BICS 31 (1984)

119

AMASIS AND LINDOS

E.D. Francis and Michael Vickers
In his description of the sculpture once on display in the Lauseum in Constantinople, the Byzantine
chronicler George Cedrenus mentions a statue of Athena Lindia. According to Cedrenus, the statue
was four cubits high and made of green stone [ i XiOou
~ oyap&ybou], a work by the sculptors Scyllis
and Dipoenus which Sesostris [leg. Amasis], ruler of Egypt, once sent as a gift to Cleobulus, ruler of
Lindos.l Apart from the confusion between the names of Amasis and Sesostris and the meaning of
the phrase i~XiOou upapdysou, the language of Cedrenus description is easily understood. If, however,
its sculptors were really Scyllis and Dipoenus, this Egyptian gift may have far-reaching consequences
for the history of Greek art and, for this and other reasons, the testimony of Cedrenus merits reappraisal.
In this article we shall therefore discuss Amasis gifts of sculpture to the Lindian Temple of Athena
and trace their subsequent history. After reviewing briefly Amasis overtures t o other Greek states
(similarly expressed through the benefaction of precious objects), we explain the reasons for his
special interest in Rhodian Lindos. In conclusion, we examine Amasis other gifts to Lindian Athena
and suggest the possible implications for an understanding of the history of archaic Greek art.

1.

Cleobulus, ruler of Lindos

While the details of Cleobulus life remain sketchy, he is thought to have enjoyed a long reign in the
middle of the sixth century B.C. and to have been a contemporary of other tyrants such as Pisistratus,
Lygdamis, and Polycrates.* Cleobulus, son of Euagoras (D.L. i.89), may have been born a Carian
(FGrHist 7 6 F 77), but he was proud to assert a Dorian heritage and his claim to Heraclid descent doubtless played a part in his diplomatic relations with other Greek states. His reputation in antiquity was
considerable. He was honoured as one of the Seven Sages, and the emergence of Lindian prosperity can
plausibly be attributed to his intelligence and energy.3 Lindos was in an ideal position w i t h n the network
of Mediterranean sea-routes to capitalise on the burgeoning trade between Greeks and their eastern
neighbours. Cleobulus evidently saw t h s opportunity and set himself to develop the capacity of Lindos
to take advantage of it. In addition, on its acropolis he restored the Temple of Athena founded, according to tradition, by Danaus, the legendary African ancestor of the Argives who under Heraclid leadership
themselves later colonised Rhodes.4
Diogenes Laertius writes of Cleobulus interest in Egyptian philosophy, but we remain uncertain about
the credibility of this report even if Egypt was one of the most interesting objects of foreign travel for
an inquisitive man in the sixth century.5 Nevertheless, testimony exists which may support a relationship between these contemporary rulers of Egypt and Lindos; for Herodotus reports that Amasis presented
gifts to the Temple of Lindian Athena just mentioned (Hdt. ii.182, see also iii.47). If, as Cedrenus
reports, Cleobulus was the recipient of rb ayaXya rijc AwShc AOvuEic r ~ r p a n v pi~
~ XiOou ayapaybou,
then he was presumably tyrant of Lindos in the period during which Amasis ruled Egypt (ca. 567-526 B.C.)

120

2.

BICS 31 (1984)

Amasis Lindian agalmora

Amasis gifts are described by Herodotus as a spectacular linen corslet and two statues of stone
( 6 b . . . ayahpara XiBwa). Hiero and other local writers cited in the Lindim Temple Chronicle6
report the same benefaction, except that they write of the statues as golden (Xpuoka, C xxix.41 ff.),
while Xenagoras mentions an additional gift of ten phialai (ibid 48-9). Xenagoras also informs us that
two lines (urixot) were inscribed on the statues, one of them in Greek: Aiyhrou/@oA[eu]c q h k ~ h w o c
Gnau Apaotc (I, Amasis, king of Egypt famed afar, bestowed [ t h s gift] ); the second inscription
in hieroglyphs (6LtL rOv nap A i [ y ] m r h c ~a/XoupkvvwvkpGv ypappurwv, ibid 50-3). This information
is reportedly confirmed by Hierobulus (ibid 53-5) a fourth-century priest of the cult and one of the
two oldest sources cited by the Gzronicle. Throughout this article we have supposed that these gifts
were given together and we shall develop arguments which suggest their particular suitability as a group.
Moreover, we assume that the two statues were presented as a pair (or at least, to form a pair). Though
our sources are silent on this question, they characteristically refer to Amasis gift of two statues and
we therefore consider our assumption represents the most natural reading of the evidence. In this
connection compare Herodotus report of the two self-portraits (eixdvac kwuroir 6qaohc [uhbac,
ii.182) Amasis sent to Polycrates (probably as the reciprocal gifts of xenia mentioned at iii.39).
The ancient fesrimonia differ, however, in their accounts of the material used in making the Lindian
ugulmuru: Herodotus describes the statues as made of stone (AiOwa) while Hiero (as we have noted) along
with six other Rhodian chroniclers, reports that they were golden (Xpuoka). This apparent discrepancy
is not necessarily serious, since the statues could have been gilded at some later date rather than at the
time they were first given. For several reasons we incline to the view that this gilding post-dated the
original dedication. For example, in the passage in which he describes the Lindian dedications, Herodotus
mentions explicitly that the statue of Athena which Amasis sent to Cyrene was a gilded one (tnljgouoou,
Hdt. ii.182). Cleobulus, returning from a victorious campaign in Lycia, is said to have dedicated a gold
crown for the statue [of Lindian Athena] (Anagr. C xxiii.2). The Lindians prospered not only from
such acts of war but also through their favourable position in Mediterranean trade. They may therefore
have chosen to gild their Athenas as an epideixis euduimonias, motivated perhaps in part by a desire t o
keep up with the Joneses of Cyrene, some of whom were of Lindian extraction (Anagr. B xvii.109-1 l).7

