The Male Figure in Egyptian and Greek Sculpture of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C.

8/9/2019 The Male Figure in Egyptian and Greek Sculpture of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C.

1/23

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

The Male Figure in Egyptian and Greek Sculpture of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C.Author(s): Kim LevinSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1964), pp. 13-28Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/501521Accessed: 17-03-2015 09:52 UTC

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

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

This content downloaded from 62. 204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 201 5 09:52:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/501521http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/501521http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/


2/23

T h e a l e i g u r e n g y p t i a n n d G r e e k Sculpture

o th S e v e n t h n d S i x t h enturies B c

KIM LEVIN

But concerning Egypt I will now speak atlength, because nowhere are there so manymarvelous hings, nor in the whole worldbeside are there to be seen so many worksof unspeakable reatness.

Herodotus 2.35

PLATES 5-10

The Greeks themselves were interested in thequestion of the origins of their art and culture.From Herodotus to Diodorus we find numerousattempts to locate origins,' and Egypt is alwaysgiven a position of importance as originator. In-deed, the legend of the first Greek sculptor, Daeda-lus, has close connections with Egypt.2 The arthistorians of the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies' continued this ancient interest, disputingwhether or not Greek art in its origins was in-

fluenced by foreign styles, and if so, who influ-enced it. Contemporary opinion accepts the fact offoreign influence, and has devoted considerablestudy to the Near East as a source. Egypt as asource is mainly ignored, although not denied, forearly Egyptian statues such as Ranofer have oftenbeen used for comparison with Greek kouroi.'This paper is intended to define more closely thecontact between Egyptian and Greek sculpture.

For the purpose f making he most valid compari-sons, it is necessary o consider not ancient pre-Greek Egypt, but the Egypt contemporary withGreek civilization.'

INTRODUCTION

Since the chronological actor is of vital impor-tance as the basis of this investigation, t is usefulby way of introduction o turn to history. It isgenerally agreed hat Greek monumental culpturehas its beginnings during the decade between 660and 650 B.c.,and that the Early Archaic period ex-tends from about 66o to 590 or 580 B.c. From 660to 620 we have what has become known, duechiefly to the efforts of Jenkins,6 s the Dedalicstyle; the kouros ype proper begins about 615 B.C.,according o the chronology of Richter.7

When we turn to the Egypt with which theearly Greeks would have had contact, we are not

1 The earlier historian Hecataeus of Miletus, whose writingsare lost, visited Egypt in the sixth century B.c., and is thesource for much of Herodotus' information on Egypt.

2 Diodorus Siculus, Works, trans. C. H. Oldfather (LoebClassical Library, London 1933-35) 1.6I; 1.97. Daedalus ap-pears to have been a contemporary of Heracles and Orpheus,both of whom lived about a century before the Trojan War,according to ancient sources. Thus all three of these adventurerswould have traveled to Egypt in the early thirteenth centuryB.C.

3 Loewy, who advocated Egyptian influence in Greek art;Poulsen, who advocated Phoenician influence; Deonna, whodenied any foreign influence and claimed any similarities to beaccidental.

4 Friedrich Matz, Geschichte der griechischen Kunst (Frank-furt am Main 1950) I, io6, pl. 47. Rhys Carpenter in ChapterI of Greek Sculpture (Chicago 1960) does speak quite fullyfor the

Egyptianorigins of Greek

sculpture.5F. Grace, Observations on Seventh Century Sculpture,AJA 46 (I942) 341-359, dealt superficially with similarities in

seventh-century Egyptian and Greek sculpture, but offered lit-tle tangible evidence. In the preparation of this paper, I amindebted to Professor Otto Brendel for

guidance,and to the

Wilbour Library and the files of the Corpus of Late EgyptianSculpture at the Brooklyn Museum. All Egyptian photographsused in the plates, unless otherwise specified, are reproducedby courtesy of the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture.

This paper is a summary of the conclusions reached in myM.A. thesis for Columbia University, June 1962. After it waswritten, Rudolf Anthes published Affinity and DifferenceBetween Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in theSeventh and Sixth Centuries B.c. in the Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical Society io7:i (Feb. 1963) 6o-8i, inwhich he denies Egyptian influence on Greek sculpture as seenin the stance, torso or wig. I disagree with his remarks on thissubject, which are apparently based on lack of evidence.

6 R. J. H. Jenkins, Dedalica, a Study of Dorian Plastic Artin the Seventh

CenturyB.C.

(Cambridge 1936).7 G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi (rev. ed., London I960).


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

14 KIM LEVIN [AJA 68

dependent on modern historians for divisions ofperiods and dates, as is the case with Greece. Ac-cording to the Chronicles of Manetho, Egypt atthat time was in Dynasty XXVI, known as theSaite Dynasty, which began in 664 B.c. The chronol-ogy of the rulers of Dynasty XXVI is as follows:8Psamtik I (Psammetichos)--664-6Io; Necho II (Ne-kos)-61o-595; Psamtik II (Psammis)-595-589;Apries-589-570; Amasis-570-526. However, Dynas-ty XXV, the foreign dynasty from the land of Kushor Nubia, the Ethiopia of the classical authors,continued to rule in the South until 656 when itwas overthrown by the native Saite Dynasty fromthe North. For almost a decade the two dynastiesoverlapped.

For the moment ourpoint

in time is about 66oB.c., and our interest is the condition of Egypt atthe point when Greek sculpture begins. Egypt inthe seventh century had an extremely long past;this is the beginning of the Late Period of Egyp-tian history. Seventh-century Greece on the otherhand was young, emerging from the formativeGeometric period with a future and relatively nopast. But we must also note that in the seventhcentury Egypt as well as Greece was emergingfrom a time of disorganization. The Saite Dynasty

was the first native dynasty to rule after the Kush-ites, who conquered Egypt in the late eighth cen-tury and began to pull the country out of the un-distinguished immediate past of the Third Inter-mediate Period. So we have a parallel regression ofculture in Greece between the end of the Myce-naean age and the new seventh-century beginnings,and in Egypt between the end of the New King-dom and the eighth or seventh century. Perhaps ifEgypt forgot less, if less was erased during thosethree hundred or more dark years, it was because

there was more to remember, and because it was thenature of the Egyptian to remember.

History. The Kushites had only limited successin uniting Egypt in the late eighth century. In-dependent Delta princes were powerful in theNorth and probably traded with Ionian Greeks. Inspite of the Kushite conquerors and, after 670, theAssyrian attackers, the defeated princes of Sais inthe Western Delta remained the real rulers of the

North.? The decade from 670 to 66o was one ofconflict between the North and the Kushite South,with the Kushites finally decisively expelled fromthe Delta. Thus by our crucial date of 66o LowerEgypt was completely cut off from Upper Egypt;there was no commerce between the two parts.10So the Delta must have turned elsewhere for trade;it must have turned north, to the Mediterranean.

The Ionian Greeks had already known the Delta

in the eighth century,1 and in the early seventhcentury Ionian mercenaries helped the Delta princesagainst the Kushites and Assyrians, and they helpedPsamtik I attain power over both the Assyriansand the other Delta princes.12 But the main rela-tions of Ionia in the late eighth and early seventhcenturies were with the inland countries of AsiaMinor.' Phrygia, inland from Ionia, was invadedby the fierce Cimmerians about 675 B.c., and soIonian communication with the Phrygian interiorwas cut off. To the south Lydia, emerging strong

in the early seventh century, was also raided pe-riodically after 675 by the Cimmerians, makingland communication hazardous.'4

Thus Ionia was cut off from trade with the in-terior of Asia Minor after 675, and the EgyptianDelta cut off from the Egyptian interior after 670.Strong trade connections would logically followbetween Ionian Greece and the Egyptian Delta,areas which already had some knowledge of eachother, and both of which had been forced to turnto the sea at that time.

Psamtik I, grateful and wanting continued help,settled the Ionian mercenaries in the Delta in the

8 Bernard V. Bothmer, Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Pe-riod 700 B.C. to A.D. ioo (Brooklyn 1960) xxx-xxxi (here-after ESLP). Although Sais is merely the home town of thekings of Dynasty XXVI and not the seat of government, Dynas-ty XXVI has come to be known as Saite. Any mention ofthe word Saite in this paper refers to Dynasty XXVI andnot to the town of Sais.

9 One prince of Sais, Bocchoris, known to the Greeks, evenset up an independent Delta dynasty in 718 B.c., Dynasty XXIV(Diodorus op.cit. [supra, n. 2] 1.94).

10 M. F. Gyles, Pharaonic Policies and Administration, 663-323 B.C. (Chapel Hill 1959), for a recent study of this period.

11 J. G. Milne, Trade between Greece and Egypt beforeAlexander the Great, JEA 25 (1939) 177, for early relationsbetween Greece and Egypt; also T. J. Dunbabin, The Greeksand their Eastern Neighbors (London 1957) 31 and 49.

12 Herodotus, History, trans. A. D. Godley (Loeb ClassicalLibrary, London 1931) 2.152.

13Dunbabin, op.cit. (supra, n. i i) for relations betweenGreece and the Near East; also, C. A. Roebuck, Ionian Tradeand Colonization (New York 1959).

14Lydia however had contact with Egypt by sea; it wasKing Gyges of Lydia who sent the Ionian mercenaries in hisservice to aid Psamtik I. Roebuck,

op.cit. (supra,n.

