middle helladic to the late helladic i shaft graves 8 страница

The subject of man controlling or fighting a lion is also unusual for Apollo, but not necessarily for his sister Artemis, who is often shown as a mistress of the animals, holding a beast in each hand (see Figure 6.16, page 145).

We might call this ivory figure syncretic or a hybrid, blending motifs and styles of different contemporary artistic traditions. Certainly this work looks very different than the ivory woman from the Dipylon cem­etery (see Figure 4.14, page 85), which itself was already “Orientalizing” in its depiction of a nude female figure like the representations of the goddess Astarte in art of the Levant. Here there is more borrowing and blending, perhaps done by an eastern Greek artist who was familiar with small works of art from various Mediterranean cultures.

A more certainly identifiable Greek sculpture of the period is still surprising in the new features it presents. Done around 650-625 все, it is a monumental marble statue, dedicated by a woman named Nikandre on the island of Delos as a votive offering to Artemis, for whom Nikandre may have served as a priestess (Figure 6.3). The work is one of the earliest in a series of female stone statues, called kore or “maiden.” The scale of the figure is striking compared to earlier sculpture; at 1.75 meters, it is life-size or a bit larger (5 ft 6 in = 1.68 m). This larger size is made possible by using marble from the island of Naxos as the medium. While the statue now appears very worn, the use of marble allowed the work to endure years of exposure to the elements and to preserve the inscription that we can still read today: “Nikandre dedicated me to the far-shooter of arrows [Artemis], the excellent daughter of Deinodikes of Naxos, sister of Deinomenes, n[ow?] wife of Phraxos.”

The figure is very shallow, almost slab-like, and much of the surface is flat. The kore is wearing a simple, long garment that is belted at the waist. The arms are straight at the side, with drill holes in the rolled fingers that held some type of attachment, perhaps an offering (if she is a mortal figure like

Nikandre) or an attribute such as a bow (if the goddess Artemis). The head is representative of what is called the Daedalic type, with a flattened cranium, a triangle pointing downward for the face inside a larger triangle, formed by the braids of hair, pointing upward. The figure was once painted, which would have emphasized these features and additionally given some pattern to the flat surfaces of the dress.

A striking point about Nikandre’s kore is that the production of a large marble sculpture and its transportation to Delos would have been a significant expenditure and undertaking, since there was no established infrastructure for the production of large sculpture at this time. Although it had been commonly used for Cycladic figures two millennia earlier in the Bronze Age, its use as a material is new in the third quarter of the seventh century. To cut and polish the stone required the development of techniques that were not found in previous stonework, such as the rough stones used in the walls of Zagora. To make this sculpture, a block of marble had to be cut out of a quarry bed using wedges, splints, and hammers, and then shaped with a variety of points and chisels. At 160 pounds per cubic foot, transportation of the marble from the quarry to the harbor in Naxos, and then by ship to Delos, would require planning and care. In other words, creating a well-made marble statue requires an infrastructure of source material, skilled labor, and transportation that did not exist in the earlier Geometric period.

There are a number of fragmentary marble and limestone statues of female and male figures dated between 650 and 600 все, but the earliest surviving complete statues of the standing nude male counterpart to Nikandre’s kore, the kouros statue, date to just after 600, like the kouros found in the sanctuary at Cape Sounion (Figure 6.4). This statue is nearly twice life-size in scale, standing 3.05 meters high, and like Nikandre’s kore it is made of Naxian marble. There is more detail preserved of the anatomy of this figure, including deeper ridges for the knees and groin line and shallower incisions for the muscles on the abdomen, legs, and arm. The figure still has the Daedalic shape of head, and the facial features share some similarities to the Delphi ivory. The figure is not deeply carved, but the projection of the left leg forward and deeper chin give it more three-dimensionality than Nikandre’s kore. The appearance of these statues in the sanctuaries would have created a lasting impression on visitors, considering the far more modest scale of Geometric votive offerings. By using marble, the votives could be placed more readily in the open areas and, with inscriptions like Nikandre’s, would have conveyed the piety and lineage of elite donors.