In fact we believe other factors played a more immediate role in this cosmetic embellishment and that
we can be fairly specific about the date at which Amasis two stone agalmura were gilded. Cleobulus
Temple was burnt ca. 342 B.C.8 Not only did the fabric sustain considerable damage, but most of the
dedications were also burnt (see uppapatau, & . . . / kpnupto8kuroc rot7 uao5 KareKaliu8q Ipera rCjv
~ X E ~ U T U Uhva8ep&wv, Anagr. D 38-42). The temple was promptly restored and a new cult statue
seems to have been furnished in the late fourth century. Blinkenberg summarises this refurbishment:
Auf den tempelbrand beziehen sich die wiederherstellung des schmuckes des
gottin und die trinkgefasse in IG XII, 1 nr. 764. . ., das geschenk der rhodischen
staates . . ., die weihung der goldenen Nike . . . und wohl auch die am anfang der
chronik oft zitierten briefe der beiden priester .9
It is hard t o believe that Amasis statues had escaped the general conflagration (per& rcSv nheiurwv
LwaBepdrwu) and thus reasonable to suppose that they suffered substantial damage at least to their
surfaces, in particular from falling masonry or charring.
By the late fourth century the statues were already some 200 years old, and the bonds between
Cleobulus and the Saite Egypt belonged to the diplomacy of the past, so that the original politicoreligious implications of Amasis gift (see below, pp. 122-25) had lost their significance. To gild the
statues would thus conceal any unsightly blemishes caused by the fire. At the same time such refinishing
would have added magnificence to works of art respected as part of Cleobulus proud legacy. The golden
nike stood on the hand of the great cult statue of Athena: Athena, bringer of golden Victory, was thus
celebrated by the renovation of Amasis gifts as herself golden. Moreover, the fact that all seven
chroniclers who record the agalmuru as golden lived after the firelo is at least congruent with our
hypothesis.

BICS 31 (1984)

121

By the time the Green Goddess was exhibited in Lausus sculpture gallery, however, we must assume
that this gilding had been removed, revealing the underlying colour of the original stone, which Cedrenus
then records (see n. 1). The gold from the chryselephantine statue of Olympian Zeusll had probably
suffered a similar fate, leaving only the ivory plates on their wooden frame. Gold was doubtless stripped
from these and other statues on their arrival at Constantinople so that it could be re-used for the decoration
of interiors in the manner so much to the taste of Constantine and his successors. Though the Green
Goddess, Egyptian Neith, had arisen as a gilded phoenix from the ashes of her adoptive Temple of Lindian
Athena, she may well have lost her gold to an emperors appetite and, 800 years after the Lindian fire, she
herself was unable to survive the holocaust at Constantinople.
We now return to Cedrenus description of the Lindian Athena in his catalogue of statues on display
in the Palace of Lausus. According to Cedrenus (note l), the statues original donor was not Amasis but
Sesostris. We do not, however, regard this as a serious obstacle to arguments based on Cedrenus testimony
for, later in h s chronicle (p. 61 6 Bonn), he identifies Amasis as the first donor of Lausus green Athena.
Either Cedrenus or his tradition has mistaken Sesostris 111, who ruled Egypt in the Eighteenth Dynasty
(a.
1860 B.C.), for Cleobulus Saite contemporary, Amasis. Cedrenus has either simply muddled the
names of two well-known Egyptian monarchs or - as a slightly more complex explanation of so patent
an error - confused Herodotus similar descriptions of Sesostris and Amasis public works programmes
(compare ii. 110 and 175-6, and in relatively close proximity at ii. 134 and 137). In either case, this
confusion therefore seems no more than a lapsus culami, since elsewhere, as mentioned, Cedrenus clearly
identifies Amasis as the original donor.
Moreover, in this second passage (p. 616 BOM) Cedrenus again draws attention, though less explicitly
than before, to the material from which the statue was made. After mentioning the Samian Hera, he
immediately goes on to state that the Athena of Lindos was from another material (kt UXhqc. 8Xqc.).
At least we can be confident in assuming that this statue was not sculpted in marble. Indeed, as M. Zucker
observed,12 it was apparently carved from some native Egyptian stone, for example, green basalt, granite
or serpentine. Zucker also noted that the colour green was characteristic of Egyptian representations of
the goddess Neith.13 This is significant, since Neith was not only the Egyptian counterpart of the Greek
Athena (Hdt. ii.28),14 but revered as the divine patroness of Amasis Saite Dynasty.15
From this evidence we therefore conclude that the Green Goddess represented Amasis Egyptian Neith
while the other ugulma was a statue of Greek Athena. The hieroglyphic inscription referred to by
Xenagoras would have belonged t o the Green Goddess, and her Hellenic counterpart would have borne
the corresponding Greek text. Since a statue of Neith would characteristically include a headdress,16
we suggest that Cleobulus probably dedicated the Lycian crown on the head of Greek Athena.
Amasis gifts to Greek states also have important diplomatic implications, and we shall shortly discuss
this aspect of his patronage. First, however, we should mention that Zuckerl7 and A. Wiedemannlg
reached some of the same conclusions about Amasis Lindian gifts nearly 100 years ago. Nevertheless,
their views long ago ceased to command much respect, or even attention. At the turn of the century a
few scholars still cited Zuckers article,l9 but his proposals came into serious disfavour during the years
in which the Danish Academy was excavating Lindos (1902-1914). One of the expeditions leaders,
C. Blinkenberg, thought fit to heap scorn not only on Zuckers views but particularly on his reliance
upon the evidence of Cedrenus catalogue fantastique.20 Blinkenbergs intemperate attack did much
to persuade other scholars that il ny a point de vraie tradition dans ces fantaisies.21 He based this
attack in part on the supposition that Lausus Lindian Athena was reported to have been carved from
emerald, despite the fact that Zucker had provided sensible arguments against such a misconception and
that Cedrenus himself did not necessarily intend to imply that emerald, as opposed to some less
precious green stone, was used to carve a statue four cubits high (see n. 12).

122

BlCS 31 (1984)

