Acknowledgements: Dr Ph. Zapheiropoulou, Ephor for the Cyclades, kindly gave her permission for the publication of the Siphnos head; for this, and for the assistance she has generously provided in my research over a number of years, I offer my gratitude. My thanks go to the staff of the Siphnos Museum for practical help with measurements and new photographs. The Managing Committee of the British School kindly gave their permission to examine and publish material from the British excavations on Siphnos, to study the excavation note books of Brock, and to publish Mackworth Young's photographs of the head. Dr H.W. Catling, the Director of the School, has guided my efforts to secure the necessary permits; I wish to offer my thanks to him for his help, and for advice given in the course of my studies. I have benefited greatly from the facilities of the British School. My thanks are also due to Professor C.M. Robertson and Dr B. Philipakki. I have gained from Professor B.S. Ridgway's comments on my analysis of the sphinx. Miss E.A. Coats, Miss P. Allison, Dr J.-P. Descoeudres and Professor J.R. Green have read the early drafts of this article, and saved me from various mistakes. My research in Greece during 1985 was assisted by a Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Award, and by a Fellowship to the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens for which I should like to express my gratitude to the Council of the Institute and its Director, Professor A. Cambitoglou.

Plate 55, the four photographs of Gerard Mackworth Young, reside with the British School at Athens, Fig. 1–3 belong to the author; Fig. 4 was taken by the author with the permission of the École Française d'Athèenes; Fig. 5–6 are derived from Korai Plate XII a, b; Plate 56 a, b were kindly supplied by the Louvre; Plate 56 c,d appear with the generous permission of Professor Cl. Rolley, and Fig. 7–8 are derived from Bol, P.C.. Bildwerke aus Stein und Stuck. Liebieghaus. Antike Bildwerke I (Melsungen 1983) 13–4Google Scholar Fig. 2, 1–2.

Abbreviations in addition to those in common use:

Korai: Richter, G.M.A., Korai. Archaic Greek Maidens. London 1968.Google Scholar

Kouroi ²: Richter, G.M.A., Kouroi. Archaic Greek Youths. 2nd edit.London 1960.Google Scholar

Siphnos: Brock, J.K. and Mackworth Young, G., ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949) 1–92.Google Scholar

¹ Siphnos 1–92. The War hindered and ultimately frustrated their attempts to produce an exhaustive account of the excavations.

² Siphnos 3.

³ This has been demonstrated once again in a recent survey of Paros conducted by the Munich School of Architecture: Gruben, G.et al, AA 1982, 171–290Google Scholar (the most recent report of their findings). Miss E. Kaninia and I inspected the site of the Siphnos excavations during 1985 and noted an Ionic capital and a fragment from a draped statue in nearby walls.

⁴ AA 1937, col. 172–3.

⁵ Hdt. 3.57; Renfrew, C. and Peacey, J.S., BSA 63 (1968) 65Google Scholar, describe 2 fine grained marble fragments from the island, and note (66) the existence of disused quarries at Kamares and Aspropygos. Brock (Siphnos 2) suggests that marble for the archaic city walls ‘was probably quarried on the island’ and then makes the enigmatic remark that ‘marble of a sort was readily available’

⁶ Professor B.S. Ridgway, in notes on an earlier draft, has stressed the importance of the dowel in helping to determine the subject. Cf. Triandi, I., AAA 8 (1975) 227–241Google Scholar, for a detailed examination of the dowel and socket of an archaic sphinx from Aegina (Athens NM77).

⁷ On the development of rendering the ear in archaic sculpture: Kouroi ² 17; Korai 18.

⁸ Naxos Museum inv. 6259, the wings and upper torso of a sphinx recovered from a deserted house in the Naxian kastro during 1976: Lambrinoudakis, V., AAA 9 (1976) 266–74.Google Scholar

⁹ Naxian sphinx at Delphi: Amandry, P., La Colonne des Naxiens et la Portique des Athéniens. FdD 2 (Paris 1953) 1–53.Google Scholar Delos sphinx: Bruneau, Ph. and Ducat, J., Guide de Délos (3rd edit.Paris 1983) 64Google Scholar, Fig. 8; the capital on which it sits as Parian, : AAA I (1968), 178–81Google Scholar; AA 1972, 379 and Figs. 35–7.

¹⁰ Goldberg, M.Y., AJA 86 (1982) 193–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karthaia akroterion: 213, N.29, and BCH 39 (1965) 858, Fig. 7; on the temple itself (an Athenaion), Ostby, E., Op.Ath. 13:14 (1980) 189–223.Google Scholar

¹¹ Paros Delion: originally excavated by Rubensohn, O., Das Delion von Paros (Wiesbaden 1962).Google Scholar The architecture has been re-examined by Schuller, M., AA 1982, 231–244Google Scholar, and the sculpture (with new finds) by Kostoglou-Despini, A., Problemata tes Parianes Plastikes tou 50u Aiona p.ch., Unpublished thesis, Thessalonike 1979.Google Scholar Kostoglou Despini, 52, sugests the decade 490–480 BC, and Schuller, 244, places the building itself at the beginning of the fifth century.

