Early cycladic sculpture by Lacisasmuta

Early Cycladic Sculpture

Early Cycladic Sculpture A n Introduction Revised Edition

Pat Getz-Preziosi

The J. Paul Getty M u s e u m M a l i b u , California

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Getz-Preziosi, Pat. Early Cycladic sculpture : an introduction / Pat Getz-Preziosi.—Rev. ed. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-89236-220-0 I . Sculpture, Cycladic. I . J. P. Getty M u s e u m . I I . Title. NB130.C78G4 1994 730 '.0939 '15-dc20 94-16753 CIP

Cover: Early Spedos variety style harp player. M a l i b u , The J. Paul Getty M u s e u m 85.AA.103. See also plate ivb, figures 24, 25, 79. Frontispiece: Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos/Dokathismata variety. A somewhat atypical work of the Schuster Master. EC II. C o m b i n i n g elegantly controlled curving elements w i t h a sharp angularity and tautness of line, the concept is one of boldness tem pered by delicacy and precision. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 90.AA.114. Pres. L . 40.6 cm.

Contents

vii x xi

Foreword Preface Preface to F i r s t E d i t i o n

Introduction

C o l o r Plates

T h e Stone Vases

The Figurative Sculpture

The Formulaic Tradition

The Individual Sculptor

The Karlsruhe/Woodner Master

The Goulandris Master

The Ashmolean Master

T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the F i g u r e s

B e y o n d the Cyclades

M a j o r Collections of Early Cycladic Sculpture

Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y

Photo C r e d i t s

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword

R i c h m o n d , Virginia, Fort W o r t h , Texas, a n d San F r a n c i s c o , i n 1 9 8 7 1988, a n d " C y c l a d i c C u l t u r e : Naxos i n the T h i r d M i l l e n n i u m , " s h o w n at the G o u l a n d r i s M u s e u m i n A t h e n s i n 1990, a n d b r o u g h t t h e t a n g i b l e r e mains of this Bronze Age civilization to t h e a t t e n t i o n o f a b r o a d e r p u b l i c a u d i e n c e . Several m a j o r n e w p u b l i c a t i o n s also a p p e a r e d , i n c l u d i n g Pat Getz-Preziosi's m a j o r study, Sculptors of the Cyclades, a n d C o l i n Renfrew's evocative The Cycladic Spirit. B u t per haps m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , o u r k n o w l edge o f the c u l t u r e o f the Cyclades i n the B r o n z e A g e has been increased by c o n t i n u i n g excavations and surveys o f Cycladic sites, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the is lands o f M e l o s , A m o r g o s , Kea, Keros, and S a n t o r i n i , as w e l l as r e l a t e d sites o n m a i n l a n d Greece a n d the i s l a n d o f Crete. These r e m a r k a b l e w o r k s o f art, once v a l u e d m o r e for the i n s p i r a t i o n t h e y p r o v i d e d to m o d e r n s c u l p t o r s l i k e B r a n c u s i or H e n r y M o o r e t h a n as the sophisticated achievements of t h e i r o w n c u l t u r e , can be better appre ciated as w e u n d e r s t a n d m o r e about the society t h a t p r o d u c e d t h e m .

T h e r e m a r k a b l e stone sculptures p r o duced i n the Cyclades d u r i n g the t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . have b o t h the advan tage a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e o f i m m e n s e p o p u l a r appeal. Even the m o s t casual observers can i m m e d i a t e l y appreciate the carefully s c u l p t e d f o r m s o f h u m a n figures r e d u c e d to t h e i r essential out lines a n d the vessels o f sure a n d s i m ple contours w i t h m i n i m a l d e c o r a t i o n . O u r a t t r a c t i o n to these objects s h o u l d not be confused w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g , however, for i t belies the fact t h a t w e k n o w almost n o t h i n g of the rituals and beliefs of the society that p r o duced t h e m . T h e decade since the f i r s t e d i t i o n of this b o o k a p p e a r e d has w i t n e s s e d a b u r g e o n i n g interest i n the study of Cycladic art and c i v i l i z a t i o n . I n the same year, 1985, the N i c h o l a s P. Goulandris Foundation and M u s e u m of Cycladic A r t , the first i n s t i t u t i o n d e d i c a t e d to "the d i s s e m i n a t i o n a n d p r o m o t i o n o f Cycladic art to a w i d e r scholarly c o m m u n i t y a n d the general public," opened in Athens. Signifi cant e x h i b i t i o n s f o l l o w e d , i n c l u d i n g "Early Cycladic Sculpture i n N o r t h American Collections," shown in

Pat Getz-Preziosi's

vii

c o n t r i b u t i o n to

t h e s t u d y o f C y c l a d i c stone s c u l p t u r e , b o t h i d o l s a n d vessels, a n d o f t h e art ists w h o p r o d u c e d t h e m , is s u r e l y u n i q u e . A l t h o u g h t h e basic c h r o n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i d o l types h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d , she was t h e first scholar to r e c o g n i z e t h e stylistic r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g d i f f e r e n t pieces a n d to a t t r i b u t e t h e m o n t h i s basis t o i n d i v i d u a l h a n d s o r " m a s ters." L i k e those of the creators o f most surviving ancient artifacts, the n a m e s o f t h e s e c r a f t s m e n are u n r e c o r d e d , a n d t h e s c u l p t o r s are n o w i d e n t i f i e d f o r c o n v e n i e n c e by t h e names of the collections w h i c h i n c l u d e or have i n c l u d e d i n the past one or m o r e examples o f the artist's w o r k . I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t w e s h a l l ever k n o w m o r e a b o u t these s c u l p t o r s , b u t D r . Getz-Preziosi's e x a m i n a t i o n o f groups of w o r k s by d i f f e r e n t h a n d s a n d h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e changes a n d var i a t i o n s i n key s t y l i s t i c features a m o n g m e m b e r s o f each g r o u p p r o v i d e us w i t h considerable insight into the d i s t i n c t a r t i s t i c p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h a t cre ated t h e m . D r . G e t z - P r e z i o s i was also t h e first to offer a c o n v i n c i n g analysis o f t h e

s t a n d a r d i z e d f o r m u l a e t h a t s e e m to have been a p p l i e d i n the c r e a t i o n o f t h e stone f i g u r e s . W h i l e the i d o l s ap pear deceptively s i m p l e at first glance, t h e f o r m u l a e she believes w e r e used for t h e p l a n n i n g a n d e x e c u t i o n o f the i m a g e s reveal t h e i r e x t r a o r d i n a r y refinement of design. These formulae m a y also h e l p to e x p l a i n t h e r a t h e r unsettling impression of similarity a m o n g figures o f each t y p e , i n spite o f t h e i r v a r i a t i o n s i n i n d i v i d u a l details. Readers f a m i l i a r w i t h the origi nal e d i t i o n o f t h i s b o o k w i l l r e a l i z e that a n u m b e r o f objects have changed h a n d s since its appearance. I n 1988, t h e G e t t y M u s e u m a c q u i r e d t h e Cy cladic c o l l e c t i o n o f Paul a n d M a r i a n n e Steiner, i n c l u d i n g t h e n a m e - p i e c e o f the Steiner Master. T h e W o o d n e r F a m i l y C o l l e c t i o n was s o l d i n 1991 a n d is n o w i n a N e w Y o r k p r i v a t e collection. K e n n e t h H a m m a , Associate C u r a tor o f A n t i q u i t i e s , has o v e r s e e n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s r e v i s e d e d i t i o n , at t e n d i n g to m y r i a d details w i t h charac teristic care a n d patience. T h e text was e d i t e d by C y n t h i a N e w m a n B o h n , a n d E l l e n Rosenbery p r o v i d e d n e w p h o t o -

viii

g r a p h s o f the S t e i n e r pieces. T h i s v o l u m e is i n t e n d e d as a g e n 足 e r a l i n t r o d u c t i o n to a c o m p l e x a n d i n t r i g u i n g subject t h a t is c o n s t a n t l y e n h a n c e d by n e w discoveries. W e may only hope that the excavations and research a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e n e x t decade w i l l f u r t h e r elucidate the o r i g i n a l c u l 足 t u r a l significance o f these artifacts, w h i c h have lost n o n e o f t h e i r i m m e 足 diacy a n d a p p e a l m o r e t h a n f o u r m i l 足 l e n n i a after t h e i r c r e a t i o n . M a r i o n True Curator of Antiquities

Preface

Since the i n i t i a l p u b l i c a t i o n o f Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction, the J. Paul G e t t y M u s e u m , u n d e r the f i n e eye o f i t s p r e s e n t C u r a t o r o f A n t i q u i t i e s , M a r i o n T r u e , has c o n t i n ued to b u i l d a n d b r o a d e n its c o l l e c t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r i c stone s c u l p t u r e w i t h the acquisition of a n u m b e r of impressive w o r k s . Coincidentally, the o r i g i n a l e d i t i o n w e n t o u t o f p r i n t j u s t as t h e M u s e u m was i n the process o f acquir i n g a piece f r o m t h e h a n d o f one o f the p r e e m i n e n t sculptors o f the E a r l y B r o n z e A g e C y c l a d e s (see f r o n t i s . ) . T h a t a d d i t i o n a n d the M u s e u m ' s re cent a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e S t e i n e r C o l l e c t i o n o f Cycladic figures a n d vases, h a l f o f w h i c h w e r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n the e a r l i e r e d i t i o n , as w e l l as f o u r a d d i t i o n a l Cycladic m a r b l e vessels a n d a rare complete figurative image f r o m A n a t o l i a have m a d e a r e v i s e d e d i t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e at this t i m e . I n the n e w e d i t i o n several o f these recent a c q u i sitions by the M u s e u m and t w o i m p o r tant w o r k s f r o m other collections have r e p l a c e d several objects i l l u s t r a t e d i n the o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n (see p i . la-c a n d figs. 16, 17, 20, 28, a n d 8 5 - 8 4 ) .

A l t h o u g h there have been a n u m b e r o f a d d i t i o n s to t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e years since t h i s b o o k f i r s t a p p e a r e d , our understanding of the fundamen tals o f Early Cycladic sculpture remains basically u n a l t e r e d . As a r e f l e c t i o n o f this s i t u a t i o n , the t e x t o f the p r e s e n t e d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h i m p r o v e d i n places, has n o t b e e n s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o d i f i e d . Pat Getz-Preziosi A p r i l 1994

Preface to First E d i t i o n

B l o o m i n g t o n ) , J o h n Coffey ( B o w d o i n College A r t M u s e u m , B r u n s w i c k ) , J. Gy. Szilagyi ( M u s e e des B e a u x - A r t s , Budapest), Jane Biers ( M u s e u m o f A r t and Archaeology, University of M i s souri, C o l u m b i a ) , Giselle Eberhard (Musee B a r b i e r - M u l l e r , Geneva), D o m i n i q u e de M e n i l ( M e n i l F o u n d a t i o n , H o u s t o n ) , U r i A v i d a (Israel M u seum, Jerusalem), M i c h a e l Maass and J i i r g e n T h i m m e (Badisches L a n d e s m u s e u m , K a r l s r u h e ) , J. Lesley F i t t o n (British Museum, London), Tina O l d k n o w (Los Angeles County M u seum of A r t ) , Jifi Frel and M a r i o n True (J. Paul Getty M u s e u m , M a l i b u ) , The Guennol Collection (New York), Joan M e r t e n s ( M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m o f A r t , N e w Y o r k ) , A l e x a n d r a Staf f o r d ( N e w Y o r k ) , Paul a n d M a r i a n n e Steiner (New York), Ian Woodner (New York), Michael Vickers and Ann Brown (Ashmolean Museum, O x f o r d ) , Sara C a m p b e l l ( N o r t o n S i m o n M u s e u m , Pasadena), Frances F o l l i n Jones ( T h e A r t M u s e u m , Princeton U n i v e r s i t y ) , Renee B e l l e r Dreyfus (The Fine Arts M u s e u m s of San Francisco), Paula T h u r m a n (Seat tle A r t M u s e u m ) , S a b u r o h Hasegawa

T h i s b o o k was w r i t t e n at the sugges tion of J i n Frel following a seminar l e c t u r e g i v e n by the w r i t e r at t h e J. Paul G e t t y M u s e u m i n the s p r i n g o f 1983. A revised version o f that lecture, it also i n c o r p o r a t e s m a n y e l e m e n t s o f a l a r g e r study called Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in the ThirdMillennium B.C., w h i c h w i l l soon be p u b l i s h e d j o i n t l y by the U n i versity o f M i c h i g a n Press a n d the J. Paul G e t t y T r u s t . I l l u s t r a t e d w h e r ever p o s s i b l e w i t h objects f r o m t h e G e t t y ' s c o l l e c t i o n or w i t h objects i n other A m e r i c a n museums and private c o l l e c t i o n s , Early Cycladic Sculpture is i n t e n d e d to s u r v e y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e and to offer a p a r t i c u l a r a p p r o a c h to the a n o n y m o u s artists w h o w o r k e d i n the A e g e a n islands s o m e f o r t y - f i v e h u n d r e d years ago. r

For graciously a l l o w i n g m e to r e p r o duce objects f r o m t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n s and for p r o v i d i n g photographs and i n f o r m a t i o n , I a m m o s t grateful to the f o l l o w i n g m u s e u m s , m u s e u m author ities, and private owners: Dolly Gou landris (Athens), Adriana Calinescu (Indiana University Art Museum,

(The National M u s e u m of Western Art, Tokyo), M r . and M r s . Isidor K a h a n e ( Z u r i c h ) , a n d several p r i v a t e collectors w h o p r e f e r to r e m a i n a n o n 足 y m o u s . S p e c i a l t h a n k s are due to W o l f g a n g K n o b l o c h o f t h e Badisches L a n d e s m u s e u m a n d to A n d r e a W o o d ner for u n d e r t a k i n g the troublesome task o f o b t a i n i n g the w e i g h t s o f the two name-pieces of the K a r l s r u h e / W o o d n e r M a s t e r . For t h e i r h e l p w i t h v a r i o u s aspects o f t h e p r o j e c t , I a m especially i n d e b t e d to the depart足 ments of antiquities and publications at t h e J. P a u l G e t t y M u s e u m . I w o u l d also l i k e t o t h a n k t h e G e t t y M u s e u m s e m i n a r participants for t h e i r valuable c o m m e n t s a n d t h e students o f J e r e m y R u t t e r at D a r t m o u t h a n d K a r e n Foster at W e s l e y a n f o r t a k i n g p a r t i n d r a w 足 i n g e x p e r i m e n t s p e r t i n e n t to the pres足 ent study. A n d last b u t n o t least, I gratefully acknowledge a substantial d e b t to those colleagues w h o s e views I have i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e fabric o f m y text. P. G.-P.

xii

Introduction

Since t h e n , r e c o v e r y o f t h e a r t a n d archaeology o f t h e p r e - G r e e k c u l t u r e that flowered i n the Cycladic archi p e l a g o has b e e n c o n t i n u o u s , b o t h t h r o u g h systematic e x p l o r a t i o n and t h r o u g h c l a n d e s t i n e d i g g i n g . As a re sult, several t h o u s a n d m a r b l e objects are n o w k n o w n , p r o v i d i n g a r i c h a n d v a r i e d corpus to s t u d y a n d enjoy. Cycladic figures or idols, as the mos t d i s t i n c t i v e objects o f this early c u l t u r e are freely c a l l e d , * have h e l d a strange appeal f o r n e a r l y five m i l l e n n i a . D u r i n g the p e r i o d o f t h e i r m a n u f a c t u r e , roughly 3000-2200 B . C . , they were b u r i e d w i t h the Cycladic dead, but t h e y w e r e also e x p o r t e d b e y o n d t h e Cyclades a n d even i m i t a t e d nearby o n Crete a n d i n A t t i c a w h e r e they have also b e e n f o u n d i n graves. F r a g m e n tary figures, chance finds t r e a s u r e d as m a g i c a l l y c h a r g e d relics, w e r e occa sionally reused i n later m i l l e n n i a . I n m o d e r n t i m e s C y c l a d i c figures w e r e at f i r s t c o n s i d e r e d p r i m i t i v e , i n t h e p e j o r a t i v e sense o f t h e w o r d , u g l y , a n d , at best, c u r i o s i t i e s f r o m t h e d i m recesses o f G r e e k p r e h i s t o r y . R e d i s covered i n the t w e n t i e t h century, largely t h r o u g h the appreciation of

O v e r a c e n t u r y ago E u r o p e a n t r a v e l ers b e g a n to e x p l o r e t h e m o r e t h a n t h i r t y s m a l l i s l a n d s t h a t l i e at t h e center o f t h e A e g e a n Sea ( f i g . 1). W e k n o w these i s l a n d s by t h e h i s t o r i c a l Greek name of some of them—the Cyclades—so called because they w e r e t h o u g h t to e n c i r c l e t i n y D e l o s , sacred b i r t h p l a c e o f t h e gods A r t e m i s a n d A p o l l o . A m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e n a m e for these rocky s u m m i t s o f s u b m e r g e d m o u n t a i n s m i g h t have been " T h e M a r b l e Isles" or M a r m a r i n a i ; for m a n y , i f n o t m o s t , o f t h e m are excel l e n t sources o f t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t was to s p a r k t h e c r e a t i v e i m p u l s e s a n d c h a l l e n g e t h e energies o f sculptors i n both prehistoric and historic times. N i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y travelers to the Cyclades b r o u g h t h o m e a n u m b e r o f " c u r i o u s " m a r b l e f i g u r i n e s , o r sigillaria, as t h e y c a l l e d t h e m , w h i c h h a d been f o r t u i t o u s l y u n e a r t h e d by f a r m ers' p l o w s . B y t h e 1880s i n t e r e s t i n these s c u l p t u r e s , w h i c h w e n o w rec ognize as the p r o d u c t s o f E a r l y Bronze A g e c r a f t s m a n s h i p , was s u f f i c i e n t l y aroused that i n f o r m a t i o n about the c u l t u r e w h i c h p r o d u c e d t h e m was ac tively sought t h r o u g h excavation.