Indeed the only point of substance raised by Blinkenberg to discredit Cedrenus testimony is the
chroniclers apparent attribution of the Samian Hera to the artists Lysippus and Bupalus of Chios.
As A. Frickenhaus was, however, quick to point out,22 Lysippus name did not belong together with
that of Bupalus for textual (as well as art historical) reasons, but had been misplaced from the next
entry in Cedrenus list. This next statue is the well-known Lysippan type of winged Eros with a bow
and the only unattributed major work in the catalogue. Cedrenus describes it as follows: Kai Epwc
rolov Exwv, T~TEPUTOC, MvvGo&v &IK&EVOC (and an Eros with bow, winged, which came from Myndos).
The work he records is plainly by Lysippus and the received text should therefore be emended to read as
follows: Kai fi Capb Hpa, 8pyov BomaXov TOG XiOv. mi Epyov Avuihov, E p w c T O ~ O VK T A . ~ ~
Blinkenberg, however, may have been needlessly pessimistic not only about the reliability of many of
Zuckers observations but also the possibility of making sense of Cedrenus rec0rd.2~ The fact that
Cedrenus wrote some six centuries after the heyday of the Lauseum is insufficient reason to impugn
either his own trustworthiness or that of his probable sources.25 On the contrary, at least on the subject
of antique statues, Cedrenus (le plus servile de tous les chroniqueurs byzantins)26 shows himself an
authority worthy of some respect. He knows that Praxiteles executed the Aphrodite of Cnidus, Bupalus
the Samian Hera, Phidias the chryselephantine statue of Olympian Zeus, and Lysippus the Myndian Eros
and the Sicyonian Kairos/Chronos. We therefore see no reason to suppose that his attribution of the
first statue on his list to the Cretan artists, Scyllis and Dipoenus, is mistaken, let alone une fantaisie.
It will be shown elsewhere that Cedrenus is not merely correct but that his account has an integrity of its
own. Cedrenus has in fact given us a detailed catalogue of an art gallery arranged with astonishing skill
as a reflection of the intellectual climate of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.27
3.

Amasis hellenic diplomacy

We now return t o Amasis practice of promoting his affairs of state by the presentation of gifts to Greek
cities. Besides Lindos, at least four other communities were singled out as beneficiaries of such instruments
of Amasis foreign policy: Cyrene, Delphi, Samos and Sparta. His largesse, at least in retrospect, seems t o
have been carefully calculated to establish xenh with politically influential centres in widely different
areas of the Greek world, in mainland Greece, the eastern Aegean, and in north Africa. It might be
attractive to suppose, as Blinkenberg has suggested, that Samos represented the vvutGrai and Sparta the
nEAonovv~umimi K p f i r ~ c . ~Since,
*
however, scholars have differed substantially with regard to the
chronology of Amasis diplomatic actions, we must review briefly the evidence for his Aussenpolitik.
A cuneiform tablet securely dated to 568/7 B.C. records Amasis despatch of troops including [the]
captains of the city Pufuyaman, [and the captains] from distant territories in the middle of the sea.29
Considering the inscriptions military content, we may confidently accept E. Edels interpretation of the
reference of this second contingent to the community of Ionian and Carian mercenaries resident in Egypt
for nearly a century since the accession of Psammetichus I. By Putuyaman Edel and Spalinger both
understand the city of Cyrene30 and it therefore seems likely that the alliance between Amasis and Cyrene
to which Herodotus refers (ii.181-2) dates from early in the new pharaohs reign.31
If the relative chronology implied by Herodotus narrative can be trusted, then R.M. Cook must be
mistaken in supposing that Amasis gift of a linen corslet to Sparta should not be much earlier than 526
(ibid). According to Herodotus the Samians had intercepted this corslet en route to Sparta in the year
before they were also accused of stealing the massive bronze crater the Spartans sent to Croesus as a
reciprocal gift for his presents to them (i.70.1; compare iii.47.2). This second event supposedly coincided
with the fall of Sardis (i.70.2-3), so we may accordingly date Amasis overtures to Sparta in the early
540s.32 It is conceivable that Amasis, like Croesus, approached the Spartans on advice from Delphi for,
presumably in 548 or soon thereafter, the pharaoh had contributed generously to the Temples restoration
fund (Hdt. ii.180). At any rate this seems also to have been the period at which Croesus began negotiating
with Sparta as the pre-eminent state in Greece (Hdt. i.69.2), (a reputation unknown to Cyrus, who
inquired who are the Spartans? Hdt. i.153.1). According to Herodotus (i.77.2), however, Croesus had

BICS 31 (1984)

123

previously (npor~pov)3~
concluded a surnmkhig with Amasis, perhaps as a consequence of foreign
policy considerations similar to those which sponsored his alliance with Babylon.
Croesus, however, enjoyed (and, so far as we know, sought) no such summukhid with Cyrus. As Cyrus
established his independence from Astyages (553/2 B.C.) and then total sovereignty over Media in
550/49,34 Croesus became increasingly preoccupied with these events beyond his Halys frontier. The
Samians took this opportunity not only to assert their control of Aegean trade-routes but also to attempt
to disrupt Croesus major alliances to the west and south. In the 520s, during Cambyses advance against
Egypt, Polycrates followed a similar (and in the end, disastrous) policy of exploiting a period of political
confusion to play every angle, both domestic and international, to his own advantage.
Relations between Samos and Sparta had not always been strained. As L.H. Jeffery remarks:
Samos may well have been one (if not the only) channel whereby the
luxuries of the east Aegean and Lydia had come to Lakedaimon.
Theodorus of Samos had built the assembly-place called Sunshade in
Sparta; Lakonian pottery and bronzes . . . have been found in Samos,
and indeed the Spartans of the seventh century may conceivably have
learnt the technique of hollow-casting from the Samians, whose contact
with Egypt will have made them ear& starters in this skill [our italics].
Thus both Sparta and Corinth may have lost good Samian trade-contacts
when Polykrates overthrew the oligarchic r e g h ~ e . ~ S
Though Sparta and Corinth did not launch their joint naval offensive against Samos until 525,36 resentment
had doubtless been building for many years and, in Spartas case, may well have been first provoked - as
Herodotus supposed (iii.47.1) - by Samian piracy at the end of Croesus reign. Thus, on Herodotus
testimony, Amasis initial overture to Sparta must have predated by several years h s xenia with Polycrates.
On the other hand, since Samian control of the Aegean sea-routes was, as we have seen, already considerable
during the rule of the oligarchy which Polycrates overthrew, Amasis had possibly first made terms with
these oligarchs and later renewed the alliance on Polycrates personal initiative (note Hdt. iii.39.2) when
the tyrant came to power.
That Polycrates should offer x e n b to Amasis is entirely in keeping with what we know of his ambitions.
He dreamed of thalassocracy (Hdt. iii.122.2) and clearly aspired to be a significant presence in the international politics of his age. In his turn, Amasis would have been attracted by a detente which offered
guaranteed safeguards for international trade in material goods and especially in mercenaries. We do not
know if Amasis chose to exploit Spartas growing hostility towards Samos in his own interest,37 but it is
likely that Samian intransigence, not least towards Sparta, contributed to his decision to reconsider his
connection with Polycrates. Amasis distrust of Polycrates probably had good reason to run deep:
rumours of the tyrants maritime ambition and of his conspiracy in Achaemenid plans for the invasion
of Egypt may have come to his notice. Perhaps Amasis had even sought Polycrates aid against the Persian
threat and had been confronted with evidence of his allys treachery.
Nevertheless, our sources frustrate any attempt to understand the precise causes underlying these events.
Herodotus merely proposes the tale of Polycrates ring (iii.40-3) as a sufficient explanation for Amasis
decision to dissolve his xenziz. Diodorus also loses no opportunity to moralise: according to him, after unsuccessful attempts to restrain the oppressive conduct of Polycrates and his administration, Amasis broke
off diplomatic ties with Samos by formally withdrawing his philia and xenia (D.S. i.95.3) when he realised,
it is implied, that Polycrates conduct invited insurrection and civil instability, not to mention rendering
the state vulnerable to outside a g g r e ~ s i o n .Herodotus
~~
story of Polycrates ring may, however, involve
more than the gratuitous introduction of a widespread folk-tale motif in order to point a moral. The stone
which the Samian craftsman, Theodorus, son of Telecles, set in a signet ring of gold for Polycrates (Hdt.
iii.41.1), in w h c h the tyrant reportedly took such pleasure (see Paus. viii.14.8), may itself have been one
of the gifts Amasis sent to Samos when he accepted Polycratesxenia (Hdt. iii.39.2).39 This ring, according

