History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria , Ed. Charles Armstrong, Trans. Walter Armstrong (London : Chapman Hall, 1884), 109. 4 Reade, Assyrian , 25.

PAGE 49

38 saws.5 Quarrymen trimmed the blocks according to artistsÂ’ specifications at the quarry site to reduce the weight of the block.6 Artists completed the sculpture with nothing more than carpentry tools at the final location of the statue. 7 Shalmaneser IIIÂ’s seated statue reveals that the Assyrians had the ability to work with harder stone, but favored their native softer materials. Even though the Gr eeks created kouroi from soft stones such as limestone, alabaster, and sandstone, the major ity of the statues were marble, especially the earliest examples. Greek artists probabl y did not acquire the tools and techniques necessary for working with hard stone from an Assyrian traditi on favoring soft stone sculpture. The Assyrians also had a long tr adition of accenting their sculpture with black, white, blue, and red paint.8 Greek artists also embellis hed kouroi with paint, but the similarity is superficial and does not pr ovide evidence that Greece borrowed Assyrian sculptural ideas. Large scale is an important character istic of early kouroi, which makes a comparison between the size of early kouroi and the Assyrian round pieces an important point in the argument for Near Eastern inspiration. The Assy rian statues depict smaller than life-size representations of the human form. But despite the preference for smallscale figures, it appears Assyrian artists did have the ability to create large scale works in stone. Guardian gateway figures, or lamass u, were colossal and archaeologists also discovered a colossal female head of the goddess Ishtar (Figs. 3-12, 3-13).9 But the few 5 Reade, Assyrian , 26. 6 Reade, Assyrian , 26. 7 Reade, Assyrian , 26. 8 Perrot and Chipiez, History Assyria , 247. 9 Parrot, Assyria , 126; Perrot and Chipiez, History Assyria , 208.

PAGE 50

39 existing examples of Assyrian freesta nding sculpture show the accepted norm for representing the human form was smaller than life-size.10 While some kouroi represent smaller than life-size figures, the earliest one s are life-size and colossal, which strongly indicates that the kouros did not receive the char acteristic of large-scale from Assyria. The body shape and treatment of musculat ure in Assyrian statuary and Greek kouroi is another factor in de termining if Greek artists adopt ed eastern forms. Assyrian freestanding sculpture continued the Mesopot amian tradition of cr eating the human body with round shapes, specifically the cylinder, oval, and sphere.11 Greek kouroi also break down the human body into basic shapes, but use rectangles, squares, and trapezoids. While the kouros was meant to be viewed fr om four points of view, Assyrian sculpture was meant to be seen only from a frontal st andpoint. Because the Greek kouros depicts a nude figure, artists took care to recreate human anatomy as cl osely as possible. Assyrian artists paid little attention to depicting the muscles and unde rlying structure of the human body realistically because Assyrian freesta nding sculpture was a draped tradition.12 Assyrian artists hid their short and stocky figures underneath long layers of clothing.13 While Assyrian freestanding sculpture did not depict nude figures, its relief panels did show nude men, but the figures represent unim portant or subservien t characters such as soldiers, captives, or slav es (Figs. 3-14, 3-15).14 Even though the men appear unclothed, 10 Parrot, Assyria , 126. 11 Parrot, Assyria , 16, 20; Perrot and Chipiez, History Assyria , 282. 12 Perrot and Chipiez, History Assyria , 135. 13 Parrot, Assyria , 16; Eva Strommenger, 5000 Years of Art in Mesopotamia (New York: Harry A. Abrams, 1964), 44; Woolley, Middle East , 180. 14 Perrot and Chipiez, History Assyria , 287.

PAGE 51

40 relief artists made little effort to define the musculature and alluded to anatomical details with incised lines. One of the distinctive characteristics of the Greek kouros is nudity, which did not symbolize a low position in society. While Greece apparently did not adopt the material, tools, carving techniques, body shape, treatment of musculature, or clothed tradition of Assyrian sculpture, nevertheless the two traditions share an interest in cr eating an idealized figu re. Kouroi did not represent specific individuals, and Assyrian sculptures did, but the pieces are not true portraits.15 The Near Eastern works symbolize th e Assyrian ideal man just as Greek kouroi seem to represent the archetypal male body.16 Instead of depicting their patronÂ’s likeness, Assyrian artists carved the ideal of manly beauty with symmetrical facial and body features.17 Early kouroi also display an intere st in the universal , ideal male form, but the similarity is probably coincidental and does not provide c oncrete proof Assyrian sculpture influenced the kouros. In Assyria, the king commissioned art fo r his benefit, and archaeologists found pieces of sculpture in royal buildings or roya l settings such as palaces, public buildings, temples, or public squares.18 The Assyrian statues served several functions such as memorials to the ruling king, votive offerings, containers for offerings to deities, cult statues of a deity, or as atlas figures.19 The royal statues assert ed the kingÂ’s authority, and votive offerings were placed in temples to stand in place of th e patron, continuously 15 Perrot and Chipiez, History Assyria , 139. 16 Parrot, Assyria , 14. 17 Parrot, Assyria , 14. 18 Strommenger, 5000 Years , 42; Woolley, Middle East, 185. 19 Parrot, Assyria , 16, 22; Reade, Assyrian , 23.

PAGE 52

41 praying and paying homage to the deity.20 Assyrians placed the box carriers in temples, which provided a container for offerings to the gods. Caryatids provided structural support to the buildings. 21 The only function Greek kouroi and Assyrian round sculpture share is the caryatid and the votive offering, but the exact meaning of the votive statue varied slightly. The Greeks commissioned vot ive statuary to thank the gods for favors and for answering prayers. It is possible Gree k artists copied the idea of a votive figure and altered its function to adapt to the need s of Greek society. But the argument is weakened by the fact that Greek artists did not borrow all of the functions of Assyrian sculpture. Archaeological evidence shows a few parallels between the kouros and Assyrian freestanding sculpture, such as a frontal sta nding figure, soft stone , idealization, and the functions of a votive offering and an atlas figure. But the differences outweigh the similarities and it is unlikely Greek artists would borrow sculptural ideas from a culture that rarely made freestanding sculpture. It does not appe ar that the Gr eeks adopted the walking pose, large-scale, the use of hard stone, nudity, the body shape, the treatment of musculature, or the funerary function of th e kouros from Assyria. The physical evidence does not provide a strong enough case to st ate Greek sculptors adopted and adapted Assyrian forms, styles, and techniques. Syria Syria did not have a native sculptural tr adition and remained in the shadow of Assyrian art. Syria had access to land trade routes between the Leva nt and Anatolia into 20 Reade, Assyrian , 23. 21 Reade, Assyrian , 23.

PAGE 53

42 Eastern Greece and sea trade routes via north Syrian ports on the Mediterranean. But the political powerhouse of Assyria became in terested in its neighbor and continuously battled with the Aramaeans for contro l over Syria and its trade routes.22 With time, Assyria conquered Syria, and Syrian vassal princes commissioned works of art imitating Assyrian art to emulate the power of their masters.23 They copied the sculptural forms of lamassu, stelae, rock-cut sculptures, carved or thostats, royal statues, and caryatids, and they used the sculptural pieces to adorn bu ildings in the Syrian palace complex. The Syrians also produced funerary statues, whic h has no Assyrian counterpart and appears to be a native Syrian idea.24 Like Assyria, Syria did not create a large number of freestanding sculptural pieces.25 They chose to exploit relief sculpt ure and a majority of their surviving sculptural pieces are works carved in relief.26 The few examples of Syrian round sculpture lack the same defining characteristic s of the kouros that their Assyrian models do not have. Even though both Greece and Syria created funerary statues, it seems unlikely that Greece would adopt the function of a statue whose art tradition was heavily influenced by Assyria. Therefore, Syri an sculpture probably did not influence the features of the kouros. 22 Pierre Amiet, Art of the Ancient Near East (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1980), 26. 23 Henri Frankfort, The Art and Ar chitecture of the Ancient Orient (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 281. 24 Jeanny Vorys Canby, “Guzana (Tell Halaf),” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria , Ed. Harvey Weiss (Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian In stitution Traveling Exhibition Service, 1985), 332. 25 Frankfort, Art Orient , 290. 26 Frankfort, Art Orient , 307.

PAGE 54

43 Lydia Lydia did have a sculptural tradition, but the pieces are categorized as Eastern Greek sculpture, which actually provided th e framework for the development of Lydian stone sculpture.27 Since Lydian sculpture was linked to Greece, Lydia did not influence the kouros. In fact the opposite is tr ue; Greece inspired Lydian sculpture.28 But before Lydia began making stone sculpt ure under Greek influence, th ey had already established a native tradition of both soft and hard stone architecture, which probably did have an impact on Archaic Greek art. It appears th at Greek artists acquire d the tools and stonecutting techniques necessary for worki ng with hard stone from Lydia. The best surviving examples of Lydian stone masonry are funerary monuments, particularly the tumulus inhumation tombs in the necropolis of Bin Tepe (“a thousand mounds”) (Fig. 3-16).29 The necropolis contains a pproximately ninety tombs and archaeologists have only excav ated about twenty, fourteen of which had burial chambers, and two had cist graves.30 Circular in shape, the tomb s had retaining walls on the ground either cut into the local limestone bedrock or constructed with mas onry directly on top of the ground.31 Architects topped the walls with alte rnating layers of earth to create a gently sloping mound.32 The tombs range in size. Thei r heights measure between one to 27 John Boardman, Persia and the West (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000), 90. 28 Boardman, Persia , 90. 29 Robin U. Russin and George Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves and Cemeteries,” Sardis: From Prehistoric to Roman Times , Ed. George Hanfmann and William E. Mierse (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 54. 30 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 54. 31 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 54. 32 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 54.

PAGE 55

44 fifteen meters tall and the diameters m easure from ten to forty meters wide.33 Some tombs also had grave markers either in a phall ic or bud-like shape resting at the apex of the mound.34 The retaining walls and burial chambe rs of some tombs were constructed with finely dressed stone blocks, and Lydian architect s preferred to build with limestone.35 But one tomb, the tomb of Alyattes (619-560 BC), had marble masonry.36 Lydia had access to natural marble resources at Magara Deseri, Mermere, and the Tmolus Mountain range.37 Even though Alyattes’ tomb does not predate the use of marble in Greece, archaeologists have excavated only a sm all number of tombs at Bin Tepe and it is possible that the necropolis ha s other tombs with marble ma sonry dating earlier than the tomb of Alyattes. Architects built the circular foundation wa ll of Ayattes’ tomb with limestone masonry and topped his tomb with a colossal limestone bud-shaped marker.38 The antechamber consisted of finely dressed lim estone masonry leading to a marble burial chamber (Figs. 3-17, 3-18).39 Alyattes’ tomb is the earli est known example of marble masonry in Lydia, and architects built his cham ber with large blocks of finely dressed 33 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 54. 34 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 54. 35 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 55. 36 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 56. 37 George Hanfmann, Nancy H. Ramage, and Florence E. Whitmore, “The Scope of the Work and the Character of the Material," Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through 1975 , Ed. George Hanfmann and Stephen W. Jacobs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 4, 6; George Hanfmann and Clive Ross, “The City and its Environment,” Sardis: From Prehistory to Roman Times , Ed. George Hanfmann and William E. Mierse (Cambridge: Harv ard University Press, 1983), 9. 38 Boardman, Persia , 33; Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 56. 39 John Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (London: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 33; Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 56.

PAGE 56

45 marble (Fig. 3-19).40 Lydia had a talent for stone cutting that matured with time. It initially used limestone in architecture and progressed to building with marble.41 Ionian Greek artists probably witnessed Lydian mas ons quarrying, cutting, and using a new set of iron tools to create hard stone architecture.42 It seems logical that the Greeks adopted the new tools and techniques from Lydia and adapted them to create sc ulpture with hard stone, a de fining characteristic of the kouros. After Greek artists created marble statuary, Lydia probably copied the Greek sculpture. While Lydia did not influence th e form or function of the kouros, it probably gave the Greeks the skills to quarry and carve marble, which did contribute to the creation of the kouros type. Phoenicia Phoenicia did not have a st rong stone sculptural trad ition, but it played an important role in the mercantile industry of the Mediterranean . The Phoenicians established settlements in foreign lands and a vast trading network in order to obtain natural resources and ra w materials for their liv elihood (Figs. 3-21, 3-22). 43 Phoenicia did not expand from an intere st in territorial conquest.44 Phoenicia provided finished products for their trading partners in exchange for raw goods not present in its homeland. 40 Russin and Hanfmann, “Lydian Graves,” 56. 41 Charles Burney, The Ancient Near East (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 201; Hanfmann, Ramage, and Whitmore, “Scope,” 6. 42 Hanfmann and Ross, “City,” 10. 43 Piero Bartoloni, “Commerce an d Industry,” The Phoenicians , Ed. Sabatino Moscati (Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988), 80. 44 Bartoloni, “Commerce,” 80.

PAGE 57

46 The most popular exported items were fine bronze and silver bow ls, furniture inlaid with ivory, dyed cloth, glasswork, tools a nd weapons, everyday objects (tweezers, hairpins, razors, etc.), and sm all scale objects and figurines.45 Phoenician artists created small scale pieces because they were easier to transport, which resulted in portable art, not large scale, heavy stone pieces. Becau se Phoenicia had few natural resources, it depended on its finished produc ts for its livelihood, and Phoe nician artists became highly skilled, catering exclusively to the needs of a foreign market.46 Phoenician art was in high demand because of its superior craftsmanship and design.47 Because it made products for a foreign market and not for lo cal consumption, its art shows an eclectic style with a mixture of Mesopotamian, Mycenaean-Greek, and Egyptian elements.48 Phoenician art was not origina l; artists copied the forms and themes of other traditions and in turn helped spread the foreign id eas to other cultures through trade activity.49 The Phoenicians established commercial di stricts complete with art workshops in the foreign lands where they traded.50 The largest and most successful Phoenician art workshops were at Memphis in Egypt, Corinth in Greece, Utica and Carthage in Northern Africa, Sulcis and Tharros in Sardinia, Motya off the coast of Sicily, and Cadiz, Huelva, and Sexi on the southern Iberian coast. 51 The workshops employed itinerant craftsmen 45 Bartoloni, “Commerce,” 78-79, 81. 46 Glenn E. Markoe, Phoenicians (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000), 143. 47 Frankfort, Art Orient , 322. 48 Richard D. Barnett, “Phoenicia and the Ivory Tr ade,” Archaeology 9.2 (1956), 88. 49 Woolley, Middle East , 117. 50 Bartoloni, “Commerce,” 80. 51 Bartoloni, “Commerce,” 80.

PAGE 58

47 who helped spread artistic ideas around the Mediterranean.52 Archaeologists also found Phoenician art throughout the Mediterranean basin, which attests to the widespread trade activity of Phoenicia and the impor tant role of its merchants. The Phoenicians produced statuary in terr acotta, bronze, and stone, but its ivory pieces probably had the greatest impact on the sp read of artistic ideas. Phoenicia was renowned for its ivory objects. Spanning back to the thirteenth century BC, ivory carving was a long and well established tr adition in Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine, and the Near East had local sources of ivory.53 Phoenician ivory objects came in a wide variety of forms, including handles for fans and mirro rs, small boxes, ornamental pins, buttons, spoons, amulets, game boards, figurines, and plaques and inlays to decorate furniture.54 Phoenicia also made the furniture that the ivory pieces decorated. 55 Archaeologists found Phoenician ivory works in western Phoenician colonies, Greece, Cyprus, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. Few ivory pieces we re found in the Phoenician heartland and the richest finds are in Assyria at Nimrud and Khorsabad. 56 Phoenician sculpture did not impact the characteristic s of the kouros, but by means of trade Phoenicia brought Greece new artistic ideas in the form of small scale ivory sculpture. It is possible that Greek artists copied foreign arti stic ideas into their artistic 52 Markoe, Phoenicians , 144. 53 Barnett, “Phoenicia Ivory, ” 87; Frankfort, Art Orient , 311; Woolley, Middle East , 113. 54 Maria Louisa Uberti, “Bone and Ivory Carving,” The Phoenicians , Ed. Sabatino Moscati (Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988), 404. 55 Uberti, “Bone,” 404. 56 Frankfort, Art Orient , 312.

PAGE 59

48 vocabulary by purchasing Phoenician art. Th e Phoenicians were st rongly influenced by Egyptian art, and the kouros bears a stri king resemblance to Egyptian statuary. Part Two: Historical Argument for Near Eastern Influence If the Greeks received inspiration from Assy ria, Syria, Lydia, or Phoenicia, it is imperative to establish a location and a time frame of the artistic exchange. Greece ceased contact with its eastern neighbors af ter the disturbances in the Mediterranean around 1200 BC (fall of the Mycenaean palace s and Hittite Empire , possible earthquake and volcanic eruption, invasion of the Sea Peoples). But there was not a complete gap in communication; the Greeks were able to obtai n Near Eastern goods via third parties, such as Cyprus and Crete, in the late first m illennium BC. Parts of Eastern and mainland Greece resumed contact with the Near Ea st around 950-900 BC, and reinvigorated trading markets led the Greeks to visit and pe rhaps settle on the coast of Northern Syria.57 The Greeks were probably able to settle su ccessfully in Syria as a result of shifting powers between the Assyrians and Syrians.58 Historians use both literary and archaeological evidence to reconstruct th e relationship between Greece and the Near East. Literary Evidence for Greeks in the Near East Little Greek or Near Eastern literary evid ence survives that describes the Greeks in the Near East. Among Greek authors, Her odotus is the most important source for information about the Greeks in foreign lands . The royal records of Sargon II (721-705 BC) are the earliest eastern references to the Greeks. They describe Ionian Greek raids 57 Boardman, Overseas , 38. 58 John Nicolas Coldstream, Geometric Greece (New York: Routledge, 2003), 92.

