Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros48Dossier : Autour des travaux de J...Artisan versus artist in Archaic ...

Dossier : Autour des travaux de Jacqueline Karageorghis et d’Ino Nicolaou

Artisan versus artist in Archaic and Classical Cyprus

William A.P. Childs
p. 23-36

Résumé

Bien que beaucoup de statues chypriotes de diverses tailles soient pourvues d’inscriptions en syllabaire ou en caractères grecs déclarant les noms des personnages, nous ne connaissons que quatre ou cinq attestations de noms de sculpteur. C’est évidemment le contraire de la situation en Grèce « métropolitaine » où les artistes signent couramment les sculptures, comme les céramiques. Diverses inscriptions phéniciennes (surtout celles de Kition) donnent le nom et le métier des personnages, mais rarement le nom des artistes. Toutefois, les statues et statuettes chypriotes représentent une variété de types beaucoup plus étendue que celles de l’art grec « métropolitain », et nous pouvons supposer que cette iconographie était transparente. Le plus important est sans doute l’exceptionnel ensemble de types iconographiques qui caractérise la sculpture chypriote, parallèlement au décor figuré des vases.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 For a recent review see Muller-Dufeu 2011.
  • 2 Randall 1953, p. 199‑210, partially reproduced in Austin, Vidal-Naquet 1977, p. 276‑282, text no.  (...)
  • 3 Himmelmann 1979.
  • 4 Moreno 1995; Gschwantler 1975; Wace 1952, p. 111‑118.

1The controversy of artist versus artisan in Greek and Roman art has generated over the past 150 years a wealth of literature.1 The reason is simple: the ancient evidence is ambiguous at best. Let me begin with the best known material: the Erechtheion accounts of the last quarter of the fifth century. The named stone carvers are a motley crowd of citizens, metics, and slaves.2 Everybody is paid the same wage. This appears true of the epigraphic evidence for other major projects – even the architect is paid the same as the masons.3 On the other hand we have the textual evidence that some sculptors and painters became rich in the fourth century – Lysippos and Zeuxis, for example.4 And Isokrates in Antidosis (310.2) makes a clear distinction between artist and artisan: it would “be bold to call Pheidias, who made our statue of Athena, a coroplast, or to say that Zeuxis and Parrhasios practiced the same profession as the painters of little tablets (pinakia).”

  • 5 Though the Roman commentators were largely based on Greek sources: Schweitzer 1963, p. 105‑164.
  • 6 See also Marcadé 1953-1957.
  • 7 The unique late‑eighth-century signature on a sherd from Pithekousai is followed in the seventh ce (...)
  • 8 Badawy 1961, p. 269‑276.

2It is largely the Roman writers, however, who have inspired modern students of Greek art to try to identify the works of named artists pretty much as the oeuvres of more recent artists are catalogued.5 It is at least clear that the individual artist did advertise his or her work by including a signature as the fourth mime of Herodas informs us.6 Vase painters and potters often sign their works from the seventh century on.7 So there is clearly a concept of the individuality of the potter, painter, and sculptor from a quite early date. This situation does not appear to have a parallel in the eastern Mediterranean where sculptors and painters remain anonymous, though there is a funerary inscription of an Egyptian sculptor, Irtysen, from the Middle Kingdom, in which he claims pre‑eminent skill.8

  • 9 Paris, Louvre AO 4411/AM 1196: Hermary 1984, p. 238; Hermary 1989, p. 295‑296 no. 593; Caubet et a (...)
  • 10 Masson 1983, p. 308 no. 307, pl. LIII.2.
  • 11 Masson 1983, p. 263‑264 no. 248, pl. XLI.3; Peristianes 1910, reprint 1995, p. 921‑922 no. 15, fig (...)
  • 12 London, British Museum 1899‑2-14:22, Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, p. 32, pl. 14; Marshall 1916, p. 21 (...)
  • 13 Delphi Archaeological Museum inv. 1717: Perdrizet 1908, p. 68‑69 no. 249, fig. 223; Rolley 1969, p (...)
  • 14 Karageorghis 2006, p. 229.
  • 15 Rolley, Masson 1971, p. 295, 302.
  • 16 In the Roman Period there is the signature of Zoïlos of Golgoi in Greek letters: Masson 1971, p. 3 (...)

3If we focus on the process of making on Cyprus, there are four certain signatures of artisans/artists of archaic-classical Cyprus. The first is on a shaft on which was mounted a separate head of Bes found near Kition inscribed in Phoenician and now in the Louvre: “Eshmounhilleç the sculptor made this for his Lord Reshef.”9 (Fig. 1). The second is the signature in syllabary of a silversmith, Agathokreon, preserved on a silver plaque from clandestine digging near Ormidhia and now in the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia.10 The signature of a sculptor is preserved on the base of a statuette at Chytroi with digraph inscription but the name is missing.11 The name of the dedicator is in syllabary; the sculptor signed in Greek letters ἐποίει. Finally there is a signature in Greek letters on the base of a limestone statuette with feet still preserved from Naukratis and now in the British Museum: Σίκων [ἐπ]οίη-/σε Κύπ[ριο]ς./ Ἀριστίω̣ν̣ Ἡρακλεῖ: “Sikon the Cypriot made this; Aristion dedicated it to Herakles.”12 (Fig. 2). The Phoenician monument is dated by Hermary to the seventh century and the Naukratite fragment is clearly no earlier than the late 4th century. There is also a Cypriot syllabary inscription on the foot of a bronze lion of the 7th century in Delphi: e‑re‑ma‑i‑(o) = Ἑρμαί[ω] (Fig. 3),13 which Masson published simply as the name of the dedicator, but Vassos Karageorghis has suggested that Hermaios might be the bronze founder.14 This is a distinct possibility, since Rolley notes that the name was in the wax mould from which the lion’s foot was cast, although the name is in the genitive, which favours the identity of the dedicator.15 Still it is possible that we have five signatures of Cypriot sculptors of the archaic and classical periods.16

Figure 1. Head of the god Bes on a pedestal. 7th century BCE., from near Larnaka, Cyprus.

