Excavations at the Heraion of Argos, 1892 \

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

Digitized by

Google

Oo-c I ■ S f

ft-sn^A^.i*?^

Sarbact College liirar;

..Ai,%L<i>LaSj,.'iM>±:...

■^9*^. ("*?»

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by Cj OOQ IC

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

'T't-C I

3lrcbafolcwiical 3i'l'itutf of 2liii?rica

' EXCATATIONS

AT

'r IJ E 1 1 K li A L O N O FAR GO 8
1892

Jtv
CHAKLKS WAI-DSTKIN, Litt. I)., Vn. ])., I,.H.D.,

AMEEICAN SCHOOL

CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

BULLETIN III.

]iOST()N, NEW YORK AND CHII'AGd
r.INN & COMPANY.

LONDON AND EDINBURGH
WILLIAMS & NORGATE.

Digitized by

Google

a^^ A . r. f

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

A^ --

'■1- <"s

The publication of these plates (made by Messrs Bhom^des, Fr^res, Athens) is dis-
tinctly of a preliminary character. It ariiies out of a desire to bring before the archaeological
world with the least possible delay, some of the results of our excavations, which, as
well &om the position of the Heraion in the ancient world, as from the intrinsic value
of the discoveries there made, are judged to be of primary importance. The rich harvest
of material thus brought to light, extending over so many periods of Qreek life, and
entering into every department of archaeological science, calls for elaboration which, in
anything like a final shape, will occupy the student for several years; while, on the other
hand, it would hardly be right in the interest of science, to withhold such important
material from archaeological students pending this final elaboration on our part.

I have therefore decided, with the consent of the Managing Committee of the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, to issue a series of plates containing some of the
most interesting objects discovered, as the work of excavation progresses, accompanied by
a short explanatory text ; and to reserve the final publication for a future period. In this
explanatory letter-press, the extent. to which I shall enter into the explanation of the works
found will partly depend upon their manifest importance ; but I shall chiefiy be guided,
^ in this respect, by my own judgk^ment as to the degree in which arcbaeolc^ists are justified
in forming a definite opinion, and by the limitations of my own power to form or to express
a view with pretensions to maturity of conviction. So, for instance, the numerous finds
&om the earliest periods which we have made, especially in pottery and articles of the
minor arts, bear immediately upon the question of Primitive, Mycenean and £arly Archaic
pottery and minor arts, as well as upon the very intricate question of the early settlement
of the Ai^lic plain and its relation to Egyptian, Phoenician and other early civilisation.
All these questions have of late years been in the very fore-front of archaeological
research. But the degree of prominence these questions have received is not in a direct
ratio to the d^ree of conclusiveness which the various opinions held can claim. It seems
to me probable, that the very excavations we have made and are making at the Heraion
may throw considerable light upon some of the main questions concerning which archae-
ologists are now at issue. But the more I feel this, the less do I feel justified in
expressiog myself upon some of these finds, until t have satisfied mjrself by means of
CMefiil and prolonged study. The very important finds of pottery, moreover, require a form
of illustration which it was impracticable to attempt giving in this earliest preliminary
form. I have therefore omitted them for the present from these plates, though they are,
in one respect, of the greatest interest.

In connexion with the whole method of dealing with this pre-historic period of Greek
Archaeology, I cannot refrain from expressing here, what I have repeatedly urged with

1

Digitized by

Google

2

regard to the questions of mythological study. Much as I value the work doue by learned
and conBcientious students of pre-historic Greek mytholc^, especially when hased upon the
comparative study of mythology and ethnology, I still hold that the soundest method will be
to postpone the study of the earliest periods, until the historical periods have been subjected
to a careful and sober revision and completion. Thoroughness of method and scientific
procedure does not necessarily consist in beginning with the beginning of things and then pro-
ceeding to the later stages. The " earher " and the " beginning " in science are always the beat
and most thoroughly knovm, and the " later stages " are the leas perfectly known ; and the
correct procedure is from this fixed centre to the wider circumferences. For the earliest
in scientific degree is not always (I may say is rarely) identical with the earliest in
historical evolution. And I maintain that in the history of Greek art, as in the history
of Greek myths, there is much yet to be done in determining and in elaborating the
historical periods, fiota the fixed centres of which we can then cautiously proceed backwards
(really onwards) to t&e misty pre-historic periods.

The excavations were carried out by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
the funds having been provided by the Archaeological Institute of America, These tunds
enabled us this year to carry on extensive work on several sites. Besides the work at the
Heraiou, the following excavations were taken in hand: at (A« thsatre of Sikyon (the work
entrusted to Mr firownson and Dr Young) the excavation of the underground passage, as
well as in other parts of the cavea and the sken4 was completed. The excavations had
been begun by the school under the direction of Prof D'Ooge hy Mr McMurtry, were
continued under Prof. Merriam by Dr Earle, and were resumed by the latter gentleman
during the summer of 1891. At Eretria in Euboea, Prof Poland with Messrs Brownson
and Fox continued the excavations at the theatre begun last year. At Phliosea Messrs
H. S. and C. M. Washington excavated during the spring of this year. Mr H. S.
Washiugton had dug at Plotheia some four years ago, bad taken part in our excavations
of Plataea three years ago, and had successfully completed the work there during the
spring of last year. At Sparta I began explorative diggings in the mouth of March of
this year, the chief positive results of which was the discovery of the circulax building
mentioned by Pausaniaa (ill. 12, 11). He says it was attributed to Epimenides which fact
fixes its date to the beginning of the 6th century B.c. It is thus of great importance
as an instance of early Greek architecture, and in that it furnishes at the same time a
fixed point for the reconstruction of the topography of Sparta.

At the excavations of the Heraiou I was most ably assisted hy Messrs Brownson, Fox,
De Oou, and Dr Newhall ; while Professor Poland took charge of the work during one
week. Messrs Brownson and Fox were engaged in the work during the whole period of
its duration and they have throughout rendered most signal services.

In 1854 the late Mr Bhangab^', made excavations on this site. There are there
supporting walls, as well as peribolos walls, which were visible then as they are visible
now. One of these supporting walls, the upper one, is of huge cyclopean blocks (see
Plates U. and III.), and evidently belongs to the earliest structure ; while the other walls
belong to different Hellenic periods. There were no manifest traces of the work of
Bhangah^, which bad been concentrated on the second temple. A photograph (reproduced on
plate I.) taken on the site of the second temple before we began excavating here will
hear this out.

' Aaigrabartgta beim Tenrpel dtr Hera taactit Argot. Ein BiUf eon Prof. A. Rizo Rangabi an Pro/. Rou,
Halla ISM. See alM BoiBian, BitlUuino deW Iiutit. Botn« 1BG4; n. p. xm.

Digitized by

Google

3

No doubt the thirty-eight years which have intervened since the first attempted
ezcavatioD, as ivell as the fact that the inhabitants of the neighboaring villages wonld
carry off the stones that lay on the surface, led to the disappearance of all traces of this
previous work. But on the other hand we must remember that Rbangab^ was much
cramped for material means in carrying on his work, and that in those days the art of
excavating had not been developed to the systematic precision which has now been given it

The site' of the temples is on a lower spur of the Mountain Euboea, where the beds
of two streams, now dried up, the ancient Eleutherioe and Asterion, bound it on the
north-west and south-east. It is about two and a half miles from Mycenae and four and
a half miles from Argos*. We be^an our work at first in an explorative manner, to test, and,
if possible, to verify by means of excavation, the nature of the several sites which were
here massed together. At the same time we had even then decided to concentrate our
efforts as much as possible during this season upon the second temple. This temple was
built by Eupolemos about the 90th Olympiad (420 to 416B.C.) after the destruction of
the first temple which was burnt down 423B.C.*

We began work on Feb. 15, with 63 men and 3 carts; on the second day we
continued with 97 men and 7 carts; on the third day with 117 men and 8 carts; on
the fourth day with 123 men and 11 carts; on the fifth day with 127 men and 12 carts;
until we rose to 180 men with from 20 to 26 carts. I am strongly of opinion that,
wherever it is feasible, the employment of large gangs of men is more economical and
more conducive to accurate archaeological observation, than the employment of smaller
numbers of men spread over a longer period of time. The manner, for instance, in which
the various archaeological stratifications, if I may so call them, present themselves in rapid
and organic succession to the eye of the student, when work is carried on on a large
scale, adds a quality to the mode of observation which cannot readily be supplied when
work is less compressed in time. We were also exceptionally favoured by the weather.
For the first month we did not lose more than one half day owing to rain; while no
holiday interfered with our regulfir working days. It is owing to these facts, and above
all to the liberal means which the Archaeol<^cal Institute put at our disposal, that we
were able to accomplish so much in so short a time. Besides the excavation of the
second temple, we began by digging trenches, first on the site of the upper or earliest
temple, and second on a site below, and to the north of the second temple, where there
seemed to be a second pehbolos ; and, finally, on the slope of the hill at the west and
south ends of the second temple itaelf.