124

BICS 31 (1984)

to Pausanias, was made knt 706 Xi6ov T+C upupuy.ySou (compare Herodotus upupuy6ou. . . hiOou) and
may thus provide further evidence of an archaic Greek sculptor working, albeit in small, with Saite stone.

Cyrenes role in Amasis international relations is especially important and we assume that he made his
initial gestures of philziz and xenziz towards this western neighbour. While the intimate details of Amasis
marriage to Ladice of Cyrene have been questioned in some quartersa as yet another Herodotean fantasy,
there is no reason to challenge hs gift of a gilded Athena to Ladices city (Hdt. ii.182). Cyrene had
received a substantial influx of new colonists shortly before 570,41 as a consequence of which her constitution underwent several major changes. Cyrenaica was obviously of strategic importance for the
Egyptian monarchy and had provided the theatre for those events which led most immediately to the
transition of power from Hophra (Apries) to Amask4* While Hophra had supported the Libyan cause
against Greek expansionism in Cyrenaica, Amasis reversed that policy and established a formal alliance
with Cyrene (Hdt. ii.181). To this city of Apollo Karneios he sent a statue of Athena, as well as a
portrait of himself, and thus symbolised his own and Neiths Saite presence beside Apollos traditional
tutelage. These gifts, considered together with his marriage to a Cyrenaean princess, illuminate Amasis
sensitivity to Greek social values in addition to fostering his own dynastic interests. Moreover, such
tokens of guest-friendship justify Herodotus references to (piXo~j7cand a u p p u ~ in
i ~their technical
sense and perhaps help us to understand why Herodotus called Amasis philhellenic (ii.1 78.1).43
The new settlers at Cyrene included Greeks from Lindos, a state which held Athena in the highest
regard. We have already described the character of one of the two statues Amasis commissioned for the
Lindian Temple of Athena. This Green Goddess with its hieroglyphic inscription represented the Egyptian
aspect of the divinity who uniquely expressed the common interests of the two states; its companion piece
doubtless reflected Greek traditions. That Amasis should use this means of recognising a state he sought t o
honour is fully in keeping with his reputation in antiquity as both a patron and a collector of the arts. By
the standards of his recent predecessors, Amasis erected and adorned public buildings on a magnificent
scale, among which the prupylaeum of Neith/Athena at Says was especially notable (Hdt. ii.175-6; see
also D.S. i.68.6). If Amasis actually commissioned Dipoenus and Scyllis to execute the two Lindian
agalmata, as Cedrenus testimony indicates, then the pharaoh was also well informed about the contemporary
state of Greek art. According to Pliny, these two important Cretan artists, born in the 50th Olympiad
(580-577 B.C.), were the first in the Greek world to win fame by sculpting marble (N.H. X X X V ~indeed,
.~),
Parian marble (NIX xxxvi.14).44 On the evidence of Cedrenus statement and of Amasis gifts to other
Greek cities, we assume that the Lindian statues were presented to the Temple in their completed state,
rather than as unworked stone to be fmished locally. Dipoenus and Scyllis must therefore have had
Egyptian connections, not least on account of the fact that some of the other materials in which they
worked (for instance, ivory and ebony) typically derived from Egyptian sources.
Their commission on this occasion was to execute a gift intended to commemorate the tradition that
the Temple of Athena was established by one of Danaus daughters when they put ashore on the island
fleeing the sons of Aegyptus (Hdt. ii.182; see also D.S. v.58.1). Herodotus also makes a point of recording that these. gifts, unlike those to Polycrates, were not occasioned in any way by guest-friendship
(&wL~c . . . o S E ~E&EKW).
~ + C Herodotus was perhaps being ingenuous or, if Lindos was actually under
Samian influence at the period of the gifts,4s then separate xenziz might have been deemed inappropriate.
On the other hand, we shall suggest that Amasis gift was associated with symbolism of a more intimate
social connection p. 126 below.
At any rate, we can hardly doubt that Amasis planned these gifts for reasons of state and, as at Cyrene,
the political overtones of dktente and partnership are not far to seek. In Greek tradition Aegyptus, the
eponymous ancestor of Amasis kingdom, had driven Danaus, his twin brother, along with his 50 nieces,
out of North Africa. In the event, Danaus the Greek became the eponymous ancestor of the Danaans.
Meanwhile, Danaus daughters, pursued by their male cousins in an attempt to win them for their brides,
broke their flight at Rhodes, their first landfall after leaving their homeland across the sea t o the south.
Again the comparison of Lindos with Cyrene resounds: Amasis dedication to Lindian Athena expressed

BICS 31 (1984)

125

the Egyptian kings peaceable intentions towards the descendants of Danaus Argive kingdom. In terms of
his own self-interest, Amasis gesiure can be seen as one of goodwill towards a trading partner (rather than
a military ally) who commanded a crucial harbour on the sea-route from Egypt to the cities of Ionia (the
source of his Greek mercenaries) and mainland Greece. His gifts would have been displayed prominently
in the great temple situated on the rock which overlooked the harbour at Lindos, a city set on a hill,
stretching towards the south and especially towards Alexandria (Str. xiv.2.11).
We can detect a similar mercantile policy underlying Amasis encouragement of the Greek trading post
at Naucratis (Hdt. ii.178-9), a community which included the Dorians of Rhodes. This aspect of the
relationship between the two states is nicely illustrated by another of Amasis gifts to Lindos, the linen
corslet. The thorax, an accoutrement of war, becomes in this context a token of peace and, at the same
time, a magnificent example of Egypts most characteristic industry,46 which was thriving in sixth-century
sais.47
4.

