Kouros (, , plural kouroi) is the modern term given to free-standing Ancient Greek sculptures that depict nude male youths. They first appear in the Archaic period in Greece and are prominent in Attica and Boeotia, with a less frequent presence in many other Ancient Greek territories such as Sicily. Henri Lechat, 1904, La sculpture attique avant Phidias. Such statues are found across the Greek-speaking world; the preponderance of these were found in sanctuaries of Apollo with more than one hundred from the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoion, Boeotia, alone. J. Ducat, 1971, Les kouroi du Ptoion These free-standing sculptures were typically marble, but the form is also rendered in limestone, wood, bronze, ivory and terracotta. They are typically life-sized, though early Colossal statue examples are up to 3 meters tall.
The female sculptural counterpart of the kouros is the kore.
When a pubescent was received into the body of grown men, as a grown Kouros, he could enter the initiation fest of the brotherhood (phratry, φρατρία). Apellaios was the month of these rites, and Apollo ( Apellon) was the "megistos kouros" (the greatest Kouros).
The word is also attested in Linear B, a syllabary system of writing used to record the Mycenaean Greek dialect of the Hellenic languages. The word ko-wo (*κόρϝος, * kórwos) is attested in tablets from Pylos and Knossos, and could mean "the sons of the women recorded in those tablets".
The term kouros was first proposed for what were previously thought to be depictions of Apollo by V.I. Leonardos in 1895 in relation to the youth from Keratea, and adopted by Henri Lechat as a generic term for the standing male figure in 1904.
The work of Guralnick along with the previous studies by Erik Iversen and Kim Levin
Iversen (1957) MittKairo, 15, 134-147
According to Hurwit & Campbell: "Kouroi apparently first appeared on the island of Naxos, since most early examples are in Naxian marble".
As well as being found in the sanctuaries of Apollo at Delphi, Delos and Mt. Ptoion, kouroi have been found dedicated at the sanctuaries of Hera at Samos, and of Athena and Poseidon at Sounion,
Whitley, J. (2007) The archaeology of ancient Greece, p 218
so the contention that they depict Apollo is at the very least problematic. However, the majority are from Apollonian sites and dedicated to that god, which has led Ridgway (1993) to suggest that the early, belted form of the kouros-type statue was introduced in the late seventh century as a replacement for the colossal representation of Apollo.
Over time, the votive and funerary functions of the sculpture became divorced whilst its attributes were shed and its form became more generic until, in the late sixth century, it could serve a number of uses depending on context and location. This 'polyvalent' argument, initially put forth by historian Jean Ducat,
Ducat (1971) pp 444-445
was elaborated by art historian Andrew Stewart, who contends the distribution of kouroi coincides with city-states where the aristocracy were in ascendancy and that this alternation between the divine and the memorial was an identification of aristocratic arete with the immortal.
Stewart (1990) pp 109–110
There is a strong homogeneity across the various regional schools: where anatomical innovations were adopted they seem to have spread quickly amongst the different workshops so that "regional distinctions become merged in a common progression". Consequently, the development of the kouros type as we now understand it is based on the relative chronology delineated by Gisela Richter, who distinguishes six groups by their common anatomical features, with particular reference to the major muscle groups as illustrated in the écorchés.
The conception of form in this period is abstract and geometrical, emphasis is on architectural shape and the interrelation of parts which favoured expressive pattern over realism. Figures display the four faces of the block from which they are carved, their form is cubic with details incised, and their anatomy is only partially understood. Harmony and expressive pattern are the goal, and as such the proportions are abnormal. The torso is four-sided and flat, the back is higher than chest with the vertebral column expressed as a straight line. The skull is undeveloped; flat at the back and often on top. The ear is carved in one plane, and highly stylized. Tragus is knob like, either on cheek or lobe. Antitragus is not indicated. The eyes are large and flat, canthus is not marked, lachrymal caruncle is not indicated. The mouth is horizontal, with lips on same plane, and corners of mouth forming triangular depressions. Hair is arranged in parallel beaded tresses, which rarely radiates from the vertex. The Sterno-mastoids, when marked, are indicated by grooves running to the sternal notch. There is no indication of swelling of trapezius on the outline of shoulders. The clavicles are flat ridges along whole course of shoulders. Median line is sometimes marked by a groove from sternal notch to navel. The lower boundary of the thorax has the shape of a pointed arch. Rectus abdominis is formed by three or more transverse divisions above navel. The navel is generally a knob in a circular groove. Serratus magnus is not indicated. The shoulder blades are outlined by grooves on the surface of back. The erector spinae attachment to posterior part of the iliac crest is sometimes indicated by grooves in the lumbar regions. Forearm is Supination, with palm towards the body. Arms often separated from body between armpit and hand. Thumbs are large. Vastus medialis descends to about the same level as vastus externus, the shin is vertical, and the malleoli are level. Weight is evenly distributed on both legs and the flanks are level.
The characteristics of this style are as follows: the ear is still carved in one plane, but is less stylised. Eyes are not so large as before and more rounded. The mouth is horizontal but no longer always in one plane. The slight protrusions of flanks are sometimes prolonged into a girdle-like ridge. The sculptor occasionally marks the anterior spine of the crest. Shoulder blades are now separate raised planes. The erector spinae is sometimes indicated as raised planes. Arms are generally joined to the body. The depression over the great trochanter is generally omitted. The shins sometimes curve inwards. The left flank is occasionally placed slightly forward.