*The term idol is accurate i f by it no more is meant than "image," as in the ancient Greek eidolon. 1

Figure 1. The Cyclades and neigh足 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.

tions o f u n d i s t u r b e d sites. T h e p i c t u r e we have o f C y c l a d i c art has been fur t h e r c l o u d e d by the i n s i n u a t i o n o f for geries, p r i m a r i l y d u r i n g the 1960s. T h e fragmentary state o f the archae o l o g i c a l r e c o r d o n l y c o m p o u n d s the very d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g the o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g a n d f u n c t i o n of these figures as w e l l as o t h e r finds f r o m t h e E a r l y C y c l a d i c p e r i o d . I t is clear t h a t t h e sculptures had at least a s e p u l c h r a l p u r p o s e , b u t b e y o n d that, the l i t t l e w e k n o w a n d the views w e now h o l d are open to the k i n d o f a m p l i f i c a t i o n o r a l t e r a t i o n that o n l y f u r t h e r c o n t r o l l e d excavation m i g h t p r o v i d e .

such artists as Picasso a n d B r a n c u s i , they have c o m e to be h i g h l y esteemed for t h e i r c o m p e l l i n g c o m b i n a t i o n o f g l e a m i n g w h i t e m a r b l e a n d painstak i n g w o r k m a n s h i p , f o r t h e c a l m force of t h e i r essential f o r m s , a n d for t h e mystery that surrounds t h e m . A l t h o u g h the greatest concentration of C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e is h o u s e d i n the National Archaeological M u s e u m in A t h e n s , examples are scattered i n m u seums a n d p r i v a t e c o l l e c t i o n s a r o u n d the w o r l d . T h e r e are at least t w o h u n d r e d pieces i n A m e r i c a n c o l l e c t i o n s alone (see the list o f m a j o r collections on p. 8 5 ) . T h e p o p u l a r i t y o f the f i g ures has increased d r a m a t i c a l l y d u r i n g the last t w o decades, p a r t l y because o f their perceived affinity w i t h contem p o r a r y art styles. T h e consequences for t h e serious study o f C y c l a d i c art a n d c u l t u r e are d i s t u r b i n g , f o r to sat isfy d e m a n d f o r the f i g u r e s , u n a u t h o r i z e d d i g g i n g has f l o u r i s h e d t o t h e extent that for m a n y , i f not m o s t , o f the sculptures, the precise find-places have been lost a l o n g w i t h the c i r c u m stances o f t h e i r discovery. O n l y a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l n u m b e r o f f i g u r e s has b e e n recovered i n systematic excava

W h i l e i t is t r u e t h a t t h e excavation o f E a r l y C y c l a d i c sites has been re stricted almost exclusively to cemeter ies, the few settlements that have been e x p l o r e d have y i e l d e d l i t t l e i n the way of m a r b l e objects. Perhaps t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t gap i n the r e c o r d at pres ent is the lack o f b u i l d i n g s or sites that can d e f i n i t e l y be c o n s i d e r e d sanctuar ies, a l t h o u g h t h e r e is one t a n t a l i z i n g p o s s i b i l i t y w h i c h w i l l be d i s c u s s e d later. To date, n o f i g u r e m e a s u r i n g 60 c m or m o r e has ever been u n c o v e r e d by

an archaeologist. W e do not k n o w t h e r e f o r e h o w t h e very large images w e r e n o r m a l l y used, t h o u g h the avail able i n f o r m a t i o n suggests that, at least on occasion, they, too, were b u r i e d w i t h the dead. A l t h o u g h t h e skeletal r e m a i n s have n o t been analyzed, i t appears f r o m the objects f o u n d w i t h t h e m t h a t m a r b l e images were b u r i e d w i t h b o t h m e n and w o m e n but evidently not w i t h c h i l d r e n . M o r e o v e r , w h i l e some c e m eteries are n o t i c e a b l y r i c h e r i n m a r ble goods t h a n o t h e r s , even i n these n o t e v e r y b u r i a l w a s so e n d o w e d . M a r b l e objects, figures as w e l l as ves sels, a c c o m p a n i e d o n l y a p r i v i l e g e d few to t h e i r graves. I t is t h o u g h t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e islanders m a d e do w i t h less costly w o o d e n f i g u r e s ( a l l traces o f w h i c h w o u l d have v a n i s h e d by n o w ) , j u s t as t h e y h a d to be c o n t e n t w i t h vessels f a s h i o n e d f r o m clay.

m a t i o n o f this sort c o u l d p r o v i d e clues to p a r t o f t h e m y s t e r y s u r r o u n d i n g the i d e n t i t y a n d f u n c t i o n o f these images a n d to t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e l i v i n g t o ward them. Perhaps t h e m o s t i n t r i g u i n g ques t i o n o f a l l concerns m e a n i n g : w h y d i d p e o p l e a c q u i r e these i d o l s ? Because t h e m a j o r i t y are f e m a l e , w i t h a f e w e i t h e r p r e g n a n t o r s h o w i n g signs o f postpartum w r i n k l e s , the evidence p o i n t s i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f f e r t i l i t y , at least f o r t h e f e m a l e f i g u r e s . G l a n c i n g for a m o m e n t at t h e d o u b l e - f i g u r e i m a g e o f plate i n , i t m i g h t be v i e w e d as essentially s i m i l a r to the t r a d i t i o n a l single f e m a l e f i g u r e w h i l e b e i n g even m o r e powerfully or blatantly symbolic of fertility. By depicting the standard f i g u r e t y p e as b o t h p r e g n a n t a n d w i t h a c h i l d , the sculptor was able to i n t e n sify t h e i d e a o f f e c u n d i t y a n d t h e re n e w a l o f l i f e . T h i s s h o u l d p r o v i d e an i m p o r t a n t clue to w h a t m a y have been the essential m e a n i n g o f these p r e h i s toric marble figures.

A t p r e s e n t , t h e r e is n o t s u f f i c i e n t a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence to state w i t h assurance w h e t h e r these figures w e r e n o r m a l l y accorded respect at the t i m e of t h e i r i n t e r m e n t w i t h t h e dead, w h o were placed i n cramped, unprepos sessing, b o x l i k e graves. C l e a r i n f o r

For t h e t i m e b e i n g , one m a y t h i n k o f t h e s e s c u l p t u r e s as t h e p e r s o n a l possessions o f t h e d e a d r a t h e r t h a n as gifts m a d e to t h e m at t h e t i m e o f

by w h o m . W h a t follows, t h e n , is a sur vey o f t h e t y p o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f Early Cycladic sculpture, i n a d d i t i o n , i t is t h e i n t e n t i o n here to s h o w t h a t it is possible to isolate the w o r k s o f i n d i v i d u a l sculptors and to speculate about these i n d i v i d u a l s ' g r o w t h as a r t i s t s w o r k i n g w i t h i n the strict c o n v e n t i o n s of a s o p h i s t i c a t e d craft t r a d i t i o n .

their funerals. T h e y should perhaps be v i e w e d as i c o n s o f a p r o t e c t i v e b e i n g a c q u i r e d by a p e r s o n , k e p t dur i n g his o r h e r l i f e t i m e a n d p e r h a p s d i s p l a y e d i n the h o m e , but w h o s e u l t i m a t e a n d p r i m a r y p u r p o s e was to serve i n the grave as p o t e n t s y m b o l s o f e t e r n a l r e n e w a l a n d h o p e a n d as c o m f o r t i n g r e m i n d e r s t h a t life w o u l d persist i n t h e b e y o n d . R e a f f i r m a t i o n of the v i t a l i t y o f life a n d the senses, m o r e o v e r , m a y have b e e n t h e s y m b o l i c p u r p o s e o f the occasional m a l e figure—music maker, w i n e offerer, h u n t e r / w a r r i o r . I n the absence of w r i t t e n records, one w i l l never be able to achieve a c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f such i n t a n g i b l e m a t t e r s as b u r i a l r i t ual or the f u l l m e a n i n g o f t h e i m a g e s . Such are t h e l i m i t s o f archaeology. A great deal can be l e a r n e d , never theless, a b o u t E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p ture f r o m a p r i m a r i l y visual approach w h i c h focuses less o n t h e i n t r i g u i n g but, i n the present state o f k n o w l e d g e , difficult questions c o n c e r n i n g w h y f i g ures w e r e carved, for w h o m they w e r e i n t e n d e d , or even precisely w h e n they w e r e m a d e , a n d m o r e o n t h e ques t i o n s o f h o w they w e r e d e s i g n e d a n d

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

a. The collared jar or kandila (lamp) was the most common marble object produced in the EC I phase. Several hundred of these vessels are known. Eidless, they were carried suspendedfrom cords and were probably designed to hold liquids, although one wasfound containing shells. In size kandiles rangefrom 8.4 cm to 37 cm. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 90.AA.9. H. 25.2 cm.

b. The beaker is another of a limited range of marble forms of the EC I phase. Eidless like the collared jar, it was also designed for suspension and was probably intended as a containerfor liquids, but it occurs much less fre足 quently. In rare cases a female torso is represented on one side of the vessel (with the suspension lugs doubling as upper arms), reinforcing the notion that the vessel was symbolically interchangeable with the plastically sculptedfemale

image. In size beakers rangefrom 7.5 cm to 35 cm. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 90.AA.10. H. 16 cm.

c. Among

the rare varia

d. EC IJ cylindrical pyxides normally carried incised decoration. While curvilin ear designs (spirals, circles) are confined almost, exclu sively to vessels carved in softer and lessfriable soapstone, marble containers were regularly ornamented, with rectilinear encircling grooves reminiscent of the postpartum wrinkles seen on a number of figures (e.g.,fig. 6)—perhaps another indication of the female symbolism of the vessel. This beautifully carved example, which

tions on the k a n d i l a (pi.

la) are several consisting of two joined examples and one or two lacking the top or bottom element. This unique vessel hadfour short feet (now damaged) instead of the usual conical or cylindrical pedestal and is probably a late example of the type, perhaps transi tional between EC I and ECU. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum, 88. A A. 84 (ex Steiner Collection). Pres. H. 16.7 cm.

shows traces of red. paint on its interior, is at present unique among marble ves sels for the single engraved, spiral which covers its underside. This may be an early example, transitional between EC l and. EC II. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88. A A. 8 3 (ex Steiner Collection). H. 6.5 cm (lid missing); D. (mouth) 8.4 cm.

Plate i i . Two female figures i n the J. Paul Getty Museum.

a. Plastiras type. EC I. Simpler than most exam ples of its type, this modest work is unusual in that it lacks any definition of the forearms. The mending hole in the right thigh was a remedy for damage incurred perhaps when the sculptor was in the process of separating the legs. If this was the case, he may have thought it best not to continue separating them asfar as the crotch. A break across the left thigh probably occurred at a much later time. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 71.AA.128.H. 14.2 cm. See also figure 13d.

tion, as does the bored navel (cf. fig. 13c). Note how the legs were carved separately for only a short distance. The modeling and attempted naturalism, of theforearms and hands reflect a short-lived approach taken by some sculptors of precanonical figures (cf. pi. III). The figure was acquired by the J . Paul Getty Museum in. two parts: the headless idol came to the museum in 1972, having been obtained many years earlier in the Paris flea, market. In 1977, during a visit to a Euro pean antiquities dealer, J . Frel identified the head/ neck as belonging to the same work. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 72.AA.156/77.AA.24. H. 28.2 cm.

b. Precanonical type. EC I/II. Although one can see in this figure a tentative 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 i n . Female two-figure composition.

Precanonical type. EC I///. Probably the earliest and also the largest of the three well-preserved and unques tionably genuine examples of this type known to the writer, the piece is interest ingfor a number of rea 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

to the late transitional stage. Typologically, at least, it appears somewhat later than the figure illus trated in plate lib. New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection. H. 46.6 cm.

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.

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足 ers ofungues tiona ble authenticity known to the writer. 'Thefigure is repre足 sented holding his instru足 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.

Plate v. Heads of four figures.

a. Plastiras type. A work of the Athens Museum Master. EC I. One of four works ascribed to this sculptor. Note that the right eye inlay is preserved. Geneva, Musee BarbierMuellerBMG 209-59. Pres. H. 13.6 cm.

b. Detail of work illustrated infigure 56, showing paint ghostsfor eyes, brows, and forehead hair.

c. Spedos variety. EC II. A typical head on which faint paint ghosts are visible for the eyes and forehead hair. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 11.AA.125. Pres. E. 8.9 cm.

d. Dokathismata variety. EC II. In contrast to the rather conservative form of the Spedos variety head (pi. Vc), that of the Dokathismata variety is usually rather extreme and mannered. Note the broad crown and pointed chin. The head is carved in a 13

rather unusual striated marble. Malibu, The J.Paul Getty Museum 71.AA.126. Pres.L. 8.6 cm.

Plate v i . Painted details.

a. Detail of work illustrated infigure 41, showing painted details on theface and a painted necklace. See alsofigure 42.

b. Detail of work illustrated infigure 41, showing paint足 ing on the hands. Note also the modeling of the breasts and arms.

d. Detail of work illustrated, in figure 78, showing the painted ear and neck grooves.

c. Detail of work illustrated in figure 78, showing paint足 ing on theface and in the neck groove.

This page intentionally left blank

The Stone Vases

Figure 2. Female foldedarm figure (Early Spedos variety) w i t h troughshaped palette. EC II. Reputedly found together as shown, the two objects fit each other well; they are carved in the same marble and are similarly preserved. Although no examples have beenfound in systematic excavations, the combina tion seems a plausible one, given the reclining posture of thefolded-arm figures. The rather carelessly crafted idol is of interest chiefly for the highly unu sual reversal of the arms which, except in the very late examples, are almost without exception held in a right-below-left arrange ment. Note, too, the asym metry of the shoulders and feet and the unequal length of the pointed ends of the palette/cradle. Jerusalem, Israel Museum 74.61.208a, b. L . (figure) 19.5 cm. L . (palette) 20.5 cm.

Early Cycladic sculptors probably spent m o s t o f the t i m e t h e y d e v o t e d to t h e i r craft f a s h i o n i n g stone vases ( p i . i ) . I n a l l phases o f E a r l y Cycladic c u l t u r e , these cups, bowls, goblets, j a r s , b e a k e r s , boxes, p a l e t t e s , t r a y s , and animal-shaped containers were far m o r e n u m e r o u s as a g r o u p t h a n the figures. L i k e the figures, they w e r e e v i d e n t l y a c q u i r e d to be u s e d later i n t h e grave. O n occasion, t h e y have b e e n f o u n d i n graves t h a t also y i e l d e d idols, although some of the s p h e r i c a l a n d c y l i n d r i c a l types can be v i e w e d as s y m b o l s o f the w o m b a n d , as such, m a y as a r u l e have b e e n re g a r d e d as a p p r o p r i a t e substitutes for the p r e d o m i n a n t l y female images. A few vessels, o n the o t h e r h a n d , ap pear to have been m a d e to h o l d figures (fig- 2)Even t h o u g h this b o o k is r e s t r i c t e d to a discussion o f f i g u r a t i v e w o r k s , i n a very r e a l sense the t e r m " C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e " o u g h t to e m b r a c e b o t h the s o - c a l l e d i d o l s a n d these often v e r y b e a u t i f u l , t h o u g h strangely neglected, vessels o f m a r b l e or, i n rare cases, o f softer stones.

T h e Figurative Sculpture

T h e vast m a j o r i t y o f t h e f i g u r e s are made of sparkling white marble; w o r k s i n gray, b a n d e d , or m o t t l e d m a r b l e s o r i n o t h e r m a t e r i a l s such as v o l c a n i c ash, s h e l l , o r l e a d are v e r y r a r e . T h e i m a g e s v a r y i n size f r o m m i n i a t u r e s m e a s u r i n g less t h a n 10 c m (4 i n . ) ( f i g . 5) to n e a r l y l i f e - s i z e ( f i g . 4 ) , a l t h o u g h m o s t do n o t exceed 50 c m ( l f t . ) . I n terms of n a t u r a l i s m , the sculp足 tures range f r o m s i m p l e m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f stones s h a p e d a n d p o l i s h e d by t h e

sea to h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d r e n d e r i n g s o f the h u m a n f o r m w i t h subtle variations of plane and contour. I n m a n y exam足 ples, n o p r i m a r y sexual characteristics are i n d i c a t e d , b u t unless these figures are d e p i c t e d i n a specifically m a l e r o l e ( p i . i v ) , t h e y are u s u a l l y a s s u m e d to r e p r e s e n t females. T h e f e m a l e f o r m , s o m e t i m e s s h o w n as p r e g n a n t (figs. 5, 75) or w i t h p o s t p a r t u m s k i n folds (figs. 6, 7 ) , d o m i n a t e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e p e r i o d . M a l e figures account for o n l y about five p e r c e n t o f t h e k n o w n p r o -

Figure 3. Female foldedarm 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 foldedarm figure. Early Spedos variety. EC II. The third largest com pletely preserved figure now known to the writer (the largest work, in Athens, measures 148 cm), the piece is remarkable for the superb state of its sur 19

face. Breaks at the neck and legs may have been made intentionally in order to fit thefigure into a grave that otherwise would have been too short for it; alter natively, the image may have come from a sanctu ary. Although somewhat ungainly in its proportions,

the work was carved by a highly skilled sculptor. New York, Harmon Collec tion. L . 132 cm. Said to be from Amorgos. See also figure 34.

