Cypro-Archaic and Cypriot Style Terracotta Figurines in the East Aegean
p. 203-212
Résumés
Dans la seconde moitié du VIIe s. av. J.-C., de grandes quantités de figurines chypriotes en terre cuite ont été consacrées dans les sanctuaires de la Grèce orientale. La majorité de ces figurines étaient moulées. Mais l’utilisation de moules n’a pas complètement remplacé les techniques de modelage. Ainsi, de nombreux détails des figurines chypro-archaïques principalement moulées étaient encore façonnés par la main créative individuelle de l’artisan et reflètent sa conception personnelle de la forme.
Cet article illustre cette méthode de production particulière par un groupe spécifique de figurines, qui permet de retracer le processus concret du modelage et l’œuvre d’un artisan individuel.
De plus, cette contribution discute d’un groupe spécifique de figurines archaïques en terre cuite en forme de plaques « ioniennes » de style chypriote provenant de différents sanctuaires de la mer Égée orientale et de son importance pour les contacts interculturels et les interactions dans la coroplathie ionienne primitive. Les figurines en terre cuite en question représentent un type de figurine chypriote commun qui a été apparemment modifié selon le « goût » de la Grèce orientale. De plus, les figurines ont été produites selon une technique spécifique jusqu’ici connue uniquement par des figurines en terre cuite dédaliques en forme de plaque de Milet. Ces figurines en forme de plaque sont composées de différentes sections de corps moulées séparément et très souvent modifiées à la main. Jusqu’à présent, une telle technique d’assemblage n’est pas connue dans les figurines archaïques en forme de plaque de Chypre.
In the second half of the 7th century BC, large quantities of Cypriot terracotta figurines were dedicated in East Greek sanctuaries. The majority of these figurines were mould-made. But the use of moulds did not replace hand-modelling techniques completely. Thus, many details of predominantly mould-made Cypro-Archaic figurines were still modeled by the individual creative hand of the craftsman and reflect his own personal conception of form.
This paper outlines this particular production method by a specific group of figurines, which illustrates the concrete modelling process and the œuvre of an individual craftsman.
Also discussed are a specific group of Archaic `Ionian´ plaque-shaped terracotta figurines of Cypriot style from different sanctuaries in the East Aegean and its significance for intercultural contact and interaction in early Ionian coroplasty. The terracotta figurines in question, depict a common Cypriot figurine type that was apparently modified according to East Greek `taste´. Moreover, the figurines were produced in a specific technique hitherto only known from Daedalic plaque-shaped terracotta figurines from Miletus. These plaque-shaped figurines are composed of separately mould-made body sections and very often modified by hand. So far, such an assembling technique is not known from Archaic plaque-shaped figurines from Cyprus.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : figurines moulées, techniques de production, sanctuaire de Grèce de l’Est, contacts interculturels
Keywords : mould-made terracotta figurines, production techniques, East Greek sanctuaries, intercultural contact
Texte intégral
1In no other region of the Mediterranean in the Archaic period do zoomorphic and anthropomorphic terracotta figurines appear to have been produced in all sizes including over life size, and in many different techniques, such as hand-made, wheel-made, mould-made solid (plaque-shaped), mould-made hollow figurines or in a mixture of all these techniques. These Cypro-Archaic terracotta figurines make up a large part of the archaeological finds at most of the island’s sanctuaries, but also at some sanctuaries and cemeteries in the surrounding coastal regions. This includes in particular the East Aegean. In some places, such as the Heraion of Samos, Cypriot figurines apparently replaced the local terracotta dedications temporarily, probably because of their inferior technical quality at this time. Thus the figurines attest to the considerable mobility of objects of cultic significance throughout the eastern Mediterranean world in the 8th and 7th centuries BC1.
2Despite prolonged and intensive archaeological research, the precise chronology and stylistic development of Cypro-Archaic sculpture in both terracotta and limestone is still unclear and is the subject of continuing debate. One reason for this is the lack of adequate stratigraphic evidence, not the least of which were the numerous poorly recorded early excavations on the island, in which figurines were found in large quantities. This makes it difficult to understand when and how Cypriot terracotta figurines were used outside the island, or to asses the impact they had on other local production and ritual usage during a period of intense connections and cultural borrowing between the Aegean and the other regions of the eastern Mediterranean2.
