Early Cycladic Sculpture. an Introduction

7/27/2019 Early Cycladic Sculpture. an Introduction

1/100


2/100

Early Cycladic Sculpture


3/100


4/100

Early Cycladic SculptureA nIntroductionRevised E d i t i o n

Pat Getz-Preziosi

The J. Paul Getty MuseumM a l i b u , California


5/100

1994 The J. Paul Getty Museum17985 Pacific Coast HighwayM a l i b u , California 90265-5799

A t the J. Paul Getty Museum:Christopher Hudson, PublisherM a r kGreenberg, Managing Editor

L i b r a r y ofCongressCataloging-in-Publication Data

Getz-Preziosi, Pat.EarlyCycladic sculptu re : an intro duc tio n /

Pat Getz-Preziosi.Rev. ed.Includesbibliographical references.I S B N 0-89236-220-0I Sculpture, Cycladic. I J. P. Getty Museum.I I . T i t l e .

NB130.C78G4 1994730 '.0939 '15 -dc 20 94-16753CIP

Cover: EarlySpedosvariety styleharp player. M a l i b u , The J. PaulGetty Museum 85.AA.103. Seealso plate ivb, figures 24, 25, 79.

Frontispiece: Female folded-armfigure. Late Sp edos/Dokathismatavariety.A somewhat atypical w o r kof the SchusterMaster. ECII.Combiningelegantly controlledcurving elements w i t h asharpangularitya nd tautnessofl i n e , theconcept is one of boldness te mpered by delicacy and precision.M a l i b u ,The J. Paul Getty Museum90.AA.114.Pres.L. 40.6 cm.


6/100

Contents

v i i Forewordx Preface

x i Preface to First E d i t i o n1 In t roduct ion6 Color Plates

17 The Stone Vases18 The Figur ati ve Sculpt ure51 The Formulaic Trad i t i on59 The I n d i v i d u a l Sculptor64 The Kar lsr uhe /Woo dner Master66 Th e Goul andr is Mast er71 The Ashmol ean Master78 The D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Figur es79 Bey ond the Cyclades83 Majo r Collec tions of Early

Cycladic Sculpture84 Selected Bib lio gra phy86 Photo Cre dit s


7/100

his page intentionally left blank


8/100

Foreword

The remarkable stone sculptures produced in the Cyclades dur in g the t h i r dm i l l e n n i u m B . C . haveboth the advantage and d isadvan tage of im men sepopular appeal. Even the most casualobservers can immediately appreciatethe carefully sculpted forms of humanfigures reduced to the ir essential outlines and the vessels ofsure and simple contours w i t h minimal decoration.Our attraction to these objects sh oul dnot be confused w i t h understanding,however, f or it belies the fact tha t wek n o w almos t not hi ng of the r itu alsand beli efs of the society that p ro duced them.

The decade since th e f i r s t editiono f this book appeared has wi tne sseda bu rg eo ni ng int eres t in the stud yo f Cycladic art and c i v i l i z a t i o n . I nthe same year, 1985, the Nicholas P.Goulandris Foundation and Museumo f Cycl adic Art , the f i r s t ins t i t u t iondedica ted to t he dis semin ati on andpromot ion of Cycladic art to a wide rscholarly co mmu ni ty and the generalp u b l i c , opened in Athens. S i g n i f i cant exhibit ions f o l l o w e d , inc lu ding

Ear ly Cycladi c Sculpture in Nor thA m e r i c a n Col l ec t ions , shown in

R i c h m o n d , V i r g i n i a , Fo r t Wo r th ,Texas, and San Francisco, in 1987-1988, and Cycl adi c Cul tu re : Naxosi n th e T h i r d M i l l e n n i u m , shown atthe Goul and ris Mu se um in Athen s in1990, and brought the tangible remai ns of thi s Bron ze Age c i v i l i z a t i o nto the a tt ent ion of a broader publicaudience. Several major new publications a l so appeared , inc luding PatGetz-Preziosi's major study, Sculptorsof the Cyclades, and C o l i n Renfrew'sevocative The Cycladic Spirit. Bu t perhaps mos t impor ta n t ly , our k n o w l edge of the cu lt ure of the Cycl ades i nthe Bronze Age has been incr ease d bycontinuing excavations and surveys ofCycladic sites, particularly on the islands of Mel os, Amor gos , Kea, Keros,and Santorini, as w e l l as related siteson main land Greece and the island ofCrete. These remarkable works of art,once valued more for the inspirationthey pr ovi ded to mo de rn sculpt orsl i k e Brancus i or Hen ry Moo re tha n asthe sophis t ica ted a ch i ev em en t s oftheir own culture, can be better appreciate d as we und ers ta nd mor e aboutthe society that pro duc ed th em.

Pat Getz-Preziosi's cont ri but ion to

v i i


9/100

the study of Cycla dicstone sculpture,both idols and vessels, and of the artis ts who produced them, is surelyu n i q u e . A l t h o u g h the basic chronol o g i c a l de velop ment of the i d o l typeshad been previ ousl y establ ished, shewas the f i r s t schola r to recogniz e t hestylistic relationships among differentpieces and to attribute them on thisbasis to i n d i v i d u a l h a n d s or maste r s . L i k e those of the cre ato rs ofmost surviving ancient artifacts, then a m es of these cra ftsme n are unrecorded, and the sculptors are nowi d e n t i f i e d for conve nien ce by then a m es of the collec tions w h i c h i n clud e or have incl ud ed in the past oneor mor e examples of the artist's work.I t is u n l i k e l y that we shall ever knowmore about these sculptors, but Dr.Getz-Preziosi's examination of groupso f works by different hands and herconsid erat ion of the changes and varia t ions in key styl isti c features amo ngmem ber s of each group prov id e usw i t h c o n s ide r ab l e in s ig h t in to thedist inct artist ic personaliti es that created them.

D r . Getz-P rezi osi was also the f i r s tto offer a con vin cin g analysis of the

standard ized formul ae that seem tohave been app li ed in the crea tio n ofthe stone figures. W h i l e the idols appear deceptively simple at f i r s t glance,the formulae she believes were usedf o r the p l an ni ng and execu t ion ofthe images reveal their extraordinaryre f inement of design. These formulaemay also help to ex pl ai n the rat heru n s e t t l i n g impress ion of s i m i l a r i t yamo ng figur es of each typ e, in spite ofthe i r var iations in i n d i v i d u a l details.

R ea d er s f a m i l i a r w i t h the o r i g i n a l ed i t i on of this book w i l l realizetha t a nu mb er of objects have chang edhands since its appearance. In 1988,the Getty Museum acquired the Cycladiccollect ion of Paul and Mari ann eSteiner, inc lud ing the name-piece ofthe S te ine r Mas te r . The WoodnerFami ly Co l lec t ion was s ol d i n 1991and is now in a New Y o r k p r iv a t ecollec t ion.

Kenneth Hamma, Associate Curat o r of An t iqu i t i e s , has overs een theproduct ion o f this revis ed edi t ion, at t end ing tomyr i ad details w i t h characteristiccareand patience. The text waseditedby Cynthia Ne wma n Bohn, andE l l e n Rosenbery p rovi ded new photo-

v i i i


10/100

graphs of the Ste iner pieces.Thi s vol ume is int end ed as a gen

eral intr odu ct ion to a comple x andi n t r i g u i n g subjec t that is const ant lyenhanced by new discoveri es. We mayonly hope that the excavations andresearch act iviti es of the nex t decadew i l l further elucidate the original c u l t u r a l signif icance of these artifacts,w h i c h have lost none of their i mme diacy and appeal more than four m i l lennia after their creation.

M a r i o n TrueCurator of Ant iqui tie s

ix


11/100

Preface

Since the i n i t i a l publication of EarlyCycladic Sculpture: An Introduction,the J. Paul Getty Muse um , under thef i n e eye of its p r e s e n t Curator ofA n t i q u i t i e s , Ma ri on True, has contin ued to b u i l d and broa den its collect iono f prehistoric stonesculpture w i t h theacquisi t ion of a nu mbe r of impressi vew o r k s . Coinc iden ta l ly , the o r ig i nale d i t i o n we nt out of pr in t just as t heMu se um was in the process of acquiri n g a piece f r o m t he ha nd o f one ofthe pr eemi nen t sculpt ors of the EarlyBronz e Age Cyclades (see front is. ).That addi ti on and the Museum' s recent acqui sit ion of the Steiner C o l l e c t i o n of Cycladic figures and vases,h a l f of wh ic h were not incl ude d in theearlier edition, as w e l l as four addit i o n a l Cycladic marble vessels and arare complete figurati ve image f r o mA n a t o l i a have made a revised ed it ionappr opri ate at this ti me. In the newe d i t i o n several of these recent acquisitions by the Mus eu m and two impor tant works f r o m other collections haverepla ced several objects illu str ate d inthe ori gin al version (see pi . la-c andf i g s . 16, 17, 20, 28, an d 85 -8 4) .

A l t h o u g h there have been a nu mbero f addi tio ns to the lit era tur e in theyears since this book f i r s t appeared,our underst anding of the funda mentals of Earl y Cycladic sculpt ure remainsbasically unaltered. As a reflection ofthis sit uat ion, the text of the presente d i t i o n , although improved in places,has not been substantially modified.

Pat Getz-PreziosiA p r i l 1994

X


12/100

Preface to First Edition

This book was written at the suggest i o n of Ji n Frel f o l l o w i n g a seminarlecture given by the writer at the J.Paul Getty Mus eu m in the spri ng of1983. A revised versi on of that lectu re,i t also incorpora tes man y elements ofa larger study called Sculptors of theCyclades: Individual and Tradition inthe rThirdMillennium B.C., which w i l lsoon be published j o i n t l y by the U n i versity of Michigan Press and the J.Paul Getty Trust. I l lustrated wherever possible w i t h objects f r o m theGetty's coll ecti on or w i t h objects inother American museums and privatecollections, Early Cycladic Sculptureis in te nd ed to survey the deve lopment of Cycl adi c scu lp tu re and too f f e r a pa r t ic ul ar appr oach to theanony mous artists who wor ke d in theAegean islands some f o r t y - f i v e hundred years ago.