Figure 1. Head of the god Bes on a pedestal. 7th century BCE., from near Larnaka, Cyprus.

Paris, Louvre AM1196. © RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY. Photo: Franck Raux.

Figure 2. Limestone base of statuette from Naukratis, late 4th century BCE.

Figure 2. Limestone base of statuette from Naukratis, late 4th century BCE.

London, British Museum 1899‑2-14:22. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 3. Bronze foot of a stand, 7th century BCE.

Figure 3. Bronze foot of a stand, 7th century BCE.

Delphi Archaeological Museum inv. 1717. © École française d’Athènes/ Photo Émile Sérafis.

  • 17 Mitford 1971, p. 35‑38 no. 13; Masson 1983, p. 398 no. d; in general see Reyes 1994, p. 107‑114.

4To the best of my knowledge only one Cypriot vase is signed by a potter and none by a painter.17 In this respect Cyprus differs radically from metropolitan Greece and belongs again in the sphere of the eastern Mediterranean.

  • 18 E.g. Masson 1983, statues: Amathous, p. 206‑209 no. 196, pl. XXIX.2; Mersinaki, p. 216‑217 no. 210 (...)
  • 19 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2467: Masson 1983, p. 283 no. 263; Karageorghis et al. (...)
  • 20 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2466: Masson 1983, p. 283 no. 262; Karageorghis et al. (...)
  • 21 Hermary 2014, with reference to Egetmeyer 2010, vol. II, p. 611 no. 3.
  • 22 Markou 2016. Idalion, Marion, and Lapethos are partial exceptions in that both the name of king an (...)
  • 23 Tatton-Brown 1986, p. 439‑452; Pogiatzi 2003.
  • 24 Pogiatzi 2003, p. 99‑101. She suggests very tentatively a possible Phoenician origin.
  • 25 Masson 1983, p. 156‑169.

5The lack of artists’ signatures on the large number of statue and statuette bases found in excavations is notable since both the large and small Cypriot stone and probably also terracotta sculptures and statuettes of the archaic and classical periods bore dedicatory inscriptions.18 There are also two statues in the Metropolitan Museum that have a lightly incised inscription; one in Egyptian dress said to be from Golgoi has on his left forearm: e‑ko‑t(i)‑m(a)-ko‑ra‑u‑e‑mi, ἐγὼ Τ(ι)μ(α)γόραυ ἠμί, which indicates that the statue is the dedication of Timagoras and implies that the statue represents Timagoras in some fashion.19 Another statue also thought to come from Golgoi, the so‑called Bearded Priest, has the faint inscription on his arm which Masson reads as ta‑se‑pa-pi‑a‑se, τãς Παpίας (Fig. 4).20 However Professor Hermary pointed out that a recent study of the inscription indicates that the reading is indeterminate.21 The kings of the various Cypriot kingdoms proclaim their names on their coins rather than the name of the issuing city.22 Many Cypriot figured grave reliefs from the sixth century on are inscribed with the name of the deceased and often also the name of the person who set the monument up, usually a family member.23 Curiously many of these were not visible above ground, but were affixed to a wall of the dromos which was filled in after closure of the tomb.24 These sculptured monuments are, however, relatively rare, and those that probably stood above ground rarer still, at least in the archaic and earlier classical periods. Perhaps enlightening are the largely plain shafts of limestone from Marion at the western end of Cyprus.25 These are inscribed with the name of the deceased in Cypriot syllabary but are placed in the tomb chamber, therefore also not to be seen by the living (Fig. 5).

Figure 4. Standing male, limestone statue probably from Golgoi, Late 6th century BCE.

Figure 4. Standing male, limestone statue probably from Golgoi, Late 6th century BCE.

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2466, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76.

Figure 5. Limestone Funeral Inscription from Yialia, western Cyprus, 5th century BCE.

Figure 5. Limestone Funeral Inscription from Yialia, western Cyprus, 5th century BCE.

Nicosia, The Cyprus Museum 1950.1-28.1/INS S 70. Photo author.

  • 26 Sznycer 1985, p. 79‑86; Amadasi Guzzo, Karageorghis 1977.
  • 27 Karageorghis 2006, p. 227‑235; Masson 1985.

6There is clearly an ambivalence in the pride in names of individuals; statues, statuettes, and grave stelai all identify the votary or deceased, but there is a substantial reticence in artists signing their work. If we broaden the inquiry to include any professional activity, the Phoenician votive inscriptions that largely have been found at Kition name kings, priests, bureaucrats, temple prostitutes, bakers, builders, scribes, chariot maker, foreman, workers, maker of cups, iron founder.26 But the naming of professions in the Cypriot syllabary and Greek alphabet inscriptions just like artists’ signatures is very rare; Masson lists in all categories merely the following: king (ICS 172a) teacher of writing (ICS 143), bronze smith, fuller, bow maker, and perfume maker.27

  • 28 Clairmont 1993, 1. 202, 1. 630; Scholl 1993, p. 353‑373; Clairmont 1995, p. 70‑72, no. 5.470, phot (...)
  • 29 Himmelmann 1992; Slater 1985, p. 340‑344, pl. 2.
  • 30 Himmelmann 1999, p. 43‑46.
  • 31 Akropolis Museum 1332 and 577: Mitropoulou 1977, p. 23 no. 9, figs. 17‑18, and 30‑31 no. 29, fig.  (...)
  • 32 Neumann 1979, fig. 47b; Himmelmann 1999, p. 28‑29, figs. 13‑14.
  • 33 Ziomecki 1975. There is even a woman painting a kalpis attributed to the Leningrad Painter in Mila (...)

