Kouros, kouroi, kore, korai

Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot OriginAuthor(s): Ian JenkinsSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 163-179Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507269 .Accessed: 01/09/2011 10:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/507269?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis:

The Case for Cypriot Origin IAN JENKINS

Abstract

This article takes a fresh look at the miniature, so- called alabaster kouroi found in 19th-century excavations at the site of the Greek emporium of Naucratis in the Egyptian Nile Delta. It reassesses the ethnic origin of these statuettes in light of archaeological and scientific evidence and argues against previous attempts to see them as Greek. The article concludes that-like the limestone statuettes with which they were found-

they are products of Cypriot workshops, which adapted native style and iconography for a Greek market. Even those that have hitherto been treated as self-evidently Greek turn out to combine their Hellenic nudity with features that are unquestionably Cypriot. Comparisons with limestone sculpture from southeast Cyprus suggest that the same workshops that supplied statuettes to sanctuaries there were also engaged in an export trade to Naucratis.*

NAUCRATIS

Athenaeus was a native of Naucratis in the Egyp- tian Nile Delta. Writing around A.D. 200 he quotes the work of an earlier Naucratite, Polycharmos, which was entitled On Aphrodite, as follows:

During the 23rd Olympiad (688-685 B.C.) Heros- tratus, a citizen of our town engaged in trade, was voyaging far and wide when he landed once at Pa- phos, in Cyprus, and bought a statuette of Aphro- dite nine inches high, of ancient workmanship; de- parting he carried it to Naucratis. As he approached Egypt, a storm suddenly broke upon him, and it was

impossible to see where in the world they were; so

they all took refuge at the statue of Aphrodite, beg- ging her to save them. The goddess, being friendly to the Naucratites, suddenly caused everything that

lay beside her to be covered with fresh green myrtle . . .then the sun shone forth and they could see their anchorage, and so arrived in Naucratis. Heros- tratus, setting forth from the ship with the statue

This article began as a lecture presented in the fall of 1998 to meetings of several chapters of the AIA as part of the author's Samuel H. Kress lectureship in Ancient Art. He wishes to thank all those who hosted the lectureship and in particular Nancy Ramage of Ithaca College, Andrew Ramage, Peter Kuni- holm, and other staff of the Art History Department of Cor- nell University, and Priscilla Murray, Programs Administrator for the AIA. Thanks are also owed to Andrew Middleton and Susan Walker in the British Museum, and to the AJA readers, Professors Antoine Hermary and an anonymous reader, all of

and the green myrtle branches that had so suddenly appeared to him, dedicated them in Aphrodite's temple.'

Herostratus's dedication vividly recalls the many Cypriot stone statuettes found in the temenos of

Aphrodite during excavations conducted at the site

by Ernest Gardner in 1885-1886 (fig. 1).Y The statuettes were found in a layer of debris from the dem- olition of the first temple and leveling of the site for rebuilding. They were mixed with pottery frag- ments, ashes, and bones in great confusion.3 Much of the confusion may have been of Gardner's own

making, for the excavations were haphazard even

by 19th-century standards.4 Gardner conjectured that the destruction of the

first temple of Aphrodite occured at the time of the Persian invasion of Egypt (ca. 525 B.C.), and the statuettes found there were deposited some time before that.5 This theory is consistent with the

large quantities of sixth-century pottery found at the temple. Much of this pottery is of Chiot manufacture and was found in such quantities as first to be thought native to Naucratis. Afterwards, finds on Chios itself revealed its true origin there.6 The

pottery is often incised in Greek letters, or painted before firing, with "Aphrodite" and the name of the dedicator. The sheer quantity of Chiot pottery may indicate the island's involvement in the foundation of the first temple. It would seem to out-

weigh the other possibility, argued chiefly on the basis of the large number of apparently Cypriot limestone statuettes found at the site, that Cyprus was

responsible for the foundation.7 Gardner's excavations continued those pio-

neered by W.M.F. Petrie in 1884 and were part of an

whom read and improved the text. 'Ath. Deipnosophistai xv, 675 f-676 c. Loeb transl. 2 Gardner et al. 1888, 55-6. For the discovery of the temple,

see Gardner et al. 1888, 11-3 and 55-9. 3Gardner et al. 1888, 55. 4Boardman 1980, 118. 5 Gardner et al. 1888, 35-6; see also Hogarth et al. 1905, 109. 6Boardman 1980, 123; Cook 1997, 119-22. 7 Davis 1979, 15 with bibliography at ns. 17-18; Davis 1980,

10.

163 American Journal ofArchaeology 105 (2001) 163-79

IAN JENKINS

Fig. 1. Group of statuettes from Naucratis made of limestone or gypsum. The tallest, B451, measures 0.493 m. British Museum. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

exploration that continued intermittently until 1903.8 Archaeological activity at Naucratis then ceased until December 1977 when an American team began the first of a series of surveys of the

surrounding area as part of a project led by Profes- sor W.D.E. Coulson. Their plan (fig. 2) shows how in the intervening years a lake had formed in the hollow left by the earlier excavations, and the principal features excavated by Petrie and others are

plotted onto a map of the site as it is today.9 Given the importance of ancient Naucratis as a

port and trading post, it is little wonder that the cult of Aphrodite flourished there. The town was cele- brated by Herodotus for its courtesans, including such famous names as Rhodopis, a contemporary of

Sappho, and later one Archedice.'? The goddess of love has long held a fascination for the seagoing pro- fession, and Herostratus would not have been the

8Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, 26-97; 1905, 105-36. 9Coulson et al. 1996, fig. 4. ' Hdt. 2.135. 1 Paus. Guide to Greece, 2.34.11. For a second, later shrine of

Aphrodite at Naucratis, see Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, 38-9. 2 For a survey of the literary and archaeological sources re-

lating to the establishment of the Greek trading post at Nau-

first trader visiting the emporium, nor the last, to thank her for a safe anchorage. It is uncertain whether she was formally recognized as Euploia at this time, as later at Cnidus and other cult centers.1l Herostra- tus's experience, however, would suggest that she was conceived as having protective power over sail- ors. His dedication could be identified with one of a number of female statuettes found at the site. The

Olympiad date, however, seems impossibly high. It

predates by several decades the archaeological evidence for the earliest Greek presence at Naucratis and anticipates by more than a century the Egyptian Pharaoh Amasis's (570-526 B.C.) royal charter and

grant of land to Greeks in the Delta recorded by Herodotus.'2 Although it is clear that there was a Greek presence at Naucratis before the reign of

Amasis,13 none of the pottery finds can be dated earlier than the late seventh century.14

cratis, see Austin 1970, 22-7. 3 Strabo, Geography, 17.1.18; Gardner et al. 1888, 71-2;

Sullivan (1996, 186-91) makes a case for the establishment of the Greek settlement early rather than late in the reign of Psammetichus I (664-610 B.C.).