For graciousl y all owi ng me to rep roduce objects f r o m their collectionsand for pr ovi di ng photogr aphs andi n f o r m a t i o n , I am most grat eful to thef o l l o w i n g museums, museu m authori t i e s , and private owners: D o l l y Goulandris (Athens) , Adri ana Calinescu( In d i an a Un iv e r s i t y A r t M u s e u m ,

B l o o m i n g t o n ) , John Coffey (BowdoinCollege Ar t Mus eu m, Bru nswi ck) , J.G y . Szilagyi (Muse e des Bea ux-A rts,Budapest), Jane Biers (Museum of A r tand Archaeology, U niversi ty of M i s sou r i , Columbi a) , Gisel le Eber hard(M us e e B a r b ie r -M ul l e r , G e n e v a ) ,D o m i n i q u e de M e n i l ( M e n i l Foundat i o n , Houston), UriA v i d a (Israel Mu seum, Jerusalem), MichaelMaass andJi i rgen Th i mm e (Badisches Landes-mus eu m, Ka rls ruhe ), J. Lesley Fit ton( B r i t i s h M u s e u m , L o n d o n ) , T i n aO l d k n o w ( Los Angeles County Mu seum o f A r t ) , J i f i Frel and Mar io nTrue (J. Paul Getty Museum, M a l i b u ) ,The Guennol Coll ection (New Y o r k ) ,Joan Mertens (Metropolitan Museumo f A r t , New Y o r k ) , Alex andr a Staff o r d (New Y o r k ) , Paul and Mari anneSte ine r (New Y o r k ) , Ian Woo dn er( N e w Y o r k ) , Mi cha e l Vicker s andA n n B r o w n (A s h m o l e an M us e um ,O x f o r d ) , Sara C a m p b e l l ( N o r t o nSimon Museum, Pasadena), FrancesF o l l i n J o n e s ( T h e A r t M u s e u m ,Princeton University), Renee BellerDreyfus ( The Fine Art s Mus eu ms ofSan Francisco), Paula T h ur m an (Seatt l e Ar t Museu m), Saburoh Hasegawa

x i


13/100

(The Na t ion a l Mus eu m of Weste rnA r t , T o k y o ) , M r . a n d M r s . I s i d o rKahane ( Z u r i c h ) , and several privatecollectors wh o prefer to rem ain anonym ou s. Specia l tha nks are due toWolfgang Knobl och of the BadischesLand esmus eum and to Andr ea Wood -ner for und er tak ing the troub leso metask of obt ain ing the weig hts of thet wo n a m e- p i eces of the Kar l s r uhe /Woo dne r Master. For the ir help w i t hvarious aspects of the p roj ect , I amespec ia l ly indeb ted to the depa r t ments of antiqu ities and p ublic ationsat the J. Paul Getty Museum. I w o u l dalso l i k e to tha nk the Getty M us eu msemina r partic ipants for the ir valuablecomments and the students ofJeremyRutter at Dartmouth and Karen Fosterat Wesleyan for tak ing part i n drawi n g experiments perti nent to the present study. A n d last but not least , Igratefully acknowledge a substantialdebt to those colleagues w hose viewsI have incor pora ted into the fabric ofmy text.

P. G.-P.

x i i


14/100

Introduction

Over a century ago European t r a v e l ers began to explore the more thant h i r t y sma ll is la nds that l i e at thecenter of the Ae gea n Sea ( fi g. 1). Weknow these islands by the historicalG r e e k n a m e of some of themtheCycladesso calledbecause they werethought to encircle t i n y Delos, sacredbir t hpla ce of the gods Art emi s andA p o l l o . A more appropr ia te name forthese rocky sum mit s of subme rgedm o u n t a i n s m i g h t have bee n Th eM a r b l e I s l e s o r M a r m a r i n a i ; f o rmany , i f not most, o f th em are ex cellent sources of the mat eri al that wasto spa rk the creati ve imp ul ses a ndchallenge the energies of sculp tors i nboth pr ehist oric and histor ic ti mes.

Nineteenth-century travelers to theCyclades brough t home a nu mbe r of

cur ious marbl e f igur ines, or sigil-laria, as they called th em, w h i c h hadbeen f o r t u i t o u s l y unear thed by f a r m ers' p lo ws. By the 1880s inter est inthese sculptures, w h i c h we now recognize as the pr oduct s of Earl y BronzeAge craftsmanship, was s u f f i c i e n t l yaroused that i n f o r m a t i o n about theculture w h i c h produced them was act i v e l y s o ug h t t h r o ug h e x c av a t io n .

Since the n, recovery of the art andarchaeology of the pre-Gr eek c ultu rethat f l o w e r e d in the Cycladic arch ipelago has been continuous, bothth r o ug h systematic expl ora tio n andthrough clandestine d i g g i n g . As a result, several thousand marble objectsare now k n o w n , p r o v i d i n g a r i c h andvaried corpus to study and enjoy.

Cycladicfigures or i d o l s , as the mostdistinctive objects o f this early cul tur eare freel y cal led, * have hel d a strangeappeal for nearly f i v e m i l l e n n i a . D u r i n g the perio d of the ir ma nufa ctur e,r o u g h l y 3000-2200 B . C . they wereb u r i e d w i t h the Cycla dic dea d, bu tthey were also exported beyond theCyclades and even im it at ed nearby onCrete and in A t t i c a where they havealso been f o u n d i n graves. F ragme ntary figures, chance find s trea sure d asmagically charg ed reli cs, wer e occasionally reused in later m i l l e n n i a . Inmod er n times Cycladic figures wereat f i r s t cons ide red p r i m i t i v e , in thepe jora t ive sense of the w o r d , u g l y ,and, at best, cur iosit ies f r o m the dimrecesses of Greek pre hist ory. Redisc o v e r e d in th e tw e n t i e th c e n tu r y ,largely t h ro ugh the apprec ia t ion o f

*The term idol is accurate i f by it no moreis meant than ima ge, as in the ancientGreek eidolon.

1


15/100

Figure 1.Th e Cyclades and neighboring lands. The dottedline indicates someuncertainty regarding theeastern boundary of theEarly Bronze Age culture;possibly Ikaria andAstypalaia ought to beincluded within its sphere.

2


16/100

such artists as Picasso and Br ancusi ,they have come to be hig hly esteemedf o r thei r compe l l i ng combi nat i on ofgle ami ng whi te marb le and painstaki n g wor kma nsh ip, for the calm forceo f the i r essential forms, and for themystery that surrou nds th em.

Although th e greatest concentrationo f Cycla dic scul ptur e is housed in theNat iona l Archaeological Museum inAthens, examples are scattered in museums and private collections aro undth e w o r l d . There are at least two hund red pieces in American col lect ionsalone (see the l i s t of majo r c ollect ionso n p. 85). The p opul ari ty of the f i g ureshas increased dr amat ica lly du ri ngthe last two decades, part lybecauseofthe i r perceived a f f i n i t y w i t h contemporary art styles. The consequencesf or the ser ious study of Cycl adic artand cul ture are dist urb ing, for to sati s fy dema nd for the figures, unautho r i z e d di ggi ng has f lou ris hed to theexten t that f or many, i f not most, ofthe sculptur es, the precise find-placeshave been lost along w i t h the circumstances of the ir discovery. On ly a r e l atively small num be r of figures hasbeen recove red in systema tic excava

tions of undistur bed sites. The picturewe have of Cycladic art has been f u r ther clou ded by the insinu atio n of f o r geries, p r i m a r i l y du ri ng the 1960s.

The fragmentary stateof the archaeological rec ord only compo unds thevery d i f f i c u l t prob lem of understandi n g the origin al mean ing and functio no f these figures as w e l l as other findsf r o m the Early Cycladic period. It isclear that the sculptures had at least asepulchr al purpose, but beyond that,th e l i t t l e we know and the views wen o w ho ld are open to the k i n d of a m p l i f i c a t i o n or alterati on that only furthe rcontrolled excavation might provide.

W h i l e it is tr ue that the excava tiono f Early Cycladic sites has been re stricted almost exclusively to cemeteries, the few settlements that have beenexplored havey ie lded l i t t l e in the wayo f marble objects. Perhaps the mos timpo rt ant gap in the record at present is the l ack of bui ld in gs or sites thatcan def init ely be consi dere d sanctuaries, although the re is one tantalizingposs ib i l i t y w h i c h w i l l be discussedlater.

T o date, no figure measuring 60 cmor more has ever been uncovered by

1


17/100

an archaeologist. We do no t kn owther efor e ho w the very large imageswere nor mal ly used, thou gh the a v a i l able informationsuggests that, at leaston occasion, they, too, were buriedw i t h the dead .

A l t h o u g h the skeleta l rema ins havenot been analyzed, itappears f r o m theobjects found w i t h them that marbleimages were bur ied w i t h both menand wo me n but evide ntly not w i t hc h i l d r e n . Moreover, w h i l e some cemeteries are noticeably richer in marble goods than others, even in thesenot every b u r i a l was so end owe d.Marble objects, figures as w e l l as vessels, accompanied o n l y a pr i vil egedf e w to thei r graves. It is th ou ght tha tthe m a j o r i t y o f the isla nders made dow i t h less costly wooden figures (alltraces of w h i c h w o u l d have vanishedby no w) , just as they ha d to be content w i t h vessels fashioned f r o m clay.

A t presen t , there is not sufficientarchaeological evidence to state w i t hassurance whether these figures weren o r m a l l y accorded respect at the timeo f their interment w i t h the dead, whowere placed in cramp ed, unprepossessing, box li ke graves. Clear i n f o r

mat ion of this sort coul d pro vid e cluesto par t of the mystery sur rou ndi ng thei d e n t i t y and f u n c t i o n ofthese imagesand to the at tit udes o f the l i v i n g tow a r d them.

Perhaps the most i n t r i g u i n g quest i o n of all concerns me ani ng: wh y di dpeople acquire these idols? Becausethe m a j o r i t y are female, w i t h a feweither pregnant or showing signs ofpos t par tum wr in k le s , the ev idencepoints in the direc tio n of f e r t i l i t y , atleast for the female fig ures. Gl anci n g for a moment at the double-figureimage of plate i n, it mi gh t be viewedas essentially si mil ar to the tra di ti ona lsingle female figure w h i l e being evenmore p o w e r f u l l y or blat antl y symbol ico f f e r t i l i t y . By depi cti ng the standar df i g u r e type as both pregnant and w i t ha c h i l d , the sculptor was able to intens i fy the idea of fec undi ty and the r enewal of l i f e . This should provide animpor tan t clue to wh at may have beenthe essential meaning ofthese prehist o r i c marble figures.