The linen corslet and the golden bowls

The Iindian corslet was, according to Herodotus (iii.47.2), like the one Amasis sent to Sparta which he
describes as having numerous animals inwoven into its fabric ({$ovkvwpaupkvwv uuxvGv) and
decorated in gold and cotton. The thorax was not, however, a typical part of Greek heroic or hoplite
armour.48 A linen thorax in particular might have appeared somewhat exotic and, to Greeks, less familiar
than the Lindians with trade-goods of the Near East, even barbarian. Indeed, linen thorakes were worn by
Persian soldiers (Xen. Cyrop. vi.4.2) who, as Herodotus observed (i.135), had adopted them in imitation
of Egyptian practice. At Troy, Ajax son of Oileus was the only Greek to bear the epithet hwotdpqt
(IZ. ii.529) and while he himself was distinguished as a spearman his fellow Locrians had not accompanied
him to Troy: the heart was not in them to endure close-standing combat,/for they did not have the
strongcircled shields and the ash spears (IZ. xiii.712-5, trans. Lattimore). Instead, Ajax the Less led a
contingent of archers and men armed with sling-shots (lines 716-8) so that his own dress and the character
of the troops under his command bear witness that he is a man apart, not to be judged by normal Hellenic

standard^".^^
On the other hand, the presence of Greek mercenaries in Egypt since the accession of Psammetichus
in 663 B.C. could well have contributed to a more widespread adoption of this garment as part of Greek
military attire,50 especially in the eastern Aegean, and we accordingly find corslets of new linen (tdppmec
. . . udw Xbw) stored in Alcaeus Armoury (357.6 L.-P.). As defensive armour, however, linen corslets
would have been better equipped to withstand an attack of archers - a fact which probably reflects on
Locrian Ajaxs previous military experience - than one of hoplite sword and spear. This hypothesis finds
support in Pausanias remark that linen corslets are none too serviceable for fighting men, for they yield
to the thrust of iron (i.27.7). On the other hand, he commends their utility in hunting, for the teeth
of lions and leopards break off in them. We may plausibly suppose that the same would also have been
true of arrowheads since, as we have mentioned, though a linen thorax might well have proved insufficient
to withstand the thrust of hoplite sword and spear, it could apparently offer excellent protection against
the point of an arrow.51 In these terms we can well understand how such costume was ideally designed
equipment for Achaemenian horsemen, whether on safari or the battlefield. Amasis gift to Lindos can
thus be seen as apparel (a kind of aegis?) for the warrior divinity it accompanied, but at the same time a
linen thorax provided a most fitting compliment to a community which proudly claimed Argive descent.
According to D.L. Page, the Oracle to the Megarians preserved in the Palatine Anthology (xiv.73) reflects
a tradition of high antiquity in speaking of the Argives as hwoOdpgKec, K P V T ~ U7 1 7 0 h P p o ~ ) .This
~ ~ unexpected
epithet in all probability evokes their Egyptian provenance and the advent of DanausS3 (rather than their
ill-repute as medisers in the fifth century).

126

BICS 31 (1984)

We have already mentioned that the Lindian Temple Chronicle cites Xenagoras as authority for an
additional gift from Amasis to Lindian Athena. Xenagoras account of Amasis benefaction (Anagr. C
xxix.46-53) is in any case the most detailed. It was he, for example, who described the inscriptions
carved on the agalmata and, in addition to the thorax and the statues, he also records ten phialai (lines
48-9). A phiale was a traditional gift to a Greek temple and Xenagoras also informs us that the Mysian
king, Telephus, another of Heracles sons, made such a dedication to Athena of Lindos on the injunction
of Lycian Apollo (Anagr. B viii.48-5 1). Gorgosthenes and Hierobulus, the two earliest Rhodian sources
cited by the chronicler Timachidas, were both priests of the Temple. They record that phialai were also
dedicated by Lindus - child of Aphrodite and Helios and the eponymous ancestor of the state (Anagr.
B i.1-3) - and by Tlepolemus (Anagr. B vi.37-8) who, according to some traditions, was the coloniser
of Rhodes. These dedications were relics with mythological associations which commemorated crucial
moments in the early history of the Lindian state. Amasis lavish offering belongs t o the historical period,
but plainly evokes these important memories of the past and becomes a part of their tradition. Amasis
awareness of local traditions and Greek social customs t o which we alluded in discussing his gifts to
Cyrene again subtly manifests itself in the pharaohs dedication of these phialai.

In praising the Olympic victory of Rhodes great athlete, Diagoras, Pindar begins Olympian 7 . . . with
a picture of a high festival,s4 and a connection between Diagoras celebrated victorys5 and the Lindian
Temple of Athena is suggested by the Rhodian chronicler Gorgos mention of the inscription of Pindars
Ode in the Temple in letters of gold.s6 @dhwis Pindars first word and the bowl is golden ( n u y ~ p u u o v ,
v. 4): in C.M. Bowras words, the bowl is the actual form of the song, and the wine [divine wine and the
Muses gift, v h a p xwov, Moiuiw Goow, v. 71 is its contents.s7 In its imagery, this stately and resplendent
proem is typically Pindaric; as an object the golden bowl must at all times have been a rare and much-prized
treasure?.
The high festival which Pindars proem imagines is a ceremony of betrothal. The bowl will be given to
the young man by the father of the bride as a physical symbol of the new connection which will bind the
house of the bride to that of the bridegr0om.5~ The vessel is the instrument used in the ritual of t h s
passage oikoi3w oka& (v. 4). Once the ceremonial toasts have been offered, the phiale will become not
only the husbands prized possession (wpupuv K T E ~ V W V but
)
the prestigious token of his new alliance
(LGoc . . . ryluuais viov) establishing him in the presence of his friends (qiAoi)as (ahwrdv bp6qpovoc
E U V ~ C(w.5-6).
By his gift of phialai Amasis has thus evoked the traditional offering of a Lindian founder
like Lindus and Tlepolemus, just as he has recalled, through gifts of Egyptian and Greek images of the
goddess, Danaus foundation of the Temple of Athena. At the same time, he casts his new connection
with the Rhodian city not, as at Q r e n e or Polycrates Samos, in terms of a auppuxiq, but according to the
private ceremonies of a Greek marriage. The aggressive pursuit of the daughters of Danaus by the sons of
Egypt is again remade in the formalities of peace. The phialai which accompany the warrior goddess are
not intended for libation before battle but as metaphorical tokens of affinity ( L b c ) , As such, they
recall the actual marriage of Amasis with Ladice of Cyrene.
The ten phialai - five for each statue, each one representing a decad of Danaids - thus accompany the
virgin-mother Neith/Athena from her Saite fatherland (okoeev oiiCa6~)to a hierosgumos with Lindus in
the Temple of the city to which he had given his name. In earlier dynastic hstory, Neith had probably
been associated with diplomatic marriages , . . arranged between royal ladies from Sais and the conquering
lung from Upper Egypt.s9 With Sais as Amasis religious capital, Neith was securely enthroned as queen
of all Egypt,60 and yet her traditional role in diplomatic marriages was again invoked, but now as an
instrument of international politics. In the next century Pindar may well have had the Rhodian trade
relationshp with Saite Egypt in mind when he sang of the excellence and deep fame of the Heliadae
as artisans (w. 52-4) since, according to tradition, one of the Heliadae had colonised Heliopolis (see n. 14).