14 Cook 1937, 227-8, n. 7 and 235.

164 [AJA 105

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

I

0 loo 200m

Fig. 2. Plan of Naucratis showing the ancient excavated site in relation to modern features. (After Coulson et al. 1996, fig. 4)

Herodotus does not mention a temple dedicated to the goddes of love, but focuses instead upon the Hellenion erected by a syndicate of Greek cit- ies: Ionians from Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Cla-

zomenae; Dorians from Rhodes, Cnidus, Halicar-

nassus, and Phaselis; and Aeolians of Mytilene.'5 Petrie identified the Hellenion with his "Great Temenos" in the southern quarter of the town.16

Subsequently, David Hogarth repudiated not only the location of the Hellenion here but also called into question the very existence of the massive walls that Petrie claimed to have found.'7 According to

Hogarth, these walls were the mud brick ruins of successive phases of domestic occupation. Hogarth placed the Hellenion instead in the northern part of the town, where he found evidence of massive

'5Hdt. 2.178. 16 Petrie et al. 1886, 23-34. 1 Hogarth et al. 1905, 110-2. ' Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, 42-4; 1905, 112-8. Hogarth's

opinion was confirmed by Coulson and Leonard 1982,370-1; cf. Muhs 1994, 106-7.

' Hdt. 2.178. 2" Petrie et al. 1886, 13, pl. 2. 21 Pryce 1928, 184, cat. B439 to 200, cat. B471. 22 For an overview of the problem see Sorensen 1978,

111-21. 2 On the problem of the source of manufacture of the lime-

walls and numerous dedications not only to various individual gods, but also some inscribed "to the

gods of the Greeks."'8 Those states outside the syndicate invested sep-

arately in other temples: Aegina built a temple of

Zeus, Samos one of Hera, and Miletus another in honor of Apollo.19 The Apollo temple was found by Petrie and, like the temple of Aphrodite, is said to be a source of statuettes.20

The great majority of these statuettes were of limestone.2" They belong to a class of small-scale sculpture found widespread throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean and are dated from the late seventh to the mid sixth century B.C. On the basis of

style and attribute many are clearly Cypriot. Others, however, are in a mixed Cypro-Hellenic or even Hellenic style, and, owing to this apparent Helle-

nism, a Cypriot source of manufacture is disputed for the class of limestone sculpture as a whole.22 The

present author believes that they are all Cypriot and has treated the question in detail elsewhere.23

THE GYPSUM, SO-CALLED ALABASTER

STATUETTES AND THE CASE FOR THEIR

BEING GREEK

Putting to one side the arguments for the Cypriot origin of the limestone statuettes, this study will now focus on a group of statuettes within the corpus from

Naucratis, carved not in the usual limestone but in a material identified hitherto as alabaster (fig. 3).24 These statuettes, many of them kouroi, are usually taken as Greek, with the exception of one apparently Cypriot figure.25 The material is presumed by all

previous commentators to be Egyptian alabaster and is supposed to have been carved at the site. Evidence for other alabaster working at Naucratis is provided by the discovery of numerous discarded alabaster cores from the production of stone vases.26 An im-

portant fact must now, however, be recorded that

changes the whole basis on which all previous discussion of these objects has been conducted. Hith- erto the material of the alabaster statuettes has been

presumed to be Egyptian and thought to provide evidence of a Naucratite school of craftsmen carving

stone statuettes, seeJenkins 2000, 153-62. 24Petrie etal. 1886, 6, p. I, 1-3, 9; II, 57, pl. XIV, 11, 13. In

my fig. 3 the statuettes are arranged around an alabaster bowl. This is heavily restored as a shallow basin on three supports, only one of which is preserved in the form of a winged siren carrying a child. I know of no parallel for this object. 25 Even Davis (1979, 15), who has argued in favor of a strong Cypriot presence at Naucratis, claims "there are few if any Cyp- riote parallels... and most likely they should be understood as entirely Greek."

26Petrie et al. 1886, 15.

165 2001]

IAN JENKINS

Fig. 3. Group of gypsum statuettes from Naucratis arranged around a bowl of the same material. The tallest, B438, measures 0.257 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

a local stone. The stone is not, however, what it has been thought to be.27 The chemical compound of

Egyptian alabaster is calcium carbonate, while the Naucratis finds are of calcium sulphate, more spe- cifically gypsum, which is commonly found in parts of Greece, the Near East, and on Cyprus, but rarely in Egypt.28 Henceforth in this article the statuettes will be referred to as gypsum.

Previous studies of the gypsum statuettes from Naucratis presume the raw material to be local and in so doing come to offer an interesting chapter in the history of the reception of the archaic kouros. The settlement was once seen as the cradle of

27 Pers. comm., A. Middleton, British Museum Department of Scientific Research.

281 am grateful to A. Middleton and his colleague S. Hum- phrey for confirming the true identity of the material. It may in the future be possible to source the gypsum of the statuettes. Middleton has brought to my attention the work of Gale 1988; see also Hussein 1990 for gypsum deposits in Egypt. For a summary of the difference between Egyptian alabaster (cal- cite) and Cypriot gypsum, see Caubet 1985, 53. There is no

Greek sculpture, nurturing craftsmen using local

materials, who made the first steps in the creation of the Greek kouros from its Egyptian model.29 This view is still current,30 but objections to it are to be found in the fact that the statuettes are neither con-

spicuously more Egyptian, nor indeed earlier than kouroi from other parts of the Greek world.31 An- other view has emerged that regards them as products of immigrant Greeks, who brought with them skills already developed in their homelands before

they set foot on Egyptian soil.32 Stylistic variation

among the statuettes could then be explained by the different ethnic origins of the Naucratite

shortage of gypsum on Cyprus, see Greensmith 1994,15, 50- 1, 124.

29 Robinson 1889, 18; Kierseritzky 1892, 179-84. For a recent discussion of the question of the origin of the kouros and a possible connection with Naucratis, see Ridgway 1977,32-3.

