Nature, Culture and the Body in Classical Greek Religious Art Author(S): Jeremy Tanner Source: World Archaeology, Vol

Nature, Culture and the Body in Classical Greek Religious Art Author(s): Jeremy Tanner Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 2, Archaeology and Aesthetics (Oct., 2001), pp. 257- 276 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827902 . Accessed: 09/07/2013 17:22

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

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

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and the body in classical Greekreligious art

JeremyTanner

Abstract

Thispaper explores the relationship between nature, culture and socialaction in cultstatues in archaicand classical Greece. Following the model of recent work in the sociology and anthropology of art,it shiftsthe focus from decoding the meanings of images,to understandinghow artistic languageswork to create expressive effects in particular institutional settings. Classical 'naturalism' is characterizedas an artisticlanguage with a heightenedcapacity for the appropriation of natural bodilyresponses - partlygiven in universalprocesses of maturation, partly socially specific to the codificationof suchmaturational processes according to therole system of ancient Greek society - inthe construction ofaffective commitment tosocial roles defined and validated within Greek myth andreligious culture.

Keywords

Art;ritual; body; aesthetics; naturalism; iconography; style.

Introduction:the Greek revolutionand the conceptof naturalism

The early fifthcentury BC saw a profoundchange in the languages of Greek art,often describedas the developmentof 'naturalism'.This transformedboth the 'presentational style'(Witkin 1995) of statuesof gods and theiriconography. Archaic statuesof Apollo take the formof 'kouroi',male youths(Plate 1). This statuetype was based on Egyptian models and characterizedby a closed and staticform: arms attached firmly to the side of the statue (obe sometimesbent horizontallyforward at the elbow to hold an attribute), bothfeet flat on theground creating a fundamentallyimmobile appearance; the head, like thewhole of thestatue, strictly frontal, staring into space; a hieraticimage distanced from and eschewinginteraction with the viewer(cf. LIMC Apollo: 5-6, 31). Classical statues of deities,by contrast,interact with viewers and share theirspace in a way whichtheir archaiccounterparts refuse. An Apollo by the fourth-centurysculptor Euphranor (Plate 2) has his weighton his leftleg and pivotson the ball of his rightfoot. His head turns towardsthe viewer,to whose approach he seeminglyresponds: the righthand raises his o0f)sWorldL4,6 Archaeology Vol.33(2): 257-276 Archaeologyand Aesthetics ? 2001Taylor & FrancisLtd ISSN 0043-8243print/1470-1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438240120079280

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 258 JeremyTanner

Plate 1 Tenea 'Apollo', c. 550 BC. (Munich, Glypthothek.After von Reber and Bayersdorfer 1898: pl. 457).

plectrumto the lyreas Apollo burstsinto song or alternativelypours a libationfrom a bowl as a manifestationof godlypower (Palagia 1980; Himmelmann1998). Archaic gods are not immediatelydistinguishable from each other,or humans,except by contextor attributes.The goddesses representedon the relief-friezeof the Siphnian treasury(c. 525 BC), seated or combatantversions of the contemporaryfree-standing femalestatue or kore,can be distinguishedonly by attributesor painted inscriptions(cf. Lullies and Hirmer1957: pls 44-51). In classical iconography,by contrast,each deityhas a characteristicbodily physiognomy,most marked in the differentfemale deities,for example on theParthenon frieze, a 'matronal'Demeter, a 'boyish'Athena and Aphrodite 'a fullermore fleshyfigure', consonant with their particularreligious functionsas a goddess of fertility,a virgin-warrior goddess and the goddess of sexual love respectively (quoting Younger 1997: 134; cf. Himmelmann1998; cf. Jenkins1994: 78-81, figs26, 36, 41).

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 259

Plate2 ApolloPatroos, Roman marble copy of Greekmarble statue by Euphranor, c. 340 BC. (Rome,Vatican. Photo Alinari 26936).

Althoughhistorians of religionhave recognizedthat the cult images of the classical period continuedto be embedded in religiouspractices and ideas (Gordon 1979), thishas had little impact on the interpretationof the iconographyand style of such statues. Traditionally,the changeto 'naturalism'has been interpretedas the birthof autonomous art (Gombrich1960: 120), emancipatedfrom the theocraticreligious constraints characteristicof the Orientalcultures from which significant components of the visual language of archaicGreek art had been inherited(Metzler 1971: 60; Guralnik1978). Correspond- ingly,classical statuesof gods are interpretedaccording to the iconographicmethodolo- gies developed byPanofksy for the interpretation of Italian Renaissance art.Iconographic contentis decoded as a 'message' or an allegoryof contemporarypolitical ideology or philosophy(Fehr 1979/80;Harrison 1977: 412; Erhardt1997), while styleis interpreted iconologicallyas a symptomof an individualartist's or a particularperiod's mentality (Harrison1977: 413; Pollitt1972).

