Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin Author(s): Ian Jenkins Source: American Journal of Archaeology,

Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 163-179 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507269 . Accessed: 01/09/2011 10:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin

IAN JENKINS
Abstract This article takes a fresh look at the miniature, socalled alabaster kouroi found in 19th-century excavations at the site of the Greek emporium of Naucratis in the Egyptian Nile Delta. It reassesses the ethnic origin of these statuettes in light of archaeological and scientific evidence and argues against previous attempts to see them as Greek. The article concludes that-like the limestone statuettes with which they were foundthey are products of Cypriot workshops, which adapted native style and iconography for a Greek market. Even those that have hitherto been treated as self-evidently Greek turn out to combine their Hellenic nudity with features that are unquestionably Cypriot. Comparisons with limestone sculpture from southeast Cyprus suggest that the same workshops that supplied statuettes to sanctuaries there were also engaged in an export trade to Naucratis.* and the green myrtle branches that had so suddenly

appeared to him, dedicated them in Aphrodite's temple.' Herostratus's dedication vividly recalls the many Cypriot stone statuettes found in the temenos of Aphrodite during excavations conducted at the site by Ernest Gardner in 1885-1886 (fig. 1).Y The statuettes were found in a layer of debris from the demolition of the first temple and leveling of the site for rebuilding. They were mixed with pottery fragments, ashes, and bones in great confusion.3 Much of the confusion may have been of Gardner's own making, for the excavations were haphazard even by 19th-century standards.4 Gardner conjectured that the destruction of the first temple of Aphrodite occured at the time of the Persian invasion of Egypt (ca. 525 B.C.), and the statuettes found there were deposited some time before that.5 This theory is consistent with the large quantities of sixth-century pottery found at the temple. Much of this pottery is of Chiot manufacture and was found in such quantities as first to be thought native to Naucratis. Afterwards, finds on Chios itself revealed its true origin there.6 The pottery is often incised in Greek letters, or painted before firing, with "Aphrodite" and the name of the dedicator. The sheer quantity of Chiot pottery may indicate the island's involvement in the foundation of the first temple. It would seem to outweigh the other possibility, argued chiefly on the basis of the large number of apparently Cypriot limestone statuettes found at the site, that Cyprus was responsible for the foundation.7 Gardner's excavations continued those pioneered by W.M.F. Petrie in 1884 and were part of an

NAUCRATIS Athenaeus was a native of Naucratis in the Egyptian Nile Delta. Writing around A.D. 200 he quotes the work of an earlier Naucratite, Polycharmos, which was entitled On Aphrodite, as follows:

tratus, a citizen of our town engaged in trade, was voyaging far and wide when he landed once at Paphos, in Cyprus, and bought a statuette of Aphrodite nine inches high, of ancient workmanship; departing he carried it to Naucratis. As he approached Egypt, a storm suddenly broke upon him, and it was impossible to see where in the world they were; so they all took refuge at the statue of Aphrodite, begging her to save them. The goddess, being friendly to the Naucratites, suddenly caused everything that lay beside her to be covered with fresh green myrtle . . .then the sun shone forth and they could see their anchorage, and so arrived in Naucratis. Herostratus, setting forth from the ship with the statue

During

the 23rd Olympiad

(688-685

B.C.) Heros-

This article began as a lecture presented in the fall of 1998 to meetings of several chapters of the AIA as part of the author's Samuel H. Kress lectureship in Ancient Art. He wishes to thank all those who hosted the lectureship and in particular Nancy Ramage of Ithaca College, Andrew Ramage, Peter Kuniholm, and other staff of the Art History Department of Cornell University, and Priscilla Murray, Programs Administrator for the AIA. Thanks are also owed to Andrew Middleton and Susan Walker in the British Museum, and to the AJAreaders, Professors Antoine Hermary and an anonymous reader, all of American Journal ofArchaeology 105 (2001) 163-79 163

whom readand improvedthe text. 'Ath. Deipnosophistai 675 f-676 c. Loeb transl. xv, 2Gardneret al. 1888,55-6. Forthe of discovery the temple, see Gardneret al. 1888, 11-3 and 55-9. 3Gardneret al. 1888, 55.
4Boardman

5Gardner al. 1888,35-6; see alsoHogarthet al. 1905,109. et 10.

6Boardman 1980, 123; Cook 1997, 119-22. 7Davis 1979, 15 with bibliography at ns. 17-18; Davis 1980,

1980, 118.

164

IAN JENKINS

[AJA 105

Fig. 1. Group of statuettesfrom Naucratismade of limestone or gypsum.The tallest, B451, measures0.493 m. BritishMuseum. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) exploration that continued intermittently until 1903.8 Archaeological activity at Naucratis then ceased until December 1977 when an American team began the first of a series of surveys of the surrounding area as part of a project led by Professor W.D.E. Coulson. Their plan (fig. 2) shows how in the intervening years a lake had formed in the hollow left by the earlier excavations, and the principal features excavated by Petrie and others are plotted onto a map of the site as it is today.9 Given the importance of ancient Naucratis as a port and trading post, it is little wonder that the cult of Aphrodite flourished there. The town was celebrated by Herodotus for its courtesans, including such famous names as Rhodopis, a contemporary of Sappho, and later one Archedice.'? The goddess of love has long held a fascination for the seagoing profession, and Herostratus would not have been the
8Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, 26-97; 1905, 105-36.

first trader visiting the emporium, nor the last, to thank her for a safe anchorage. It is uncertain whether she was formally recognized as Euploia at this time, as later at Cnidus and other cult centers.1l Herostratus's experience, however, would suggest that she was conceived as having protective power over sailors. His dedication could be identified with one of a number of female statuettes found at the site. The Olympiad date, however, seems impossibly high. It predates by several decades the archaeological evidence for the earliest Greek presence at Naucratis and anticipates by more than a century the Egyptian Pharaoh Amasis's (570-526 B.C.) royal charter and grant of land to Greeks in the Delta recorded by Herodotus.'2 Although it is clear that there was a Greek presence at Naucratis before the reign of Amasis,13none of the pottery finds can be dated earlier than the late seventh century.14 cratis,see Austin 1970, 22-7. 3Strabo, Geography, 17.1.18; Gardner et al. 1888, 71-2; of Sullivan(1996, 186-91) makesa casefor the establishment the Greek settlement early rather than late in the reign of Psammetichus (664-610 B.C.). I 14Cook 1937, 227-8, n. 7 and 235.

