Early Cycladic Sculpture

Early Cycladic Sculpture An Introduction

Revised Edition

Pat Getz-Preziosi

The J. Paul Getty Museum Malibu, California © 1994 The J. Paul Getty Museum Cover: Early Spedos variety style 17985 Pacific Coast Highway harp player. Malibu, The J. Paul Malibu, California 90265-5799 Getty Museum 85.AA.103. See also plate ivb, figures 24, 25, 79. At the J. Paul Getty Museum: Christopher Hudson, Publisher Frontispiece: Female folded-arm Mark Greenberg, Managing Editor figure. Late Spedos/Dokathismata variety. A somewhat atypical work of the Schuster Master. EC II. Library of Congress Combining elegantly controlled Cataloging-in-Publication Data curving elements with a sharp angularity and tautness of line, the Getz-Preziosi, Pat. concept is one of boldness tem­ Early Cycladic sculpture : an introduction / pered by delicacy and precision. Pat Getz-Preziosi.—Rev. ed. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum Includes bibliographical references. 90.AA.114. Pres. L. 40.6 cm. ISBN 0-89236-220-0 I. Sculpture, Cycladic. I. J. P. Getty Museum. II. Title. NB130.C78G4 1994 730 '.0939 '15-dc20 94-16753 CIP Contents

vii Foreword

x Preface

xi Preface to First Edition

1 Introduction

6 Color Plates

17 The Stone Vases

18 The Figurative Sculpture

51 The Formulaic Tradition

59 The Individual Sculptor

64 The Karlsruhe/Woodner Master

66 The Goulandris Master

71 The Ashmolean Master

78 The Distribution of the Figures

79 Beyond the Cyclades

83 Major Collections of Early Cycladic Sculpture

84 Selected Bibliography

86 Photo Credits This page intentionally left blank Foreword

The remarkable stone sculptures pro­ Richmond, Virginia, Fort Worth, duced in the Cyclades during the third Texas, and San Francisco, in 1987- millennium B.C. have both the advan­ 1988, and "Cycladic Culture: Naxos tage and disadvantage of immense in the Third Millennium," shown at popular appeal. Even the most casual the Goulandris Museum in Athens in observers can immediately appreciate 1990, and brought the tangible re­ the carefully sculpted forms of human mains of this Bronze Age civilization figures reduced to their essential out­ to the attention of a broader public lines and the vessels of sure and sim­ audience. Several major new publica­ ple contours with minimal decoration. tions also appeared, including Pat Our attraction to these objects should Getz-Preziosi's major study, Sculptors not be confused with understanding, of the Cyclades, and Colin Renfrew's however, for it belies the fact that we evocative The Cycladic Spirit. But per­ know almost nothing of the rituals haps most importantly, our knowl­ and beliefs of the society that pro­ edge of the culture of the Cyclades in duced them. the Bronze Age has been increased by The decade since the first edition continuing excavations and surveys of of this book appeared has witnessed Cycladic sites, particularly on the is­ a burgeoning interest in the study lands of Melos, Amorgos, Kea, Keros, of Cycladic art and civilization. In and Santorini, as well as related sites the same year, 1985, the Nicholas P. on mainland Greece and the island of Goulandris Foundation and Museum Crete. These remarkable works of art, of Cycladic Art, the first institution once valued more for the inspiration dedicated to "the dissemination and they provided to modern sculptors promotion of Cycladic art to a wider like Brancusi or Henry Moore than as scholarly community and the general the sophisticated achievements of public," opened in Athens. Signifi­ their own culture, can be better appre­ cant exhibitions followed, including ciated as we understand more about "Early Cycladic Sculpture in North the society that produced them. American Collections," shown in Pat Getz-Preziosi's contribution to

vii the study of Cycladic stone sculpture, standardized formulae that seem to both idols and vessels, and of the art­ have been applied in the creation of ists who produced them, is surely the stone figures. While the idols ap­ unique. Although the basic chrono­ pear deceptively simple at first glance, logical development of the idol types the formulae she believes were used had been previously established, she for the planning and execution of was the first scholar to recognize the the images reveal their extraordinary stylistic relationships among different refinement of design. These formulae pieces and to attribute them on this may also help to explain the rather basis to individual hands or "mas­ unsettling impression of similarity ters." Like those of the creators of among figures of each type, in spite of most surviving ancient artifacts, the their variations in individual details. names of these craftsmen are unre­ Readers familiar with the origi­ corded, and the sculptors are now nal edition of this book will realize identified for convenience by the that a number of objects have changed names of the collections which in­ hands since its appearance. In 1988, clude or have included in the past one the Getty Museum acquired the Cy­ or more examples of the artist's work. cladic collection of Paul and Marianne It is unlikely that we shall ever know Steiner, including the name-piece of more about these sculptors, but Dr. the Steiner Master. The Woodner Getz-Preziosi's examination of groups Family Collection was sold in 1991 of works by different hands and her and is now in a New York private consideration of the changes and var­ collection. iations in key stylistic features among Kenneth Hamma, Associate Cura­ members of each group provide us tor of Antiquities, has overseen the with considerable insight into the production of this revised edition, at­ distinct artistic personalities that cre­ tending to myriad details with charac­ ated them. teristic care and patience. The text was Dr. Getz-Preziosi was also the first edited by Cynthia Newman Bohn, and to offer a convincing analysis of the Ellen Rosenbery provided new photo-

viii graphs of the Steiner pieces. This volume is intended as a gen­ eral introduction to a complex and intriguing subject that is constantly enhanced by new discoveries. We may only hope that the excavations and research activities of the next decade will further elucidate the original cul­ tural significance of these artifacts, which have lost none of their imme­ diacy and appeal more than four mil­ lennia after their creation.

Marion True Curator of Antiquities

ix Preface

Since the initial publication of Early Although there have been a number Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction, of additions to the literature in the the J. Paul Getty Museum, under the years since this book first appeared, fine eye of its present Curator of our understanding of the fundamen­ Antiquities, Marion True, has contin­ tals of Early Cycladic sculpture remains ued to build and broaden its collection basically unaltered. As a reflection of of prehistoric stone sculpture with the this situation, the text of the present acquisition of a number of impressive edition, although improved in places, works. Coincidentally, the original has not been substantially modified. edition went out of print just as the Museum was in the process of acquir­ Pat Getz-Preziosi ing a piece from the hand of one of April 1994 the preeminent sculptors of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades (see frontis.). That addition and the Museum's re­ cent acquisition of the Steiner Col­ lection of Cycladic figures and vases, half of which were not included in the earlier edition, as well as four addi­ tional Cycladic marble vessels and a rare complete figurative image from Anatolia have made a revised edition appropriate at this time. In the new edition several of these recent acqui­ sitions by the Museum and two impor­ tant works from other collections have replaced several objects illustrated in the original version (see pi. la-c and figs. 16, 17, 20, 28, and 85-84).

X Preface to First Edition

This book was written at the sugges­ Bloomington), John Coffey (Bowdoin tion of Jin Frel following a seminar College Art Museum, Brunswick), J. lecture given by the writer at the J. Gy. Szilagyi (Musee des Beaux-Arts, Paul Getty Museum in the spring of Budapest), Jane Biers (Museum of Art 1983. A revised version of that lecture, and Archaeology, University of Mis­ it also incorporates many elements of souri, Columbia), Giselle Eberhard a larger study called Sculptors of the (Musee Barbier-Muller, Geneva), Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in Dominique de Menil (Menil Founda­ the rThirdMillennium B.C., which will tion, Houston), Uri Avida (Israel Mu­ soon be published jointly by the Uni­ seum, Jerusalem), Michael Maass and versity of Michigan Press and the J. Jiirgen Thimme (Badisches Landes- Paul Getty Trust. Illustrated wher­ museum, Karlsruhe), J. Lesley Fitton ever possible with objects from the (British Museum, London), Tina Getty's collection or with objects in Oldknow (Los Angeles County Mu­ other American museums and private seum of Art), Jifi Frel and Marion collections, Early Cycladic Sculpture True (J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu), is intended to survey the develop­ The Guennol Collection (New York), ment of Cycladic sculpture and to Joan Mertens (Metropolitan Museum offer a particular approach to the of Art, New York), Alexandra Staf­ anonymous artists who worked in the ford (New York), Paul and Marianne Aegean islands some forty-five hun­ Steiner (New York), Ian Woodner dred years ago. (New York), Michael Vickers and For graciously allowing me to repro­ Ann Brown (Ashmolean Museum, duce objects from their collections Oxford), Sara Campbell (Norton and for providing photographs and Simon Museum, Pasadena), Frances information, I am most grateful to the Follin Jones (The Art Museum, following museums, museum author­ Princeton University), Renee Beller ities, and private owners: Dolly Gou­ Dreyfus (The Fine Arts Museums of landris (Athens), Adriana Calinescu San Francisco), Paula Thurman (Seat­ (Indiana University Art Museum, tle Art Museum), Saburoh Hasegawa

xi (The National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo), Mr. and Mrs. Isidor Kahane (Zurich), and several private collectors who prefer to remain anon­ ymous. Special thanks are due to Wolfgang Knobloch of the Badisches Landesmuseum and to Andrea Wood- ner for undertaking the troublesome task of obtaining the weights of the two name-pieces of the Karlsruhe/ Woodner Master. For their help with various aspects of the project, I am especially indebted to the depart­ ments of antiquities and publications at the J. Paul Getty Museum. I would also like to thank the Getty Museum seminar participants for their valuable comments and the students of Jeremy Rutter at Dartmouth and Karen Foster at Wesleyan for taking part in draw­ ing experiments pertinent to the pres­ ent study. And last but not least, I gratefully acknowledge a substantial debt to those colleagues whose views I have incorporated into the fabric of my text.

P. G.-P.

xii Introduction

Over a century ago European travel­ Since then, recovery of the art and ers began to explore the more than archaeology of the pre-Greek culture thirty small islands that lie at the that flowered in the Cycladic archi­ center of the Aegean Sea (fig. 1). We pelago has been continuous, both know these islands by the historical through systematic exploration and Greek name of some of them—the through clandestine digging. As a re­ Cyclades—so called because they were sult, several thousand marble objects thought to encircle tiny Delos, sacred are now known, providing a rich and birthplace of the gods Artemis and varied corpus to study and enjoy. Apollo. A more appropriate name for Cycladic figures or idols, as the most these rocky summits of submerged distinctive objects of this early culture mountains might have been "The are freely called,* have held a strange Marble Isles" or Marmarinai; for appeal for nearly five millennia. Dur­ many, if not most, of them are excel­ ing the period of their manufacture, lent sources of the material that was roughly 3000-2200 B.C., they were to spark the creative impulses and buried with the Cycladic dead, but challenge the energies of sculptors in they were also exported beyond the both prehistoric and historic times. Cyclades and even imitated nearby on Nineteenth-century travelers to the Crete and in Attica where they have Cyclades brought home a number of also been found in graves. Fragmen­ "curious" marble figurines, or sigil- tary figures, chance finds treasured as laria, as they called them, which had magically charged relics, were occa­ been fortuitously unearthed by farm­ sionally reused in later millennia. In ers' plows. By the 1880s interest in modern times Cycladic figures were these sculptures, which we now rec­ at first considered primitive, in the ognize as the products of Early Bronze pejorative sense of the word, ugly, Age craftsmanship, was sufficiently and, at best, curiosities from the dim aroused that information about the recesses of Greek prehistory. Redis­ culture which produced them was ac­ covered in the twentieth century, tively sought through excavation. largely through the appreciation of

*The term idol is accurate if by it no more is meant than "image," as in the ancient Greek eidolon.

1 Figure 1. The Cyclades and neigh­ boring lands. The dotted line indicates some uncertainty regarding the eastern boundary of the Early Bronze Age culture; possibly Ikaria and Astypalaia ought to be included within its sphere.