¹² Paros Museum inv. 194, 951 and 952: Kostoglou-Despini (n.11) 32—37, 126 cat.4–6, Plate 20–22.

¹³ Sphinx aktroteria from the Siphnian Treasury: Picard, Ch. and de la Coste Messeliere, P., Art archaïque: Les Trésors ‘ioniques’ FdD 4:2 (Paris 1908) 163–166.Google Scholar The Treasury as a Cycladic building: Gruben, G., MuJb 23 (1972) 6–36.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Brock, Siphnos 3–5, concluded that a temple dating from the 7th century stood near the site of the excavations and was responsible for the early votive c. 58 a. deposit uncovered. From the finds in this deposit he inferred that it had been closed towards the end of the 6th century when the akropolis was being expanded. Furthermore, ‘chips of marble which are mixed with the votive deposit suggest that the old temple was being replaced by a new marble one. Alternatively, they may have come from blocks that were being prepared for the akropolis wall …’ The fragments of two Doric columns were reported. That from fallen masonry on the Akropolis site (10–11, fig. 3, Plate 5.5) is placed by Schuller JdI 100 (1985) 384 well into the 5th century, but the second fluted drum, from trench E (16–17, fig. 5, Plate 5.6) is identified by Schuller as archaic.

¹⁵ Attic funerary sphinxes: Richter, G.M.A., The Archaic Gravestones of Attica (London 1961)Google Scholar; Ridgway, B.S.The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture(Princeton 1977) 156–160.Google Scholar There are one or two sphinxes from Corinth (No. 14–15) and Aegina (No. 40) in Richter's catalogue, but in each case we lack the stone into which they were set; no carved gravestone, according to Ridgway (159) has yet been found at Corinth.

¹⁶ Cf. n.4; Kostoglou-Despini (n. 11) 176 refers to it as a kouros.

¹⁷ Wix head, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek inv. 2823: Kouroi ² 105, No. 109, fig. 328–329, 334 (with early bibliography); Croissant, F. in Stele. Studies Kontoleon (Athens 1980) 48–50Google Scholar, and Les protomés féminines archaīques (Paris 1983) 103–6, 248–50. Croissant revives Poulsen's earlier suggestion of strong Attic influence, with which I cannot agree.

¹⁸ This is noted by Richter, Kouroi ² 105, but it is suggested that kouroi also show the lower reaches of the hair everted in this manner; I do not think her examples (such as the Louvre kouros from Paros) similar.

¹⁹ Louvre inv. MA 3101 (formerly MND 888): Kouroi ² 107, No. 116, fig. 356–58 (with early bibliography); Pedley, J.G., Greek Sculpture of the Archaic Period: The Island Workshops (Mainz 1976) 39Google Scholar, No. 24, Plate 16, 17; Rolley, C., BCH 102 (1978) 41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pasquier, A. in Mer Egée Grèce des Iles (Paris 1979) 196fGoogle Scholar, No. 138; Croissant (n.17:1983) 98–103.

²⁰ Kouroi ² 5; Robertson, C.M., A History of Greek Art (Cambridge 1975) 87f.Google Scholar (quoted here); Cook, R.M., Greek Art (New York 1972) 98.Google Scholar This more ‘reserved’ stance on the question of island styles is also adopted by Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period (London 1978) 71.Google Scholar

²¹ The most sweeping claims for Parian authorship were perhaps those of Schrader, H., Auswahl archaischer Marmorskulpturen im Akropolis Museum (Vienna 1913) 22.Google ScholarLanglotz's, E. lists in Frühgriechische Bildhauerschulen (Nuremberg 1927) 132–36Google Scholar, and in Die archaischen Marmobildwerke der Akropolis (Frankfurt am Main 1939) 34 n.29 were only a little less enthusiastic.

²² Sheedy, K.A., AJA 89 (1985) 619–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ A provisional list of kouroi found on Paros is given by Kostoglou-Despini (n. 11) 184 n. 539, with bibliography: 1) Louvre MA 3101 (n. 19); 2) Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg inv. 2030; in the Paros Museum: 3) inv. 13; 4) inv. 249; 5) inv. 157; 6) inv. 165; 7) inv. 285; 8) inv. 742; 9) inv. 898; 10) inv. 311; 11) inv. 167; 12) inv. unknown, from Despotiko.