30 Kyrieleis 1996, 73-9. 31 Edgar 1903, iv; Caskey 1925, 3. 32 Edgar 1903, iv; Caskey 1925, 4.

[AJA 105 166

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS:

Fig. 4. Gypsum statuette of a kouros from Naucratis. British Museum B438. Ht. 0.257 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British

Museum)

school.33 At first, Cyprus, which clearly played a large

part in the production of the more numerous lime-

stone statuettes, was assigned a prominent role.34

Waldemar Deonna, in particular, credited Cyprus with the making of the gypsum pieces.35 This was

disputed,36 and by 1942 when G.M.A. Richter wrote the first edition of her book on kouroi, Cyprus was afforded so little credit in the production of these

33Pryce 1928,181: "There is also an absence of that unity of

style so marked in the case of the majority of the Rhodian statuettes, and it is evident that the inhabitants ofNaucratis, drawn from various states of Hellas, preserved their local artistic tradi- tions in the colony."

34 Gardner et al. 1888, 59. 35 Deonna 1909, 301-5. Kyrieleis (1996, 73-9), is excep-

miniatures, she dealt with the question by simply ignoring it altogether. Her disregard of any role for

Cyprus in the creation of the kouros type is eloquent- ly stated in her comparison of Greek and Cypriot attitudes to anatomy. While the Greeks, she argued, maintained a prolonged and widespread interest in the subject, resulting in a visible progression, Cypri- ots kept in touch only sporadically with Greek ad- vances in representing the human form, and even in the late Archaic period produced figures that combined advanced with primitive elements.37

Richter, whose work still dominates the study of the Greek kouros, saw her subject very much in terms of a developmental determinism. The over-

riding desire was to chart a linear progression through the representation of the human figure in stone from the late seventh to the early fifth centu-

ry B.C. She wrote engagingly of the kouros as "the

laboratory" of Greek sculpture, where the great experiment in the march towards naturalism was conducted.3 In the quest to trace the evolution of Greek anatomical proficiency, she selected statuettes to suit her purpose. She assigned one gypsum statuette to her earliest, so-called Sounion,

group (615-590 B.C., fig. 4).39 The rest she gave to successive stylistic phases, namely her "Or- chomenos-Thera" (590-570 B.C.)40 and "Tenea- Volomandra" (575-550 B.C.) groups.41

It is not my intention to challenge the ultimate value of Richter's thesis, but I raise two specific ob-

jections to her treatment of the statuettes. First, in her photographic plates, the miniature figures- limestone as well as gypsum-appear on a par with the life- and over life-size marble kouroi, with no allowance for the fact that the diminutive and the colossal can be reproduced at virtually the same size. The miniatures are thereby subsumed within the kouros class as a whole, with no regard for their

special status as portable commodities and, as I shall later argue, copies of larger works. Second, her treatment tends to isolate the statuettes within a typo- logical series. Richter, the Hellenist, avoided con- textual evidence that would have contaminated the Greek kouros and its pure line of descent. In this

respect her book differed greatly from the earlier,

pioneering study of Waldemar Deonna.

tional in having expressed recent support for Deonna's thesis. 36Caskey 1925, 4. 37 Richter 1942, 153. 38Richter 1942, 8. 39Richter 1970, 57-8, no. 28, figs. 129-130. 40 Richter 1970, 73-4, nos. 59-61, figs. 206-207. 41 Richter 1970, 87-9, nos. 81-85, figs. 264-272.

2001] THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN 167

IAN JENKINS

Fig. 5a-c. Gypsum statuette of a kouros draped in a long chiton, said to come from Cyprus. National Archaeological Museum, Athens. F4505. Ht. 0.47 m. (Courtesy National Archaeological Museum, Athens)

THE CYPRIOT ORIGIN OF THE MINIATURE KOUROI

Unlike Richter, Deonna had seen a major role for Cyprus in the origins and development not

only of the statuettes, but also of the kouros type in general. He based his argument on a gypsum statuette said to come from Cyprus itself, now in Athens, which has a clear affinity with the gypsum kouroi found at Naucratis (fig. 5a-c).42 In

particular, Deonna drew his comparison with a

piece perhaps from Naucratis, now in Moscow, which is unusually well preserved and has its head

(fig. 6a-c).43 From the front, we see the same long face, set on a thick neck, and from the side, the

jaw is defined by a steeply-sloping line. The sim-

ilarity in the profiles of the two figures is very striking. The hair in both is filleted into a series of fine dreadlocks, tucked behind the ears and

falling on each shoulder and down the back. A narrow fillet passes around the forehead and dis-

appears behind the ears. The back itself is rather shallow in profile, curving gently into the high, small buttocks. Both in profile and in the rear

42Deonna 1909, 237, no. 140, figs. 163-4. It was bought on Cyprus by Mr. Philimon, Consul for Greece.

43Deonna 1909, 242, no. 144; Kieseritzky 1892, pl. 6; Rich- ter 1970, 88, no. 82, figs. 264-266. The provenance is uncertain. In 1887 it was in the collection of Dr. Oikonopoulos at

view we see how close are the respective shapes that are formed by the outer silhouette and the interior lines of the two figures. In frontal aspect, however, the torso of the piece from Cyprus appears somewhat thicker, and there is a reason for this: exceptionally for the alabaster figurines, it is

draped in a long, apparently transparent tunic. This is represented by a series of fine folds cling- ing vertically to the body, but most visibly over and between the legs. The drapery serves to join the

legs and gives the figure an Egyptian appearance. The arms, however, are free from the torso, at least above the elbow, the piercing done exactly as in the apparently naked figure in Moscow. It is fair to

say "apparently" naked because added paint may sometimes represent clothing even on the osten-

sibly nude kouroi. For example, a limestone kouros in Oxford retains traces of red paint depicting a

jerkin.44 On the statuette in Moscow painted de- tails are visible on the pubis, on the face, around the eyes, and above the lips to render a rather sur-

prising pencil line moustache, which is comple- mented by the remains of a barbette below the lips.

Cairo and afterwards in the Golenischeff Collection. 44 Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, pl. xiv, 7; Deonna 1909, 50,

246, no. 154; note that this is not alabaster as described by Pryce (1928, 181).

168 [AJA 105


Fig. 6a-c. Gypsum statuette of a kouros with painted features including a moustache and little beard. Moscow, Museum of Fine Arts NI I.a.3000. Ht. 0.175 m.

To judge from photographs, there may also be

painted drapery on the body, below the throat, and around the right armpit.

