Revised Sculpture

Early Cycladic Sculpture
Early Cycladic Sculpture

A n Introduction
Revised Edition
Pat Getz-Preziosi
The J. Paul Getty M u s e u m

M a l i b u , California
1994 The J. Paul Getty M u s e u m

17985 Pacific Coast Highway
M a l i b u , California 90265-5799
At the J. Paul Getty M u s e u m :
Christopher Hudson, Publisher
M a r k Greenberg, Managing Editor
Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Getz-Preziosi, Pat.
Early Cycladic sculpture : an introduction /
Pat Getz-Preziosi.Rev. ed.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-89236-220-0
I . Sculpture, Cycladic. I . J. P. Getty M u s e u m .
I I . Title.
NB130.C78G4 1994
730 '.0939 '15-dc20
94-16753
CIP
Cover: Early Spedos variety style

harp player. M a l i b u , The J. Paul
Getty M u s e u m 85.AA.103. See
also plate ivb, figures 24, 25, 79.
Frontispiece: Female folded-arm
figure. Late Spedos/Dokathismata
variety. A somewhat atypical work
of the Schuster Master. EC II.
C o m b i n i n g elegantly controlled
curving elements w i t h a sharp
angularity and tautness of line, the
concept is one of boldness tem
pered by delicacy and precision.
Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum
90.AA.114. Pres. L . 40.6 cm.
Contents
vii
x
xi
Foreword
Preface
Preface to F i r s t E d i t i o n
Introduction
C o l o r Plates
17
T h e Stone Vases
18
The Figurative Sculpture
51
The Formulaic Tradition
59
The Individual Sculptor
64
The Karlsruhe/Woodner Master
66
The Goulandris Master
71
The Ashmolean Master
78
T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the F i g u r e s
79
B e y o n d the Cyclades
83
M a j o r Collections of Early
Cycladic Sculpture
84
Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y
86
Photo C r e d i t s
This page intentionally left blank
Foreword
R i c h m o n d , Virginia, Fort W o r t h ,
Texas, a n d San F r a n c i s c o , i n 1 9 8 7 1988, a n d " C y c l a d i c C u l t u r e : Naxos
i n the T h i r d M i l l e n n i u m , " s h o w n at
the G o u l a n d r i s M u s e u m i n A t h e n s i n
1990, a n d b r o u g h t t h e t a n g i b l e r e
mains of this Bronze Age civilization
to t h e a t t e n t i o n o f a b r o a d e r p u b l i c
a u d i e n c e . Several m a j o r n e w p u b l i c a
t i o n s also a p p e a r e d , i n c l u d i n g Pat
Getz-Preziosi's m a j o r study,
Sculptors
of the Cyclades, a n d C o l i n Renfrew's
evocative The Cycladic Spirit. B u t per
haps m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , o u r k n o w l
edge o f the c u l t u r e o f the Cyclades i n
the B r o n z e A g e has been increased by
c o n t i n u i n g excavations and surveys o f
Cycladic sites, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the is
lands o f M e l o s , A m o r g o s , Kea, Keros,
and S a n t o r i n i , as w e l l as r e l a t e d sites
o n m a i n l a n d Greece a n d the i s l a n d o f
Crete. These r e m a r k a b l e w o r k s o f art,
once v a l u e d m o r e for the i n s p i r a t i o n
t h e y p r o v i d e d to m o d e r n s c u l p t o r s
l i k e B r a n c u s i or H e n r y M o o r e t h a n as
the sophisticated achievements of
t h e i r o w n c u l t u r e , can be better appre
ciated as w e u n d e r s t a n d m o r e about
the society t h a t p r o d u c e d t h e m .
T h e r e m a r k a b l e stone sculptures p r o
duced i n the Cyclades d u r i n g the t h i r d
m i l l e n n i u m B . C . have b o t h the advan
tage a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e o f i m m e n s e
p o p u l a r appeal. Even the m o s t casual
observers can i m m e d i a t e l y appreciate
the carefully s c u l p t e d f o r m s o f h u m a n
figures r e d u c e d to t h e i r essential out
lines a n d the vessels o f sure a n d s i m
ple contours w i t h m i n i m a l d e c o r a t i o n .
O u r a t t r a c t i o n to these objects s h o u l d
not be confused w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,
however, for i t belies the fact t h a t w e
k n o w almost n o t h i n g of the rituals
and beliefs of the society that p r o
duced t h e m .
T h e decade since the f i r s t e d i t i o n
of this b o o k a p p e a r e d has w i t n e s s e d
a b u r g e o n i n g interest i n the study
of Cycladic art and c i v i l i z a t i o n . I n
the same year, 1985, the N i c h o l a s P.
Goulandris Foundation and M u s e u m
of Cycladic A r t , the first i n s t i t u t i o n
d e d i c a t e d to "the d i s s e m i n a t i o n a n d
p r o m o t i o n o f Cycladic art to a w i d e r
scholarly c o m m u n i t y a n d the general
public," opened in Athens. Signifi
cant e x h i b i t i o n s f o l l o w e d , i n c l u d i n g
"Early Cycladic Sculpture i n N o r t h
American Collections," shown in
Pat Getz-Preziosi's
vii
c o n t r i b u t i o n to
t h e s t u d y o f C y c l a d i c stone s c u l p t u r e ,
b o t h i d o l s a n d vessels, a n d o f t h e art
ists w h o p r o d u c e d t h e m , is s u r e l y
u n i q u e . A l t h o u g h t h e basic c h r o n o
l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i d o l types
h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d , she
was t h e first scholar to r e c o g n i z e t h e
stylistic r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g d i f f e r e n t
pieces a n d to a t t r i b u t e t h e m o n t h i s
basis t o i n d i v i d u a l h a n d s o r " m a s
ters." L i k e those of the creators o f
most surviving ancient artifacts, the
n a m e s o f t h e s e c r a f t s m e n are u n r e
c o r d e d , a n d t h e s c u l p t o r s are n o w
i d e n t i f i e d f o r c o n v e n i e n c e by t h e
names of the collections w h i c h i n
c l u d e or have i n c l u d e d i n the past one
or m o r e examples o f the artist's w o r k .
I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t w e s h a l l ever k n o w
m o r e a b o u t these s c u l p t o r s , b u t D r .
Getz-Preziosi's e x a m i n a t i o n o f groups
of w o r k s by d i f f e r e n t h a n d s a n d h e r
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e changes a n d var
i a t i o n s i n key s t y l i s t i c features a m o n g
m e m b e r s o f each g r o u p p r o v i d e us
w i t h considerable insight into the
d i s t i n c t a r t i s t i c p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h a t cre
ated t h e m .
D r . G e t z - P r e z i o s i was also t h e first
to offer a c o n v i n c i n g analysis o f t h e
s t a n d a r d i z e d f o r m u l a e t h a t s e e m to
have been a p p l i e d i n the c r e a t i o n o f
t h e stone f i g u r e s . W h i l e the i d o l s ap
pear deceptively s i m p l e at first glance,
t h e f o r m u l a e she believes w e r e used
for t h e p l a n n i n g a n d e x e c u t i o n o f
the i m a g e s reveal t h e i r e x t r a o r d i n a r y
refinement of design. These formulae
m a y also h e l p to e x p l a i n t h e r a t h e r
unsettling impression of similarity
a m o n g figures o f each t y p e , i n spite o f
t h e i r v a r i a t i o n s i n i n d i v i d u a l details.
Readers f a m i l i a r w i t h the origi
nal e d i t i o n o f t h i s b o o k w i l l r e a l i z e
that a n u m b e r o f objects have changed
h a n d s since its appearance. I n 1988,
t h e G e t t y M u s e u m a c q u i r e d t h e Cy
cladic c o l l e c t i o n o f Paul a n d M a r i a n n e
Steiner, i n c l u d i n g t h e n a m e - p i e c e o f
the Steiner Master. T h e W o o d n e r
F a m i l y C o l l e c t i o n was s o l d i n 1991
a n d is n o w i n a N e w Y o r k p r i v a t e
collection.
K e n n e t h H a m m a , Associate C u r a
tor o f A n t i q u i t i e s , has o v e r s e e n t h e
p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s r e v i s e d e d i t i o n , at
t e n d i n g to m y r i a d details w i t h charac
teristic care a n d patience. T h e text was
e d i t e d by C y n t h i a N e w m a n B o h n , a n d
E l l e n Rosenbery p r o v i d e d n e w p h o t o -
viii
g r a p h s o f the S t e i n e r pieces.
T h i s v o l u m e is i n t e n d e d as a g e n
e r a l i n t r o d u c t i o n to a c o m p l e x a n d
i n t r i g u i n g subject t h a t is c o n s t a n t l y
e n h a n c e d by n e w discoveries. W e may
only hope that the excavations and
research a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e n e x t decade
w i l l f u r t h e r elucidate the o r i g i n a l c u l
t u r a l significance o f these artifacts,
w h i c h have lost n o n e o f t h e i r i m m e
diacy a n d a p p e a l m o r e t h a n f o u r m i l
l e n n i a after t h e i r c r e a t i o n .
M a r i o n True
Curator of Antiquities
ix
Preface
Since the i n i t i a l p u b l i c a t i o n o f Early

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

o f a d d i t i o n s to t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e
years since t h i s b o o k f i r s t a p p e a r e d ,
our understanding of the fundamen
tals o f Early Cycladic sculpture remains
basically u n a l t e r e d . As a r e f l e c t i o n o f
this s i t u a t i o n , the t e x t o f the p r e s e n t
e d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h i m p r o v e d i n places,
has n o t b e e n s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o d i f i e d .
Pat Getz-Preziosi
A p r i l 1994
Preface to First E d i t i o n
B l o o m i n g t o n ) , J o h n Coffey ( B o w d o i n
College A r t M u s e u m , B r u n s w i c k ) , J.
Gy. Szilagyi ( M u s e e des B e a u x - A r t s ,
Budapest), Jane Biers ( M u s e u m o f A r t
and Archaeology, University of M i s
souri, C o l u m b i a ) , Giselle Eberhard
(Musee B a r b i e r - M u l l e r , Geneva),
D o m i n i q u e de M e n i l ( M e n i l F o u n d a
t i o n , H o u s t o n ) , U r i A v i d a (Israel M u
seum, Jerusalem), M i c h a e l Maass and
J i i r g e n T h i m m e (Badisches L a n d e s m u s e u m , K a r l s r u h e ) , J. Lesley F i t t o n
(British Museum, London), Tina
O l d k n o w (Los Angeles County M u
seum of A r t ) , Jifi Frel and M a r i o n
True (J. Paul Getty M u s e u m , M a l i b u ) ,
The Guennol Collection (New York),
Joan M e r t e n s ( M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m
o f A r t , N e w Y o r k ) , A l e x a n d r a Staf
f o r d ( N e w Y o r k ) , Paul a n d M a r i a n n e
Steiner (New York), Ian Woodner
(New York), Michael Vickers and
Ann Brown (Ashmolean Museum,
O x f o r d ) , Sara C a m p b e l l ( N o r t o n
S i m o n M u s e u m , Pasadena), Frances
F o l l i n Jones ( T h e A r t M u s e u m ,
Princeton U n i v e r s i t y ) , Renee B e l l e r
Dreyfus (The Fine Arts M u s e u m s of
San Francisco), Paula T h u r m a n (Seat
tle A r t M u s e u m ) , S a b u r o h Hasegawa
T h i s b o o k was w r i t t e n at the sugges

tion of J i n Frel following a seminar
l e c t u r e g i v e n by the w r i t e r at t h e J.
Paul G e t t y M u s e u m i n the s p r i n g o f
1983. A revised version o f that lecture,
it also i n c o r p o r a t e s m a n y e l e m e n t s o f
a l a r g e r study called Sculptors
of the
Cyclades: Individual
and Tradition
in
the ThirdMillennium
B.C., w h i c h w i l l
soon be p u b l i s h e d j o i n t l y by the U n i
versity o f M i c h i g a n Press a n d the J.
Paul G e t t y T r u s t . I l l u s t r a t e d w h e r
ever p o s s i b l e w i t h objects f r o m t h e
G e t t y ' s c o l l e c t i o n or w i t h objects i n
other A m e r i c a n museums and private
c o l l e c t i o n s , Early Cycladic
Sculpture
is i n t e n d e d to s u r v e y t h e d e v e l o p
m e n t o f C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e and to
offer a p a r t i c u l a r a p p r o a c h to the
a n o n y m o u s artists w h o w o r k e d i n the
A e g e a n islands s o m e f o r t y - f i v e h u n
d r e d years ago.
r
For graciously a l l o w i n g m e to r e p r o
duce objects f r o m t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n s
and for p r o v i d i n g photographs and
i n f o r m a t i o n , I a m m o s t grateful to the
f o l l o w i n g m u s e u m s , m u s e u m author
ities, and private owners: Dolly Gou
landris (Athens), Adriana Calinescu
(Indiana University Art Museum,
xi
(The National M u s e u m of Western

Art, Tokyo), M r . and M r s . Isidor
K a h a n e ( Z u r i c h ) , a n d several p r i v a t e
collectors w h o p r e f e r to r e m a i n a n o n
y m o u s . S p e c i a l t h a n k s are due to
W o l f g a n g K n o b l o c h o f t h e Badisches
L a n d e s m u s e u m a n d to A n d r e a W o o d ner for u n d e r t a k i n g the troublesome
task o f o b t a i n i n g the w e i g h t s o f the
two name-pieces of the K a r l s r u h e /
W o o d n e r M a s t e r . For t h e i r h e l p w i t h
v a r i o u s aspects o f t h e p r o j e c t , I a m
especially i n d e b t e d to the depart
ments of antiquities and publications
at t h e J. P a u l G e t t y M u s e u m . I w o u l d
also l i k e t o t h a n k t h e G e t t y M u s e u m
s e m i n a r participants for t h e i r valuable
c o m m e n t s a n d t h e students o f J e r e m y
R u t t e r at D a r t m o u t h a n d K a r e n Foster
at W e s l e y a n f o r t a k i n g p a r t i n d r a w
i n g e x p e r i m e n t s p e r t i n e n t to the pres
ent study. A n d last b u t n o t least, I
gratefully acknowledge a substantial
d e b t to those colleagues w h o s e views
I have i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e fabric o f
m y text.
P. G.-P.
xii
Introduction
Since t h e n , r e c o v e r y o f t h e a r t a n d
archaeology o f t h e p r e - G r e e k c u l t u r e
that flowered i n the Cycladic archi
p e l a g o has b e e n c o n t i n u o u s , b o t h
t h r o u g h systematic e x p l o r a t i o n and
t h r o u g h c l a n d e s t i n e d i g g i n g . As a re
sult, several t h o u s a n d m a r b l e objects
are n o w k n o w n , p r o v i d i n g a r i c h a n d
v a r i e d corpus to s t u d y a n d enjoy.
Cycladic figures or idols, as the mos t
d i s t i n c t i v e objects o f this early c u l t u r e
are freely c a l l e d , * have h e l d a strange
appeal f o r n e a r l y five m i l l e n n i a . D u r
i n g the p e r i o d o f t h e i r m a n u f a c t u r e ,
roughly 3000-2200 B . C . , they were
b u r i e d w i t h the Cycladic dead, but
t h e y w e r e also e x p o r t e d b e y o n d t h e
Cyclades a n d even i m i t a t e d nearby o n
Crete a n d i n A t t i c a w h e r e they have
also b e e n f o u n d i n graves. F r a g m e n
tary figures, chance finds t r e a s u r e d as
m a g i c a l l y c h a r g e d relics, w e r e occa
sionally reused i n later m i l l e n n i a . I n
m o d e r n t i m e s C y c l a d i c figures w e r e
at f i r s t c o n s i d e r e d p r i m i t i v e , i n t h e
p e j o r a t i v e sense o f t h e w o r d , u g l y ,
a n d , at best, c u r i o s i t i e s f r o m t h e d i m
recesses o f G r e e k p r e h i s t o r y . R e d i s
covered i n the t w e n t i e t h century,
largely t h r o u g h the appreciation of
O v e r a c e n t u r y ago E u r o p e a n t r a v e l
ers b e g a n to e x p l o r e t h e m o r e t h a n
t h i r t y s m a l l i s l a n d s t h a t l i e at t h e
center o f t h e A e g e a n Sea ( f i g . 1). W e
k n o w these i s l a n d s by t h e h i s t o r i c a l
Greek name of some of themthe
Cycladesso called because they w e r e
t h o u g h t to e n c i r c l e t i n y D e l o s , sacred
b i r t h p l a c e o f t h e gods A r t e m i s a n d
A p o l l o . A m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e n a m e for
these rocky s u m m i t s o f s u b m e r g e d
m o u n t a i n s m i g h t have been " T h e
M a r b l e Isles" or M a r m a r i n a i ; for
m a n y , i f n o t m o s t , o f t h e m are excel
l e n t sources o f t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t was
to s p a r k t h e c r e a t i v e i m p u l s e s a n d
c h a l l e n g e t h e energies o f sculptors i n
both prehistoric and historic times.
N i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y travelers to the
Cyclades b r o u g h t h o m e a n u m b e r o f
" c u r i o u s " m a r b l e f i g u r i n e s , o r sigillaria, as t h e y c a l l e d t h e m , w h i c h h a d
been f o r t u i t o u s l y u n e a r t h e d by f a r m
ers' p l o w s . B y t h e 1880s i n t e r e s t i n
these s c u l p t u r e s , w h i c h w e n o w rec
ognize as the p r o d u c t s o f E a r l y Bronze
A g e c r a f t s m a n s h i p , was s u f f i c i e n t l y
aroused that i n f o r m a t i o n about the
c u l t u r e w h i c h p r o d u c e d t h e m was ac
tively sought t h r o u g h excavation.
*The term idol is accurate i f by it no more

is meant than "image," as in the ancient
Greek eidolon.
1
Figure 1.
The Cyclades and neigh
boring lands. The dotted
line indicates some
uncertainty regarding the
eastern boundary of the
Early Bronze Age culture;
possibly Ikaria and
Astypalaia ought to be
included within its sphere.
tions o f u n d i s t u r b e d sites. T h e p i c t u r e
we have o f C y c l a d i c art has been fur
t h e r c l o u d e d by the i n s i n u a t i o n o f for
geries, p r i m a r i l y d u r i n g the 1960s.
T h e fragmentary state o f the archae
o l o g i c a l r e c o r d o n l y c o m p o u n d s the
very d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m o f u n d e r s t a n d
i n g the o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g a n d f u n c t i o n
of these figures as w e l l as o t h e r finds
f r o m t h e E a r l y C y c l a d i c p e r i o d . I t is
clear t h a t t h e sculptures had at least a
s e p u l c h r a l p u r p o s e , b u t b e y o n d that,
the l i t t l e w e k n o w a n d the views w e
now h o l d are open to the k i n d o f a m p l i
f i c a t i o n o r a l t e r a t i o n that o n l y f u r t h e r
c o n t r o l l e d excavation m i g h t p r o v i d e .
such artists as Picasso a n d B r a n c u s i ,