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 260 JeremyTanner

Followingthe model of recent anthropologicaland some older lines of sociological thought(Gell 1998; Parsons 1951), thispaper develops a new approach to archaic and classical Greek cult imagesby askingnot so muchwhat they mean, as whatdo theydo? What are the effectsof the differentstyles and iconographiesof archaic and classical Greece on the viewersof such imageryand theirrelation to religiousculture? How did naturalismwork as a style and an iconographicsystem? How did it functionas a componentof classicalGreek religiousculture, by way of contrastwith archaic style and iconography.I suggestthat the key differencesbetween archaic 'schematism' and classical 'naturalism'lie in the semioticallydistinctive way each visual language appropriates the viewer'sbody in the constructionof affectivecommitment to contemporaryreligious cultureand social structure. My theoreticalassumptions are simple. 'Expressive symbolism',objectified as 'art' throughcultural technologies of aestheticrepresentation, is theprimary medium through whichaffect or feelingis culturallyshaped and sociallycontrolled. What art does is organ- ize affect,thereby motivating commitment to certainsocial roles or systemsof cultural representation.The abilityof art to do thisdepends on humanembodiment. The possi- bilityof aestheticexpression and responsivenessis groundedin a capacityfor sensuous pleasuregiven in thebiological fact of human embodiment. This places certainparameters on theways in whichcultures can utilizesensuous form to generateaesthetic pleasure and shape affectivecommitments. Conversely, aesthetic languages vary in thedegree to which theychose to, or are able to, exploitpredispositions for sensory response (built into the structureand functioningof the humanbody as it maturesover timein broadlyconsist- ent ways across cultures)for culturally specific purposes. Such a perspectivepermits a new conceptualizationof 'naturalism'.Whereas scholars groundedin traditionsof cognitivepsychology argued thatWestern traditions of bodily and spatial representationcorrespond to universalperceptual experience (Gombrich 1960, 1982; Deregowski 1989), recentwork in the anthropologyof art has stressedthe conventionaland culturallyarbitrary character of all representationalsystems. The formal elementin visual representationnecessarily involves cultural choices, underdetermined by the object in naturewhich is beingrepresented (Layton 1977). Moreover,our sense of the naturalobject worldagainst which we might,as Gombrichwould suggest,test visual representationsis itselfalready determinedby the culturalsystem in which we live (Mitchell 1986: 38). The monothetic,perspectival view of the world characteristicof Westernnaturalistic art appears 'natural'to us onlybecause it utilizesconventions with whichwe are familiar.Other systems, like splitrepresentation in North-westCoast Indian art,are no less naturalistic;they simply embody different kinds of 'visual information', accordingto an alternativecultural view of what the distinctivefeatures of objects are (Layton 1977: 42). Although in certain respects attractive,this conventionalistcritique of essentialist accounts of naturalismis not withoutproblems. In particular,it makes it difficultto comparestyles, whether across culturesor across time,since it affordsno groundfor an appropriate metalanguage that can impartiallyanalyse the distinctiveproperties of incommensurablestyles, except in the aestheticallythin terms of 'bits of information' (Layton 1977: 42). The distinctivenessof Westernnaturalism is consequentlycharacter- ized primarilyin termsof informationaldensity, at the expense of considerationof its

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 261 specificallyaesthetic-expressive properties and effects.Norman Bryson,for example, argues thatthe shiftfrom schematic medieval art to the naturalismof the Renaissance reflectsthe changefrom a societyin whichdomination is exercisedopenly, through brute forceand symbolswhich do not disguisetheir arbitrariness, to the false consciousness, the naturalizationof the arbitrary,in the ideological dominationof bourgeois society (1983: 133-62). Such a perspectiveis not fruitful.The veryidea of a social order based solely on forceor fraudand individualself-interest is neithertheoretically tenable (cf. Parsons 1937 forthe classic critiqueof utilitarianism)nor an accuratedescription of the social ordersof Medieval Europe or Archaic Greece. Moreover,such a perspectivein certainrespects marginalizes the constitutiveand specificallymaterial role of art,namely the capacityof aestheticform to engage notjust the intellector mind(as falseconscious- ness), but also the senses,in expressiveresponse to culturalcontents whose significance is transformedby theiraesthetic codification and objectification. Parsons' theoryof expressivesymbolism and Peirce's semioticsprovide a means of resolvingthe polarized debate between conventionalistand essentialists,and tryingto understandhow naturalismfunctions expressively. Parsons and Peirceboth recognize that human sign systemshave both naturalor biological and culturalcomponents. Peirce's conceptionof indices,icons and symbolsprovides a language forexploring the different relationshipsbetween the natural and thecultural in anygiven sign system, and themodal- ities (not necessarilyof oppositionor mutual exclusion) of that relationship.Parsons' account of the role of expressivesymbolism in action systems- its behaviouralground- ing,cultural shaping and itssocial effectsmediated through affective response on thelevel of personality- allows us to show the broader sociological implicationsand effectsof differentorganizations of the culturaland the naturalin aestheticsystems, while insisting on thespecifically aesthetic-expressive conditioning of thoseeffects (Tanner 2000). As we shallsee, farfrom naturalism implying a reducedrole ofthe specifically cultural in produc- ing expressiveresponse, it is only by virtueof more elaborate or differentiatedcultural schematizationsthat the 'naturalistic'style and iconographyof classicalGreek artis able to put to work naturallyemergent perceptual discriminations and behaviouraldisposi- tions (given in universalprocesses of humanmaturation) for its own specificsocial and culturalpurposes.

Religionand the rituals of viewing in archaic and classical Greece

Greek statuesof deities were embedded in a specificreligious culture. Conceptual and materialframeworks associated with this cultureshaped practicesof viewingand the sensoryapprehension of statues. This gave rise to a particularstructure of aesthetic- expressiveresponsiveness, which bears littlerelationship to the abstracteddecoding of meaningcharacteristic of traditionalapproaches to Greek art. In Greek religionthe sacred interpenetratedthe worldof everydaylife to a veryhigh degree. Featuresof the naturalenvironment, such as springsor trees,were attributedto the agencyof superhumanmythical powers (Bellah 1970a). The sacredwas conceivednot as a unifieddomain but a networkof such powers,'each withits own dynamicand mode of action,its own sphere and limitations'(Vernant 1983: 328). In thisenchanted world,