7Whereas the proclamation of being a sculptor, painter or potter is so wide-spread in Greece, the mention of other professions is just as rare on Greek funerary stelai and votive reliefs as on the Cypriot monuments; in Greece this is presumably because the majority of the monuments were set up to commemorate citizens who generally did not have a profession other than politics or soldiering. Three funerary stelai with indication of the craft the deceased performed come to mind, but they all belong to metics;28 there are also three depictions of poets or actors, presumably citizens, though neither the profession nor the status is identified in writing.29 As Nikolaus Himmelmann points out, both the metics generally and, in at least two cases, slaves adopt the iconography of the Athenian citizen.30 In the case of votive reliefs, Athenians rarely advertise their profession: a potter and a metal worker in the archaic period,31 and in the classical period a cobbler, a cart driver, and a group of washer-women.32 On vases, however, there are numerous depictions of artisans.33 And yet we know something about the activities of artisans, artists, philosophers, orators and soldiers from more or less contemporary texts. It appears that the Athenians were just as reticent as the Cypriots in publicly advertising their professions with the exception of artists!

  • 34 Mylonas 1999, p. 123‑189.
  • 35 Faegersten 2003.
  • 36 There are several rather richly decorated ladies, some of small size: Caubet et al. 1992, p. 128‑1 (...)
  • 37 Worcester Art Museum 1941.91, so‑called Worcester head without provenance: Sophocleous 1985, p. 13 (...)
  • 38 Sørensen 1994, p. 87‑88; Mylonas 1999, p. 215; Faegersten 2003, p. 259.
  • 39 Yon 1989.
  • 40 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art inv. 74.51.2541: Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 118‑119 no. 184 (...)

8If we examine the Cypriot limestone sculptures to see if there is any hint here of a particular professional iconography, it is immediately evident that there is a large variety of basic types. Dimitris Mylonas lists thirteen main types of men and seven for women.34 Consider simply the range of clothing for men: full length gowns usually with a cloak, shorts, short tunic, various more or less elaborate Egyptianizing garments35; the heads are bearded or clean shaven, they wear wreaths, conical caps, Egyptian-like crowns or decorated headbands. The dress of women is less varied consisting principally of a long gown similar to that worn by men, but with an extraordinary variety of necklaces.36 Although often relatively plain, some women wear the most elaborate headdresses often called a kalathos (Figs. 6‑7), which many scholars believe identifies the Great Goddess.37 Beyond these more or less standardized standing types, there are the progressively Hellenized figures, particularly women dressed in the Ionic chiton with diagonal himation and men following Ionic conventions of the draped kouros and much more rarely the naked kouros. In addition there are all sorts of warriors, musicians (male and female), etc. Given that the statues stood on inscribed bases that did not specify the status of the votary, it is reasonable to suspect that there was a recognizable hierarchy in the dress of the figures as opposed to the extraordinarily narrow range of ideal types in Greece,38 which is otherwise only expressed regularly by the Phoenician inscriptions.39 In the case of the relatively small and unelaborated male and female figures (Fig. 8) it appears that no distinction of occupation or status is expressed.40 These plain figures are standard images of men and women similar to those on Attic grave stelai which the bland title of citizen may best describe.

Figure 6. Vouni Head, early 5th Century BCE.

Figure 6. Vouni Head, early 5th Century BCE.

Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet V.17. © Bildarkiv Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm.

Figure 7. Large limestone head of a woman with kalathos.

Figure 7. Large limestone head of a woman with kalathos.

Courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum (MA), Museum Purchase, 1941.49.

Figure 8. Small limestone figure of a standing Woman, 6th century BCE.

Figure 8. Small limestone figure of a standing Woman, 6th century BCE.

New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2541, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76.

  • 41 Pryce 1931, p. 5, proposes that the majority of the statues are the ideal worshipper but the colos (...)
  • 42 Reyes 1994, p. 32‑34.

9Yet two things strike one immediately: First, there is no obvious iconography of a king despite the fact that the Orient could provide several from which to choose.41 Some scholars have suggested specific types as depiction of royalty but none are truly convincing in part because they do not appear to the modern viewer to communicate exceptional status compared with the other types. Indeed, with the exception of the early tombs at Salamis and a few built tombs at Tamassos and other sites,42 the larger, more luxuriously equipped tombs suggest little stratification of the wealthiest members of society. In many respects Cyprus appears to have had a homogeneous social structure that did not require the demonstration of conspicuous consumption.

  • 43 Pryce 1931, p. 4; Yon 1974, p. 11‑12.
  • 44 Pryce 1931, p. 4, discusses the range of colours of limestone in different regions.
  • 45 A large cache of life-sized or almost life-sized terracotta statues have been found recently at Ma (...)
  • 46 Masson 1971, p. 302‑303; Masson 1983, p. 57‑67; Merrillees 1998, p. 10.
  • 47 Schmidt 1968.
  • 48 Gaber 1980, Gaber-Saletan 1981 and 1986.
  • 49 Fourrier 2007.

10It may be instructive to examine the structure of Cypriot art to see what room for individuality is discernable. Let us first try to describe general outlines of preserved objects. First, there is an obvious general quality in part determined by the material of sculpture: soft limestone and clay. Most figures, both large and small, are essentially carved or modeled on the front only. A possible explanation is the use of moulds for terracotta figurines and statuettes. In the case of the limestone, it is naturally stratified and splits into thin layers with the greatest of ease.43 Early scholarship noted that there was a distinct difference between objects found or made in the west from those found in the east of the island. The area of the south-east around Golgoi, Arsos, Idalion and adjoining areas appears to have had both access to and preferred limestone.44 The west, Marion, Soli and surrounding areas, appears to have preferred terracotta, though there is good limestone not far from Marion (modern Polis Chrysochous).45 The east‑west divide appears to coïncide with the distinction in the syllabary of a common form found principally in the east and north and a Paphian form found in the south west.46 Gerhard Schmidt long ago argued that the style of the limestone sculptures found in the Sanctuary of Hera on Samos was that of the eastern part of Cyprus around Golgoi and Idalion.47 In the 1980s Pamela Gaber analyzed the limestone sculpture from Kition, Idalion and Vouni and argued that there were distinct styles that differentiated the sculptures of each area.48 Most recently Sabine Fourrier has made even more precise arguments for distinguishing regional styles of terracotta figurines.49 The arguments in favour of the latter have some objective criteria such as the quality of the clay and modeling technique.