The survival of painted facial hair is so singular as to merit a brief digression. As in the case of the poly- chromy of the early Bronze Age Cycladic figurines, so with the kouros we see how the survival of poly- chromy alters received notions of the abstract purity of early Greek sculpture.45 The moustache occurs

again on a gypsum head in Boston, which in other

respects too is comparable with the head of the statuette in Athens (fig. 7).46 It may be wondered how

many of the ostensibly clean-shaven kouroi that have been discovered in the Greek world were in fact

painted with facial hair.47 Moustaches do appear in other archaic representations of young men, includ-

ing Rhodian warrior-head vases of the mid sixth cen-

tury B.C.48 This fact may point to an East Greek source of manufacture for the statuettes, since moustaches without full beards are not a Cypriot characteristic.

Alternatively, if as I shall argue the statuettes are Cyp- riot and are made for a Greek export market, then the moustache must be seen as part of a deliberate Hellenization of their works by Cypriot carvers. In

support of this hypothesis, it may be noted that on

45 Deonna 1909, 47-8. 46 Caskey 1925, 5, cat. 2; Comstock and Vermeule 1976, 4,

cat. 7. "From Naukratis" (Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund). 47In the Oriental Museum in Istanbul (inv. 7811) is a large,

red sandstone head of a kouros from Medain Salih that has a

Samos, where the finds from the archaic Heraeum are rich in Cypriot imports, a Cypro-Aegean limestone statuette, draped and holding an animal offer-

ing in the Cypriot manner, was found. He too sports a film-star moustache (fig. 8).49

Fig. 7. Gypsum head of a kouros with a painted moustache from Naucratis. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, inv. 88.730. Ht. 0.054 m. (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

carved moustache.

48Higgins 1959, cat. 1620-7, pls. 10-12.

49Kyrieleis 1988, 54, fig. 11; also Brijder and van Drost 1995, 15, fig. 10.

2001] 169

IAN JENKINS

ed Cypriot origin of the statuette now in Athens, Deonna was alone in arguing that the gypsum figures from Naucratis need not have been made at Naucratis.51 He never doubted that the material was Egyptian alabaster, but thought that it could have been exported to Cyprus. He conjectured, therefore, that the whole group of statuettes

might have been made on Cyprus and then the finished product was exported back to Egypt.52

Deonna's thesis has not found acceptance. Its

principal weakness is that, at least ostensibly, the

gypsum statuettes look more Greek than Cypri- ot. L.D. Caskey argued against it on the basis of the lack of any contemporary example of a naked kouros type from Cyprus itself.53 Caskey, however, was unaware of the then-unpublished limestone statuette in the British Museum from Idalion (fig. 9).54

Fig. 8. Part of a limestone statuette with painted features

including a moustache. Samos Archaeological Museum C266. Originally ca. 0.4 m high. (Courtesy Deutsches Archao-

logisches Institut-Athens)

To return to the main theme, it may be asked

what is to be made of the phenomenon of two

figures so similar that they could be carved by the same hand, the one draped and the other apparently not; one found on Cyprus and the other from Egypt? Deonna assumed that the piece from

Cyprus was seemingly draped in accordance with

the sartorial decorum of Cypriot statuary and must

be Cypriot. Moreover, he found convincing parallels for the face and hairstyle in an archaic Cyp- riot limestone statue from Golgoi, formerly in the Cesnola collection.50 Comparing it with the Mos- cow statuette and other pieces from Naucratis, he saw it as grounds for attributing the whole

group to Cypriot craftsmen. In view of the reput-

50 Deonna 1909, 304, with reference to Perrot and Chipiez 1885, 527, fig. 355. Reproduced as a photograph in Cesnola 1885, pl. ix. Parallels may also be drawn with the statuettes from Golgoi illustrated in Cesnola 1885, pl. xx, where we seem to see limestone versions of the piece in Athens. See also Pryce 1931, cat. C8, 9 (here fig. 14a-b) and 27.

51 Deonna 1909, 44.

Fig. 9. Limestone kouros from Idalion, Cyprus. British Museum GR 1873, 3-20. 179. Ht. 0.16 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

52Deonna 1909, 304-5; Gjerstad (1948, 362) conjectured that the statuette in Athens was Cypriot and exported to Cy- prus from Naucratis.

53 Caskey 1925, 4.

54 British Museum GR 1873, 3-20, 179; also unknown to

Kyrieleis (1996, 75) and to Brijder and van Drost (1995, 12).

170 [AJA 105


R. Senff dates this piece, with its Egyptianizing hairstyle and arm bent across the breast, to the

early sixth century B.C. In spite of its nudity, he saw it as the product of a native Cypriot work-

shop.55 Subsequent opinion has largely followed Cas-

key's point of view that the gypsum kouroi are

Greek, carved at Naucratis by immigrant Greeks.56

Accordingly, the draped statuette in Athens has been pushed out of the picture, and its poten- tial importance for the group of dedications from Naucratis has been overlooked. If the statuettes found at Naucratis are Greek, it would be natural to propose that this one must be Greek also and imported into Cyprus. Greek nudity, it could be argued, has been thinly veiled to com-

ply with Cypriot scruples about dress. Converse-

ly, I propose to pursue Deonna's original thesis and see not only this draped statuette as Cypri- ot, but also the other gypsum statuettes. In this case Cypriot sculptors would have resorted to

nudity to meet the demands of a Greek export market.

RECONTEXTUALIZING THE KOUROI

In order to see properly the Cypriot personal- ity of these works, it is necessary to look at the

group of gypsum statuettes as a whole. Ten pieces are in the British Museum. Others are in

Cairo, Moscow, and Boston. A few of these are

published by Gardner as being from the Sanctu-

ary of Aphrodite at Naucratis.57 Some are said to be from the Temenos of Apollo,58 but this appears to be a supposition. Petrie does not say so; instead, he illustrates a group of kouroi that were

brought to him by the workmen who were mov-

ing earth in what he considered "the oldest stra- tum of the town, principally along the middle of the eastern side. Whether found in houses or thrown out into the roads, I have never seen, as

they have always been found by diggers not in

my employment."59 Others are without provenance, but are assigned to Naucratis on the basis of type.0

The sculptures may be divided into three cat-

egories according to their varying degree of per-

55 Senff 1993, 49-50, pl. 33 a-d. 56Kyrieleis (1996, 73-9) does not question the Egyptian

origin of the so-called alabaster. Following Deonna, however, he does acknowledge the Cypriot hairstyles of the alabaster and limestone kouroi from Naucratis and suggests that they are either copies of Cypriot prototypes or even products of

Cypriot workshops at Naucratis. 57 Gardner et al. 1888, pl. xiv; Caskey 1925, 3-4.

