Amasis and Lindos

BICS 31 (1984) 119 AMASIS AND LINDOS E.D. Francis and Michael Vickers In his description of the sculpture once on display in the Lauseum in Constantinople, the Byzantine chronicler George Cedrenus mentions a statue of Athena Lindia. According to Cedrenus, the statue was “four cubits high and made of green stone [ i XiOou ~ oyap&ybou], a work by the sculptors Scyllis and Dipoenus which Sesostris [leg. Amasis], ruler of Egypt, once sent as a gift to Cleobulus, ruler of Lindos.”l Apart from the confusion between the names of Amasis and Sesostris and the meaning of the phrase i~XiOou upapdysou, the language of Cedrenus’ description is easily understood. If, however, its sculptors were really Scyllis and Dipoenus, this Egyptian gift may have far-reaching consequences for the history of Greek art and, for this and other reasons, the testimony of Cedrenus merits reappraisal. In this article we shall therefore discuss Amasis’ gifts of sculpture to the Lindian Temple of Athena and trace their subsequent history. After reviewing briefly Amasis’ overtures t o other Greek states (similarly expressed through the benefaction of precious objects), we explain the reasons for his special interest in Rhodian Lindos. In conclusion, we examine Amasis’ other gifts to Lindian Athena and suggest the possible implications for an understanding of the history of archaic Greek art. 1. Cleobulus, ruler of Lindos While the details of Cleobulus’ life remain sketchy, he is thought to have enjoyed a long reign in the middle of the sixth century B.C. and to have been a contemporary of other tyrants such as Pisistratus, Lygdamis, and Polycrates.* Cleobulus, “son of Euagoras” (D.L. i.89), may have been born a Carian (FGrHist 7 6 F 77), but he was proud to assert a Dorian heritage and his claim to Heraclid descent doubtless played a part in his diplomatic relations with other Greek states. His reputation in antiquity was considerable. He was honoured as one of the Seven Sages, and the emergence of Lindian prosperity can plausibly be attributed to his intelligence and energy.3 Lindos was in an ideal position w i t h n the network of Mediterranean sea-routes to capitalise on the burgeoning trade between Greeks and their eastern neighbours. Cleobulus evidently saw t h s opportunity and set himself to develop the capacity of Lindos to take advantage of it. In addition, on its acropolis he restored the Temple of Athena founded, according to tradition, by Danaus, the legendary African ancestor of the Argives who under Heraclid leadership themselves later colonised Rhodes.4 Diogenes Laertius writes of Cleobulus’ interest in Egyptian philosophy, but we remain uncertain about the credibility of this report “even if Egypt was one of the most interesting objects of foreign travel for an inquisitive man in the sixth century.”5 Nevertheless, testimony exists which may support a relationship between these contemporary rulers of Egypt and Lindos; for Herodotus reports that Amasis presented gifts to the Temple of Lindian Athena just mentioned (Hdt. ii.182, see also iii.47). If, as Cedrenus reports, Cleobulus was the recipient of rb ayaXya rijc AwShc ‘AOvuEic r ~ r p a n v pi~ ~ XiOou ayapaybou, then he was presumably tyrant of Lindos in the period during which Amasis ruled Egypt (ca. 567-526 B.C.) They may therefore have chosen to gild their Athenas as an epideixis euduimonias. bestowed [ t h s gift] ”). To gild the statues would thus conceal any unsightly blemishes caused by the fire. Though our sources are silent on this question.109-1 l). ii. in the passage in which he describes the Lindian dedications. 122-25) had lost their significance. .8 Not only did the fabric sustain considerable damage. D 38-42). B xvii. In this connection compare Herodotus’ report of the “two self-portraits” (eixdvac kwuroir 6qaohc [uhbac. the fact that all seven chroniclers who record the agalmuru as “golden” lived after the firelo is at least congruent with our hypothesis. 342 B. . . motivated perhaps in part by a desire t o keep up with the Joneses of Cyrene. so that the original politicoreligious implications of Amasis’ gift (see below.182) Amasis sent to Polycrates (probably as the reciprocal gifts of xenia mentioned at iii. bringer of golden Victory. Xenagoras also informs us that two lines (urixot) were inscribed on the statues.7 In fact we believe other factors played a more immediate role in this cosmetic embellishment and that we can be fairly specific about the date at which Amasis’ two stone agalmura were gilded. Anagr. und wohl auch die am anfang der chronik oft zitierten briefe der beiden priester . except that they write of the statues as “golden” (Xpuoka. king of Egypt famed afar. . Herodotus mentions explicitly that the statue of Athena which Amasis sent to Cyrene was a “gilded” one (tnljgouoou. The Lindians prospered not only from such acts of war but also through their favourable position in Mediterranean trade. Throughout this article we have supposed that these gifts were given together and we shall develop arguments which suggest their particular suitability as a group. in particular from falling masonry or charring. Blinkenberg summarises this refurbishment: Auf den tempelbrand beziehen sich die wiederherstellung des schmuckes des gottin und die trinkgefasse in IG XII. / kpnupto8kuroc rot7 uao5 KareKaliu8q Ipera rCjv ~ X E ~ U T U Uhva8ep&wv. This apparent discrepancy is not necessarily serious. & . the second inscription in hieroglyphs (6LtL rOv nap’ A i [ y ] m r h c ~a/XoupkvvwvkpGv ypappurwv. For several reasons we incline to the view that this gilding post-dated the original dedication. By the late fourth century the statues were already some 200 years old. . Hiero and other local writers cited in the Lindim Temple Chronicle6 report the same benefaction. one of them in Greek: Aiyhrou/@oA[eu]c q h k ~ h w o c Gnau’ ”Apaotc (“I. reports that they were golden (Xpuoka). while Xenagoras mentions an additional gift of ten phialai (ibid 48-9). . and the bonds between Cleobulus and the Saite Egypt belonged to the diplomacy of the past.. ii. . The ancient fesrimonia differ. .41 ff.120 2. Hdt. ibid 50-3). 