  • 50 Yon 1974, p. 141‑142.
  • 51 Inv. 1868.8-30.1; Walters 1903, p. 40 no. A231 (not from Lang’s excavation); Karageorghis 1993, p. (...)
  • 52 AO22233: De Ridder 1908, pl. XXIII:125; Karageorghis 1993, p. 56 no. 168, pl. XXXVII.5.
  • 53 Inv. 1173: Nielsen1983, p. 7‑8 no. 11; Nielsen 1992, p. 46‑47 no. 33.
  • 54 De Ridder 1908, p. 144‑145 no. 129, pl. XXIII; Padgett 2014, p. 42; Childs 2015, p. 281, 283, fig. (...)
  • 55 Berlin Sk 1771, Brehme et al. 2001, p. 156‑157 no. 167, is very similar to Vienna V 1188, Bernhard (...)
  • 56 Vouni head: Stockholm, Medelhasmuseet V.17: SCE III, p. 230, 264‑265, pls. XLVIII, XLIX.1‑2; Karag (...)
  • 57 Berlin, Antikensammlung TC 8122.102: Brehme et al. 2001, p. 119 no. 118, from Limniti. See also th (...)
  • 58 Berlin, Antikensammlung TC 6682.31: Brehme et al. 2001, p. 112 no. 108.

11The definition of regional workshops for both terracotta figurines and stone sculpture is based on formal characteristics – head shape and other anatomical forms. The distinction of regional styles can be refined in rare cases to define a workshop and perhaps even an individual artist/artisan.50 A workshop producing large terracotta statues at Idalion around the turn of the seventh to the sixth century is easily localized and defined: a head from Idalion in the British Museum,51 another head in the Louvre,52 and a head in Copenhagen bought on the art market in 1894,53 and finally a head recently acquired by Princeton University formerly in the De Clercq collection.54 There are many other close similarities between sculptures preserved today in a variety of museums but mostly without certain provenances.55 Perhaps the clearest contrast of stone statues in the west and east is the contrast of head form represented by the Vouni head in Stockholm and the Worcester Head in Worcester, Massachusetts (Fig. 6‑7).56 The former has a distinctly triangular physiognomy, while the latter has a somewhat broader face with bulbous chin. This contrast suggests that there is a particular stress on the head in Cypriot sculpture, a suggestion amply demonstrated by a wonderful colossal terracotta head in Berlin that is broad with a short beard that suggests a tough character (Fig. 9).57 Another terracotta head in Berlin originally from the Cesnola Collection with pointed beard and wide smile suggests an amused old man.58 Such characterful heads are frequent and certainly differ from the rather bland Greek heads of the archaic and classical periods.

Figure 9. Large bearded terracotta head from Limniti, Cyprus, 5th century BCE.

Figure 9. Large bearded terracotta head from Limniti, Cyprus, 5th century BCE.

Berlin Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen TC 8122.102. © Berlin: bpk Bildagentur Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany/Art Resource NY.

  • 59 Kourou et al. 2002; Andrioti 2010.
  • 60 Höckmann 2007, with earlier bibliography.

12Of interest is also the large quantity of Cypriot sculpture, both stone and terracotta, which is found at sites in the Levant and on the Greek islands along the west coast of Turkey from Rhodes to Samos.59 Finally, there is the Cypriot sculpture of Naukratis in Egypt.60 Maria Andrioti in her Princeton Dissertation, Cutting out the Middleman: Cypriot Itinerant Sculptors in the Early 6th Century B.C, argued convincingly for the thesis that the limestone sculptures of Cypriot-type (her designation) were produced by itinerant sculptors at the sanctuaries where they were dedicated. These sculptors may have been the sailors of the ships that brought the limestone from Cyprus along with many other trading goods. These then were artisans, craftsmen, who churned out generally small statuettes as votive offerings in situ. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these small figures is that they were dedicated in large numbers—they were sought after despite what the modern critic would judge inferior workmanship: the content was paramount.

  • 61 Karageorghis, des Gagniers 1974, p. 269 no. XXIV.b46; Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 101 no. 161.

13Any catalogue of Cypriot sculpture gives broad ranges for the date of any single piece: style remains conservative even after the dominant influence of Greek art at the end of the sixth century. This perplexing difficulty in establishing a convincing chronology of Cypriot art and particularly sculpture suggests a limited change in vision over time and therefore a very limited role for an individual vision or interpretation. Indeed, the dominance of a well-defined set of iconographic types also suggests that individuality in the creative process was not highly prized. Yet the distinction between the rather simple, often crudely carved statuettes of both metropolitan Cyprus and the diaspora and the exceedingly fine workmanship of some of the life-sized limestone statues principally, but not exclusively, from Golgoi and Idalion does suggest the recognition of an aesthetic function. And the numerous expressive heads both of general types such as youth and age and the expressive heads such as those cited above in Berlin constitute a realm of expression and imagination in stark contrast to the repetition of types otherwise so evident. It seems to me clear that the concept of art is a Greek invention of the fourth century BCE and is imbedded in the development of philosophy that leads to Aristotle and the classification of almost all existence, which does not really add to beauty or meaning. I end with the mere reference to the extraordinary painted vases of the seventh century, particularly those depicting birds for which any commentary is superfluous (Fig. 10).61

Figure 10. Terracotta jug depicting a bird with a fish in its beak, 7th century BCE.

Figure 10. Terracotta jug depicting a bird with a fish in its beak, 7th century BCE.

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.527, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Amadasi Guzzo (M.G.), Karageorghis (V.), 1977, Fouilles de Kition, III. Inscriptions phéniciennes, Nicosia.

Andrioti (M.), 2010, Cutting out the Middleman: Cypriot Itinerant Sculptors in the Early 6th Century B.C., Princeton University Dissertation.

Aurigny (H.), 2016, “De Chypre à Delphes. Objets et réseaux en Méditerranée orientale pendant le haut-archaïsme”, CCEC 46 (Hommage à Antoine Hermary), p. 221‑233.

