GREEK SCULPTURE

FUNCTION) MATERIALS ) AND

TECHNIQUES IN THE ARCHAIC
AND CLASSICAL PERIODS

Edited by
OLGA PALAGIA
University of Athens

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo
Cambridge University Press
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011 -4211, USA
wwvv.cambridge.org
Information on this tide: www.cambridge.org/ 9780521772679

Cambridge University Press 2006

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2006
Printed in Hong Kong by Golden Cup

A catalog 1'eco1d for this publication is available .fi'om the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Greek Sculpture : function, materials, and techniques in the Archaic and classical periods j
edited by Olga Palagia.
p. em.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-521-77267-2 (hardcover)
1. Sculpture, Greek. I. Palagia, Olga. II. Title.
NB90.A655 2005
733 '- 3- dc22
2005002856
ISBN-13
ISBN-10

978-0-52 1-77267-9 hardback

0-521-77267-2 hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for

the persistence or accuracy ofURLs for external or
third-parry Internet Web sites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such
Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

CHAPTER VII

MARBLE CARVING TECHNIQUES

Olga Palagia

Even a superficial acquaintance with a traditional marble worker's studio

in Greece today can show that marble dictates its own rules and that it
is possible to guess at the carving methods by the appearance of the
finished work. The present survey of techniques 1 will not only attempt
to place the various periods into perspective, it will also demonstrate that
the practice of ancient workshops from the classical period onwards was
not essentially different from those of more recent times in European
history until the introduction of electricity. It may be possible to interpret
the great versatility of Greek masters by the fact that they could relegate
part of their work to assistants and to explain the superb quality of
sculptures like the pediments of the Parthenon by suggesting that they
were not created free-hand by direct carving on the stone because their
material does not yield to such treatment. This chapter discusses the
application of tools on the evidence of their marks on the stone, and will
attempt to reconstruct ancient copying methods and explain the use of
preliminary models.
It is now forty years since Sheila Adam published her monograph on
techniques of Greek marble carving from the archaic to the classical
periods. 2 Her book has served a good cause in sorting out tool marks,
dispelling myths about the alleged unorthodox use of certain tools, and
establishing the essential sequence of their use. It did not, however, venture beyond the evidence of tool marks into the vital questions of the
processes of artistic creation. In short, she followed the assumption that
Greek sculptors, not only of the archaic but also of later periods, were
243

244

Greek Sculpture

essentially carvers who \Vorked directly on the stone without the aid of
models in soft materials and without assistants, in the belief that works
created in this way were unique in a sense that modern art works are not.
Life-size preliminary models and mechanical methods of reproduction
she relegated to Roman times, which she thus sharply differentiated from
the Greek experience. In this she was clearly mistaken, for the technical
characteristics of Greek sculpture of the Hellenistic period show little
variation from the Roman.
The Greeks began to carve marble sculptures on a monumental scale
in the second half of the seventh century B.C. 3 What remains of these early
works shows that they learned their craft in Egypt but went on to develop
ever more sophisticated methods, initially in order to improve the quality
of their performance and finally in the interest of speed. In the archaic
period the figures were carved directly out of the marble block by means of
a linear grid of proportions, which preserved their four cardinal profiles. 4
But increasingly through the Early Classical period one begins to suspect the use of full-scale preliminary models, especially for the intricate
compositions of pediments. The clay piece-moulds taken from full-scale
clay models introduced in bronze-casting techniques in the sixth century
must have eventually influenced marble carving techniques. 5 Although
Greek marble sculptors had surely developed methods of copying since
the sixth century, there is no evidence of mass production till ca. 100 B.C.
Unfinished works carry few tell-tale signs of copying until that period,
and it is in that period and later that sculptors develop the habit of
working on several stages at once on the same piece (Fig. 77). 6
Monumental stone sculpture in Greece was indebted to Egypt for tools,
carving techniques and proportions, which were refined and adapted to
suit Greek needs. Egyptian copper or bronze tools for cutting soft stones
like limestone were cast by the Greeks in iron for the purpose of carving marble (Fig. 78)? The Cyclades, Naxos and Paros in particular, were
the earliest sources of white marble and provided some of the earliest
workshops,8 while the nearby sacred island of Delos received many of
the sculptured offerings. The white marbles ofThasos were initially used
locally and in northern Greece until export further afield began around
the time ofAugustus in the first centuryB.C. 9 Several of the earliest extant
marble sculptures are ofNaxian marble. The Naxians went in for colossal statuary as attested by a handful of unfinished statues abandoned
in the island quarries and by the Colossus of the Naxians dedicated

Marble Carving Techniques

77. Unfinished sphinx from Delos. Athens, National Museum 1661. Traces of the point
are evident, particularly on the plinth, her waist and right forearm. Photo H. R. Goette.

on Delos. 10 Naxian works are easily recognized when signed by Naxian

sculptors or dedicated by Naxians, for example the kouros signed by
the Naxian Euthykartides 11 and the Sphinx dedicated by the Naxians in
Delphi. 12 The recently discovered seventh-century kore from the cemetery of Sellada on Thera 13 and the new kouros from the Kerameikos in

245

246

[B'l5l

Greek Sculpture

I JTEII/' 1.611<0

NTE I"fl IL\ ?I<!

TELI/1.6.11<

/\ YK 1\0YbtKO

NTE[It\lilAKI
I OYK/ OYh.IKO

AAI1AKI

rAQ2IA
f7._QIIAKI
/\AMA

;,oYt<I\OY/.liKH
1\AI"l,A.Kl
/\DYl</1 o'(LllKO
rAQ .D.:A
1\0YKt\DY[)IKH

not\JTIA I

1'1ATPAKAL:

EPrA/ f:"IA
11 AP 1"\AP orAY<PIAl::

78. Marble carving tools. Museum of the Department of Archaeology, Athens University.
From top to bottom: a-b. punch, c-d. point, e-g. claw, h-i. rounded claw, j. drove, k-m. flat
chisel, n-p. bull-nosed chisel, q. fine point, r. mallet. Photo H. R. Goette.

Marble Carving Techniques

Athens 14 are also ofNaxian marble. But Naxian workmanship cannot be

assumed, at least for the Kerameikos kouros, despite the marble used, as
he is stylistically related to both the New York Kouros (Fig. 8) and the
Dipylon head, which are of Attic manufacture. 15 Early sources of grey
marble were Mt. Taygetos in Laconia, 16 Mt. Hymettos in Attica (Colour
pl.1) 17 andSamos. 18 Laconia was probably one of the main centers of production oflustral basins supported by female figures standing on lions in
the late seventh century B.C. (Fig. 12). 19 The Samian School, so admired
by Diodoros (1.98.5- 9) for its technical ingenuity, is represented by two
colossal examples of early sixth-century kouroi.20 The best preserved
kouros (Fig. 11), carved of a single block oflocal grey marble, is admirable
not only because it is a colossal monolith, but also for the imaginative
exploitation of the decorative qualities of the blue streaks in the marble.
Greek marble sculptures were quarry-bedded, that is, carved according
to the horizontal and vertical planes of the stone as it lay in the quarry.
After the block was quarried, preliminary shaping was done with punches
(Fig. 78a-b) or points (Fig. 78c-d). The outline of the figure was neatly
fixed as the stonemason removed the stone layer after layer all over the
surface. A number of unfinished pieces of the sixth century B.C. found in
quarries, notably on Naxos (Fig. 79),21 Thasos 22 and Mt. Pentelikon, 23
indicate that a lot of preliminary trimming was done in the quarry to
reduce the weight of the figure before transport. This work was probably carried out not by quarrymen but by specialized stonemasons. Not
only were the proportions of the figures thus fixed at quarry level, but
the outlines were also shaped within a centimetre of the final surface.
If the marble presented a flaw, which caused it to flake off during the
early stages of carving, the figure was abandoned in the quarry. It is
interesting that sculptures found in quarries date from either the sixth
century B.C. or the second and third centuries A.D., 24 when sculptors'
workshops, occasionally controlled by the Roman emperor, were again
set up in quarries. 25 We have less evidence of quarry pracrice in the classical and Hellenistic periods. According to the expenditure accounts of
the pediments of the Parthenon (IG I 3 444-449), no amount of preliminary trimming was done at quarry level, as the marble blocks were carted
directly to the sculptors' workshops on the Akropolis. The few unfinished sculptures that have come down to us from the classical period, for
example a votive relief of the fourth century from Delos,26 seem to come
from ci ty workshops.