PAGE 60

49 on the Syrian and Phoenician coastlines.59 Another Near Eastern account describes a man named “Yamani,” who served as a guard for King Ashdod.60 The name Yamani could refer to a specific indivi dual such as a guard, but “yam ani” is also the Assyrian spelling for “Ionian.”61 Literary sources also indica te that various eastern kingdoms, specifically Assyria, Syria, Cilicia, and Pa lestine, employed Greek mercenaries in the eighth and seventh centuries BC.62 Ostraca from the Judean fortress Tell Arad, dating to around 640 BC, have Hebrew inscriptions that point to a Greek presence in the Near East.63 The inscriptions are addr essed to Eliashib and indica te that wine, bread, and oil must be delivered to the “Kittim,” Greek mercenaries serving Judah.64 The limited literary sources offer little help in reconstr ucting the Greek presence in the Near East, which forces scholars to turn to archaeologi cal evidence. Two sites, Al Mina and Tell Sukas, have archaeological remain s suggestive of a Greek population. Archaeological Evidence for Greeks in the Near East: Al Mina Location and history of excavations Leonard Woolley discovered Al Mina in 1936 and excavated the site in 1936 and 1937 (Fig. 3-23).65 The ancient town connects the Gulf of Sueidia and the Orontes River 59 T. F. R. G. Braun, “The Greeks in th e Near East,” The Ancient Cambridge History , Ed. John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 5. 60 Boardman, Overseas, 45. 61 Boardman, Overseas, 45. 62Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks in the Or ient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322 (2001), 15. 63 Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 17. 64 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 22. 65 A. J. Graham, “The Historical Interpretatio n of Al Mina,” Dialogue d’Historie Ancienne 12 (1986), 68; Leonard Woolley, “Al Mina: Excavations near Antioch,” Antiquaries’ Journal 17 (1937), 2.

PAGE 61

50 on the Amk plain.66 Al Mina also lies at the foot of Mount Kasios and was heavily wooded in ancient times. The mountain provid ed a natural border between the coastal settlement and cities further inland.67 Al Mina means “the port” in Arabic and archaeologists do not know the na me of the ancient city. Woolley divided the Iron Age settlement into ten levels of occupation between 850/825 and 301 BC, but the levels are not ex actly horizontal and it is difficult to interpret the strata.68 Levels ten through seven are betw een 850/825-700 BC, levels six to five fall between 700-600/550 BC, levels four is 520-430 BC, level three is 430-375 BC, level two is 375-320 BC, and level one is 320 BC-301 BC.69 Several factors impacted Woolley’s ability to excavate Al Mina accurate ly. Modern inhabitants dug wells into the ancient remains, which contaminated the site.70 The city lies 1.5 miles away from the present coastline and the site was and still is susceptible to flooding.71 Silt from the Orontes River probably piled up on the Delta and forced the settlement to shift southward with time.72 It is possible that flooding waters and silt destroyed the earliest and most northern level of the city. 66 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 9. 67 Woolley, “Al Mina Antioch,” 2. 68 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 9. 69 Woolley, “Al Mina Antioch,” 5-10. 70 John Boardman, “The Excavated History of Al Mina,” Ancient Greeks West and East , Ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (Brill: Leiden, 1999), 138. 71 Leonard Woolley, “The Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia I,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 58.1 (1938): 26. 72 Woolley, “Excavatio ns Sueidia I,” 7-8.

PAGE 62

51 The exact founding date of the city is unknown, but archaeologi sts think it was around 850/825 BC because of material finds. 73 Woolley believed Al Mina was a Syrian Bronze Age Settlement, but only Iron Age materials survived.74 During his excavations, he concluded that Al Mina was the site of ancient Posideum, but the art historical community rejected his idea in favor of modern Basit near Ras-el-Basit as the location of Posideum.75 Pottery and other finds Greek pottery represents 39% of all the surveyed types of pottery found at Al Mina.76 Archaeologists found Geometric and subGeometric pottery from the Cyclades and Euboea in levels ten and nine.77 The pieces were two-handled drinking cups called skyphoi with concentric semicircle pendant decoration.78 John Boardman believes Greeks living in the Near East used the drinking vessels.79 According to Boardman, the large number of Euboean drinking vessels indica tes the settlers established a workshop at the end of the eighth centu ry BC to produce the cups.80 The workshop provides strong 73 Coldstream, Geometric , 93. 74 Woolley, “Excavatio ns Sueidia I,” 9. 75 Graham, “Historical Al Mina,” 72-73. For more in formation about Posideum, pl ease refer to the work of P. Courbin. 76 Boardman, “Excavated Al Mina,” 151. 77 Einar Gjerstad, “The Stratification of Al Mina (Syria) and its Chronological Evidence,” Acta Archaeologica 45 (1974): 116; M. R. Popham, “Al Mina and Euboea” Annals of the British School in Athens 75 (1980), 157. A study conducted on pottery from Chalcis and Lefkandi in Euboea and Al Mina confirms the Al Mina vessels were made with the sa me type of clay used fo r Chalcidian pottery, which strongly suggests the pottery originated from Euboea. 78 John Boardman, “Greek Potters at Al Mina?” Anatolian Studies 9 (1959), 163. 79 Boardman, “Greek Potters,” 163; Graham, “Historical Al Mina,” 77. 80 “Greek Potters,” 163; Graham , “Historical Al Mina,” 77.

PAGE 63

52 evidence that the Greeks not only visited and re gularly traded with the Near East, but also created permanent settlements.81 Level eight also had Cycladic and Euboean cups along with Cypriot pottery and Cycladic Geom etric cups with Attic meander patterns.82 Level seven had equal amounts of Geometric and sub-Geometric cups and Cypriot pottery.83 Level six of Al Mina had mo re Cypriot pottery and introdu ced East Greek Orientalizing ware.84 There is almost a complete lack of Cy cladic and Euboean pottery in levels six and five as proto-Corinthian and Corinthian pieces begin to appear.85 The amount of Cypriot ware tapers off in level five, and th e citizens of Al Mina abandoned East Greek ware in favor of Attic redand black-figure pottery in level four. Level three also contained Attic pottery.86 Archaeologists found some Attic pottery in level two, but the Orontes River and local farmers destroye d level one of the ancient settlement.87 Greek pottery is more abundant in the earlier levels of Al Mina.88 The pottery offers insight into the origins of the Greek se ttlers, but it is important to remember that pottery was a trade item that could be car ried by anyone. A piece of pottery does not necessarily indicate the origin s of the settlers. Even though archaeologists found Greek 81 Graham, “Historical Al Mina,” 77. 82 Gjerstad, “Stratification Al Mina,” 116. 83 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 18. 84 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 19. 85 Woolley, “Excavations Su eidia I,” 19; Leonard Woolley, “The Excavations of Al Mina, Sueidia II,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 58.2 (1938), 150. 86 Boardman, Overseas , 49. 87 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 24. 88 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 16-20.

PAGE 64

53 pottery in the strata of Al Mina, the pottery does not necessarily mean that the Greeks settled at the site. Structures Level ten of Al Mina had almost no st ructural remains, but level nine had fragments of small huts with pe bble foundations on virgin soil.89 Residents rebuilt Al Mina in level eight and level seve n is a continuation of level eight.90 Little of the levels remained intact, and archaeologists believe th e structures are similar to those of later levels.91 Architects built level six and five with a new plan, and the structural remains were warehouses with office room s, magazines, and courtyards.92 The warehouses were rectangular single stor y structures that had a row of buildings with magazines around a central courtyard. 93 The middle of the courtyard had a small clerk’s office.94 Narrow gravel roads intersecting at right angles se parated the warehouses, and each intersection had a central drain covered with stone slabs.95 Some warehouses had disconnected rooms that faced the streets and serv ed as retail shops. The warehouses were not built in a Greek manner nor do they refl ect Near Eastern buildings.96 The ancient town contains a 89 Coldstream, Geometric , 93; Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 16. 90 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 16, 18. 91 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 10. 92 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 18. 93 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 10. 94 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 10. 95 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 10. 96 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 10.

PAGE 65

54 type of architecture partic ular only to Al Mina.97 While the stone foundation, mud brick plastered walls, wooden beams, and thatched reed roofs are in dicative of Syrian architectural materials, the warehouse plans are not.98 Citizens reconstructed the town with a new plan in level four but used the same type of planned warehous es of previous levels.99 A fire destroyed Al Mina at the end of level three and residents repair ed the buildings an d rebuilt some structures in level two.100 Level one contained only fragments of walls and no indication of ground plans. Rubbish pits and loose objects in the soil mark the top layer of the city, which declined at the end of the fourth century BC.101 It is possible that levels ten and nine represent a Greek mercenary camp, but there is little evidence to support the theory.102 The structures excavated at Al Mina are warehouses and none appear to have domestic or religious purposes.103 The abundance of warehouses indicates that Al Mina probably did not represent a residential settlement.104 The discovery of the nearby hillside town of Sabouni gives some insight into the architecture and func tion of Al Mina. Located th ree miles north of the port, 97 Boardman, Overseas , 39. 98 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 16. 99 Woolley, “Al Mina Antioch,” 8. 100 Woolley, “Al Mina Antioch,” 6. 101 Woolley, “Al Mina Antioch,” 5. 102 Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 13. 103 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 11. 104 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 11.

PAGE 66

55 Sabouni has a similar chronologi cal history as Al Mina.105 The natural rock hill had mainly domestic architecture.106 It is likely that Al Mina and Sabouni had a relationship as commercial city and fortified residential hill town, and the two sites may be considered one unit.107 Wealthy businessmen who owned ware houses in Al Mina probably lived at Sabouni or in villas on high ground close by and traveled down to Al Mina to work on business days.108 If any workers did live at Al Mina, it was most likely the poorer, nonbusiness holding class such as dockworkers, store guards, sailors, fishermen, and petty traders.109 Sabouni remains unexcavated at the pr esent time, but future exploration will probably reveal more informati on about the role of Al Mina. Function of Al Mina Al Mina and Sabouni are important because they represent the first time the Greeks settled in a foreign land. Lite rary and archaeological eviden ce reveal that the port and suburb was not a Greek colony, but a settlement of Greeks among natives.110 The location of Al Mina and Sabouni was an alrea dy established local Syrian settlement that probably allowed the Greeks to stay.111 Al Mina has no Greek graves, cults, or architecture and very little Greek writing. Despite the lack of Greek culture, historians 105 Woolley, “Excavatio ns Sueidia I,” 8. 106 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 14. 107 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 13. 108 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 13. 109 Woolley, “Excavations Sueidia I,” 14-15. 110 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 9. 111 Boardman, “Excavated Al Mina,” 135.

PAGE 67

56 agree the Greeks were present at Al Mina and Sabouni based on pottery finds.112 It is most likely that the Greeks came to the Near East for trading purposes, not because of a need for foodstuffs and land. Pottery finds suggest different wa ves of Greek people settled in Al Mina at different times. On the basis of pottery, it is assumed that the Euboeans were the first Greek s to settle at Al Mina and Sabouni, followed by Eastern Greeks and possibly Attic Greeks. The fre quent change in the Greek population is probably a result of domestic i ssues. It appears that the Greeks transformed the small coastal indigenous settlement to an important foreign emporium full of trade warehouses. With Greek help, Al Mina became the favored location for trade in the Near East and the main port of call for Levantine trade.113 The Greeks received raw ma terials, such as iron, copper, and wood, and luxury items, such as jewelry, gold and silver drinking vessels, incense burners, cauldrons, tripods, glass and alabaster perfume flasks, furniture decorated with metal and ivory, decorated animal eggs, dyed cloth, and faie nce and semi-precious scarabs/scaraboids from the Near East.114 The Greeks provided their trad ing partners with slaves, fine pottery, wine, and olive oil. They also worked as mercenaries in the Near East.115 The Al Mina Greeks made a living by trading goods with two groups: th ey traded imported Greek pottery with the Near East for Near Eastern luxury goods and raw materials on 112 Graham, “Historical Al Mina,” 74. 113 Boardman, Overseas , 52. 114 Mario Torelli, “The Battle for the Sea Routes: 1000-300 BC,” The Mediterranean in History , Ed. David Abulafia (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003), 105; Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 13. 115 Boardman, Overseas , 42.

PAGE 68

57 land trade routes, and the Al Mina Greeks trad ed Near Eastern items with visiting Greeks in exchange for Greek pottery via sea trade routes. Archaeological Evidence for Greeks in the Near East: Tell Sukas Location and history of excavations Tell Sukas is the second most important Sy rian site in determining the relationship between Greece and the Near East. Initially investigat ed by Emil Forrer in 1934, Tell Sukas was explored by P. J. Riis, a member of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia (the Danish Expedition), in five campaigns from 1958-1963.116 Su-uk-su (pronounced Shuksa), the ancient name of Tell Sukas, lies 72 km south of Al Mina on the Levantine coast.117 Located on a fertile plain and bordere d by the ocean and mountains, the site consists of an artifi cial mound with bays to the north and south.118 The bays provided the town with two harbors.119 Inhabited since Neolithic times, Tell Sukas continued to thrive after the disasters of 1200 BC. Archaeological evidence suggests the Greeks settled at Tell Sukas around the same time that they penetr ated Al Mina, but stra ta suggest the city had a different history from its northern neighbor.120 Archaeologists had a difficult time interpreting the strata because of burrowing animals, plant roots, heavy rains, local farmers, and the fact that the residents of Tell Sukas reused and rebuilt structures.121 Riis 116 P. J. Riis, Sukas I (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1970), 10. 117 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 11. 118 Riis, Sukas, 7. 119 Riis, Sukas, 7. 120 Riis, Sukas, 16. 121 Riis, Sukas, 17.

PAGE 69

58 divided the site into two levels: 850-675 BC and 675-498 BC.122 The finds from Tell Sukas are more limited than those at Al Mina , but they help support the argument that the Greeks settled in the Near East. Pottery, finds, and structures The earliest pieces of Greek pottery from Tell Sukas date to the ninth century BC and are late Geometric Al Mi na ware, proto-Corinthian wa re, and Cycladic and Euboean drinking cups.123 The pieces are similar to finds at Al Mina.124 Drinking vessels dating to the sixth century BC, which archaeologist s unearthed from tombs in the cemetery at the southern harbor, constitute the majority of the pottery.125 The graves are Greek in type and the earliest ones date to the late seventh century BC.126 They had Greek-like flat roof tiles similar to Corinthian rain tiles of the second ha lf of the seventh century BC.127 A spindle whirl found in one grave inscribed with Greek words also suggests a Greek presence in Tell Sukas.128 As at Al Mina, the buildings unearthed at Tell Sukas appear mo re Near Eastern in nature rather than reflecting the Greek tradition of architecture.129 But Tell Sukas differs from Al Mina in that it had a structure b earing a striking resemblance to the design of a 122 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 11. 123 Riis, Sukas, 52. 124 Boardman, Overseas , 53. 125 Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 14. 126 Graham, “Historical Al Mina,” 77. 127 Riis, Sukas, 52. 128 Graham, “Historical Al Mina,” 77; Riis, Sukas, 56. 129 Riis, Sukas, 18.

PAGE 70

59 Greek temple. Identified as a sanctuary de dicated to Helios, the Greek-like temple stood in a small sanctuary equipped with a large altar, an encl osure wall with at least one gateway entrance, and a Phoenician High Place.130 The temple dates to the seventh century BC and lies on the site of a pre-Greek hearth associated with Jewish cults.131 Function of Tell Sukas Even though Tell Sukas is not considered as important a site as Al Mina, it provides historians with supplementary inform ation about the Greeks in the Near East. Other than the Greek-like temple, Tell Suka s appears to have no Greek architecture, although they did bury their dead in Greek t ype graves. They continued to use their native pottery and utensils. The temple also offers evidence that they worshipped their native gods in the foreign land. Just like Al Mina, Tell Sukas functioned as a port that probably allowed the transplanted Greeks to trade with other Greeks and the native population. While Al Mina was left unscathe d, Tell Sukas served as the battleground for Syria, Egypt, Assyria, and Neo-Babylonia, who struggled for power over the Levantine Coast during the first half of the first millennium BC. Even though Tell Sukas had a different history from that of Al Mina, the an cient Iron Age town is still an important site of Greek-Near Eastern interaction. Archaeological Evidence for Greeks in the Near East: Minor Sites Archaeologists found Greek pottery scat tered throughout the Near East, which supplies more evidence of a Greek presence in the east. Archaeologists discovered 130 Boardman, Overseas , 53. 131 Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 14.

PAGE 71

60 Euboean and Cycladic skyphoi at Tell Abu Hawam and Tabbat al Habban.132 They also discovered drinking cups in N ear Eastern cremation tombs at Khalde near Beirut, Tell Rachidieh near Tyre, and Hamath.133 Historians unearthed a large ninth century Attic krater in a local shrine at Hamath and Samaria also possessed a ninth century Cycladic krater.134 Athenian, Euboean, and Cycladic Geometric ware was found at Hamath, Chatal Huyuk, Nineveh, Sidon, Megiddo, Samari a, Zinjirli, Babylon, Tell Abu Hawam, and Ras Ibn Hani.135 Tyre also had Greek pottery, and Greek mercenaries working for the king of Tyre kept Greek pottery at the fortified site of Tel Kabri.136 Archaeologists excavated skyphoi in Cilicia at Mersin and Tarsus.137 They also found two Greek weapons at Carchemish and a Cypro-Phoeni cian silver bowl decorated with Greek hoplite soldiers from the late eighth century BC or early seventh century BC.138 The wide range of find spots of Greek potte ry suggests Greek pottery was a valued commodity in the Near East. The inland site s probably received Gr eek pottery via trade routes from Syrian ports such as Al Mina and Tell Sukas. These ports probably also had Greek visitors and settlers. 132 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 5. 133 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 9. 134 Braun, “Greeks Near East,” 9; Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 12. 135 Boardman, Overseas , 45-50; Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 12. 136 Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks” 20. 137 Boardman, Overseas , 45. 138 Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks,” 17-18.