9Coulson et al. 1996, fig. 4. ' Hdt. 2.135. 1Paus. Guide Greece, to 2.34.11.Fora second, latershrineof Aphroditeat Naucratis,see Hogarthet al. 1898-1899, 38-9. 2Fora and surveyof the literary archaeologicalsourcesrelating to the establishmentof the Greektradingpost at Nau-

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

165

walls and numerous dedications not only to various individual gods, but also some inscribed "to the gods of the Greeks."'8 Those states outside the syndicate invested separately in other temples: Aegina built a temple of Zeus, Samos one of Hera, and Miletus another in honor of Apollo.19 The Apollo temple was found by Petrie and, like the temple of Aphrodite, is said to be a source of statuettes.20 The great majority of these statuettes were of limestone.2" They belong to a class of small-scale sculpture found widespread throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean and are dated from the late seventh to the mid sixth century B.C. On the basis of style and attribute many are clearly Cypriot. Others, however, are in a mixed Cypro-Hellenic or even Hellenic style, and, owing to this apparent Hellenism, a Cypriot source of manufacture is disputed for the class of limestone sculpture as a whole.22 The present author believes that they are all Cypriot and has treated the question in detail elsewhere.23
THE GYPSUM, SO-CALLED ALABASTER STATUETTES AND THE CASE FOR THEIR BEING GREEK

loo

200m

Fig. 2. Plan of Naucratisshowing the ancient excavated site in relation to modern features. (After Coulson et al. 1996, fig. 4) Herodotus does not mention a temple dedicated to the goddes of love, but focuses instead upon the Hellenion erected by a syndicate of Greek cities: Ionians from Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Clazomenae; Dorians from Rhodes, Cnidus, Halicarnassus, and Phaselis; and Aeolians of Mytilene.'5 Petrie identified the Hellenion with his "Great Temenos" in the southern quarter of the town.16 Subsequently, David Hogarth repudiated not only the location of the Hellenion here but also called into question the very existence of the massive walls that Petrie claimed to have found.'7 According to Hogarth, these walls were the mud brick ruins of successive phases of domestic occupation. Hogarth placed the Hellenion instead in the northern part of the town, where he found evidence of massive

Putting to one side the arguments for the Cypriot origin of the limestone statuettes, this study will now focus on a group of statuettes within the corpus from Naucratis, carved not in the usual limestone but in a material identified hitherto as alabaster (fig. 3).24 These statuettes, many of them kouroi, are usually taken as Greek, with the exception of one apparently Cypriot figure.25 The material is presumed by all previous commentators to be Egyptian alabaster and is supposed to have been carved at the site. Evidence for other alabaster working at Naucratis is provided by the discovery of numerous discarded alabaster cores from the production of stone vases.26 An important fact must now, however, be recorded that changes the whole basis on which all previous discussion of these objects has been conducted. Hitherto the material of the alabaster statuettes has been presumed to be Egyptian and thought to provide evidence of a Naucratite school of craftsmen carving

'5Hdt. 2.178. al. 1886, 23-34. 1 Hogarth et al. 1905, 110-2. ' Hogarthet al. 1898-1899, 42-4; 1905, 112-8. Hogarth's opinion wasconfirmedbyCoulsonand Leonard1982,370-1; cf. Muhs 1994, 106-7.
16Petrie et

' Hdt. 2.178.

Petrie et al. 1886, 13, pl. 2. 2" 21 Pryce 1928, 184, cat. B439 to 200, cat. B471. 22 For an overview of the problem see Sorensen 1978, 111-21. 2 On the problemof the sourceof manufacture the limeof

stone statuettes,seeJenkins 2000, 153-62. 24Petrie etal. 1886, 6, p. I, 1-3, 9; II, 57, pl. XIV, 11, 13. In bowl. myfig. 3 the statuettesarearrangedaroundan alabaster This is heavilyrestoredas a shallowbasin on three supports, only one of which is preservedin the form of a winged siren a carrying child. I knowof no parallelfor this object. 25 EvenDavis(1979, 15), who hasarguedin favorof a strong claims"therearefew if anyCypCypriot presenceatNaucratis, rioteparallels... and mostlikelytheyshould be understoodas entirelyGreek." 26Petrieet al. 1886, 15.

166

IAN JENKINS

[AJA 105

Fig. 3. Group of gypsum statuettes from Naucratisarranged around a bowl of the same material. The tallest, B438, measures 0.257 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the British Museum) a local stone. The stone is not, however, what it has been thought to be.27 The chemical compound of Egyptian alabaster is calcium carbonate, while the Naucratis finds are of calcium sulphate, more specifically gypsum, which is commonly found in parts of Greece, the Near East, and on Cyprus, but rarely in Egypt.28 Henceforth in this article the statuettes will be referred to as gypsum. Previous studies of the gypsum statuettes from Naucratis presume the raw material to be local and in so doing come to offer an interesting chapter in the history of the reception of the archaic kouros. The settlement was once seen as the cradle of Greek sculpture, nurturing craftsmen using local materials, who made the first steps in the creation of the Greek kouros from its Egyptian model.29 This view is still current,30 but objections to it are to be found in the fact that the statuettes are neither conspicuously more Egyptian, nor indeed earlier than kouroi from other parts of the Greek world.31 Another view has emerged that regards them as products of immigrant Greeks, who brought with them skills already developed in their homelands before they set foot on Egyptian soil.32 Stylistic variation among the statuettes could then be explained by the different ethnic origins of the Naucratite

27 Pers.comm.,A. Middleton,BritishMuseumDepartment of ScientificResearch. 281 am gratefulto A. Middletonand his colleague S. Humphreyfor confirmingthe true identityof the material.It may in the future be possible to source the gypsumof the statuettes.Middletonhasbroughtto myattentionthe workof Gale 1988;see also Hussein 1990for gypsumdepositsin Egypt.For of a summary the differencebetweenEgyptianalabaster(calcite) and Cypriotgypsum,see Caubet 1985, 53. There is no

see shortageof gypsumon Cyprus, Greensmith1994,15, 501, 124. 29 Robinson 1889, 18; Kierseritzky 1892, 179-84. For a recent discussionof the questionof the originof the kourosand see a possibleconnection withNaucratis, Ridgway 1977,32-3. 30 Kyrieleis1996, 73-9. 31 Edgar 1903, iv;Caskey1925, 3. 32 Edgar 1903, iv;Caskey1925, 4.