3The first chronological model of the stylistic development of Cypriot sculpture based on stratigraphic evidence was presented by Einar Gjerstad. The essential basis of his model was a supposed sequence of stratigraphic layers, observed by him in the sanctuary of Ayia Irini in northwestern Cyprus. Gjerstad distinguished three different styles for the Cypro-Archaic terracotta figurines in question – Proto-Cypriot I (650–560 BC), Proto-Cypriot II (c. 600–540 BC) and Neo-Cypriot (c. 560–520 BC)3. From the beginning, Gjerstad´s model was vigorously challenged. Based on the stratigraphy of the Heraion of Samos, Gerhard Schmidt argued in favor of other considerations of the styles and for a higher dating of the Neo-Cypriot style from 610/600 until 570/560 BC. Moreover, Schmidt considered the different manufacturing techniques to be a chronological phenomenon in part4.
4After several attempts to assimilate the two models (among others, Lewe 1975; Demetriou 1978; Stylianou 2003), in 2007, Sabine Fourrier convincingly clarified Gjerstad’s sequential styles, as well as the different production techniques as contemporary regional phenomena5. Thus, different styles and production techniques should be interpreted as the expression of different production centres. In this respect, Fourrier allocated the Neo-Cypriot style and, thus, the majority of Cypriot terracotta figurines found in the East Aegean, to the local style of Salamis in the eastern part of Cyprus6.
5Furthermore, Sabine Fourrier and Antoine Hermary argued for a significantly higher dating for the production and the import of these figurines in the East Aegean until the end of the 7th or the very beginning of the 6th century BC. But new stratigraphic evidence from the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Miletos has confirmed an even higher date for the importation and the production of the majority of Cypriot or, specifically, East Cypriot/Salaminian terracotta figurines within a very short period of time between 650/640 and 630 BC. At the moment it appears that only a limited number of terracotta figurines have reached the East Aegean before this date7. This once more should raise the question whether local Ionian coroplastic production was in any way technically or stylistically inspired by Cypriot terracotta figurines, or whether there had been any inspiration from Cypriot cult practices on practices in East Greek sanctuaries.
6The conference is focused on the manufacturing techniques of terracotta figurines and in particular on those that were shaped by the free hand of the craftsman without the aid of moulds. However, the Cypriot terracotta examples found in East Aegean sanctuaries are almost exclusively figurines made with the help of moulds, specifically hollow mould-made and plaque-shaped mould-made figurines. In addition to other technical aspects, it was probably this feature, in particular, that stimulated the demand for Cypriot terracotta figurines in this region. But even if these figurines are classified as mould-made, this must not hide the fact that a large part of their bodies were still shaped by the free hand of the craftsman. One example is the following group of terracotta figurines, which reveal the amazing creativity and versatility of a Cypriot craftsman in a Salaminian workshop.
7I have already discussed this group in detail in other publications, which is why I will restrict myself at this point to summarizing their essential aspects8. The figurines in question are generally classified as mould made hollow figurines, but actually they were produced in a kind of mixed style, since the craftsmen used moulds only for some significant smaller parts of the figurines, such as faces, ears, hands or feet (fig. 1–3). The largest part of the body, however, consists of numerous lumps of clay that were added and modelled without the use of moulds. This affects other details as well, such as the jewellery, the hair or the headdress. Very often the impressions of wooden elements, most likely reeds, testify to the use of some kind of inner structure to stabilize the body of about 60 to 70 cm height while modelling9. It is these parts, in particular, that were shaped by the individual creative hand of the craftsman and reflect his own personal conception of form. Analysing these individual features of the modelling of the figurines helps to characterize distinctive works of different artistic personalities, which might help to organize the huge corpus of Cypro-Archaic terracotta figurines more precisely.
Fig. 1 – Samos, Heraion, female Cypriot terracotta figurine (Vathy Museum Inv.-No. T 600); German Archaeological Institute D-DAI-ATH- Samos 2274

(Photographer: H. Wagner).
8Fragments of this group of terracotta figurines were excavated at many different locations on Cyprus and in the East Aegean, such as Salamis-Toumba, Samos, Miletos, Rhodes or Knidos10. But also Aegina yielded works fragments. The figurines to which they belong represent different sexes and types. Their stylistic unity has already been pointed out by various other scholars11. It remained unnoticed, however, that the close relationship of all of these figurines depends on the fact that they were most likely made by the same craftsman.
9Even if the figurines were designed very differently, a closer look reveals that all faces were cast in the same mould. This is proved by different features appearing on all faces and in particular by the consistently identical shape and structure of both eyebrows12. The right brows of all faces have a double upper outline, while an identical deeper and wider incision in the course of the strands is evident on each left brow13. Both structures were already part of the prototype and reproduced by the mould on all the faces of this group. Evidence for different generations of moulds, which should be indicated by a steady reduction in sizes, cannot be observed.