On the site of the first, or earliest, temple a broad trench was carried from end to end
(east to west) of the plateau, with cross trenches extending in the one direction to the
south supporting wall, in the other to the slope of the hill to the north. We soon found
a smooth layer of firm earth which we called the "platform" and we followed this to its
western extremity. The cross trench to the south revealed a second "platform," seemingly
corresponding in dimensions and meaning to the first. Between the two, native or unworked
soil was discovered at a very slight depth, so also in the north cross trench. To the
south and west, beyond the lines of these " platforms " was found a rough paving of
polygonal stones. We also came upon a continuous thick layer of charred wood, an
interesting material confirmation of the burning of this temple*; which also may prove (as

' Bttrdait, OeograpMe von Oriechentand, n. p. 49.

■ Strabo, vm. 868, makes it ten stadia from Myoenae and toity Htwdia from ArgOB. FaQeauiaB, a. 17. 1, makes
it GftecQ Btadia Irom Hjoettae.

. 17. 7 ; Thuoydidee, it. 183. * Thnoyd. l.o. ; PaneaniaB, l.o.

1—2

Digitized by

Google

in the case of the Heraion of Olympia) that such early Btmctures were to a great extent
built of wood. We also here came upon a large quantity (three basketfula) of pottery,
unpainted and for the most part thick and heavy, belonging to the Piimitire period, molten
iron, plates and rods of bronze, glass beads, smaller bone beads, a bronze goat, &c These
objects were found in a sort of 'pocket' mingled with burnt earth and pieces of charred wood.

On the lower south-western plateau we excavated the so-called cross-cisterns, and,
immediately adjoining them, found what may prove to be early Qreek baths; while, at the
other extremity of this terrace, we examined and laid bare the walls which proved to
belong to an interesting Qreek edifice. This again joined on, and may have formed part
of a stoa which bounded one side of this large terrace; and we here found a number of
early Greek specimens of pottery, a few interesting terra-cottas, and objects in bronze and
iron. This wall at the southern extremity of the stoa is of the finest masonry on the
whole site. In connexion with these cisterns and baths on the terrace, we examined and
excavated some curious rock-cut structures of the same nature outside the temple preducta
to the south-west, and at some 200 yards below the lower terrace, on the banks of the
river. At first we thought they might be early rook-cut graves; but they appeared to be
more probably connected with baths or cisterns, perhaps to be in some way referred to the
passage in Pausanias (IL 17, 1) which mentions the ablutions performed here: j(p£vTai he
aiiT^ TT^oT Kadap<rta ai •Jrepl to Upov Koi e-jfi twv Svffi&v «V T(i? airop^TOW. I may at
once also state here that towards the close of the excavation, during the last days of
March, and the beginning of April, Messrs Brownson and Fox also examined and excavated
what proved to be interesting structures of the aqueduct. On this lower bank of the
river, cut in the solid rock, there was a square perpendicular hole, corresponding to a
"man hole" with notches cut in the side for the purposes of descent and ascent. Upon
digging down this hole they found that it led into channels about five feet high, cut into
the rock in different directions. One of these channels ran. under the river-bed, and the
other they followed for more than thirty metres through the rock inland in the direction
of Argoe, an operation which corresponded very much to miners' work.

On the slope of the west end of the second temple we made two deep cuttings
one below the other, which practically meant cutting away the whole side of the hill
here to a depth of between 30 and 4iO feet (see PL L). At a depth of between 10
and IS feet below the top surface of the second temple at this west end, we came upon
a curious layer of black earth, which rose higher as we proceeded towards the Temple;
but was to be found with great regularity. This pecuiitu* stratum consisted of decayed
organic matter with masses of animal bones and many fragments of pottery, vases
and terra cottas, bronzes, and numerous articles in other material. It is chiefiy in this
black layer that the lai^ number of interesting articles was found, which certainly give
in themselves great value to these excavations. To give an idea of the extent of this
yield, I will but enumerate a list of some of the selected articles which were transmitted
to the Museum at Athens ; the greater numerical proportion remaining at Argoe itself
It is a rough list I made with the Ephor of Excavations (M. Kastromenos) for purposes
of control before sending the objects to Athens.

"Small objects found at the Heraion."

230 bronee ringB. 1 bronze swan's head.

1 ear-ring. 1 bronze atatuette without a base.

S6 lead and silver ringB. 1 bronze goat from upper temple.

1 bronze atatuette of a oow. 1 Ifu^e bronze horse on boae.

Digitized by

Google

1 small brouze horae no base.

1 small sheep od baae.

1 bronze cup with sphinx.

1 bronze male statuette.

1 brODze foot of vase.

1 bronze rim of large rase^ figured.

3 bronze seals.

1 small bronze cockatrice.

4 bronze fibidae.

1 brtouse peacock.

2 pieces of bronze with zigmg pattern.
4 bronze handles.

16 bronze pica with ornamented heads.
2 mirror handles.

1 bronze patera.

4 fragments of larger patera.

2 bronze chisels.

4 terra-oottA plaques with inscriptions.

6 pieoee of Isj^ jar with reliefs.

6 teira-ootta plaques with arohaic incuse ^uree.
60 selected terra-cotta idols.
60 fragments of earliest idols.
21 terra-cotta images of animals.
28 stone heads of hard stone.

1 of bone, 1 crTstal, 1 terra-cotta and 1 iTot7.

1 gold and silver spiral.

1 gold and silver ornament.

1 gilded bronze pin.

7 ivor7 incuse ornamented seals.

8 large seals.

1 ivory ccw resting on plaque with archaic relief.

Fragments of gold leaf

1 gold leaf.

1 perforated gold roeetta

1 gold Myceue rosette.

2 gold and silver rings.
1 plain gold ring.

10 scaraboida.

22 copper and silver coins.

1 terra-cotta ditto.

1 stone hammer, split.

4 stone seals.

1 small porphyry lion with hieroglyphics.

1 scaraboid bead.

IS glass and porcelain beads.
32 amber beads from old temple and small beads.
7 amber or glass beads and 13 triangular beads from
the lower temple.

2 bone needles.

1 porcelain monkey.
1 porcelain cat.
1 Egyptian image,

3 boxes of small beads.

3 lai^ baskets of fragments of early vases.

All these objects coming from this black layer are diBtinetly archaic in character.
Nothing has there been found that I could venture to ascribe even to a date as late as
the beginning of the 5th century B.C. ; while many point to the remotest antiquity. How
these objects came to be placed there is a question which I should not venture to answer
definitely. But at present it seems to me most probable, that this site, below the
supporting wall of the earliest temple, may at one time have coatained an altar and that
this black layer is the refuse &om the sacrifices, or that this refuse waa thrown down
over the supporting wall in the earliest periods from the older temple ; or, finally, that
the accumulated d4bria was used as, what architects call, dry-rubbish, in order to fill up
the ground before the building of the second temple. At all events I venture to aay
that we have here produced material which may be as interesting and as important for
the history of early Greek civilisation, art and handicraft, as the similar discoveries at
Mycenae and Tiryns. The terra-cotta plaques alone seem to me of the greatest importance
and are almost unique in character ; the Egyptian or Phoenician objects may perhaps
throw some light on the earliest relations of the inhabitants of the Ai^ve plain to the
early nations beyond the sea; the numerous terra-cotta images will doubtless throw light
upon the earliest representations of the Goddess Hera, and upon the rites and ceremonies
connected with her worship ; while the vases, chiefly of Primitive Mycenaean, Geometrical,
and Proto-Corinthian pattern, will form a valuable addition to our knowledge of early
ornamental Ceramic art, the study of which is now promising to yield such a rich harvest.