The similarity of the marble kouros and kore statues to Egyptian statues has led to debate about the influence of Egyptian art in Greece. For example, a slightly earlier limestone Egyptian statue from Giza has the same striding pose with the left leg forward and hands held at the sides (Figure 6.5). This statue of Tjayasetimu, however, has less modeling of the knees and less detail­ing of the abdominal muscles than the Sounion kouros, but otherwise is similarly naturalistic in the treatment of the body, with an idealized emphasis on broad shoulders and narrow waist. The head of Tjayasetimu is more lifelike and less stylized than the Sounion kouros, and overall has less abstract patterning. There are some other noteworthy differences: the stone of the Sounion kouros between the legs and the arms and torso has been removed and its back is fully carved, rather than left as a slab. As a sanctuary dedication, the kouros would be in the open and seen from multiple angles, unlike the Egyptian statue that was made to stand against a wall in a tomb. Finally, the Egyptian figure wears a kilt, while the Sounion kouros follows the Greek convention of male nudity.

The rectangular forms of Egyptian and Greek statues at this time are partly the result of their production techniques. Both were made from blocks of stone. Egyptian sculptors marked the block into gridlines and placed major features like the shoulders, waist, hands, and knees at specific points on that grid, whether the statue was 1 meter or 3 meters high. This was one factor giving Egyptian art its much-noted consistency. The use of a grid system for laying out the figure was almost certainly used by the Greeks, although gridlines on unfinished sculpture do not survive as they have in Egypt.

There have been studies comparing the proportions of Greek and Egyptian statues that suggest some Greek sculptors used the Egyptian system itself, but recent reevaluation of the data does not suggest a widespread direct copying of the Egyptian canon (Carter and Steinberg 2010). Greek figures tend to be proportionally taller and narrower and their heads more elongated than their Egyptian counterparts.

Much later Greek literary sources refer to the sculpture of Daidalos, who created the mythical labyrinth hiding the minotaur, among many other works. The first-century Greek historian Diodoros, for example, states “the rhythmos of the ancient statues of Egypt is the same as that of the statues made by Daidalos among the Greeks” (1.97.5; tr. Pollitt 1990, 15). By rhythmos, Diodoros refers to the compositional pattern of the work, and certainly comparing the two works here one can see the similarity in proportions and forms. While Daidalos is legendary, there were early works attributed to him by the Greeks, and their comparison of his reputed work to Egyptian stat­ues suggests the Greeks saw some noteworthy similarities between an early kouros and Egyptian statues. Daedalic persists as a term to describe seventh-century sculpture, but it implies a greater unity of style and concept than exists. Rather, we should consider it in light of the relationship of Greek art to the eastern Mediterranean, as one aspect of the Orientalizing and innovative charac­ter of seventh-century art (Morris 1992, 255-256).

Diodoros (1.98.5-9) also tells us of two Greek sculptors, the brothers Theodoros and Telekles, who spent time in Egypt. Together they made a statue of Apollo, Telekles making half of the statue on Samos and Theodoros making the other half at Ephesos, so that “when the parts were fitted together with one another, they corresponded so well that they appeared to have been made by one person. This type of workmanship is not practiced at all among the Greeks, but among the Egyptians it is especially common” (Pollitt 1990, 28). While these artists are said to have worked in the sixth century, the passage describes the use of a grid and proportional system to ensure conformity of the parts, and the association of this technique with Egypt. Further, it links the striding pose with hands at the side to Egypt.

There is historical evidence of emerging connections developing between Egypt and Greece in the seventh century. The Egyptian pharaoh Psammetichos inherited the throne in 664 все, hiring Ionian Greek mercenaries, among others, to consolidate his power by 656. The pharaoh established the trading settlement of Naukratis in the Nile delta by the year 620, and excavations at the site have found imports of Greek pottery and other goods (see Figure 6.14, page 143), showing there was two-way trade and Greek settlers in Egypt by the late seventh century.