247

248

Greek Sculpture

79. Unfinished kouros from Apollonas quarry, Naxos. Athens, National Museum 14.
Photo German Archaeological Institute, Athens, NM 4887.

It was occasionally impossible to detect any flaws until the work was
so far advanced that the sculptor was obliged to patch it up. This kind
of piecing could be quite independent of the quality of workmanship
and can be found even among high-quality sculptures, for example, a

Marble Carving Techniques

fourth-century goddess from the Athenian Agora (Fig. 80). The large
patch over her belly cannot be explained as a later repair, as it is carved
in the same style as the rest of the figure. 27 The separately carved lips
of a late fifth-century herm also from the Athenian Agora are another
instance of repair probably due to a flaw in the marble. 28
The main work was carried out in the sculptor's workshop. At least in
the early periods the final touches, especially on the face, were placed only
after the sculpture was safely on location. Evidence for this is provided
by the newly found late seventh-century kore from Thera. 29 Her face
and hair would have been finished and the protective apron on her skirt
removed after the statue was set on its base. It was, however, damaged
before being set up, and abandoned on the spot. Similar evidence of shipping unfinished sculptures to be completed at destination is provided

80. Goddess, Athens, Agora S 37. Phoro American School of Classical Studies: Agora
Excavations.

249

250

Greek Sculpture

81. Bow drill held by the sculptor Stelios Triantis. Photo 0. Palagia.

by several Roman sarcophagi, especially the heads of reclining figures

on the lids, which were carved after the sarcophagus had reached the
customer; sometimes the lids were set up in an unfinished state. 30
The process of carving in Greek sculpture can be reconstructed
through the study of tool marks on unfinished sculptures or traces
not rubbed off the finished ones, aided by comparison with presentday traditional tools and methods. 31 The same tools (Fig. 78) were
employed throughout, though each period saw the further application

Marble Carving Techniques

of old resources to meet the demands ofbolder poses and more intricate
designs. From the late Hellenistic period onwards mass production of
marble sculptures for the Roman market necessitated greater speed in
the application of tools with an inevitable drop in quality.
A stonemason's essential tool is the mallet, with which he strikes the
other tools against the stone (Fig. 78r). 32 Apart from the drill (Fig. 81),
which bores straight holes into the marble, and the boucharde, which
clears away superfluous stone, no tool is meant to hit the marble at
right angles because it stuns it and the damage is beyond repair. Only
the boucharde, a double-ended mallet with incised V-shaped grooves at
each end, hits the stone at right angles to remove large chunks from flat
surfaces. But it was not applied to sculptures, only to blocks (e.g. statue
bases). 33 Greek sculptors employed oblique strokes at varying angles
(Fig. 82). The point was used for rough shaping but was held at an angle,
cutting grooves in the stone (Figs. 77, 78c-d). Carl Bhimel's contention
that, in the archaic period, the point was used exclusively as a modelling
tool by cutting the stone at a right angle, was exploded by SheilaAdam. 34
The different angles at which the sculptor held the point can be easily

82. Stonemason wirh maller and claw chisel pracrising rhe oblique srroke. Pharo
0. Palagia.

251

252

Greek Sculpture

observed on the surface of the unfinished kouros from the Apollonas

quarry on Naxos (Fig. 79): 35 the point has hit the stone in short oblique
strokes, sometimes forming grooves, especially on the limbs.
Modelling was begun by means of the claw chisel, a toothed blade
particularly suited to cut marble though it was invented for application
to limestone (Fig. 78e-g). It imprints on the stone a series of dents varying
in length according to the angle of the blow. Like most tools, the claw
chisel comes in several sizes and can be used to dress wide horizontal
areas, for example, the background (Fig. 54) and architectural frames
of reliefs or the faces of pedestals and joining surfaces. It is also used
for modelling wide areas, flat or curved, like animal torsos, mouldings
and waves (Fig. 83). A claw chisel with a rounded edge (Fig. 78h-i) is
used on more pronounced curves such as those around noses. Traces
of the claw chisel are first detected in Greece in the second quarter of
the sixth century B.C., at the back of the hair of the Attic Pomegranate
Kore, made of Pentelic marble. 36 An unfinished head of a sphinx of
Parian marble in Munich, dated not later than the mid-sixth century,37
is expertly modelled all round with a claw chisel, indicating that the
tool was not a recent invention. The claw chisel was initially thought to
have been invented by the Greeks in the early sixth century until its traces
were detected on the soft limestone blocks of a seventh-century Egyptian
tomb. It was therefore another borrowing from Egypt though the date
of its introduction to Greece remains unclear. 38 Claw chisel marks, at
any rate, cannot be used as dating evidence since the use of this tool may
go back to the beginning of monumental sculpture in Greece, its first
appearance in the second quarter of the sixth century being merely due
to the accidents of survival.
Finer modelling was accomplished by means of the flat chisel, equally
available in a wide range of sizes to suit the width of the surface to hand
(Fig. 78k-m). A rounded chisel, also known as the bull-nosed chisel, is
necessary for stronger curves (Fig. 78n-p ). Since the beginning of the
archaic period the flat chisel was used to model locks of hair, faces,
eyelids, fingers and toes, and the delicate ridges ofveins and muscles. Flat
chisel marks are evident on the rear of Eros' torso, Sparta Museum 94
(Fig. 84) and on the bustofEubouleus,AthenianAgoraS 2089 (Fig. 85).39
The bull-nosed chisel was employed extensively for modelling both flat
and curved areas in the Roman period. An instance of its use is on the
forehead of a herm from Piraeus, copying an Early Classical herm type. 40

Marble Carving Techniques

83. H elios (A) from the east pediment of the Parthenon. London, British Museum. Traces
of claw chisel on the waves, original polish on the neck. Photo courtesy of the Trustees of
the British Museum.