Figure 5. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos variety. EC I I . 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. d u c t i o n ( p i . i v , figs. 19, 2 3 - 2 8 , 35, 36). A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f Cycladic s c u l p t u r e t h r o u g h o u t its develop m e n t , f r o m its earliest b e g i n n i n g s i n the N e o l i t h i c A g e , is the s i m u l t a n e o u s manufacture of both a s i m p l i f i e d flat tened version of the female f o r m and a m o r e f u l l y e l a b o r a t e d one ( f i g . 11). A l t h o u g h t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f each t y p e varies i n a given p e r i o d , i t appears n o w t h a t at least s o m e e x a m p l e s o f b o t h types appear i n every p e r i o d , except perhaps i n the first phase o f the t r a n s i t i o n a l one w h e n t h e r e seems to have b e e n a b l e n d i n g o f the t w o types. T h a t one Cycladic i s l a n d e r m i g h t ac quire both schematic and represen

t a t i o n a l i d o l s is s u g g e s t e d by t h e i r occasional presence i n a single grave (fig. 7). M a n y sculptors probably carved b o t h types, b u t t h e s c h e m a t i c f i g u r i n e was doubtless the less e x p e n sive to m a k e , since i t was n o r m a l l y s m a l l a n d c o u l d be f a s h i o n e d f r o m a flat beach pebble, thus r e q u i r i n g m u c h less w o r k ; as m a n y as f o u r t e e n of these have b e e n f o u n d t o g e t h e r i n one grave. T h e f o r m s t h a t Cycladic s c u l p t u r e s t o o k s o m e t i m e after t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e E a r l y B r o n z e A g e ( E a r l y Cycladic i) appear to be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h e figures carved i n m u c h s m a l l e r n u m bers d u r i n g the N e o l i t h i c A g e (figs. 8,

Figure 6. Female figure. Louros type. EC i / l l . Rather crude and clumsy, this figure is atypical because it incorporates fea tures reminiscent of the Plastiras type, namely, plastically treated mouth andforearms. Note, how ever, that the outline con

tour of the arms reflects the stumplike projections char acteristic of the Louros type (e.g.,fig. 14). The sculptor, perhaps not a specialist, appears to have been confused since he carved the breasts below the arms. The figure shows engraved lines across the

front to indicate postparturn wrinkles or possibly bindings. A convention more decorative and easier to render than the rounded belly normally associated with pregnancy and childbirth, such markings are found almost exclusively on theflatterfigure types,

Figure 7. Female figures. Violin type {a, c). Plastiras type (b). EC I. This group of modest works is reputed to have beenfound together, as the character of the marble, state of preservation, and workmanship seem to con firm. That they were also 21

although in one or two rare cases they occur in combination with a slightly swollen abdomen, Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University 934. H. 25 cm.

carved by the same sculp tor is strongly suggested by similarities in the outline contours, particularly in the area of the shoulders and upper arms. (A small beaker of the type illus trated in plate ih was also allegedly part of the group.) The recovery of

schematic and representa tional figures in the same grave is attestedfor both the EC I and EC II phases. Columbia, Museum of Art and Archaeology, Univer sity of Missouri 64.67.1-3. H. 76-14.1 cm.

9). For t h e i r m o r e representational figures, Cycladic sculptors used the s t a n d i n g p o s t u r e a n d an a r r a n g e m e n t of the arms i n w h i c h the hands meet over t h e a b d o m e n ( f i g . 10), b o t h i n herited f r o m the earlier t r a d i t i o n . Exaggerated corpulence, the h a l l m a r k o f t h e Stone A g e f i g u r e , was r e d u c e d to a t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l , s t r o n g l y f r o n t a l s c h e m e . T h e s e i m a g e s are also b r o a d across the h i p s , b u t , u n l i k e t h e i r p r e decessors, t h e y have s t r a i g h t , n a r r o w p r o f i l e s , as is i l l u s t r a t e d by a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n the p r o f i l e s o f t w o L a t e N e o l i t h i c figures a n d t h r e e E a r l y Cy cladic ones ( f i g . 13). I t is d o u b t f u l t h a t t h i s f u n d a m e n t a l a l t e r a t i o n i n the s c u l p t o r s ' a p p r o a c h to the f e m a l e f o r m reflects a change i n religious o u t l o o k or i n aesthetic preference. M o s t probably the new t r e n d was i n i t i a t e d by t h e s c u l p t o r s t h e m s e l v e s i n an e f f o r t to s p e e d u p the c a r v i n g process. I t is possible, too, t h a t t h e r e was s o m e i n f l u e n c e f r o m w o o d e n figures, w h i c h m a y have f i l l e d the l o n g gap i n t i m e b e t w e e n the last of the N e o l i t h i c marble figures and the f i r s t o f t h e B r o n z e A g e ones. Cycladic s c u l p t u r e m a y be d i v i d e d , Figure 8. Female figure. Sitting type. Late Neolithic. One of two basic Late Neolithic postural types, the steatopygous sitting figure with folded legs was thefull-blown version of and the original modelfor theflat, schematic violintype figures, (e.g.,fig. 7a,

c) already produced in limited numbers in Late Neolithic times. Note the exaggerated breadth of the upper torso necessitated by the position of thefore arms. New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Col lection. H. 13.3 cm. Said to be part of a grave group from Attica or Euboia. 22

Figure 9. Female figure. Standing type. Late Neolithic. The standing counterpart of the steatopygous sitting figure, this was the proto typefor the earliest repres entatio nalfigu res (Plastiras type) of the EC I phase (eg.,fig. 10). The

head of thefigure would have resembled that of the sitting figure in figure 8. New York, The Metro politan Museum, of Art 1972.118.104, Bequest of Walter C Baker. Pres.H. 21.5 cm.

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.

Figure 11. The typological and chron ological development of Cycladic sculpture. With the exception of the sche matic Neolithic figure, the pieces illustrated here are discussed elsewhere in this work (the numbers provide figure references).

Figure 12. A Neolithic standing figure with hollowed eye sockets that presumably once held inlays. New York, The Met ropolitan Museum of Art LA974.77J (on loan from Chris tos G. Bast is). H. 20.9 cm.

stylistically a n d i c o n o g r a p h i c a l l y , i n t o two distinct groups, apparently w i t h a t r a n s i t i o n a l phase i n b e t w e e n ( f i g . 11). T h e s e d i v i s i o n s c o r r e s p o n d g e n erally to the c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n d c u l t u r a l sequences based o n changes t h a t oc curred i n Cycladic ceramics d u r i n g the t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . T h e earlier g r o u p , w h o s e r e l a t i o n to N e o l i t h i c a n t e c e d e n t s w e have been c o n s i d e r i n g , m i g h t c o n v e n i e n t l y be called "archaic." T h e n u m e r o u s sche m a t i c figures o f this phase, m a n y o f t h e m s h a p e d l i k e v i o l i n s ( f i g . 7#, c), are characterized by a l o n g , headless prong. T h e i r rather rare representa t i o n a l counterparts (Plastiras type), besides r e t a i n i n g t h e N e o l i t h i c a r m p o s i t i o n and stance, also reveal a c u r i ous c o m b i n a t i o n o f exaggerated p r o p o r t i o n s a n d p a i n s t a k i n g c o n c e r n for anatomical d e t a i l , b o t h on the face and o n the body ( f i g . 10). Careful a t t e n t i o n was p a i d to the kneecaps, ankles, a n d a r c h e s , w h i l e t h e navel a n d b u t t o c k d i m p l e s w e r e also o f t e n i n d i c a t e d . A l t h o u g h f o r t h e m o s t p a r t t h e eye sockets are n o w e m p t y , they w e r e i n l a i d w i t h d a r k stones ( p i . v # ) , a prac t i c e f o r w h i c h t h e r e m a y also have

a. Seefigure 8.

Figure 13. A comparison of the profiles of Late Neolithic (a, 6), EC I Plastiras type (c, d), and EC I / I I precanonical (e) figures.

b. Seefigure 9.

c. Seefigure

b e e n N e o l i t h i c p r e c e d e n t s ( f i g . 12). A n e w feature o f these archaic f i g ures is t h e c o m p l e t e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e l e g , f r o m t h e feet u p to t h e c r o t c h . I n t h e N e o l i t h i c f i g u r e s , o n l y t h e feet w e r e c a r v e d as s e p a r a t e e l e m e n t s . Whatever the m o t i v e for this new practice, it carried a strong risk of accidental breakage to t h e legs, w h i c h often happened, perhaps d u r i n g the

45a.

d. See plate IIa.

c a r v i n g process itself. B r o k e n figures were not discarded. Instead, their sculptors b r o u g h t into play one of t h e i r favorite i m p l e m e n t s — t h e h a n d rotated borer. W i t h the borer they n o r m a l l y m a d e eye sockets, h o l l o w e d ears, navels, b u t t o c k d i m p l e s , a n d oc casionally even c o m p l e t e p e r f o r a t i o n s at t h e elbows as w e l l as t h e suspen s i o n holes i n t h e lugs o f t h e m a r b l e

e. See plate /lb.

Figure 14. Female figure. Louros type. EC l / l l . Note thefeatureless face, the long neck, and the separately carved legs characteristic of the type. Evidence for the dating of such idols is at present limited to one grave, no. 26, at Louros Athalassou on Naxos, from which the type takes its name. In that grave, a group of seven figures was found stand ing in a niche. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88. A A.7 7 (ex Steiner Collection). H. 10 cm. Said to befrom Naxos.

vases t h e y p r o d u c e d i n a s t o n i s h i n g q u a n t i t y at t h i s t i m e ( p i . la, b). W h e n a f i g u r e sustained a fracture, they also used the b o r e r to m a k e rather conspic uous holes t h r o u g h w h i c h a s t r i n g or leather t h o n g c o u l d be d r a w n to refasten the b r o k e n p a r t ( p i . n<2, f i g . 4 5 ) . A l t h o u g h the archaeological r e c o r d is u n c e r t a i n at t h i s p o i n t , i t appears that Cycladic s c u l p t u r e n e x t entered a period of transition, Early Cycladic 1/II ( f i g . 11). T h e first evidence o f this change is the a t t e m p t by sculptors to fuse the abstract a n d the representa t i o n a l approaches. I n the m o s t c o m m o n f o r m , the figures have featureless heads, the i n c i s i o n w o r k was k e p t to a m i n i m u m , a n d the p r o b l e m o f r e n d e r i n g t h e a r m s was a v o i d e d by m a k ing t h e m simple, angular projections at t h e s h o u l d e r s (figs. 6, 14). By c o n trast, the legs are often q u i t e carefully m o d e l e d . As m a n y as seven of these transitional (Louros type) examples have been f o u n d together i n one grave.

Figure 15. Four small, precanonical figures showing steps i n the development of the folded-arm position. EC I / H . a. Although the arms are rendered in the manner of the Plastiras type, the pro足 portions show none of the exaggeration of the earlier figures and the legs are not carved separately to the

crotch. Private H. 15.8 cm.

collection.

b. Norwich, University ofEastAnglia, Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, P9(d).H. 9.5 cm. c. The arms are tentatively folded (cf pi. Ilh) but in an unorthodox rightabove-left arrangement. The legs are separated to just above the knees. A

mending hole for the re足 attachment of the missing leg is visible in the left knee. Note the carved ears, the incised facial detail, the modeled legs, and the soles parallel to the ground, characteristicsfound on most of the best pre足 canonical examples. Geneva, Musee BarbierMuellerBMG 202.9. H. 15.9 cm.

d. Although the arms are properly folded in the canonical right-below-left arrangement, thefigure retains such precanonical features as carved ears, well-modeled legs separated to the knees, and soles appropriate to a standing posture. Houston, The Menil Collection 73-01DJ. H. 16.2 cm.

any n e w i n f l u e n c e or shift i n r e l i g i o u s m e a n i n g or gesture, most likely i n spired the gradual development of t h e f o l d e d - a r m p o s i t i o n t h a t was to b e c o m e de rigueur i n the n e x t phase ( f i g . 15). T h i s n e w p o s i t i o n entails no free space i f t h e e l b o w s a n d u p p e r a r m s are h e l d close to t h e sides. I n d e e d , the very early f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e s s e e m to be t i g h t l y c l a s p i n g t h e m s e l v e s ( f i g . 16). I n o r d e r to re duce f u r t h e r the r i s k o f f r a c t u r e , the legs are n o w separated f o r o n l y about h a l f t h e i r l e n g t h , f r o m t h e feet to the knees, or even less ( p i . ub). B e g i n n i n g w i t h these " p r e c a n o n i c a l " figures, repairs are m u c h less frequently seen, p r e s u m a b l y because t h e r e w e r e fewer accidents i n t h e w o r k s h o p . C o n s i d e r able a t t e n t i o n was still paid to i n d i v i d ual f o r m , a n d to details, b u t less t h a n i n e a r l i e r phases.

T o w a r d t h e e n d o f the t r a n s i t i o n a l p h a s e , s c u l p t o r s b e g a n to s t r i v e f o r more balanced and natural propor t i o n s ( f i g . 15, pis. 116, m ) . W h i l e u n k n o w i n g l y s e t t i n g t h e stage f o r t h e emergence of the canonical foldeda r m f i g u r e at the b e g i n n i n g o f the sec o n d , "classical," phase ( f i g . 16), these s c u l p t o r s w e r e f i n d i n g n e w ways to produce representational figures i n q u a n t i t y . A t the same t i m e , they w e r e r e d u c i n g the risks involved i n the carv i n g process. A l o n g w i t h m o r e n a t u r a l p r o p o r t i o n s , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n stur d i e r f i g u r e s , t h e s c u l p t o r s s e e m to have been s e e k i n g an a r m r e n d e r i n g m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e to the s l e n d e r b o d y style o f t h e i r i m a g e s . W h i l e t h e o l d N e o l i t h i c a r m p o s i t i o n o f hands t o u c h i n g o v e r t h e m i d r i f f m a y w e l l have been s u i t e d to exaggerated c o r p u lence, for the person o f o r d i n a r y b u i l d to assume this pose involves m o v i n g the elbows a n d u p p e r a r m s w e l l away f r o m t h e sides so t h a t a large t r i a n g u l a r clear space r e m a i n s . This gap was s o m e t i m e s h a z a r d o u s l y i n d i c a t e d by p e r f o r a t i o n s at the fragile b e n d o f the a r m s . A n i n t e r e s t i n a n a t u r a l pose c a r v e d i n a secure w a y , r a t h e r t h a n

R o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h these t r a n s i t i o n a l figures is t h e h a r p player in the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m of A r t . T h i s w o r k , w i t h its a l l e g e d l y u n - C y cladic a r m muscles a n d t h r e e - d i m e n sional t h u m b s ( p i . i v # ) , has often been c o n d e m n e d because i t does n o t c o n f o r m to w h a t has c o m e to be a r e -

Figure 16. Female foldedarm 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 foldedarm figure. Spedos variety. EC II. Somewhat later than the preceding example, this figure shows a careful bal足 ancing of proportions with no singleform exaggerated. Note the broader shoulders and unperforated leg cleft, as well as the use of inci足 sion for details. This work is unusual in having a carved mouth. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.48.L. 30 cm.

11). M o r e s i m p l i f i e d a n d s t r e a m l i n e d t h a n its p r e d e c e s s o r s , the c a n o n i c a l or f o l d e d - a r m t y p e was p r o d u c e d i n a s t o n i s h i n g q u a n t i t y over a p e r i o d o f several centuries. Its abstract counter part ( A p e i r a n t h o s t y p e ) has a s i m p l e g e o m e t r i c body, w i t h the neck carry i n g the s u g g e s t i o n o f a head ( f i g . 18).

stricted and circumscribed n o t i o n of w h a t a Cycladic s c u l p t u r e s h o u l d look l i k e . A t t u n e d as one is to the h a r m o n i ously p r o p o r t i o n e d f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e ( a n d to h a r p e r s c a r v e d i n t h e s a m e style—pi. iv&, figs. 2 3 - 2 5 ) a n d n o t to the l i t t l e - k n o w n or l i t t l e - a d m i r e d p r e c a n o n i c a l i m a g e s , i t is d i f f i c u l t f o r s o m e to accept t h e N e w York h a r p e r as a g e n u i n e Cycladic w o r k . W e need, however, to s t r e t c h o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e to i n c l u d e such f o r e r u n n e r s o f the images exe c u t e d i n the m o r e f l u i d classical style. I f one views t h e N e w York h a r p e r as a fine e x a m p l e o f an essentially e x p e r i mental movement, bearing i n m i n d the bizarre Plastiras-type figures w h i c h came before i n a d d i t i o n to con s i d e r i n g t h a t exaggerated p r o p o r t i o n s a n d a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l h a d n o t yet been e n t i r e l y s u p p l a n t e d ( p i . m ) , the h a r p e r falls n a t u r a l l y i n t o place as the earliest k n o w n e x a m p l e o f a rare type.