For the time being, one may t h i n ko f these scul ptu res as the per sona lpossessions of the dead ra ther tha nas g i f t s m a d e to them at the time of

4


18/100

the i r funerals. They should perhapsbe vi ew ed as icons of a pro te ct iv ebeing acquired by a person, kept duri n g his or her l i f e t i m e and perhapsdisplayed i n the home , but whose ul t i m a t e and pr im ar y purp ose was toserve in the grave as pot ent symb olso f eternal renewal and hope and ascomfor t ing reminders that l i f e w o u l dpersist in the beyond. Reaff irma tio no f the v i t a l i t y of l i f e and the senses,moreover, may have been the symbolic purpose of the occasional ma lef igu remusic maker , wine offerer ,h u n t e r / w a r r i o r . In the absence o fw r i t t e n records, one w i l l never be ableto achieve a comple te unders tan din g ofsuch inta ngib le matte rs as bur ial r i t u a l or the f u l l mea nin g of the images.Such are the l i m i t s of archaeology.

A great deal can be lea rned , nevertheless, about Ear ly Cycla dic sculpture f r o m a p r i m a r i l y visual approachw h i c h focuses less on the i n t r i g u i n gb u t , in the present state of knowledge,d i f f i c u l t questions conce rnin g why f i g ures were carved, for whom they wereintended, or even precisely when theywere mad e, and mor e on the quest ions of how they were design ed and

by whom . What f o l l o w s , then, is a surv ey of the typological development ofEarly Cycladic sculptu re, i n ad di ti on,i t is the intentionhere to show that itis possible to isolate the works of i n d i vidual sculpt ors and to speculate aboutthese i n d i v i d u a l s 'g r o w t h as artistsw o r k i n g w i t h i n the strict conventionso f a sophisticated craft t radi t ion .

5


19/100

Plate i . FourEarly Cycladicmarblevasesin the J. Paul Getty Museum.

a. The collared ja r orkandila (lamp) was themost common marbleobject produced in the EC phase. Several hundred ofthesevessels are known.Eidless, they were carriedsuspendedfrom cords andwereprobably designed tohold liquids, although onewasfound containingshells. In size kandilesrangefrom 8.4 cm to37 cm. Malibu, The J PaulGetty Museum 90.AA.9.H . 25.2 cm.

b . The beaker is another ofalimited range of marble

forms of the EC phase.Eidless like the collaredjar, it was also designedfo r suspension and wasprobably intended as acontainerfor liquids, butit occurs much less frequently. In rare cases a

female torso is representedon one side of the vessel(with the suspension lugsdoubling as upper arms),reinforcing the notion thatthe vessel was symbolicallyinterchangeable with theplastically sculptedfemale

image. In size beakersrangefrom 7.5 cm to35 cm. Malibu, The J PaulGetty Museum 90.AA.10.H . 16 cm.

6


20/100

c .Among the rare variations on the k a n d i l a (pi.la ) are several consistingof two joined examplesand one or two lacking thetop or bottom element. Thisunique vessel hadfourshort feet (now damaged)instead of the usual conicalor cylindrical pedestal andisprobably a late exampleof the type, perhaps transitional between EC I andECU. Malibu, The J PaulGetty M useum, 88. AA. 84(ex Steiner Collec tion).Pres. H. 16.7 cm.

d . E C J cylindrical pyx ide snormally carried inciseddecoration. While curvilinear designs (spirals, circles)are confined almost, exclusively to vessels carved insofter and lessfriable soap-stone, marble containerswere regularly ornamented,with rectilinear encirclinggrooves reminiscent of thepostpartum wrinkles seenon anumber of figures(e.g.,fig. 6)perhapsanother indication of the

female symbolism of thevessel. This beautifullycarved example, which

shows traces of red. painton its interior, is at presentunique among marble vessels for the single engraved ,spiral which covers itsunderside. This may be anearly example, transitionalbetween EC l and. EC I IMalibu, Th e J Paul GettyMuseum 88. AA. 8 3 (exSteiner Collection).H . 6.5 cm (lid missing);D . (mouth) 8.4 cm.

7


21/100

Plate T w o female figures in the J . Paul Getty Museum.

a. Plastiras type. EC I.Simpler than most examples of its type, this modestwork is unusual in that itlacks any definition of the

forearms. The mendinghole in the right thigh wasa remedyfo r damageincurred perhaps when thesculptor was in the pr ocessof separating the legs. Ifthis was the case, he mayhave thought it best not tocontinue separating themasfar as the crotch. Abreak across the left thighprobably occurred at amuch later time. Malibu,Th e J Paul Getty Museum71.AA.128.H. 14.2 cm.See also figure 1 3d.

b . Precanon ical type. ECI / I I . Although one can seein this figure a tentative

folding of the armsfor eshado wing the classic idolof the EC II phase, it is stillvery much related to theearlier Plastiras type in itslong neck, modeled limbs,andfeet with arched so les(seefig. 13e) very similarto those of the piece illustrated in plate H a and

figure 13d. Although thealmond-shaped eyes andthe indication of the browsar e related to those paintedon laterfigures, their sculptural rendering connectsthem to the earlier tradi

tion, as does the bo rednavel (cf. fig. 13c). Notehow the legs were carvedseparatelyfor only a shortdistance. The modeling andattempted naturalism, ofthe orearms and handsreflect a short-livedapproach taken by somesculptors of precanonical

figures (cf. pi. I I I . Thefigure was acquired by theJ Paul Getty Museum in.two parts: the headless idolcame to themuseum in1972, having been obtainedmany years earlier in theParis flea, market. In 1977,during a visit to a European antiquities dealer, J .Frel identified the head/neck as belonging to thesame work. Malibu, TheJ Paul Getty Museum72.AA.156/77.AA.24.H. 28.2 cm.

8


22/100

Plate i n .Femaletwo-figure composition.

Precanonical type. EC I / / /Probably theearliest andalso thelargest of the threewell-preserved and unquestionably genuine examplesof this type known to thewriter, thepiece is interestingfor anumber of reasons. The two figures weredeliberately made to benearly exact replicas ofeach other, with one difference: thelarger is clearlyrepresented as pregnantwhile thesmaller hasalmost no midsection atall. This is proba bly ofsome significancefor anunderstanding of the precise meaning of such compositions, which continuestobeelusive but whichmust have suggestedfertility. Such works wereexceedingly difficult tocarve tocompletio n without sustaining fractures,especially at theankles ofthe small image, and consequently were rarelyattempted.In their proportions andwith theirfully folded arms,the two figures are closetypologically to the Spedosvariety, but the naturalisticrendering of theforearmsand hands, inaddition tothe well-defined knees andslightly archedfe et heldparallel tothe ground, suggests that thework belongs

tothelate transitionalstage. Typologically, atleast, itappears somewhatlater than the figure illustrated inplate lib. NewYork, Shelby White andLeon Levy Collection.H. 46.6 cm.

9


23/100

Plate i v .Two harp players.

a.Precanonical style. EC1/11. Theearliest knownexample of a rarelyattempted type requiringenormous patience andskill, thefigure isseated ona chair with an elaboratebackrest, based, like theharp, on wooden models.H e isrepresented in the actof plucking thestrings ofhis instrument with histhumbs. Note the lightcaplike area at the top andback of the head whichwas once painted. NewYork, The MetropolitanMuseum of Art, RogersFund, 47.100.1.H. 29.5 cm.

10


24/100

b . Early Spedos varietystyle. EC I I This is thelargest and, along with theMetropolitan Museum 'vexample, the best preservedof the ten surviving harper s ofungues tiona bleauthenticity known to thewriter. 'Thefigure is represented holding his instrument at rest. Note the subtlerendering of the right armand cupped hand. Paintghosts for hair and eyesare discernible. Malibu,Th e J Paul Getty Museum85.AA. 103. H. 35.8cm.Said tocome fromAmorg os. See also figures24, 25, 79, and cover.

11

Plate v .Heads offour figures.


25/100

a.Plastiras type. A workof the Athens MuseumMaster. EC I One of fourworks ascribed to thissculptor. Note that the righteye inlay is preserved.Geneva, Musee Barbier-MuellerBMG 209-59.Pres. H. 13.6 cm.

b . Detail of work illustratedinfigure 56,showing paintghostsfor eyes, brows, and

forehead hair.

12


26/100

c. Spedos variety. EC II.A typical head on whichfaint paint ghosts arevisible for the eyes and

forehead hair. Malibu, TheJ Paul Getty Museum11.AA.125.Pres. E. 8.9 cm.

d. Do kathismata variety.EC I I . In contrast to therather conservative formof the Spedos variety head(pi. Vc , that of theD okathismata variety isusually rather extreme andmannered. Note the broadcrown and pointed chin.The head is carved in a

rather unusual striatedmarble. Malibu, TheJ.Paul Getty Museum71.AA.126. Pres.L. 8.6 cm.

13


27/100

Platev i . Painted details.

b . Detail of work illustratedinfigure 41, showing painting on thehands. Note alsothe modeling of the breastsand arms.

a. Detail of work illustratedinfigure 41, showingpainted details on thefacean d apainted necklace.See alsofigure 42.

14


28/100

c. Detail of work illustratedin figure 78, showing painting on theface and in theneck groove.

d . Detail of work illustrated,in figure 78, showing thepainted ear and neckgrooves.

15


29/100

his page intentionally left blank

The StoneVases


30/100

E a r l y Cyc ladi c sculp tor s probabl yspent most of the ti me they devotedto their craft fashioning stone vases( p i . i) . In al lphases of Earl y Cyclad iccul ture , these cups, bowls, goblet s,jars, beakers, boxes, palet tes, trays,and anima l-sha ped containers werefa r more numer ous as a grou p t hanthe f igures. L i k e the figures, theywere evi dent ly acqu ired to be usedlat er in the grave. O n occasion, theyhave been found in graves that alsoy i e l d e d idols , al though some of thespherical and cylindricaltypes can beviewed as symbol s of the wo mb and ,as such, may as a rule have been re garded as appropriate substitutes forthe pr ed omi na nt ly female images.A fe w vessels, on the other ha nd, appear to have been made to hold figures( f i g - 2) -

Even though this book is restrictedto a discussion of figu rat ive works, ina very real sense the te rm Cyclad icsculptur e ought to embrace both theso-called idols and these often veryb e a u t i f u l , thoug h strangely neglected,vessels of marb le or, in rare cases, ofsofter stones.