10All other details, such as jewellery, hair or headdress, were individually hand modeled and applied to the figure. This explains, for example, the different outlines of the faces, which appear elongated in some figurines and somewhat more rounded in others. This is caused by subsequent deformations when attaching the face and modeling the rest of the head.
11The original form and iconography of the prototype from which the mould was taken is preserved on the female head T 1906+2798 (fig. 2) found in the Heraion on Samos14. In this head, the hair above the forehead ends in a horizontal edge above the eyebrows and is patterned with two rows of stamped curls, followed by straight vertical strands on the top of the head. Here, a slight elevation indicates the joint, where the mould-made face was added to the back of the head, which was shaped without the help of a mould.
Fig. 2 – Samos, Heraion, female Cypriot terracotta figurine (Vathy Museum Inv.-No. T 1906 + 2798); German Archaeological Institute D-DAI-ATH-Samos 6830

(Photographer: E. Feiler)
12That this head actually shows the original iconography of the patrix is confirmed by two other heads found on Samos as well. Although the iconography of both heads was completely modified by the craftsman, in some places remnants of the original hair structure have been preserved, as they were formed by the mould. Thus the curl pattern of the forehead hair of T 1906+2798 appears once again below the missing part of the turban-like bulge around the forehead on the female head T 1888+197915. Another female head shows this pattern as well, even though only one curl is still preserved after the intensive modification by the craftsman16.
13Accordingly, the craftsman smoothed out the original iconography given by the mould and applied all the other details by hand modelling. An examination of these individually formed parts shows conspicuous similarities in the choice, combination and form of different iconographic motifs, which seem to indicate that all of the figurines were made by the same person, or at least by a very closely cooperating and identically shaping group of craftsmen.
14This can be seen, for example, in the reshaping of the forehead hair in rectangular fringes. If the craftsman chose this motif, the same style is always found in the modeling on all corresponding statuettes. He smoothed the stamped curls above the straight lower edge of the hair across the forehead given by the mould and cut it into many small, short strands. These strands were defined by two or three incisions running diagonally in alternating directions. The two lower corners of the strands are always cut off at an angle. This iconography is not unique for Cypriot terracotta figurines, but the proportion and the outlining of the strands are so similar that the same craftsman can be assumed17.
15Even if the craftsman chose a different iconographic type of figurine and another hairstyle, the design and shaping of this motif always follows the same characteristic style, such as, for example in case of the remodelling of the forehead hair into a horizontal band articulated by incisions running diagonally, parted at the center of the forehead in different directions18. The incisions are following very similar intervals and showing a very similar cutting depth. The motif probably imitates the twisteed edges of wigs.
16Very often the statues represent beardless and bareheaded youth. After smoothing the original motif given by the mould, the craftsman imprinted another curl pattern that completely covers the entire surface of the hair and cut out the lower edge of the curls over the forehead. Only in the case of one head known so far is this last step missing19.
17In addition, the supposed craftsman in question had his own characteristic way of rendering the so-called Cypriot cap, which was worn by men (fig. 3; Henke 2019, 256; Henke 2017, 86; Henke 2011, 216). It is a representation of a leather cap with a pointed tip and cheek-pieces, which in most cases are turned up. In the case of the group of figurines discussed here, the folds of the upturned cheek-pieces are rendered in a realistic manner and cover the upper part of the ears (Henke 2019, 256 fig. 6; Henke 2017, pl. 11, 1. 6; Henke 2011, 212 fig. 3). They were formed by folding a piece of clay upward in the same way as the caps were worn in reality. In the case of other figurines made in different moulds and most likely by different craftsmen, the cheek-pieces were rendered by a separately attached piece of clay without the recreation of the fold in a realistic way. In these cases, the entire ear is also visible.
Fig. 3 – Samos, Heraion, male Cypriot terracotta figurine (Vathy Museum Inv.-No. T 419); German Archaeological Institute D-DAI-ATH- Samos 5115

(Photographer: E.‑M. Czakó).
18Thus, in addition to an identical mould being used for producing all these faces, other features show a strong similarity in the overall treatment of form, which is evidence for the identification of the artistic personality of an assumed individual craftsman.
19This conception of form and style can also be identified in other terracotta figurines of different sizes and different manufacturing techniques, such as, for example, the small, hollow, mould-made head T 2540 from Samos20 or the plaque-shaped statuettes 756 and 759 from Achna on Cyprus. These can be characterized as products of the same craftsman, or a closely cooperating group of craftsmen within one workshop, even though other moulds were used21 This observation shows that the individual Cypriot craftsmen were able to produce figures of any size and in various techniques at the same time.