One can see that there would have been an opportunity for Greeks to become familiar with Egyptian art, and it is plausible that Greek sculptors could have learned the skills needed for marble and limestone sculpture by training in Egypt. Evidence from quarrying techniques, however, suggests that Greek quarrying methods were more similar to those found in southern Anatolia and northern Syria. The similarity in the process of making something can lead to similarity in the finished product, but is this a case of mimicry and copying, in which a Greek sculptor sought to replicate Egyptian work, or is it a case of adaptation, in which some elements are changed to conform with existing artistic practice in Greece? Related to this question is one of motivation. Is this a case of two cultures interacting freely, or is it a case of one culture domi­nating the other? In recognizing an influence of one culture on another, is its purpose to elevate the status of the source or of the borrower? The question of the relationship and dependence of Greek stone sculpture on Egyptian is complex, but the purposes of Greek stone sculpture appear to have been different from its inception. Egyptian statues serve primarily as furnish­ings inside an offering chamber of a tomb and are meant to be placed against a wall. Greek sculpture appears first in sanctuaries and stands out in the open; its purpose, based on the inscription for Nikandre, is to enhance the prestige of the donor and/or donor’s family. As its inscription notes, the kore of Nikandre praises her as the “excellent” daughter, sister, and wife of her father, brother, and husband, someone who likely served a prominent role in the worship

of Artemis at Delos. The votive statue, by its material, scale, style, and inscription, distinguishes it among the other dedications at Delos.

Undoubtedly stories of monumental Egyptian statues circulated through travelers to Egypt, but there were also expensive works of Egyptian art dedicated in sanctuaries in Greece, such as the seventh-century bronze statue of the goddess Mut found at the Heraion on the island of Samos (Figure 6.6). This work shares similarities to Nikandre’s kore in the frontal, plank-like composition and in details like the arm at the side, with a hole in the hand for an attachment. Mut’s dress clings more to the body, the breasts are articulated, unlike Nikandre’s kore, and the hairstyle, crown, and face are different. Unlike Egyptian stone sculpture, the bronze is made as a fully three-dimensional object with a fully worked back like Nikandre’s kore. In comparing these two works, one can see that Greek artists were adapting Egyptian techniques and subject matter in a way that made Greek statues consistent with earlier Greek representations. In the effort to distinguish Nikandre’s dedication as

“excellent" Egyptian art might provide both a model for the form of the statue and an association of prestige for the Greek patron and artist.

Egypt was not the only source of art, techniques, and motifs for Greek art. As we noted with the Delphi lion and man, there are also strong connections to Asia Minor, the Levant, and Syria. The Phoenicians specialized in producing metal and ivory work that included motifs derived from both Egypt and Mesopotamia, as can be seen in an ivory panel that was part of the decoration for a piece of furniture (Figure 6.7). The ivory is from Syria or further east, but the sphinx and the pharaoh’s double crown with cobra uraeus come originally from Egypt. There are intertwining plants with blossoms that are a combina­tion of the lotus and palmette, which are common decorative motifs in Egyptian art. One modification to the Egyptian sphinx, however, is the addition of wings, which is more common in hybrid creatures in Mesopotamian art. The ivory itself was found in the Assyrian capital at Nimrud, along with many other Phoenician works. The muscular rendering of the lion’s body is similar to that found in Assyrian reliefs (see Figure 6.2), and Assyrian sculpture and seals fea­ture a range of hybrid creatures. The Phoenician sphinx could be said to be a syncretic creation, one that would have been appealing for its formidable rendition of a mythical creature and for the value of its material and craft in an international market. Phoenician art would also have been appealing to Greek artists and patrons and another source of ideas for Greek art.

