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
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.
94-16753
CIP
Contents

vii Foreword

x Preface

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

1 Introduction

6 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
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
vii
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 .
Pat Getz-Preziosi's 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
viii
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 -
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 A l t h o u g h there have been a n u m b e r

Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction, 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
the J. Paul G e t t y M u s e u m , u n d e r the years since t h i s b o o k f i r s t a p p e a r e d ,
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 our understanding of the fundamen­
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 ­ tals o f Early Cycladic sculpture remains
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 basically u n a l t e r e d . As a r e f l e c t i o n o f
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 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
acquisition of a n u m b e r of impressive 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,
w o r k s . Coincidentally, the o r i g i n a l 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 .
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 Pat Getz-Preziosi
i n g a piece f r o m t h e h a n d o f one o f A p r i l 1994
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 ) .

X
Preface to First E d i t i o n
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
r
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.
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
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
(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
O v e r a c e n t u r y ago E u r o p e a n t r a v e l ­
ers b e g a n to e x p l o r e t h e m o r e t h a n
t h i r t y s m a l l i s l a n d s t h a t l i e at t h e
center o f t h e A e g e a n Sea ( f i g . 1). W e
k n o w these i s l a n d s by t h e h i s t o r i c a l
Greek name of some of them—the
Cyclades—so called because they w e r e
t h o u g h t to e n c i r c l e t i n y D e l o s , sacred
b i r t h p l a c e o f t h e gods A r t e m i s a n d
A p o l l o . A m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e n a m e for
these rocky s u m m i t s o f s u b m e r g e d
m o u n t a i n s m i g h t have been " T h e
M a r b l e Isles" or M a r m a r i n a i ; for
m a n y , i f n o t m o s t , o f t h e m are excel­
l e n t sources o f t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t was
to s p a r k t h e c r e a t i v e i m p u l s e s a n d
c h a l l e n g e t h e energies o f sculptors i n
both prehistoric and historic times.
N i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y travelers to the
Cyclades b r o u g h t h o m e a n u m b e r o f
" c u r i o u s " m a r b l e f i g u r i n e s , o r sigil-
laria, 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.
1
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
*The term idol is accurate i f by it no more
is meant than "image," as in the ancient
Greek eidolon.
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.

2
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
1
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 .
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.
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 ­
4
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.
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
their funerals. T h e y should perhaps by w h o m . W h a t follows, t h e n , is a sur­
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 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
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 Early Cycladic sculpture, i n a d d i t i o n ,
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 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
d i s p l a y e d i n the h o m e , but w h o s e u l ­ is possible to isolate the w o r k s o f i n d i ­
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 v i d u a l sculptors and to speculate about
serve i n the grave as p o t e n t s y m b o l s 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
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 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
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 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 .
persist i n t h e b e y o n d . R e a f f i r m a t i o n
of the v i t a l i t y o f life a n d the senses,
m o r e o v e r , m a y have b e e n t h e s y m ­
b o l i c p u r p o s e o f the occasional m a l e
figure—music maker, w i n e offerer,
h u n t e r / w a r r i o r . I n the absence of
w r i t t e n records, one w i l l never be able
to achieve a c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
such i n t a n g i b l e m a t t e r s as b u r i a l r i t ­
ual or the f u l l m e a n i n g o f t h e i m a g e s .
Such are t h e l i m i t s o f archaeology.
A great deal can be l e a r n e d , never­
theless, a b o u t E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p ­
ture f r o m a p r i m a r i l y visual approach
w h i c h focuses less o n t h e i n t r i g u i n g
but, i n the present state o f k n o w l e d g e ,
difficult questions c o n c e r n i n g w h y f i g ­
ures w e r e carved, for w h o m they w e r e
i n t e n d e d , or even precisely w h e n they
w e r e m a d e , a n d m o r e o n t h e ques­
t i o n s o f h o w they w e r e d e s i g n e d a n d

5
Plate i . Four Early Cycladic marble vases i n the J. Paul Getty Museum.

a. The collared jar or b. The beaker is another of image. In size beakers

kandila (lamp) was the a limited range of marble rangefrom 7.5 cm to
most common marble forms of the EC I phase. 35 cm. Malibu, The J . Paul
object produced in the EC I Eidless like the collared Getty Museum 90.AA.10.
phase. Several hundred of jar, it was also designed H. 16 cm.
these vessels are known. for suspension and was
Eidless, they were carried probably intended as a
suspendedfrom cords and containerfor liquids, but
were probably designed to it occurs much less fre­
hold liquids, although one quently. In rare cases a
wasfound containing female torso is represented
shells. In size kandiles on one side of the vessel
rangefrom 8.4 cm to (with the suspension lugs
37 cm. Malibu, The J . Paul doubling as upper arms),
Getty Museum 90.AA.9. reinforcing the notion that
H. 25.2 cm. the vessel was symbolically
interchangeable with the
plastically sculptedfemale

6
c. Among the rare varia­
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.
7
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 soap-
stone, 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
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. tion, as does the bored

Simpler than most exam­ navel (cf. fig. 13c). Note
ples of its type, this modest how the legs were carved
work is unusual in that it separately for only a short
lacks any definition of the distance. The modeling and
forearms. The mending attempted naturalism, of
hole in the right thigh was theforearms and hands
a remedy for damage reflect a short-lived
incurred perhaps when the approach taken by some
sculptor was in the process sculptors of precanonical
of separating the legs. If figures (cf. pi. III). The
this was the case, he may figure was acquired by the
have thought it best not to J . Paul Getty Museum in.
continue separating them two parts: the headless idol
asfar as the crotch. A came to the museum in
break across the left thigh 1972, having been obtained
probably occurred at a many years earlier in the
much later time. Malibu, Paris flea, market. In 1977,
The J . Paul Getty Museum during a visit to a Euro­
71.AA.128.H. 14.2 cm. pean antiquities dealer, J .
See also figure 13d. Frel identified the head/
neck as belonging to the
same work. Malibu, The
b. Precanonical type. EC J . Paul Getty Museum
I/II. Although one can see 72.AA.156/77.AA.24.
in this figure a tentative H. 28.2 cm.
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///. to the late transitional

Probably the earliest and stage. Typologically, at
also the largest of the three least, it appears somewhat
well-preserved and unques­ later than the figure illus­
tionably genuine examples trated in plate lib. New
of this type known to the York, Shelby White and
writer, the piece is interest­ Leon Levy Collection.
ingfor a number of rea­ H. 46.6 cm.
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
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,
The J . Paul Getty Museum
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 b. Detail of work illustrated

of the Athens Museum infigure 56, showing paint
Master. EC I. One of four ghostsfor eyes, brows, and
works ascribed to this forehead hair.
sculptor. Note that the right
eye inlay is preserved.
Geneva, Musee Barbier-
MuellerBMG 209-59.
Pres. H. 13.6 cm.