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

167

Fig. 4. Gypsum statuette of a kouros from Naucratis. British Museum B438. Ht. 0.257 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum) school.33 At first, Cyprus, which clearly played a large part in the production of the more numerous limerole.34 stone statuettes, was assigned a prominent Waldemar Deonna, in particular, credited Cyprus

with the making of the gypsum pieces.35 This was disputed,36 and by 1942 when G.M.A. Richter wrote the first edition of her book on kouroi, Cyprus was afforded so little credit in the production of these

miniatures, she dealt with the question by simply ignoring it altogether. Her disregard of any role for Cyprus in the creation of the kouros type is eloquently stated in her comparison of Greek and Cypriot attitudes to anatomy. While the Greeks, she argued, maintained a prolonged and widespread interest in the subject, resulting in a visible progression, Cypriots kept in touch only sporadically with Greek advances in representing the human form, and even in the late Archaic period produced figures that combined advanced with primitive elements.37 Richter, whose work still dominates the study of the Greek kouros, saw her subject very much in terms of a developmental determinism. The overriding desire was to chart a linear progression through the representation of the human figure in stone from the late seventh to the early fifth century B.C. She wrote engagingly of the kouros as "the laboratory" of Greek sculpture, where the great experiment in the march towards naturalism was conducted.3 In the quest to trace the evolution of Greek anatomical proficiency, she selected statuettes to suit her purpose. She assigned one gypsum statuette to her earliest, so-called Sounion, group (615-590 B.C., fig. 4).39 The rest she gave to successive stylistic phases, namely her "Orchomenos-Thera" (590-570 B.C.)40 and "TeneaVolomandra" (575-550 B.C.) groups.41 It is not my intention to challenge the ultimate value of Richter's thesis, but I raise two specific objections to her treatment of the statuettes. First, in her photographic plates, the miniature figureslimestone as well as gypsum-appear on a par with the life- and over life-size marble kouroi, with no allowance for the fact that the diminutive and the colossal can be reproduced at virtually the same size. The miniatures are thereby subsumed within the kouros class as a whole, with no regard for their special status as portable commodities and, as I shall later argue, copies of larger works. Second, her treatment tends to isolate the statuettes within a typological series. Richter, the Hellenist, avoided contextual evidence that would have contaminated the Greek kouros and its pure line of descent. In this respect her book differed greatly from the earlier, pioneering study of Waldemar Deonna.

33Pryce1928,181: "There is also an absence of that unity of style so marked in the case of the majority of the Rhodian statuettes, and it is evident that the inhabitants ofNaucratis, drawn from various states of Hellas, preserved their local artistic traditions in the colony." 34 Gardneret al. 1888, 59. 35 Deonna 1909, 301-5. Kyrieleis (1996, 73-9), is excep-

tionalin havingexpressedrecentsupportfor Deonna'sthesis. 1925, 4. 36Caskey 37 Richter 1942, 153. 38Richter 1942, 8. 39Richter 1970, 57-8, no. 28, figs. 129-130. 40 Richter 1970, 73-4, nos. 59-61, figs. 206-207. 41 Richter 1970, 87-9, nos. 81-85, figs. 264-272.

168

IAN JENKINS

[AJA105

Fig. 5a-c. Gypsumstatuette of a kouros draped in a long chiton, said to come from NationalArchaeological National Museum,Athens.F4505.Ht. 0.47 m. (Courtesy Cyprus. ArchaeologicalMuseum,Athens) THE CYPRIOT ORIGIN OF THE MINIATURE KOUROI Unlike Richter, Deonna had seen a major role for Cyprus in the origins and development not only of the statuettes, but also of the kouros type in general. He based his argument on a gypsum statuette said to come from Cyprus itself, now in Athens, which has a clear affinity with the gypsum kouroi found at Naucratis (fig. 5a-c).42 In particular, Deonna drew his comparison with a piece perhaps from Naucratis, now in Moscow, which is unusually well preserved and has its head (fig. 6a-c).43 From the front, we see the same long face, set on a thick neck, and from the side, the jaw is defined by a steeply-sloping line. The similarity in the profiles of the two figures is very striking. The hair in both is filleted into a series of fine dreadlocks, tucked behind the ears and falling on each shoulder and down the back. A narrow fillet passes around the forehead and disappears behind the ears. The back itself is rather shallow in profile, curving gently into the high, small buttocks. Both in profile and in the rear view we see how close are the respective shapes that are formed by the outer silhouette and the interior lines of the two figures. In frontal aspect, however, the torso of the piece from Cyprus appears somewhat thicker, and there is a reason for this: exceptionally for the alabaster figurines, it is draped in a long, apparently transparent tunic. This is represented by a series of fine folds clinging vertically to the body, but most visibly over and between the legs. The drapery serves to join the legs and gives the figure an Egyptian appearance. The arms, however, are free from the torso, at least above the elbow, the piercing done exactly as in the apparently naked figure in Moscow. It is fair to say "apparently" naked because added paint may sometimes represent clothing even on the ostensibly nude kouroi. For example, a limestone kouros in Oxford retains traces of red paint depicting a jerkin.44 On the statuette in Moscow painted details are visible on the pubis, on the face, around the eyes, and above the lips to render a rather surprising pencil line moustache, which is complemented by the remains of a barbettebelow the lips.

42Deonna1909, 237, no. 140,figs. 163-4. It wasbought on Cyprus Mr.Philimon,Consulfor Greece. by 43Deonna 1909, 242, no. 144;Kieseritzky 1892,pl. 6; Richter 1970, 88, no. 82, figs. 264-266. The provenanceis uncertain. In 1887 it wasin the collection of Dr. Oikonopoulosat

Cairoand afterwards the GolenischeffCollection. in 44Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, pl. xiv, 7; Deonna 1909, 50, 246, no. 154; note that this is not alabasteras describedby Pryce (1928, 181).