On the platform, which coatained the second temple itself, built by Eupolemos, and
for which Polykleitos made the gold and ivory statue of Hera, we came upon the foundation
walls, standing in continuous solidity at a depth of between 4 and 6 feet below the surface
of the earth, at a considerable depth below the two trenches which Rhangab^ had originally

Digitized by

Google

dug. We followed these walls up, laid them bare and dug to an aven^ depth of
5 to 6 feet both ia the iaterior and the exterior of the temple on all sides, so that, at
the present moment, these foundation walls of the temple stand quite clear and clean to
be studied bj architects and arcbaeolt^ts (see PI. n.). The plans of the temple, aa thus
laid bare are at thia moment being completed by Meeers Brownson and Foz„ and will be
published at a later date. The measuremeDts show the temple, according to its foundations,
to have been 39*60 metres long hy 20 metres wide. There is nothing more than the
foundations standing. The stylobate and all the superstructure have been carried off.
There is no doubt that the temple was used as a quarry by the mediaeval builders in
the neighbourhood. They seem to have cut into the south side, and to have draggled the
stones out of even the interior of the foundations, leaving & few that they bad bc^n to
cut in two in order more readily to transport them. The fate of the temple, and the
methods of pillaging it, seem to have been very similar to those of the so-called Temple
of Zeus at Girgenti where the stones were used for the building of the Molo. Still,
I believe that there are a sufficient number of fragments of drums of columns, capital,
cornices and architectural ornaments remaining, to niake a restoration of the temj)Ie in
the future possible. Of the architectural ornameBtar especially the richly carved mma,
fragments have been found which bear testimony to the exquisite workmanship of the
architectural decorations of this temple (see PL VIII.). Ajid they are especially interesting
when compared both for the similarity and the difference of the relation they bold to the
ornaments on the tholos at Epidauros, which is ascribed to Folykleitos. It has been held
by Kavvadias, supported by Dorpfeld, that this tholos at Epidauros was nab built by the
elder Polykleitoe but by his younger namesake in the ith century B.C. Now the sima
which we have found at the Heraion corresponds in its general form, in the manner in
which the lions' heads are attached, to the sima of the tholos of Epidauros ; hut the
workmanship and style of the relief-ornamentation, and especially of the lions' heads them-
selves, confum, I am inclined to say beyond a doubt, the supposition, well grounded by other
evidence, thai the Epidaurean building is two generations later tlian the building erected
in the time of the sculptor Polykleitos. The ornamentation of the sima of the Heraion
corresponds in workmanship more to the exquisite low relief in the decoration of the
Erechtheum at Athens.

In spite of the depredations to which I have referred, we were fortunate enough to
find a lai^e number of the works of sculptured marble in a more or less fragmentary
condition. Innumerable fragments of hands, feet, arms and legs, as well as pieces of
drapery evidently belong to the metopes which were in high relief^ while some larger
fn^ments in the round seem to point to the presence of pedimental groups. It appears
to me that the passage in Pausanias (iL 17, 3) must be interpreted as referring to
pediments as well as metopes. The passage runs thus: ovoTa Be vwep tov? ■etoi'a; itntv
elpyafffiAva, rd /iki' e? ti)v Am>! ytvec^iv xal Bewv koI VtyavTw fidj(t)ii ij(€i, rd Se e; top
trpov Tpoiav "rroXtfiov koX 'IX^ou t^c ^Xottriv.

The expression t^^^ tou« Kiovav (above the pillars), is a curious and indefinite one.
It seems at first sight -to point merely to the decoration in the metopes, and to exclude
sculptured pediments. For the usual phrase for pedimental sculpture would mention these
expressly. So with regard to the Parthenon Pausanias says (l. 24, 5) oiroaa iv tok
KaKovfikvotf deroK Ktlrai k.t.X. But it appears to me that the phrase " above the piUara "
is a short form of expression to include both pediments and metopes. We find that in
this passage, referring to the Heraion, there is a distinct division between the firont and
back; and in each of these again between two distinct groups of subjects. The rd ^k

Digitized by

Google

is opposed to the ra S4, vbidi corresponds to the sabdivision as indicated by rd Se
JhrurOev in the passage referring to the Parthenon*. Within this broad twofold division in
the front and back sculpture of the Heraion, we have in each two definite subjects. In
the one the Birth of Zeus as well as the Qigantomachia ; in the other the Departure for
Troy as wall as the Ilioupersis, Now the nature of these subjects will lead us to hold
that one of each is a pedimental group, the other distributed among metopes. The
Birth of Zeus is distinctly a pedimental subject and would naturally have filled the
eastern pediment of this temple; while the Gigantomachia (which most probably also
formed part of the scenes in the metopes of the Parthenon) is a subject natural to
metopes. In the western pediment we should naturally find the scene of the Departure for
Troy, with Agamemnon in the presence of Hera and the other divinities, most appropriately
represented on this spot where, according to tradition {Diet. Grit Sell. Troj. i. 16),
Agamemnon offered sacrifice before leaving for Troy. In the form of grouping, we should
have an analogy to the eastern pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, the departing
heroes with their chariots grouped on either side of the presiding divinities. Scenes from the
Destruction of Troy, moreover, were introduced into the metopes of the Parthenon. I
would thus distribute the scenes as follows: In the eastern pediment, the Birth of Zeus;
in the western pediment, the Departure for Troy ; in the metopes on the east side, the
Gigantomachia, in those on the west, the Destruction of Troy.

Our finds moreover bear out this view. There are fragments of sculpture too large
for metopes, which probably came from pedimental groups ; while an arm resting upon a
cushion which we have found can hardly be placed anywhere but in the angle of a
pediment, and reminds us of the local nymphs resting upon cushions from the western
pediment of the Olympian temple. From the number of fragments of limbs &c. evidently
belonging to metopes, it also appears to me probable that the metopes extended round all
four sides of the temple. And it would then he probable that Pausanias only mentioned
the subjects in the front and hack metopes; while on the sides, scenes like' the Amazono-
machia and Centauromachia were represented. This would make the analogy to the best
known specimens of ancient temples still more complete.

Fortunately for us we were also able to discover two actual metopes giving us the
full height with the figures in relief attached to them. The %ures on the one are sorely
mutilated, but the male nude warrior represented on the other (PI. VII.), as far as the
torso is concerned, is in most perfect preservation, all the detail work delicate and firm in
character being manifest in its freshly preserved suriace.

This metope, together with the other fragments, will, I believe, make it possible for
us to study accurately the style and character of Polykleitan art For there can be no
doubt that the sculptured decorations of the Heraion stand in the same relation to
Polykleitos as the architectural sculpture of the Parthenon stand to Pheidias. And, in
spite of what has recently been urged by some archaeologists, I venture to maintain that
there can be no doubt as to the immediate connexion between the art that is manifested in
the sculptures of the Parthenon and of the Heraion, and the leading artists of that period,
Pheidias and Polykleitos. In the Parthenon and in the Heraion Pheidias and Polykleitos
made the cultus statue, the great central treasures of art and of the sanctuary. Both were
the actual leading spirits of the sculpture of the period and the district, and had numerous
assistants under them. It would be emphatically paradoxical to assume that the sculptured
decorations of these two temples were not executed under their direction. We were still

' I. 27. 6. "Et 3i rir rain tr ItapStr&va, iw/uifouffu', ii toCto* ivioSini irlura ir roll miXou/iA'oii irrott k^tiu,
rirra is ripi 'kBTirnt Ixtt yivtsir, ri. Si SrivBtr ^ IIoa'BJuwot wpAi 'ASijraF iarir ?pi! irip r^ 7^1.

Digitized by

Google

8

more fortunate in discovering two well preserved heads about two-thirds life size, one of
which certainly belonged to the metopes (Fl. VII.). While, 6nally, immediately in front of
the west end of the Temple we had the good fortune of finding the marble head of
"Hera" (Pits. TV. and V.). This head appears to me, beyond a doubt, to be the work of
the fifth century B.C,, and, as I shall have occasion to show of Folykleitan character. Ab a
&tth century head, in comparatively so excellent a state of preservation, I venture to think
that it is of unique value, and we might congratulate ourselves upon the result of this
year's excavations, if we had only found this one treasure of Oreek Art.

Plate I.

As I intend to elaborate the architectural aspect of the excavations with Messrs
Brownson and Fox, I will merely give a summary explanation of the plates here giveo.
Those on Plate I. were taken from photographs made by Mr Fox ; the others are from
photographs by Messrs Rhomaides, Frferes, of Athens.