Austin (M.M.), Vdal-Naquet (P.), 1977, Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction, Berkeley & Los Angeles (CA).

Badawy (A.), 1961, “The Stela of Irtysen,” ChrEg 36, p. 269‑276.

Bernand (A.), 1970, Le delta égyptien d’après les textes grecs, 1. Les confins libyques, Cairo.

Bernhard-Walcher (A.), Dembski (G.), Gschwantler (K.), Karageorghis (V.), 1999, Die Sammlung zyprischer Antiken im Kunsthistorischen Museum/The Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

Brehme (S.), Brönner (M.), Karageorghis (V.), Platz-Horster (G.), Weisser (B.), 2001, Ancient Cypriot Art in Berlin: Antikensammlung, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Münzkabinett, Nicosia.

Brönner (M.), 1994, “Heads with Double Crowns”, in Vandenabeele, Laffineur 1994, p. 47‑53.

Caubet (A.), Hermary (A.), Karageorghis (V.), 1992, Art antique de Chypre au Musée du Louvre, du chalcolithique à l’époque romaine, Paris.

Childs (W.A.P.), 2015, “The Image of Women in the Archaic Period”, CCEC 45 (Hommage à Jacqueline Karageorghis), p. 281‑288.

Childs (W.A.P.), Smith (J.S.), Padgett (J.M.) eds., 2012, City of Gold: The Archaeology of Polis Chrysochous, Cyprus, New Haven.

Clairmont (C.W.), 1993, Classical Attic Tombstones, Kilchberg.

Clairmont (C.W.), 1995, Classical Attic Tombstones, Supplementary Volume, Kilchberg.

De Ridder (A.), 1908, Collection De Clercq. Catalogue méthodique et raisonné, 5. Les antiquités chypriotes, Paris.

Dikaios (P.), 1961, A Guide to the Cyprus Museum3, Nicosia.

Egetmeyer (M.), 2010, Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Tome I: Grammaire. Tome II: Répertoire des inscriptions en syllabaire chypro-grec, Berlin & New York.

Faegersten (F.), 2003, The Egyptianizing Male Limestone Statuary from Cyprus: A Study of a Cross-Cultural Eastern Mediterranean Votive Type, Lund.

Fourrier (S.), 2007, La coroplastie chypriote archaïque. Identités culturelles et politiques à l’époque des royaumes, Lyon.

Gaber (P.), 1980, “The Limestone Sculpture from Kition”, Medelhavsmuseum Bulletin 15, p. 41‑49.

Gaber-Saletan (P.), 1981, “The Limestone Sculpture from Vouni”, Medelhavsmuseum Bulletin 16, p. 39‑46.

Gaber-Saletan (P.), 1986, Regional Styles in Cypriote Sculpture: The Sculpture from Idalion, New York & London.

Gschwantler (K.), 1975, Zeuxis und Parrhasios: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Künstlerbiographie, (Dissertationen der Universität Graz 29), Vienna.

Hermary (A.), 1982, “Divinités chypriotes I”, RDAC, p. 164‑173.

Hermary (A.), 1984, “Deux ex‑voto chypriotes reconstitués”, RLouvre, p. 238‑240.

Hermary (A.), 1989, Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités orientales. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre: Sculptures, Paris.

Hermary (A.), 2014, “The ‘Priest with Dove’ did not belong to the Paphian Goddess,” CCEC 44, p. 379‑384.

Hermary (A.), Mertens (J.R.), 2014, The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Stone Sculpture, New Haven.

Himmelmann (N.), 1979, “Zur Entlohnung künstlerischer Tätigkeit in klassischen Bauinschriften”, JdI 94, p. 127‑142.

Himmelmann (N.), 1992, “Grabstele eines Dichters der Mittleren Komödie in Lyme Hall”, in H. Froning, T. Hölscher, H. Mielsch (eds.), Kotinos: Festschrift für Erika Simon, Mainz am Rhein, p. 267‑269, pls. 57, 58.1.

Himmelmann (N.), 1999, Attische Grabreliefs, Opladen & Wiesbaden.

Höckmann (U.), 2007, “Zyprisch-griechische Kleinplastik: Kouroi, andere Figuren, und plastisch-verzierte Gefässe”, in U. Höckmann (ed.), Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis II, Worms, p. 13‑251, pls. 1‑55.

Hogarth (D.G.), Edgar (C.C.), Gutch (C.), 1898-1899, “Excavations at Naukratis”, BSA 5, p. 26‑97.

Hurwit (J.M.), 1985, The Art and Culture of Early Greece: 1000-480 B.C., Ithaka (NY).

ICS: see Masson 1983.

Karageorghis (V.), Mertens (J.R.), Rose (M.E.), 2000, Ancient Art from Cyprus: The Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Karageorghis (V.), 2003, The Cyprus Collections in the Medelhavsmuseet, Nicosia.

Karageorghis (V.), 2006, Aspects of Everyday Life in Ancient Cyprus: Iconographic Representations, Nicosia.

Karageorghis (V.), Des Gagniers (J.), 1974, La céramique chypriote de style figuré. Âge du Fer (1050-500 av. J.‑C.), Rome.

Kondoleon (N.), Segal (P.C.), 2011, Aphrodite and the Gods of Love, Boston.

Kourou (N.), Karageorghis (V.), Maniatis (Y.), Polikreti (K.), Bassiakos (Y.), Xenophontos (C.), 2002, Limestone Statuettes of Cypriot Type in the Aegean: Provenience Studies, Nicosia.

Lang (M.L.), 1991, “The Alphabetic Impact on Archaic Greece,” in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, London & Hanover (NH), p. 65‑79.

Lang (R.H.), 1878, “Narrative of an Excavation in a Temple at Dali (Idalium) in Cyprus”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Second Series 11, p. 30‑79.

Maier (F.G.), 1989, “Priest Kings in Cyprus”, in Peltenburg 1989 (ed.), p. 376‑391.

Maier (F.G.), Karageorghis (V.), 1984, Paphos: History and Archaeology, Nicosia.

Marcadé (J.), 1953-1957, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, Paris.

