Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum
B 042
Pomegranate Kore; Kore 593. Akropolis.
Marble
Statue
H. 100 cm
Found in 1887, east of the Erechtheion on the Athenian Acropolis.
Greece, Athens, Acropolis Museum, 593
c. 580 - 550 BC
Preservation:The head and legs from mid-calf down are missing. The remaining body is fairly well-preserved, with a few areas of surface damage (ends of hair on the right, chest, right thumb) and one large chip off the bottom on the rear of the right side.
Description:A slightly under life-size marble female figure, standing facing forward. She holds an object usually identified as a pomegranate, but which could be a bottle with three-faceted sides before her chest in her left hand. Her right hand, which hangs by her side, holds a tubular fillet or wreath.
The modelling of the anatomy is not very refined, and although the rear of the figure is finished, it is not heavily articulated. The legs are not defined; the lower section of the body has the volume of a column with an ovoid cross-section. The lower arms are thick and blocky, although the wrist bone is prominently modelled and the upper arms beneath the clothing are fleshy.
The figure’s long hair is preserved on the front and back of the shoulders. In the front, it is divided into flat, wavy strips (braids or beaded tresses), three on either side of the head. In the rear, a flat ‘panel’, with minimal horizontal undulations, indicates the main mass of the hair. On either side of this panel of hair is a further wavy strip of hair and at the top outer edges of the hair panel are two incised lines, implying the division of the hair into strip-braids.
Earrings composed of small beads soldered into grape-like clusters are visible at the top of the inner strips of hair at the front. The figure also wears a choker length necklace with numerous seed-shaped pendants. She wears three garments: firstly, a chiton, one sleeve of which is visible on the right lower arm. A peplos is worn over this, the over fold (apotygma) of which can be seen at the waist, just above the thick fillet used to belt it. This fillet is decorated at the ends with a fringe, articulated in the stone by a series of small squares. Finally, the figure wears a large shawl draped from shoulders to below the knees, and wrapped over the arms. It is not clear whether it should be called an epiblema or himation. It is rectangular and the corners are decorated with tassels. At the front, the fabric of this shawl is folded, and the edges in front of the knees form slight zigzags. The construction of the shawl is not entirely resolved, probably in part because in doing so the sculptor could better preserve a balance in the overall composition of the figure. The problems are somewhat difficult to describe, but in particular, notice the right side of the shawl, where the part lying against the body on the inside of the arm ends in two layers, both with tassels, and the part hanging over the arm ends without tassels, whereas according to the left side there should be only one layer of the shawl covering the arm, with the ends hanging on both sides ending in tassels. The peplos skirt has three vertical folds, visible below the shawl, on either side of the figure.
Not evident in the cast are the remnants of painting on the original sculpture. The figure’s peplos was bordered around the neck by two red stripes, the skirt contained red stars, crosses and swastikas and the lower edge of the peplos was bordered by a red maeander pattern. The shawl (which he calls a himation), was equally decorated with a red maeander border and crosses in the field. The ‘pomegranate’ was also originally painted red, as was the necklace.
Discussion:This figure is one of many korai found on the Acropolis of Athens during excavations in the 1880s. These statues, along with numerous other sculpture fragments and other artefacts, were used in landfill pits during building projects on the Acropolis in the fifth century BC (the building of walls, and later, of the Parthenon). Much of the material included in the landfill, including this kore figure, would have been damaged and then abandoned after the Persians sacked the Acropolis in 480 BC, although there are a few pieces which could post-date the sack (see B 68A and B; B 69; B 81).
The exacavation of the Acropolis korai stimulated much interest in archaic sculpture in general, and provided scholars with the opportunity to study a series of archaic figures from a limited context, which spanned a relatively controlled period of time. Scholarship on these figures has tended to focus on establishing a relative stylistic chronology, and on debating the principles with should underlie such a pusuit – for instance, whether poor quality sculpture indicates an early date, and the relationship between pose, gesture, costume and date. A generally accepted model is that the earliest of the Acropolis korai exhibit no stylistic relationship or relationship in terms of dress with the more or less contemporaneous sculpture being produced in Ionia (like the so-called Hera of Cheramyes, B 47). Then there was a period in which sculpture made in Ionia was imported. The final stage (540 onwards) saw the Attic workshops producing their own figures, and dressing them in Ionian style clothing (the diagonal himation and thin chiton).
The date of the figure is somewhat controversial. Most consider the sculpture to be one of the earliest of the Acropolis series, based on the fact that the figure wears a peplos and the lack of modelling in the lower body. When the Acropolis series should begin, however, is not clear. An early theory concerning the start of the Acropolis korai linked them with the institution of the Grand Pan-Athenaia in 566 BC. Others thought the style of this figure was too primitive to be of 566, thus disconnecting the origin of the Acropolis dedications with this historical event. Richter placed the figure at around 580—70 BC – earlier than the Hera of Cheramyes. At this date, the statue evidences early use of the claw chisel, the marks of this tools being visible on the back. On the other hand, Ridgway has pointed out that rather, the claw chisel might point to a later date, a sculptor of the 550s or even 40s working from an earlier model. Generally speaking, while there was a movement toward greater and greater anatomical refinement in archaic sculpture, one cannot assume this took place in a series of neatly defined stages. A later date would close the chronological gap between this figure and the Lyons Kore (B 45A and B), with which it shares mannerisms in rendering the hair, the high breasts and the beefy build of the upper arms. Richter observed that the right wrist of this figure was turned forward, while the palm was turned toward the body and compared this with a similar mannerism found in some kouroi. It is not clear, however, that in this instance the wrist is supinated as such. It may simply be very thick. It is, again, remarkably similar to the wrist of the Lyons Kore.
What the figure itself represents is unclear. Rolley notes Lechat’s early proposal that the Acropolis korai, possibly having been introduced in 566, might represent the girls who carded the wool for the sacred peplos given to Athena (arrephoroi). The items carried by the figures are not the same, however, and this figure carries nothing related to the carding of wool. The object in her left hand has been taken as a pomegranate, and korai do sometimes carry such fruits. It has also been noted the pomegranate was sacred to Athena Nike. This object is longer than most examples of pomegranates, however, and it has three facets. Some have suggested it is a lekythos, and while it does not resemble that vessel it could be a perfume bottle. On the other hand, it could also represent a heavy, ornamental distaff or spindle, and if so then it would be one of if not the only Acropolis korai to carry an attribute associated with working wool. The fillet or wreath in her right hand, however, surely refers to some victory.
The Acropolis korai are for the most part votive figures Some have argued the Lyons Kore is not a freestanding votive, however, but a karyatid figure. Apart from the similarities between the two figures already mentioned above, this figure is also of a similar size and is missing its head, which might have contained vital clues. This at least suggests one should not jump to conclusions regarding the function of this particular figure. It may be better to consider the function unresolved.
CMD
Bibliography:G. Dickins,
Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum I, the Archaic Sculpture (Cambridge 1912) 126 – 28, no. 593
(earliest period of Attic sculpture; thorough description and early bibliography)H. Payne and G. Young,
Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (London 1936) 9, pl. 12
(places it at the head of the Acropolis family of korai)E. Langlotz
E. Langlotz,
"Die Koren," Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis, ed. by H. Schrader (Frankfurt am Maniz 1939) 43 - 5, no. 2, pl. 2
(c. 560 - 50 BC; description and early bibliography)G.M.A. Richter,
Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens (London 1968) 40, no. 43, figs. 147 – 50
(580 – 70 BC; early use of claw chisel.)B.S. Ridgway,
The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1977) 104 – 105, pl. 29
(possibly 550s or 40s)
