Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (Athenian Agora vol. 11)

277 Pages·1965·99.84 MB·English

by  Evelyn B. Harrison

THE ATHENIANAG ORA
RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS
CONDUCTED BY
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS
VOLUME XI
ARCHAIC
AND ARCHAISTISCC ULPTURE
BY
EVELYN B. HARRISON
,
'0PI01P ,P1IN1~1
CA
;;Tol
@aA~ ~fl O Al4 ;"
v~~~~jS~
it 00900~ =i
00
0,00
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
1965
PUBLISHED WITH THE AID OF A GRANT FROM MR. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PRINTED IN GERMANY at J.J. AUGUSTIN, GLOCKSTADT
PREFACE
volume continues the catalogue of ancient stone sculpture from the excavations in the
This
Athenian Agora that was begun with Athenian Agora, I, Portrait Sculpture. In order to
maintain a single series of catalogue numbers for all the pieces of stone sculpture published in
the Agora volumes, I have begun the numbers of the present section where those of Agora, I left
off. It must be recognized, however, that in the long run the excavation inventory numbers
(precededb y "S") will remain the most useful for reference, since these numbers are painted on
the objects and furnish the key to their history as it is preservedi n the recordso f the excavations.
A concordance of inventory and catalogue numbers is therefore provided (p. 177).
The portraits in Agora, I formed a group with a logical coherencet hat made it relatively easy
to isolate. With the rest of the large and heterogeneous body of sculpture from the excavations,
separation is more difficult. The inventoried pieces now number over 2000. Not all of these, to
be sure, are worth publishing, but the uninventoried pieces which prove unexpectedly interesting
very nearly balance out the rejects. Since some division of the mass is necessary, and the
chronologicald ivision, where it can easily be applied, is the most reasonable,t his volume begins
with the sculpture of the archaic period. In following that with archaistic sculpture I have
substituted typology for chronology as the criterion for grouping. That seems to be the best
thing to do in cases where a chronologicald ivision would separate things that are so alike as to
be more illuminating to each other than to their contemporarieso f different types, and it is the
only thing to do where things of different periods are so alike that it is simply not possible to
date them exactly.
The publication of sculpture from an excavation such as ours cannot aim either at the critical
good taste and restraint of a fine museum catalogue or at the objective accuracy and complete-
ness with which excavated pottery is normally presented. It has to fall somewhere between. We
share with the first the advantage that some objects of real esthetic interest are present and the
disadvantage that hardly any of the pieces has a context of discovery that can really serve to fix
its date. Stone, being a partly re-usable material, is far less apt than terracotta to lie quietly in
the bed of its destruction. It is always jumping out, into higher levels and lower uses. The very
extent of such re-use in the ancient, medieval and modern city of Athens has left our material
exceptionally battered, and our plates appear distressingly different from those of a museum
catalogue. One does not see by a glance at Plate 1 that the fragments shown there belong to a
kouros better than the one in New York. One learns it by studying. Hence the verbal presen-
tation cannot be so laconic as one might wish. I have tried, as in the earlier volume, to make
each single catalogue description independently intelligible.
At the same time, our material, since it is all undoubtedly genuine and all from Athens, does
form a group in the broadest archaeologicals ense. A great deal can be learned from studying the
pieces in connection with each other and with the ancient history of Athens. Sometimes the gain
is for the chronology of style; sometimes it is for our understandingo f types, their uses and their
meaning. In all cases Athens remains in the foreground.I f this fascinating and bewilderingm ass
of stones has any shape at all, it is an Attic shape. In the introductory essay preceding each
vi ARCHAIC AND ARCHAISTIC SCULPTURE
section of the catalogue I have tried to sketch some of the ways in which the Agora sculpture
helps to form or alter our picture of Athenian sculpture and the part it played in Athenian
history. Some conclusions can also be drawn here and there for the history of art in the ancient
world as a whole, but these, more often than not, are simply corrections of misconceptions. It
is too easy when one works from Rome via Roman copies and Roman writers to form notions of
what Attic style should have been without taking enough into account what it actually was.
