DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0033
THE TERRA COTTA FIGURINES
that it was an aniconic period; or (3) that the site in question was not the natural reposi-
tory for such votive offering's. We are inclined to one of the latter views.1
The two other points, while they show that the main sites excavated about the Second
Temple were pre-archaic Greek, and that the Argive period of the Heraeum marks
the change in the entrance from the west side to the south slope, also show that the main
hulk of our terra-cottas belong to the pre-archaic period.
With such a mass of material before us, even in the selected specimens which we brought
to Athens, our first care was to find some principle of classification. Two courses seemed
open to us : We might classify our figures either according to their form and style, or
according to their decoration. On mature consideration, the former method has appeared
preferable, especially as a classification by decoration must confine itself almost entirely
to plastic decoration— the paint having disappeared entirely from many of our figures.
Moreover, no systematic chronological development could be established on the decora-
tive principle only. At the same time, the principle of classification by decoration has
seemed to us a sound one, and we have employed it as a secondary principle for dis-
tinguishing a few classes," and for drawing distinctions within one class.3
Class I. —Such, then, being our principle, our first class, which we have called " Prim-
itive Argive," consists of a great number of very rudely modeled figures, to which, in
fact, the term " modeled " can hardly be applied. They are really nothing but a small
lump of clay, elongated, then pinched in the middle to indicate a Avaist, the resulting
projection above forming two stumpy arms, while another pinch at the top indicates the
head. This head soon develops into the well-known bird-like head, in which the beakdike
nose is formed by a compression of the clay between the two fingers of the " modeler." *
These are the characteristics of the earliest specimens.5 Later, two disks are plastered to
the sides of the " beak " to represent the eyes,6 a lump of clay is added to form a kind of
pilos or cap,7 or a strip of clay wound about the head forms a stephane,8 while in many
figures one or more short strips of clay are added to the back of the head to represent
the hair0 (exceptionally the hair is indicated in a few early specimens by grooves at the
back of the head). So one sometimes finds — though this is quite exceptional — a fig-
ure in which the artist has tried to imitate nature more closely, in which two lumps of
clay are added to the front of the figure to represent the breasts;10 the fall of the dra-
pery in front is rudely reproduced by one or more grooves," or a cutting across the
" beak " forms a rude mouth.12 But even in the most advanced figures of this class,
the development is exceedingly slight, and the body always remains essentially a rude
lump of clay.13
Class II. ■— A distinct advance is made when the rude standing figure is converted into
a seated one.14 The technical change, indeed, is not great; the standing body is simply
1 Cf. General Introd. vol. I. pp. 39 ff.
2 Such, for instance, as the Mycenaean and the Dipy-
lon classes, in which the influence of vase painting is
very apparent.
3 Cf. p. 11.
4 It should he noted that this lack of modeling is
partially accounted for by the fact that nearly all our
figures are female (cf. p. 13, note 5). The drapery of
such figures in the early stages does not admit of fine dis-
tinctions in modeling, such as the indication of the legs,
the torso, and its articulations.
5 Cf. No. 1.
6 Cf. Nos. 2, 3, 5, etc.
7 Cf. No. 3.
6 Cf. Nos. 4, 5, etc.
9 Cf. No. 4.
10 Cf. No. 8.
11 Cf. No. 9.
12 Cf. Nos. 9 and 10.
13 We might have subdivided this first " Primitive"
class into three minor classes, according to the differences
enumerated above. But we find it desirable at this
stage not to confuse by too minute classification, leaving
it to future inquiry to accentuate these, or even to estab-
lish further distinctions.
]'» Cf. Nos. 12 ff.
that it was an aniconic period; or (3) that the site in question was not the natural reposi-
tory for such votive offering's. We are inclined to one of the latter views.1
The two other points, while they show that the main sites excavated about the Second
Temple were pre-archaic Greek, and that the Argive period of the Heraeum marks
the change in the entrance from the west side to the south slope, also show that the main
hulk of our terra-cottas belong to the pre-archaic period.
With such a mass of material before us, even in the selected specimens which we brought
to Athens, our first care was to find some principle of classification. Two courses seemed
open to us : We might classify our figures either according to their form and style, or
according to their decoration. On mature consideration, the former method has appeared
preferable, especially as a classification by decoration must confine itself almost entirely
to plastic decoration— the paint having disappeared entirely from many of our figures.
Moreover, no systematic chronological development could be established on the decora-
tive principle only. At the same time, the principle of classification by decoration has
seemed to us a sound one, and we have employed it as a secondary principle for dis-
tinguishing a few classes," and for drawing distinctions within one class.3
Class I. —Such, then, being our principle, our first class, which we have called " Prim-
itive Argive," consists of a great number of very rudely modeled figures, to which, in
fact, the term " modeled " can hardly be applied. They are really nothing but a small
lump of clay, elongated, then pinched in the middle to indicate a Avaist, the resulting
projection above forming two stumpy arms, while another pinch at the top indicates the
head. This head soon develops into the well-known bird-like head, in which the beakdike
nose is formed by a compression of the clay between the two fingers of the " modeler." *
These are the characteristics of the earliest specimens.5 Later, two disks are plastered to
the sides of the " beak " to represent the eyes,6 a lump of clay is added to form a kind of
pilos or cap,7 or a strip of clay wound about the head forms a stephane,8 while in many
figures one or more short strips of clay are added to the back of the head to represent
the hair0 (exceptionally the hair is indicated in a few early specimens by grooves at the
back of the head). So one sometimes finds — though this is quite exceptional — a fig-
ure in which the artist has tried to imitate nature more closely, in which two lumps of
clay are added to the front of the figure to represent the breasts;10 the fall of the dra-
pery in front is rudely reproduced by one or more grooves," or a cutting across the
" beak " forms a rude mouth.12 But even in the most advanced figures of this class,
the development is exceedingly slight, and the body always remains essentially a rude
lump of clay.13
Class II. ■— A distinct advance is made when the rude standing figure is converted into
a seated one.14 The technical change, indeed, is not great; the standing body is simply
1 Cf. General Introd. vol. I. pp. 39 ff.
2 Such, for instance, as the Mycenaean and the Dipy-
lon classes, in which the influence of vase painting is
very apparent.
3 Cf. p. 11.
4 It should he noted that this lack of modeling is
partially accounted for by the fact that nearly all our
figures are female (cf. p. 13, note 5). The drapery of
such figures in the early stages does not admit of fine dis-
tinctions in modeling, such as the indication of the legs,
the torso, and its articulations.
5 Cf. No. 1.
6 Cf. Nos. 2, 3, 5, etc.
7 Cf. No. 3.
6 Cf. Nos. 4, 5, etc.
9 Cf. No. 4.
10 Cf. No. 8.
11 Cf. No. 9.
12 Cf. Nos. 9 and 10.
13 We might have subdivided this first " Primitive"
class into three minor classes, according to the differences
enumerated above. But we find it desirable at this
stage not to confuse by too minute classification, leaving
it to future inquiry to accentuate these, or even to estab-
lish further distinctions.
]'» Cf. Nos. 12 ff.