PAGE 72

61 Part Three: Other Exchanges between Greece and the Near East In order to make a strong argument for the Near Eastern origin of the kouros, it is important to see whether the Greeks borrowed ot her aspects of eastern culture. It appears that Greece learned a new writing system from the Near East. The Greek alphabet was not an original invention, but an adaptation of the Phoenici an alphabet. However, it is difficult to trace its origins because the ear liest examples of Greek writing show no uniformity, which problematizes the task of reconstructing where and when the Greeks adopted the eastern script. The accepted range of adoption dates vary from as early as 1100 BC to as late as 750 BC.139 Al Mina, Tell Sukas, Ras-el-Basit, Cyprus, Crete, Greek Thebes, and Pithekoussai are among the possible birthplaces of the Greek alphabet.140 Sarah P. Morris believes that the Greeks adopted Near Eastern cults and religious beliefs as well as metallurgy techniques.141 She also states the Greek Aeolic capital was a response to Near Eastern architecture.142 These exchanges show a strong relationship 139 B. F. Cook, “Greek Inscriptions,” Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet , Ed. J. T. Hooker (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000), 267; John F. Healey, “The Early Alphabet,” Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet , Ed. J. T. Hooker (Berkley: University of California Press, 1990), 36; Lilian Ham ilton Jeffrey, The Local Scri pts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth centuries BC (New York: Oxford University Pre ss, 1990)13; Joseph Naveh, “Some Semitic Epigraphica1 Considerations on the Antiquity of the Greek Alphab et,” American Journal of Archaeology 77 (1973), 6. 140 Healey, “Early Alphabet,” 36 , 38; Jeffrey, Local Scripts , 7,11; David Ridgway, The First Western Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199 2), 116; Roger D. Woodard, Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer: A Linguistic Continuity of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and the Continuity of Ancient Greek Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 234. 141 Sarah P. Morris, Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 115. 142 Morris, Daidalos , 147.

PAGE 73

62 between the two cultures and strengthens the argument that Greece had the potential for borrowing eastern sculptural ideas. Part Four: Summary It appears that Greece borrowed a ne w writing system, religious beliefs, architectural ideas, and metallurgy technique s from the Near East. But a comparison between Near Eastern sculptur al traditions and the Greek kou ros indicates Greek artists did not borrow the form of Near Eastern sculpt ure to create the kouros type. The lack of literary evidence describing the Greeks in the Near East and the small amount of Greek material culture in the Near East also unde rmine the idea that Greece was inspired by the form eastern sculpture. Assyria had the most potential for infl uencing the kouros because it had the strongest sculptural tradition, but it was Lydi a that actually had th e greatest impact on Archaic sculpture. Greece pr obably acquired a new set of ir on tools and stone cutting techniques for hard stone from Lydia. Since the Cycladic Islands and Ionian Sa mos produced the earliest kouroi, they were probably the first to receive the new skills. Greek artists may have learned how to work with hard stone indirectly from Phoeni cia, which brought the new set of tools and techniques to the Greeks as middlemen. P hoenicia had a trading relationship with the Aegean, but it is unlikely that Phoenician merc hants, who were not tr ained sculptors, saw the potential for a new set of sculpting tools a nd carried the items to Greece. It is also possible that Greeks visiting or living in Syrian coastal set tlements such as Al Mina and Tell Sukas received the tools and carving methods via land trade routes between Lydia and Syria. They could have imported the id eas back to Greece. Both sites and cities further inland have Cycladic pottery, which suggests Greeks from the Cycladic islands

PAGE 74

63 visited or settled in the Near East. But Al Mina and Tell Sukas functioned as emporia and the presence of Greek pottery does not necessarily mean Greeks visited or settled in the Near East. The cities also did not have art workshops, wh ich strongly indicates that Greek artists did not live or visit the Near East. It is most likely that the Ionian Greeks learned the new skills directly from Lydia. King Gyges (685-852 BC) conquered the Ionian Greeks and gave them trading rights in the Lydian empire, which would have f acilitated a relationship between the two cultures.143 Lydia gave the Ionians trading right s, and they probably had the opportunity to witness Lydian hard stone architecture fi rst hand and adopt its t ools and techniques. Ionian Samos produced some of the earliest kouroi, which most lik ely borrowed the new skills from Lydia and shared the information with nearby areas such as the Cyclades. After the Eastern Greek world made the first kouroi, the type spread to mainland Greece and the peripheral areas of Greece. While the form of th e kouros did not originate in the Near East, the knowledge of how to work with hard stone likely did. But archaeologists must look to other foreign sources, namely E gypt, to help explain the characteristics of the kouros. 143 James Mellaart, The Arch aeology of Ancient Turkey (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978), 104; Woolley, Middle East , 161.

PAGE 75

64 Figure 3-1. Map of th e ancient Near East.

PAGE 76

65 Figure 3-2. Assurnasirpal II, 883-859 BC, limestone, 1.06 m, from Ninurta Temple, Nimrud. (Strommenger, 5000 Years of Mesopotamian Art , fig. 196). Figure 3-3. Detail of Assurnasirpal II, 883-859 BC, limestone, 1.06 m, from Ninurta Temple, Nimrud. (Strommenger, 5000 Years of Mesopotamian Art , fig. 197).

PAGE 77

66 Figure 3-4. Shalmaneser III, 858-823 BC, limes tone, 1.90 m, from Assur. (Parrot, The Arts of Assyria , fig. 21). Figure 3-5. Detail of Shalmaneser III, 858823 BC, limestone, 1.90 m, from Assur. (Parrot, The Arts of Assyria , fig. 20).

PAGE 78

67 Figure 3-6. Seated statue Shalmaneser III, 858-823 BC, basalt, from Assur. ( Parrot, The Arts of Assyria , fig. 19). Figure 3-7. Side view of unknown Assyrian King, amber. (Frankfurt, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient , fig. 177).

PAGE 79

68 Figure 3-8. Detail of unknown Assyrian Ki ng, amber. (Frankfurt, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient , fig. 176). Figure 3-9. Nabu deity, 811-793 BC, limestone , 1.60 m, from Nabu Temple, Nimrud. (Parrot, The Arts of Assyria , fig. 24).

PAGE 80

69 Figure 3-10. Box holder, 811-793 BC, limestone, from Khorsabad. (Parrot, The Arts of Assyria , fig. 27). Figure 3-11. Atlas figure, 811-793 BC, limestone, from Nabu Temple, Khorsabad. (Parrot, The Arts of Assyria , fig. 25).

PAGE 81

70 Figure 3.12 Lamassu, 883-859 BC, alabaste r, 313.7cm, from Nimrud. (Source: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/04/wam/ho_32.143.2.htm , Last accessed May 24, 2005). Figure 3-13. Colossal head, possibly Ishtar, tr aces of pigment on hair, from South West Palace, Room XXXVI, Nineveh. (Barnett, Assyrian Sculpture , fig. 87).

PAGE 82

71 Figure 3-14. Assyrian troops fording a river, North West Palace, Throne Room, Nimrud. (Barnett, Assyrian Palace Reliefs , fig. 16). Figure 3-15. The King in his chariot on the ferry, North West Palace, Throne Room, Nimrud. (Barnett, Assyrian Sculpture , fig. 26).

PAGE 83

72 Figure 3-16. Hebrew prisoners laid out for flaying by Assyrians soldiers, South West Palace, Room XXXVI, Nineveh. (Barnett, Assyrian Sculpture , fig. 81). Figure 3-17. Aerial view of Bin Tepe. (Source: http://www.artmuseums.harvar d.edu/sardis/burial.html , Last accessed May 1, 2005).

PAGE 84

73 Figure 3-18. Dromos and burial chamber, To mb of Alyattes, 570-560 BC, Bine Tepe. (Butler, Sardis Vol. I , Ill. 3). Figure 3-19. Burial chamber, Tomb of Al yattes, 570-560 BC, Bin Tepe. (Hanfmann and Mierse, Sardis: From Pres historic to Roman Times , fig. 102).

PAGE 85

74 Figure 3-20. Masonry, Burial chamber, To mb of Alyattes, 570-560 BC, Bin Tepe. (Hanfmann and Mierse, Sardis: From Preshistoric to Roman Times , fig. 103). Figure 3-21. Map of Phoenician settlements. (Source: http://www2.worldbook.com/featur es/explorers/assets/LR004388.gif , Last accessed May 1, 2005).

PAGE 86

75 Figure 3-22. Map of Phoenici an trade routes. (Source: http://www.babyloniangal.com/ files/phoenicia/m_medptc.gif , Last accessed May 1, 2005). Figure 3-23. Map with Al Mina, Syria. (Source: http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Greek/map_new50.JPG , Last accessed May1, 2005).

PAGE 87

76 CHAPTER 4 EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE Because the Greek and Near Eastern sculptural traditions do not account for a majority of the kourosÂ’ characteristics, archaeologists believe the other major contemporary culture in the Mediterranean, Egyp t, may have influenced its form (Fig. 41). A comparison of Egyptian statuary a nd the Greek kouros will illuminate whether Greece borrowed sculptural ideas from Egypt. It will also help clarify the role of Greece and Near Eastern cultures in th e development of the Archaic k ouros. It is also necessary to analyze the historical relationship betw een Greece and Egypt to determine where and when Greek artists had the opportunity to borrow Egyptian sculptural features. Part One: Egyptian Origin of the Kouros The strongest argument for the Egyptian or igin of the Greek kouros is the pose. Since the Old Kingdom, Egyptian sculptors created pieces in a frontal walking pose with the figuresÂ’ left foot forward and its ar ms at its sides (Figs. 4-2, 4-3, 4-4).1 They continued to use the pose throughout the entire Egyptian civilization.2 They depicted human subjects in only a few prescribed poses and the walking pose was the most frequently used pose. It was used mainly to depict the first tier of Egyptian society (the ruling class, high offi cials, and the gods).3 The fact that only the ruling class 1 G. Maspero, Art in Egypt (New York: Charles ScribnerÂ’s Sons, 1930), 73. 2 Maspero, Art Egypt , 73. 3 Kazimierz Michalowski, Grea t Sculpture of Ancient Egypt (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1978), 13.

PAGE 88

77 commissioned walking figures is a result of the pharaohÂ’s cont rolling sculptural workshops and because only the elite could afford to be patrons of the arts. It appears that Greek artists copied the Egyptian walki ng pose to make kouroi, but a few differences between the two traditions are discernable. When carved from stone, Egyptian sculptures retain the stone in the fists, between th e arms and torso, and between the legs. The figures lean back against a pillar, which followe d the contour of the figureÂ’s body, and the pillar was carved from th e same block of stone as the sculpture.4 Because the Egyptian statues leaned backwar d, they placed all thei r weight on the right leg.5 In contrast, Greek kouroi do not have st one between their limbs nor do they have a pillar to lean against. Pl acing weight on both legs, the Ar chaic sculptures do not lean back but stand upright. Greek artists chose a slightly di fferent pose from the Egyptian model. Rather than producing an allusion to walking they captured the action of walking. The viewer can clearly see the difference from a side view. Because the kouros distributes its weight evenly, its legs form an isosceles triangle, while the legs of Egyptian statuary make a right triangle, whic h means the legs of Egyptian statues are not equal in length (Figs 4-5, 4-6). Along with the standing pose, the se ated, squatting, cubeshaped, and cross-legged scribe poses are the other common poses used in Egyptian statuary.6 However, the Greeks appear to have adopted only the Egyptian walking pose, probably because Greek sculpture already ha d a strong tradition of standing figures. 4 Cyril Aldred, Egyptian Art in the Days of the Pharaohs 3100-320 BC (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 93; Brooklyn Museum, Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period 700 BC-100 AD (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1960), xxxiv; Maspero, Art Egypt , 74. 5 Maspero, Art Egypt , 73. 6 Michalowski, Sculpture Egypt , 14-15.

PAGE 89

78 Another strong point in the argument for Egyptian influence is material. Egypt favored stone, both soft and hard, for sculpture, and it ha d an abundance of local stone resources.7 Artists carved sculptures from sedi mentary limestone, sandstone, alabaster, serpentine, and gypsum quarried fr om the waterways of the Nile.8 They also worked with hard igneous and metamorphic rock such as granite, quartzite, diorite, basalt, and schist from the deserts and cataracts.9 But limestone was the most frequently carved material from the Old Kingdom to the New Ki ngdom, and the Late Period preferred hard stone.10 Greece made the majority of kouroi in marble and some in soft stones. Even though the Egyptians preferred to create statue s from limestone, they had the ability to work with hard stones and made hard stone statuary throughout their history. EgyptÂ’s talent for working with hard stones probably in spired the Greeks to create sculpture with its indigenous marble, a material not used before the Archaic period. Egyptian artists also covered their statua ry with polychromy in a wide range of colors (Fig 4-7).11 Based on colors found in the natu ral world, the flat paint was more like a color wash that helped illuminate the pieces.12 Along with protecting the sculptureÂ’s surface, paint added a life-like quality to the piece. Greek artists also applied flat colored earth tone paint to the surf ace of both soft and hard stone kouroi. 7 T. G. H. James and W. V. Davies, Egyptian Sculpture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 5. 8 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 22. 9 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 22. 10 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 16; E. Denison Ross, The Art of Egypt through the Ages (London: Studio, 1931), 49; W. Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (Baltimore: Penguin, 195), 249. 11 Pierre Paris, Manual of Ancient Sculpture (New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1984), 33. 12 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 16.

PAGE 90

79 The size of Egyptian statuary and Greek kouroi is another indicator that the Greeks may have borrowed ideas from Egypt. Egypt had a long tradition of creating large scale statues.13 A majority of works from the Old Kin gdom represents life-size figures, and, as time passed, the scale of Egyptian statuary in creased. Figures reached a colossal size by the New Kingdom (Figs. 4-8, 4-9). Greek sculpt ors made kouroi in a wide range of sizes from figurines, smaller than life-size, life-size, over life-size, and colossal. Even though small scale works were a feature of the Greek tradition, large scale figures were not, and Egypt probably influenced the Greeks to crea te life-size, over lif e-size, and colossal kouroi (Fig. 4-10). Some of the earliest kour oi are the largest one s, which suggest the Greeks quickly adopted the large s cale quality of Egyptian figures. The kouros type and Egyptian sculpture are also similar in shape, proportions, and treatment of musculature. The frontal view of the Egyptian standing pose caused Egyptian statues to have a four-sided block-lik e shape, forcing the viewer to analyze the statue from four different poi nts of view: front, back, and th e two sides. The kouros has the same shape, which indicates that the Greeks probably adopted the shape of Egyptian statuary. The proportions of Greek kouroi a ppear similar to the proportions of Egyptian sculpture. Egypt had a canonical system of proportions for measuring the body that created the archetypal male form (Fig. 4-11) . Egyptian sculptors made changes to the canon over time, but the adjustments were minor, and the end result was the same.14 13 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 12. 14 Erik Iversen, Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art (Warminster: Ares and Phillips, 1975), 9, 28. During the Egyptian civilization, artists created three ve rsions of the canon of proportions. In the Old and Middle Kingdom, artists divided the body with a module representing one sixth of the figuresÂ’ height from the base of the figure to the hairline. In the New Kingdom, a second canon of proportions divided the body on a grid of eighteen squares with a unit based on the width of a fist. Dynasty 26 of the Late Period changed the second canon by dividing the body into twenty-one and one quarter squares from the base of the figure to the nose (Fig. 4-12).

PAGE 91

80 Based on the anatomy of a man, the pres cribed formula produced an idealized, symmetrical human form. Eleanor Guralnick has conducted severa l analyses of Greek kouroi and the Egyptian canons with statistic al mathematics to see whether the Greeks borrowed an Egyptian measurement system.15 Her results reveal a strong connection between the Egyptian canon used by Dynasty 26 and the prop ortions of early kouroi and a few mid to late archaic kouroi. Her fi ndings suggest that Greek sculptors borrowed the Egyptian canon of proportions to create the kouros (Fig. 4-13). Both cultures were interested in idealized representations of the male body. The mathematical system for measuring the parts of the body established a framework to de pict muscles as simple geometric shapes. The Egyptian sculptural tradition pro duced a fit, healthy male build.16 The statues represented their subjects in the prime of their youth with bodie s devoid of physical imperfections or debilitating disorders. Thei r unnaturally symmetrical facial features and benign smiles reflect a calm, serene, and sober attitude.17 Greek kouroi also focus on depicting an idealized youthf ul man with a perfect, symmetrical body and a serene face complete with the “Archaic” smile. It is most likely that Egypt influenced the overall shape and treatment of the body of early kouroi. Another piece of evidence in the argument for an Egyptian origin of the kouros is the function of kouroi. The role of sculpture in both Egyptia n and Greek society fulfilled practical functions in either a funerary or religious context.18 Egyptian funerary statues, 15 See Eleanor Gurlanick in works cited. 16 Michalowski, Sculpture Egypt , 13. 17 Maspero, Art Egypt , 74. 18 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 7-8.