U n l i k e t h e p r o f i l e axis o f t h e f i g ures o f the archaic phase, t h a t o f the first f o l d e d - a r m figures (Kapsala v a r i ety a n d s o m e e x a m p l e s o f the E a r l y Spedos variety) is sharply b r o k e n , par t i c u l a r l y at the back o f the head and at the b e n d o f the knees. T h e feet are h e l d at an angle, o u t w a r d a n d even tually also d o w n w a r d , i n w h a t appears to be a t i p t o e p o s i t i o n i f the figures are set vertically. T h e s e features, however, are a p p r o p r i a t e to a r e l a x e d , r e c l i n i n g p o s i t i o n (figs. 4, 5 ) , i n contrast to the erect p o s t u r e o f the archaic Plastiras figures (figs. 10, 13). T h e figures dat i n g f r o m the e a r l i e r p e r i o d w e r e e v i d e n t l y m e a n t to s t a n d , a l t h o u g h they do not do so u n s u p p o r t e d . Just as w i t h the changes i n a r m p o s i t i o n t h a t t o o k place about the same t i m e , this altered posture p r o b a b l y does not i n d i c a t e any r a d i c a l change i n r e l i g i o u s s y m b o l i s m

Early i n the second or classical phase of C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e ( E a r l y C y c l a d i c n ) , the f u l l - f l e d g e d f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e e m e r g e s i n several d i f f e r e n t varieties w h i c h , for the most part, appear in a specific c h r o n o l o g i c a l sequence ( f i g .

Figure 18. Female (?) figure. Apeiranthos type. EC I I . The EC II counterpart of the violinfigures of EC /, images of this type differ from the earlier ones in that they have the sugges tion of a head and their bodies tend to be rectangu lar and devoid of incised markings. Sometimes carved in shell, they have beenfound in association with Spedos-varietyfigures and were presumably made by sculptors who alsofashioned such fully representational images. Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Sahlman Collection (on loan to the Tampa Museum ofArtL196.1).H. 12.3 cm. Said to befrom Keros.

or any e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e . Because i t evolved gradually, i t is m o r e l i k e l y that the r e c l i n i n g p o s t u r e was i n t r o d u c e d by the sculptors themselves. Since the f i g u r e s w e r e n o r m a l l y l a i d on t h e i r backs i n the grave, the sculptors m a y h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d be m a d e i n a r e c l i n i n g p o s t u r e f r o m the start. I n any case, at t h i s t i m e a n o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n was m a d e : t h o s e f i g u r e s i n t e n d e d to stand w e r e f u r n i s h e d w i t h s m a l l r e c t a n g u l a r bases (figs. 26, 3 2 ) , w h i l e seated figures w e r e carved w i t h t h e i r feet parallel to the g r o u n d ( p i . i v , figs. 23, 24, 2 7 ) . I n the early f o l d e d - a r m figures (Kapsala a n d E a r l y Spedos v a r i e t i e s ) , t h e legs are j o i n e d by a t h i n m e m b r a n e , p e r f o r a t e d f o r a s h o r t space b e t w e e n the calves (figs. 2, 16, 55, 56). T h i s p r a c t i c e seems to be a f u r t h e r a t t e m p t t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e l i m b s at v u l n e r a b l e p o i n t s . As t h e f o l d e d - a r m figures d e v e l o p e d , however, the per f o r a t i o n o f t h e l e g cleft was u s u a l l y o m i t t e d altogether ( L a t e Spedos v a r i ety; figs. 3, 4 4 , 4 9 ) , n o d o u b t i n an effort to reduce the r i s k o f fracture s t i l l f u r t h e r . I n t h e latest a n d m o s t h a s t i l y executed e x a m p l e s , t h e legs are sepa-

Figure 19. Male foldedarm 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.

rated by a b r o a d groove ( D o k a t h i s m a t a v a r i e t y ; figs. 19, 20) o r m e r e l y by an engraved line (Chalandriani variety; figs. 2 1 , 2 2 , 35, 3 6 ) . Because o f t h e r i s k , o n l y a few sculptors o f such very late w o r k s p e r f o r a t e d t h e l e g clefts o f t h e i r figures o r d a r e d to free t h e slen d e r u p p e r a r m s f r o m t h e sides (figs. 19,21,226).

A f t e r t h e eye has b e e n t r a i n e d by l o o k i n g at a large n u m b e r o f f i g u r e s , any d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e r i g h t - b e l o w left f o r m u l a strikes one as d e c i d e d l y o d d — q u i t e w r o n g , i n fact ( f i g . 2 ) . N o t u n e x p e c t e d l y , forgers o f C y c l a d i c f i g ures, as w e l l as copiers f o r the G r e e k t o u r i s t t r a d e , n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y arrange the a r m s i n the opposite fashion: r i g h t above left. T h e y p r o b a b l y d o so o u t o f a f a i l u r e to appreciate just h o w strictly t h e c o n v e n t i o n was observed.

F r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s second phase, t h e f o l d e d a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e a r m s b e c a m e a s t r i c t l y observed c o n v e n t i o n . N o t o n l y are t h e a r m s f o l d e d , b u t also, for several centuries a n d w i t h very f e w e x c e p t i o n s , t h e y are f o l d e d i n one a r r a n g e m e n t o n l y : the r i g h t a r m is s h o w n b e l o w t h e l e f t . S o m e m i g h t i n t e r p r e t t h i s as h a v i n g m y s t i cal c o n n o t a t i o n s , b u t i t is possible t h a t the c o n v e n t i o n was established u n w i t t i n g l y by a few r i g h t - h a n d e d sculptors w h o f o u n d i t easier to d r a w t h e a r m s i n t h i s p a t t e r n . H a v i n g set t h e l o w e r b o u n d a r y o f t h e a r m s by d r a w i n g t h e r i g h t one, t h e s c u l p t o r c o u l d easily f i l l i n t h e lines o f t h e left a r m above, leav i n g h i m s e l f a clear v i e w o f t h e r i g h t o n e . O n c e t h e p r a c t i c e was s t a r t e d , other sculptors presumably w o u l d have f o l l o w e d s u i t .

T o w a r d the end of the classical period, the canonical a r m arrange m e n t n o l o n g e r d o m i n a t e d , as is e v i dent i n the Chalandriani variety. A l t h o u g h a l i m i t e d revival of interest i n t h e c a r v i n g o f facial d e t a i l a n d h a i r o c c u r r e d at t h i s t i m e ( f i g . 19), s c u l p t o r s g e n e r a l l y l a v i s h e d less care o n t h e i r w o r k s , w h i c h also t e n d e d to be q u i t e s m a l l . T h e f i g u r e s b e c a m e highly stylized renderings w i t h dis t o r t e d p r o p o r t i o n s a n d severe, a n g u lar outlines. The t r a d i t i o n a l arm a r r a n g e m e n t was often i g n o r e d or m i s u n d e r s t o o d (figs. 2 1 , 2 2 ) . A n ex t r e m e e x a m p l e is a c l u m s y f i g u r e w h i c h appears to have t h r e e a r m s a n d f o u r sets o f fingers ( f i g . 2 2 c ) .

Figure 20. Female foldedarm 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足 tion. Pres. L . 20.6 cm. Figure 21. Female figure. Chalandriani variety. EC II. Thefigure is unusual both for the uncanonical posi足 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足 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足 ble bowl and on pottery. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 1977.187.11, Bequest of Alice K. Bache. Pres.L. 27J cm.

Figure 22. Three Chalandriani-variety figures w i t h uncanonical arm arrangements. EC I I . a. The arms are rendered in the old Plastiras posi足 tion (cf fig. 10), but the resemblance is probably fortuitous. The angular lines and the absence of a midsection arefeatures typ足 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足 angle. London, British Museum 75.3-13.2. Pres. L . 23.6 cm. c. Said to befrom Seriphos. Carved in an unusual bluegray marble, thefigure is most probably the work of an untutored person living outside the sculptural main足 stream. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Misc. 8426. L . 22.2 cm.

Figure 25. Two male figures. Harper type. Kapsala variety style. EC II. A charming pair, clearlydesigned as companion pieces, thesefigures were reputedly found together with afooted vessel of marble carved of a. piece with a little table that

closely resembles their stools in size and shape. Note the typical swan's head ornament of the harps which are held, also typi足 cally, on the musicians' right sides. In contrast to the Metropolitan Museum s harper (pi. JVa), who is shown using only his

thumbs to make music, these harpers are shown plucking the strings with all thefingers of at least the right hand. While the left hand of the smaller figure probably held the harp frame (both the left hand and a section of the harp are missing), the larger

figure must have been shown plucking the strings with the left hand as well. Differences in hand posi足 tion as well as in the type of furniture represented were the sort of liberties allowed in the execution of an otherwise very rigidly defined type. New York,

Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection. H. 20.1 cm. and 17.4 cm. Said, to be from Amorgos.

T h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e second E a r l y C y c l a d i c phase was a t i m e o f p r o d i 足 gious o u t p u t a n d o f s t a r t l i n g self-con足 fidence and virtuosity, analogous to the a m b i t i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t s i n large m a r b l e sculpture that t o o k place i n the Cyclades some t w o t h o u s a n d years l a t e r . A l t h o u g h a f e w e x a m p l e s are stylistically slightly earlier (pis. i n , i v # ) , m o s t o f t h e r a r e special f i g u r e types b e l o n g to t h i s phase. F i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t are t h e m u s i 足 cians, t h e seated harpists a n d stand-

Figure 24. Harp player. Early Spedos variety style. EC i i . See also plate ivh, figure 79.

Figure 25. Detail of harp player i n figure 24.

Figure 26. Male figure. Woodwind player type. Kapsala variety style. EC II. An unusually well-pre served example of a very rare type, this figure is presently perhaps also the earliest one known. It is unusual both for its sten derness andfor its articu lated ribcage. The musician plays a sandwichlike syr inx (panpipes), which in reality is an instrument of roughly trapezoidal shape, though the Cycladic sculp tor has translated it for his own purposes into a sym metrical form. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 64/100. H. )4 cm.

i n g w o o d w i n d players (figs. 2 3 - 2 6 , p i . i v ) . O t h e r seated types i n c l u d e t h e c u p b e a r e r a n d v a r i a t i o n s o f the stan d a r d f o l d e d - a r m f e m a l e (figs. 27, 2 9 ) . A l s o i n c l u d e d are the scarce t w o - a n d three-figure c o m p o s i t i o n s . I n one t w o figure arrangement, a small folded a r m f i g u r e is carved on the h e a d o f a l a r g e r one ( p i . i n ) . I n another, o f w h i c h no c o m p l e t e e x a m p l e survives, t w o f i g u r e s o f t h e same size are set side by side c l a s p i n g each o t h e r about the shoulders (figs. 30, 31). A v a r i a t i o n o f t h i s t h e m e is t h e a m a z i n g t h r e e f i g u r e g r o u p carved i n a single piece, in w h i c h the standing male figures l i n k a r m s to s u p p o r t a seated f e m a l e (fig. 52). Nearly all the exceptionally large figures w e r e also carved at this t i m e (figs. 4, 3 4 ) . W h i l e a n u m b e r o f frag ments of such m o n u m e n t a l figures s u r v i v e ( f i g . 3 3 ) , very f e w c o m p l e t e ones are k n o w n . F r o m the largest ex t a n t e x a m p l e , f o u n d i n t h e last cen tury, r e p u t e d l y i n a grave o n A m o r g o s , we k n o w that such nearly life-size w o r k s w e r e at least s o m e t i m e s b r o k e n i n t o several pieces i n o r d e r to f i t t h e m i n t o t h e grave, w h i c h was n o r m a l l y

Figure 27. Male figure. Cupbearer type. Early Spedos variety style. EC I I . 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足 tion. Like the Early Spedos varietyfolded-arm figures in whose style it is carved, the cupbearer's legs are rendered with a perfora足 tion between the calves. Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 286. H. 15.2cm.

Figure 29. Female foldedarm figure i n semi-sitting position. Early Spedos variety. EC II. One of only three orfour examples executed in this peculiar position, this carefully worked figure originally may have had, a. wooden seat, or earth may have been made into a. seat-shaped mound to ena ble it to sit in a more or less upright position. Another possibility is that it was originally part of a, threefigure composition like the one illustrated in figure 32. New York, private collec tion. H. 19 cm.

Figure 28. Fragmentary male folded-arm figure. Spedos variety. EC II. The only malefigurefrom approximately the middle of the period not shown engaged in a specific activ ity, this superbly carved piece is also the largest male representation now known. It originally mea sured about one meter. Because the legs are sepa rated, it is likely that the image was carved with a base, enabling it to stand unaided (as in figs. 26, 32). Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 969 (ex Erlenmeyer Collec tion). Pres. H. 42.5 cm. Said to befrom Amorgos.

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 isfemale, 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.

n o l a r g e r t h a n necessary to a c c o m m o d a t e the corpse i n a severely c o n tracted position. T h e r e is an i n t e r e s t i n g d i s t i n c t i o n o f roles observed i n males and females i n E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e . T h e fe m a l e is always r e p r e s e n t e d i n a pas sive a n d , i n t e r m s o f c u r r e n t b o d y language theory, a l o o f a t t i t u d e , re gardless o f w h e t h e r she is s t a n d i n g , r e c l i n i n g , or s i t t i n g , or w h e t h e r she is single or d o u b l e d . O n the o t h e r h a n d , the m a l e f i g u r e is m o r e often t h a n not d e p i c t e d i n an active r o l e . I n the ear l i e r p a r t o f the classical p e r i o d , as we have seen, he takes t h e r o l e o f c u p bearer, m u s i c i a n , or s t r o n g m a n w h o , w i t h a c o m p a n i o n , holds aloft a quietly s i t t i n g f e m a l e . T o w a r d t h e e n d o f the p e r i o d , he is o u t f i t t e d w i t h the accou trements of a h u n t e r or w a r r i o r . A t t h a t t i m e his m o s t n o t i c e a b l e piece o f e q u i p m e n t is always a b a l d r i c , t h o u g h he m a y also carry a s m a l l dagger a n d / or w e a r a b e l t w i t h a codpiece (figs. 35,48a). N e i t h e r t h e sculptors n o r t h e i r cus t o m e r s seem to have been very p a r t i c u l a r a b o u t t h e i r f i g u r e s at t h i s l a t e d a t e . T h e r e are e x a m p l e s i n w h i c h

Figure 32. Three-figure composition. Early Spedos variety style. EC II. This is probably a recur ring type within the repertoire of the Cycladic sculptor, but because of the great difficulty involved, no doubt the composition was attempted only very rarely This work is the only known example. It is at least conceivable, how ever, that certain other pieces originally belonged to similar compositions (e.g. Jigs. 29-31). Ka rls ruhe, Bad is che s Landesmuseum 77/5 ). H. 19cm. L

Figure 33. Fragmentary female folded-arm figure. Early Spedos variety. EC I I . The rather worn torso be足 longed to an exceptionally long, slenderfigure mea足 suring well over 100 cm. It is noteworthy not only for its size but also for its quite naturalistic and sensitively

rendered upper arms. The work can be attributed to the same sculptor who made the somewhat larger piece illustrated in figures 4 and 34, with which it shares a similar rendering of the arms and hands, complete with fine wrist lines. (The largest known

figure, in Athens, is per足 haps also the work of this sculptor.) Brunswick, Maine, Bowdoin College Museum of Art 1982.15.4, Bequest ofJere Abbott. Pres.L. 28.6 cm.

Figure 34. Detail of work illustrated i n figure 4.

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足 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足 tures remain a mystery.) Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 308. L . 25 cm.

Figure 36. Male foldedarm 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 con verted from a female into a male image by the addi足 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足 lection. L . 19 cm. 1

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 tails" on the neck. u

a n d o n the o t h e r figures executed i n t h e s a m e c l a s s i c a l s t y l e ( p i . v c , d). T h o s e w h o have d i f f i c u l t y i m a g i n i n g or accepting the fact t h a t G r e e k sculp t u r e a n d b u i l d i n g s w e r e once r i c h l y p a i n t e d w i l l , s i m i l a r l y , p r e f e r to t h i n k o f C y c l a d i c f i g u r e s as m o s t o f t h e m have come d o w n to us—pure f o r m r e d u c e d to b a r e essentials a n d exe cuted i n a cool, m o o n l i k e whiteness. However, most, i f not a l l , of these i m a g e s a n d at least s o m e o f t h e i r ar chaic antecedents o r i g i n a l l y received some p a i n t e d d e t a i l w h i c h w o u l d have altered t h e i r appearance considerably.

quite ordinary female folded-arm fig ures s e e m to have b e e n p e r f u n c t o r i l y t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o m a l e s by t h e s i m p l e a d d i t i o n o f a hastily incised penis and, m o r e noticeably, an i n c i s e d or m e r e l y s c r a t c h e d d i a g o n a l l i n e o n t h e chest a n d back to indicate the b a l d r i c . A p p a rently, i t d i d not matter that the bal d r i c was a d d e d as an a f t e r t h o u g h t a n d cuts across t h e a r m s ( f i g . 3 6 ) . Except for the nose a n d the ears o n a few very large w o r k s (figs. 4 1 , 5 6 - 5 9 ) , t h e r e is n o r m a l l y a c o m p l e t e absence o f s c u l p t u r a l d e t a i l o n t h e face a n d h e a d o f c a n o n i c a l f o l d e d - a r m figures

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 befrom Keros.