12
 c. Spedos variety. EC II.
A typical head on which
faint paint ghosts are
visible for the eyes and
forehead hair. Malibu, The
J . Paul Getty Museum
11.AA.125.
Pres. E. 8.9 cm.
13
d. Dokathismata variety. rather unusual striated
EC II. In contrast to the marble. Malibu, The
rather conservative form J.Paul Getty Museum
of the Spedos variety head 71.AA.126. Pres.L. 8.6 cm.
(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
Plate v i . Painted details.

a. Detail of work illustrated b. Detail of work illustrated

infigure 41, showing infigure 41, showing paint­
painted details on theface ing on the hands. Note also
and a painted necklace. the modeling of the breasts
See alsofigure 42. and arms.

14
c. Detail of work illustrated d. Detail of work illustrated,
in figure 78, showing paint­ in figure 78, showing the
ing on theface and in the painted ear and neck
neck groove. grooves.

15
This page intentionally left blank
The Stone Vases

Early Cycladic sculptors probably Figure 2. Female folded-

spent m o s t o f the t i m e t h e y d e v o t e d arm figure (Early Spedos
to t h e i r craft f a s h i o n i n g stone vases variety) w i t h trough-
( p i . i ) . I n a l l phases o f E a r l y Cycladic shaped palette. EC II.
Reputedly found together
c u l t u r e , these cups, bowls, goblets,
as shown, the two objects
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 ,
fit each other well; they are
and animal-shaped containers were carved in the same marble
far m o r e n u m e r o u s as a g r o u p t h a n and are similarly preserved.
the figures. L i k e the figures, they Although no examples have
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 beenfound in systematic
later i n t h e grave. O n occasion, t h e y excavations, the combina­
have b e e n f o u n d i n graves t h a t also tion seems a plausible one,
y i e l d e d idols, although some of the given the reclining posture
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 of thefolded-arm figures.
The rather carelessly
v i e w e d as s y m b o l s o f the w o m b a n d ,
crafted idol is of interest
as such, m a y as a r u l e have b e e n re­
chiefly for the highly unu­
g a r d e d as a p p r o p r i a t e substitutes for sual reversal of the arms
the p r e d o m i n a n t l y female images. which, except in the very
A few vessels, o n the o t h e r h a n d , ap­ late examples, are almost
pear to have been m a d e to h o l d figures without exception held in
(fig- 2)- a right-below-left arrange­
Even t h o u g h this b o o k is r e s t r i c t e d ment. Note, too, the asym­
to a discussion o f f i g u r a t i v e w o r k s , i n metry of the shoulders and
a very r e a l sense the t e r m " C y c l a d i c feet and the unequal length
of the pointed ends of the
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
palette/cradle. Jerusalem,
s o - c a l l e d i d o l s a n d these often v e r y
Israel Museum 74.61.208a,
b e a u t i f u l , t h o u g h strangely neglected,
b. L . (figure) 19.5 cm.
vessels o f m a r b l e or, i n rare cases, o f L . (palette) 20.5 cm.
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
18
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 -
 Figure 3. Female folded-
arm 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 folded-
arm 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
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.

19
Figure 5. Female folded-
arm figure. Late Spedos
variety. EC I I .
Unlike mostfigures that
are represented in a preg­
nant condition (eg.,fig.
75), this example shows a
rather advanced stage.
Athens, Museum of
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris Foundation
309. L . 15.7 cm. Said to
befrom Naxos.
d u c t i o n ( p i . i v , figs. 19, 2 3 - 2 8 , 35, 36). 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
A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f Cycladic occasional presence i n a single grave
s c u l p t u r e t h r o u g h o u t its develop­ (fig. 7). M a n y sculptors probably
m e n t , f r o m its earliest b e g i n n i n g s i n carved b o t h types, b u t t h e s c h e m a t i c
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 f i g u r i n e was doubtless the less e x p e n ­
manufacture of both a s i m p l i f i e d flat­ sive to m a k e , since i t was n o r m a l l y
tened version of the female f o r m and 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 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 flat beach pebble, thus r e q u i r i n g
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 m u c h less w o r k ; as m a n y as f o u r t e e n
varies i n a given p e r i o d , i t appears of these have b e e n f o u n d t o g e t h e r i n
n o w t h a t at least s o m e e x a m p l e s o f one grave.
b o t h types appear i n every p e r i o d , T h e f o r m s t h a t Cycladic s c u l p t u r e s
except perhaps i n the first phase o f the 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 r a n s i t i o n a l one w h e n t h e r e seems to t h e E a r l y B r o n z e A g e ( E a r l y Cycladic
have b e e n a b l e n d i n g o f the t w o types. i) appear to be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h e
T h a t one Cycladic i s l a n d e r m i g h t ac­ figures carved i n m u c h s m a l l e r n u m ­
quire both schematic and represen­ 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 postpar-
turn wrinkles or possibly
bindings. A convention
more decorative and easier
to render than the rounded
belly normally associated
with pregnancy and child-
birth, such markings are
found almost exclusively
on theflatterfigure types,
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.

a. b. c.

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
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.