Figure 2.Femalefolded-arm figure (EarlySpedosv a r i e t y ) w i t h trough-shaped palette. ECII.Reputedly found togetheras shown, the two objects

fit each other well; they arecarved in the same marbleand are similarly preserved.Although no examples havebeen ound in systematicexcavations, the combination seems a plausible one,given the reclining postureof thefolded-arm figures.Th e rather carelesslycrafted idol is of interestchieflyfor the highly unusual reversal of the armswhich, except in the verylate examples, are almostwithout exception held ina right-below-left arrangement. Note, too, the asymmetry of the shoulders and

feet and the unequal lengthof the pointed ends of thepalette/cradle. Jerusalem,Israel Museum 74.61.208a,b. L (figure) 19.5 cm.L (palette) 20.5 cm.

17

The Figurative Sculpture


31/100

Th e vast maj or it y of the figures arem a d e o f s p a r k l i n g w h i t e m a r b l e ;w o r k s i n gray , bande d , or mot t l edmar ble s or i n oth er materi als such asvolcanic ash, shell, or lead are veryrar e. Th e images vary in size f r o mminiatures measuring less than 10 cm(4 in . ) ( f ig . 5 ) to nea r l y l i f e - s i ze( f i g . 4) , alt houg h most do not exceed50 cm ( l f t . ) .

I n ter ms of natu ral ism, the sculptures range f r o m simpl e modifica tionso f stones shaped and polished by the

sea to h i g h l y developed renderings ofthe human f o r m w i t h subtle variationso f plane and contour. In many examples, no pr im ar y sexual characteristicsare indicated, but unless these figuresare depi cte d in a specifically mal e ro le( p i . iv) , they are us ually assumed torepresent females. The female f o r m ,sometimes shown as pregnan t ( f i g s .5, 75) or w i t h pos tpa r tum skin folds( f i g s . 6, 7), domina tes t hr oug hou t theperiod. Male figures account for onlyabout f i v e percent of the kn ow n pro-

18

Figure 3.Female folded-


32/100

arm figure. Late Spedos/Dokathismata variety.E C U .This is one of the smallestcompletefigures of the

folded-arm type known.Such diminutive imagestend to be rather crude intheir execution and areprobablyfor the most partexamples of their sculptorsearly work. Note the disparity in the width of thelegs caused by the misalignment of the leg cleft.Athens, Museum ofCycladic and AncientGreek Art, Nicholas P.Goulandris Foundation350. L 9.5 cm.

Figure 4.Female folded-arm figure. Early Spedosvariety. EC I ITh e third largest completely preserved figurenow known to the writer(the largest work, inAthens, measures 148 cm),the piece is remarkableforthe superb state of its sur

face. Breaks at the neckand legs may have beenmade intentionally in orderto fit thefigure into a gravethat otherwise would havebeen too short fo r it; alternatively, the image mayhave come from a sanctuary. Although somewhatungainly in its proportions,

the work was carved by ahighly skilled sculptor.New York, Harmon Collection. L 132 cm. Said to be

from Amorgos. See alsofigure 34.

19


33/100

Figure 5.Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedosvariety. EC I IUnlike mostfigures thatar e represented in a pregnant condition (eg.,fig.75), this example shows arather advanced stage.Athens, Museum ofCycladic and AncientGreek Art, Nicholas P.Goulandris Foundation309. L 15.7 cm. Said tobefrom Naxos.

duc ti on pi . iv , figs. 19, 23-2 8, 35, 36).A character is t ic feature of Cycladic

s c u l p t u r e t h r o u g h o u t i t s d e v e l o p ment, from its earliest begi nnings inthe Neolithic Age, is the simultaneousmanufac ture of both a s impl if i ed f latt ened version of the female fo rm anda more f u l l y elaborated one fi g. 11).A l t h o u g h the popular i ty of each typevaries in a g iven per iod , i t appearsnow that at least some examples o fb o t h types appear in every p er io d ,exceptperhaps in the firstphase of thetransit ional one when there seems tohave been a ble ndi ng of the tw o types.That one Cycladic is lander migh t acqu i r e bo th schemat ic and represen

t a t iona l ido ls i s suggested by theiroccasional presence in a single grave( f i g . 7 ) . M a n y s c u l p t o r s p r o b a b l ycarved both types, but the schematicf i g u r i n e wa s doubtless the less expensive to m ak e , since i t was nor mal lysma ll and coul d be fashione d f r oma f lat beach pebble , thus r e q u i r i n gm u c h less wo rk ; as man y as fourte eno f these have been found together i none grave.

The forms that Cycladic sculpturestook somet ime after the beginning ofthe Earl y Bronze Age Early Cycladici ) appear to be directly related to thefigures carved in mu ch smalle r n um bers duri ng the Neol it hic Age figs. 8,

20

front to indicate postpar- although in one or twoturn wrinkles orpossibly rare cases they occur in

Figure 6.Female figure.Louros type. EC i / l l .

tour of the arms reflects thestumplike projections char


34/100

bindings. A convention combination with amore decorative and easier slightly swollen abdomen,to render than the rounded Princeton, The Artbelly normally associated Museum, Princetonwith pregnancy and child- University 934. H. 25 cm.birth, such markings are

found almost exclusivelyon theflatterfigure types,

Rather crude and clumsy,this figure is atypicalbecause itincorporates features reminiscent of thePlastiras type, namely,plastically treated mouthandforearms. Note, however, that the outline con

acteristic of the Lourostype (e.g.,fig. 14). Thesculptor, perhaps not aspecialist, appears to havebeen confused since hecarved the breasts belowthe arms. The figure showsengraved lines across the

Figure 7.Female figures.V i o l i n type {a, c).Plastirastype (b). EC IThis group of modestworks is reputed to havebeen ound together, as thecharacter of the marble,state of preservation, andworkmanship seem to con

firm. That they were also

b .carved by thesame sculptor is strongly suggested bysimilarities in the outlinecontours, particularly inthe area of the shouldersand upper arms. (A smallbeaker of the type illustrated in plate ih was alsoallegedly part of thegroup.) The recovery of

c.

schematic and representational figures in the samegrave is attestedfor boththe EC I and EC I I phases.Columbia, Museum of Artand Archaeology, University of Missouri 64.67.1-3.H . 76-14.1 cm.

21

a.


35/100

Figure 8.Female figure.S i t t i n g type. LateN e o l i t h i c .One of two basic LateNeolithic postural types,the steatopygous sitting

figure with folded legs wasthefull-blown version ofand the original modelfortheflat, schematic violin-type figures, (e.g.,fig. 7a,

c) already produced inlimited numbers in LateNeolithic times. Note theexaggerated breadth of theupper torso necessitatedby the position of theforearms. New York, ShelbyWhite and Leon Levy Collection. H. 13.3 cm. Saidto be part of agrave group

from Attica or Euboia.

9 ) . For thei r more represe ntat iona lfigures, Cycladic sculptors used thestanding posture and an arrangemento f th e arms in which the hands meetover the abdomen (fi g. 10), bot h i nh e r i t e d f r o m t h e e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n .Exaggerated corpulence, the hal lma rko f th e Stone Age figure, was reducedto a two-di mension al, strongly frontalscheme. These images are also broadacross the hips, but, unlik e thei r pr edecessors, they have straight, nar rowp r o f i l e s , as is ill ust rat ed by a compa rison between the profil es of two L ateN e o l i t h i c figures and th ree Early Cycladic ones (fig. 13).

I t is doub tfu l that this fund ament alaltera tion i n the sculptors' approachto the female f o r m reflects a changei n rel igious out look or in aesthet icpreference. Mos t prob ably the n ewtr end was ini ti at ed by the sculptorsthemselves i n an eff ort to speed upthe carvingprocess. It is possibl e, too,that there was some inf luence f r o mwood en figures, wh ic h may have f i l l e dthe lon g gap i n ti me betwee n t he lasto f the Neo li th ic marb le figures andth e f i r s t of the Br onze Age ones.

Cycladi c sculp ture may be div ide d,

22

Figure 9.Female figure.Standing type. Late

head of thefigure wouldhave resembled that of the


36/100

N e o l i t h i c .Th e standing counterpartof the steatopygous sitting

figure, this was the prototypefor the earliest rep-re sentatio nalfigu res(Plastiras type) of the EC Iphase (eg.,fig. 10). The

sitting figure in figure 8.New York, The Metropolitan Museum, of Art1972.118.104, Bequest ofWalter C Baker.Pres.H. 21.5 cm.

Figure 10.Female figure.Plastirastype. EC I.Typicalfeatures of thePlastiras type seen on thisfigure include hollowed,eyes, luglike ears, asculpted mouth, only barelyvisible because of weathering of the surface, anextremely long neck, longincised.fingers which seemto double as a decorativepattern strongly reminiscent ofpostpartum wrinkles (e.g., figs. 6, 7), broadhips, and legs carved separately to the crotch. A cylindrical headdress or polosissuggested by the shapeof the head, on top. Thismay have been originallymore clearly indicated, withpaint. Pasadena, NortonSimon CollectionN.75.18.3.S.A.H. 18.5 cm.

23


37/100

24


38/100

Figure 11.Th e typological and chronological development ofCycladic sculpture. Withthe exception of the schematic Neolithic figure, thepieces illustrated here arediscussed elsewhere in thiswork (the numbers providefigure references).

s t y l i s t i c a l l y and iconographically, intot w o distinc t groups, apparently w i t ha t ransi t ional phase in betw een (fi g.11) . These divisions correspond gene r a l l y to the chronological and culturalsequences based on changes tha t occurre d in Cycladic ceramics dur i ngth e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C .

The earlier group, whose relation toN e o l i t h i c antecedents we have beenconside ring, mig ht convenient ly becalled archaic. The numerous schemati c figures of this phase, many ofthem shaped l i k e v iol ins (fi g. 7#, c),are character ized by a lon g, headlessprong. Their rather rare representat i o n a l counterparts (Plast i ras type) ,besides reta i ning the Neol i thic armposition and stance, also reveal a c u r i ous combination ofex aggerated proportions and painstaking concern foranatomical detai l, both on the face andon the body (fi g. 10). Caref ul att ent ionwas paid to the kneecaps, ankl es, andarches, whi le the navel and butt ockd imples were also of ten ind ica ted.A l t h o u g h for the mos t part the eyesockets are now empty, they were in l a i d w i t h dark stones (pi . v#), a pract i ce for which t h e r e ma y also have

Figure 12.ANeolithic standing figurewith hollowed eye socketsthatpresumably once heldinlays. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of ArtLA974.77J (on loan fromChris tos G. Bast is).H . 20.9 cm.

25

a. Seefigure 8. b . Seefigure 9. c.Seefigure 45a. d.See plate IIa. e.See plate /lb.