View of site of the second temple before the eaxavationa. The photograph was taken
from the north-west comer of the terrace looking south-east.

Vtev) of the excavations at west end of the second temple during the third week. Taken
from a point to the north-west of the terrace. Workmen are massed on the top of the
terrace, those to our left of the centre standing on the west foundation wall of the
temple. The "black layer" referred to above ran up towards the temple beginning
about where the two middle casts are standing below. Where the workmen stand lowest
in A trench to our right a broad cutting was subsequently carried on to join the large
cutting in the centre; while this huge cutting in its turn was carried up to the
foundation walls of the temple.

Plate IL

View of the second temple after completioH of the work for this season. The photograph
was taken from the south-east comer, about where the tree stood in the photograph (Pl. I.)
taken before excavating, looking to the north-west It shows the foundation walls of the -
temple which were covered on their top with a layer of earth between four and five feet
in depth. On the wall at the west end a small mound has been left standing to show
the original height of the earth.

Plate III.

View of the excavations of the secorid temple, from the same point as PI. II., towards
the close of excavation. It contains workmen and staff and shows the stoa wall at the
north side of the temple. Above this the cyclopean wall supports the platform upon
which stood the first or earliest temple.

Plates TV. AMD V.

Sead of "Hera." Parian marble". Dimensions (full life size) in metres: Height of
head (from point of chin to a line extended horizontally from top of head), '223 ; Breadth
(of forehead above eyes and between the two planes extended straight forward from surface

I petrological mftttera, aaimea me that this head is

Digitized by

Google

of each ear), '14; Length of line along margin of hair from ear to middle of forehead,
*15. Holes drilled into the lohe of ea«b ear clearly show that earings of bronze (probably
gilt) were affixed to the head.

The head was found at the west end of the temple, immediatelif in front of the west
foundation wall, at a slight distance to the north of the centre of the west front, about
two feet below the top soil There were figments of marble Bculpture probably from
metopes found near it; but none that seem to come from the statue to which the head
belonged Black earth in which one side of the head was imbedded contained humidity
and acids which account for the corrosion of the right side of head, while the other side
(shown in our profile view, PL Y.) has the surface almost intact

In studying the style and workmanship, and hence tbe period to which it belongs,
we mast first consider the general composition of the statue in so far as it is indicated
by the position of the head and neck as placed upon the statue of which it formed a part.

The head was evidently placed straight between the shoulders, at right angles to the
chest. There is no trace in the neck of a turn to the right or left, nor of a droop
downwards or a tilting upwards. This absolute strmghtness of position of the head, and
hence of the look of the eyes, gives to a statue a solemnity, simplicity and severity which
in the archaic statues, with the imperfect and conventional modelling of the details, con-
tributes to the impreasiou of hardness and lifelessness characterizing these early works. In
our work it could only give simplicity, dignity and solemnity. In the composition of the
head itself there is a symmetry maintained in either half, a perfect balancing of either
side. This severe dichotomy is accentuated in tbe peculiar treatment of the two curls
above the central parting, a peculiarity to which I shall have to return. From this point
downwards the two sides of the face are evenly balanced, without suggesting a purely
mechanical reproduction, as in some of the archaic works.

If not mechanical, there is a sense of what might be called mathematical regularity
in the outlining, articulation, and modelling of the face. This impression is, no doubt, based,
in tbe first place, upon the regularity of the outlining of the fiice itself as bounded by the
hair. The oval contour represents an almost regular ellipse with the centre a little above the
tip of the nose and the vertices at the chin and the central parting of the hair. From either
side of this central parting, round by the temples to the back of the cheek-bone, the face is
blocked out in a firm curved line almost geometrical in its character, and this curve is then
continued along the lower line of the cheek-bone to the chin. The face is thus distinctly
circumscribed from the line of hair downward by a firm and regular outline.

On either side of tbe central line of curls at the parting, there are six strings of wavy
hair with two smaller strings interspersed higher up ; and the mass of the back of tbe neck
has three broad strings of hair on either side. The same regularity prevails in the distribu-
tion of tbe waves of hair on either side of the central parting on the top of the head above
tbe diadem. It is maintained in the back, though here there is greater irregularity. Still
this symmetry of arrangement is removed from hardness, by the fact of the corresponding
waves of tii^ not being absolutely identical in their whole course, and especially by the
delicate indication of texture in the modelling of each one of these waves. There are various
smaller ridges introduced and roughnesses left on the surface, which prevent the whole from
reflecting the light in a hard polished jor metallic surfiice. The light is here absorbed, here
reflected, the whole producing a varied play of light and shade which gives life to the whole
surface. In contradistinction to arcbaistic work the severity and regularity of treatment is
not bard; but the r^;ularity lends to the variety of wavy lines a repose which gives to this

2

Digitized by

Google

10

style of treatmeot somflthing of the grandioee ae opposed to the petty. The more this hair
is looked at from a distaace, the more life and beauty of texture does it suggest, while
retaining a harmony and regularity of general design, and adding restfulnesB to the eu^estlon
of flow and ripple in the movement of line. I hardly know of any instaQces of Greek art
that can be compared with it, excepting the best types of Greek fifth century work, as in what
remains of the Parthenon and the hair in the Karyatides of the Erechtheum — though these,
more decorative works of sculpture, are less highly floished.

In the same way the regularity which makes for hardness is counteracted iu the detail
modeUing of the face. In the profile view the absolutely straight and continuous line &om
forehead to nose is varied in that the nose projects at a slightly obtuse angle and thus
throws the lower part of the face forward. But an element of softness is chiefly added in
the delicate modelling (always, however, remaining simple and broad in character) of the
cheeks, chin, mouth and eyes. The modelhng of the cheek, especially in the region about
the mouth, nostrils and eye, is of a delicacy which, while adding to the general softness of
the face, is not noticeable in itself, unless examined very closely and minutely, and does
not detract from the general breadth of character in the treatment of the head as a whole.
The chin holds a happy mean between the heavy and the weakly pointed ; while the curve
from the lower lip downwards to the point of the chin is one of peculiar delicacy. The
mouth with the full lower lip is a very characteristic feature of the head. The lips are
clearly arched and still have nothing of the hardness of arching which the lips of the
works immediately preceding the great period have, still less are they set in the so-called
'archaic smila' The hardness is chiefly counteracted in that the lips are not compressed,
so as to close the mouth firmly, but are slightly parted — a foot which no doubt adds
to the milder expression of the whole countenanca The sculptor has thus solved a
difiScult probleuL A mouth clearly opened is a blemish in a work of sculpture; it
represents a cavity with dark shadowa On the other hand the closed mouth gives a lifel^s
or hard expression to the face. In this head the sculptor has parted the lips, without
giving ua the impression of an open mouth. Not only in the month, but also in the delicate
treatment of the nostrils and, more especially, in the treatment of the eye is this softness
of expression combined with the boldness and breadth of style. The eyelids are worked
firmly and are undercut, so that they present a clear sharp edge, which appears to me to
point to a style influenced by bronze technique (though the treatment of the hair ia
completely adapted to marble); and tfaey thus strengthen the contrast to the smooth
working of the eye-ball, of which the curve slants somewhat inwards. The eye has no doubt
been protected from corrosion by the colour which was applied. The result is, that the
light striking the eye-ball seems concentrated there, and thus produces a life and brilliancy
&r removed from the more sentimental character of the treatment of the eye common in the
heads of the fourth century which conveys the idea which the Greek writers on such subjects
expressed by the word to i^pov. The depression below the lower lid is gradual and
delicate; but not so marked aa in the head of Aphrodite of the fourth century to which
it ^vee a characteristic expression. The whole treatment of the eye retains a severity
which is free from lifelessness, and gives a vividness which is not tied to a purely individual
expression or mood. Mouth and eye together remind us of the advance in art attributed
by the ancients to the painter Polygnotos, whose influence upon the growth of freedom in
sculpture aa well aa painting, it appears to me, has not been sufficiently recognised. Fliny
says of him' tiqaidem instituit os adaperire,...voltum ah wntiqao rigore variare. Bninn*

. p. 39.

Digitized by

Google

expIaioB th« adaperire by etc parte aperire, which exactly conyeys the treatment of the
mouth Id thia head of Hera.