Markou (E.), 2016, “The coinages of the kings of Cyprus from the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic period”, in the website: Kyprios Character. History, Archaeology & Numismatics of Ancient Cyprus: http://www.kyprioscharacter.eie.gr/en/t/AU (08.06.2016).

Marshall (F.H.), 1916, The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, 4.2, Supplementary and Miscellaneous Inscriptions, Oxford.

Masson (O.), 1971, “Kypriaka IX: Recherches sur les antiquités de Golgoi”, BCH 95, p. 305‑334.

Masson (O.), 1983, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique et commenté, 2nd ed., Paris.

Masson (O.), 1985, “Éléments de la vie quotidienne dans l’épigraphie chypriote”, in Chypre : La vie quotidienne de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Nicosia, p. 87‑89.

Merrillees (R.S.), 1993, “The Languages of Cyprus”, CCEC 20, p. 3‑17.

Mitford (T.B.), 1971, The Inscriptions of Kourion, Philadelphia.

Mitropoulou (E.), 1977, Attic Votive Reliefs of the 6th and 5th Centuries B.C., Corpus 1, Athens.

Moreno (P.), 1995, Lisippo: L’arte e la fortuna, Rome.

Muller-Dufeu (M.), 2011, Créer du vivant : sculpteurs et artistes dans l’Antiquité grecque, Villeneuve-d’Ascq.

Mylonas (D.G.), 1999, Archaische Kalksteinplastik Zyperns. Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie, Typologie und form- geschichtlichen Entwicklung der kyprischen Rundplastik der archaischen Zeit, Mannheim.

Mylonas (D.G.), 2003, “Ikonographie und Typologie der kyprischen archaischen Grossplastik”, in V. Karageorghis, S. Rogge (eds.), Junge zyprische Archäologie. Symposium, Berlin 6. April 2002, Münster, p. 51‑71.

Neumann (G.), 1979, Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs, Tübingen.

Nielsen (A.M.), 1983, Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities 8: Cypriot Antiquities in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen, Gothenburg.

Nielsen (A.M.), 1992, The Cypriote Collection, Catalogue: Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen.

Padgett (J.M.), 2014, “Acquisitions of the Princeton University Art Museum 2013”, Record of the Princeton University Art Museum 73, p. 42.

Peltenburg (E.) ed., 1989, Early Society in Cyprus, Edinburgh.

Perdrizet (P.), 1908, Fouilles de Delphes V, 1. Monuments figurés : petits bronzes, terres cuites, antiquités diverses, Paris.

Peristianes (I.K.), 1910, Γενιϰὴ ἱστοϱία τƞ̑ς νήσου Κύπϱоυ, Nicosia (reprint 1995).

Pogiatzi (E.), 2003, Die Grabreliefs auf Zypern: von der archaischen bis zur römischen Zeit, Mannheim.

Pryce (F.N.), 1931, Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum, 1: Cypriote and Etruscan, London.

Randall (R.H.), 1953, “The Erechtheion Workmen”, AJA 57, p. 199‑210.

Reyes (A.T.), 1994, Archaic Cyprus: A Study in the Textual and Archaeological Evidence, Oxford.

Rolley (C.), 1969, Fouilles de Delphes V, 2. Les statuettes de bronze, Paris.

Rolley (C.), Masson (O.), 1971, “Un bronze de Delphes à inscription chypriote syllabique”, BCH 95, p. 295‑304.

SCE III: Gjerstad (E.), Lindros (J.), Sjöqvist (E.), Westholm (A.), The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931, vol. III, Stockholm, 1937.

Scholl (A.), 1995, “Nicht Aristophanes sondern Epigenes: Das LymeParkRelief und die Darstellung von Dichtern und Schauspielern”, JdI 110, p. 213‑238.

Schmidt (G.), 1968, Samos VII. Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion von Samos, Bonn.

Schweitzer (B.), 1963, “Xenokrates von Athen”, in U. Hausmann, H.‑V. Herrmann (eds.), Zur Kunst der Antike: Ausgewählte Schriften I, Tübingen.

Senff (R.), 1993, Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion: Architektur und Statuenausstattung eines zyprischen Heiligtums, SIMA 94, Jonsered.

Slater (N.), 1985, “Vanished Players: Two Classical Reliefs and Theater History”, GRBS 26, p. 340‑344, pl. 2.

Sophocleous (S.), 1985, Atlas des représentations chypro-archaïques des divinités, Göteborg.

Sørensen (L.W.), 1994, “The Divine Image?”, in Vandenabeele, Laffineur 1994, p. 79‑90, pls. XXII-XXIII.

Sørensen (L.W.), 2002, “Cypriot Women of the Archaic Period: Evidence from Sculpture”, in D.G. Bolger, N. Serwint (eds.), Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, Boston, p. 121‑132.

Sznycer (M.), 1985, “Les noms de métier et de fonction chez les Phéniciens de Kition d’après les témoignages épigraphiques,” in Chypre : La vie quotidienne de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Nicosia, p. 79‑86.

Tatton-Brown (V.), 1986, “Gravestones of the Archaic and Classical Periods: Local Production and Foreign Influences,” in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”, Nicosia 8‑14 September, 1985, Nicosia, p. 439‑452.

Trendall (A.D.), 1989, Red Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily, London.

Vandenabeele (F.), Laffineur (R.) eds., 1994, Cypriote Stone Sculpture: Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Brussels-Liège, 17‑19 May, 1993, Brussels & Liège.

Wace (A.J.B.), 1952, “The Cloaks of Zeuxis and Demetrius”, ÖJh 39, p. 111‑118.

Walters (H.B.), 1903, Catalogue of the terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman antiquities, British Museum, London.

Yon (M.), 1974, Salamine de Chypre V. Un dépôt des sculptures archaïques (Ayios Varnavas, site A), Paris.

Yon (M.), 1989, “Sur l’administration de Kition à l’époque classique”, in Peltenburg 1989, p. 363‑375.

Ziomecki (J.), 1975, Les représentations d’artisans sur les vases attiques, Warsaw.