Other luxury objects from Phoenicia are metal bowls or plates that feature a wealth of figural decoration and ornamental motifs. A large number of these come from Cyprus but have many similarities to Phoenician work, so they are usually labeled Cypro-Phoenician ware since their origin is uncertain (Figure 6.8). This bowl, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, has raised or repousse figures hammered out in the silver from behind and then gilded; details of the contour, anatomy, and costume were incised on the surface. The outer rim of the dish shows heraldic units of animals flanking a sacred tree, including griffins and sphinxes. A number of Egyptianizing warriors are

shown, and in the upper right is a pharaoh about to club some captives while Horus, the falcon-headed figure, watches. The middle frieze has mythical and real animals, including lions killing men. In the center medallion is a winged genius fighting a lion. His wings, costume, and headdress are more Assyrian in form, but an Egyptian Horus falcon flies overhead in a truly syncretic combination. The luxury status, intrinsic value, and portability of objects like these meant that they would circulate, carrying visual ideas from the eastern Mediterranean and making them models worth emulating.

greek pottery painting and the mediterranean

How the statue of Mut ended up at Samos is uncertain, but there are several possibilities that speak to the movement of art and its motivations during this period. Samos had close connections to Egypt during the seventh century and there was an unusually large number of Egyptian works dedicated there. It is possible that some of these were donated by Egyptians at Samos, who were taking advantage of the trade between the two regions, just as the Greeks were doing at Naukratis. It is also possible that the work was obtained by a Greek traveling in Egypt and then dedicated on returning to Samos, perhaps to acknowl­edge the protection of the gods. It is also possible that the work belonged to a family for a time and was then rededicated in the sanctuary. In all three cases, not only would the material, subject, and work quality of the object reflect upon the prestige of the donor, but as a public gift it would be viewable to other visitors to the sanctuary. In other words, Egyptian art could be seen by Greeks locally, and its status as a distinctive artwork could have stimulated adaptations of subject, style, and materials.

Indeed, we should consider that the developments of Greek art in this period reflect the wider movement of art and peoples. Whereas Phoenician and Greek merchants sailed around the Mediterranean, particularly in search of metal, during the last third of the eighth century все, Greek cities began establishing colonies that eventually spread from the Black Sea to Spain and south to Egypt and Libya. Euboean trading outposts could be found at al-Mina in Syria during the Geometric period, and at Pithekoussai on Ischia, an island near Naples. Around 735-734 все, Euboeans founded a city at Naxos near the Messina Strait between Italy and Sicily, and Corinthians founded Syracuse/ Siracusa in Sicily, and a bit later Korfu on modern Korkyra. Taras (modern Taranto) in southern Italy was founded by the Spartans in 706, and many other colonies followed in the seventh century. Sometimes the story of the colony’s founding includes a crime by a leading member of the mother city, expulsion, and consultation with the oracle at Delphi on the act of founding a new city. In practice, these colonies were mostly independent of the mother city and their artwork is frequently a combination of imports from Greece and local products.

6.7 Phoenician ivory plaque from Nimrud, 9th-8th cent. bce. 2³/4 in (6.9 cm). London, British Museum WA134322 (1963,1214.8). Photo: © The Trustees of the British Museum.

6.8 Cypro-Phoenician silver gilt bowl with various scenes, c. 725-675 bce. 6⁵/s in (16.8 cm) diameter. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cesnola Collection 74.51.4554. Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY.

6.9 Left: Protocorinthian aryballos attributed to the Evelyn Painter, c. 720-700 все. 2^u/i6 in (6.8 cm). London, British Museum 1969,1215.1. Rider and warrior. Right: Protocorinthian alabastron from Kamiros, 660-650 все. Griffins. 214 in (5.8 cm). London, British Museum 1860,0201.30. Photo: © The Trustees of the British Museum.