Fig. 10. Gypsum statuette in Cypriot dress. British Museum B447. Ht. 0.106 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

ceived Cypriotness. The first category of Cypri- ot, plain and simple, is represented by a male statuette of which only the head and torso are

preserved (fig. 10).61 The body is draped across the chest leaving one arm free and the other in a short sleeve. Both arms are encircled by a coiled

armlet, such as in other Cypriot sculpture from

Cyprus itself.62 The head is covered with a Cyp- riot conical helmet with a top knob and the

hinged cheek pieces pushed up. Long hair flows out of the back. Cataloguing the archaic sculpture in the British Museum, F.N. Pryce believed the theories that the gypsum statuettes are products of a regional Greek school at Naucratis, carv-

ing in a local Egyptian alabaster. He was forced, therefore, to explain away this Cypriot figure as

58Pryce 1928, 185, cat. B441 and 188, cat. B446. 59Petrie etal. 1886,36. The supposition that alabaster kouroi

were found in the ruins of the Apollo temple appears to be first made by Smith (1892, 83-4, cat. 202 and 204).

60E.g., Pryce 1928, 183-4, cat. B438. 61

Pryce 1928, 189, cat. B447, fig. 227. No specific findspot is known.

62 E.g., Cesnola 1885, pl. vii.

171 2001]

IAN JENKINS

Near Eastern types, exemplified by a fragmentary vase of strongly Assyrian appearance from Sippar in

Mesopotamia dated around 700-600 B.C.65 The find- sites of this type of vase are widespread throughout the Mediterranean world, with a concentration in Etruria.66 A case, therefore, has been made for two

principal centers of production, one, Etruria, the other-based upon the evidence of apparent Cypri- ot features-Cyprus.67 Parallels with Cypriot plastic art have been found in the facial features, the jewel- ry worn, and the attributes held. R. Higgins pointed out that the necklace with its pendant, on a terra- cotta imitation of this type of vessel found on Rhodes, is a Cypriot form.68 A gypsum piece from Camirus holds a lotus flower against the breast, again in the manner of numerous Cypriot sculptures (fig. 13).69

Until recently, the difficulty with asserting Cypri- ot manufacture was the fact that such alabastra had not been found on Cyprus itself.70 Although one

example is now known from Amathus,7' this rarity

Fig. 11. Gypsum alabastron from Naucratis terminating in the head of a woman. British Museum B464. Ht. 0.172 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

a Naucratite copy of a Cypriot work.63 His theory is unlikely, and given that it is now known that the stone is not Egyptian alabaster, and given the large number of Cypriot statuettes in limestone found at Naucratis, there is no reason to see this gypsum figure as anything other than

Cypriot. In the second category, which appears to be of

mixed Cypriot and Greek style, further Cypriot connections are found in two female alabastra (figs. 11-12).64 Ultimately, such vessels are derived from

63 The suggestion was first made by Edgar: "it can only have been copied from an imported or clearly remembered model .. ." (1903, iv). Pryce (1928) followed by Gjerstad (1948,366) argued that the "copyist" had misunderstood the drapery and confused the sleeve of a chiton with that of a mantle. The putative "sleeve" is, in fact, a coiled armlet.

64 Pryce 1928, 197, cat. B464-465, figs. 239-240. The type is gathered together and published by Riis 1956, 23-33.The Naucratis finds are his Group A, 7 and 8. The specific findspots are not known.

Fig. 12. Fragment of a gypsum alabastron from Naucratis terminating in the head of a woman. British Museum B465. Ht. 0.084 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

65British Museum ANE 9163: Riis 1956, Al, fig. 1. 6 Besides Naucratis, Riis's survey article (1956) includes piec-

es from Etruria, Gordium, Sippar in Mesopotamia (Abu Hab- ba), and Rhodes.

67Riis 1956, passim. 68Higgins 1954, 44-5, cat. 47, pl. 9; Ducat 1966, 73, no. 5. 69Pryce 1928, 158, cat. B329, pl. xxxvi; Riis 1956, A4. 70Gjerstad 1948, 368, n. 1. 71 Hermary 1987, 56-7, pl. XLIII. 4.

172 [AJA 105


Fig. 13. Gypsum alabastron from Camirus on Rhodes, holding a lotus flower against the breast. British Museum B329. Ht. 0.367 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

has prompted some to reject a Cypriot source. Rhodes has been suggested as an alternative,72 while others have credited their manufacture to Greeks at Naucratis or to Phoenicians.73 The type is not found at any site in sufficient numbers to justify such

claims, while the fact of only one having been found on Cyprus itself cannot discount the Cypriot features displayed by many of them. If, moreover, the

gypsum alabastra were a luxury export item from

Cyprus, we should not expect to find them at their

place of origin, but should expect to find them (as

72Ducat 1966, 74. 73 See Riis 1956, 23-4 for bibliography. 74RecentlyBrijder and van Drost (1995, 10) have written of

London B438 as being "purely Greek." 75 Pryce 1928, 183-4, cat. B438, pl.39; Deonna 1909, 243,

no. 148, figs. 168-9-included in his Cypriot group, 301-6; Richter 1970, 57-8, no. 28, figs. 129-30. No specific findspot is known. The type is found again in a gypsum head in Cairo; see Edgar 1903, 2, no. 27427, pl. 1: "Bought [Tantah]." See also the limestone head in my figure 1, back row, second from the left (Pryce 1928, 184-5, B439, fig. 221).

761 am grateful to Andrew Middleton for his assistance in confirming these traces of paint, which are noted by Pryce.

we do) spread over the Mediterranean world. The third category consists of the naked kouroi.