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 262 JeremyTanner statuesof deities,like streamsor trees,might mark the real presenceof a specificdivine power and exercisea correspondingagency. Greek literaryusage consistentlyelides the (to us) 'proper' distinctionbetween deity and image of deity(Gordon 1979), and similar assumptionsinformed the practicaluses made of images. Possession of an image was tantamountto controlof the sacred powerit embodied,and the presenceof the physical image was necessaryto realize thatpower forparticular purposes. Facing overwhelming odds againstthe Persian fleetat Salamis,in 479 BC, the Greek commanders'sent a ship to Aigina (a nearbyisland) forAiakos and the restthat were of his house'. Aiakos was a mythicalhero, descended from the god Zeus by the nymphAigina, whose grandsonshad distinguishedthemselves at the siege of Troy.The recipientof a hero culton Aigina,[the image of] Aiakos embodied militarypotency and, as such, he could be loaned to assist thosein militaryneed, as he did at Salamis:the ship carrying [the image of] Aiakos arrived the next morningand led the Greeks to victoryagainst the Persians (Herodotos V.81; VIII.64.83; PlutarchThemistokles 15). Viewing such images was, correspondingly,a real interactionwith the deity,and orientedto elicitingaction by the deityon the worshippers'behalf. The ritualpractice of viewingtook place at momentsof crisisin the life-cycleof the individualor community, duringthe regularfestivals of the religiouscalendar or in personal ritualsof transition such as the occasion of marriage:both bride and groom would visit the temple of Aphroditeto dedicate some of the vessels used in the marriageceremonial and thereby guaranteethe sexual consummationof the marriagethrough mutual erotic desire (Kahil 1983: 243). Ritual considerationsdetermined both the times when temples mightbe opened to allowviewing and thedistance at whichone mightinteract with the image/deity. At Sikyon,for example, only a femaletemple servant, ritually qualified by sexual absti- nence,and a virginpriestess were allowed actuallyinside the cella of the templewith the statueof Aphrodite,'all othersshould behold the goddessfrom the entranceand address her in prayerfrom that place' (Pausanias II.x.4-5; Clerc 1915: 28ff.). The specificallyreligious nature of the act of viewingthe statue was reinforcedthrough the manipulationof visual,auditory and olfactorysensations. The manipulationof light and darknessin temples,using such devicesas reflectivepools of liquid or polishedfloors in frontof the statue,enhanced the aura of deities sculptedin reflectivematerials like marble,gold and ivory.This producedthe kindof radiantglow held to be characteristic of gods (Corbett1970: 154; Beyer 1990; Wolfel1990). The hymnssung at the openingof temple doors duringfestivals had distinctiverhythms and tones correspondingto the specialpowers of the god in question(Bremmer 1981: 201ff.; West 1992: 157f., 178f., 214f.). The exceptionallybeautiful fragrance - euodia - characteristicof the gods was simulated not onlyby burningincense but also by flowers,planted in the sanctuarygardens or hung as garlandsin the temple,specific to each deity:poppies forDemeter, lilies for Hera and forAphrodite myrtle, redolent of sexual desire not onlythrough its associationwith the goddess,but through its ritual uses in the crownsof brideand groomand the euphemistic descriptionof thefemale pudenda as myrtle(Detienne 1994:48f., 63f.; Harris 1995: l0if.; Goody 1993: 67; Bergren1989: 8f.). The twoterms normally invoked in theapprobation of especially impressive cult statues - kallos kai megethos,beauty and grandeur- are also regularlycoupled in the description of divineepiphanies (Polybios IV.77; StraboIX.1.17; Pollitt1974: 191ff.,198ff.; Verdenius

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 263

1949; Pfister,RE Suppl. IV. s.v. Epiphanie).Far fromestablishing a contemplative aestheticdetachment, this vocabulary facilitated precipitation into that 'state of altered consciousness'characteristic ofreligious awe at themysterium tremendum of themani- festationof sacredpower (Bellah 1970b).Statues were not just looked at, but clothed, garlanded,fed with their share of the sacrifice, placed on theirknees or intheir upturned hands- all actionsserving to blurthe god/image distinction in favourof approaching the statueas a real partnerin interaction(Gordon 1979; Freedberg 1989: 91ff.; Gladigow 1985/6;Aristophanes Birds: 518-20, Ecclesiazusae: 778-83). What seems to have been valuedin artists'techne - a morelimited specifically technical concept than our modern notionof 'art' - was thecapacity to producestatues which might facilitate such religious experiences,and in whichthe strictly material, human and worldlybasis of the productionof the statue was bracketed off or transcended. These sensoryframes and practicalactions prepared in the viewera specifically religiousquality of expressive and sensory responsiveness, wholly different from the etio- lated cognitiveresponse implied by iconographicmodels of decodingmeaning. How mightthe different visual languages of archaic and classical Greek art differentially have workedupon this particular religious sensibility and withwhat distinctive cultural and socialeffects?

Religiousritual, aesthetic representation and social structurein archaicGreece

The earliestGreek cult-images seem to havebeen especially dependent on themythical andpractical ritual contexts in which they were embedded for the communication oftheir religiouspotency (Romano 1988;Freedberg 1989: 91ff.).Alongside aniconic images (whichcontinued in use throughoutGreek antiquity) there were small, often portable, iconicallyunelaborated images, like the Hermes of Aenos in Thrace,a beardedhead on top of square-sidedpillar. Reputedly made by themythic carpenter Epeios duringthe siegeof Troy, and washed away in a floodof the river Scamander, the Hermes was dragged up in thenets of men fishing off Aenos in Thrace. The imageresisted being chopped into firewoodor burneddirectly, and, when thrown back into the sea, returnedagain to the men'snets. Recognizing its divinity, the men who had found the image established a cult forit, each in turnplaying host to thegod-image in his ownhouse. Such stories point towardsthe status of this and similar images as agalmata,talismans of mythic origin - often acquiredthrough miraculous rescue from the sea - whichcirculated through the hands of aristocraticelites. Such objects endowed their holders with a religiouslybased prestige by virtueof the specialpowers which they, like theimages of the Aiakidaifrom Aigina, mobilizedon behalfof those who controlled them (Gernet 1981: 279ff.). By thesixth century BC, suchpractical objectifications ofthe control of religious power weresupplemented by increasinglyelaborate aesthetic strategies, in partperhaps as a responseto theappropriation of the control of agalmata, the private sacra of aristocratic elites,by thestate (Vernant 1991: 156ff.; Lacroix 1949: 44f.). The statuefor the cult of Zeus as a childat Aigion,made in the late sixthcentury by the sculptorHageladas, representedthe god beardless. The priesthoodof the cult was filledby whichever of the boysof the city 'won the prize for beauty ... Whenhis beard began to grow,the honour