2 such artists as Picasso and Brancusi, tions of undisturbed sites. The picture they have come to be highly esteemed we have of Cycladic art has been fur­ for their compelling combination of ther clouded by the insinuation of for­ gleaming white marble and painstak­ geries, primarily during the 1960s. ing workmanship, for the calm force The fragmentary state of the archae­ of their essential forms, and for the ological record only compounds the mystery that surrounds them. very difficult problem of understand­ Although the greatest concentration ing the original meaning and function of Cycladic sculpture is housed in the of these figures as well as other finds National Archaeological Museum in from the Early Cycladic period. It is Athens, examples are scattered in mu­ clear that the sculptures had at least a seums and private collections around sepulchral purpose, but beyond that, the world. There are at least two hun­ the little we know and the views we dred pieces in American collections now hold are open to the kind of ampli­ alone (see the list of major collections fication or alteration that only further on p. 85). The popularity of the fig­ controlled excavation might provide. ures has increased dramatically during While it is true that the excavation the last two decades, partly because of of Early Cycladic sites has been re­ their perceived affinity with contem­ stricted almost exclusively to cemeter­ porary art styles. The consequences ies, the few settlements that have been for the serious study of Cycladic art explored have yielded little in the way and culture are disturbing, for to sat­ of marble objects. Perhaps the most isfy demand for the figures, unautho­ important gap in the record at pres­ rized digging has flourished to the ent is the lack of buildings or sites that extent that for many, if not most, of can definitely be considered sanctuar­ the sculptures, the precise find-places ies, although there is one tantalizing have been lost along with the circum­ possibility which will be discussed stances of their discovery. Only a rel­ later. atively small number of figures has To date, no figure measuring 60 cm been recovered in systematic excava­ or more has ever been uncovered by

1 an archaeologist. We do not know mation of this sort could provide clues therefore how the very large images to part of the mystery surrounding the were normally used, though the avail­ identity and function of these images able information suggests that, at least and to the attitudes of the living to­ on occasion, they, too, were buried ward them. with the dead. Perhaps the most intriguing ques­ Although the skeletal remains have tion of all concerns meaning: why did not been analyzed, it appears from the people acquire these idols? Because objects found with them that marble the majority are female, with a few images were buried with both men either pregnant or showing signs of and women but evidently not with postpartum wrinkles, the evidence children. Moreover, while some cem­ points in the direction of fertility, at eteries are noticeably richer in mar­ least for the female figures. Glanc­ ble goods than others, even in these ing for a moment at the double-figure not every burial was so endowed. image of plate in, it might be viewed Marble objects, figures as well as ves­ as essentially similar to the traditional sels, accompanied only a privileged single female figure while being even few to their graves. It is thought that more powerfully or blatantly symbolic the majority of the islanders made do of fertility. By depicting the standard with less costly wooden figures (all figure type as both pregnant and with traces of which would have vanished a child, the sculptor was able to inten­ by now), just as they had to be con­ sify the idea of fecundity and the re­ tent with vessels fashioned from clay. newal of life. This should provide an At present, there is not sufficient important clue to what may have been archaeological evidence to state with the essential meaning of these prehis­ assurance whether these figures were toric marble figures. normally accorded respect at the time For the time being, one may think of their interment with the dead, who of these sculptures as the personal were placed in cramped, unprepos­ possessions of the dead rather than sessing, boxlike graves. Clear infor­ as gifts made to them at the time of

4 their funerals. They should perhaps by whom. What follows, then, is a sur­ be viewed as icons of a protective vey of the typological development of being acquired by a person, kept dur­ Early Cycladic sculpture, in addition, ing his or her lifetime and perhaps it is the intention here to show that it displayed in the home, but whose ul­ is possible to isolate the works of indi­ timate and primary purpose was to vidual sculptors and to speculate about serve in the grave as potent symbols these individuals' growth as artists of eternal renewal and hope and as working within the strict conventions comforting reminders that life would of a sophisticated craft tradition. persist in the beyond. Reaffirmation of the vitality of life and the senses, moreover, may have been the sym­ bolic purpose of the occasional male figure—music maker, wine offerer, hunter/warrior. In the absence of written records, one will never be able to achieve a complete understanding of such intangible matters as burial rit­ ual or the full meaning of the images. Such are the limits of archaeology. A great deal can be learned, never­ theless, about Early Cycladic sculp­ ture from a primarily visual approach which focuses less on the intriguing but, in the present state of knowledge, difficult questions concerning why fig­ ures were carved, for whom they were intended, or even precisely when they were made, and more on the ques­ tions of how they were designed and

5 Plate i. Four Early Cycladic marble vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum.

a. The collared jar or b. The beaker is another of image. In size beakers kandila (lamp) was the a limited range of marble rangefrom 7.5 cm to most common marble forms of the EC I phase. 35 cm. Malibu, The J. Paul object produced in the EC I Eidless like the collared Getty Museum 90.AA.10. phase. Several hundred of jar, it was also designed H. 16 cm. these vessels are known. for suspension and was Eidless, they were carried probably intended as a suspendedfrom cords and containerfor liquids, but were probably designed to it occurs much less fre­ hold liquids, although one quently. In rare cases a wasfound containing female torso is represented shells. In size kandiles on one side of the vessel rangefrom 8.4 cm to (with the suspension lugs 37 cm. Malibu, The J. Paul doubling as upper arms), Getty Museum 90.AA.9. reinforcing the notion that H. 25.2 cm. the vessel was symbolically interchangeable with the plastically sculptedfemale

6 c. Among the rare varia­ d. EC I J cylindrical pyxides shows traces of red. paint tions on the kandila (pi. normally carried incised on its interior, is at present la) are several consisting decoration. While curvilin­ unique among marble ves­ of two joined examples ear designs (spirals, circles) sels for the single engraved, and one or two lacking the are confined almost, exclu­ spiral which covers its top or bottom element. This sively to vessels carved in underside. This may be an unique vessel hadfour softer and lessfriable soap- early example, transitional short feet (now damaged) stone, marble containers between EC l and. EC II. instead of the usual conical were regularly ornamented, Malibu, The J. Paul Getty or cylindrical pedestal and with rectilinear encircling Museum 88. A A. 8 3 (ex is probably a late example grooves reminiscent of the Steiner Collection). of the type, perhaps transi­ postpartum wrinkles seen H. 6.5 cm (lid missing); tional between EC I and on a number of figures D. (mouth) 8.4 cm. ECU. Malibu, The J. Paul (e.g.,fig. 6)—perhaps Getty Museum, 88. A A. 84 another indication of the (ex Steiner Collection). female symbolism of the Pres. H. 16.7 cm. vessel. This beautifully carved example, which

7 Plate ii. Two female figures in the J. Paul Getty Museum.

a. Plastiras type. EC I. tion, as does the bored Simpler than most exam­ navel (cf. fig. 13c). Note ples of its type, this modest how the legs were carved work is unusual in that it separately for only a short lacks any definition of the distance. The modeling and forearms. The mending attempted naturalism, of hole in the right thigh was the forearms and hands a remedy for damage reflect a short-lived incurred perhaps when the approach taken by some sculptor was in the process sculptors of precanonical of separating the legs. If figures (cf. pi. III). The this was the case, he may figure was acquired by the have thought it best not to J. Paul Getty Museum in. continue separating them two parts: the headless idol asfar as the crotch. A came to the museum in break across the left thigh 1972, having been obtained probably occurred at a many years earlier in the much later time. Malibu, Paris flea, market. In 1977, The J. Paul Getty Museum during a visit to a Euro­ 71.AA.128.H. 14.2 cm. pean antiquities dealer, J. See also figure 13d. Frel identified the head/ neck as belonging to the same work. Malibu, The b. Precanonical type. EC J. Paul Getty Museum I/II. Although one can see 72.AA.156/77.AA.24. in this figure a tentative H. 28.2 cm. folding of the armsfore­ shadowing the classic idol of the EC II phase, it is still very much related to the earlier Plastiras type in its long neck, modeled limbs, andfeet with arched soles (seefig. 13e) very similar to those of the piece illus­ trated in plate Ha and figure 13d. Although the almond-shaped eyes and the indication of the brows are related to those painted on later figures, their sculp­ tural rendering connects them to the earlier tradi­

8 Plate in. Female two-figure composition.

Precanonical type. EC I///. to the late transitional Probably the earliest and stage. Typologically, at also the largest of the three least, it appears somewhat well-preserved and unques­ later than the figure illus­ tionably genuine examples trated in plate lib. New of this type known to the York, Shelby White and writer, the piece is interest­ Leon Levy Collection. ingfor a number of rea­ H. 46.6 cm. sons. The two figures were deliberately made to be nearly exact replicas of each other, with one differ­ ence: the larger is clearly represented as pregnant while the smaller has almost no midsection at all. This is probably of some significancefor an understanding of the pre­ cise meaning of such com­ positions, which continues to be elusive but which must have suggestedfer­ tility. Such works were exceedingly difficult to carve to completion with­ out sustaining fractures, especially at the ankles of the small image, and con­ sequently were rarely attempted.

In their proportions and with theirfully folded arms, the two figures are close typologically to the Spedos variety, but the naturalistic rendering of theforearms and hands, in addition to the well-defined knees and slightly archedfeet held parallel to the ground, sug­ gests that the work belongs

9 Plate iv. Two harp players.

a. Precanonical style. EC 1/11. The earliest known example of a rarely attempted type requiring enormous patience and skill, thefigure is seated on a chair with an elaborate backrest, based, like the harp, on wooden models. He is represented in the act of plucking the strings of his instrument with his thumbs. Note the light caplike area at the top and back of the head which was once painted. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 47.100.1. H. 29.5 cm.

10 b. Early Spedos variety style. EC II. This is the largest and, along with the Metropolitan Museum 'v example, the best preserved of the ten surviving harp­ ers ofungues tiona ble authenticity known to the writer. 'Thefigure is repre­ sented holding his instru­ ment at rest. Note the subtle rendering of the right arm and cupped hand. Paint ghosts for hair and eyes are discernible. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 85.AA. 103. H. 35.8cm. Said to come from Amorgos. See also figures 24, 25, 79, and cover.

11 Plate v. Heads of four figures.

a. Plastiras type. A work b. Detail of work illustrated of the Athens Museum infigure 56, showing paint Master. EC I. One of four ghostsfor eyes, brows, and works ascribed to this forehead hair. sculptor. Note that the right eye inlay is preserved. Geneva, Musee Barbier- MuellerBMG 209-59. Pres. H. 13.6 cm.

12 c. Spedos variety. EC II. d. Dokathismata variety. rather unusual striated A typical head on which EC II. In contrast to the marble. Malibu, The faint paint ghosts are rather conservative form J.Paul Getty Museum visible for the eyes and of the Spedos variety head 71.AA.126. Pres.L. 8.6 cm. forehead hair. Malibu, The (pi. Vc), that of the J. Paul Getty Museum Dokathismata variety is 11.AA.125. usually rather extreme and Pres. E. 8.9 cm. mannered. Note the broad crown and pointed chin. The head is carved in a

13 Plate vi. Painted details.

a. Detail of work illustrated b. Detail of work illustrated infigure 41, showing infigure 41, showing paint­ painted details on theface ing on the hands. Note also and a painted necklace. the modeling of the breasts See alsofigure 42. and arms.

14 c. Detail of work illustrated d. Detail of work illustrated, in figure 78, showing paint­ in figure 78, showing the ing on theface and in the painted ear and neck neck groove. grooves.

15 This page intentionally left blank The Stone Vases

Early Cycladic sculptors probably Figure 2. Female folded- spent most of the time they devoted arm figure (Early Spedos to their craft fashioning stone vases variety) with trough- (pi. i). In all phases of Early Cycladic shaped palette. EC II. Reputedly found together culture, these cups, bowls, goblets, as shown, the two objects jars, beakers, boxes, palettes, trays, fit each other well; they are and animal-shaped containers were carved in the same marble far more numerous as a group than and are similarly preserved. the figures. Like the figures, they Although no examples have were evidently acquired to be used been found in systematic later in the grave. On occasion, they excavations, the combina­ have been found in graves that also tion seems a plausible one, yielded idols, although some of the given the reclining posture spherical and cylindrical types can be of thefolded-arm figures. The rather carelessly viewed as symbols of the womb and, crafted idol is of interest as such, may as a rule have been re­ chiefly for the highly unu­ garded as appropriate substitutes for sual reversal of the arms the predominantly female images. which, except in the very A few vessels, on the other hand, ap­ late examples, are almost pear to have been made to hold figures without exception held in (fig- 2)- a right-below-left arrange­ Even though this book is restricted ment. Note, too, the asym­ to a discussion of figurative works, in metry of the shoulders and a very real sense the term "Cycladic feet and the unequal length of the pointed ends of the sculpture" ought to embrace both the palette/cradle. Jerusalem, so-called idols and these often very Israel Museum 74.61.208a, beautiful, though strangely neglected, b. L. (figure) 19.5 cm. vessels of marble or, in rare cases, of L. (palette) 20.5 cm. softer stones.

17 The Figurative Sculpture

The vast majority of the figures are sea to highly developed renderings of made of sparkling white marble; the human form with subtle variations works in gray, banded, or mottled of plane and contour. In many exam­ marbles or in other materials such as ples, no primary sexual characteristics volcanic ash, shell, or lead are very are indicated, but unless these figures rare. The images vary in size from are depicted in a specifically male role miniatures measuring less than 10 cm (pi. iv), they are usually assumed to (4 in.) (fig. 5) to nearly life-size represent females. The female form, (fig. 4), although most do not exceed sometimes shown as pregnant (figs. 50 cm (lft.). 5, 75) or with postpartum skin folds In terms of naturalism, the sculp­ (figs. 6, 7), dominates throughout the tures range from simple modifications period. Male figures account for only of stones shaped and polished by the about five percent of the known pro-

18 Figure 3. Female folded- arm figure. Late Spedos/ Dokathismata variety. ECU. This is one of the smallest completefigures of the folded-arm type known. Such diminutive images tend to be rather crude in their execution and are probably for the most part examples of their sculptors' early work. Note the dis­ parity in the width of the legs caused by the mis­ alignment of the leg cleft. Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 350. L. 9.5 cm.