²⁴ Croissant (n. 17: 1983) 98. The initiai challenge to this statue seems to have been voiced by Ducat, J., Les Kouroi du Ptoion (Paris 1971) 270Google Scholar, who found that it did not provide support for his identification of ‘Parian’ imports and influenced work in the Boeotian sanctuary. Instead, Ducat (310f) placed stress on the Wix head and a kouros found at Orchomenos (Chaironeia Museum: Kouroi ² 101, No. 99, fig. 316–8). See also Ducat, in Guide de Délos (3rd. Paris 1983) 61–67.Google Scholar Ducat's analysis of the Louvre kouros, which is based largely on the head, has been followed by Rolley, Pasquier and Croissant (ref. n. 19).

²⁵ Cl. Rolley (n. 19).

²⁶ Rolley (n. 19) 50. The date was determined by the head's relationship to the Louvre kouros.

²⁷ Rolley (n. 19) 50.

²⁸ Payne, H. and Mackworth Young, G., Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Akropolis (London 1936) 3.Google Scholar Akropolis inv. 167; Payne and Mackworth Young 3–4, Plates 9, 3 and 10, 1–3; E. Langlotz (n. 20: 1939) 127f., No. 86, Plate 95; Kouroi ² 81, No. 65, figs. 219–220. The resemblance was initially remarked on by Croissant (n. 17: 1983) 99–100, but he concluded that certain Parian sculptors (including the man responsible for the Wix head) were under strong Attic influence.

²⁹ Rolley (n. 19) 46–8.

³⁰ Rolley (n. 19) 50, also calls attention to the pattern of the hair at the very top of the head. The sculptor has paid little attention to this region, but a lack of care in rendering an area not easily seen, seems to be typical of many archaic statues. When viewed ‘face-to-face’ there is no suggestion of irregularity in the youth's hair.

³¹ East Greece: for example, Korai 56, No. 82–4, fig. 263–8: heads from sculptured drums in the Temple of Artemis at Epesos. Akropolis: Payne (n. 28) Korai: Plate 39 (inv. 660), 49 (inv. 666), 56–7 (inv. 616, 646), 90–1 (664, 651, 639, 640, 645); horseman: Plate 101 (inv. 623); herm: Plate 104 (inv. 642).

³² Frankfurt, Liebieghaus inv. 1477: Paribeni, E., Mostra di Sculture Antiche (Bergamo 1958) 6Google Scholar, No. 7, Plate 7; Kouroi ³ (Appendix) 156, No. 131a, fig. 635–8; Eckstein, F., Stadel-Jb. NFI (1967) 19ff, fig. 5–8Google Scholar; Steuben, H.v., Kopf eines Kuros Liebieghaus-Monographie 7 (1980).Google ScholarBol, P.C., Bildwerke aus Stein und Stuck von archaischer Zeit bis zur Spätantike. Liebieghaus-Frankfurt am Main. Wissenschaftliche Kata loge. Antike Bildwerke 1 (1983), 12–15, No. 2, fig. 2, 1–4.Google Scholar

³³ Bol (n. 32) 12.

³⁴ Naxos kouros: Kontoleon, N.M., To Ergon 1972, 99, fig. 94–5.Google Scholar Kontoleon's date, in the second quarter of the 6th century, seems a little too late. Paribeni (n. 32) initially compared the Frankfurt head with the Thera kouros (Athens NM 8), Eckstein (n. 32) with the kouros from Epidauros (Athens NM 63; see n. 38 below). Steuben (n. 32), arguing for a Parian origin, compared it with the statue from Moschato, Attica (Athens NM 3858). Kokkourou-Alewras, A. (Munich thesis 1975) 29Google Scholar, has also compared the head with the Moschato kouros, arguing that both were Naxian. The Moschato statue (Kouroi ², 63, No. 31, fig. 132–3, 136–7) is an odd piece; the face is battered and worn, and its features are distorted. An Attic origin seems possible, a Naxian origin unlikely. The head published by Kontoleon is later than that from Naxos in Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg inv. 2821); the Frankfurt example seems to be the latest in marble known from the island.

³⁵ A very linear manner of modelling distinguishes a number of statues found on Naxos and Delos; perhaps the most extreme example is the Melos kouros, Athens NM 1558: Kouroi ² 96–7, No. 86, fig. 273–9. Kouroi from Naxos: Kouroi ² 106–7, No. 115, fig. 353–5; Pedley (n. 19) 30–1; No. 10, 12, Plate 8, 10. Kouroi from Delos: Kouroi ² 105, No. 110, fig. 341, 344; Pedley 32, No. 13–14, Plate 10; Ducat (n. 24: 1983) 59–61.