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 264 JeremyTanner forbeauty (the priesthood)passed to anotherboy' (Pausanias VII.xxiv). This represen- tationalstrategy whereby the priestwas assimilatedto the god/statueas his facsimileand the livingembodiment of his poweris not uncommonin archaicart and cult.The Ismen- ian Apollo at Thebes was representedas a standardkouros, adjusted to hold attributes, probablya stagand a laurelbranch (Simon 1957;LIMC: Apollo 31). The priestof thecult was selectedfrom a noble familyon thebasis of exceptionalpersonal strength and beauty. He took the culttitle of Apollo, 'The Laurel Bearer', and enacted the partof the god in the major festival,assimilated to god and statueboth by his exceptionalbeauty and by sharediconographic markers: laurel branch, long hair, bound by a crownor fillets,stream- ing down over his shoulders(Pausanias IX.x.2ffwith Frazer's commentary). Recent studiesof thisstatue type, the kouros and itsfemale counterpart the kore,used as votivesand tomb-sculpturesfrom the late seventhto theearly fifth century, have shown how theyembody aristocratic values and self-identity(Stewart 1986). Youthfulstrength and vigour,grace and splendourof appearancewere conceived of as signsof divine favour (Vernant 1991: 161). Like the kouroi,the korai are effectivelyindistinguishable from goddesses, except by attributes,like a bow for Artemis.The kosmos or ornamentof jewellery,ritual haircuts and ritualgarb, alongside theirageless beauty,might equally representpriestesses or goddesses (Schneider1975). The characteristic'archaic smile' of kouroiand koraisignifies the status of bothmembers of the elite and theirsculptural self- representationsin votivekouroi as agalmata- objectsin whichthe gods maytake delight. Agalma is semanticallyrelated to gelao, 'to smile or laugh', throughaglaos, 'shining'or 'splendid'.The radiantsmiles of aristocratsand statuesalike - the geleontesor 'smiling ones' as the aristocraciesof some Greek statesreferred to themselves- assimilatedthem to the gods whose favourthey enjoyed and whose life-style- also characterizedby ease and a joyfulsmile - theyin partshared (Karusos 1961,1972: 91ff.;Osborne 1994; Fowler 1983: 166ff.;Yalouris 1986; Schneider1975: 27). For their aristocraticdedicators, these statues underwrotetheir claim to a special relationshipwith the sacred:they accessed the sacred throughvotive gifts, embodied it in theirself-representation, mobilized it on behalfof the communityand mediatedto ordi- narypeople in theirrole as priestsand priestesses.The ordinaryviewer was shutout of themagic circle within which agalmata circulated, along with the sacred power which they mobilized.The detachmentof the kourosfrom the viewer,its refusalof interactionand itssimilarity to representationsof gods engendereddeference on the partof the ordinary persontowards the aristocraticdedicators of these images as men of a qualitativelydiffer- ent nature. This accumulationof symboliccapital by the elite,and the inculcationof attitudesof awfuldeference among their dependents and notionalfellow-citizens, was reinforcedby theritual consumption of some suchimages in thecontext of aristocratic funerals. Archaic cemeteriesshared manyvisual featureswith contemporary sanctuaries: little temples or naiskoi,kouroi and korai,sphinxes (Karusos 1961: 30ff.).When used as funerarymonu- ments,kouroi must, like cultstatues, have provideda dominantfocus for the proceedings: elevated on tumuli,often more thanlife size (like gods), classifiedas agalmata- like cult statues (Karusos 1961, 1972: 91ff.),and sometimesthemselves the recipientsof ritual attentionin the formof offeringssuch as libationsto the dead (Rohde 1965; Kurtzand Boardman 1970: 148). Funerarylaments, echoed in the vocabularyof the inscriptionson

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 265 the bases of tombstatues, memorialized the deceased in a vocabularywhich assimilated him to the mythicheroes of the Trojan wars,more immediateepigony of the gods from whom the membersof aristocraticfamilies liked to claim descent (Alexiou 1974; Day 1989). The aestheticform of the statues,their social uses (as cult statues,votives and tomb statues) and theirritual consumption (in templesand at funeraryceremonies) all served to reinforcecommitment to an elite self-identityas theoeides,godlike, while engendering a feelingof awe and deferencetowards the aristocraticelite on the partof the demos,the commonpeople.

Naturalism,the body and the constructionof expressiveidentity in classicalGreece

How, then,does 'naturalism'differ from archaic styleand iconographyin the range of connotationsit can evoke and in the semioticmeans it uses to produceits specific expressive effects?This questionis best answeredby comparingarchaic and classicalimages of goddesses withopposed powers and modes of action. Artemisis a virginhuntress. She refusesmarriage and is cultivatedprimarily by 'wild' adolescentgirls in theperiod of tran- sitionfrom childhood to the timewhen they are 'tamed' by marriage(Calame 1997: 91ff.; 117f.;Sourvinou-Inwood 1988). Aphroditeis concernedwith the arousal of sexual desire and the realizationof sexual pleasure refusedby Artemis.Her eyes gleam withsexual allure,and a divineglow shines forth from her breasts, 'a wonderto behold' (Calame 1997: 124f.,198f.; Bergren 1989: 10ff.;Homeric Hymnto Aphrodite88f.). Some korai have been tentativelyidentified as Aphroditeon the basis of such attributes as a bird(a dove?) or a piece offruit (an apple?); butthese attributes, especially since the species of bird or fruitis seldom immediatelyidentifiable, may be equally appropriate to othergoddesses or even humanvotaries. The strongestcases forrecognizing korai as Aphroditesare the figuresflanked by Eros, the childof Aphrodite,on bronze mirrors (Plate 3), whichat least indicatethat korai could be Aphrodites,even ifoutside their orig- inal contextswe cannotrecognize them as such. Archaicstatues of Artemisare similarly identifiableas suchonly on thebasis oftheir context (one oftwo female images in a temple of Apollo at Dreros - Stewart1990: pl. 17), or the additionof attributessuch as a bow to otherwisestandard types of korai, which could equally well representother deities (Richter1968: figs456-9). In Peirce's termsthe distinctionbetween the two deitieswas constructed'symbolically', requiring on the partof the viewera conventionalknowledge of arbitraryiconographic codes, which associated particularattributes with particular deities. Interpretationwas a top-downprocess, intellectualand cognitive,more than specificallyaesthetic-expressive, although, once viewers recognized which deity was represented,they would presumablyhave projectedon the basis of theirown religious knowledgesome of distinctiveconnotations appropriate to each goddess. Beyond being iconicallyrecognizable as a woman,the sensuousformation of the body of koraidid little to encouragerecognition of thespecific identity and natureof the deityor in itselfto elicit an emotiveresponse to the connotationsassociated witheach goddess by virtueof her specificsphere and modes of action. In classical 'naturalistic'statues, conventional culturallyarbitrary attributes are