39/100

Figure 13. A compari sonofthe profiles of LateN e o l i t h i c(a, 6), EC IPlastiras type (c,d), andEC I / I I precanonical (e)figures.

been Neolithicprecedents (f ig. 12).A new feature ofthese archaic f i g

ures is the complete separation of thel e g , f r o m the feet up to the cr otc h. I nthe Neo l i th i c f igures , o n l y th e fee twere carved as separa te elements .Wha te ve r the moti ve for this ne wpract ice, i t car r ie d a s trong r i s k ofaccidentalbreakage to the legs, w h i c hoften happened, perhaps dur ing the

carving process itself. Broken figureswere not disc ard ed. Instea d, thei rsculp tors br ou gh t int o pla y one ofthe i r favorite impl ements the hand-ro ta ted bore r . W i t h the borer theyn o r m a l l y made eye sockets, hollowedears, navels, butt ock dimp les , and occasionally even complete perforationsat the elbows as w e l l as the suspension holes i n the lugs of the ma rbl e

26


40/100

vases they pro duc ed in a stonis hingquantity at this time (pi.la, b). Whena figure sustained a fracture, they alsoused the borer to make r athe r conspicuous holes through which a string orleather thong could be drawn to refas-ten the bro ken par t ( pi . n


41/100

Fig u re 15 . Fou r sm a l l ,precanonical figuress h o w i n g stepsin t hedevelopment o f t hef o l d e d - a r m p o s i t i o n .EC I / H .a. Although the arms arerendered in the manner ofthe Plastiras type, the proportions show none of theexaggeration of the earlierfigures and the legs are no tcarved separately to the

crotch. Private collection.H . 15.8 cm.b . Norwich, UniversityofEastAnglia, SainsburyCentrefor Visual Arts,P9(d).H. 9.5 cm.c. The arms are tentatively

folded (cf pi. Ilh butin an unorthodo x right-above-left arrangement.The legs are separated tojust above the knees. A

mending holefo r the reattachment of the missingle g is visible in the leftknee. Note the carved ears,the incised facial detail, themodeled legs, and the solesparallel to the ground,characteristicsfound onmost of the best precanonical examples.Geneva, Musee Barbier-MuellerBMG 202.9.H . 15.9 cm.

d . Although the arms areproperly folded in thecanonical right-below-leftarrangement, thefigureretains such precano nical

features as carved ears,well-modeled legs separatedto the knees, and solesappropriate to a standingposture. Ho uston, TheMenil Collection 73-01DJ.H . 16.2 cm.

28


42/100

T o w a r d the end of the transit ionalphase, sculptors began to strive formore balanced and natural proportions (f ig . 15, pi s. 116, m ) . W h i l e unk n o w i n g l y sett ing the stage for theem er g en ce of the canonical fol ded -arm figu re at the begi nni ng of the second, classical, phase (fig. 16), thesesculptors were f i n d i n g new ways toprodu ce representat ional f igures inquanti ty. At the same ti me, they wer ereducing the risks i n v o l v e d i n the car vi n g process. A l o n g w i t h more naturalpropor t ions , w h i c h resulted in sturdier f igures, the sculptors seem tohave been seeking an arm renderingmor e app rop ri ate to the slend er bod ystyle of their images. W h i l e the oldN e o l i t h i ca rm positi on ofhands touch-i n g over the m i d r i f f ma y w e l l havebeen suited to exagger ated cor pulence, for the person of ord ina ry b u i l dto assume this pose involves movingthe elbows and upper arms w e l l awayf r o m the sides so that a large triangula r clear space re ma in s. This gap wassometi mes hazard ously indic ate d byperf orat ions at the fragi le bend o f thearms. An interest in a natural posecarved in a secure way, rather than

any new influence or s h i f t in religiousmea ni ng or gesture, most l i k e l y i n spired the gradual development ofthe fold ed -a rm posit ion that was tobecome de rigueur in the next phase( f i g . 15). Thi s new posi ti on entails nofree space if the elbows and up perar ms are he l d close to th e sid es.Ind eed , the ve ry ear ly fo l ded -ar mfigures seem to be t i g h t l y claspingthemselves (f ig. 16). In ord er to reduce further the r i s k of fra cture, thelegs are now separated for o n l y abouth a l f their length, f r o m the feet to theknees, or even less (p i .ub). Beginningw i t h these p r e c an o n ic a l f i g u r e s ,repairs are much less frequently seen,presumably because there were feweraccidents i n the workshop . Consid erable attention was s t i l l paid to i n d i v i d ua l f o r m , and to details, but less thani n ear l ier phases.

Roughly contemporary w i t h theset ransi t ional figu res is the harp playeri n the Metro pol it an Mus eu m of Art .This w o r k , w i t h its allegedly un-Cy-cladic ar m muscles and thre e-d ime nsional thu mbs (p i. iv #) , has often beencondemned because i t does not conf o r m to wh a t has come to be a re-

29


43/100

Figure 16.Female folded-arm figure. Kapsalavariety. EC I IAn early example of theclassical or canonical

folded-arm figure. Note itsslenderness and elongatedthighs, as well as the use ofrelief modelingfor details.Malibu, The J Paul GettyMuseum 88.AA. 78 (exSteiner Collection).Pres. L 49 cm.Figure 17.Female folded-arm figure. Spedosvariety. EC I ISomewhat later than thepreceding example, thisfigure shows a careful balancing ofproportions withno singleform exaggerated.Note the broader shouldersand unperforated leg cleft,as well as the use of incisionf or details. This workis unusual in having acarved mouth. Malibu,Th e J Paul Getty Museum88.AA.48.L. 30 cm.

30


44/100

str icted a nd circu mscri bed not ion ofwhat a Cycladic sculpture shou ld lookl i k e . A tt un ed as one is to the ha rmo ni ously propor tioned folded-arm figure(and to harpers carved i n the samestylepi. i v & , f i g s . 23-25) and not tothe l i t t l e - k n o w n or l i t t l e -admi red pre-c a n o n i c a l ima ges, it is d i f f i c u l t forsome to accept the New Y o r k harperas a genu ine Cyclad icwork. We need,however, to stretch our conception ofEar ly Cyc ladic sculp ture to incl udesuch for eru nner s of the images executed i n the mor e f l u i d classical style.I f one views the New Y o r k harper as afine e xampl e of an essentially experi m e n t a l movement , bear ing in m i n dthe b iza r r e Pla s t i r as - t ype f igure sw h i c h came before in ad di ti on to considering that exaggerated p roport ionsand attention to detail had not yetbeen entirel y suppl anted (p i. m) , theharper falls natura l lyinto place as theearliest known exa mple of a rare ty pe.

Earlyi n the second or classical phaseo f Cycl adic sculptu re ( Early Cycladicn ) , th e f u l l - f l e d g e d fo lde d-a rm figureemerges in several diff eren t variet iesw h i c h , for the most par t, appear in aspecific chronologica l sequence (fig.

11). M o r e s i m p l i f i e d and streamlinedthan its predecessors , the canonicalor folded-arm type was produced inastonishing quantity over a period ofseveral centurie s. Its abstract counterpart (Apeiranthos type) has a simplegeometric body, w i t h the neck carryi n g the su ggestio n of a head ( fi g. 18).

U n l i k e the p r o f i l e axis of the f i g ures of the archaic phase, that of thef i r s t folded-arm figures (Kapsala v a r i ety and some examp les of the EarlySpedos variet y) is sharply br oken, part i c u l a r l y at the back of the hea d andat the ben d of the knees. Th e feet areheld at an angle, outward and event u a l l yalso downward, in what appearsto be a tip toe posi ti on i f the fi gures areset vertically. These features, however,are appropriate to a relaxed, recliningposi t ion ( f i g s . 4, 5), in contrast to theerect posture o f the archaic Plastirasfigures ( f i g s . 10, 13). Th e figur es d ati n g f r o m the earlier period were e v i dently meant to stand , alt hou gh theydo not do so unsupported. Just as w i t hthe changes i n ar m posit ion that tookplace about the same time, this alteredposture probablydoes not indicate anyradical changei n religious symbo lis m

31


45/100

Figure 18.Female (?)f i g u r e . Apeiranthos type.EC I I .Th e EC I I counterpart ofthe violinfigures of EC /,images of this type differ

from the earlier ones inthat they have the suggestion of ahead and theirbodies tend to be rectangula r and devoid of incisedmarkings. Sometimescarved in shell, they havebeenfound in associationwith Spedos-varietyfiguresand were presumablymade by sculptors whoalsofashioned such fullyrepresentational images.Mr . and Mrs. C. W.Sahlman Collection (onloan to the Tampa MuseumofArtL196.1).H. 12.3 cm.Said to befrom Keros.

or any external influence. Because i tevolvedgrad ually, i t is more l i k e l y thatthe recliningposture was intr odu cedby the sculptors themselves. Since thefigures were normally l a i d on theirbacks in the grave, the sculpt ors mayhave assumed that they should bemade in a recliningposture f r o m thestart. In any case, at this time anotherd i s t i n c t i o n was made: those figuresintended to stand were furnished w i t hsmal l rectangular bases ( f i g s . 26, 32),w h i l e seated figures were carved w i t htheir feet parall el to the gr oun d ( pi . iv,f i g s . 23, 24, 27).

I n the ear ly fo l ded -a rm f igures(Kapsala and Early Spedos varieties),the legs are joined by a t h i n m e m brane, perf orat ed for a short spacebetween the calves ( f i g s . 2, 16, 55, 56).T h i s practice seems to be a furtherat te mpt to str engt hen the limb s atvuln erabl e point s. As the fo lde d-a rmfigures developed, however, the perf o r a t i o n o f the le g clef t was usu al lyo m i t t e d altogether (Late Spedos v a r i ety; f i g s . 3, 44, 49) , no dou bt i n ane f f o r t toreduce the r isk of fract ure s t i l lfurthe r. In the latest and most ha stilyexecuted examples, the legs are sepa-

32


46/100

Figure 19. Male folded-arm figure. Dokathismatavariety. EC I ICarved toward the end ofthe period of production,this rare male figure isnoteworthyfor its plastically treated brows andstraight grooved haii~probably an exclusivelymale hairstyleas well as

fo r the separation of itsupper arms from the chest,effected bymeans of obliquecuttings. As in most examples with arm cutouts, atleast one of the upper armshas broken off The damage in this case is old, butwhether it occurred at thetime of manufacture,shortly thereafter, or muchlater cannot be determined.It is clear, however, thatbroken arms could not havebeen easily reattached, forwhich reason such cutouts,however attractive, werenot often attempted. Thisfigure has re d paintedstripes on its chest.New York, The Metropolitan Museum ofArt1972.118.103b, Bequest ofWalter C. Baker.L 35.9cm.