13) 69.




4/23

1964] THE MALE FIGURE IN EGYPTIAN AND GREEK SCULPTURE 15

66o's, and thus opened Egypt to Greek settlers.Previous contact had been sporadic; the Greektraveling in Egypt after 660 was no longer an ad-venturer, but a tourist. The relations of Egypt andGreece changed and became even closer during the

Greek Middle Archaic period, from about 580 to530 B.C. In 570 Amasis began his long rule, winningcontrol by overthrowing Apries and his Greektroops. The Greeks, mercenaries and traders, wouldfor their own purposes probably have been uncon-cerned with Egyptian politics, and would have sup-ported whichever ruler was in power. Amasis, whomay have had early suspicions of the Greeks, lateris known to have favored them. Naukratis, theGreek settlement near Sais, rose to great importanceas an international trading port.16 Amasis was

closely allied with Polykrates of Samos and Pei-sistratos of Athens, and sent statues as offerings toGreek sanctuaries. 7

Sculpture. The Kushites, in their attempt to es-tablish an Egyptian dynasty, effected a revival ofsculpture in Egypt, centered at Thebes in the South.Not truly Egyptian themselves, they made an ef-fort to create an authentically Egyptian art, per-haps to help legitimize their rule, for the sculptureworkshops in Egypt were always closely connectedto the ruling dynasty. The Kushites drew their in-spiration from the art of the Middle Kingdom. InKushite art there is an interest in the head, theportrait, and a brutal realism and strength, remind-ing us of the art of Sesostris III and Amenemhet IIIof Dynasty XII. The brutality and simplificationin Kushite sculpture may derive also from the gapin tradition caused by the period of regression pre-ceding the Kushites in Egypt, and from the non-Egyptian ancestry of the Kushite rulers.

With Dynasty XXVI we have a native Egyptiandynasty creating art in the North of

Egypt. sPsamtik I, first king of the dynasty, with his rulepartially depending on Greek troops, felt it particu-larly necessary to stress the Egyptian past and an-cestry. This nationalism led to a style of scholarlyarchaizing; thus the art of the period is considered

classicistic, or Psamtik I went back to the stylesof Dynasties IV and V for inspiration. But Saite

art was not limited to copies. This scholarly re-search into the Old Kingdom, in contrast to theKushite imitation of the more accessible MiddleKingdom, is only one manifestation of the con-scious intellectual character of the art of DynastyXXVI. The Saite artist produced a change in thecanon of proportions. His interest lay in the cubicstructure, in the design, and in the detail, espe-cially the details of surfaces. Late Egyptian sculp-ture abandoned the polychromy of traditionalEgypt and tended to favor hard polished stonesthat reflect all the surface modeling.

Besides the contemporary Saite art, the Greeksin Egypt could not help but see earlier art, muchmore of which must have been preserved thanthere is today. The one period undoubtedly very

accessible to seventh century Egypt, and whichwould have been especially visible to the Greeksin the Delta, was that of Ramesses II. Ramesses IIof the late New Kingdom was important to LatePeriod Egypt because he concentrated on the de-velopment of the Delta, moving his capital to Qan-tir in the Eastern Delta. Ramesses II undertook themost ambitious building projects known even toEgypt; his unscrupulous appropriation of formermonuments as well as the colossal monuments heerected himself make his name and art, out of allproportion, the most visible in all Egypt.

Althoughhis works do not impress us by their artistic value,they cannot fail to impress by their physical size.Herodotus, a visitor from the severe restrainedEarly Classical Greek world to post-Saite Egypt,commented with admiration on the size and quan-tity of her rich monuments. He, as well as the ear-lier Greeks in Egypt, must have been impressedby Ramesses II. They knew him by the name ofOzymandias; they also knew him as the legendaryking Sesostris, 9 onfused with Sesostris III. It isprobably this magnification of Ramesses' impor-tance by the Greeks that misled them into datingthe great pyramids of Dynasty IV to the Ramessideera, Dynasties XIX and XX.20

It is significant that no objects of Ramesses IIhave been found in the Greek world, although manyobjects of the preceding Dynasty XVIII exist, andDynasty XXVI objects are common in Greece.21

15 Herodotus, op.cit. (supra, n. 12) 2.154.16ibid. 2.178.17 ibid. 2.181-182.18 Bothmer, ESLP, is the basic and only comprehensive work

on Saitestyle.

19 Diodorus, op.cit. (supra, n. 2) 1.99-146.20 Both Herodotus and Diodorus assign Ramesside dates to

the pyramids.21 J. D. S. Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca, A Catalogue of Egyptian

Objectsn the

AegeanArea

(Cambridge 1930)xviii-xix.




5/23


This indicates that Greek knowledge of RamessesII dates from Dynasty XXVI, from Greeks nSaite Egypt.22 Ramesside ite has been ound atKom el Hisn, only a few miles south of Naukra-tis,23 and among the remains there is a colossal

standing figure of Ramesses II. The impressionmade on the Greeks by such statues may have beena major influence n the Greek adoption of thistypically Egyptian striding stance for the kourostype. Our task now is to establish the relations ofspecific culptural orms.

THE STANCE

Egypt. The Egyptian repertory of poses is lesslimited than is often thought. By the time ofDynasty XXVI, an increasingly large number of

types of male statues was popular,24 especiallyvotary figures holding a small god or shrine.The standing male figure without attributes,

wearing a short kilt, left leg advanced, arms stiffat the sides, hands clenched in fists (pl. 5, fig. 2),is the simplest and oldest of the standing figuretypes, and also the most important in relation toGreek sculpture, although it is not the type mostfrequently represented in Dynasty XXVI. Anothertype of standing figure without attributes wears along skirt of trapezoidal shape (pl. 6, fig. 4). Tradi-tional examples of this type usually have handsplaced flat on the skirt, palms down. The standingfigure with attributes, an offerer, also wears thelong skirt; he holds before him either an imageof a god or a naos containing an image (pl. 6, fig.5). The kneeling figure is shown either withoutattributes, hands resting on the legs, palms down(pl. 7, fig. 9), or as an offerer holding a naos or animage of a god. The squatting figure occurs in thetraditional symmetrical cross-legged scribe posi-tion. The asymmetric squatting figure, with oneknee up (pl. 6, fig. 6), also occurs in Dynasty XXV

and early in Dynasty XXVI. The squatting figurewith knees drawn up to the chest and arms crossedon the knees, simplified into a cubic form andknown as the block figure, became very commonin the Late Period. The seated figure occurred in

Dynasty XXV, but disappeared early in DynastyXXVI.

Greece. Of the several types of standing figurecommon in Egypt during Dynasty XXVI, theGreeks chose only the most simple type (pl. 5,fig. 2). Certain adoptions seem obvious and are bynow accepted facts of art history: the frontal stancewith left leg advanced; the straight arm with fist;perhaps to some extent the proportions.25 TheGreeks, young and daring, made the figure a totallyindependent image by eliminating the clothing,the traditional Egyptian back pillar, and the fill-inbetween arm and torso and between the legs, allforeign to their own knowledge.

When we try to find the moment that the Egyp-

tian motifs were introduced into Greece, difficultiesappear. Greek art showed disinterest in the struc-ture of the body until about 660 B.C. It is impossibleto pinpoint the first time the left leg was advancedin Greece, but it is definitely before the mid-seventhcentury. The Boeotian Mantiklos kouros has theleft leg advanced, as do some small male figuresfrom Olympia,26 and the bronze male figure fromCrete,27 all of the first half of the century.

These Greek figures have raised bent arms forholding weapons. The adoption of the straightenedarm and the fist came slightly later. The fist is firstseen in a bronze male figure from Olympia, proba-bly dating about 650 B.C.28 He displays his fistsproudly, holding his arms slightly bent, not at theside but in front of his thighs. The Greek sculptoralways tended to bend the elbow slightly, using therigidly straight Egyptian type of arm only occa-sionally, in the Boeotian Dermys and Kittylos (pl.8, fig. 12), and in a few small kouroi from EastGreece. The Naukratis kouros,29 made in Egypt,has straight arms and fists. The Rhodes kouros,30which has a distinctly Egyptian type of wig, hasstraight arms but also straight flat hands instead offists.

The fist in Egypt originally served a specific func-tion: it held something, usually the emblematicstaves of offce of king or functionaries.3 The late

22 A Greek inscription of 593 B.c. is scratched on a statueof Ramesses II at Abu Simbel. A. Bernand-O. Masson, Lesinscriptions grecques d'Abou-Simbel, REG 70 (1957) 5.

23 E. A. Gardner, Naulkratis II (EEF IV; London 1888) 77.79. The site was a center of Sakhmet-Hathor worship in thetime of Ramesses II.

24 Bothmer, ESLP xxxv-xxxvi.25Sounion kouros or Kleobis and Biton by Polymedes.

Richter, op.cit. (supra, n. 7) figs. 33, 78, 79.26 Matz, op.cit. (supra, n. 4) I, pls. 67, 68a, 69.27 ibid. pl. 8oa.28 ibid. pl. 68b.29 Richter, op.cit. (supra, n. 7) fig. 129.0o bid. fig. 126.

31 B. V. Bothmer, Notes on the Mycerinus Triad, BMFA48

(195o) 15,on the emblematic staves.