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

169

Fig. 6a-c. Gypsumstatuette of a kouroswith painted features including a moustache and little beard. Moscow,Museum of Fine ArtsNI I.a.3000. Ht. 0.175 m. To judge from photographs, there may also be painted drapery on the body, below the throat, and around the right armpit. The survival of painted facial hair is so singular as to merit a brief digression. As in the case of the polychromy of the early Bronze Age Cycladic figurines, so with the kouros we see how the survival of polychromy alters received notions of the abstract purity of early Greek sculpture.45 The moustache occurs again on a gypsum head in Boston, which in other respects too is comparable with the head of the statuette in Athens (fig. 7).46 It may be wondered how many of the ostensibly clean-shaven kouroi that have been discovered in the Greek world were in fact painted with facial hair.47Moustaches do appear in other archaic representations of young men, including Rhodian warrior-head vases of the mid sixth century B.C.48This fact may point to an East Greek source of manufacture for the statuettes, since moustaches without full beards are not a Cypriot characteristic. Alternatively, if as I shall argue the statuettes are Cypriot and are made for a Greek export market, then the moustache must be seen as part of a deliberate Hellenization of their works by Cypriot carvers. In support of this hypothesis, it may be noted that on 45 Deonna 1909, 47-8. 46 Caskey 1925, 5, cat. 2; Comstockand Vermeule 1976, 4, cat.7. "From Naukratis" (Giftof the EgyptExploration Fund). the 47In OrientalMuseumin Istanbul(inv.7811) is a large, red sandstonehead of a kourosfrom MedainSalihthathas a Samos, where the finds from the archaic Heraeum are rich in Cypriot imports, a Cypro-Aegean limestone statuette, draped and holding an animal offering in the Cypriot manner, was found. He too sports a film-star moustache (fig. 8).49

Fig. 7. Gypsum head of a kouros with a painted moustache from Naucratis. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, inv. 88.730. Ht. 0.054 m. (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

carved moustache. 48Higgins 1959, cat. 1620-7, pls. 10-12.

and 1988,54, fig. 11;alsoBrijder van Drost1995, 49Kyrieleis 15, fig. 10.

170

IAN JENKINS

[AJA 105

ed Cypriot origin of the statuette now in Athens, Deonna was alone in arguing that the gypsum figures from Naucratis need not have been made at Naucratis.51 He never doubted that the material was Egyptian alabaster, but thought that it could have been exported to Cyprus. He conjectured, therefore, that the whole group of statuettes might have been made on Cyprus and then the finished product was exported back to Egypt.52 Deonna's thesis has not found acceptance. Its principal weakness is that, at least ostensibly, the gypsum statuettes look more Greek than Cypriot. L.D. Caskey argued against it on the basis of the lack of any contemporary example of a naked kouros type from Cyprus itself.53 Caskey, however, was unaware of the then-unpublished limestone statuette in the British Museum from Idalion (fig. 9).54

Fig. 8. Part of a limestone statuette with painted features

MuseumC266. includinga moustache.SamosArchaeological

Originally ca. 0.4 m high. (Courtesy Deutsches Archaologisches Institut-Athens) To return to the main theme, it may be asked what is to be made of the phenomenon of two

figures so similar that they could be carved by the same hand, the one draped and the other apparently not; one found on Cyprus and the other from Egypt? Deonna assumed that the piece from
with Cyprus was seemingly draped in accordance the sartorial decorum of Cypriot statuary and must be Cypriot. Moreover, he found convincing par-

allels for the face and hairstyle in an archaic Cypriot limestone statue from Golgoi, formerly in the Cesnola collection.50 Comparing it with the Moscow statuette and other pieces from Naucratis, he saw it as grounds for attributing the whole to Cypriot craftsmen. In view of the reputgroup Fig. 9. Limestone kouros from Idalion, Cyprus. British Museum GR 1873, 3-20. 179. Ht. 0.16 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

50 Deonna 1909, 304, with referenceto Perrotand Chipiez 1885, 527, fig. 355. Reproducedas a photographin Cesnola from withthe statuettes 1885,pl. ix. Parallels alsobe drawn may
Golgoi illustrated in Cesnola 1885, pl. xx, where we seem to see limestone versions of the piece in Athens. See also Pryce

52Deonna 1909, 304-5; Gjerstad (1948, 362) conjectured that the statuette in Athens was Cypriot and exported to Cy-

prusfromNaucratis.

1931, cat. C8, 9 (here fig. 14a-b) and 27.

51

53 Caskey 1925, 4. 54British Museum GR 1873, 3-20, 179; also unknown to Kyrieleis (1996, 75) and to Brijder and van Drost (1995, 12).

Deonna 1909, 44.

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

171

R. Senff dates this piece, with its Egyptianizing hairstyle and arm bent across the breast, to the early sixth century B.C. In spite of its nudity, he saw it as the product of a native Cypriot workshop.55 Subsequent opinion has largely followed Caskey's point of view that the gypsum kouroi are Greek, carved at Naucratis by immigrant Greeks.56 Accordingly, the draped statuette in Athens has been pushed out of the picture, and its potenfor the group of dedications tial importance from Naucratis has been overlooked. If the statuettes found at Naucratis are Greek, it would be natural to propose that this one must be Greek also and imported into Cyprus. Greek nudity, it could be argued, has been thinly veiled to comply with Cypriot scruples about dress. Conversely, I propose to pursue Deonna's original thesis and see not only this draped statuette as Cypriot, but also the other gypsum statuettes. In this case Cypriot sculptors would have resorted to nudity to meet the demands of a Greek export market.
RECONTEXTUALIZING THE KOUROI

In order to see properly the Cypriot personality of these works, it is necessary to look at the group of gypsum statuettes as a whole. Ten pieces are in the British Museum. Others are in Cairo, Moscow, and Boston. A few of these are published by Gardner as being from the Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Naucratis.57 Some are said to be from the Temenos of Apollo,58 but this appears to be a supposition. Petrie does not say so; instead, he illustrates a group of kouroi that were brought to him by the workmen who were moving earth in what he considered "the oldest stratum of the town, principally along the middle of the eastern side. Whether found in houses or thrown out into the roads, I have never seen, as they have always been found by diggers not in my employment."59 Others are without provenance, but are assigned to Naucratis on the basis of type.0 The sculptures may be divided into three categories according to their varying degree of per-

Fig. 10. Gypsum statuette in Cypriot dress. British Museum B447. Ht. 0.106 m. (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum) ceived Cypriotness. The first category of Cypri-

ot, plain and simple, is represented by a male statuette of which only the head and torso are preserved (fig. 10).61 The body is draped across the chest leaving one arm free and the other in a short sleeve. Both arms are encircled by a coiled armlet, such as in other Cypriot sculpture from Cyprus itself.62 The head is covered with a Cypriot conical helmet with a top knob and the hinged cheek pieces pushed up. Long hair flows out of the back. Cataloguing the archaic sculpture in the British Museum, F.N. Pryce believed the theories that the gypsum statuettes are products of a regional Greek school at Naucratis, carving in a local Egyptian alabaster. He was forced, therefore, to explain away this Cypriot figure as

55 Senff 1993, 49-50,

pl. 33 a-d.