Although these have been treated hitherto as Greek, in fact many Cypriot elements can also be seen in them.74 The largest of these figures is usually considered to be the earliest (fig. 4). Richter attributed it to her Sounion group, owing to the slender, elongated proportions, large, almond-shaped eyes, and the incised delineation of the boundary of the thorax by an inverted "V."75 The statuette was originally coated all over in paint, which is now golden brown. The upper lip preserves a trace of red, and red can also be found on the band around the forehead. The eyebrows were incised and painted black, and the eyes were outlined in the same color. There is also a slight indication that a thin moustache was painted above the lips.76

There are a number of Cypriot features, includ-

ing the hairstyle. This appears to be an adaptation of the Egyptian wig, which in Egypt is worn without the parting, as indeed it can also appear in

Cypriot art. Held by a fillet around the forehead, the hair is parted in the middle and carried around the temples in a series of dreadlocks tucked behind the ears. The type is common

among the gypsum kouroi and in limestone statuettes from Naucratis and elsewhere, but otherwise can only be paralleled in Cypriot sculpture from

Cyprus itself.77 Cypriot parallels in limestone for the head can be found in the Cesnola collection in New York from Golgoi (Athienou),78 in heads from Idalion in the British Museum, which Senff dates to ca. 550 B.C. (fig. 14a-b),79 and, again, in the Cypro-Aegean statuette with the distinctive moustache from Samos (fig. 8).80 The manner of

bringing the hanging locks of hair forward to fall in a series of four straight tresses on the shoulders is again paralleled in Cypriot sculpture.81

The rendering of the eyes in quasi applique form (Bossenaugen), although used by Greek

sculptors also, is especially common in Cypriot art throughout the sixth century.82 A piece in Paris

77Kyrieleis 1996, 74. 78Cesnola 1885, pl. xx, 37-9. 79Pryce 1931, 15-6, cat. C8 and 9, figs. 7, 8; Senff 1993, 32,

pl. 1 Ig-i, d-f. Senffraises the interesting possibility that, where there is no center-parting, there may be an Ionian influence in the Cypriot examples: compare the profiles of Pryce 1931, cat. C7 and 8 with that of the votive statue of Dionysermos in the Louvre (Hamiaux 1992, 59, no. 51).

80 Kyrieleis 1988, 54, fig. 11. 81 Cesnola 1885, pl. xx, 38 and 41. Although the ends of the

tresses are broken away, see also Senff 1993, 32, pl. lg-i, d-f. 82 Examples are too numerous to mention, but see, e.g.,

Hermary 1989, 40, cat. 38.

173 2001]

IAN JENKINS

Fig. 14a-b. Head of a limestone statuette from Idalion, Cyprus. British Museum C9. Ht. 0.08 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

shows the pointed chin and manner of render-

ing the ear is entirely consistent with Cypriot sculpture dated ca. 550 B.C. (fig. 15). This is rather later than Richter's dates of 615-590 B.C. If one removes the conical bonnet of this Cypriot limestone statuette from Idalion, leaving the band around the forehead and exchanging the bonnet for the dreadlocks of the gypsum piece from Naucratis, one sees readily how close these two faces are.83

Two other gypsum kouroi from Naucratis, one

larger than the other, make an obvious pair and are arguably carved by the same hand (fig. 16a-

c).84 Both figures have rounded forms, sloping shoulders, well-defined pectorals, and narrow

hips. Furthermore, the proper left arm of each

figure is held stiffly at the side, while the right is bent across the breast with the thumb extended. The bent arm that holds no attribute but extends the thumb is well paralleled in Cypriot sculpture, but not in Greek.85 The gesture derives from Egyp- tian art, where the hand can either be empty or hold an attribute.86 The side and rear views of this pair of figures strengthen the comparison. The torso is pushed forward with the weight well over the left leg of the figures. The heads are

unfortunately missing from both statuettes, but traces of the hair remain on the shoulders of one

83Hermary 1989,39, cat. 35 and cover illustration. Kyrieleis (1996, 79) accepts Richter's dating of the Naucratis kouros.

84Pryce 1928,185-6, cat. B441-442, fig. 223 and pl. xl; Rich- ter 1970, 73-4, nos. 59 and 60, figs. 206-207. The findspot of B441 is said to be the Temenos of Apollo, but this is doubtful.

Fig. 15. Part of a limestone statuette from Idalion, Cyprus. Musee du Louvre, Paris AO 1329. Ht. 0.16 m. (Courtesy Musee du Louvre)

B442 is said to be from the Temenos of Aphrodite. 85 E.g., Hermary 1989, 51-2, cat. 66-67. I find no Greek

example in Richter. 86Pryce 1931, 21, cat. C19, fig. 15, for an especially Egyp-

tianizing example.

174 [AJA 105


:a44, E :i :::: i - d: : ?^ K ; i

sI 1 I I1 ' ' ; ^ . 1 .:;1 :;1. - 1 . * g~~~~~~~~~~~ i s

i: . m

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^.. . . =. ;. i . ... _. .. - 0. < ; 2 .w ... ........

Fig. 16a-c. Pair of gypsum kouroi from Naucratis. British Museum B441 and B442. Ht. 0.12 and 0.152 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

piece. The appearance of three sharp points that denote a row of tresses can be paralleled in Cyp- riot statuary.87

It has not been difficult to point to Cypriot characteristics in statuettes that have been seen hitherto as Greek. There are, however, others that seem at first acquaintance unassailably Greek. Two are in the British Museum (fig. 17)88 and another in Boston (fig. 18).89 These three could have been carved by the same hand. Distinctive

points of comparison include the dreadlocks;

high, prominent chest without division; sloping shoulders; manner of showing the arms by the

side; small, high buttocks; and fully developed thighs. The torso of a kouros, again in Boston (fig. 19),90 should probably also be assigned to this

group. It has the same anatomical composition as the others, but is less well preserved, and so the comparison must remain incomplete. The basic configuration of the torso is found again in another gypsum statuette from Naucratis shown in the popular archaic guise of "master of animals" holding a quadruped (perhaps a lion) by the rear leg and tail (fig. 20).91

Without the heads of these figures, there is

nothing that could obviously be called Cypriot here. A different story emerges, however, when

87Hermary 1989, 54, cat. 72. 88Pryce 1928, 187, cat. B443, fig. 224; Deonna 1909, 244,

no. 149, figs. 170-171. No specific findspot is known. Pryce 1928, 188-9, cat. B446, fig. 226; Richter 1970, 88-9, nos. 83- 84, figs. 270-271. It is said to come from the Temenos ofApol- lo, but this is doubtful.

89 Comstock and Vermeule 1976, 5, cat. 8. Gift of the Egypt

Fig. 17. Pair of gypsum kouroi from Naucratis. British Museum B446 and B443. Hts. 0.075 and 0.102 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

these pieces are placed in their family group. With them belongs the statuette of a kouros in

Moscow, which, with its Cypriot hairstyle (fig.

Exploration Society and said to be from the Temenos ofAph- rodite at Naucratis; Deonna 1909, 245, no. 150, figs. 172-174; Richter 1970, 89, no. 85, fig. 272.