they have c o m e to be h i g h l y esteemed
for t h e i r c o m p e l l i n g c o m b i n a t i o n o f
g l e a m i n g w h i t e m a r b l e a n d painstak
i n g w o r k m a n s h i p , f o r t h e c a l m force
of t h e i r essential f o r m s , a n d for t h e
mystery that surrounds t h e m .
A l t h o u g h the greatest concentration
of C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e is h o u s e d i n the
National Archaeological M u s e u m in
A t h e n s , examples are scattered i n m u
seums a n d p r i v a t e c o l l e c t i o n s a r o u n d
the w o r l d . T h e r e are at least t w o h u n
d r e d pieces i n A m e r i c a n c o l l e c t i o n s
alone (see the list o f m a j o r collections
on p. 8 5 ) . T h e p o p u l a r i t y o f the f i g
ures has increased d r a m a t i c a l l y d u r i n g
the last t w o decades, p a r t l y because o f
their perceived affinity w i t h contem
p o r a r y art styles. T h e consequences
for t h e serious study o f C y c l a d i c art
a n d c u l t u r e are d i s t u r b i n g , f o r to sat
isfy d e m a n d f o r the f i g u r e s , u n a u t h o
r i z e d d i g g i n g has f l o u r i s h e d t o t h e
extent that for m a n y , i f not m o s t , o f
the sculptures, the precise find-places
have been lost a l o n g w i t h the c i r c u m
stances o f t h e i r discovery. O n l y a r e l
a t i v e l y s m a l l n u m b e r o f f i g u r e s has
b e e n recovered i n systematic excava
W h i l e i t is t r u e t h a t t h e excavation
o f E a r l y C y c l a d i c sites has been re
stricted almost exclusively to cemeter
ies, the few settlements that have been
e x p l o r e d have y i e l d e d l i t t l e i n the way
of m a r b l e objects. Perhaps t h e m o s t
i m p o r t a n t gap i n the r e c o r d at pres
ent is the lack o f b u i l d i n g s or sites that
can d e f i n i t e l y be c o n s i d e r e d sanctuar
ies, a l t h o u g h t h e r e is one t a n t a l i z i n g
p o s s i b i l i t y w h i c h w i l l be d i s c u s s e d
later.
To date, n o f i g u r e m e a s u r i n g 60 c m
or m o r e has ever been u n c o v e r e d by
an archaeologist.
W e do not k n o w
t h e r e f o r e h o w t h e very large images
w e r e n o r m a l l y used, t h o u g h the avail
able i n f o r m a t i o n suggests that, at least
on occasion, they, too, were b u r i e d
w i t h the dead.
A l t h o u g h t h e skeletal r e m a i n s have
n o t been analyzed, i t appears f r o m the
objects f o u n d w i t h t h e m t h a t m a r b l e
images were b u r i e d w i t h b o t h m e n
and w o m e n but evidently not w i t h
c h i l d r e n . M o r e o v e r , w h i l e some c e m
eteries are n o t i c e a b l y r i c h e r i n m a r
ble goods t h a n o t h e r s , even i n these
n o t e v e r y b u r i a l w a s so e n d o w e d .
M a r b l e objects, figures as w e l l as ves
sels, a c c o m p a n i e d o n l y a p r i v i l e g e d
few to t h e i r graves. I t is t h o u g h t t h a t
t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e islanders m a d e do
w i t h less costly w o o d e n f i g u r e s ( a l l
traces o f w h i c h w o u l d have v a n i s h e d
by n o w ) , j u s t as t h e y h a d to be c o n
t e n t w i t h vessels f a s h i o n e d f r o m clay.
m a t i o n o f this sort c o u l d p r o v i d e clues

to p a r t o f t h e m y s t e r y s u r r o u n d i n g the
i d e n t i t y a n d f u n c t i o n o f these images
a n d to t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e l i v i n g t o
ward them.
Perhaps t h e m o s t i n t r i g u i n g ques
t i o n o f a l l concerns m e a n i n g : w h y d i d
p e o p l e a c q u i r e these i d o l s ? Because
t h e m a j o r i t y are f e m a l e , w i t h a f e w
e i t h e r p r e g n a n t o r s h o w i n g signs o f
postpartum w r i n k l e s , the evidence
p o i n t s i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f f e r t i l i t y , at
least f o r t h e f e m a l e f i g u r e s . G l a n c
i n g for a m o m e n t at t h e d o u b l e - f i g u r e
i m a g e o f plate i n , i t m i g h t be v i e w e d
as essentially s i m i l a r to the t r a d i t i o n a l
single f e m a l e f i g u r e w h i l e b e i n g even
m o r e powerfully or blatantly symbolic
of fertility. By depicting the standard
f i g u r e t y p e as b o t h p r e g n a n t a n d w i t h
a c h i l d , the sculptor was able to i n t e n
sify t h e i d e a o f f e c u n d i t y a n d t h e re
n e w a l o f l i f e . T h i s s h o u l d p r o v i d e an
i m p o r t a n t clue to w h a t m a y have been
the essential m e a n i n g o f these p r e h i s
toric marble figures.
A t p r e s e n t , t h e r e is n o t s u f f i c i e n t
a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence to state w i t h
assurance w h e t h e r these figures w e r e
n o r m a l l y accorded respect at the t i m e
of t h e i r i n t e r m e n t w i t h t h e dead, w h o
were placed i n cramped, unprepos
sessing, b o x l i k e graves. C l e a r i n f o r
For t h e t i m e b e i n g , one m a y t h i n k
o f t h e s e s c u l p t u r e s as t h e p e r s o n a l
possessions o f t h e d e a d r a t h e r t h a n
as gifts m a d e to t h e m at t h e t i m e o f
by w h o m . W h a t follows, t h e n , is a sur
vey o f t h e t y p o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f
Early Cycladic sculpture, i n a d d i t i o n ,
i t is t h e i n t e n t i o n here to s h o w t h a t it
is possible to isolate the w o r k s o f i n d i
v i d u a l sculptors and to speculate about
these i n d i v i d u a l s ' g r o w t h as a r t i s t s
w o r k i n g w i t h i n the strict c o n v e n t i o n s
of a s o p h i s t i c a t e d craft t r a d i t i o n .
their funerals. T h e y should perhaps

be v i e w e d as i c o n s o f a p r o t e c t i v e
b e i n g a c q u i r e d by a p e r s o n , k e p t dur
i n g his o r h e r l i f e t i m e a n d p e r h a p s
d i s p l a y e d i n the h o m e , but w h o s e u l
t i m a t e a n d p r i m a r y p u r p o s e was to
serve i n the grave as p o t e n t s y m b o l s
o f e t e r n a l r e n e w a l a n d h o p e a n d as
c o m f o r t i n g r e m i n d e r s t h a t life w o u l d
persist i n t h e b e y o n d . R e a f f i r m a t i o n
of the v i t a l i t y o f life a n d the senses,
m o r e o v e r , m a y have b e e n t h e s y m
b o l i c p u r p o s e o f the occasional m a l e
figuremusic maker, w i n e offerer,
h u n t e r / w a r r i o r . I n the absence of
w r i t t e n records, one w i l l never be able
to achieve a c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
such i n t a n g i b l e m a t t e r s as b u r i a l r i t
ual or the f u l l m e a n i n g o f t h e i m a g e s .
Such are t h e l i m i t s o f archaeology.
A great deal can be l e a r n e d , never
theless, a b o u t E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p
ture f r o m a p r i m a r i l y visual approach
w h i c h focuses less o n t h e i n t r i g u i n g
but, i n the present state o f k n o w l e d g e ,
difficult questions c o n c e r n i n g w h y f i g
ures w e r e carved, for w h o m they w e r e
i n t e n d e d , or even precisely w h e n they
w e r e m a d e , a n d m o r e o n t h e ques
t i o n s o f h o w they w e r e d e s i g n e d a n d
Plate i . Four Early Cycladic marble vases i n the J. Paul Getty Museum.
a. The collared jar or

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

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

rangefrom 7.5 cm to
35 cm. Malibu, The J . Paul
Getty Museum
90.AA.10.
H. 16 cm.
c. Among
the rare varia
d. EC IJ cylindrical pyxides
normally carried incised
decoration. While curvilin
ear designs (spirals, circles)
are confined almost, exclu
sively to vessels carved in
softer and lessfriable soapstone, marble containers
were regularly ornamented,
with rectilinear
encircling
grooves reminiscent of the
postpartum wrinkles seen
on a number of figures
(e.g.,fig.
6)perhaps
another indication of the
female symbolism of the
vessel. This beautifully
carved example, which
tions on the k a n d i l a (pi.
la) are several consisting

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

on its interior, is at present
unique among marble ves
sels for the single engraved,
spiral which covers its
underside. This may be an
early example,
transitional
between EC l and. EC II.
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
Museum 88. A A. 8 3 (ex
Steiner
Collection).
H. 6.5 cm (lid missing);
D. (mouth) 8.4 cm.
Plate i i . Two female figures i n the J. Paul Getty Museum.
a. Plastiras type. EC I.
Simpler than most exam
ples of its type, this modest
work is unusual in that it
lacks any definition of the
forearms. The mending
hole in the right thigh was
a remedy for damage
incurred perhaps when the
sculptor was in the process
of separating the legs. If
this was the case, he may
have thought it best not to
continue separating them
asfar as the crotch. A
break across the left thigh
probably occurred at a
much later time. Malibu,
The J . Paul Getty Museum
71.AA.128.H. 14.2 cm.
See also figure 13d.
tion, as does the bored

navel (cf. fig. 13c). Note
how the legs were carved
separately for only a short
distance. The modeling and
attempted naturalism, of
theforearms and hands
reflect a short-lived
approach taken by some
sculptors of precanonical
figures (cf. pi. III). The
figure was acquired by the
J . Paul Getty Museum in.
two parts: the headless idol
came to the museum in
1972, having been obtained
many years earlier in the
Paris flea, market. In 1977,
during a visit to a Euro
pean antiquities dealer, J .
Frel identified the head/
neck as belonging to the
same work. Malibu, The
J . Paul Getty Museum
72.AA.156/77.AA.24.
H. 28.2 cm.
b. Precanonical type. EC
I/II. Although one can see
in this figure a tentative
folding of the armsfore
shadowing the classic idol
of the EC II phase, it is still
very much related to the
earlier Plastiras type in its
long neck, modeled limbs,
andfeet with arched soles
(seefig. 13e) very similar
to those of the piece illus
trated in plate Ha and
figure 13d. Although the
almond-shaped eyes and
the indication of the brows
are related to those painted
on later figures, their sculp
tural rendering connects
them to the earlier tradi
8
Plate i n . Female two-figure composition.
Precanonical type. EC I///.

Probably the earliest and
also the largest of the three
well-preserved and unques
tionably genuine
examples
of this type known to the
writer, the piece is interest
ingfor a number of rea
sons. The two figures were
deliberately made to be
nearly exact replicas of
each other, with one differ
ence: the larger is clearly
represented as pregnant
while the smaller has
almost no midsection at
all. This is probably of
some significancefor
an
understanding of the pre
cise meaning of such com
positions, which continues
to be elusive but which
must have
suggestedfer
tility. Such works were
exceedingly difficult to
carve to completion
with
out sustaining
fractures,
especially at the ankles of
the small image, and con
sequently were rarely
attempted.
In their proportions and
with theirfully folded arms,
the two figures are close
typologically to the Spedos
variety, but the naturalistic
rendering of theforearms
and hands, in addition to
the well-defined knees and
slightly archedfeet held
parallel to the ground, sug
gests that the work belongs
9
to the late transitional

stage. Typologically, at
least, it appears somewhat
later than the figure illus
trated in plate lib. New
York, Shelby White and
Leon Levy Collection.
H. 46.6 cm.
Plate iv. Two harp players.
a. Precanonical style. EC
1/11. The earliest known
example of a rarely
attempted type requiring
enormous patience and
skill, thefigure is seated on
a chair with an elaborate
backrest, based, like the
harp, on wooden models.
He is represented in the act
of plucking the strings of
his instrument with his
thumbs. Note the light
caplike area at the top and
back of the head which
was once painted. New
York, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Rogers
Fund, 47.100.1.
H. 29.5 cm.
10
b. Early Spedos variety

style. EC II. This is the
largest and, along with the
Metropolitan Museum 'v
example, the best preserved
of the ten surviving harp
ers ofungues tiona ble
authenticity known to the
writer. 'Thefigure is repre
sented holding his instru
ment at rest. Note the subtle
rendering of the right arm
and cupped hand. Paint
ghosts for hair and eyes
are discernible.
Malibu,
85.AA. 103. H. 35.8cm.
Said to come from
Amorgos. See also figures
24, 25, 79, and cover.
11
Plate v. Heads of four figures.
a. Plastiras type. A work

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

infigure 56, showing paint
ghostsfor eyes, brows, and
forehead hair.
12
c. Spedos variety. EC II.

A typical head on which
faint paint ghosts are
visible for the eyes and
forehead hair. Malibu, The
11.AA.125.
Pres. E. 8.9 cm.
d. Dokathismata
variety.
EC II. In contrast to the
rather conservative form
of the Spedos variety head
(pi. Vc), that of the
Dokathismata variety is
usually rather extreme and
mannered. Note the broad
crown and pointed chin.
The head is carved in a
13
rather unusual striated

marble. Malibu, The
J.Paul Getty Museum
71.AA.126. Pres.L. 8.6 cm.
Plate v i . Painted details.
a. Detail of work illustrated

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

infigure 41, showing paint
ing on the hands. Note also
the modeling of the breasts
and arms.
14
d. Detail of work illustrated,

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

in figure 78, showing paint
ing on theface and in the
neck groove.
15
This page intentionally left blank
The Stone Vases
Figure 2. Female foldedarm figure (Early Spedos

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

spent m o s t o f the t i m e t h e y d e v o t e d
to t h e i r craft f a s h i o n i n g stone vases
( p i . i ) . I n a l l phases o f E a r l y Cycladic
c u l t u r e , these cups, bowls, goblets,
j a r s , b e a k e r s , boxes, p a l e t t e s , t r a y s ,
and animal-shaped containers were
far m o r e n u m e r o u s as a g r o u p t h a n
the figures. L i k e the figures, they
w e r e e v i d e n t l y a c q u i r e d to be u s e d
later i n t h e grave. O n occasion, t h e y
have b e e n f o u n d i n graves t h a t also
y i e l d e d idols, although some of the
s p h e r i c a l a n d c y l i n d r i c a l types can be
v i e w e d as s y m b o l s o f the w o m b a n d ,
as such, m a y as a r u l e have b e e n re
g a r d e d as a p p r o p r i a t e substitutes for
the p r e d o m i n a n t l y female images.
A few vessels, o n the o t h e r h a n d , ap
pear to have been m a d e to h o l d figures
(fig- 2)Even t h o u g h this b o o k is r e s t r i c t e d
to a discussion o f f i g u r a t i v e w o r k s , i n
a very r e a l sense the t e r m " C y c l a d i c
s c u l p t u r e " o u g h t to e m b r a c e b o t h the
s o - c a l l e d i d o l s a n d these often v e r y
b e a u t i f u l , t h o u g h strangely neglected,
vessels o f m a r b l e or, i n rare cases, o f
softer stones.
17
T h e Figurative Sculpture
T h e vast m a j o r i t y o f t h e f i g u r e s are
made of sparkling white marble;
w o r k s i n gray, b a n d e d , or m o t t l e d
m a r b l e s o r i n o t h e r m a t e r i a l s such as
v o l c a n i c ash, s h e l l , o r l e a d are v e r y
r a r e . T h e i m a g e s v a r y i n size f r o m
m i n i a t u r e s m e a s u r i n g less t h a n 10 c m
(4 i n . ) ( f i g . 5) to n e a r l y l i f e - s i z e
( f i g . 4 ) , a l t h o u g h m o s t do n o t exceed
50 c m ( l f t . ) .
I n terms of n a t u r a l i s m , the sculp
tures range f r o m s i m p l e m o d i f i c a t i o n s
o f stones s h a p e d a n d p o l i s h e d by t h e
sea to h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d r e n d e r i n g s o f
the h u m a n f o r m w i t h subtle variations
of plane and contour. I n m a n y exam
ples, n o p r i m a r y sexual characteristics
are i n d i c a t e d , b u t unless these figures
are d e p i c t e d i n a specifically m a l e r o l e
( p i . i v ) , t h e y are u s u a l l y a s s u m e d to
r e p r e s e n t females. T h e f e m a l e f o r m ,
s o m e t i m e s s h o w n as p r e g n a n t (figs.
5, 75) or w i t h p o s t p a r t u m s k i n folds
(figs. 6, 7 ) , d o m i n a t e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e
p e r i o d . M a l e figures account for o n l y
about five p e r c e n t o f t h e k n o w n p r o -
18
Figure 3. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos/

Dokathismata variety.
ECU.
This is one of the smallest
completefigures of the
folded-arm type known.
Such diminutive
images
tend to be rather crude in
their execution and are
probably for the most part
examples of their sculptors'
early work. Note the dis
parity in the width of the
legs caused by the mis
alignment of the leg cleft.
Athens, Museum of
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris
Foundation
350. L . 9.5 cm.
Figure 4. Female foldedarm figure. Early Spedos

variety. EC II.
The third largest com
pletely preserved figure
now known to the writer
(the largest work, in
Athens, measures 148 cm),
the piece is remarkable for
the superb state of its sur
19
face. Breaks at the neck

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

highly skilled sculptor.
New York, Harmon Collec
tion. L . 132 cm. Said to be
from Amorgos. See also
figure 34.
Figure 5. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos

variety. EC I I .
Unlike mostfigures
that
are represented in a preg
nant condition
(eg.,fig.
75), this example shows a
rather advanced stage.
Athens, Museum of
Goulandris
Foundation
309. L . 15.7 cm. Said to
befrom
Naxos.
d u c t i o n ( p i . i v , figs. 19, 2 3 - 2 8 , 35, 36).
A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f Cycladic
s c u l p t u r e t h r o u g h o u t its develop
m e n t , f r o m its earliest b e g i n n i n g s i n
the N e o l i t h i c A g e , is the s i m u l t a n e o u s
manufacture of both a s i m p l i f i e d flat
tened version of the female f o r m and
a m o r e f u l l y e l a b o r a t e d one ( f i g . 11).
A l t h o u g h t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f each t y p e
varies i n a given p e r i o d , i t appears
n o w t h a t at least s o m e e x a m p l e s o f
b o t h types appear i n every p e r i o d ,
except perhaps i n the first phase o f the
t r a n s i t i o n a l one w h e n t h e r e seems to
have b e e n a b l e n d i n g o f the t w o types.
T h a t one Cycladic i s l a n d e r m i g h t ac
quire both schematic and represen
t a t i o n a l i d o l s is s u g g e s t e d by t h e i r
occasional presence i n a single grave
(fig. 7). M a n y sculptors probably
carved b o t h types, b u t t h e s c h e m a t i c
f i g u r i n e was doubtless the less e x p e n
sive to m a k e , since i t was n o r m a l l y
s m a l l a n d c o u l d be f a s h i o n e d f r o m
a flat beach pebble, thus r e q u i r i n g
m u c h less w o r k ; as m a n y as f o u r t e e n
of these have b e e n f o u n d t o g e t h e r i n
one grave.
T h e f o r m s t h a t Cycladic s c u l p t u r e s
t o o k s o m e t i m e after t h e b e g i n n i n g o f
t h e E a r l y B r o n z e A g e ( E a r l y Cycladic
i) appear to be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h e
figures carved i n m u c h s m a l l e r n u m
bers d u r i n g the N e o l i t h i c A g e (figs. 8,
20
Figure 6. Female figure.