56Kyrieleis (1996, 73-9) does not question the Egyptian origin of the so-called alabaster. Following Deonna, however, he does acknowledge the Cypriot hairstyles of the alabaster and limestone kouroi from Naucratis and suggests that they are either copies of Cypriot prototypes or even products of Cypriot workshops at Naucratis. 57Gardner et al. 1888, pl. xiv; Caskey 1925, 3-4.

1928, 185, cat. B441 and 188, cat. B446. 58Pryce 59Petrie 1886,36.The supposition alabaster etal. that kouroi
were found in the ruins of the Apollo temple appears to be first made by Smith (1892, 83-4, cat. 202 and 204). 60E.g., Pryce 1928, 183-4, cat. B438. 61 Pryce 1928, 189, cat. B447, fig. 227. No specific findspot is known. 62E.g., Cesnola 1885, pl. vii.

172

IAN JENKINS

[AJA 105

Near Eastern types, exemplified by a fragmentary vase of strongly Assyrian appearance from Sippar in Mesopotamia dated around 700-600 B.C.65The findsites of this type of vase are widespread throughout the Mediterranean world, with a concentration in Etruria.66A case, therefore, has been made for two principal centers of production, one, Etruria, the other-based upon the evidence of apparent Cypriot features-Cyprus.67 Parallels with Cypriot plastic art have been found in the facial features, the jewelry worn, and the attributes held. R. Higgins pointed out that the necklace with its pendant, on a terracotta imitation of this type of vessel found on Rhodes, is a Cypriot form.68 A gypsum piece from Camirus holds a lotus flower against the breast, again in the manner of numerous Cypriot sculptures (fig. 13).69 Until recently, the difficulty with asserting Cypriot manufacture was the fact that such alabastra had not been found on Cyprus itself.70 Although one example is now known from Amathus,7' this rarity

Fig. 11. Gypsumalabastronfrom Naucratisterminating in the head of a woman. British Museum B464. Ht. 0.172 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) a Naucratite copy of a Cypriot work.63 His theory is unlikely, and given that it is now known that the stone is not Egyptian alabaster, and given the large number of Cypriot statuettes in limestone found at Naucratis, there is no reason to see this gypsum figure as anything other than Cypriot. In the second category, which appears to be of mixed Cypriot and Greek style, further Cypriot connections are found in two female alabastra (figs. 11-12).64 Ultimately, such vessels are derived from
63The suggestionwasfirstmade byEdgar:"itcan only have been copied froman importedor clearlyrememberedmodel .. ."(1903, iv). Pryce(1928) followedbyGjerstad(1948,366) and had arguedthatthe "copyist" misunderstoodthe drapery confused the sleeve of a chiton with that of a mantle. The is, putative"sleeve" in fact, a coiled armlet. 64 Pryce 1928, 197, cat. B464-465, figs. 239-240. The type is gathered together and published by Riis 1956, 23-33.The Naucratis findsarehis Group 7 and8. The specificfindspots A, are not known.

Fig. 12. Fragment of a gypsum alabastronfrom Naucratis terminatingin the head of a woman. BritishMuseumB465. Ht. 0.084 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) 65British MuseumANE 9163:Riis 1956,Al, fig. 1. 6Besides article(1956)includespiecRiis's Naucratis, survey es fromEtruria, Gordium,Sipparin Mesopotamia(AbuHabba), and Rhodes. 67Riis 1956,passim. 68Higgins1954, 44-5, cat. 47, pl. 9; Ducat 1966, 73, no. 5. 1928, 158, cat. B329, pl. xxxvi;Riis 1956,A4. 69Pryce 1948, 368, n. 1. 70Gjerstad
71 Hermary 1987, 56-7, pl. XLIII. 4.

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

173

alabastron fromCamirus Rhodes,holding on Fig.13.Gypsum a lotus floweragainstthe breast.BritishMuseumB329. Ht. 0.367 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) has prompted some to reject a Cypriot source. Rhodes has been suggested as an alternative,72 while others have credited their manufacture to Greeks at Naucratis or to Phoenicians.73 The type is not found at any site in sufficient numbers to justify such claims, while the fact of only one having been found on Cyprus itself cannot discount the Cypriot features displayed by many of them. If, moreover, the gypsum alabastra were a luxury export item from Cyprus, we should not expect to find them at their place of origin, but should expect to find them (as

we do) spread over the Mediterranean world. The third category consists of the naked kouroi. Although these have been treated hitherto as Greek, in fact many Cypriot elements can also be seen in them.74 The largest of these figures is usually considered to be the earliest (fig. 4). Richter attributed it to her Sounion group, owing to the slender, elongated proportions, large, almond-shaped eyes, and the incised delineation of the boundary of the thorax by an inverted "V."75The statuette was originally coated all over in paint, which is now golden brown. The upper lip preserves a trace of red, and red can also be found on the band around the forehead. The eyebrows were incised and painted black, and the eyes were outlined in the same color. There is also a slight indication that a thin moustache was painted above the lips.76 There are a number of Cypriot features, including the hairstyle. This appears to be an adaptation of the Egyptian wig, which in Egypt is worn without the parting, as indeed it can also appear in Cypriot art. Held by a fillet around the forehead, the hair is parted in the middle and carried around the temples in a series of dreadlocks tucked behind the ears. The type is common among the gypsum kouroi and in limestone statuettes from Naucratis and elsewhere, but otherwise can only be paralleled in Cypriot sculpture from Cyprus itself.77 Cypriot parallels in limestone for the head can be found in the Cesnola collection in New York from Golgoi (Athienou),78 in heads from Idalion in the British Museum, which Senff dates to ca. 550 B.C. (fig. 14a-b),79 and, again, in the Cypro-Aegean statuette with the distinctive moustache from Samos (fig. 8).80 The manner of bringing the hanging locks of hair forward to fall in a series of four straight tresses on the shoulders is again paralleled in Cypriot sculpture.81 The rendering of the eyes in quasi applique form (Bossenaugen), although used by Greek also, is especially common in Cypriot sculptors art throughout the sixth century.82 A piece in Paris

72Ducat1966, 74. 73 Riis 1956, 23-4 for bibliography. See and 74RecentlyBrijder vanDrost (1995, 10) havewrittenof London B438 as being "purely Greek." 75 Pryce1928, 183-4, cat. B438, pl.39; Deonna 1909, 243, no. 148, figs. 168-9-included in his Cypriotgroup, 301-6; Richter1970, 57-8, no. 28, figs. 129-30. No specificfindspot is known.The typeis found againin a gypsumhead in Cairo; see Edgar1903, 2, no. 27427, pl. 1: "Bought[Tantah]."See alsothe limestonehead in myfigure 1, backrow,second from the left (Pryce1928, 184-5, B439, fig. 221). 761 am gratefulto AndrewMiddletonfor his assistance in confirmingthese tracesof paint,which are noted by Pryce.

