10 September 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
Laconian figurines have been found on four sites at or in the neighbourhood of Sparta: by the British excavations at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, at the Menelaion, and on the Acropolis at the Sanctuary of Athena of the Brazen House: and by the Greek and, subsequently, the German excavations at the Amyklaion. So far as I know only three archaic Laconian figurines have been found on sites which are not Laconian. Of these, two are from Tegea, a site which was open to Laconian, Argive and Corinthian influences; these two objects will be mentioned below. The third is the late archaic terracotta head from Olympia, which Langlotz classes as Sicyonian, but which is much more akin to late archaic Laconian heads. One would expect that seventh-century figurines of Laconian style would have been found at Tarentum, but as almost no archaic terracottas from that site have been published it is impossible to say whether such exist or no: the few I have seen in Berlin do not present any striking similarity with those from Laconia, although one of them is akin to the Cretan heads of about 625.
page 66 note 1 Farrell, , B.S.A. xiv, 65Google Scholar ff.; Dawkins, , Artemis Orthia 145Google Scholar ff.
page 66 note 2 Thompson, , B.S.A. xv, 116Google Scholar ff.
page 66 note 3 MrsWoodward, , B.S.A. xxix, 75Google Scholar ff.
page 66 note 4 Ἐφημ 1892 13, 14Google Scholar, with Pl. iv, 4, 5; A.M. lii, 39Google Scholar ff.
page 66 note 5 Olympia iii, Pl. vii, 2, 3Google Scholar. Frühgr. Bildhauerschulen, Pl. 22 c.
page 66 note 6 Cf. the early sixth-century Laconian bronze protome. Festschrift Loeb pp. 91 ff.
page 66 note 7 Cf. Evans, in J.H.S. 1886, p. 25Google Scholar, figs. 2, 3. Of Cretan style are also the plaque from Tarentum (Langlotz, Antike Plastik, 113Google Scholar ff.) and the Santangelo fragment now in Naples (R.M. 1891, 254Google Scholar ff.).
page 66 note 8 B.S.A. xiv, 64Google Scholar; Kunze, , Gnomon Jan. 1933, 10Google Scholar; Maximova, Vases Plastiques 1284Google Scholar.
page 66 note 9 B.S.A. xxix, 103Google Scholar.
page 66 note 10 B.S.A. xv, 125Google Scholar, fig. 5, no. 82; cf. B.S.A. xxxii, 33Google Scholar.
page 66 note 11 The head published by MrsWoodward, , B.S.A. xxix, 85Google Scholar, fig. 5, no. 35 is, I think, probably Cretan. As Mrs. Woodward notes, the treatment of the eye is irregular in Laconian figurines before the sixth century, nor are ‘a few large flecks of mica’ a common ingredient of Laconian clay; in fact, the head is of a type common and of long duration in Crete, the distinguishing features being a straight thick mouth, a broad but not protruding nose, and plastically ringed eyes. Cf. the early head B.S.A. vi, 106Google Scholar, fig. 37, no. 4, and the sphinx from Gonies (Annuario xii, 67Google Scholar), about 30–40 years later.
page 67 note 1 Cf. A.M. lv, 155Google Scholar f.
page 67 note 2 Artemis Orthia 145–6.
page 67 note 3 A.M. lv, Beilage xxxviiiGoogle Scholar; A.A. 1930, 126Google Scholar.
page 68 note 1 I cannot, however, agree with Kunze that one of these heads is Mycenaean and the other Geometric. The ‘Mycenaean’ head is certainly an inferior work, and the mouth is very feeble; but it is difficult to suppose that two heads which are as close to each other in the rendering of eyes, chin, jaw, and neck (cf. A.M. lv, Beilage xliiiGoogle Scholar), can be divided by an interval of three centuries and are products of two different civilisations (even Kunze finds the correspondence ‘täuschend’). As the nose of the ‘Mycenaean’ is lost we cannot guess with certainty its original appearance, and the eyes set too low down below the brows illustrate a characteristic of numerous clay Geometric heads. To my mind there is no doubt that the heads are contemporary (if no closer tie unites them) and that both belong to the late Geometric period.
page 68 note 2 At any rate, it is now in a case with other finds from that site.
page 68 note 3 Cf. Langlotz, Frühgriechische Bildhauerschulen Pl. 46.
page 68 note 4 B.S.A. xxix, 86Google Scholar f. and Pl. I a, b.
page 68 note 5 Kretische Bronzereliefs 234, note 130.
page 68 note 6 Gnomon, Jan. 1933, 9Google Scholar; see below, pp. 75, 79.
page 69 note 1 Cf. Rumpf, in Gercke-Norden, , Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft II, 3, pp. 6, 7Google Scholar.
page 69 note 2 There may be more, but there are four at Sparta and two at Cambridge. Pl. 7 no. 3 and Pl. 10 no. 1 are both in the Fitzwilliam Museum and are published here by kind permission of Miss W. Lamb.
page 69 note 3 Cf. Payne, , Necrocorinthia 233Google Scholar.
page 69 note 4 B.S.A. xxviii, Pl x, O 29Google Scholar.
page 69 note 5 Metropolitan Museum Studies iii, 217Google Scholar, fig. 16.
page 70 note 1 Olympia iii, Pl. v, 4, 5Google Scholar; cf. J.H.S. 1896, 275Google Scholar f.