90 Comstock and Vermeule 1976, 5, cat. 9. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Society and said to be from the Temenos of Aph- rodite at Naucratis.

91 Pryce 1928, 189-90, cat. B449, pl. xl.

175 2001]

M, 3- i"

A.

- I& i; L

IAN JENKINS

ing,94 an attribute that can be compared with the

Cypriot warrior statuette (fig. 10).95 Like the lat-

ter, the kouros also wears on each arm what may be a band or the sleeves of an under tunic, both of which are consistent with Cypriot imagery rather than Greek.96

The attempt to see the miniature kouroi as Greek ignores such Cypriot features and usually presumes, rather than demonstrates, stylistic links with the coast of Asia Minor or offshore is- lands.97 Frank Brommer made a convincing com-

parison, however, between a head among the gypsum pieces in the Cairo Museum and another marble head from Asia Minor.98 With its flame- like frontal coiffure, the head in Cairo appears to be a miniature version of a type paralleled in a marble head found at Keramos near Halicarnas- sus.99 Such a direct link between a gypsum statuette from Egypt and an East Greek product from a marble carver's workshop is striking enough to

suggest that if the gypsum piece is not itself East

Greek, then it is a copy. On the strength of the

Fig. 18. Gypsum statuette of a kouros from Naucratis. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, inv. 88.734. Ht. 0.143 m. (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

6),92 is related to the draped statuette published by Deonna and said to come from Cyprus (fig. 5). A few draped, kouros-type statues are known from elsewhere in the archaic Greek world,93 and it could be argued that the draped statuette is Greek and was imported into Cyprus. Arguing the case, however, for its being Cypriot, the dress

may be an indication of its origin. Nor in this

respect does this statuette stand alone in its

group. There are signs that other related kouroi

may have been conceived as draped. We have

already noted the possibility of paint on the torso of the Moscow statuette. Furthermore, inci- sions crossing the breast on British Museum B446 (fig. 17) show that it wears an item of cloth-

92 Kieseritzky 1892, 179-84. 93Richter 1970, figs. 616-619, 624-627. 94As noted by Pryce 1928, 188-9; Deonna 1909, 243, no.

147. 95 Pryce 1928, 189, cat. B447, fig. 227. 9 Deonna 1909, 304.

Fig. 19. Fragment of a gypsum statuette of a kouros from Naucratis. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, inv. 88.1098. Ht. 0.069 m. (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

97 E.g., Pryce 1928, 182-3. 98Brommer 1952,48-9, figs. 1-4. Cairo 27428, Edgar 1903,

iv, pl. I; Deonna 1909, 243, no. 146; Richter 1970, 111, men- tioned as comparison for no. 130, but not illustrated.

99 Smyrna Museum, no. 1022; Richter 1970, 111, no. 130, figs. 381-383.

176 [AJA 105


Fig. 20. Gypsum statuette of a naked "master of animals" from Naucratis. British Museum B449. Ht. 0.136 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

evidence assembled here, it may be argued that it is indeed a copy that was produced by Cypriots with an eye to the Greek market. The Greek orig- inals that inspired such copies as this one would have been seen by Cypriots traveling abroad, but

may also have been seen on Cyprus itself, like the late Archaic kouros in Parian marble set up as a grave marker at Marion.100

CONCLUSION

Two new insights into the group of so-called alabaster statuettes from Naucratis have been presented. First, the raw material does not necessar-

?00Pryce 1928, 155, cat. B325, pl. 34; Sheedy (forthcoming).

01 I have argued (enkins 2000, 158-61) that the limestone of the statuettes from Rhodes, Cnidus, and elsewhere has characteristics in common with the limestone of sculp-

ily come, as previously supposed, from the same land in which the sculptures were discovered, and there is no firm basis for thinking that they were made there. Second, there are sound rea- sons for attributing their manufacture to Cypri- ots rather than to Greeks.

It seems likely that Cypriots were responsible for the entire corpus of statuettes, both in limestone and gypsum, carving in the native style for the Cypriot market and adapting this style to a mixed Cypro-Aegean, or also an apparently un- diluted Hellenic, style for the Greek market. Sty- listic links with finds from Golgoi may suggest that the gypsum statuettes were carved in the

workshops of southeastern Cyprus, perhaps by the same hands that supplied the sanctuaries of Gol-

goi, Idalion, and Arsos with their limestone sculpture. These places offer the closest parallels for the

gypsum statuettes. Athenaeus's recounting of Herostratus's dedica-

tion of a Cypriot statuette at Naucratis appears to

carry a folk memory of a real trade in Cypriot miniature statuary. Limestone pieces were traded the most and, like the gypsum, these were made in both

Cypriot and mixed Cypro-Hellenic styles. We can

imagine the vendors at the harbors of Cyprus hawk-

ing their wares to visiting foreigners such as Heros- tratus himself, who would naturally be superstitious and eager to seek the good will of gods command-

ing the open sea between Cyprus and Egypt. Other statuettes would have been carried

abroad by Cypriot traders, who set up stalls at the entrances to the Greek sanctuaries. Still others

may have been carved abroad by Cypriots using raw materials brought with them. It would not take a very large block of Cypriot limestone to manufacture the entire corpus of statuettes in that material found at Naucratis.?10

The gypsum statuettes seem to have been a de- luxe alternative to limestone, intended to simulate the white marble of the Greek sculptures they copy. They give themselves away as copies in the extraor-

dinary resemblance of one to another. In this re-

spect they stand out from the rest of Richter's cata-

logue of types. In the family of archaic Greek kouroi, it is remarkable how individual each figure is. This

individuality makes it difficult to follow some of Rich- ter's classifications. On this point it is interesting to

ture from Cyprus and is Cypriot. Some of the Naucratis pieces share these characteristics and also appear to be of Cypriot limestone. Others from Naucratis, however, are probably in an Egyptian limestone. I hope to test this hypothesis in a separate study.

177 2001]

IAN JENKINS

recall the comments ofJohn Boardman. On the problem of determining the authenticity of the Getty kouros, he writes: "I deliberately went to the pic- tures in Miss Richter, and looked at many authentic kouroi asking myself how I would react to them if

they appeared without documentation on the market today. Several failed the test. To put it crudely, many kouroi seemed stylistically disorganised or in-

ternally inconsistent, and I was unwilling to condemn a new one on such grounds alone."102

Richter, one may say, imposed her own order on the otherwise "disorganised" and "inconsistent" kouroi. It is not surprising that only in the case of the

gypsum kouroi from Naucratis do we see in her pag- es a clear similarity between one and another. The reason is that they are not true kouroi, but copies.