Figure 4. Female folded- face. Breaks at the neck the work was carved by a arm figure. Early Spedos and legs may have been highly skilled sculptor. variety. EC II. made intentionally in order New York, Harmon Collec­ The third largest com­ to fit thefigure into a grave tion. L. 132 cm. Said to be pletely preserved figure that otherwise would have from Amorgos. See also now known to the writer been too short for it; alter­ figure 34. (the largest work, in natively, the image may Athens, measures 148 cm), have come from a sanctu­ the piece is remarkable for ary. Although somewhat the superb state of its sur­ ungainly in its proportions,

19 Figure 5. Female folded- arm figure. Late Spedos variety. EC II. Unlike mostfigures that are represented in a preg­ nant condition (eg.,fig. 75), this example shows a rather advanced stage. Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 309. L. 15.7 cm. Said to befrom Naxos. duction (pi. iv, figs. 19, 23-28, 35, 36). tational idols is suggested by their A characteristic feature of Cycladic occasional presence in a single grave sculpture throughout its develop­ (fig. 7). Many sculptors probably ment, from its earliest beginnings in carved both types, but the schematic the Neolithic Age, is the simultaneous figurine was doubtless the less expen­ manufacture of both a simplified flat­ sive to make, since it was normally tened version of the female form and small and could be fashioned from a more fully elaborated one (fig. 11). a flat beach pebble, thus requiring Although the popularity of each type much less work; as many as fourteen varies in a given period, it appears of these have been found together in now that at least some examples of one grave. both types appear in every period, The forms that Cycladic sculptures except perhaps in the first phase of the took sometime after the beginning of transitional one when there seems to the Early Bronze Age (Early Cycladic have been a blending of the two types. i) appear to be directly related to the That one Cycladic islander might ac­ figures carved in much smaller num­ quire both schematic and represen­ bers during the Neolithic Age (figs. 8,

20 Figure 6. Female figure. tour of the arms reflects the front to indicate postpar- although in one or two Louros type. EC i/ll. stumplike projections char­ turn wrinkles or possibly rare cases they occur in Rather crude and clumsy, acteristic of the Louros bindings. A convention combination with a this figure is atypical type (e.g.,fig. 14). The more decorative and easier slightly swollen abdomen, because it incorporates fea­ sculptor, perhaps not a to render than the rounded Princeton, The Art tures reminiscent of the specialist, appears to have belly normally associated Museum, Princeton Plastiras type, namely, been confused since he with pregnancy and child- University 934. H. 25 cm. plastically treated mouth carved the breasts below birth, such markings are andforearms. Note, how­ the arms. The figure shows found almost exclusively ever, that the outline con­ engraved lines across the on theflatterfigure types,

a. b. c.

Figure 7. Female figures. carved by the same sculp­ schematic and representa­ Violin type {a, c). Plastiras tor is strongly suggested by tional figures in the same type (b). EC I. similarities in the outline grave is attestedfor both This group of modest contours, particularly in the EC I and EC II phases. works is reputed to have the area of the shoulders Columbia, Museum of Art been found together, as the and upper arms. (A small and Archaeology, Univer­ character of the marble, beaker of the type illus­ sity of Missouri 64.67.1-3. state of preservation, and trated in plate ih was also H. 76-14.1 cm. workmanship seem to con­ allegedly part of the firm. That they were also group.) The recovery of

21 9). For their more representational figures, Cycladic sculptors used the standing posture and an arrangement of the arms in which the hands meet over the abdomen (fig. 10), both in­ herited from the earlier tradition. Exaggerated corpulence, the hallmark of the Stone Age figure, was reduced to a two-dimensional, strongly frontal scheme. These images are also broad across the hips, but, unlike their pre­ decessors, they have straight, narrow profiles, as is illustrated by a compar­ ison between the profiles of two Late Neolithic figures and three Early Cy­ cladic ones (fig. 13). It is doubtful that this fundamental alteration in the sculptors' approach to the female form reflects a change in religious outlook or in aesthetic preference. Most probably the new trend was initiated by the sculptors themselves in an effort to speed up the carving process. It is possible, too, that there was some influence from wooden figures, which may have filled the long gap in time between the last of the Neolithic marble figures and the first of the Bronze Age ones. Cycladic sculpture may be divided, Figure 8. Female figure. c) already produced in Sitting type. Late limited numbers in Late Neolithic. Neolithic times. Note the One of two basic Late exaggerated breadth of the Neolithic postural types, upper torso necessitated the steatopygous sitting by the position of thefore­ figure with folded legs was arms. New York, Shelby thefull-blown version of White and Leon Levy Col­ and the original modelfor lection. H. 13.3 cm. Said theflat, schematic violin- to be part of a grave group type figures, (e.g.,fig. 7a, from Attica or Euboia. 22 Figure 9. Female figure. head of thefigure would Standing type. Late have resembled that of the Neolithic. sitting figure in figure 8. The standing counterpart New York, The Metro­ of the steatopygous sitting politan Museum, of Art figure, this was the proto­ 1972.118.104, Bequest of typefor the earliest rep- Walter C Baker. res entatio nalfigu res Pres.H. 21.5 cm. (Plastiras type) of the EC I phase (eg.,fig. 10). The

Figure 10. Female figure. Plastiras type. EC I. Typicalfeatures of the Plastiras type seen on this figure include hollowed, eyes, luglike ears, a sculpted mouth, only barely visible because of weather­ ing of the surface, an extremely long neck, long incised.fingers which seem to double as a decorative pattern strongly reminis­ cent of postpartum wrin­ kles (e.g., figs. 6, 7), broad hips, and legs carved sepa­ rately to the crotch. A cylin­ drical headdress or polos is suggested by the shape of the head, on top. This may have been originally more clearly indicated, with paint. Pasadena, Norton Simon Collection N.75.18.3.S.A.H. 18.5 cm.

23 24 Figure 11. stylistically and iconographically, into Figure 12. The typological and chron­ two distinct groups, apparently with A Neolithic standing figure ological development of a transitional phase in between (fig. with hollowed eye sockets Cycladic sculpture. With 11). These divisions correspond gen­ that presumably once held the exception of the sche­ erally to the chronological and cultural inlays. New York, The Met­ ropolitan Museum of Art matic Neolithic figure, the sequences based on changes that oc­ pieces illustrated here are LA974.77J (on loan from curred in Cycladic ceramics during discussed elsewhere in this Chris tos G. Bast is). the third millennium B.C. work (the numbers provide H. 20.9 cm. figure references). The earlier group, whose relation to Neolithic antecedents we have been considering, might conveniently be called "archaic." The numerous sche­ matic figures of this phase, many of them shaped like violins (fig. 7#, c), are characterized by a long, headless prong. Their rather rare representa­ tional counterparts (Plastiras type), besides retaining the Neolithic arm position and stance, also reveal a curi­ ous combination of exaggerated pro­ portions and painstaking concern for anatomical detail, both on the face and on the body (fig. 10). Careful attention was paid to the kneecaps, ankles, and arches, while the navel and buttock dimples were also often indicated. Although for the most part the eye sockets are now empty, they were in­ laid with dark stones (pi. v#), a prac­ tice for which there may also have

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

Figure 13. A comparison been Neolithic precedents (fig. 12). carving process itself. Broken figures of the profiles of Late A new feature of these archaic fig­ were not discarded. Instead, their Neolithic (a, 6), EC I ures is the complete separation of the sculptors brought into play one of Plastiras type (c, d), and leg, from the feet up to the crotch. In their favorite implements—the hand- EC I/II precanonical (e) the Neolithic figures, only the feet rotated borer. With the borer they figures. were carved as separate elements. normally made eye sockets, hollowed Whatever the motive for this new ears, navels, buttock dimples, and oc­ practice, it carried a strong risk of casionally even complete perforations accidental breakage to the legs, which at the elbows as well as the suspen­ often happened, perhaps during the sion holes in the lugs of the marble

26 vases they produced in astonishing Figure 14. Female figure. quantity at this time (pi. la, b). When Louros type. EC l/ll. a figure sustained a fracture, they also Note thefeatureless face, used the borer to make rather conspic­ the long neck, and the separately carved legs uous holes through which a string or characteristic of the type. leather thong could be drawn to refas- Evidence for the dating of ten the broken part (pi. n<2, fig. 45). such idols is at present Although the archaeological record limited to one grave, no. is uncertain at this point, it appears 26, at Louros Athalassou that Cycladic sculpture next entered a on Naxos, from which the period of transition, Early Cycladic type takes its name. In that 1/II (fig. 11). The first evidence of this grave, a group of seven change is the attempt by sculptors to figures was found stand­ fuse the abstract and the representa­ ing in a niche. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum tional approaches. In the most com­ 88. A A.7 7 (ex Steiner mon form, the figures have featureless Collection). H. 10 cm. heads, the incision work was kept to Said to be from Naxos. a minimum, and the problem of ren­ dering the arms was avoided by mak­ ing them simple, angular projections at the shoulders (figs. 6, 14). By con­ trast, the legs are often quite carefully modeled. As many as seven of these transitional (Louros type) examples have been found together in one grave.

27 a. b. c. d.

Figure 15. Four small, crotch. Private collection. mending hole for the re­ d. Although the arms are precanonical figures H. 15.8 cm. attachment of the missing properly folded in the showing steps in the leg is visible in the left canonical right-below-left development of the b. Norwich, University knee. Note the carved ears, arrangement, thefigure folded-arm position. ofEastAnglia, Sainsbury the incised facial detail, the retains such precanonical EC I/H. Centre for Visual Arts, modeled legs, and the soles features as carved ears, P9(d).H. 9.5 cm. parallel to the ground, well-modeled legs separated a. Although the arms are characteristicsfound on to the knees, and soles rendered in the manner of c. The arms are tentatively most of the best pre­ appropriate to a standing the Plastiras type, the pro­ folded (cf pi. Ilh) but canonical examples. posture. Houston, The portions show none of the in an unorthodox right- Geneva, Musee Barbier- Menil Collection 73-01DJ. exaggeration of the earlier above-left arrangement. MuellerBMG 202.9. H. 16.2 cm. figures and the legs are not The legs are separated to H. 15.9 cm. carved separately to the just above the knees. A

28 Toward the end of the transitional any new influence or shift in religious phase, sculptors began to strive for meaning or gesture, most likely in­ more balanced and natural propor­ spired the gradual development of tions (fig. 15, pis. 116, m). While un­ the folded-arm position that was to knowingly setting the stage for the become de rigueur in the next phase emergence of the canonical folded- (fig. 15). This new position entails no arm figure at the beginning of the sec­ free space if the elbows and upper ond, "classical," phase (fig. 16), these arms are held close to the sides. sculptors were finding new ways to Indeed, the very early folded-arm produce representational figures in figures seem to be tightly clasping quantity. At the same time, they were themselves (fig. 16). In order to re­ reducing the risks involved in the carv­ duce further the risk of fracture, the ing process. Along with more natural legs are now separated for only about proportions, which resulted in stur­ half their length, from the feet to the dier figures, the sculptors seem to knees, or even less (pi. ub). Beginning have been seeking an arm rendering with these "precanonical" figures, more appropriate to the slender body repairs are much less frequently seen, style of their images. While the old presumably because there were fewer Neolithic arm position of hands touch- accidents in the workshop. Consider­ ing over the midriff may well have able attention was still paid to individ­ been suited to exaggerated corpu­ ual form, and to details, but less than lence, for the person of ordinary build in earlier phases. to assume this pose involves moving Roughly contemporary with these the elbows and upper arms well away transitional figures is the harp player from the sides so that a large triangu­ in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. lar clear space remains. This gap was This work, with its allegedly un-Cy- sometimes hazardously indicated by cladic arm muscles and three-dimen­ perforations at the fragile bend of the sional thumbs (pi. iv#), has often been arms. An interest in a natural pose condemned because it does not con­ carved in a secure way, rather than form to what has come to be a re-

29 Figure 16. Female folded- arm figure. Kapsala variety. EC II. An early example of the classical or canonical folded-arm figure. Note its slenderness and elongated thighs, as well as the use of relief modelingfor details. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 88.AA. 78 (ex Steiner Collection). Pres. L. 49 cm.

Figure 17. Female folded- arm figure. Spedos variety. EC II. Somewhat later than the preceding example, this figure shows a careful bal­ ancing of proportions with no singleform exaggerated. Note the broader shoulders and unperforated leg cleft, as well as the use of inci­ sion for details. This work is unusual in having a carved mouth. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.48.L. 30 cm.

