The Hand of the Coroplast in the Fourth Century and the Hellenistic Period: Some Select Examples
p. 75-86
Résumés
La fabrication de figurines en terre cuite au IVe siècle et à l’époque hellénistique était tellement dépendante de l’utilisation du moule pour faciliter les répliques que la pratique du modelage pour tout ou partie d’une image d’argile à ces périodes n’a jamais été suffisamment explorée. Bien que cet article ne soit pas le lieu d’un examen aussi détaillé, il peut être utile de considérer certains exemples de modelage de terres cuites, grandes et petites, pour rechercher à quelle fin un coroplathe du quatrième siècle ou de la période hellénistique pourrait s’être engagé dans la manipulation directe de l’argile pour un produit fini.
The manufacture of terracotta figurines in the fourth century and the Hellenistic period was so dependent on the use of the mold for easy replication that the practice of hand modeling for all or part of a clay image in these periods has never been sufficiently explored. While this paper is not the place for such a detailed examination, it can be useful to look at select examples of hand modeling in terracottas, both large and small, to investigate to what end a coroplast of the fourth century or the Hellenistic period might have engaged in the direct manipulation of clay for a final product.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : terres cuites hellénistiques, patrix, figurines modelées, alterations des terres cuites, Aphrodite Heyl, le tireur d’épine de Priène, maniérisme coroplathique, esquisse en terre cuite, ajouts modelés
Keywords : Hellenistic terracottas, patrix, hand-modeled figurines, coroplastic alterations, Heyl Aphrodite, Priene Thorn-puller, coroplastic mannerism, terracotta sketch, hand-modeled additions
Texte intégral
1The manufacture of terracotta figurines in the fourth century and the Hellenistic period was so dependent on the use of the mold for easy replication that the practice of hand modeling for all or part of a clay image in these periods has never been sufficiently explored. While this paper is not the place for such a detailed examination, it can be useful to look at select examples of hand modeling in terracottas, both large and small, to investigate to what end a coroplast of the fourth century or the Hellenistic period might have engaged in the direct manipulation of clay for a final product. I am grateful to Hélène Aurigny and Laura Rohaut for suggesting this topic to me that has led me on a path of discovery that I otherwise never would have taken.
2It is obvious that the direct intervention of the coroplast’s hand was an accessory feature of most mold-made terracottas of the periods under consideration in one form or another. This is evident in the elaboration of hair, headdress, limbs, and accessories, or in the retouching of hair, facial features, and drapery, both in the mold and on the figurine itself. More extensive hand-modeled alterations also could take place, as exemplified by a mold-made female bust of the mid-third century from a household shrine at Pella that was completely transformed by the addition of a hand modeled beard and elaborate headdress to create a unique image of Dionysos.1 While such hand-modeled alterations are not uncommon, it is the goal of this paper to limit discussion to terracottas that are completely or in large part hand modeled, or that are transformed by the coroplast’s hand to convey the impression of a hand-modeled image.
3In the fourth century and the Hellenistic period, as in earlier periods, the initial hand-modeled expression in clay of a given artistic idea that was designed for replication was the patrix, best known from the study of Bernhard Neutsch.2 As is well known, this represented only the first step in the duplication of mechanically related, mold-made objects, and was never intended to be a final product for the market. Thus original, hand-modeled patrices are relatively rare in the archaeological record and occasionally have been confused with what might be called sketches,3 preparatory images for the working out of sculptural ideas that were never intended to be replicated. A fourth-century patrix for a deer-head rhyton, said to come from Taranto and now in The Metropolitan Museum of Art (see in this volume Jeammet, fig. 5, p. 55),4 is an excellent example, whose extensive tool marks, smears of clay, and the occasional fingerprints that cover the surface leave no doubt that this was the direct product of a coroplast’s hand.