6/23


Dynasty XXV statue of Khonsu-ir-aa (pl. 5, fig. 2)holds these traditional staves. When the hand heldnothing it was represented flat, like that of theRhodes kouros. The Greeks, having no insignia,used the fist for decorative or aesthetic purposes,and learned to hide the lack of attribute by placingthe thumb over the place where the cylinder, or ahole, would have appeared.

Two early Greek variations on the kouros type,the Ram-Bearer from Thasos and the Dermys andKittylos group from Boeotia, are interesting fortheir adoption of Egyptian motifs of stance. Bothare unfinished and both are datable to between 615and 590.32 A later figure, the Acropolis Calf-Bearer,dating about 570-560, also shows significant aware-ness of Egypt.

Dermys and Kittylos from Boeotia. The Dermysand Kittylos group of two kouros type figures (pl.8, fig. 12) shows several evidences of Egyptian con-tact. The outside arm of each figure is extendedrigidly straight like the Egyptian arm, not bentslightly as was usual in Greece. The hair-styles ofthe figures are particularly close to a type of Egyp-tian wig. 3 And, as Greek scholars have noticed,3the niche-like back slab probably reflects Egyptianhabit.

But perhaps the mostinteresting

evidence of con-tact with Egypt has thus far gone unnoticed. Thisis the relation of the two figures. Posed with theinner legs advancing, only the figure on the rightcan be said to be in the true kouros pose; the figureon the left advances the right leg. Groups with theinner legs advancing are occasionally seen in Egyp-tian sculpture, particularly n the early seventh cen-tury. 5 The figure on the left also has an armaround the shoulder of the other, a gesture of af-fection not uncommon in Egyptian group sculpture,and

originatingin the Old

Kingdom.The untrained

Greek sculptor was not entirely successful in pre-senting this radically posed group; the front andside views do not correlate. The affectionate armawkwardly placed too high seems to descend from

the top of the niche. Nevertheless the pose is tooclose to be coincidental, compared with Egyptianaffectionate groups such as Hetepheres and herdaughter of Dynasty IV, or Memy-sabu and hiswife, Dynasty V,36 or a Dynasty VI group in Mu-nich in which the arm is also awkwardly placedbecause of the sculptors' deterioration in skill dur-ing the decline of the Old Kingdom.

The Dermys and Kittylos group is a uniquepiece, especially since it comes from Boeotia. Thekouroi dating from 615 to 590 (Sounion group) aremostly Attic or East Greek, or Argive. During So-lon's period of reform and the artistic lull in At-tica, Boeotia produced most of the kouroi of theOrchomenos-Thera group, from 590 to 570. Dermysand Kittylos indicate the earlier importance of Boe-

otia, which is overshadowed by our more completeknowledge of Attica. The prevalent idea of Boeo-tian provincialism needs revision. '

The Thasos Ram-Bearer. The animal-bearer wasnot of Greek origin. It was a common Egyptianmotif, and was also found in the Near East and inMinoan Crete. Offerers carrying animals appearedin Egyptian relief as early as the Old Kingdom andbecame a standard item of wall decoration; in theMiddle Kingdom there were also the strange fish-offerer statues of Amenemhet III.38

The early Greek Ram-Bearer from Thasos (pl.8, fig. 14) is particularly close in stance to a smallstatue found in Naukratis, a Greek copy of anEgyptian statue which unfortunately we do nothave. The Naukratis statue (pl. 8, fig. 13) is aclothed hunter or offerer carrying hares slung overboth shoulders, vertically placed. His left leg is ad-vanced and the left arm is bent forward. In poseand proportions this small figure closely resemblesthe large Thasos Ram-Bearer, who also carries theanimal

vertically,and has the left arm

bent andleft leg advanced. The arm of the Ram-Bearer isbent not forward but across the chest; the size ofthis statue would limit the placement of the armto a more secure position. That the Naukratis

32 Richter, op.cit. (supra, n. 7) 38, 48-49, 51.3 Infra, THE WIG, Greece.

S4Richter noticed the back slab; Deonna noticed it butdenied Egyptian influence.

35 Paris, Louvre A 49 and Berlin no. 8803, for Dynasty XXVfigures with the inner or right leg advanced (also for ad-vanced inner legs, Wolf, Die Kunst Aegyptens 331-332).

S6 Cyril Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Artfrom 3200 to

1315B.C.

(London 1952) pls. 31, 32.

37The myths of Heracles and Cadmus of Boeotia relate toEgypt, and the Oedipus legend may well refer to the Egyptianroyal custom of marriage among relatives. Boeotia is known tohave been prosperous, due to commerce, in the seventh cen-tury, and the sanctuary at Orchomenos rivaled Delphi as therichest Greek center.

38 H. G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein (Munich 1929) I, pL129.




7/23

18 KIM LEVIN [AlA 68

statue, with the Egyptian kilt and fill-ins betweenarm and torso, and legs, is a copy of an Egyptianwork seems almost certain. It appears probable thatthis Egyptian work, or one similar to it, providedthe basis for the Thasos Ram-Bearer as well as the

so-called Naukratis Hunter.

The Acropolis Calf-Bearer. In the Calf-Bearerfrom the Athenian Acropolis (pl. 8, fig. 15), wehave a departure in pose from previous Greek ani-mal-bearers. The animal in this statue is held acrossthe man's shoulders, its legs tied together on hischest; his arms are bent to meet its legs, forming anX across the chest. He is clothed in a thin garment.In Egyptian relief we often see animal-bearers hold-ing the animal in the X-form pose of the Acropolis

Calf-Bearer, althoughother

posesare

equally com-mon.39 A statue of a lamb-bearer from Naukratisshows the animal with legs tied together, and theman holding the legs by one bent arm, forming anincomplete X. 4 This statue is directly related tothe Acropolis Calf-Bearer in pose, but it is notknown which is earlier.

Although the X-form animal-bearer can be foundin Egyptian relief, there appears to be a definitestimulus for the appearance of this pose in theCalf-Bearer: it would appear to be an Egyptianstatue-type generally known as Osiride, which couldhave been seen by the Greeks especially in the Osi-ride colossi of Ramesses II,4' and in Saite sculpturein the common type of votary holding an Osirisimage before him (pl. 6, fig. 5). The Osiride figurehas its body veiled or enveloped in a garment, itsarms crossed on the chest and holding the crookand flail (which has an attachment resembling atail). The arms and insignia almost always makean X-form.2 The Osiris figure strongly suggests ananalogy in form to the figure holding the legs ofthe animal, already seen in Egyptian small relief.

Picard43 has already pointed out the inlaid eye tech-nique of the Acropolis Calf-Bearer, indicatingEgyptianizing influence. The inlaid eye, commonin Egypt, was then unusual in Greece.

THE CANON OF PROPORTIONS

Egypt. There has been much speculation aboutthe Saite canon of proportions and its possible adop-tion into Greek sculpture. The figure in both thetraditional Egyptian canon and the Saite canonmeasured four cubits in height; it was the size ofthe cubit that changed. The Dynasty XXVI changein the traditional Egyptian canon involved an addi-tion of one hand-breadth to the length of the oldcubit. This new larger cubit was known as theRoyal cubit and had been used in traditional Egyptonly as a measurement for architecture. As a resultof the increase in the size of the cubit, the figure,instead of measuring eighteen grid-squares fromground to hairline, according to the new canon 44measured twenty-one squares from ground to eye-lid.

Iversen45 believed this change of the canon causedunnatural elongation of the figure; he advancedthis elongation as an indication of the intellectualanti-naturalistic tendencies of the art of DynastyXXVI. Hanke,41 criticising Iversen's theory, showsthat the change from eighteen to twenty-one grid-squares, or from the old cubit to the Royal cubit,does not involve a change in proportions or un-natural elongation. Hanke demonstrates the rela-tivity of the cubits, showing the eighteen- and twen-

ty-one-square grid to be interchangeable on thehairline or eyelid system. Therefore supposedly itwas only the size of the fist that decreased in theSaite canon, the fist being the measure of the square.

From Hanke's diagrams, however, it appears thatin the change from the hairline to the eyelid as toppoint, there had to be a minor increase in length.This would have been necessary to raise the eyelidto the point formerly occupied by the hairline,which was now above the top of the grid. This in-crease appears to be only from the base of the neck,

the collarbones, up. As a result the Saite figure hada longer neck area, and due to the lengthening ofthe neck area from the collarbones, the shoulderswere raised and a longer torso resulted. Whether

39 W. S. Smith, History of Sculpture and Painting in the OldKingdom 363, figs. 235-236.

40OE. M. Guest, The Influence of Egypt on the Art ofGreece, AncEg 15 (1930) 47, fig. 22.

41 W. S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt(Pelican History of Art; Baltimore 1958) 156, for Osiridecolossi in the second court of the Ramesseum, Thebes.

42 A type of Osiris figure exists, not with crossed arms butwith fists opposed on the chest, a pose almost identical to theCalf-Bearer.

Daressy,Statues de divinitis

(Catalogue Gen&ral

des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire; hereafter CG)pl. xvIn, no. 38272.

a Charles Picard, Manuel d'archdologie grecque (Paris1935) I, 235 and note.

44Erik Iversen, Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art(London 1955).

45 ibid.46R. Hanke, Beitrage zum Kanonproblem, ZAeS 84

(1959) 113-119.