21

Figure 8. Female figure.
Sitting type. Late
Neolithic.
One of two basic Late
Neolithic postural types,
the steatopygous sitting
figure with folded legs was
thefull-blown version of
and the original modelfor
theflat, schematic violin-
type figures, (e.g.,fig. 7a,
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 ,
c) already produced in
limited numbers in Late
Neolithic times. Note the
exaggerated breadth of the
upper torso necessitated
by the position of thefore­
arms. New York, Shelby
White and Leon Levy Col­
lection. H. 13.3 cm. Said
to be part of a grave group
from Attica or Euboia.
22
 Figure 9. Female figure.
Standing type. Late
Neolithic.
The standing counterpart
of the steatopygous sitting
figure, this was the proto­
typefor the earliest rep-
res entatio nalfigu res
(Plastiras type) of the EC I
phase (eg.,fig. 10). The
head of thefigure would
have resembled that of the
sitting figure in figure 8.
New York, The Metro­
politan Museum, of Art
1972.118.104, Bequest of
Walter C Baker.
Pres.H. 21.5 cm.
Figure 10. Female figure.
Plastiras type. EC I .
Typicalfeatures of the
Plastiras type seen on this
figure include hollowed,
eyes, luglike ears, a
sculpted mouth, only barely
visible because of weather­
ing of the surface, an
extremely long neck, long
incised.fingers which seem
to double as a decorative
pattern strongly reminis­
cent of postpartum wrin­
kles (e.g., figs. 6, 7), broad
hips, and legs carved sepa­
rately to the crotch. A cylin­
drical headdress or polos
is suggested by the shape
of the head, on top. This
may have been originally
more clearly indicated, with
paint. Pasadena, Norton
Simon Collection
N.75.18.3.S.A.H. 18.5 cm.
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).
stylistically a n d i c o n o g r a p h i c a l l y , i n t o Figure 12.
two distinct groups, apparently w i t h A Neolithic standing figure
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 . with hollowed eye sockets
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 ­ that presumably once held
inlays. New York, The Met­
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
ropolitan Museum of Art
sequences based o n changes t h a t oc­
LA974.77J (on loan from
curred i n Cycladic ceramics d u r i n g
Chris tos G. Bast is).
the t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m B . C . H. 20.9 cm.
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.
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
26
c. Seefigure 45a. d. See plate IIa. e. See plate /lb.
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
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 Figure 14. Female figure.
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 Louros type. EC l / l l .
a f i g u r e sustained a fracture, they also Note thefeatureless face,
used the b o r e r to m a k e rather conspic­ the long neck, and the
separately carved legs
uous holes t h r o u g h w h i c h a s t r i n g or
characteristic of the type.
leather t h o n g c o u l d be d r a w n to refas-
Evidence for the dating of
ten the b r o k e n p a r t ( p i . n<2, f i g . 4 5 ) . such idols is at present
A l t h o u g h the archaeological r e c o r d limited to one grave, no.
is u n c e r t a i n at t h i s p o i n t , i t appears 26, at Louros Athalassou
that Cycladic s c u l p t u r e n e x t entered a on Naxos, from which the
period of transition, Early Cycladic type takes its name. In that
1/II ( f i g . 11). T h e first evidence o f this grave, a group of seven
change is the a t t e m p t by sculptors to figures was found stand­
fuse the abstract a n d the representa­ ing in a niche. Malibu, The
J . Paul Getty Museum
t i o n a l approaches. I n the m o s t c o m ­
88. A A.7 7 (ex Steiner
m o n f o r m , the figures have featureless
Collection). H. 10 cm.
heads, the i n c i s i o n w o r k was k e p t to Said to befrom Naxos.
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. b.
Figure 15. Four small, crotch. Private collection.
precanonical figures H. 15.8 cm.
showing steps i n the
development of the b. Norwich, University
folded-arm position. ofEastAnglia, Sainsbury
EC I / H . Centre for Visual Arts,
P9(d).H. 9.5 cm.
a. Although the arms are
rendered in the manner of c. The arms are tentatively
the Plastiras type, the pro­ folded (cf pi. Ilh) but
portions show none of the in an unorthodox right-
exaggeration of the earlier above-left arrangement.
figures and the legs are not The legs are separated to
carved separately to the just above the knees. A
28
c. d.
mending hole for the re­ d. Although the arms are
attachment of the missing properly folded in the
leg is visible in the left canonical right-below-left
knee. Note the carved ears, arrangement, thefigure
the incised facial detail, the retains such precanonical
modeled legs, and the soles features as carved ears,
parallel to the ground, well-modeled legs separated
characteristicsfound on to the knees, and soles
most of the best pre­ appropriate to a standing
canonical examples. posture. Houston, The
Geneva, Musee Barbier- Menil Collection 73-01DJ.
MuellerBMG 202.9. H. 16.2 cm.
H. 15.9 cm.
 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 folded-
a 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
29
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.
R o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h these
t r a n s i t i o n a l figures is t h e h a r p player
in the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m of A r t .
T h i s w o r k , w i t h its a l l e g e d l y u n - C y -
cladic a r m muscles a n d t h r e e - d i m e n ­
sional t h u m b s ( p i . i v # ) , has often been
c o n d e m n e d because i t does n o t c o n ­
f o r m to w h a t has c o m e to be a r e -
 Figure 16. Female folded-
arm figure. Kapsala
variety. EC II.
An early example of the
classical or canonical
folded-arm figure. Note its
slenderness and elongated
thighs, as well as the use of
relief modelingfor details.
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
Museum 88.AA. 78 (ex
Steiner Collection).
Pres. L . 49 cm.

Figure 17. Female folded-

arm 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,
The J . Paul Getty Museum
88.AA.48.L. 30 cm.

30
stricted and circumscribed n o t i o n of
w h a t a Cycladic s c u l p t u r e s h o u l d look
l i k e . A t t u n e d as one is to the h a r m o n i ­
ously p r o p o r t i o n e d f o l d e d - a r m f i g u r e
( a n d to h a r p e r s c a r v e d i n t h e s a m e
style—pi. iv&, figs. 2 3 - 2 5 ) a n d n o t to
the l i t t l e - k n o w n or l i t t l e - a d m i r e d p r e -
c a n o n i c a l i m a g e s , i t is d i f f i c u l t f o r
s o m e to accept t h e N e w York h a r p e r
as a g e n u i n e Cycladic w o r k . W e need,
however, to s t r e t c h o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f
E a r l y C y c l a d i c s c u l p t u r e to i n c l u d e
such f o r e r u n n e r s o f the images exe­
c u t e d i n the m o r e f l u i d classical style.
I f one views t h e N e w York h a r p e r as a
fine e x a m p l e o f an essentially e x p e r i ­
mental movement, bearing i n m i n d
the bizarre Plastiras-type figures
w h i c h came before i n a d d i t i o n to con­
s i d e r i n g t h a t exaggerated p r o p o r t i o n s
a n d a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l h a d n o t yet
been e n t i r e l y s u p p l a n t e d ( p i . m ) , the
h a r p e r falls n a t u r a l l y i n t o place as the
earliest k n o w n e x a m p l e o f a rare type.
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
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).
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
 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.
32
or any e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e . Because i t
evolved gradually, i t is m o r e l i k e l y that
the r e c l i n i n g p o s t u r e was i n t r o d u c e d
by the sculptors themselves. Since the
f i g u r e s w e r e n o r m a l l y l a i d on t h e i r
backs i n the grave, the sculptors m a y
h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d be
m a d e i n a r e c l i n i n g p o s t u r e f r o m the
start. I n any case, at t h i s t i m e a n o t h e r
d i s t i n c t i o n was m a d e : t h o s e f i g u r e s
i n t e n d e d to stand w e r e f u r n i s h e d w i t h
s m a l l r e c t a n g u l a r bases (figs. 26, 3 2 ) ,
w h i l e seated figures w e r e carved w i t h
t h e i r feet parallel to the g r o u n d ( p i . i v ,
figs. 23, 24, 2 7 ) .
I n the early f o l d e d - a r m figures
(Kapsala a n d E a r l y Spedos v a r i e t i e s ) ,
t h e legs are j o i n e d by a t h i n m e m ­
b r a n e , p e r f o r a t e d f o r a s h o r t space
b e t w e e n the calves (figs. 2, 16, 55, 56).
T h i s p r a c t i c e seems to be a f u r t h e r
a t t e m p t t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e l i m b s at
v u l n e r a b l e p o i n t s . As t h e f o l d e d - a r m
figures d e v e l o p e d , however, the per­
f o r a t i o n o f t h e l e g cleft was u s u a l l y
o m i t t e d altogether ( L a t e Spedos v a r i ­
ety; figs. 3, 4 4 , 4 9 ) , n o d o u b t i n an
effort to reduce the r i s k o f fracture s t i l l
f u r t h e r . I n t h e latest a n d m o s t h a s t i l y
executed e x a m p l e s , t h e legs are sepa-
 Figure 19. Male folded-
arm figure. Dokathismata
variety. EC II.
Carved toward the end of
the period of production,
this rare male figure is
noteworthy for its plasti­
cally treated brows and
straight grooved haii~—
probably an exclusively
male hairstyle—as well as
for the separation of its
upper arms from the chest,
effected by means of oblique
cuttings. As in most exam­
ples with arm cutouts, at
least one of the upper arms
has broken off The dam­
age in this case is old, but
whether it occurred at the
time of manufacture,
shortly thereafter, or much
later cannot be determined.
It is clear, however, that
broken arms could not have
been easily reattached, for
which reason such cutouts,
however attractive, were
not often attempted. This
figure has red painted
stripes on its chest.
New York, The Metropoli­
tan Museum of Art
1972.118.103b, Bequest of
Walter C. Baker.
L . 35.9cm.