4Such figurines and larger statuettes that were hand modeled, or in large part hand modeled, during the fourth century and the Hellenistic period are known from coroplastic centers throughout the Greek world, although they are rare in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of mold-made terracottas from these periods that have been brought to light. Yet, Agnes Stillwell noted that in the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth, for example, in the later fourth century the proportion of handmade figurines was just as large as in any previous period.5 There also was a tradition at Corinth for large, hand-modeled clay statues that began in the Archaic period, but that can be documented as late as the early third century B.C.E.6 Hellenistic coroplasts of Athens also modeled both large-scale and smaller figurines, examples of which have been brought to light from several areas of the ancient city.7 Figurines and statuettes from production centers in the islands and the east, such as Delos8 and Thera,9 Priene,10 Smyrna,11 and Amisos,12 among many, many other centers, all have provided excellent evidence for the coroplast’s hand.13 So have centers in the Greek west, such as Morgantina, where several female busts were hand modeled,14 or at Taras, well known for large modeled funerary sculptures,15 as well as for hand-modeled figurines.16 The indigenous center of Canosa also has been recognized for its production of Greek-style funerary sculpture that was hand modeled.17 This is in addition to its production of large funerary vessels of Hellenistic date that were elaborately decorated with complex hand-modeled scenes18 (fig. 1). In each instance, a coroplast turned to the ancient technique of hand modeling because, for whatever reason, the exclusive reliance on the mold was not sufficient. Let us take a look at the possible reasons that a coroplast of the fourth century or the Hellenistic period might have indulged in hand modeling, or affected the appearance of hand modeling to a significant degree.
Fig. 1 – Terracotta relief probably from a funnel vase. From Canosa.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.235.5, Rogers Fund 1912, 24.1 x 30.5 cm
(Photo courtesy The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
5Religious conservatism must have been the driving force behind the continual production into the fourth century of a long-lived class of hand-modeled figurines from Corinthian workshops that represents a woman enthroned in hieratic symmetry. The earliest examples reach back into the early sixth century,19 but they continued to be produced with variations to the throne and updated, mold-made faces well into the fourth century (fig. 2a). These generally are characterized by flat, board-like bodies completely hand-built using slabs and rolls of clay both for the body of the woman and for the elaborate, high-backed chair on which she sits; only the head is mold made.20 However, the coroplast varied the iconographic type somewhat in an example in Berlin by the addition of a flattened slab of clay for a himation that envelops the upper part of the body like a cocoon (fig. 2b).21
Fig. 2 – a. Seated woman. From Lokris. Antikensammlung. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 7664, 10.5 cm (Photo Pernice 1903, pl. IX, bottom right). b. Seated woman. From Corinth. Antikensammlung. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 6828, 10 cm

(Photo Pernice 1903, pl. IX, bottom left).
6Religious conservatism also surely was a factor in the uninterrupted production and development of figurines of banqueters that characterized coroplastic production at Taras in the late Archaic period, but that also continued well into the fourth century B.C.E. Many of the manipulative technical processes that were typical of hand-modeled embellishments to mold-made figurines of the Archaic period at Taras, as seen in the headgear of banqueters of the late sixth century,22 can be paralleled within the Tarantine corpus of fourth-century figurines of banqueters. This is eloquently illustrated by two examples of an elaborately-wreathed banqueter, the first in the Antikenmuseum Basel (fig. 3a),23 and the second in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (fig. 3b).24 In both examples the wreath comprises a rich array of plastic decorative elements, such as leaves that were pinched into shape, ribbons and bands that were rolled into strips and draped into loops or folds, coils of impressed clay that were formed into rings that were superimposed on one another, and flowers that were incised and sometimes embellished with small pellets or balls of clay. This aggregation of a variety of bold, decorative elements that frame the face clearly would not have been possible with just the use of mold. Within this context of the fourth-century and early Hellenistic banqueter at Taras the coroplast exploited to its fullest potential the plasticity of clay in order to elevate the status of the subject and, by association, the dedicant, into an otherworldly sphere, but within the realm of tangible public display.
Fig. 3 – a. Head and upper body of a reclining banqueter, From Taras. Antikensammlung Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, 31.5 cm (Author photo). b. Head and upper body of a reclining banqueter. From Taras. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 01.7949, 18.2 cm

(Photo courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).
7It is clear that the inclusion of major hand-modeled parts to mold-made figurines could push the character of these figurines far beyond their usual aesthetic boundaries that would have been limited by the use of the mold alone. An excellent case in point is provided by the well-known figurine, or perhaps more properly statuette, known as the Heyl Aphrodite (fig. 4).25 Dating to the second century B.C.E., it is perhaps one of the most beautiful of Hellenistic terracottas in its sculptural execution of form and movement. Standing at a preserved height of 37,5 centimeters, this presents a full-figured woman twisting in space, who is clothed in seemingly diaphanous drapery that slips from her upper body. However, as the drapery falls in bunches and longer nested folds over her legs it becomes weightier.
Fig. 4 – The Heyl Aphrodite.

Antikensammlung. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 31272, 37.6 cm
(Photo Johannes Laurentius, courtesy Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz).