A flat chisel with a wider blade, known as the drove (Fig. 78j), was
thought by Gisela Richter and Sheila Adam to have been employed in
the early archaic period for shaping the flat areas of statue bases (Fig. 17a)
or the background of reliefs, as well as animal bodies like the calf of the
Akropolis Calf-bearer (Fig. 24). 41 The drove, however, cannot be applied
to curves. In addition, it leaves an impression of accidental roughness,42
while the parallel striations evident on the early archaic examples cited
by Richter and Adam were probably made with a finer blade, presumably
a small flat chisel.
To bore a hole, a Greek stonemason used a drill, which is essentially
a rounded chisel rotated steadily on the same spot by means of a bow
(Fig. 81 )43 or strap. The strap drill is operated by two men, one pulling the
strings, the other guiding the head of the drill. 44 A strap drill operated by
a stonemason and his assistant is illustrated on a Roman loculus slab in
Urbino, Museo Archeologico. 45 Evidence on the use of the drill appears
on some of the earliest sculptures extant, for example the dedication
of Nikandra of Naxos (Fig. 7 right). 46 Her hands are pierced for the
insertion of metallic wreaths or lion leashes. Single drill holes mark the
centres of hair locks of the twin kouroi by Polymedes of Argos in Delphi

253

254

Greek Sculpture

84. Eros, modelled with flat chisel. Sparta Museum 94. Photo German Archaeological
Institute, Athens, Sparta 355.

Marble Carving Techniques

85. Unfinished bust of Eubouleus. Athens, Agora S 2089. Photo American School of
Classical Studies: Agora Excavations.

(Fig. 9). 47 From the sixth century onwards drills are employed in the
nostrils and ears of men and animals. They bore holes for the insertion
ofhair ringlets in lead or bronze (Fig. 21 b) or cut om sockets for glass eyes
(Fig. 24); a late archaic warrior's head from Olympia provides examples
of both techniques (Fig. 86). 48 From the fifth century onwards drills cut
tear ducts or mark the corners of the mouth as on the heads Akropolis

255

256

Greek Sculpture

86. Head ofa warrior. Olympia Museum. Photo German Archaeological Institute, Athens,
1979/ 1.

Museum 699 49 and Kerameikos Museum P 1455. 50 The nostrils of the

horses and the ears of some of the knights of the Parthenon frieze were
drilled. 51 The head of a centaur from the south metopes of the Parthenon
has both tear ducts and nostrils cut by a drill. 5 2 His hair consisted oflead
locks inserted into drill holes, a technique also known from a Lapith's
head from the same metopes 53 and from the warriors in the Aphaia
pediments. 54
Apart from boring holes, the drill also cuts grooves, and its increasing multiple uses had a decisive bearing on the development of carving

Marble Carving Techniques

techniques. The significance of drill work lies not least in the creation of
light and shade. The most laborious way of cutting a groove is by boring
a row of holes at short intervals, then knocking the remaining stone out
with a chisel and polishing the surface. Outlines of relief figures were
fashioned by this honeycombing method. The back of the head of the
youth on the "Salamis" stele retains the bottoms of drill holes (Fig. 87).55
Drill channels on the Parthenon frieze were also cut by means of a series

87. Grave relief, allegedly from Salamis. Athens, National Museum 715. Photo 0. Palagia.

257

258

Greek Sculpture

ofvertically bored holes, which were not always cleared away with a chisel,
so their bottoms are still visible. The nicks left by the tool along the walls
of the groove are a sure indication of the application of the drill at a right
angle to the stone, for example on the cloaks of the hydria-carriers on
the north frieze. 56 The outlining of relief figures by narrow drill channels
became standard practice in Roman reliefs, where the drill was rotated
at a sharp angle cutting a groove as it moved along. This technique is
known as the running drill, to be distinguished by the stationary drill
not by any structural difference but merely by its oblique application
to the stone. 57 The furrows cut by a running drill leave no nicks on the
sides and show a bumpy bottom occasioned by the intermittent pressure of the mason's hand. The course of the running drill has a short
span; a channel is created through its repeated application. The outline
of the right leg of an athlete on an unfinished funerary relief from the
Kerameikos (Fig. 88) is formed by a running drill channet5 8
Great controversy attaches to the date of the introduction of the running drill and the extent ofits use. Its alleged systematic application in the
third or last quarter of the fifth century B.C. has been considered responsible for the extremely varied and complicated draperies of the Parthenon
pediments, the florid style of the Nike temple parapet and the profusion of the rather mechanical furrows on fourth-century grave-reliefs. 59
Style, however, at the stonemason's level at least, is a question of design
rather than technical innovations. It may well be argued that stonemasons may choose to drill a channel by honeycombing and then employ
a running drill to cut away the remaining stone. Most of the channels
undercutting the flowing draperies in the Nike temple parapet appear to
have been originally cut by the honeycombing method.60 In the case of
the Parthenon pediments which lie at the heart of the controversy over
the systematic application of the running drill, it can be argued that the
great number of folds of uneven width suggest a combination of drilling
methods, using a great range of drills to cut holes of different sizes.
Large and small drill holes can be found in close proximity, for example,
in the garments of west pediment C (Kekrops' daughter). 61 Although
the careful polishing of the surface in the pedimental statues of the
Parthenon renders the detection of tool marks rather hazardous, traces
of the running drill remain under the aegis over Athena's right breast in
the west pediment. 62 It is now impossible to tell, however, whether the

Marble Carving Techniques

88. Unfinished athlete from the Kerameikos. Point marks on matrix, leg outlined by
running drill channels. Athens, National Museum 1662. Photo 0. Palagia.

running drill was used systematically or in combination with a stationary

drill.
Honeycombing was the method preferred by archaic and classical
sculptors, though archaic artists were at first very sparing in their use
of the drill, as is shown by the flat look of early archaic sculptures. This
method was apparently employed to remove the matrix between the arms
and legs of kouroi. Bur one of rhe strongest points of drill work lies in

259

260

Greek Sculpture

undercutting drapery folds. In archaic korai single drill holes highlight

the borders of the diagonal mantle, as in the Kore of An tenor. 63 This
technique is carried through classical times, as is shown by the adjacent drill holes under the over fold hem ofEuphranor's Apollo Patroos. 64
In fifth-century statues, rows of large, undisguised drill holes set off
the hems of garments from the plinth, as on a seated female statue
found near the Erechtheion.65 But from the fourth century on, feet and
hems were undercut by narrow drill channels, although in some cases
a pointed chisel (Fig. 78q) was used instead, leaving no traces. Running drill channels outline relief figures in the architectural sculptures
of Asia Minor in the fourth century B.C., for example the Mausoleum
friezes (Fig. 58) 66 and the sculptured column drums of the Artemision of
Ephesos, where the channels, cut with large drills, are a veritable tour de
force. 67
In the Hellenistic and Roman periods the running drill was widely used
to highlight the hair (Fig. 85) 68 and the fringes of garments, while the old
honeycombing method remained the standard way of cutting channels.
It may well be that sculptors deemed it safer to drill short grooves, so
that the tool could be more easily controlled. The dull regularity of folds
in many Roman sculptures can be attributed in part to the limited range
of drills employed rather than the systematic application of the running
drill. 69
After modelling was completed, tool marks were removed with rasps,
which in turn leave an irregular pattern of thin scratches on the surface
of the marble? 0 Rasp marks are usually preliminary to the application
of colour and occur already in the late archaic period/

for example,

on the so-called Leonidas of the early fifth century B.C. 72 They become
particularly noticeable on sculptures of the fourth century B.C. and the
Roman period. Rasp marks could be rubbed off with abrasives, emery
from Naxos and pumice from Melos and Nisyros. 73 The final polish of
the marble surface was achieved by the application of a protective coat
of wax and olive oil, which the Greeks called ganosis? 4 The process is
described by Vitruvius (VII.9.3), who states that it was applied to the
unpainted nude parts of marble sculptures/

while Pliny (NH 33.122)

says that it was also applied to paintings. The wax was melted in the
fire and mixed with olive oil. After being applied to the surface, it was
additionally heated with burning charcoal and rubbed with a waxed cord

Marble Carving Techniques

and linen cloths. This treatment was intended both to protect the marble
and enhance the brilliance of its painted surfaces when applied over
paint. According to Hellenistic temple inventories from the sanctuaries
of Delos and the Ptoion, ganosis was applied to some sculptures on a
regular, possibly annual, basis. 76 It was also practised by restorers ? 7 The
heavy weathering of many of the sculptures that have come down to
us forbids generalization, but it can safely be said that ganosis is already
attested in extant sculptures from the Athenian Akropolis dating from
the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., e.g. the gigantomachy pediment
of the Old Temple of Athena78 and the kore Akropolis Museum 683 ? 9