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

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

bindings. A convention
more decorative and easier
to render than the rounded
belly normally associated
with pregnancy and childbirth, such markings are
found almost exclusively
on theflatterfigure
types,
a.
Figure 7. Female figures.

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

rare cases they occur in
combination with a
slightly swollen abdomen,
Princeton, The Art
Museum,
Princeton
University 934. H. 25 cm.
b.
c.
carved by the same sculp

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

tional figures in the same
grave is attestedfor both
the EC I and EC II phases.
Columbia, Museum of Art
and Archaeology,
Univer
sity of Missouri
64.67.1-3.
H. 76-14.1 cm.
9). For t h e i r m o r e representational

figures, Cycladic sculptors used the
s t a n d i n g p o s t u r e a n d an a r r a n g e m e n t
of the arms i n w h i c h the hands meet
over t h e a b d o m e n ( f i g . 10), b o t h i n
herited f r o m the earlier t r a d i t i o n .
Exaggerated corpulence, the h a l l m a r k
o f t h e Stone A g e f i g u r e , was r e d u c e d
to a t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l , s t r o n g l y f r o n t a l
s c h e m e . T h e s e i m a g e s are also b r o a d
across the h i p s , b u t , u n l i k e t h e i r p r e
decessors, t h e y have s t r a i g h t , n a r r o w
p r o f i l e s , as is i l l u s t r a t e d by a c o m p a r
i s o n b e t w e e n the p r o f i l e s o f t w o L a t e
N e o l i t h i c figures a n d t h r e e E a r l y Cy
cladic ones ( f i g . 13).
I t is d o u b t f u l t h a t t h i s f u n d a m e n t a l
a l t e r a t i o n i n the s c u l p t o r s ' a p p r o a c h
to the f e m a l e f o r m reflects a change
i n religious o u t l o o k or i n aesthetic
preference. M o s t probably the new
t r e n d was i n i t i a t e d by t h e s c u l p t o r s
t h e m s e l v e s i n an e f f o r t to s p e e d u p
the c a r v i n g process. I t is possible, too,
t h a t t h e r e was s o m e i n f l u e n c e f r o m
w o o d e n figures, w h i c h m a y have f i l l e d
the l o n g gap i n t i m e b e t w e e n the last
of the N e o l i t h i c marble figures and
the f i r s t o f t h e B r o n z e A g e ones.
Cycladic s c u l p t u r e m a y be d i v i d e d ,
Sitting type. Late
Neolithic.
One of two basic Late
Neolithic postural types,
the steatopygous
sitting
figure with folded legs was
thefull-blown version of
and the original
modelfor
theflat, schematic violintype figures, (e.g.,fig. 7a,
c) already produced in
limited numbers in Late
Neolithic times. Note the
exaggerated breadth of the
upper torso necessitated
by the position of thefore
arms. New York, Shelby
White and Leon Levy Col
lection. H. 13.3 cm. Said
to be part of a grave group
from Attica or Euboia.
22

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

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

Plastiras type. EC I .
Typicalfeatures of the
Plastiras type seen on this
figure include hollowed,
eyes, luglike ears, a
sculpted mouth, only barely
visible because of weather
ing of the surface, an
extremely long neck, long
incised.fingers which seem
to double as a decorative
pattern strongly reminis
cent of postpartum
wrin
kles (e.g., figs. 6, 7), broad
hips, and legs carved sepa
rately to the crotch. A cylin
drical headdress or polos
is suggested by the shape
of the head, on top. This
may have been originally
more clearly indicated, with
paint. Pasadena, Norton
Simon Collection
N.75.18.3.S.A.H.
18.5 cm.
23
24
Figure 11.
The typological and chron
ological development of
Cycladic sculpture. With
the exception of the sche
matic Neolithic figure, the
pieces illustrated here are
discussed elsewhere in this
work (the numbers provide
figure
references).
Figure 12.
A Neolithic standing figure
with hollowed eye sockets
that presumably once held
inlays. New York, The Met
ropolitan Museum of Art
LA974.77J
(on loan from
Chris tos G. Bast is).
H. 20.9 cm.
stylistically a n d i c o n o g r a p h i c a l l y , i n t o
two distinct groups, apparently w i t h
a t r a n s i t i o n a l phase i n b e t w e e n ( f i g .
11). T h e s e d i v i s i o n s c o r r e s p o n d g e n
erally to the c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n d c u l t u r a l
sequences based o n changes t h a t oc
curred i n Cycladic ceramics d u r i n g
the t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C .
T h e earlier g r o u p , w h o s e r e l a t i o n to
N e o l i t h i c a n t e c e d e n t s w e have been
c o n s i d e r i n g , m i g h t c o n v e n i e n t l y be
called "archaic." T h e n u m e r o u s sche
m a t i c figures o f this phase, m a n y o f
t h e m s h a p e d l i k e v i o l i n s ( f i g . 7#, c),
are characterized by a l o n g , headless
prong. T h e i r rather rare representa
t i o n a l counterparts (Plastiras type),
besides r e t a i n i n g t h e N e o l i t h i c a r m
p o s i t i o n and stance, also reveal a c u r i
ous c o m b i n a t i o n o f exaggerated p r o
p o r t i o n s a n d p a i n s t a k i n g c o n c e r n for
anatomical d e t a i l , b o t h on the face and
o n the body ( f i g . 10). Careful a t t e n t i o n
was p a i d to the kneecaps, ankles, a n d
a r c h e s , w h i l e t h e navel a n d b u t t o c k
d i m p l e s w e r e also o f t e n i n d i c a t e d .
A l t h o u g h f o r t h e m o s t p a r t t h e eye
sockets are n o w e m p t y , they w e r e i n
l a i d w i t h d a r k stones ( p i . v # ) , a prac
t i c e f o r w h i c h t h e r e m a y also have
25
a. Seefigure 8.
Figure 13. A comparison

of the profiles of Late
Neolithic (a, 6), EC I
Plastiras type (c, d), and
EC I / I I precanonical (e)
figures.
b. Seefigure 9.
c. Seefigure
b e e n N e o l i t h i c p r e c e d e n t s ( f i g . 12).
A n e w feature o f these archaic f i g
ures is t h e c o m p l e t e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e
l e g , f r o m t h e feet u p to t h e c r o t c h . I n
t h e N e o l i t h i c f i g u r e s , o n l y t h e feet
w e r e c a r v e d as s e p a r a t e e l e m e n t s .
Whatever the m o t i v e for this new
practice, it carried a strong risk of
accidental breakage to t h e legs, w h i c h
often happened, perhaps d u r i n g the
45a.
d. See plate IIa.
c a r v i n g process itself. B r o k e n figures

were not discarded. Instead, their
sculptors b r o u g h t into play one of
t h e i r favorite i m p l e m e n t s t h e h a n d rotated borer. W i t h the borer they
n o r m a l l y m a d e eye sockets, h o l l o w e d
ears, navels, b u t t o c k d i m p l e s , a n d oc
casionally even c o m p l e t e p e r f o r a t i o n s
at t h e elbows as w e l l as t h e suspen
s i o n holes i n t h e lugs o f t h e m a r b l e
26
e. See plate /lb.

Louros type. EC l / l l .
Note thefeatureless face,
the long neck, and the
separately carved legs
characteristic of the type.
Evidence for the dating of
such idols is at present
limited to one grave, no.
26, at Louros
Athalassou
on Naxos, from which the
type takes its name. In that
grave, a group of seven
figures was found stand
ing in a niche. Malibu, The
88. A A.7 7 (ex Steiner
Collection). H. 10 cm.
Said to befrom Naxos.
vases t h e y p r o d u c e d i n a s t o n i s h i n g
q u a n t i t y at t h i s t i m e ( p i . la, b). W h e n
a f i g u r e sustained a fracture, they also
used the b o r e r to m a k e rather conspic
uous holes t h r o u g h w h i c h a s t r i n g or
leather t h o n g c o u l d be d r a w n to refasten the b r o k e n p a r t ( p i . n<2, f i g . 4 5 ) .
A l t h o u g h the archaeological r e c o r d
is u n c e r t a i n at t h i s p o i n t , i t appears
that Cycladic s c u l p t u r e n e x t entered a
period of transition, Early Cycladic
1/II ( f i g . 11). T h e first evidence o f this
change is the a t t e m p t by sculptors to
fuse the abstract a n d the representa
t i o n a l approaches. I n the m o s t c o m
m o n f o r m , the figures have featureless
heads, the i n c i s i o n w o r k was k e p t to
a m i n i m u m , a n d the p r o b l e m o f r e n
d e r i n g t h e a r m s was a v o i d e d by m a k
ing t h e m simple, angular projections
at t h e s h o u l d e r s (figs. 6, 14). By c o n
trast, the legs are often q u i t e carefully
m o d e l e d . As m a n y as seven of these
transitional (Louros type) examples
have been f o u n d together i n one grave.
27
a.
Figure 15. Four small,

precanonical figures
showing steps i n the
development of the
folded-arm position.
EC I / H .
a. Although the arms are
rendered in the manner of
the Plastiras type, the pro
portions show none of the
exaggeration of the earlier
figures and the legs are not
carved separately to the
b.
c.
crotch. Private
H. 15.8 cm.
collection.
b. Norwich,
University
ofEastAnglia,
Sainsbury
Centre for Visual Arts,
P9(d).H.
9.5 cm.
c. The arms are tentatively
folded (cf pi. Ilh) but
in an unorthodox
rightabove-left
arrangement.
The legs are separated to
just above the knees. A
28
mending hole for the re

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

properly folded in the
canonical
right-below-left
arrangement,
thefigure
retains such
precanonical
features as carved ears,
well-modeled legs separated
to the knees, and soles
appropriate to a standing
posture. Houston, The
Menil Collection
73-01DJ.
H. 16.2 cm.
any n e w i n f l u e n c e or shift i n r e l i g i o u s
m e a n i n g or gesture, most likely i n
spired the gradual development of
t h e f o l d e d - a r m p o s i t i o n t h a t was to
b e c o m e de rigueur i n the n e x t phase
( f i g . 15). T h i s n e w p o s i t i o n entails no
free space i f t h e e l b o w s a n d u p p e r
a r m s are h e l d close to t h e sides.
I n d e e d , the very early f o l d e d - a r m
f i g u r e s s e e m to be t i g h t l y c l a s p i n g
t h e m s e l v e s ( f i g . 16). I n o r d e r to re
duce f u r t h e r the r i s k o f f r a c t u r e , the
legs are n o w separated f o r o n l y about
h a l f t h e i r l e n g t h , f r o m t h e feet to the
knees, or even less ( p i . ub). B e g i n n i n g
w i t h these " p r e c a n o n i c a l " figures,
repairs are m u c h less frequently seen,
p r e s u m a b l y because t h e r e w e r e fewer
accidents i n t h e w o r k s h o p . C o n s i d e r
able a t t e n t i o n was still paid to i n d i v i d
ual f o r m , a n d to details, b u t less t h a n
i n e a r l i e r phases.
T o w a r d t h e e n d o f the t r a n s i t i o n a l
p h a s e , s c u l p t o r s b e g a n to s t r i v e f o r
more balanced and natural propor
t i o n s ( f i g . 15, pis. 116, m ) . W h i l e u n
k n o w i n g l y s e t t i n g t h e stage f o r t h e
emergence of the canonical foldeda r m f i g u r e at the b e g i n n i n g o f the sec
o n d , "classical," phase ( f i g . 16), these
s c u l p t o r s w e r e f i n d i n g n e w ways to
produce representational figures i n
q u a n t i t y . A t the same t i m e , they w e r e
r e d u c i n g the risks involved i n the carv
i n g process. A l o n g w i t h m o r e n a t u r a l
p r o p o r t i o n s , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n stur
d i e r f i g u r e s , t h e s c u l p t o r s s e e m to
have been s e e k i n g an a r m r e n d e r i n g
m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e to the s l e n d e r b o d y
style o f t h e i r i m a g e s . W h i l e t h e o l d
N e o l i t h i c a r m p o s i t i o n o f hands t o u c h i n g o v e r t h e m i d r i f f m a y w e l l have
been s u i t e d to exaggerated c o r p u
lence, for the person o f o r d i n a r y b u i l d
to assume this pose involves m o v i n g
the elbows a n d u p p e r a r m s w e l l away
f r o m t h e sides so t h a t a large t r i a n g u
l a r clear space r e m a i n s . This gap was
s o m e t i m e s h a z a r d o u s l y i n d i c a t e d by
p e r f o r a t i o n s at the fragile b e n d o f the
a r m s . A n i n t e r e s t i n a n a t u r a l pose
c a r v e d i n a secure w a y , r a t h e r t h a n
R o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h these
t r a n s i t i o n a l figures is t h e h a r p player
in the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m of A r t .
T h i s w o r k , w i t h its a l l e g e d l y u n - C y cladic a r m muscles a n d t h r e e - d i m e n
sional t h u m b s ( p i . i v # ) , has often been
c o n d e m n e d because i t does n o t c o n
f o r m to w h a t has c o m e to be a r e -
29
Figure 16. Female foldedarm figure. Kapsala

variety. EC II.
An early example of the
classical or canonical
folded-arm figure. Note its
slenderness and elongated
thighs, as well as the use of
relief modelingfor
details.
Museum 88.AA. 78 (ex
Steiner Collection).
Pres. L . 49 cm.
Figure 17. Female foldedarm figure. Spedos
variety. EC II.
Somewhat later than the
preceding example, this
figure shows a careful bal
ancing of proportions
with
no singleform
exaggerated.
Note the broader shoulders
and unperforated leg cleft,
as well as the use of inci
sion for details. This work
is unusual in having a
carved mouth. Malibu,
88.AA.48.L.
30 cm.
30
11). M o r e s i m p l i f i e d a n d s t r e a m l i n e d
t h a n its p r e d e c e s s o r s , the c a n o n i c a l
or f o l d e d - a r m t y p e was p r o d u c e d i n
a s t o n i s h i n g q u a n t i t y over a p e r i o d o f
several centuries. Its abstract counter
part ( A p e i r a n t h o s t y p e ) has a s i m p l e
g e o m e t r i c body, w i t h the neck carry
i n g the s u g g e s t i o n o f a head ( f i g . 18).
stricted and circumscribed n o t i o n of

w h a t a Cycladic s c u l p t u r e s h o u l d look
l i k e . A t t u n e d as one is to the h a r m o n i
ously p r o p o r t i o n e d f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e
( a n d to h a r p e r s c a r v e d i n t h e s a m e
stylepi. iv&, figs. 2 3 - 2 5 ) a n d n o t to
the l i t t l e - k n o w n or l i t t l e - a d m i r e d p r e c a n o n i c a l i m a g e s , i t is d i f f i c u l t f o r
s o m e to accept t h e N e w York h a r p e r
as a g e n u i n e Cycladic w o r k . W e need,
however, to s t r e t c h o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f
E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e to i n c l u d e
such f o r e r u n n e r s o f the images exe
c u t e d i n the m o r e f l u i d classical style.
I f one views t h e N e w York h a r p e r as a
fine e x a m p l e o f an essentially e x p e r i
mental movement, bearing i n m i n d
the bizarre Plastiras-type figures
w h i c h came before i n a d d i t i o n to con
s i d e r i n g t h a t exaggerated p r o p o r t i o n s
a n d a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l h a d n o t yet
been e n t i r e l y s u p p l a n t e d ( p i . m ) , the
h a r p e r falls n a t u r a l l y i n t o place as the
earliest k n o w n e x a m p l e o f a rare type.
U n l i k e t h e p r o f i l e axis o f t h e f i g
ures o f the archaic phase, t h a t o f the
first f o l d e d - a r m figures (Kapsala v a r i
ety a n d s o m e e x a m p l e s o f the E a r l y
Spedos variety) is sharply b r o k e n , par
t i c u l a r l y at the back o f the head and
at the b e n d o f the knees. T h e feet are
h e l d at an angle, o u t w a r d a n d even
tually also d o w n w a r d , i n w h a t appears
to be a t i p t o e p o s i t i o n i f the figures are
set vertically. T h e s e features, however,
are a p p r o p r i a t e to a r e l a x e d , r e c l i n i n g
p o s i t i o n (figs. 4, 5 ) , i n contrast to the
erect p o s t u r e o f the archaic Plastiras
figures (figs. 10, 13). T h e figures dat
i n g f r o m the e a r l i e r p e r i o d w e r e e v i
d e n t l y m e a n t to s t a n d , a l t h o u g h they
do not do so u n s u p p o r t e d . Just as w i t h
the changes i n a r m p o s i t i o n t h a t t o o k
place about the same t i m e , this altered
posture p r o b a b l y does not i n d i c a t e any
r a d i c a l change i n r e l i g i o u s s y m b o l i s m
Early i n the second or classical phase

of C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e ( E a r l y C y c l a d i c
n ) , the f u l l - f l e d g e d f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e
e m e r g e s i n several d i f f e r e n t varieties
w h i c h , for the most part, appear in a
specific c h r o n o l o g i c a l sequence ( f i g .
31
Figure 18. Female (?)