20Consequently, all of these figurines would have been produced within a limited time span. This time span has to be dated before 630 BC, since fragments of these figurines were found in a newly excavated `bothros´ in the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Miletos, which was closed around this date22. Therefore Schmidt´s dating of the figurines into the first quarter of the 6th century BC must be considered obsolete. According to the stratigraphic evidence from the Heraion of Samos, the figurines must have been produced and imported around the middle of the 7th century, probably between 650/640 and 630 BC23. Considering that some of these terracotta figurines were found at Salamis-Toumba on Cyprus, it seems likely that the workshop was located near Salamis.
21In addition to the group of terracotta figurines, other mould-made figurines reached the East Aegean that differ slightly in their production technique. These are so-called plaque-shaped figurines and hollow formed statuettes, which were made with the help of moulds usually used for the production of plaque-shaped figurines. For both kind of statuettes a mould was chosen, which represented the entire front of the body. In case of the plaque-shaped figurines, the mould was lined with an initial thin layer of clay so that all the details were well molded on the surface of the figurine. Then the rest of the cavity was filled with coarser clay pieces. Thus these figurines are solid and have a flat back. In case of the hollow-formed statuettes, the first thin layer was stabilized with further rough layers of clay, but the mould was not completely filled like in case of the plaque-shaped figurines. Instead, the craftsman added a back that was roughly shaped by hand without the precise indication of physiognomic details. Such an example of this kind is the hollow formed figurine Arsos 540 from Cyprus and its copies found in Samos, Rhodes or in Miletos24. All of these figurines were made in the same mould as that of the plaque-shaped terracotta figurine B 130 in the British Museum from Kameiros on Rhodes25.
22Together with the group of terracotta figurines, discussed above, these statuettes reached the East Aegean sanctuaries between 650/640 and 630 BC, since fragments of them also were found in the `bothros´ in the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Miletos mentioned above.
23If the proposed new date for Cypriot terracottas in the East Aegean up to 630 BC is correct, a great number of mould-made hollow and plaque-shaped terracotta figurines reached the Ionian sanctuaries during a very short period of time, around the 3rd quarter of the 7th century. On Samos they even replaced the local products almost completely. It is striking that especially on Samos local craftsmen at the same time began to produce terracotta figurines by using techniques similar to the Cypriot ones. In these figurines, individual details of face were made with small moulds, while the rest of the body was formed by hand with various bits of clay. Elaborate details of the garment were faintly outlined with many incisions, as was the case with many of the Cypriot terracotta figurines. Occasionally, the lower part of the body was wheel-made26.
24In addition, some local figurines were produced by using moulds for plaque-shaped Daedalic figurines that were filled with only one layer of clay. Similar to the Cypriot imports, the rest of the cavity was not completely filled up with clay, as usual, but a backslab was added, consisting of a single slab of undetailed clay27.
25That the extensive import of these terracotta figurines from Cyprus coincided with the beginning of the use of similar techniques by local Samian craftsmen may attest that, at least on Samos, the Cypriot figurines did, indeed, provide technical inspiration. In that case, it seems more likely that the local craftsmen acquired these techniques by observing the imported figurines, rather than by personal contacts and interaction with Cypriot artisans. Otherwise, the selected techniques would have been more comparable in detail.
26But there are other examples possibly demonstrating contrary phenomena, such as a group of mould made plaque-shaped figurines in Cypriot style (fig. 4–9)28; definitely produced in the East Aegean, as confirmed by the chemical analyses by Vassilis Kilikoglou29. They were found on Samos, Rhodes and in Miletos. The figurines represent bareheaded and beardless males, wearing a long, girded chiton with short sleeves, lateral kolpoi covering the girdle, and a tassel-fringed himation (fig. 4). The tasseled fringe runs from the left shoulder down to the right knee. The upper edge of the himation around the neck is pulled down by the right fist. The left arm is stretched out vertically along the left side of the body. These figurines are presented in a characteristically Cypriot garment, possibly inspired by Assyrian archetypes30. The dress and gesture recur in many Cypriot terracotta and limestone statues and represent a specific Cypriot iconographic type. But in contrast to the described group of plaque-shaped figurines in the East Aegean, however, these figurines are bearded and wear a pointed Cypriot cap with up- or down-turned cheek pieces. Only on the head T1812 from Samos (fig. 4)31 were strands of a beard obviously incised at the throat, whereas on the head of the figurine 2003 from Rhodes32, a pointed beard and a cap were added by hand after moulding. Thus the beardless and bareheaded plaque-shaped figurines in question represent youthful males, in contrast to the Cypriot examples of mature men with beard and headdress.