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 266 JeremyTanner

Plate3 Bronzemirror handle. Aphroditeflanked by Erotes, c. 500 BC. (BostonMuseum of Fine Arts. Photo: Courtesy, Museumof Fine Arts, Boston. Reproducedwith permission. ? 2000Museum of Fine Arts Boston.All rightsreserved)

supplementedby iconic and indexicalsigns which appeal to the embodiedviewer in giving practical aestheticsubstance to the distinctivereligious values of the two deities. In additionto wearingthe short-skirtedchiton (characteristic of younggirls as yetfree of the constraintsof marriageand the veil), Artemisis representedas a younggirl with flat or only budding breasts and a rathernarrow, sharp-featured face (Plate 4). Aphroditeis representedas a maturewoman, full-breasted,increasingly wide-hipped, with a more sensuous, fleshy,soft-throated head and face (Plate 5). The distinctionsextend from featuresof physiology,to the behavioural schemas throughwhich the two goddesses expresstheir own relationshipto theirbodies. Artemisis typicallyupright, engaged in or preparingfor the vigorous action of the hunt. Aphrodites eschew vigorous action in favour of more languorousposes, recliningon a columnfor example, or corporeallyexemplify- ing the 'limb-relaxinglove' that was the manifestationof her power, as withslow and swinginggait she seductivelyapproaches the viewer,displaying her 'desirable bosom'.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 267

Plate4 Artemis'of Gabii',Roman marble copyof an originalstatue by Praxiteles,c. 340BC. (Paris,Louvre. Photo: Alinari 22583)

Classical Persephonesand Demeters (goddesses representedby standardkorai types in archaicart - Peschlow-Bindokat1972; cf.LIMC: Demeter 17, Persephone 189) are in theirturn immediately distinguishable from Artemises and Aphrodites.Demeter is a mothergoddess, guarantor of fertilityin agricultureand humanreproduction, safeguard- ingfemale fecundity and the nurturanceof childrenwithin the family.This nurturantand maternalrole is expressedin her relationshipto her daughterPersephone, the maiden, whose abductionby Hades and eventualreturn provide mythic material to articulatethe changing nature of the mother-daughterbond before and beyond the daughter's marriage.The primaryfestival of Demeter at Athens,the Thesmophoriai,was restricted to gunaikes,married women or matrons,and theirdaughters (Vernant 1994: xvif,xxvf). The late fifth-centuryEleusis relief distinguishesDemeter and Persephone and their social roles, not only by the arbitrarycultural conventions of clothingand hair-styles properto matronand parthenos(unmarried maiden), but also physiologically:Demeter

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 268 JeremyTanner

PlateS Aphrodite'of Frejus', Roman marble copyof an originalGreek statue, possibly by Alkamenes,late fifth-centuryBC. (Paris, Louvre.Photo: Alinari 22752)

has heavier body,fuller breasts, a fullerface (cheeks, fleshunder the chin,crease lines) thanthe slighter,less matronalPersephone (Plate 6; cf.Plate 7). Of course, the selection of these distinctivefeatures is in part socially and culturally determined:Greek medical writersfavoured 'large and bulkybreasts' in maturewomen as an index of suitabilityfor child-rearing, whereas girlswere bound round theirchests frominfancy to marriagein orderto presenta gracile,maidenly appearance (Hippokrates, Prorhetikon11.24, with Dean-Jones 1991; Bonfante 1997: 184). But thedistinctive features are also dependenton processesof physicalmaturation and corporealchange consequent upon adolescence, childbirthand child rearing- universalfeatures which strongly lend themselvesto theaesthetic and corporealmarking of social distinctions.Rooted in physio- logical experiencesof both women and men (by virtueof their relationships with women), suchfeatures lent themselves to sensoryrecognition and a responsegrounded in thebody, notjust theknowledge of arbitrarycultural codes characteristicof the iconographic distin- guishersin archaicstatues of deities.Where these lines are drawnmay varyfrom culture

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 269

Plate6 Relieffrom Eleusis: Demeter. Triptolemos and Persephone,c. 420 BC. (Athens,National Museum.Photo: Alinari 24263)

to culture,and withinclassical Greek culturethere is a degree of variationover time around these core iconographictypes for the goddesses. But it is hard to imaginethat in any culturethe iconographictype characteristic for Greek Aphroditecould be culturally specifiedas the appropriaterealistic image of a youngpre-adolescent girl, while at the same time the Artemistype be thoughtto be the appropriatevisual representationof sexuallymature women, whether conceived in the more eroticterms of an Aphroditeor the maternalideal of the goddess Demeter.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 270 JeremyTanner

