^{page 23 note 1} Walston, Argive Heraeum II init.

^{page 23 note 2} Frickenhaus, , Tiryns I, 51 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} These are not yet published, and it is owing to the kindness of the Director and Committee of the School that I am here able to publish photographs of some heads from Perachora and to refer to others.

^{page 23 note 4} Good collections in London and Athens (Nat. Mus. Nos. 4324–4364) and the museum at Tegea. See Tiryns I, p. 55.

^{page 23 note 5} See the catalogue Tiryns I, p. 52: as we shall see, there are also one or two from Boeotia. Cf. also Arg. Her. II p. 10. We must also include the large collection of figurines, part Argive part Corinthian, recently discovered by Mr. Bertos at Klenies (ancient Tenea): these are not published and only a handful is shown in the Nauplia Museum. See below p. 27 note 1.

^{page 23 note 6} Ἐφημ 1920 p. 50.

^{page 23 note 7} Arg. Her. II, pls. LXX–I. For objects attributed to Argos in the past cf. Déonna, Dédale II 117Google Scholar, notes 1–2.

^{page 23 note 8} Sharply criticised by Furtwängler, , B.Ph.W. 1906 p. 790.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} Such provincialism as this was acutely suggested at Rhitsona by Burrows and Ure (B.S.A. XIV p. 312): the lack of better-modelled figurines at Tiryns until c. 550 must be explained on similar lines. Frickenhaus' remark p. 116 § 4 is a definite misstatement: there is nothing at Tiryns to correspond with our classes A–E.

^{page 24 note 2} Some technical criteria are suggested lower down (p. 32 notes 0, 1) as perhaps capable of affording evidence for the chronology of the very large handmade class.

^{page 24 note 3} Except that Walston was able to decide that all figurines were later than the construction of the earlier temple (v. inf. p. 36).

^{page 24 note 4} Arg. Her. II, p. 148 and pl. LXVI 9 a—b.

^{page 25 note 1} Cf. Kunze, A.M. 1930 p. 144Google Scholarsq.

^{page 25 note 2} B.S.A. XXIX pl. I. The head recalls certain Cretan geometric, rather than mainland figurines.

^{page 25 note 3} Cf. V. Muller, Frühgriechische Plastik, fig. 280.

^{page 26 note 1} The face is in fact the heir of a geometric (or Late Mycenaean, cf. Annuario X–XII pp. 612–623) tradition of flat-faced figurines with low-set eyes, which has numerous representatives in Crete; but in our example the squareness of face is significant.

^{page 26 note 2} The Hellenised and clothed version of the Oriental naked goddess with both hands to her breasts (so common in Cyprus) is not very frequent. The bulk of the examples comes —as we might expect—from Rhodes: it is worth while here to point out that the three examples from Aegina (Ἐφημ. 1895 pl. 12) are certainly of Rhodian style and fabric, dating from the first half of the seventh century.

^{page 26 note 3} Dr. Welter kindly allows me to make mention of this head in this article.

^{page 26 note 4} Mrs. Karouzou, Ephor of the Argolid, has kindly given me permission to publish this figurine.

^{page 26 note 5} The nose is no longer set in the forehead, and in general the features have a more natural relation with the surface of the face, quite alien from the general upward thrust of features so characteristic of the geometric style.

^{page 27 note 1} Five from the Argive Heraeum and two from Perachora. The Argive Heraeum specimens and one of the two from Perachora all belong to the same cylindrical type of figurine: the other from Perachora has a flatter body, and its head has an applied fringe like that of A 2 and the earliest specimen of Class E (pl. 12, 4). A much larger head of this class comes from Klenieŝ: it is badly weathered, but of unquestionably Argive manufacture, and the similarity to Gleobis is unmistakeable.

^{page 27 note 2} This is in general true of early Argive figurines, in contrast, for example, to those of Sparta, where painted decoration only was applied, until the end of the seventh century.

^{page 27 note 3} This shallowness of depth from front to back has been noted by Payne (Necrocorinthia p. 241) as a characteristic of Corinthian dedalic terracottas: it is significant that in the Argive terracottas it should be most accentuated in the class which shews the dedalic style most nearly.