Haut de page

Notes

1 For a recent review see Muller-Dufeu 2011.

2 Randall 1953, p. 199‑210, partially reproduced in Austin, Vidal-Naquet 1977, p. 276‑282, text no. 73.

3 Himmelmann 1979.

4 Moreno 1995; Gschwantler 1975; Wace 1952, p. 111‑118.

5 Though the Roman commentators were largely based on Greek sources: Schweitzer 1963, p. 105‑164.

6 See also Marcadé 1953-1957.

7 The unique late‑eighth-century signature on a sherd from Pithekousai is followed in the seventh century by potters, vase painters, and sculptors: Hurwit 1985, p. 141; Lang 1991, p. 65‑79.

8 Badawy 1961, p. 269‑276.

9 Paris, Louvre AO 4411/AM 1196: Hermary 1984, p. 238; Hermary 1989, p. 295‑296 no. 593; Caubet et al. 1992, p. 121 no. 147.

10 Masson 1983, p. 308 no. 307, pl. LIII.2.

11 Masson 1983, p. 263‑264 no. 248, pl. XLI.3; Peristianes 1910, reprint 1995, p. 921‑922 no. 15, fig. 9.

12 London, British Museum 1899‑2-14:22, Hogarth et al. 1898-1899, p. 32, pl. 14; Marshall 1916, p. 210 no. 1081, inv. 1900‑2-1‑22; Bernand 1970, p. 746‑747 no. 9; Kourou et al. 2002, p. 76; Karageorghis 2006, p. 229.

13 Delphi Archaeological Museum inv. 1717: Perdrizet 1908, p. 68‑69 no. 249, fig. 223; Rolley 1969, p. 98 note 6; Rolley, Masson 1971, p. 295‑304, fig. 1‑3, 8‑9; Masson 1983, p. 422 no. 369a, 419, fig. 154; Egetmeyer 2010, vol. II, p. 841 no. 2; Aurigny 2016, p. 222‑223, fig. 1.

14 Karageorghis 2006, p. 229.

15 Rolley, Masson 1971, p. 295, 302.

16 In the Roman Period there is the signature of Zoïlos of Golgoi in Greek letters: Masson 1971, p. 330‑331 no. 10, fig. 18: Metropolitan Museum, NYC 74.51.2490: Hermary, Mertens, p. 352‑353 no. 489.

17 Mitford 1971, p. 35‑38 no. 13; Masson 1983, p. 398 no. d; in general see Reyes 1994, p. 107‑114.

18 E.g. Masson 1983, statues: Amathous, p. 206‑209 no. 196, pl. XXIX.2; Mersinaki, p. 216‑217 no. 210, pl. XXXII.1; Voni, p. 265‑266 no. 251, pl. XLI.1‑2; Keryneia, p. 269 no. 252, pl. XLI.4; statuettes: Kourion, p. 195‑196 nos. 180‑181, pl. XXVI.3; Golgoi, p. 289‑291 nos. 275‑280, pl. XLIV.3, XLIII.3; Amadasi Guzzo, Karageorghis 1977, p. 42‑48 nos. A 29‑30, pl. VIII.1‑3, publishes two bases inscribed in Phoenician that bore royal statues. Cf. Senff 1993, p. 10‑11, 12‑15.

19 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2467: Masson 1983, p. 283 no. 263; Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 116 no. 181; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 65‑66 no. 49. A similar inscription is on a tablet held by a statue from Voni: Masson 1983, p. 265‑266 no. 251; Dikaios 1961, p. 98.

20 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2466: Masson 1983, p. 283 no. 262; Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 109‑110 no. 172; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 42‑45 no. 22. Masson believed that this indicates that the dedicator belonged to the Paphian goddess and that the statue represents therefore a priest.

21 Hermary 2014, with reference to Egetmeyer 2010, vol. II, p. 611 no. 3.

22 Markou 2016. Idalion, Marion, and Lapethos are partial exceptions in that both the name of king and the name of the city appear on some of the coins of the kingdoms.

23 Tatton-Brown 1986, p. 439‑452; Pogiatzi 2003.

24 Pogiatzi 2003, p. 99‑101. She suggests very tentatively a possible Phoenician origin.

25 Masson 1983, p. 156‑169.

26 Sznycer 1985, p. 79‑86; Amadasi Guzzo, Karageorghis 1977.

27 Karageorghis 2006, p. 227‑235; Masson 1985.

28 Clairmont 1993, 1. 202, 1. 630; Scholl 1993, p. 353‑373; Clairmont 1995, p. 70‑72, no. 5.470, photo on p. 160.

29 Himmelmann 1992; Slater 1985, p. 340‑344, pl. 2.

30 Himmelmann 1999, p. 43‑46.

31 Akropolis Museum 1332 and 577: Mitropoulou 1977, p. 23 no. 9, figs. 17‑18, and 30‑31 no. 29, fig. 48; Neumann 1979, figs. 15a, 19.

32 Neumann 1979, fig. 47b; Himmelmann 1999, p. 28‑29, figs. 13‑14.

33 Ziomecki 1975. There is even a woman painting a kalpis attributed to the Leningrad Painter in Milan, Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Inv. 2: Ziolmecki 1975, p. 154 no. 32, fig. 13 on p. 45, and a painter painting a statue of Herakles on a South-Italian column krater in New York (inv. 50.11.4): Trendall 1989, fig. 131.

34 Mylonas 1999, p. 123‑189.

35 Faegersten 2003.

36 There are several rather richly decorated ladies, some of small size: Caubet et al. 1992, p. 128‑129 nos. 157‑158, both in the Louvre.

37 Worcester Art Museum 1941.91, so‑called Worcester head without provenance: Sophocleous 1985, p. 133, pl. 33; Kontoleon, Segal 2011, p. 29, 129 no. 11. Hermary 1982; Hermary 1989, p. 398‑410, and Caubet et al. 1992, p. 128‑129, believe the kalathos indicates that the figures represent the Great Goddess, but Sørensen 2002, p. 122f., 128, and Mylonas 2003, p. 177‑182, disagree.