The conventionsof the iconographyof each goddess are not whollyarbitrary symbols, but partlygrounded in physiologicalindices of naturalprocesses of bodilymaturation. Consequently,the distinctiveexpressive effects of such imagerydepend not on culture (here the religiouscodes materializedin art) or biologyalone, but on the interpenetration of culturaland behaviouralsystems which the artisticlanguage of naturalismfacilitates and realizesin processesof expressiveinteraction, most notably viewing. Turning back to the settingsin whichsuch imageswere encountered,specifically temples, more generally religiouslife and ritualinteraction, we can now see what kind of distinctiveexpressive worknaturalism did withinthese social settings. The closed presentationalstyle of kouroi and korai created a sense of hieraticaura, shared by gods and aristocrats,acknowledged by the viewer.The lifeand movementof classicalstatues, and theirgestural repertoire makes for more direct, easy interaction. This shiftin the structureof interactionbetween viewer-worshipper and deityis particularly marked in votive reliefs.In archaic votive reliefs,either the god or the votaries are represented,almost never both together(Berger 1970: 104ff.;Mitropoulou 1977: 86ff.). Classical votivereliefs typically show worshippers,making gestures of greeting,interactingwith deities (represented in a largerscale), oftenpouring a libationin responseto the worshipper'ssacrifice (Plate 7). Access to the sacred is definedless in termsof the essen- tialqualities of a particularelite status group, and morein termsof specificritual perform- ances. Naturalism permits the constructionof this relational space in the votive representation.The small scale of the votariesand theirgestures signal respect towards and dependence on the gods as beings of a higherorder. The god, in turn,pours a libation,completing the ritualact throughwhich the worshipperaccesses the sacred and signallingresponsiveness to the worshipper'sact of devotion. As in votivereliefs, so in cultstatues, art did notjust reflect religious ideas - forexample, thedistinctive religious roles of the different deities. It was themeans by which motivational attachmentto religiouscodes, and the social role expectationsdefined therein - as parthenos,gune and objector subjectof erotic desire, was producedduring the ritual process of viewing,of interactingwith the god/statue. Imagine a brideand groomsacrificing on the occasionof their nuptials, in theritual context described in thefirst section of this essay. For suchviewers, an imagelike theAphrodite of Frejus was notsimply high-class pornography as recentpost-structuralist and feministreadings might suggest (Osborne 1994;cf. Stewart 1997:93-106, 152). Throughmaking offerings to Aphrodite,the bride - crownedin myrtle and likeAphrodite heavily perfumed as symboland meansof erotic potency - gainedaccess to thepower manifested in thatdeity, and couldfeel herself to embodythe charis, the erotic attractivenessand sexualcomplaisance attributed to boththe goddess and thebride 'giving herselfin responseto a man'sdesire in thecontext of marriage' (Detienne 1979:62ff., 87ff.). For his part,the groom,becoming aware of the sexual desirearoused by the image,feels and submitsto thepower of Aphrodite, just as husbandswere held to do in recognizingthe allureof their bride and consummatingtheir marriage (Bergren 1989). By virtueof the natu- ralisticpresentational style, the fruit proffered by the goddess functions no longersimply as an identifyingattribute, but as a componentof theirinteraction. In returnfor the couple's ritualperformance, Aphrodite offers the piece offruit, indicating that she reciprocatestheir sacrificialgifts by unlockingher powers on theirbehalf, prefiguring the bride's giftof a quince to the groomin the nuptialchamber.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 271

? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......

lS~~~~~~~~~~~ 4

Plate 7 Votive relieffrom Eleusis, sacrificeto Demeter (farright) and Persephone,fourth century BC. (Paris,Louvre. After Rizzo 1932:tav. CLI)

Statuesof otherdeities - like Artemis,Persephone and Demeter - offeredwomen and men ratherdifferent models of femininebeauty and appropriatefemale behaviour, each correspondingto differentstages in the life-cycleof women or differentroles of mature women, in theirrelationships to men. In each case the distinctiveiconographic type - whetheras a role model forwomen or a counterpartfor men - lends motivationalattrac- tion to the modes of action characteristicof the deities in question,and the roles they represent.It accomplishesthis by elicitingaffective projections on the part of viewers groundedin theirsense of theirown bodies, stimulatinga pleasurablesensory awareness of relevantbehavioural potentialities and the correspondingschemas of bodilyaction: the nubile virginripe for tamingor being tamed in marriage,in the case of Artemis;the embodimentof sexual desire givingrise to eroticmutuality in marriagein the case of Aphrodite;the matronlygune capable of givingbirth to healthychildren and standingin a nurturantrelationship to her offspringin the case of Demeter. The ritualprocess of viewingcreated in the viewera heightenedsensory awareness and religiousresponsiveness, an increased readiness to internalizecodes objectifiedin the

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 272 JeremyTanner statueand to projectmotivational dispositions already embedded in the personality.For each deity,the new artisticlanguage gave a specificpractical substance to religiouscodes, groundingthem in the viewers'sense of theirown bodies, a corporealsense shaped both byuniversal maturational processes and theparticular social codificationof those processes intoa role systemcharacteristic of Greek society.The languageof naturalismprovided a sensuousground both for interaction with the statue/deity and fora motivationallyintense experienceof the specific nature of the deity in questionand themanifestation of its power. Far fromemancipating art fromreligion, naturalism was the means by whichreligious culturerealized much deeper religious investment of theminds and bodies ofviewers than had been affordedby the archaicstyle, whose form was largelydetermined by itsfunction in appropriatingreligion for the legitimationof statushierarchy. How can we explainthis change? The developmentof naturalismin Greek art occurs duringthe same period in which democracywas establishedand institutionalizedin Athens (late sixth,early fifth-century BC), and the new iconographywas codifiedin the period 450-30 BC, when the Atheniandemocracy was at its height,and most active as a patronof artin commissioningthe buildingsand sculpturesof the Akropolisprogramme - mostnotably the Parthenon.During this period, democratization extended to religious organization.Publicly funded cults with priestsdemocratically selected (by lot) were created alongsidethe older cultsoften dominated by the aristocraticelite who held the priesthoodsby rightof inheritance.The ritualhandling and care of venerableold statues, like the Athena Polias, the traditionalprerogative of the noble genos of the Praxiergidai, came underpublic scrutiny. Their responsibilities were codified and publishedin inscribed stoneby the demos and boule,with fines specified if the Praxiergidai failed to complywith these new regulations(Ostwald 1986: 145ff.;Garland 1992: 100ff.).Control of artistic patronage- whetherjudging the competitionfor the designof the robe to be presented to Athena, or commissioningnew templesand theirsculptures, including cult statues- passed intothe hands of democratic institutions, whether the boule (council) orjury courts selectedby lot,both held to be representativeof the demos as a whole (AristotleAthen- ian Constitution,xlix; Rhodes 1981). In thiscontext, it makes considerablesense to see an artisticlanguage which served primarily the statusinterests of an aristocraticelite giving way to one orientedmore closely to the expressiveneeds of the entirepopulation within the particularreligious settings for which the artwas produced.