Ganosis is also attested on the protected rear of the nude parts of some of
the pedimental statues of the Parthenon. The back ofHelios' neck in the
east pediment, for example, retains its original polish (Fig. 83). 80 In the
fourth century B.C. and later ganosis may impart to the marble a porcelain
texture, e.g. the Hermes at Olympia. 81
The draped parts of statues, as well as their eyes, eyelashes, lips, hair
and accessories, were p.a inted 82 and so were the backgrounds of reliefs. 83
Literary evidence for the painting of statuary is provided, among other
things, by the story that the famous painter Nikias tinted some ofPraxiteles' statues. 84 An Apulian column-krater of the fourth century B.C. shows
an artist painting the lionskin of a statue of Herakles in the encaustic
technique: he applies his colours with a spatula, while his assistant heats
rods in a charcoal brazier for the next stage of smoothing the pigments. 85
As the statue is already on its pedestal, we infer that marbles were coloured
only after they had been set up on their bases. This suggestion is corroborated by the fact that the seventh-century kore from Thera, abandoned
just before being erected on its base, had not yet been tinted.
Marble sculptures were occasionally gilded. Marbles were touched with
gold at least as early as the fifth century B.C. Traces of gilding are visible on
the weapons of recently excavated fragments of the Aphaia pediments. 86
E. D. Clarke, who was present during the removal of the Parthenon
pediments by Elgin's men, reported traces of colouring, as well as of
gilding on the statues of the west pediment. 87 The sandal straps of the
Hermes at Olympia were gilded at the time of discovery. 88 There is more
evidence of gilding on hair, hair bands, decorative bands on garments and
sandal straps on late Hellenistic sculptures from Delos. 89 The occasional
appearance of red on hair may on occasion be an underlay for gold 90

261

262

Greek Sculpture

that could be applied in imitation of the gold and ivory technique, as

described by Virgil 91
Like polished ivory, beauteous to behold,
or Parian marble, when encased in gold.
Marble sculpture was often completed with bronze, lead, gold or
wooden accessories like hair, weapons, armour, sceptres, jewels, phialai
or horns of plenty. 92 The marble horses of the chariot on top of the
Mausoleum ofHalicarnassus were encased in lead which may have been
gilded (Colour pl. 6). 93 Locks ofhair could be added in lead,94 stucco 95 or
bronze. 96 Eyes could be inlaid with marble and coloured stone, 97 glass 98
or ivory99 and held in place with bronze eyelashes. Some archaic heads,
regularly pitted with a fine point, are sometimes thought to have been
completed with plaster wigs. 100 But the carefully dressed surface, quite
unnecessary for the adherence of stucco, suggests additions in bronze
secured with glue. 101 Additions in stucco were more common in the
Hellenistic period, especially in Ptolemaic workshops, due to the lack
of marble in Egypt. Ptolemaic royal portraits often consisted of face
masks in Parian marble, completed in plaster and wood. 102 Stucco wigs
or beards were usually applied onto a rough picked (not pitted) surface,
e.g. the head of Ptolemy IX or X in Boston with traces of gilding on the
stucco. 103 Paucity of marble was the reason why so many Ptolemaic ruler
heads were recut, rendering identification difficult.
The uniformity of conception of the free-standing pedimental complexes of the Early Classical period, of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, for
example, 104 as well as their freedom of form, are inconceivable without
the use of preliminary full-scale models designed by a master sculptor
and executed by a team of stonemasons. 105 Full-size models in clay were
introduced in the new technique of indirect lost-wax in bronze casting,
developed in the middle years of the sixth centuryB.C. 106 These were probably fashioned of wet clay around an iron armature. An Attic oinochoe
of the Early Classical period with Athena making a clay horse illustrates
this stage, although the iron armature is omitted. 107 Clay piece moulds
were then taken, lined with wax, cored, and covered with a mantle of clay
before being placed in the furnace. The piece moulds were not destroyed
in the process and could be used to cast multiple originals. One can

Marble Carving Techniques

postulate a similar process in the execution of marble statues, perhaps

with plaster models cast from piece moulds. Preliminary models in clay
are not practical, requiring constant moisture, otherwise they crack as
they dry. To achieve any degree of permanence, a preliminary model has
to be made of plaster or fired clay. The employment of preliminary models for marble statuary in the classical period is inferred by the evidence
for the use of models for architectural members. The building accounts
of the Erechtheion mention wax and wooden models for rosettes and
mouldings, while the accounts of the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros record a plasterer responsible for the execution of plaster models. 108
Plaster impressions in the fourth century B.C. are also mentioned by
Theophrastos.109 Plaster models of statuary in the Roman period are
documented by Pliny, NH 35.155-156, and by the actual plasters from
Baia.110 The Greek word for models used in the expenditure accounts was
always paradeigma 111 not typos as is sometimes suggested on account of
the typoi made byTimotheos for the temple of Asklepios in Epidauros. 112
The word typos denotes reliefs or impressions, 113 so Timotheos' typoi
were reliefs. Since the temple carries no relief metopes or frieze, they
must have been reliefs on the base of the chryselephantine cult statue of
Asklepios. 114
The use of plaster in monumental sculpture is known through the
practice of the Pheidian School. Pausanias (1.40.4) describes the unfinished chryselephantine colossus of Zeus by Pheidias' associate, Theokosmos of Megara, abandoned in the temple of Zeus at Megara at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. The cult statue of Zeus was fashioned of
clay and plaster, his face only being of ivory and gold. Lucian's (Gallus 24)
description ofPheidias' gold and ivory Zeus at Olympia as hollow inside,
with a wooden armature inhabited by mice, completes the picture. 115
Plaster models for statuary are first documented in the fourth century
B.C.:

the sculptor Lysistratos, brother of Lysippos, invented life masks

in plaster for the creation of bronze portraits. 116 His wax impressions
of the life masks were used for bronze casting. He was also said to have
taken casts of statues 11 7 though clay piece moulds rather than plaster
casts were probably meant. This technique at any rate implies the copying
of statues, which would have been easy for bronzes and is indeed documented by the Athena of Piraeus. She was buried in the first century B.C.

263

264

Greek Sculpture

but the existence of a marble copy of the second century A.D. entails a second original or bronze copy, available to copyists in the Roman imperial
period. 11 8
Copying methods facilitate the production of two or more originals.
In the late sixth or early fifth century B.C. Kanachos' Apollo Ismenios
in Thebes was a wooden reproduction of his bronze Apollo in Miletos,
therefore a second original. 119 The bronze was removed to Ecbatana by
Xerxes in retaliation for the Ionian revolt. Another case of two originals
concerns the Early Classical marble statue of Penelope, found in the
ruins of Xerxes' treasury at Persepolis, which was sacked by Alexander
the Great in 330 B.C. 120 This too may have been carried away by Xerxes
during his Greek campaign of 480/79 B.C. A number of Roman copies of
the Penelope betray the existence of a second marble original, available
to copyists long after the disappearance of the first.12 1
The availability of copying techniques for marble sculpture from the
sixth century onwards suggests that sculptors had developed the skills
to transfer measurements from full-size model to marble block. The
earliest evidence of the use of a copying device is a number of bosses (or
grooves betraying the removal ofbosses) from the foreheads of a handful
of figures from the metopes and pediments of the temple of Zeus at
Olympia (Fig. 89). 122 These bosses may have served as fixed points for the
attachment of plumb lines for taking measurements both horizontally
and vertically, so that the mason could determine the angles ofhis planes
and the depth to which he had to penetrate. 123 There is another copying
method, used extensively today. 124 It leaves no traces on the marble. The
sculptor builds his model on a wooden plank on which he sticks iron
nails to be used as measuring points, then calculates the position of
further points on the model by means of three callipers. He transfers the
measurements to the marble block using the same callipers and following
the principle of triangulation. This allows him to determine three points
in space. These points form a triangle, which can be seen as situated on
a two-dimensional plane. From this triangle one is able to calculate the
position of a fourth point, not necessarily on the same plane, and thus
gradually fix the main outlines of the whole form. The more points he
measures the more details of the model can he transfer to the stone.
The matrix is then cut away until the desired final surface is reached.
The principal measuring points sometimes stick out forming perforated

