Influences Of Archaic Greek Statuary

We have much evidence about the Greek presence in Egypt during the Archaic period. Tradition maintains that “the pharaoh Psammetichos I (664-610 B.C.) invited east Greek merce-naries to serve him against his enemies, which, in turn, resulted in concessions to Greeks to settle and trade in Egypt (Boardman, 18)”. This led to the growth and prosperity of the city of Naukratis during the 26th Dynasty (664–525 B.C.) in the northwestern Nile River Delta. In the present day, excavations have revealed a Milesian temple to Apollo, a Samian temple to Hera, a temple to the Dioskouroi, a temple to Aphrodite. Numerous fragments of Archaic Greek statuettes found scattered about the site of the Temp

Korai, although not nude, wear Greek garments. In the Walter’s Statuette, her costume, as visible on the front, consists of a draped mantle fastened below the breasts and a thin under-garment over the breasts. There are short sleeves of which the backs and fronts are joined at in-tervals called button-fastenings that is typical of an Ionic chiton. Below the mantle in the front, there appears what seems to be part of the undergarment embellished with closely set vertical striations.

Egyptian characteristics can also be found in Archaic Greek kouroi as well. Observations of such are found in a simple comparison between the New York Kouros (Figure 2) and Men-tuemhet (Figure 3) from Egypt. Both stand to attention fully upright with backs straight. They have a frontal stance with their feet parallel, but with the left leg advanced. The arms are at the figures sides with clenched fists. Body proportions are also similar. A canon of proportions, called the Egyptian Canon II, which used a grid of twenty-one units from the eye line to the soles of his feet (Boardman, 1978), was used to sculpt a typical 25th Dynasty statue like Mentuemhet. The Greeks used a very similar grid system to for predetermining proportions. For the New York Kouros, a grid pattern of twenty-one and one fourth squares was followed. The extra one-fourth of a unit allowed for a crown to be added on top of the head. Yet, despite this miniscule difference though, the profile and proportions of these two pieces of sculpture are almost exactly identical (Figure 4).

Archaic Greek sculpture differs in proportion. Although some do reflect the Egyptian Canon II style like the New York Kouros, most others appear to obey no such strict scheme. The Greeks preferred a method of proportions based on their measuring system. They employed the basic unit of the foot to shape parts the human body. This scheme lacks precision though be-cause no national or even city standards of measurement exist during the Archaic period. Due to this inconsistency, many forms of measurement for the foot were used. A ‘long foot’ measured 32.65 cm. and a ‘short foot’ was 29.4 cm. (Holloway, 77). In addition, since these statues were made all throughout the Greek lands, from the mainland to Asia Minor to the many islands in the Mediterranean like Samos, Naxos, and Paros, the proportions of each statue are expected to dif-fer and they do.

Since there was unmistakable proof of the Greek presence in Naukratis, and coupled with the Greeks characteristic curiosity, similarities showed in the resultant statuary sculpted by the Greeks. These similarities both involve the profile and the proportion of the male and female Greek kouroi and korai and the Egyptian male and female statues during this period.

Some topics in this essay:
Archaic Greek, York Kouros, Canon II, Walter’s Statuette, Statuette Figure, Egyptian Kouroi, Egypt Archaic, Herodotus Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Theras Kouros, archaic greek, egyptian canon, york kouros, archaic greek sculpture, greek sculpture, walter’s statuette, archaic period, egyptian canon ii, male female, canon ii, greek sculpture differs, greek statues, greek korai, presence egypt archaic, egyptian canon guralnick,