38 Sørensen 1994, p. 87‑88; Mylonas 1999, p. 215; Faegersten 2003, p. 259.

39 Yon 1989.

40 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art inv. 74.51.2541: Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 118‑119 no. 184; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 160‑161 no. 187.

41 Pryce 1931, p. 5, proposes that the majority of the statues are the ideal worshipper but the colossal examples must represent rulers. Mylonas 1999, p. 129‑147, 171‑174, attempts to distinguish royalty and nobility in dress and headgear, but is in detail unconvincing. Maier 1989, and Brönner 1994, identify the Egyptian double crown as a marker of royalty, a proposal that is possible.

42 Reyes 1994, p. 32‑34.

43 Pryce 1931, p. 4; Yon 1974, p. 11‑12.

44 Pryce 1931, p. 4, discusses the range of colours of limestone in different regions.

45 A large cache of life-sized or almost life-sized terracotta statues have been found recently at Marion near the sanctuary in the area Malatheri (A.H9). These were uncovered by a bulldozer and have not yet been published. One torso: Childs et al. 2012, p. 210‑211 no. 72 (E. Raptou). The siege mound of Paphos has produced a large amount of fragmentary stone sculptures: Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 186‑192.

46 Masson 1971, p. 302‑303; Masson 1983, p. 57‑67; Merrillees 1998, p. 10.

47 Schmidt 1968.

48 Gaber 1980, Gaber-Saletan 1981 and 1986.

49 Fourrier 2007.

50 Yon 1974, p. 141‑142.

51 Inv. 1868.8-30.1; Walters 1903, p. 40 no. A231 (not from Lang’s excavation); Karageorghis 1993, p. 68 no. 235, pl. XLVII.3.

52 AO22233: De Ridder 1908, pl. XXIII:125; Karageorghis 1993, p. 56 no. 168, pl. XXXVII.5.

53 Inv. 1173: Nielsen1983, p. 7‑8 no. 11; Nielsen 1992, p. 46‑47 no. 33.

54 De Ridder 1908, p. 144‑145 no. 129, pl. XXIII; Padgett 2014, p. 42; Childs 2015, p. 281, 283, fig. 1. See also Karageorghis 1993, p. 69‑69, pl. XLVII.

55 Berlin Sk 1771, Brehme et al. 2001, p. 156‑157 no. 167, is very similar to Vienna V 1188, Bernhard-Walcher et al. 1999, p. 189‑192 no. 91; and resemble somewhat New York 74.51.2820, Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 212‑213 no. 342, as M. Brönner points out. The head from Salamis (Yon 1974, p. 16‑19 no. 2, inv. 13.5.68, pl. 2) should be included in this group.

56 Vouni head: Stockholm, Medelhasmuseet V.17: SCE III, p. 230, 264‑265, pls. XLVIII, XLIX.1‑2; Karageorghis 2003, p. 246 no. 284. Worcester Head: Worcester Art Museum 1941.49: Sophocleous 1985, p. 133, pl. 33; Kondoleon, Segal 2011, p. 29, 189 no. 11. The Worcester head has no known provenance.

57 Berlin, Antikensammlung TC 8122.102: Brehme et al. 2001, p. 119 no. 118, from Limniti. See also the two marvelous terracotta heads of women from Princeton‘s excavations at ancient Marion (Polis Chrysochous): Childs et al. 2012, p. 169, fig. 3.2, and 186‑188 no. 57 (N. Serwint); Childs 2015, p. 284, figs. 2‑3.

58 Berlin, Antikensammlung TC 6682.31: Brehme et al. 2001, p. 112 no. 108.

59 Kourou et al. 2002; Andrioti 2010.

60 Höckmann 2007, with earlier bibliography.

61 Karageorghis, des Gagniers 1974, p. 269 no. XXIV.b46; Karageorghis et al. 2000, p. 101 no. 161.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Head of the god Bes on a pedestal. 7th century BCE., from near Larnaka, Cyprus.
Crédits Paris, Louvre AM1196. © RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY. Photo: Franck Raux.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 303k
Titre Figure 2. Limestone base of statuette from Naukratis, late 4th century BCE.
Crédits London, British Museum 1899‑2-14:22. © Trustees of the British Museum.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 289k
Titre Figure 3. Bronze foot of a stand, 7th century BCE.
Crédits Delphi Archaeological Museum inv. 1717. © École française d’Athènes/ Photo Émile Sérafis.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 143k
Titre Figure 4. Standing male, limestone statue probably from Golgoi, Late 6th century BCE.
Crédits New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2466, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 384k
Titre Figure 5. Limestone Funeral Inscription from Yialia, western Cyprus, 5th century BCE.
Crédits Nicosia, The Cyprus Museum 1950.1-28.1/INS S 70. Photo author.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 236k
Titre Figure 6. Vouni Head, early 5th Century BCE.
Crédits Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet V.17. © Bildarkiv Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 455k
Titre Figure 7. Large limestone head of a woman with kalathos.
Crédits Courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum (MA), Museum Purchase, 1941.49.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 493k
Titre Figure 8. Small limestone figure of a standing Woman, 6th century BCE.
Crédits New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.2541, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 520k
Titre Figure 9. Large bearded terracotta head from Limniti, Cyprus, 5th century BCE.
Crédits Berlin Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen TC 8122.102. © Berlin: bpk Bildagentur Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany/Art Resource NY.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 351k
Titre Figure 10. Terracotta jug depicting a bird with a fish in its beak, 7th century BCE.
Crédits New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 74.51.527, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/docannexe/image/361/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 417k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

William A.P. Childs, « Artisan versus artist in Archaic and Classical Cyprus »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 48 | 2018, 23-36.

Référence électronique

William A.P. Childs, « Artisan versus artist in Archaic and Classical Cyprus »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes [En ligne], 48 | 2018, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2022, consulté le 15 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/361 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/cchyp.361

Haut de page

Auteur

William A.P. Childs

Professor Emeritus, Department of Art and Archaeology - Princeton University

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search