1996, 74. 77Kyrieleis 78Cesnola 1885, pl. xx, 37-9. 1931, 15-6, cat. C8 and 9, figs. 7, 8; Senff 1993, 32, 79Pryce the that, possibility where pl. 1Ig-i, d-f. Senffraises interesting there maybe an Ionian influence there is no center-parting, in the Cypriotexamples:comparethe profilesof Pryce1931, in cat. C7 and 8 with thatof the votivestatueof Dionysermos the Louvre(Hamiaux1992, 59, no. 51). 80 Kyrieleis1988, 54, fig. 11. 81Cesnola 1885,pl. xx, 38 and 41. Althoughthe ends of the see tressesare brokenaway, also Senff 1993,32, pl. lg-i, d-f. 82 Examplesare too numerous to mention, but see, e.g., Hermary1989,40, cat. 38.

174

IAN JENKINS

[AJA105

Fig. 14a-b. Head of a limestone statuette from Idalion, Cyprus.BritishMuseum C9. Ht. 0.08 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) shows the pointed chin and manner of rendering the ear is entirely consistent with Cypriot sculpture dated ca. 550 B.C. (fig. 15). This is rather later than Richter's dates of 615-590 B.C. If one removes the conical bonnet of this Cypriot limestone statuette from Idalion, leaving the band around the forehead and exchanging the bonnet for the dreadlocks of the gypsum piece from Naucratis, one sees readily how close these two faces are.83 Two other gypsum kouroi from Naucratis, one larger than the other, make an obvious pair and are arguably carved by the same hand (fig. 16ac).84 Both figures have rounded forms, sloping shoulders, well-defined pectorals, and narrow hips. Furthermore, the proper left arm of each figure is held stiffly at the side, while the right is bent across the breast with the thumb extended. The bent arm that holds no attribute but extends the thumb is well paralleled in Cypriot sculpture, but not in Greek.85 The gesture derives from Egyptian art, where the hand can either be empty or hold an attribute.86 The side and rear views of this pair of figures strengthen the comparison. The torso is pushed forward with the weight well over the left leg of the figures. The heads are unfortunately missing from both statuettes, but traces of the hair remain on the shoulders of one

Fig. 15. Partof a limestonestatuettefrom Idalion, Cyprus.Musee du Louvre, Paris AO 1329. Ht. 0.16 m. (CourtesyMusee du Louvre)

1989,39, cat.35 and coverillustration. 83Hermary Kyrieleis kouros. (1996, 79) acceptsRichter'sdatingof the Naucratis 1928,185-6, cat.B441-442,fig. 223 and pl. xl;Rich84Pryce ter 1970, 73-4, nos. 59 and 60, figs. 206-207. The findspotof B441is saidto be the Temenos of Apollo,but thisis doubtful.

B442 is saidto be from the Temenos of Aphrodite. 85 E.g., Hermary1989, 51-2, cat. 66-67. I find no Greek examplein Richter. 1931, 21, cat. C19, fig. 15, for an especiallyEgyp86Pryce tianizingexample.

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

175

M, 3- i"

A.

:a44, E:::: - :i d:
sI 1

: i

?^

' ' ^ 1 .:;1 g~~~~~~~~~~~ ; :;1. . I1

1 .*

i:

I&
i;

2... ........ .. 0. i ;. ..=.. ... _.- <;.w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^.. Fig. 16a-c. Pairof gypsumkouroi from Naucratis.BritishMuseumB441 and B442. Ht. 0.12 and 0.152 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) piece. The appearance of three sharp points that denote a row of tresses can be paralleled in Cypriot statuary.87 It has not been difficult to point to Cypriot characteristics in statuettes that have been seen hitherto as Greek. There are, however, others that seem at first acquaintance unassailably Greek. Two are in the British Museum (fig. 17)88 and another in Boston (fig. 18).89 These three could have been carved by the same hand. Distinctive points of comparison include the dreadlocks; high, prominent chest without division; sloping shoulders; manner of showing the arms by the side; small, high buttocks; and fully developed thighs. The torso of a kouros, again in Boston (fig. 19),90 should probably also be assigned to this group. It has the same anatomical composition as the others, but is less well preserved, and so the comparison must remain incomplete. The basic configuration of the torso is found again in another gypsum statuette from Naucratis shown in the popular archaic guise of "master of animals" holding a quadruped (perhaps a lion) by the rear leg and tail (fig. 20).91 Without the heads of these figures, there is nothing that could obviously be called Cypriot here. A different story emerges, however, when

Fig. 17. Pair of gypsum kouroi from Naucratis. British Museum B446 and B443. Hts. 0.075 and 0.102 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum) these pieces are placed in their family group. With them belongs the statuette of a kouros in Moscow, which, with its Cypriot hairstyle (fig.

1989, 54, cat. 72. 87Hermary 1928, 187, cat. B443, fig. 224; Deonna 1909, 244, 88Pryce no. 149, figs. 170-171. No specific findspot is known. Pryce 1928, 188-9, cat. B446,fig. 226; Richter1970, 88-9, nos. 8384, figs.270-271. It is saidto come fromthe Temenos ofApollo, but thisis doubtful. 89 Comstockand Vermeule1976,5, cat.8. Giftof the Egypt

Societyand saidto be fromthe Temenos ofAphExploration Deonna 1909,245, no. 150,figs. 172-174; roditeatNaucratis; Richter1970, 89, no. 85, fig. 272. 90 ComstockandVermeule1976,5, cat.9. Giftof the Egypt Societyand saidto be fromthe Temenos of AphExploration roditeatNaucratis. 91 Pryce 1928, 189-90, cat. B449, pl. xl.