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

Figure 21. Female figure.

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 blue-
gray 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, clearly-
designed 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 Shelby White and Leon
shown plucking the strings Levy Collection. H. 20.1 cm.
with the left hand as well. and 17.4 cm. Said, to be
Differences in hand posi­ from Amorgos.
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,
 T h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e second E a r l y
Figure 24. Harp player.
C y c l a d i c phase was a t i m e o f p r o d i ­
Early Spedos variety style.
gious o u t p u t a n d o f s t a r t l i n g self-con­
EC i i .
fidence and virtuosity, analogous to See also plate ivh,
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 figure 79.
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 Figure 25. Detail of harp
stylistically slightly earlier (pis. i n , player i n figure 24.
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
i n g w o o d w i n d players (figs. 2 3 - 2 6 , Figure 26. Male figure.
p i . i v ) . O t h e r seated types i n c l u d e t h e Woodwind player type.
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 Kapsala variety style. EC II.
d a r d f o l d e d - a r m f e m a l e (figs. 27, 2 9 ) . An unusually well-pre­
A l s o i n c l u d e d are the scarce t w o - a n d served example of a very
rare type, this figure is
three-figure c o m p o s i t i o n s . I n one t w o -
presently perhaps also the
figure arrangement, a small folded
earliest one known. It is
a r m f i g u r e is carved on the h e a d o f a unusual both for its sten­
l a r g e r one ( p i . i n ) . I n another, o f derness andfor its articu­
w h i c h no c o m p l e t e e x a m p l e survives, lated ribcage. The musician
t w o f i g u r e s o f t h e same size are set plays a sandwichlike syr­
side by side c l a s p i n g each o t h e r about inx (panpipes), which in
the shoulders (figs. 30, 31). A v a r i a t i o n reality is an instrument of
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 - roughly trapezoidal shape,
f i g u r e g r o u p carved i n a single piece, though the Cycladic sculp­
in w h i c h the standing male figures tor has translated it for his
own purposes into a sym­
l i n k a r m s to s u p p o r t a seated f e m a l e
metrical form. Karlsruhe,
(fig. 52).
Badisches Landesmuseum
Nearly all the exceptionally large 64/100. H. )4 cm.
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
 Figure 27. Male figure.
Cupbearer type. Early
Spedos variety style. EC I I .
This engaging work is the
only complete example of
its type. At present only a
fragment of one other is
known. As with the harp,
the cup is held on the right
side, while the left arm is
held against the body in
the canonical folded posi­
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
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris Foundation
286. H. 15.2cm.

40
Figure 28. Fragmentary
male folded-arm figure.
Spedos variety. EC II.
The only malefigurefrom
approximately the middle
of the period not shown
engaged in a specific activ­
ity, this superbly carved
piece is also the largest
male representation now
known. It originally mea­
sured about one meter.
Because the legs are sepa­
rated, it is likely that the
image was carved with a
base, enabling it to stand
unaided (as in figs. 26,
32). Athens, Museum of
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris Foundation
969 (ex Erlenmeyer Collec­
tion). Pres. H. 42.5 cm.
Said to befrom Amorgos.
41
Figure 29. Female folded-
arm 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, three-
figure composition like the
one illustrated in figure 32.
New York, private collec­
tion. H. 19 cm.
 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 ­ Figure 32. Three-figure
m o d a t e the corpse i n a severely c o n ­ composition. Early Spedos
tracted position. variety style. EC II.
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 This is probably a recur­
o f roles observed i n males and females ring type within the
repertoire of the Cycladic
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
sculptor, but because of the
m a l e is always r e p r e s e n t e d i n a pas­
great difficulty involved,
sive a n d , i n t e r m s o f c u r r e n t b o d y no doubt the composition
language theory, a l o o f a t t i t u d e , re­ was attempted only very
gardless o f w h e t h e r she is s t a n d i n g , rarely This work is the
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 only known example. It is
single or d o u b l e d . O n the o t h e r h a n d , at least conceivable, how­
the m a l e f i g u r e is m o r e often t h a n not ever, that certain other
d e p i c t e d i n an active r o l e . I n the ear­ pieces originally belonged
l i e r p a r t o f the classical p e r i o d , as we to similar compositions
have seen, he takes t h e r o l e o f c u p ­ (e.g. Jigs. 29-31).
Ka rls ruhe, Bad is che s
bearer, m u s i c i a n , or s t r o n g m a n w h o ,
Landesmuseum 77/5 ).
L

w i t h a c o m p a n i o n , holds aloft a quietly

H. 19cm.
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 33. Fragmentary
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 Figure 34. Detail of work
haps also the work of this illustrated i n figure 4.
sculptor.) Brunswick,
Maine, Bowdoin College
Museum of Art 1982.15.4,
Bequest ofJere Abbott.
Pres.L. 28.6 cm.
44
 Figure 35. Male figure.
Hunter/warrior type.
Chalandriani variety. EC II.
Thisfigure is interesting as
an example of a rather rare
occupational type of which
it is also one of the most
detailed. Note the rather
haunting facial expression,
the carefully incised orna­
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
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris Foundation
308. L . 25 cm.

Figure 36. Male folded-

arm figure with baldric.
Chalandriani variety. EC II.
Bather poorly conceived
and carelessly executed,
thefigure is nevertheless of
interest for the manner in
which it was evidently con 1

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.

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
u

neck.

quite ordinary female folded-arm fig­ a n d o n the o t h e r figures executed i n

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

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).
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
Museum 83.AA.316.2.
Pres. L . 10.4 cm. Said to
befrom Keros.