30 stricted and circumscribed notion of 11). More simplified and streamlined what a Cycladic sculpture should look than its predecessors, the canonical like. Attuned as one is to the harmoni­ or folded-arm type was produced in ously proportioned folded-arm figure astonishing quantity over a period of (and to harpers carved in the same several centuries. Its abstract counter­ style—pi. iv&, figs. 23-25) and not to part (Apeiranthos type) has a simple the little-known or little-admired pre- geometric body, with the neck carry­ canonical images, it is difficult for ing the suggestion of a head (fig. 18). some to accept the New York harper Unlike the profile axis of the fig­ as a genuine Cycladic work. We need, ures of the archaic phase, that of the however, to stretch our conception of first folded-arm figures (Kapsala vari­ Early Cycladic sculpture to include ety and some examples of the Early such forerunners of the images exe­ Spedos variety) is sharply broken, par­ cuted in the more fluid classical style. ticularly at the back of the head and If one views the New York harper as a at the bend of the knees. The feet are fine example of an essentially experi­ held at an angle, outward and even­ mental movement, bearing in mind tually also downward, in what appears the bizarre Plastiras-type figures to be a tiptoe position if the figures are which came before in addition to con­ set vertically. These features, however, sidering that exaggerated proportions are appropriate to a relaxed, reclining and attention to detail had not yet position (figs. 4, 5), in contrast to the been entirely supplanted (pi. m), the erect posture of the archaic Plastiras harper falls naturally into place as the figures (figs. 10, 13). The figures dat­ earliest known example of a rare type. ing from the earlier period were evi­ Early in the second or classical phase dently meant to stand, although they of Cycladic sculpture (Early Cycladic do not do so unsupported. Just as with n), the full-fledged folded-arm figure the changes in arm position that took emerges in several different varieties place about the same time, this altered which, for the most part, appear in a posture probably does not indicate any specific chronological sequence (fig. radical change in religious symbolism

31 Figure 18. Female (?) or any external influence. Because it figure. Apeiranthos type. evolved gradually, it is more likely that EC II. the reclining posture was introduced The EC II counterpart of by the sculptors themselves. Since the the violinfigures of EC /, figures were normally laid on their images of this type differ backs in the grave, the sculptors may from the earlier ones in have assumed that they should be that they have the sugges­ tion of a head and their made in a reclining posture from the bodies tend to be rectangu­ start. In any case, at this time another lar and devoid of incised distinction was made: those figures markings. Sometimes intended to stand were furnished with carved in shell, they have small rectangular bases (figs. 26, 32), beenfound in association while seated figures were carved with with Spedos-varietyfigures their feet parallel to the ground (pi. iv, and were presumably figs. 23, 24, 27). made by sculptors who In the early folded-arm figures alsofashioned such fully (Kapsala and Early Spedos varieties), representational images. Mr. and Mrs. C. W. the legs are joined by a thin mem­ Sahlman Collection (on brane, perforated for a short space loan to the Tampa Museum between the calves (figs. 2, 16, 55, 56). ofArtL196.1).H. 12.3 cm. This practice seems to be a further Said to befrom Keros. attempt to strengthen the limbs at vulnerable points. As the folded-arm figures developed, however, the per­ foration of the leg cleft was usually omitted altogether (Late Spedos vari­ ety; figs. 3, 44, 49), no doubt in an effort to reduce the risk of fracture still further. In the latest and most hastily executed examples, the legs are sepa-

32 Figure 19. Male folded- arm figure. Dokathismata variety. EC II. Carved toward the end of the period of production, this rare male figure is noteworthy for its plasti­ cally treated brows and straight grooved haii~— probably an exclusively male hairstyle—as well as for the separation of its upper arms from the chest, effected by means of oblique cuttings. As in most exam­ ples with arm cutouts, at least one of the upper arms has broken off The dam­ age in this case is old, but whether it occurred at the time of manufacture, shortly thereafter, or much later cannot be determined. It is clear, however, that broken arms could not have been easily reattached, for which reason such cutouts, however attractive, were not often attempted. This figure has red painted stripes on its chest. New York, The Metropoli­ tan Museum of Art 1972.118.103b, Bequest of Walter C. Baker. L. 35.9cm.

35 rated by a broad groove (Dokathismata After the eye has been trained by variety; figs. 19, 20) or merely by an looking at a large number of figures, engraved line (Chalandriani variety; any departure from the right-below- figs. 21, 22, 35, 36). Because of the left formula strikes one as decidedly risk, only a few sculptors of such very odd—quite wrong, in fact (fig. 2). Not late works perforated the leg clefts of unexpectedly, forgers of Cycladic fig­ their figures or dared to free the slen­ ures, as well as copiers for the Greek der upper arms from the sides (figs. tourist trade, not infrequently arrange 19,21,226). the arms in the opposite fashion: right From the beginning of this second above left. They probably do so out of phase, the folded arrangement of the a failure to appreciate just how strictly arms became a strictly observed con­ the convention was observed. vention. Not only are the arms folded, Toward the end of the classical but also, for several centuries and with period, the canonical arm arrange­ very few exceptions, they are folded ment no longer dominated, as is evi­ in one arrangement only: the right dent in the Chalandriani variety. arm is shown below the left. Some Although a limited revival of interest might interpret this as having mysti­ in the carving of facial detail and hair cal connotations, but it is possible that occurred at this time (fig. 19), sculp­ the convention was established unwit­ tors generally lavished less care on tingly by a few right-handed sculptors their works, which also tended to who found it easier to draw the arms be quite small. The figures became in this pattern. Having set the lower highly stylized renderings with dis­ boundary of the arms by drawing the torted proportions and severe, angu­ right one, the sculptor could easily fill lar outlines. The traditional arm in the lines of the left arm above, leav­ arrangement was often ignored or ing himself a clear view of the right misunderstood (figs. 21, 22). An ex­ one. Once the practice was started, treme example is a clumsy figure other sculptors presumably would which appears to have three arms and have followed suit. four sets of fingers (fig. 22c).

34 Figure 20. Female folded- arm figure. Dokathismata variety. EC II. An unusually graceful example of the severe style of the later part of the EC II period. Note especially the broad shoulders and upper arms, the unusual incised mouth, and the ancient repair holes at the neck, rare at this late date. New York, Harmon Collec­ tion. Pres. L. 20.6 cm.

Figure 21. Female figure. Chalandriani variety. EC II. Thefigure is unusual both for the uncanonical posi­ tion of theforearms and for its arm cutouts, made in order to reduce the breadth of the upper arms (cfifig. 20). The head, now missing, was once re­ attached by means of lead clamps on either side of the break. Lead as a mending agent in the EC period is found also on a small mar­ ble bowl and on pottery. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 1977.187.11, Bequest of Alice K. Bache. Pres.L. 27J cm.

35 a. b. c. Figure 22. Three Chalandriani-variety figures with uncanonical arm arrangements. EC II.

a. The arms are rendered in the old Plastiras posi­ tion (cf fig. 10), but the resemblance is probably fortuitous. The angular lines and the absence of a midsection arefeatures typ­ ical of the Chalandriani variety. Private collection. L. 30.2 cm.

b. Note the arm cutouts and scratchedfingers (cf. fig. 21) and the unusual stippling of the pubic tri­ angle. London, British Museum 75.3-13.2. Pres. L. 23.6 cm.

c. Said to be from Seriphos. Carved in an unusual blue- gray marble, thefigure is most probably the work of an untutored person living outside the sculptural main­ stream. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Misc. 8426. L. 22.2 cm.

56 Figure 25. Two male closely resembles their thumbs to make music, figure must have been Shelby White and Leon figures. Harper type. stools in size and shape. these harpers are shown shown plucking the strings Levy Collection. H. 20.1 cm. Kapsala variety style. EC II. Note the typical swan's plucking the strings with with the left hand as well. and 17.4 cm. Said, to be A charming pair, clearly- head ornament of the harps all thefingers of at least the Differences in hand posi­ from Amorgos. designed as companion which are held, also typi­ right hand. While the left tion as well as in the type pieces, thesefigures were cally, on the musicians' hand of the smaller figure of furniture represented reputedly found together right sides. In contrast to probably held the harp were the sort of liberties with a footed vessel of the Metropolitan Museum s frame (both the left hand allowed in the execution of marble carved of a. piece harper (pi. JVa), who is and a section of the harp an otherwise very rigidly with a little table that shown using only his are missing), the larger defined type. New York,

37 The beginning of the second Early Figure 24. Harp player. Cycladic phase was a time of prodi­ Early Spedos variety style. gious output and of startling self-con­ EC ii. fidence and virtuosity, analogous to See also plate ivh, the ambitious developments in large figure 79. marble sculpture that took place in the Cyclades some two thousand years later. Although a few examples are Figure 25. Detail of harp stylistically slightly earlier (pis. in, player in figure 24. iv#), most of the rare special figure types belong to this phase. First and foremost are the musi­ cians, the seated harpists and stand-

58 ing woodwind players (figs. 23-26, Figure 26. Male figure. pi. iv). Other seated types include the Woodwind player type. cupbearer and variations of the stan­ Kapsala variety style. EC II. dard folded-arm female (figs. 27, 29). An unusually well-pre­ Also included are the scarce two- and served example of a very rare type, this figure is three-figure compositions. In one two- presently perhaps also the figure arrangement, a small folded earliest one known. It is arm figure is carved on the head of a unusual both for its sten­ larger one (pi. in). In another, of derness andfor its articu­ which no complete example survives, lated ribcage. The musician two figures of the same size are set plays a sandwichlike syr­ side by side clasping each other about inx (panpipes), which in the shoulders (figs. 30, 31). A variation reality is an instrument of of this theme is the amazing three- roughly trapezoidal shape, figure group carved in a single piece, though the Cycladic sculp­ in which the standing male figures tor has translated it for his own purposes into a sym­ link arms to support a seated female metrical form. Karlsruhe, (fig. 52). Badisches Landesmuseum Nearly all the exceptionally large 64/100. H. )4 cm. figures were also carved at this time (figs. 4, 34). While a number of frag­ ments of such monumental figures survive (fig. 33), very few complete ones are known. From the largest ex­ tant example, found in the last cen­ tury, reputedly in a grave on Amorgos, we know that such nearly life-size works were at least sometimes broken into several pieces in order to fit them into the grave, which was normally

39 Figure 27. Male figure. Cupbearer type. Early Spedos variety style. EC II. This engaging work is the only complete example of its type. At present only a fragment of one other is known. As with the harp, the cup is held on the right side, while the left arm is held against the body in the canonical folded posi­ tion. Like the Early Spedos varietyfolded-arm figures in whose style it is carved, the cupbearer's legs are rendered with a perfora­ tion between the calves. Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 286. H. 15.2cm.

40 Figure 28. Fragmentary Figure 29. Female folded- male folded-arm figure. arm figure in semi-sitting Spedos variety. EC II. position. Early Spedos The only malefigurefrom variety. EC II. approximately the middle One of only three orfour of the period not shown examples executed in this engaged in a specific activ­ peculiar position, this ity, this superbly carved carefully worked figure piece is also the largest originally may have had, a. male representation now wooden seat, or earth may known. It originally mea­ have been made into a. sured about one meter. seat-shaped mound to ena­ Because the legs are sepa­ ble it to sit in a more or less rated, it is likely that the upright position. Another image was carved with a possibility is that it was base, enabling it to stand originally part of a, three- unaided (as in figs. 26, figure composition like the 32). Athens, Museum of one illustrated in figure 32. Cycladic and Ancient New York, private collec­ Greek Art, Nicholas P. tion. H. 19 cm. Goulandris Foundation 969 (ex Erlenmeyer Collec­ tion). Pres. H. 42.5 cm. Said to befrom Amorgos.

41 Figures 30, 51. Fragmentary female figure. Double type. Spedos variety. EC II. This is one of several exam­ ples in which only part of one member of a duo sur­ vives with the arm of the second carved across its back. Of these, there are only two with enough pre­ served so that the sex can be determined. In this group we know that one figure is female, but we cannot ascertain the sex of the other. As with the cup­ bearer type (fig. 27), it is noteworthy that the free arm is held in the canoni­ cal positionfolded across the body. It is probable that such compositions were normally furnished with bases; indeed, bases that evidently supported two figures have been unearthed on Keros. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 82/6. Pres. H. 17 cm.

42 no larger than necessary to accom­ Figure 32. Three-figure modate the corpse in a severely con­ composition. Early Spedos tracted position. variety style. EC II. There is an interesting distinction This is probably a recur­ of roles observed in males and females ring type within the repertoire of the Cycladic in Early Cycladic sculpture. The fe­ sculptor, but because of the male is always represented in a pas­ great difficulty involved, sive and, in terms of current body no doubt the composition language theory, aloof attitude, re­ was attempted only very gardless of whether she is standing, rarely This work is the reclining, or sitting, or whether she is only known example. It is single or doubled. On the other hand, at least conceivable, how­ the male figure is more often than not ever, that certain other depicted in an active role. In the ear­ pieces originally belonged lier part of the classical period, as we to similar compositions have seen, he takes the role of cup­ (e.g. Jigs. 29-31). Ka rls ruhe, Bad is che s bearer, musician, or strongman who, Landesmuseum 77/5L). with a companion, holds aloft a quietly H. 19cm. sitting female. Toward the end of the period, he is outfitted with the accou­ trements of a hunter or warrior. At that time his most noticeable piece of equipment is always a baldric, though he may also carry a small dagger and/ or wear a belt with a codpiece (figs. 35,48a). Neither the sculptors nor their cus­ tomers seem to have been very partic­ ular about their figures at this late date. There are examples in which

43 Figure 33. Fragmentary rendered upper arms. The figure, in Athens, is per­ Figure 34. Detail of work female folded-arm figure. work can be attributed haps also the work of this illustrated in figure 4. Early Spedos variety. EC II. to the same sculptor who sculptor.) Brunswick, The rather worn torso be­ made the somewhat larger Maine, Bowdoin College longed to an exceptionally piece illustrated in figures Museum of Art 1982.15.4, long, slenderfigure mea­ 4 and 34, with which it Bequest ofJere Abbott. suring well over 100 cm. It shares a similar rendering Pres.L. 28.6 cm. is noteworthy not only for of the arms and hands, its size but also for its quite complete with fine wrist naturalistic and sensitively lines. (The largest known

44 Figure 35. Male figure. Hunter/warrior type. Chalandriani variety. EC II. Thisfigure is interesting as an example of a rather rare occupational type of which it is also one of the most detailed. Note the rather haunting facial expression, the carefully incised orna­ mentation of the baldric, and the leaf-shaped dagger "floating" above the right hand. Thefigure was allegedly found on Naxos together with a. slightly smaller female companion. (Drawings made in the mid-nineteenth century of a very similar pair were discovered recently by J. L. Fitton in the British Museum. The present whereabouts of these sculp­ tures remain a mystery.) Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 308. L. 25 cm.