figure. Apeiranthos type.
EC I I .
The EC II counterpart of
the violinfigures of EC /,
images of this type differ
from the earlier ones in
that they have the sugges
tion of a head and their
bodies tend to be rectangu
lar and devoid of incised
markings.
Sometimes
carved in shell, they have
beenfound in association
with
Spedos-varietyfigures
and were presumably
made by sculptors who
alsofashioned such fully
representational
images.
Mr. and Mrs. C. W.
Sahlman Collection (on
loan to the Tampa Museum
ofArtL196.1).H.
12.3 cm.
Said to befrom Keros.
or any e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e . Because i t
evolved gradually, i t is m o r e l i k e l y that
the r e c l i n i n g p o s t u r e was i n t r o d u c e d
by the sculptors themselves. Since the
f i g u r e s w e r e n o r m a l l y l a i d on t h e i r
backs i n the grave, the sculptors m a y
h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d be
m a d e i n a r e c l i n i n g p o s t u r e f r o m the
start. I n any case, at t h i s t i m e a n o t h e r
d i s t i n c t i o n was m a d e : t h o s e f i g u r e s
i n t e n d e d to stand w e r e f u r n i s h e d w i t h
s m a l l r e c t a n g u l a r bases (figs. 26, 3 2 ) ,
w h i l e seated figures w e r e carved w i t h
t h e i r feet parallel to the g r o u n d ( p i . i v ,
figs. 23, 24, 2 7 ) .
I n the early f o l d e d - a r m figures
(Kapsala a n d E a r l y Spedos v a r i e t i e s ) ,
t h e legs are j o i n e d by a t h i n m e m
b r a n e , p e r f o r a t e d f o r a s h o r t space
b e t w e e n the calves (figs. 2, 16, 55, 56).
T h i s p r a c t i c e seems to be a f u r t h e r
a t t e m p t t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e l i m b s at
v u l n e r a b l e p o i n t s . As t h e f o l d e d - a r m
figures d e v e l o p e d , however, the per
f o r a t i o n o f t h e l e g cleft was u s u a l l y
o m i t t e d altogether ( L a t e Spedos v a r i
ety; figs. 3, 4 4 , 4 9 ) , n o d o u b t i n an
effort to reduce the r i s k o f fracture s t i l l
f u r t h e r . I n t h e latest a n d m o s t h a s t i l y
executed e x a m p l e s , t h e legs are sepa-
32
Figure 19. Male foldedarm figure. Dokathismata

variety. EC II.
Carved toward the end of
the period of production,
this rare male figure is
noteworthy for its plasti
cally treated brows and
straight grooved haii~
probably an exclusively
male hairstyleas well as
for the separation of its
upper arms from the chest,
effected by means of oblique
cuttings. As in most exam
ples with arm cutouts, at
least one of the upper arms
has broken off The dam
age in this case is old, but
whether it occurred at the
time of manufacture,
shortly thereafter, or much
later cannot be determined.
It is clear, however, that
broken arms could not have
been easily reattached, for
which reason such cutouts,
however attractive, were
not often attempted. This
figure has red painted
stripes on its chest.
New York, The Metropoli
tan Museum of Art
1972.118.103b, Bequest of
Walter C. Baker.
L . 35.9cm.
35
rated by a b r o a d groove ( D o k a t h i s m a t a
v a r i e t y ; figs. 19, 20) o r m e r e l y by an
engraved line (Chalandriani variety;
figs. 2 1 , 2 2 , 35, 3 6 ) . Because o f t h e
r i s k , o n l y a few sculptors o f such very
late w o r k s p e r f o r a t e d t h e l e g clefts o f
t h e i r figures o r d a r e d to free t h e slen
d e r u p p e r a r m s f r o m t h e sides (figs.
19,21,226).
A f t e r t h e eye has b e e n t r a i n e d by
l o o k i n g at a large n u m b e r o f f i g u r e s ,
any d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e r i g h t - b e l o w left f o r m u l a strikes one as d e c i d e d l y
o d d q u i t e w r o n g , i n fact ( f i g . 2 ) . N o t
u n e x p e c t e d l y , forgers o f C y c l a d i c f i g
ures, as w e l l as copiers f o r the G r e e k
t o u r i s t t r a d e , n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y arrange
the a r m s i n the opposite fashion: r i g h t
above left. T h e y p r o b a b l y d o so o u t o f
a f a i l u r e to appreciate just h o w strictly
t h e c o n v e n t i o n was observed.
F r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s second
phase, t h e f o l d e d a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e
a r m s b e c a m e a s t r i c t l y observed c o n
v e n t i o n . N o t o n l y are t h e a r m s f o l d e d ,
b u t also, for several centuries a n d w i t h
very f e w e x c e p t i o n s , t h e y are f o l d e d
i n one a r r a n g e m e n t o n l y : the r i g h t
a r m is s h o w n b e l o w t h e l e f t . S o m e
m i g h t i n t e r p r e t t h i s as h a v i n g m y s t i
cal c o n n o t a t i o n s , b u t i t is possible t h a t
the c o n v e n t i o n was established u n w i t
t i n g l y by a few r i g h t - h a n d e d sculptors
w h o f o u n d i t easier to d r a w t h e a r m s
i n t h i s p a t t e r n . H a v i n g set t h e l o w e r
b o u n d a r y o f t h e a r m s by d r a w i n g t h e
r i g h t one, t h e s c u l p t o r c o u l d easily f i l l
i n t h e lines o f t h e left a r m above, leav
i n g h i m s e l f a clear v i e w o f t h e r i g h t
o n e . O n c e t h e p r a c t i c e was s t a r t e d ,
other sculptors presumably w o u l d
have f o l l o w e d s u i t .
T o w a r d the end of the classical

period, the canonical a r m arrange
m e n t n o l o n g e r d o m i n a t e d , as is e v i
dent i n the Chalandriani variety.
A l t h o u g h a l i m i t e d revival of interest
i n t h e c a r v i n g o f facial d e t a i l a n d h a i r
o c c u r r e d at t h i s t i m e ( f i g . 19), s c u l p
t o r s g e n e r a l l y l a v i s h e d less care o n
t h e i r w o r k s , w h i c h also t e n d e d to
be q u i t e s m a l l . T h e f i g u r e s b e c a m e
highly stylized renderings w i t h dis
t o r t e d p r o p o r t i o n s a n d severe, a n g u
lar outlines. The t r a d i t i o n a l arm
a r r a n g e m e n t was often i g n o r e d or
m i s u n d e r s t o o d (figs. 2 1 , 2 2 ) . A n ex
t r e m e e x a m p l e is a c l u m s y f i g u r e
w h i c h appears to have t h r e e a r m s a n d
f o u r sets o f fingers ( f i g . 2 2 c ) .
34
Figure 20. Female foldedarm figure. Dokathismata

variety. EC II.
An unusually
graceful
example of the severe style
of the later part of the EC
II period. Note especially
the broad shoulders and
upper arms, the unusual
incised mouth, and the
ancient repair holes at the
neck, rare at this late date.
New York, Harmon Collec
tion. Pres. L . 20.6 cm.
Chalandriani variety. EC II.
Thefigure is unusual both
for the uncanonical posi
tion of theforearms and
for its arm cutouts, made
in order to reduce the
breadth of the upper arms
(cfifig. 20). The head, now
missing, was once re
attached by means of lead
clamps on either side of the
break. Lead as a mending
agent in the EC period is
found also on a small mar
ble bowl and on pottery.
New York, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art 1977.187.11,
Bequest of Alice K. Bache.
Pres.L. 27J cm.
35
a.
b.
c.
Figure 22. Three

Chalandriani-variety
figures w i t h uncanonical
arm arrangements. EC I I .
a. The arms are rendered
in the old Plastiras posi
tion (cf fig. 10), but the
resemblance is probably
fortuitous. The angular
lines and the absence of a
midsection arefeatures typ
ical of the Chalandriani
variety. Private collection.
L . 30.2 cm.
b. Note the arm cutouts
and scratchedfingers
(cf.
fig. 21) and the unusual
stippling of the pubic tri
angle. London,
British
Museum
75.3-13.2.
Pres. L . 23.6 cm.
c. Said to befrom Seriphos.
Carved in an unusual bluegray marble, thefigure is
most probably the work of
an untutored person living
outside the sculptural main
stream. Berlin,
Staatliche
Museen,
Antikensammlung
Misc. 8426. L . 22.2 cm.
56
Figure 25. Two male

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

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

these harpers are shown
plucking the strings with
all thefingers of at least the
right hand. While the left
hand of the smaller figure
probably held the harp
frame (both the left hand
and a section of the harp
are missing), the larger
37
figure must have been

shown plucking the strings
with the left hand as well.
Differences in hand posi
tion as well as in the type
of furniture
represented
were the sort of liberties
allowed in the execution of
an otherwise very rigidly
defined type. New York,
Shelby White and Leon

Levy Collection. H. 20.1 cm.
and 17.4 cm. Said, to be
from
Amorgos.
T h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e second E a r l y
C y c l a d i c phase was a t i m e o f p r o d i
gious o u t p u t a n d o f s t a r t l i n g self-con
fidence and virtuosity, analogous to
the a m b i t i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t s i n large
m a r b l e sculpture that t o o k place i n
the Cyclades some t w o t h o u s a n d years
l a t e r . A l t h o u g h a f e w e x a m p l e s are
stylistically slightly earlier (pis. i n ,
i v # ) , m o s t o f t h e r a r e special f i g u r e
types b e l o n g to t h i s phase.
F i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t are t h e m u s i
cians, t h e seated harpists a n d stand-
58
Figure 24. Harp player.

Early Spedos variety style.
EC i i .
See also plate ivh,
figure 79.
Figure 25. Detail of harp

player i n figure 24.
Figure 26. Male figure.

Woodwind player type.
Kapsala variety style. EC II.
An unusually well-pre
served example of a very
rare type, this figure is
presently perhaps also the
earliest one known. It is
unusual both for its sten
derness andfor its articu
lated ribcage. The musician
plays a sandwichlike syr
inx (panpipes), which in
reality is an instrument of
roughly trapezoidal shape,
though the Cycladic sculp
tor has translated it for his
own purposes into a sym
metrical form.
Karlsruhe,
Badisches
Landesmuseum
64/100. H. )4 cm.
i n g w o o d w i n d players (figs. 2 3 - 2 6 ,
p i . i v ) . O t h e r seated types i n c l u d e t h e
c u p b e a r e r a n d v a r i a t i o n s o f the stan
d a r d f o l d e d - a r m f e m a l e (figs. 27, 2 9 ) .
A l s o i n c l u d e d are the scarce t w o - a n d
three-figure c o m p o s i t i o n s . I n one t w o figure arrangement, a small folded
a r m f i g u r e is carved on the h e a d o f a
l a r g e r one ( p i . i n ) . I n another, o f
w h i c h no c o m p l e t e e x a m p l e survives,
t w o f i g u r e s o f t h e same size are set
side by side c l a s p i n g each o t h e r about
the shoulders (figs. 30, 31). A v a r i a t i o n
o f t h i s t h e m e is t h e a m a z i n g t h r e e f i g u r e g r o u p carved i n a single piece,
in w h i c h the standing male figures
l i n k a r m s to s u p p o r t a seated f e m a l e
(fig. 52).
Nearly all the exceptionally large
figures w e r e also carved at this t i m e
(figs. 4, 3 4 ) . W h i l e a n u m b e r o f frag
ments of such m o n u m e n t a l figures
s u r v i v e ( f i g . 3 3 ) , very f e w c o m p l e t e
ones are k n o w n . F r o m the largest ex
t a n t e x a m p l e , f o u n d i n t h e last cen
tury, r e p u t e d l y i n a grave o n A m o r g o s ,
we k n o w that such nearly life-size
w o r k s w e r e at least s o m e t i m e s b r o k e n
i n t o several pieces i n o r d e r to f i t t h e m
i n t o t h e grave, w h i c h was n o r m a l l y
39

Cupbearer type. Early
Spedos variety style. EC I I .
This engaging work is the
only complete example of
its type. At present only a
fragment of one other is
known. As with the harp,
the cup is held on the right
side, while the left arm is
held against the body in
the canonical folded posi
tion. Like the Early Spedos
varietyfolded-arm
figures
in whose style it is carved,
the cupbearer's legs are
rendered with a perfora
tion between the calves.
Athens, Museum of
Goulandris
Foundation
286. H. 15.2cm.
40
Figure 29. Female foldedarm figure i n semi-sitting

position. Early Spedos
variety. EC II.
One of only three orfour
examples executed in this
peculiar position, this
carefully worked figure
originally may have had, a.
wooden seat, or earth may
have been made into a.
seat-shaped mound to ena
ble it to sit in a more or less
upright position.
Another
possibility is that it was
originally part of a, threefigure composition like the
one illustrated in figure 32.
New York, private collec
tion. H. 19 cm.
Figure 28. Fragmentary

male folded-arm figure.
Spedos variety. EC II.
The only
malefigurefrom
approximately the middle
of the period not shown
engaged in a specific activ
ity, this superbly carved
piece is also the largest
male representation now
known. It originally mea
sured about one meter.
Because the legs are sepa
rated, it is likely that the
image was carved with a
base, enabling it to stand
unaided (as in figs. 26,
32). Athens, Museum of
Goulandris
Foundation
969 (ex Erlenmeyer Collec
tion). Pres. H. 42.5 cm.
Said to befrom
Amorgos.
41
Figures 30, 51.

Fragmentary female
figure. Double type.
Spedos variety. EC II.
This is one of several exam
ples in which only part of
one member of a duo sur
vives with the arm of the
second carved across its
back. Of these, there are
only two with enough pre
served so that the sex can
be determined. In this
group we know that one
figure isfemale, but we
cannot ascertain the sex of
the other. As with the cup
bearer type (fig. 27), it is
noteworthy that the free
arm is held in the canoni
cal positionfolded
across
the body. It is probable
that such compositions
were normally furnished
with bases; indeed, bases
that evidently supported
two figures have been
unearthed on Keros.
Karlsruhe,
Badisches
Landesmuseum
82/6.
Pres. H. 17 cm.
42
n o l a r g e r t h a n necessary to a c c o m
m o d a t e the corpse i n a severely c o n
tracted position.
T h e r e is an i n t e r e s t i n g d i s t i n c t i o n
o f roles observed i n males and females
i n E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e . T h e fe
m a l e is always r e p r e s e n t e d i n a pas
sive a n d , i n t e r m s o f c u r r e n t b o d y
language theory, a l o o f a t t i t u d e , re
gardless o f w h e t h e r she is s t a n d i n g ,
r e c l i n i n g , or s i t t i n g , or w h e t h e r she is
single or d o u b l e d . O n the o t h e r h a n d ,
the m a l e f i g u r e is m o r e often t h a n not
d e p i c t e d i n an active r o l e . I n the ear
l i e r p a r t o f the classical p e r i o d , as we
have seen, he takes t h e r o l e o f c u p
bearer, m u s i c i a n , or s t r o n g m a n w h o ,
w i t h a c o m p a n i o n , holds aloft a quietly
s i t t i n g f e m a l e . T o w a r d t h e e n d o f the
p e r i o d , he is o u t f i t t e d w i t h the accou
trements of a h u n t e r or w a r r i o r . A t
t h a t t i m e his m o s t n o t i c e a b l e piece o f
e q u i p m e n t is always a b a l d r i c , t h o u g h
he m a y also carry a s m a l l dagger a n d /
or w e a r a b e l t w i t h a codpiece (figs.
35,48a).
N e i t h e r t h e sculptors n o r t h e i r cus
t o m e r s seem to have been very p a r t i c
u l a r a b o u t t h e i r f i g u r e s at t h i s l a t e
d a t e . T h e r e are e x a m p l e s i n w h i c h
43
Figure 32. Three-figure

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

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

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

haps also the work of this
sculptor.)
Brunswick,
Maine, Bowdoin College
Museum of Art 1982.15.4,
Bequest ofJere Abbott.
Pres.L. 28.6 cm.
44
Figure 34. Detail of work

illustrated i n figure 4.

Hunter/warrior type.
Thisfigure is interesting as
an example of a rather rare
occupational type of which
it is also one of the most
detailed. Note the rather
haunting facial expression,
the carefully incised orna
mentation of the baldric,
and the leaf-shaped dagger
"floating" above the right
hand. Thefigure was
allegedly found on Naxos
together with a. slightly
smaller female
companion.
(Drawings made in the
mid-nineteenth century of
a very similar pair were
discovered recently by J . L .
Fitton in the British
Museum. The present
whereabouts of these sculp
tures remain a mystery.)
Athens, Museum of
Goulandris
Foundation
308. L . 25 cm.
Figure 36. Male foldedarm figure with baldric.