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

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
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 -

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 . Figure 42.
vib-d), to d e f i n e o r e m p h a s i z e t h e Detail of work illustrated
p u b i c t r i a n g l e (figs. 4 1 , 56, 5 8 ) , or to in figure 41 (and pi. K/a,
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 b ) showing painted details
(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 43.
Copy of thefemalefolded-
arm 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.
50
Figure 44. Female folded-
arm figure. Late Spedos/
Chalandriani variety. EC II.
A well-madefigure of mod­
est size, the work belongs
basically to the Late Spedos
variety, but its broad shoul­
ders and upper torso and
its short midsection are
more characteristic of the
Chalandriani variety. Note
that the right arm/hand
extends all the way to the
left elbow in order to make
the rendering symmetrical.
(On the rear, the left elbow
is carved on the back of
what infront is the right
hand, again for the sake of
symmetry.) Zurich, Mr.
and Mrs. Isidor Kahane
Collection. L . 17.5 cm.
T h e Formulaic Tradition
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 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
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.
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
a. b.
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
52
seem to have g o v e r n e d the m a n n e r i n Figure 45. A comparison
w h i c h the figures w e r e d e s i g n e d , one of the designs of two
can see just w h a t i t is, besides the u n i ­ works attributed to the
f o r m t r e a t m e n t o f the a r m s or legs or Metropolitan Museum
face, t h a t m a k e s one Cycladic i d o l o f Master, a sculptor of
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 Plastiras-type figures of
the EC I phase.
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
a. Name-piece of the sculp­
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 tor. The broken right leg
evidence o f t h e f o r m u l a e o r t h e de­ was reattached in antiq­
vices used to i n s c r i b e these i n i t i a l uity, mending holes having
designs. Nevertheless, an e x a m i n a t i o n been bored through the
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 side above and below the
has revealed r e c u r r i n g patterns, m a k ­ knee. New York, The Met­
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 ropolitan Museum of Art,
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 Rogers Fund, 45.11.1$
t a i n basic aids—compass, p r o t r a c t o r , L . 21.6 cm. Seefigure 13c.
ruler—before c a r v i n g was b e g u n .
b. Thefigure has i~epair
I n the first or archaic phase, the holes through the neck
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 (sideways) as well as in
equal parts: r o u g h l y one p a r t f o r the the right thigh. Geneva,
h e a d a n d neck, one for the torso, a n d Musee Barbier-Mueller
one for the legs ( f i g . 46a). These three BMG202.75. L . 18.3 cm.
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 -
a. See figure 10. b. See figure
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
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-
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.
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
often equal to one p a r t ( f i g . 4 6 6 ) .
C o m p a s s - d r a w n arcs m a r k e d o f f t h e
shoulders, the elbows or waist, and
the knees. T h e top o f the head a n d the
e n d s o f t h e f e e t w e r e also c u r v e d ,
revealing further the influence of the
compass. Once again, w i t h i n the basic
divisions t h e r e was r o o m for v a r i a t i o n
and i n d i v i d u a l difference.
M o r e c o m p l e x w o r k s p r o d u c e d at
this t i m e seem to be m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f
t h e f o u r - p a r t scheme, w h i l e t h e v i r t u ­
oso pieces—the h a r p players, t h e cup­
bearers, a n d the t r i p l e group—seem to
have b e n e f i t e d f r o m m o r e elaborate
p l a n n i n g . T h e seated f i g u r e s , f o r ex­
a m p l e , a p p e a r to have b e e n t r e a t e d
m o r e as f o u r - s i d e d w o r k s t h a n as i n t e -
a. b.
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
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 Figure 4 8 . 'Three- and
o f e i g h t by six "squares." T h e lines o f five-part designs of the
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 late E C II phase.
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 , a. Male figure. Hunter/
warrior type. Dresden,
the e l b o w , the cup, a n d the top o f the
Staa tlich e Ku nstsa m m -
seat. A s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r o f the
lungen, Skulpturensamm-
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
lungen Zl/2595. L . 22.8
to piece; a d d i t i o n a l coincidences are cm. Said to be from
noticeable i n the w o r k s a t t r i b u t e d to Amorgos.
the same sculptors ( f i g . 4 7 ) .
O f the figures p r o d u c e d late i n the b. Female folded-arm
second phase ( D o k a t h i s m a t a and figure. Paris, Musee du
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 Louvre MA 3093. L . 27.5
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 cm. Said to befrom Naxos.
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
 a. b.

Figure 49. Female folded-

arm figure. Late Spedos
variety. A work of the
Naxos Museum Master.
EC I I .
Characteristicfeatures of
the style of this somewhat
idiosyncratic and prolific
sculptor seen on this piece
include a small, high-
placed 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 Figure 50a, b.
h a l f s e e m to have b e e n less t h o u g h t ­ The harmonic system:
angles derivedfrom a 5:
fully p l a n n e d or at least less r i g o r o u s l y
or golden, triangle (or
executed a c c o r d i n g to the o r i g i n a l
rectangle).
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
a. Seefigure 7a. b. Seefigure 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,
57
c. See figure 44. d. See figure 48b.
even t h e s i m p l e s t o n e s , a p p e a r s to Figure 51.
have b e e n t h e r e p e a t e d use o f several Harmonic angles and their
angles based o n t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e combinations used for cer­
golden triangle found frequently in tain features on the outline
b o t h art a n d n a t u r e ( f i g . 50a). Recent and for internal details.
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
the configuration illustrated i n figure 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
50b. A s k e d s i m p l y t o d r a w o n e o r sculptors w h o specialized i n carving
m o r e isosceles triangles that they i d o l s a n d vessels i n r e s p o n s e to t h e
c o n s i d e r e d "pleasant," w i t h o u t any needs o f t h e i r c o m m u n i t i e s .
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 Note: W h e n naming the individual sculp­
p r i s i n g accuracy. T h e s e same angles tors, I have chosen the easily remembered
were used i n Cycladic sculpture for name of an archaeologist who recovered,
t h e c o n t o u r s o f c e r t a i n features, such or of a museum or collection that houses,
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 one or more well-preserved examples of
t a i l s , such as t h e p u b i c " V " o r t r i a n ­ their work. A n d I have called them "mas­
ters," not to suggest that they necessarily
g l e ( f i g . 51), a n d s e r v e d as a m a j o r
produced masterpieces but to indicate that
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
they were expert and independent i n their
type.
craft, i n the sense of the term "mastoras,"
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 as applied to Greek tradesmen today.
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 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
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 Figure 52.
least occasionally to o t h e r islands. T h e "Marble John " working on
figures o f s o m e o f these artists have a gravestone made from
t u r n e d u p i n excavations at d i f f e r e n t stone hewn from the moun­
sites, a n d i n s o m e cases at sites o n tainside on the outskirts of
Apeiranthos on Naxos in
m o r e t h a n one i s l a n d (e.g., Naxos a n d
1963. The village marble
Paros; N a x o s a n d K e r o s ) . I t is possi­
carver, he learned his craft
b l e too t h a t s o m e o f these s c u l p t o r s from his father, "Marble
were itinerant craftsmen, although George. "Although the
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 marble-working tradition
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 may not have been contin­
t h e i r craft p a r t - t i m e . uous from the third millen­
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 nium B.C. to the present,
w o r k s h o p s or local schools, i t is n o w the need for such craft
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 specialists and the passing
on of the traditions from
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
father to son seem, never­
identify the w o r k s o f i n d i v i d u a l Cy­
theless, to have changed
cladic sculptors can be quite easy, since but little over the millennia.
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
 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 Museum 78.AA.407,
tors whose work is illus­ 79.AA.11, 83.AA.316.1-2,
trated here are represented 83AA.317.1-2,
among thefindsfrom Keros 83.AA.318.1, 83.AA.201.
and/or the Keros hoard, For the large piece at cen­
including the Shuster ter, seefigure 69. Pres.
(frontis.), Goulandris (figs. L.7.5A8.4cm.
39, 60-69), and Naxos
Museum (fig. 49) Masters.
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
60
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
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.
 Figure 54. Female folded- Figure 55. Female folded-
arm figure. Early Spedos arm figure. Early Spedos
variety. A work of the variety. A work of the
Copenhagen Master. EC II. Copenhagen Master. EC II.
The carefully executed and Considerably smaller and
unusually largefigure is of with a much less elongated
special interest because of torso than the preceding
its strangely truncated legs figure (fig. 54), this work
and odd, vestigialfeet nevertheless shares with it
which contrast sharply certain close similarities of
with the balanced propor­ contour and detail and
tions and attenuation seen gives one a good idea how
in the rest. This incongru­ the legs of the large image
ity most probably resulted were originally conceived.
from irreparable damage New York, Shelby White
sustained by thefigure, and Leon Levy Collection.
possibly during the carv­ L . 56.8 cm.
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
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris Foundation
257. L . 70 cm.
(As originally conceived
thefigure would have
measured about 85 cm.)