8/23


this has anything o do with the long neck of theearly Greek kouroi is uncertain.

Greece. Iversen has ingeniously ried to show aGreek adoption of the Saite canon, using the NewYork kouros as example. That the Greeks didknow the Saite canon about 580 or 570 B.C. is at-tested by Diodorus' mention of Telecles, son ofRhoikos, and Theodorus of Samos constructing hePythian Apollo by the Egyptian method of twen-ty-one and one-quarter arts,48 he additional quar-ter being the area above the eyelid. A consistent rfixed Greek use of the Egyptian canon s doubtful;instead any archaic Greek canon would probablyhave proceeded n much the way the Doric orderproceeded n its problem of the corner metope and

triglyph: by continual reworkings of problems ofratio, relations of parts, inally developing nto thefamous Greek Canon of Polykleitos.

As for Greek knowledge of the Saite canon priorto 58o, the wide shoulders and narrow waist,straight back and small buttocks of some of theearly and eastern kouroi are evidence only of theacute Greek observation f Egyptian culpture. ButEgypt did not resolve he problem of the top of thehead and the pelvic area for the Greeks, since theEgyptians almost always covered both. The lowforehead and

flat-toppedead often found on

earlyGreek statues4 ould possibly be derived from amisunderstanding f the Egyptian canon, whichonly solved the proportional roblems f the figureup to the eyelid (due to the use of various head-dresses and wigs resting ow on the forehead). t ismore likely that they derive merely from difficultyof observation, lthough here are also several Egyp-tian statues dating between 670 and 600 B.c. whichshow a peculiarly lattened head, 5 erhaps bearingsome relation to the Greek heads.

THE TORSO

Egypt. The torso n sculpture f the Kushite pe-riod was generally constructed with emphasis onthe median line, extending from collarbones orsternal notch to navel and dividing the torso verti-

cally in half. This pattern of division of the torsois known as bipartition,51 nd can be seen on thestatue of Khonsu-ir-aa pl. 5, fig- 3)2. This figureshows a very strong median ine, and has horizon-tal collarbones, haracteristic f Dynasty XXV. Bi-partition of the torso area in the sculpture of Dy-nasty XXV is a symptom of Kushite imitation ofMiddle Kingdom sculpture. The median line canbe clearly een on statues hroughout Dynasty XII,53and is only one of the naturalistic orms of the Mid-dle Kingdom.

Exceptions o the principle of bipartition duringDynasty XXV resulted rom the Kushite interestin a portrait-like ealism, which may also have de-rived in part from Dynasty XII. The torso of afat man (pl. 5, fig. i) 4 could truly be called a por-

trait although he head s missing. The torso showsa flabby, trongly modeled chest and stomach. Anyidea of bipartition s lost under the heavy realisticfat folds which divide the torso horizontally ntothree sections.

The torso n Saite sculpture f the time of Psam-tik I (664-6Io) was constructed n a bipartite orm.In this Dynasty XXVI continuation f bipartition,the median line is indicated ess strongly than inDynasty XXV. Often the abdomen area showssensitive modeling. A notable example from thetime of Psamtik I is the statue of Bes the Courtier(pl. 6, fig. 6).5 The torso of Bes shows a surfaceof smooth firm flesh with subtle hints of the com-plexities of structure underneath. The collarbonesare curved and set at an angle, dipping slightly to-ward the median ine. In Dynasty XXVI they arerarely horizontal as they were in Dynasty XXV.There appears o be some connection between thehorizontal collarbone nd the South, where Kush-ite tradition was stronger. The torso of Psamtik Ifrom the South (pl. 7, fig. 7) 6 has horizontal col-larbones; a northern orso of a kneeling offerer nNew York, 5 therwise almost dentical n form tothe torso of Psamtik I, has the more usual angularcollarbones f Dynasty XXVI.

In all of these Dynasty XXV and XXVI figureswe see, in addition to the bipartite division, an em-

S7Erik Iversen, The Egyptian Origin of the Archaic GreekCanon, Mdl 15 (1957) 134-147.

48 Diodorus, op.cit. (supra, n. 2) 1.98.49 Bronze kouros from Delphi or Polymedes' kouroi, for

example.50 Bothmer, ESLP 22, 41. 51 ibid. xxxv.52 Boston, MFA 07.494; Bothmer, ESLP no. 9, p. io. See

also Mentuemhat, Cairo CG no. 42236.

53Evers, op.cit. (supra, n. 38) I, pls. 42 and 44.54 Cairo CG no. 902; K. Bosse, Die menschliche Figur in der

Rundplastik der iigyptischen Spdtzeit von der XXII. bis zur XXX.Dynastic (AegForsch I, 1936) no. i.

55 Lisbon, Fundaedo Gulbenkian no. 158; Bothmer, ESLP no.29, P. 34.

58 Brooklyn Museum no. 58.95; Bothmer, ESLP no. 25, p. 29.

57 N.Y., MMA no. 24.2.2; Bothmer, ESLP 22, 35.




9/23


phasis on the triangular orm of the torso. Thestrong collarbones ontribute o this form. Imagi-nary ines can be drawn rom the shoulders hroughthe nipples o the navel, which is important as theapex of the triangle as well as the base of the medi-an line. This triangular onstruction s found tradi-tionally on torsos of Egyptian statues, and is inde-pendent of bipartition.58

An early Dynasty XXVI statue from the South,Ankh-pa-khered pl. 6, fig. 5) 9 is interesting nrelation to the torso of the fat man of DynastyXXV. Ankh-pa-khered, who offers an image ofOsiris, has a bipartite orso, showing a slight medi-an line. The torso is not usually an emphasizedarea on statues presenting offerings. n addition othe slight bipartition, however, there are fat folds

on the torso of this figure. There is no suggestionof naturalism n these two horizontal ines acrossthe chest and, without knowledge of the traditionof representing at folds from the New Kingdomto Dynasty XXV, we might mistake these formal-ized and abstract olds for a purely decorative at-tern on the slender orso.

Figures with fat folds, and especially he portlytorso of Dynasty XXV, presaged a tendency to-wards dividing the torso horizontally which beganto become apparent arly in the sixth century B.c.

Tripartitedivision

emphasizedhe three horizon-

tal areas of the torso rather than the two verticalareas. The chest, the rib cage, and the upper ab-domen, divided by the lower boundary f the chestand the arch of the rib cage, formed the threeareas.60 The torso in Egyptian sculpture began tobe divided by tripartition y the time of Psamtik I(595-589), although there was interest n the chestmuscles in the late seventh century. This can beseen on the small bronze figure of Necho II (pl.7, fig. 8). 1

The first datedexample howing

atripartite

orsois the kneeling Nakht-hor-heb n the Louvre (pl.7, fig. 9),62 dated to the time of Psamtik II. Thetorso of this fine statue has both the lower bound-ary of the chest and the arch of the rib cage mod-

eled by predominantly orizontal orms. This torsoshows bipartition s well; the median ine is promi-nent. The use of the median line continued nter-mittently as late as the time of Amasis.

By the time of Amasis (570-526), a fully devel-oped tripartite division of the torso area appearedwhich can be seen on the torso of the kneelingPsamtik-seneb pl. 7, fig. io). On this torso themedian line no longer occurs; he torso is not di-vided vertically. The three horizontal areas of thetorso, divided by the chest boundary and the ribcage, are fully modeled rounded orms, giving thesoft naturalistic appearance f flesh to the stone.

Greece. The Egyptian sculptor, having technicalvirtuosity, was free to elaborate on traditional

forms; the sculpture of Dynasty XXVI shows acurious fluidity of contour within the inflexibilityof the rigid poses. The Saite artist was interested nthe details of the form, the surfaces of the bodyvolumes. This interest n the surface was usuallyconcentrated n the face or in the torso area. Itmust be emphasized hat these efforts towards asuperficial naturalism, owards details of natural-ism, took place within a basically ormal art.

We must first indicate the difference n skillbetween he Greek sculptor and the Egyptian, andthen

forgetthe

discrepancyn naturalistic ffect.

The artist of Dynasty XXVI showed surface de-tail by sophisticated modeling; the Early ArchaicGreek artist showed t by incisions and ridges. TheGreek ntent was never a naturalistic ntent, Richterto the contrary, but rather a concern with the re-lations of forms, not unlike the Saite concern. Incomparing he structure and development of thetorso n Egyptian and Greek sculpture we deal, notwith the degree of naturalism attained, but withthe formal divisions and the surface patterning ofthe torso form.

On the torso in Mycenaean and GeometricGreek sculpture only the lower boundary of therib cage is articulated: t is indicated by an incisedA-shaped ine. This can be seen on the Cretan

58 In the indication f human igures n early Greek vases, hetorso s simply a triangle; y the time of the kouroi, evidence ftriangular onstruction f the torso s not apparent. However, heearly kouroi do show triangular onstruction f the pelvic area,emphasized y the prominent iagonal ines of the pelvic bones.

9 St. Louis, Mo., City Art Museum o. 222.24; Bothmer, SLPno. 28, p. 32.

60 Bothmer, ESLP xxxv.

61 Philadelphia, E 13004; Bothmer, ESLP no. 43, P. 50. Seealso the undated statue of Horwedja kneeling (Baltimore,WAG acc. no. 22.79; Bothmer, ESLP no. 37, P. 44), withsimilar torso, probably of the late seventh century.