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

h e a d , a n d a s o l i d area o n t h e back o f the head to i n d i c a t e a s h o r t - c r o p p e d h a i r s t y l e ( f i g s . 37, 3 8 ) . L e s s o f t e n curls, d e p e n d i n g f r o m the s o l i d area, w e r e p a i n t e d o n the sides a n d back o f t h e h e a d (figs. 39, 4 0 ) , a n d dots o r stripes d e c o r a t e d the face i n various p a t t e r n s ( p i . v i # , c; figs. 42, 69, 7 8 ) . O n l y one f i g u r e k n o w n at p r e s e n t has p a i n t e d ears ( p i . v i r f ) , w h i l e few, i f any, s h o w c l e a r t r a c e s o f a p a i n t e d m o u t h . T h e a p p a r e n t o m i s s i o n o f the m o u t h w o u l d accord w e l l w i t h the sepulchral nature o f the figures. Occa sionally p a i n t was also used to e m p h a -

T h e r e d a n d b l u e p i g m e n t is i t s e l f only rarely preserved, but many fig ures show paint "ghosts," that is, o n c e - p a i n t e d surfaces w h i c h , because they w e r e p r o t e c t e d by p i g m e n t , n o w appear l i g h t e r i n color, smoother, a n d / o r s l i g h t l y r a i s e d above the sur r o u n d i n g areas, w h i c h are generally i n p o o r e r c o n d i t i o n ( p i . iva). I n c e r t a i n cases the ghost lines are so p r o n o u n c e d t h a t t h e y can easily be m i s t a k e n f o r actual r e l i e f w o r k ( p i . vb). M o s t often the p a i n t i n g took the f o r m o f a l m o n d - s h a p e d eyes w i t h dot t e d p u p i l s , solid bands across the fore

Figure 41. Female folded-arm figure. Kapsala variety. EC I I . 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足 dence of painted eyes, brows, hair, facial tattoo足 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.

size c e r t a i n grooves o n the b o d y ( p i . vib-d), to d e f i n e o r e m p h a s i z e t h e p u b i c t r i a n g l e (figs. 4 1 , 56, 5 8 ) , or to d e p i c t bangles a n d o t h e r a d o r n m e n t s (pi. v i b ) . A l t h o u g h w i t h t i m e the actual paint has l a r g e l y d i s a p p e a r e d f r o m t h e sculptures, bone canisters and little clay pots c o n t a i n i n g l u m p s o f c o l o r 足 i n g m a t t e r are s o m e t i m e s f o u n d i n C y c l a d i c graves, as are palettes a n d b o w l s i n t e n d e d as m o r t a r s f o r p u l 足 verizing the p i g m e n t s , w h i c h were d e r i v e d f r o m ores o f i r o n ( h e m a t i t e ) , m e r c u r y (cinnabar), and copper ( a z u r i t e ) , i n d i g e n o u s to the i s l a n d s . I t w o u l d appear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t r i t u a l face p a i n t i n g was an i m p o r t a n t part o f t h e r e l i g i o u s r i t e s o b s e r v e d by t h e i s l a n d e r s , a n d the p a t t e r n s they used o n t h e i r s c u l p t u r e s m a y w e l l reflect those they used on themselves and h o p e d to p e r p e t u a t e i n the afterlife.

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

Figure 43. Copy of thefemalefoldedarm figure in figure 44 carved by Elizabeth Oustinoffin an experiment using Parian marble and tools madefrom Naxian emery, Melian obsidian, and Theran pumice. A fracture sustained during the initial shaping of the piece necessitated an alter ation of the original design so that thefinished work, intended at the outset to be somewhat larger than the model, does not closely resemble it except, acciden tally, in size. Such mis haps probably occurred with somefrequency in ancient times as well, but it 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.

Figure 44. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos/ Chalandriani variety. EC II. A well-madefigure of mod est size, the work belongs basically to the Late Spedos variety, but its broad shoul ders and upper torso and its short midsection are more characteristic of the Chalandriani variety. Note that the right arm/hand extends all the way to the left elbow in order to make the rendering symmetrical. (On the rear, the left elbow is carved on the back of what infront is the right hand, again for the sake of symmetry.) Zurich, Mr. and Mrs. Isidor Kahane Collection. L . 17.5 cm.

T h e Formulaic Tradition

c h i p p i n g away and a b r a d i n g o f the s t o n e . Pieces o f e m e r y f r o m N a x o s (one o f the w o r l d ' s m a j o r sources o f t h i s m i n e r a l ) w e r e p r o b a b l y used for this p u r p o s e , w h i l e e m e r y or o b s i d i a n f r o m M e l o s w o u l d have been used to m a k e incisions, sand and perhaps p u m i c e f r o m T h e r a to s m o o t h t h e stone ( f i g . 4 3 ) . O n e can easily i m a g i n e the sculptor's w o r k s h o p by the sea w h e r e he c o u l d have f o u n d m u c h o f his r a w m a t e r i a l already p a r t i a l l y w o r k e d f o r h i m by t h e a c t i o n o f t h e w a v e s . F o r a d r a w i n g p a d he c o u l d have u s e d t h e w e t b e a c h s a n d a n d , to p o l i s h his w o r k s , the p u m i c e t h a t washed up on the shore f o l l o w i n g eruptions of the T h e r a volcano. Nev ertheless, at a l l t i m e s his o w n patience a n d d i l i g e n c e m u s t have been his m o s t valuable assets i n b r i n g i n g a w o r k to completion.

W e have r e v i e w e d r a t h e r h a s t i l y r o u g h l y e i g h t centuries o f s c u l p t u r a l a c t i v i t y , w i t h key d e v e l o p m e n t s i l l u s t r a t e d by a m e r e e x a m p l e or t w o . Per haps t h e s i n g l e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t o be s t r e s s e d , h o w e v e r , a n d o n e w h i c h is d i f f i c u l t to appreciate w i t h o u t a p l e t h o r a o f e x a m p l e s , is the re m a r k a b l e a d h e r e n c e to a s t a n d a r d f o r m . O f the m a n y h u n d r e d s o f extant pieces o f E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e , t h e r e are o n l y a very few t h a t do not b e l o n g to one o f the e s t a b l i s h e d types or do not contain elements of t w o s e q u e n t i a l v a r i e t i e s . D e s p i t e a vast array o f subtle differences a n d a w i d e variation i n quality, Cycladic sculp tures are essentially f o r m u l a i c i n char acter. T h e r e are n o freely c o n c e i v e d pieces. Even those special pieces such as the h a r p players h a d t h e i r o w n for m u l a e and strict design rules. Once e s t a b l i s h e d , each t r a d i t i o n a l t y p e , each h i g h l y f o r m a l i z e d set o f c o n v e n t i o n s , was a d h e r e d to w i t h a l m o s t i m p e r c e p t i b l e changes f o r c e n t u r i e s .

T h e sheer l a b o r i n v o l v e d i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f any b u t t h e s i m p l e s t s m a l l figures m u s t have p r e c l u d e d a haphaz a r d or spontaneous approach. M a r b l e , t h o u g h n o t a h a r d stone, c l e a r l y lacks t h e m a l l e a b i l i t y o f clay o r the tracta ble q u a l i t i e s o f w o o d . I n fact, m a r b l e tends to crack a n d b r e a k q u i t e easily

T h e w a y t h e figures w e r e m a d e can shed some l i g h t o n t h e i r f i n a l s i m i l a r ity. I t m u s t have been a l a b o r i o u s p r o cess, one i n v o l v i n g constant yet careful

seem to have g o v e r n e d the m a n n e r i n w h i c h the figures w e r e d e s i g n e d , one can see just w h a t i t is, besides the u n i f o r m t r e a t m e n t o f the a r m s or legs or face, t h a t m a k e s one Cycladic i d o l o f a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e or v a r i e t y so closely r e s e m b l e any o t h e r o f its k i n d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , n o slabs or blocks o f m a r b l e have b e e n f o u n d t h a t c o u l d p r o v i d e evidence o f t h e f o r m u l a e o r t h e de vices used to i n s c r i b e these i n i t i a l designs. Nevertheless, an e x a m i n a t i o n o f a large n u m b e r o f f i n i s h e d w o r k s has revealed r e c u r r i n g patterns, m a k i n g i t q u i t e r e a s o n a b l e to p o s t u l a t e the use o f p a r t i c u l a r f o r m u l a e a n d cer t a i n basic aids—compass, p r o t r a c t o r , ruler—before c a r v i n g was b e g u n .

a n d thus requires a h i g h l y d i s c i p l i n e d a p p r o a c h i f i r r e m e d i a b l e errors are to be a v o i d e d . I t appears t h a t f o r m u l a e w e r e d e v e l o p e d to a i d t h e C y c l a d i c s c u l p t o r i n c a r e f u l l y c o m p o s i n g his f i g u r e o n t h e slab before he actually began to carve. P r o b a b l y e v o l v i n g o u t o f necessity, such f o r m u l a e m a y also have i m b u e d the sculptor's craft w i t h a certain mystique. T h e y doubtless served as o r a l a n d v i s u a l vehicles f o r the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f the s c u l p t u r a l tra d i t i o n , t h e sculptor's r i t u a l , f r o m one g e n e r a t i o n to the n e x t . I n e x a m i n i n g some o f the rules that

I n the first or archaic phase, the h u m a n f o r m was d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e equal parts: r o u g h l y one p a r t f o r the h e a d a n d neck, one for the torso, a n d one for the legs ( f i g . 46a). These three d i v i s i o n s c o u l d have been m a d e w i t h a s i m p l e ruler, b u t w h a t seems to have b e e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t was the place m e n t o f c e r t a i n key features o n t h e o u t l i n e . For e x a m p l e , t h e s h o u l d e r s a n d hips w e r e e v i d e n t l y b l o c k e d o u t by m e a n s o f arcs d r a w n w i t h a p r i m i -

Figure 45. A comparison of the designs of two works attributed to the Metropolitan Museum Master, a sculptor of Plastiras-type figures of the EC I phase. a. Name-piece of the sculp tor. The broken right leg was reattached in antiq uity, mending holes having been bored through the side above and below the knee. New York, The Met ropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 45.11.1$ L . 21.6 cm. Seefigure 13c. b. Thefigure has i~epair holes through the neck (sideways) as well as in the right thigh. Geneva, Musee Barbier-Mueller BMG202.75. L . 18.3 cm.

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 I I , four-part (b, c).

M a s t e r (see note on p . 5 8 ) . B o t h f i g ures w e r e d e s i g n e d a c c o r d i n g to the three-part p l a n , but w i t h some i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . I n the n a m e - p i e c e , the p i l l - b o x hat, or polos, was a d d e d to t h e t h r e e - p a r t s c h e m e , w h e r e a s it was an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e design- o f the other figure. O n the N e w York i d o l (#), the sculptor carved a relatively s h o r t h e a d on a very l o n g n e c k . O n t h e o t h e r f i g u r e (£>), he d i d just t h e o p p o s i t e : t h e h e a d is e l o n g a t e d ; t h e n e c k , f o r t h i s e x a g g e r a t e d t y p e , is r a t h e r short; a n d the r e m a i n d e r o f the top d i v i s i o n is f i l l e d o u t by t h e head-

tive compass consisting of a bit of o b s i d i a n or even charcoal attached to a piece o f s t r i n g . T h e radius o f the cir cle that d e t e r m i n e d the arc was one t h i r d o f the b o d y l e n g t h . A n arc pass i n g t h r o u g h t h e m i d p o i n t o f the f i g u r e s w a s o f t e n u s e d to d e f i n e t h e p o s i t i o n of the elbows. Even t h o u g h the body was schemat ically d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e equal parts, the p r o p o r t i o n s w i t h i n those parts m i g h t vary considerably. F i g u r e 45, for e x a m p l e , shows t w o w o r k s a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e h a n d o f o n e s c u l p t o r called the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m

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

dress. S i m i l a r l y , t h e n a m e - p i e c e has an a m p l e r chest area b u t a shorter w a i s t t h a n t h e o t h e r w o r k , yet w i t h i n this m i d d l e d i v i s i o n is c o n t a i n e d the e n t i r e torso o f each o f these f i g u r e s . T h e p r o p o r t i o n s m i g h t vary, there fore, even i n t w o figures carved by the same p e r s o n , w h i l e t h e basic t r i p a r t i t e f o r m u l a t e n d e d to r e m a i n r e m a r k ably constant.

often equal to one p a r t ( f i g . 4 6 6 ) . C o m p a s s - d r a w n arcs m a r k e d o f f t h e shoulders, the elbows or waist, and the knees. T h e top o f the head a n d the e n d s o f t h e f e e t w e r e also c u r v e d , revealing further the influence of the compass. Once again, w i t h i n the basic divisions t h e r e was r o o m for v a r i a t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l difference. M o r e c o m p l e x w o r k s p r o d u c e d at this t i m e seem to be m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e f o u r - p a r t scheme, w h i l e t h e v i r t u oso pieces—the h a r p players, t h e cup bearers, a n d the t r i p l e group—seem to have b e n e f i t e d f r o m m o r e elaborate p l a n n i n g . T h e seated f i g u r e s , f o r ex a m p l e , a p p e a r to have b e e n t r e a t e d m o r e as f o u r - s i d e d w o r k s t h a n as i n t e -

I n t h e classical p e r i o d o f C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e , t h e d e s i g n f o r m u l a appears t o have c h a n g e d to a c c o m m o d a t e a m o r e n a t u r a l a p p r o a c h to t h e h u m a n f o r m . T h e e a r l i e r f o l d e d - a r m figures (Kapsala a n d Spedos v a r i e t i e s ) w e r e n o w c o n c e i v e d as d i v i s i b l e i n t o f o u r e q u a l parts, w i t h a m a x i m u m w i d t h

w e r e f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d to f o r m a g r i d o f e i g h t by six "squares." T h e lines o f the g r i d t e n d e d to c o i n c i d e w i t h key p o i n t s o n the o u t l i n e as w e l l as w i t h i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n s , such as t h e c h i n , the e l b o w , the cup, a n d the top o f the seat. A s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f the same c o i n c i d e n c e s r e c u r f r o m p i e c e to piece; a d d i t i o n a l coincidences are noticeable i n the w o r k s a t t r i b u t e d to the same sculptors ( f i g . 4 7 ) . O f the figures p r o d u c e d late i n the second phase ( D o k a t h i s m a t a and C h a l a n d r i a n i v a r i e t i e s ) , f e w f a i l to give s o m e i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y w e r e d e s i g n e d a c c o r d i n g to a c o n s c i o u s l y applied f o r m u l a (fig. 46c). However, as w i t h t h e c a n o n i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t o f the a r m s , the f o u r - p a r t p l a n , t h o u g h s t i l l the p r e f e r r e d one, was n o t t h e o n l y one i n use; s o m e sculptors e v i 足 d e n t l y t r i e d o t h e r designs, u s i n g , f o r example, three- and five-part divi足 sions ( f i g . 4 8 ) . By n o w i t w o u l d seem t h a t the compass was g e n e r a l l y c o n 足 s i d e r e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e for the severely a n g u l a r style o f these i m a g e s . A l t o g e t h e r , r o u g h l y o n e - h a l f o f all Cycladic figures a p p e a r to have b e e n quite carefully conceived a c c o r d i n g to

g r a t e a s c u l p t u r e s i n tne r o u n d , i he m o s t i m p o r t a n t side is i n v a r i a b l y the r i g h t one, t h e side o n w h i c h the harp or cup is h e l d . I t appears t h a t a g r i d p l a n was c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d i n t h e design o f these w o r k s . T h e g r i d was based o n a d i v i s i o n o f the h e i g h t i n t o the usual f o u r p r i m a r y u n i t s , w h i l e the w i d t h was m a d e to a p p r o x i m a t e t h r e e o f these u n i t s . T h e h e i g h t a n d w i d t h

Figure 4 8 . 'Three- and five-part designs of the late E C II phase. a. Male figure. Hunter/ warrior type. Dresden, Staa tlich e Ku nstsa m m lungen, Skulpturensammlungen Zl/2595. L . 22.8 cm. Said to be from Amorgos. b. Female folded-arm figure. Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 3093. L . 27.5 cm. Said to befrom Naxos.

Figure 49. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the Naxos Museum Master. EC I I . Characteristicfeatures of the style of this somewhat idiosyncratic and prolific sculptor seen on this piece include a small, highplaced nose, generalized breasts, thickforearms which lie directly above the pubic area, and rather care less incision work. Note the uneven lengths and widths of thefingers, the uncenteredpubic triangle, and the knee incisions cut at different levels. The work of the Naxos Museum Master has been found in three different cemeteries on Naxos, where it may be assumed he lived and worked. New York, Harmon Collection (ex Woodner Family Collec tion). L . 51.4 cm.

a specific d e s i g n f o r m u l a . T h e o t h e r h a l f s e e m to have b e e n less t h o u g h t fully p l a n n e d or at least less r i g o r o u s l y executed a c c o r d i n g to the o r i g i n a l designs l a i d out o n the r a w slab. Some s e e m n o t to have b e n e f i t e d f r o m any logical p l a n . M a n y o f these are o f infe r i o r q u a l i t y , carved p e r h a p s by n o n specialists. T h e r e are also a n u m b e r o f i d o l s e x e c u t e d by p r o f i c i e n t sculp tors w h o seem to have f o u n d i t to t h e i r l i k i n g and certainly well w i t h i n their c a p a b i l i t i e s to a l t e r t h e r u l e s to s u i t their o w n personal aesthetic. Some sculptors, for e x a m p l e , e l o n g a t e d t h e thighs to an exaggerated degree, m a k i n g the calves a n d feet r a t h e r s h o r t by c o m p a r i s o n (fig. 55). Others p r e f e r r e d

Figure 50a, b. The harmonic system: angles derivedfrom a 5: or golden, triangle (or rectangle).

a. Seefigure

7a.

b. Seefigure

c. See figure 44.

14.

to o m i t the m i d s e c t i o n o f t h e i r figures, p l a c i n g the p u b i c area d i r e c t l y b e l o w the f o r e a r m s ( f i g . 4 9 ) . T h i s d e c i s i o n r e q u i r e d an a d j u s t m e n t o f t h e stan足 d a r d f o r m u l a : the m i d p o i n t n o w oc足 curs at the a r m s or h i g h e r r a t h e r t h a n at the a b d o m e n . A n o t h e r c o n t r o l l i n g factor i n the f o r m u l a i c p l a n n i n g o f a l l the figures,

even t h e s i m p l e s t o n e s , a p p e a r s to have b e e n t h e r e p e a t e d use o f several angles based o n t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e golden triangle found frequently in b o t h art a n d n a t u r e ( f i g . 50a). Recent e x p e r i m e n t s c o n d u c t e d by t h e a u t h o r suggest t h a t v i r t u a l l y everyone has an i n n a t e p r e f e r e n c e for at least one or a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t w o o f t h e angles i n

d. See figure 48b.