Marble Carving Techniques

89. Head of seer (L) from the east pediment of the temple ofZeus at Olympia. Olympia
Museum. Photo Alison Frantz Collection: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

mounds (puntelli) that can also serve as supports for the callipers. They
are usually arranged in clusters of three in order to establish the width,
height and depth of the area to be copied. The three-calliper method
guarantees a high degree of accuracy in the measurement of details and
can also be employed to enlarge or reduce figures at will. 125
That some sort of measuring device was used at Olympia is also shown
by the fact that several figures in the pediments were modelled in the
round though only the front was finished in detail. 126 Since there is
no evidence for the use of plaster in sculpture in the first half of the
fifth century B.C., we may speculate that the preliminary models for the
architectural sculptures of the temple of Zeus were in fired clay, perhaps
one-third life-size to facilitate transport because clay is heavy. This might
account for the peculiar appearance of drapery folds, which is often
attributed to the influence of clay models. 127 After Olympia no other

265

266

Greek Sculpture

unfinished marble sculptures carry evidence of copying devices until the

late Hellenistic p eriod.
The view that large-scale statuary was executed after full-size models modifies the old view of Greek marble sculptors of the classical and
Hellenistic periods as stonecutters par excellence. It accords well with the
information of the ancient sources that sculptors could accept commissions for works in bronze, ivory, gold or marble indiscriminately. Even
though one would expect the masters to place the finishing touches to
their works, especially as regards single statues rather than architectural
complexes,128 what they were primarily required to do would be to provide models in clay. These would have been enlarged, again in clay, which
was subsequently fired or cast in plaster. The statues could have been
executed in any material. This assumption calls to mind the story, current in the Roman period, that Pheidias was the true author of his pupil
Agorakritos' two most famous works, theN emesis and the Mother of the
Gods. 129 The employment of preliminary models is assumed by all those
who attribute the sculptured decoration of the Parthenon to Pheidias. 130
The availability of models for the execution of the Erechtheion frieze may
also be postulated since the building accounts record payments to stonemasons hired by the state to carve single figures to the designs of a master
whose presence as supervisor is not documented. 131
The widespread use of clay and plaster models on a large scale may have
induced the masters to experiment further in the rendering of drapery.
The dramatic change in clothing textures from clinging and transparent to stiff and three-dimensional which is implemented in the second
quarter of the fourth century B.C. 132 recalls Vasari's description of the creation of drapery by means of wet cloth dipped in clay. 133 Theophrastos
also states that plaster was used to stiffen clothes.134 The use of plaster
with actual cloth is documented in Italy in the sixteenth century,
e.g. Jacopo Sansovino's relief of the story of Susanna, which carries
figures modelled in plaster mixed with goat hair and wearing linen
dresses, attached to a wooden background. 135 Rodin's full-size model of
Whistler's Muse, her drapery dipped in plaster, may serve as an example
of this technique at the dawn of the twentieth century. 136 This method
is still in use in sculptural production today.
Although techniques of reproduction were known to the Greeks since
the archaic period, there is no wholesale copying industry till the early

Marble Carving Techniques

first century B.c. 137 This was no doubt due to the requirements of the
Roman clientele. 138 Until recently, the proliferation of mechanical marble copies was attributed to the invention of some sort of primitive
pointing machine. 139 This machine (Fig. 90) was actually invented in the
eighteenth century, based on the principle of triangulation. It is made
up of a needle calibrated to a vertical axis, which is suspended from an
inverted T. This frame is hooked onto a perforated mound on top of the
sculpture, being additionally fixed to a pair of protrusions at its bottom.
It operates on the same principle as the three-calliper system. The tell-tale
sign of its use on unfinished sculptures is the network of holes drilled
by the needle. The view that the pointing machine was first invented in
antiquity is no longer tenable. No unfinished ancient sculptures exhibit
either the great number of measured points drilled by the pointer or
the characteristic perforated mounds (puntelli) for attachment in the
correct positions, i.e. one on top and two at the bottom of the figure. 140
The unfinished bust ofEubouleus from the Athenian Agora may serve to
illustrate the point (Fig. 85). 141 Even though the front carries three puntelli, one on the chin and one on either side of the forehead, they could
not have served as supports for the suspension of a pointing machine
because the machine requires a mound on top and two at the bottom, not
the other way round. 142 The triangle formed by the three points on this
bust is evidence of triangulation, where the measurements would have
been taken by means of the three-calliper system. These measurements
were not drilled into the stone: the surface of the Eubouleus lacks the
network ofholes made by the pointer which is the unmistakable evidence
of the use of a pointing machine.
A couple of unfinished pieces from the islands of Delos and Rheneia,
which housed the cemeteries of Delos, provide evidence on the copying
methods of Greek studios in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods.
These unfinished sculptures are generally assumed to have been abandoned after the sack of Delos in 88 and again in 66 B.C., as economic
and artistic activity on Delos sharply declined at the end of the first century though all life did not disappear from the island. 143 The unfinished
sphinx (Fig. 77), however, is hard to date because it reproduces a type
found in Asia Minor garland sarcophagi of the second century A.D. 144 In
addition to being a textbook case of tool marks, the sphinx was clearly
reproduced from a model by means of the pointing system. Its surface is

267

268

Greek Sculpture

90. Pointing machine applied to plaster model with unfinished marble head in the background. Museum of the Department of Archaeology, Athens University. Photo H. R
Goette.

Marble Carving Techniques

littered with puntelli arranged in groups of three, not on the same plane.
A cluster of three, for example, is made up by a puntello on either side
of the left leg and a third on the plinth. Another cluster is formed by a
mound on the hydria handle, another on the sphinx's right elbow and a
third on the back ofher hand.145 There are further clusters on her chest
and elsewhere. The mounds are too close to one another to have provided
a support for a pointing machine. They are instead primary measuring
points that served as mounts for callipers. The lack of a network of drill
holes is further indication that no pointing machine was used here.
A different copying system was employed on the unfinished sculpture
of a youth from Delos or Rheneia.146 This, too, provides an inventory of
tool marks. In addition, it shows that the sculptor worked on his piece
from top to bottom and from front to back. 147 The lower legs and feet are
still embedded in the matrix, roughly blocked out with a point. The best
part of the figure was worked with a fine point, while the head, shoulders
and upper part of the chest were modelled with a claw chisel. The copying
system here is probably more akin to that used in the pediments of
Olympia (Fig. 89), involving as it does a boss over the forehead. This is
pierced with three holes which correspond to three holes at the bottom
of the figure, one on the outside of his left foot, one in the area between
the feet, and a third, now missing, on or adjacent to the right foot. These
holes would have served as mounts for nails. The sculptor would have
stretched three diagonal cords between the nails, fanning out from top
to bottom as the holes on the head are placed closer together than those

by the feet. The cords would have provided vertical measuring points
for transferring details from the model to the stone. Sixteen circular
depressions cut with a bull-nosed chisel on a projecting area over the
abdomen are all that remains of the horizontal measuring points. Oddly
enough, this network of depressions forms the closest ancient parallel
to

the holes drilled by the modern pointing machine. A similar copying

method, including an elevated area with circular depressions, is evident

on an unfinished Aphrodite, Athens, National Museum 3188.148 The
application of vertical cords tied to nails stuck on perforated mounds
can also be reconstructed on an unfinished Athenian table support of
the Roman period, with Dionysos leaning on a satyr. 149 The three drill
holes in the figures' chests may have served as horizontal measuring
pomts.