62
 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."
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
63
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.
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.
Earlier, w e l o o k e d at the t w o archaic
figures o f the M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m
Figures 56, 57. Female
folded-arm figure. Early
Spedos variety. A name-
piece 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 ­ Figures 58, 59. Female
r u h e , the basic f o r m s a n d contours are folded-arm figure. Early
very close. S i m i l a r l y executed details Spedos variety. A name-
w o r t h y o f m e n t i o n are the carved ears piece of the Karlsruhe/
a n d the shape o f the nose as w e l l as Woodner Master. EC II.
Although considerably
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
smaller than the work illus­
d i t i o n , t h e eyes a n d h a i r a r e n o w
trated infigure 4, at pres­
clearly discernible i n the f o r m of ent this is thefourth largest
p a i n t ghosts ( p i . v&, figs. 37, 3 8 ) . T h e complete figure known. It
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 is more refined than the,
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 very slightly smaller, pre­
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 ceding work (figs. 56, 57)
b l u e - p a i n t e d t r i a n g l e , as suggested by carved by the same sculp­
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 tor, who also carved the
both figures. second largest surviving
figure, which is in the
T h e m a i n difference i n d e t a i l is the
Goulandris Museum in
t r e a t m e n t o f t h e breasts: the flat tear­
Athens. One must ask if
d r o p - s h a p e d breasts o f the W o o d n e r certain sculptors working
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 around the middle of the
Cycladic sculpture and may, i n this third millennium B.C.
case, be t h e r e s u l t o f an e x p e r i m e n t made such unusually large
or an a t t e m p t to cover u p accidental works because they were
damage. W r i s t grooves, clearly incised unusually ambitious. Per­
o n t h e K a r l s r u h e piece, are m i s s i n g haps, too, certain sculptors
f r o m the W o o d n e r figure but m a y have felt challenged by newly
been indicated i n paint. developed techniques for
quarrying large pieces of
M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , the figures differ marble. Karlsruhe,
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 Badisches Landesmuseum
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 75/49. L . 88.8 cm.
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
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. One-
q 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.
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
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
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 , lyre-
s 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
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-
 Figures 60, 61. Female
folded-arm figure. Late
Spedos variety. A work of
the Goulandris Master.
EC I I .
Afigure of above-average
size for the Spedos variety
as a whole but rather small
for the Goulandris Master,
the work, which belonged
to the Keros hoard, was
reassembled from three
fragments. The shortness
of the calves, theforearms
rendered almost solely
by incision, and the
straightness of the abdomi­
nal groove, considered
together with thefigure's
modest size, are indica­
tions that it belonged to
an immature phase of the
sculptor's artistic develop­
ment. San Francisco, The
Fine Arts Museums of San
Francisco 1981.42, Willie Figures 62, 63. Female developed as the next two
H. Nobel Bequest Fund. folded-arm figure. Late pieces (figs. 64-67) and
L . 33.4 cm. Spedos variety. A work of should therefore be consid­
the Goulandris Master. ered an intermediate work
EC I I . of its sculptor. New York,
On the basis of its delicate Rosemary and George Lois
head and nose and better Collection. L . 42 cm.
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
68
 Figures 64, 65. Female
folded-arm figure. Late
Spedos variety. A work of
the Goulandris Master.
EC ii.
The large size, carefully
modeled and separated
forearms, and harmonious
proportions indicate a
mature phase of the sculp­
tors development.
Bloomington, Indiana
University Art Museum Figures 66, 67. Female
76.25, Gift of Thomas T. folded-arm figure. Late
Solley. L . 60 cm.. Spedos variety. A name-
piece 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
Cycladic and Ancient
Greek Art, Nicholas P.
Goulandris Foundation
281. L . 63.4cm. Said to be
from. Naxos.
 Figure 68. Fragmentary
female folded-arm figure.
Late Spedos variety.
A w o r k of the Goulandris
Master. EC I I .
With its asymmetrical
shoulders, breasts at dif­
ferent levels, and arm
grooves rendered by a
seemingly unsure hand,
thisfigure, which originally
measured about 38-40 cm,
can be ascribed to an early
phase of its sculptors
career. Malibu, The J . Paul
Getty Museum 88.AA.81
(ex Steiner Collection) .
Pres. L . 26.8 cm.
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
same well-balanced and
carefully carvedfigure
attributable to the
Goulandris Masters (late)
middle phase. When com­
plete, the image would have
had a length of about
55-58 cm. The two frag­
ments are among several
dozen pieces from this
sculptors hand belonging
to the Keros hoard (see
figs. 39, 60, 61). His work
has also beenfound in the
investigations carried out
by the Greek Archaeologi­
cal Service on Keros as
well as in the cemetery of
Aplomata on Naxos.
He was most probably a
Naxian. Head/neck:
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
Museum 88.AA.82 (ex
Steiner Collection). Pres.
L . 14.5 cm. Torso: Rich­
mond, Virginia Museum of
Fine Arts 85.1511, Gift of
William B. Causey. Pres.
L . 18.4 cm.
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 ) .
The Ashmolean Master
T h e h a n d o f a t h i r d s c u l p t o r can be
r e c o g n i z e d at p r e s e n t i n o n l y f o u r
c o m p l e t e w o r k s . I n his p r i m e also an
e x c e l l e n t a r t i s t , he c o m e s s o m e w h a t
later i n the sequence o f f o l d e d - a r m
figures t h a n t h e K a r l s r u h e / W o o d n e r
and Goulandris Masters. A t first
glance—especially i f seen i n actual
size—the t h r e e f i g u r e s (figs. 7 0 - 7 5 )
a p p e a r s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s s i m i l a r to one
another, a n d one m a y w e l l w o n d e r
h o w t h e y can be ascribed to t h e same
h a n d . B u t i f t h e y are l i n e d u p side by
side i n o r d e r o f i n c r e a s i n g size a n d
s t u d i e d closely, one soon sees t h a t they
a l l s h a r e c e r t a i n u n m i s t a k a b l e fea­
tures. T h e s e i n c l u d e a s h i e l d - s h a p e d
face w i t h a l o n g , n a r r o w a q u i l i n e nose
originating h i g h on the forehead, a
V - s h a p e d i n c i s i o n at t h e neck, a s m a l l
pubic triangle, and, on t w o of the fig­
ures, o n l y f o u r toes o n each foot. ( O n
t h e f o u r t h c o m p l e t e f i g u r e as w e l l as
o n a f r a g m e n t , t h i s same inaccuracy
71
is observable.) O n e s h o u l d n o t e , too,
the i n d e n t e d waist and the subtle
curve o f the forearms—a convention
used to r e p r e s e n t or, i n t h i s s c u l p t o r ' s
w o r k , accentuate a pregnant c o n d i ­
t i o n . T h e s e a n d o t h e r s h a r e d features
d e f i n e t h e p a r t i c u l a r style o f t h e A s h ­
molean Master, a sculptor n a m e d for
the h o m e o f his largest k n o w n f i g u r e .
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
72
 Figures 70, 71. Female
folded-arm figure.
Dokathismata variety.
A work of the Ashmolean
Master. EC I I .
A rather smallfigure with
a thick profile and some­
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.
figure is narrow through
Figures 72, 75. Female
folded-arm figure.
Dokathismata variety.
A work of the Ashmolean
Master. EC I I .
Masterfully conceived and
executed, the work repre­
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
Figures 74, 75. Female
folded-arm figure.
Dokathismata variety.
Name-piece of the
Ashmolean Master. EC I I .
On this unusually large
work, the sculptor elon­
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
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 .
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
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.
 Figure 76. Female folded-
arm figure. Late Spedos
variety. A work of the
Steiner Master. EC I I .
Afigure of rather modest
size in comparison with
the next onefrom the same
hand (fig. 77), it is, despite
obvious similarities of
form and detail, also rather
stocky and coarse and is
therefore to be thought of
as an early work of its
sculptor. Tokyo, National
Museum of Western Art
S. 1974-1. L . 34.5 cm.
75
Figure 77. Female folded-
arm figure. Late Spedos
variety. Name-piece of the
Steiner Master. EC I I .
Unusually large, thefigure
is harmoniously conceived
and masterfully executed.
In an effort to make this
work more slender, the
sculptor elongated all parts
for a very balanced effect.
Note the graceful curvature
of the outline contours,
including that of the top of
the head, which reveals the
self-assurance of a master
at the peak of his develop­
ment. Malibu, The J . Paul
Getty Museum 88.AA.80
(ex Steiner Collection).
L . 59.9 cm.
Figure 78. Female folded-
arm figure. Early Spedos
variety. EC I I .
A carefully fashionedfigure
especially interesting for
its surviving painted detail
(pi. Vic, d), the piece is
at present unique among
Cycladic sculpturesfor its
painted ears. A pattern of
dots is also clearly visible
on theface, and some of
the grooves retain traces of
paint as well. The treat­
ment of the midsection with
an extra horizontal inci­
sion is unparalleled.
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
Museum 88.AA. 79 (ex
Steiner Collection).
L . 49.5 cm.
76
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e rare v i r t u ­
oso pieces—the h a r p e r s or t h e t h r e e -
figure group—were surely the most
d i f f i c u l t o f a l l Cycladic sculptures to
carve, p a r t l y because o f t h e i r s m a l l
size. T h e y m u s t have b e e n m a d e by
sculptors w h o h a d p o l i s h e d t h e i r skills
by m a k i n g t h e u s u a l f o l d e d - a r m f i g ­
ures. T h e s e sculptors w o u l d have at­
t e m p t e d the m u c h more d e m a n d i n g
f i g u r e types o n l y after they h a d devel­
o p e d t h e i r techniques a n d h o n e d t h e i r
styles. E v e n t h e n , i n t h e absence o f
such m o d e r n aids as sketchbooks a n d
plasticene or plaster m o d e l s , t h e i r
first attempts m u s t have been less suc­
cessful t h a n t h e i r l a t e r ones. S o m e ­
t h i n g o f t h e p r o g r e s s f r o m p i e c e to
piece m a y be sensed i n a p a i r o f h a r p ­
ers said to have been f o u n d t o g e t h e r
a n d e v i d e n t l y d e s i g n e d as c o m p a n i o n
pieces (figs. 25, 4 7 ) . I n g e n e r a l , t h e
s m a l l e r f i g u r e is t h e m o r e c a r e f u l l y
executed o f t h e t w o ; i t is also c o n s i d ­
erably freer a n d m o r e r e l a x e d i n a t t i ­
t u d e . I t w o u l d appear t h a t i n t h i s case
the s m a l l e r figure was carved after the
l a r g e r one a n d t h a t i t b e n e f i t e d f r o m
t h e e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d by t h e s c u l p t o r
d u r i n g the m a k i n g o f t h e first v e r s i o n .