In all its characteristics this head thus manifests that it is neither archaic, nor
transitional, nor of the fourth century B.C., nor archaistic or belong ng to the later
renaissance of earlier Greek types; but it is clearly the work of an artist living in the fifth
century B.c,

The next question is the particular divinity represented. I have until now called it
Hera. But of course we must be aware that this attribution is not beyond all doubt
It might be maintained that the head is that of Athene or even of Aphrodite. But I
do not think this likely. It first appears to me to be a head of Hera because of the
diadem or aritftaviK which is the characteriBtic badge of Hera. It is true that this is
not the broad, ornamented diadem which Hera has on the coins of Argos'. She is not
represented as the matron. But we must remember that Hera in the judgement of Paris
vied with Aphrodite and Athene, and that, especially at Argos, in the festival of the
Up^ ydfi09, she is conceived of as the bride of Zeus, the marriage festival with whom is
the central point in the festival The place in which the head was found, would,
furthermore, be an d priori reason for our attributioa While, finally, the severity of con-
ception to which reference has already been made modifies the youthfuloese in a direction
not favourable to its interpretation as Aphrodite or even Athene. This view is still more
confirmed when we compare the head with the best known types of Hera.

Among these this head has the greatest resemblance to the so-called Hera Famese'
at Naples on the one band, and the well-known Hera Ludovlsi' on the other. With the
Hera Famese the Argos head has in general the greatest resemblance. But the Famese
head is more mechanical in technique, and harder iu modelling. With our Argos head
before us, we are led to believe that the Famese head is a copy of an original from the
fifth century B.C., made in Qraeco-Koman times. As a copy it still manifests the bronze
and toreutic technique which prevailed in the original. And this is especially to be noticed
when we compare the treatment of hair with that of the Argos head; for the surface of
each wavy string is smoother, and below each wave of hair is more undercut and separated
sharply fi'om the other. We also find that, though it is severer in expression, the copyist of
the Famese head has not retained the smooth, broad and simple treatment of the forehead,
but has introduced a sl^ht elevation, which in later times becomes still more exaggerated.
There is also dissimilarity in the outlines of the face. The marked oval of which I have
spoken is not to be noticed in the Famese head, where the chin has become proportionately
sharper, owing to the fact that the broadest section of tbe ellipse is in our head in the
middle section (the line drawn horizontally slightly above the tip of the nose), while in
the Famese head the broadest section is higher up, on the line through the two cheek-
bones.

Besides the general similarity of the two, and the more youthful character that they
have in common, there are very marked points of agreement in the detail work of the two
heads. The vt4i^<k is in both of the same narrow kind ; the angle of the nose and
forehead is similar, especially when the Famese bead is not tilted so far forward ; the
eyelids are worked in the same way, though the angle of the eye is difierent. But above
all tbe characteristic treatment of tbe mouth is to be found also in the Famese Hera. The

' OTeibeok, Oritehitehe KuntlP^tfioJogU, n. pp. 101 «aq. MUnctafel n, aai in.

' Oreibeok, Or. Kumtmj/th., Atlaa Fl. IX. Nm. 1 and 3 ; tdL n. pp. 71 seq., wbere ill previoqi litamtore u
Colli^aon, HUt. dt la Beuipt. Orteqve, Puia, 1899; i. p. 618.
Overbeek. ibid., AUm PL IX. Noa. 7 and 6; vol. n. pp. eBaeq.

Digitized by

Google

12

lips are slightly parted ; but the copyist worked the cavity deeper aad did not leave iho
marble visible, which, in the Argos head avoids the dark shadow and counteracts the
impression of openness. The full lower lip with the marked curve between it and the
chin is identical in both. The Hera Farnese has been considered by Brunn and most
archaeologists to render the type of the Hera of Argos by Folykleitos.

In the colossal Ludovisi Hera the broader ari^avo% and the two curia at either side
of the head add a different general impression. But I venture to believe that the
Ludovisi bead is a still later modification of an original prototype which has inspired the
artist of all these three heads. In mouth and eyes and uoae-line there are also similarities;
but the face is somewhat shorter and is also broadest in the line across the cheek-bone.

The fifth century prototype seems completely lost in the typical fourth century types
of Hera of which I consider the so-called Hera Fentini ' in the Vatican the most
characteristic. This head, which has a large halo-shaped diadem, manifests in composition
and execution more individuality and sentiment. It is turned slightly to one side, the
eyes are large and round, there is a smiling expression from which the others are &r
removed. It appears to me to contain characteristics of the head of Niobe and, especially
in the hair, of the Demeter of Cnidus. If I were pressed for a definite attribution I
should say that it partakes more of the character of Scopaic art than of any other. It
certunly serves well to indicate by contrast the fifth century characteristics of our Ai^os
head.

If now we turn to the question to what artist and school this head belongs, the
name of Folykleitos and the Folykleitan school at once necessarily suggest themselves. The
date of the work and its provenience would, without any other indications, make us attribute
it to the Argive school under the immediate influence of Folykleitos. For it is, to say
the least, ^^i? improbable that in the fifth century such a statue of Hera would be
made for the Heraion without coming under the direct influeoce of Folykleitos who established
the ideal of this goddess in this very temple by what was one of the most famous works
of art in antiquity. The severity and prevalence of symmetry in the head, of which I
have spoken, are characteristics which mark Folykleitan character; while the comparative
youthiiilness and dignity, kept from overpowering grandeur by a certain grace, could not be
expressed better than in the terms with which Quintilian ' criticises the art of Folykleitos :
nam vt hawinae formae decorem addiderit supra verum, ita iion expleviaae deorum auctort-
tatem videtar; quin aetatem quoque graviorem diettur refagisse nihil atwiw ulira tmea genas..
The head moreover to which it bears the greatest resemblance, the Hera Farnese, has been
considered as illustrative of the Folykleitan Hera.

There is one apparently minute point, which seems to me of considerable importance as
bearing upon this question. I have for some years been collecting the Folykleitan statues
and heads which are dispersed throughout the European museums*. One peculiar feature has
always repeated itself in all the heads of athletes, almost taking the form of the artist's
seal or trade mark: it is a peculiar bracket-shaped curl, quite symmetrical, at the
beginning of the parting of the hsjr, on the middle of the forehead. In this female head,
we have, besides the symmetrical parting of the waves of h^r, the two curious short
ridges of curl on either side of the parting, a peculiarity which I have never noticed

1 Oveibeck, Or. Km. AUm IX. No. IB; toL n. PL XOTII.; Monam. InetUt. dtW Intt. Boma, toL □. PL LIL
* Q. liM. Orat. xn. 10. 7.

■ A i»imb«i of the DorTphoroi atatoea have been oolleotad by MJohMlig, Hon. ieW Itut. Boma, vol. i.
(1879) PL L., Aimali, (ok. if agg. A and B; Gollignon, md. PI. XH. pp. 189 leq.

Digitized by

Google

18

before, aod which almost looks as if the maDneriBm in the male heads, had found this
particular equivalent in a female head.

As to the queatioD how the statue stood, I was at first inclined to believe that it
must have stood alone on its base, probably immediately at the west end of the temple.
For the beautiful delicate finish of the surface made me doubt of its being a pedimental
6gure. But since the inetope was found (PI. VI,) in which the surface is so well pre-
served, the careful finish and elaboration of the surface in this piece of architectural
sculpture makes me consider it possible, that this Hera stood in the pediment under
which it was found, and represented the goddess standing immediately bedde the central
figure or figures in the scene of the departure of Agamemnon and the Homeric heroes
for Troy. The dimensions would suit the pediments of a temple with the measurements
of the Heraion,

To sum up; the head of Hera is a work of the fifth century B.c. Until it can
satisfactorily be proved not to be so, we have reason to consider it a representative of the
Argive school of art of the second half of the fifth century and, as such, to hold some
relation to the work of Folykleitos who established the ideal type of Hera in this temple.

PU.TE VI.

Metope from the second temple. Fine-grained marble '. Dimensions ; Height '50-
Greatest width, from end of left leg to right side of body '27. Width of waist '16.
Width across shoulders, including stump of arms '22.