Figure 36. Male folded- arm figure with baldric. Chalandriani variety. EC II. Bather poorly conceived and carelessly executed, thefigure is nevertheless of interest for the manner in which it was evidently con1 verted from a female into a male image by the addi­ tion of baldric and. penis. Fingers, haphazardly scratched, were probably also added at the same time. Seattle Art Museum 46.200, Norman and Amelia Davis Classic Col­ lection. L. 19 cm.

45 Figure 37. Detail of work illustrated infigures 56 and 57, show­ ing paint ghosts on the back of the head preserved as a light, smooth surface. See also plate vb and figure 58.

Figure 38. Detail of figure 37. Note the little utails" on the neck.

quite ordinary female folded-arm fig­ and on the other figures executed in ures seem to have been perfunctorily the same classical style (pi. vc, d). transformed into males by the simple Those who have difficulty imagining addition of a hastily incised penis and, or accepting the fact that Greek sculp­ more noticeably, an incised or merely ture and buildings were once richly scratched diagonal line on the chest painted will, similarly, prefer to think and back to indicate the baldric. Appa­ of Cycladic figures as most of them rently, it did not matter that the bal­ have come down to us—pure form dric was added as an afterthought and reduced to bare essentials and exe­ cuts across the arms (fig. 36). cuted in a cool, moonlike whiteness. Except for the nose and the ears on a However, most, if not all, of these few very large works (figs. 41, 56-59), images and at least some of their ar­ there is normally a complete absence chaic antecedents originally received of sculptural detail on the face and some painted detail which would have head of canonical folded-arm figures altered their appearance considerably.

46 Figure 39. Head of a folded-arm figure. Late Spedos variety. Probably a work of the Goulandris Master. EC II. The badly damaged head, which belonged to a figure measuring 60 cm or more, is of interest chiefly for its well-preserved paint ghosts for eyes and hair (fig. 40). Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 83.AA.316.2. Pres. L. 10.4 cm. Said to be from Keros.

Figure 40. The back and side of the head illustrated in figure 39, showing raised paint ghosts for hair with depending curls.

The red and blue pigment is itself head, and a solid area on the back of only rarely preserved, but many fig­ the head to indicate a short-cropped ures show paint "ghosts," that is, hairstyle (figs. 37, 38). Less often once-painted surfaces which, because curls, depending from the solid area, they were protected by pigment, now were painted on the sides and back of appear lighter in color, smoother, the head (figs. 39, 40), and dots or and/or slightly raised above the sur­ stripes decorated the face in various rounding areas, which are generally in patterns (pi. vi#, c; figs. 42, 69, 78). poorer condition (pi. iva). In certain Only one figure known at present has cases the ghost lines are so pronounced painted ears (pi. virf), while few, if that they can easily be mistaken for any, show clear traces of a painted actual relief work (pi. vb). mouth. The apparent omission of the Most often the painting took the mouth would accord well with the form of almond-shaped eyes with dot­ sepulchral nature of the figures. Occa­ ted pupils, solid bands across the fore­ sionally paint was also used to empha-

47 Figure 41. Female folded-arm figure. Kapsala variety. EC II. This unusually large and exceptionally fine example of the Kapsala variety stands out among all known Cycladic sculptures for its superb modeling andfor the wealth of painted detail still present on the head and body. Although there is clear evi­ dence of painted eyes, brows, hair, facial tattoo­ ing, bangles, and pubic trianglefrom a number of other works (albeit not all on the same piece), the painted necklace seen here is unprecedented. It is not entirely certain that a mouth was once painted on thisfigure. New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection. Pres. L. 69.4 cm. See also plate Via, h, figure 42.

48 size certain grooves on the body (pi. Figure 42. vib-d), to define or emphasize the Detail of work illustrated pubic triangle (figs. 41, 56, 58), or to in figure 41 (and pi. K/a, depict bangles and other adornments b) showing painted details (pi. vib). Although with time the actual paint has largely disappeared from the sculptures, bone canisters and little clay pots containing lumps of color­ ing matter are sometimes found in Cycladic graves, as are palettes and bowls intended as mortars for pul­ verizing the pigments, which were derived from ores of iron (hematite), mercury (cinnabar), and copper (azurite), indigenous to the islands. It would appear, therefore, that ritual face painting was an important part of the religious rites observed by the islanders, and the patterns they used on their sculptures may well reflect those they used on themselves and hoped to perpetuate in the afterlife.

49 Figure 43. Figure 44. Female folded- Copy of thefemalefolded- arm figure. Late Spedos/ arm figure in figure 44 Chalandriani variety. EC II. carved by Elizabeth A well-madefigure of mod­ Oustinoffin an experiment est size, the work belongs using Parian marble and basically to the Late Spedos tools madefrom Naxian variety, but its broad shoul­ emery, Melian obsidian, ders and upper torso and and Theran pumice. A its short midsection are fracture sustained during more characteristic of the the initial shaping of the Chalandriani variety. Note piece necessitated an alter­ that the right arm/hand ation of the original design extends all the way to the so that thefinished work, left elbow in order to make intended at the outset to be the rendering symmetrical. somewhat larger than the (On the rear, the left elbow model, does not closely is carved on the back of resemble it except, acciden­ what in front is the right tally, in size. Such mis­ hand, again for the sake of haps probably occurred symmetry.) Zurich, Mr. with somefrequency in and Mrs. Isidor Kahane ancient times as well, but it Collection. L. 17.5 cm. would appear that sculp­ tors preferred to repair or otherwise salvage their works rather than discard them to begin again. A dramatic example may be seen infigure 54. L. 17 cm.

50 The Formulaic Tradition

We have reviewed rather hastily chipping away and abrading of the roughly eight centuries of sculptural stone. Pieces of emery from Naxos activity, with key developments illus­ (one of the world's major sources of trated by a mere example or two. Per­ this mineral) were probably used for haps the single most important point this purpose, while emery or obsidian to be stressed, however, and one from Melos would have been used to which is difficult to appreciate with­ make incisions, sand and perhaps out a plethora of examples, is the re­ pumice from Thera to smooth the markable adherence to a standard stone (fig. 43). One can easily imag­ form. Of the many hundreds of extant ine the sculptor's workshop by the sea pieces of Early Cycladic sculpture, where he could have found much of there are only a very few that do not his raw material already partially belong to one of the established types worked for him by the action of the or do not contain elements of two waves. For a drawing pad he could sequential varieties. Despite a vast have used the wet beach sand and, array of subtle differences and a wide to polish his works, the pumice that variation in quality, Cycladic sculp­ washed up on the shore following tures are essentially formulaic in char­ eruptions of the Thera volcano. Nev­ acter. There are no freely conceived ertheless, at all times his own patience pieces. Even those special pieces such and diligence must have been his most as the harp players had their own for­ valuable assets in bringing a work to mulae and strict design rules. Once completion. established, each traditional type, The sheer labor involved in the pro­ each highly formalized set of conven­ duction of any but the simplest small tions, was adhered to with almost figures must have precluded a haphaz­ imperceptible changes for centuries. ard or spontaneous approach. Marble, The way the figures were made can though not a hard stone, clearly lacks shed some light on their final similar­ the malleability of clay or the tracta­ ity. It must have been a laborious pro­ ble qualities of wood. In fact, marble cess, one involving constant yet careful tends to crack and break quite easily

51 a. b.

seem to have governed the manner in Figure 45. A comparison which the figures were designed, one of the designs of two can see just what it is, besides the uni­ works attributed to the form treatment of the arms or legs or Metropolitan Museum face, that makes one Cycladic idol of Master, a sculptor of a particular type or variety so closely Plastiras-type figures of the EC I phase. resemble any other of its kind. Unfor­ tunately, no slabs or blocks of marble a. Name-piece of the sculp­ have been found that could provide tor. The broken right leg evidence of the formulae or the de­ was reattached in antiq­ vices used to inscribe these initial uity, mending holes having designs. Nevertheless, an examination been bored through the of a large number of finished works side above and below the has revealed recurring patterns, mak­ knee. New York, The Met­ ing it quite reasonable to postulate ropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 45.11.1$ and thus requires a highly disciplined the use of particular formulae and cer­ L. 21.6 cm. Seefigure 13c. approach if irremediable errors are to tain basic aids—compass, protractor, be avoided. It appears that formulae ruler—before carving was begun. b. Thefigure has i~epair were developed to aid the Cycladic In the first or archaic phase, the holes through the neck sculptor in carefully composing his human form was divided into three (sideways) as well as in figure on the slab before he actually equal parts: roughly one part for the the right thigh. Geneva, began to carve. Probably evolving out head and neck, one for the torso, and Musee Barbier-Mueller of necessity, such formulae may also one for the legs (fig. 46a). These three BMG202.75. L. 18.3 cm. have imbued the sculptor's craft with divisions could have been made with a certain mystique. They doubtless a simple ruler, but what seems to have served as oral and visual vehicles for been more important was the place­ the transmission of the sculptural tra­ ment of certain key features on the dition, the sculptor's ritual, from one outline. For example, the shoulders generation to the next. and hips were evidently blocked out In examining some of the rules that by means of arcs drawn with a primi-

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

Figure 46. The two major design canons of the EC period: EC I, three-part (a); EC II, four-part (b, c).

tive compass consisting of a bit of Master (see note on p. 58). Both fig­ obsidian or even charcoal attached to ures were designed according to the a piece of string. The radius of the cir­ three-part plan, but with some impor­ cle that determined the arc was one tant differences. In the name-piece, third of the body length. An arc pass­ the pill-box hat, or polos, was added ing through the midpoint of the fig­ to the three-part scheme, whereas it ures was often used to define the was an integral part of the design- of position of the elbows. the other figure. On the New York idol Even though the body was schemat­ (#), the sculptor carved a relatively ically divided into three equal parts, short head on a very long neck. On the proportions within those parts the other figure (£>), he did just the might vary considerably. Figure 45, opposite: the head is elongated; the for example, shows two works attrib­ neck, for this exaggerated type, is utable to the hand of one sculptor rather short; and the remainder of the called the Metropolitan Museum top division is filled out by the head-

53 Figure 47. Grid plans based on the standard four-part plan. Seefigure 23.

dress. Similarly, the name-piece has often equal to one part (fig. 466). an ampler chest area but a shorter Compass-drawn arcs marked off the waist than the other work, yet within shoulders, the elbows or waist, and this middle division is contained the the knees. The top of the head and the entire torso of each of these figures. ends of the feet were also curved, The proportions might vary, there­ revealing further the influence of the fore, even in two figures carved by the compass. Once again, within the basic same person, while the basic tripar­ divisions there was room for variation tite formula tended to remain remark­ and individual difference. ably constant. More complex works produced at In the classical period of Cycladic this time seem to be modifications of sculpture, the design formula appears the four-part scheme, while the virtu­ to have changed to accommodate a oso pieces—the harp players, the cup­ more natural approach to the human bearers, and the triple group—seem to form. The earlier folded-arm figures have benefited from more elaborate (Kapsala and Spedos varieties) were planning. The seated figures, for ex­ now conceived as divisible into four ample, appear to have been treated equal parts, with a maximum width more as four-sided works than as inte-

54 a. b.

were further subdivided to form a grid Figure 48. 'Three- and of eight by six "squares." The lines of five-part designs of the the grid tended to coincide with key late EC II phase. points on the outline as well as with internal divisions, such as the chin, a. Male figure. Hunter/ the elbow, the cup, and the top of the warrior type. Dresden, Staa tlich e Ku nstsa m m - seat. A substantial number of the lungen, Skulpturensamm- same coincidences recur from piece lungen Zl/2595. L. 22.8 to piece; additional coincidences are cm. Said to be from noticeable in the works attributed to Amorgos. the same sculptors (fig. 47). Of the figures produced late in the b. Female folded-arm second phase (Dokathismata and figure. Paris, Musee du Chalandriani varieties), few fail to Louvre MA 3093. L. 27.5 give some indication that they were cm. Said to be from Naxos. designed according to a consciously applied formula (fig. 46c). However, as with the canonical arrangement of the arms, the four-part plan, though still the preferred one, was not the gratea sculptures in tne round, i he only one in use; some sculptors evi­ most important side is invariably the dently tried other designs, using, for right one, the side on which the harp example, three- and five-part divi­ or cup is held. It appears that a grid sions (fig. 48). By now it would seem plan was consistently applied in the that the compass was generally con­ design of these works. The grid was sidered inappropriate for the severely based on a division of the height into angular style of these images. the usual four primary units, while the Altogether, roughly one-half of all width was made to approximate three Cycladic figures appear to have been of these units. The height and width quite carefully conceived according to

55 a. b.