PAGE 92

81 often called ka statues, represente d a double for the mummified deceased.19 Ka statues provided the dead with a permanent body for thei r ka (spirit) to re st in the afterlife.20 Positioned inside tombs and funerary temple s, the statues were outside of the public realm.21 The Egyptians also made votive statues dedicated to the gods that acted as substitutes for the patron.22 The statues stood in place of the individual and continuously prayed and performed daily rituals for the deities. 23 Egyptians placed votive statues in the temple complexes, and these were in the public sphere of Egyptian culture.24 Even though the Greek kouros had a funera ry and religious meaning, it functioned in a slightly different manner from Egyptia n statues. Rather than representing the deceased, the kouros marked the burial spot of a man. When used in a religious context, kouroi did not stand in place of the patron in a continual state of pray er but represented a gift honoring the gods. The idea of the anonymou s artist prevailed in both cultures, each of which placed more importance on the function of the piece than the ar tistic skills of the sculptor. Greek artists seem to have adopt ed the funerary and re ligious connotation but adapted the meanings to fit Greek culture. Despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence suggesting that Egyptian sculpture influenced the features of th e kouros, a few differences between the two 19 Maspero, Art Egypt , 17. 20 Kurt Lange and Max Hirmer, Egypt: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting in Three Thousand Years (London: Phaidon, 1968), 5. 21 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 10; Lange and Hirmer, Egypt , 5. 22 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 10 23 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 10 24 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 10.

PAGE 93

82 traditions are worth mentioning. While Greece and Egypt used similar tools and methods for carving soft stone, they used a different se t of tools and techniques to make statuary from hard stone. It appears unlikely that E gypt taught the Greeks how to work with hard stone. Egypt had already mastered the skil ls of carving soft and hard stone by the Predynastic Period, and the method did not change with time despite technological advances.25 Egyptian artists carved hard stone with stone tools made from even harder stone, dolerite.26 After softening a block of ha rd stone by lighting it on fire and extinguishing the fire with water, sculpt ors worked with natural dolerite rocks and pebbles to pound and grind away layers of stone.27 Greek artists preferred to work with iron tools to carve away layers of hard stone. Egyptian scul ptors worked with one block of stone, and Greek artists sometimes made di fferent pieces of a scul pture separately and attached them together.28 While a single Greek artist apparently carved kouroi (sometimes with help from assistants), E gyptian sculptural work shops were organized into departments where artists specialized in one skill in the sculpting process.29 The workshops created pieces on an assembly line; statues were not crea ted by one hand like a Greek kouros, but by teamwork. The Egyp tian method also ensured no major changes 25 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 16. 26 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 17. 27 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 23. 28 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 94. 29 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 29; Michalowski, Sculpture Egypt , 70. The specialized positions in Egyptian sculptural workshops included a stone cutter/quarryman, a person who drew outlines of figures, an artist who cuts statues into shape, a modeler, a smother/polisher, a person who mixed plaster, a plaster worker, a specialist who painted statuary, and auxiliary workers.

PAGE 94

83 in the treatment of the human form, while individual Greek artists had room to experiment. Another difference between Egyptian sculpt ure and kouroi is the Egyptian interest in portraiture.30 While the Greek kouros represen ted a generic male devoid of any individualizing characteristics, Egyptian statua ry attempted to capture a likeness in facial features and body build of the patron, a lthough in a generalized way. The kouros represented a nude man. Egypt did create a few nude adult statues, but its artists typically represented their figures clothed and only ch ildren were represented without clothing (Figs. 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17).31 Egyptian artists considered a statue incomplete without inscriptions, but only a handful of Greek kouroi had inscriptions.32 The last notable difference between the Greek and Egyptian tradi tions is the location of the sculpture. Egyptians placed their sculpture in tomb and temple complexes, which only a limited number of people could access, and the Greeks placed their statues in public cemeteries and sanctuaries. The differences between Egyptian statuary and the Greek kouros do not mean that Egypt did not influence the kouros. It seem s unlikely that Greek artists would copy all aspects of Egyptian sculpture. It is only l ogical that they borrowed features that would translate well into the Greek tradition of sc ulpture. Archaeological remains suggest that the Greeks received inspiration from Egyptian sculpture to create ce rtain aspects of the 30 Paris, Manual Sculpture , 4. 31 Aldred, Egyptian Art , 17. 32 James and Davies, Egyptian Sculpture , 10.

PAGE 95

84 kouros. When borrowing Egyptian forms, Greek artists probably altered some features to better meet the needs of the Greek society. Part Two: Historical Argume nt for Egyptian Influence It is necessary to examine the relations hip between Egypt and Greece to trace the exact moment and location where the Greeks bor rowed Egyptian artistic ideas. After the Late Mycenaean Period, a break in contact occurred between Egypt and Greece because of disturbances in the Med iterranean. But the split was not complete. Even though the two peoples did not have dire ct communication, they maintain ed an indirect relationship through the Phoenicians. It was not until the reign of pharaoh Psammetichus I (664-610 BC) of Dynasty 26 that they began to inte ract directly again. Foreign oppression and internal turmoil gave the Greek s a window of opportunity to se ttle in the Nile River Delta at Naukratis and reestablish a relationship with Egypt. During the first half of the first millenni um BC, Assyria, Libya, and the Kushite Kingdom controlled Egypt. Psammetichus I, a native Egyptian prince, desired to free Egypt from foreign rule and enlisted Ionian and Carian mercenaries to help liberate Egypt. Victorious in his effort, Psammetichus I founded Dynasty 26 and awarded the mercenaries careers in his army. He also ga ve the soldiers land at Naukratis to create a new settlement. Archaeologists use both lite rary evidence and archaeological remains at Naukratis to help reconstruct the relationship between Greece and Egypt. Literary Evidence fo r Greeks in Egypt Strabo and Herodotus are the most valu able sources for information about the Greeks in Egypt.33 According to Strabo, the Greeks ar rived in Egypt during the reign of 33 Albert Leonard, Jr., Ancient Naukratis (Ann Arbor: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1997), 1.

PAGE 96

85 Psammetichus I in the second ha lf of the seventh century BC.34 According to Strabo, thirty Milesian ships sailed into the Bolbitine mouth of the Nile and constructed a fort along the riverbank and raided Egypt.35 After a short time, the Milesians sailed upstream to Sais, fought and won a naval battle ag ainst Inaros, and founded Naukratis as a Milesian colony.36 But two problems appear in St rabo’s writings that hinder his credibility: the character of Inaros and the fact that Egypt allowed foreigners to settle. Inaros was a historical figure, but he did not live until the fifth century BC.37 After the death of Xerxes in 460 BC, Inaros persuade d the Egyptian people to break away from Persian rule, which resulted in a naval battle.38 Strabo probably misunderstood his sources and confused the foundations of Naukratis with a later sea battle.39 The character of Inaros provides no evidence for the dating of Naukratis. It also seems unlikely that after years of foreign rule at the hands of the Libyans, Kushites, and Assyrians that Dynasty 26 would allow any foreigners, including the Greeks, to invade and settle in their land.40 These two points force historians to turn to the writings of other ancient historians, particularly Herodotus. 34 M. M. Austin, Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age (Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970), 23. 35 T. F. R. G. Braun, “The Greeks in Egypt,” The Cambridge Ancient History , Vol. 3.3, Ed. John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond (Cambridge: Cambridge Un iversity Press, 1982), 37; Richard Sullivan, “Psammetichus I and the Foundation of Naukratis,” The Survey at Naukratis (Oxford: Oxford Books, 1996), 186. 36 Einar Gjerstad, “Studies in Archaic Greek Chronology,” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21 (1934): 68; Astrid Möller, Nauk ratis: Trade in Ancient Greece (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 184; Sullivan, 178. 37 Gjerstad, “Studies Archaic,” 68; Möller, Naukratis Trade , 187. 38 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 186. 39 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 187. 40 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 187.

PAGE 97

86 Herodotus actually visited Naukratis in the fifth century BC and wrote about the history of the city during the times of pharaohs Psammetichus I and Amasis (570-526 BC). According to Herodotus, Psammetichus I received a message from Bute the Oracle that “vengeance would come from the sea when bronze men appeared.”41 The ambiguous oracle probably refers to bron ze hoplite armor of Greek mercenaries. 42 But exactly how the mercenaries came to Egypt remains unknown.43 Herodotus believed a mixed group of Ionian and Carian pirates or mercenaries accidentally landed in Egypt after fleeing from the Cimmerians in Asia Minor.44 When Psammetichus I saw their bronze armor, he believed Bute’s prophecy had been fulfilled.45 He persuaded the pirates/mercenaries to stay in Egypt and fi ght with him to overcome foreign oppression and reunite Egypt.46 As a reward, the pharaoh stat ioned the Ionian and Carian mercenaries at permanent land camps called st ratopeda on opposite sides of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile.47 The soldiers provided protecti on against threats from the land and sea. They lived at the camps until Amasis moved them to Memphis to serve as his bodyguards. 48 Along with the stratopeda, Psamme tichus I also stationed foreign 41 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 35. 42 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 35. 43 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 35. 44 Austin, Greece Egypt Archaic , 17. 45 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 35. 46 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 35. 47 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 43; Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 186. 48 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 186.

PAGE 98

87 mercenaries at three other ga rrisons: Elephantine on the Nubi an border, Marea against the Libyans, and Daphnae to buffer the east.49 He also wrote that Amasis gave Naukrat is to the Greeks to use as a commercial center.50 His statement can be interpreted tw o ways: that Amasis literally founded Naukratis as a settlement for the Greeks or that he reorganized an already existing site and gave the city a new set of laws.51 Option number two corresponds to the anti-Greek sentiment in Egypt under Amasis’ rule, and Amasis apparently ordered all Greeks in Egypt to move to the already established Greek occupied site of Naukratis. He reorganized the city and gave the town a char ter with a new set of laws, which forced the Greeks to restrict trade activity to Naukratis.52 As a result, the c ity quickly transformed from a small trading post to a la rge emporium, or port of trade.53 While Amasis ordered the Greeks to pay ta xes on all goods traded or produced in Naukratis, he allowed them to continue buildi ng sanctuaries to worshi p their native gods. One sanctuary, the Hellenion, was actually built under his rule.54 A structure where Greek settlers could worship all gods in th e Greek pantheon, the Hellenion was built by a group of nine cities: four East Greek Dori an colonies (Rhodes, Knidos, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis), four East Greek Ionian citi es (Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Clazomenae), and 49 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 44. 50 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 38; William D. E. Coulson and Albert Leonard, Jr., “Investigations at Naukratis and Environs,” American Journal of Archaeology 86.3 (1982), 361. 51 R. M. Cook, “Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 57.2 (1937), 232. 52 Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 362. 53 Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 362. 54 C. C. Edgar, H. L. L., and D. G. H., “Naukratis, 1903,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 25 (1905), 135.

PAGE 99

88 one Aeolian city (Mytilene).55 Herodotus believed these cities along with Samos and Miletus supplied Egypt with Greek mercenaries and founded Naukratis.56 One other piece of information Herodotus provides to establis h the foundation date of Naukratis is a story about Sappho’s brother Charaxus. Charaxus was a wine merchant and during one of his trips to Naukratis he bought the freedom of a Thracian courtesan named Rhodopis.57 Charaxus’ purchase occurred on e generation before the reign of Amasis, which indicates Naukratis was alrea dy established before the time of Amasis. It is possible that Strabo a nd Herodotus were actually describing the same events; Strabo’s Milesians could be included in Herodotus’ Ionian and Carian mercenaries.58 Several other authors such as Diodorus, Ho mer, Polyaenus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Polycharmus, and Atheneus also wrote scraps of information about the Greeks in Egypt.59 Writers such as Solon, Pythagoras, Democritu s, and Plato visited Naukratis, but Strabo and Herodotus offer the most amount of in formation about the Greeks in Egypt. In addition, historians have used epigraphy to determine the exact foundation date and the origin of the Greek settlers, but inscripti ons from Naukratis do not provide a clear chronological framework of the city.60 Therefore archaeologist s must rely on physical 55 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 177. 56 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 177. 57 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 178. 58 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 178. 59 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 36-37; Möller, Naukratis Trade , 182; Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 178. 60 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 178.

PAGE 100

89 evidence to reconstruct the relationship between Greece and Egypt and the role of Naukratis.61 Archaeological evidence for Greeks in Egypt: Naukratis Location and history of excavations Naukratis is located about ten miles from Sais in the western Delta on the Canopic branch of the Nile (Fig. 4-18).62 The modern village Kom Ge’if lies on top of the ancient town, which covered an area 950 by 580 meters.63 W. M. Flinders Petrie discovered the site in 1884 and was the first pers on to excavate Naukratis in 1884-1885.64 Several factors hindered his excavati on and findings. Local farmers dug away about one third of the city, and the site was continually inundated by water. Petrie excavated at the south end of Naukratis and focused his work on the religious structures, ignoring any domestic and commercial aspects of the site.65 It is also possible that Petrie did not reach the lowest level of the city’s foundation in his excavations.66 Ernest A. Gardner continued excavating Naukratis in 1886 and he also concentrated on the southern end of the town. David G. Hogarth explored the northern e nd of Naukratis in 1889 and 1903 and proposed an ethnic division of the site : a native Egyptian site at th e southern end and a Greek 61 William D. E. Coulson and Albert Leonard, Jr., “A Preliminary Survey of the Naukratis Region in the Western Delta,” Journal of Field Archaeology 6.2 (Summer 1979), 151. 62 John Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (London: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 139. 63 Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 362. 64 William D. E. Coulson and Albert Leonard, Jr., Cities of the Delta Part 1/Naukratis (Malibu: Undena, 1981), 1. 65 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 1; Coulson and Leonard, “Preliminary Survey Naukratis,” 151. 66 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 177.

PAGE 101

90 occupied northern section.67 The Naukratis Project excav ated Naukratis in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, and the project surveyed ten ancient sites wi thin a twenty-five mile radius of Naukratis. The main goal of th e project was to resear ch the inhabitants of the region. Pottery One of the strongest pieces of evidence fo r a Greek presence in Naukratis is Greek pottery. The earliest pieces date to the s econd quarter of the seventh century BC, and a majority of the pottery is East Greek. 68 Archaeologists did not unearth pottery dating from the early reign of Psammetichus I but fr om a period about twenty years after he took the throne in the third quar ter of the seventh century BC.69 A lack of pottery dating to the beginning of his rule confirms the literary evidence that the pharaoh originally established Naukratis as a military site for mercenaries.70 When the Ionian mercenaries came to Egypt, they probably did not bring pot tery because they did not plan on living in Egypt permanently. According to literary sources, Psammetichus I hired the mercenaries as a temporary aid, and the mercenaries most likely expected to return home. However, Psammetichus I needed a permanent army to thwart future conflicts and offered the warriors land at Naukratis in exchange for a career in his army. Troops stationed at 67 Boardman, Overseas , 139; Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 365; Gjerstand, “Studies Archaic,” 69; Einar Gjerstad, “Nau kratis Again,” Acta Archaeologica 30 (1960), 158. According to Hogarth’s theory, Egyptians lived in the southern end of Nuakratis and the Greeks occupied the north. Einar Naukratis Gjerstad agrees with Hogarth and belie ves that the Greeks created Naukratis on at already established Egyptian settlement named Pi-ermo. Boardman thinks the entire site of Naukratis is Greek; the town was not sectioned into Egyptian and Greek quarters and the Egyptians did not previously inhabit the site before the Greeks arrived. 68 Austin, Greece Egypt Archaic , 24-26; Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 361; Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 190. 69 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 190. 70 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 190.

PAGE 102

91 Naukratis probably relied on local Egyptian goods until they established communication with their homeland to import their native goods.71 The large amounts of pottery dating to the end of the seventh century BC are believed to reflect the transition from a military settlement to a trading post.72 Another firm indicator for a mid to late seventh century BC foundation date is that Vroulia, already founded by 650 BC, and Naukratis shar e a rare type of pottery called bird bowls.73 The vessels indicate th at the Greeks settled in Na ukratis around the same time as the foundation of Vroulia in order for Vr oulia to export goods to the new market.74 It is important to remember that pottery does not always reflect the origin of settlers because pottery was a trade good.75 John Boardman states that Greek pottery found in Egypt does not necessarily mean the Greeks vi sited or lived in Egypt. But the dominance of late seventh century BC East Greek potte ry corresponds with information in ancient documents.76 Sculpture Kouroi found at Naukratis also offer evid ence that the Greeks were in Egypt and borrowed sculptural ideas from Egypt. In Naukratis, ar chaeologists unearthed three kouroi from temples, two from the Temple of Aphrodite and one from the Temple of 71 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 190. 72 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 190. 73 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 188. 74 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 188. 75 Boardman, Overseas , 141. 76 Overseas , 141.

PAGE 103

92 Apollo, and they also discovered four more in other areas of the town.77 All the kouroi found in Egypt are carved from local Egyp tian soft stones, specifically sandstone, alabaster, and limestone. The pieces are also small scale portable figurines and date from 615-590 BC to 590-570 BC. The Naukratite kouroi a ppear to have been made later than the earliest examples of kouroi found in Samo s and the Cyclades. The statutes suggest the presence of a sculptural workshop, but archaeologists have yet to discover one.78 They believe Greek artists probably establis hed workshops at the large sanctuaries in Naukratis for the creatio n of devotional objects.79 Despite the fact that the kour oi from Naukratis are small scale, made with soft stone, and date after the initia l creation of the kouros type, the kouroi suggest that Greek artists experimented with Egyptian sculptural ideas possibly before taking the new ideas back to Greece. There a several reasons w hy Greek artists may have preferred to make small scale and soft stone works at Naukratis . Almost half of the kouroi found in the ancient port were votive offeri ngs, and it is logical that merchants and visitors passing through the port would commission small scale le ss expensive soft stone pieces. It seems unlikely that they would spend a large sum of mone y on a large scale hard stone piece for a one-time offering. If Greek artists wanted to a bring a model of E gyptian-like sculpture back to Greece, it would have been easier to transport a light, small scale example than a heavy, large scale, hard stone piece. Greek artists in Naukratis probably carved kouroi with Egyptian d soft stones because they alr eady had a native Greek tradition for creating 77 Cook, “Amasis Greeks,” 235; Möller, Naukratis Trade , 160. 78 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 160-161 79 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 199.