^{page 27 note 4} See below p. 34.

^{page 27 note 5} Cf. Necrocorinthia p. 232.

^{page 28 note 1} Déonna, (Dédale II, p. 118)Google Scholar applies the adjective ‘brutaux’ to the faces of Gleobis and Biton; whether this signifies ‘brutal’ or ‘brutish’ to the Latin mind, it is difficult to see how it is applicable to the heads in question.

^{page 28 note 2} For early or proto-dedalic at Rhodes cf. B.M. B159 (with which compare the Aegina plaque mentioned above, p.4 note 2: both are very early seventh century), and for developed dedalic B.M. B 153 etc. The Corinthian dedalic figurines from Perachora await publication. If the Argive terracottas had passed through any such development as this, it is almost certain that some earlier dedalic figurines would have been found at the Heraeum: we must not forget the dedalic relief plaque (Arg. Her. II, pl. xlix, 1), but in view of the Corinthian duplicate from Perachora (J.H.S. 52, p. 242) we cannot be certain that the mould was of Argive manufacture.

^{page 28 note 3} We may note here that the strongly marked, highly arched eyebrows of this class seem to be the principal reason why Langlotz claims the late Class C head from the Argive Heraeum (to be noticed presently) as Sicyonian: he thinks this detail is distinctively Sicyonian, but he is certainly in error, for it occurs on heads which he attributes to other schools, e.g. the earlier Boston Kriophoros. Cf. Necrocorinthia, p. 234.

^{page 29 note 1} This trait is not, of course, confined to Argos, but is perhaps more universally characteristic of Argive heads in the archaic period than of any others. Even the carefully worked Delphi twins, whose heads are modelled with, not stuck into, the necks, convey from the front the impression of a forward thrust chin, though the projection when seen in profile is not noticeable: cf. the plate Fouilles de Delphes, IV, I.

^{page 29 note 2} This and the following are the last figurines to have eyebrows and outline of eyes painted in black—-the first being A3. The Argive Heraeum head has a thin white slip—see p. 32 note 1 below.

^{page 29 note 3} Mon. Ant. XXXII Tav. XLVII, 6 and Dedalo 1930 (Marconi); the only non-Argive feature of this head is the fact that it is a mask, which points to its having been made in Sicily after the importation of the earliest masks from Ionia. Masks (other than grotesques such as the Spartan) were apparently not manufactured in mainland Greece till the second half of the sixth century, which is certainly too late a date for Class C.

^{page 30 note 1} Langlotz says that Argive style is known from terracottas, but he makes use of none of them. Had he studied the Heraeum series, he could hardly have made this error (Frühgrieschische Bildhauerschulen, p. 57).

^{page 30 note 2} This correct rendering of the jaw is perhaps the only detail in which Argive heads excel Corinthian in the whole early archaic period.

^{page 30 note 3} Mon. Ant. XXXII Tav. XLIII, 2.

^{page 30 note 4} Cf. Casson, Technique of Early Greek Sculpture, p. 105.

^{page 31 note 1} Furtwängler and Frickenhaus agree that the handmade series started in the eighth or seventh centuries; they give no means of deciding whether a given specimen comes early or late in the series. For suggestions as to criteria for this decision, see p. 32 notes 0, 1.

^{page 31 note 2} The variety of polos used is great—see Arg. Her. II, pl. XLV. On the flowering shrub Tiryns I, pp. 121 ff.

^{page 31 note 3} The pastillé style is strangely reminiscent of some (rather earlier) Hittite figurines from Karkhemish (cf. L.A.A.A. VI, pl. XXVI, b I and the figurines from Deve Hüyük in the Ashmolean Museum): it seems certainly oriental in origin. It is important to realise that so far as our evidence goes, this type of lavish applied ornamentation appears quite suddenly in Class F without having been used before. Of course the single appliqué band across the chest ending in two pastilles (representing περόναι) had been in use at Corinth certainly, and in all probability at Argos, on handmade figurines since the end of the seventh century; but this is no parallel to the elaborate schemes of adornment here in question. It is not the purpose of this article to establish decorative peculiarities as chronological criteria for the handmade Argive figurines, but it is permissible to suggest that a methodical examination on the lines of Walston's ‘Tirynthian-Argive’ classification (Arg. Her. II, pp. n, 12) might establish that such handmade figurines as had decoration of the ornate style, more especially such as corresponded accurately with the schemes of Group F, were at least no earlier than the latter; for the handmade class see also next note.