Figure 49. Female folded- arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the Naxos Museum Master. EC II. Characteristicfeatures of the style of this somewhat idiosyncratic and prolific sculptor seen on this piece include a small, high- placed nose, generalized breasts, thickforearms which lie directly above the pubic area, and rather care­ a specific design formula. The other Figure 50a, b. less incision work. Note half seem to have been less thought­ The harmonic system: the uneven lengths and fully planned or at least less rigorously angles derivedfrom a 5: widths of thefingers, the executed according to the original or golden, triangle (or uncenteredpubic triangle, designs laid out on the raw slab. Some rectangle). and the knee incisions cut at different levels. The work seem not to have benefited from any of the Naxos Museum logical plan. Many of these are of infe­ Master has been found in rior quality, carved perhaps by non- three different cemeteries specialists. There are also a number on Naxos, where it may of idols executed by proficient sculp­ be assumed he lived and tors who seem to have found it to their worked. New York, liking and certainly well within their Harmon Collection (ex capabilities to alter the rules to suit Woodner Family Collec­ their own personal aesthetic. Some tion). L. 51.4 cm. sculptors, for example, elongated the thighs to an exaggerated degree, mak­ ing the calves and feet rather short by comparison (fig. 55). Others preferred

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

to omit the midsection of their figures, even the simplest ones, appears to Figure 51. placing the pubic area directly below have been the repeated use of several Harmonic angles and their the forearms (fig. 49). This decision angles based on the principle of the combinations used for cer­ required an adjustment of the stan­ golden triangle found frequently in tain features on the outline dard formula: the midpoint now oc­ both art and nature (fig. 50a). Recent and for internal details. curs at the arms or higher rather than experiments conducted by the author at the abdomen. suggest that virtually everyone has an Another controlling factor in the innate preference for at least one or a formulaic planning of all the figures, combination of two of the angles in

57 the configuration illustrated in figure with the formulae point to a class of 50b. Asked simply to draw one or sculptors who specialized in carving more isosceles triangles that they idols and vessels in response to the considered "pleasant," without any needs of their communities. reference to particular anatomical fea­ tures, thirty-eight out of forty-one individuals produced one or more of these angles, in most cases with sur­ Note: When naming the individual sculp­ prising accuracy. These same angles tors, I have chosen the easily remembered were used in Cycladic sculpture for name of an archaeologist who recovered, the contours of certain features, such or of a museum or collection that houses, as the shoulders, and for internal de­ one or more well-preserved examples of tails, such as the pubic "V" or trian­ their work. And I have called them "mas­ ters," not to suggest that they necessarily gle (fig. 51), and served as a major produced masterpieces but to indicate that homogenizing influence within each they were expert and independent in their type. craft, in the sense of the term "mastoras," It should be evident by now that the as applied to Greek tradesmen today. Cycladic sculptor's craft was a sophis­ ticated one. It seems most unlikely that ordinary farmers and sailors could, as a rule, have made their own marble figures. As mentioned earlier, most islanders either did without idols altogether or at most made do with figures fashioned from wood which they could have whittled for themselves at no expense. More likely, the formulaic nature of the idols, the exquisite craft demonstrated in many, and the occasional experimentation

58 The Individual Sculptor

their way to other settlements and at Figure 52. least occasionally to other islands. The "Marble John " working on figures of some of these artists have a gravestone made from turned up in excavations at different stone hewn from the moun­ sites, and in some cases at sites on tainside on the outskirts of Apeiranthos on Naxos in more than one island (e.g., Naxos and 1963. The village marble Paros; Naxos and Keros). It is possi­ carver, he learned his craft ble too that some of these sculptors from his father, "Marble were itinerant craftsmen, although George. "Although the most probably stayed home, eking out marble-working tradition a living from the soil and practicing may not have been contin­ their craft part-time. uous from the third millen­ While it is not feasible to isolate nium B.C. to the present, workshops or local schools, it is now the need for such craft possible to recognize the hands of a specialists and the passing on of the traditions from There is no evidence to suggest that substantial number of individuals. To father to son seem, never­ there were workshops on the Cycladic identify the works of individual Cy­ theless, to have changed islands in which several sculptors cladic sculptors can be quite easy, since but little over the millennia. labored side by side. Nor is it possi­ some of them made figures that are ble to distinguish the styles of differ­ nearly exact replicas of one another. ent island "schools," if indeed such Sometimes the figures of one artist existed. It seems likely that the larger are very similar to one another in communities on these islands, and overall appearance although in size probably some on a few other islands, they may differ appreciably. In other tended in each generation to support cases, ascriptions are not easily made. one or two sculptors or, more likely, a The extent to which figures of one sculptor and his apprentice, who was, type carved by one person resemble in most cases, probably his own son one another would have varied, of (fig. 52). Through trade or travel, course, from sculptor to sculptor and some of their works would have found from piece to piece. Some sculptors

59 Figure 53. Fragments of said to have been recovered from Keros. Several sculp­ Museum 78.AA.407, folded-arm figures repre­ more than three decades tors whose work is illus­ 79.AA.11, 83.AA.316.1-2, senting the Spedos, ago on Keros. During sys­ trated here are represented 83AA.317.1-2, Dokathismata, and tematic exploration, closely among thefindsfrom Keros 83.AA.318.1, 83.AA.201. Chalandriani varieties. similar material was recov­ and/or the Keros hoard, For the large piece at cen­ EC II. ered; abundant signs of including the Shuster ter, seefigure 69. Pres. A representative sampling previous exploitation were (frontis.), Goulandris (figs. L.7.5A8.4cm. from the "Keros hoard, " a also noted, making it all 39, 60-69), and Naxos huge assemblage of sculp­ the more likely that the Museum (fig. 49) Masters. tures, mostlyfragmentary, hoard did indeed come Malibu, The J. Paul Getty

60 may have been content to carve essen­ been virtual duplicates, particularly if tially the same piece over and over they were conceived as companion again; others may have found it expe­ pieces. For example, in the case of dient to duplicate past work on occa­ group compositions we know that sion; but at least several sought, either sculptors strove to make the matching deliberately or unconsciously, to ex­ members of each work identical (pi. periment and refine their styles. Many in, fig. 32). Figures carved indepen­ factors could have influenced the de­ dently but relatively close in time, or gree to which two figures, executed figures modeled on past work kept on by the same artist, would have been hand, would be likely to resemble similar or dissimilar, not the least of each other to a greater degree than which would have been his own gen­ would works carved at a considerable eral disposition as well as his feelings interval in time from each other. One in relation to making a particular would expect to find major changes piece. Other contributing factors may among pieces representing different have been the sculptor's innate talent phases of a sculptor's artistic develop­ and skill level, the care with which he ment, so that if the accidents of pres­ approached his work, and the consis­ ervation were such that only a very tency of his methods. The particular early and a mature work of one sculp­ piece of marble chosen for a figure, tor had been brought to light, the two the shape of the tools used in the carv­ images might prove difficult to at­ ing process and, in some cases, even tribute to a single hand. There is, of an accident easily could have influ­ course, the possibility that some sculp­ enced the final appearance of a piece tors altered their styles so drastically (figs. 43, 44, 54,55) from piece to piece or from phase to The single most important consid­ phase that we can have no hope of eration, however, was time. Some ever attributing a reasonably complete sculptors may have worked on two or body of work to them. But so many more figures concurrently. It might be changes would more likely have been expected that such works would have the exception rather than the rule.

61 Figure 54. Female folded- Figure 55. Female folded- arm figure. Early Spedos arm figure. Early Spedos variety. A work of the variety. A work of the Copenhagen Master. EC II. Copenhagen Master. EC II. The carefully executed and Considerably smaller and unusually largefigure is of with a much less elongated special interest because of torso than the preceding its strangely truncated legs figure (fig. 54), this work and odd, vestigialfeet nevertheless shares with it which contrast sharply certain close similarities of with the balanced propor­ contour and detail and tions and attenuation seen gives one a good idea how in the rest. This incongru­ the legs of the large image ity most probably resulted were originally conceived. from irreparable damage New York, Shelby White sustained by thefigure, and Leon Levy Collection. possibly during the carv­ L. 56.8 cm. ing process, at what was to have been the knees, according to the original design. Rather than aban­ don what may have been a nearly completed piece, the sculptor simply telescoped the entire length of the legs andfeet into the space, unusually elongated in any case, originally allotted to the thighs only. Seefigure 55for another figure carved by the Copenhagen Master which was completed in the normal manner. Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 257. L. 70 cm. (As originally conceived thefigure would have measured about 85 cm.)

62 The possibility of identifying the outline contours, certain angles, a par­ works belonging to different points ticular adaptation of the canonical in a sculptor's career or to different design or, most likely, a combination stages in his development is depen­ of some or all of these characteristics dent on two important factors. One is remains for the most part unchanged the external control imposed by the or varies in a predictable way from tradition, which dictated in very spe­ image to image within the oeuvre of cific terms how a figure of a given type one master. That is to say, the basic or variety was to be designed and exe­ concept remains the same while the cuted. The other is the unconscious, individual's style evolves. internal control exerted by the artist's Most probably no single feature personal style. While every figure is unique to one sculptor's style. shares in the highly conservative, for­ Originality, or rather individuality, mulaic style of its period, it also car­ consisted of a particular choice or ries its sculptor's personal stamp or combination of features, while excel­ "signature." lence would have depended not on This signature may be defined as a innovation but rather on the harmo­ complex of recurring characteristics nious integration of these familiar ele­ which, though often easier to appre­ ments, a high level of skill in their ciate visually than to describe verbally, execution, and great care in the fin­ reveals the works of one sculptor to be ishing and painting of the surface. stylistically closer to one another than Artistic growth and, in the case of a to the works of any other sculptor. The relatively small number of sculptors, characteristics vary from master to excellence would have evolved gradu­ master, and no two sculptors are pre­ ally through the repetitive experience cisely alike in the way they express of carving many examples of the same their individuality. Certain techniques type or variety. of execution, forms or details, even Earlier, we looked at the two archaic errors or omissions, aspects of the figures of the Metropolitan Museum

63 Figures 56, 57. Female Master and noted how they were sim­ folded-arm figure. Early ilar in abiding by a certain formula, Spedos variety. A name- specifically the three-part division of piece of the Karlsruhe/ the body, yet differed from each other Woodner Master. EC II. with respect to proportions within One of the largest virtually those divisions (fig. 45). Now it is nec­ completefigures now essary to look at the classical period known, the work is unu­ sualfor its carved ears and and concentrate not so much on how very clear paint ghosts for an artist was controlled by tradition eyes, brows, and hair. but on how he created his own per­ (Note the asymmetrical sonal style within that tradition and placement of the ears and how his style is reflected in differ­ eyes.) The pubic area was ent works. probably also painted. New York, Harmon Collection (ex Woodner Family Col­ The Karlsruhe/Woodner lection). L. 86.3 cm. See Master alsofigures 37, 38, and plate vb. Consideration of individual style may begin with an examination of two works attributable to a sculptor of the early classical phase called the Karls­ ruhe/Woodner Master (figs. 56-59). Nearly identical in length and excep­ tionally large, the two figures share a number of characteristics whose combined presence cannot have been fortuitous even though they differ in obvious ways. Although the Woodner piece is much stockier in build and exhibits somewhat different propor-

64 tions than those of the figure in Karls­ Figures 58, 59. Female ruhe, the basic forms and contours are folded-arm figure. Early very close. Similarly executed details Spedos variety. A name- worthy of mention are the carved ears piece of the Karlsruhe/ and the shape of the nose as well as Woodner Master. EC II. Although considerably their asymmetrical placement; in ad­ smaller than the work illus­ dition, the eyes and hair are now trated in figure 4, at pres­ clearly discernible in the form of ent this is thefourth largest paint ghosts (pi. v&, figs. 37, 38). The complete figure known. It pubic area, also rendered in a similar is more refined than the, fashion in a plane slightly below that very slightly smaller, pre­ of the thighs, was probably once a ceding work (figs. 56, 57) blue-painted triangle, as suggested by carved by the same sculp­ traces of the original marble skin on tor, who also carved the both figures. second largest surviving figure, which is in the The main difference in detail is the Goulandris Museum in treatment of the breasts: the flat tear­ Athens. One must ask if drop-shaped breasts of the Woodner certain sculptors working idol are unprecedented in classical around the middle of the Cycladic sculpture and may, in this third millennium B.C. case, be the result of an experiment made such unusually large or an attempt to cover up accidental works because they were damage. Wrist grooves, clearly incised unusually ambitious. Per­ on the Karlsruhe piece, are missing haps, too, certain sculptors from the Woodner figure but may have felt challenged by newly been indicated in paint. developed techniques for quarrying large pieces of More importantly, the figures differ marble. Karlsruhe, in structure. The Woodner idol is Badisches Landesmuseum somewhat thicker in profile than the 75/49. L. 88.8 cm. one in Karlsruhe, but the most notice-