8While it has been said that this sculpture was made from a series of molds for the head and various parts of the body, it also is obvious that the coroplast had to add significant hand-modeled sections for the lower part of the drapery that were flawlessly integrated into the mold-made core in order to carry out an artistic vision. The thin-edged, sharply delineated long folds that create repetitive and successively curving deep pockets of shadows would have been impossible to achieve using a mold alone because of the undercutting of their projected volumes. Similarly, the edges of these deep, knife-like folds, important dramatic elements in this composition, would not have survived being pulled from the mold.
9Also hand-modeled is the right arm and especially the drapery mass that projects outward from above the right elbow, a skillfully modeled addition, but one that was very clumsily integrated into the undetailed back of the figure (fig. 5). Accompanying hand modeling is evident as well in the length of drapery that descends along the proper left side of the torso that frames the sensuously modeled abdomen in dark shadow and that acts as a visual barrier to the horizontal movement suggested by the curving folds that cross the abdomen. It must be obvious that these hand-modeled elements were added to the drapery volumes after casting to increase the drama of the figure that relies on stark contrasts of light and deep shadow. Yet, it also must be emphasized that even though the coroplast added hand-modeled elements that were critical to compositional goals, without which the figural conception would have been particularly limited, extreme care was taken to not to leave any traces of the coroplast’s hand on the seemingly flawless surface of the front of the figurine.
Fig. 5 – The Heyl Aphrodite, back view

(Photo Johannes Kramer, courtesy Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz).
10A completely different approach to hand modeling in the Hellenistic period is illustrated by figurines where extensive signs of the coroplast’s hand appear to have been a deliberate feature. Two fragments from the Athenian Agora document what has been called by Dorothy Thompson a technical mannerism of the later third century,26 whereby rough strips and coils of clay were added to a mold-made core to deliberately give the impression of hand modeling (fig. 6). To these fragments can be added a figurine from Amisos, now in the Louvre Museum, representing a seated woman, possibly Cybele, whose lumpy, modulated surface was the result of added clay strips to mold-made sections that then were extensively worked by hand.27 Can we assume from this coroplastic mannerism that even the appearance of hand modeling could have been an appealing feature in a clay sculpture? Does this imply a discriminating clientele for whom the exceptional and the extraordinary that is expressed by a hand-modeled object may have been held in higher esteem?
Fig. 6 – a. Fragment of drapery. From Athens. Agora of Athens Museum, T3254, 8.2 cm (Photo Thompson 1963b, pl. 80:4). b. Fragment of drapery. From Athens. Agora of Athens Museum, T2346, 10.8 cm

(Photo Thompson 1963b, pl. 81:1).
11Surely, this must have been the impetus behind the creation of an arresting, fully hand-modeled shoulder bust of a woman from Priene that was found in a room beneath the south-west corner of the Terrace of Athena (fig. 7).28 At 27 centimeters in height, it is a little less than half life-size, yet it has a compelling personal presence that has led some scholars to suggest that it is a singular portrait.29 This suggestion may arise from the fact that this bust is the direct result of the action of the coroplast’s hand in the transformation into clay of an original artistic idea as a final product. There is no intervening mechanical stage that separates the realization of this original artistic idea from the viewer, such as is always the case with the use of the mold. An immediacy results that encourages the viewer to engage with this image on a personal level because of the extraordinarily fine detail that is so easily achieved in clay by a skillful modeler. It is clear that this coroplast deliberately engaged in hand modeling to produce a work of exceptional personality, and therefore of exceptional presence. Does this also translate to exceptional value?
Fig. 7 – Female bust. From Priene.

Antikensammlung. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, TC 8581, 26 cm
(Photo Stephanie Pearson).
12This may also be evident in yet another terracotta work from Priene, although this second example is completely different in subject matter and modeling style. At 17 centimeters in height, it represents a muscular adolescent of likely African descent seated on a rocky outcropping in the apparent act of pulling a thorn out of his foot (fig. 8).30 While this motif has been explored by Hellenistic artists in other media,31 the Priene Thornpuller is perhaps the most engaging, due in large part to its narrative quality. The intense concentration on the task at hand that is expressed by a sharply-focused gaze and deeply-knitted brow draws the viewer in. As must be apparent, there is a liveliness in every aspect of this figure because of the continual movement of its surfaces, from the undulating flesh of his arms and legs and their intertwined composition to the lumpy, seemingly unfinished mass of rock on which the boy sits. Also lively and spontaneously rendered is the garment worn by the boy that consists of a single thin slab of smeared clay that passes diagonally across his body in front.
Fig. 8 – Thornpuller. From Priene.

Antikensammlung. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, TC 8626, 17 cm
(Photo Stephanie Pearson).