Figure 51. Harmonic angles and their combinations used for cer足 tain features on the outline and for internal details.

the configuration illustrated i n figure 50b. A s k e d s i m p l y t o d r a w o n e o r m o r e isosceles triangles that they c o n s i d e r e d "pleasant," w i t h o u t any reference to p a r t i c u l a r a n a t o m i c a l fea tures, thirty-eight out of forty-one i n d i v i d u a l s p r o d u c e d one or m o r e o f these angles, i n m o s t cases w i t h sur p r i s i n g accuracy. T h e s e same angles were used i n Cycladic sculpture for t h e c o n t o u r s o f c e r t a i n features, such as t h e s h o u l d e r s , a n d f o r i n t e r n a l de t a i l s , such as t h e p u b i c " V " o r t r i a n g l e ( f i g . 51), a n d s e r v e d as a m a j o r h o m o g e n i z i n g i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n each type.

w i t h t h e f o r m u l a e p o i n t to a class o f sculptors w h o specialized i n carving i d o l s a n d vessels i n r e s p o n s e to t h e needs o f t h e i r c o m m u n i t i e s .

Note: W h e n naming the individual sculp tors, I have chosen the easily remembered name of an archaeologist who recovered, or of a museum or collection that houses, one or more well-preserved examples of their work. A n d I have called them "mas ters," not to suggest that they necessarily produced masterpieces but to indicate that they were expert and independent i n their craft, i n the sense of the term "mastoras," as applied to Greek tradesmen today.

I t s h o u l d be e v i d e n t by n o w t h a t t h e C y c l a d i c sculptor's craft was a sophis t i c a t e d one. I t seems m o s t u n l i k e l y that o r d i n a r y farmers and sailors c o u l d , as a r u l e , have m a d e t h e i r o w n m a r b l e figures. As m e n t i o n e d earlier, most islanders either d i d w i t h o u t i d o l s a l t o g e t h e r o r at m o s t m a d e d o w i t h figures fashioned from w o o d w h i c h t h e y c o u l d have w h i t t l e d f o r themselves at n o expense. M o r e likely, the f o r m u l a i c nature of the idols, the exquisite craft d e m o n s t r a t e d i n m a n y , and the occasional e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n

T h e I n d i v i d u a l Sculptor

t h e i r way to o t h e r s e t t l e m e n t s a n d at least occasionally to o t h e r islands. T h e figures o f s o m e o f these artists have t u r n e d u p i n excavations at d i f f e r e n t sites, a n d i n s o m e cases at sites o n m o r e t h a n one i s l a n d (e.g., Naxos a n d Paros; N a x o s a n d K e r o s ) . I t is possi b l e too t h a t s o m e o f these s c u l p t o r s were itinerant craftsmen, although m o s t p r o b a b l y stayed h o m e , e k i n g o u t a l i v i n g f r o m t h e soil a n d p r a c t i c i n g t h e i r craft p a r t - t i m e . W h i l e i t is n o t f e a s i b l e t o i s o l a t e w o r k s h o p s or local schools, i t is n o w p o s s i b l e to r e c o g n i z e t h e h a n d s o f a s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s . To identify the w o r k s o f i n d i v i d u a l Cy cladic sculptors can be quite easy, since some o f t h e m m a d e figures t h a t are n e a r l y exact replicas o f one another. S o m e t i m e s t h e f i g u r e s o f one a r t i s t are v e r y s i m i l a r t o o n e a n o t h e r i n o v e r a l l a p p e a r a n c e a l t h o u g h i n size they may differ appreciably. I n other cases, ascriptions are n o t easily m a d e . T h e extent to w h i c h figures o f one t y p e c a r v e d by one p e r s o n r e s e m b l e one a n o t h e r w o u l d have v a r i e d , o f course, f r o m s c u l p t o r to s c u l p t o r a n d f r o m piece to piece. S o m e s c u l p t o r s

T h e r e is n o evidence to suggest t h a t t h e r e w e r e w o r k s h o p s o n the Cycladic islands i n w h i c h several sculptors l a b o r e d side by side. N o r is i t possi ble to d i s t i n g u i s h t h e styles o f differ ent i s l a n d " s c h o o l s , " i f i n d e e d s u c h e x i s t e d . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h e l a r g e r c o m m u n i t i e s on these islands, and p r o b a b l y s o m e o n a few o t h e r islands, t e n d e d i n each g e n e r a t i o n to s u p p o r t one o r t w o sculptors or, m o r e l i k e l y , a s c u l p t o r a n d his a p p r e n t i c e , w h o was, i n m o s t cases, p r o b a b l y his o w n son (fig. 52). T h r o u g h trade or travel, some o f t h e i r w o r k s w o u l d have f o u n d

Figure 52. "Marble John " working on a gravestone made from stone hewn from the moun tainside on the outskirts of Apeiranthos on Naxos in 1963. The village marble carver, he learned his craft from his father, "Marble George. "Although the marble-working tradition may not have been contin uous from the third millen nium B.C. to the present, the need for such craft specialists and the passing on of the traditions from father to son seem, never theless, to have changed but little over the millennia.

Figure 53. Fragments of folded-arm figures repre senting the Spedos, Dokathismata, and Chalandriani varieties. EC I I . A representative sampling from the "Keros hoard, " a huge assemblage of sculp tures, mostlyfragmentary,

said to have been recovered more than three decades ago on Keros. During sys tematic exploration, closely similar material was recov ered; abundant signs of previous exploitation were also noted, making it all the more likely that the hoard did indeed come

from Keros. Several sculp tors whose work is illus trated here are represented among thefindsfrom Keros and/or the Keros hoard, including the Shuster (frontis.), Goulandris (figs. 39, 60-69), and Naxos Museum (fig. 49) Masters. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty

Museum 78.AA.407, 79.AA.11, 83.AA.316.1-2, 83AA.317.1-2, 83.AA.318.1, 83.AA.201. For the large piece at cen ter, seefigure 69. Pres. L.7.5A8.4cm.

been v i r t u a l duplicates, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e y w e r e c o n c e i v e d as c o m p a n i o n p i e c e s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e case o f group compositions we k n o w that sculptors strove to m a k e the m a t c h i n g m e m b e r s o f each w o r k i d e n t i c a l ( p i . i n , f i g . 3 2 ) . F i g u r e s carved i n d e p e n d e n t l y b u t r e l a t i v e l y close i n t i m e , or figures m o d e l e d o n past w o r k k e p t on h a n d , w o u l d be l i k e l y t o r e s e m b l e each o t h e r to a g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n w o u l d w o r k s carved at a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r v a l i n t i m e f r o m each other. O n e w o u l d e x p e c t to f i n d m a j o r changes a m o n g pieces r e p r e s e n t i n g d i f f e r e n t phases o f a sculptor's a r t i s t i c develop m e n t , so t h a t i f t h e accidents o f pres e r v a t i o n w e r e such t h a t o n l y a v e r y early a n d a m a t u r e w o r k o f one sculp t o r h a d b e e n b r o u g h t to l i g h t , the t w o i m a g e s m i g h t p r o v e d i f f i c u l t t o at t r i b u t e to a single h a n d . T h e r e is, o f course, the possibility t h a t some sculp tors a l t e r e d t h e i r styles so d r a s t i c a l l y f r o m piece to piece or f r o m phase to p h a s e t h a t w e c a n have n o h o p e o f ever a t t r i b u t i n g a reasonably c o m p l e t e b o d y o f w o r k to t h e m . B u t so m a n y changes w o u l d m o r e l i k e l y have b e e n the exception rather than the rule.

m a y have been content to carve essen t i a l l y the same piece over a n d over a g a i n ; others m a y have f o u n d i t expe d i e n t to d u p l i c a t e past w o r k o n occa sion; b u t at least several sought, e i t h e r d e l i b e r a t e l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y , to ex p e r i m e n t a n d refine t h e i r styles. M a n y factors c o u l d have i n f l u e n c e d t h e de gree to w h i c h t w o f i g u r e s , e x e c u t e d by t h e same a r t i s t , w o u l d have b e e n s i m i l a r o r d i s s i m i l a r , n o t the least o f w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n his o w n g e n eral d i s p o s i t i o n as w e l l as his feelings i n r e l a t i o n to m a k i n g a p a r t i c u l a r piece. O t h e r c o n t r i b u t i n g factors m a y have been t h e sculptor's i n n a t e t a l e n t and s k i l l level, the care w i t h w h i c h he a p p r o a c h e d his w o r k , a n d t h e consis tency o f his m e t h o d s . T h e p a r t i c u l a r piece o f m a r b l e chosen f o r a f i g u r e , the shape o f the tools used i n the carv i n g process a n d , i n s o m e cases, even an a c c i d e n t easily c o u l d have i n f l u enced the f i n a l appearance o f a piece (figs. 43, 44, 5 4 , 5 5 ) T h e single m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n , however, was t i m e . Some sculptors m a y have w o r k e d o n t w o or m o r e figures c o n c u r r e n t l y . I t m i g h t be e x p e c t e d t h a t such w o r k s w o u l d have

Figure 54. Female foldedarm figure. Early Spedos variety. A work of the Copenhagen Master. EC II. The carefully executed and unusually largefigure is of special interest because of its strangely truncated legs and odd, vestigialfeet which contrast sharply with the balanced propor足 tions and attenuation seen in the rest. This incongru足 ity most probably resulted from irreparable damage sustained by thefigure, possibly during the carv足 ing process, at what was to have been the knees, according to the original design. Rather than aban足 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.)

Figure 55. Female foldedarm figure. Early Spedos variety. A work of the Copenhagen Master. EC II. Considerably smaller and with a much less elongated torso than the preceding figure (fig. 54), this work nevertheless shares with it certain close similarities of contour and detail and gives one a good idea how the legs of the large image were originally conceived. New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection. L . 56.8 cm.

o u t l i n e contours, certain angles, a par ticular adaptation of the canonical d e s i g n or, m o s t l i k e l y , a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s o m e o r a l l o f these characteristics r e m a i n s for the m o s t p a r t u n c h a n g e d or varies i n a p r e d i c t a b l e way f r o m i m a g e to i m a g e w i t h i n t h e o e u v r e o f one master. T h a t is to say, t h e basic c o n c e p t r e m a i n s t h e same w h i l e the i n d i v i d u a l ' s style evolves.

T h e possibility of identifying the w o r k s b e l o n g i n g to d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n a s c u l p t o r ' s c a r e e r o r to d i f f e r e n t stages i n his d e v e l o p m e n t is d e p e n d e n t o n t w o i m p o r t a n t factors. O n e is t h e e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l i m p o s e d by t h e t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h d i c t a t e d i n very spe cific t e r m s h o w a figure o f a given type o r v a r i e t y was to be d e s i g n e d a n d exe c u t e d . T h e o t h e r is t h e u n c o n s c i o u s , i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l e x e r t e d by t h e artist's p e r s o n a l style. W h i l e every figure shares i n t h e h i g h l y c o n s e r v a t i v e , for m u l a i c style o f its p e r i o d , i t also car ries its s c u l p t o r ' s p e r s o n a l s t a m p o r "signature."

M o s t probably no single feature is u n i q u e t o o n e s c u l p t o r ' s s t y l e . Originality, or rather i n d i v i d u a l i t y , consisted of a p a r t i c u l a r choice or c o m b i n a t i o n o f features, w h i l e excel l e n c e w o u l d have d e p e n d e d n o t o n innovation but rather on the h a r m o nious i n t e g r a t i o n o f these f a m i l i a r ele ments, a h i g h level o f skill i n t h e i r e x e c u t i o n , a n d great care i n t h e f i n i s h i n g a n d p a i n t i n g o f the surface. A r t i s t i c g r o w t h a n d , i n t h e case o f a relatively small n u m b e r of sculptors, excellence w o u l d have evolved g r a d u ally t h r o u g h t h e r e p e t i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f c a r v i n g m a n y e x a m p l e s o f t h e same t y p e or variety.

T h i s s i g n a t u r e m a y be d e f i n e d as a complex of r e c u r r i n g characteristics w h i c h , t h o u g h o f t e n easier to a p p r e ciate visually t h a n to describe verbally, reveals the w o r k s o f one s c u l p t o r to be stylistically closer to one a n o t h e r t h a n to the w o r k s o f any o t h e r sculptor. T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r y f r o m m a s t e r to master, a n d n o t w o sculptors are p r e cisely a l i k e i n t h e w a y t h e y express t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y . C e r t a i n techniques o f e x e c u t i o n , f o r m s o r d e t a i l s , even e r r o r s o r o m i s s i o n s , aspects o f t h e

Earlier, w e l o o k e d at the t w o archaic figures o f the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m

Figures 56, 57. Female folded-arm figure. Early Spedos variety. A namepiece of the Karlsruhe/ Woodner Master. EC II. One of the largest virtually completefigures now known, the work is unu sualfor its carved ears and very clear paint ghosts for eyes, brows, and hair. (Note the asymmetrical placement of the ears and eyes.) The pubic area was probably also painted. New York, Harmon Collection (ex Woodner Family Col lection). L . 86.3 cm. See alsofigures 37, 38, and plate vb.

Master and noted h o w they were s i m i l a r i n a b i d i n g by a c e r t a i n f o r m u l a , specifically the t h r e e - p a r t d i v i s i o n o f the body, yet d i f f e r e d f r o m each o t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t to p r o p o r t i o n s w i t h i n those divisions (fig. 4 5 ) . N o w i t is nec essary to l o o k at t h e classical p e r i o d a n d concentrate n o t so m u c h o n h o w an a r t i s t was c o n t r o l l e d by t r a d i t i o n b u t o n h o w he created his o w n per sonal style w i t h i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n a n d h o w h i s s t y l e is r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r ent w o r k s .

The Karlsruhe/Woodner Master C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l style m a y b e g i n w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t w o w o r k s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a s c u l p t o r o f the early classical phase c a l l e d t h e K a r l s r u h e / W o o d n e r M a s t e r (figs. 5 6 - 5 9 ) . N e a r l y i d e n t i c a l i n l e n g t h a n d excep t i o n a l l y l a r g e , t h e t w o f i g u r e s share a n u m b e r of characteristics whose c o m b i n e d presence c a n n o t have b e e n f o r t u i t o u s even t h o u g h t h e y d i f f e r i n obvious ways. A l t h o u g h t h e W o o d n e r piece is m u c h s t o c k i e r i n b u i l d a n d exhibits somewhat different propor-

t i o n s t h a n those o f the f i g u r e i n K a r l s r u h e , the basic f o r m s a n d contours are very close. S i m i l a r l y executed details w o r t h y o f m e n t i o n are the carved ears a n d the shape o f the nose as w e l l as t h e i r a s y m m e t r i c a l p l a c e m e n t ; i n ad d i t i o n , t h e eyes a n d h a i r a r e n o w clearly discernible i n the f o r m of p a i n t ghosts ( p i . v&, figs. 37, 3 8 ) . T h e p u b i c area, also r e n d e r e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n i n a plane s l i g h t l y b e l o w t h a t o f t h e t h i g h s , was p r o b a b l y o n c e a b l u e - p a i n t e d t r i a n g l e , as suggested by traces o f t h e o r i g i n a l m a r b l e s k i n o n both figures. T h e m a i n difference i n d e t a i l is the t r e a t m e n t o f t h e breasts: the flat tear d r o p - s h a p e d breasts o f the W o o d n e r i d o l are u n p r e c e d e n t e d i n c l a s s i c a l Cycladic sculpture and may, i n this case, be t h e r e s u l t o f an e x p e r i m e n t or an a t t e m p t to cover u p accidental damage. W r i s t grooves, clearly incised o n t h e K a r l s r u h e piece, are m i s s i n g f r o m the W o o d n e r figure but m a y have been indicated i n paint. M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , the figures differ i n s t r u c t u r e . T h e W o o d n e r i d o l is s o m e w h a t t h i c k e r i n p r o f i l e t h a n the one i n K a r l s r u h e , b u t the m o s t n o t i c e -

Figures 58, 59. Female folded-arm figure. Early Spedos variety. A namepiece of the Karlsruhe/ Woodner Master. EC II. Although considerably smaller than the work illus trated infigure 4, at pres ent this is thefourth largest complete figure known. It is more refined than the, very slightly smaller, pre ceding work (figs. 56, 57) carved by the same sculp tor, who also carved the second largest surviving figure, which is in the Goulandris Museum in Athens. One must ask if certain sculptors working around the middle of the third millennium B.C. made such unusually large works because they were unusually ambitious. Per haps, too, certain sculptors felt challenged by newly developed techniques for quarrying large pieces of marble. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 75/49. L . 88.8 cm.

able d i s c r e p a n c y is i n r e l a t i v e w i d t h : the f o r m e r has a s h o u l d e r span s l i g h t l y m o r e t h a n t w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f its l e n g t h , w h i l e t h e l a t t e r has a w i d t h s l i g h t l y less t h a n t w e n t y percent. Oneq u a r t e r o f the b o d y l e n g t h was the p r e f e r r e d r a t i o for t h e s h o u l d e r w i d t h i n figures o f s m a l l a n d average size, b u t m o s t sculptors r e d u c e d t h e w i d t h to one-fifth or less for t h e i r large w o r k s (fig. 77). A n a r r o w e r f i g u r e w o u l d have m o r e comfortably fit the hands not o n l y o f t h e s c u l p t o r b u t those o f bear ers as w e l l , a n d i t w o u l d also h a v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d its w e i g h t , an i m p o r t a n t consideration i f the sculp t u r e was to have b e e n c a r r i e d easily to the gravesite. T h e W o o d n e r figure weighs thirty-five pounds, w h i l e the slightly longer but t h i n n e r and nar r o w e r K a r l s r u h e piece by c o m p a r i s o n weighs only twenty-three.

early a t t e m p t o n t h e p a r t o f t h e sculp t o r to execute a f i g u r e o n such a g r a n d scale. I n d o i n g so he seems s i m p l y to have m a d e a large v e r s i o n o f t h e stan dard figure w i t h o u t addressing the matter of increased b u l k and w e i g h t as he d i d o n t h e K a r l s r u h e piece. T h e t w o pieces i l l u s t r a t e d here m a y i n fact have b e e n r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l w o r k s f o r t h i s s c u l p t o r . A t h i r d w o r k f r o m his hand, i n the Goulandris collection i n A t h e n s , has a l e n g t h o f 140 c m . O f t h e t h r e e , i t is t h e m o s t r e f i n e d a n d p r o portionally the narrowest.

