DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42779#0166
112 MARBLE SCULPTURE IN THE ROUND
at Athens at this period is clear from the two statues, Nos.
144 and 146, both in Pentelic marble and both contemporary
with this group. The eyes of the Moschophoros furthermore
are hollowed for insertion of other material, a practice not
met with in Attica until the close of the century. But the
main technical qualities of this group are seen in the way in
which the back of the calf is carefully abraded and in the very
clear eyebrow grooves which we have already seen to be
characteristic of early Attic work in hard stone. Many
surfaces of the Moschophoros exhibit traces of the tools used
before the final smoothing. The hollows of the legs of the
calf show very clear punch marks made by striking at direct
right angles to the stone. The back of the calf shows chisel-
marks. But nowhere, even on the basis, are there any traces
of a claw-chisel.
The next group, in chronological order, from which it is
possible to make important technical deductions is the
largest of all. It consists of those korai which Dickins classi-
fied as of the Tull Chiot style’. Another basis of classification
is that which isolates the group on grounds of general
structure and treatment of drapery. The group is not
definitely limited to a fixed number of works, but the follow-
ing can be taken as representative of the whole: Nos. 594,
613, 670, and 675. The group can be largely increased, but
I have selected these particular examples because they
illustrate the technical processes with greater precision and
clarity than the remainder.
No. 594 is a torso which Dickins describes as ‘of the period
of greatest Ionian delicacy and elaboration’.1 No. 670, one
of the finest and best-preserved of all the korai, is said by
Dickins to belong ‘to the period of direct Chiot importation’.
No. 675, perhaps the best preserved of the smaller korai
with a surface almost as fresh as if it had just been cut, is said
by Dickins to exhibit ‘all the characteristics of Chiot art’ and
to be ‘one of the clearest instances of direct importation’.
1 He also remarks that ‘the drill is used throughout’; but this is not so.
at Athens at this period is clear from the two statues, Nos.
144 and 146, both in Pentelic marble and both contemporary
with this group. The eyes of the Moschophoros furthermore
are hollowed for insertion of other material, a practice not
met with in Attica until the close of the century. But the
main technical qualities of this group are seen in the way in
which the back of the calf is carefully abraded and in the very
clear eyebrow grooves which we have already seen to be
characteristic of early Attic work in hard stone. Many
surfaces of the Moschophoros exhibit traces of the tools used
before the final smoothing. The hollows of the legs of the
calf show very clear punch marks made by striking at direct
right angles to the stone. The back of the calf shows chisel-
marks. But nowhere, even on the basis, are there any traces
of a claw-chisel.
The next group, in chronological order, from which it is
possible to make important technical deductions is the
largest of all. It consists of those korai which Dickins classi-
fied as of the Tull Chiot style’. Another basis of classification
is that which isolates the group on grounds of general
structure and treatment of drapery. The group is not
definitely limited to a fixed number of works, but the follow-
ing can be taken as representative of the whole: Nos. 594,
613, 670, and 675. The group can be largely increased, but
I have selected these particular examples because they
illustrate the technical processes with greater precision and
clarity than the remainder.
No. 594 is a torso which Dickins describes as ‘of the period
of greatest Ionian delicacy and elaboration’.1 No. 670, one
of the finest and best-preserved of all the korai, is said by
Dickins to belong ‘to the period of direct Chiot importation’.
No. 675, perhaps the best preserved of the smaller korai
with a surface almost as fresh as if it had just been cut, is said
by Dickins to exhibit ‘all the characteristics of Chiot art’ and
to be ‘one of the clearest instances of direct importation’.
1 He also remarks that ‘the drill is used throughout’; but this is not so.