269

270

Greek Sculpture

The table support comes from a Roman workshop situated outside

Hadrian's Gate in Athens, which also produced an unfinished group of
a satyr embracing a nymph. 150 This group was copied by mechanical
means since it shows several stages of execution but lacks any traces of
perforated mounds or any other evidence of the pointing process. The
fact that details of the figures are nearly completely modelled in front
while the back is roughly sketched with a point indicates that the marble
block was delivered from the quarry without any preliminary trimming.
A similar case of an unfinished Roman statue which lacks all traces of
puntelli or any other holes is the Lenormant Athena, a reduced reproduction of Pheidias' Athena Parthenos from the second century A.D
(Colour pl. 8).1 51 It is noteworthy that the sculptor again worked from
top

to

bottom, as the head is in more advanced stage than the base.

Because the sculptor was able to adopt a piecemeal approach modelling

some parts of the figure while others are still roughly blocked out, it cannot be argued that the statue was carved free-hand. He must have used
a copying system, probably the three-calliper method that left no traces
on the stone. On the other hand, we have

to

assume that the reduced

model of the gold and ivory AthenaParthenos from which the Lenormant
Athena was derived, was created free-hand, since copyists would not have
been allowed

to

take moulds of a colossal figure in precious materials.

All copies of the Parthenos are of necessity

on free-hand adapta-

tions, which allowed the sculptors greater scope for invention than any
mechanical copying devices. That Greek sculptors generally preserved
their artistic freedom is evident by the high standards of workmanship
in their carving techniques of all periods.

Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the late sculptor Stelios Triantis for his advice on carving
techniques over several years of research; to Marisa Marthari for permission to view the recently excavated kore on Thera, and to John Boardman
for his encouragement.

Abbreviations
Adam

S. Adam, The Technique of Greek Sculpture

in the Archaic and Classical Periods (London
1966)

Marble Carving Techniques

Bluemel

271

C. Bluemel, Greek Sculptors at Work (London

1969)
Kaltsas
N. Kaltsas Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Los Angeles 2002)
Palagia, "Techniques"
0. Palagia, "Les techniques de la sculpture
grecque sur marbre," in D. Vanhove (ed.),
Marbres helleniques (Brussels 1987) 76-89
Palagia, "Pointing machine" 0. Palagia, "Did the Greeks use a pointing
machine?" Bulletin Archeologique 30 (2003)

55-64
Notes
1. Previous surveys of Greek marble carving techniques include: Adam; Bluemel;
B. S. Ridgway, "Stone carving: sculpture," in C. Roebuck (ed.), The Mttses at
Work (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1969) 96-117; Palagia, "Techniques"; J.-C.
Bessac, "Problems of identification and interpretation of tool marks on ancient
marbles and decoration stones," in N. Herz and M. Waelkens (eds.), Classical
Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade (Dordrecht 1988) 41-53; D. Boschung
and M. Pfanner, "Les methodes de travail des sculpteurs antiques et leur signification dans 1' his to ire de la culture," in M. Waelkens (ed.), Pierre eternelle du Nil
au Rhin (Brussels 1990) 128-142; N. Duman, "Stone sculpture," in R. Ling (ed.),
Making Classical Art (Stroud 2000) 18-36. P. Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking
(Cambridge 1993) relates more to marble carving in Italy, ancient and modern.
2. Adam.
3. See Chapter I.
4. See Chapters I and II.
5. Cf Chapter VI.
6. The sphinx from Delos (Fig. 77), Athens, National Museum 1661 is a veritable
inventory of tool marks: Palagia, "Pointing machine," 58-59. See also Kaltsas,
no. 602. The provenance from Delos is advocated by I. Trianti, "0 Aov8ol3tKOS
Pocrs Kat Ta yAvrrT6: Twv KvKA6:8wv," in H . R. Goette and 0. Palagia (eds.),
Ludwig Ross und Griechenland (Berlin 2005) 183-185. On mass production and
copying methods, see below, pp. 262-270.
7. On Egyptian copper and bronze tools cf D. Arnold, Building in Egypt (Oxford
1991) 257-259.
8. G. Kokkorou-Alevra, "Ta apxala AOTOiJEta iJOpiJapov TllS
ArchEph 1992,
101-126; D. U. Schilardi and D. Katsonopoulou (eds.),PariaLithos (Athens 2000)
27-103. See also Chapter II.
9.].-Y. Marc, "Who owned the marble quarries ofThasos in the Imperial period?"
in Y. Maniatis, N. Herz, Y. Basiakos (eds.), The Study of Marble and Other Stones
Used in Antiquity, ASMOSIA 3 (London 1995) 35. Cf head ofGaius Caesar(?) in
Thasian marble found in Athens, National Museum 3606: K. Rhomiopoulou,
Eililrwopw!Jaika yilurrTa Tou EevzKou ApxmoiloyzKou fV!ouadou (Athens 1997)
no. 10; Kaltsas, no. 660.
10. G. Kokkorou-Alewras, "Die archaische Naxische Bildhauerei," AntP 24 (1995)
nos.

11. Delos Museum A 728: Kokkorou-Alewras (supra n. 10) no. 12, figs. 24-26;
C. Vorster, "Friiharchaische Plastik," in P. C. Bol (ed.) , Frahgriechische Plastik
(Mainz/ Rhein 2002) 130, fig. 199.