Conclusions

I have arguedthat our understandingof ancientGreek religiousart can be enhancedby askingnot whatdoes thisor thatimage mean,but how do specificlanguages of artwork. In order to be able to describe and analyse how artisticlanguages work,we need to employtheoretical frameworks which can betterreveal how art realizes its expressive affectsthrough exploiting the sensorycapacities of the human body than can text-or language-basedmodels of analysislike traditionaliconography or structuralismand its heirs. In visual art,culture and nature do not compete in a zero-sumgame. It is only by virtueof a more differentiatedsystem of culturalschematizations that classical naturalism was able to appropriateperceptions and behavioural responses,rooted in the

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 273

maturingbody, for religious purposes. Puttingnature to work on behalf of religion requireda heightenedcultural input, the productionof a morecomplex artistic language by classical Greek artists:more cultureand more nature,synergy rather than polarity. Similarly,rather than asking whether the power of imagesis a resultof the social frame- workswithin which they are embedded (Gell 1998) or theiraesthetic form (Freedberg 1989: 95), we need to develop theoreticalframeworks and analyticalmethods which are sufficientlyabstract to be able to incorporatethe social and the aestheticas analytic dimensionswith their own distinctiveproperties and to showthe modalities of their inter- relationshipsin differenttypes of social and culturalsetting. In classical Greek naturalism,at least, the aestheticis social all the way through:embodied social roles,a socially specific codificationof universal processes of human maturation,were a primary resourcein generatingaesthetic schemata.

Acknowledgements

I am gratefulto the manypeople who have commentedon earlierversions of thispaper at seminarsin Cambridge,London and Oxford,and in particularto Robin Osborne, AnthonySnodgrass, Jas Elsner, Peter Ucko, Gordon Fyfe,Peter Stewart,Chris Gosden and an anonymousreferee for World Archaeology whose stimulating comments on earlier draftshave substantiallyimproved this final essay.

InstituteofArchaeology, UCL, 31-4 Gordon Square,London WC1H OPY

References

Alexiou,M. 1974.The Ritual Lament in theGreek Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bellah,R. 1970a.Religious evolution. In BeyondBelief. Essays on Religionin a Post-Traditional World.New York: Harper & Row,pp. 20-50. Bellah,R. 1970b.The dynamicsof worship.In BeyondBelief: Essays on Religionin a Post- TraditionalWorld. New York: Harper & Row,pp. 209-15. Berger,E. 1970.Das BaslerArztrelief: Studien zum Griechischen Grab- und Votiv-Relief um 500 v. Chr.und zur vor Hippokratischen Medizin. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern. Bergren,A. 1989.The Homerichymn to Aphrodite.Classical Antiquity, 8: 1-41. Beyer,A. 1990.Die Orientierunggriechischer Tempel - zurBeziehung von Kultbild und Tur. In Lichtund Architektur (eds W-D.Heilmeyer and W. Hoepfner).Tubingen: Wasmuth, pp. 1-9. Bonfante,L. 1997.Nursing mothers in classical art. In NakedTruths: Women, Sexuality and Gender in ClassicalArt and Archaeology (eds A. 0. Koloski-Ostrowand C. L. Lyons).London: Routledge, pp. 174-96. Bremmer,J. 1981. Greek hymns. In Faith,Hope and Worship(ed. H. Versnel).Leiden: E. J.Brill, pp. 193-215. Bryson,N. 1983.Vision and Painting:the Logic of the Gaze. London:Macmillan.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 274 JeremyTanner

Calame,C. 1997.(o.v. 1977).Choruses of YoungWomen in AncientGreece: Their Morphology, ReligiousRole and Social Function. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Clerc,Ch. 1915/20.Les TheoriesRelatives aux Cultesdes Imageschez les Auteurs Grecs du iHme SiecleApres J. C. Paris:Fontemoiny et Companie. Corbett,P. E. 1970. Greek templesand Greek worshippers:the literaryand archaeological evidence.Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 17: 149-58. Day,J. W. 1989.Rituals in stone:early Greek grave epigrams and monuments. Journal of Hellenic Studies,109: 16-28. Dean-Jones,L. A. 1991.The culturalconstruction ofthe female body in classical Greek science. In Women'sHistory and Ancient History (ed. S. B. Pomeroy).London: University of North Carolina Press,pp. 111-37. Deregowski,J. B. 1989.Real and representedspace: cross cultural perspectives. Behavioral and BrainSciences, 12: 51-119. Detienne,M. 1979.Dionysos Slain. London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Detienne,M. 1994.The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in GreekMythology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress. Ehrhardt,W. 1997.Versuch einer Deutung der Nemesis des Rahmnus.Antike Kunst, 40: 29-39. Fehr,B. 1979/80.Zur Religios-Politischen Funktion der Athena Parthenos im Rahmen des Delisch- AttischenSeebundes, Pts I and II. Hephaistos,1: 71-91,2: 113-25. Fowler,B. H. 1983.The centaur'ssmile: Pindar and the archaic aesthetic. In Ancient Greek Art and Iconography(ed. W. G. Moon).Madison, WI: Universityof Wisconsin Press, pp. 159-70. Freedberg,D. 1989.The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theoryof Response. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Garland,R. 1992.Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion. London: Duckworth. Gell,E. 1998.Art and Agency: An AnthropologicalTheory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gernet,L. 1981 (o.v. 1948). The mythicalidea of value in Greece. In The Anthropology ofAncient Greece (trans. J. Hamilton and B. Nagy.)London: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 73-111. Gladigow,B. 1985/6.Prasenz der Bilder, Prasenz der Gbtter. Kultbilder und Bilder der Gotter in derGriechischen Religion. Visible Religion, 4-5: 114-33. Gombrich,E. H. 1960.Art and Illusion:A Studyin thePsychology of PictorialRepresentation. London:Phaidon. Gombrich,E. H. 1982.'Image and code: scope and limits of conventionalism inpictorial representation'.In TheImage and theEye: Further Studies in thePsychology of PictorialRepresentation. London:Phaidon, pp. 278-98. Goody,J. 1993. The Culture of Flowers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon,R. 1979.The realand the imaginary: production and religion in theGreco-Roman world. ArtHistory, 2: 5-34. Guralnik,E. 1978.Proportions of Kouroi. American Journal of Archaeology, 82: 461-72. Harris,D. 1995.The Treasures of the Parthenon and the Erechtheion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harrison,E. B. 1977.Alkamenes' sculptures for the Hephaisteion, Pts I-III. AmericanJournal of Archaeology,81: 137-78,265-87, 411-26. Himmelmann,N. 1998.Some characteristics ofthe representation ofgods in the classical period. In ReadingGreek Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 103-38.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 275