^{page 32 note 1} Frickenhaus says (Tiryns I, p. 53) that all Argive terracottas have or had a white slip: this seems to be too comprehensive a generalisation. Class B figurines clearly had no slip, and the bodies at least of Classes D, E, and, in very rare cases, even of F, have a red or brown varnish directly on the clay. Granting, however, that Frickenhaus' statement is in the main correct, there is some reason to think that the distinction made by Burrows and Ure for Boeotian pappades (a distinction ignored by Frickenhaus in discussing their conclusions), of a thin cream, or buff slip for Class A pappades, and a thick dead white chalky slip for Class B may hold good for the Argive fabric as well. For example, the slip seen in the small Class C head from the Argive Heraeum (pl. 13, 2) resembles that of some Class A pappades, but is not at all comparable with the coating of Class F pappades or of our Class F. Again, certain (partly unpublished) evidence proves that not uncommonly earlier Argive figurines were treated only on face and neck with this thinner slip, and this is precisely the technique of some Class A pappades (cf. Nat. Mus. No. 4009) but never of Class B pappades. It would be useful as a further criterion of chronology for the handmade figurines if one could establish that such a change in technique took place about 550 in the Argolid as well as Boeotia; certainly Class F figurines, which as we shall see are to be dated about then, seem to have a much thicker white coating than their predecessors. I have suggested below that the thicker slip was borrowed from Ionia. Spartan figurines use slip of this sort in the seventh century, but even this is not of the Ionian chalky whiteness.

In regard to Argive-Boeotian correspondence in fabric, we should emphasise that such points of contact as exist came from Argos to Boeotia and not vice versa. For the former hypothesis there is good evidence, for the latter none: for example, an Argive figurine (Nat. Mus. No. 4306) of the ornate, thick-slip style comes from Tanagra: a standing figurine of absolutely Argive style but with Boeotian red and white decoration from Halae is in the Thebes museum: and the Boeotian predilection for genre scenes executed in terracotta, which distinguished the Tanagra fabric of fifth to fourth centuries, finds its precursor in the Argolid; cf. below (p. 35, note 1), the large group of women baking, and the single examples of bread-makers from numerous Argive sites. It is worth remarking that the thick chalky slip was in use for figurines in Boeotia about a quarter of a century before we find it in use in Boeotian vases.

^{page 32 note 2} Arg. Her. II, pl. XLV, 6–13. Cf. the uniformity of facial type in large classes of the East Greek hollow-cast standing Kore: cf. B.M. Terracottas pl. xvii, 2, 3 (contrast 4).

^{page 33 note 1} The Corinth and Perachora examples are unpublished: examples from Tegea and the Argolid are on plate 16. The Attic (? Boeotian) is in Eleusis museum. Boeotian, Nat. Mus. No. 5618. The type does not occur at the Heraeum or at Tiryns: in the latter place a later version of Class F takes its place; see below, p. 35 note 5.

^{page 33 note 2} The development will be fully traced in the forthcoming publication of Perachora figurines. We must remember that where so many heads are small and indeterminate, it must suffice to indicate the general tendency of their development.

^{page 34 note 1} This is well seen in the fine group of Tegeate seated female figurines in the National Museum at Athens (Nos. 4324–64). Two Argive Class F figurines are among them and a few are in the Tegea museum. The finds from Tegea include a surprising number of imported articles from various parts, such as Corinth, Sparta, Argos and Crete.

^{page 35 note 1} Nat. Mus. No. 5773. Ἐφημ. 1896 pp. 204 ff. Cf. Winter, Typen I p. 34, no. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Of course handmade figurines from other sites have applique hair, but to add locks above hair which has been impressed from the mould along with the head appears to be a peculiarly Argive process.