The Goulandris Master I n s t r i k i n g contrast to t h e K a r l s r u h e / W o o d n e r M a s t e r is t h e G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r , w h o c o m e s s o m e w h a t later. A t p r e s e n t he is k n o w n f r o m n e a r l y one h u n d r e d pieces, a l t h o u g h a l l o f these m a y n o t be f r o m different w o r k s ( f i g . 6 9 ) . T h i r t e e n o f his f i g u r e s are preserved i n t h e i r entirety or very n e a r l y so. N a m e d f o r t h e G r e e k c o l l e c t i o n t h a t contains t w o o f his c o m p l e t e f i g u r e s a n d a h e a d , he is t h e m o s t p r o l i f i c Cycladic s c u l p t o r k n o w n a n d , after his i n i t i a l efforts, one o f the

O n e can speculate t h a t the W o o d n e r f i g u r e , w h i c h is heavier, m o r e c o m p r e s s e d i n its " v e r t i c a l " p r o p o r t i o n s , s o m e w h a t less c a r e f u l l y m o d e l e d , and m o r e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l than the K a r l s r u h e i m a g e , was the earlier o f t h e t w o w o r k s . H o w m u c h so one can n o t say. I t m a y have b e e n a r e l a t i v e l y

ures i n an u n u s u a l l y w i d e range o f sizes. T h e smallest measures about six a n d a h a l f inches (16.5 c m ) , w h i l e his largest k n o w n w o r k , o f w h i c h o n l y the h e a d s u r v i v e s , was n e a r l y six t i m e s as b i g . T h e l a r g e f i g u r e s t e n d to be m o r e a m b i t i o u s l y conceived t h a n the s m a l l e r ones: t h e y are p l a n n e d m o r e accurately a c c o r d i n g to t h e s t a n d a r d four-part plan (fig. 46&); they exhibit m o r e p r o n o u n c e d m o d e l i n g of the arms; the contours of the a b d o m e n and thighs curve m o r e strongly; the f o r e a r m s are s o m e t i m e s separated by a clear space; a n d t h e f i n g e r s are sometimes incised. Because the s m a l l e r pieces ( 1 6 . 5 - 4 0 c m ) t e n d to be t h i c k e r i n p r o f i l e , s t r a i g h t e r i n out l i n e contour, a n d l a c k i n g i n u n u s u a l e m b e l l i s h m e n t , they s h o u l d g e n e r a l l y be r e g a r d e d as p r o d u c t s o f a n e a r l y phase o f t h e G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r ' s de v e l o p m e n t (figs. 60, 61, 68). T h e g r e a t e r care l a v i s h e d o n t h e l a r g e r f i g u r e s (55 c m o r m o r e ) a n d t h e i r g r e a t e r r e f i n e m e n t p o i n t to a m a t u r e phase o f the sculptor's career (figs. 6 4 - 6 7 ) . To a m i d d l e phase m i g h t be assigned a n u m b e r o f w e l l - b a l a n c e d , carefully e x e c u t e d w o r k s o f substan-

very finest. I t can be a s s u m e d t h a t he enjoyed considerable p o p u l a r i t y and i n f l u e n c e i n his o w n t i m e , to j u d g e f r o m b o t h the q u a l i t y o f his w o r k s a n d t h e i r w i d e d i s t r i b u t i o n : his figures have b e e n f o u n d o n N a x o s , Keros, and, apparently, on A m o r g o s . A l t h o u g h by n o m e a n s exact r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f one another, each o f t h e G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r ' s w o r k s is easily i d e n t i f i a b l e as t h e p r o d u c t o f a single h a n d (figs. 6 0 - 6 9 ) . S o m e features o f his p e r s o n a l s i g n a t u r e are a l o n g , s e m i c o n i c a l nose on a l o n g , lyres h a p e d face w i t h p a i n t e d d e c o r a t i o n (figs. 39, 4 0 ) ; m a r k e d l y s l o p i n g s h o u l d e r s ; precise p a r a l l e l i n c i s i o n s c u r v i n g g e n t l y at t h e n e c k , a b d o m e n , knees, and ankles; an u n p e r f o r a t e d leg cleft; and a r o u n d e d back, nor mally w i t h o u t the usual grooved spine. Other repeated elements of t h i s m a s t e r ' s style are n o t as easy to describe i n w o r d s . So d i s t i n c t i v e is the G o u l a n d r i s Master's style, however, that i t is possible to recognize his h a n d even i n a s m a l l f r a g m e n t a n d , w i t h s o m e c o n f i d e n c e , to r e c o n s t r u c t f r o m it a w h o l e figure. T h e G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r carved f i g

Figures 60, 61. Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the Goulandris Master. EC I I . Afigure of above-average size for the Spedos variety as a whole but rather small for the Goulandris Master, the work, which belonged to the Keros hoard, was reassembled from three

fragments. The shortness of the calves, theforearms rendered almost solely by incision, and the straightness of the abdomi nal groove, considered together with thefigure's modest size, are indica tions that it belonged to an immature phase of the sculptor's artistic develop ment. San Francisco, The Fine Arts Museums of San

Francisco 1981.42, Willie H. Nobel Bequest Fund. L . 33.4 cm.

Figures 62, 63. Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the Goulandris Master. EC I I . On the basis of its delicate head and nose and better proportions, thisfigure is more advanced than the preceding one (figs. 60, 61), but the lack of mod eling of the forearms suggests that it is not as

developed as the next two pieces (figs. 64-67) and should therefore be consid ered an intermediate work of its sculptor. New York, Rosemary and George Lois Collection. L . 42 cm.

Figures 64, 65. Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the Goulandris Master. EC ii. The large size, carefully modeled and separated forearms, and harmonious proportions indicate a mature phase of the sculp足 tors development. Bloomington, Indiana

University Art Museum 76.25, Gift of Thomas T. Solley. L . 60 cm..

Figures 66, 67. Female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A namepiece of the Goulandris Master. EC II. With its carefully modeled and separated forearms, precisely incisedfingers, strong, subtly curving contours at the waist and thighs, and carefully balanced proportions, the figure represents the 69

Goulandris Master at the high point of his develop足 ment. (The curious mark足 ings on the right side of the chest and on the neck and back may be the remains of painted decoration.) Athens, Museum of Cycladic and Ancient Greek Art, Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation 281. L . 63.4cm. Said to be from. Naxos.

Figure 68. Fragmentary female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos variety. A w o r k of the Goulandris Master. EC I I . With its asymmetrical shoulders, breasts at dif ferent levels, and arm grooves rendered by a seemingly unsure hand, thisfigure, which originally measured about 38-40 cm, can be ascribed to an early phase of its sculptors career. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.81 (ex Steiner Collection) . Pres. L . 26.8 cm.

same well-balanced and carefully carvedfigure attributable to the Goulandris Masters (late) middle phase. When com plete, the image would have had a length of about 55-58 cm. The two frag ments are among several dozen pieces from this sculptors hand belonging to the Keros hoard (see figs. 39, 60, 61). His work has also beenfound in the investigations carried out by the Greek Archaeologi cal Service on Keros as well as in the cemetery of Aplomata on Naxos. He was most probably a Naxian. Head/neck: Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.82 (ex Steiner Collection). Pres. L . 14.5 cm. Torso: Rich mond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts 85.1511, Gift of William B. Causey. Pres. L . 18.4 cm.

Figure 69. Head and torso of a female folded-arm figure. Late Spedos vari ety. From a w o r k of the Goulandris Master. EC I I . In January 1988, while they were at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, it was determined that the head (which has red dots preserved on the cheeks and nose) and torso (see also fig. 53) comefrom the

t i a l size ( 4 0 - 6 0 c m ) w h i c h lack such r e f i n e m e n t s as s e p a r a t e d f o r e a r m s a n d i n c i s e d f i n g e r s (figs. 62, 63, 6 9 ) .

is observable.) O n e s h o u l d n o t e , too, the i n d e n t e d waist and the subtle curve o f the forearms—a convention used to r e p r e s e n t or, i n t h i s s c u l p t o r ' s w o r k , accentuate a pregnant c o n d i t i o n . T h e s e a n d o t h e r s h a r e d features d e f i n e t h e p a r t i c u l a r style o f t h e A s h molean Master, a sculptor n a m e d for the h o m e o f his largest k n o w n f i g u r e .

The Ashmolean Master T h e h a n d o f a t h i r d s c u l p t o r can be r e c o g n i z e d at p r e s e n t i n o n l y f o u r c o m p l e t e w o r k s . I n his p r i m e also an e x c e l l e n t a r t i s t , he c o m e s s o m e w h a t later i n the sequence o f f o l d e d - a r m figures t h a n t h e K a r l s r u h e / W o o d n e r and Goulandris Masters. A t first glance—especially i f seen i n actual size—the t h r e e f i g u r e s (figs. 7 0 - 7 5 ) a p p e a r s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s s i m i l a r to one another, a n d one m a y w e l l w o n d e r h o w t h e y can be ascribed to t h e same h a n d . B u t i f t h e y are l i n e d u p side by side i n o r d e r o f i n c r e a s i n g size a n d s t u d i e d closely, one soon sees t h a t they a l l s h a r e c e r t a i n u n m i s t a k a b l e fea tures. T h e s e i n c l u d e a s h i e l d - s h a p e d face w i t h a l o n g , n a r r o w a q u i l i n e nose originating h i g h on the forehead, a V - s h a p e d i n c i s i o n at t h e neck, a s m a l l pubic triangle, and, on t w o of the fig ures, o n l y f o u r toes o n each foot. ( O n t h e f o u r t h c o m p l e t e f i g u r e as w e l l as o n a f r a g m e n t , t h i s same inaccuracy

T h e A s h m o l e a n Master's largest s c u l p t u r e is t h r e e t i m e s t h e size o f the s m a l l e s t . T h e t w o m i d d l e figures ( o f w h i c h o n l y o n e is i l l u s t r a t e d h e r e , figs. 72, 73) are v e r y s i m i l a r b o t h i n style a n d i n size, each a b o u t h a l f as l o n g as t h e n a m e - p i e c e . A n d a g a i n , like the w o r k of the Goulandris M a s ter, the s m a l l e s t f i g u r e o f the A s h m o l e a n M a s t e r (figs. 70, 71) has a n unrefined look when compared w i t h the others. T h e largest f i g u r e (figs. 74, 75) differs f r o m t h e o t h e r t h r e e b o t h i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o u r - p a r t for m u l a a n d i n its r e l a t i v e n a r r o w n e s s . T h i s e x a g g e r a t e d s l i m n e s s w a s , as m e n t i o n e d above, c o m m o n i n excep t i o n a l l y large i m a g e s . One can see i n the w o r k s ascribed to the A s h m o l e a n M a s t e r the p r o d u c t s o f t h r e e separate stages i n t h e sculptor's

Figures 70, 71. Female folded-arm figure. Dokathismata variety. A work of the Ashmolean Master. EC I I . A rather smallfigure with a thick profile and some足 what crude incision work (see, e.g., the leg cleft), this is the earliest sculpture attributable at present to the Ashmolean Master. Budapest, Musee des Beaux-Arts 4709. L . 23.7 cm.

Figures 72, 75. Female folded-arm figure. Dokathismata variety. A work of the Ashmolean Master. EC I I . Masterfully conceived and executed, the work repre足 sents the high point of the sculptor's development. > Note especially the subtle interplay of angular and curving contours and the precise detail. Houston, The Menil Collection. L . 36.7 cm. Said to be from Naxos.

Figures 74, 75. Female folded-arm figure. Dokathismata variety. Name-piece of the Ashmolean Master. EC I I . On this unusually large work, the sculptor elon足 gated the legs but not the upper part, with somewhat ungainly results. In con足 trast to his smaller works (figs. 70-73), which are extremely broad across the shoulders as befits the Dokathismata variety, this figure is narrow through the shoulders, with the result that its upper arms have a straight contour in contrast to the inward, slanting contour of the two preceding figures. (Note that the mending of a break has obliterated the original ankle incisions.) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AE.176.L. 75.9 cm. Said to be from Amorgos.

d e v e l o p m e n t , w i t h the smallest r e p r e s e n t i n g a n e a r l y phase, t h e largest a n i n t e r m e d i a t e phase, and the m i d sized w o r k s a late o r m a t u r e phase. D e s p i t e its great size ( i t is t h e largest k n o w n example of the Dokathismata variety), the name-piece should prob ably be assigned to a m i d d l e phase, because o f its r a t h e r u n b a l a n c e d p r o p o r t i o n s a n d because i t shares w i t h the s m a l l f i g u r e a closely s i m i l a r treat m e n t o f t h e rear, o n w h i c h , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e i n c i s i o n s m a r k i n g t h e back o f t h e a r m s are o m i t t e d .

i n g t h e i r f o r m a t i v e years. H o w e v e r , i t is l i k e l y t h a t t h e y f i r s t m a s t e r e d t h e i r craft by m a k i n g r e l a t i v e l y m o d e s t f i g ures a n d o n l y a t t e m p t e d larger, m o r e a m b i t i o u s l y c o n c e i v e d ones l a t e r o n . One m i g h t compare the small, al l e g e d l y early w o r k s o f t h e G o u l a n d r i s Master and a sculptor called the S t e i n e r M a s t e r (figs. 60, 6 1 , 68, 76) w i t h t h e i r larger, m o r e m a t u r e figures (figs. 6 4 - 6 7 , 69, 7 7 ) ; t h e e a r l i e r ones a p p e a r coarse, heavy, a n d c o m p a c t . E v e n t h o u g h i n each case t h e basic concept is the same, the s m a l l e r f i g u r e is n o t as w e l l b a l a n c e d o r elegant, a n d is, i n fact, p l a i n by c o m p a r i s o n . F o r the Goulandris Master, the smaller w o r k lacks t h e h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d a n d subtle contours as w e l l as t h e separa t i o n o f the forearms w h i c h appear i n the larger w o r k s ; furthermore, not e n o u g h r o o m is a l l o t t e d f o r t h e d e l i cately i n c i s e d fingers so characteristic o f his later w o r k . For t h e Steiner M a s ter, the s m a l l e r f i g u r e lacks t h e grace ful curvature o f the outline contours a n d t h e c a r e f u l l y e l o n g a t e d effect o f the larger w o r k . Such e m b e l l i s h m e n t s a n d r e f i n e m e n t s do m u c h to alter a n d e n h a n c e a f i g u r e ' s appearance.

O n e m i g h t w e l l ask w h y the smaller, less r e f i n e d w o r k s s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d g e n e r a l l y as e a r l i e r p r o d u c t s o f an art ist's career, especially since i t was p r o b a b l y n o easier, o n l y less t i m e c o n s u m i n g , t o carve a s m a l l f i g u r e . I t is q u i t e possible t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e r ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s , w h i c h m i g h t have b e e n c o n t r o l l e d by e c o n o m i c considera tions, helped determine the d i m e n sions o f a p a r t i c u l a r piece o f s c u l p t u r e ; t h e w e a l t h i e s t c u s t o m e r s m i g h t have p r e f e r r e d l a r g e r f i g u r e s , t h e less w e a l t h y s m a l l e r o n e s . I n t h i s case, sculptors m a y n o t necessarily have carved s m a l l i m a g e s e x c l u s i v e l y d u r

Figure 76. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos variety. A work of the Steiner Master. EC I I . Afigure of rather modest size in comparison with the next onefrom the same hand (fig. 77), it is, despite obvious similarities of form and detail, also rather stocky and coarse and is therefore to be thought of as an early work of its sculptor. Tokyo, National Museum of Western Art S. 1974-1. L . 34.5 cm.

Figure 77. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos variety. Name-piece of the Steiner Master. EC I I . Unusually large, thefigure is harmoniously conceived and masterfully executed. In an effort to make this work more slender, the sculptor elongated all parts for a very balanced effect. Note the graceful curvature of the outline contours, including that of the top of the head, which reveals the self-assurance of a master at the peak of his develop足 ment. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88.AA.80 (ex Steiner Collection). L . 59.9 cm.

Figure 78. Female foldedarm figure. Early Spedos variety. EC I I . A carefully fashionedfigure especially interesting for its surviving painted detail (pi. Vic, d), the piece is at present unique among Cycladic sculpturesfor its painted ears. A pattern of dots is also clearly visible on theface, and some of the grooves retain traces of paint as well. The treat ment of the midsection with an extra horizontal inci sion is unparalleled. Malibu, The J . Paul Getty Museum 88.AA. 79 (ex Steiner Collection). L . 49.5 cm.