BICS 31 (1984)

5.

127

Conclusion

Archaic Greek sculpture is known to have existed in Egypt,6 but a special relationship between Rhodes
and Egypt is borne out by archaeological evidence, not only the well-known Rhodian faience workshops62
but also the fragment of a stone head discovered near the Temple of Athena Polias at the Rhodian town
of Camirus, which remains the only piece of Egyptian sculpture dating from the XXV-XXVIth Dynasties
found in an excavated context in the A e g e a r ~ 6A
~ fragment of a black basalt statuette with a sixth-century
Greek inscription found nearby is also almost certainly Egyptian.64 Such documented Egyptian contacts
with Greek sanctuaries and Amasis possible patronage of Greek sculptors are of considerable interest in
the light of recent research, which has shown that the proportions of archaic Greek kouroi and korai are
the same as those of Egyptian XXVIth Dynasty sculpture.65
Magdalen College, Oxford
University of Texas at Austin (E.D.F.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (M.V.)
NOTES
This paper discusses in greater detail issues raised in our Green Goddess: a gift to
Lindos from Amasis of Egypt, A J A 88 (1984) 68-9. The authors are grateful for
generous assistance towards the preparation of this article to the President and Fellows
of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the University Research Institute at the University
of Texas at Austin (E.D.F.), the Wolfson Foundation, the Oxford Literae Humaniores
Faculty Board, the Craven Committee, and the Ashmolean Central Travel Fund (M.V.).
1.

K C L ~rd a y a h p a rqc A w b i a c AOquiLc rErpbnqXu : K hlOov ofiaphy6ou [vid. infra] gpyou C&hhiSoc K a i Arnowou
r d u h y a h p a r o u p y d v , iinep nor? b d p o u Bncp$e ECoworpic /sic; see p. 1211 ~iyrjnrovrrjpauuoc K A E O P O ~ ~ ~3
A~
A i v 6 i y r u p a v u y : G. Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium (ed. Bonn) 564, cited by J. Overbeck, Die antiken
Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Kunste bei den Griechen (Leipzig 1868) 56, No. 327. Compare
C. Mango, Antique statuary and the Byzantine beholder, DOP 17 (1963) 58, who points out that the Palace
of Lausus in which this and other Greek works of art were probably displayed was burnt down in A.D. 475, and
not in 462, as A.B. Cook states (Zeus iii/l [Cambridge 19401 970. For Lausus, see J.R. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire ii (Cambridge 1980) s.n. No. 3, and possibly Nos. 1 and 2; also C.M. Bowra,
Palladas and the converted Olympians, BZ 53 (1960) 6 (repr. On Greek Margins [Oxford 19701 251-2).

2.

H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Munich 1967) 119,588-9, citing C. Blinkenberg, Lindos i (Copenhagen
1931) 13-14; E.D. Francis, Cleobulus, ruler of Lindos (forthcoming).

3.

L.H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece, the City-States c. 700-50OB.C. (New York 1976) 198. Berve (n. 2) 114 dates
Cleobulus reconstruction of the Temple to the later years of his reign: fur den er die natigen Gelder anscheinend
durch eine Kollekte aufzubringen wusste.

4.

On Danaus at Lindos and the foundation myths of Rhodes, see C. Blinkenberg, Exploration archkologique de
Rhodes (Fondation Carlsberg) vi, Bulletin de IAcademie royale des sciences et lettres de Danemark 1912, No. 5-6,
428 ff.; POAOT KTIZTAI, Hermes 48 (1913) 236-49; Die Lindische Tempelchvonik (Bonn 1915) 5; Jeffery
(n. 3) 195-9; E.M. Craik, The Dorian Aegean (London 1980) Ch. 7, pp. 149-67.

5.

M.L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford 1971) 3.

6.

C. Blinkenberg, Lindos ii, Inscriptions (Berlin/Copenhagen 1941) 148-99 (hereafter Anagr.). F. Jacoby refers to
no fewer than 8 autoren fur die offenbar vie1 diskutierte(n) weihung(en) des Amasis, FGrHisr No. 532, p. 447
(seven Rhodian historians and Polyzalus).

7.

This seems to be the view of C. Blinkenberg 1915 (n. 4) 25.

8.

Blinkenberg 1941 (n. 6) 198-200.

9.

Blinkenberg 1915 (n. 4) 37, ad Anugr. D 40.

10.

Blinkenberg 1941 (n. 6) 188-92.

11.

Some believe the statue was burnt in a fire which destroyed the Temple of Zeus in 408 (see B. Ashmole and N.
Yalouris, Olympia, the Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus [London 19671 30), but the testimony on which this
view rests (Z Lucian 221 Jacobitz) does not preclude the removal of the statue before the fire.

BICS 31 (1984)

128

12.

M. Zucker, Zur altern griechischen Kunstgeschichte i: Die angebliche Athenastatue des Dipoinos und Skyllis,
NJbb 125 (1887) 789; A. Wiedemann, Herodots zweires Buch mit sachlichen Erluuterungen (Leipzig 1890) 613.
For the reference of opbpay6oc to minerals other than true emerald, see too M.-L. Vollenweider, in J. Boardman
and M.-L. Vollenweider, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings i, Greek
and Etruscan (Oxford 1978) 77.