This fragment of a metope, of which the surface is in excellent preservation, represents
the torso of a nude warrior advancing to the left in violent charging attitude ; the right
arm which is upraised, no doubt held some weapon with which he was striking an opponent
who lay at his feet, and whose hand is still to be seen pressing against the right side of
his victorious enemy. The work is in high relief, the head and legs are now missing, having
been completely undercut. The flat background of the relief is visible on our plate
above his left shoulder. The action of this warrior is one which occurs frequently on
metopes and friezes representing the famous mythical battle-scenes, as in the metopes of
the Parthenon, the metopes and Meze of the Theseion, the frieze of the temple of Nike
Apteros, of the temple of Apollo at Pbigaleia, the Mausoleum, &c., and in the statue of the
advancing tyrannicide in the Naples Museum. The vigorous action is expressed as fully in
this work as in any of the iuBtances quoted. But I know of no metopes in which the detail
work in the modelling of the surfJEice is so careful and accurate. Not only in the wonderful
articulation of the whole torso, and in the delicate modelling of the muscles covering the
ribs, in which we have the " dryness " reminding us of the school of Aegina without any of
the archaic " hardness " ; but in such details as the indication of the gland (?) in the
inguinal region, and the careful modelling of the hand, in which the thumb, the nails and
the small wrinkles, are reproduced in an almost minute manner — in all this we have an
instance of a new school of art. It seems to show a continuation of Feloponnesian traditions,
of the dv/riora et TuBcamds proieima rendering of the hunian figure in transitional works;
while, at the same time, there is a knowledge and power of accurate expression in the
treatment of details, which together form a striking combination,

1 Mi WaBhington oonaideii this muUe of flnei gain than that ol tha hsad. It may b« Parian bat he tbiaks
it Fentdio. He legnts not hkTing had more tima to rtody it.

Digitized by

Google

14

As the metope was found in the interior of the temple, curiouely enough at a depth of
three feet below the foundation wall, and as it corresponds to other fragments of metopes
found on this site, there can be no doubt that it was one of the metopes of this temple,
and as such, as I have already said, it muat be ascribed to the Argire school under
Pol;kleitan influence.

The pFdconceired notions which have been current concerning Polykleitan art, espacially
as regards a certain monotony and a preponderance of the theoretics], academical element,
have been justified by passages from Pliny (quoting Varro)' and Quintilian', and by the
reproductions of the Doryphoros and the Amazon. But there is no extant original Greek
statue showing the detail modelling of that artist and school. We must, with these works
from the Heraion before ua, reconsider the current opinions as to this detail modelling ;
while still admitting the preponderance of theoretical sobriety in the choice of subjects and
in the general composition of the works of Folykleitan art.

We then realise more fiilly than before the high position aa an artist which he held
in the ancient world. Ancient authors always mention him together with the first four
artists of Greece; by some he is even placed at the head. Cicero* considers his work
to be finer than that of Myron and almost to attain perfection. Strabo * in apeaking of the
Folykleitan works in this very temple of Hera, maintains that he surpassed Fheidias; and
Fliny* says that he perfected toreutic art which Fheidias opened out. But it is instructive
to note that the passage in FUny refers more to bronze and toreutic work ; . this points
to the high execution in detail modelling which this art demands ; both Fheidias and
Folykleitos trained their hands in the goldsmith's work which demands the most accurate
skill. He is thus the modeller ■par excellence, and, while he is called plastes, Fheidias is
called gluphos*. This quality of his points more to the excellence of execution than to
the grandeur of spiritual conception, and it is in this sense, in Tex^p, that Strabo reports
him as having surpassed Fheidias. He is thus generally classed with the great realists of
the highest period, Myron and Lysippos'; and this realism, or rather naturalism, evidently
consisted chiefly in the faithful rendering of each detail in modelling, and in the carefid finish
of the surface. Quintilian* praises in the first instance his diligmtia in which he surpassed
others. It is especially in the torso of the human figure that opportunity is given for such
careful modelling, and we are thus not astonished to find the Auctor ad Herennium* praising
in him the treatment of the chest, while Myron is praised for the head, and Fraxiteles
for the arms. But the most instructive passages, as showing the high finish which Folykleitos
put into bis modelling, are separate passages in Flutarch ", in which Folykleitos himself is
reported to say, that alter the "blocking out" and broader modelling, the most difficult

' N. H. xan. E6 (Overbeck S. Q. 967).

* Jnit. Oral. in. 10. 7 [S. Q. 968).

* BtuL 18. 70 (B. Q. 969) pulchriora et jam plane perfecta.

* vjn. p. 873 {3. Q. QBS) ml ri 'Bptiitt c&ot Koait Upir rb T|1^ ratt HtunHui ifti/idat, ir v ri IloXiwXefrau

' 1. C.

' Dion. H&lio. de DinarcJio T (S. Q. 787) ; AriBlotle, Eth. Nihm. vt. 7 (5. Q. 7B6) praises the iro^la of
Pheidiaa as XiSovpyit, ot Fotjkleitos as ivSpuirrowoi6s.

' Cic. de Orat. m. 7. 26 {S. Q. 603) ; Vitrav. in. praelBt. 3 {3. Q. 609) and i. L IS (S. Q. 610).
' 1. o.

* IV. 6 (S. Q. 60i).

"■ Plataroh de Fro/ectib. in virt. 17 {S. Q. 970) oW." ol yt rpaK6TTorTtt...o6IHy lUv rpeviaTon rc5» ymnhar,
JXV oTot dri rrdBiait Tw Myoii Tpoewyowi xai rpoaapiiSTTOiiair luroargr. iwip oB rtr IloXiSitXeiror MiieBa MyEir, i^ (*t«
XaXcxi^rarav a^wr ri ffiyw, ott ir <It Brvxa 6 rriKii d^s^oi. Qiuutt. eOKBiv. n. 3. 2 (S. Q. 971) koI Y^ al rtjcriu
rp&rar drttura tal Sitoptpa i-XdrroMrw, tlra BaTtpor IxaiTTa rail tCStair HiapBpouair. i IldXiKXtCTOt i rXdffnri (Ire,
XafifwilnaTW ilvai ri fpytr, tray It irvxt i rrihii firifTai.

Digitized by

Google

15

phase of the modeller's work is reached when "in the clay he cornea down to the indi-
cation of the naila" The nails here stand generally for the smallest detail, and the ancient
artist here says, what other artists have often said : that the last finishing touches are most
important and difficult.

All these points in regard to the high finish of PolykleitAO works of sculpture are
fully illustrated by this torso from the metope of the Heraion. I do not mean to press
too hard the fact that the actual nail is mentioned ; but, as it is meant to convey the
idea of high finish, so here in the modelling of the hand, with the thumb and its nail,
as in the whole nude body, this conscientious and most painstaking work is strikingly
manifested. And thus in the fortunate preserration of the surface .of this metope, we have
one of the most important finds of our excavations — a work which must hereafter form a
point of departure for the study of the Argire Art of this period.

Plate VII.

Two lions' heads, froffmeni of sima, and two heads with hdmets. Marble*. Dimensions of
the smaller lion's head on our left : width across from ear to ear '21, height *228 ; those
of the larger one: width from ear to ear '25, depth, from end of nose to surface from
which the hair springs, '31. These lions' heads with open mouths were afBxed to the sima.
On the right hand of the fragment of sima on our plate is an outline of the head with a
few fragments of the mane on the top, which shows where and how these heads were
affixed. The larger heads came at greater intervals, perhaps only at the comers. They served
as waterspouts for the t^, Khangab^ had already found fragments of the smaller head
and a good specimen of the lai;ger one*.

The study of these heads, when compared with similar representations on other well-
known buildings with fixed dates, becomes very instructive. I should say that these heads
hold the mean between the strongly conventionalised treatment in earlier types and the
naturalistic types of the fourth century B.C. In fact, if we knew nothing of the date of the
building to which they belonged, we should, from this comparative study alone have assigned
it to the close of the fifth century B.C. Among numerous instances, the best types for
comparison with them are those of the Parthenon', of the older temple of Asklepios at
Epidauros, of the Tholos of Epidauros* and of the Mausoleum of Halicamassus '. The
lion's head from th^ Parthenon, though much softer and rounder in the modelling of the
head itself (as we should expect in Attic art), is simpler in the treatment of the
mane, and in the modelling of the lips. The mane of the Heraion lion has at least two
different systems in the indication of texture in the h^r, while in the Parthenon we have
but one ^mple S3'stem of indicating the locks. The lips on the Argive head have com-
paroHvely a very realistic and careful treatment of the portions covering the teeth ; while
more detail is introduced into the face proper by the cross flaps of skin at the root of
the nose and above the upper lip.

' Ur Waahington coniiderB these all of the finer gniaed marble of whioh the torao b made; "though the
lima loakH a little diflarent from the rert aod may oome from Doliaoa in Azoadia aa it looks aomewbat like the
marblefl from Tegea."