62 Paris, Louvre A 94; Bissing, Denkmiler igyptischer Sculp-tur (Munich 1914) no. 74-

63London, Brit. Mus. 16041; BMFA 51 (i953) 6 n. 33;Bothmer, ESLP 81, 103.




10/23


bronze male figure6e and on the early seventh-cen-

tury figures from Olympia. 5 In addition to thisrib cage line, the waist is circled by a horizontalband or is marked by a large round navel.

The Greek torso as seen on the early kouroi in-

dicates the lower boundary of the rib cage by theincised A-shaped line derived from Mycenaean andGeometric figures. This angular line became modi-fied early in the development of the kouroi; it wasrounded to the shape of an arch. The torso also

usually has a vertical incision extending from rib

cage to navel, reminding us of the Egyptian bi-

partite torso. But on the torso of the new Greekkouroi, the main emphasis is placed on the lower

boundary of the chest, forming a strong horizon-tal division. The Naukratis kouros and other early

eastern kouroido not

displaythis horizontal chest

boundary so important to the Greek torso, but theydo have the angular rib cage line, and also a verti-cal line from rib cage to navel.

The torso in Greek sculpture traditionally showedan awareness of the rib cage, indicated not hori-

zontally or vertically, but by diagonals, becomingmore horizontal as it was rounded to an arch on thekouroi. Along with this development we find thenew strong emphasis of the horizontal chest bound-

ary. Thus the Greek torso, with its main emphasison the horizontal chest boundary, and with its in-dication of the rib cage, tended towards a tripar-tite division.

It did not revise itself, as did the Saite torso,changing from clearly bipartite to tripartite con-struction. Its development was in terms of elabora-tion. The forms of the torso began to become morerounded, being indicated by volume instead of lineafter about 575 B.c., as seen in the Tenea kouros.66The elaboration of the means of indicating divi-sions occurred along with an elaboration of ob-servation of the muscle pattern. By the time of the

Munich kouros, 7 bout 530 or 525, we find a wholeseries of horizontal abdominal bulges. But in termsof naturalistic accuracy of surface treatment, theGreek torso never quite achieved the naturalism ofthe Egyptian torso.

The torso in seventh-century Egypt, as we haveseen, was of bipartite construction. In the time ofPsamtik II, at the beginning of the sixth century,a tripartite division of the torso began to be used;

this developed into full tripartition by the time ofAmasis, after 570. The directions of influence, ifthere was any influence between Egypt and Greecein the development of the torso, are far from cleardue to the impossibility of dating the Greek kouroi

accurately. It is possible that the new Greek kou-roi, tending towards a tripartite division with their

emphasis on the chest boundary and rib cage, couldhave stimulated the Egyptian sculptors to recon-sider the divisions of the torso sometime around

595 B.C. But we must remember that the Saite in-terest in surface modeling could of itself have ledto the more complex and naturalistic tripartite torso.Middle Kingdom precedent can also be cited, forstatues of that time often naturalistically suggestthe tripartite form, 8 n addition to showing strong

bipartition.We must also remember the strong possibilitythat the more developed Greek kouroi were not yetin existence-the kouroi of Polymedes may havebeen as late as 58o-and thus it is not implausiblethat they reflected knowledge of the latest develop-ments in Egypt in the way of tripartition. It seemseven more probable that the vertical incision fromrib cage to navel on the early Greek torso couldhave reflected knowledge of the Egyptian seventh-century bipartition. In spite of these conjectures,it appears likely that the development of the torsoin Greece and in Egypt took place to a great ex-tent independently of one another.

THE SMILE

Egypt. During Dynasty XXV Egyptian statuesshowed no indication of an upcurved mouth. As arule the center line of the mouth is strictly hori-zontal, forming a straight line. The upper lipcurves down and the lower lip curves up to meetit. The lips are thick and broad, and the result isa severely horizontal almost brutal expression (pl.5, fig. 2). 9 The traditional Egyptian air of con-tentment is conspicuously absent.

The upcurved mouth must be understood pri-marily as a different formal pattern. Examples ofthis new pattern began to occur during the decadebefore the middle of the seventh century B.c. Theearliest dated example70 is the squatting statue ofBes (pl. 6, fig. 6), a courtier of Psamtik I. The finelips of Bes curve strongly upwards at the corners.

64 Matz, op.cit. (supra, n. 4) I, pl. 8oa.65 ibid. pls. 67, 68a, 69; also fig. 29.6e Richter, op.cit. (supra, n. 7) fig. 248.15 ibid. fig. 391.

68 Evers, op.cit. (supra, n. 38) I, pl. 44.69 Supra, n. 51.70 Bothmer, ESLP

34-35,for the smile.




11/23


The center line of the mouth also is upcurved, giv-ing this new formal pattern to the face. It is im-portant to note that while the form of the upcurvedmouth results in the facial expression commonlyknown as a smile, it is not necessarily an indication

of an emotional state. The informality of this so-called smile is most appropriate on the face of Bes,who squats asymmetrically in one of the least for-mal of Egyptian poses. Because of its pose, and itsprovenance, the Delta, the statue of Bes is almostcertainly datable to the decade 66o to 650.n

A standing Theban statue (pl. 6, fig. 4)72 alsoshows traces of the so-called smile, but unfortu-nately it is not well dated. The statue is datable tothe period transitional from Dynasty XXV to Dy-nasty XXVI in the South, the decade 66o to 650

or slightly later. The mouth of this southern statueappears to be upcurved. On a closer look, however,we find that the upper lip is straight and only thelower lip curves upwards, and so it cannot be calleda truly upcurved mouth.

Another early Dynasty XXVI statue from theSouth, Ankh-pa-khered with Osiris (pl. 6, fig. 5)datable between 655 and 640, and already mentionedfor its fat folds, shows a significant instance of thesmile. The man Ankh-pa-khered has a severe face,with furrowed forehead and naso-labial lines whichgive him a pinched, worried expression. This earlySaite interest in portrait-like detail is a carry-overof the realism of Dynasty XXV. The mouth isstraight; he does not smile. But the image he holds,the statue of the god, does have an upcurved mouth.According to Bothmer, the so-called smile of thegod was probably a northern feature, to which theTheban sculptors were introduced after the realmof Psamtik I was extended to Upper Egypt in 656B.C. 73 If the Saite smile is of Delta origin, and in-dications do point to its occurrence first in theNorth, it may be considered as a Saite reaction

against the brutal realism of the Kushite DynastyXXV. This explains its extension to the South after656. Our example of the severe figure holding asmiling statue of the god is interesting evidence of

the origin of the so-called smile in the North. Thesmile is accepted, in this early southern example,for the representation of the statue of the god, butis not used for the representation of the man. Thiswould seem to indicate that the smile was intro-

duced to the South through statues sent as dedica-tions to southern sanctuaries such as Karnak.

The upcurved mouth does not occur on all stat-ues made during the reign of Psamtik I but, whenit does appear, the pattern creates the effect of acomfortable smile, giving a benign expression tothe face. We find this upcurved mouth on a statu-ette from Mendes in the Delta, dated to Psamtik I(pl. 8, fig. ii). It is also found on a stylizedHathor mask from the South (pl. 9, fig. 16),7held by a kneeling figure which unfortunately has

lost its head. We cannot know if he, too, smiled.From 6Io to 595 B.c., during the reign of NechoII, we have scanty evidence because Psamtik II,Necho's son, destroyed his father's statuary. Fromwhat remains it appears that the so-called smilehas taken on a somewhat different character. Themouth is intensely upcurved in a sickle shape, andappears forced and tense. The eyes also slant strong-ly upwards. The face itself is of triangular shape,with a small chin. This facial pattern is seen in thekneeling bronze statuette of Necho II himself (pl.7, fig. 8).7

After the characteristically ntense smiles of thestatues of the time of Necho II, the succeeding pe-riod tended to less strongly upcurved mouths. Dur-ing the reign of Psamtik II (595-589) both thelower lip and center line of the mouth usually curvegently upwards, parallel to each other. The upperlip is horizontal and does not partake of the curve.The mouth is ended at the corners by a deep tri-angular notch which joins the lips. The lips tendto be quite flat. The eyes too are generally largeand flat, and do not slant; the chin is square and

broad. The Louvre statue of Nakht-hor-heb (pl.7, fig. 9) shows features conforming to this pat-tern.77

The general pattern of the time of Psamtik II71 The asymmetric squatting pose is characteristic of Dynasty

XXV, and its carry-over into this Dynasty XXVI statue indi-cates a date early in the reign of Psamtik I. Also, the Deltaretained its independence and produced important work onlybefore Psamtik I conquered Thebes. By 650 the two maincenters of sculptural activity were Memphis and Thebes.

72 Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh, Cairo JE 37992; Bothmer, ESLPno. 27, pp. 31-32.

73 Bothmer, ESLP 33-34.

74Cairo JE 56836; no bibliography.

5 Paris, Louvre E.25388; Lenormant, Coll. A. Raifi (x867)2, no. 5.

76 For other statues with this facial pattern, see Horwedja(supra, n. 6o), and a bust from Memphis (Baltimore, WAGacc. no. 22.198; Bothmer, ESLP no. 49, p. 56), dated bycartouches to Psamtik II but most likely made in the time ofNecho II. An erased cartouche of Necho II appears to underliea cartouche of Psamtik II.