Bather poorly conceived
and carelessly executed,
thefigure is nevertheless of
interest for the manner in
which it was evidently con
verted from a female into a
male image by the addi
tion of baldric and. penis.
Fingers,
haphazardly
scratched, were probably
also added at the same
time. Seattle Art Museum
46.200, Norman and
Amelia Davis Classic Col
lection. L . 19 cm.
1
45
Figure 37.
Detail of work illustrated
infigures 56 and 57, show
ing paint ghosts on the
back of the head preserved
as a light, smooth surface.
See also plate vb and
figure 58.
Figure 38.
Detail of figure 37. Note
the little tails" on the
neck.
u
a n d o n the o t h e r figures executed i n

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

ures s e e m to have b e e n p e r f u n c t o r i l y
t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o m a l e s by t h e s i m p l e
a d d i t i o n o f a hastily incised penis and,
m o r e noticeably, an i n c i s e d or m e r e l y
s c r a t c h e d d i a g o n a l l i n e o n t h e chest
a n d back to indicate the b a l d r i c . A p p a
rently, i t d i d not matter that the bal
d r i c was a d d e d as an a f t e r t h o u g h t a n d
cuts across t h e a r m s ( f i g . 3 6 ) .
Except for the nose a n d the ears o n a
few very large w o r k s (figs. 4 1 , 5 6 - 5 9 ) ,
t h e r e is n o r m a l l y a c o m p l e t e absence
o f s c u l p t u r a l d e t a i l o n t h e face a n d
h e a d o f c a n o n i c a l f o l d e d - a r m figures
46
Figure 39. Head of a

folded-arm figure. Late
Spedos variety. Probably a
work of the Goulandris
Master. EC II.
The badly damaged head,
which belonged to a figure
measuring 60 cm or more,
is of interest chiefly for its
well-preserved paint ghosts
for eyes and hair (fig. 40).
Museum
83.AA.316.2.
Pres. L . 10.4 cm. Said to
befrom Keros.
Figure 40.
The back and side of the
head illustrated in figure
39, showing raised paint
ghosts for hair with
depending curls.
h e a d , a n d a s o l i d area o n t h e back o f
the head to i n d i c a t e a s h o r t - c r o p p e d
h a i r s t y l e ( f i g s . 37, 3 8 ) . L e s s o f t e n
curls, d e p e n d i n g f r o m the s o l i d area,
w e r e p a i n t e d o n the sides a n d back o f
t h e h e a d (figs. 39, 4 0 ) , a n d dots o r
stripes d e c o r a t e d the face i n various
p a t t e r n s ( p i . v i # , c; figs. 42, 69, 7 8 ) .
O n l y one f i g u r e k n o w n at p r e s e n t has
p a i n t e d ears ( p i . v i r f ) , w h i l e few, i f
any, s h o w c l e a r t r a c e s o f a p a i n t e d
m o u t h . T h e a p p a r e n t o m i s s i o n o f the
m o u t h w o u l d accord w e l l w i t h the
sepulchral nature o f the figures. Occa
sionally p a i n t was also used to e m p h a -
T h e r e d a n d b l u e p i g m e n t is i t s e l f
only rarely preserved, but many fig
ures show paint "ghosts," that is,
o n c e - p a i n t e d surfaces w h i c h , because
they w e r e p r o t e c t e d by p i g m e n t , n o w
appear l i g h t e r i n color, smoother,
a n d / o r s l i g h t l y r a i s e d above the sur
r o u n d i n g areas, w h i c h are generally i n
p o o r e r c o n d i t i o n ( p i . iva). I n c e r t a i n
cases the ghost lines are so p r o n o u n c e d
t h a t t h e y can easily be m i s t a k e n f o r
actual r e l i e f w o r k ( p i . vb).
M o s t often the p a i n t i n g took the
f o r m o f a l m o n d - s h a p e d eyes w i t h dot
t e d p u p i l s , solid bands across the fore
47
Figure 41. Female

folded-arm figure. Kapsala
variety. EC I I .
This unusually large and
exceptionally fine example
of the Kapsala variety
stands out among all
known Cycladic sculptures
for its superb modeling
andfor the wealth of
painted detail still present
on the head and body.
Although there is clear evi
dence of painted eyes,
brows, hair, facial tattoo
ing, bangles, and pubic
trianglefrom a number of
other works (albeit not all
on the same piece), the
painted necklace seen here
is unprecedented. It is not
entirely certain that a
mouth was once painted
on thisfigure. New York,
Shelby White and Leon
Levy Collection. Pres. L .
69.4 cm. See also plate
Via, h, figure 42.
48
size c e r t a i n grooves o n the b o d y ( p i .

vib-d),
to d e f i n e o r e m p h a s i z e t h e
p u b i c t r i a n g l e (figs. 4 1 , 56, 5 8 ) , or to
d e p i c t bangles a n d o t h e r a d o r n m e n t s
(pi. v i b ) .
A l t h o u g h w i t h t i m e the actual paint
has l a r g e l y d i s a p p e a r e d f r o m t h e
sculptures, bone canisters and little
clay pots c o n t a i n i n g l u m p s o f c o l o r
i n g m a t t e r are s o m e t i m e s f o u n d i n
C y c l a d i c graves, as are palettes a n d
b o w l s i n t e n d e d as m o r t a r s f o r p u l
verizing the p i g m e n t s , w h i c h were
d e r i v e d f r o m ores o f i r o n ( h e m a t i t e ) ,
m e r c u r y (cinnabar), and copper
( a z u r i t e ) , i n d i g e n o u s to the i s l a n d s .
I t w o u l d appear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t r i t u a l
face p a i n t i n g was an i m p o r t a n t part o f
t h e r e l i g i o u s r i t e s o b s e r v e d by t h e
i s l a n d e r s , a n d the p a t t e r n s they used
o n t h e i r s c u l p t u r e s m a y w e l l reflect
those they used on themselves and
h o p e d to p e r p e t u a t e i n the afterlife.
49
Figure 42.
Detail of work illustrated
in figure 41 (and pi. K/a,
b ) showing painted details
Figure 43.
Copy of
thefemalefoldedarm figure in figure 44
carved by Elizabeth
Oustinoffin an experiment
using Parian marble and
tools madefrom
Naxian
emery, Melian obsidian,
and Theran pumice. A
fracture sustained during
the initial shaping of the
piece necessitated an alter
ation of the original design
so that thefinished
work,
intended at the outset to be
somewhat larger than the
model, does not closely
resemble it except, acciden
tally, in size. Such mis
haps probably
occurred
with somefrequency
in
ancient times as well, but it
would appear that sculp
tors preferred to repair or
otherwise salvage their
works rather than discard
them to begin again. A
dramatic example may be
seen infigure 54. L . 17 cm.
Figure 44. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos/

A well-madefigure of mod
est size, the work belongs
basically to the Late Spedos
variety, but its broad shoul
ders and upper torso and
its short midsection are
more characteristic of the
Chalandriani variety. Note
that the right arm/hand
extends all the way to the
left elbow in order to make
the rendering
symmetrical.
(On the rear, the left elbow
is carved on the back of
what infront is the right
hand, again for the sake of
symmetry.) Zurich, Mr.
and Mrs. Isidor Kahane
Collection. L . 17.5 cm.
50
T h e Formulaic Tradition
c h i p p i n g away and a b r a d i n g o f the

s t o n e . Pieces o f e m e r y f r o m N a x o s
(one o f the w o r l d ' s m a j o r sources o f
t h i s m i n e r a l ) w e r e p r o b a b l y used for
this p u r p o s e , w h i l e e m e r y or o b s i d i a n
f r o m M e l o s w o u l d have been used to
m a k e incisions, sand and perhaps
p u m i c e f r o m T h e r a to s m o o t h t h e
stone ( f i g . 4 3 ) . O n e can easily i m a g
i n e the sculptor's w o r k s h o p by the sea
w h e r e he c o u l d have f o u n d m u c h o f
his r a w m a t e r i a l already p a r t i a l l y
w o r k e d f o r h i m by t h e a c t i o n o f t h e
w a v e s . F o r a d r a w i n g p a d he c o u l d
have u s e d t h e w e t b e a c h s a n d a n d ,
to p o l i s h his w o r k s , the p u m i c e t h a t
washed up on the shore f o l l o w i n g
eruptions of the T h e r a volcano. Nev
ertheless, at a l l t i m e s his o w n patience
a n d d i l i g e n c e m u s t have been his m o s t
valuable assets i n b r i n g i n g a w o r k to
completion.
W e have r e v i e w e d r a t h e r h a s t i l y
r o u g h l y e i g h t centuries o f s c u l p t u r a l
a c t i v i t y , w i t h key d e v e l o p m e n t s i l l u s
t r a t e d by a m e r e e x a m p l e or t w o . Per
haps t h e s i n g l e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p o i n t
t o be s t r e s s e d , h o w e v e r , a n d o n e
w h i c h is d i f f i c u l t to appreciate w i t h
o u t a p l e t h o r a o f e x a m p l e s , is the re
m a r k a b l e a d h e r e n c e to a s t a n d a r d
f o r m . O f the m a n y h u n d r e d s o f extant
pieces o f E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e ,
t h e r e are o n l y a very few t h a t do not
b e l o n g to one o f the e s t a b l i s h e d types
or do not contain elements of t w o
s e q u e n t i a l v a r i e t i e s . D e s p i t e a vast
array o f subtle differences a n d a w i d e
variation i n quality, Cycladic sculp
tures are essentially f o r m u l a i c i n char
acter. T h e r e are n o freely c o n c e i v e d
pieces. Even those special pieces such
as the h a r p players h a d t h e i r o w n for
m u l a e and strict design rules. Once
e s t a b l i s h e d , each t r a d i t i o n a l t y p e ,
each h i g h l y f o r m a l i z e d set o f c o n v e n
t i o n s , was a d h e r e d to w i t h a l m o s t
i m p e r c e p t i b l e changes f o r c e n t u r i e s .
T h e sheer l a b o r i n v o l v e d i n the p r o
d u c t i o n o f any b u t t h e s i m p l e s t s m a l l
figures m u s t have p r e c l u d e d a haphaz
a r d or spontaneous approach. M a r b l e ,
t h o u g h n o t a h a r d stone, c l e a r l y lacks
t h e m a l l e a b i l i t y o f clay o r the tracta
ble q u a l i t i e s o f w o o d . I n fact, m a r b l e
tends to crack a n d b r e a k q u i t e easily
T h e w a y t h e figures w e r e m a d e can
shed some l i g h t o n t h e i r f i n a l s i m i l a r
ity. I t m u s t have been a l a b o r i o u s p r o
cess, one i n v o l v i n g constant yet careful
51
a.
b.
seem to have g o v e r n e d the m a n n e r i n

w h i c h the figures w e r e d e s i g n e d , one
can see just w h a t i t is, besides the u n i
f o r m t r e a t m e n t o f the a r m s or legs or
face, t h a t m a k e s one Cycladic i d o l o f
a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e or v a r i e t y so closely
r e s e m b l e any o t h e r o f its k i n d . U n f o r
t u n a t e l y , n o slabs or blocks o f m a r b l e
have b e e n f o u n d t h a t c o u l d p r o v i d e
evidence o f t h e f o r m u l a e o r t h e de
vices used to i n s c r i b e these i n i t i a l
designs. Nevertheless, an e x a m i n a t i o n
o f a large n u m b e r o f f i n i s h e d w o r k s
has revealed r e c u r r i n g patterns, m a k
i n g i t q u i t e r e a s o n a b l e to p o s t u l a t e
the use o f p a r t i c u l a r f o r m u l a e a n d cer
t a i n basic aidscompass, p r o t r a c t o r ,
rulerbefore c a r v i n g was b e g u n .
a n d thus requires a h i g h l y d i s c i p l i n e d
a p p r o a c h i f i r r e m e d i a b l e errors are to
be a v o i d e d . I t appears t h a t f o r m u l a e
w e r e d e v e l o p e d to a i d t h e C y c l a d i c
s c u l p t o r i n c a r e f u l l y c o m p o s i n g his
f i g u r e o n t h e slab before he actually
began to carve. P r o b a b l y e v o l v i n g o u t
o f necessity, such f o r m u l a e m a y also
have i m b u e d the sculptor's craft w i t h
a certain mystique. T h e y doubtless
served as o r a l a n d v i s u a l vehicles f o r
the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f the s c u l p t u r a l tra
d i t i o n , t h e sculptor's r i t u a l , f r o m one
g e n e r a t i o n to the n e x t .
I n e x a m i n i n g some o f the rules that
I n the first or archaic phase, the

h u m a n f o r m was d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e
equal parts: r o u g h l y one p a r t f o r the
h e a d a n d neck, one for the torso, a n d
one for the legs ( f i g . 46a). These three
d i v i s i o n s c o u l d have been m a d e w i t h
a s i m p l e ruler, b u t w h a t seems to have
b e e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t was the place
m e n t o f c e r t a i n key features o n t h e
o u t l i n e . For e x a m p l e , t h e s h o u l d e r s
a n d hips w e r e e v i d e n t l y b l o c k e d o u t
by m e a n s o f arcs d r a w n w i t h a p r i m i -
52
Figure 45. A comparison

of the designs of two
works attributed to the
Metropolitan Museum
Master, a sculptor of
Plastiras-type figures of
the EC I phase.
a. Name-piece of the sculp
tor. The broken right leg
was reattached in antiq
uity, mending holes having
been bored through the
side above and below the
knee. New York, The Met
ropolitan Museum of Art,
Rogers Fund, 45.11.1$
L . 21.6 cm. Seefigure 13c.
b. Thefigure has i~epair
holes through the neck
(sideways) as well as in
the right thigh. Geneva,
Musee
Barbier-Mueller
BMG202.75.
L . 18.3 cm.
a. See figure
10.
b. See figure
66.
c. Seefigure 72.
Figure 46. The two major

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

o b s i d i a n or even charcoal attached to
a piece o f s t r i n g . T h e radius o f the cir
cle that d e t e r m i n e d the arc was one
t h i r d o f the b o d y l e n g t h . A n arc pass
i n g t h r o u g h t h e m i d p o i n t o f the f i g
u r e s w a s o f t e n u s e d to d e f i n e t h e
p o s i t i o n of the elbows.
Even t h o u g h the body was schemat
ically d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e equal parts,
the p r o p o r t i o n s w i t h i n those parts
m i g h t vary considerably. F i g u r e 45,
for e x a m p l e , shows t w o w o r k s a t t r i b
u t a b l e to t h e h a n d o f o n e s c u l p t o r
called the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m
53
Figure 47.
Grid plans based on the
standard four-part
plan.
Seefigure 23.
dress. S i m i l a r l y , t h e n a m e - p i e c e has
an a m p l e r chest area b u t a shorter
w a i s t t h a n t h e o t h e r w o r k , yet w i t h i n
this m i d d l e d i v i s i o n is c o n t a i n e d the
e n t i r e torso o f each o f these f i g u r e s .
T h e p r o p o r t i o n s m i g h t vary, there
fore, even i n t w o figures carved by the
same p e r s o n , w h i l e t h e basic t r i p a r
t i t e f o r m u l a t e n d e d to r e m a i n r e m a r k
ably constant.
often equal to one p a r t ( f i g . 4 6 6 ) .

C o m p a s s - d r a w n arcs m a r k e d o f f t h e
shoulders, the elbows or waist, and
the knees. T h e top o f the head a n d the
e n d s o f t h e f e e t w e r e also c u r v e d ,
revealing further the influence of the
compass. Once again, w i t h i n the basic
divisions t h e r e was r o o m for v a r i a t i o n
and i n d i v i d u a l difference.
M o r e c o m p l e x w o r k s p r o d u c e d at
this t i m e seem to be m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f
t h e f o u r - p a r t scheme, w h i l e t h e v i r t u
oso piecesthe h a r p players, t h e cup
bearers, a n d the t r i p l e groupseem to
have b e n e f i t e d f r o m m o r e elaborate
p l a n n i n g . T h e seated f i g u r e s , f o r ex
a m p l e , a p p e a r to have b e e n t r e a t e d
m o r e as f o u r - s i d e d w o r k s t h a n as i n t e -
I n t h e classical p e r i o d o f C y c l a d i c
s c u l p t u r e , t h e d e s i g n f o r m u l a appears
t o have c h a n g e d to a c c o m m o d a t e a
m o r e n a t u r a l a p p r o a c h to t h e h u m a n
f o r m . T h e e a r l i e r f o l d e d - a r m figures
(Kapsala a n d Spedos v a r i e t i e s ) w e r e
n o w c o n c e i v e d as d i v i s i b l e i n t o f o u r
e q u a l parts, w i t h a m a x i m u m w i d t h
54
a.
b.
w e r e f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d to f o r m a g r i d
o f e i g h t by six "squares." T h e lines o f
the g r i d t e n d e d to c o i n c i d e w i t h key
p o i n t s o n the o u t l i n e as w e l l as w i t h
i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n s , such as t h e c h i n ,
the e l b o w , the cup, a n d the top o f the
seat. A s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f the
same c o i n c i d e n c e s r e c u r f r o m p i e c e
to piece; a d d i t i o n a l coincidences are
noticeable i n the w o r k s a t t r i b u t e d to
the same sculptors ( f i g . 4 7 ) .
O f the figures p r o d u c e d late i n the
second phase ( D o k a t h i s m a t a and
C h a l a n d r i a n i v a r i e t i e s ) , f e w f a i l to
give s o m e i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y w e r e
d e s i g n e d a c c o r d i n g to a c o n s c i o u s l y
applied f o r m u l a (fig. 46c). However,
as w i t h t h e c a n o n i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t o f
the a r m s , the f o u r - p a r t p l a n , t h o u g h
s t i l l the p r e f e r r e d one, was n o t t h e
o n l y one i n use; s o m e sculptors e v i
d e n t l y t r i e d o t h e r designs, u s i n g , f o r
example, three- and five-part divi
sions ( f i g . 4 8 ) . By n o w i t w o u l d seem
t h a t the compass was g e n e r a l l y c o n
s i d e r e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e for the severely
a n g u l a r style o f these i m a g e s .
A l t o g e t h e r , r o u g h l y o n e - h a l f o f all
Cycladic figures a p p e a r to have b e e n
quite carefully conceived a c c o r d i n g to
g r a t e a s c u l p t u r e s i n tne r o u n d , i he
m o s t i m p o r t a n t side is i n v a r i a b l y the
r i g h t one, t h e side o n w h i c h the harp
or cup is h e l d . I t appears t h a t a g r i d
p l a n was c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d i n t h e
design o f these w o r k s . T h e g r i d was
based o n a d i v i s i o n o f the h e i g h t i n t o
the usual f o u r p r i m a r y u n i t s , w h i l e the
w i d t h was m a d e to a p p r o x i m a t e t h r e e
o f these u n i t s . T h e h e i g h t a n d w i d t h
55
Figure 4 8 . 'Three- and