13The obvious traces of the pinching, pressing, and smearing of the clay surface by the coroplast as this figurine was created are the hallmarks of hand modeling that appear to have been purposefully retained, as have the fingerprints that were left on the moist surface. One can see in a detail of the head (fig. 9) that the coroplast added full, curving masses over each eye to intensify the deep shadows that frame them; quick swipes of a tool define the volumes of the nostrils, while the coroplast added masses of clay to the volumes of the cheeks to make them fuller. Yet, in spite of these obvious indications of hand modeling, scholars are in disagreement as to the extent to which hand modeling actually was carried out. For Rumscheid piece molds were used in the creation of this figure,32 while Zimmer believed that the entire figure was freely modeled.33 But it may be that this question was irrelevant to the ancient viewer, since it is clear that the coroplast deliberately created an image that was designed to look hand modeled. Again, the question must be asked, was this intended to suggest a one-of-a-kind, a unique image that no one else could have?
Fig. 9 – Thornpuller, detail of face

(Photo Rumscheid 2006, pl. 119:2).
14Occasionally, supplemental hand modeling or work with the stylus or other tool was so extensive that it all but overwhelmed the clay matrix that was pulled from a mold. This could endow the figurine with a hand-modeled appearance that blurred the distinction between a mechanically achieved object and one that was a unique product of the coroplast’s hand. Among numerous examples can be cited the head of a sleeping child from Smyrna,34 or a charioteer, also from Smyrna, whose hair and beard were richly rendered with applied pellets that were haphazardly attached to the crown of the head by pressing into them sideways with a long, pointed tool.35 A figurine of a nude athlete of the first century B.C.E., now in Würtzburg, is extensively covered by tool marks that promote the impression of a miniature hand-modeled sculpture.36 One of the most conspicuous examples of this practice of extensive tooling is seen in a small figurine in the Louvre Museum, barely eight centimeters in height, representing a very young girl who has fallen asleep while sitting on the ground (fig. 10).37 Said to come from Alexandria, it has been dated to the early Hellenistic period. Although this figurine was cast in bivalve molds,38 it also is apparent that nearly every surface was altered by the coroplast after casting, from the hasty slashes to indicate the folds of the girl’s chiton to the features of her face. The entire figure possesses an impressionistic, sketchy quality as a result of this intervention, with surfaces that flicker as light moves over them. The facial features, in particular, present the most eloquent evidence of modeling both by hand and with a stylus while the clay was still very moist. The freshness of the edges of the facial features, achieved by manipulation with the stylus, is critical in conveying the immediate abandonment that comes with sleep, suggested by eyes that are half closed and a mouth that hangs slightly open. For the viewer it appears that this has just taken place.
Fig. 10 – Sleeping girl. From Alexandria.

Musée du Louvre, D 4518, 8.95 cm
(Photo Besques 1994, back cover).
15It is obvious that the medium of clay encouraged a spontaneous approach to intimate miniaturist detail because of its sensitivity to touch and the ease with which it can be worked. Yet, the motivation that drove the coroplast to create so unique an image by completely negating its mold origins is impossible to assess. As already suggested, it may be that this represents a purposeful attempt to imitate a fully hand-modeled figurine, to endow this modest image with a uniqueness, an originality of execution that perhaps was of value. In fact, it may be that just the appearance of hand modeling was sufficient to generate its market appeal, as surely must have been the case with its intimacy of scale.39
16The emotional response that fine hand modeling of the Hellenistic period can elicit when it is miniature in scale, is well illustrated by Simone Besques in her evaluation of the figurine of the sleeping girl. She declared that “the perfection of this terracotta makes it one of the most beautiful creations, not only of Alexandrian art, but of all Hellenistic art”.40 Dorothy Thompson was no less complimentary in her assessment of a hand-modeled male head broken from a full figure, perhaps of a philosopher or teacher, that was found in the Athenian Agora, when she called it one of the finest terracottas ever found in Athens41 (fig. 11). She noted that “our tiny original has more beauty of expression, more vital personality, more tenderness…than any of the major works.” She then asked, with a touch of sarcasm, “Is this surprising fact not due to its being an original, fresh from the hand of a fourth-century master, even if only a coroplast?”42 The same value was placed on a hand-modeled figurine of a seated ephebe found just outside of the Athenian Agora43 (fig. 12). Similarly, a hand-modeled figurine of a standing draped woman from a coroplast’s workshop on Delos was praised as a small sculpture of excellent quality.44 With the exception of the sleeping girl, all these figurines were fully hand modeled and finished, so there is no dispute as to their uniqueness. They have been recognized as miniature hand-modeled masterpieces, the exceptional products of gifted coroplasts’ hands.