764. Amasis. Moreover. however. BICS 31 (1984) Amasis‘ Lindian agalmora Amasis’ gifts are described by Herodotus as “a spectacular linen corslet” and “two statues of stone” ( 6 b .9 It is hard t o believe that Amasis’ statues had escaped the general conflagration (per& rcSv nheiurwv LwaBepdrwu) and thus reasonable to suppose that they suffered substantial damage at least to their surfaces. was thus celebrated by the renovation of Amasis’ gifts as herself “golden”. This information is reportedly confirmed by Hierobulus (ibid 53-5)’ a fourth-century priest of the cult and one of the two oldest sources cited by the Gzronicle. Cleobulus. The golden nike stood on the hand of the great cult statue of Athena: Athena.C. but most of the dedications were also burnt (see uppapatau. At the same time such refinishing would have added magnificence to works of art respected as part of Cleobulus’ proud legacy. das geschenk der rhodischen staates . we assume that the two statues were presented as a pair (or at least. since the statues could have been gilded at some later date rather than at the time they were first given.). Moreover. The temple was promptly restored and a new cult statue seems to have been furnished in the late fourth century. ayahpara XiBwa). pp.182). 1 nr. to form a pair). they characteristically refer to Amasis’ gift of “two statues” and we therefore consider our assumption represents the most natural reading of the evidence.2). C xxix. Cleobulus’ Temple was burnt ca. in their accounts of the material used in making the Lindian ugulmuru: Herodotus describes the statues as made of stone (AiOwa) while Hiero (as we have noted) along with six other Rhodian chroniclers. die weihung der goldenen Nike . is said to have dedicated “a gold crown for the statue [of Lindian Athena] ” (Anagr. . .39). returning from a victorious campaign in Lycia. . For example.. some of whom were of Lindian extraction (Anagr. C xxiii. regard this as a serious obstacle to arguments based on Cedrenus’ testimony for. ii. The hieroglyphic inscription referred to by Xenagoras would have belonged t o the Green Goddess. At least we can be confident in assuming that this statue was not sculpted in marble. Egyptian Neith.20 Blinkenberg’s intemperate attack did much to persuade other scholars that “il n’y a point de vraie tradition dans ces fantaisies”. We do not. as mentioned. she may well have lost her gold to an emperor’s appetite and. Zucker also noted that the colour green was characteristic of Egyptian representations of the goddess Neith. despite the fact that Zucker had provided sensible arguments against such a misconception and that Cedrenus himself did not necessarily intend to imply that “emerald”.as a slightly more complex explanation of so patent an error .). Amasis. First.BICS 31 (1984) 121 By the time the Green Goddess was exhibited in Lausus’ sculpture gallery. in this second passage (p. 61 6 Bonn). In either case. Wiedemannlg reached some of the same conclusions about Amasis’ Lindian gifts nearly 100 years ago.28). We now return to Cedrenus’ description of the Lindian Athena in his catalogue of statues on display in the Palace of Lausus. for example. we must assume that this gilding had been removed.14 but revered as the divine patroness of Amasis’ Saite Dynasty. who ruled Egypt in the Eighteenth Dynasty (a.16 we suggest that Cleobulus probably dedicated the Lycian crown on the head of Greek Athena. Since a statue of Neith would characteristically include a headdress.13 This is significant. 110 and 175-6. 134 and 137). for Cleobulus’ Saite contemporary. and in relatively close proximity at ii. Moreover. Gold was doubtless stripped from these and other statues on their arrival at Constantinople so that it could be re-used for the decoration of interiors in the manner so much to the taste of Constantine and his successors. to the material from which the statue was made. According to Cedrenus (note l). One of the expedition’s leaders. At the turn of the century a few scholars still cited Zucker’s article. since Neith was not only the Egyptian counterpart of the Greek Athena (Hdt. Nevertheless. Blinkenberg. Indeed. however. had arisen as a gilded phoenix from the ashes of her adoptive Temple of Lindian Athena. this confusion therefore seems no more than a lapsus culami. or even attention. since elsewhere.15 From this evidence we therefore conclude that the Green Goddess represented Amasis’ Egyptian Neith while the other ugulma was a statue of Greek Athena.)”. 1860 B. Amasis’ gifts to Greek states also have important diplomatic implications. thought fit to heap scorn not only on Zucker’s views but particularly on his reliance upon the evidence of Cedrenus’ “catalogue fantastique”. Either Cedrenus or his tradition has mistaken Sesostris 111. Cedrenus clearly identifies Amasis as the original donor. C. which Cedrenus then records (see n. 8Xqc. he immediately goes on to state that the Athena of Lindos was “from another material (kt UXhqc. green basalt. was used to carve a statue “four cubits high” (see n. revealing the underlying colour of the original stone. The gold from the chryselephantine statue of Olympian Zeusll had probably suffered a similar fate. granite or serpentine. .12 it was apparently carved from some native Egyptian stone. she herself was unable to survive the holocaust at Constantinople. 1). he identifies Amasis as the first donor of Lausus’ green Athena.l9 but his proposals came into serious disfavour during the years in which the Danish Academy was excavating Lindos (1902-1914). however. After mentioning the Samian Hera. their views long ago ceased to command much respect. leaving only the ivory plates on their wooden frame. Cedrenus has either simply muddled the names of two well-known Egyptian monarchs or .confused Herodotus’ similar descriptions of Sesostris’ and Amasis’ public works programmes (compare ii. however. 800 years after the Lindian fire. Zucker observed. the statue’s original donor was not Amasis but Sesostris. though less explicitly than before. 12).21 He based this attack in part on the supposition that Lausus’ Lindian Athena was reported to have been carved from emerald. as M. Though the Green Goddess.C. we should mention that Zuckerl7 and A. and her Hellenic counterpart would have borne the corresponding Greek text. and we shall shortly discuss this aspect of his patronage. 