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

variety. A work of the
Naxos Museum Master.
EC I I .
Characteristicfeatures
of
the style of this somewhat
idiosyncratic and prolific
sculptor seen on this piece
include a small, highplaced nose, generalized
breasts,
thickforearms
which lie directly above the
pubic area, and rather care
less incision work. Note
the uneven lengths and
widths of thefingers, the
uncenteredpubic
triangle,
and the knee incisions cut
at different levels. The work
of the Naxos
Museum
Master has been found in
three different cemeteries
on Naxos, where it may
be assumed he lived and
worked. New York,
Harmon Collection (ex
Woodner Family Collec
tion). L . 51.4 cm.
a specific d e s i g n f o r m u l a . T h e o t h e r
h a l f s e e m to have b e e n less t h o u g h t
fully p l a n n e d or at least less r i g o r o u s l y
executed a c c o r d i n g to the o r i g i n a l
designs l a i d out o n the r a w slab. Some
s e e m n o t to have b e n e f i t e d f r o m any
logical p l a n . M a n y o f these are o f infe
r i o r q u a l i t y , carved p e r h a p s by n o n specialists. T h e r e are also a n u m b e r
o f i d o l s e x e c u t e d by p r o f i c i e n t sculp
tors w h o seem to have f o u n d i t to t h e i r
l i k i n g and certainly well w i t h i n their
c a p a b i l i t i e s to a l t e r t h e r u l e s to s u i t
their o w n personal aesthetic. Some
sculptors, for e x a m p l e , e l o n g a t e d t h e
thighs to an exaggerated degree, m a k
i n g the calves a n d feet r a t h e r s h o r t by
c o m p a r i s o n (fig. 55). Others p r e f e r r e d
56
b.
Figure 50a, b.
The harmonic
system:
angles derivedfrom a 5:
or golden, triangle (or
rectangle).
a. Seefigure
7a.
b. Seefigure
c. See figure 44.
14.
to o m i t the m i d s e c t i o n o f t h e i r figures,
p l a c i n g the p u b i c area d i r e c t l y b e l o w
the f o r e a r m s ( f i g . 4 9 ) . T h i s d e c i s i o n
r e q u i r e d an a d j u s t m e n t o f t h e stan
d a r d f o r m u l a : the m i d p o i n t n o w oc
curs at the a r m s or h i g h e r r a t h e r t h a n
at the a b d o m e n .
A n o t h e r c o n t r o l l i n g factor i n the
f o r m u l a i c p l a n n i n g o f a l l the figures,
even t h e s i m p l e s t o n e s , a p p e a r s to
have b e e n t h e r e p e a t e d use o f several
angles based o n t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e
golden triangle found frequently in
b o t h art a n d n a t u r e ( f i g . 50a). Recent
e x p e r i m e n t s c o n d u c t e d by t h e a u t h o r
suggest t h a t v i r t u a l l y everyone has an
i n n a t e p r e f e r e n c e for at least one or a
c o m b i n a t i o n o f t w o o f t h e angles i n
57
d. See figure 48b.
Figure 51.
Harmonic angles and their
combinations used for cer
tain features on the outline
and for internal details.
the configuration illustrated i n figure

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

tors, I have chosen the easily remembered
name of an archaeologist who recovered,
or of a museum or collection that houses,
one or more well-preserved examples of
their work. A n d I have called them "mas
ters," not to suggest that they necessarily
produced masterpieces but to indicate that
they were expert and independent i n their
craft, i n the sense of the term "mastoras,"
as applied to Greek tradesmen today.
I t s h o u l d be e v i d e n t by n o w t h a t t h e
C y c l a d i c sculptor's craft was a sophis
t i c a t e d one. I t seems m o s t u n l i k e l y
that o r d i n a r y farmers and sailors
c o u l d , as a r u l e , have m a d e t h e i r o w n
m a r b l e figures. As m e n t i o n e d earlier,
most islanders either d i d w i t h o u t
i d o l s a l t o g e t h e r o r at m o s t m a d e d o
w i t h figures fashioned from w o o d
w h i c h t h e y c o u l d have w h i t t l e d f o r
themselves at n o expense. M o r e likely,
the f o r m u l a i c nature of the idols, the
exquisite craft d e m o n s t r a t e d i n m a n y ,
and the occasional e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n
58
T h e I n d i v i d u a l Sculptor
t h e i r way to o t h e r s e t t l e m e n t s a n d at
least occasionally to o t h e r islands. T h e
figures o f s o m e o f these artists have
t u r n e d u p i n excavations at d i f f e r e n t
sites, a n d i n s o m e cases at sites o n
m o r e t h a n one i s l a n d (e.g., Naxos a n d
Paros; N a x o s a n d K e r o s ) . I t is possi
b l e too t h a t s o m e o f these s c u l p t o r s
were itinerant craftsmen, although
m o s t p r o b a b l y stayed h o m e , e k i n g o u t
a l i v i n g f r o m t h e soil a n d p r a c t i c i n g
t h e i r craft p a r t - t i m e .
W h i l e i t is n o t f e a s i b l e t o i s o l a t e
w o r k s h o p s or local schools, i t is n o w
p o s s i b l e to r e c o g n i z e t h e h a n d s o f a
s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s . To
identify the w o r k s o f i n d i v i d u a l Cy
cladic sculptors can be quite easy, since
some o f t h e m m a d e figures t h a t are
n e a r l y exact replicas o f one another.
S o m e t i m e s t h e f i g u r e s o f one a r t i s t
are v e r y s i m i l a r t o o n e a n o t h e r i n
o v e r a l l a p p e a r a n c e a l t h o u g h i n size
they may differ appreciably. I n other
cases, ascriptions are n o t easily m a d e .
T h e extent to w h i c h figures o f one
t y p e c a r v e d by one p e r s o n r e s e m b l e
one a n o t h e r w o u l d have v a r i e d , o f
course, f r o m s c u l p t o r to s c u l p t o r a n d
f r o m piece to piece. S o m e s c u l p t o r s
T h e r e is n o evidence to suggest t h a t
t h e r e w e r e w o r k s h o p s o n the Cycladic
islands i n w h i c h several sculptors
l a b o r e d side by side. N o r is i t possi
ble to d i s t i n g u i s h t h e styles o f differ
ent i s l a n d " s c h o o l s , " i f i n d e e d s u c h
e x i s t e d . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h e l a r g e r
c o m m u n i t i e s on these islands, and
p r o b a b l y s o m e o n a few o t h e r islands,
t e n d e d i n each g e n e r a t i o n to s u p p o r t
one o r t w o sculptors or, m o r e l i k e l y , a
s c u l p t o r a n d his a p p r e n t i c e , w h o was,
i n m o s t cases, p r o b a b l y his o w n son
(fig. 52). T h r o u g h trade or travel,
some o f t h e i r w o r k s w o u l d have f o u n d
59
Figure 52.
"Marble John " working on
a gravestone made from
stone hewn from the moun
tainside on the outskirts of
Apeiranthos on Naxos in
1963. The village marble
carver, he learned his craft
from his father, "Marble
George. "Although the
marble-working
tradition
may not have been contin
uous from the third millen
nium B.C. to the present,
the need for such craft
specialists and the passing
on of the traditions from
father to son seem, never
theless, to have changed
but little over the millennia.
Figure 53. Fragments of

folded-arm figures repre
senting the Spedos,
Dokathismata, and
Chalandriani varieties.
EC I I .
A representative
sampling
from the "Keros hoard, " a
huge assemblage of sculp
tures,
mostlyfragmentary,
said to have been recovered

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

tors whose work is illus
trated here are represented
among thefindsfrom
Keros
and/or the Keros hoard,
including the Shuster
(frontis.), Goulandris (figs.
39, 60-69), and Naxos
Museum (fig. 49) Masters.
60
Museum
78.AA.407,
79.AA.11,
83.AA.316.1-2,
83AA.317.1-2,
83.AA.318.1,
83.AA.201.
For the large piece at cen
ter, seefigure 69. Pres.
L.7.5A8.4cm.
been v i r t u a l duplicates, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f
t h e y w e r e c o n c e i v e d as c o m p a n i o n
p i e c e s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e case o f
group compositions we k n o w that
sculptors strove to m a k e the m a t c h i n g
m e m b e r s o f each w o r k i d e n t i c a l ( p i .
i n , f i g . 3 2 ) . F i g u r e s carved i n d e p e n
d e n t l y b u t r e l a t i v e l y close i n t i m e , or
figures m o d e l e d o n past w o r k k e p t on
h a n d , w o u l d be l i k e l y t o r e s e m b l e
each o t h e r to a g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n
w o u l d w o r k s carved at a c o n s i d e r a b l e
i n t e r v a l i n t i m e f r o m each other. O n e
w o u l d e x p e c t to f i n d m a j o r changes
a m o n g pieces r e p r e s e n t i n g d i f f e r e n t
phases o f a sculptor's a r t i s t i c develop
m e n t , so t h a t i f t h e accidents o f pres
e r v a t i o n w e r e such t h a t o n l y a v e r y
early a n d a m a t u r e w o r k o f one sculp
t o r h a d b e e n b r o u g h t to l i g h t , the t w o
i m a g e s m i g h t p r o v e d i f f i c u l t t o at
t r i b u t e to a single h a n d . T h e r e is, o f
course, the possibility t h a t some sculp
tors a l t e r e d t h e i r styles so d r a s t i c a l l y
f r o m piece to piece or f r o m phase to
p h a s e t h a t w e c a n have n o h o p e o f
ever a t t r i b u t i n g a reasonably c o m p l e t e
b o d y o f w o r k to t h e m . B u t so m a n y
changes w o u l d m o r e l i k e l y have b e e n
the exception rather than the rule.
m a y have been content to carve essen

t i a l l y the same piece over a n d over
a g a i n ; others m a y have f o u n d i t expe
d i e n t to d u p l i c a t e past w o r k o n occa
sion; b u t at least several sought, e i t h e r
d e l i b e r a t e l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y , to ex
p e r i m e n t a n d refine t h e i r styles. M a n y
factors c o u l d have i n f l u e n c e d t h e de
gree to w h i c h t w o f i g u r e s , e x e c u t e d
by t h e same a r t i s t , w o u l d have b e e n
s i m i l a r o r d i s s i m i l a r , n o t the least o f
w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n his o w n g e n
eral d i s p o s i t i o n as w e l l as his feelings
i n r e l a t i o n to m a k i n g a p a r t i c u l a r
piece. O t h e r c o n t r i b u t i n g factors m a y
have been t h e sculptor's i n n a t e t a l e n t
and s k i l l level, the care w i t h w h i c h he
a p p r o a c h e d his w o r k , a n d t h e consis
tency o f his m e t h o d s . T h e p a r t i c u l a r
piece o f m a r b l e chosen f o r a f i g u r e ,
the shape o f the tools used i n the carv
i n g process a n d , i n s o m e cases, even
an a c c i d e n t easily c o u l d have i n f l u
enced the f i n a l appearance o f a piece
(figs. 43, 44, 5 4 , 5 5 )
T h e single m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d
e r a t i o n , however, was t i m e . Some
sculptors m a y have w o r k e d o n t w o or
m o r e figures c o n c u r r e n t l y . I t m i g h t be
e x p e c t e d t h a t such w o r k s w o u l d have
61

Copenhagen Master. EC II.
The carefully executed and
unusually largefigure is of
special interest because of
its strangely truncated legs
and odd,
vestigialfeet
which contrast
sharply
with the balanced propor
tions and attenuation seen
in the rest. This incongru
ity most probably
resulted
from irreparable damage
sustained by thefigure,
possibly during the carv
ing process, at what was
to have been the knees,
according to the original
design. Rather than aban
don what may have been a
nearly completed piece, the
sculptor simply telescoped
the entire length of the legs
andfeet into the space,
unusually elongated in any
case, originally allotted to
the thighs only. Seefigure
55for another figure carved
by the Copenhagen
Master
which was completed in
the normal manner.
Athens, Museum of
Goulandris
Foundation
257. L . 70 cm.
(As originally
conceived
thefigure would have
measured about 85 cm.)

Copenhagen Master. EC II.
Considerably smaller and
with a much less elongated
torso than the preceding
figure (fig. 54), this work
nevertheless shares with it
certain close similarities of
contour and detail and
gives one a good idea how
the legs of the large image
were originally
conceived.
New York, Shelby White
and Leon Levy
Collection.
L . 56.8 cm.
62
o u t l i n e contours, certain angles, a par

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

w o r k s b e l o n g i n g to d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s
i n a s c u l p t o r ' s c a r e e r o r to d i f f e r e n t
stages i n his d e v e l o p m e n t is d e p e n
d e n t o n t w o i m p o r t a n t factors. O n e is
t h e e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l i m p o s e d by t h e
t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h d i c t a t e d i n very spe
cific t e r m s h o w a figure o f a given type
o r v a r i e t y was to be d e s i g n e d a n d exe
c u t e d . T h e o t h e r is t h e u n c o n s c i o u s ,
i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l e x e r t e d by t h e artist's
p e r s o n a l style. W h i l e every figure
shares i n t h e h i g h l y c o n s e r v a t i v e , for
m u l a i c style o f its p e r i o d , i t also car
ries its s c u l p t o r ' s p e r s o n a l s t a m p o r
"signature."
M o s t probably no single feature

is u n i q u e t o o n e s c u l p t o r ' s s t y l e .
Originality, or rather i n d i v i d u a l i t y ,
consisted of a p a r t i c u l a r choice or
c o m b i n a t i o n o f features, w h i l e excel
l e n c e w o u l d have d e p e n d e d n o t o n
innovation but rather on the h a r m o
nious i n t e g r a t i o n o f these f a m i l i a r ele
ments, a h i g h level o f skill i n t h e i r
e x e c u t i o n , a n d great care i n t h e f i n
i s h i n g a n d p a i n t i n g o f the surface.
A r t i s t i c g r o w t h a n d , i n t h e case o f a
relatively small n u m b e r of sculptors,
excellence w o u l d have evolved g r a d u
ally t h r o u g h t h e r e p e t i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e
o f c a r v i n g m a n y e x a m p l e s o f t h e same
t y p e or variety.
T h i s s i g n a t u r e m a y be d e f i n e d as a
complex of r e c u r r i n g characteristics
w h i c h , t h o u g h o f t e n easier to a p p r e
ciate visually t h a n to describe verbally,
reveals the w o r k s o f one s c u l p t o r to be
stylistically closer to one a n o t h e r t h a n
to the w o r k s o f any o t h e r sculptor. T h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r y f r o m m a s t e r to
master, a n d n o t w o sculptors are p r e
cisely a l i k e i n t h e w a y t h e y express
t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y . C e r t a i n techniques
o f e x e c u t i o n , f o r m s o r d e t a i l s , even
e r r o r s o r o m i s s i o n s , aspects o f t h e
Earlier, w e l o o k e d at the t w o archaic

figures o f the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m
63
Figures 56, 57. Female

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

i l a r i n a b i d i n g by a c e r t a i n f o r m u l a ,
specifically the t h r e e - p a r t d i v i s i o n o f
the body, yet d i f f e r e d f r o m each o t h e r
w i t h r e s p e c t to p r o p o r t i o n s w i t h i n
those divisions (fig. 4 5 ) . N o w i t is nec
essary to l o o k at t h e classical p e r i o d
a n d concentrate n o t so m u c h o n h o w
an a r t i s t was c o n t r o l l e d by t r a d i t i o n
b u t o n h o w he created his o w n per
sonal style w i t h i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n a n d
h o w h i s s t y l e is r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r
ent w o r k s .
The Karlsruhe/Woodner
Master
C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l style m a y
b e g i n w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t w o
w o r k s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a s c u l p t o r o f the
early classical phase c a l l e d t h e K a r l s
r u h e / W o o d n e r M a s t e r (figs. 5 6 - 5 9 ) .
N e a r l y i d e n t i c a l i n l e n g t h a n d excep
t i o n a l l y l a r g e , t h e t w o f i g u r e s share
a n u m b e r of characteristics whose
c o m b i n e d presence c a n n o t have b e e n
f o r t u i t o u s even t h o u g h t h e y d i f f e r i n
obvious ways. A l t h o u g h t h e W o o d n e r
piece is m u c h s t o c k i e r i n b u i l d a n d
exhibits somewhat different propor-
64
t i o n s t h a n those o f the f i g u r e i n K a r l s
r u h e , the basic f o r m s a n d contours are
very close. S i m i l a r l y executed details
w o r t h y o f m e n t i o n are the carved ears
a n d the shape o f the nose as w e l l as
t h e i r a s y m m e t r i c a l p l a c e m e n t ; i n ad
d i t i o n , t h e eyes a n d h a i r a r e n o w
clearly discernible i n the f o r m of
p a i n t ghosts ( p i . v&, figs. 37, 3 8 ) . T h e
p u b i c area, also r e n d e r e d i n a s i m i l a r
f a s h i o n i n a plane s l i g h t l y b e l o w t h a t
o f t h e t h i g h s , was p r o b a b l y o n c e a
b l u e - p a i n t e d t r i a n g l e , as suggested by
traces o f t h e o r i g i n a l m a r b l e s k i n o n
both figures.
T h e m a i n difference i n d e t a i l is the
t r e a t m e n t o f t h e breasts: the flat tear
d r o p - s h a p e d breasts o f the W o o d n e r
i d o l are u n p r e c e d e n t e d i n c l a s s i c a l
Cycladic sculpture and may, i n this
case, be t h e r e s u l t o f an e x p e r i m e n t
or an a t t e m p t to cover u p accidental
damage. W r i s t grooves, clearly incised
o n t h e K a r l s r u h e piece, are m i s s i n g
f r o m the W o o d n e r figure but m a y have
been indicated i n paint.
M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , the figures differ
i n s t r u c t u r e . T h e W o o d n e r i d o l is
s o m e w h a t t h i c k e r i n p r o f i l e t h a n the
one i n K a r l s r u h e , b u t the m o s t n o t i c e -
65

folded-arm figure. Early
Spedos variety. A namepiece of the Karlsruhe/
Woodner Master. EC II.
Although
considerably
smaller than the work illus
trated infigure 4, at pres
ent this is thefourth largest
complete figure known. It
is more refined than the,
very slightly smaller, pre
ceding work (figs. 56, 57)
carved by the same sculp
tor, who also carved the
second largest surviving
figure, which is in the
Goulandris Museum in
Athens. One must ask if
certain sculptors working
around the middle of the
third millennium B.C.
made such unusually large
works because they were
unusually ambitious. Per
haps, too, certain sculptors
felt challenged by newly
developed techniques for
quarrying large pieces of
marble.
Karlsruhe,
Badisches
Landesmuseum
75/49. L . 88.8 cm.
able d i s c r e p a n c y is i n r e l a t i v e w i d t h :
the f o r m e r has a s h o u l d e r span s l i g h t l y
m o r e t h a n t w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f its
l e n g t h , w h i l e t h e l a t t e r has a w i d t h
s l i g h t l y less t h a n t w e n t y percent. Oneq u a r t e r o f the b o d y l e n g t h was the
p r e f e r r e d r a t i o for t h e s h o u l d e r w i d t h
i n figures o f s m a l l a n d average size,
b u t m o s t sculptors r e d u c e d t h e w i d t h
to one-fifth or less for t h e i r large w o r k s
(fig. 77). A n a r r o w e r f i g u r e w o u l d have
m o r e comfortably fit the hands not
o n l y o f t h e s c u l p t o r b u t those o f bear
ers as w e l l , a n d i t w o u l d also h a v e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d its w e i g h t , an
i m p o r t a n t consideration i f the sculp
t u r e was to have b e e n c a r r i e d easily to
the gravesite. T h e W o o d n e r figure
weighs thirty-five pounds, w h i l e the
slightly longer but t h i n n e r and nar
r o w e r K a r l s r u h e piece by c o m p a r i s o n
weighs only twenty-three.
early a t t e m p t o n t h e p a r t o f t h e sculp
t o r to execute a f i g u r e o n such a g r a n d
scale. I n d o i n g so he seems s i m p l y to
have m a d e a large v e r s i o n o f t h e stan
dard figure w i t h o u t addressing the
matter of increased b u l k and w e i g h t
as he d i d o n t h e K a r l s r u h e piece. T h e
t w o pieces i l l u s t r a t e d here m a y i n fact
have b e e n r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l w o r k s f o r
t h i s s c u l p t o r . A t h i r d w o r k f r o m his
hand, i n the Goulandris collection i n
A t h e n s , has a l e n g t h o f 140 c m . O f t h e
t h r e e , i t is t h e m o s t r e f i n e d a n d p r o
portionally the narrowest.
The Goulandris Master

