DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42779#0141
IV
MARBLE SCULPTURE IN THE ROUND
FROM 600 b.c. TO ABOUT 540 b.c.
SOME of the Attic marble figures dealt with in the last
chapter certainly belong to the early part of the sixth
century. But in type they are derived essentially from
seventh-century figures. The Berlin kore, it is true, has a
smile in the true sixth-century manner, but her shape and
the technical methods by which the detail of her clothing
was achieved belong essentially to the earlier period. The
absence of fine chisel-work or of occasional gouge-work for
detail and the very wide use of abrasive tools in the finishing
of all the main detail associate her essentially with work like
the Dipylon head.
The primary processes by which works like the Dipylon
head were cut are not absolutely certain since we have no
unfinished works of the same period by which to judge. But
it seems likely that the processes of ordinary sixth-century
work of the full archaic period were mainly employed. What
these primary processes were has been most fully and
accurately explained by Carl Bliimel and it is unnecessary
to do more than restate the general nature of those pro-
cesses here. They were as follows:
(1) The block of marble, fresh from the quarry, was first
trimmed with a trimming-hammer (see Fig. 56) and
then reduced to within a narrow margin of its final sur-
face by the aid of the punch. Various punches were used,
starting with a heavy punch and finishing with a finer and
lighter one.
(2) This roughened but more or less level surface, which had
reached very near the final version, was then carefully
worked over. A claw-chisel was used at this stage and
also a boucharde to a limited extent. But whether the
MARBLE SCULPTURE IN THE ROUND
FROM 600 b.c. TO ABOUT 540 b.c.
SOME of the Attic marble figures dealt with in the last
chapter certainly belong to the early part of the sixth
century. But in type they are derived essentially from
seventh-century figures. The Berlin kore, it is true, has a
smile in the true sixth-century manner, but her shape and
the technical methods by which the detail of her clothing
was achieved belong essentially to the earlier period. The
absence of fine chisel-work or of occasional gouge-work for
detail and the very wide use of abrasive tools in the finishing
of all the main detail associate her essentially with work like
the Dipylon head.
The primary processes by which works like the Dipylon
head were cut are not absolutely certain since we have no
unfinished works of the same period by which to judge. But
it seems likely that the processes of ordinary sixth-century
work of the full archaic period were mainly employed. What
these primary processes were has been most fully and
accurately explained by Carl Bliimel and it is unnecessary
to do more than restate the general nature of those pro-
cesses here. They were as follows:
(1) The block of marble, fresh from the quarry, was first
trimmed with a trimming-hammer (see Fig. 56) and
then reduced to within a narrow margin of its final sur-
face by the aid of the punch. Various punches were used,
starting with a heavy punch and finishing with a finer and
lighter one.
(2) This roughened but more or less level surface, which had
reached very near the final version, was then carefully
worked over. A claw-chisel was used at this stage and
also a boucharde to a limited extent. But whether the