Fig. 4 – Samos, Heraion, male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style (Vathy Museum Inv.-No. T 1812 + 344); German Archaeological Institute D-DAI-ATH-Samos 1114

(Photographer: H. Wagner).
27All known examples of this group of figurines were produced in the same mould or in moulds taken from the same patrix. One head was found in the potters’ quarter at Kalabaktepe in Miletos that was occupied from the Geometric period onward. The context of the head can be dated so far to the 2nd half of the 7th century. Other examples were found in the bothros in the sanctuary of Aphrodite on Zeytintepe, which was closed around 630 BC33.
28Thus far, the group of figurines in question could be dated about 670/660 BC but certainly into the second quarter of the 7th century BC34. A fragment was found underneath the floor of Hekatompedos II in the Heraion of Samos, which was dated by Hans Walter before 650 BC35. After revising the material, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier also dated the pottery finds from this context (`Fundgruppe XX´: under level of Hekatompedos II; context not closed up) to around 650 BC. But due to the new dating of the context “Fundgruppe XXa” (ash layer on the floor of Hekatompedos I), Hekatompedos II was built not before 630/620 BC and not around 650 BC, as previously assumed (Walter et al. 2019, 25 [Fundgruppe XX and XXa]. 42). Thus it is very likely that this date must be considered for the other context (“Fundgruppe XX”) as well. Accordingly, a more precise dating of the figurines before 630 BC based on stratigraphic evidence is no longer possible until further notice.36
29This group of plaque-shaped figurines shows some technical peculiarities that obviously are not found on Cypriot plaque-shaped statuettes so far, but do appear with Milesean Daedalic figurines.
30Around 670 BC, Milesian craftsmen began to produce large numbers of Daedalic plaque-shaped figurines37. A specific feature of these and additional local plaque-shaped terracotta figurines in East Ionian style is the significantly curved backside at the level of the head, interpreted by Volkmar von Graeve as the result of a particular practice in handling the mould and the figurine during the production process38. Furthermore, Volkmar von Graeve was able to show, that the figurines were not made in a single mould, as is commonly assumed for Daedalic plaque-shaped terracotta figurines39. Instead, individual body parts, such as the head, upper body, lower body, or feet, could be formed separately and then assembled.
31Both peculiarities can also be observed on the figurines of the group of male plaque-shaped figurines in Cypriot style. In addition to the mostly curved back at the level of the head (fig. 6), it can be clearly shown that at least body and head were made in two different moulds and then joined40. This is visible, for example, at the joint between the neck and the shoulders of the figurine Z08.356.1+Z09.73.3 (fig. 5, 7–9). The even surface in the break shows that this edge was originally a connecting point smoothed by the craftsman before joining head and body. It is also noticeable that a large number of the figurines have broken along these connecting points in a very similar way (e. g. fig. 8-9). Apparently, this practice is confirmed by the patrix (fig. 10–11) found in the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Miletos, which shows only the head of the figurine41.
Fig. 5 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 08.356.1+Z 09.73.3), front view; Miletos Archive, Zyp‑Tk-Z083561-1

(Photographer: D. Johannes).
Fig. 6 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 08.356.1+Z 09.73.3), side view; Miletos Archive Zyp‑Tk-Z083561-2

(Photographer: D. Johannes).
Fig. 7 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style, body fragment (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 08.356.1); Miletos Archive Zyp‑Tk-Z083561-3

(Photographer: D. Johannes).
Fig. 8 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style, body fragment (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 08.348.1); Miletos Archive Zyp‑Tk-Z083481-1

(Photographer: D. Johannes).
Fig. 9 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style, head fragment (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 94.274.1); Miletos Archive Zyp‑Tk-Z942741-1

(Photographer: unknown).
Fig. 10 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, patrix for a male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style, head (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 94.17.7), front view; Miletos Archive F 98.181/29 f

(Photographer: D. Johannes).
Fig. 11 – Miletos, sanctuary of Aphrodite, patrix for a male plaque-shaped terracotta figurine in Cypriot style, head (Excavation Depot Inv.-No. Z 94.17.7), side view; Miletos Archive F 98.181/32 f

(Photographer: D. Johannes).
32So it seems most likely that the Cypriot-style terracotta figurines in question were made by local craftsmen, since both features are not detected among the imported Cypriot plaque shaped figurines made on Cyprus itself, so far as I know. Accordingly, a Cypriot type was adapted, but not the manufacturing technique.
