DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4377#0219
EXPEDITION TO BRANCHIDiE. 54-9
from B.C. 580 to B.C. 520, as I hope to show more
fully in the Appendix.
The peculiar style of the sculptures them-
selves confirms this date. It can hardly he disputed
that, hoth in their arrangement as an avenue and
in their general proportions, these statues have a
very Egyptian character."1 This resemhlance is seen
not only in the great breadth of the shoulders, but
also in the modelling of the limbs, in which
the forms of the bones and muscles are indicated
with far greater refinement and judgment than at
first sight seems to be the case ; the main points of
the anatomy being indicated, however slightly,
without that accumulation and exaggeration of
details so general in Assyrian and early Greek art."
This subdued treatment of the anatomy contri-
butes to the general breadth and repose for which
these figures are so remarkable, and suggests the
idea that they were executed by artists who had
studied in Egypt.0
There is nothing a priori improbable in such a
111 See the notice of these figures by Ross, already referred to,
ante, p. 528, who remarks that they cannot be of a later period than
Olymp. 80, and that their date is probably about Olymp. 70, or
about B.C. 500.
n There are, in the Egyptian collection of the British Museum,
two small statues, Nos. 35 and 461, of which No. 35 is considered by
Mr. Birch to be of the fourth dynasty. On comparing these with
the Branchidas statues, a marked similarity of style may be traced,
not merely in the position of the hands, but also in the attempt
made by the sculptor to indicate in the muscles of the forearm the
action required to place the hand in such a position.
0 From the extreme flatness of treatment in the drapery there
can hardly be a doubt that all these statues were coloured.
from B.C. 580 to B.C. 520, as I hope to show more
fully in the Appendix.
The peculiar style of the sculptures them-
selves confirms this date. It can hardly he disputed
that, hoth in their arrangement as an avenue and
in their general proportions, these statues have a
very Egyptian character."1 This resemhlance is seen
not only in the great breadth of the shoulders, but
also in the modelling of the limbs, in which
the forms of the bones and muscles are indicated
with far greater refinement and judgment than at
first sight seems to be the case ; the main points of
the anatomy being indicated, however slightly,
without that accumulation and exaggeration of
details so general in Assyrian and early Greek art."
This subdued treatment of the anatomy contri-
butes to the general breadth and repose for which
these figures are so remarkable, and suggests the
idea that they were executed by artists who had
studied in Egypt.0
There is nothing a priori improbable in such a
111 See the notice of these figures by Ross, already referred to,
ante, p. 528, who remarks that they cannot be of a later period than
Olymp. 80, and that their date is probably about Olymp. 70, or
about B.C. 500.
n There are, in the Egyptian collection of the British Museum,
two small statues, Nos. 35 and 461, of which No. 35 is considered by
Mr. Birch to be of the fourth dynasty. On comparing these with
the Branchidas statues, a marked similarity of style may be traced,
not merely in the position of the hands, but also in the attempt
made by the sculptor to indicate in the muscles of the forearm the
action required to place the hand in such a position.
0 From the extreme flatness of treatment in the drapery there
can hardly be a doubt that all these statues were coloured.