Fig. 11 – Male head (philosopher?).

From Athens. Agora of Athens Museum, T 313, 5.2 cm
(Photo Thompson 1957, pl. 35: 6, 7).
Fig. 12 – Seated ephebe.

From Athens. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, 8.3 cm
(Photo Thompson 1963a, pl. 32).
17While it is clear from these statements that the modern viewer could become highly engaged by the kind of miniature detail that was so easily achieved by hand modeling in clay, particularly in a small, if even tiny, scale, textual evidence suggests that the ancient viewer also appreciated detailed miniaturization. The Hellenistic poet Posidippus wrote an epigram that celebrated a bronze sculpture by the archaic sculptor Theodorus, possibly a self-portrait, that already had become legendary because of the presence of a quadriga held in its hand that was highly detailed yet so tiny that it could fit under the wings of a fly;45 in the late first century C.E. Pliny referred to this quadriga as a “marvel of miniaturization”.46 The fly analogy was extended to a miniature sculpture in marble of a quadriga by Myrmecides, who also was famous for his detailed sculpture of a ship that was so tiny that it could be hidden under the wings of a bee.47 While it is doubtful that these miniature sculptures ever existed as described, the renown that they generated for later commentators illustrates the appeal that fine detail together with small scale could have had for the ancients. It also is likely that the material from which these famous sculptures were said to have been made contributed to their renown, since marble is intractable and bronze also appears to have this quality for the viewer, who is unaware of its wax origins. On the other hand, clay as a medium is extremely receptive to touch and gesture. These characteristics encouraged the miniaturization and precise detail that was praised by Posidippus and Pliny, but that is also so distinctive a feature of Greek figurative terracottas, particularly of the fourth century and the Hellenistic period.
18While Dorothy Thompson and others understood well the potential for intimate visual engagement that is associated with skillful hand modeling on a small scale, such as is so easily achieved in clay,48 nevertheless they also appear to have diminished the admittedly exceptional qualities of these hand-modeled works by referring to them as models for something else, as if a hand-modeled figurine, in and of itself, could never have been a desirable object in the Hellenistic period. Thus Dorothy Thompson also referred to the head of the philosopher, or teacher, as “a study for a more ambitious work…a sketch preparatory to the creation of a model”.49 The seated ephebe was called a “model for a bronze statuette”.50 The finely-detailed draped woman from the coroplast’s workshop on Delos was believed to be a maquette.51 Such statements about all these hand-modeled figurines imply that there would have been no other reason for a coroplast of the fourth century or the Hellenistic period to manipulate clay so skillfully for the sole creation of a unique image if not as the first step in the creation of something else.
19All of which brings us to the final two works in this paper that are set apart from the hand-modeled finished figurines just discussed by technical characteristics that suggest that they indeed may have been preliminary sketches. The importance of these rough sketches for the coroplast is indicated by the fact that they were fired for permanence. The first of these sketches, now in the Antikenmuseum Basel, presents a full-figured woman enveloped in a himation that is drawn over her head, partially covering her face (fig. 13).52 Said to come from Taras, it is dated to the later fourth century. Only the upper half is preserved, but at 12 cm it could have been part of a work that measured around 30 cm if conceived as a full image, a challenge for the coroplast, given that it was modeled and fired solid. The smooth and bold modeling of the face presents a carefully finished surface with finely delineated features that contrast sharply with the coarse, seemingly hasty, modeling of the himation that is crisscrossed by widely-spaced deep folds and broad surfaces covered by smears made by a finger and marks from a modeling tool. The unfinished quality of the modeling and the fact that this figurine is solid has led to the conclusion that it is a patrix.53 However, the deep undercuts of the drapery folds, and especially those around the right arm, modeled separately and attached, make this conclusion untenable.
Fig. 13 – Draped female. From Taras.

Antikensammlung Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, 12 cm
(Author photo).
20The second work, a Hellenistic head of a satyr from Taranto now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (fig. 14),54 is also presumed to be a sketch because of its unfinished character. It is solid, hand modeled in the round, and measures not quite nine centimeters in height. This head was not broken from a full figure, but rather appears to be complete in itself, since the underside of the neck does not show evidence of breakage.55 Expressive of a completely different sensibility from that of the draped woman just discussed, as it was modeled with coarse wads of clay piled on one another to form a solid mass. It appears to have been a tactile experiment of sorts perhaps preliminary to the realization of something else, a “something else” that eludes identification. During this experimental process the coroplast intuitively explored the malleability of the clay medium for a powerful interpretation of the wild, if not savage, nature of the satyr. This was realized through an emotionally-charged visual vocabulary of contrasting elements. The head, made up of coarsely-applied wads, strips, and coils punctuated by rough gouges, presents a compelling narrative of uncontrolled energy achieved through form and gesture of the kind that is only possible in hand-modeled clay. So, while we may never know the final product for which this head served as a trial piece, if indeed that was its purpose, what is eminenly clear is that this final product could never have risen to the level of emotional and tactile engagement that was the seemingly spontaneous creation of the hand of this modeler in clay.