S7The bust of Ipy (N.Y. Abemayor coll.; Bothmer, ESLP

no. 47, P. 54) also dated to Psamtik II, closely resembles the




12/23


continued during the reign of Apries (589-570).On statues of this period he center ine of both themouth and the lower lip curve gently upwards,joined at the corners by a notch. The upper lipvaries in outline, tending often to be bow-shaped,with a strong central depression. n general it ex-erts a horizontal nfluence on the curved orms be-low it. The large flat eyes tend to slant slightly,and the straight eyebrows angle abruptly down-wards at the sides. This pattern can be seen onthe head of Apries in Bologna (pl. Io, fig. 24).The bust of Amasis n Florence pl. Io, fig. 25)79and the head of Amasis in Philadelphias ear noinscriptions but can be identified as the king ongood evidence. On the basis of this attribution,similarity between he features f Amasis and those

of Apries (pl. Io, fig. 24) is apparent.8' he maindifference s that the mouth of Amasis is smaller,with thinner lips. The lower lip and center lineagain curve upward; he upper ip is horizontal oreven slightly downcurved. Amasis has eyebrowsthat are no longer plastically modeled ridges. Theyare merely represented by the edges that formwhere the plane of the forehead meets the planeabove the eye. While these differences may be in-terpreted n a portrait sense as facial differencesbetween the two kings, the features are reflectedin

private sculpture; heyhave become

importantas formal patterns.However typical of the Saite period these vari-

ants of the smiling mouth appear o be, it is neces-sary to observe hat in reality he smile was not aninnovation of the seventh century. It had ante-cedents in Egypt at least as early as the MiddleKingdom. On Old Kingdom statues, he face, alertand contented, offers the tempting illusion of asmile; but the smile is potential, as the mouth it-self is not actually upcurved. Early in the Middle

Kingdom, MentuhotepI of

DynastyXI 8 seems

to be represented with an upcurved mouth. Andin Dynasty XII, though we find no real smile,there is careful modeling of the mouth area. Thisis obvious in the smug expression of Sesostris IIand in the famous downcurved mouth of Sesos-

tris III, the pattern of which is a reverse mile.In the New Kingdom a definite smile occurred

in the Eighteenth Dynasty. The mouth tends to beupcurved on statues of Thutmosis III. And in thelate sculpture f Amenhotep I and the early sculp-ture of Amenhotep III there is a pronounced up-ward curve to the mouth.83 The upcurved mouthcontinued nto Dynasty XIX, after the experimentsin naturalism f Amenhotep IV, known as Akhe-naton. During Dynasty XIX, because the Deltawas developed at that time, many statues showing

the smile appeared n the North, offering a readyprecedent for the northern sculptors of DynastyXXVI.

So it is evident hat the Saite smile was not onlya reaction gainst he brutal realism of the Kushiteperiod; t was also a continuation, r revival, of atendency almost always close to the surface n an-cient Egyptian sculpture.

Greece. Beginning between 580 and 570 B.c., theformal pattern of the upcurved mouth, known asthe archaic

mile,occurred n Greek statues. The

Acropolis Calf-Bearer nd the Tenea kouros showthis smile, as does other contemporary work, in-cluding the kouros from Sais, Egypt. 4 This ar-chaic smile continues n Greek sculpture hrough-out the sixth century until its final appearance nthe figures of the west pediment of the Temple ofAphaia at Aegina.

The origin of the archaic mile can be traced othe seventh-century eriod of Greek art which hasbeen misleadingly named the Dedalic period. 8An

upcurvedmouth is found on the small ceramic

head of Nakht-hor-heb. Harbes with Osiris (N.Y., MMA no.19.2.2; Bothmer, ESLP no. 48, p. 55), the only dated statueknown to come from the South during the time of Psamtik II,shcws a similar mouth, although the features all have a greaterupward slant, and the chin is smaller. Perhaps these reminis-cences of the features of the time of Necho II should leadus to date this statue to the very beginning of the short reignof Psamtik II. But the possibility must not be overlookedthat discrepancies of this kind may indicate a stylistic differencebetween the North and the South.

78 Bologna no. 18oi; H. W. Miiller, Ein K6nigsbildnis der26. Dynastie mit der 'Blauen Krone' im Museo Civico zu Bo-logna, ZAeS 80 (I955) 46-68. See also the bust of Iahmes

(N.Y.,Gallatin

Coll.; Bothmer,ESLP

no. 52, pp. 59-60).

79Florence no. 5625; H. W. Miiller, Der Torso einerK6nigstatue m Museo Archeologico u Florenz, Studi inmemoria di Ippolito Rosellini I (1955) 181-22I.

so Bothmer, ESLP no. 53, pp. 61-62.81 ibid. 62.82Aldred, op.cit. (supra, n. 36) pl. II.83 At this time in Egypt there were close connections with

the East and with the Minoans and Mycenaeans. An earlyhead of Amenhotep II (Vandier, Manuel pl. cvI, 5) withsinuously upcurved mouth and slanting eyes appears moreoriental han Egyptian.

84 Richter, op.cit. (supra n. 7) fig. 267.85The thirteenth-century retan Daedalus was confused as

early as Diodorus with the idea of a seventh-century aedalus




13/23


Dedalic figures in limited areas of Greece. At

Sparta from about 655 to 645 B.c. a very strong smileis found (pl. 9, fig. 22), and a less emphatic smileoccurs on Crete at about the same time. 8 The up-curved mouth diminishes at Sparta and Crete be-

tween 645 and 640, and is only slightly upcurvedbetween 640 and 630. By about 630 the mouth isstrictly horizontal (pl. 9, fig. 23). Assuming the dat-

ing of Jenkins and Richter to be acceptable, forwant of any less arbitrary dating, there is no smilein Greek sculpture between 630 and 580 B.c.

The Dedalic smile in Greece and the Saite smilein Egypt both occurred during the decade beforethe mid-seventh century. The smile occurred ap-parently simultaneously in Greece and in Egypt,and according to all evidence it appeared in Egypt

in the Delta where there was Greek contact. There-fore, influence rather than coincidence is likely.Although in Egypt trends can be traced with dif-

fering types of upcurved mouth, any attempt tocorrelate the specific way the lips curved in Egyptand Greece seems fruitless, especially because in

Egypt the dating is so specific, while in Greece itcan only be vague. Instead, the question of whatdirection the influence took is answerable by what

happens to the smile once it appears.The Dynasty XXVI smile apparently appeared

in the North, spread to the South, and increasedin intensity until 595 B.c. Then it diminished some-what, but never vanished. The Saite smile had

precedents in earlier Egypt and, once introduced,rapidly attained a strong hold on the sculpturalimagination of Dynasty XXVI and later Egypt.The smile continued to be used as a convention

throughout the Late Period.The Greek Dedalic smile appeared suddenly as

an intense smile, in localized areas only, and then

rapidly diminished and disappeared by about 630B.c. The Dedalic smile seems therefore a temporaryadoption of the Saite smile, tried out mainly in

Sparta and Crete, and then dropped. When it was

picked up again, sometime between 58o and 570,it was during a time when the Greeks could have

absorbed t from Egypt as something useful totheir artistic purposes, or they could have revivedit from their own seventh-century radition, forthis is the time when Greek art began to be con-scious of itself, and to assert ts particularly Greek

character.The Greek archaic smile of the sixth century

was not the foreign adoption hat the Dedalic smilewas in the seventh century. In the sixth centurythe smile was integrally nvolved with the develop-ment of Greek sculpture. Although the meaningof the archaic mile has often been considered neof the riddles of archaeology, t is understandablein terms of both the image type and the formalproblems of Greek sculpture.

The archaic smile is involved with the interest

in three-dimensional olume that occurred at thistime. In the Tenea kouros and other contempo-rary work there was a change from indicat-ing the structural patterns of the body by linearridges and incisions o indicating he structure byrounded orms. And at the same time the upcurvedmouth appeared. For, by curving the mouth, thesides of the face were given added complexity;the surface f the face was no longer lat. The planesof the cheeks appear, nd were emphasized. o thesmile offered an opportunity o exploit the newawareness f volume.

The smile is understandable lso in terms of theGreek definition of the condition of being alive. Inthe Greek image type, self-sufficiency as a pre-requisite or life, and so the figure was stripped ofall props. The ability o move was the prime symp-tom of being alive-thus the left leg stepped for-ward into reality. And, by 570, the mouth curvedupward, xpressing ot an emotion, but an elabora-tion and a refinement f the ability to move.

THE WIG

Egypt. The wig in Egyptian sculpture was apractical necessity; he alternative o the wig wasthe representation f the clean-shaven ead. Therewas a clear-cut distinction between the various

who may or may not have existed, and may or may not havebeen Cretan. In the late seventh or early sixth century a schoolof artists known as the Dedalids, connected with Crete andclaiming to derive from Daedalus, was influential on themainland. Subsequent confusion about a seventh-century Dae-dalus probably derived from these Dedalids, Dipoinos andSkyllis. It has been suggested by Picard that the Dedalids were,like the Pre-Raphaelites, an archaizing movement with tradi-

tionalist tendencies. Indeed, it would be most plausible forartists in Crete to look back to the thirteenth-century Daedalus,since we can assume a late survival in Crete of the Mycenaeanstyle, kept alive from the ninth to the seventh century by agroup of metal-workers. In any case, the Dedalids were laterthan the so-called Dedalic period.