Such notions cannot serve unchecked as a basis for evaluating the Athenian contribution to
ancient art. The Agora sculpture helps us to understand the everyday backgroundf rom which
the work of the great Athenian sculptors sprang and the working of the tradition which kept
their inventions alive for the enjoyment of later ages.
These introductions are only a tentative beginning. If I have carried discussion beyond the
bounds proper to a catalogue, it is in the hope of arousing the interest of more competent
scholars in some of the problems that touch their various fields. If this happens, more valid con-
clusions will surely emerge. Especially in epigraphical matters the non-specialist can hardly
escape showing naivet6, but to avoid altogether the use of epigraphicale vidence in dealing with
sculpture would be to falsify the Athenian picture far more than a number of small errorsc an do,
In one matter in which epigraphistsh ave recently called for greater precision, I have preferred
to remain subjective. This is the designation of different kinds of marble. The terms "Pentelic"
and "Hymettian" have become so familiar as designations for the white and gray marbles used
in large quantities in Athenian architecture of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods
that it does not seem a deception to employ them as descriptive terms for similar marbles used
in the sculpture of these same periods. This does not imply that one claims to know from which
quarry the marble actually comes. Geologists have said that identical marbles are to be found
in both mountains, and the possibility of provenance from one or the other can not be ruled out
on the basis of an objective description of a single stone. This question, however, has hardly any
importance for the student of Athenian sculpture of any period after the Pentelic quarriesw ere
opened on a large scale for the construction of the Older Parthenon in the 480's. There was
probably no time after that until late antiquity when either mountain was utterly unproductive.
It does make a differencet o the student, as it did to the sculptor, whether the marble is white or
gray. But simply "white Attic" or "gray Attic" would not distinguish the marbles used in the
monuments of the city of Athens from those of south Attica, as we find them in the temples of
Thorikos and Sounion. Yet these can be readily distinguished by the eye. If "Pentelic" be
taken to mean "marble like that of which the Parthenon is made," it is a better description
than any but a very detailed scientific description would be. There is quite enough of the
Parthenon to give us a clear idea of the range of grain sizes, degree of foliation, impurities, etc.,
in white Pentelic marble as well as of the way it weathers and reacts to tools. "Hymettian" may
similarly be taken to mean "like the gray marble used for deliberate contrast with white in
Athenian architecture of the 4th century and the Hellenistic period." If some of the marble so
designated actually comes from the Pentelic quarries,i t will not affect any conclusions we may
make about the date or authorship of the sculpture.
For the archaic period the situation is somewhat different. There were no Attic marble quar-
ries open on a really large scale. Temples were built of limestone with at the most marble trim.
At the same time there was widespreadu se in small quantities of local marble for sculptured and
inscribed monuments. Since we really do not know where all these small sources were, and since
the monuments themselves are too small to give an adequate notion of the range of character-
istics possible to each, the only solution for the cataloguers eems to be a more detailed description
of the marble in each piece. One may say in general that the Attic marble in archaic monuments
is usually finer grained and more strongly layered than the classical Pentelic, thus resembling
PREFACE vii
more the usual Hymettian and the south Attic marbles. It seems highly probablet hat much of it
comes from Hymettos. In the regions close to Pentelikon, on the other hand, Pentelic was surely
used in the archaic period. The Attic marble in the archaic sculpture found at Ikaria (Dionyso)
differs in no way from the usual Pentelic.
Island marbles of the archaic period are just as hard to separate from one another as Attic.
It is almost certain that both Parian and Naxian were used in archaic Attic sculpture, and the
middle grades (moderately coarse grain, white color with some gray streaks) from both islands
are indistinguishable. The extremely coarse-grainedm arble used in the early Naxian dedications
on Delos and in the New York kouros may safely be described as Naxian, but for the rest it
seems better to say simply "island marble" with some indication of its appearance.T he very fine
pure white Parian known as "lychnites" does not seem to have been available to Attic sculptors
before the classical period.