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES BRITISH MUSEUM

GT. RUSSELL STREET

LONDON WC 1 B 3DG

[email protected]

Works Cited

Austin, M.M. 1970. Greece and Egypt in theArchaic Age. Pro- ceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.

Boardman, J.B. 1980. The Greeks Overseas. London: Thames and Hudson.

1993. "Criteria." In The Getty Kouros Colloquium, Athens, 25-27May 1992, edited by M. True, 27-9. Ath- ens: Kapon Eds.

Brijder, H.A., and M.H.J. van Drost. 1995. "The Amster- dam Kouros." Pharos 3:3-21.

Brommer, F. 1952. "Ein Archaischer Kopf in Kairo." AA:48-59.

Caskey, L.D. 1925. Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Catalogue of Greek and Roman Sculpture. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Caubet, A. 1985. Kition Bamboula. Vol. 3, Le Sondage L- N13, pt. 1, Bronze Recent et Geometrique. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations.

Cesnola, L.P. di. 1885. A Descriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Muse- um of Art in New York. Boston: J.R. Osgood.

Comstock, M.B., and C.C. Vermeule. 1976. Sculpture in Stone: the Greek, Roman and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston: The Museum of Fine Arts.

Cook, R.M. 1937. "Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt."JHS 57:227-37.

. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery. 3rd ed. London: Rout- ledge.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard, Jr. 1982. "Investiga- tions at Naukratis and Environs, 1980 and 1981." AJA

86:361-80. Coulson, W.D.E., et al. 1996. Ancient Naucratis. Vol. 2, pt.

1, The Survey at Naukratis and Environs. Oxford: Ox- bow.

Davis, W.M. 1979. "Ancient Naukratis and the Cypriotes in Egypt." Gottinger Miszellen 35:13-23.

. 1980. "The Cypriotes at Naukratis." G6ttinger Miszellen 41:7-19.

Deonna, W. 1909. Les "Apollons Archaiques." Geneva: Georg and Cie.

Ducat, J. 1966. Les Vases Plastiques Rhodiens: archaiques en terre cuite. Paris: de Boccard.

Edgar, M.C.C. 1903. Greek Sculpture: Catalogue general des

Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire. Cairo: Institut Francais.

Gale, N.H. 1988. "The Sources of Mycenaean Gypsum." JAS 15:57-72.

Gardner, E.A., with an appendix by F.U. Griffith. 1888. Naukratis, pt. 2. Excavation Memoir 6. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. 4, pt. 2, The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Clas- sical Periods. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedi- tion.

Greensmith, T. 1994. Southern Cyprus. Geologists' Asso- ciation Guide 50. London: The Geologists' Associa- tion.

Hamiaux, M. 1992. Les sculptures Grecques, vol. 1. Paris: Reunion des musees nationaux.

Hermary, A. 1989. Catalogue des Antiquites de Chypre. Par- is: Reunion des musees nationaux.

. 1987. La Necropole d'Amathonte, Tombes 113-367. Etudes Chypriote 9.3.2. Nicosia: Service des antiquites de Chypre.

Higgins, R.A. 1954. Catalogue of the Terracottas in theDepart- ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London: British Museum.

.1959. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, vol. 2, pt. 1. London: British Museum.

Hogarth, D.G., C.C. Edgar, and C. Gutch. 1898-1899. "Excavations at Naukratis." BSA 5:26-97.

Hogarth, D.G., H.L. Lorimer, and C.C. Edgar. 1905. "Naukratis 1903."JHS 25:105-36.

Hussein, A.A.A. 1990. "Mineral Deposits." In The Geology of Egypt, edited by R. Said, 551-9. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Jenkins, I. 2000. "Cypriot Limestone Sculpture from Cnidus." In Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archae- ology Presented to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, AJ.N.W. Prag, and A.M. Snodgrass, 153- 62. London: Thames and Hudson.

Kieseritzky, G. 1892. "Apollo von Naukratis."JdI7:179- 84.

Kyrieleis, H. 1988. "New Cypriot Finds from the Heraion of Samos." In Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age, edited by V. Tatton-Brown, 52-5. London: British Museum Publications.

. 1996. Der Grosse Kuros von Samos. Samos 10. Bonn: R. Habelt.

Muhs, B. 1994. "The Great Temenos of Naucratis."

1'2 Boardman 1993, 28.

178 [AJA 105


JARCE31:99-113. Perrot, G., and C. Chipiez. 1885. Histoire de l'art dans

l'Antiquit. Vol. 3, Phoenecia and Cyprus. Paris: Hachette. Petrie, W.M.F, C. Smith, E. Gardner, and B.V. Head.

1886. Naukratis. Pt. 1, 1884-5. London: Trubner. Pryce, F.N. 1928. Catalogue of Sculpture in theDepartment of

Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. Vol. 1, pt. 1, Prehellenic and Early Greek. London: British Museum. - . 1931. Catalogue of Sculpture in the Greek and Ro-

man Department of the British Museum. Vol. 1, pt. 2, Cyp- riote and Etruscan. London: British Museum.

Richter, G.M.A. 1942. Kouroi. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

. 1970. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths. 3rd ed. Lon- don: Phaidon.

Ridgway, B.S. 1977. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Riis, PJ. 1956. "Sculptured Alabastra." ActaArch 37:23-33.

Robinson, E. 1889. Annual Report of the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston 13:18.

Senff, R. 1993. Das Apolloheiligtum von Idalion: Architektur und Statuenausstattung eines zyprischen Heiligtums. Jon- sered: P. Astroms.

Sheedy, K. Forthcoming. "The Marion Kouros in the British Museum." In Actes du colloque international la

sculpture des Cyclades a l'epoque archaique, Athens 1998.

BCHSuppl. Smith, A.H. 1892. A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Depart-

ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, vol. 1, pt. 3. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

S0rensen, L.W. 1978. "Early Archaic Limestone Statu- ettes in Cypriote style." RDAC:111-21.

Sullivan, R.D. 1996. "Psammetichus I and the Founda- tion of Naukratis." In Ancient Naucratis. Vol. 2, pt. 1, The Survey at Naucratis and Environs, edited by W.D.E. Coulson et al., 177-95. Oxford: Oxbow.

2001] 179

Kouros, kouroi, kore, korai

Documents

Transcript of Kouros, kouroi, kore, korai