We can see the currents of trade between these old and new sites by looking at Corinthian pottery during this period. Corinth became a major center of pottery manufacture in the late eighth century, producing a large number of small perfume vessels. These would be filled with scented oil and were then shipped throughout the Mediterranean world. The round aryballos on the left in Figure 6.9 dates to about 720-700 все, the beginning ofwhat is called the Protocorinthian pottery, or “first-Corinthian,” another term for Orientalizing art from that city. While the horse is painted in a silhouette technique like Geometric figures, the rest is done in an outline technique drawn in lines of slip. This allows more anatomical details, such as nose, mouth, beard, and eyes. To the right is a stacked series of heart shapes that is an abstraction of the eastern sacred tree such as we saw in the Cypro-Phoenician bowl in Figure 6.8. Some of the decoration recalls Geometric work, but the eight-pointed form in the upper register looks to the rosette motif that becomes popular in seventh-century painting.

The small vessel to the right is a more vertical shape called an alabastron, a bottom-heavy shape derived from alabaster stone vases. This vase is dated about fifty years later, c. 660-650 все, and was found at the Kamiros cemetery on the island of Rhodes. This vase uses a new technique called black-figure painting, in which the silhouette of the form, like the griffin, is painted and then internal details of anatomy, such as the wing feathers, ears, eyes, mouth, and muscles, are incised by a sharp point. This vase also uses a second color of red slip, giving it a richer and more dynamic effect. To the right of the griffin are intertwining vines with a crowning palmette, like those on the Phoenician ivory (see Figure 6.7), to make a sacred tree. On the other side of the tree is a second griffin facing in to create a symmetrical, heraldic composition. The typically buff-colored surface of the Corinthian vase is filled with ornamental patterns, including rosettes and a complicated outline chain of alternating spiked lotus blossoms and rounded palmettes.

A contemporary Protocorinthian pointed aryballos comes from a tomb in Taras/Taranto in south Italy. It features a sculpted spout made of three women’s heads in the Daedalic style (Figure 6.10). The center frieze, less than 2 cm high, shows a horse race on the front, with the last-place rider seen on the right side of the picture. Below the handle on the left one can see a judge, who stands behind the prize tripods at the finish line. A sphinx fills in the space between the race and the judges. Below

the race is an animal frieze made up of deer, a leopard, and a winged lion (not visible in the picture). The bottom frieze has four dogs running after a hare. Details of the sphinx’s wings and horse’s manes are in red over the brown slip, and another lotus/palmette chain is on the shoulder. Both the animal frieze and the running dogs are typical of Protocorinthian decoration and last into the next century.

Hundreds of Protocorinthian aryballoi have been found throughout the Mediterranean, primarily in graves or as sanctuary offerings. They were made in batches in Corinth and then exported to sites both east and west, such as Rhodes and Taras/Taranto. Like Nikandre’s kore, they show a combination of new techniques (outline and black-figure drawing), new sub­jects derived ultimately from Near Eastern or Egyptian art, and imitate shapes that are found in metalwork. The black-figure technique, especially with secondary color­ing, makes a more complicated and subtle drawing sys­tem than the silhouette or outline techniques, and in appearance it is similar to engraving on metal objects like gilded-silver vessels, such as the Cypro-Phoenician bowl that we saw earlier (see Figure 6.8, page 138). Metalware such as this might have served as an inspira­tion for Corinthian painters, but the technique and decoration had to be adapted and transformed for a different shape and medium such as painted pottery. In the process, Protocorinthian pottery becomes quite dis­tinctive in its appearance and it has been suggested that this was in some sense a “brand,” a distinctive category of work that was recognized and consumed throughout the Mediterranean (Rasmussen 1991, 65-66).