Fig. 14 – Head of a satyr. From Taras.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 10.210.110, Rodgers Fund 1910, 8.89 cm
(Photo front view courtesy The Metropolitan Museum, side view author photo).
Bibliographie
Albertocchi 2012 : M. Albertocchi, Dalle origini all’età arcaica: Importazioni e rielaborazioni locali, in : M. Albertocchi, A. Pautasso (éd.), Philotechnia. Studi sulla coroplastica della Sicilia greca, Catane, IBAM-CNR, (Monografie dell’Istituto per i Beni archeologici e Monumentali, 5), 2012, 299 p., 85–111.
Bartman 1992 : E. Bartman, Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature, Leyde, Brill, (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 19), 1922, 222 p.
Bell 1981 : M. Bell, The Terracottas, Princeton, Princeton University Press, (Morgantina Studies, I), 1981, 266 p.
Bencze 2013 : Á. Bencze, Physionomie d’une cité Grecque : Développements stylistiques de la coroplathie votive archaïque de Tarente, Naples, Centre Jean Bérard, 2013, 201 p.
Besques 1971–1972 : S. Besques, Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre cuite grecs, étrusques et romains. III, Époques hellénistique et romaine. Grèce et Asie Mineure, Paris, Éditions de la RMN, 1971–1972, 409 p., 436 p. de pl.
Besques 1994 : S. Besques, Figurines et reliefs grecs en terre cuite, Éditions de la RMN, Paris, 1994, 109 p.
Bookidis 1982 : N. Bookidis, A Hellenistic Terracotta Group from Corinth, Hesperia 51, 1982, 239–247.
Bookidis 2010 : N. Bookidis, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Terracotta Sculpture, Princeton, The American school of classical studies at Athens, (Corinth XVIII.5), 2010, 294 p.
Chrysostomou 1996–1997 : A. Chrysostomou, Στοιχεία καθημερινής ζωής και λαϊκής λατρείας από την Πέλλα των ελληνιστικών χρόνων, ADelt 51–52, 1996–1997, 197–230.
Deonna 1906 : W. Deonna, Les statues de terre-cuite en Grèce, Paris, Albert Fontemoing, 1906, 72 p.
Ferruzza 2016 : M.L. Ferruzza (éd), Ancient Terracottas from South Italy and Sicily in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2016, 243 p.
Fuchs 1958 : W. Fuchs, Der Dornauszieher, Brême, W. Dorn, (Opus Nobile 8), 1958, 14 p.
Hasselin Rous, Laugier, Martinez 2009 : I. Hasselin Rous, L. Laugier, J-L. Martinez (dir.), D’Izmir à Smyrne : découverte d’une cité antique, Paris, Somogy, Musée du Louvre, 2009, 231 p.
Herdejürgen 1978 : H. Herdejürgen, Götter, Menschen und Dämonen: Terrakotten aus Unteritalien, Sonderausstellung im Antikenmuseum Basel, 16. April bis 20. August 1978, Bâle, Archäologischer Verlag, 1978, 118 p.
Higgins 1954 : R. A. Higgins, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum I, Greek : 730-330 B.C., Londres, British Museum, 1954, 432 p.
Hiller von Gaertringen, Wilski 1904 : F. Hiller von Gaertringen, P. Wilski, Stadtgeschichte von Thera, Berlin, Reimer, (Thera. Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1895 – 1902, 3), 1904, 292 p.
Hoffmann 1960 : H. Hoffmann, Two Deer Heads from Apulia, AJA 64, 3, 1960, 276–278.
Jeammet 2003 : V. Jeammet, Quelques particularités de la production des pleureuses canosines en terre cuite, RA 36-2, 2003, 255–292.
Jeammet 2015 : V. Jeammet, Des figurines en terre cuite grecques pour le musée du Louvre : la collection Bellon, La revue des musées de France, 4 [72], 2015, 20–33.