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

f i g u r e , w h i c h is heavier, m o r e c o m
p r e s s e d i n its " v e r t i c a l " p r o p o r t i o n s ,
s o m e w h a t less c a r e f u l l y m o d e l e d ,
and m o r e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l than the
K a r l s r u h e i m a g e , was the earlier o f
t h e t w o w o r k s . H o w m u c h so one can
n o t say. I t m a y have b e e n a r e l a t i v e l y
66
ures i n an u n u s u a l l y w i d e range o f
sizes. T h e smallest measures about six
a n d a h a l f inches (16.5 c m ) , w h i l e his
largest k n o w n w o r k , o f w h i c h o n l y the
h e a d s u r v i v e s , was n e a r l y six t i m e s
as b i g . T h e l a r g e f i g u r e s t e n d to be
m o r e a m b i t i o u s l y conceived t h a n the
s m a l l e r ones: t h e y are p l a n n e d m o r e
accurately a c c o r d i n g to t h e s t a n d a r d
four-part plan (fig. 46&); they exhibit
m o r e p r o n o u n c e d m o d e l i n g of the
arms; the contours of the a b d o m e n
and thighs curve m o r e strongly; the
f o r e a r m s are s o m e t i m e s separated by
a clear space; a n d t h e f i n g e r s are
sometimes incised. Because the
s m a l l e r pieces ( 1 6 . 5 - 4 0 c m ) t e n d to
be t h i c k e r i n p r o f i l e , s t r a i g h t e r i n out
l i n e contour, a n d l a c k i n g i n u n u s u a l
e m b e l l i s h m e n t , they s h o u l d g e n e r a l l y
be r e g a r d e d as p r o d u c t s o f a n e a r l y
phase o f t h e G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r ' s de
v e l o p m e n t (figs. 60, 61, 68). T h e
g r e a t e r care l a v i s h e d o n t h e l a r g e r
f i g u r e s (55 c m o r m o r e ) a n d t h e i r
g r e a t e r r e f i n e m e n t p o i n t to a m a t u r e
phase o f the sculptor's career (figs.
6 4 - 6 7 ) . To a m i d d l e phase m i g h t be
assigned a n u m b e r o f w e l l - b a l a n c e d ,
carefully e x e c u t e d w o r k s o f substan-
very finest. I t can be a s s u m e d t h a t he

enjoyed considerable p o p u l a r i t y and
i n f l u e n c e i n his o w n t i m e , to j u d g e
f r o m b o t h the q u a l i t y o f his w o r k s a n d
t h e i r w i d e d i s t r i b u t i o n : his figures
have b e e n f o u n d o n N a x o s , Keros,
and, apparently, on A m o r g o s .
A l t h o u g h by n o m e a n s exact r e p r o
d u c t i o n s o f one another, each o f t h e
G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r ' s w o r k s is easily
i d e n t i f i a b l e as t h e p r o d u c t o f a single
h a n d (figs. 6 0 - 6 9 ) . S o m e features o f
his p e r s o n a l s i g n a t u r e are a l o n g ,
s e m i c o n i c a l nose on a l o n g , lyres h a p e d face w i t h p a i n t e d d e c o r a t i o n
(figs. 39, 4 0 ) ; m a r k e d l y s l o p i n g s h o u l
d e r s ; precise p a r a l l e l i n c i s i o n s c u r v
i n g g e n t l y at t h e n e c k , a b d o m e n ,
knees, and ankles; an u n p e r f o r a t e d
leg cleft; and a r o u n d e d back, nor
mally w i t h o u t the usual grooved
spine. Other repeated elements of
t h i s m a s t e r ' s style are n o t as easy to
describe i n w o r d s . So d i s t i n c t i v e is the
G o u l a n d r i s Master's style, however,
that i t is possible to recognize his h a n d
even i n a s m a l l f r a g m e n t a n d , w i t h
s o m e c o n f i d e n c e , to r e c o n s t r u c t f r o m
it a w h o l e figure.
T h e G o u l a n d r i s M a s t e r carved f i g
67

Spedos variety. A work of
the Goulandris Master.
EC I I .
Afigure of above-average
size for the Spedos variety
as a whole but rather small
for the Goulandris
Master,
the work, which belonged
to the Keros hoard, was
reassembled from three
fragments. The shortness

of the calves,
theforearms
rendered almost solely
by incision, and the
straightness of the abdomi
nal groove, considered
together with
thefigure's
modest size, are indica
tions that it belonged to
an immature phase of the
sculptor's artistic develop
ment. San Francisco, The
Fine Arts Museums of San
Francisco 1981.42, Willie

H. Nobel Bequest Fund.
L . 33.4 cm.
68

EC I I .
On the basis of its delicate
head and nose and better
proportions, thisfigure is
more advanced than the
preceding one (figs. 60,
61), but the lack of mod
eling of the forearms
suggests that it is not as
developed as the next two

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

EC ii.
The large size, carefully
modeled and separated
forearms, and
harmonious
proportions indicate a
mature phase of the sculp
tors development.
Bloomington,
Indiana
University Art Museum

76.25, Gift of Thomas T.
Solley. L . 60 cm..

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

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

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

carefully
carvedfigure
attributable to the
Goulandris Masters (late)
middle phase. When com
plete, the image would have
had a length of about
55-58 cm. The two frag
ments are among several
dozen pieces from this
sculptors hand belonging
to the Keros hoard (see
figs. 39, 60, 61). His work
has also beenfound in the
investigations carried out
by the Greek Archaeologi
cal Service on Keros as
well as in the cemetery of
Aplomata on Naxos.
He was most probably a
Naxian.
Head/neck:
Museum 88.AA.82 (ex
Steiner Collection). Pres.
L . 14.5 cm. Torso: Rich
mond, Virginia Museum of
Fine Arts 85.1511, Gift of
William B. Causey. Pres.
L . 18.4 cm.
Figure 69. Head and torso

of a female folded-arm
figure. Late Spedos vari
ety. From a w o r k of the
Goulandris Master. EC I I .
In January 1988, while
they were at the Virginia
Museum of Fine Arts, it
was determined that the
head (which has red dots
preserved on the cheeks
and nose) and torso (see
also fig. 53) comefrom the
70
t i a l size ( 4 0 - 6 0 c m ) w h i c h lack such

r e f i n e m e n t s as s e p a r a t e d f o r e a r m s
a n d i n c i s e d f i n g e r s (figs. 62, 63, 6 9 ) .
is observable.) O n e s h o u l d n o t e , too,
the i n d e n t e d waist and the subtle
curve o f the forearmsa convention
used to r e p r e s e n t or, i n t h i s s c u l p t o r ' s
w o r k , accentuate a pregnant c o n d i
t i o n . T h e s e a n d o t h e r s h a r e d features
d e f i n e t h e p a r t i c u l a r style o f t h e A s h
molean Master, a sculptor n a m e d for
the h o m e o f his largest k n o w n f i g u r e .
The Ashmolean Master

T h e h a n d o f a t h i r d s c u l p t o r can be
r e c o g n i z e d at p r e s e n t i n o n l y f o u r
c o m p l e t e w o r k s . I n his p r i m e also an
e x c e l l e n t a r t i s t , he c o m e s s o m e w h a t
later i n the sequence o f f o l d e d - a r m
figures t h a n t h e K a r l s r u h e / W o o d n e r
and Goulandris Masters. A t first
glanceespecially i f seen i n actual
sizethe t h r e e f i g u r e s (figs. 7 0 - 7 5 )
a p p e a r s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s s i m i l a r to one
another, a n d one m a y w e l l w o n d e r
h o w t h e y can be ascribed to t h e same
h a n d . B u t i f t h e y are l i n e d u p side by
side i n o r d e r o f i n c r e a s i n g size a n d
s t u d i e d closely, one soon sees t h a t they
a l l s h a r e c e r t a i n u n m i s t a k a b l e fea
tures. T h e s e i n c l u d e a s h i e l d - s h a p e d
face w i t h a l o n g , n a r r o w a q u i l i n e nose
originating h i g h on the forehead, a
V - s h a p e d i n c i s i o n at t h e neck, a s m a l l
pubic triangle, and, on t w o of the fig
ures, o n l y f o u r toes o n each foot. ( O n
t h e f o u r t h c o m p l e t e f i g u r e as w e l l as
o n a f r a g m e n t , t h i s same inaccuracy
T h e A s h m o l e a n Master's largest
s c u l p t u r e is t h r e e t i m e s t h e size o f the
s m a l l e s t . T h e t w o m i d d l e figures ( o f
w h i c h o n l y o n e is i l l u s t r a t e d h e r e ,
figs. 72, 73) are v e r y s i m i l a r b o t h i n
style a n d i n size, each a b o u t h a l f as
l o n g as t h e n a m e - p i e c e . A n d a g a i n ,
like the w o r k of the Goulandris M a s
ter, the s m a l l e s t f i g u r e o f the A s h
m o l e a n M a s t e r (figs. 70, 71) has a n
unrefined look when compared w i t h
the others. T h e largest f i g u r e (figs. 74,
75) differs f r o m t h e o t h e r t h r e e b o t h
i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o u r - p a r t for
m u l a a n d i n its r e l a t i v e n a r r o w n e s s .
T h i s e x a g g e r a t e d s l i m n e s s w a s , as
m e n t i o n e d above, c o m m o n i n excep
t i o n a l l y large i m a g e s .
One can see i n the w o r k s ascribed to
the A s h m o l e a n M a s t e r the p r o d u c t s o f
t h r e e separate stages i n t h e sculptor's
71
72

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

folded-arm figure.
A work of the Ashmolean
Master. EC I I .
Masterfully conceived and
executed, the work repre
sents the high point of the
sculptor's development. >
Note especially the subtle
interplay of angular and
curving contours and the
precise detail. Houston,
The Menil Collection.
L . 36.7 cm. Said to be
from Naxos.
73

folded-arm figure.
Name-piece of the
Ashmolean Master. EC I I .
On this unusually large
work, the sculptor elon
gated the legs but not the
upper part, with somewhat
ungainly results. In con
trast to his smaller works
(figs. 70-73), which are
extremely broad across the
shoulders as befits the
Dokathismata variety, this
figure is narrow through
the shoulders, with the
result that its upper arms
have a straight contour
in contrast to the inward,
slanting contour of the two
preceding figures. (Note
that the mending of a break
has obliterated the original
ankle incisions.)
Oxford,
Ashmolean
Museum
AE.176.L.
75.9 cm.
Said to be from
Amorgos.
d e v e l o p m e n t , w i t h the smallest r e p r e
s e n t i n g a n e a r l y phase, t h e largest a n
i n t e r m e d i a t e phase, and the m i d
sized w o r k s a late o r m a t u r e phase.
D e s p i t e its great size ( i t is t h e largest
k n o w n example of the Dokathismata
variety), the name-piece should prob
ably be assigned to a m i d d l e phase,
because o f its r a t h e r u n b a l a n c e d p r o
p o r t i o n s a n d because i t shares w i t h
the s m a l l f i g u r e a closely s i m i l a r treat
m e n t o f t h e rear, o n w h i c h , f o r e x a m
p l e , t h e i n c i s i o n s m a r k i n g t h e back o f
t h e a r m s are o m i t t e d .
i n g t h e i r f o r m a t i v e years. H o w e v e r , i t
is l i k e l y t h a t t h e y f i r s t m a s t e r e d t h e i r
craft by m a k i n g r e l a t i v e l y m o d e s t f i g
ures a n d o n l y a t t e m p t e d larger, m o r e
a m b i t i o u s l y c o n c e i v e d ones l a t e r o n .
One m i g h t compare the small, al
l e g e d l y early w o r k s o f t h e G o u l a n d r i s
Master and a sculptor called the
S t e i n e r M a s t e r (figs. 60, 6 1 , 68, 76)
w i t h t h e i r larger, m o r e m a t u r e figures
(figs. 6 4 - 6 7 , 69, 7 7 ) ; t h e e a r l i e r ones
a p p e a r coarse, heavy, a n d c o m p a c t .
E v e n t h o u g h i n each case t h e basic
concept is the same, the s m a l l e r f i g u r e
is n o t as w e l l b a l a n c e d o r elegant, a n d
is, i n fact, p l a i n by c o m p a r i s o n . F o r
the Goulandris Master, the smaller
w o r k lacks t h e h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d a n d
subtle contours as w e l l as t h e separa
t i o n o f the forearms w h i c h appear i n
the larger w o r k s ; furthermore, not
e n o u g h r o o m is a l l o t t e d f o r t h e d e l i
cately i n c i s e d fingers so characteristic
o f his later w o r k . For t h e Steiner M a s
ter, the s m a l l e r f i g u r e lacks t h e grace
ful curvature o f the outline contours
a n d t h e c a r e f u l l y e l o n g a t e d effect o f
the larger w o r k . Such e m b e l l i s h m e n t s
a n d r e f i n e m e n t s do m u c h to alter a n d
e n h a n c e a f i g u r e ' s appearance.
O n e m i g h t w e l l ask w h y the smaller,

less r e f i n e d w o r k s s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d
g e n e r a l l y as e a r l i e r p r o d u c t s o f an art
ist's career, especially since i t was
p r o b a b l y n o easier, o n l y less t i m e c o n s u m i n g , t o carve a s m a l l f i g u r e . I t
is q u i t e possible t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e r ' s
r e q u i r e m e n t s , w h i c h m i g h t have b e e n
c o n t r o l l e d by e c o n o m i c considera
tions, helped determine the d i m e n
sions o f a p a r t i c u l a r piece o f s c u l p t u r e ;
t h e w e a l t h i e s t c u s t o m e r s m i g h t have
p r e f e r r e d l a r g e r f i g u r e s , t h e less
w e a l t h y s m a l l e r o n e s . I n t h i s case,
sculptors m a y n o t necessarily have
carved s m a l l i m a g e s e x c l u s i v e l y d u r
74

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

variety. Name-piece of the
Steiner Master. EC I I .
Unusually large, thefigure
is harmoniously
conceived
and masterfully
executed.
In an effort to make this
work more slender, the
sculptor elongated all parts
for a very balanced effect.
Note the graceful curvature
of the outline contours,
including that of the top of
the head, which reveals the
self-assurance of a master
at the peak of his develop
ment. Malibu, The J . Paul
Getty Museum
88.AA.80
(ex Steiner Collection).
L . 59.9 cm.
75

variety. EC I I .
A carefully fashionedfigure
especially interesting for
its surviving painted detail
(pi. Vic, d), the piece is
at present unique among
Cycladic sculpturesfor its
painted ears. A pattern of
dots is also clearly visible
on theface, and some of
the grooves retain traces of
paint as well. The treat
ment of the midsection with
an extra horizontal inci
sion is unparalleled.
Museum 88.AA. 79 (ex
Steiner
Collection).
L . 49.5 cm.
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e rare v i r t u
oso piecesthe h a r p e r s or t h e t h r e e figure groupwere surely the most
d i f f i c u l t o f a l l Cycladic sculptures to
carve, p a r t l y because o f t h e i r s m a l l
size. T h e y m u s t have b e e n m a d e by
sculptors w h o h a d p o l i s h e d t h e i r skills
by m a k i n g t h e u s u a l f o l d e d - a r m f i g
ures. T h e s e sculptors w o u l d have at
t e m p t e d the m u c h more d e m a n d i n g
f i g u r e types o n l y after they h a d devel
o p e d t h e i r techniques a n d h o n e d t h e i r
styles. E v e n t h e n , i n t h e absence o f
such m o d e r n aids as sketchbooks a n d
plasticene or plaster m o d e l s , t h e i r
first attempts m u s t have been less suc
cessful t h a n t h e i r l a t e r ones. S o m e
t h i n g o f t h e p r o g r e s s f r o m p i e c e to
piece m a y be sensed i n a p a i r o f h a r p
ers said to have been f o u n d t o g e t h e r
a n d e v i d e n t l y d e s i g n e d as c o m p a n i o n
pieces (figs. 25, 4 7 ) . I n g e n e r a l , t h e
s m a l l e r f i g u r e is t h e m o r e c a r e f u l l y
executed o f t h e t w o ; i t is also c o n s i d
erably freer a n d m o r e r e l a x e d i n a t t i
t u d e . I t w o u l d appear t h a t i n t h i s case
the s m a l l e r figure was carved after the
l a r g e r one a n d t h a t i t b e n e f i t e d f r o m
t h e e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d by t h e s c u l p t o r
d u r i n g the m a k i n g o f t h e first v e r s i o n .
76
Figure 79. Harp player.