65 able discrepancy is in relative width: early attempt on the part of the sculp­ the former has a shoulder span slightly tor to execute a figure on such a grand more than twenty-five percent of its scale. In doing so he seems simply to length, while the latter has a width have made a large version of the stan­ slightly less than twenty percent. One- dard figure without addressing the quarter of the body length was the matter of increased bulk and weight preferred ratio for the shoulder width as he did on the Karlsruhe piece. The in figures of small and average size, two pieces illustrated here may in fact but most sculptors reduced the width have been relatively small works for to one-fifth or less for their large works this sculptor. A third work from his (fig. 77). A narrower figure would have hand, in the Goulandris collection in more comfortably fit the hands not Athens, has a length of 140 cm. Of the only of the sculptor but those of bear­ three, it is the most refined and pro­ ers as well, and it would also have portionally the narrowest. significantly reduced its weight, an important consideration if the sculp­ The Goulandris Master ture was to have been carried easily to the gravesite. The Woodner figure In striking contrast to the Karlsruhe/ weighs thirty-five pounds, while the Woodner Master is the Goulandris slightly longer but thinner and nar­ Master, who comes somewhat later. rower Karlsruhe piece by comparison At present he is known from nearly weighs only twenty-three. one hundred pieces, although all of One can speculate that the Woodner these may not be from different works figure, which is heavier, more com­ (fig. 69). Thirteen of his figures are pressed in its "vertical" proportions, preserved in their entirety or very somewhat less carefully modeled, nearly so. Named for the Greek col­ and more two-dimensional than the lection that contains two of his com­ Karlsruhe image, was the earlier of plete figures and a head, he is the the two works. How much so one can­ most prolific Cycladic sculptor known not say. It may have been a relatively and, after his initial efforts, one of the

66 very finest. It can be assumed that he ures in an unusually wide range of enjoyed considerable popularity and sizes. The smallest measures about six influence in his own time, to judge and a half inches (16.5 cm), while his from both the quality of his works and largest known work, of which only the their wide distribution: his figures head survives, was nearly six times have been found on Naxos, Keros, as big. The large figures tend to be and, apparently, on Amorgos. more ambitiously conceived than the Although by no means exact repro­ smaller ones: they are planned more ductions of one another, each of the accurately according to the standard Goulandris Master's works is easily four-part plan (fig. 46&); they exhibit identifiable as the product of a single more pronounced modeling of the hand (figs. 60-69). Some features of arms; the contours of the abdomen his personal signature are a long, and thighs curve more strongly; the semiconical nose on a long, lyre- forearms are sometimes separated by shaped face with painted decoration a clear space; and the fingers are (figs. 39, 40); markedly sloping shoul­ sometimes incised. Because the ders; precise parallel incisions curv­ smaller pieces (16.5-40 cm) tend to ing gently at the neck, abdomen, be thicker in profile, straighter in out­ knees, and ankles; an unperforated line contour, and lacking in unusual leg cleft; and a rounded back, nor­ embellishment, they should generally mally without the usual grooved be regarded as products of an early spine. Other repeated elements of phase of the Goulandris Master's de­ this master's style are not as easy to velopment (figs. 60, 61, 68). The describe in words. So distinctive is the greater care lavished on the larger Goulandris Master's style, however, figures (55 cm or more) and their that it is possible to recognize his hand greater refinement point to a mature even in a small fragment and, with phase of the sculptor's career (figs. some confidence, to reconstruct from 64-67). To a middle phase might be it a whole figure. assigned a number of well-balanced, The Goulandris Master carved fig­ carefully executed works of substan-

67 Figures 60, 61. Female fragments. The shortness Francisco 1981.42, Willie Figures 62, 63. Female developed as the next two folded-arm figure. Late of the calves, theforearms H. Nobel Bequest Fund. folded-arm figure. Late pieces (figs. 64-67) and Spedos variety. A work of rendered almost solely L. 33.4 cm. Spedos variety. A work of should therefore be consid­ the Goulandris Master. by incision, and the the Goulandris Master. ered an intermediate work EC II. straightness of the abdomi­ EC II. of its sculptor. New York, Afigure of above-average nal groove, considered On the basis of its delicate Rosemary and George Lois size for the Spedos variety together with thefigure's head and nose and better Collection. L. 42 cm. as a whole but rather small modest size, are indica­ proportions, thisfigure is for the Goulandris Master, tions that it belonged to more advanced than the the work, which belonged an immature phase of the preceding one (figs. 60, to the Keros hoard, was sculptor's artistic develop­ 61), but the lack of mod­ reassembled from three ment. San Francisco, The eling of the forearms Fine Arts Museums of San suggests that it is not as

68 Figures 64, 65. Female University Art Museum Figures 66, 67. Female Goulandris Master at the folded-arm figure. Late 76.25, Gift of Thomas T. folded-arm figure. Late high point of his develop­ Spedos variety. A work of Solley. L. 60 cm.. Spedos variety. A name- ment. (The curious mark­ the Goulandris Master. piece of the Goulandris ings on the right side of the EC ii. Master. EC II. chest and on the neck and The large size, carefully With its carefully modeled back may be the remains of modeled and separated and separated forearms, painted decoration.) forearms, and harmonious precisely incisedfingers, Athens, Museum of proportions indicate a strong, subtly curving Cycladic and Ancient mature phase of the sculp­ contours at the waist and Greek Art, Nicholas P. tors development. thighs, and carefully Goulandris Foundation Bloomington, Indiana balanced proportions, the 281. L. 63.4cm. Said to be figure represents the from. Naxos.

69 Figure 68. Fragmentary same well-balanced and female folded-arm figure. carefully carvedfigure Late Spedos variety. attributable to the A work of the Goulandris Goulandris Masters (late) Master. EC II. middle phase. When com­ With its asymmetrical plete, the image would have shoulders, breasts at dif­ had a length of about ferent levels, and arm 55-58 cm. The two frag­ grooves rendered by a ments are among several seemingly unsure hand, dozen pieces from this thisfigure, which originally sculptors hand belonging measured about 38-40 cm, to the Keros hoard (see can be ascribed to an early figs. 39, 60, 61). His work phase of its sculptors has also beenfound in the career. Malibu, The J. Paul investigations carried out Getty Museum 88.AA.81 by the Greek Archaeologi­ (ex Steiner Collection) . cal Service on Keros as Pres. L. 26.8 cm. well as in the cemetery of Aplomata on Naxos. He was most probably a Figure 69. Head and torso Naxian. Head/neck: of a female folded-arm Malibu, The J. Paul Getty figure. Late Spedos vari­ Museum 88.AA.82 (ex ety. From a work of the Steiner Collection). Pres. Goulandris Master. EC II. L. 14.5 cm. Torso: Rich­ In January 1988, while mond, Virginia Museum of they were at the Virginia Fine Arts 85.1511, Gift of Museum of Fine Arts, it William B. Causey. Pres. was determined that the L. 18.4 cm. head (which has red dots preserved on the cheeks and nose) and torso (see also fig. 53) comefrom the

70 tial size (40-60 cm) which lack such is observable.) One should note, too, refinements as separated forearms the indented waist and the subtle and incised fingers (figs. 62, 63, 69). curve of the forearms—a convention used to represent or, in this sculptor's The Ashmolean Master work, accentuate a pregnant condi­ tion. These and other shared features The hand of a third sculptor can be define the particular style of the Ash­ recognized at present in only four molean Master, a sculptor named for complete works. In his prime also an the home of his largest known figure. excellent artist, he comes somewhat The Ashmolean Master's largest later in the sequence of folded-arm sculpture is three times the size of the figures than the Karlsruhe/Woodner smallest. The two middle figures (of and Goulandris Masters. At first which only one is illustrated here, glance—especially if seen in actual figs. 72, 73) are very similar both in size—the three figures (figs. 70-75) style and in size, each about half as appear significantly dissimilar to one long as the name-piece. And again, another, and one may well wonder like the work of the Goulandris Mas­ how they can be ascribed to the same ter, the smallest figure of the Ash­ hand. But if they are lined up side by molean Master (figs. 70, 71) has an side in order of increasing size and unrefined look when compared with studied closely, one soon sees that they the others. The largest figure (figs. 74, all share certain unmistakable fea­ 75) differs from the other three both tures. These include a shield-shaped in the application of the four-part for­ face with a long, narrow aquiline nose mula and in its relative narrowness. originating high on the forehead, a This exaggerated slimness was, as V-shaped incision at the neck, a small mentioned above, common in excep­ pubic triangle, and, on two of the fig­ tionally large images. ures, only four toes on each foot. (On One can see in the works ascribed to the fourth complete figure as well as the Ashmolean Master the products of on a fragment, this same inaccuracy three separate stages in the sculptor's

71 72 Figures 70, 71. Female Figures 74, 75. Female folded-arm figure. folded-arm figure. Dokathismata variety. Dokathismata variety. A work of the Ashmolean Name-piece of the Master. EC II. Ashmolean Master. EC II. A rather smallfigure with On this unusually large a thick profile and some­ work, the sculptor elon­ what crude incision work gated the legs but not the (see, e.g., the leg cleft), this upper part, with somewhat is the earliest sculpture ungainly results. In con­ attributable at present to trast to his smaller works the Ashmolean Master. (figs. 70-73), which are Budapest, Musee des extremely broad across the Beaux-Arts 4709. shoulders as befits the L. 23.7 cm. Dokathismata variety, this figure is narrow through the shoulders, with the Figures 72, 75. Female result that its upper arms folded-arm figure. have a straight contour Dokathismata variety. in contrast to the inward, A work of the Ashmolean slanting contour of the two Master. EC II. preceding figures. (Note Masterfully conceived and that the mending of a break executed, the work repre­ has obliterated the original sents the high point of the ankle incisions.) Oxford, sculptor's development. > Ashmolean Museum Note especially the subtle AE.176.L. 75.9 cm. interplay of angular and Said to be from Amorgos. curving contours and the precise detail. Houston, The Menil Collection. L. 36.7 cm. Said to be from Naxos.

73 development, with the smallest repre­ ing their formative years. However, it senting an early phase, the largest an is likely that they first mastered their intermediate phase, and the mid­ craft by making relatively modest fig­ sized works a late or mature phase. ures and only attempted larger, more Despite its great size (it is the largest ambitiously conceived ones later on. known example of the Dokathismata One might compare the small, al­ variety), the name-piece should prob­ legedly early works of the Goulandris ably be assigned to a middle phase, Master and a sculptor called the because of its rather unbalanced pro­ Steiner Master (figs. 60, 61, 68, 76) portions and because it shares with with their larger, more mature figures the small figure a closely similar treat­ (figs. 64-67, 69, 77); the earlier ones ment of the rear, on which, for exam­ appear coarse, heavy, and compact. ple, the incisions marking the back of Even though in each case the basic the arms are omitted. concept is the same, the smaller figure One might well ask why the smaller, is not as well balanced or elegant, and less refined works should be regarded is, in fact, plain by comparison. For generally as earlier products of an art­ the Goulandris Master, the smaller ist's career, especially since it was work lacks the highly controlled and probably no easier, only less time- subtle contours as well as the separa­ consuming, to carve a small figure. It tion of the forearms which appear in is quite possible that the purchaser's the larger works; furthermore, not requirements, which might have been enough room is allotted for the deli­ controlled by economic considera­ cately incised fingers so characteristic tions, helped determine the dimen­ of his later work. For the Steiner Mas­ sions of a particular piece of sculpture; ter, the smaller figure lacks the grace­ the wealthiest customers might have ful curvature of the outline contours preferred larger figures, the less and the carefully elongated effect of wealthy smaller ones. In this case, the larger work. Such embellishments sculptors may not necessarily have and refinements do much to alter and carved small images exclusively dur­ enhance a figure's appearance.

74 Figure 76. Female folded- Figure 77. Female folded- arm figure. Late Spedos arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the variety. Name-piece of the Steiner Master. EC II. Steiner Master. EC II. A figure of rather modest Unusually large, thefigure size in comparison with is harmoniously conceived the next onefrom the same and masterfully executed. hand (fig. 77), it is, despite In an effort to make this obvious similarities of work more slender, the form and detail, also rather sculptor elongated all parts stocky and coarse and is for a very balanced effect. therefore to be thought of Note the graceful curvature as an early work of its of the outline contours, sculptor. Tokyo, National including that of the top of Museum of Western Art the head, which reveals the S. 1974-1. L. 34.5 cm. self-assurance of a master at the peak of his develop­ ment. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.80 (ex Steiner Collection). L. 59.9 cm.

75 Figure 78. Female folded- On the other hand, the rare virtu­ arm figure. Early Spedos oso pieces—the harpers or the three- variety. EC II. figure group—were surely the most A carefully fashionedfigure difficult of all Cycladic sculptures to especially interesting for carve, partly because of their small its surviving painted detail size. They must have been made by (pi. Vic, d), the piece is sculptors who had polished their skills at present unique among Cycladic sculpturesfor its by making the usual folded-arm fig­ painted ears. A pattern of ures. These sculptors would have at­ dots is also clearly visible tempted the much more demanding on the face, and some of figure types only after they had devel­ the grooves retain traces of oped their techniques and honed their paint as well. The treat­ styles. Even then, in the absence of ment of the midsection with such modern aids as sketchbooks and an extra horizontal inci­ plasticene or plaster models, their sion is unparalleled. first attempts must have been less suc­ Malibu, The J. Paul Getty cessful than their later ones. Some­ Museum 88.AA. 79 (ex thing of the progress from piece to Steiner Collection). L. 49.5 cm. piece may be sensed in a pair of harp­ ers said to have been found together and evidently designed as companion pieces (figs. 25, 47). In general, the smaller figure is the more carefully executed of the two; it is also consid­ erably freer and more relaxed in atti­ tude. It would appear that in this case the smaller figure was carved after the larger one and that it benefited from the experience gained by the sculptor during the making of the first version.