There is another island marble used in Athens which has coarse crystals but differs from
Parian and Naxian in not being translucent. Its appearance (at least when worked and wea-
thered)i s milk-white,h ard and glittering. In Athens it occurs,s o far as I have been able to observe,
only in works of the Roman period. Since similar marble is to be seen in quantity on the island
of Thasos, I have ventured to call this "Thasian." Pausanias saw in the Olympieion in Athens
two statues of Hadrian in Thasian marble (I, 18, 6). The same marble occurs in copies of Greek
sculpture that have been found in Italy. Italian catalogues sometimes call it simply "marmo
greco" and sometimes even "marmo pario" but it is clearly not Parian.
The system for indicating finding-placesi s the same as that now used in all Agora volumes.
The letters and numbers in parentheses enable the reader to locate the find-spot of a given piece
on the 20-meter grid applied to the general plan of the excavations on Plate 68. A grid location
followedb y a serialn umberi ndicates that the object in questionw as found in one of the numbered
deposits (conveniently and fully explained in Agora, V, p. 123).
The study of the sculpture published here has been carried on over the last ten years concur-
rently with the study of the classical sculpture (originalsa nd copies), which will appear shortly
in a separate volume. During this time I have had help from many sources. Periods of study in
Athens have been made possible by grants from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial
Foundation (1954-55), the Penrose Fund of the AmericanP hilosophical Society (summer1 957),
the Councilf or Research in the Humanities of ColumbiaU niversity (summer1 959), the American
Council of Learned Societies (autumn 1959) and the Bollingen Foundation (spring and summer
1962). The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton has given most generous help, a regular
membershipi n the autumn of 1961 and informal hospitality for shorter periods at various times.
It is a pleasure to express my thanks to all these sources.
For aid from scholarly colleagues my debt is even greater. Most of all I owe to Homer A.
Thompson, whose remarkable simultaneous grasp of concrete details and broad archaeological
problems has steered me onto many right paths and off of many wrong ones. My old teachers,
William B. Dinsmoor and MargareteB ieber, have been a continuing help and inspiration. If it
had been proper to dedicate a work of this kind, I should have liked to offer this book to them.
All members of the Agora staff have given freely the benefit of their knowledge. I wish to
thank especially Lucy Talcott, Eugene Vanderpool and Poly Demoulini. Among those whom I
have consulted on special points, inside and outside the Agora, are ChristineA lexander, Alfred
R. Bellinger, Dietrich von Bothmer, Otto Brendel, Sterling Dow, G. Roger Edwards, C. W. J.
Eliot, Werner Fuchs, Lilian H. Jeffery, Mabel Lang, Benjamin D. Meritt, James H. Oliver,
Judith Perlzweig, W. Kendrick Pritchett, A. E. Raubitschek, Gisela M. A Richter, Rebecca
Wood Robinson, Erika Simon, Lucy T. Shoe, Dorothy Burr Thompson, John Travlos and Mary
White. For all this help, my mistakes are my own.
viii ARCHAIC AND ARCHAISTICS CULPTURE
John Meliades, the former Ephor of the Acropolis, Chrestos Karouzos, the Director of the
Athens National Museum, and his wife Semni Karouzou, and MarkellosM itsos, the Director of
the Epigraphical Museum, have all been most kind in making materials in their museums
available for study.
The photographs are nearly all the work of Alison Frantz. They speak for themselves and
greatly clarify the speech of the objects they represent.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EVELYN B. HARRISON
1963.
O CTOBER,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .................................................................................. V
LIST OF PLATES ............. .... ......................................................... xi
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................... xiii
I. ARCHAISCC ULPTUR..E... ........ ...... ................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION 1
..................................................................................
1. PROVENANCE AND USE ..................................... ...................... 1
2. CHRONOLOGY 3
......................................................... .........
CATALOGU.E... ..................................................... .... 13
.........
II. ARCHAISTISCC ULPTURE 50
................................................................