176

IAN JENKINS

105 [AJA

ing,94 an attribute that can be compared with the Cypriot warrior statuette (fig. 10).95 Like the latter, the kouros also wears on each arm what may be a band or the sleeves of an under tunic, both of which are consistent with Cypriot imagery rather than Greek.96 The attempt to see the miniature kouroi as Greek ignores such Cypriot features and usually stylistic presumes, rather than demonstrates, links with the coast of Asia Minor or offshore islands.97 Frank Brommer made a convincing comparison, however, between a head among the gypsum pieces in the Cairo Museum and another marble head from Asia Minor.98 With its flamelike frontal coiffure, the head in Cairo appears to be a miniature version of a type paralleled in a marble head found at Keramos near Halicarnassus.99 Such a direct link between a gypsum statuette from Egypt and an East Greek product from a marble carver's workshop is striking enough to suggest that if the gypsum piece is not itself East Greek, then it is a copy. On the strength of the

Fig. 18. Gypsumstatuetteof a kourosfrom Naucratis.Giftof the Egypt Exploration Fund, inv. 88.734. Ht. 0.143 m. (CourtesyMuseum of Fine Arts,Boston) 6),92 is related to the draped statuette published by Deonna and said to come from Cyprus (fig. 5). A few draped, kouros-type statues are known from elsewhere in the archaic Greek world,93 and it could be argued that the draped statuette is Greek and was imported into Cyprus. Arguing the case, however, for its being Cypriot, the dress may be an indication of its origin. Nor in this respect does this statuette stand alone in its group. There are signs that other related kouroi may have been conceived as draped. We have already noted the possibility of paint on the torso of the Moscow statuette. Furthermore, incisions crossing the breast on British Museum B446 (fig. 17) show that it wears an item of cloth-

Fig. 19. Fragmentof a gypsumstatuette of a kouros from Naucratis. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, inv. 88.1098. Ht. 0.069 m. (CourtesyMuseumof Fine Arts,Boston)

92 1892, 179-84. Kieseritzky 93Richter1970, figs. 616-619, 624-627. 94Asnoted by Pryce 1928, 188-9; Deonna 1909, 243, no. 147. 95 Pryce 1928, 189, cat. B447, fig. 227. 9 Deonna 1909, 304.

97 E.g., Pryce 1928, 182-3. 98Brommer 1952,48-9, figs. 1-4. Cairo27428,Edgar1903, iv, pl. I; Deonna 1909, 243, no. 146;Richter1970, 111, mentioned as comparisonfor no. 130,but not illustrated. 99 SmyrnaMuseum,no. 1022;Richter 1970, 111, no. 130, figs. 381-383.

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

177

Fig. 20. Gypsum statuette of a naked "masterof animals"

from Naucratis.British Museum B449. Ht. 0.136 m. (CourtesyTrusteesof the BritishMuseum)

evidence assembled here, it may be argued that it is indeed a copy that was produced by Cypriots with an eye to the Greek market. The Greek originals that inspired such copies as this one would have been seen by Cypriots traveling abroad, but may also have been seen on Cyprus itself, like the late Archaic kouros in Parian marble set up as a grave marker at Marion.100
CONCLUSION

Two new insights into the group of so-called alabaster statuettes from Naucratis have been presented. First, the raw material does not necessar-

ily come, as previously supposed, from the same land in which the sculptures were discovered, and there is no firm basis for thinking that they were made there. Second, there are sound reasons for attributing their manufacture to Cypriots rather than to Greeks. It seems likely that Cypriots were responsible for the entire corpus of statuettes, both in limestone and gypsum, carving in the native style for the Cypriot market and adapting this style to a mixed Cypro-Aegean, or also an apparently undiluted Hellenic, style for the Greek market. Stylistic links with finds from Golgoi may suggest that the gypsum statuettes were carved in the workshops of southeastern Cyprus, perhaps by the same hands that supplied the sanctuaries of Golgoi, Idalion, and Arsos with their limestone sculpture. These places offer the closest parallels for the gypsum statuettes. Athenaeus's recounting of Herostratus's dedication of a Cypriot statuette at Naucratis appears to carry a folk memory of a real trade in Cypriot miniature statuary. Limestone pieces were traded the most and, like the gypsum, these were made in both Cypriot and mixed Cypro-Hellenic styles. We can imagine the vendors at the harbors of Cyprus hawking their wares to visiting foreigners such as Herostratus himself, who would naturally be superstitious and eager to seek the good will of gods commanding the open sea between Cyprus and Egypt. Other statuettes would have been carried abroad by Cypriot traders, who set up stalls at the entrances to the Greek sanctuaries. Still others may have been carved abroad by Cypriots using raw materials brought with them. It would not take a very large block of Cypriot limestone to manufacture the entire corpus of statuettes in that material found at Naucratis.?10 The gypsum statuettes seem to have been a deluxe alternative to limestone, intended to simulate the white marble of the Greek sculptures they copy. They give themselves away as copies in the extraordinary resemblance of one to another. In this respect they stand out from the rest of Richter's catalogue of types. In the family of archaic Greek kouroi, it is remarkable how individual each figure is. This individuality makes it difficult to follow some of Richter's classifications. On this point it is interesting to turefromCyprus is Cypriot. and Some of the Naucratis pieces share these characteristics also appear to be of Cypriot and limestone. Othersfrom Naucratis,however,are probablyin an Egyptianlimestone. I hope to test this hypothesis in a separatestudy.

?00Pryce1928, 155, cat. B325, pl. 34; Sheedy (forthcoming). 01 I have argued (enkins 2000, 158-61) that the limestone of the statuettes from Rhodes, Cnidus, and elsewhere has characteristics in common with the limestone of sculp-

178

IAN JENKINS 86:361-80.

[AJA 105

recall the comments ofJohn Boardman. On the problem of determining the authenticity of the Getty kouros, he writes: "I deliberately went to the pictures in Miss Richter, and looked at many authentic kouroi asking myself how I would react to them if they appeared without documentation on the market today. Several failed the test. To put it crudely, many kouroi seemed stylistically disorganised or internally inconsistent, and I was unwilling to condemn a new one on such grounds alone."102 Richter, one may say, imposed her own order on the otherwise "disorganised" and "inconsistent" kouroi. It is not surprising that only in the case of the gypsum kouroi from Naucratis do we see in her pages a clear similarity between one and another. The reason is that they are not true kouroi, but copies.
OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES BRITISH MUSEUM GT. RUSSELL STREET LONDON WC 1 B 3DG IJENKINS@THEBRITISHMUSEUM.AC.UK DEPARTMENT

Coulson, W.D.E., et al. 1996. Ancient Naucratis. Vol. 2, pt. 1, The Survey at Naukratis and Environs. Oxford: Ox-

bow. Davis, W.M. 1979. "Ancient Naukratis and the Cypriotes

in Egypt." Gottinger Miszellen 35:13-23.