616 BOM) Cedrenus again draws attention. as opposed to some less precious green stone. later in h s chronicle (p. ii. His largesse. may have been needlessly pessimistic not only about the reliability of many of Zucker’s observations but also the possibility of making sense of Cedrenus’ rec0rd.D. A cuneiform tablet securely dated to 568/7 B.27 3. we must review briefly the evidence for his Aussenpolitik. Cedrenus has in fact given us a detailed catalogue of an art gallery arranged with astonishing skill as a reflection of the intellectual climate of the fourth and fifth centuries A. winge’d.47.2). like Croesus.2-3). It will be shown elsewhere that Cedrenus is not merely correct but that his account has an integrity of its own. MvvGo&v &IK&EVOC (“and an Eros with bow. Samos and Sparta. in mainland Greece. Bupalus the Samian Hera. Phidias the chryselephantine statue of Olympian Zeus.2). ~ ~ Blinkenberg. that Samos represented the vvutGrai and Sparta the nEAonovv~umimi K p f i r ~ c . and Lysippus the Myndian Eros and the Sicyonian Kairos/Chronos.31 If the relative chronology implied by Herodotus’ narrative can be trusted. Cedrenus describes it as follows: Kai ”Epwc rolov Exwv.153.122 BlCS 31 (1984) Indeed the only point of substance raised by Blinkenberg to discredit Cedrenus’ testimony is the chronicler’s apparent attribution of the Samian Hera to the artists “Lysippus and Bupalus of Chios”.180). scholars have differed substantially with regard to the chronology of Amasis’ diplomatic actions.2~ The fact that Cedrenus wrote some six centuries after the heyday of the Lauseum is insufficient reason to impugn either his own trustworthiness or that of his probable sources. It might be attractive to suppose. We therefore see no reason to suppose that his attribution of the first statue on his list to the Cretan artists.69. who inquired “who are the Spartans?” Hdt. at least four other communities were singled out as beneficiaries of such instruments of Amasis’ foreign policy: Cyrene. the pharaoh had contributed generously to the Temple’s restoration fund (Hdt. records Amasis’ despatch of troops including “[the] captains of the city Pufuyaman. then R. This second event supposedly coincided with the fall of Sardis (i. T~TEPUTOC. we may confidently accept E.32 It is conceivable that Amasis. (a reputation unknown to Cyrus. He knows that Praxiteles executed the Aphrodite of Cnidus. Edel’s interpretation of the reference of this second contingent to the community of Ionian and Carian mercenaries resident in Egypt for nearly a century since the accession of Psammetichus I. is mistaken.22 Lysippus’ name did not belong together with that of Bupalus for textual (as well as art historical) reasons. Besides Lindos. mi Epyov Avuihov. which came from Myndos”). at least on the subject of antique statues. Cedrenus (“le plus servile de tous les chroniqueurs byzantins”)26 shows himself an authority worthy of some respect. The work he records is plainly by Lysippus and the received text should therefore be emended to read as follows: Kai fi Capb “Hpa. however. This next statue is the well-known Lysippan type of winged Eros with a bow and the only unattributed major work in the catalogue. By Putuyaman Edel and Spalinger both understand the city of Cyrene30 and it therefore seems likely that the alliance between Amasis and Cyrene to which Herodotus refers (ii. however. ~Since. but had been misplaced from the next entry in Cedrenus’ list.29 Considering the inscription’s military content.25 On the contrary. as Blinkenberg has suggested. compare iii. According to Herodotus the Samians had intercepted this corslet en route to Sparta in the year before they were also accused of stealing the massive bronze crater the Spartans “sent to Croesus as a reciprocal gift for his presents to them” (i.1).M.1. let alone “une fantaisie”.2). i. * however.77. Delphi. [and the captains] from distant territories in the middle of the sea”. seems t o have been carefully calculated to establish xenh with politically influential centres in widely different areas of the Greek world. Frickenhaus was. ” E p w c T O ~ O VK T A . presumably in 548 or soon thereafter. Scyllis and Dipoenus. and in north Africa. i. approached the Spartans on advice from Delphi for. at least in retrospect.C. According to Herodotus (i.70. quick to point out. Croesus had .70. however.181-2) dates from early in the new pharaoh’s reign. 8pyov BomaXov TOG XiOv. At any rate this seems also to have been the period at which Croesus began negotiating with Sparta as “the pre-eminent state in Greece” (Hdt. Amasis’ hellenic diplomacy We now return t o Amasis’ practice of promoting his affairs of state by the presentation of gifts to Greek cities. As A. so we may accordingly date Amasis’ overtures to Sparta in the early 540s. the eastern Aegean. Cook must be mistaken in supposing that Amasis’ gift of a linen corslet to Sparta “should not be much earlier than 526” (ibid). 39.2) and clearly aspired to be a significant presence in the international politics of his age.39 This ring. contributed to his decision to reconsider his connection with Polycrates. .2) when the tyrant came to power.36 resentment had doubtless been building for many years and. our sources frustrate any attempt to understand the precise causes underlying these events. viii.1). Amasis’ initial overture to Sparta must have predated by several years h s xenia with Polycrates. may well have been first provoked . disastrous) policy of exploiting a period of political confusion to play every angle.) and then total sovereignty over Media in 550/49. Polycrates followed a similar (and in the end. In the 520s. He dreamed of thalassocracy (Hdt. during Cambyses’ advance against Egypt. iii. As Cyrus established his independence from Astyages (553/2 B. The Samians took this opportunity not only to assert their control of Aegean trade-routes but also to attempt to disrupt Croesus’ major alliances to the west and south.by Samian piracy at the end of Croesus’ reign.40-3) as a sufficient explanation for Amasis’ decision to dissolve his xenziz. son of Telecles.H. Jeffery remarks: Samos may well have been one (if not the only) channel whereby the luxuries of the east Aegean and Lydia had come to Lakedaimon. As L. ~ S Though Sparta and Corinth did not launch their joint naval offensive against Samos until 525. in w h c h the tyrant reportedly took such pleasure (see Paus. however. after unsuccessful attempts to restrain the oppressive conduct of Polycrates and his administration. That Polycrates should offer x e n b to Amasis is entirely in keeping with what we know of his ambitions. .39. set in a signet ring of gold for