^{page 35 note 3} The identical style of these heads in various centres is another point in favour of the view that moulds were definitely exported from one site to another. Cf. Tiryns i p. 86.

^{page 35 note 4} It stands particularly close to two plastic heads (from the same mould), one found at Corinth, the other at Perachora: neither is yet published.

^{page 35 note 5} It will be noted that I have made but little use of the Tirynthian heads: as I have said above, they are almost all made after 550, and consequently have no bearing on the earlier archaic groups. Indeed they have only a few heads belonging to a period as early as Class F: the bulk of those figured in plates I and III are later. The type repre sented by Tiryns I pl. I is a later version of Class F and contemporary with the Corinthianising Class G.

^{page 36 note 1} Cf. Payne, Necrocorinthia pp. 234, 236, etc.

^{page 36 note 2} Ibid. pp. 232 ff. Where Corinthian figurines between 650–570 are referred to, Payne's dating is used without modification.

^{page 36 note 3} Op. cit. p. 114.

^{page 36 note 4} Ibid. p. 115: Arg. Her. II, p. 3.

^{page 36 note 5} This at least prevents our dating A 2, as V. Müller does, to before 800. Admittedly the gap between this very archaic-looking specimen and A 4 appears a long one, but those who have not examined A 3 in Aegina must for the moment take it upon trust that the latter figurine forms a satisfactory middle point between the two.

^{page 36 note 6} Blinckenberg (Lindos: Fouilles de l'Acropole I p. 27) quotes Frickenhaus' dating here to support his own dating for the emergence of the East Greek hollow figurine cast in two separate moulds. The citation is malapropos: Frickenhaus is not referring to any such advanced process as this. Sixth-century terracottas at Tiryns—when moulded at all-are pressed solid from a single mould, and this process, though of late occurrence at Tiryns, had been current in Greece from the subgeometric period.

^{page 37 note 1} Moulded heads and handmade heads need not—indeed must not—be considered as mutually exclusive terms from the point of view of careful modelling: moulds are, of course, themselves made from hand-modelled heads; but the carefully hand-modelled heads are so rare in comparison with the great frequency of, on the one hand, mould-made heads, and on the other of the cheap handmade (at Argos ‘bird-faced’) type, that the two latter classes may legitimately be referred to without further specification as well-demarcated opposites. I know of no series of well-modelled handmade heads save that of the late Class A pappades, and even these are naturally not all of the standard wherefrom moulds could profitably be made. Cf. Nat Mus. nos. 4009, 4010, B.M. B 56, 57, 58, etc.

^{page 38 note 1} The head on pl. 13, no. 5 certainly presents a more archaic appearance than the relative date here given would suggest. The nose if restored would project very considerably, and the chin too is prominent when compared with that of no. 3. The broad face recalls in general style the heads of a class of Corinthian plastic vases of which a good example is seen in C.V.A. Oxford ii pl. vii, 1, 2. These vases Payne dates to the Middle Corinthian period, i.e. the first quarter of the sixth century (Necrocorinthia p. 177). Against this early dating for the Argive head we may set the better rendering of the jaw, certainly more competent than in any previous figurine, and the fact that the head stands relatively close to the early head of Class D (pl. 14, 2) which though later has many points of close contact.

^{page 39 note 1} Brook in Casson's Guide to the Acropolis Museum II p. 325.

^{page 39 note 2} Unless we choose to regard the ‘Ornate’ decoration as coming in through Ionic intermediaries.

^{page 39 note 3} See p. 32, note 1 above. On the East-Greek white slip see J.H.S. 44, p. 206.

^{page 39 note 4} Arg. Her. II pl. LXVI.

^{page 40 note 1} This too must be left unsubstantiated till the Perachora publication.

^{page 40 note 2} There is, of course, nothing to disprove the hypothesis that Group F figurines, like Group E, continued to be made at the Heraeum and elsewhere until or even after 525, i.e. during the whole of the Group G period as well, an hypothesis perhaps more probable as no specimens of Class G have been found at the Heraeum itself: but if the large number of specimens suggest a long duration, their absolute uniformity must weigh on the other hand.