PAGE 104

93 soft stone sculpture. Since Greek artists did not adopt Egyptian sculpting tools or techniques, it is also unlikely that they woul d attempt to produce pieces in Egyptian hard stone. Even though archaeologists did not fi nd kouroi dating before 615-610 BC in Naukratis, it does not mean earlie r examples did not exist. As stated earlier, it is possible that Petrie did not excavate to the lowest level of Naukratis.80 Earlier kouroi, which would provide a link between Egyptian sculpt ure and the earliest kouroi, may still lie buried at Naukratis. In add ition to kouroi, archaeologist s also found a Greek faience factory near the temple of Aphrodite that produced egyptianizing scarabs, vases, and trinkets during the earl y part of Dynasty 26.81 Structures Because pottery and sculpture do not provide concrete proof that the Greeks settled in Naukratis, it is necessary to analyze the structural remains of the site. Archaeologists discovered several Greek like temples but few structures pertaining to the domestic or commercial role of the town (Fig. 4-19). The earliest stratum at Naukratis is at the south end of the town, which reveals a layer of deeply burnt material.82 The burnt stratum contains large amounts of wood, an unusual material for Egypt, which mainly built in mud brick or stone. 83 The initial group of mercenaries may have built wooden structures out of the wood from their ships before they learned how to build with local materials.84 80Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 177. 81 Leonard, Naukratis , 10. 82 Boardman, Overseas , 139. 83 Boardman, Overseas , 139. 84 Boardman, Overseas , 139.

PAGE 105

94 About two feet above the burnt strata is one of the oldest temples at Naukratis, the temple of Aphrodite. Located at the southern end of town, the temple was built by Chians around 615-610 BC. 85 The Milesians built a temple to Apollo around the same time at the north end of town and it ha d an enclosure wall surrounding the temple.86 The Naukratites also built temples for the Dioscuri and Hera in the northern end of town in the early sixth century BC.87 Samos built the temple to Hera, and the sponsors of the Dioscuri temple remain unknown.88 According to Herodotus, Aegina built a temple to Zeus in northern Naukratis, but th e temple has yet to be found.89 The Great Temenos, which Petrie and Gardne r associated with the Hellenion, is the most problematic sanctuary at Naukratis. 90 The joint venture represented a temple unlike any other in the Greek world; it was built in a group effort and Naukratites could worship all Greek gods, particularly the patron gods of the nine cooperating cities, at the sanctuary.91 Hogarth believed Petrie’s Great Teme nos was not the Hellenion, but rather an Egyptian fortress, and that the Hellenion was located to the north along with a group of domestic buildings.92 C. C. Edgar and Einar Gjerst ad think that the Great Temenos 85 Cook, “Amasis Greeks,” 235; Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 362. 86 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 41-42. 87 Boardman, Overseas , 140; Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 362. 88 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 41. 89 Austin, Greece Egypt Archaic , 24. 90 Coulson and Leonard, “Preliminary Survey Naukratis,” 154. 91 Boardman, Overseas , 142. 92 Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 365-366.

PAGE 106

95 was actually the remains of a group of Egyptian temples and public buildings.93 According to the Naukratis Project, objects f ound in the northern end of the town with inscriptions to “the gods of the Greeks” provide strong ev idence that the citizens of Naukratis built the Hellenion in the north.94 John Boardman also believes that Petrie and Gardner’s southern struct ure is not the Hellenion. 95 He also denies that Egyptians lived at Naukratis.96 The presence of Greek cults and temple s strongly indicates that the Greeks occupied Naukratis. All citizens used th e temples regardless of who sponsored the construction, but it appears some settlers used specific temples more than others.97 Archaeological evidence does not suggest Naukr atis was separated into domestic, public, religious, or harbor di stricts because the cities’ temples were spread out over the entire area of the town.98 Function of Naukratis Naukratis was not an ordinary Greek colony. The Greeks did not come to Naukratis because of a lack of food or land or because of political problems. Pottery finds indicate that Psammetichus I hired Ioni an and Carian mercenaries, who stayed in Egypt for careers in the military.99 The town evolved from a military settlement to a 93 Edgar, H. L. L., and D. G. H., “Naukratis ,” 110; Gjerstand, “S tudies Archaic,” 69. 94 Edgar, H. L. L., and D. G. H., “Naukratis,” 135. 95 Overseas , 143. 96 Boardman, Overseas , 143. 97 Austin, Greece Egypt Archaic , 44. 98 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 197. 99 Sullivan, “Psammetichus Foundation,” 177.

PAGE 107

96 small trading post to an emporium, and its primary interest was trade activity. The Greeks acquired papyrus, linen, trin kets, corn, and grain from Egypt.100 Greek merchants brought wine, olive oil, silver, and slaves to Egypt.101 Naukratis was an unusual trading site because it was mainly the Greeks who consumed the imported goods, not the Egyptians. The Naukratites preferred to use their native goods rather than adopt local products . The few items the Greeks produced at Naukratis, such as pottery and sculpture, we re also produced for local Greeks who bought and dedicated the objects to deities.102 Under Amasis, Naukratis was the only legal center where Greeks could settle and trade.103 The entire town acted as an emporium.104 The ancient town remained a fundamentally Greek city; the citizens consumed their native goods, built sanctuaries to worship thei r native gods, and were self-governed and organized according to the Gr eek tradition. It was a joint settlement established by all Hellenic peoples, the Dorians, the Ionians, and the Aeolians. Naukratis was a Greek polis, practically an independent city-state, located inside a foreign country. Archaeological Evidence for Gree ks in Egypt: Minor Sites Pottery found outside of Naukr atis indicates that Greeks lived or traded in other areas of Egypt. The Naukratis Project unc overed Greek pottery at Kom Firin and Kom 100 Austin, Greece Egypt Archaic , 35. 101 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 40; Möller, Naukratis Trade , 76. 102 Möller, Naukratis Trade , 199. 103 Coulson and Leonard, Cities Delta , 1. 104 Coulson and Leonard, Cities Delta , 1.

PAGE 108

97 Kortas that had earlier dates th an pieces found at Naukratis.105 Petrie excavated at the modern site of Tell Defenneh, now believed to be ancient Daphnae, and discovered East Greek pottery dating to between 570 and 525 BC.106 A large fort near Daphnae, possibly Migdol, had Greek cremation burials and pottery from the sixth century BC.107 The distribution of Greek potte ry in other areas of Egypt outside of the Delta is widespread. Corinthian and Ea st Greek pottery found in Mem phis share the same date as Naukratite pottery, and Thebes had East Greek and Athenian pottery from the early sixth century BC.108 Abu Simbel, Rhakoti, Heliopolis, the Fayum, Luxor, Karnak, Edfu, and Sanam (Nubia) also yielded Greek pottery. 109 Nea Polis, or New City, located in Upper Egypt could be a Greek city.110 Some islands along the Nile such as Ephesus, Chios, Lesbos, Cyprus, and Samos are named after Greek areas and the islands may represent trading posts where the Greeks traded with native Egyptians.111 The pottery finds show a strong Greek presence in Egypt during Dynasty 26. Part Three: Summary The Greek kouros has a similar pose, size, material, shape, proportions, muscular details, and function as E gyptian statuary, which strongl y indicates that the Greeks developed the kouros from an Egyptian mode l. The renewed relationship between 105 Coulson and Leonard, “Investigations Naukratis,” 377; Coulson and Leonard, “Preliminary Survey Naukratis,” 161. 106 Cook, “Amasis Greeks,” 229. 107 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 44. 108 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 47. 109 Boardman, Overseas , 140. 110 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 47. 111 Braun, “Greeks Egypt,” 47.

PAGE 109

98 Greece and Egypt under Dynasty 26 led to the f oundation of Naukratis, which is probably where Greek artists learned about Egyptia n sculpture. Literary records and archaeological evidence strongly sugg est a Greek presence in Egypt. Ancient authors state Psammetichus I empl oyed Ionian and Carian mercenaries, who permanently settled in Naukratis in the mi d to late seventh century BC. East Greek pottery, kouroi, and Greek temples confirm the written records; the transplanted soldiers continued to use their nativ e goods and worship the deities of their homeland. The military settlement grew into a large, thriving port of trade that focused on importing Greek goods for the Greek citizens. The prospe rous city probably attracted new settlers such as artists. They thus had the opportuni ty to view Egyptian art first hand, absorbing the foreign sculptureÂ’s form and style. Greek artists took the new ideas back to their homelands in the Aegean basin, which created the earliest kouroi , especially Samos and the Cycladic Islands. Literary sources also indicate that Greeks from Samo s were among the original group of settlers. Greek artists probably borrowed ideas they coul d easily adapt to their sculptural tradition. They did not embrace all of the characte ristics or production methods of Egyptian statuary. The argument for the Egyptian origin of the Greek kouros is strengthened by the fact that Greece also borrowed from Egyptia n architecture. It appears that Egyptian temples and palaces influenced the use of hard stone, large-scale structures, and the shape of columns and column capitals in Greek architecture.

PAGE 110

99 Figure 4-1. Map of Mediterranean Ba sin with Greece and Egypt. (Source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/mediterranean_rel82.jpg , Last accessed May 1, 2005). Figure 4-2. Pharaoh Menkaure and his wife Khamerernebt y, 2548-2530 BC, slate, 4 ft. 6.5 in, from Giza. (Smith, Ancient Egypt , pg. 22).

PAGE 111

100 Figure 4-3. Front view of Pharaoh Thutmo sis III, 1504-1450 BC, grayish-green slate, 6.5 ft, from Karnak. (Lange and Hirmer, Egypt: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting in Three Thousand Years , fig. 140, right).

PAGE 112

101 Figure 4-4. Front view of New York Kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 27). Figure 4-5. Right Side view of Pharaoh Thutmosis III, 1504-1450 BC, grayish-green slate, 6.5 ft, from Karnak. (Lange a nd Hirmer, Egypt: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting in Three Thousand Years , fig. 140, left).

PAGE 113

102 Figure 4-6. Right Side view of New York kouros, 600-580 BC, Naxian marble, 1.843 m, from Attica. (Richter, Kouroi , fig. 27). Figure 4-7. Rahotep and Nofret, c. 2580 BC, pa inted limestone, from mastaba tomb at Meydum. (Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt , pl. 29, B).

PAGE 114

103 Figure 4-8. Memnon colossi, 1386-1349 BC, fr om funerary temple of Pharaoh Amenhotep III, Thebes. (Smith, The Ar t and Architecture of Ancient Egypt , pl. 119). Figure 4-9. Court at funerary temple of Ramesses II, 1279-1212 BC, Thebes. (Lange and Hirmer, Egypt: Architecture, Sculptur e, Painting in Three Thousand Years , fig. 246).

PAGE 115

104 Figure 4-10. Fragment of colossal kouros, 615-590 BC, marble, from Delos. (Source: http://www.wisc.edu/arth/ah302/07-Kouroi/13.image.html , Last accessed May 1, 2005).

PAGE 116

105 Figure 4-11. Menkaure and his wife on the grid for the Egyptian canon of proportions. (Source: http://mil.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/art100/module3.htm , Last accessed May 1, 2005). Figure 4-12. Figure on hypothe tical New Kingdom 18-square grid (solid lines) and Dynasty 26 21.25-square grid (dotted lines ). (Robins, Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art , fig. 4.7).

PAGE 117

106 Figure 4-13. Diagram with kouros inside Egyptian canon of proportions. (Source: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Kouros.htm , Last accessed May1, 2005). Figure 4-14. Irukapta (an official), 25 63-2423 BC, painted limestone, 73.5 cm. (Michowski, Great Sculpture of Ancient Egypt , pg. 108, right).

PAGE 118

107 Figure 4-15. Seneb and his family, c. 2530 BC, painted limestone, from Giza. (Aldred, Egyptian Art in the Days of the Pharaohs 3100-320 BC , fig. 37). Figure 4-16. Statue of a ma n, 2423-2263 BC, ebony wood, 66 cm , from tomb of Merirehashtef, near Heliopolis. (Michalows ki, Great Sculpture of Ancient Egypt , pg. 111).

PAGE 119

108 Figure 4-17. Pharaoh Hor, 1765 BC, wood. (Sm ith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt , pl. 65, A).

PAGE 120

109 Figure 4-18. Map of ancient Egypt. (Source: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/INFO /MAP/SITE/Egypt_Site_150dpi.html , Last accessed April 24, 2005).

PAGE 121

110 Figure 4-19. Map of Naukratis. (Jenkins, “A rchaic Kouroi in Naukratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin,” fig. 2).

PAGE 122

111 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The Archaic kouros is a problematic form of statuary because it has features not used in previous Greek sculpt ure, it was made for a relati vely short amount of time, and the earliest examples have different styles and features. Scholars debate where Greek artists received inspiration to create the new features on the shor t-lived type and two schools of thought attempt to explain the orig in of the kouros. One theory states the kouros developed from the Greek tradition of scul pture. The features of kouroi are either derived from previous forms of Greek stat uary or are new characteristics created by Greek artists. The second hypothesis holds th at foreign sculptural traditions provided models for the kouros. Archaeologists adhering to this idea think the Near East or Egypt influenced the features of the kouros. It is apparent that Greek artists gathered ideas for the kouros from a variety of sources. Each theory by itself does not account for all the characterist ics of the sculptural type. Evidence indicates Greek sculptors t ook ideas from foreign sculptural traditions and combined the features with their native traditions to create a new, uniquely Greek form of sculpture. In Greek art, Greek armor and the Daed alic style had the most potential for influencing the kouros. Pieces of Greek armor, such as the corselet and greave, take the form of a nude male body and artists proba bly absorbed the shap e and technique of making armor into the Greek sculptural traditi on. It appears that Greek artists adopted the nude form and the technique of hammering out armor to create sphyrelaton pieces.

PAGE 123

112 The nude sphyrelaton works, made in Greece already since the Geometric period, established a tradition of naturalistic nude representations of men in Greek sculpture that preceded and probably influenced the kouros. It seems likely that the Daedalic style infl uenced the standing pose of the kouros. It probably also influenced the small size and impetus for large-scale representations and perhaps the use of soft stone, metal, and terr acotta materials of some early kouroi. Greek artists borrowed these features from Near Ea stern sculpture to crea te the Orientalizing Daedalic style and artists c ontinued using these characteristics in the Archaic kouros. Some early kouroi also appear to have Daedalic body type s. The earliest kouroi from the Cycladic Islands and Samos differ from othe r early kouroi in that they have more triangular shaped features and belts reminiscen t of the Daedalic style. Artists probably carved the Island kouroi during an overlapping part of th e Orientalizing and Archaic periods. Sculptors were still creating pieces in the Daedalic style as they began exploring the new Archaic style and the first kouroi pr obably emerged as a combination of the two. The kouros type spread from the Aegean to other areas of Greece, which made pieces in the Archaic style and replaced the Daedalic works. But the native tradition does not account fo r all of the kourosÂ’ ch aracteristics. The Near East had some impact on Archaic kouroi. Lydia had a strong tradition of soft and hard stone architecture. Greece probably acq uired a new set of iron tools and sculpting techniques for hard stone from Lydia. The marble burial chamber in the tomb of Alyattes indicates Lydia had the ability to work with hard stone. It is hi ghly likely that Greek sculptors adopted Lydian tools and techniques and applied the sk ills to marble statuary.