13.

Zucker (n. 12) 7 90.

14.

Wiedemann (n. 12) 258-62; A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus Rook ii, Commentary 1-98 (Leiden 1976) 111. Ptolemaic
syncretisms of Greek and Egyptian gods probably underlie the quaint stories in Diodorus that Athens was founded
from SaiS (D.S.i.28) or vice versa (D.S. v.57.2), and in the Trajanic period coins of the Saite nome bore types of
Athena/Neith with an owl in her right hand and a spear in her left (J.G. Milne, The nome coins of Egypt, Ancient
Egypt 1932, 3,75). Neith, like Athena, was associated with the arts of war and peace, and in particular with weaving
(for example, R. el-Sayed, Documents relatifs 6 Sais et ses divinitks [Cairo 19781 180-96). Neith was traditionally
known as Mother Goddess and as such she might adopt the form of a cow; these attributes strikingly recall the
Greek myth of 10. As Mother Goddess Neith was par excellence Mother of the Sun and this tradition
potentially defines her as ancestor of Rhodes, child of Aphrodite and Helios. The possibility that the Rhodians
themselves may have perceived such a connection - though they expressed themselvesin patrilinear terms - is
suggested by the story that Actis, one of the Rhodian Heliadae, colonised Egyptian Heliopolis (D.S.v.57.2).

15.

Minerva secunda, orta Nilo, quam Aegyptii Saitae colunt: Cic. Nut. deor. iii.23.59; el-bayed (n. 14) passim; see
also W.M. Davis, Egypt, Samos, and the archaic style in Greek sculpture, JEA 67 (1981) 79 and n. 83.

16.

See, for instance, S . Birch, Gallery of Antiquities selected from the British Museum (London n.d.) PI. 6, fig. 15;
el-Sayed (n. 14) Pll. 20, 22, 24.

17.

Zucker (n. 12) 785-91.

18.

A. Wiedemann, Aegyptische Geschichte (Gotha 1884) 652; see also Wiedemann (n. 12) 613.

19.

For example, RE i. 1746. 44-5 (s.v. Amasis [2] ); J.G. Frazer ad Paus. ii.15.1; A. Frickenhaus, Der Eros von
Myndos, JdI 30 (1915) 127 n. 3.
Blinkenberg 1912 (n. 4) 445. C.M. Bowra (n. l), however, plainly takes as a matter of course the reliability of
Cedrenus evidence for Lausus collection. If Cedrenus straightforward list of sculpture in the Lauseum
so taxed Blinkenbergs credulity, we wonder how he reacted to Cedrenus description of one of the
treasures of a library of 120,000 volumes which was destroyed in the same conflagration in 475: sd 706
~ ~ ~ K O Vh-repov
T O ~ [ed. 2repovI no6Lju k ~ a ~ d
e ~vw o i u ,kv 3 fiv yeypappdva sh roc O p i p o v notipara, q
r e Ihihc ~ a f i o&dooera, xpvoehtc ypappaor, perh ~ a sijc
i iosopiac rijc s d v + p d w v npatCwc. (Cedrenus
161 Bonn; see also Zonaras, Epit. xiv.2, 22-4, citing Malchus iii.131 Bonn).

20.

21.
22.
23.

Blinkenberg 1912 (n. 4) 446.

Frickenhaus (n. 19) 127-9; see also F.P. Johnson, Lysippos (Durham, N.C. 1927) 115.
For a slightly different restoration of the text, see Frickenhaus (n. 19) 127, citing A. Brinkmann, RhM 57 (1902)
481; also P. Moreno (reading Aevvi6oc mi Bo~nbhovfor Avoinnou mi Bovnahou), Lisippu i (Bari 1974) 256-7
(following Migne, PG cxxi, 61 3).

24.

See Frickenhaus (n. 19) 128. On the international politics of the Saite dynasty, see F. Bilabel, Polykrates von
Samos und Amasis von Aegypten, NHJb 1934, 138 and n. 21, and Davis (n. 15) 62 n. 2, and on the relations
between Saite Egypt and Samos, Davis 69-74.

25.

On the principle, no less applicable to historiographical than to textual criticism, that age is no merit, see
A.E. Housmans review in CR 9 (1895) 22.

26.

Th. Reinach cit. u p . G . Downey, Constantine the Rhodian: his l i e and writings, in Late Classical and Mediaeval
Studies in Honor of A.M. Riend, Jr (Princeton 1955) 218.

27.

In a forthcoming study by E.D. Francis, C.A. Mango and M. Vickers.

28.

Blinkenberg 1915 (n. 4) 25, ad Anagr. 29, who, however, includes Lindos with Samos even though Herodotus
states specifically that xenia was not a consideration in Amasis Lindian benefaction; also Bilabel (n. 24) loccit.

29.

E. Edel, Amasis und Nebukadnezar II, Gotringer Miszellen 29 (1978) 14-15; see also A.J. Spahger, The
civil war between Amasis and Apries and the Babylonian attack against Egypt, Acts o f the 1st International
Congress of Egyptology, Cairo I976 (Schrifien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 14 [Berlin 19791)
591.

30.

Edel (n. 29) 15-16; Spalinger (n. 29) loc. cit., compare 601.

31.

R.M. Cook, Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt, JHS 57 (1937) 232.

BICS 31 (1984)

129

32.

M. Miller, The Herodotean Croesus, KIio 41 (1963) 59-64; see also 76,80.

33.

See Hdt. i. 68-70; W.G. Forrest,A History of Sparta 950-1 92 B.C. (London 1968) 73-6; Jeffery (n.3) 122;
P.A. Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: a Regional History, 1300-363 B.C. (London 1979) 138; Miller (n. 32) 80,
but see Bilabel (n.24) 152-3, 139.

34.

Miller (n. 32) 76.

35.

Jeffery (n. 3) 217.

36.

See P.A. Cartledge, Sparta and Samos: a special relationship, CQ 32 (1982) 243-65, esp. 245 ([probably] 5251,
248, 256-9; M. Miller prefers 523: The earlier Persian dates in Herodotus, KIio 37 (1957) 36-7.

37.

