DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42779#0024
4 PREHISTORIC PERIODS
L.M. I, the Delphian example being certainly a Cretan
import to the Greek mainland; Sir Arthur Evans, indeed,
thinks that it comes from the same Knossian workshop as
the others, and the fact that the Delphian example has been
mended shows that it was not possible for it to be replaced
by mainland artists.
The primary stages of the working of these three heads
cannot be established. We can only infer the final methods.
Those methods seem to have involved, in the main, a process
of laborious abrasion, since the shapes precluded all turning
on a lathe. In the case of the head of the lioness the hollows
of the ears, particularly the depression in front of each ear,
and above all the smooth furrows between the eye and the
brow can only have been achieved by continuous rubbing.
The eyes and the groove of the mouth, on the other hand,
indicate the use of a cutting instrument, while the fringe
of hair round the jowls was incised with a pointed burin.
A drill was probably used for the two small holes above the
eyes at the end of each brow as well as for the structural holes
round the neck and through the muzzle.
The lion-head of alabaster (now in the Ashmolean) is
fragmentary, but enough survives to show that exactly the
same processes were followed. The abrasive process is,
however, more manifest in the case of the finely rendered
facets to the cheeks, which can be restored reliably from the
surviving fragments, which show their starting-point. The
same type of depression between the eyes and the brows,
the same drill-holes over the eyes and in the muzzle, and the
same clearly cut eyes and mouth testify to exactly the same
mode of sculpture.
The Delphian fragment is too small to permit of any
inferences, but there is nothing in it to contradict the con-
clusions here made.
In general it can be said that these heads in their final
states were achieved entirely without the aid of the chisel
or gouge and, for the main surfaces, by means of continuous
L.M. I, the Delphian example being certainly a Cretan
import to the Greek mainland; Sir Arthur Evans, indeed,
thinks that it comes from the same Knossian workshop as
the others, and the fact that the Delphian example has been
mended shows that it was not possible for it to be replaced
by mainland artists.
The primary stages of the working of these three heads
cannot be established. We can only infer the final methods.
Those methods seem to have involved, in the main, a process
of laborious abrasion, since the shapes precluded all turning
on a lathe. In the case of the head of the lioness the hollows
of the ears, particularly the depression in front of each ear,
and above all the smooth furrows between the eye and the
brow can only have been achieved by continuous rubbing.
The eyes and the groove of the mouth, on the other hand,
indicate the use of a cutting instrument, while the fringe
of hair round the jowls was incised with a pointed burin.
A drill was probably used for the two small holes above the
eyes at the end of each brow as well as for the structural holes
round the neck and through the muzzle.
The lion-head of alabaster (now in the Ashmolean) is
fragmentary, but enough survives to show that exactly the
same processes were followed. The abrasive process is,
however, more manifest in the case of the finely rendered
facets to the cheeks, which can be restored reliably from the
surviving fragments, which show their starting-point. The
same type of depression between the eyes and the brows,
the same drill-holes over the eyes and in the muzzle, and the
same clearly cut eyes and mouth testify to exactly the same
mode of sculpture.
The Delphian fragment is too small to permit of any
inferences, but there is nothing in it to contradict the con-
clusions here made.
In general it can be said that these heads in their final
states were achieved entirely without the aid of the chisel
or gouge and, for the main surfaces, by means of continuous