PAGE 124

113 There are several ways the Greeks could have adopted the ideas from Lydia and brought the new information back to Greece. Be cause the first kouroi were carved in the Cycladic Islands and Samos, these areas may ha ve been the first to receive the new set of tools and carving methods. Phoenician merc hants could have brought the new skills to Greece, and Phoenicia did have a long standi ng trading relationship with the Aegean. But Phoenician merchants usually traded thei r finished products for raw goods. It seems unlikely that Phoenician merchants untrained in the art of sculpture would have seen the potential of iron sculpting tools and traded them. Greeks visiti ng or living in north Syrian coastal settlements such as Al Mina and Te ll Sukas had access to land trade routes to Lydia. They could have brought the tools a nd techniques to the coastal settlements and transported the ideas back to Greece. This argument is strengthened by the fact that archaeologists found Cycladic po ttery at the coastal sites, which suggests Greeks from the Cyclades were in ancient Syria. But Al Mina functioned as an emporium and the pottery is not necessarily indicative of its inhabitants. There is also no evidence of sculptural workshops, which sugge sts sculptors did not visit or work in the Near East. A third possibility and the most likely is that Ionian Greeks learned the skills directly from Lydia. King Gyges conquered the Ionian Greeks and gave them trading rights in his empire. The conquered Ionian s may have seen the Lydian tombs and adopted the new tools and scul pting techniques. Ionian Samos produced some of the earliest kouroi and it probably adopted and shar ed its new tools with nearby areas such as the Cycladic Islands. But the Greek and Near Easter n sculptural traditions di d not contribute all of the characteristics of the kouros. Egypt probabl y also influenced the kouros. One of the

PAGE 125

114 most distinctive charac teristics of the kouros is the st anding pose with the left foot advanced, which does not appear in Greek ar t before the kouros. Greek sculptors had already established a strong tr adition of the frontal-facing standing figure in the Daedalic style, but a majority of kouroi did not stand with their feet together lik e Daedalic figures. It seems unlikely that Greek artists would deve lop an animated walking pose from a static standing figure. The most logical source of the kourosÂ’ walking pose is Egyptian sculpture. The frontal-facing walking figure was the mo st frequently used pose in Egyptian statuary from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period. Greek artists probably adopted the walking figure from Egypt, but they ma de a few changes to the Egyptian pose to accommodate the Greek sculptural tradition. Th ey did not include the back pillar and the extra material between the fists, between the arms and torso, and between the legs of the Egyptian figure. Kouroi did not lean back and place thei r weight on one leg but stood upright and placed an equal amount of weight on both legs. Greek sculptors most likely adopted the Egyptian walking pose and applied it to an already established Greek standing figure. It appears that Greek artists also adopted the large scal e and the use of hard stone from Egyptian sculpture. Egypt produced life-size statuary si nce the Old Kingdom and exploited colossal sculpture in the New Ki ngdom. Egypt also mastered carving hard stones such as quartzite, schist , granite, and basalt as early as the Predynastic Period. These stones were not native to Greece, but Gree k artists copied the idea of hard stone by creating works in its indigenous marble. Am ong cultures in the Near East and Egypt, Egypt was the only one to carve sculpture on a large scale in hard stone, which makes it

PAGE 126

115 the logical choice for influencing these character istics of the kouros. Some of the earliest kouroi are colossal and marble, traits that do no t continue in later ti mes, which indicate Greek sculptors immediately embraced and expe rimented with large scale and hard stone. While Greek artists adopted the use of ha rd stone from Egypt, evidence suggests they did not adopt the Egyptian technique of carving hard stone. Egyptian sculptors made hard stone statuary with natural dolerite rocks and pebbles and they used sand as an abrasive. Egypt did not adopt technology or stone working methods that developed elsewhere and continued with its ancient methods throughout its civilization. In the Egyptian sculptural tradition, a gr oup of specialized artisans worked together to create a sculpture, while one Greek artist completed a work (sometimes with the aid of assistants). The fact that Greek sculptor s did not replicate the Egyptia n technique of carving hard stone makes the argument for an adoption of Lydian methods stronger. While Greece adopted Lydian tools and stone carving t echniques to make early kouroi, it probably received inspiration to produce ha rd stone sculpture from Egypt. Evidence suggests the Greeks also borrowed the four-side block-like shape, the deconstruction of the body into geometric shapes, and the canon of proportions from Egyptian sculpture. The Egyptians produced yout hful men in the prime of their lives that had idealized, unnaturally symmetrical, and f it physiques. Even though some of the earliest kouroi had more Daeda lic characteristics, a majority resembled the Egyptian tradition of square a nd rectangular shaped body parts. It is most likely that Greek sculptors borrowed the general shape of Egyp tian sculpture and applied its form to the kouros.

PAGE 127

116 It is also possible that the Greeks received ideas from Egyptian sculptural tradition about the function of the kouros. Egypt produced sculpture to serve as funerary statues and votive offerings and it is possible that Greece adopted these meanings for the kouros. But Greek artists made slight changes to the Egyptian functions. Egypt produced funerary pieces as final resting places for th e ka, the spirit of the deceased, and Greece used kouroi as grave markers. Both cultu res made votive statuary, but the Egyptian pieces represented their patron in a continual state of prayer before the gods and the Greeks offered kouroi to the gods in appreciation for their fa vor. The similar meanings indicate Greek artists may have borrowed th e function of Egyptian statuary, but adapted the function to fit the needs of Greek society. This theory is strengthened by the fact that the earliest kouroi represent both votive offerings and grave markers. It appears that Greece adopted both meanings of Egyptian sculpture simultaneously. Naukratis probably played an important ro le in exposing Greek artists to Egyptian art. Historical records and archaeological finds indicate Psammetic hus I employed Ionian mercenaries and allowed the soldiers to settle at Naukratis in exchange for serving in his permanent army. Initially a mercenary camp, Naukratis grew into an emporium whose main activity was trading with its Gree k homeland to obtain native Greek goods. Herodotus wrote that the original settlers of Naukratis were from mercantile cities in the Aegean basin, which established trade routes to Naukratis. The prospe rous city attracted new settlers, including artists, and archaeologi sts believe they established workshops near religious precincts to create devotional objects . Kouroi were found in the Sanctuaries of Aphrodite and Apollo.. Even though the kouroi were carved from local soft stones, are smalle scale, and date later than the earl iest known kouroi, the statues show that Greek

PAGE 128

117 artists were probably experime nting with Egyptian sculptural ideas at Naukratis at an early date. It is most likely that Greek artist s took the features of Egyptian statuary back to Greece, specifically the Aegean basin. Sa mos and the Cycladic Islands had received the tools and skills necessary to work with marble from Lydia and they adopted the new foreign characteristics of Egyptian sculpture to create the Archaic style and the kouros type. It appears that both schools of thought were correct. Th e kouros has features of both the Greek tradition of sc ulpture and foreign cultures. The Archaic kouros emerged as a combination of Greek, Lydian, and E gyptian ideas, which produced a new, unique form of Greek statuary. But the kore, th e female counterpart to the Archaic kouros, appears to have different origins. Greek sc ulptors made the kouros and kore at the same time, but it is more likely that the koreÂ’s fo rm developed from the Daedalic style and a Near Eastern model. It app ears that early Archaic sculptur e was heavily influenced by foreign cultures and artists received inspirat ion from different sources to create the kouros and kore types.

PAGE 129

118 APPENDIX CATALOGUE OF KOUROI Trapezia: 1. Site: possibly Trapezia; Whole bronze kouros; Present location: London, British Museum, no. 1905.6-10.1; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 7 cm; Bibliography: Richter, Kouroi , no. 43, fig. 160-162. Thasos: 2. Site: Thasos Akropolis, built into a medi eval wall; Whole archaic Parian marble kouros: restorations on part of right arm and part of left elbow; Present location: Thasos, Thasos Museum; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 3.50 m, w ith plinth=3.60 m; Size: colossal, two times life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: ram-bearer (kriophoros), hair fi llet, not finished; AJA , 68, (1964), 17-18; Boardman, Archaic Period , 1978, fig. 69; Buschor, Fr J , pp. 31 ff., fig. 32-34; Floren, Die geometrische and archaische Plastik , 1987, pg. 323, no. 3; Guide de Tha sos , 1968, pg. 115; Picard, B. C. H. XLV, 1921, pp. 88, 113 ff; Richter, Kouroi , no. 14, figs. 84-86, 106; Ridgway, Arc. St. Gr. Sc. , fig. 32a, 32b, pl. XIX; Zevros, LÂ’Art en Grece , 2nd ed., fig. 108-110. Samos: 3. Site: Samos; Partial wooden kouros: ar ms missing; Present Location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 650-625 BC; Distingui shing characteristics: chiton, belt; Bibliography: Ohly, Ath Mitt , LXVIII, 1953, pp. 86 ff., no. 5; Richter, Kouroi , fig. 17-19. 4. Site: Samos; Fragment of marble kouros : right hand; Present location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 615-590 BC; Size: colossal; Bibli ography: Buschor, Alt St , I, p. 8, fig. I, 2; Richter, Kouroi , no. 25, fig. 93. 5. Site: Heraion, Samos, between temple and southern colonnade; Fragment of marble kouros: upper leg to knee; Present location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 1.32 m; Size: colossal, three times life-size ; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Buschor, Alt St , I, p. 8, figs. 3-4, 19; Richter, Kouroi , no. 24, fig. 96. 6. Site: Tigani, Samos; Partial lead kouros : left foot missing; Present location: Florence, Museo Archeologico; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 11.5 cm;

PAGE 130

119 Bibliography: Minto, Critica d’ Arte , VIII, 1943, pp. 17 ff; Richter, Kouroi , no. 21, fig. 111-113. 7. Site: Heraion, Samos; Fragment of w ooden kouros: head with tang; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 18809; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 3.5 cm; Bibliography: Richter, Kouroi , no. 20, fig. 107, 110. 8. Site: Heraion, Samos; Whole bronze kour os; Present location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 19 cm; Bibliography: Buschor, Alt St , I, p. 9, figs. 5, 7, 8; Fr. J. , p. 74 f., fig. 84-85; Richter, Kouroi , no. 22, fig. 117-119. 9. Site: Heraion, Samos; Whole bronze; Pr esent location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 20 cm; Bibliography: Buschor, Alt St , p. 9, fig, 6, 910; Richter, Kouroi , no. 23, fig. 120-122. 10. Site: Heraion, Samos; Whole bronze; Pr esent location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 11 cm; Functio n: votive offering; Bibliography: Buschor, Alt St , I, p. II, fig. 29, 31-32; Richter, Kouroi , no. 51, fig. 184-186. 11. Site: Heraion, Samos; Whole bronze; Pr esent location: Samos, Vathy Museum; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 19 cm; Bibliography: Buschor, Alt St , I, p. 13, fig. 35, 37, 38; Richter, Kouroi , no. 52, fig. 187-189. Asia Minor: 12. Site: Didyma; Partial marble kouros: h ead to knees, arms missing; Present location: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, no. 1710; Date: 590 -570 BC; Bibliography: Floren, Die geometrische and archaische Plastik , 1987, pg. 377, no. 14, pl 32.3; Pedley, Gr Sc of Arc Period , pls. 46 a-b, 47 a-b; Ridgway, Arc St Gr Sc , fig. 3.31 a-b, pl. XVIII; Tuchelt, Die archaischen Skulpturen von Didyma, Beiträge zur frühgriechischen Plastik in Kleinasien , 1970, pl. 18-19. 13. Site: Knidos; Partial limestone kouros: head to knees; Present location: London, British Museum, no. B 320; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 17 cm; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fillet; Bibliography: Pryce, Catalogue , B 320, p. 150 f., fig. 189; Richter, Kouroi , no. 56, fig. 200-201. 14. Site: Knidos; Fragment of limestone kour os: plinth and fee t; Present location: London, British Museum, no. B 321; Date: 590-570 BC; Dimensions: h=5 cm, l of foot= 6 cm; Distinguishi ng characteristics: inscri ption on upper surface of plinth and left edge in Archaic Melian alphabet: “Euarchos dedicated me to the Dioskouroi;” Function: votive o ffering; Bibliography: Pryce, Catalogue , B 321, p. 151, fig. 190; Richter, Kouroi , no. 57, fig. 150. 15. Site: possibly near Miletus; Whole bronze kouros; Present location: Paris, Cabinet des Medailles; Date: 590-570 BC; Hei ght: 16 cm; Bibliography: Babelon and

PAGE 131

120 Blanchet, Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliotheque Nationale , no. 96; Langlotz, Bildhauerschulen , pl. 59, I; Richter, Kouroi , no. 55, fig. 196-197. Rhodes: 16. Site: Kaminos, Rhodes; Partial limestone kouros: head to knees; Present location: London, British Museum, no. B 330; Da te: 615-590 BC; Height: 25.4 cm; Bibliography: Pryce, Catalogue , B 330, p. 160 f., pl. XXXV; Richter, Kouroi , no. 27, fig. 126-128. Crete: 17. Site: Crete; Whole bronze kouros; Present location: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, no. 10556; Height: 17.3 cm; Bibliography: Neugebauer, Katalog, Staatliche Museum, Berlin , I, no. 159, pl. 20; Richter, Kouroi , no. 52, fig. 190-192. Egypt: 18. Site: Naukratis; Part ial alabaster kouros: head to below knees; Present location: London, British Museum, no. B 438; Da te: 615-590 BC; Height: 25.7 cm; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 148, fig. 168-169; Pryce, Catalogue , B 438, p. 183 f., pl. XXXIX; Richter, Kouroi , no. 28, fig. 129-130. 19. Site: Naukratis; Partial sandstone kouros: below neck to below knees; Present location: London, British Museum, no. B 444; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 10 cm; Bibliography: Petrie, Naukratis , I, pl. I, 4; Pryce, Catalogue , B 444, p. 187 f., fig. 225; Richter, Kouroi , no. 29, fig. 131. 20. Site: Temenos of Aphrodite, Naukratis; Fr agment of limestone kouros: head and neck; Present location: London, Briti sh Museum, no. 1934.3-8.5; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 14.8 cm; Bibliography: Gardner, Naukratis , II, pl. XIII, 4; Richter, Kouroi , no. 30. 21. Site: Naukratis; Part ial alabaster kouros: below ne ck to above knees; Present location: Cairo, Cairo Museum, no. 2 7426; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 15.2 cm; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 143; Edgar, Catalogue de Musee de Caire, Greek Sculpture , pp. V, I, no. 27426, pl. I; Richter, Kouroi , no. 61, fig. 204-205 22. Site: Temenos of Apollo, Naukratis; Partia l alabaster kouros: below neck to above knees; Present location: London, British Museum, B 441; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 12 cm; Bibliography: Petrie, Naukratis , I, pl. 1, 3; Pryce, Catalogue , B 441, p. 185 f., fig. 223; Richter, Kouroi , no. 60, fig. 297. 23. Site: Temenos of Aphrodite , Naukratis; Partial alabaster kouros: neck to above knees; Present location: London, British Museum, B 442; Date: 590-570 BC;

PAGE 132

121 Height: 15.2 cm; Bibliography: Gardner, Naukratis , II, pl. XIV, 13; Pryce, Catalogue , B 442, p. 186 f., pl. XI; Richter, Kouroi , no. 59, fig. 206. 24. Site: Naukratis; Part ial alabaster kouros: neck to above knees; Present location: London, British Museum, no. B 443; Date: mid 6th century; Height: 10.2 cm; Bibliography: Boardman, Gr. Overseas , fig. 143. Cycladic Islands: 25. Site: Delos; Fragment of marble kouros: torso; Present locat ion: Delos, Delos Museum; Date: c. 650 BC; Size: lif e-size; Bibliography: Richter, Kouroi , fig. 2021. 26. Site: Delos; Fragment of marble kouros: torso and head; Present location: Delos, Delos Museum; Date: c. 650-625 BC; Size: life-size; Distinguishing, characteristics: belt; Bibliography: Richter, Kouroi , fig. 22-24. 27. Site: Delos; Whole bronze kouros; Presen t location: Delphi, Delphi Museum; Date: 625 BC; Height: 19 cm; Distinguishi ng characteristics: belt; Bibliography: Pedley, Gr Art and Arch , fig. 5.26; Richter, Kouroi , fig. 14-16. 28. Site: Temenos of Apollo, Delos; Fragment s of island marble kouros: torso, part of left hand, plinth with left foot, and base; Present location: Delos (torso and base), Delos Museum, no. 4094 (left hand), London, British Museum, no. B 322 (plinth with left foot); Date: 615-590 BC; Si ze: colossal, four times life-size; Distinguishing characteristic s: inscription on base d, de dicated by Naxians: “I am of the same stone both statue and base;” Function: votive offe ring; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 27 ff., fig. 29-30; Courby, BCH , (1921) 235-237; Deonna, no. 81, no. 105; Durrbach, Choix d’ inscriptions de Delos , I, p. 3 f., no. 3; Homolle, BCH , III, 1879, p. 2 (inscription); IG , XII, 5 test. 1425 c; Pedley, Gr Sc Archaic , fig. 3, pl. 2b, c; Perdrizet, BCH , (1897) 169-183; Pfeiffer, Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institute , XV, 1952, pp. 20 ff; Picard, and Replat, BCH , XLVIII, 1924, pp. 217 ff; Pryce, Catalogue , B 322, p. 152 f., fig. 192; Raubitschek, Bulletin de l’Institut archeologique bulgare , XII, 1938, p. 134; Richter, Kouroi , no. 15, fig. 87-90; S. G. D. I. 5421. 29. Site: near Thera; Fragments of island ma rble kouros: head to buttocks and head and torso; Present location: Santorin Museum, no. 18A and 18B; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 18A=1.68 m, 18B=1.03 m; Si ze: colossal, two times life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: ha ir fillet; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , p. 60f., fig. 66-67; DeWaele, Arch Anz , 1931, col. 102-105, fig. 2; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , p. 67 f., fig. 24-25; Richter, Kouroi , no. 18 A and B, figs. 97-102. 30. Site: possibly Thera; Fragment of Naxian marble kouros: head and neck; Present location: Leyden, Rijksmuseum, no. Ro III. 49; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 47 cm; Size: colossal, two times life-size; Bibliography: Guide of Museum , 1951, p.