Figure 79. Harp player.
Early Spedos variety style.
ECU.
From thefront the musi­
cian closely resembles
contemporaneous female
folded-armfigures. Note
the absence of genitalia,
difficult to render on a
seatedfigure and present
on only three of the ten
harpists now known. See
also plate IVh.
Since b o t h w o r k s reveal a h a n d p r o f i ­ a p o s s i b i l i t y . H o w e v e r , i n the absence
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 of a n u m b e r of folded-arm figures
figure type, one m u s t also assume that 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
these are n o t the first harpists carved o f this harper, one can o n l y speculate
by this sculptor. about his a r t i s t i c career, the apex o f
F i n a l l y , one m i g h t consider the w h i c h this masterpiece must surely
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 represent.
(see a l s o p i . \vb, f i g s . 2 4 , 2 5 , a n d
cover). A s c u l p t u r e t h a t goes w e l l be­
y o n d m e r e t e c h n i c a l v i r t u o s i t y , i t is
r e m a r k a b l e for the h a r m o n y o f its sub­
t l y c u r v i n g f o r m s a n d f o r t h e excel­
lence o f its w o r k m a n s h i p and surface
f i n i s h . C l e a r l y such a w e l l - b a l a n c e d
w o r k m u s t have b e e n p l a n n e d w i t h
diligence and precision. T h e m o s t i m ­
p o r t a n t side, as i n all the h a r p e r s , is
the r i g h t one; b u t the o t h e r t h r e e are
also w e l l c o n c e i v e d . O n e can easily
a p p r e c i a t e the s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o f the
d o m i n a n t f o l d e d - a r m t y p e , especially
i n the t r e a t m e n t o f t h e legs w h i c h are
j o i n e d by a m e m b r a n e o f m a r b l e per­
forated b e t w e e n the calves. A l t h o u g h
at present no o t h e r w o r k s by the same
h a n d can be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h c o n f i ­
dence—the a t t r i b u t i o n to one sculptor
o f f i g u r e s e x e c u t e d i n d i f f e r e n t pos­
tures b e i n g e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t — t h e
piece i l l u s t r a t e d i n figure 78 is at least
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.
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
I n seeking an e x p l a n a t i o n for the
fact t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y o f these m a r b l e s
rivals the n u m b e r found on all the
o t h e r Cyclades c o m b i n e d , one m u s t
w o n d e r i f Keros d i d n o t enjoy a spe­
cial status, e i t h e r as a t r a d i n g s t a t i o n
at t h e crossroads o f A e g e a n s h i p p i n g
routes, a n d / o r as a large o p e n - a i r p a n -
( o r s o u t h e r n ) C y c l a d i c sanctuary—a
p r e h i s t o r i c D e l o s as i t w e r e . As one
approaches Keros f r o m t h e w e s t , t h e
i s l a n d has the u n m i s t a k a b l e silhouette
of a giant pregnant reclining figure, a
fact t h a t w o u l d have been m a d e m u c h
o f by t h e early Cycladians, a n d i n d e e d
m a y have p r o m p t e d t h e m to conse­
crate t h e place. W h a t e v e r t h e e x p l a ­
n a t i o n , i t seems h i g h l y u n l i k e l y i n any
case t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e objects
found on Keros were actually made
t h e r e by l o c a l c a r v e r s . I t s e e m s f a r
m o r e p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e y w o u l d have
been b r o u g h t there by people f r o m
n e i g h b o r i n g islands, chiefly Naxos.
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
79
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 .
80
 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.
Cycladic sculpture probably dif­ 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 H. 39.5cm.
fered f r o m contemporaneous sculp­ aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s by Cycladic 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 tors makes t h e i r figures especially
than i n the tenacity w i t h w h i c h the a p p e a l i n g as a g r o u p a n d also n a t u ­
artists followed r i g i d standards of r a l l y e n c o u r a g e s one to t h i n k ahead
f o r m a n d beauty. W i t h i n t h i s precise 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
d e s i g n f r a m e w o r k , C y c l a d i c sculptors A r c h a i c G r e e k sculptors, w h o s e basic
achieved superb t e c h n i c a l m a s t e r y o f 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 ­
the m a r b l e , and i n t h e best e x a m p l e s 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
of the classical phase t h e i r figures 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
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 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 ­
balance o f f o r m a n d c o n t o u r t h a t is tously, f r o m those o f these earliest
rarely matched elsewhere i n prehis­ m a r b l e artists.