Polycrates (Hdt. however. We do not know if Amasis chose to exploit Sparta’s growing hostility towards Samos in his own interest.BICS 31 (1984) 123 “previously” (npor~pov)3~ concluded a surnmkhig with Amasis. whose contact with Egypt will have made them ear& starters in this skill [our italics]. iii. in Sparta’s case.1) .47.34 Croesus became increasingly preoccupied with these events beyond his Halys frontier. The stone which the Samian craftsman. Nevertheless. i.37 but it is likely that Samian intransigence. enjoyed (and.as Herodotus supposed (iii. to his own advantage. sought) no such summukhid with Cyrus. it is implied. involve more than the gratuitous introduction of a widespread folk-tale motif in order to point a moral. iii. according .S.C. iii. so far as we know. on Herodotus’ testimony. Thus. both domestic and international.2). not to mention rendering the state vulnerable to outside a g g r e ~ s i o n .3) when he realised. since Samian control of the Aegean sea-routes was. On the other hand. not least towards Sparta. Amasis broke off diplomatic ties with Samos by formally withdrawing his philia and xenia (D. Theodorus of Samos had built the assembly-place called Sunshade in Sparta.8). already considerable during the rule of the oligarchy which Polycrates overthrew. In his turn.Herodotus’ ~~ story of Polycrates’ ring may. Perhaps Amasis had even sought Polycrates’ aid against the Persian threat and had been confronted with evidence of his ally’s treachery. Theodorus.41. Amasis would have been attracted by a detente which offered guaranteed safeguards for international trade in material goods and especially in mercenaries. Croesus. and indeed the Spartans of the seventh century may conceivably have learnt the technique of hollow-casting from the Samians.122. Amasis had possibly first made terms with these oligarchs and later renewed the alliance on Polycrates’ personal initiative (note Hdt. may itself have been one of the gifts Amasis sent to Samos when he accepted Polycrates’xenia (Hdt. as we have seen.95. have been found in Samos. that Polycrates’ conduct invited insurrection and civil instability. Herodotus merely proposes the tale of Polycrates’ ring (iii.14. perhaps as a consequence of foreign policy considerations similar to those which sponsored his alliance with Babylon. Thus both Sparta and Corinth may have lost good Samian trade-contacts when Polykrates overthrew the oligarchic r e g h ~ e . Diodorus also loses no opportunity to moralise: according to him. Relations between Samos and Sparta had not always been strained. Lakonian pottery and bronzes . Amasis’ distrust of Polycrates probably had good reason to run deep: rumours of the tyrant’s maritime ambition and of his conspiracy in Achaemenid plans for the invasion of Egypt may have come to his notice. 43 The new settlers at Cyrene included Greeks from Lindos. Cyrenaica was obviously of strategic importance for the Egyptian monarchy and had provided the theatre for those events which led most immediately to the transition of power from Hophra (Apries) to Amask4* While Hophra had supported the Libyan cause against Greek expansionism in Cyrenaica. were the first in the Greek world to win fame by sculpting marble (N. o S E ~E&EKW). This Green Goddess with its hieroglyphic inscription represented the Egyptian aspect of the divinity who uniquely expressed the common interests of the two states. broke their flight at Rhodes. the political overtones of dktente and partnership are not far to seek. In Greek tradition Aegyptus. unlike those to Polycrates. Herodotus also makes a point of recording that these.68. hiOou) and may thus provide further evidence of an archaic Greek sculptor working. were not occasioned in any way by guest-friendship (&wL‘~c . a state which held Athena in the highest regard. their first landfall after leaving their homeland across the sea t o the south. According to Pliny. had driven Danaus. While the intimate details of Amasis’ marriage to Ladice of Cyrene have been questioned in some quartersa as yet another Herodotean fantasy. ivory and ebony) typically derived from Egyptian sources.~). considered together with his marriage to a Cyrenaean princess. Cyrene had received a substantial influx of new colonists shortly before 570. out of North Africa. Dipoenus and Scyllis must therefore have had Egyptian connections. as at Cyrene. as well as a portrait of himself. At any rate. we assume that the Lindian statues were presented to the Temple in their completed state. gifts. his twin brother. Parian marble (NIX xxxvi. ~ + C Herodotus was perhaps being ingenuous or.44 On the evidence of Cedrenus’ statement and of Amasis’ gifts to other Greek cities.1). v.S.182). its companion piece doubtless reflected Greek traditions. To this city of Apollo Karneios he sent a statue of Athena. along with his 50 nieces. Amasis erected and adorned public buildings on a magnificent scale. ii.181). not least on account of the fact that some of the other materials in which they worked (for instance. Amasis reversed that policy and established a formal alliance with Cyrene (Hdt. . ii.ySou (compare Herodotus’ upupuy6ou. see also D. if Lindos was actually under Samian influence at the period of the gifts. 126 below.41 as a consequence of which her constitution underwent several major changes.14). among which the prupylaeum of Neith/Athena at Says was especially notable (Hdt. such tokens of guest-friendship justify Herodotus’ references to (piXo~j7cand a u p p u ~ in i ~their technical sense and perhaps help us to understand why Herodotus called Amasis “philhellenic” (ii.58. and thus symbolised his own and Neith’s Sai’te presence beside Apollo’s traditional tutelage. we shall suggest that Amasis’ gift was associated with symbolism of a more intimate social connection p. . In the event. These gifts. That Amasis should use this means of recognising a state he sought t o honour is fully in keeping with his reputation in antiquity as both a patron and a collector of the arts.1 78.4s then separate xenziz might have been deemed inappropriate. We have already described the character of one of the two statues Amasis commissioned for the Lindian Temple of Athena.H.175-6. Danaus “the Greek” became the eponymous ancestor of the Danaans. rather than as unworked stone to be fmished locally. Their commission on this occasion was to execute a gift intended to commemorate “the tradition that the Temple of Athena was established by one of Danaus’ daughters when they put ashore on the island fleeing the sons of Aegyptus” (Hdt. was made knt‘ 706 Xi6ov T+C upupuy. On the other hand.). If Amasis actually commissioned Dipoenus and Scyllis to execute the two Lindian agalmata. see also D. these two important Cretan artists.1). then the pharaoh was also well informed about the contemporary state of Greek art. ii. ii.6). Danaus’ daughters. albeit in small. Cyrene’s role in Amasis’ international relations is especially important and we assume that he made his initial gestures of philziz and xenziz towards this western neighbour. X X X V ~indeed. with Sai’te stone. i. . the eponymous ancestor of Amasis’ kingdom. there is no reason to challenge hs gift of a gilded Athena to Ladice’s city (Hdt. Moreover. pursued by their male cousins in an attempt to win them for their brides. as Cedrenus’ testimony indicates. born in the 50th Olympiad (580-577 B.C.124 BICS 31 (1984) to Pausanias. we can hardly doubt that Amasis planned these gifts for reasons of state and. . By the standards of his recent predecessors. illuminate Amasis’ sensitivity to Greek social values in addition to fostering his own dynastic interests. Meanwhile.S. . Again the comparison of Lindos with Cyrene resounds: Amasis’ dedication to Lindian Athena expressed .182. Amasis’ gesiure can be seen as one of goodwill towards a trading partner (rather than a military ally) who commanded a crucial harbour on the sea-route from Egypt to the cities of Ionia (the source of his Greek mercenaries) and mainland Greece. “a city set on a hill. a magnificent example of Egypt’s most characteristic industry.73) reflects a tradition of high antiquity in speaking of the Argives as hwoOdpgKec. . to Greeks. he commends their utility in hunting.^^ On the other hand.48 A linen thorax in particular might have appeared somewhat exotic and.4.7). Lattimore).). The thorax. In terms of his own self-interest. Page. the presence of Greek mercenaries in Egypt since the accession of Psammetichus in 663 B.11). We may plausibly suppose that the same would also have been true of arrowheads since. vi. trans. stretching towards the south and especially towards Alexandria” (Str. the linen corslet.2. Cyrop. His gifts would have been displayed prominently in the great temple situated on the rock which overlooked the harbour at Lindos. On the other hand.L.27. udw Xbw)” stored in Alcaeus’ “Armoury” (357.50 especially in the eastern Aegean. We can detect a similar mercantile policy underlying Amasis’ encouragement of the Greek trading post at Naucratis (Hdt.47 4. According to D.529) and while he himself was distinguished as a spearman his fellow Locrians had not accompanied him to Troy: “the heart was not in them to endure close-standing combat. Instead.6 L. As defensive armour. it could apparently offer excellent protection against the point of an arrow. and we accordingly find “corslets of new linen (t’dppmec . becomes in this context a token of peace and.BICS 31 (1984) 125 the Egyptian king’s peaceable intentions towards the descendants of Danaus’ Argive kingdom. had adopted them in imitation of Egyptian practice. . for they yield to the thrust of iron” (i. could well have contributed to a more widespread adoption of this garment as part of Greek military attire.712-5. at the same time. Amasis’ gift to Lindos can thus be seen as apparel (a kind of aegis?) for the warrior divinity it accompanied. Ajax the Less led a contingent of archers and men armed with sling-shots (lines 716-8) so that his own dress and the character of the troops under his command bear “witness that he is a man apart.2).51 In these terms we can well understand how such costume was ideally designed equipment for Achaemenian horsemen. whether on safari or the battlefield. xiii. xiv. Indeed. not to be judged by normal Hellenic standard^".47. Ajax son of Oileus was the only Greek to bear the epithet hwot’dpqt (IZ.46 which was thriving in sixth-century sai‘s. according to Herodotus (iii. “for the teeth of lions and leopards break off in them”. but at the same time a linen thorax provided a most fitting compliment to a community which proudly claimed Argive descent. the Oracle to the Megarians preserved in the Palatine Anthology (xiv.C. The thorax was not.than one of hoplite sword and spear. as Herodotus observed (i.2) who. however. The linen corslet and the golden bowls The Iindian corslet was. a community which included “the Dorians of Rhodes”.This ~ ~ unexpected epithet in all probability evokes their Egyptian provenance and the advent of DanausS3 (rather than their ill-repute as medisers in the fifth century). K P V T ~ U7 1 7 0 h P p o ~ ) . linen corslets would have been better equipped to withstand an attack of archers . less familiar than the Lindians with trade-goods of the Near East. This hypothesis finds support in Pausanias’ remark that “linen corslets are none too serviceable for fighting men. linen thorakes were worn by Persian soldiers (Xen. This aspect of the relationship between the two states is nicely illustrated by another of Amasis’ gifts to Lindos. an accoutrement of war. ii. even barbarian.a fact which probably reflects on Locrian Ajax’s previous military experience .135). as we have mentioned. however./for they did not have the strongcircled shields and the ash spears” (IZ. a typical part of Greek heroic or hoplite armour.178-9). like the one Amasis sent to Sparta which he describes as “having numerous animals inwoven into its fabric ({$ovkvwpaupkvwv uuxvGv) and decorated in gold and cotton”.-P. . though a linen thorax might well have proved insufficient to withstand the thrust of hoplite sword and spear. At Troy. ii. In praising the Olympic victory of Rhodes’ great athlete. Danaus’ foundation of the Temple of Athena. Amasis’ awareness of local traditions and Greek social customs t o which we alluded in discussing his gifts to Cyrene again subtly manifests itself in the pharaoh’s dedication of these phialai. 