I Bnmn, Dmlem. grieeh. u. rSM. SaUpt. PI. S3. B.

' Bnmn, 1. o.

* The work on the ezcBTationB of Epidauros by H. Eawadias is now in the preaa.

' Newton, DUeoveria at EalicanKumt, Cmdia and Branehidae, Pits. XXII. and TiSX. The Btandiof! stataea of
liona (Bnmn, Detkai, Ho. 73 and 7S) I do not think so appropriate for this oomparimn aa the heads of the Hna,

Digitized by

Google

16

The Hods' heads from the temple of Asklepios at EpidauroB stand in marked contrast
to those from the Tholos ; they are distinctly more conTentioaal and stand on a par with
those from the Heraion. The temple of Asklepios is certaiul; of fifth century date ; while
the Tkoloa, though associated with the name of Folykleitos, has heen ascribed to the later
namesake of Folykleitos, as living and working in the fourth century B.C. In the lions
from the Mausoleum, and even more in those from the Tholoa, the stricter convention-
alism of such an architectural decoration has given way to a marked realism, in which
the expresdon has been made fiercer, especially by the accentuation of the projecting
masses of skin in the brow above the eyes and the drawing up of the skin below the eyes.
So too several marked ridgea have been introduced along the nose.

Fragment of Sima. Marble. Dimensions : length '565, height '22.

The same distinction between the work of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. is
noticed when we compare the Sima from Argos with that of the Tholos of Epidauros.

The ornament upon the Argos SiTna consists of two volutes joining, out of the junctions
of which rises an anthemion in modified lotos pattern. The volutes end on either side
in the honeysuckle pattern, below which one smaller curved line sweeps inwards and ends
in a smaller volute beside the anthemion. Each smaller volute is surmounted by a bird.
One would be glad to see in these birds the cuckoo closely associated with the worship
of the Ai^ve Hera ; but this I do not venture to decide. Compared with this, the
Epidaurean Sima is redundant and almost barocco. The ornament has been increased, a
bolder curl has been given to the scroll pattern, and above all the delicate low relief
has given way to much higher relief, throwing darker shadows, and accentuating, if not
obtruding, the bold ornamentation. The delicate firm low relief of our Sima, slightly
undercut, with the certainty of touch and sureness of hand which it manifests, can only
be found ^ain in the decorative work on the Erechtheum of Athens to which it bears
the closest resemblance. Both are perhaps the beet instances of the typical work of the
Greek architectural sculpture showing all the grace, coupled with conscientiousness of
workmanship and artistic moderation which we are wont to associate with the truly
Hellenic spirit.

Head of Amazon (?), Marble. Dimensions : height '20 ; breadth '094 ; from ear to middle
of forehead '105. This head at first sight appears so expressive of sentiment, that we
should hesitate to connect it with the other works which we assign to the Folykleitan
school of the 5th century. But upon closer examination we see that the sentiment
which it maoifeste is due rather to the attitude than to the signs of emotion in the
head itself.

There is no doubt that it formed part of a high relief on the (our) right side, which
is not fiiUy visible in the plate, being near to the background ; the hair is not elaborated,
the ear not indicated. From its dimensions too, there can be no doubt that it formed
part of a metope. The head drooped to the shoulder and no doubt belonged to a
wounded warrior. The helmet is of a curious Phrygian shape, and it might possibly belong
to a Trojan warrior, a type which often approaches the efieminate, but the head corresponds
most to the types of Amazons which abound in Greek Art. If the head be that of an
Amazon and if it belongs to the metopes of the temple, the Amazonomachia (and probably
the Centauromachia) were represented on the north and south sides; while, as has been
conjectured in the introduction, Fausaniaa only describes the sculptures of the east and
west ends of the temple. There is a curious piece of drapery coming from under the
helmet behind the hair, which must have given a foreign appearance to the warrior.

Digitized by

Google

17

When we examine the face, in contradistinctioQ to the attitude, we find tbat there is
no marked attempt made at indicating pain or any other emotion. The lipe are parted,
and the whole treatment of the mouth corresponds accurately with the characteristic treat"
ment we have already noticed in the head of Hera. The same remark (though thia head is
smaller in dimensions and less refined in workmanship) applies to the eyea, the brow and the
oval of the face.

There can be little doubt that this head bears some relation to the well-known
statues of Amazons which have been brought into connexion with the famous Ephesian
Amazon of Folykleitos'. I have not been able at present to compare it with the
numerous heads, some of them unpublished, which are scattered about European Museums.
At present, it appears to me that it bears the closest resemblance to the Berlin and
British Museum heads*. At all events this head will have, in the future, to be taken into
account when dealing with the Folykleitau Acnazoiia.

Head with Selmet Marble. Dimensions, ae before height ■19, width '116, from ear
to middle of forehead ■Q95, The nose broken away. The eyes seem to show traces of
the ancient application of colour. The dimensions are slightly larger than those of the
previous head. So too the proportions of the foce. The face is rounder and fuller. I do
not venture to ascribe it to the metopes; though it certainly formed part of a work
in high relief Both heads were found on the north side of the second temple. As my
notes on this head are insufficient, and as I cannot examine the original, I shall defer
further description of it to a Uter dat&

Plate VnL

Terra-cotta Fiffurittes.

On this plate are given 27 terra-cotta idols about one-third the actual size. They
are a selection made, while I was at the Heraion, from a vast number of similar works,
the earliest and rudest forms being most frequent.

All these, with the exception of No. 8, were found in the excavations of the second
temple, most of them in the black layer, referred to above. They therefore precede in date
the second temple and belong to the period of the old temple. No, 8 wae found in the
lowest south-west terrace while digging round the foundations of the fine walls at the
south-west end of the lower stoa.

I shall at once exclude No. 8 from the remarks on these idols, its character corresponds
to the excellent workmanship of the walls beside which it was found, and which beloug to
the best early period of Greek art. The statuette of this female divinity (Hera, perhaps
Hera Eileithyia) belongs to the archaic Greek period and approaches in time the statues
found ou the Acropolis. It differs in technique from the others, in that it is the only
one of which we can say with certainty that it was pressed from a mould, whereas the
others were probably hand made, each separately. They are all distinctly earlier than this
archaic Greek type.

' MiohMlis, in Jahrbtieh d. iaii. deuUek. arek. iMtiMtt, Berlin, 1B87, i. pp. 11 seq.
* IHd. PI. UL; CoUignon, ibid. p. 503.

Digitized by

Google

18

Among these again we can dlBtinguish at leaet three chTonological types', I do not
mean by this that the production of many of the rudest forms may not hare continued
in later times; but they then still point to the earlier form which has survived. These
three Bubdiviaions are (1) the rudest, not yet human likeness ; (2) the ^pirat form, and
(3) the distinctly dyhpt,avToet&i<s form which has human likeaess.

(1) The first are the rudest form, in which a long fiat piece of soft clay has been
squeezed in at different parts to suggest neck and waist; while at the top the clay has
been pinched between two fingers, forming the nose. Generally, two small round atoms of
clay have been affixed to either side of this beak or nose for the eyes, and theu the
whole has been baked. The face thus looks more like that of a bird than of a human
being. To this series belong Nos. 23, 26, 21, 11, 4, 2. They correspond to the idols found
by Schliemann at Mykenae, Tiryns, and to the figures found on jars at Hissarlik (Tiro;)*.

(2) The second or ffpirai group is represented by No. 18 ; while a transition to '
the third group is made by Nos. 27, 16. No, 18, though still quite rude shows indications
of a head with some pretensions to being human in form; there are traces of long bur on
either side of the neck. This advance is still more marked in No. 27, where the folds of
the drapery are actually modelled in the clay. No. 15, a seated idol, must have had a
head far more approaching to human character than these, though probably not as &r
advanced as No, 14. No. 6 is an interesting small seated idol which brings us very near
to the third class.

(3) To the third, or decidedly dvSpiavroe^it, class belong Nos. 24, 25, 9, 14, 22, 3,
6, 12, 20, No. 24 (dehcately coloured) and 25 correspond to the early ^pira^ of Artemis
dedicated by Nikandm* at Delos, which I at one time brought into relation with an
historical Daidalos*; and to the marble Hera found at Samos, now in the Louvre* of which
a replica has been found on the Acropolis at Athens. A steady advance in the treatment
of the face will be noticed as we proceed &om 9 to 14 and thence to 22, 3, 6 and 12,
3 and 12 reminding us of the early Cypriote and Rhodian workmanship. In 5 and 20
we have a marked advance in the seated figure as compared with 16, so bringing us to the
period of the Berlin statuette* and the Branchidae figures from Miletus in the British
Museum, where we reach the distinctly historical Greek period.