76 Since both works reveal a hand profi­ a possibility. However, in the absence cient in the rendering of this difficult of a number of folded-arm figures figure type, one must also assume that definitely attributable to the sculptor these are not the first harpists carved of this harper, one can only speculate by this sculptor. about his artistic career, the apex of Finally, one might consider the which this masterpiece must surely harp player illustrated in figure 79 represent. (see also pi. \vb, figs. 24, 25, and cover). A sculpture that goes well be­ yond mere technical virtuosity, it is remarkable for the harmony of its sub­ tly curving forms and for the excel­ lence of its workmanship and surface finish. Clearly such a well-balanced work must have been planned with diligence and precision. The most im­ portant side, as in all the harpers, is the right one; but the other three are Figure 79. Harp player. also well conceived. One can easily Early Spedos variety style. appreciate the strong influence of the ECU. dominant folded-arm type, especially From thefront the musi­ in the treatment of the legs which are cian closely resembles joined by a membrane of marble per­ contemporaneous female forated between the calves. Although folded-armfigures. Note the absence of genitalia, at present no other works by the same difficult to render on a hand can be identified with confi­ seatedfigure and present dence—the attribution to one sculptor on only three of the ten of figures executed in different pos­ harpists now known. See tures being exceedingly difficult—the also plate IVh. piece illustrated in figure 78 is at least

77 The Distribution of the Figures

Marble sculptures have been found on In seeking an explanation for the many of the Cyclades, though only a fact that the quantity of these marbles few islands have yielded large num­ rivals the number found on all the bers. In the first period, Paros and other Cyclades combined, one must Naxos appear to have been the main wonder if Keros did not enjoy a spe­ centers of production, while in the cial status, either as a trading station classical period this distinction be­ at the crossroads of Aegean shipping longed more exclusively to Naxos, the routes, and/or as a large open-air pan- largest, most fertile, and most popu­ (or southern) Cycladic sanctuary—a lous island in the archipelago. Curi­ prehistoric Delos as it were. As one ously, the place that has yielded the approaches Keros from the west, the greatest concentration of marble ob­ island has the unmistakable silhouette jects is Keros, a small and rather of a giant pregnant reclining figure, a uninviting island between Naxos and fact that would have been made much Amorgos. of by the early Cycladians, and indeed Literally hundreds of vases and fig­ may have prompted them to conse­ ures of the second phase of the Early crate the place. Whatever the expla­ Cycladic culture, mostly fragmentary, nation, it seems highly unlikely in any have been recovered on the southwest case that the majority of the objects coast of Keros at an extended site that found on Keros were actually made appears not to have been a settlement there by local carvers. It seems far or a cemetery, at least not an ordinary more probable that they would have one. Nevertheless, with the possible been brought there by people from exception of one vessel type, all the neighboring islands, chiefly Naxos. objects found there by archaeologists or thought with good reason to have been found there by others belong to the types normally recovered else­ where in graves (figs. 18, 53, 60, 69).

78 Beyond the Cyclades

The carving of small-scale human fig­ North Syria (which may, however, ures in marble, limestone, or alabas­ only be based on North Syrian mod­ ter was widespread over the greater els) and one or two schematic Ana­ Mediterranean and Near East during tolian-type idols allegedly found in the the third millennium B.C. and even Cyclades constitute the sum total of earlier. Particularly strong traditions possible artistic imports to the islands flourished in Anatolia (figs. 83, 84) at this time. and in Sardinia, with numerous sur­ It is highly unlikely, moreover, viving examples, while occasional that the sculptors themselves traveled pieces have been unearthed in Cyprus beyond their own cultural spheres, (figs. 80-82), Persia, and the Balkans, if indeed they even ventured much to name only a few places. With few beyond their own or neighboring is­ exceptions, the female form is de­ lands. Whatever the traffic in perish­ picted, usually in a schematic or able goods and raw materials might highly stylized manner. have been in the Aegean during the There is no concrete evidence that third millennium B.C., artists of the the Cycladic sculptural tradition was period probably spent much or most directly influenced by or exerted a of their time involved in subsistence direct influence on the tradition of any farming and herding. Their relative of the contemporaneous nearby cul­ isolation quite literally would have tures except those of Early Minoan insulated them from outside influ­ Crete and Early Helladic Greece, ences and would have had the effect where it was clearly imitated. A few of strengthening and formalizing their examples of Early Cycladic sculpture own traditions. Inasmuch as sculptors also found their way to the coast of throughout the region were engaged Asia Minor but apparently went no in seeking solutions to similar prob­ farther east. The Early Bronze Age lems and in fulfilling similar cultural levels of the Cyclades are strikingly needs, it should come as no surprise free of nonperishable items from that the results of their endeavors other lands: a single stamp seal from occasionally appear similar.

79 80 Figures 80-82. Female figure of chalk limestone. Cruciform type. Cypriote Middle Chalcolithic. An unusually large and masterful work, the piece is remarkable for its sculp­ tor^' keen understanding of simple yet forceful prin­ ciples of design. In that sense, though not in the specific form orformula used, he bears to the Cycladic sculptor the same fortuitous affinity that the Cycladic artists bear to the sculptors of the Archaic kouroi. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 83.AA.3S. Cycladic sculpture probably dif­ toric art. Adherence to such strong H. 39.5cm. fered from contemporaneous sculp­ aesthetic principles by Cycladic sculp­ ture of other lands less in meaning tors makes their figures especially than in the tenacity with which the appealing as a group and also natu­ artists followed rigid standards of rally encourages one to think ahead form and beauty. Within this precise two millennia to the achievements of design framework, Cycladic sculptors Archaic Greek sculptors, whose basic achieved superb technical mastery of ideals, formulaic approach, and rigor­ the marble, and in the best examples ous methods of controlling the same of the classical phase their figures fractious medium were not so very reflect a harmony of proportion and a different after all, however fortui­ balance of form and contour that is tously, from those of these earliest rarely matched elsewhere in prehis­ marble artists.

81 Figures 85, 84. Female figure of marble. Kilia type. Anatolian Chalcolithic. An excellent example of a type of figure often com­ pared with Cycladic sculp­ ture. Many fragments and a number of complete Kilia figures are known, includ­ ing a diminutive one in electrum. With their bul­ bous heads andflipperlike arms, they actually bear very little resemblance to Cycladicfigures, which, apparently, they antedate. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.122. H. 14.2 cm.

82 Major Collections of Early Cycladic Sculpture (Including Stone Vases)

DENMARK ISRAEL Antiksamlingen, Nationalmuseet Israel Museum (Jerusalem) (Copenhagen) SWITZERLAND ENGLAND Musee Barbier-Mueller (Geneva) Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge) UNITED STATES British Museum (London) J. Paul Getty Museum (Malibu) Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts Metropolitan Museum of Art (Norwich) (New York) Ashmolean Museum (Oxford) Menil Collection (Houston) FRANCE Musee du Louvre (Paris)

GERMANY Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung (Berlin) Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Skulpturensammlung (Dresden) Badisches Landesmuseum Note: Smaller collections or individual (Karlsruhe) pieces of some importance are to be found Staatliche Antikensammlung in many American museums, including (Munich) Indiana University Art Museum (Bloom- GREECE ington); Museum of Fine Arts (Boston); National Archaeological Museum Brooklyn Museum; Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University (Cambridge); Cin­ (Athens) cinnati Art Museum; Museum of Art Paul Canellopoulos Museum and Archaeology, University of Missouri (Athens) (Columbia); Des Moines Art Center; Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Kimbell Art Museum (Fort Worth); Yale Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Art Gallery, Yale University (New Haven); Foundation (Athens) Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (Rich­ Archaeological Museum (Naxos) mond); and Seattle Art Museum.

83 Selected Bibliography

Barber, R. L. N. The Cyclades in the Getz-Preziosi, P. "An Early Cycladic Bronze Age. Iowa City, 1987. Sculptor." Antike Kunst 18 (1975), Doumas, C. The TV. P. Goulandris Collec­ pp. 47-50. tion of Cycladic Art. Athens, 1968. . "Five Sculptors in the Goulandris __. Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture Collection." In Cycladica, pp. 48-71. See and Pottery from the TV. P. Goulandris Fitton, 1984. Collection. London, 1983. (Although __. "The 'Keros Hoard': Introduc­ a number of museums have published tion to an Early Cycladic Enigma." In similar versions of this catalogue [e.g., D. Metzler and B. Otto, eds., Antidoron the National Gallery of Art, Washington, Jiirgen Thimme, pp. 26-44. Karlsruhe, D. C, 1970], this is the most inclusive 1982. and also benefits from an introduction "The Male Figure in Early by C. Renfrew.) Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu­ . Early Bronze Age Burial Habits seum Journal \5 (1980), pp. 5-35. in the Cyclades. Studies in Mediterra­ _. "Nine Fragments of Early Cy­ nean Archaeology 48 (1977). cladic Sculpture in Southern Califor­ Fitton, J. L., ed. Cycladica: Studies in nia." The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal Memory ofN. P. Goulandris. Proceed­ 12 (1984), pp. 5-20 (a discussion of the ings of the Seventh British Museum pieces illustrated in fig. 53). Classical Coloquium, June 1983. Lon­ "Risk and Repair in Early don, 1984. Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu­ "Perditus and Pedita: Two Draw­ seum Journal 16 (1981), pp. 5-32. ings of Cycladic Figurines in the Greek . Sculptors of the Cyclades: Indi­ and Roman Department of the British vidual and Tradition in the Third Mil­ Museum." In Cycladica, pp. 76-87. See lennium B.C. Ann Arbor, 1987. Fitton, 1984. . The Obsidian Trail, or 5000A000 . Cycladic Art. London, 1989. Years Ago in the Cyclades. Athens, 1987. Getz-Gentle, P. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age. Forthcoming.

84 . Early Cycladic Art in North . "Speculations on the Use of Early American Collections. Richmond, Vir­ Cycladic Sculpture." In Cycladica, pp. ginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1987 (with 24-30. S^Fitton, 1984. essays by J. L. Davis and E. Oustinoff). _. The Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces Getz-Preziosi, P., and Weinberg, S. S. from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collec­ "Evidence for Painted Details in Early tion.^^York, 1991. Cycladic Sculpture." Antike Kunst 13 Thimme. J., ed. Art and Culture of the (1970), pp. 4-12. Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C. Havelock, C. M. "Cycladic Sculpture: A Chicago, 1977. Prelude to Greek Art?" Archaeology Zervos, C. LArt des Cyclades du debut a (July/August 1981), pp. 29-36. lafin de Page du bronze. Paris, 1957. Marangou, L., ed. Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the Third Millennium B.C. Athens, 1990. Oustinoff, E. "The Manufacture of Cy­ cladic Figurines: A Practical Approach." In Cycladica, pp. 38-47. &a?Fitton, 1984. Papathanassopoulos, G. Neolithic and Cycladic Civilization. Athens, 1981. Preziosi, P. G., and Weinberg, S. S. See Getz-Preziosi and Weinberg, 1970. Renfrew, C. "The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figu­ rines." American Journal of Archaeol­ ogy73 (1969), pp. 1-32. . The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London, 1972.

85 Photo Credits Project staff (first edition):

Roger Asselberghs, figs. 4, 34 Editor: Sandra Knudsen Morgan Curtis D. Bean, figs. 72, 73 Designer: David Arthur Hadlock Gad Borel-Boissonnas, pi. inb Illustrator: Martha Breen Bredemeyer Scott Bowron, fig. 20 Copyeditors: Susan Gallick and Carol Leyba British Museum, figs. 27, 35, 66, 67 Photograph Editor: Elizabeth Chapin Burke Prudence Cuming Associates, fig. 61 Production Coordinator: Karen Schmidt Pierre-Alain Ferrazzini, pi. va Seth Joel, fig. 25 Project staff (revised edition): Werner Mohrbach, figs. 24, 30-32, 58, 59 Otto Nelson, figs. 8, 23, 41, pi. via, b Manuscript Editor: Cynthia Newman Bohn Elizabeth Oustinoff, fig. 43 Designer: Vickie Sawyer Karten John Patrikianos, fig. 28 Production Coordinator: Elizabeth Burke Kahn Ken Strothman and Harvey Osterhoudt, figs. 64, 65 Illustrator: Emily Silver Photographer (Getty Museum works of art): Sarah Wells, figs. 37, 49, 56, 57, pi. vb Ellen Rosenbery Dietrich Widmer, figs. 62, 63 Typesetting by Archetype Printed by Arizona Lithographers

Reproductions are by permission of the owners of the original works.

86