. 1980. "The Cypriotes at Naukratis." G6ttinger

Miszellen 41:7-19. Deonna, W. 1909. Les "Apollons Archaiques." Geneva:

Georg and Cie.

Ducat, J. 1966. Les VasesPlastiques Rhodiens: archaiques en terre cuite. Paris: de Boccard. Edgar, M.C.C. 1903. GreekSculpture: Catalogue general des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire. Cairo: Institut

Francais. Gale, N.H. 1988. "The Sources of Mycenaean Gypsum." JAS 15:57-72. Gardner, E.A., with an appendix by F.U. Griffith. 1888. Naukratis,pt. 2. Excavation Memoir 6. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. sical Periods.Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Greensmith, T. 1994. SouthernCyprus.Geologists' Association Guide 50. London: The Geologists' Association.
Hamiaux, M. 1992. Les sculptures Grecques, vol. 1. Paris: Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. 4, pt. 2, The Cypro-Geometric,Cypro-Archaicand Cypro-Clas-

Works Cited
and Austin, M.M. 1970. Greece Egyptin theArchaic Age.Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Boardman, J.B. 1980. The Greeks Overseas. London: Thames and Hudson. 1993. "Criteria."In The Getty KourosColloquium, Athens,25-27May 1992, edited by M. True, 27-9. Athens: Kapon Eds. Brijder, H.A., and M.H.J. van Drost. 1995. "The Amsterdam Kouros." Pharos3:3-21. Brommer, F. 1952. "Ein Archaischer Kopf in Kairo." AA:48-59. Caskey,L.D. 1925. MuseumofFineArtsBoston,Catalogue of Greek and Roman Sculpture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Caubet, A. 1985. Kition Bamboula.Vol. 3, Le SondageLParis: Editions N13, pt. 1, BronzeRecentet Geometrique. Recherche sur les civilisations. Atlas of the Cesnola Cesnola, L.P. di. 1885. A Descriptive Collection Cypriote Museof Antiquitiesin theMetropolitan um of Art in New York. Boston: J.R. Osgood. Comstock, M.B., and C.C. Vermeule. 1976. Sculpturein Stone: the Greek,Roman and Etruscan Collections the of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.Boston: The Museum of Fine Arts. Cook, R.M. 1937. "Amasisand the Greeks in Egypt."JHS 57:227-37. . 1997. Greek PaintedPottery. ed. London: Rout3rd ledge. Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard, Jr. 1982. "Investigations at Naukratis and Environs, 1980 and 1981." AJA

Reunion des musees nationaux.

Hermary, A. 1989. Catalogue des Antiquites de Chypre.Par-

is: Reunion des musees nationaux.

. 1987. La Necropole d'Amathonte, Tombes113-367.

Etudes Chypriote 9.3.2. Nicosia: Service des antiquites de Chypre.

Higgins, R.A. 1954. Catalogue of the Terracottasin theDepartment of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum.

London: British Museum.

.1959. Catalogue of the Terracottasin the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, vol. 2,

pt. 1. London: British Museum. Hogarth, D.G., C.C. Edgar, and C. Gutch. 1898-1899. "Excavations at Naukratis." BSA 5:26-97. Hogarth, D.G., H.L. Lorimer, and C.C. Edgar. 1905. "Naukratis 1903."JHS 25:105-36. Hussein, A.A.A. 1990. "MineralDeposits." In TheGeology of Egypt, edited by R. Said, 551-9. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Jenkins, I. 2000. "Cypriot Limestone Sculpture from
Cnidus." In Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R.

Tsetskhladze,AJ.N.W. Prag, and A.M. Snodgrass, 15362. London: Thames and Hudson. Kieseritzky, G. 1892. "Apollo von Naukratis."JdI7:17984. Kyrieleis, H. 1988. "New Cypriot Finds from the Heraion
of Samos." In Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the

Iron Age, edited by V. Tatton-Brown, 52-5. London: British Museum Publications.

. 1996. Der GrosseKuros von Samos. Samos 10. Bonn:

R. Habelt. Muhs, B. 1994. "The Great Temenos of Naucratis."

1'2 Boardman1993, 28.

2001]

ARCHAIC KOUROI IN NAUCRATIS: THE CASE FOR CYPRIOT ORIGIN

179

JARCE31:99-113. Perrot, G., and C. Chipiez. 1885. Histoire de l'art dans Petrie, W.M.F, C. Smith, E. Gardner, and B.V. Head. 1886. Naukratis.Pt. 1, 1884-5. London: Trubner.
Pryce, F.N. 1928. Catalogue of Sculpture in theDepartment of Greekand Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. Vol. 1, pt. 1, Prehellenic and Early Greek. London: British l'Antiquit. Vol. 3, Phoenecia and Cyprus.Paris: Hachette.

Robinson, E. 1889. Annual Report of the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston 13:18. Senff, R. 1993. Das Apolloheiligtum von Idalion: Architektur und Statuenausstattung eines zyprischen Heiligtums. Jon-

sered: P. Astroms. Sheedy, K. Forthcoming. "The Marion Kouros in the BCHSuppl.

British Museum." In Actes du colloque international la sculpture des Cyclades a l'epoque archaique, Athens 1998. Smith, A.H. 1892. A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum,

Museum.

- . 1931. Catalogue of Sculpture in the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum. Vol. 1, pt. 2, Cypriote and Etruscan. London: British Museum.

Richter, G.M.A. 1942. Kouroi.1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 1970. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths. 3rd ed. Lon-

don: Phaidon.
Ridgway, B.S. 1977. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture.

vol. 1, pt. 3. London: Trustees of the British Museum. S0rensen, L.W. 1978. "EarlyArchaic Limestone Statuettes in Cypriote style." RDAC:111-21. Sullivan, R.D. 1996. "Psammetichus I and the Foundation of Naukratis." In AncientNaucratis.Vol. 2, pt. 1, Coulson et al., 177-95. Oxford: Oxbow.
The Survey at Naucratis and Environs, edited by W.D.E.

Princeton: Princeton University Press. 37:23-33. Riis, PJ. 1956. "SculpturedAlabastra."ActaArch