If now we examine the literary traditions concerning the early images of Hera at
Argos* we may find that they bear directly upon the pheDomena, It will be necessary to
treat Argos and Samos together.

Hera no doubt, as most Greek gods, was at one time worshipped in a purely aniconic
form. At Samos the earliest aniconic form was that of a simple board (cravK)'; while at
Argos there was a pillar {Kiav) which the priestess Kallithoe was the first to decorate with

> The HleatioD is, as I bwe aaid, a tough one. It m>7 be posaibU, and if bo will bs moat important and
interesting, to seleot from the ntaM we have found a nomber of types which when sabjeotad to oareM com-
parative Btnd;, mfty manibet a serlee of diitinet phaue.

* We have also fonnd cow'heade umilar to those which Schliemann found ; bnt these are more likely to
have umolated offerings of cows, than to havs been idols of the goddess.

■ HomoUe, BuZIet de Corr. HtUfn. m. p. 1. Mitchell, Hiil. of Ane. Scvlpt. p. 1B9.

* Sttmt AnhfoL 1B81, p. S21.

■ P. Oiiud, BiOUt. it Con. HeOSn. it: p. 463 PL Xm. and XIV. ; UitoheU, md. p. 300.

* Conzs and Uiohaelie, AmaU delC Init Borne, 1861, p. IT, PL A. Overbeok, Kmutmythologie, VoL n. p. 36.
^ CI gsnerallj for the literature on this eabjeot: Bosoher, Lex. der grUeh. vad rUrn. Mythologie 1800, l 2,

pp. 3107 Beq. ; Fttnter, VtUr die aUattn HerabUder, Progratiait, Breslaa 1366 ; OTcibeok, Kvnttmj/tholoffie, Hera,
VoL n. pp. 4seq.

■ Clorn. Alei. Pnanp. it. p. 164.

Digitized by

Google

19

ribands (ffri/inavi Koi dviTcan>uTt)\ It ia not impossible that we may have discovered this
veiy pillar, which will appear in the next issue.

The oldest dyaKfui of the dvSpiavroeiSe'; period was according to Pausaniaa' a seated
ima^ originally at Tityns where it was ^shioned and dedicated by Feiraaos a son of Atgos.
It was transferred to the Heraion after the destruction of Tiryns by the Argives (01 79,
3). It ia possible that the seated idols on our plate, as well as works of the type of the
statuette at Berlin may be reminisceuces of this work, which was to be seen at the
Heraion long after the destruction of the lirat temple. It was not very large {dyak/ta ov
/ieya) and was carved out of the wood of a pear-tree. Whether among the works of
Daidalos dedicated by the Argives* at the Heraion were ^6ava of Hera cannot be determined.
FatiBanias further mentions an early image of Hera upon a pillar (eiri kIovoi "Hpa? dfixa*ov).
But we learn in an instructive manner of the existence of early images of Hera of this
class from the traditions conceming the introduction of such ^6ava of Hera into Samoa from
Argos or the Argive countries.

I do not attach so much weight to the tradition of the introduction of the cultus
and imi^ of Hera into Samos from Ajgos by the Ai^onauta*; but the tradition reported
by Clement of Alexandria', seems to me to contain elements of more historical character
and of coDsiderable importance. He tells us that the aniconic travU was superseded by
the iconic image, which he calls ^pirwt, by Prokles at which time it became avipwmoti&h.
Prokles* was leader of the Ionian Epidaurians who settled in Samos after being expelled by
Deiphontos, son of Pityreus, and the Argives. Thus the tradition existed at Samos that
the human-shaped image was introduced during the Ionian migration, and the worship of
Hera at Epidauros' was no doubt immediately dependent upon the Argive worship. We
are thus justified in concluding that the aohptavroetBh image existed at Argos at least at
the time of the Ionian and Dorian migration. The forms preceding this would then belong
to a period preceding the Dorian migration. We might thus be justified in considering
the type to ' which the idols of the first class belong to be prior to the Dorian migration.
If I am right in these conclusions, it will readily be seen, that this may be a definite
archaeological argument bearing upon the question of the date of nutny of the finds made
here, as well as at Mykenae or Tiryns. •

As to the purpose which these terra-cotta images served, there can hardly be a doubt
that they were votive offerings to the goddess as Hera Teleia, presiding over mairiage,
married life, and chQd-birth. Hera is above all things the goddess of marriage {X%jyla,
ya/tooToXoit, irpvravi'i r&v fifuavf. The centre of her cultus was the feast of the Upht
yafio^, commemorating her wedding with Zeus. This feast was the counterpart of a real
Qreek wedding. The bride was wreathed with the yafi^jXia trriipt)'. At the Argive feast
of Hera SvBtta " wreaths were brought to her ; these wreaths were made of the dowers
which grew on the banks of the river Asterion which flows by the Heraion and of which
they bore the name". Before the wedding, moreover, the bride made offerings to the

1 FhoTonia ap. Olem. Alex. Stnm. i. 34, g ISl.

* II. 17. 6. * Panniuu, a. 40. 4. * PausaniM, vn. 4. 4.

* Log. Protrept. it. IS, p. 1B4 (Migne). kbI ri r% Zaiiiai 'H/ni, at ^vtU "B.i9\iot, rpdrtpar itir ^ rarlt,
icTipar M irl IlpoiUaui &pxorret iripiarroaSii iy4iitT0. 'Brti Si arSpdiwiKt irtuioritteBai ri flora iJpt«TO, ftrfn)

* PaQB. TO. 4. 3.

' Thuoyd, ». 76 ; Pans. ii. 29. 1.

' Crenzer, SymboUk Aa., in.* 118 acq., 311 seq.

' Bion I. B8: Poll. III. 48. Even to-day wreaOig are worn at waddiogt by bridM.

» PftM. n. 83. 1. u Pam. n. 17. a.

Digitized by

Google

20

goddese* ; they sometimes dedicated their toys*. These images were such offenogs, chiefly
dedicated hy those who had become brides, or hoped to become so, or l^ others to Hera
Teleia aud Astheia. And the wreaths which crown the heads are expressive of thia The
omameiit (of which there are varied apecimeDs here) about the neck and from Moulder to
shoulder, are I believe not ordy necklacee, but are also meant to represent flower-wreaths
with a definite cult-meaning.

In conseqnence of her patronage of married life, she was also directly associated with
child-birth, and thus corresponds to luno Lucina and as Hera BiiKe(0via, she was also
generally invoked to ward off women's diseases'. As in the Christian custom of churching,
women repaired to her temple forty days after giving birth to a child (reffa-fpaKotrratovy,
the period fixed in Greece to this day. No. 19 on our plate, the im^e of a pregnant
woman, is no doubt an offering to Hera, before or after child-birth.

Nos! 1, 13, and 10, representing a rider on his horse, a pack-horse witb its load, and
a monkey, are probably toys dedicated to the goddess.

Selections from the bronzes, terra-cotta plaques, Egyptian objects, and further specimens
of sculpture from the second temple, will appear in the issud of these plates.

1 J»hn id Pert. n. 70 p. 188.

* BoMhei, Ltx, &o. i. pp. 2068; 2090.

Kino's CoUiBOB, Cahbbidob,
Aug. 1, 1892.

CAKBBIDGE: FBIKTED BY a I. CLAY, ILA. AHD SONS, AT TRB UNIVEBSITY PBB8&

Digitized by

Google

SHE OF THE SECOND TEMPLE OF HtR* BEfORE EIUVtHON.

THE SECOHD lEMPLE DJRINC EXCAVATION.

Digitized by Cj OOQ IC

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

METOPE FROM SEWND IE«PLE.

Digitized by Cj OOQ IC

Digitized by

Google

/iRCHirECITUSAL OEKIRMIOHS JN3 Mlfi8tE HEIDS FBOM SECOND TEMPLE,

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

TtfiRA-CfflU FI-:UR.!ttS FOJND fltlO.V IHE iCWDJI.OiS CF SEKND lEMPLi

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

I

Digitized by Cj 005 IC

Digitized by

Google