86 Jenkins, op.cit. (supra, n. 6) 35, pl. Iv, 5.




14/23


types of wigs in use, according to their function andthe style of the period. The types of wigs that ap-peared in sculpture during Dynasty XXVI, withthe possible exception of the bag wig, all had theirorigins in ancient Egypt.

The nemes head-dress: this traditional royal head-dress is often used on representations of the ruler,usually when the various crowns are not worn. It isa pleated or grooved headcloth. The two horizon-tally-grooved side sections form a flat plane framingthe face, and fall in flat and lapel-like lappets infront of the shoulders. The back section bulgesout in a rounded form and ends in a small pigtail.This head-dress allows the ears to show, and theytend to be placed at right angles to the head, paral-lel to the front plane. The nemes head-dress can be

seen on the statuette of Necho II (pl. 7, fig. 8)and on the bust of Amasis (pl. 10, fig. 25), bothroyal figures of Dynasty XXVI.8

The valanced wig: this horizontally stepped,short Buster Brown wig, worn by private malefigures, is formed in one piece, circling the head.The ears are covered by it. The horizontally steppedareas are usually divided vertically into short curls,echeloned or in bead-like rows. The valanced wigoccurs mostly on small works in Dynasty XXVI.A longer version of the valanced wig is used on thestatuette from Mendes

(pl. 8, fig. ii).Here the

wig does not have the rounded definition of shape,but continues into the shoulders where it mergesindefinitely with the body. In this merging of wigand shoulder there seems to be the lack of logicalunderstanding that is often found when an artistis copying another work. The use of the valancedwig in Dynasty XXVI, though uncommon, proba-bly reflects the archaistic tendencies of the period,which turned to the Old Kingdom for models.Common on statues toward the end of the OldKingdom, this type of wig is

occasionallyfound

later, 8 and the statuette from Mendes, dated by in-scription to Psamtik I, is a significant example ofits use. This seventh-century statuette from Men-des in the Delta proves Egyptian use of the val-anced wig at a time and place when the Greeks

might very well have come in contact with it.The vertically striated wig: the simple shoulder

length wig, with vertical striations suggestingstrands of hair, was used throughout traditionalEgyptian sculpture for private figures, and wasmost common in the Middle Kingdom. It was usedin Dynasty XXV and early in Dynasty XXVI, andwas then replaced by a plain wig, similar in shape,wide and flat, but without striations (pl. 6, figs. 4and 5)-

The bag wig: during the reign of Necho II thevertically striated wig disappeared from Egyptiansculpture. Instead the bag wig, not traditional butintroduced in the time of Psamtik I, became mostfrequent in Saite private sculpture. Most abstractin form, without horizontal or vertical divisions

or striations, the bag wig bulges out behind theears, creating a bag-like form. The plain flat widewig of early Dynasty XXVI, retaining the shape ofthe vertically striated wig while omitting the stria-tions, is very close in appearance to the bag wig,although it does not have its bulging compactform.89 The earliest example of the true bag wigis the statue of Bes, the Courtier (pl. 6, fig. 6).90

The tripartite wig: A tripartite wig, parted in thecenter and often vertically striated, falls in tworounded sections in front of the shoulders and al-

lows the ears to show. This predominantly femalewig is traditionally used in sculpture for Hathormasks, and on these masks it is composed of verti-cally striated sections bound together by horizontalbands. A second type of tripartite Hathor wig,originating in the Middle Kingdom, is similar tothe first type but more elaborate, and can be de-scribed as a variation of the first. On this wig thetwo rounded sections which fall in front of theshoulders each end in a bulging snail-like curl.The wig swells from behind the ears, which show.The vertical striations are

againbound

together byhorizontal bands. Both variations of the Hathorwig were used in the Late Period. They are foundon the deliberately stylized heads used as architec-tural decoration, such as Hathor capitals on col-umns, or Hathor masks held by offerers. The

87 Unlike the royal kilt and staves, the nemes was neveradopted for use by private persons.

88 It continued to occur frequently on relief representations.Another precedent was the royal khat wig-cover which

appeared late in Dynasty XVIII. The khat wig-cover is similarin form to the royal nemes head-dress but omits the shoulderlappets and ends in a bag-like form behind the shoulders. The

Saite bag wig resembles this wig-cover, worn by Amenhotep II,

and especially preferred by Akhenaton. It is interesting to notethat the heavy, elaborate and varied wigs of the New Kingdomwere rarely used in Dynasty XXVI.

90 Bothmer, ESLP 34-35.' The origin of this type during the time of Sesostris II

seems to have some relation to the wavy hair briefly popularon female statues of that time.




15/23

26 KIM LEVIN [AJA .68

kneeling figure holding before him a Hathor maskis a particularly common type during Dynasty XXVand early Dynasty XXVI. Our example (pl. 9, fig.I6) shows the simpler type of Hathor wig. Thetype of Hathor wig with curling end is often used

for small female figurines, and is sometimes seenin the Late Period. There are examples of its usein the seventh century in the North of Egypt.92

Greece. It is generally acknowledged93 that theGreek sculptors borrowed the form of the Egyp-tian wig. Of the various types of Egyptian wigs,suited to different purposes, we find Greek adapta-tions of several, used decoratively without clear dis-tinction as to their type or function. The use ofEgyptian-type wigs in Greek sculpture can bedated back at

least to 700 B.C.The earliest evidence of wigs of Egyptian typereflected in Greek sculpture comes from ceramicfigurines (pl. 9, figs. 17 and i8) from sub-geometriclevels of Argos and Sparta, dated between 700 and69o; they resemble the type of wig traditionallyused in Egypt for Hathor masks, with vertical sec-tions bound together by horizontal bands. TheEgyptian example (pl. 9, fig. I6) dates to Psamtik I,about 660 B.c., but such figures were common inEgypt from the New Kingdom on. 9 The resem-blance of the Hathor mask to the sub-geometric fe-male heads is particularly striking; not only thecoiffure but the shape of the face and high earsare similar. It must be remembered, of course,that the Egyptian Hathor mask is deliberatelystylized.

A rare Greek copy of the second type of Hathorwig, ending in a curling form, is seen in the coiffureof a nude female figurine in relief from Corinth(pl. 9, fig. I9). 5 This figurine also wears earrings,often found on Egyptian female figures. The headof the figurine, dated by Jenkins between 670 and

655 B.c., is very close in appearance to the headsof numerous small Egyptian female figurines, par-

ticularly the nude figurines of the Middle King-dom.

The wig-like Greek hair-style that is generallyconsidered a derivation of the Egyptian Wig isthe so-called Etagenperiicke (stepped headdress).The Etagenperiicke would seem to have origi-nated mainly in the valanced wig which cov-ers the ears. The valanced wig in Dynasty XXVIwas almost always of rounded shape, although inthe statuette from Mendes (pl. 8, fig. ii) it isshoulder length. That the Greek adaptation ofthis horizontally-stepped wig was not short butshoulder length or tripartite, falling in front of theshoulders, probably reflected Greek confusion ofthe valanced wig with the horizontally-grooved ap-pets of the nemes head-dress. The Saite artist of

the Mendes statuette also showed some confusionin making the wig long; it is tempting to suggestGreek counter-influence but the evidence is notconclusive.

The Etagenperiicke is found mainly in Spartaand Crete, although it is also seen at other sitessuch as Corinth. 9 In Sparta it progressed con-tinuously and consistently from a head dated be-tween 69o and 670 B.C., s o a late seventh-century(630-620) head (pl. 9, fig. 23). This stepped head-dress is seen in Crete between 670 and 655 B.c.(pl. 9, figs. 20 and 21), and later. One early exam-ple from Crete (pl. 9, fig. 20) allows the ears toshow, probably again a confusion of the Egyptianvalanced wig covering the ears, with the nemeshead-dress or the tripartite wig, showing the ears.The Etagenperiicke was used in Crete ca. 64o-630on the Delphi bronze kouros, 9 whose stepped wig-like hair-style is shorter and closer in appearanceto the traditional Egyptian valanced wig.

The influence of the valanced wig continued inGreek sculpture, being revived about 575 B.c. inthe hair-style of the Tenea kouros and related stat-ues. Their hair-style shows horizontal waves thatrecall the seventh-century Greek Etagenperiicke,

92 Gotha, Germany, no. 12 (lent to Berlin and lost in WorldWar II), for a late Dynasty XXV-early Dynasty XXVI groupfrom the North showing a seated female wearing a Hathorwig with curling ends. Also Louvre E.9333.

9 No clear distinction of the different types of Egyptianwig is made by Greek scholars. D6onna noticed the similarityof the Egyptian wig and Greek hair pattern, but characteristi-cally denied influence. Poulsen traced the hair pattern to theNear East. Collignon noticed the resemblance of the hair-styleof the maiden from Auxerre to the Egyptian (?) Etagen-periicke, and believed there was direct Egyptian influence inCretan female coiffures. Richter, Picard, and Matz mention the

wig-like hair, or Etagenperiicke, of early Greek figures andsuggest inspiration from Egypt. Jenkins alone suggests a multi-plicity of Egyptian (and Eastern) prototypes for Greek hair-styles.