One of the most richly decorated Protocorinthian vases is a wine pitcher or olpe dating to about 650-640 все. It was found in a very large tomb in Etruscan Italy and is now in the Villa Giulia in Rome (Figure 6.11). The painter, called the Chigi Painter after a previous owner of this vase, or the MacMillan Painter after another work in the British Museum, used a combination of black-figure incision and three colors - black, red-purple, and yellow-brown - not only to create a rich coloristic effect, but also to show multiple layers of figures. Nine warriors overlap one another as they advance as one of three waves of warriors, called hoplites, fighting in closed ranks. This is a more lifelike type of warfare than the heroic single combats that we have seen and will see as typical artistic representa­tions of battles. The middle frieze shows riders and a chariot going toward a lion hunt on the other side of the vase, while under the handle is a lone mythological scene, the judgment of Paris. Finally, a hare hunt is shown in the bottom frieze, with the already successful hunter crouching with his dogs behind a bush. An incised lotus and palmette chain on the spout is typical of seventh-century work, and the flared disks at the handle are probably imitations of metal shape in clay. The hare hunt and battle are scenes drawn from the experiences of Greek men, while the lion hunt recalls elements of mythic as well as Egyptian and Assyrian hunting scenes. As a wine pitcher for the symposion, the subject matter would reflect an idealized male life. Like most Protocorinthian pottery, this vessel was exported and its discovery in an Etruscan tomb, along with other Greek as well as Etruscan pottery, is an example of the cross-currents of visual culture during this period.

Other areas of Greece and Magna Graecia, the Greek settlements of the central and western Mediterranean, developed their own distinctive styles of pottery during this period. For example, a stamnos or storage container found in Selinus (modern Selinunte) in Sicily (Figure 6.12) uses an outline polychrome technique with larger-scale figures. The vase was made in the Greek colony of Megara Hyblaea in Sicily, just north of Syracuse/Siracusa and also founded in the later eighth century, and then exported to its daughter colony of Selinus/Selinunte. An animal frieze appears at the top and several mythological scenes below it; on the one side we see pairs of centaurs grabbing hold of elaborately dressed women. Early mythological scenes like this are sometimes hard to identify because of their experimental formulation, but this might be the wedding of the Lapith prince Peirithoos, friend of Theseus. Peirithoos invited the local centaurs to the wedding feast, at which they got drunk and tried to abduct the women present, a scene called the centauromachy that became very popular in later Greek art. The figures are more stilted in appear­ance than contemporary work by the Chigi Painter, but are more monumental in form and represent a local alternative technique for painting. While rosettes fill in the space of the figural friezes, one of the lower ornamental bands uses a double-axe and three-line pattern that recalls Geometric decoration.

At the eastern end of the Mediterranean we find the Wild Goat style, produced on Chios and other eastern Aegean islands during the last half of the seventh century (Figure 6.13). This work is another type of wine jug, an oinochoe, that also features disks on its handles like metalwork. The decoration is mostly in outline and polychrome painting and features animal friezes with goats, deer, birds, sphinxes, and a profusion of filler ornament. An open-and-closed lotus chain at the bottom derives ultimately from Egyptian art. Wild Goat pottery was widely distributed, with findspots in Bulgaria, Aigina, al-Mina in Syria, Cyprus, and in Naukratis in Egypt. Some of the pottery found in Naukratis, such as the special-handled bowl found in the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Naukratis (Figure 6.14), was produced specifically for export there. This particular bowl was dedicated by a Greek named Sostratos, who inscribed his dedication on the inner rim. Interestingly, this ware features Geometric decoration like the meander that had gone out of style in other seventh-century pottery.

Given its prominence as a center for Geometric pottery, it is surprising that pottery produced in Athens during the seventh century, Protoattic pottery, is less common and was mostly con­sumed in the home region of Attica and on the neighboring island of Aigina. One of the best examples is a pointed amphora from Eleusis near Athens (Figure 6.15). It is a very large vase and may have been intended as a grave marker like the Geometric kraters and amphora from the Dipylon cemetery (see Figures 4.7 and 4.9, pages 78, 80). Ultimately, however, it ended up as a coffin for a young boy. The openwork handles are likely an imitation of metalwork, and the rep­ertory of decorative motifs is similar to other pottery in the period, such as the lion confronting a boar on the shoulder. The figures in the main frieze are about a half meter in height and show two Gorgons chasing Perseus, with Athena standing between them. The painting is a combination