Berve (n. 2) 113,587. See also W.W. How and J. Wells speculation that Amasis might also have been attempting
to induce the Lacedaimonians . . . to join an anti-Persian league (Commentary on Herodotus i [Oxford 19121
269, ad iii.47.3); yet sixth-century Sparta seems to have favoured indirect, rather than direct, intervention against
Persia (see Forrest [n.331 80-1). On the importance of the Samians at Naucratis, with their separate temple
of Hera (Hdt. ii. 178.3), see M.M. Austin, Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age (PCPSSuppl. 2, 1970) 27,41.

38.

On these events and their sequel, see Jeffery (n. 3) 216-9;Hdt. iii. 39, 53, 139-49.

39.

See J.G.Frazer iv. 237-8 (ad Paus. viii. 14.8); on the problems relating to the biography of Telecles, see R. Ross
Holloway, Architect and engineer in archaic Greece, HSCP 73 (1969) 281-90.

40.

For example, H. de Meulenaere, Herodotos over de 26ste Dynastie (Louvain 1951) 114, but see H. Schaefer,
Die verfassungsgeschichtliche Entwicklung Kyrenes, RhM 95 (1952) 158-9 and n. 83.

41.

Jeffery (n. 3) 187; see also F. Chamoux, Cydne sous la monarchie des Buttiades (Paris 1953) 134-42.

42.

Spalinger (n.29) 593-604, esp. 593-5, 597; but better, perhaps Edel (n.29) 13-20; Schaefer (n. 40) 157-8.

43.

The view that Amasis was philhellenic has, however, been criticised by 0. Murray, Early Greece (London 1980)
217.

44.

For a more detailed discussion, see E.D. Francis and M. Vickers, New wine from Old Smyrna; Early Corinthian
pottery and the Greeks eastern neighbours (forthcoming).

45.

A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London 1956) 120, citing C.M. Bowra, CJ 29 (1934) 375-80 (compare GLP2
249ff.; G.L. Huxley, Early Sparta [Cambridge, Mass. 19621 92-3); but see Berve (n. 2) 584, 585-6, and
Jeffery (n. 3) 217: That he [Polycrates] or his son ever controlled Rhodes, as a modern theory once suggested,
has been shown to be most unlikely. See also J. Labarbe, Ant. Class. 31 (1962) 186 n. 125; J. Baron, CQ 58
(1964) 219f.; D.M. Leahy, The Spartan embassy to Lygdamis, JHS 77 (1957) 272-5.

46.

For instance, Hdt. ii.37; Bacch. xix. 43 Snell. See too V. Hehn, 0. Schrader, A. Engler, KulturpfZanzen und
Haustiere (Berlin 1894) 160-86, S.V. Der Flachs; Wiedemann 1890 (n. 12) 614; M.M. Austin (n. 37) 36;
compare Asius fr. 3 West, with C.M. Bowras observations, Asius and the old-fashioned Samians, Hermes
85 (1957) 393-4 (repr. 1970 [n. 11 124-5).

47.

el-Sayed (n. 14) 180-95.

48.

A.M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C. (Edinburgh
1964) 73-84,183; ArmsandArmour of the Greeks (London 1967) 90-92; D.L. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus
(Oxford 1955) 215-6. On Near Eastern imports at Lindos, see C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Colonization
(AZA Monographs on Archaeology and Fine Arts ix, 1959) 65 f.; and Blinkenberg (n. 2) 27 ff., 41 ff.

49.

Page (n. 48) 215; X ad Horn. 11. ii.529 already commented upon the irregularity of Ajaxs uniform.

50.
51.
5 2.

Page (n. 48) 216.

We are grateful to Dr P.H. Blyth for discussing this observation with us.
Page (n.48) foc.cit.;H.L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (London 1950) 210; see also J. Fontenrose, The
Delphic Oracle (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1978) 276-8.
Aeschylus Danaids flee to Greece (Suppl. 120 = 131) wearing linen garments, in a boat equipped with linen sails
(ibid 135).
C.M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford 1964) 24; on this ode, see D.C. Young, Three Odes of Pindar (Leiden 1968) 69-105.
P. Amandry, A propos de Polycldte; statues dolympioniques et carribre de sculpteurs, in Charires Langlotz
(Bonn 1957) 67,76; J.G. Frazer ad Paus. vi.7.1, see also Z ad Pind. 01. vii npodylrou, in A.B. Drachmann (ed.)
Scholia vetera in Findari Gzrmina i (Leipzig 1903) 197-9; Cic. Tusc. i.46.111.
FGrHist 5 15 F 18.

53.
54.
55.

56.

130

BICS 31 (1984)

57.

Bowra (n. 54) 25

5 8.

Compare C ad 01. vii.1 (= Drachmann [n. 551 199), with J.W. Donaldsons excellent note on this passage:
Pindars Epinician or Diumphal Odes (London 1841) 44. On the imagery of the phiale in this ode, see G. Lawall,
The cup, the rose and the winds in Pindars Seventh Olympian, RivFC 39 (1961) 33-47; Young (11.54)72-5.

59.

A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, an Introduction (New York 1961) 411-12.

60.

el-Sayed (n. 14) passim.

61.

For example, G.M.A. Richter, Kouroi4 (London 1970) 58, Nos. 29 and 30; see also the story told by Diodorus
about Telecles and Theodorus (D.S. i.98.5-9), on which see H. Schafer (tr., ed. J. Baines) Principles ofEgyptian
Art (Oxford 1974) 310, 313, 331, 348-9; Davis (n. 15) 64-7, 74-5; but see R.M. Cook, Origins of Greek
sculpture, JHS 87 (1967) 25-6 and B.S. Ridgway, Greek kouroi and Egyptian methods, AJA 70 (1966)

68-70.
62.

V. Webb, Archaic Greek Faience (Warminster 1978); M.M. Austin (n. 37) 26; J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas3
(London 1980) 112,127.

63.

Rhodes Museum, inv. 14342; G . Jacopi ClRh 6/7 (1932) 287, No. 2, 289, fig. 12; discussed most recently by
S. Trolle, An Egyptian head from Camirus, Rhodes, ActaArch 10 (1978) 139-50 (esp. 140, figs. 1-2).

64.

As Trolle notes (n. 63) 144-6, fig. 7.

65.

E. Guralnick, Kouroi, canons and men: a computer study of proportions, Computer Studies in the Humanities
and Verbal Behavior 4 (1973) 71-80; The proportions of some archaic Greek sculptured figures, Computers
and the Humanities 10 (1976) 153-69; The proportions of kouroi,AJA 82 (1978) 461-72; The proportions
of korai, AJA 85 (1981) 269-80; Profiles of korai, AJA 86 (1982) 173-82.