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e rare v i r t u oso pieces—the h a r p e r s or t h e t h r e e figure group—were surely the most d i f f i c u l t o f a l l Cycladic sculptures to carve, p a r t l y because o f t h e i r s m a l l size. T h e y m u s t have b e e n m a d e by sculptors w h o h a d p o l i s h e d t h e i r skills by m a k i n g t h e u s u a l f o l d e d - a r m f i g ures. T h e s e sculptors w o u l d have at t e m p t e d the m u c h more d e m a n d i n g f i g u r e types o n l y after they h a d devel o p e d t h e i r techniques a n d h o n e d t h e i r styles. E v e n t h e n , i n t h e absence o f such m o d e r n aids as sketchbooks a n d plasticene or plaster m o d e l s , t h e i r first attempts m u s t have been less suc cessful t h a n t h e i r l a t e r ones. S o m e t h i n g o f t h e p r o g r e s s f r o m p i e c e to piece m a y be sensed i n a p a i r o f h a r p ers said to have been f o u n d t o g e t h e r a n d e v i d e n t l y d e s i g n e d as c o m p a n i o n pieces (figs. 25, 4 7 ) . I n g e n e r a l , t h e s m a l l e r f i g u r e is t h e m o r e c a r e f u l l y executed o f t h e t w o ; i t is also c o n s i d erably freer a n d m o r e r e l a x e d i n a t t i t u d e . I t w o u l d appear t h a t i n t h i s case the s m a l l e r figure was carved after the l a r g e r one a n d t h a t i t b e n e f i t e d f r o m t h e e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d by t h e s c u l p t o r d u r i n g the m a k i n g o f t h e first v e r s i o n .

Figure 79. Harp player. Early Spedos variety style. ECU. From thefront the musi cian closely resembles contemporaneous female folded-armfigures. Note the absence of genitalia, difficult to render on a seatedfigure and present on only three of the ten harpists now known. See also plate IVh.

a p o s s i b i l i t y . H o w e v e r , i n the absence of a n u m b e r of folded-arm figures d e f i n i t e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the s c u l p t o r o f this harper, one can o n l y speculate about his a r t i s t i c career, the apex o f w h i c h this masterpiece must surely represent.

Since b o t h w o r k s reveal a h a n d p r o f i cient i n the r e n d e r i n g o f this d i f f i c u l t figure type, one m u s t also assume that these are n o t the first harpists carved by this sculptor. F i n a l l y , one m i g h t consider the h a r p p l a y e r i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 79 (see a l s o p i . \vb, f i g s . 2 4 , 2 5 , a n d cover). A s c u l p t u r e t h a t goes w e l l be y o n d m e r e t e c h n i c a l v i r t u o s i t y , i t is r e m a r k a b l e for the h a r m o n y o f its sub t l y c u r v i n g f o r m s a n d f o r t h e excel lence o f its w o r k m a n s h i p and surface f i n i s h . C l e a r l y such a w e l l - b a l a n c e d w o r k m u s t have b e e n p l a n n e d w i t h diligence and precision. T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t side, as i n all the h a r p e r s , is the r i g h t one; b u t the o t h e r t h r e e are also w e l l c o n c e i v e d . O n e can easily a p p r e c i a t e the s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o f the d o m i n a n t f o l d e d - a r m t y p e , especially i n the t r e a t m e n t o f t h e legs w h i c h are j o i n e d by a m e m b r a n e o f m a r b l e per forated b e t w e e n the calves. A l t h o u g h at present no o t h e r w o r k s by the same h a n d can be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h c o n f i dence—the a t t r i b u t i o n to one sculptor o f f i g u r e s e x e c u t e d i n d i f f e r e n t pos tures b e i n g e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t — t h e piece i l l u s t r a t e d i n figure 78 is at least

T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Figures

M a r b l e sculptures have been f o u n d o n m a n y o f t h e Cyclades, t h o u g h o n l y a few islands have y i e l d e d l a r g e n u m b e r s . I n t h e f i r s t p e r i o d , Paros a n d N a x o s a p p e a r to have b e e n t h e m a i n centers o f p r o d u c t i o n , w h i l e i n the classical p e r i o d this d i s t i n c t i o n be l o n g e d m o r e exclusively to N a x o s , the largest, m o s t f e r t i l e , a n d m o s t p o p u lous i s l a n d i n t h e a r c h i p e l a g o . C u r i ously, t h e place t h a t has y i e l d e d t h e greatest c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f m a r b l e ob j e c t s is K e r o s , a s m a l l a n d r a t h e r u n i n v i t i n g island between Naxos and Amorgos.

I n seeking an e x p l a n a t i o n for the fact t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y o f these m a r b l e s rivals the n u m b e r found on all the o t h e r Cyclades c o m b i n e d , one m u s t w o n d e r i f Keros d i d n o t enjoy a spe cial status, e i t h e r as a t r a d i n g s t a t i o n at t h e crossroads o f A e g e a n s h i p p i n g routes, a n d / o r as a large o p e n - a i r p a n ( o r s o u t h e r n ) C y c l a d i c sanctuary—a p r e h i s t o r i c D e l o s as i t w e r e . As one approaches Keros f r o m t h e w e s t , t h e i s l a n d has the u n m i s t a k a b l e silhouette of a giant pregnant reclining figure, a fact t h a t w o u l d have been m a d e m u c h o f by t h e early Cycladians, a n d i n d e e d m a y have p r o m p t e d t h e m to conse crate t h e place. W h a t e v e r t h e e x p l a n a t i o n , i t seems h i g h l y u n l i k e l y i n any case t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e objects found on Keros were actually made t h e r e by l o c a l c a r v e r s . I t s e e m s f a r m o r e p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e y w o u l d have been b r o u g h t there by people f r o m n e i g h b o r i n g islands, chiefly Naxos.

L i t e r a l l y h u n d r e d s o f vases a n d f i g ures o f t h e second phase o f t h e E a r l y Cycladic c u l t u r e , m o s t l y f r a g m e n t a r y , have been recovered o n t h e s o u t h w e s t coast o f K e r o s at an e x t e n d e d site t h a t appears n o t to have b e e n a s e t t l e m e n t o r a c e m e t e r y , at least n o t an o r d i n a r y one. Nevertheless, w i t h the possible e x c e p t i o n o f one vessel t y p e , a l l t h e objects f o u n d t h e r e by archaeologists o r t h o u g h t w i t h g o o d reason to have b e e n f o u n d t h e r e by o t h e r s b e l o n g to t h e t y p e s n o r m a l l y r e c o v e r e d else w h e r e i n graves (figs. 18, 53, 60, 6 9 ) .

Beyond the Cyclades

T h e c a r v i n g o f small-scale h u m a n f i g ures i n m a r b l e , l i m e s t o n e , o r alabas t e r was w i d e s p r e a d over t h e greater M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d N e a r East d u r i n g t h e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . a n d even earlier. Particularly strong traditions f l o u r i s h e d i n A n a t o l i a (figs. 83, 84) a n d i n S a r d i n i a , w i t h n u m e r o u s sur viving examples, w h i l e occasional pieces have been u n e a r t h e d i n C y p r u s (figs. 8 0 - 8 2 ) , Persia, a n d t h e B a l k a n s , to n a m e o n l y a f e w places. W i t h few e x c e p t i o n s , t h e f e m a l e f o r m is d e picted, usually i n a schematic or highly stylized manner. T h e r e is n o concrete evidence t h a t t h e C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r a l t r a d i t i o n was d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by o r e x e r t e d a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o n the t r a d i t i o n o f any of the contemporaneous nearby cul tures except those o f Early M i n o a n Crete and Early H e l l a d i c Greece, w h e r e i t was c l e a r l y i m i t a t e d . A f e w examples of Early Cycladic sculpture also f o u n d t h e i r w a y to t h e coast o f Asia M i n o r but apparently w e n t no f a r t h e r east. T h e E a r l y B r o n z e A g e levels o f t h e Cyclades are s t r i k i n g l y free o f n o n p e r i s h a b l e i t e m s f r o m o t h e r l a n d s : a s i n g l e s t a m p seal f r o m

N o r t h Syria ( w h i c h may, however, o n l y be based o n N o r t h S y r i a n m o d els) a n d one o r t w o s c h e m a t i c A n a t o l i a n - t y p e idols allegedly f o u n d i n the Cyclades c o n s t i t u t e t h e s u m t o t a l o f possible a r t i s t i c i m p o r t s to t h e islands at t h i s t i m e . I t is h i g h l y u n l i k e l y , m o r e o v e r , that the sculptors themselves t r a v e l e d beyond t h e i r o w n cultural spheres, i f i n d e e d they even v e n t u r e d m u c h b e y o n d t h e i r o w n o r n e i g h b o r i n g is l a n d s . W h a t e v e r t h e traffic i n p e r i s h able goods a n d r a w m a t e r i a l s m i g h t have b e e n i n t h e A e g e a n d u r i n g t h e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . , artists of the p e r i o d p r o b a b l y spent m u c h or m o s t o f t h e i r t i m e i n v o l v e d i n subsistence farming and herding. T h e i r relative i s o l a t i o n q u i t e l i t e r a l l y w o u l d have insulated t h e m from outside influ ences a n d w o u l d have h a d t h e effect of strengthening and formalizing their o w n t r a d i t i o n s . I n a s m u c h as sculptors t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e g i o n w e r e engaged i n s e e k i n g s o l u t i o n s to s i m i l a r p r o b lems and i n fulfilling similar cultural needs, i t s h o u l d c o m e as n o s u r p r i s e that the results of t h e i r endeavors occasionally a p p e a r s i m i l a r .

Cycladic sculpture probably dif fered f r o m contemporaneous sculp t u r e o f o t h e r l a n d s less i n m e a n i n g than i n the tenacity w i t h w h i c h the artists followed r i g i d standards of f o r m a n d beauty. W i t h i n t h i s precise d e s i g n f r a m e w o r k , C y c l a d i c sculptors achieved superb t e c h n i c a l m a s t e r y o f the m a r b l e , and i n t h e best e x a m p l e s of the classical phase t h e i r figures reflect a h a r m o n y o f p r o p o r t i o n a n d a balance o f f o r m a n d c o n t o u r t h a t is rarely matched elsewhere i n prehis

t o r i c a r t . A d h e r e n c e to s u c h s t r o n g aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s by Cycladic sculp tors makes t h e i r figures especially a p p e a l i n g as a g r o u p a n d also n a t u r a l l y e n c o u r a g e s one to t h i n k ahead t w o m i l l e n n i a to t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f A r c h a i c G r e e k sculptors, w h o s e basic ideals, f o r m u l a i c a p p r o a c h , a n d r i g o r ous m e t h o d s o f c o n t r o l l i n g t h e same f r a c t i o u s m e d i u m w e r e n o t so v e r y d i f f e r e n t after a l l , h o w e v e r f o r t u i tously, f r o m those o f these earliest m a r b l e artists.

Figures 80-82. Female figure of chalk limestone. Cruciform type. Cypriote M i d d l e 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. H. 39.5cm.

Figures 85, 84. Female figure of marble. Kilia type. Anatolian Chalcolithic. An excellent example of a type of figure often com足 pared with Cycladic sculp足 ture. Many fragments and a number of complete Kilia figures are known, includ足 ing a diminutive one in electrum. With their bul足 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.

M a j o r Collections of Early Cycladic Sculpture (Including Stone Vases)

ISRAEL

DENMARK

Israel M u s e u m (Jerusalem)

Antiksamlingen, Nationalmuseet (Copenhagen)

SWITZERLAND

M u s e e B a r b i e r - M u e l l e r (Geneva)

ENGLAND

Fitzwilliam M u s e u m (Cambridge) British Museum (London) Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts (Norwich) Ashmolean M u s e u m (Oxford)

U N I T E D STATES

J. Paul G e t t y M u s e u m ( M a l i b u ) Metropolitan M u s e u m of A r t ( N e w York) M e n i l Collection (Houston)

FRANCE

M u s e e d u L o u v r e (Paris) GERMANY

Staatliche M u s e e n , Antikensammlung (Berlin) Staatliche K u n s t s a m m l u n g e n , Skulpturensammlung (Dresden) Badisches L a n d e s m u s e u m (Karlsruhe) Staatliche A n t i k e n s a m m l u n g (Munich)

Note: Smaller collections or i n d i v i d u a l pieces of some importance are to be found i n many American museums, i n c l u d i n g Indiana University A r t Museum (Bloomington); Museum of Fine Arts (Boston); B r o o k l y n M u s e u m ; Fogg A r t M u s e u m , Harvard University (Cambridge); Cin足 cinnati A r t M u s e u m ; M u s e u m of A r t and Archaeology, University of Missouri ( C o l u m b i a ) ; Des M o i n e s A r t C e n t e r ; Kimbell A r t Museum (Fort W o r t h ) ; Yale Art Gallery, Yale University (New Haven); V i r g i n i a M u s e u m of Fine A r t s ( R i c h 足 m o n d ) ; and Seattle A r t M u s e u m .

GREECE

National Archaeological M u s e u m (Athens) Paul C a n e l l o p o u l o s M u s e u m (Athens) M u s e u m o f Cycladic and A n c i e n t G r e e k A r t , N i c h o l a s P. G o u l a n d r i s Foundation (Athens) Archaeological M u s e u m (Naxos)

Selected Bibliography

Barber, R. L . N . The Cyclades Bronze Age. Iowa City, 1987.

G e t z - P r e z i o s i , P. " A n E a r l y C y c l a d i c S c u l p t o r . " Antike Kunst 18 (1975), pp. 47-50.

in the

Doumas, C. The TV. P. Goulandris Collec tion of Cycladic Art. Athens, 1968.

. "Five Sculptors i n the Goulandris Collection." I n Cycladica, pp. 48-71. See Fitton, 1984.

__. Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture and Pottery from the TV. P. Goulandris Collection. L o n d o n , 1983. ( A l t h o u g h a number of museums have published similar versions of this catalogue [e.g., the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D . C , 1970], this is the most inclusive and also benefits from an introduction by C. Renfrew.)

_ _ . "The 'Keros H o a r d ' : Introduc t i o n to an Early Cycladic Enigma." I n D . Metzler and B. Otto, eds., Antidoron Jiirgen Thimme, pp. 26-44. Karlsruhe, 1982. "The Male Figure i n Early Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu seum Journal \5 (1980), pp. 5-35.

. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades. Studies i n Mediterra nean Archaeology 48 (1977).

_. " N i n e Fragments of Early Cy cladic Sculpture i n Southern Califor nia." The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 12 (1984), pp. 5-20 (a discussion of the pieces illustrated i n fig. 53).

F i t t o n , J. L . , ed. Cycladica: Studies in Memory ofN. P. Goulandris. Proceed ings of the Seventh B r i t i s h M u s e u m Classical Coloquium, June 1983. L o n don, 1984.

"Risk and Repair i n Early Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu seum Journal 16 (1981), pp. 5-32.

"Perditus and Pedita: Two Draw ings of Cycladic Figurines i n the Greek and Roman Department of the British M u s e u m . " I n Cycladica, pp. 76-87. See Fitton, 1984.

. Sculptors of the Cyclades: Indi vidual and Tradition in the Third Mil lennium B.C. A n n Arbor, 1987.

. Cycladic Art. London, 1989. Getz-Gentle, P. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age. Forthcoming.

. The Obsidian Trail, or 5000A000 Years Ago in the Cyclades. Athens, 1987.

. "Speculations on the Use of Early Cycladic Sculpture." I n Cycladica, pp. 24-30. S ^ F i t t o n , 1984.

. Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections. Richmond, Vir ginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1987 (with essays by J. L . Davis and E. Oustinoff).

_. The Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collec tion.^^York, 1991.

Getz-Preziosi, P., and W e i n b e r g , S. S. "Evidence for Painted Details i n Early Cycladic Sculpture." Antike Kunst 13 (1970), pp. 4-12.

T h i m m e . J., ed. Art and Culture of the Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C. Chicago, 1977.

Havelock, C. M . "Cycladic Sculpture: A Prelude to Greek A r t ? " Archaeology (July/August 1981), pp. 29-36.

Zervos, C. LArt des Cyclades du debut a lafin de Page du bronze. Paris, 1957.

M a r a n g o u , 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. " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t 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.

Photo Credits

Project staff (first edition):

Roger Asselberghs, figs. 4, 34 Curtis D . Bean, figs. 72, 73 Gad Borel-Boissonnas, p i . i n b Scott Bowron, fig. 20 British M u s e u m , figs. 27, 35, 66, 67 Prudence C u m i n g Associates, fig. 61 Pierre-Alain Ferrazzini, p i . va Seth Joel, fig. 25

Editor: Sandra Knudsen M o r g a n Designer: David A r t h u r Hadlock Illustrator: Martha Breen Bredemeyer Copyeditors: Susan Gallick and Carol Leyba Photograph Editor: Elizabeth Chapin Burke Production Coordinator: Karen Schmidt

Werner Mohrbach, figs. 24, 30-32, 58, 59 Otto Nelson, figs. 8, 23, 41, p i . via, b Elizabeth Oustinoff, fig. 43 John Patrikianos, fig. 28 Ken Strothman and Harvey Osterhoudt, figs. 64, 65 Sarah Wells, figs. 37, 49, 56, 57, p i . vb D i e t r i c h W i d m e r , figs. 62, 63

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

Project staff (revised edition): Manuscript Editor: Cynthia Newman Bohn Designer: Vickie Sawyer Karten Production Coordinator: Elizabeth Burke Kahn Illustrator: Emily Silver Photographer (Getty M u s e u m works of art): Ellen Rosenbery Typesetting by Archetype Printed by Arizona Lithographers