33However, despite the Cypriot origin of the single iconographic elements of the figurines, the overall design should also point to an East Ionian workshop, so the mould itself did not originate from Cyprus either. As mentioned above, in Cyprus itself this type of figurine commonly represents bearded mature men wearing the Cypriot cap and not beardless and bareheaded youth.
34Regarding the terracotta figurines of young men carrying a sacrificial animal Ursula Höckmann pointed out that these probably represented a specific sacrifice, carried out by youth at the stage of their initiation into the world of adults42, comparable to Greek customs. At least, it could be interpreted in this way by Greeks, as this motif also appears, in a modified way, among Greek statues of kouroi of the early 6th century43. It also appears, similarly modified, in Cypriot-style limestone statues of the late 7th and early 6th century BC found in the East Aegean and in Naukratis44. According to Höckmann, this motif was most likely adopted from Cypriot examples in terracotta and limestone and then modified to suit Greek taste.
35This could also be assumed for the Cypriot-style plaque-shaped terracotta figurines in question. After all, a male limestone statue found in Naukratis shows a very similar representation to these plaque-shaped figurines (fig. 12)45. It also depicts a beardless youth dressed in a long, sleeveless chiton and long himation with a tasselled fringe. In Ionia, the Archaic cloaked, beardless kouros type of the 6th century BC shows features that, apparently, seem to be related to these cloaked, beardless Cypriot-style terracotta and limestone statues among others, the cloaked kouros from Cap Phoneas from Samos (fig. 13)46. Consequently, these Cypriot-style figurines also may represent such a modification accomodated Greek tastes. Accordingly, the design and manufacturing technique of the Cypriot-style plaque-shaped terracotta figurines in question seem to point to the production by local East Ionian craftsmen.
Fig. 12 – Naukratis, male limestone statue in Cypriot style, Petrie Museum, London, Inv. UC 16470

(UC16470 © Petrie Museum, UCL).
Fig. 13 – Samos, Cap Phoneas, male marble sculpture “Manteljüngling” (Vathy Museum Inv.-No. 68); German Archaeological Institute D-DAI-ATH-Samos 2062A

(Photographer: H. Wagner).
Bibliographie
Blinkenberg 1931 : C. Blinkenberg, Lindos 1. Fouilles de l´acropole 1902-1914, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1931, 775 p.
Childs 2001 : W.A.P. Childs. Le rôle de Chypre dans la naissance de la plastique monumentale en Grèce, Cahiers du Centre d´Études Chypriotes 31, 2001, 115-128.
Cobet, von Graeve, Niemeier, Zimmermann 1999 : J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier, K. Zimmermann (éd.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999, Mayence, Ph. von Zabern, (Milesische Forschungen 5), 2007, 788 p.
Counts 2001 : D. Counts, Prolegomena to the study of Cypriote sculpture, Cahiers du Centre d´Études Chypriotes 31, 2001, 129-81.
Demetriou 1978 : A. Demetriou, Die Datierung der Periode Cypro-Archaisch nach Fundzusammenhängen mit griechischer Keramik, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1978, 12–25.
Fourrier 2007 : S. Fourrier, La coroplastie chypriote archaïque. Identités culturelles et politiques à l´époque des royaumes, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, (TMO 46), 2007, 196 p.
von Graeve 2007 : V. von Graeve, Zur Kunstgeschichte früher milesischer Terrakotten, in : Cobet et al. 2007, 645–68.
von Graeve 2013 : V. von Graeve, Das Aphrodite-Heiligtum von Milet und seine Weihgaben, in : I. Gerlach, D. Raue (éd.), Sanktuar und Ritual : heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund, Rahden, M. Leidorf, 2013, 415 p., 5-17.
von Graeve 2017 : V. von Graeve, Beobachtungen zur Herstellungstechnik milesischer Terrakotten im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur orientalisierenden Phase der frühgriechischen Kunst, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 2017, 5–29.
Henke 2011 : J.-M. Henke, New Evidence for the Definition of Workshops of Cypriote Terracottas at East Aegean Findspots and Its Chronological Background, Cahiers du Centre d´Études Chypriotes 41, 2011, 211–222.
Henke 2017 : J.-M. Henke, Die zyprischen Terrakotten aus Milet. Neue Überlegungen zur Einordnung der archaischen zyprischen Terrakotten aus ostägäischen Fundkontexten und ihrer werkstattspezifischen Zuweisung, Berlin, Walter De Gruyter, (Milesische Forschungen 7), 2017, 340 p.
Henke 2019 : J.-M. Henke, Cypriot Terracotta Figurines in the East Aegean as Evidence for a Technical and Cultic Innovation Transfer?, in: A. Masson-Bergoff, R. Thomas (éd.), Naukratis in Context, Londres, Bristish Museum, (British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 24), 2019, 248–280.