35


47/100

rated by a broa d groove ( Doka thi smat avariety; f i g s . 19, 20) or mer el y by anengraved l ine (Chaland rian i variety;f i g s . 2 1, 22, 35, 36). Because of therisk, o nly a few sculptor s o f such verylate works perf ora ted the leg clefts ofthe ir figure s or dar ed to free the sle nder upper arms f r o m the sides ( f i g s .19,21,226).

F r o m the beg inn ing of this secondphase, the fol ded arra ngemen t of thearms became a s t r i c t l y observed convention. Not only are the arms folded,but also, for several centu ries and w i t hvery few exce ption s, they are fol dedi n one arra ngemen t only : the r i ghtarm is shown below the l e f t . Somem i g h t interpret this as having m y s t i cal connota tion s, b ut it is possible thatthe conve ntion was established un wi tt i n g l y by a few ri ght -ha nde d sculptorswh o found i t easier to draw the armsi n this patter n. Ha vi ng set the lo werbound ary of the arms by drawing ther i g h t one, the sculptor could easily f i l li n th e lines o f the l e f t arm above, leavi n g h ims el f a clear view of the r igh tone. Once the practice was start ed,o ther scu lp tors p resumably w o u l dhave f o l l o w e d suit.

A f t e r the eye has been tra ined byl o o k i n g at a large number of figures,any departure f r o m the r ight-below-l e f t for mul a strikes one as d ecide dlyoddquite wr on g, in fact (fi g. 2). No tunexpectedl y, forgers o f Cycladic f i g ures, as w e l l as copiers for the Gre ektourist trade, not infrequently arrangeth e arms in the opposite fas hion: ri ghtabove l e f t . They probably do so out ofa failure to appreciate just how s t r i c t l ythe con ven tio n was observed .

T o w a r d the en d of the class icalper iod, the canonical ar m ar r angement no longer dominated, as is e v i d e n t i n t h e C h a l a n d r i a n i v a r i e t y .Although a l i m i t e d reviva l of interes ti n the ca rvi ng of facial det ail and hai rocc urr ed at this ti me (f ig. 19), sculptors general ly lavished less care ont h e i r w o r k s , w h i c h a lso te nde d tobe quite sma ll . Th e figures becameh i g h l y styl ized renderi ngs w i t h distorted proport ions and severe, angul a r o u t l i n e s . T h e t r a d i t i o n a l a r marr ang emen t was of ten ig nor ed ormisunders tood ( f i g s . 2 1, 22) . A n ext r eme e xamp le i s a c lu msy f i gu r ew h i c h appears to have three arms andfour sets of finger s (fi g. 22c).

34

Figure 20.Female folded-arm figure. Dokathismatavariety. EC I IAn unusually graceful


48/100

example of the severe styleof the later part of the ECI I period. Note especiallythe broad shoulders andupper arms, the unusualincised mouth, and theancient repair holes at theneck, rare at this late date.New York, Harmon Collection. Pres. L 20.6 cm.Figure 21 .Female figure.Chalandriani variety. EC I IThefigure is unusual both

fo r the uncanonical position of theforearms andfo r its arm cutouts, madein order to reduce thebreadth of the upper arms(cfifig. 20). The head, nowmissing, was once reattached by means of leadclamps on either side of thebreak. Lead as a mendingagent in the EC period is

found also on a small marblebowl and on pottery.New York, The MetropolitanMuseum of Ar t 1977.187.11,Bequest of Alice K. Bache.Pres.L. 27J cm.

35


49/100

c. Figure 22.ThreeChalandriani-varietyfigures w i t h uncanonicalar m arrangements.EC I Ia. The arms are renderedin the old Plastiras position (cf fig. 10), but theresemblance is probably

fortuitous. The angularlines and the absence of amidsection arefeatures typical of the Chalandrianivariety. Private collection.L 30.2 cm.b .Note the arm cutoutsand scratchedfingers (cf.

fig. 21 )and the unusualstippling ofthe pubic triangle. London, BritishMuseum 75.3-13.2.Pres. L 23.6 cm.c.Said to be rom Seriphos.Carved in an unusual blue-gray marble, thefigure ismostprobably the work ofan untutored person livingoutside the sculptural mainstream. Berlin, StaatlicheMuseen, AntikensammlungMisc. 8426. L 22.2 cm.

56

a. b .

F i g u r e 2 5 . T w omalef i g u r e s . Harper type .Kapsala va r i e ty s ty l e . EC I IA charming pair, clearly-

closely resembles theirstools in size and shape.Note the typical swan'shead ornament of the harps

thumbs to make music,these harpers are shownplucking the strings withal l thefingers of at least the

figure must have beenshown plucking the stringswith the left hand as well.D ifferences in hand posi

Shelby W hite and LeonLevy Collection. H . 20.1 cm.and 17.4 cm. Sa id, to be

from Amorgos.


50/100

designed as companionpieces, thesefigures werereputedly found togetherwith aooted vessel ofmarble carved ofa. piecewith a little table that

which are held, also typically, on the musicians'right sides. In contrast tothe Metropolitan Museum sharper (pi. JVa , who isshown using only his

right hand. While the lefthand of the smaller figureprobably held the harpframe (both the left ha ndand a section of the harpare missing), the larger

tion as well as in the typeof furniture representedwere the sort of libertiesallowe d in the execution ofan otherwise very rigidlydefined type. New York,

37


51/100

The be ginni ng of the second EarlyCycladic phase was a ti me of pr odi gious outpu t and of sta rtl ing self-confidence and virtuosity, analogous tothe ambi tio us develo pments in largemarbl e sculpture that took place i nthe Cyclades some two thousand yearslater . Although a few examples ares t y l i s t i c a l l y s l ightl y ear l ier (pis . i n,i v # ) , mos t of the rare special figuretypesbelong to this phase.Fi rs t and fore most are the mus icians, the seated harpists and stand-

Figure 24. Harp player.EarlySpedosvariety style.EC i i .See also plate ivh,

figure 79.

Figure 25. Detail of harpplayer in figure 24.

58


52/100

i n g woodwind p layer s ( f i g s . 23-26,p i . iv) . Other seated types inc lud e thecupbearer and var iat ions of the standard folded-arm female ( f i g s . 27, 29).A l s o included are the scarce two- andthree-fi gure composit ions. I n one two -f i g u r e a r r a n g em en t , a small foldedarm figure is carved on the head of alarge r one (p i . i n ) . In a n o t h e r , ofw h i c h no comple te exa mple survives,t w o figu res of the same size are setside by side clasping each othe r a boutth e shoulders ( f i g s .30, 31). A variationo f this t h em e is the ama zin g thr ee-f i g u r e gro up carve d in a singl e piece,i n whi ch the sta ndin g male figuresl i n k arms to support a seated female( f i g . 52).

Near ly al l the excepti onall y la rgefigures were also carved at this time( f i g s . 4, 34). Wh i l e a nu mbe r of fragments of such mon ume nt al figuressurvi ve (fi g. 33), very few comp let eones are know n. Fr om the largest extant examp le, f oun d i n the last cent u r y , reputedly in a grave on Amorgos,we kn ow tha t such near ly l ife-s izeworks were at least sometimes brokeni n t o several pieces in order to fit themi n t o the grave, whi ch was norma ll y

Figure 26. Male figure.W o o d w i n d player type.Kapsala variety style. EC I IAn unusually well-preserved example of a veryrare type, this figure ispresently perhaps also theearliest one known. It isunusual bothfo r its stenderness andfor its articulated ribcage. The musicianplays a sandwichlike syrinx (panpipes), which inreality is an instrument ofroughly trapezoidal shape,though the Cycladic sculptor has translated itfor hisown purposes into a symmetrical form. Karlsruhe,Badisches Landesmuseum64/100. H. )4 cm.

39


53/100

Figure 27. Male figure.Cupbearertype. EarlySpedosvariety style. EC I IThis engaging work is theonly complete example ofits type. At present only a

fragment of one other isknown. As with the harp,the cup is held on the rightside, while the left arm isheld against thebody inthe canonical folded position. Like theEarly Spedosvarietyfolded-arm figuresin whose style it is carved,the cupbearer's legs arerendered with a perforation between the calves.Athens, Museum ofCycladic and AncientGreek Art, Nicholas P.Goulandris Foundation286. H. 15.2cm.

40


54/100

Figure 28.Fragmentarymale folded-arm figure.Spedosvariety. EC I ITh e only malefigurefromapproximately the middleof the period not shownengaged in a specific activity, this superbly carvedpiece is also the largestmale representation nowknown. It originally measured about one meter.Because the legs are separated, it is likely that theimage was carved with abase, enabling it to standunaided (as in figs. 26,32). Athens, Museum ofCycladic and AncientGreek Art, Nicholas P.Goulandris Foundation969 (ex Erlenmeyer Collection). Pres. H. 42.5 cm.Said to befrom Amorgos.

Figure 29.Female folded-arm figure in semi-sittingp o s i t i o n .Early Spedosvariety. EC I IOne of only three orfourexamples executed in thispeculiar position, thiscarefully worked figureoriginally may have had, a.wooden seat, or earth mayhave been made into a.seat-shaped mound to enable it to sit in a more or lessupright position. Anotherpossibility isthat it wasoriginally part ofa,three-

figure composition like theone illustrated in figure 32.New York, private collection. H. 19 cm.

41


55/100

Figures 30, 51.Fragmentary femalef i g u r e . Double type.Spedosvariety. EC I IThis is one ofseveral examples in which only part ofonemember of aduo survives with the arm of thesecond carved across itsback. Of these, there areonly two with enough preserved so that the sex canbe determined. In thisgroup we know that onefigure isemale, but wecannot ascertain the sex ofthe other. As with the cupbearer type (fig. 27), it isnoteworthy that the freearm is held in the canonica lpositionfolded acrossthe body. It is probablethat such compositionswerenormallyfurnishedwith bases; indeed, basesthat evidently supportedtwo figures have beenunearthed on Keros.Karlsruhe, BadischesLandesmuseum 82/6.Pres. H. 17 cm.

42


56/100

no larger than necessary to accommodate th e corpse in a severely contracted position.