³⁶ Anavysos kouros, Athens NM 3851: Kouroi ² 118–9, No. 136, fig. 400–1. Keos kouros, Athens NM 3686: Kouroi ² 122, No. 144, Fig. 419–24. Boardman (n. 20) 72, 84, Fig. 107 and 144, has recently attributed both statues to Attic workshops, and with this I cannot agree. Ridgway (n. 15) 72, detects Island influence in the (Attic) Anavysos kouros. Robertson (n. 17) 88–9 places the Keos kouros among statues of Cycladic origin. Note the striking similarities between this and a kouros found on the akropolis of Kamiros, Rhodes: Kouroi ² 125, No. 154, fig. 447—9; it would seem that both were from the same workshop. Stewart, A.F., AAA 9 (1976) 257–66Google Scholar has called attention to a resemblance between the Anavysos kouros and the kore ‘Phrasikleia’ carved by Aristion of Paros (though his case is overstated). For arguments in favour of ‘Phrasikleia’ as essentially Cycladic in style, see Holtzmann (n. 41 below).

³⁷ Istanbul inv. 1645: Kouroi ² 110, No. 127, fig. 369–70.

³⁸ The advent of East Greek influence on the sculpture of the Cyclades has received relatively little attention in comparison with this phenomenon in Attic art (though Cycladic artists undoubtedly played a significant role in the introduction of ‘Ionian’ styles to Athens). The recently discovered statue of a draped male on Amorgos (Amorgos inv. 218) which is clearly derived from an East Greek type (Samian import or Naxian copy?) has been dated to the decade 550–540 BC, and points again to an early interest in the sculpture of the wealthy cities in Asia Minor. Amorgos inv. 218: Marangou, L. in Stele. Studies Kontoleon. (Athens 1980) 413–20, Plate 196–210.Google Scholar

³⁹ The identification of a local Thasian style (like that of the islands) has proved controversial. See Holtzmann, B., Ét. delphiques. BCH Suppl. 4. (1977) 300 n. 8Google Scholar, on the history of research into this question. On the ‘dryness’ of local archaic work cf., for example, Thasos inv. 4, the marble protome of Pegasos from the Thasian Herakleion: Ét. thasiennes, 1. Le sanctuaire et le culte d'Héraclès à Thasos (Paris 1944) 98, fig. 58.

⁴⁰ Kouros from Megara, Athens NM 4509: Varvitsas, A., AD 19 (1964) 79–83, Plate 51–3.Google Scholar At some distance, but displaying certain similar features (notably the elongation of the face and head) stands Athens NM 63 from Epidauros: Kouroi ² 98–9, No. 91, fig. 293–6; Lambrinoudakis, V. in Stele. Studies Kontoleon. (Athens 1980)) 473–86Google Scholar, Plate 214–23. It is identified as Cycladic by both Robertson (n. 17) 89, and Lambrinoudakis.

⁴¹ ‘Phrasikleia’ Athens NM 4889: Mastrokostas, E.AAA 5 (1972) 298–24.Google Scholar While a number of scholars have made brief comments on this statue it has yet to be the subject of a thorough study. An Attic origin is suggested by some (Boardman (n. 20) 73, fig. 108a), and while I believe this to be true of the kouros which accompanied ‘Phrasikleia’ the kore would appear to be Cycladic. The forthcoming publication by N. Zapheiropoulos of three korai found on Paros will enable a more informed discussion of this question. Holtzman (n. 39) 301–2, contrasts ‘l'altière froideur de Phrasicleia’ with the ‘vivacité’ of the Louvre kouros, but sees both as Parian. See also Kostoglou-Despini (n. 11) 184, and Stewart (n. 36).

⁴² Holtzmann (n. 39).

⁴³ Archaic sculpture from Siphnos: poros lion: Karousos, Ch.AE 1937, 2, 599ff., Fig. 1–2Google Scholar; herm: Crome, J.F., AM 60/61 (1935/1936) 300–4, Plate 101, 103–4.Google Scholar A ‘junglingsstatue’ (a kouros?) reported in AM 1900, 466, cannot be traced.

⁴⁴ Crome (n. 43) 301 and n. 1; Willers, D., Zu den Anfangen der archaistischen Plastik in Griechenland. AM Beih. 4 (1975) 35Google Scholar, describes the herm as ‘eine zwar einheimische nesiotische, aber ebenfalls nicht ohne die attischen denkbare Arbeit’

⁴⁵ Early Attic herms: Crome (n. 43) 301–4, Plate 102, 105–6; AM 62 (1937) 149, Plate 67; Payne (n. 24) Plate 103–4 (inv. 621, 1323 642). Note that the eyes of the Siphnos herm have apparently been recut at a later date: Frel, J.AAA 15 (1982) 202Google Scholar, No. 2, fig. 1.

⁴⁶ Siphnos-Paros relations: Jeffery, L.H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961) 294–6Google Scholar; Archaic Greece. The City-States c.700–500 B.C. (London 1976) 184–5. Kontoleon, N.M., Aspects de la Grèce préclassique (Paris 1970) 63–4.Google Scholar