Kassab Tezgör 2010 : D. Kassab Tezgör, Alexandria and Myrina, in: V. Jeammet (éd.), Tanagras. Figurines for Life and Eternity. The Musée du Louvre’s Collection of Greek Figurines, Exhibition, Centro Cultural Bancaja, Valencia, March 29 - July 7 2010, Valence, Fundación Bancaja, 2010, 299 p., 186–193.
Kriseleit, Zimmer 1994 : I. Kriseleit, G. Zimmer, Bürgerwelten: Hellenistische Tonfiguren und Nachschöpfungen im 19. Jh., Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1994, 167 p.
Laumonier 1956 : A. Laumonier, Les figurines de terre cuite, Athènes, École française d’Athènes, (Exploration archéologique de Délos, XXIII), 1956, 320 p.
Merker 2000 : G. Merker, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods, Princeton, The American school of classical studies at Athens, (Corinth XVIII.4), 2000, 394 p.
Neutsch 1952 : B. Neutsch, Studien zur vortanagraisch-attischen Koroplastik, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, (Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 17),1952, 75 p.
Pernice 1903 : E. Pernice, Ausgewählte griechische Terrakotten im Antiquarium der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Reimer, 1903, 28 p.
Picón 2007 : C.A. Picón, Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007, 508 p.
Richter 1927 : G.M.A. Richter, Handbook of the Classical Collection, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1917, 276 p.
Rumscheid 2006 : F. Rumscheid, Die figürlichen Terrakotten von Priene: Fundkontexte, Ikonographie und Funktion in Wohnhäusern und Heiligtümern im Licht antiker Parallelbefunde, Wiesbaden, Reichert, (Archäologische Forschungen, 22), 2006, 567 p.
Schmidt 1994 : E. Schmidt, Die figürlichen Terrakotten. Martin-von-Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg, 1. Die figürlichen Terrakotten, Mayence, P. von Zabern, 1994, 244 p.
Squire 2018 : M. Squire, A Portrait of the Ancient Artist? Self-Portraiture in Graeco-Roman Visual Culture, in: T. Greub, M. Roussel (éd.), Figurationen des Porträts, Paderborn, Wilhelm Fink, (Morphomata 35), 2018, 662 p., 435–470.
Stillwell 1952 : A.N. Stillwell, The Potters’ Quarter: The Terracottas, Princeton, The American school of classical studies at Athens, (Corinth XV, 2), 1952, 300 p.
Summerer 1999 : L. Summerer, Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos: ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des Pontosgebietes, Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 1999, 232 p.
Thompson 1957 : D.B. Thompson, Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas IIa: The Early Third Century B.C., Hesperia 26, 1957, 108–128.
Thompson 1963a : D.B. Thompson, A Clay Model of an Ephebe, Hesperia 32, 1963, 88–90.
Thompson 1963b : D.B. Thompson Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas. The Second Century B.C., Hesperia 32, 1963, 301–317.
Uhlenbrock 1990 : J. Uhlenbrock, The Coroplast’s Art: Greek Terracottas of the Hellenistic World, New Rochelle, A.D. Caratzas, 1990, 175 p.
Vierneisel-Schlörb 1997 : B. Vierneisel-Schlörb, Die figürlichen Terrakotten: 1. Spätmykenisch bis späthellenistisch, Munich, Hirmer Verlag, (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, XV), 1997, 203 p.
Notes de bas de page
1Chrysostomou 1996–1997, 208–210.
2Neutsch 1952.
3Herdejürgen 1978, 57.
4The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 10.210.124, Rogers Fund, 1910. Hoffmann 1960.
5Stillwell 1952, 12.
6Bookidis 1982; Bookidis 2010, 1; Merker 2000, 92, pl. 10.
7Vierneisel-Schlörb 1997, 70, no. 221, pl. 43, 2–3; 80, no. 245, pl. 49, 2–4; 156, no. 482, pl. 83, nos. 1–3; 155, no. 478, pl. 82:3; possibly 72, no. 224, pl. 44, 4:6. See also notes 41 and 43 below.
8Laumonier 1956, 183, no. 616, pl. 62; 190, no. 657, pl. 66; 195, no. 685, pl. 69; 271, no. 1284, pl. 96. In addition, a head of a statuette believed to represent Artemis (118, no. 300, pl. 30) has been largely hand modeled.
9Hiller von Gaertringen 1904, pl. for 172, a-c.
10Rumscheid 2006, 461, no. 165, pl. 67; 465, no. 179, pl. 72-73; 497, no. 278, pls. 119, nos. 2–3, 120.
11Burn and Higgins 2001, 148, no. 2389, pl. 70; Hasselin Rous, Laugier, Martinez 2009, 184, no. 101; Uhlenbrock 1990, 146, no. 33.