Henke 2021 : J.-M. Henke, Von Zypern nach Ostgriechenland: Zyprische Terrakotten des 7. Jhs. v. Chr. als Transfermedium?, in : Kulte im Kult. Sakrale Strukturen extraurbaner Heiligtümer, Internationales Kolloquium des Projektes „Kulte im Kult“ der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 12.–13. Februar 2016, 2021.
Hermary 1991 : A. Hermary, Les débuts de la grande plastique chypriote en terre cuite, in : F. Vandenabeele, R. Laffineur (éd.), Cypriote Terracottas, Proccedings of the first international conference of Cypriote studies, Brussels-Liège-Amsterdam, 29 May - 1 June 1989, Bruxelles et Liège, A.G. Leventis Foundation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel-Université de Liège, 1991, 259 p., 139–47.
Höckmann 2009 : U. Höckmann, Male figurines bearing sacrificial animals from Cyprus, the Aegean and Naukratis, in: Karageorghis, Kouka 2009, 252-262.
Jarosch 1994 : V. Jarosch, Samische Tonfiguren des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aus dem Heraion von Samos, Bonn, R. Habelt, (Samos XVIII), 1994, 190 p.
Karageorghis 1999 : J. Karageorghis, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus V. The Cypro-Archaic Period. Small Female Figurines. B, Figurines moulées, Nicosie, A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1999, 341 p.
Karageorghis, Kouka 2009 : V. Karageorghis, O. Kouka (éd.), Cyprus and the East Aegean. Intercultural Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC. An International Archaeological Symposium Held at Pythagoreion, Samos, October 17th–18th 2008, Nicosie, A. G. Leventis Foundation, 2009, 262 p.
Karanastassis 2002 : P. Karanastassis, Hocharchaische Plastik, in : P. C. Bol (éd.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst I. Frühgrieschische Plastik, Mayence, Ph. von Zabern, 2002, (2 volumes), 589 p., 376 p., 171–211.
Kilikoglou, Karageorghis, Kourou, Marantidou, Glascock 2009 : V. Kilikoglou, V. Karageorghis, N. Kourou, P. Marantidou, M. D. Glascock, Cypriote and Cypriote-Type Terracotta Figurines in the Aegean. Chemical Characterisation and Provenance Investigation, in: Karageorghis, Kouka 2009, 193–205.
Lewe 1975 : B. Lewe, Studien zur archaischen kyprischen Plastik, Cologne, R. J. Hundt dr, 1975, 129 p.
Neeft 2017 : C.W. Neeft, The Dating of the Closure of the Bothros at the Zeytintepe, in Henke 2017, 54-56.
Schmidt 1968 : G. Schmidt, Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion von Samos, Bonn, R. Habelt, (Samos VII), 1968, 146 p.
Stylianou 2003 : A. Stylianou, Neues zur Chronologie der frühen kyprischen Plastiken, in : V. Karageorghis, S. Rogge (éd.), Junge zyprische Archäologie, Symposium, Berlin 6. April 2002, Münster, Waxmann, 2003, 129 p., 29–49.
The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4, 2 : E. Gjerstad, E. Lindros, E. Sjöqvist, A. Westholm, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4, 2. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931, Lund, The Swedish Cyprus expedition, 1948, 543 p.
Thomas 2015 : R. Thomas, Cypriot figures. Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt [British Museum Online research Catalogue: http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Cypriot_Figures.pdf].
Walter 1968: H. Walter, Frühe samische Gefässe. Chronologie und Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefässe. Samos 5. Bonn, 1968, 127 p.
Walter, Clemente, Niemeier 2019 : H. Walter, A. Clemente, W.-D. Niemeier, Ursprung und Frühzeit des Heraion von Samos. 1, Topographie, Architektur und Geschichte, Wiesbaden, Reichert Verlag, (Samos XXI/1), 2019, 232 p.
Notes de bas de page
1For a summary of the find spots in the East Aegean see Henke 2019, 249 with n. 1; 270.
2For a summary of the history of modern research on Cypriot sculpture, see Counts 2001.
3Gjerstad et al. 1948, 92–109; Counts 2001, 147–149; Henke 2019, 250.
4Schmidt 1968, 37–44, 95–98, 136 n. 65; Counts 2001, 149–151; Henke 2019, 250.
5Fourrier 2007, 14–17, 89–92, 103–107.
6Fourrier 2007, 23–37, 106–107, 114.
7Henke 2019, 251–261; Henke 2017, 191–193.