The absolute chronology of this period is provided by the dedication of Rhombos on the Moschophoros, which may belong to the same time as a decree referring to the Panathenaia of 566. The Moschophoros is stylistically similar to early in this group giving us an approximate upper limit of 570. Additionally the terracotta kneeling boy
Vanderpool (1937) Hesperia, VI, p 434
found in a well in the Agora and dated by its black-figure pottery sherd stratum to circa 550 shares the flat almond eyes, absence of the trapezium and pointed arch of the lower thorax that characterizes the late Tenea-Volomandra, furnishing us with a tentative lower boundary for the style.
"Astonishingly uniform" the products of this period are found across the Greek world in large quantities. This group is named after the best preserved example of the era.
NAMA 1558
The date of this group is conjectured on the basis that one generation would be required for the development of the Melos group style prior to the more securely dated Anavysos-Ptoon style. However Richter argues there may be some relationship to other contemporary Greek art works, namely: the figures on Late Corinthian pottery exhibit the same degree of naturalism, and the archaic column sculptures from the Temple of Artemis Ephesos, thought to have been supplied by Croesus of Lydia, share some anatomical features. Of the important works that come done to us there is the colossal kouros from Megara,NAMA 13 a transitional early piece from Boeotia (Thebes 3) and an early Parian example.Louvre Museum MND 888
The characteristics of this group can be observed on the Siphnian Treasury which is dated on external evidence before 525 BCE,
Herodotus III.57-8, based, of course, on the orthodox chronology and not the Vickers-Francis revised chronology.
therefore allowing time for the maturation of the style we can date the beginning of this group to, roughly, a generation prior. The earliest is perhaps the Munich kouros (Glyptothek 169) judging by the rendering of some of the muscles. Another significant Attic kouros in this style is the Anavyssos; its base reads:
This period is framed by the stasis of the Peisistratid era and the beginning of Athenian democracy and the Persian war. The upper limit of this group may be fixed by the sculpture of the temple of Apollo, Delphi. Architecturally earlier than the Hekatompedon of Athens the Delphi temple has a probable date of thus the kouroi of its pediment which betray the swelling trapezium and semicircular lower boundary of the abdomen can be associated with later examples of the group. Yet these same youths have a grooved, narrow lower boundary to the thorax and their flanks are level, suggesting that they are early specimens of the style. Gisela Richter (1960) names this group after the kouros Ptoon 20,
NAMA 20
which is likely a work dedicated by Pythias of Akraiphia and Aischrion to Apollo of the silver bow. This along with the torso form Eutresis (Thebes 7) indicate a vigorous school of sculpture which may have existed to serve the Ptoan sanctuary. Attic production is considerable up to after which it seems to peter out. Important late kouroi from Athens include the Aristodikos kouros (Ptoon 20 group
NAMA 3938
)
an akropolis statuette
NAMA 6445
and the bronze Apollo from Piraeus.
Purpose
Origin and evolution
R.M. Cook (1987) Origins of Greek Sculpture, JHS 87, pp 24-32
P. Kranz (1972) AthMitt 81, pp 1-55
or a product of foreign influence. For an external cause for change, possible sources of influence have been cited, such as Egypt, Anatolia and Syria, with the strongest case made for Egypt, in particular the figure of Horus. It is known that the Greeks had longstanding trade relations with Egypt prior to the founding of the Greek entrepôt of Naukratis in the mid-7th century,
Herodotus, II.1.54
where the Greeks could have learned Egyptian sculpting methods. A 1978 study by Eleanor Guralnick applied Photogrammetry measurement and cluster analysis to a number of Greek and Egyptian statues and found the correlation between the Second Canon of the 26th Dynasty and Greek kouroi to be widely distributed but not universal.E. Guralnick (1978) Proportions of kouroi, AJA, p.461
Iversen (1955) Canon and Proportion in Egyptian Art
Levin (1964) AJA 68, 13-28
have added considerably to the argument for an imitation by Greek sculptors of Egyptian sculpture. The system of proportion in the second Egyptian canon of the Saite period consisted of a grid of twenty-one and one-fourth parts, with twenty-one squares from the soles of the feet to a line drawn through the centre of the eyes. The grid was applied to the surface of the block being carved, allowing the major anatomical features to be located at fixed grid points. Iversen has shown that the New York kouros conforms to this ratio of proportion. It was Guralnick, however, who developed this discovery by comparing other kouroi by means of Cluster analysis and Standard score profile analysis to the Egyptian Canon II and a control group composed of statistically average Mediterranean men. As a result, she has identified two strains within methods of proportioning in sixth century kouroi, where the majority follow the general line of evolution from the foreign model towards an idealized human norm.
Attributes and meaning
Development
Sounion group
Orchomenos–Thera group
Tenea–Volomandra group
Melos group
Anavysos–Ptoon 12 group
NAMA 3851
Two others are the Akropolis torso,
Akropolis 665, 596
and the Rayet head.
Carlsberg Glyptothek 418
The island of Keos supplies us with one of the best examples of the time,
NAMA 3686
notable for its advanced rendering of the back where the greatest protrusion of the back is level with that of the chest. Keos was likely under the cultural influence of Athens at this time and this kouros is comparable to and chronologically close to the Anavyssos kouros and akropolis head. From the Ptoan sanctuary in Boeotia we have the Ptoon 12 kouros (NAMA), "softer, less sturdy", suggests; Gisela Richter asserts it is a local product, not an import from Athens.
Ptoon 20 group
See also
Notes
Sources
External links
|
|