52-4) since. B viii. v h a p xwov.5-6).s7 In its imagery. Neith had probably been associated with “diplomatic marriages . he also records ten phialai (lines 48-9). Diagoras.child of Aphrodite and Helios and the eponymous ancestor of the state (Anagr. In the next century Pindar may well have had the Rhodian trade relationshp with Sai’te Egypt in mind when he sang of the excellence and “deep fame” of the Heliadae as artisans (w. but now as an instrument of international politics. v. These dedications were relics with mythological associations which commemorated crucial moments in the early history of the Lindian state. Moiuiw Goow. B i. Amasis’ lavish offering belongs t o the historical period.five for each statue. .s9 With Sais as Amasis’ religious capital.48-5 1). 14).M.and by Tlepolemus (Anagr. Xenagoras’ account of Amasis’ benefaction (Anagr. The aggressive pursuit of the daughters of Danaus by the sons of Egypt is again remade in the formalities of peace.60 and yet her traditional role in diplomatic marriages was again invoked. “this stately and resplendent proem” is typically Pindaric. By his gift of phialai Amasis has thus evoked the traditional offering of a Lindian founder like Lindus and Tlepolemus. A phiale was a traditional gift to a Greek temple and Xenagoras also informs us that the Mysian king. through gifts of Egyptian and Greek images of the goddess. Telephus. The bowl will be given to the young man by the father of the bride as a physical symbol of the new connection which will bind the house of the bride to that of the bridegr0om. Neith was securely enthroned as queen of all Egypt. . one of the Heliadae had colonised Heliopolis (see n. 4): in C. 71 is its contents”. the two earliest Rhodian sources cited by the chronicler Timachidas. were both priests of the Temple.37-8) who. in terms of a auppuxiq. The ten phialai . arranged between royal ladies from Sais and the conquering lung from Upper Egypt”. They record that phialai were also dedicated by Lindus . according to tradition. . he casts his new connection with the Rhodian city not. made such a dedication to Athena of Lindos on the injunction of Lycian Apollo (Anagr. as at Q r e n e or Polycrates’ Samos. In earlier dynastic hstory.126 BICS 31 (1984) We have already mentioned that the Lindian Temple Chronicle cites Xenagoras as authority for an additional gift from Amasis to Lindian Athena. each one representing a decad of Danaids . ryluuais viov) establishing him in the presence of his friends (qi’Aoi)as (ahwrdv bp6qpovoc E U V ~ C(w. Bowra’s words. in addition to the thorax and the statues. 4).thus accompany the virgin-mother Neith/Athena from her Saite fatherland (okoeev oiiCa6~)to a hierosgumos with Lindus in the Temple of the city to which he had given his name. v. It was he. The phialai which accompany the warrior goddess are not intended for libation before battle but as metaphorical tokens of affinity ( L b c ) . . Pindar “begins Olympian 7 . according to some traditions. who described the inscriptions carved on the agalmata and. as an object the golden bowl “must at all times have been a rare and much-prized treasure?. and the wine [divine wine and the Muses’ gift. but plainly evokes these important memories of the past and becomes a part of their tradition. they recall the actual marriage of Amasis with Ladice of Cyrene.5~ The vessel is the instrument used in the ritual of t h s passage oikoi3w oka& (v. B vi. . C xxix.1-3) .s6 @dhwis Pindar’s first word and the bowl is golden ( n u y ~ p u u o v . but according to the private ceremonies of a Greek marriage. The “high festival” which Pindar’s proem imagines is a ceremony of betrothal. for example. Gorgosthenes and Hierobulus. the phiale will become not only the husband’s prized possession (wpupuv K T E ~ V W V but ) the prestigious token of his new alliance (LGoc . just as he has recalled.s4 and a connection between Diagoras’ celebrated victorys5 and the Lindian Temple of Athena is suggested by the Rhodian chronicler Gorgo’s mention of the inscription of Pindar’s Ode in the Temple “in letters of gold”. Once the ceremonial toasts have been offered. . another of Heracles’ sons. At the same time. . was the coloniser of Rhodes. “the bowl is the actual form of the song.46-53) is in any case the most detailed. with a picture of a high festival”. As such. Jeffery. 7.D.H. Ashmole and N. Blinkenberg 1915 (n. citing C. E. Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Kunste bei den Griechen (Leipzig 1868) 56. 1211 ~iyrjnrovrrjpauuoc K A E O P O ~ ~ ~3 A~ A i v 6 i y r u p a v u y : G. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford 1971) 3. Jacoby refers to no fewer than “8 autoren fur die offenbar vie1 diskutierte(n) weihung(en) des Amasis”. Oxford. DOP 17 (1963) 58. the Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus [London 19671 30).64 Such documented Egyptian contacts with Greek sanctuaries and Amasis’ possible patronage of Greek sculptors are of considerable interest in the light of recent research.BICS 31 (1984) 5. 8. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire ii (Cambridge 1980) s. cited by J. as A. E.). Blinkenberg 1941 (n.R. Francis. infra] gpyou C&hhiSoc K a i Arnowou r d u h y a h p a r o u p y d v .V. Mango. and the Ashmolean Central Travel Fund (M. Bowra. 127 Conclusion Archaic Greek sculpture is known to have existed in Egypt.F. L.6’ but a special relationship between Rhodes and Egypt is borne out by archaeological evidence. Yalouris. 3. On Danaus at Lindos and the foundation myths of Rhodes. iinep nor? b d p o u Bncp$e ECoworpic /sic. M. ruler of Lindos” (forthcoming).65 Magdalen College. 149-67. “Exploration archkologique de Rhodes (Fondation Carlsberg) vi”. Archaic Greece.L. 5-6. the Craven Committee. C. K C L ~rd a y a h p a rqc A w b i a c ‘AOquiLc rErpbnqXu : K hlOov ofiaphy6ou [vid. Berve. West. Olympia. Berve (n. and possibly Nos. see p. Overbeck. not only the well-known Rhodian faience workshops62 but also the fragment of a stone head discovered near the Temple of Athena Polias at the Rhodian town of Camirus. 6) 188-92. Hermes 48 (1913) 236-49. This seems to be the view of C. 428 ff. Die Lindische Tempelchvonik (Bonn 1915) 5. the Oxford Literae Humaniores Faculty Board. also C. Historiarum Compendium (ed.) NOTES This paper discusses in greater detail issues raised in our “Green Goddess: a gift to Lindos from Amasis of Egypt”. 9. A J A 88 (1984) 68-9. Oxford University of Texas at Austin (E. the City-States c.).) Ashmolean Museum. which has shown that the proportions of archaic Greek kouroi and korai are the same as those of Egyptian XXVIth Dynasty sculpture. “POAOT KTIZTAI”. Jeffery (n. No. . Blinkenberg 1915 (n. No. Compare C. H. Bonn) 564. 