81
 Figures 85, 84. Female
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.
Malibu, The J . Paul Getty
Museum 88.AA.122.
H. 14.2 cm.

82
M a j o r Collections of Early Cycladic Sculpture
(Including Stone Vases)

DENMARK ISRAEL
Antiksamlingen, Nationalmuseet Israel M u s e u m (Jerusalem)
(Copenhagen) SWITZERLAND
ENGLAND M u s e e B a r b i e r - M u e l l e r (Geneva)
Fitzwilliam M u s e u m (Cambridge)
U N I T E D STATES
British Museum (London)
J. Paul G e t t y M u s e u m ( M a l i b u )
Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts
Metropolitan M u s e u m of A r t
(Norwich)
( N e w York)
Ashmolean M u s e u m (Oxford)
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
Note: Smaller collections or i n d i v i d u a l
(Karlsruhe)
pieces of some importance are to be found
Staatliche A n t i k e n s a m m l u n g i n many American museums, i n c l u d i n g
(Munich) Indiana University A r t Museum (Bloom-
GREECE ington); Museum of Fine Arts (Boston);
National Archaeological M u s e u m 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
(Athens)
cinnati A r t M u s e u m ; M u s e u m of A r t
Paul C a n e l l o p o u l o s M u s e u m
and Archaeology, University of Missouri
(Athens) ( C o l u m b i a ) ; Des M o i n e s A r t C e n t e r ;
M u s e u m o f Cycladic and A n c i e n t Kimbell A r t Museum (Fort W o r t h ) ; Yale
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 Art Gallery, Yale University (New Haven);
Foundation (Athens) V i r g i n i a M u s e u m of Fine A r t s ( R i c h ­
Archaeological M u s e u m (Naxos) m o n d ) ; and Seattle A r t M u s e u m .

83
Selected Bibliography
Barber, R. L . N . The Cyclades in the
Bronze Age. Iowa City, 1987.
Doumas, C. The TV. P. Goulandris Collec­
tion of Cycladic Art. Athens, 1968.
__. 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.)
. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits
in the Cyclades. Studies i n Mediterra­
nean Archaeology 48 (1977).
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.
"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.
. Cycladic Art. London, 1989.
Getz-Gentle, P. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades
in the Early Bronze Age. Forthcoming.
84
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.
. "Five Sculptors i n the Goulandris
Collection." I n Cycladica, pp. 48-71. See
Fitton, 1984.
_ _ . "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.
_. " 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).
"Risk and Repair i n Early
Cycladic Sculpture." Metropolitan Mu­
seum Journal 16 (1981), pp. 5-32.
. Sculptors of the Cyclades: Indi­
vidual and Tradition in the Third Mil­
lennium B.C. A n n Arbor, 1987.
. The Obsidian Trail, or 5000A000
Years Ago in the Cyclades. Athens, 1987.
 . Early Cycladic Art in North . "Speculations on the Use of Early
American Collections. Richmond, Vir­ Cycladic Sculpture." I n Cycladica, pp.
ginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1987 (with 24-30. S ^ F i t t o n , 1984.
essays by J. L . Davis and E. Oustinoff). _. The Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces
Getz-Preziosi, P., and W e i n b e r g , S. S. from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collec­
"Evidence for Painted Details i n Early tion.^^York, 1991.
Cycladic Sculpture." Antike Kunst 13 T h i m m e . J., ed. Art and Culture of the
(1970), pp. 4-12. Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C.
Havelock, C. M . "Cycladic Sculpture: A Chicago, 1977.
Prelude to Greek A r t ? " Archaeology Zervos, C. LArt des Cyclades du debut a
(July/August 1981), pp. 29-36. 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
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
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 (first edition):
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
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