PAGE 133

122 9, fig. 4; Janssen, De Griekse, Romeinse, en Et rurische Monumenten van het Museum van Oudheden te Leyden , 1843-8, p. 20, no. 152; Pleyte and Jesse, Catalogue , 1897, p. 94, pl. IV; Richter, Kouroi , no. 19, fig. 103-105. 31. Site: Temenos of Apollo, Delos; Fragment of Naxian marble kouros: base; Present location: Delos, Delos Mu seum, no. A 728; Date: 615-590 BC; Dimensions: 90 cm by 80 cm, h=58 cm; Distinguishing characteristics: three animals on base (ram, lion, and Gorgon head ), inscription on ba se: “Euthykartides the Naxian made me and dedicated me;” Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 106; Durrbach, Choix d’ inscriptions de Delos , I, p. 2, no. I; Homolle, BCH , XII, 1888, pp. 463 ff., pl. XIII; I G , XII.5, 1425; Kavvadias, Ath Mitt , X, 1885, p. 287; Kern, Inscr Gr , pl. 6; Marcade, Signatures , II, 45; Richter, Kouroi, pp. 53; SGD , I, 5419. 32. Site: Thera, opposite side of rock tombs at Cape Exomyti; Partial island marble kouros: head to right knee; Present location: Athens , National Museum, no. 8; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1.24 m; Size: life-size; Function: possibly a grave marker; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 67 ff., fig. 79-80; Deonna, no. 129; Richter, Kouroi , no. 49, fig. 178-183; Schrader in Hiller von Gaertingen, Thera , III, p.285, pl. 7, 12-14. 33. Site: Delos; Partial island marble kouros : neck to above knees; Present location: Delos, Delos Museum, no. 4045; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 0.515 m; Size: smaller than life size; Bibli ography: Deonna, no. 86; Richter, Kouroi , fig. 176177. 34. Site: Temenos of Apollo, Delos; Partia l Naxian marble kouros: head to below pectorals; Present location: Delos, Delos Museum, no. A 3997; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 0.59 m; Size: s lightly over life-size; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 84, fig. 97-99; Richter, Kouroi , fig. 174-175 35. Site: possibly Naxos; Fragment of Naxian marble kouros : head; Present location: Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glpytothek, no. 2821; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 41 cm; Size: colossal, two times life-size; Di stinguishing characteristics: hair fillet; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 61 ff., fig. 68-70; Coulsen, F., Catalogue , no. Ia; Coulsen, V. H., From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek , II, 1938, pp. 65 ff; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , p. 87 f., fig. 47; Richter, Kouroi , no. 50, fig. 172-173. 36. Site: Delos; Partial Naxian marble kouros: waist to knees; Presen t location: Delos, Delos Museum, no. A 333; Height: 0.85 m; Size: colossal, two times life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: belt; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 83; Richter, Kouroi , no. 17, fig. 94-95. 37. Site: Paros; Partial island marble kouros : neck to above right knee, arms missing; Present location: Copenhagen, Ny Ca rlsberg Glyptothek, no. 2030; Height: 0.81

PAGE 134

123 m; Size: life-size; Distingui shing characteristics: offe ring-bearer; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , 126 ff., fig. 146-147; Deonna, no. 123; Loewy, Archäologischepigraphische Mittheilunge n aus Oesterriech-Ungarn , 11, 1887, 160 f., fig. 1415; Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Billedtravler pl. 1, 1a; Pedley, Gr Sc of Arc Period , no. 25, pl. 18 a-b, 19; Poulsen, F., Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture , no. 1a; Richter, Kouroi, no. 117, fig. 347-349; Ridgway, Arc Sty Gr Sc , figs. 3.33 a-b, pl. XX. Attica: 38. Site: Kerameikos, Athens; Partial isla nd marble kouros: head to upper thighs, restorations on majority of face, part of hair, pieces of waist and neck; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 71; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 0.75 m; Size: life-size; Distinguishing characteristic s: hair fillet; Function: grave marker; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 53 f., fig. 56; Deonna, no. 3, fig. 4-6; Richter, Kouroi , no. 9, fig. 69-71; Stais, 1887, col. 35 ff., pl. I. 39. Site: Agora, Athens; Fragments of isla nd marble kouros: forearm, back, knee, shoulder; Present location: Athens, A gora Museum, forearm (no. S 530), back (no. S 287), knee (no. S 1739), shoulde r (no. S 1908); Date: 615-590 BC; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fillet; Bibliography: E. Harrison, Hesperia , XXIV, 1955, pp. 290 ff; Richter, Kouroi , no. 7, fig. 54-59, 68. 40. Site: Temple of Poseidon, Sounion; Fragment s of marble kouros: base a, b, c, and d; Present location: Athens, Nationa l Museum, no. 2720 (base a), no. 3645 (base b), no. 3939 (bases c and d); Date: 615-590 BC; Dimensions: base a: h=25 cm, w=80 cm, l=98 cm, l of foot=41cm; base b: h=24 cm, w=84 cm, l=97 cm, l of foot=42 cm; base c: h=20.5 cm, w=72 cm , l=97.5 cm, l of foot=32cm; base d (only half preserved): w=65 cm, l=85 cm , l of foot=42 cm; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fillet (no. 2720); Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Rhomaios, Antike Denkmäler , IV, 1931, pp. 91, 102, fig. 15-19; Richter, Kouroi , no. 5, fig. 48-49. 41. Site: Mesogia, Attica; Frag ments of marble kouros: piece of thigh and right hand, part of thumb missing; Present locati on: Athens, Collection of Mr. Marinas Kalliga; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 16.5 cm; Bibliography: Richter, Kouroi , no. 8, fig. 63-64. 42. Site: Temple of Poseidon, Sounion; Whole island marble kouros: restorations on left arm, part of right arm, lower righ t leg, majority of f ace; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 2720; Date: 600 BC; Size: colossal, two times lifesize; Height: 3.05 m; Distinguish ing characteristics: hair fillet, plinth and base do not belong to statue; Function: vo tive offering; Bibliography: Budde, Die attischen Kuroi (Diss. 1939), pp. 9-11; Buschor, Fr J , pp. 22 ff . , fig. 22-28; Deonna, no. 7, fig. 16-17; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , p. 79, fig. 37; Rhomaios,

PAGE 135

124 Antike Denkmäler , IV, 1931, pp. 91-105, pl. 47-56; Richter, Kouroi , no. 2, fig. 3339. 43. Site: Temple of Poseidon, Sounion; Partial island marble kouros: lower neck to knees, restorations on right leg, both kn ees; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 3645; Sounion; Date: 600 BC; Height: 1.65 m; Size: slightly over life-size; Function: votive o ffering; Bibliography: Budde, Die attischen Kuroi (Diss. 1939), p. 2 f; Buschor, Fr J , pp. 53 ff . , fig. 54, 55; Deonna, no. 8; HomannWedeking, Anfänge , p. 79, ff., fig. 38-39; Rhomaios, Antike Denkmäler , IV, 1931, pp. 91 ff., pl. 55-56; Richter, Kouroi , no. 3, fig. 40-41. 44. Site: possibly Attica; Whole Naxian marble kouros: restorations on small pieces that chipped off; Present location: Ne w York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 32.11.1; Date: 600-580 BC; Height: 1.843 m; Si ze: slightly over life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fille t, neck band; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 17 ff., fig. 15-20; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , pp. 77 ff., fig. 36; Richter, Cat. of Gk. Sc. , no.1; Richter, Kouroi , no. 1, fig. 25-32, 60-62; Richter, Met Mus Studies , V, I, 1934, pp. 20 ff; I. A. Richter, Ibid. pp. 51 ff.; Richter in BrunnBruckmann-Arndt, Denkmäler , no. 751-755; Ridgway, Arc St Gr Sc , pl. XVII, fig. 3.28. 45. Site: Dipylon Cemetery, Athens; Fragme nt of island marble kouros: head and hand; Present location: Athens, Na tional Museum, no. 3372 (head) and no. 3965 (hand); Date: 590 BC; Dimensions: head =44 cm, hand=29.2 cm; Size: slightly over life-size; Distinguishing characteris tics: hair fillet ( no. 3372); Function: grave marker; Bibliography: Budde, Die attischen Kuroi (Diss. 1939), pp. 3 ff; Buschor, Fr J , pp. 15 ff. fig. 11-14; Buschor, Ath Mitt , LII, 1927, pp. 205 ff. (head), pl. 28, 29; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , p. 75; Ibid. 55 (1930), pp. 163 ff. (hand); Richter, Kouroi , no. 6, fig. 50-53, 65-67; Richter, Met Mus Studies , 5.1 (1934), pp. 32 ff; Richter in Brunn-Bruckman-Arndt, Denkmäler , no. 751-755, pp. 15 ff. 46. Site: Volomandra; Partial Parian marble kouros: head to heels, restorations on front portion of both feet; Present loca tion: Athens, National Museum, no. 1906; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1.79 m; Size: s lightly over life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fillet; Functio n: grave marker; Bibliography: Budde, Die attischen Kuroi (Diss. 1939), pp. 12 ff; Buschor, Fr J , pp. 57 ff., fig. 61-63; Deonna, no. 5, fig. 10-12; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , p. 90, fig. 48; Papaspiridi, Guide du Musee National , p. 27; Richter, Kouroi , no. 63, fig. 208216. 47. Site: Moschato, New Phaleron, near Piraeus Street, former ly the Theseion; Partial island marble kouros: head, torso, waist; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 3858; Date: 590-570 BC; He ight: 0.70 m; Size: life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: ha ir fillet; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr. J. , pp. 55 ff., fig. 57-9; Homann-Wedeking, Anfänge , pp. 87 f., fig. 46; Kyparissis and

PAGE 136

125 Homann-Wedeking, Ath Mitt , LXIII/LXIV, 1938-39, pp. 156 ff., pls. 49-54; Langlotz in Schrader, Akropolis , p. 41; Richter, Kouroi , no. 31, fig. 132-133, 136137. 48. Site: Markopoulo; Fragment of marble kouros: neck to wais t; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 4181; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 0.30 cm; Size: smaller than life-size; Distinguishing ch aracteristics: neckband; Bibliography: Kyparissis and Homann-Wedeking, Ath Mitt , 63/64, 1938/9, p. 158, pls. 55-57; Richter, Kouroi , no. 32, fig. 134-135. 49. Site: Athens; Partial marble kouros: head to knees; Present location: Athens, Akropolis Museum, no. 624; Date: 570 BC; Distinguishing characteristics: offering-bearer (moschophoros), draped figure, face bearded, eyes inlaid, inscription on base: offered by Rhonbos; Bibliography: Ridgway, Arc St Gr Sc , fig. 3.34, pl. XX. Boeotia: 50. Site: Ptoan Sanctuary; Fragment of lim estone kouros: head and part of neck; Present location: Athens, National Mu seum, no. 15; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 33 cm; Distinguishing characteristics: ha ir fillet; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 35; Holleaux, BCH , X, 1886, pp. 98 ff., pl. V; Richter, Kouroi , no. 10, figs. 72-75. 51. Site: necropolis of Kakali, Tanagra, Bo eotia; Whole limestone kouros relief: Dermys (L), Kittylos (R); Present lo cation: Athens, National Museum, no. 56; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: total=2 m, figures=1.47 m; Distinguishing characteristics: high relief, inscription on base; inscription on stele near legs:; Function: grave marker; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 32 ff., fig. 37-38; Friedländer, Epigrammata , no. 4; IG , VIII, 579; Körte, Ath Mitt , III, 1878, pp. 309 ff; Papaspiridi, Guide du Musee National , p. 22; Richter, Kouroi , no. 11, fig. 76-77; SGDI , 875. 52. Site: possibly Ptoan Sanctuary; Partial marble kouros head to knees; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 9; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1.27 m; Size: life-size; Distinguishing characteristic s: hair fillet; Bibliography: Conze and Michaelis, Annali , 1861, p. 79 f., pl. E, I; Deonna, no. 26, fig. 25-27; Richter, Kouroi , no. 33, fig. 138-140. 53. Site: possibly Boeotia; Partial marble kouros : head to left knee; Present location: London, British Museum, no. 474; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 0.77 m; Size: smaller than life-size; Bibliogra phy: Deonna, no. 25, fig. 22-24; Pryce, Catalogue , B 474, pp. 202 ff., pl. XLII; Richter, Kouroi , no. 9, fig; 151-153. 54. Site: Ptoan Sanctuary; Partial marble kouros: head to above right knee, restorations on back of right leg from bu ttock to knee; Present location: Thebes,

PAGE 137

126 Thebes Museum, no. 1; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1.42 m; Size: smaller than life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fillet; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 42; Mendel, B. C. H. XXXI, 1907, no. 2, fig. 2-4; Richter, Kouroi , no. 34, fig. 141-143; Ridgway, Arc St Gr Sc , pl. XIV, fig. 3.24. 55. Site: Ptoan Sanctuary; Partial island ma rble kouros: pectoral muscles to knee; Present location: Thebes, Thebes Museum, no. 5; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 0.50 m; Size: life-size; Function: votive o ffering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 46, fig. 54-55; Mendel, B. C. H. XXXI, 1907, p. 199, no. 6, fig. 10; Richter, Kouroi , no. 35. 56. Site: Ptoan Sanctuary; Fragment of ma rble kouros: plinth with feet; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 2325; Date: 590-570 BC; Dimensions: l=45 cm, height of foot=29 cm, height of plinth=12 cm; Size: colossal, two to three times life-size; Bibliogr aphy: Deonna, no. 40; Richter, Kouroi , no. 38, fig. 147. 57. Site: Ptoan Sanctuary; Fragment of island marble kouros: plinth with feet; Present location: Thebes, Thebes Museum; Date: 590-570 BC; Dimensions: l of plinth=45 cm, l of feet=23 cm; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 56, fig. 61; Richter, Kouroi , no. 36, fig. 148. 58. Site: Ptoan Sanctuary; Fragment of island marble kouros: plinth, left foot, part of right foot; Present location: Theb es, Thebes Museum; Date: 590-570 BC; Dimensions: l of plinth=30 cm, l of left foot= 17 cm; Functi on: votive offering; Bibliography: Deonna, no. 58, fig. 63; Richter, Kouroi , no. 37, fig. 149. Northern Greece: 59. Site: Delphi, A: northwest of Treasury of Athenians at Delphi, plinth A: near statue A at Delphi, st atue A: 10 m west of statue A at Delphi, plinth B: in walls of Roman bath near eastern gate of Teme nos at Delphi; 2 whole marble kouroi: Biton (A), Kleobis (B), bases missing, restor ations on A: ankles, feet; B: left leg below knee, left foot, right knee, righ t ankle, right foot; Present location: Delphi, Delphi Museum, no. 467 and 1524 (statues ), 980 and 4672 (bases); Date: 590-580 BC; Height: A: 2.16 m (without plinth =1.97 m), B: 2.18 m (without plinth=1.58 m); Size: slightly over life-size; Distinguish ing characteristics: hair fillets, boots, inscription: base B; Artist: (Â….)me des of Argos; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , pp. 35 ff., fig. 39-41; Deonna, no. 66, fig. 67-69; Homolle, F.d.D. IV, fasc. I, pp. 5 ff., pls. I-II; Richter, Kouroi, no. 12 A and B, fig. 78-83, 91-92. 60. Site: Actium, Acarnania, possibly from Sanctuary of Apollo; Partial Naxian marble kouros: neck to knees; Present location: Paris, Louvre, no. MNB 767; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1 m; Size: life-size; Bibliography: Buschor, Fr J , p. 43 f., fig. 45, 46; Collingnon, Gazette archeologique , XI, 1886, pp. 235 ff., pl. 29,

PAGE 138

127 left; Deonna, no. I, fig. I; Louvre, Catalogue sommaire , 1922, p. 41, no. 688; Pedley, Gr Sc Archaic , fig. 17, pl. 11a; Richter, Kouroi , no. 40, fig. 154-156. 61. Site: Delphi Sanctuary; Partial bronze kouros: head to knees; Present location: Delphi, Delphi Museum, no. 2846; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 15.5 cm; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Perdrizet, F. d. D. , v, p. 29, pl. I, 6; Richter, Kouroi , no. 42, fig. 157-159. 62. Site: Dodona; Whole bronze kouros; Presen t location: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, no. 7976; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1.8 cm; Distinguishing characteristics: hair fillet; Bibliography: Berlin, Führer , Bronzen, p. 37, no. 7976;Buschor, Fr J , pp. 40 ff; Furtwängler, Kleine Schriften , II, p. 435; Neugebauer, Katalog, Staatliche Museen, Berlin , I, no. 213, pl. 38; Richter, Kouroi , no. 45, fig. 166-168. Peloponessus: 63. Site: Olympia; Whole bronze kouros; Pres ent location: Athens, National Museum; Date: 700-675 BC; Height: 23.7 cm; Distingui shing characteristics: belt, helmet; Bibliography: Pedley, Gr Art and Arch , fig. 5.24. 64. Site: Olympia; Whole bronze kouros; Pr esent location: Olympia, Olympia Museum; Date: 700-650 BC; Distinguishi ng characteristics: belt; Bibliography: Kunze, op. cit. , pp. 120 ff., pl. 38 ff; Richter, Kouroi , fig. 6-8. 65. Site: Temenos of Hera limneia, Pera chora; Whole terracotta kouros; Present location: Athens, National Museum, no. 16503; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 23.3 cm; Bibliography: Jenkins in Payne, Perachora , pl. 91, no. 42a; Richter, Kouroi , no. 44, fig. 163-165. 66. Site: possibly Temple of Apollo Epikouris, Phigaleia; Partial lead kouros: head to knees, arms missing; Present location: Athens, National Museum; Date: 615-590 BC; Height: 3.7 cm; Distinguishing characte ristics: hat, belt ; Function: votive offering; Bibliography: Richter, Kouroi , no. 13, fig. 114-116. 67. Site: Phigaleia; Partial marble kouros: neck to right knee; Present location: Olympia, Olympia Museum; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 1.045 m; Size: life-size; Distinguishing characteristics: insc ription on chest; Bibliography: Budde, Die attischen Kuroi (Diss. 1939), p. 54, pl I; Buschor, Fr J, p. 12 f., fig. 9; Deonna, no. 79; Frazer, Pausanias , III, p. 40f., IV, p. 391 f; Hyde, Olympic Victor Monuments , pp. 327, 332 f., fig. 79; Richter, Kouroi , no. 41, fig. 144-146. 68. Site: Trikorgon, near Naupaktos; Fragment of island marble kouros: head and neck; Present location: Delphi, Delp hi Museum, no. 7534; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 22.8 cm; Size: life-size; Disti nguishing characterist ics: hair fillet; Bibliography: Daux, BCH , LXXX, 1956, p. 297, fig. 10-12; Lerat, Les Locriensde l’Ouest , 1952, p. 157; Richter, Kouroi , no. 46, fig. 169-171.