272

Greek Sculpture

12. Delphi Museum. Kokkorou-Alewras (supran. 10) no. 87, pls. 54- 55 . The Sphinx
and its column, capital and base are made of marble from two differem Naxian
quarries: 0. Palagia and N. Herz, "Investigation of marbles at Delphi," in J.
Herrmann ,Jr., N. Herz, R. Newman (eds.),Interdisciplinary StudiesonAncientStone,
ASMOSIA 5 (London 2002) 241, 243 .
13. K. Karakasi, ArchaischeKoren (Munich 2001) 81, pl. 76. See also Ch. I, p. 29 n. 33.
14. Kerameikos Museum P 1700: W.-D. Niemeier, Der Kuras vom Heiligen Tor
(Mainz/ Rhein 2002).
15. New York Kouros, Metropolitan Museum of Art 32.11.1: Niemeier (supra n.
14) figs. 60-62. Dipylon head: Athens, National Museum 3372: Kaltsas, no. 13;
Niemeier (supra n.14) figs. 57-59.
16. Strabo 8.5.7 (367). 0. Palagia, "Seven pilasters ofHerakles from Sparta," inS.
Walker and A. Cameron (eds.), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, BICS
Supplement 55 (London 1989) 123, fig. 8; F. A. Cooper, "The quarries ofMount
Taygetos in the Peloponnesos, Greece," inHerzand Waelkens (supran. 1) 65-76.
17. H. Goette, K. Polikreti, T. Vacoulis, Y. Maniatis, "Investigation of the greyishblue marble of Pemelikon and Hymettus," in M. Schvoerer (ed.), Anheomate1-iaux. Marbres et autres roches, ASMOSIA 4 (Bordeaux 1999) 83-90.
18. H.J. Kienast, "Topographische Studien im Heraion von Samos," AA 1992,210213.
19. J. Carter, "Isotopic analysis of seventh century B.C. perirrhanteria," in Herz and
Waelkens (supran. 1) 419- 431; H. Pimpl,Perin'hanteriaundLoute1-ia (Berlin 1997)
10-26, 159-172, nos. 1-17; Vorster (supra n. 11) 125-126, fig.194. See also Ch.
I, p. 26.
20. H. Kyrieleis, De1' grosse Kums von Samos) Samos X (Bonn 1996) pls. 15 (Samos
Museum, from the Heraion), 35 (Samos and Istanbul Museums).
21. The unfinished kouros Athens, National Museum 14 was found in the Apollonas
quarry in 1835 and conveyed to Athens by Ludwig Ross in 1836: Bluemel, figs.
12-13; Kokkorou-Alevra (supra n. 8) 116-117,fig. 15; Kokkorou-Alewras (supra
n. 10) no. 37, pl. 29. For other unfinished sculptures from Naxos quarries cf
ibid., figs. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11.
22. Ram-bearer, Thasos Museum 1. Not found in a quarry bur reused as building
material in an archaic wall: Y. Grandjean and F. Salviat (eds.), Guide de Thasos
(Paris 2000) 245-246, fig. 171a,b,c. See also B. Boltzmann, "Types et style de
Paros dans la sculpture de Thasos," in Schilardi and Katsonopolou (supra n. 8)
410, figs. 3-4.
23. Unfinished archaic sculptures from the quarries of Mt. Pentelikon: kouros in
the British Museum: Bluemel, 16, fig. 11; seated goddess in Spilia quarry: M.
Korres, Fmm Pentelicon to the Pm'thenon (Athens 1995) 88, pl. 17, no. 3; lion from
Dionysos quarry on Mt. Pemelikon, ex Piraeus Museum 5760, now Kephisia
Archaeological Collection K 375: Korres, 89, pl. 18, no. 2.
24. Unfinished statues in Roman quarries: cf J. R. Wiseman, "An unfinished
colossus on Mt. Pendeli," A]A 72 (1968) 75-76; R. Carpenter, "The unfinished
colossus on Mt. Pendeli," ibid., 279-280, pl. 98; N. Asgari, "Objets de marbre
finis, semi-finis et inacheves du Proconnese," in Waelkens (supra n. 1) 107-126.
25. A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (London 1972) 76-77. The
emperor could condemn Roman sculptors to hard labour in the quarries, especially if they were Christians. The four Christian sculptors sent by Diocletian
to the quarries of Pannonia eventually became the patron saints of sculpture
(Sancti IV coronati): F. Millar, "Condemnation to hard labour in the Roman

Marble Carving Techniques

Empire from the Julio-Claudians to Constantine," PBSR 52 (1984) 140- 143.

They are immortalized by Nanni di Banco in a sculptural group set up by the
sculptors' guild in Or San Michele, Florence, in the early fifteenth century:
C. Avery, Florentine Renaissance Sculpture (London 1970) 59, fig. 40.
26. Delos Museum A 3194: Palagia, "Techniques," 81, fig . 5; Die gri.echische Klassik.
Idee oder Wirklichkeit, exh. cat. Berlin (Mainz/Rhein 2002) 464-465, no. 317.
27. AgoraS 37: Palagia, "Techniques," 82, fig. 6.
28. Agora S 2452: E. B. Harrison, "Repair, reuse and reworking of ancient Greek
sculpture," in M. True and]. Podany, Marble. Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives
on Ancient Sculpture (Malibu 1990) 166-167, fig. 3.
29 . Karakasi (supra n. 13).
30. G. Koch, SarkophagederromischenKaiserzeit (Darmstadt 1993) 32-42, figs. 18-24,
47, 56.
31. Tool names in several languages are listed in R. Ginouves and R. Martin, Dictionnaire methodique de /'architecture grecque et romaine I (Paris 1985); tools are
illustrated in Bluemel, fig. 16; tool marks are illustrated in Bessac (supra n. 1).
32. In the early fifth century B.C. the stonemason Archedemos of Thera portrayed
himselfholding a mallet in a rock-cut relief in the cave of Pan in Vari: G. Schomer
and H. R. Goette, Die Pan-Grotte von Vari (Mainz/ Rhein 2004) pls. 11, 1- 2.
33. C. Bhimel, Griechische Bildhatterarbeit (Berlin and Leipzig 1927) 3; S. Casson,
The Technique of Early Greek Sculpture (Oxford 1933) 178-180; Bluemel, fig. 16e;
Bessac (supra n. 1) 49.-50, fig. 13.
34. Bluemel, 18-20; Adam, 11-12.
35. Athens, National Museum 14: supra n. 21.
36. Athens, Akropolis Museum 593: 0. Palagia and R. S. Bianchi, "Who invented
the claw chisel?" O]A 13 (1994) 187, fig. 1.
37. Glyptothek 48: Bluemel, fig. 10; Boschung and Pfanner (supra n. 1) 133, fig. 8b;
Palagia and Bianchi (supra n. 36) 187-188, figs. 2-3.
38. The Egyptian origin of the claw chisel is argued by Palagia and Bianchi (supra
n. 36) 185-197. Accepted by]. Boardman, Persia and the West (London 2000)
36.
39. Eros: first or second century A.D.: M. N. Tad and A.]. B. Wace, A Catalogue of
the Sparta Museum (Oxford 1906) 148, no. 94. Eubouleus (second century A.D.):
E. B. Harrison,"New sculpture from the Athenian Agora, 1959," Hesperia 29
(1960) 382-389, pl. 85c-d. For the flat chisel in the late sixth century B.C., cf the
background of a statue base from the Kerameikos, Athens, National Museum
3476: Kaltsas, no 95; Casson (supra n. 33) figs. 65-66.
40. Athens, National Museum 332: Kaltsas, no. 164. Dated to the Roman period by
E. B. Harrison, Agora XI, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (Princeton 1965) 131, pl.
66e.
41. Athens, Akropolis Museum 624: Adam, pl. 13. See also Ch. II, pp. 55-56. On the
drove, see G. M.A. Richter, "The drove," A]A 47 (1943) 188-193; Adam, 23-25.
42. Bessac (supra n. 1) fig. 9.
43. Bow drill in operation: Casson (supra n. 33) figs. 81-82.
44. G. M.A. Richter, "Note on the running drill," A]A 37 (1933) fig. 3; M. Pfanner,
"Vom 'laufenden Bohrer' bis zum 'bohrlosen Stil,"' AA 1968, fig. 6.
45. The tomb belonged to the Christian sculptor Eutropos and the slab is signed
by his son: Koch (supra n. 30) figs. 27-28.
46. Athens, National Museum 1: Karakasi (supra n. 13) pl. 213.
47. Palagia and Herz (supra n. 12) 243, fig. 4.