Early Spedos variety style.
ECU.
From thefront the musi
cian closely resembles
contemporaneous
female
folded-armfigures.
Note
the absence of genitalia,
difficult to render on a
seatedfigure and present
on only three of the ten
harpists now known. See
also plate IVh.
a p o s s i b i l i t y . H o w e v e r , i n the absence
of a n u m b e r of folded-arm figures
d e f i n i t e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the s c u l p t o r
o f this harper, one can o n l y speculate
about his a r t i s t i c career, the apex o f
w h i c h this masterpiece must surely
represent.
Since b o t h w o r k s reveal a h a n d p r o f i
cient i n the r e n d e r i n g o f this d i f f i c u l t
figure type, one m u s t also assume that
these are n o t the first harpists carved
by this sculptor.
F i n a l l y , one m i g h t consider the
h a r p p l a y e r i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 79
(see a l s o p i . \vb, f i g s . 2 4 , 2 5 , a n d
cover). A s c u l p t u r e t h a t goes w e l l be
y o n d m e r e t e c h n i c a l v i r t u o s i t y , i t is
r e m a r k a b l e for the h a r m o n y o f its sub
t l y c u r v i n g f o r m s a n d f o r t h e excel
lence o f its w o r k m a n s h i p and surface
f i n i s h . C l e a r l y such a w e l l - b a l a n c e d
w o r k m u s t have b e e n p l a n n e d w i t h
diligence and precision. T h e m o s t i m
p o r t a n t side, as i n all the h a r p e r s , is
the r i g h t one; b u t the o t h e r t h r e e are
also w e l l c o n c e i v e d . O n e can easily
a p p r e c i a t e the s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o f the
d o m i n a n t f o l d e d - a r m t y p e , especially
i n the t r e a t m e n t o f t h e legs w h i c h are
j o i n e d by a m e m b r a n e o f m a r b l e per
forated b e t w e e n the calves. A l t h o u g h
at present no o t h e r w o r k s by the same
h a n d can be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h c o n f i
dencethe a t t r i b u t i o n to one sculptor
o f f i g u r e s e x e c u t e d i n d i f f e r e n t pos
tures b e i n g e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t t h e
piece i l l u s t r a t e d i n figure 78 is at least
77
T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Figures
M a r b l e sculptures have been f o u n d o n

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

fact t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y o f these m a r b l e s
rivals the n u m b e r found on all the
o t h e r Cyclades c o m b i n e d , one m u s t
w o n d e r i f Keros d i d n o t enjoy a spe
cial status, e i t h e r as a t r a d i n g s t a t i o n
at t h e crossroads o f A e g e a n s h i p p i n g
routes, a n d / o r as a large o p e n - a i r p a n ( o r s o u t h e r n ) C y c l a d i c sanctuarya
p r e h i s t o r i c D e l o s as i t w e r e . As one
approaches Keros f r o m t h e w e s t , t h e
i s l a n d has the u n m i s t a k a b l e silhouette
of a giant pregnant reclining figure, a
fact t h a t w o u l d have been m a d e m u c h
o f by t h e early Cycladians, a n d i n d e e d
m a y have p r o m p t e d t h e m to conse
crate t h e place. W h a t e v e r t h e e x p l a
n a t i o n , i t seems h i g h l y u n l i k e l y i n any
case t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e objects
found on Keros were actually made
t h e r e by l o c a l c a r v e r s . I t s e e m s f a r
m o r e p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e y w o u l d have
been b r o u g h t there by people f r o m
n e i g h b o r i n g islands, chiefly Naxos.
L i t e r a l l y h u n d r e d s o f vases a n d f i g
ures o f t h e second phase o f t h e E a r l y
Cycladic c u l t u r e , m o s t l y f r a g m e n t a r y ,
have been recovered o n t h e s o u t h w e s t
coast o f K e r o s at an e x t e n d e d site t h a t
appears n o t to have b e e n a s e t t l e m e n t
o r a c e m e t e r y , at least n o t an o r d i n a r y
one. Nevertheless, w i t h the possible
e x c e p t i o n o f one vessel t y p e , a l l t h e
objects f o u n d t h e r e by archaeologists
o r t h o u g h t w i t h g o o d reason to have
b e e n f o u n d t h e r e by o t h e r s b e l o n g to
t h e t y p e s n o r m a l l y r e c o v e r e d else
w h e r e i n graves (figs. 18, 53, 60, 6 9 ) .
78
Beyond the Cyclades
T h e c a r v i n g o f small-scale h u m a n f i g
ures i n m a r b l e , l i m e s t o n e , o r alabas
t e r was w i d e s p r e a d over t h e greater
M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d N e a r East d u r i n g
t h e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . a n d even
earlier. Particularly strong traditions
f l o u r i s h e d i n A n a t o l i a (figs. 83, 84)
a n d i n S a r d i n i a , w i t h n u m e r o u s sur
viving examples, w h i l e occasional
pieces have been u n e a r t h e d i n C y p r u s
(figs. 8 0 - 8 2 ) , Persia, a n d t h e B a l k a n s ,
to n a m e o n l y a f e w places. W i t h few
e x c e p t i o n s , t h e f e m a l e f o r m is d e
picted, usually i n a schematic or
highly stylized manner.
T h e r e is n o concrete evidence t h a t
t h e C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r a l t r a d i t i o n was
d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by o r e x e r t e d a
d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o n the t r a d i t i o n o f any
of the contemporaneous nearby cul
tures except those o f Early M i n o a n
Crete and Early H e l l a d i c Greece,
w h e r e i t was c l e a r l y i m i t a t e d . A f e w
examples of Early Cycladic sculpture
also f o u n d t h e i r w a y to t h e coast o f
Asia M i n o r but apparently w e n t no
f a r t h e r east. T h e E a r l y B r o n z e A g e
levels o f t h e Cyclades are s t r i k i n g l y
free o f n o n p e r i s h a b l e i t e m s f r o m
o t h e r l a n d s : a s i n g l e s t a m p seal f r o m
N o r t h Syria ( w h i c h may, however,

o n l y be based o n N o r t h S y r i a n m o d
els) a n d one o r t w o s c h e m a t i c A n a
t o l i a n - t y p e idols allegedly f o u n d i n the
Cyclades c o n s t i t u t e t h e s u m t o t a l o f
possible a r t i s t i c i m p o r t s to t h e islands
at t h i s t i m e .
I t is h i g h l y u n l i k e l y , m o r e o v e r ,
that the sculptors themselves t r a v e l e d
beyond t h e i r o w n cultural spheres,
i f i n d e e d they even v e n t u r e d m u c h
b e y o n d t h e i r o w n o r n e i g h b o r i n g is
l a n d s . W h a t e v e r t h e traffic i n p e r i s h
able goods a n d r a w m a t e r i a l s m i g h t
have b e e n i n t h e A e g e a n d u r i n g t h e
t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . , artists of the
p e r i o d p r o b a b l y spent m u c h or m o s t
o f t h e i r t i m e i n v o l v e d i n subsistence
farming and herding. T h e i r relative
i s o l a t i o n q u i t e l i t e r a l l y w o u l d have
insulated t h e m from outside influ
ences a n d w o u l d have h a d t h e effect
of strengthening and formalizing their
o w n t r a d i t i o n s . I n a s m u c h as sculptors
t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e g i o n w e r e engaged
i n s e e k i n g s o l u t i o n s to s i m i l a r p r o b
lems and i n fulfilling similar cultural
needs, i t s h o u l d c o m e as n o s u r p r i s e
that the results of t h e i r endeavors
occasionally a p p e a r s i m i l a r .
79
80
Cycladic sculpture probably dif

fered f r o m contemporaneous sculp
t u r e o f o t h e r l a n d s less i n m e a n i n g
than i n the tenacity w i t h w h i c h the
artists followed r i g i d standards of
f o r m a n d beauty. W i t h i n t h i s precise
d e s i g n f r a m e w o r k , C y c l a d i c sculptors
achieved superb t e c h n i c a l m a s t e r y o f
the m a r b l e , and i n t h e best e x a m p l e s
of the classical phase t h e i r figures
reflect a h a r m o n y o f p r o p o r t i o n a n d a
balance o f f o r m a n d c o n t o u r t h a t is
rarely matched elsewhere i n prehis
t o r i c a r t . A d h e r e n c e to s u c h s t r o n g
aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s by Cycladic sculp
tors makes t h e i r figures especially
a p p e a l i n g as a g r o u p a n d also n a t u
r a l l y e n c o u r a g e s one to t h i n k ahead
t w o m i l l e n n i a to t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f
A r c h a i c G r e e k sculptors, w h o s e basic
ideals, f o r m u l a i c a p p r o a c h , a n d r i g o r
ous m e t h o d s o f c o n t r o l l i n g t h e same
f r a c t i o u s m e d i u m w e r e n o t so v e r y
d i f f e r e n t after a l l , h o w e v e r f o r t u i
tously, f r o m those o f these earliest
m a r b l e artists.
81
Figures 80-82. Female

figure of chalk limestone.
Cruciform type. Cypriote
M i d d l e Chalcolithic.
An unusually large and
masterful work, the piece is
remarkable for its sculp
tor^' keen understanding
of simple yet forceful
prin
ciples of design. In that
sense, though not in the
specific form
orformula
used, he bears to the
Cycladic sculptor the same
fortuitous affinity that the
Cycladic artists bear to the
sculptors of the Archaic
kouroi. Malibu, The J . Paul
Getty Museum
83.AA.3S.
H. 39.5cm.

figure of marble. Kilia type.
Anatolian Chalcolithic.
An excellent example of a
type of figure often com
pared with Cycladic sculp
ture. Many fragments and
a number of complete Kilia
figures are known, includ
ing a diminutive one in
electrum. With their bul
bous heads
andflipperlike
arms, they actually bear
very little resemblance to
Cycladicfigures,
which,
apparently, they antedate.
Museum
88.AA.122.
H. 14.2 cm.
82
M a j o r Collections of Early Cycladic Sculpture

(Including Stone Vases)
ISRAEL
DENMARK
Israel M u s e u m (Jerusalem)
Antiksamlingen, Nationalmuseet
(Copenhagen)
SWITZERLAND
M u s e e B a r b i e r - M u e l l e r (Geneva)
ENGLAND
Fitzwilliam M u s e u m (Cambridge)
British Museum (London)
Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts
(Norwich)
Ashmolean M u s e u m (Oxford)
U N I T E D STATES
J. Paul G e t t y M u s e u m ( M a l i b u )
Metropolitan M u s e u m of A r t
( N e w York)
M e n i l Collection (Houston)
FRANCE
M u s e e d u L o u v r e (Paris)
GERMANY
Staatliche M u s e e n ,
Antikensammlung (Berlin)
Staatliche K u n s t s a m m l u n g e n ,
Skulpturensammlung (Dresden)
Badisches L a n d e s m u s e u m
(Karlsruhe)
Staatliche A n t i k e n s a m m l u n g
(Munich)
Note: Smaller collections or i n d i v i d u a l

pieces of some importance are to be found
i n many American museums, i n c l u d i n g
Indiana University A r t Museum (Bloomington); Museum of Fine Arts (Boston);
B r o o k l y n M u s e u m ; Fogg A r t M u s e u m ,
Harvard University (Cambridge); Cin
cinnati A r t M u s e u m ; M u s e u m of A r t
and Archaeology, University of Missouri
( C o l u m b i a ) ; Des M o i n e s A r t C e n t e r ;
Kimbell A r t Museum (Fort W o r t h ) ; Yale
Art Gallery, Yale University (New Haven);
V i r g i n i a M u s e u m of Fine A r t s ( R i c h
m o n d ) ; and Seattle A r t M u s e u m .
GREECE
National Archaeological M u s e u m
(Athens)
Paul C a n e l l o p o u l o s M u s e u m
(Athens)
M u s e u m o f Cycladic and A n c i e n t
G r e e k A r t , N i c h o l a s P. G o u l a n d r i s
Foundation (Athens)
Archaeological M u s e u m (Naxos)
83
Selected Bibliography
Barber, R. L . N . The Cyclades

Bronze Age. Iowa City, 1987.
G e t z - P r e z i o s i , P. " A n E a r l y C y c l a d i c
S c u l p t o r . " Antike Kunst 18 (1975),
pp. 47-50.
in the
Doumas, C. The TV. P. Goulandris Collec

tion of Cycladic Art. Athens, 1968.
. "Five Sculptors i n the Goulandris

Collection." I n Cycladica, pp. 48-71. See
Fitton, 1984.
__. Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture

and Pottery from the TV. P. Goulandris
Collection. L o n d o n , 1983. ( A l t h o u g h
a number of museums have published
similar versions of this catalogue [e.g.,
the National Gallery of Art, Washington,
D . C , 1970], this is the most inclusive
and also benefits from an introduction
by C. Renfrew.)
_ _ . "The 'Keros H o a r d ' : Introduc

t i o n to an Early Cycladic Enigma." I n
D . Metzler and B. Otto, eds., Antidoron
Jiirgen Thimme, pp. 26-44. Karlsruhe,
1982.
"The Male Figure i n Early
Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu
seum Journal \5 (1980), pp. 5-35.
. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits

in the Cyclades. Studies i n Mediterra
nean Archaeology 48 (1977).
_. " N i n e Fragments of Early Cy

cladic Sculpture i n Southern Califor
nia." The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal
12 (1984), pp. 5-20 (a discussion of the
pieces illustrated i n fig. 53).
F i t t o n , J. L . , ed. Cycladica: Studies in

Memory ofN. P. Goulandris. Proceed
ings of the Seventh B r i t i s h M u s e u m
Classical Coloquium, June 1983. L o n
don, 1984.
"Risk and Repair i n Early

Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu
seum Journal 16 (1981), pp. 5-32.
"Perditus and Pedita: Two Draw

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

vidual and Tradition in the Third Mil
lennium B.C. A n n Arbor, 1987.
. Cycladic Art. London, 1989.

Getz-Gentle, P. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades
in the Early Bronze Age. Forthcoming.
84
. The Obsidian Trail, or 5000A000

Years Ago in the Cyclades. Athens, 1987.
. "Speculations on the Use of Early

Cycladic Sculpture." I n Cycladica, pp.
24-30. S ^ F i t t o n , 1984.
. Early Cycladic Art in North

American Collections. Richmond, Vir
ginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1987 (with
essays by J. L . Davis and E. Oustinoff).
_. The Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces

from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collec
tion.^^York,
1991.
Getz-Preziosi, P., and W e i n b e r g , S. S.

"Evidence for Painted Details i n Early
Cycladic Sculpture." Antike Kunst 13
(1970), pp. 4-12.
T h i m m e . J., ed. Art and Culture of the

Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C.
Chicago, 1977.
Havelock, C. M . "Cycladic Sculpture: A

Prelude to Greek A r t ? "
Archaeology
(July/August 1981), pp. 29-36.
Zervos, C. LArt des Cyclades du debut a

lafin de Page du bronze. Paris, 1957.
M a r a n g o u , L . , ed. Cycladic
Culture:
Naxos in the Third Millennium
B.C.
Athens, 1990.
Oustinoff, E. "The Manufacture of Cy
cladic Figurines: A Practical Approach."
In Cycladica, pp. 38-47. &a?Fitton, 1984.
Papathanassopoulos, G. Neolithic
and
Cycladic Civilization. Athens, 1981.
Preziosi, P. G., and Weinberg, S. S. See
Getz-Preziosi and Weinberg, 1970.
Renfrew, C. " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t and
Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figu
rines." American Journal of Archaeol
ogy73 (1969), pp. 1-32.
. The Emergence of
Civilisation:
The Cyclades and the Aegean in the
Third Millennium B.C. London, 1972.
85
Photo Credits
Project staff (first edition):
Roger Asselberghs, figs. 4, 34

Curtis D . Bean, figs. 72, 73
Gad Borel-Boissonnas, p i . i n b
Scott Bowron, fig. 20
British M u s e u m , figs. 27, 35, 66, 67
Prudence C u m i n g Associates, fig. 61
Pierre-Alain Ferrazzini, p i . va
Seth Joel, fig. 25
Editor: Sandra Knudsen M o r g a n

Designer: David A r t h u r Hadlock
Illustrator: Martha Breen Bredemeyer
Copyeditors: Susan Gallick and Carol Leyba
Photograph Editor: Elizabeth Chapin Burke
Production Coordinator: Karen Schmidt
Werner Mohrbach, figs. 24, 30-32, 58, 59

Otto Nelson, figs. 8, 23, 41, p i . via, b
Elizabeth Oustinoff, fig. 43
John Patrikianos, fig. 28
Ken Strothman and Harvey Osterhoudt, figs. 64, 65
Sarah Wells, figs. 37, 49, 56, 57, p i . vb
D i e t r i c h W i d m e r , figs. 62, 63
Reproductions are by permission

of the owners of the original works.
86
Project staff (revised edition):

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

Revised Sculpture

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Revised Sculpture

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Early Cycladic Sculpture

Early Cycladic Sculpture

The J. Paul Getty M u s e u m

1994 The J. Paul Getty M u s e u m

Cover: Early Spedos variety style

The Figurative Sculpture

The Formulaic Tradition

The Individual Sculptor

The Karlsruhe/Woodner Master

The Goulandris Master

The Ashmolean Master

This page intentionally left blank

Since the i n i t i a l p u b l i c a t i o n o f Early

A l t h o u g h there have been a n u m b e r

T h i s b o o k was w r i t t e n at the sugges

(The National M u s e u m of Western

*The term idol is accurate i f by it no more

such artists as Picasso a n d B r a n c u s i ,

m a t i o n o f this sort c o u l d p r o v i d e clues

their funerals. T h e y should perhaps

a. The collared jar or

b. The beaker is another of

image. In size beakers

the rare varia

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

la) are several consisting

shows traces of red. paint

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

tion, as does the bored

Plate i n . Female two-figure composition.

Precanonical type. EC I///.

to the late transitional

Plate iv. Two harp players.

b. Early Spedos variety

Plate v. Heads of four figures.

a. Plastiras type. A work

b. Detail of work illustrated

c. Spedos variety. EC II.

rather unusual striated

Plate v i . Painted details.

a. Detail of work illustrated

b. Detail of work illustrated

d. Detail of work illustrated,

c. Detail of work illustrated

This page intentionally left blank

The Stone Vases

Figure 2. Female foldedarm figure (Early Spedos

Early Cycladic sculptors probably

Figure 3. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos/

Figure 4. Female foldedarm figure. Early Spedos

face. Breaks at the neck

the work was carved by a

Figure 5. Female foldedarm figure. Late Spedos

Figure 6. Female figure.

tour of the arms reflects the

front to indicate postparturn wrinkles or possibly

Figure 7. Female figures.

although in one or two

carved by the same sculp

schematic and representa

9). For t h e i r m o r e representational

Figure 9. Female figure.

head of thefigure would

Figure 10. Female figure.