12Summerer 1999, pl. 58, no. K II 7; Besques 1972, 83, no. D492, pl. 106g.
13See Laumonier 1956, 23-24 for a listing of hand-modeled heads of larger size from the Hellenistic period. See also Deonna 1906, 61–70.
14Bell 1981, p. 148, nos. 155 and 156, pls. 44 and 45.
15Picón 2007, no. 194, 167 and 440; Ferruzza 2016, 9–15.
16Herdejürgen 1978, 57, no. A58; 35, A26.
17Jeammet 2003.
18The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.235.5, Rogers Fund, 1912. Richter 1927, 206, 208, fig. 144.
19Winter 1903, 121, no. 3; Albertocchi 2012, 92, fig. 10.
20Pernice 1903, 11, pl. IX, bottom right; Jeammet 2015, 21–22, figs. 1–2.
21Pernice 1903, 11, pl. IX, bottom left.
22For example, Higgins 1954, pl. 170, nos. 1239, 1240; Bencze 2013, pl. XXXII, no. 71.
23Herdejürgen 1978, 53, no. A51.
24Museum purchase with funds donated by contribution, 01.7949.
25Kriseleit and Zimmer 1994, 116, no. 38.
26Thompson 1963b, 303, pl. 80, no. 4, pl. 81, no. 5.
27Besques 1972, 77, D 459, pl. 102a; Besques 1994, 60, no. 34.
28Rumscheid 2006, 465, pls. 72–73.
29See Rumscheid 2006, 466 for the literature.
30Rumscheid 2006, 497–498, pl. 119, nos. 2–3, pl. 120.
31Fuchs 1969.
32Rumscheid 2006, 497.
33Kreseleit and Zimmer 1994, 106.
34Hasselin Rous, Laugier, Martinez 2010, no. 73.
35Hasselin Rous, Laugier, Martinez 2010, no. 78.
36Schmidt 1994, 95, no. 137, pl. 25 f and g.
37Besques 1992, 120, no. D 4518, pl. 76a.
38Besques 1992, 120; Kassab 2010, no. 151.
39See Bartman 1992, 169–170, for a discussion of the appreciation of miniature sculpture by the Greeks.
40Besques 1992, 121.
41Thompson 1957, 111, pl. 35.
42Thompson 1957, 117.
43Thompson 1963a.
44Laumonier 1956, 183, no. 616.
45Posidippus 67 A-B, Squire 2018, 451.
46Pliny, Natural History, 34.83, “parvitatis ut miraculum”, translated by Squire 2018, 451, as a marvel of miniaturization.
47Pliny, Natural History, 7.21.
48Thompson 1957, 117.
49Thompson 1957, 119.
50Thompson 1963a, 90.
51Laumonier 1956, 183, no. 616.
52Herdejürgen 1978, 57, no. A 58.
53Herdejürgen 1978, 57.
54Unpublished, Rogers Fund 1910, 10.210.110.
55There is a section of a finished edge at the base of the neck in front, but it is unclear if this is ancient or modern.
Auteur
-
Jaimee Uhlenbrock
State University of New York, New Paltz, uhlenbrj[at]hawkmail.newpaltz.edu
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Peupler et habiter l’Italie et le monde romain
Stéphane Bourdin, Julien Dubouloz et Emmanuelle Rosso (dir.)
2014
Archéologie au présent
Les découvertes de l’archéologie préventive dans les médias
Catherine Dureuil-Bourachau
2015
Sarta Tecta
De l’entretien à la conservation des édifices. Antiquité, Moyen Âge, début de la période moderne
Charles Davoine, Maxime L’Héritier et Ambre Péron d’Harcourt (dir.)
2019
Gérer l’eau en Méditerranée au premier millénaire avant J.-C.
Sophie Bouffier, Oscar Belvedere et Stefano Vassalo (dir.)
2019
Le village de la Capelière en Camargue
Du début du ve siècle avant notre ère à l’Antiquité tardive
Corinne Landuré, Patrice Arcelin et Gilles Arnaud-Fasseta (dir.)
2019
Les métaux précieux en Méditerranée médiévale
Exploitations, transformations, circulations
Nicolas Minvielle Larousse, Marie-Christine Bailly-Maitre et Giovanna Bianchi (dir.)
2019
L’Homme et l’Animal au Maghreb, de la Préhistoire au Moyen Âge
Explorations d’une relation complexe
Véronique Blanc-Bijon, Jean-Pierre Bracco, Marie-Brigitte Carre et al. (dir.)
2021