There is an interesting disti ncti ono f roles observed in males and femalesi n Early Cycladic sculpture. The female is always represen ted i n a passive and, i n te rms o f cur ren t bodylanguage theory, aloof att it ude, regardless of whe th er she is sta nding ,r e c l i n i n g , or sit ti ng, or whe th er she issingle or dou bl ed. O n the other hand ,the male fi gure is mor e often than notdepi cted in an active role. In the earl i e r part of the classical p er io d, as wehave seen, he takes the role of cupbearer, musician, or strongman who,w i t h a companion, holds aloft a quietlys i t t i n g female. Toward the end of theper iod , he is outfitted w i t h the accout rements of a hunter or warri or. Atthat time his most noticeable piece ofequi pment is always a baldr ic, t houg hhe may also carry a small dagger and/or wear a belt w i t h a codpiece ( f i g s .35,48a .

Neither the sculptors nor their customers seem to have been very particula r about th ei r figur es at this latedate . There are examples in which

Figure 32. Three-figurecomposition. EarlySpedosvarietystyle. EC I IThis is probably a recurring type within therepertoire of the Cycladicsculptor, but because of thegreat difficulty involved,no doubt the compositionwas attempted only veryrarely This work is theonly known example. It isat least conceivable, however, that certain otherpieces originally belongedto similar compositions(e.g. Jigs. 29-31).Ka rlsruhe, Ba d ischesLandesmuseum 77/5L).H . 19cm.

43

F i g u r e 3 3 .Fragmentaryfemale f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e .Ea r l ySpedos va r i e ty . EC I IThe rather worn torso belonged to an exceptionally

rendered upper arms. Thework can be attributedto thesame sculptor whomade thesomewhat largerpiece illustrated in figures

figure, in Athens, is perhaps also the work of thissculptor.) Brunswick,Maine, Bowdoin CollegeMuseum of Art 1982.15.4,

F i g u r e 3 4 . D e t a i l o f w o r ki l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 4 .


57/100

long, slenderfigure measuring well over 100 cm. Itis noteworthy not only forits size but alsofo r its quitenaturalistic and sensitively

4 and 34, with which itshares a similar renderingof the arms and hands,complete with fine wristlines. (The largest known

Bequest ofJere Abbott.Pres.L. 28.6 cm.

4 4

Figure 35. Male figure.Hunter/warrior type.Chalandriani variety. EC I IThisfigure is interesting asan example of arather rare


58/100

occupational type of whichit is also one of the mostdetailed. Note the ratherhaunting facial expression,the carefully incised ornamentation of the baldric,and the leaf-shaped dagger

floating above the righthand. Thefigure wasallegedly found on Naxostogether with a. slightlysmaller female companion.(Drawings made in themid-nineteenth century ofavery similar pair werediscovered recently by J L .Fitton in the BritishMuseum. The presentwhereabouts of these sculptures remain a mystery.)Athens, Museum ofCycladic and AncientGreek Art, Nicholas P.Goulandris Foundation308. L 25 cm.

Figure 36. Male folded-arm figure w i t h baldric.Chalandriani variety. EC I IBather poorly conceivedand carelessly executed,thefigure is nevertheless ofinterest fo r the manner inwhich it was evidently con1verted from aemale into amale image by the addition of baldric and. penis.Fingers, haphazardlyscratched, were probablyalso added at the sametime. Seattle Art Museum46.200, Norman andAmelia Davis Classic Collection. L 19 cm.

45

Figure 37.Detail of work illustratedinfigures 56 and 57, showing paint ghosts on theback of thehead preserved


59/100

as a light, smooth surface.See also plate vb and

figure 58.

Figure 38.Detail of figure 37. Notethe little utails on theneck.

quite ordinary female folded-arm f i g ures seem to have been perfunctorilytransformed intomales by the si mpl ea d d i t i o n of a hastily incised penis and,more noticeably, an incised or merelyscratched dia gonal li ne on the chestand back to indicate the baldric. Appar e n t l y , it di d not matte r that the bal dricwas added as an af ter thou ght andcutsacrosst he arms (f ig. 36).

Except for the nose and the ears on af e w very large works ( f i g s . 41, 56-59),there is normally a complete absenceo f sculptural detail on the face andhead of canonical folded -arm figures

and on the other figures executed inthe same classical style ( pi . vc, d).Those who have d i f f i c u l t y imaginingor accep ting the fact tha t Greek sculpture and build ings were once r i c h l ypainted w i l l , s i m i l a r l y , prefer to thinko f Cycla dic figu res as most of t he mhave come down to uspure f o r mreduced to bare essentials and executed i n a cool, moon li ke whitene ss.Howeve r, most , i f not al l, of theseimages and at least some of the ir archaic antecedents originally receivedsome painted detail which woul dhavealtered their appearance considerably.

46

Figure 39. Head of afolded-arm figure. LateSpedosvariety. Probably aw o r kof the Gou landri sMaster. EC I I .


60/100

The badly damaged head,which belonged to a figuremeasuring 60 cm or more,is of interest chiefly for itswell-preserved paint ghosts

for eyes and hair (fig. 40).Malibu, The J . Paul GettyMuseum 83.AA.316.2.Pres. L .10.4 cm. Said tobe rom Keros.

Figure 40.The back and side of thehead illustrated in figure39, showing raised paintghosts for hair withdepending curls.

The red and blue pigment is i t s e l fo n l y rarely preserved, but many f i g ures show pai nt ghosts , tha t is ,once-painted surfaces w h i c h , becausethey were prot ecte d by pi gmen t, no wa p p ea r l i ght er in color , smoothe r ,and/or s l i g h t l y raised above the surround ing areas, w h i c h are generally inpoorer conditio n (pi . iva). In certa incasesthe ghost lines are so p ron oun cedthat they can easily be mistaken foractual r e l i e f w o r k (p i . vb).

M o s t often the pa in ti ng too k thef o r m of almond-shaped eyes w i t h dotted pupils, s o l i d bands across the fore

head, and a s o l i d area on the back ofthe head to indi cat e a shor t-c ropp edh a i r s ty l e ( f i g s . 37, 38). Less oftencurls, depending f r o m th e s o l i d area,were painted on the sides and back ofthe head ( f i g s . 39, 40), and dots orstripes decorated the face in variouspat terns (p i. vi#, c; f i g s . 42, 69, 78).O n l y one figure known at present haspain ted ears ( p i . v i r f ) , w h i l e few, i fany, show clear traces of a pa int edmouth . The apparent omission of them o u t h w o u l d accord w e l l w i t h thesepul chral nat ure of the figures. Occasionally paint was also used to empha -

47


61/100

Figure 41 .Femalefolded-arm figure. Kapsalavariety. EC I IThis unusually large andexceptionally fine exampleof the Kapsala varietystands out among allknown Cycladic sculptures

fo r its superb modelingandfor the wealth ofpainted detail still presenton the head and body.Although there is clear evidence ofpainted eyes,brows, hair, facial tattooing, bangles, and pubictrianglefrom a number ofother works (albeit not allon thesamepiece), thepainted necklace seen hereisunprecedented. It is notentirely certain that amouth was once paintedon thisfigure. New York,Shelby White and LeonLevy Collection. Pres. L .69.4 cm. See also plateVia,h, figure 42.

48


62/100

size certain grooves on the body (pi.vib-d), to def ine or em p h a s i z e thepubic triangle ( f i g s . 4 1, 56, 58) , or todepict bangles and other adornment s( p i .v ib).

A l t h o u g h w i t h time the actual painthas la rge l y d isa ppea red f r o m thesculptures, bone canisters and l i t t l eclay pots conta inin g lu mps of colori n g mat te r are somet imes fou nd inCycladic graves, as are palet tes andbowls intended as mortars for p u l v e r i z i n g the pigments , w h i c h werederived f r o m ores of i r o n (hematite),m e r c u r y ( c in n ab a r ) , an d c o pp e r(azu r i t e ) , in di gen ous to the i slands .I t w o u l d appear, therefore, that r i t u a lface pa int in g was an imp ort ant part ofthe reli gio us rite s observed by theislanders, and the pat terns they usedon their sculptures may w e l l reflectthose they used on thems elve s andhoped to perpetuate in the a f t e r l i f e .

Figure 42.Detail of work illustratedin figure 41 (and pi.K/a,b ) showing painted details

49


63/100

Figure 43.Copy of thefemalefolded-arm figure in figure 44carved by ElizabethOustinoffin an experimentusing Parian marble andtools madefrom Naxianemery, Melian obsidian,and Theran pumice. A

fracture sustained duringthe initial shaping of thepiece necessitated an alteration of the original designso that thefinished work,intended at the outset to besomewhat larger than themodel, does not closelyresemble it except, accidentally, in size. Such mishaps probably occurredwith somefrequency inancient times as well, but itwould appear that sculptorspreferred to repair orotherwise salvage theirworks rather than discardthem to begin again. Adramatic example may beseen infigure 54. L 17 cm.

Figure 44.Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos/Chalandriani variety. EC I IA well-madefigure of modest size, the work belongsbasically to the Late Spedosvariety, but its broad shoulders and upper torso andits short midsection aremore characteristic of theChalandriani variety. Notethat the right arm/handextends all the way to theleft elbow in order to makethe rendering symmetrical.(O n the rear, the left elbowiscarved on the back ofwhat inront is the righthand, again fo r the sake ofsymmetry.) Zurich, Mr.and Mrs. Isidor KahaneCollection. L 17.5 cm.

50

The FormulaicT r a d i t i o n


64/100

We h av e r e v i e w e d r a t h e r h as t i l yroughly e ight centuries of scul ptu rala c t i v i t y , w i t h key developments i l l u s t r a ted by a mere example or two. Perhaps the single most important pointto be s t r e s s e d , howeve r , an d onew h i c h is d i f f i c u l t to appreciate w i t h ou t a pl et hor a of exa mple s, is the r em a r k a b l e a d h e r e n c e to a sta nda rdf o r m . O f the many hund red s of extantpieces of Ear ly Cycla dic scul ptu re,there are only a very few that do notbelong to one of the esta blish ed typesor do not cont ain element s o f tw osequen tia l var iet ies . Desp ite a vastarray of subtl e difference s and a wi devar i a t ion i n quali ty , Cycladic sculptures are essentially formulaic in character. There are no freely conceivedpieces . Even those spec ial pieces suc has the harp playe rs had th ei r ow n f o r mulae and strict design rules. Oncees tab l ished, each t r a d i t i o n a l type ,each h i g h l y formalized set of convent i o n s , was adhered to w i t h a lmos timpercep t ib le changes for centuries.