page 70 note 2 Dr. A. B. Cook has suggested to me that the object may illustrate an intermediary phase between the time when the God was his own (aniconic) altar and the time when he was a separate anthropomorphic entity with an altar set up to him; cf. on 
his Zeus i, 519 fGoogle Scholar.
page 71 note 1 Cf. AM. lv, 158Google Scholar f.
page 71 note 2 Müller, V. (Frühe Plastik 75Google Scholar) correctly observes this contrast of proportions, but does not emphasise the extraordinary ‘elongation’ of the body in the later group; a good example of the latter is at Artemis Orthia, Pl. xxix, no. 1.
page 71 note 3 B.M. Terracottas B. 159.
page 71 note 4 E.g. the situla, Afrati (L.A.A.A. xiiGoogle Scholar, pl. 5c), the Argive Heraeum plaque (Argive Heraeum, ii. pl. xlix, no. 1), the Athenian Agora plaque (Hesperia, ii. 606Google Scholar, fig. 73), the Boeotian relief pithos (B.C.H. xxii. 440Google Scholar), etc.—all before, or about, 650.
page 71 note 5 Artemis Orthia 153.
page 72 note 1 B.S.A. xv, 120Google Scholar fig. 3, no. 34.
page 72 note 2 Cf. the ‘incised’ dress of the Olympia bronze (Olympia iv, Pl. xv, no. 266 and J.d.I. 1906, 180Google Scholar f).
page 72 note 3 Cf. B.S.A. xxix, 90Google Scholar.
page 72 note 4 MrsWoodward, B.S.A. xxix, pp. 101–2Google Scholar suggests ‘late seventh or early sixth’ centuries; but the pure Dedalic style of the head forbids so late a date.
page 73 note 1 Cf. Maximova, Les Vases Plastiques 149Google Scholar.
page 73 note 2 Artemis Orthia 160, no. 5 and Pl. xliii, no. 3; certainly not Corinthian, as Maximova suggests.
page 73 note 3 Maximova op. cit., no. 175.
page 73 note 4 Ibid. no. 112, where the description is wrongly applied to no. 114.
page 73 note 5 This is no doubt the mouth which should be restored in Artemis Orthia, Pl. xliii, no. 3; not the Ionic type, as Maximova op. cit. 149.
page 73 note 6 B.S.A. xxvi, 271Google Scholar.
page 73 note 7 J.d.I. 1928, 190Google Scholar; Jacobsthal, Die Melischen Reliefs 91Google Scholar.
page 74 note 1 Artemis Orthia 68, fig. 41 c (!). Cf. Kunze, Gnomon 1933, 10Google Scholar.
page 74 note 2 B.S.A. xv, 120Google Scholar, no. 32.
page 74 note 3 Gnomon 1933, 10Google Scholar. The division between Middle Dedalic III and Late Dedalic may seem artificial in connection with Sparta, which is (as an exception) rather poorly represented at the very end of the style; in contrast with Crete, whose numerous representatives allow the final stages to be traced with precision.
page 75 note 1 The Protocorinthian coroplast did not apparently use purple to decorate figurines, which is curious, as both vases and plastic vases of the Protocorinthian period have purple paint; on figurines I have noticed only red and black varnish, and a dark red wash for cheaper figurines; the finely-finished surface does not require white slip. Not until the last quarter of the seventh century do purple and (occasionally) yellow make their appearance. There is little evidence for the colours used in Crete and Rhodes.
page 75 note 2 B.S.A. xxix, 93Google Scholar, no. 46.
page 76 note 1 Cf. B.S.A. xxxii, Pl. 12.
page 76 note 2 Studniczka, , Antike Plastik 248Google Scholar. It is worth while to note that the Spartan bronze kore in New York (Langlotz Frühgriechische Bildhauerschulen, Pl. 46) is also said to come from Cyprus.
page 76 note 3 Olympia iv, Pl. vii, 8.
page 76 note 4 B.S.A. xxviii, 193Google Scholar.
page 76 note 5 Artemis Orthia, Pl. xliii, 1.
page 76 note 6 Ibid. Pl. xxxii, 1–3.
page 76 note 7 Now at Athens; not Laconian clay.
page 76 note 8 Payne, , Necrocorinthia 234Google Scholar.
page 77 note 1 B.S.A. xxix, 97Google Scholar, no. 47. Note the characteristic ‘feather’ polos on each.
page 77 note 2 Altsamische Standbilder, ii. pp. 32, 33Google Scholar. Buschor thinks that the statuette is of Samian fabric.
page 77 note 3 Gnomon, loc. cit.
page 77 note 4 B.S.A. xxix, 88Google Scholar.
page 78 note 1 Kretische Bronzereliefs, loc. cit.
page 79 note 1 The dating of the head has been most recently essayed by MissBurr, Dorothy (Hesperia ii, 607Google Scholar); she will make it contemporary with the Athenian Agora relief plaque, about the middle of the seventh century. This is much too late; the question is rather whether we should not place it earlier, in the eighth century. The problem is one for the student of Laconian ceramics.
page 79 note 2 From Perachora; unpublished.
page 79 note 3 Frühe Plastik, fig. 321.
page 79 note 4 This object has already become a most important fixed point in the settling of seventh-century chronology: cf. Richter, in Metrop. Mus. Stud, v, 42Google Scholar.
page 79 note 5 B.S.A. xxix, 88Google Scholar.