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 50
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................. 50
2. ARCHAISTIC DRESS ..... ............... ....... .... ............... ............. 51
a. IONIC HIMATION AND LINEN CHITON ................................................ 51
b. PEPLOS GIRDED OVER LONG OVERFALL 52
.............................................
c. LONG MANTLE WITH OVERFALL, FASTENED ON ONE SHOULDER ...................... 54
d. ARCHAISTIC WRAPPED MANTLE ..................................................... 58
e. CHLAMYS 59
.....................................................................
f. SMALL DRAPED MANTLE ........................................................ 61
3. THE MOTIVES FOR ARCHAIZING .... ................................................... 61
4. SUMM A RY ...................................................................... 66
CATALOGUE .......................................................................... 67
III. HEKATAIA 86
................... ........................................................................
INTRODUCTION 86
.....................................................................
CATALOGUE ......................................................................... 98
IV. HERMS ................................................................................... 108
INTRODUCTION 108
..............................................................................
1. THE HERMS OF THE AGORA, LOCATION AND MEANING ..................................... 108
2. THE HERM OF ANDOKIDES AND TRIBAL HERMS ...................................... 117
3. HERMS DEDICATED BY INDIVIDUALS 120
..............................................
4. THE HERMES PROPYLAIOS OF THE ACROPOLIS. . ....................................... 122
5. EPHEBES, THE GYMNASIUM, AND THE ORIGIN OF PORTRAIT HERMS .................... 124
6. TYPES OF BEARDED HERM HEADS.................................................. 129
7. HERMS AS SUPPORTS IN SCULPTURE ............................................... 134
8. APOLLO H ERMS ................................................................ 136
9. FEMALE HERMS, APHRODITE AND ARTEMIS ............................................ 138
10. THE HERMS OF THE ODEION OF AGRIPPA .......................................... 189
11. HELLENISTIC TYPES, HERAKLES AND HERMAPHRODITE. .............................. 140
12. HERMS IN RELIEF AND GRAFFITO ................................................ 140
CATALOGUE... ...................................................................... 142
CONCORDANCE OF INVENTORY AND CATALOGUE NUMBERS ....................................... 177
IN DE X .. ................................................................................. 178
PLATES
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE
1-2 Fragmentso f the Dipylon Kouros( 2) 65
8 Fragmentso f Kouroi6 6-67, 69
4 Heads of Kouroi6 8, 70-71
5 Head of a Kore 73
6 Heads of Korai
72-78
7 Korai 74-76
8 Fragmentso f Korai 77-81
9 MaleH ead 82, Seated Figures 83-84
10 Draped StridingF igures 85-86, Statuette in Chiton8 7
11 AbductionG roup( ?) 88, Bird 89
12 Graveo r Votive Lions 90-91
13 Lion 92, MiniatureL ion and Bull Group9 3
14 Lion's Head from a Large Poros Pediment 94
15 Lion and Bull from Small Poros Pediment 95
16 Fragmentso f Small Poros Pediment 95
17 Relief Fragment,H eraklesa nd Lion 96, Horses 98
18 Heraklesa nd Cock9 7 A and B
19 Fragmentso f Archaic Gravestones9 9-100