1. Lindos ii. Lindos i (Copenhagen 1931) 13-14. Bulletin de I’Academie royale des sciences et lettres de Danemark 1912. Oxford (M. Blinkenberg. see J. F.F. 1 and 2. 10.M. Blinkenberg.D. Inscriptions (Berlin/Copenhagen 1941) 148-99 (hereafter Anagr.D. Cedrenus. p. 4) 37. Martindale.V. Blinkenberg 1941 (n. ad Anugr.. and the University Research Institute at the University of Texas at Austin (E. FGrHisr No.588-9. “Antique statuary and the Byzantine beholder”. Blinkenberg. 2. Cook states (Zeus iii/l [Cambridge 19401 970. 6) 198-200. 532. Some believe the statue was burnt in a fire which destroyed the Temple of Zeus in 408 (see B. 475. Craik. the Wolfson Foundation. 3) 195-9. “Cleobulus. 3. 11. BZ 53 (1960) 6 (repr. 5. 2) 114 dates Cleobulus’ reconstruction of the Temple to the later years of his reign: “fur den er die natigen Gelder anscheinend durch eine Kollekte aufzubringen wusste”. On Greek Margins [Oxford 19701 251-2). (New York 1976) 198. 4. and not in 462. 447 (seven Rhodian historians and Polyzalus).C. 6.B. No. The authors are grateful for generous assistance towards the preparation of this article to the President and Fellows of Magdalen College.). 700-50OB. 4) 25. “Palladas and the converted Olympians”. but the testimony on which this view rests (Z Lucian 221 Jacobitz) does not preclude the removal of the statue before the fire. which remains the only piece of Egyptian sculpture dating from the XXV-XXVIth Dynasties found in an excavated context in the A e g e a r ~ 6A ~ fragment of a black basalt statuette with a sixth-century Greek inscription found nearby is also almost certainly Egyptian.D.M. see C. who points out that the Palace of Lausus in which this and other Greek works of art were probably displayed was burnt down in A. 327. For Lausus. 7. D 40.n. Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Munich 1967) 119. The Dorian Aegean (London 1980) Ch. pp. Moreno (reading ‘Aevvi6oc mi Bo~nbhovfor Avoinnou mi Bovnahou). Vickers. 12) 7 90.v. see also Zonaras. Johnson. Housman’s review in CR 9 (1895) 22. 12) 613. For a slightly different restoration of the text. 138 and n. see F. 17. Lloyd. we wonder how he reacted to Cedrenus’ description of one of the treasures of a library of 120. “The nome coins of Egypt”. G . 29. E. 29.S. citing Malchus iii. plainly takes as a matter of course the reliability of Cedrenus’ evidence for Lausus’ collection. 12) 258-62. 21. RE i. S . “Amasis und Nebukadnezar II”. A. R. Herodots zweires Buch mit sachlichen Erluuterungen (Leipzig 1890) 613. “Minerva secunda. Bilabel. 83.57. On the principle. 2repovI no6Lju k ~ a ~ d e ~vw o i u . 31. Epit. Gallery of Antiquities selected from the British Museum (London n. Ancient Egypt 1932.B. Cook. RhM 57 (1902) 481. these attributes strikingly recall the Greek myth of 10. Th. 3. was associated with the arts of war and peace.J. cit. 24) loccit.59.D.P. Wiedemann. and Davis (n. see also Wiedemann (n. u p . for instance. 15. C. 18. For example. Vollenweider. citing A. If Cedrenus’ straightforward list of sculpture in the Lauseum so taxed Blinkenberg’s credulity.E. child of Aphrodite and Helios. Nut.2).v. “Zur altern griechischen Kunstgeschichte i: Die angebliche Athenastatue des Dipoinos und Skyllis”. “Constantine the Rhodian: his l i e and writings”. v. 14) passim.-L.28) or vice versa (D. N.d. . “Egypt. 22. Spahger.-L. Brinkmann. PG cxxi. see A. Blinkenberg 1912 (n. ii. colonised Egyptian Heliopolis (D. 19) 127-9. includes Lindos with Samos even though Herodotus states specifically that xenia was not a consideration in Amasis’ Lindian benefaction. Vollenweider. and on the relations between Saite Egypt and Samos. like Athena. one of the Rhodian Heliadae. Francis. Cairo I976 (Schrifien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 14 [Berlin 19791) 591. NHJb 1934. 23. in Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of A. A. Wiedemann (n. Wiedemann. Greek and Etruscan (Oxford 1978) 77.S. that “age is no merit”. 1927) 115. Birch. “Polykrates von Samos und Amasis von Aegypten”. perh ~ a sijc i iosopiac rijc s d v + p d w v npatCwc. Aegyptische Geschichte (Gotha 1884) 652.15. 13.000 volumes which was destroyed in the same conflagration in 475: sd 706 ~ ~ ~ K O Vh-repov T O ~ [ed. Boardman and M. see Frickenhaus (n. Riend.) PI. 19. JdI 30 (1915) 127 n. el-Sayed. Downey. Edel. See Frickenhaus (n. Neith was traditionally known as “Mother Goddess” and as such she might adopt the form of a cow. 27. 15. “Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt”. Lisippu i (Bari 1974) 256-7 (following Migne.M. see also F. Mango and M. R.M. Frazer ad Paus. no less applicable to historiographical than to textual criticism. fig. Samos.57.. 2. Lysippos (Durham. 4) 446. compare 601.M. who. and the archaic style in Greek sculpture”.1. 24. As “Mother Goddess” Neith was par excellence “Mother of the Sun” and this tradition potentially defines her as ancestor of Rhodes. 4) 25. M. Neith.75). el-Sayed (n. 28. Oxford.2). “Amasis [2] ”). “The civil war between Amasis and Apries and the Babylonian attack against Egypt”. 29) 15-16. See. 29) loc. Bowra (n. NJbb 125 (1887) 789. The possibility that the Rhodians themselves may have perceived such a connection . 24. 22.BICS 31 (1984) 128 12. 16. JHS 57 (1937) 232.is suggested by the story that Actis. 1746. Jr (Princeton 1955) 218. “Der Eros von Myndos”. 6. deor. A.G. Gotringer Miszellen 29 (1978) 14-15. 12) 785-91. Documents relatifs 6 Sais et ses divinitks [Cairo 19781 180-96). 20.kv 3 fiv yeypappdva sh roc ‘ O p i p o v notipara. and in particular with weaving (for example.23. On the international politics of the Saite dynasty. 21. quam Aegyptii Saitae colunt”: Cic. also P. Reinach cit. 19) 128. iii. q r e ’Ihihc ~ a f i ’o&dooera. xpvoehtc ypappaor.M. Acts o f the 1st International Congress of Egyptology.G. 30. Blinkenberg 1915 (n. 61 3).2. For the reference of opbpay6oc to minerals other than true emerald. 3. A. ad Anagr. Herodotus Rook ii. Spalinger (n. C. JEA 67 (1981) 79 and n. Ptolemaic syncretisms of Greek and Egyptian gods probably underlie the quaint stories in Diodorus that Athens was founded from SaiS (D. 14) Pll. Blinkenberg 1912 (n. 26. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings i. 20. Frickenhaus. Zucker (n. 22-4. also Bilabel (n. 44-5 (s. Milne. orta Nilo. see also A. 15) 62 n. 4) 445.C.S. Ashmolean Museum. 19) 127. Davis 69-74. see too M. Edel (n. 25. however. and in the Trajanic period coins of the Saite nome bore types of Athena/Neith with an owl in her right hand and a spear in her left (J. see also W. however. xiv. (Cedrenus 161 Bonn.131 Bonn). 