The Archaic Period (600-480 B.C.)

Sculpture

The “Archaic Period” is a convenient term to describe a period in which the Greeks made significant innovations in sculpture, painting, and architecture.  They were still being influenced by the East — for example they learned how to manipulate and carve stone from the Egyptians.  At the same time, they made their own experiments and created their own distinctive style.  One will never mistake a Greek sculpture for an Egyptian sculpture. 

When art historians first studied Greek art, they saw it as a progression of styles that became more and more naturalistic.  During the Archaic period, Greek figural sculpture and painting was much more naturalistic than it had been during the Geometric and Orientalizing Periods, but it was not as naturalistic as would be during the Classical era.  These are useful distinctions, even if they reflect a biased view that Greek naturalism was a more evolved art than Greek abstraction.

The Kouros  

During the Archaic period, we begin to see the Greeks working in marble.  Marble has a  grainy, translucent quality and is much harder to work than clay.

Kouros is a Greek word meaning “youth.”  The kouros is a male, youthful figure.   Not all of these are identified, but there are some that are mythological figures, athletic heros, gods, etc.  But they all look about the same -- they are unclothed male figures. 

Many were set up around temples and shrines.  These were large pieces and many replaced the funerary vase.  They were carved in the round and were meant to be seen the round (unlike Egyptian sculpture which was placed in niches). 

These Greek figures were still very stiff and geometric, even though they now include more specific anatomical references. Notice the pelvic ridge, for instance, which appears over and over again.  These figures look like the sum of the parts; yet there is a lack of connection between the parts.  Note, for example, that the structure of arms as related to clenched fists is incorrect.  These kouros figures were "types," not portraits or likenesses.

As illustrated by the above comparison, the tradition of the kouros comes from Egypt.  We see that same male, but in Egypt, there was less attention to anatomy. The Egyptians hired Greek soldiers as mercenaries to fight the Assyrians.  Hence, through their contact with the Egyptians, the Greeks learned how to manipulate stone.  Note the left foot advance, which obviously was influenced by Egyptian sculpture. 

There are some important differences between the Egyptian and the Greek approach.  The nude was imbued with Greek connotations of heroism, and the Greeks wanted their male sculptures to be nude — not so with the Egyptians.

Likewise, the Greeks did not rely on the support of the stone slab.  They produced true sculpture in the round.  Their work was much more lifelike than the Egyptians. 

Also, for the Egyptians, figural sculptural was a changeless tradition.  In contrast, the Greeks concentrated on perfecting the nude male figure.

Calf Bearer, ca. 560 B.C.  

The Calf Bearer was found in fragments on the Acropolis in Athens (which we will discuss in detail next week).  When it was reconstructed, it was discovered that it was dedicated by a person whose name we believe is Rhonbos.  It was probably meant to be a symbolic offering to the goddess Athena. 

His pose appears to be very similar to other Kouros figures; we can deduce that his left foot was forward in the Egyptian style.  His beard, however, indicates that he was not a young man any more — he is an older man. 

Also, his attire is odd — notice that he is wearing a jacket over his nude body.  Is this meant to be literal?  No — the nudity indicated his heroic stature. The jacket was probably part of his normal clothing.

Also notice the archaic smile, which is distinctly different from Egyptian sculpture.  Is this man really smiling?  It was probably not meant in that way.  Instead, the smile was a vehicle for conveying emotion and, therefore, it creates the illusion that the person portrayed is alive.  The "archaic smile" is a hallmark of Archaic sculpture.

Kroisos, Anavysos Kouros, ca. 530 B.C.

We that this kouros was named Kroisos after the King of Lydia who donated money to the family.  Hence the son was named after the king.   It was used as a grave marker.  The Anavysos kouros is shown as idealized nude — the family wanted Kroisos to look like a hero.

One hundred years later than the first Kouros figure, we see the same “type.”  Still, it is more organic and is now very different from Egyptian art.   The lower legs and knees are more naturalistic — the arms are also more correct.  Also, it was originally painted.  It was not done in a garish coloristic treatment — but it was not white!!  The natural color of the stone did approximate flesh, but it was waxed and polished.  The eyes, lips, hair, and drapery were painted with encaustic or wax-based paints.  At the same time, we still see the archaic smile.  The Greeks continue to look for an interior quality in their figures and the potential for movement.

Peplos Kore, ca. 530 B.C. 

The female counterpart to the kouros was the kore.  This kore was named after her attire; the peplos is a heavy woolen dress which is belted at the waist.  This particular sculpture is only 6 inches thick, with arms close to the side.  It is badly weathered. 

There are traces of paint.  She probably stood as a votive offering in Athena’s Sanctuary.  The missing arm was probably extended, and it probably held an attribute that would have identified her.  Note the archaic smile.

Kore, from the Acropolis, ca. 510 B.C.

This kore wears a light linen chiton (dress) was covered with a Himatian — a linen mantle.  Her attire is much more elaborate than the peplos.  The fabric is much thinner, and one can begin see the body beneath the fabric.  Also, the asymmetry of the fabric makes the figure seem more naturalistic.  And, once again, the archaic smile persists.