20 Fragmentso f Archaic Gravestones1 01, 103
21 Fragmentso f Archaic Gravestones1 02, 104-106, Small Head 107
22 ArchaisticK ouroi 108-109, UnfinishedK riophoros1 10
28 Fragmentso f ArchaisticK orai 111-113, 118
24 Replica of MunichT yche 115, Fragmentso f ArchaisticK orai 116-117
25 ArchaisticS tatuettes 114, 119-123
26 Head of Athena, Replica of HerculaneumP allas 124
27 ArchaisticF igure in Cuirassa nd Chiton1 25
28 Bellerophona nd the Dead Chimera1 26
29 Copy of ArchaicR elief 127, ArchaisticP rocessiono f Four Gods 129
80 TripodB ase 128
31 Fragmentso f ArchaisticR eliefs 130-133
Hekataia 134-155
82-89
40 Herm from the Time of Kimon 156
41 Herm Heads, Archaic and Imitations of Archaic 157-158, 160
42 Small Bearded Head, 5th Century B.C. 159
43 Herm Head 161, Beard of Alkamenes Herm of Pergamon Type 162
44-46 Herm Heads, Alkamenoid 163-167
47 Small and Miniature Alkamenoid Herm Heads 168-172
48 Fragments of Herm Heads with Archaistic Curls 173-175
xii ARCHAIC AND ARCHAISTIC SCULPTURE
49 Herm Heads, Short-HairedT ypes 176-180
50 Herm Heads, Type C 181-183
51 Heads from Small and MiniatureH erms 184-187
52 Fragmentso f ArchaisticH erms 188-194
53 Double Herm 205, HonoraryH erms in ArchaisticF orm 195-197
54 MiniatureH erms 198-204, 207-208
55 Youthful Herm Heads 206, 209
56-57 Herms as Statue Supports2 10-213, Re-cut Herm 214
58 Apollo Herms 215-217, Female Herm 218
59 Herms from the Stage-Fronto f the Odeiono f Agrippa2 19-225
60 Dionysos 226-227, Herakles2 28-230, Hermaphrodite2 31 and Small DrapedH erm 232
61 Relief and GraffitoH erms 233-242
62 a. Fragmentso f Dipylon Kouros (65) with Dipylon Head.
b. New York Kouros.M etropolitanM useumo f Art, 32.11.1, Fletcher Fund, 1932.
c. Dipylon Head. Athens, NationalM useum3 372. GermanI nstitute neg. N.M. 4594.
d. Dipylon Hand. Athens, National Museum3 965. GermanI nstitute neg. N.M. 3157-3158.
e. Hand of SounionK ouros.A thens,N ationalM useum2 720. GermanI nstituten eg. N.M.3 159.
63 a. Replica of MunichT yche. Pergamon.C ourtesyo f Dr. Eric Boehringer.
b. Neck of Red-figuredO inochoe,A goraP 14793. Athena.
c. Fragmento f Red-figuredO inochoe,A goraP 15850. Hermes.
d. HerculaneumP allas. Naples Museum.P hotos Anderson2 3152 and 26607.
64 a.-d. Four Gods Base. Athens, AcropolisM useum6 10.
a. Hephaistos. GermanI nstitute neg. Akr. 1905.
b. Athena. Photo Alison Frantz.
c. Zeus. GermanI nstitute neg. Akr. 1904.
d. Hermes.P hoto Alison Frantz.
e. Processiono f Four Gods.V illa Albani. Photo Alinari2 7615.
f. Hekate on Statue of Cybele.C orinthM useum,C at. 855.
65 a. Pelike by the Pan Painter. Paris, Louvre 10793.
b. Early ClassicalH erm Head. Athens, National Museum 96. German Institute neg. N.M.
2752.
c.-d. Neo-Attic Relief. Richmond,V irginiaM useumo f Fine Arts 60-5. VMFA Photos nos.
Burris 8244-8245.
66 a. HermH ead, Type A. New York, MetropolitanM useumo f Art, 13.231.2,R ogersF und, 1913.
b. Herm Head. CopenhagenN, y CarlsbergG lyptotekC at. 514.
c. AlkamenesH erm from Pergamon.I stanbul Museum.P ergamonV, II, 1, Beiblatt 5.
d. Herm from near Brussa. Istanbul Museum.
e. HermnH ead. Type D, from Peiraeus.A thens, NationalM useum3 32. GermanI nstitute neg.
N.M. 1441.
f. Herm from the Stadion. Athens, National Museum 1801. German Institute negs. N.M.
2622-2623.
67 a. Head of Youth. Athens, KerameikosM useumI nv. P 684.
b. Head of Youth from Olynthos. Salonike Museum. Olynthus, II, fig. 195.
c. Head of Youth. Athens, National Museum 468. German Institute negs. 5379, 5382, 5381.