14. In a forthcoming study by E. Davis. Frickenhaus (n.though they expressed themselvesin patrilinear terms .A. Zucker (n.i. el-bayed (n. J. in J. Commentary 1-98 (Leiden 1976) 111. Zucker. l). 139. CQ 58 (1964) 219f. KIio 37 (1957) 36-7. 1970) 27.8).C.M. 2.37. 43 Snell. 48.Hdt. Miller prefers 523: “The earlier Persian dates in Herodotus”. in Charires Langlotz (Bonn 1957) 67. “New wine from Old Smyrna. 01. Roebuck.3). (Edinburgh 1964) 73-84. 37) 36.47..W. 50. 55. 597. Pindar (Oxford 1964) 24.A. S. but see Bilabel (n.41. X ad Horn. 49. 48) 215. CJ 29 (1934) 375-80 (compare GLP2 249ff. A.G. Lorimer. See also W. 53. M.H. 32) 76. on the problems relating to the biography of Telecles. and Jeffery (n. Snodgrass. 125. Andrewes. in A. . M. 0. See Hdt. Frazer ad Paus. G. Forrest. Aeschylus’ Danaids flee to Greece (Suppl. 3) 216-9.cit. see Jeffery (n. See P. Schaefer. Ionian Trade and Colonization (AZA Monographs on Archaeology and Fine Arts ix. J. 178. “Asius and the old-fashioned Samians”. See J. compare Asius fr. Three Odes of Pindar (Leiden 1968) 69-105. How and J. 39. vi. see also 76. 56. Cydne sous la monarchie des Buttiades (Paris 1953) 134-42. See too V. intervention against Persia (see Forrest [n. 35. ArmsandArmour of the Greeks (London 1967) 90-92.G. 32) 80. RhM 95 (1952) 158-9 and n. viii.. Cic.) Scholia vetera in F’indari Gzrmina i (Leipzig 1903) 197-9. 40) 157-8. Ross Holloway. been criticised by 0. 44. On Near Eastern imports at Lindos. Vickers. Herodotos over de 26ste Dynastie (Louvain 1951) 114. perhaps Edel (n. 37. FGrHist 5 15 F 18. see R. Cartledge.111. 34. CQ 32 (1982) 243-65. in a boat equipped with linen sails (ibid 135). Blyth for discussing this observation with us.. Homer and the Monuments (London 1950) 210. yet sixth-century Sparta seems to have favoured indirect. 31 (1962) 186 n. Huxley. The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1978) 276-8. see C.587. Hehn. 120 = 131) wearing linen garments. 1300-363 B. ii.48) foc. Early Corinthian pottery and the Greeks’ eastern neighbours” (forthcoming). The view that Amasis was “philhellenic” has. (London 1979) 138. with their separate temple of Hera (Hdt. see also J. 245 ([probably] 5251. Francis and M. Hermes 85 (1957) 393-4 (repr. 39. Young.183. 11 124-5). 3) 187. as a modern theory once suggested. Early Greece (London 1980) 217. Sparta and Lakonia: a Regional History. Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford 1955) 215-6. “Der Flachs”. P. de Meulenaere. “Die verfassungsgeschichtliche Entwicklung Kyrenes”. iii. Miller. Austin. For example. with C.L.7.C. Bowra. Page (n.M. We are grateful to Dr P. xix. Tusc. Bowra’s observations. See also J. Engler.D. ad iii. D. Berve (n.A.M.C. vii npodylrou. On the importance of the Samians at Naucratis. rather than direct. “A propos de Polycldte. see also Z ad Pind. . Schaefer (n. Schrader. 40. 33. Bowra. JHS 77 (1957) 272-5. 43. see D.G.29) 13-20. Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age (PCPSSuppl. Bacch. H. “Architect and engineer in archaic Greece”. J. 53. Murray. 42. Baron. On these events and their sequel. 3) 217: “That he [Polycrates] or his son ever controlled Rhodes. A. statues d’olympioniques et carribre de sculpteurs”.C. 11. 1959) 65 f. A. Jeffery (n. 139-49. see also F. however. . 585-6.46. 14) 180-95. (London 1968) 73-6. to join an anti-Persian league” (Commentary on Herodotus i [Oxford 19121 269. 12) 614.V. The Greek Tyrants (London 1956) 120.3) 122. Miller (n. on this ode. Chamoux. 593-5. P. For a more detailed discussion. Drachmann (ed.1.H. Page (n.M. Labarbe. ii. 48) 216. Leahy. D. Cartledge. 38. Wells’ speculation that Amasis might also have been attempting “to induce the Lacedaimonians . 19621 92-3). “The Herodotean Croesus”. Hdt. 83. Ant. 41.Frazer iv. M. Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.M. ii. esp. 54.. 51.29) 593-604.24) 152-3.331 80-1). Jeffery (n.. C. 47.76.B. but see Berve (n.529 already commented upon the irregularity of Ajax’s uniform. 5 2.M. “Sparta and Samos: a special relationship”. 68-70. KIio 41 (1963) 59-64. el-Sayed (n. Page. 3) 217.BICS 31 (1984) 129 32. “The Spartan embassy to Lygdamis”. citing C.L. 36. but better. see E. Jeffery (n. Page (n. W. KulturpfZanzen und Haustiere (Berlin 1894) 160-86. Early Sparta [Cambridge. Austin (n.3). 45. and Blinkenberg (n. Class.M. Miller (n. Mass. Amandry. 46. 237-8 (ad Paus. For instance. i. esp. 2) 27 ff. 41 ff. 3 West.A History of Sparta 950-1 92 B. see M. 256-9. 2) 584. i.80.L. 248. 1970 [n. 14. 2) 113. Fontenrose. Wiedemann 1890 (n. but see H. HSCP 73 (1969) 281-90. has been shown to be most unlikely”. Spalinger (n. 59. 12. but see R. 551 199). i. AJA 85 (1981) 269-80.W. Computers and the Humanities 10 (1976) 153-69. J. see also the story told by Diodorus about Telecles and Theodorus (D. JHS 87 (1967) 25-6 and B. 54) 25 5 8. “Profiles of korai”. G .M.98. M.1 (= Drachmann [n. 348-9. “An Egyptian head from Camirus. 37) 26. Trolle. el-Sayed (n. Archaic Greek Faience (Warminster 1978).S. the rose and the winds in Pindar’s Seventh Olympian”. . Davis (n. Bowra (n. “Greek kouroi and Egyptian methods”. 313. “The cup. On the imagery of the phiale in this ode. 62. A. 15) 64-7. “Origins of Greek sculpture”. “The proportions of korai“.54)72-5. 61. As Trolle notes (n. Guralnick. 7. canons and men: a computer study of proportions”.5-9). with J. “The proportions of kouroi”. on which see H. fig. No. an Introduction (New York 1961) 411-12. Gardiner. Richter. Jacopi ClRh 6/7 (1932) 287. Compare C ad 01. Computer Studies in the Humanities and Verbal Behavior 4 (1973) 71-80. Egypt of the Pharaohs. 63. 140. RivFC 39 (1961) 33-47. Schafer (tr.S. Nos. see G. 14) passim.M. The Greeks Overseas3 (London 1980) 112. 14342. Webb. Donaldson’s excellent note on this passage: Pindar’s Epinician or Diumphal Odes (London 1841) 44. Baines) Principles ofEgyptian Art (Oxford 1974) 310. discussed most recently by S. ed. “Kouroi. Lawall. “The proportions of some archaic Greek sculptured figures”. AJA 86 (1982) 173-82. Rhodes”. 63) 144-6.127. inv. E. Kouroi4 (London 1970) 58.A.AJA 82 (1978) 461-72. Rhodes Museum. 29 and 30. 2. Cook.. 64. ActaArch 10 (1978) 139-50 (esp. fig. G. vii. Austin (n. Ridgway.130 BICS 31 (1984) 57. 60. J. Boardman. 331.M. 74-5. V. 1-2). 65. 289. figs. For example. Young (11. AJA 70 (1966) 68-70.