94 Louvre E.17i68, for a New Kingdom statue with Hathormask.

95 Jenkins, op.cit. (supra, n. 6) 28.96 Supra, n. 92.97 Jenkins, op.cit. (supra, n. 6) pl. iv, 4, and pl. vi, 7.98 bid. pl. 1, 4.99 Richter, op.cit. (supra, n. 7) fig. 14.




16/23


and which we also know from the Egyptian Deltastatuette of Mendes.

In the late seventh century in Greece we find adifferent interpretation of the Egyptian wig, takinginspiration from the nemes head-dress with its lap-pets, or from a tripartite wig with two parts fallingin front of the shoulders and showing the ears.

Egyptian derivation can be seen most clearly on the

group of Dermys and Kittylos from Boeotia (pl.8, fig. 12). On these two figures the long front

parts of the tripartite wig-like hair-style retain aflatness and are horizontally striated, strongly sug-gesting an origin in the grooved lappets of thenemes head-dress.

A definite transformation from wig-like appear-ance to true hair-style is seen on the Thasos Ram-

Bearer (pl. 8, fig. 14) and the Argive Kleobis andBiton by Polymedes. Instead of horizontal divi-sions, both horizontal and vertical divisions nowform a stylized bead-like hair pattern.100 he backsof the heads of Polymedes' kouroi show an ex-

tremely interesting symptom of Greek adaptationof Egyptian motifs: they are rounded, unlike ear-lier Greek heads covered by the Etagenperiicke,which was flat in back. ' Bulging out from belowa headband, the hair is tied in near the bottom

by a band, leaving the remaining strands to fall ina thick tail.102 This form must be derived from theback of the nemes head-dress, which also bulgessurprisingly.103

The bag wig, introduced in Egypt in the time ofPsamtik I, and most popular in later Dynasty XXVIsculpture, is reflected rarely, if at all, in Greek

sculpture. The Greek sculptor does not seem tohave been aware of, or was not interested in, theform of this latest Egyptian wig. Only marginalareas closely connected with Egypt showed anyawareness of the contemporary bag wig. The kou-ros from Rhodes, probably dating between 61o and

590 B.c., appears to wear a bag wig, or plain wide

wig; it does not bulge as much as the Egyptianwig, but s otherwise dentical with t. The kourosfrom Sais,Egypt, datable etween 75and 550,hasa long flat hair-style, robably ntended as a copyof the Attic beaded hair-style, but it is plain, with-

out any divisions, like the bag wig. The face of thiskouros from Sais, probably made in Egypt byGreeks, reminds us of Egyptian more than ofGreek faces: it is round and flat, with a short nose.

CONCLUSION

Monumental sculpture in Greece began in theseventh century B.c. as the product of primarilyaesthetic needs, whereas in Egypt, even in the LatePeriod, the creation of art forms had as its basis a

practical religious necessity. Such functional forms

in Egypt were taken by the Greeks and used dec-oratively. As the Greek sculptors gained in ex-

perience, there was a change in what they bor-rowed from Egyptian sculpture, and in how theyadapted it; what they were capable of seeing, andwhat was useful to their artistic purposes changed.The Egyptian influence on Greek sculpture there-fore cannot be considered constant but was con-

tinuing and evolving. This paper proposes a Greekcontact with Egypt, as manifested in sculpture,in two stages.

The firststage

of contact coincided with the

early Archaic period in Greece from about 66o to 58oB.c., and the early Saite period in Egypt from 664 to

570, until Amasis. It was an adoptive and adaptivestage. During this time the Egyptian tradition wasvisible in Greece in the borrowing of externalforms. The Greeks adapted a variety of Egyptianwigs; they apparently tried out the smile; theyadopted a common Egyptian stance for the male

figure; and perhaps they copied the general bodilyproportions. They used similar techniques of sculpt-ing. Moreover, they seemed to reflect certain Egyp-tian ideas about statuary when they made colossi

oo00 bead-like pattern was used for stylized hair in theNear East, and was also used to represent locks of hair onsome New Kingdom wigs. In Greece it had been used ear-lier in Attica.

xoxMatz, op.cit. (supra, n. 4) I, pl. 44, for side and backview of Polymedes' kouros. The female figure of Auxerre hasthe bead-like hair pattern, but does not have the bulgingback part and does not show the ears, tentatively adding thenew elements to the Etagenperiicke, or else reflecting theheavy New Kingdom female wigs. Although its provenance isuncertain, the Auxerre maiden is usually considered an exam-ple of Cretan art of about 640 .c. If the date is as early as640, perhaps she should be considered Argive, slightly earlier

than the Mycenae Metope, and a predecessor of the kouroi of

Polymedes. Cretan work of about 640 ac. retains a certain typi-cally Cretan naturalism, a surface liveliness within the Dedalicconventions. If the Auxerre maiden is Cretan, I suggest thatshe be dated later, at the end of the seventh century, alongwith the seated statues from Prinia. Perhaps these are the workof the archaizing Dedalids.

102 The seated female figures from Haghiorgitika and Eleu-therna show the same hair-style as Polymedes' kouroi, thehair bulging from below a headband; they strangely resemblethe Old Kingdom seated Nofret, wife of Rahotep (even theirshawls suggest Nofret's cloak).

103 The Hathor wig with two curls in front is also tied inby bands at the back.




17/23

28 KIM LEVIN [AlA 68

and duplicate statues, and when they lined road-

ways with rows of statues as at Delos and Didyma.While all these borrowings were external, they

were not superficial, for they were of the utmostimportance to Greek art. The development of

Greek sculpture, with which we are here only in-directly concerned, was a development from theEgyptian type of human image, both out of it andaway from it. To understand the nature of Greekart, it is necessary to start with its departure fromthe Egyptian image type.

The second stage of contact, during the MiddleArchaic period, roughly corresponds to the reign ofAmasis in Egypt. During this period the resem-blances between Greek and Egyptian sculpture areless obvious, less direct. By 580 the Greeks had theirown tradition. Their

borrowings were more in thenature of the workings of a creative mind upon thestimuli presented to it, working by comparison,by analogy. The contact in this stage was not ofan adoptive and adaptive nature; it was absorptive.The Greeks absorbed what Egypt offered, if it wasof interest to them, aesthetically. It was an un-systematic and erratic, perhaps eccentric, borrow-ing.

The Greeks between 580 and 570, aware of the

newness of their own tradition, sought out tradi-tion. This was the time when the archaic smile wasrevived, probably indirectly from the Egypt of Dy-nasty XXVI through seventh-century Greek tradi-tion. Along with the smile, details such as the sev-

enth-century Greek Etagenperiicke were reflectedin the new sculpture. Traditional forms were usedin new ways at this time, as we have seen on the Te-nea kouros and the Acropolis Calf-Bearer. At thistime the Greeks showed definite knowledge of the

Egyptian theory of proportions. The sculptors Rhoi-kos and Theodorus of Samos went to Naukratisto study; they probably visited the Egyptian work-

shops, and returned to Greece to construct the

Pythian Apollo according to the Saite canon. The

sculptors known as the Dedalids, Dipoinos and

Skyllis, in Crete, employed traditional forms, ofboth Minoan-Mycenaean and Egyptian origin. Thus

consciously seeking for tradition, the Ionian Greekartist looked to contemporary Egypt, while themainland Greeks could look as well to the Minoanpast of the thirteenth century, to the legendaryDaedalus, who himself had close Egyptian con-nections.

NEW YORK




18/23

FIG. 2. Khonsu-ir-aa (665-650)front (courtesy MFA, Boston)

FIG. I. Torso of a fat man

(700-690) three-quarter view

FIG. 3. Khonsu-ir




19/23

PLATE 6 LEVIN

FIG. 4. Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh(660-650) (courtesy City Art

Museum, St. Louis)

FIG. 6. Bes the Courtier (660-650)(courtesy Fundagio Gulbenkian)

FIG. 5. Ankh-pa-kheredwith Osiris (655-640)




20/23

LEVIN PLATE 7

FIG. 7. Torso of Psamtik I (ca. 650)(courtesy Brooklyn Museum)

FIG. 9. Makht-hor-heb kneeling(595-589)

FIG. 8. Necho II kneeling,bronze (610-595)

FIG. Io. Psamtik-seneb kneeling(545-525)




21/23

PLATE 8 LEVIN

FIG. II. Statuette from Mendes (664-6Io) FIG. I2. Dermys andKittylos (615-590) FIG. 13. Naukratis hunter

FIG. 14. Thasos Ram-Bearer (615-590)

FIG. 15. Acropolis Calf-Bearer (570-560)




22/23

LEVIN PLATE 9

FIG. 16

FIG. 17

FIG. 18

FIG. Ig

FIG. 20

FIG. 21

FIG. 22

FIG. 23

16: Hathor head, detail of statue (664-6o0). 17: Head from Sparta (700-690o). 8: Head from Argos (700-690). 19: Head from Corinth (670-655). 20: Head from Crete (670-655). 21: Head from Crete (670-

655).22: Head from Sparta (655-645). 23: Head from Sparta (630-620)




23/23

Fwi. 24. Head of Apries (589-570)

FIG. 25. Bust of Amasis (570-526) (

The Male Figure in Egyptian and Greek Sculpture of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C.

Documents