Jenkins,I. 1994. The ParthenonFrieze. London: BritishMuseum Press. Kahil, L. 1983.The mythologicalrepertoire of Brauron.In AncientGreek Art and Iconography(ed. W. Moon). Madison, WI: Universityof WisconsinPress, pp. 231-44. Karusos, C. 1961.Aristodikos: zur Geschichteder Spdtarchaischen-AttischenPlastik und der Grab- statue.Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Karusos,C. 1972.(o.v. 1941). PERIKALLES AGALMA - EXEPOIHS' OUK ADAHS - Empfind- ungenund Gedanken der archaischenGriechen um die Kunst.In Inschriftender Griechen(ed. G. Pfohl). Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 85-122. Kurtz.D. and Boardman,J. 1970. GreekBurial Customs.London: Thames & Hudson. Lacroix, L. 1949. Les Reproductionsdes Statuessur les Monnaies Grecques, Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophieet Lettresde 1' Universit6de Liege 116. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Layton,R. 1977. Naturalismand culturalrelativity in art. In Form in IndigenousArt: Schematisa- tionin theArt of Aboriginal Australia and PrehistoricEurope (ed. P. J.Ucko). Canberra:Australian Instituteof AboriginalStudies, pp. 3-43. LIMC 1981-1999.Lexicon IconographicumMythologiae Classicae. Dusseldorf:Artemis Verlag. Lullies,R. and Hirmer,M. 1957. GreekSculpture. London: Thames & Hudson. Metzler,D. 1971. Portrdtund Gesellschaft:Uber die Entstehungdes GriechischenPortrdts in der Klassik. Munster:privately published. Mitchell,W. J.T. 1986. Iconology:Image, Text,Ideology. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Mitropoulou,E. 1977. Corpus I: AtticVotive Reliefs of the6th and 5th CenturiesB.C Athens:Pyli Editions. Osborne, R. 1994. Looking on - Greek style:does the sculpted girl speak to women too?. In Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies (ed. I. Morris). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 81-96. Ostwald,M. 1986. FromPopular Sovereigntyto theSovereignty of Law: Law, Societyand Politicsin 5thCentury Athens. Berkeley, CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Palagia, 0. 1980. Euphranor.Leiden: E. J.Brill. Parsons,T. 1937. The Structureof Social Action.New York: The Free Press. Parsons,T. 1951. Expressivesymbols and the social system:the communicationof affect.In The Social System.New York: The Free Press,pp. 384-427. Pauly, A., Wissowa, G. and Kroll, W. (eds). Real Encyclopaedie der klassischenAltertums- wissenschaft,1893-. Munich:Albert Wunsch. Peschlow-Bindokat,A. 1972. 'Demeter and Persephone in der AttischenKunst'. Jahrbuchdes deutschenArchdologischen Institut, 87: 60-157. Pollitt,J. J. 1972.Art and Experiencein Classical Greece.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollitt,J. J. 1974. TheAncient View of GreekArt: Criticism, History and Terminology.London: Yale UniversityPress. Rhodes, P. J.1981. A Commentaryon theAristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Richter,G. 1968. Korai: Archaic GreekMaidens. London: Phaidon. Rizzo, G. E. 1932. Prassitele.Milan: Edizioni FratelliTreves. Rohde, E. 1965. Psyche:The Cultof Souls and theBelief in Immortalityamong the Greeks. London: Kegan Paul. Romano, I. B. 1988. Early Greek cult images and cult practices.In Early Greek Cult Practice:

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 276 JeremyTanner

Proceedingsof theFifth International Symposium at theSwedish Institute at Athens,26-9 June1986 (eds R. Hagg, N. Marinatosand G. Nordquist).Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens,pp. 127-34. Schneider,L. A. 1975. Zur Sozialen Bedeutungder ArchaischenKorenstatuen. Hamburg: Helmut Busk Verlag. Simon,E. 1957. Beobachtungenzum Apollo Philesiosdes Kanachos. In Charites:Festschrift Ernst Langlotz (ed. K. Schauenburg).Bonn: AthenaeumVerlag, pp. 38-46. Sourvinou-Inwood,C. 1988. Studiesin Girls' Transitions:Aspects of theArkteia and Age Represen- tationin AtticIconography. Athens: Kardamitsa. Stewart,A. 1986. When is a kouros not an Apollo? The 'Tenea Apollo' revisited.In Corinthiaca: Studies in Honour of Darrell A. Amyx (ed. M. A. del Chiaro). Columbia, MO: Universityof MissouriPress, pp. 54-70. Stewart,A. F. 1990. GreekSculpture: An Exploration.New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress. Stewart,A. F. 1997.Art, Desire and theBody in AncientGreece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tanner. J. 2000. The body,expressive culture and social interaction:integrating art historyand action theory.In Talcott Parsons: zur Aktualitdteines Theorienprogramms,Oesterreichische Zeitschriftfur Soziologie, Sonderband 6. Wiesbaden: WestdeutscherVerlag, pp. 285-324. Verdenius,W. J.1949. Kallos kai megethos.Mnemosyne, 2: 294-8. Vernant,J-P. 1983. Some aspects of personal identityin Greek religion.In Mythand Thought Among theGreeks. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 323-40. Vernant,J-P. 1991. From the presentificationof the invisibleto the imitationof appearance. In Mortalsand Immortals:Collected Essays. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 151-63. Vernant,J-P. 1994. Introduction.In The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in Greek Mythology(ed. M. Detienne). Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. i-xxxv. Von Reber, F. and Bayersdorfer,A. 1898. Classical SculptureGallery. London: Grevel. West,M. 1992.Ancient Greek Music. Oxford:Clarendon Press. Witkin,R. W. 1995.Art and Social Structure.Cambridge: Polity Press. Wolfel,C. 1990. Erwagungenzur kunstlichenBeleuchtung von Skulptur.In Lichtund Architecktur (eds W-D. Heilmeyerand W. Hoepfner).Tubingen: Wasmuth, pp. 43-52. Yalouris,N. 1986. Das archaischeLacheln und die Geleontes.Antike Kunst, 29: 3-5. Younger,J. G. 1997. Gender and sexualityin the Parthenonfrieze. In Naked Truths:Women, Sexualityand Genderin ClassicalArt and Archaeology(eds A. 0. Koloski-Ostrowand C. L. Lyons). London: Routledge,pp. 120-53.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions