Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:46:53.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Early Classical Disc Relief from Melos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Chr. J. Karouzos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the islands surprises seem to be as ἀνήριθμοι as the γέλασμα of the waves. If news came from anywhere else of the discovery of a circular marble slab carved with a head in relief, experience would lead the archaeologist to expect a late portrait or one of the so-called oscilla. Not so on Melos: here he finds himself confronted with the splendid head of a goddess carved in the purest Early Classical style.

For such in fact is the fragment of a circular marble disc (Plate XXXVII and fig. 1) discovered in 1937 on the slopes of Klema, the site of the ancient town of Melos. It was found lying on the surface of the ground, on the property of Panagioulis Vikhos, to the north-east of Kalyvaki. The distinguished lawyer of Plaka, Mr. N. Kyritses, to whom we must again express our gratitude for having rescued it, readily offered it to the State.

The disc is of Parian marble. Its convex obverse is decorated in relief with a head in profile to the right—an unusual subject. The reverse (fig. 2) is flat and smooth. The flat rim joining the two faces is 0·016 m. wide, but at the centre, where it is broken, the disc is 0·073 thick, not counting the height of the relief. The greatest preserved height of the fragment is 0·325 m., the greatest width 0–335.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 71 , November 1951 , pp. 96 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am greatly indebted, for the English translation of my Greek manuscript, to the kind patience of Mr. B. Theophaneides and Mr. J. M. Cook.

1 I owe the calculation to Professor A. Orlandos. Professor K. Rhomaios observes that this is almost exactly 1 πῆχυς (= 1½ foot), the foot being 0·296 m.

2 As ProfessorOrlandos, A. kindly informs me, referring to his remarks in ADelt I (1915) 26 ff.Google Scholar

3 See recently Orsi, P., Templum Apollinis Alaei, 135 ff.Google Scholar

4 See Maiuri, A., Ausonia VI (1911) 10 ff.Google Scholar; Svoronos, J., Journ. iniern. d'arch. Numism 1920–1921, 7 ff.Google Scholar; Lehmann-Hartleben, K., Arch. f. Religionsw. XXIV (1926) 21 ff.Google Scholar; Kunze, E., Kret. Bronze-rel. 50 ff.Google Scholar; Jacobsthal, P., Diskoi (93 Winckelmannsprogramm, 1933) 23 ff.Google Scholar especially 27 ff. To the monuments referred to in those studies, the following examples, not all of the same kind, can be added (the list is not exhaustive). Bronze discoid sheet: Daidalic frontal head of woman, in repoussé; Kunze, E., Olympia-Bericht IV 126Google Scholar, fig. 95/6. Matz, F., Gesch. d. Gr. Kunst (1949) I pl. 93a.Google Scholar—Clay disc in the Museum of Corcyra; incised decoration: sacrificing woman, protome of a horse, part of a funeral banquet (?): Bulle, H. in Amdt-Amelung, E.A. 1328Google Scholar (‘Zeichnung nicht zu spät '), compare Wolters, P.AJA XI (1896) 147 n. 6.Google Scholar—Poros disc from the Athenian Agora; relief representation of Demeter, and Poseidon, (end of 2nd c. B.C.?) Hesperia X (1941) 4 fig. 4.Google Scholar—Different is, of course, the spiritual and artistic origin of the series of the round marble pedimental akroteria of which we have an archaic example with a Gorgoneion from Sparta, : AZ XXXIX (1881) pl. 17, 1Google Scholar, OJh II (1899) 10 fig. 8, Tod-Wace, , Sparta Museum 654Google Scholar (compare Rhomaios, K.AE 1933 22, 5Google Scholar); another similar, but earlier, from the 7th c, is in the Tegea Museum; it comes from a temple excavated by K. Rhomaios above the village of Mavriki.

5 Aīve10S: Jdl XII (1897) pl. 1, Pfuhl MuZ III, fig. 485, Jacobsthal, loc. cit. 28, i.—Γνάθων, : JHS XXIX (1909) 153Google Scholar, fig. 4 Jacobsthal, loc. cit. 28, 2 fig. 19.

6 The two monuments which show most clearly how the discs were placed on the stelai are: Relief in the Nat. Museum Svoronos, pl. XXXV 3, EA 1228, Süsserott, , Gr. Plastik d. 4Google ScholarJhs pl. 25, 3, Hausmann, , Kunst und Heiligtum nr. 144Google Scholar, fig. 9 (K. Lehmann-Hartleben, loc. cit.); and relief in the Reinach, Louvre S., Rep. d. Rel. II 280Google Scholar, 2, Giraudon 1009, Süsserott, loc. cit. pl. 25, 4, Hausmann, loc. cit. nr. 146, fig. 5 (K. Lehmann, loc. cit.; E. Kunze, loc. cit.).—A terracotta from S. Russia shows a Corinthian column with such a round monument on it beside a goddess: Reinach, S., Ant. du Bosph. Cimmérien pl. LXVII 2 p. 114Google Scholar; Winter, , Typen II pl. 94Google Scholar, 5 (Jacobsthal, P., Diskoi 27, 7Google Scholar).

7 P. Jacobsthal, loc. cit. fig. 18 and p. 27. Similar seems to be the shape of the disc on the reliefs of the preceding note.

8 K. Lehmann-Hartleben, loc. cit. fig. 2 and p. 22 ff.

9 Stele from Kyzikos with head of Kore (?): JHS XXIV (1904) 38 fig. 3. Hasluck, Cyzicus, vignette; with head of Pan: Mendel, , Cat. d. Scl pt. II, no. 571Google Scholar; Schede, M., Meisterw. d. türk. Mus. Konstantin. pl. XIaGoogle Scholar; Züchner, W., D. Berl. Mänadenkrater (98 Winckelmansprogr., 1938) 26 fig. 19.Google Scholar—Artemidoros Pergaios at Thera: Thera III 89 ff. pl. 5.—Protomai from the Heraion at Kalydon: Dyggve-Poulsen-Rhomaios, , D. Heroon v. Kalydon 73 ff.Google Scholar (for the Protome of the Pheidian Aphrodite see Langlotz, E., Phidiasprobleme 84 ff. pl. 29 c.Google Scholar).—Protomai from the Kabeirion at Delos, : Délos XIII 9 ff.Google Scholar pl. 8, ibid. XVI 29 ff.—It is also not certain what is the origin of monuments such as e.g., the which appears many times in the Inscription from Perge, Annuario 6/7, 1923/1924, 402 ff.Google Scholar (B. Pace).—To the Greek evidences for the imago clipeata, ‘εἰκὼν ἐν ὅπλῳ’, add the inscriptions from Lindos: Lindos II nos. 420–421 (I have not seen the thesis of J. Bolten, Imago clipeata).—Still more removed in spirit and provenience, are the painted clay tondi from Centuripe.—In general we have not yet the history of the concept and the form of the protome; the article of Ferri, S., ‘Archeologia della protome’ in the Ann. d. R.Sc. Norm. d. Pisa II (1933) 147 ff.Google Scholar does not advance the problem essentially.

10 Levi, A., Terracotte di Napoli no. 484 fig. 93Google Scholar = Boehringer, E., D. Münzen v. Syrakus 83 fig. 7.Google Scholar—Possibly another disc in the same Museum from Locroi, A. Levi, loc. cit. no. 61 (‘con foro per la sospensione, testa muliebre di stile bello’) is similar, but there is no illustration of it. (Compare ibid. Index s.v. ‘Disco’ and no. 771 ff).

11 Columna Nanniana = IG XII 3, 1075; IG XII Supplem. (1939) p. 91 and 211. SEG III 135 nr. 738. Kern, O., Inscr. Gr. pl. 4.Google Scholar Ἐπιτύμβιον Τσούντα 558 (MB) and 575.—Column from Olympia: Inschr. v. Olymp. no. 272.—For this kind of column in general: Raubitschek, A., Bull. Inst. arch. Bulg. XII (1938) 160 ff.Google Scholar Idem, Dedications from the Athen. Akrop. 3 ff.

12 Medallion under the handle of Sosias cup, with Selene: FR pl. 123; ARV 21, 1 (mentioned also by Lorentz, F.RM LII (1937) 186 n. 1).Google Scholar The medallion with Helios, Mon. Inst. II pl. 55Google Scholar, mentioned by Deubner, O., AM LXII (1937) 80 note 2Google Scholar (illustrated also in Roscher I 1998 and Reinach, , Rep. d. Vases I 109Google Scholar) does not seem to be either Attic or earlier than the end of the 5th C. B.C. (I have not seen the publication by Albizzati, in Mélanges d'arch et d'hist. XXXVII 168Google Scholar fig. 24). Compare Brommer, F., Satyrspiele 78Google Scholar no. 172 and 179.

13 See the references collected by Hackl, R., JdI XXII (1907) 89 ff.Google Scholar and C. Watzinger, FR III 370 ff. (text to pl. 180, 1), where the previous bibliography is given.—Some examples: Cups: Elpinikos cup, Bonn, , AZ 1885, pl. 12, 1Google Scholar; CV pl. 3, 5 and 4, 5; ARV 86, 2 (‘Selene’). Cup, Bonn, by the Jena painter CV pl. 11, 3; ARV 882, 45: bust of Amazon with one hand (and 46: London F. 134, instead of hand, tendril).—Miniature plate, Langlotz, , Akrop-Vas. IIGoogle Scholar no. 36 (Pl. 2 female head) and 37 (female head and tendril in front of it).—Phiale, Berlin 2310 by the Telephos painter, Luschey, Phiale fig. 11; ARV 544, 34 (female head).—Onos, , Bonn, CV 28, 7Google Scholar (female head), where are also mentioned onoi, according to Beazley, by the painter of Berlin 2624, ARV 758–759. Compare Robinson, D., AJA XLIX (1945) 488 ff.Google Scholar passim.—The upper medallion of the ôon in the Stathatos Collection: Metzger, H.Mon. Piot XL (1944) 69 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar fig. 5/6 (female head).—Lids of pyxides: unpublished fragment in the Nat. Museum, Inv. no. 16442 (provenience unknown), probably from the circle of the Altamura painter according to Mrs. Karouzou, here fig. 6: head of a youth wearing a laurel wreath (Apollo?). Tübingen E 157, Catal. Watzinger pl. 36 (female head) ARV 625, 3 (the Long-Chin group). Tübingen E 158 Watzinger, ibid. (bearded head wearing a laurel wreath, Zeus?); Bonn, CV pl. 27, 5Google Scholar (female head); Copenhagen, CV pl. 163, 7Google Scholar (head of Athena); Berlin, , Sammlung Sabouroff I pl. 65, 2Google Scholar (female head and tendril in front of it); Olynthos V pl. 108, 202 and p. 139 (female head and thyrsos in front of her). Boeotian examples: Lullies, R., AM LXV (1940) 21Google Scholar (and pl. 25, 3).

14 Better reproductions: Buschor, E., Plastik d. Griechen 46Google Scholar W. H. Schuchhardt, D. Kunst d. Griechen fig. 81 Ashmole, B., in Transactions of the Intern. Numism. Congr. 1936 pl. III 14.Google Scholar Compare BSA XXXIX (1938/9) 99 ff. Schrader, H. (Langlotz-Schuchhardt, ), D. arch. Marm. d. Akrop. 30.Google ScholarSchefold, K.Gr. Plastik I 43Google Scholar, 72 fig. 35a.

15 The study by Webster, T. B. L., ‘Tondo Composition etc.’ in JHS LIX (1939) 103 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Schefold's, K. remarks in Orient-Hellas-Rom. 146Google Scholar do not touch our special subject. Compare also Lorentz, F., RM LII (1937) 185 ff.Google ScholarDeubner, O.AM LXII (1937) 78 ff.Google Scholar

16 Handb. d. Archäol. I (1939) 6/7.

17 The restoration is due to the artists of the National Museum Al. Papailiopoulos (painter) and N. Perantinos (sculptor). It is not certain in all details: e.g. in the top of the sakkos above the skull (which could, and possibly ought, to be higher and more round); in the hair over the forehead (which could project more against the back ground); in the termination of the bust at the front. The position of the circle of the iris seems certain, if our inter pretation of a circular incision is right, but that of the pupil is not certain.

18 Compare e.g. the white lekythos Buschor, E., Feldmäuse 7Google Scholar, fig. 8 (ARV 476, 178) with the one in AZ XLIII (1885) 197.

19 For the sakkos see (apart from the articles in the lexicons) Curtius, L., JdI XIX (1904) 60 ff.Google Scholar; Langlotz, E., Zeitbestimmung 96 ff.Google Scholar; Jacobsthal, P., Mel. Rel. 73 n. 5Google Scholar; Charbonneaux, J., Mon. Piot, XXXIII (1933) 98 ff.Google Scholar; Will, E., Mon. Piot XL (1944) 59 ff.Google Scholar—Compare the Acropolis frag. O. Walter, Rel. im kl. Akrop. Mus. no. 293, a little later than ours.

20 See RE s.v. ‘Melos’ (29, 567 ff.).

21 Langlotz, , Akrop. Vas. II no. 247, pl. 14Google Scholar; Robert, C.Arch. Hermen, 20Google Scholar fig. 16.—Busts of Athena by the Bowdoin painter; see below n. 40.

22 See recently Knoblauch, P., AA 1938, 351 ff.Google Scholar (cf. ibid. 1939, 425 ff.); Jastrow, E.AJA L (1946) 73 ff.Google Scholar

23 Buschor, E., Feldmäuse (SB. d. Bayer. Akad. 1937)Google Scholarpassim (differently, Metzger, H., BCH LXVIII/IX (1944/1945) 296 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar).—Hydria in Brussels: K. Schefold, Unters, z. d. Kertscher Vas. Nr. 146 pl. I. Buschor, loc. cit. 29 fig. 12; Idem, Gr. Vasen fig. 260.—To the representations of the birth of Aphrodite add: AA 1941, 449 ff.; Beazley AJA XLV (1941) 599.—For the present the question must remain open whether, from the point of view of religious meaning, the protome of the Melian disc can be connected with the protomai of the ‘Melian’ (probably Melian, , see AA 1940, 282Google Scholar) vases of the 7th C. or with the protomai of Daidalic golden sheets, placed often among rosettes and geometricised cinquefoils (e.g. AZ 1884, pl. 9, 11), or with the clay protomai, funerary and votives, of goddesses (but they have veils and are maternal types), on which see recently Smith, H. R. W., Hesperia Suppl. VIII, 353 ff.Google Scholar—Compare also, contemporary with the Melian disc, the clay protome from Halmyros, E.A. 3409.Google ScholarZervos, L'art en Grèce 1255.Google Scholar

24 Pondus = σεμνόν: Schweitzer, B., Xenokrates 33 ff.Google Scholar—Athena in the Metrop. Museum: Br.-Br. pl. 763/65. Picard, Ch., Manuel II 674 ff.Google Scholar fig. 271. Bull Metr. Mus., 1943, 206 ff. (Richter, G.) AJA XLIX (1945) 486 n. 51Google Scholar (D. M. Robinson). It seems indeed (original?) Attic work, which as Langlotz, rightly emphasises, Phidiasprobleme 75Google Scholar (and note 9), continues the tradition of the Kore from the Propylaia, 688. The case for its Attic character is perhaps strengthened by the comparison with the sphinx head of the Sotades' rhyton in the Brit. Mus. E. 788, ARV 451, 7; the hairdressing is of the kind worn by the frontal figures on the krater by the Villa Giulia p. (see n. 46) and on many other vases.—Head in the Nat. Mus. 381: E.A. 1203/4; Langlotz, loc. cit. p. 99 n. 13.

25 Bronze hydria in the Metr. Mus.: Langlotz, , Bildhauersch. pl. 34Google Scholar; Richter, G. in Amelung-Festschrift, (Antike Plastik) 183 ff.Google Scholar; Poulsen, V. H., D. Strenge Stil 15 fr. fig. 9.Google Scholar Mirrors: Langlotz and Poulsen, loc. cit. passim. Add the mirror in Dublin published by Beazley, J. D. in Proc. R. Irish Acad. XLV (1939)Google Scholar; and see S. Papaspyridi-Karouzou, ‘Attic bronze mirrors’ in the forthcoming volume dedicated to D. M. Robinson. Peplophoros from Herakleion: Poulsen, loc. cit. 29, 119 ff. Idem, Berytus VI, 1939/40, 7 ff. Recently brilliant discussion of its particular workshop and its individual character by Langlotz, E., JdI LXI/II (1946/1947) 196 ff.Google Scholar (the remarks of Gjödesen, M., Acta Arch. XV (1949) 174 ff.Google Scholar again confuse the characteristics of the Peloponnesian workshops; by the way, of course ‘there seems to be no reason to suspect the authenticity of the bronze, p. 185, fig. 25= Zervos L'art en Grèce fig. 202/4’ (ibid. 187, 5), for the simple reason that it was found in Ktouri, (Thessaly): BCH LVI (1932) 174 ff. pl. XGoogle Scholar; the piece is probably Boeotian).

26 Jacobsthal, P., Mel. Rel. 128 ff.Google Scholar See below, n: 37.

27 Jacobsthal, loc. cit., 154 fig. 32.

28 Buschor, E., AM LIV (1929) 162Google Scholar (cf. JdI LII (1937) 191.

29 Stele Giustiniani: Blümel, , Katal. III, K 19 pl. 27/8Google Scholar; F. Gerke, Gr. Plastik fig. 144/5; KiB 2 239, 7.—Stele Sabouroff: Blümel, ibid. K. 18 pl. 26; Jacobsthal, Diskoi fig. 5 pp. 11, 14.—Stele of Philis: Devambez, P., BCH LV (1931) 412 ff. pl. 21Google Scholar; Encycl. Photogr. (Tel) III, 169; Picard, Ch., Manuel II pl. 26Google Scholar; KiB 2, 239, 2.—Stele in the Vatican, : JdI XVIII (1903) pl. 8Google Scholar; F. Gerke, loc. cit. fig. 42; Br. Br. 784; KiB 2, 287, 4.—Stele from Pella, : AM, VIII (1883) pl. 4Google Scholar;. BCH VIII (1884) pl. 11; JdI XXVIII (1913) 317, fig. 2; Bulle, H., Ssh. Mensch 2–3, pl. 264b.Google ScholarJacobsthal, , Mel. Rel. 158, 11.Google Scholar

30 Head from the Asklepieion: Buschor, , Olymp. 37Google Scholar, fig. 31.—Head in Thera: Thera II, 249 ff. fig. 440; Langlotz, in Schrader, , Arch. Marm. d. Akrop. 34 n. 31.Google Scholar—Head from Delion: Buschor, loc. cit. p. 37 fig. 32; Langlotz, , Bildhauersch 140, 8, 144.Google Scholar—Fragment of a stele in Paros: Buschor, loc. cit. 36 fig. 30.—Stele in New York: AD I pl. 54; Curtius, L., D. gr. Grabrel. pl. 6Google Scholar; G. Richter, Sculpt. and sculpt. fig. 426; Jacobsthal, , Mel. Rel. 161Google Scholar, fig. 41; F. Gerke, Gr. Plastik, fig. 147; KiB 2, 239, 6.—Metrological relief at Oxford, : JHS IV (1883), pl. 35Google Scholar; Langlotz, , Bildhauersch. 133, 16.Google Scholar—Head from Thasos, : BCH XLV (1921) 129 ff.Google Scholar fig. 16/7 (the dating corrected by Pfuhl, , JdI XLI (1926) 132 ff.Google Scholar and after him Picard, Manuel II, 691Google Scholar n. 2) It belongs, I think, to the time of the Caryatids of the Erechtheion.

31 See relevant chapters in Langlotz, Bildhauerschulen (with additions, for the archaic period, in Schrader, , Arch. Marm. d. Akrop. 34 ff.Google Scholar n. 32. The characteristics of eastern Ionic art have been rightly expressed by Langlotz, even if not convincingly applied in all cases). To the more eastern Ionic School belong, I think, because of the looseness of the pose and softness of the modelling examples such as the stele from Bulle, Nisyros H., Sch. Mensch 2–3 pl. 264aGoogle Scholar; Curtius, L., D. griech. Grabrel. pl. 7Google Scholar; Schede, M., Meisterw. türk. Mus. Konstant. pl. 6Google Scholar; and stele from Jacobsthal, Samos P., Mel. Rel. 159Google Scholar fig. 38. W. H. Schuchhardt, D. Kunst d. Gr. fig. 260.

32 The real character and quality of the heads from Selinus are revealed for the first time in Langlotz's excellent photographs: Charbonneaux, J., Sculpt. Gr. Class. IIGoogle Scholar, figs. 50/1; H. Kähler, D. Griech. Metopenbild fig. 58/9; Antike u. Abendland II (1946) 114 ff. (especially 117, 121) fig. 20/1. See also B. Ashmole, Late arch, and early class, gr. sculpt, etc. figs. 56, 64, 75; F. Gerke, Gr. Plastik figs. 130/4.—Ludovisi ‘throne’: AD II pl. 6/7; F. Gerke, loc. cit. figs. 135/41.

33 Two striking examples of such a ‘διαπεπρισμένον’ body: the left elbow of the relief from Daphni in Berlin, Blümel, , Katal. III, K 22, pl. 32Google Scholar; AA 1919, 111, fig, 32; Möbius, , Ornam. Gr. Grabst. 10Google Scholar; Jacobsthal, , Mel. Rel. 152.Google Scholar Almost the whole body of the man on the relief at the Piraeus Mus. AE 1910, p. 67, nr. 4 (fig.); Diepolder, H., Att. Grabrel. 12, 2.Google Scholar

34 Studniczka, , JdI XXVI (1911) 188Google Scholar has already connected them. Cf. Möbius, H., Ornam. Griech. Grabst. 11 pl. 2aGoogle Scholar; Buschor, , AM LVIII (1933), 44 ff.Google Scholar Beil. XVII, 1.

35 See nn. 29 and 30.

36 AJA XLVII (1943) 461 (Panathenaica).

37 Jacobsthal, P., Die Mel. Rel. (1931).Google Scholar Additional references: BCH; LXI (1937) 353 (S. Papaspyridi-Karouzou); AE 1938, 104 ff. (Kontoleon, N.)Google Scholar; JHS LIX (1939) 65 ff. (Jacobsthal, P.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; AJA XLV (1941) 342 (Beazley, J. D.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Buschor-Hamann, , Sculpt, d. Zeustemp. zu Olympia 9, 2Google Scholar; Mon. Line. XXIV (1916) 890; Dedalo III (1922/3) 88; ARV 607, 2.

39 Europa: FR 114, 1; Furtwängler, , Aigina I, 498.Google Scholar Hera: FR 65; Reichhold, , Skizzenbuch pl. 71Google Scholar; Schuchhardt, D.Kunst, d. Griech. fig. 178Google Scholar; ARV 556, 14.—Lekythos in Brussels: Buschor, Att. Lek. d. Parthenonzeit fig. 11; ARV 579 (connected with the group of Athens 1929, a).

40 Winter, , AZ; XLIII 43 (1885) pl. 12, 1Google Scholar (Elpinikos-cup, ARV 86, 2).—Bowdoin, ibid. pl. 12, 2; JdI XXX (1915) 87 fig. 8; ARV 476, 175 (for the dating see Jacobsthal, Mel. Rel. 97 n. 2Google Scholar and Haspels, E.Lekythoi 157 n. 5Google Scholar).—Similar Spencer–Churchill: Greek Art (Exhibition 1946) Catal. J. Chittenden-Ch. Seltman pl. 24, 102; ARV 476, 177.—Compare by the same painter the Lekythos in the Louvre Rayet-Collignon pl. 10; Buschor, Feldmäuse fig. 4 and p. 7: ARV 476, 178.—Brit. Mus. D. 46: AZ loc. cit. p. 198 (Professor Sir John Beazley kindly informs me that it is a work by the Ikaros painter and a replica of the lekythos ARV 483, 50).—Brit. Mus. D.32: AZ loc. cit. p. 197.

41 Acropolis fragment: Langlotz, , Akrop. Vas. pl. 53, 692Google Scholar; ARV 322, 87.—Lekythos in New York: Richter-Hall no. 85, pl. 89; ARV 321, 83.—Erichthonios Stamnos: FR 137; L. Curtius, D. Klass. Kunst. Griech. fig. 413/4; ARV 318, 18.—Würzburg amphora; Langlotz no. 504 pl. 171/2 and, especially 184; FR 107, 2; ARV 319, 41.

42 New York krater: Richter-Hall no. 86 pl. 94; Cook, , Zeus III, 1123Google Scholar fig. 883; ARV 338, 5.—Acropolis fragment: Langlotz, pl. 79, 1024 and drawing on p. 92; ARV 340, 43.

43 Buschor, , Gr. Vasen 182.Google Scholar

44 Penthesilea cup: ARV 582, 1.—Tityos cup ARV 583, 2.—New York Bobbin: ARV 588, 114; Schuchhardt D. Kunst. d. Gr. fig. 170/1.—Boston skyphos: ARV 558, 103.

45 Fragments in Leningrad: Webster, , Niobidenmaler pl. 9a–bGoogle Scholar; ARV 423, 53 and 418, 3.—New York: Richter-Hall no. 97 pl. 100; ARV 422, 50.—Tübingen: Webster pl. 20 ARV 420, 28.

46 Villa Giulia: FR 17/8; CV pll. 21/2; Curtius D. Klass. Kunst. Griech. fig. 70 (part); ARV 401, 1.—New York krater: Richter-Hall pl. 101; ARV 402, 16.—New York Stamnos, : Richter-Hall pl. 102Google Scholar; ARV 402, 28.—Syracuse, : Mon. Linc. 17 pl. 32Google Scholar; ARV 404, 42.—Brit. Mus.: Cook, Zeus pl. 59Google Scholar; ARV 404, 43.

47 Useful help could also be offered by the coins (which have the same essential subject as our disc, a head within a circle), if the coins of the Ionian district, which interest us more directly here, were more plentiful and better dated by external evidence. A glance at the richer series of Sicilian coins shows, I think, that among the coins of Catane the piece B. Ashmole, Late arch. and early class, gr. sculpt. etc. fig. 58 (from the first issue after the re-establishment of 461 B.C.) has still in the pose of the head and in the relation of its elements a tension which is much more moderate on the Melian disc; on the other hand the piece Pfeiff, A., Apollon pl. 45aGoogle Scholar; Langlotz, , Ant. u. Abendl. II (1946) 138 fig. 23Google Scholar, and even the somewhat later piece Hirmer, M.Die sch. Griechenmünzen Siz. 13Google Scholar; Pfeiff loc. cit. pl. 44, have in common with the Melian the new relaxation and centralisation (compare in Pfeiff, loc. cit. p. 87 the fine differentiation between the two last coins). As far as the Arethusae of Syracuse are concerned the pieces Ashmole, loc. cit. fig. 45 and 47 and Hirmer, loc. cit. 9 seem to be still a long way from our head; much nearer is the piece Rizzo, Monete Greche della Sic. pl. XXXIX2Google Scholar (compare Amelung, W., RM XL (1925) 197 ff.Google Scholar fig. 9 ‘about 460’), and still nearer the one Rizzo XXXIX 4; Böhringer R 385 E pl. 20, 555, and Rizzo XXXIX 5; Böhringer R 391 pl. 21, 570. But I think that the Melian head has already something of the slightly later one Rizzo XLI 4, Böhringer R 444 Pl. 24, 645, which recalls the ‘Sappho’ Albani.

48 JdI XXXVII (1922) 127 ff. fig. 12 (W. Amelung). Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G., Scult. del Mag. del Mus. Vat. Nr. 41Google Scholar pl. XII.

49 Serpendzé, head: AE 1901, pl. 8Google Scholar(Furtwängler, A.) ÖJh XIV (1911) 58Google Scholar fig. 61 (H. Schrader); Buschor, E., Olymp. 28Google ScholarLanglotz, E., Bildhauersch. 140, 7 pl. 87b.Google Scholar—Giustiniani: note 29.—Head from the Delion at Paros; n. 30.—Ludovisi ‘throne’ and metopes from Selinus: n. 32.—Stele in the Vatican n. 29.—Fragment from Paros: n. 30.

50 See n. 29.

51 See n. 30.

52 Examples: JdI LIV (1939) 65 fig. 36/7 = ibid. LV (1940) 230/1 fig. 48, 50 (B. Schweitzer).

53 Philis stele and stele from Pella: note 29. The dating of the later by Jacobsthal, , Mel. Rel. 58Google Scholar, ‘about 440’ seems rather early: he finds the warrior connected in outline and rhythm with the youth from the Parthenon frieze West 9 (Smith pl. 64), but this youth as well as the comparable youths South 62 (Smith pl. 84) West 4 (Smith pl. 62) 22/3 (Smith pl. 69) have the weight differently divided and the single rhythm of their pose coming from within, not created artificially by the outline. The youth from Pella, looser and more Polykleitan, is held together from outside by the curve of the whole outline; he can hardly be conceived far away from such figures as on the stele of Chairedemos, and Lykeas, in Piraeus, , Diepolder, , Att. Grabrel pl. 16.Google Scholar—Stele from Kamiros, : Cl. Rhodos IV, 37 ff. fig. 10/11Google Scholar; ibid. V 1, 31 ff. pl. 4/7 (G. Jacopi); Antike VII (1931) 331 ff. pl. 31/3 (Lehmann, K.)Google Scholar; RM XLVII (1932) 51 ff. (Speier, H.)Google Scholar; AJA XXXVII (1933) 407 ff. (Rickert, M.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; F. Gerke, Gr. Plastik fig. 195. On the Kamiros stele there is, I think, a noticeable differentiation in the rendering of the eye: the eye is more hidden in the figure of Krito, who is alive, and it shows more complete in the figure of Timarista who as a dead person is a higher being and it is probably just for the reason that she is more free from the fortuitous foreshortenings which are created by the relations of our world (the details of the linear design of the eyes, but probably not the impression given from a single view point, show better in the fig. Cl. Rhodos IV fig. 10/11).

54 See Studniczka, F. in Festschrift Benndorf 173 ffGoogle Scholar; Poulsen, V. H., Str. Stil 122.Google Scholar—It is already quite developed in the nice relief fragment from the recent excavations at Brauron, PAE 1945–1948, 89 fig. fig. 7Google Scholar; BCH LXXIII (1949) pl. 31, 2, work most probably of about 450 B.C. which continues (for religious reason?) the mannerist current which is represented in archaistic works, or simply affected ones, such as from an earlier period, the Akropolis relief no. 581, Payne-Young pl. 126; Schrader (Langlotz-Schuchhardt) pl. 175, or terracottas, like the head V. H. Poulsen, loc. cit. 61 fig. 40 and the Boston, fragment Bull. 1926, 28Google Scholar; Langlotz, , Bildhauersch, pl. 96dGoogle Scholar (ARV 453, 20; Jacobsthal, Mel. Rel. 135, 1Google Scholar); it shows probably connections with island work shops and with the somewhat later grave relief Diepolder, H.D. att. Grabrel. 9Google Scholar fig. 1.

55 Some clear examples: Aphrodite of the Ludovisi ‘throne’.—Hanover, head JdI XXXV (1920) pl. 4 (Amelung)Google Scholar; B. Ashmole Late arch. and early Gr. sculpt. etc. fig. 79; Buschor, , Olymp. 31.Google Scholar—Dresden, head, JdI XXXV 51 fig. 1 and pl. VI.Google ScholarLanglotz, E., Bildhauersch. pl. 22Google Scholar.—Almyros, head AM LXV (1940) pl. 63/65Google Scholar (F. Brommer), Bollett. d'Arte, 1948, 193 ff. (Paribeni, E.).Google Scholar This head should not be earlier than 460, because it recalls in general Peirithoos of the West Pediment of Olympia, and the groups of locks at the temples show almost the manner of the ‘Omphalos’ Apollo.

56 Brunn, H.Arch. Stud. 73Google Scholar (cf. Mesterw. 123).

57 Head from Delion and Thera: see n. 30.

58 Head from the Asklepieion: see n. 30, contemporary with the Sphinx head from the akroterion of Aphaia, , Meisterwerke 50Google Scholar; Welter, G., Aigina (1938) 88 fig. 79Google Scholar; W. H. Schuchhardt, Kunst d. Gr. fig. 144.—Stele at Pharsala: Langlotz, , Bildhauersch. pl. 10Google Scholar; Encycl. Photogr. (Tel) III 147—that of Nisyros: see n. 31.—For other examples of the incised line of the eyelid, although I do not know whether we can use this as a criterion for the more precise location of the pieces, see Langlotz, , Bildhauersch. 142.Google Scholar

59 E.g. Vatican stele: n. 29.—Fragment of stele from Paros: n. 30.—Stele from Karystos: Blümel, , Katal. III, K 21 pl. 30/1.Google Scholar F. Gerke, Gr. pl. fig. 293; KiB 2 287, 5; Jacobsthal, , Mel. Rel. 153, 159.Google Scholar—Stele from Herakleion, : ÖJh VI (1903) pl. I p. 6 fig. 8Google Scholar; JdI XXVIII (1913) 319 fig. 3; JHS LVII (1937) 42; nearly contemporary with the stele from Karystos.—From Samos: n. 31. From Pella: n. 29. From Rhodes: n. 53.

60 Cf. the head of Apollo as illustrated in Hege's photograph (Hege-Rodenwaldt Olympia, frontispiece).

61 Type Barracco-Budapest, etc.: Buschor, , Olymp. 35.Google ScholarPoulsen, V. H., Str. Stil 64 n. 26Google Scholar (his doubts do not seem well founded).—Peplophoros in Heracleion: see n. 25.—Apollo in the Louvre (Omphalos type): Encycl. Photogr. (Tel) III 151A. Pfeiff, A., Apollon pl. 29b.Google Scholar

62 Head in a private collection: Neugebauer, K. A.Antiken in deutschem Privatbesitz (1938) pl. 3 no. 5Google Scholar; Poulsen, V. H., Berytus VI (1939/1940) 9Google Scholar; E. Langlotz in a forthcoming paper (for the Alba head: Buschor, E., Olymp. 35Google Scholar).— Head of Athena in the Capitoline: EA 449/51; Helbig 3 989; Buschor, loc. cit. 35. Poulsen, V. H., Acta Arch. XI (Myron) 39 n. 177.Google Scholar—Chatsworth Apollo: AD IV pls. 21 ff.; Langlotz, , Bildhauersch pl. 12Google Scholar; JHS LVIII (1938) pls. 8/9; F. Gerke, Gr. Pl. figs. 108/9; Pfeiff, A., Apollon pl. 34/5.Google Scholar—Among the works of more eastern Ionic art we may mention the head of a goddess from Tralies in Constantinople: BCH XXVIII (1904) pl. 11; RA IV (1904) (2) pl. XIV/XV; Mendel II no. 54.5; Buschor, Olymp. 38Google Scholar (it seems to be near the ‘Penelope’). The classicising relief in Turin, , ÖJh XVI (1913) 22 ff.Google Scholar fig. 14/5; Rösch, G., Alt. Marm. v. Paros 33Google Scholar (Buschor, , Olymp. 30Google Scholar; Poulsen, V. H., Act. Arch. XI Myron p. 40Google Scholar) seems to be based on authentic Parian works.

63 Terracotta in the Louvre: J. Charbonneaux, Les t.c. gr. fig. 32 = Idem, La Sculp, gr. class. I fig. 42 = Encycl. photogr. (Tel) II 195 c–d; Poulsen, , Str. Stil 50Google Scholar no. 6; Knoblauch, P., Studien etc. 188Google Scholar no. 396.—Athena Brescia: Furtwängler, , MW 123 ff.Google Scholar fig. 23; EA 194/6; Buschor, , Phidias d. Mensch 13Google Scholar fig. 5 (Idem, Olymp. 32; quite different is the opinion of Poulsen, V. H., Berytus VI 8Google Scholar n. 8).—Athena of Myron: Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G., Seul. del Mag. del Vat. Nr. 59 pl. XVIII.Google ScholarArias, P. E., Mirane 19Google Scholar figs. 26, 32.