8Henke 2019, 252–258; Henke 2017, 82–95; Henke 2011, 213–217; Henke 2021; for a detailed compilation of the individual statuettes and fragments allocated to this group see Henke 2017, 82 tab. 2.
9Henke 2017, pl. 61, 9.
10Henke 2017, 82 tab. 2.
11Hermary 1991, 143–145.
12Henke 2017, pl. 12; Henke 2011, 215 fig. 6–7.
13For a more detailed description of these features see Henke 2017, 83–84 or Henke 2011, 213–216.
14Henke 2019, 253. 254 fig. 2; Henke 2017, 84–85 pl. 14,4; Henke 2011, 214 fig. 4.
15Henke 2019, 254 fig. 3; Henke 2017, pl. 11,2; 13,2; Henke 2011, 215 fig. 5; Schmidt 1968, pl. 79.
16Henke 2011, 215 fig. 8.
17Henke 2019, 253–255 fig. 3–5; Henke 2017, 86 pl. 1, 1; 11, 1–3; Henke 2011, 215–216 fig. 5. 10.
18Henke 2019, 252 fig. 1; Henke 2017, pl. 14, 1. 3; Schmidt 1968, pl. 71. 125 [Rhodes, Museum, Inv.-No. 14794; London, Brit. Mus. B 169].
19Henke 2017, 85–86 pl. 10, 1–5.
20Henke 2017, 216, 1–2.
21For a more detailed description see Henke 2017, 93–94; Henke 2019, 257 or Henke 2011, 216–217.
22Henke 2019, 256–257; Henke 2017, 91–92. 312; for the dating of the `bothros´ see Neeft 2017.
23Henke 2019, 259 n. 7; Henke 2017, 191–193.
24Henke 2017, 96–104 pl. 17–18. 20–22; Henke 2019, 257–259; Henke 2011, 217–220.
25Schmidt 1968, pl. 126; Karageorghis 1999, 205–6, Kat. VI[ii] 36–37.
26Jarosch 1994, 48, 50, pl. 66 T 666, T 676, T 924, T 925; pl. 67 T 675, T 679; Henke 2017, 195–198; Henke 2019, 265–266.
27Jarosch 1994, 48, pl. 64 T 692; pl. 65 T 693, T 695; Henke 2017, 195–198; Henke 2019, 265–266.
28Henke 2017, 181–187, pls. 75–77; Henke 2019, 261–265.
29Kilikoglou et al. 2009, 200. 205 fig. 8 SAH 69.
30Among others, Thomas 2015, 23.
31Schmidt 1968, pl. 7; Henke 2017, pl. 77, 3.
32Blinkenberg 1931, pl. 89.
33Henke 2017, 281–282 cat.-no. 184–185. 187 pl. 75.
34Henke 2017, 181–187.
35Schmidt 1968, 89 T 344; Walter 1968, 87 Fundgruppe XX; Walter et al. 2019, 25 Fundgruppe XX.
36After the new dating of several find contexts in the Heraion of Samos by Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, there is apparently only a little stratigraphic proof that Cypriot terracotta figurines were dedicated before 650 BC (such as “Fundgruppe XVI, XVIII, XXIII”; Walter et al. 2019, 25). But with the exception of the mixed-style female figurine T 1799 with mould-made face and wheel-made body (Schmidt 1968, 84 pl. 91; “Fundgruppe XVIII”), the male head T 1802 (Schmidt 1968, 84 pl. 11; “Fundgruppe XVIII”) or the male and female plaque-shaped figurines T 2746 and T 2748 (“Fundgruppe XXIII”; Schmidt 1968, 80; no figure published) the small number of finds includes only limited significant fragments, such as limbs.
37von Graeve 2007; von Graeve 2013, 10–14; von Graeve 2017, 15–16, 19–28.
38Henke 2019, 263 figs. 7b and 8b; von Graeve 2017, 25 fig. 6; von Graeve 2007, pl. 88, 3–4. Volkmar von Graeve kindly showed to me this characteristic feature of plaque-shaped terracottas in Miletos during a conversation in the excavation depots.
39von Graeve 2017, 20–26.
40Henke 2019, 262–265.
41Henke 2017, 288 cat. no. 207 pl. 76, 5–7.
42Höckmann 2009, 254–256 fig. 1. 3–5.
43Höckmann 2009, 262 fig. 9–10.
44Höckmann 2009, 262 fig. 7–8.
45Thomas 2015, 3 fig. 4.
46Karanastassis 2002, fig. 280 a. b.
Auteur
-
Jan-Marc Henke
German Archaeological Institute, Athens Department, Fidiou 1, 10678 Athens, jan-marc.henke[at]dainst.de
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