Th e way the figures were made canshed some l i g h t on their f i n a l s imi lar i t y . It mus t have been a lab ori ous process, one i n v o l v i n g constant yet careful

c h i p p i n g away and abrading of thestone. Pieces of emery f r o m Naxos(one of the worl d's major sources ofthis mineral) were probably used forthis purpose, w h i l e emery or obsidianf r o m Melos w o u l d have been used tomake inc i s ion s , sand and pe rhapsp u m i c e f r o m Th er a to smo ot h thestone ( fi g. 43) . One can easily ima gin e the sculpt or's work sho p by the seawhere he could have found mu ch ofhis r aw m a t e r i a l a l r e ady p a r t i a l l yworked f or h i m by the a cti on of thewaves. For a dr a wi ng pa d he couldhave used th e wet beach sand an d,to polish his works, the pum ice thatwas hed u p on the shore f o l l o w i n gerup tion s of the The ra volcano. Nevertheless, at all time s his own patienceand di lige nce mus t have been his mostvaluable assets in br inging a w o r k tocomplet ion.

Th e sheer labor involved i n the product ion o f any but the si mpl est smal lfigures must have precluded a haphazard or spontaneous appr oach. Marble,though not a hard stone, clearly lacksthe malleabi l i ty of clay or the tra ctabl e qualities ofwood . I n fact, mar bl etends to crack and break quite easily

51

a. b .


65/100

and thus requires a hig hly disc ipl inedapproach i f irr emedi abl e errors are tobe avoided. It appears that formula ewer e dev elo ped to ai d the Cy cla dicsculp tor in carefu lly compo sin g hisf i g u r e on the slab before he act uall ybegan to carve. Probably evolving outo f necessity, such formulae may alsohave imbued the sculptor's craft w i t ha cer tain mystique. They doubtlessserved as oral and visual vehicles forthe transmissi on of the sculptu ral trad i t i o n , the sculptor's r i t u a l , f r o m onegener ati on to the next .

I n examining some of the rul es that

seem to have governed the manner i nw h i c h the figu res wer e desi gned , onecan see j ust wha t it is,besides th e u n i f o r m tre atme nt of the arms or legs orface, that makes one Cycladic i d o l ofa particular type or variety so closelyresemble any othe r of its k i n d . Unfortunately, no slabs or blocks of marblehave been found that could provideevidence of the formu la e or the devices u sed to inscr ibe these i n i t i a ldesigns. Nevertheless, an exami nat iono f a large numb er of fin ishe d workshas revealed recurring patterns, maki n g it quite reasonab le to pos tul atethe use of part icula r formul ae and cert a i n basic aidscompass, protractor,rulerbefore ca rving was b egun.

I n the f i r s t or archaic phase , thehuman f o r m was div ide d into threeequal parts: roughly one part for thehead and neck, one for the torso, andone for the legs (fig. 46a). These threedivisions could have been made w i t ha simple ruler, but what seems to havebeen mor e impor ta nt was the placemen t of cert ai n key features on theo u t l i n e . For example, the shouldersand hips were evident ly bloc ked outby means ofarcs d r aw n w i t h a p r i m i -

Figure 45. A comparisonof the designsof twoworks attributed to theM e t r o p o l i t a n MuseumMaster, a sculptor ofPlastiras-type figures ofthe EC Iphase.a.Name-piece of the sculptor. The broken right legwas reattached in antiquity, mending holes havingbeen bored through theside above and below theknee. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art,Rogers Fund, 45.11.1$L 21.6 cm. Seefigure 13c.

b . Thefigure has i~epairholes through the neck(sideways) as well as inthe right thigh. Geneva,Musee Barbier-MuellerBMG202.75. L 18.3 cm.

52

a. See figure 10. b . See figure 66. c.Seefigure 72.


66/100

t i v e compass c ons ist in g of a bit ofobsid ian or even charcoal atta ched toa piece of stri ng. The radiu s of the c i r cle that de te rmi ne d the arc was onet h i r d of the body le ngt h. An arc passi n g thr ough the mi dp oi nt of the f i g ures was oft en used to de fi ne theposi t ion o f the e lbo ws.

Even though the body was schemati c a l l y d i v i d e d int o thre e equal parts,t h e p r o po r t io n s w i t h i n those partsm i g h t vary considerably . Figu re 45,f o r exa mple, shows two works att ributa ble to the han d of one s cul pt orc a l l e d t he M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m

Master (see note on p. 58). B o t h f i g ures were designed acc ord ing to thethree-pa rt pla n, but w i t h some impor tant diff erences. In the name- pie ce,th e p i l l - b o x hat, or polos, was addedto the three-part scheme, whereas itwas an i nteg ral pa rt o f the design- ofthe other f i g u r e . On the New Y o r k i d o l( # ) , the sculp tor carved a rela tive lyshort head on a very long neck. Onthe o th er fi gu re (>), he di d just theoppo sit e: the head is elo ngat ed; theneck, for thi s exa ggera ted ty pe, israther short; and the remainder of thetop d i v i s i o n is f i l l e d ou t by the head -

Figure 46. The two majordesign canonsof the ECperiod: ECI three-part(a); EC I I four-part (b, c).

53


67/100

Figure 47.Grid plans based on thestandard four-part plan.Seefigure 23.

dress. S i m i l a r l y , the name- piec e hasan ample r chest a rea but a shorterwaist than the other w o r k , ye t w i t h i nthis middle d i v i s i o n is cont ain ed theentire torso of each of these figures.The prop or t ions mig ht vary, theref o r e , even i n tw o figu res carve d by thesame person, w h i l e the basic tripart i t e formu la tended to rema in re markably constant.

I n the classical peri od of Cycladicsculpture, the design formula appearsto have chang ed to acc ommod at e amor e natu ral approach to the hu ma nf o r m . Th e earli er fol ded -ar m figures(Kapsala and Spedos varieties) wer enow conceived as d i v i s i b l e into fourequal parts, w i t h a m a x i m u m w i d t h

of ten equal to one par t ( f i g. 466) .Compass-drawn arcs marked off theshou lde rs, the elbows or wai st, a ndthe knees. The top of the hea d an d theends of the feet wer e also cu rve d,revealing further the influence of thecompass. Once again, w i t h i n the basicdivisions there was ro om for var ia ti onand i n d i v i d u a l difference.

M o r e compl ex work s pro duc ed atthis t i m e seem to be modifi cati ons ofthe four-part scheme, w h i l e the v i r t u oso piecesthe h ar p pla yers , the cu pbearers, and the t r i p l e groupseem tohave benefited f r o m more ela boratep lanning . The seated figures, for example , appear to have been tr eat edmore as four-sided works than as inte-

54

a. b.


68/100

gra tea sculpt ures in tne roun d, i hemost important side is invariably ther i g h t one, the side on wh ic h the harpor cup is held. It appears that a g r i dplan was consistently applied in thedesign of these works. The g r i d wasbased on a divi sion of the he ight int othe usual four primary units, while thew i d t h was made to approximate threeo f these units. The height and w i d t h

were further subdivided to f o r m a g r i do f eight by six squares. The lines ofth e g r i d tende d to coinci de w i t h keypoints on the outline as w e l l as w i t hin te rna l div isi ons, such as the chin ,the elbow, the cup, and the top of theseat. A subst anti al n um be r of thesame coincidences recur f r o m pieceto piece; addi ti ona l coincidences arenoticeable i n the works att rib ute d toth e same sculptors (fi g. 47).

O f the figures produced late in theseco n d p ha se (D o k a th i s m a ta an dChalandr ian i var ie t ies ) , few f a i l togive some indi cat ion that they weredesi gned a ccor di ng to a consciouslyapp lie d form ul a (f ig. 46c). However,as w i t h the canonical ar rangement ofthe arms, the four-part plan, thoughs t i l l the preferred one, was not theo n l y one i n use; some sculptors e v i dently tried other designs, using, forexample, three- and f ive-par t d i v i sions (f ig. 48). By now it wou ld seemthat the compass was generally considered i napp ropr iat e for the severelyangular style ofthese images.

Altogether, r oughly one- half o f allCycladic figures appear to have beenquite carefully conceived according to

Figure 4 8 . 'Three- andfive-part designsof thelate E CIIphase.a. Male figure. Hunter/warrior type. Dresden,Staa tlicheK unstsa m m-lungen, Skulpturensamm-lungen Zl/2595. L 22.8cm. Said to be fromAmorgos.b . Female folded-armfigure. Paris, Musee duLouvre MA 3093. L . 27.5cm. Said to be rom Naxos.

55


69/100

Figure 49.Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedosvariety. A work of theNaxosMuse um Master.EC I I .Characteristicfeatures ofthe style of this somewhatidiosyncratic and prolificsculptor seen on this pieceinclude a small, high-placed nose, generalizedbreasts, thickforearmswhich lie directly above thepubic area, and rather careless incision work. Notethe uneven lengths andwidths of thefingers, theuncenteredpubic triangle,and the knee incisions cutat different levels. The workof the Naxos MuseumMaster has been found inthree different cemeterieson Naxos, where it maybe assumed he lived andworked. New York,Harmon Collection (exWoodner Family Collection). L 51.4 cm.

a specific design formula. The otherh a l f seem to have been less though t f u l l y plan ned or at least less rigorouslyex ecu t ed acco rd ing to the o r i g in a ldesigns l a i d out on the raw slab. Someseem not to have benef ited fr om anyl o g i c a l plan. Many ofthese are of infer i o r quali ty , carved perhaps by non-specialists. There ar e also a numbero f idols executed by proficient sculptors w h o seem to have found it to th eirl i k i n g and cer tain ly w e l l w i t h i n theircapabil ities to alter the rules to suitthe i r own personal aesthetic. Somesculptors, for examp le, elongated thethighs to an exaggerated degree, maki n g the calves and feet rather short bycompari son fig. 55). Others preferred

Figure 50a, b.Th e harmonic system:angles derivedfrom a 5:or golden, triangle (orrectangle).

56

a. b .

b .Seefigure 14. c. See figure 44. d .See figure 48b.a. Seefigure 7a.


70/100

to omi t the midse cti on of thei r f igures,placing the pubic area directly belowthe forearms (fi g. 49). Thi s dec isionreq uir ed an adjust ment of the standard for mula : the midpo in t now occurs at the arms or higher rather thanat the abdomen.An oth er cont rol l i ng factor in thef o r m u l a i c pl an ni ng of all the figures ,

even the simplest ones, appears tohave been th e repeated use of severalangles based on the principle of thegolden t r iangle found f requently inboth art

Documents

Early Cycladic Sculpture. an Introduction