PAGE 139

128 Western Greece/Magna Graecia: 69. Site: Selinus; Whole bronze kouros; Presen t location: Palermo, National Museum, no. S 905-no. 73; Date: 615-590 BC; He ight: 11.3 cm; Distinguishing characteristics: hat; Bibliography: Marconi, Itinerari , no. II, p. 55, I; Richter, Kouroi , no. 30, fig. 108-109. 70. Site: Taranto; Whole terracotta kouros; Present location: Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, no. 1886-744; Date: 590-570 BC; Height: 0.15 cm; Bibliography: Evans, JHS , VII, 1886, p. 25, fig. 3, p. 27, no. 8; Richter, Kouroi , no. 62, fig. 202203; Winter, Die Typen figürlicher Terrakotten , I, p. 177, no. 4.

PAGE 140

129 LIST OF REFERENCES Acquaro, Enrico. “Bronzes.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 422-435. Adam, Sheila. The Technique of Greek Sculpture . London: Thames and Hudson, 1966. Akurgal, Ekrem. Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey . Trans. John Whybrow and Mollie Emre. Istanbul: Haset Kitabevi, 1973. Aldred, Cyril. Egyptian Art in th e Days of the Pharaohs 3100-320 BC. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Amiet, Pierre. Art of the Ancient Near East . New York: Harry A. Abrams, 1980. Ash, John. Turkey, the Other Guide . Istanbul: YKY, 2000. Assaf, Ali Abu. “Ain Dara.” Ebla to Da mascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washington, D. C. : Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, 1985. 347-350. Aubet, Maria Eugenia. Th e Phoenicians and the West . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Austin, M. M. Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age . Cambridge: University Printing House, 1970. Barletta, Barbara A. “The Draped Kouros Type and the Workshop of the Syracuse Youth.” American Journal of Archaeology 91.2 (April 1987): 233-246. Barnett, Richard D. “Phoenicia and the Ivory Trade.” Archaeology 9.2 (1956): 87-97. _______________. Assyrian Palace Reliefs . London: Batchworth, 1960. _______________. Assyrian Sculpture . London: McClelland and Stewart, 1975. Bartoloni, Piero. “Commerce and Industry.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 78-85. Beazley, J. D. “Excavations at Al Mina (c ontinued).” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 59.1 (1939): 1-44.

PAGE 141

130 Birmingham, Judy. “The Chronology of Some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot Sites.” American Journal of Archaeology 67.1 (January 1963): 15-42. Bisi, Anna Maria. “Terracott a Figurines.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 328-353. Boardman, John. “Greek Potters at Al Mina?” Anatolian Studies 9 (1959): 163-170. _____________. “Tarsus, Al Mina and Greek Ch ronology.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 85 (1965): 5-15. _____________. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Greece . London: Thames and Hudson, 1967. _____________. Greek Art . New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. _____________. Greek Sculpture: Th e Archaic Period: A Handbook . New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. _____________. The Greeks Overseas . London: Thames and Hudson, 1980. _____________. “Al Mina and History.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9 (1990): 169190. _____________. “Settlement for Trade and Land in North Africa: Problems of Identity.” The Archaeology of Greek Colonization . Ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze and Franco De Angelis. Oxford: Oxford Univer sity Committee for Archaeology, 1994. 137149. _____________. “The Excavated History of Al Mi na.” Ancient Greeks West and East . Ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. Brill: Leiden, 1999. 135-161. _____________. Persia and the West . London: Thames and Hudson, 2000. _____________. “Aspects of ‘Colonization.’” Bu lletin of The American Schools of Oriental Research 322 (2001): 33-42. Bluemel, Carl. Greek Sculptors at Work . Trans. Lydia Holland. London: Phaidon, 1955. Bossert, Helmut. Altsyrien . Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth, 1951. Bouzek, Jan. Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cult ural Interrelations during the Early Iron Age . Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag, 1997. Braun, T. F. R. G. “The Greeks in the N ear East.” The Cambridge Ancient History . Vol. 3.3. Ed. John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 1-32.

PAGE 142

131 ______________. “The Greeks in Egypt.” The Cambridge Ancient History . Vol. 3.3. Ed. John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 32-56. Brooklyn Museum. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period 700 BC to AD 100 . Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1960. Burney, Charles. The Ancient Near East . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Butcher, S. H. Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects . Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1904. Canby, Jeanny Vorys. “Guzana (Tell Halaf).” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washingt on, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, 1985. 332-338. Carpenter, Rhys. Greek Sculpture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Charbonneaux, Jean. Archaic Art . Trans. James Emmons and Robert Allen. New York: G. Braziller, 1971. Caskey, L. D. “The Proportions of the Apollo of Tenea.” American Journal of Archaeology 28.4 (1924): 358-367. Casson, Stanley. The Technique of Early Greek Sculpture . Hacker Art Books: New York, 1970. Coldstream, John Nicolas. Geometric Greece . New York: Routledge, 2003. ____________________ . “Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean.” Phönizier im Westen . Ed. H. G. Niemeyer. Mainz: Madrider Beiträge, 1982. 261-262. Cook, B. F. “Greek Inscriptions.” Readi ng the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet . Ed. J. T. Hooker. Berkley: University of California Press, 1990. 259-320. Cook, J. M. “The Eastern Greeks. ” The Cambridge Ancient History . Vol. 3.3. Ed. John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond. Camb ridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 196-221. Cook, Robert Manuel. “Amasis and the Greek s in Egypt.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 57.2 (1937): 227-237. _________________. “Origins of Greek Sculptur e.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 87 (1967): 24-32. _________________. Greek Sculpture: Its Develo pment, Character and Influence . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1973.

PAGE 143

132 Coulson, William D. E. The Survey at Naukratis . Oxford: Oxford Books, 1996. Coulson, William D. E. and Albert Leonard, Jr . “A Preliminary Survey of the Naukratis Region in the Western Delta.” Journal of Field Archaeology 6.2 (Summer 1979): 151-158. _____________________________________. Cities of the Delta, Part 1/Naukratis . Malibu: Undena, 1981. _____________________________________. “Investigations at Naukratis and Environs.” American Journal of Archaeology 86.3 (1982): 361-380. Demargne, Pierre. The Birth of Greek Art . Trans. Stuart Gilbert and James Emmons. New York: Golden Press, 1964. Department des Antiquites Orientales du Mus ee du Louvre. Art Phenicien: La sculpture de tradition phenicienne . Paris: Reunion de Musees Nationaux, 2002. Diringer, David. “The Early Greek Alphabets.” Antiquity 37 (1963): 270-273. Donahue, A. A. Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture . Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Dunbabin, T. J. The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbors . Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979. Edgar, C. C., H. L. L., and D. G. H. “N aukratis, 1903.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 25 (1905): 105-136. Frankfort, Henri. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Fullerton, Mark D. Greek Art . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Etienne, H. J. The Chis el in Greek Sculpture . Trans. Denis R. O’Bierne. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968. Gardner, Ernest Arth ur. Naukratis, Part II . Chicago: Ares, 1888. Gardner, Ernest. Greek Art: Its De velopment, Character and Influence . New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1973. ____________. A Handbook of Greek Sculpture . London: Macmillan, 1902. Gjerstad, Einar. “Studies in Archaic Gr eek Chronology.” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21 (1934): 67-84. ____________. “Naukratis Again.” Acta Archaeologica 30 (1960): 147-165.

PAGE 144

133 ____________. “The Stratification at Al Mina (Syria) and its Chronological Evidence.” Acta Archaeologica 45 (1974): 107-113. Goldman, Hetty. “Excavations at Gozlu Ku le, Tarsus, 1938.” American Journal of Archaeology 44.1 (Jan.-Mar. 1940): 60-86. Grace, Frederick R. “Observations on SeventhCentury Sculpture.” American Journal of Archaeology 46.3 (1942): 341-359. Graham, A. J. “The Historic al Interpretation of Al Mina.” Dialogue d’Histoire Ancienne 12 (1986): 51-65. ___________. Collected Papers on Greek Colonization . Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2001. Greenewalt, Crawford H. Jr. and Marcus L. Rautman. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998.” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000): 643-681. Guralnick, Eleanor. “The Proportions of K ouroi.” American Journal of Archaeology 82.4 (1978): 461-472. _______________. “Kouroi, Canon and Men: A Co mputer Study of Proportions.” Computer Studies in the Hu manities and Verbal Behavior 4 (1973): 77-80. _______________. “Profiles of Kouroi.” American Journal of Archaeology 89 (1985): 399-409. _______________. “The Proportions of Some Arch aic Greek Sculptural Figures: A Computer Analysis.” Computers and the Humanities 10.3 (1986): 153-169. Hampe, Roland and Erika Simon. The Birth of Greek Art . New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Hanfmann, George, Stuart L. Cart er and Jane C. Waldbaum. “A Survey of Sardis.” A Survey of Sardis and the Major Monuments outside the City Walls . Ed. George Hanfmann and Jane C. Waldbaum. Camb ridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. 1-16. Hanfmann, George, Nancy H. Ramage and Flor ence E. Whitmore. “The Scope of the Work and the Character of the Material .” Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through 1975 . Ed. George Hanfmann and Stephen W. Jacobs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. 1-9. Hanfmann, George. “An Overview and Apprai sal.” Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through 1975 . Ed. George Hanfmann and Nancy H. Ramage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. 13-28.

PAGE 145

134 Hanfmann, George. “Literary, Epigraphic, and Archaeological Evidence.” Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through 1975 . Ed. George Hanfmann and Nancy H. Ramage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. 29-39. Hanfmann, George and Clive Ross. “The C ity and its Environment.” Sardis: From Prehistoric to Roman Times . Ed. George Hanfmann and William E. Mierse. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. 1-16. Harrison, Evelyn. “Sculpture in Stone.” The Human Figure in Early Greek Art . Ed. Jane Sweeney, Tam Curry, Yannis Tzedakis. Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture, 1987. 50-54. Healey, John. F. “The Early Alphabet.” Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet . Ed. J. T. Hooker. Berkley: University of California Press/British Museum, 1990. 197-258. Hogarth, David George. Ionia and the East . New York: Haskell House, 1969. Holloway, R. Ross. “A Kouros-Statuette from Egypt in the Field Museum.” American Journal of Archaeology 90.1 (1986): 33. Homann-Wedeking, E. Ar t of Archaic Greece . New York: Crown Publishers, 1966. Iversen, Erik. “The Egyptian Origin of the Archaic Greek Canon.” Mittkairo 15 (1957): 134-147. __________. Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art . Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1975. James, T. G. H. and W. V. Davies. Egyptian Sculpture . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. Jeffrey, Lillian Hamilton. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development fr om the Eighth to the Fifth centuries BC . New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Jenkins, Ian. “Archaic Kouroi in Naukratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin.” American Journal of Archaeology 105.2 (2001): 163-179. Johnston, A. W. “Greece and Egypt: A Knotty Problem.” Antiquity 49 (1975): 125-128. Kearsley, R. A. “Greeks Overseas in the 8th century BC: Euboeans, Al Mina and Assyrian Imperialsim.” Ancient Greeks West and East . Ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. Brill: Leiden, 1999. 109-134. Kenfield, John Fawcett III. “The Sculptur al Significance of Early Greek Armor.” Opuscula Romana 9 (1973): 149-156.

PAGE 146

135 Kitchen, K. A. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC) . Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1986. Lange, Kurt and Max Hirmer. Egypt: Arch itecture, Sculpture, Painting in Three Thousand Years . London: Phaidon, 1968. Leonard, Albert Jr. Ancient Naukratis . Ann Arbor: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1997. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. Greek English Lexicon . Rev. Sir Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Markoe, Glenn E. Phoenicians . Berkley: University of California Press, 2000. Maspero, G. Art in Egypt . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. Mellaart, James. The Ar chaeology of Ancient Turkey . Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978. Michalowski, Kazimierz. Art of Ancient Egypt . Trans. Norbert Guterman. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1969. ____________________. Great Sculpture of Ancient Egypt . New York: William Morrow and Company, 1978. Möller, Astrid. Naukratis : Trade in Archaic Greece . Oxford: University Press, 2000. Moortgat, Anton. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia . London: Phaidon, 1969. Morris, Sarah P. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Moscati, Sabatino. “Statu ary.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 284-291. _______________. “Sarcophagi.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 292-299. _______________. “Stone Reliefs.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editorale Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 300-303. Musee Du Louvre. Art Phenicien . Paris: Reunion de s Musees nationaux, 2002. Naveh, Joseph. “Some Semitic Epigraphical Considerations on the Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet.” American Journal of Archaeology 77 (1973): 1-8. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich. “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence.” Bulletin of the Americ an Schools of Oriental Research 322 (2001): 1132.

PAGE 147

136 Paris, Pierre. Manual of Ancient Sculpture . New Rochelle, Aristide D. Caratzas, 1984. Parrot, Andre. The Arts of Assyria . New York: Golden Press, 1961. Pedley, John Griffiths. Greek Sculpture of the Archaic Period: the Island Workshops . Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1976. _________________. Greek Art and Archaeology . New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1993. Perrot, Georges and Charles Chipiez. A Hist ory of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria. Ed. Walter Armstrong. Trans. Walter Armstrong. London: Chapman Hall, 1884. _____________________________. A History of Art in Phoenicia and its Dependencies . Ed. Walter Armstrong. Trans. Walter Armstrong. London: Chapman and Hall, 1885. _____________________________. A History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria, and Asia Minor . Trans. I. Gonino. Vol. II. London: Chapman and Hall, 1890. _____________________________. A History of Art in Ph rygia, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia . London: Chapman Hall, 1892. Petrie, William Matthew Flinders. Naukratis, Part I . Chicago: Ares, 1886. ___________________________. Ten Years Digging in Egypt . New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1923. Popham, M. R. “The Colonial Expansion of Greece.” The Cambridge Ancient History . Vol. 3.3. Ed. John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 83-162. ____________. “Pre-colonization: Early Greek cont act with the East.” The Archaeology of Greek Colonization . Ed. Gocha R. Tsetkhladze and Franco De Angelis. Oxford: Oxford Committee for Archaeology, 1994. 11-34. ____________. “Al Mina and Euboea.” Annals of the British School of Athens 75 (1980): 151-161. Reade, Julian. Assyrian Sculpture . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Richter, Gisela. Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930. ____________. Archaic Greek Art . New York: Oxford University Press, 1949. ____________. Korai . New York: Hacker Art Books, 1988. ____________. Kouroi . New York: Hacker Art Books, 1988.

PAGE 148

137 ____________. “Greek Kouroi and Egyptian Me thods.” American Journal of Archaeology 70.1 (1966): 68-70. Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture . Chicago: Ares, 1993. Ridgway, David. The First Western Greeks . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Riis, P. J. Sukas I . Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1970. Roberts, Martin. “The Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia IV.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 60 (1940): 2-21. Robins, Gay. Proportion and St yle in Ancient Egyptian Art . Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994. Rockwell, Peter. The Art of Stone Working: A Reference Guide . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 Roebuck, Carl. Economy and Society in Early Greece . Chicago: Ares, 1979. Ross, E. Denison. The Art of Egypt through the Ages . London: Studio, 1931. Russin, Robin U. and George Hanfmann. “Lydi an Graves and Cemeteries.” Sardis: From Prehistoric to Roman Times . Ed. George Hanfmann and William E. Mierse. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. 53-66. Smith, Sidney. “The Greek Trade at Al Mina.” Acta Archaeologica 22 (1942): 87-112. Smith, W. Stevenson. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt . Baltimore: Penguin, 1958. _________________. Ancient Egypt . Boston: Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 1960. Snell, Daniel C. “The Aramaeans.” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, 1985. 326-329. Spalinger, Anthony. “Psammetichus, King of Egypt: I.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 13 (1976): 133-147. Stewart, Andrew F. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Strommenger, Eva. 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia . New York: Harry A. Abrams, 1964.

PAGE 149

138 ______________. “Assyrian Domination, Aramaean Persistence.” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Traveli ng Exhibition Service, 1985. 322-325. ______________. “Til Barsip/Kar Shalmaneser (Te ll Ahmar).” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Travel ing Exhibition Service, 1985. 330. ______________. “Hadatu (Arslantash).” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, 1985. 33-332. Sullivan, Richard. “Psammetichus I and the Foundation of Naukratis.” The Survey at Naukratis . Ed. William D. E. Coulson. Oxford: Oxford Books, 1996. 177-191. Torelli, Mario. “The Battle for the Sea Routes: 1000-300 BC.” The Mediterranean in History . Ed. David Abulafia. London: Thames and Hudson, 2003. 99-126. Uberti, Maria Louisa. “Ivory and Bone Carving.” The Phoenicians . Ed. Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Gruppo Editora le Fabbri Bampiani, 1988. 404-421. Winter, Irene J. “Ivory Carving.” Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria . Ed. Harvey Weiss. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, 1985. 339-346. Woodard, Roger D. Greek Writing from Knosso s to Homer: A Linguistic Continuity of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and th e Continuity of Ancient Greek Literacy . New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Woolley, Sir Leonard. “Al Mina: Excavations near Antioch.” Antiquaries’ Journal 17 (1937): 1-15. _________________. “The Excavations at Al Mina, Su eidia, I.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 58.1 (1938): 1-30. _________________. “The Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia, II.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 58.2 (1938): 133-170. _________________. “The Date of Al Mina.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 68 (1948): 148. _________________. Forgotten Kingdom . London: Max Parrish, 1959. _________________. The Art of the Middle East . New York: Crown Publishers, 1961.

PAGE 150

139 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rebecca Ann Dunham was born in Seattl e, Washington, on June 13, 1979. She received a Bachelor of Arts in art histor y from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in May 2002. Her interests incl ude Greek sculpture from the Archaic and Hellenistic periods. After completing a Master of Arts in art history at The University of Florida she will attend The University of Missouri at Columbia for the Doctor of Philosophy program in art history and archaeology.