68 Actual State Plan of the Athenian Agora.
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.B.V.: J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-FigureV ase-Painters,O xford,1 956.
Acta ArchaeologicaA: cta ArchaeologicaC, openhagenf,r om 1930.
Aegeana nd Near East: TheA egeana nd theN ear East, StudiesP resentedto HettyG oldmane, d. by Saul S. Wein-
berg, Locust Valley, New York, 1956.
Agora: The AthenianA gora, Resultso f ExcavationsC onductedb y the AmericanS choolo f ClassicalS tudiesa t
Athens.
I. Evelyn B. Harrison,P ortraitS culpture,P rinceton, 1953.
III. R. E. Wycherley,L iterarya nd EpigraphicalT estimoniaP, rinceton,1 957.
V. Henry S. Robinson, Potteryo f the RomanP eriod, ChronologyP, rinceton, 1959.
VI. ClairbveG randjouan,T erracottaasn d Plastic Lampso f the RomanP eriod,P rinceton,1 961.
VII. Judith Perlzweig,L ampso f the RomanP eriod,P rinceton,1 961.
A.J.A.: AmericanJ ournal of Archaeology.
A.J.P.: AmericanJ ournal of Philology.
Altertum:D as AltertumD, eutsche Akademied er Wissenschaftenz u Berlin, from 1955.
Amandry,P ., see Delphes,I I.
Am. Num. MuseumN otes: AmericanN umismaticS ociety,M useumN otes.
Anatolia: Anatolia,r evuea nnuelled 'arche'ologiAe,n kara,f rom 1956.
Annuario: Annuariod ella[ r.] scuolaa rcheologicdai Atene.
Antike: Die Antike,Z eitschriftf ir Kunst und Kulturd es klassischenA ltertums.
AntikeD enkmdler4, v., Deutschesa rchaiologischeIsn stitut, Berlin, 1886-1931.
Antike Kunst, Olten, Switzerland,f rom 1958.
Antike Plastik, ed. by W.-H. Schuchhardt,B erlin, from 1962.
ArchaeologicaRl eports,p ublishedb y the Councilo f the Society for the Promotiono f Hellenic Studies and the
ManagingC ommitteeo f the British School at Athens.
Arch. Anz.: ArchdologischeArn zeiger,B eiblattz um Jahrbuchd es deutschena rchidologischIenns tituts.
'ApX.' Ep.: 'ApXaio7oytK1'E papis
Archidologisch-EpigraphisMchitet eilungena us Oesterreich.
Arndt, GlyptothequNe y Carlsberg:L a GlyptothequNe y Carlsbergf,o nde'ep ar Carl Jacobsen.L es Monuments
antiquesp ublie'ss ous la directiond e Paul Arndt.M unich,1 896-1912.
A.R.V.2: J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-FigureV ase-Painters2, nd ed., Oxford,1 963.
Ath. Mitt.: Mitteilungend es deutschena rchidologischIenns tituts,A thenischeA bteilung.
B.C.H.: Bulletin de correspondanchee llenique.
Beazley, BerlinerM aler: J. D. Beazley, Der BerlinerM aler,B erlin, 1930 (Bilderg riechischeVr asen,v . 2).
Beazley, Kleophrades-MaleDr:e r Kleophrades-MaleBr,e rlin, 1933 (Bilderg riechischeVr asen,v . 6).
Beazley, Pan-Maler: Der Pan-Maler, Berlin, 1931 (Bilder griechischerV asen, v. 4).
Becatti, G., "Rivisioni critiche, anfore panatenaiche e stile arcaistico," Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia
Romana di Archeologia, XVII, 1941, pp. 85-95.
Bieber, M., Entwicklungsgeschichted er griechischen Tracht, Berlin, 1984.
GriechischeK leidung, Berlin, 1928.
Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, rev. ed., New York, 1961.
Billedtavler: Ny CarlsbergG lyptotek, Billedtavler til Kataloget over antiker Kunstvaerker,C openhagen, 1907.