273

274

Greek Sculpture

48. Olympia Museum: E. Walrer-Karydi,DieAginetischeBildhaumchule (Mainz/ Rhein

1987) 43, figs. 43-45. See also Ch. II, p. 58 n. 90. For inlaid eyes and hair locks
in the sixth century B.C. cf. Chapter II, pp. 55-58.
49. M. Brouskari, The Akmpolis Museum (Athens 1974) fig. 252.
SO. U. Knigge, "EinJi.inglingskopf vom Heiligen Tor in Athen," AM 98 (1983) pl. 11;
C. Rolley, La Sculptu1'e grecque I (Paris 1994) fig. 332. See also Ch. IV, p. 122 n. 25.
51.]. Boardman and D. Finn, The Parthenon and its Sculptures (London 1985) pls. 76,
87, 106.
52. Athens, Akropolis Museum 720: F. Brommer, Die Metopen des Pa1'thenon
(Mainz/ Rhein 1967) 89, pl. 195,3.
53. Athens, Akropolis Museum 722: Brommer (supra n. 52) 89- 90, pl. 196,1.
54. E.g. dying warrior in the east pediment of the Aphaia temple with long spiral
locks made of lead: D. Ohly, Die Aegineten I (Munich 1976) 76-79, figs. 67, 70,
pl. 37.
55. Athens, National Museum 715: Adam, pl. 57b. See also Ch. IV, p. 145.
56. Slab VI, Akropolis Museum 864: F. Brommer, Der Parthenonfries(Mainzj Rhein
1977) pl. 59 N VI; Palagia, "Techniques," fig. 9.
57. Cf. Richter (supra n. 44); Pfanner (supra n. 44) 667-676.
.
58. Athens, National Museum 1662 (second century A.D.): Kaltsas, no. 743.
59. Introduction of running drill in mid fifth century: Bli.imel (supra n. 33) 9; in
Parthenon sculptures: B. Ashmole, "An alleged archaic group," ]HS SO (1930)
102; Richter (supra n. 44) 577; in Nike temple parapet: Casson (supra n. 33)
207; in early fourth century: A. F. Stewart, "Some early evidence for the use
of the running drill," BSA 70 (1975) 199-201; in second quarter of fourth
century: Adam, 66. Running drill channels in fourth-century grave reliefs: Adam,
pl. 17b.
60. Adam, pl. 27.
61. Athens, Akropolis Museum: 0. Palagia, The Pediments of the Parthenon (Leiden
1993)42-43, fig. 75.
62. London, British Museum: Palagia (supra n. 61) 46: Illustrated in B. F. Cook, The
Elgin Marble?- (London 1997) fig. 48.
63. Athens, Akropolis Museum 682: Adam, pl. 37b.
64. Athens, AgoraS 2154: Adam, pl. 43c.
65. Athens, Akropolis Museum 1363: Palagia (supra n. 61) pl. 114. Cf. also the
fifth-century statue of Demeter, Eleusis Museum 26: Adam, pl. 2Sc.
66. Adam, pl. 33b. See also Ch. V, p. 182.
67. C. Rolley, La Sculpture grecque II (Paris 1999) fig. 280.
68. Bust of Eubouleus: supra n. 39. For running drill channels in hair see also
Pfanner (supra n . 44) fig. 12a-b.
69. For an example of mechanical running drill channels in Roman sculpture, see
Duman (supra n . 1) fig. 15.
70. Bessac (supra n. 1) fig. 15.
71. See Adam, 75 for examples in the late sixth century B.C.
72. Sparta Museum 3365:]. Do rig, The Olympia Maste1' and his Collabourators (Leiden
1987) pls. 5, 7-9, 11, 14.
73. Theophrastos, On Stones 21-22 (pumice); Pliny, NH 36.52 and 54 (emery), 154156 (pumice).
74. E. Langlotz, "Beobachtungen i.iber die antike Ganosis," AA 1968, 470-474; ].
Marcade, Au Musee de Delos (Paris 1969) 101; V. Manzelli, La Policromia nella
statua1'iagreca anaica (Rome 1994) 101- 115.

Marble Carving Techniques

75. The toes of Euphranor's Apollo Patroos are a good instance of high polish
applied to the nude parts of a draped statue: 0. Palagia, Euphranor (Leiden
1980) fig. 17. Apollo's drapery bears no traces of ganosis.
76. T. Homolle, "Comptes rendus des temples deliens en 1' annee 279," BCH 14
(1890) 497-500; M. Holleaux, "Fouilles au temple d' Apollon Ptoos," BCH
14 (1890) 184-185; J. Marcade, Au Musee de Delos (Paris 1969) 101. See also
Plutarch, Moralia 287b.
77. Plutarch, Moralia 74E.
78. Brouskari (supra n . 49) fig. 145.
79. Karakasi (supra n. 13) pl. 264.
80. Palagia (supra n. 61) 41, fig. 25. See also Ch. IV, p. 135.
81. L. Todisco, Scultura greca del N secolo (Milan 1993) pl. 129.
82. Cf. Chapters II and IV. For painted marbles, see also Manzelli (supra n. 74); A.
Scholl, Die attischen Bildfeldstelen des 4. ]hs. V Chr.) AM-BH 17 (Berlin 1996) 185200; R. Posamenrir, "Drei 'neue' bemalte Stelen aus dem Kerameikos Museum,"
AM 114 (1999) 127-138; B.S. Ridgway, Prayers in Stone (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London 1999) 103-142; M.A. Tiverios and D. S. Tsiafakis (eds.), Color in Ancient
Greece (Thessaloniki 2002) 23-45, 161-178, 245-255; B. Bourgeois and P.Jockey,
"Polychrome Hellenistic sculpture in Delos: research on surface treatments of
ancient marble sculpture. Part I," in L. Lazzarini (ed.), Interdisciplinary Studies on
Ancient Stone, ASMOSIA 6 (Padova 2002) 497 -506; V. Brinkmann, Die Polychromie
der archaischen und Jrahklassischen Skulptur (Munich 2003); Bunte Gotter, exh. cat.
Glyprorhek Munchen (Munich 2003).
83. The background of grave reliefs, architectural friezes and pedimental tympana
could be painted blue, e.g. fourth-century grave relief Athens, Third Ephoreia
4521: L. Parlama and N. Stampolides, The City Beneath the City (Athens 2000) no.
447; Hephaisreion frieze: E. B. Harrison, "'Theseum' east frieze: colour traces
and attachment cuttings," Hesperia 57 (1988) 339; Mausoleum friezes: I. Jenkins
etal. "The polychromy of the Mausoleum," in I. Jenkins and G. B. Waywell (eds.),
Sculptors and Sculpture ofCaria and the Dodecanese (London 1997) 37 -38; tympana
of Aphaia pediments: D. Ohly) Agina Tempel undHeiligtum (Munich 1978) 44. See
also Bunte Gotter (supra n. 82) 180-185.
84. Pliny, NH 35.133. Ancient sources documenting the colouring of sculpture are
collected by 0. Primavesi, in Brinkmann (supra n. 82) 91-106.
85. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 50.11.4: M. Robertson, A History of
Greek Art (Cambridge 1975) 485, pl. 152a (with a discussion of the encaustic
technique); A. D. Trendall, Red Figure Vases ofSouth Italy and Sicily (London 1989)
fig. 131;]. Boardman, The History ofGreek Vases (London 2001) fig. 257.
86. Aphaia sanctuary storeroom S 152, S 225: Brinkmann (supra n. 82) cat. nos.
299,302.
87. E. D. Clarke, Travels in Various Countries ofEurope) Asia and Africa 6 (London 1818)
239; Palagia (supra n. 61) 12.
88 . G. Treu, Olympia III (Berlin 1897) 200, fig. 231.
89. B. Bourgeois and P. Jockey, "Le geste et la couleur. Strategies et mises en
couleurs de la sculpture hellenistique de Delos," Bulletin Archeologique 30 (2003)
73-77.
90. E.g. the head Athens, National Museum 177, infra n. 99. Red on hair is nor
always evidence of gilding: F. Queyrel, Les Portraits des Attalides (Paris 2003)
128.
91. A enid 1.5 92, transl.] ohn Dryden.

275

276

Greek Sculpture

92. Cf Chapters IV and V, andMarcade (supran. 76) 95-96 (wooden accessories); B.

S. Ridgv.ray, "Metal attachments in Greek marble sculpture," in True and Podany
(supra n. 28) 185- 201.
93. Jenkins (supra n . 83) 37-38. Cf Ch. V, p. 192.
94. Dying warrior from Aphaia pediment, supra n . 54.
95 . Lists are provided by V. M . Strocka, "Aphroditekopf in Brescia," jdi 82 (1967)
123-136; A. Laronde and F. Queyrel, "Un nouveau portrait de Ptolemee III a
Apollonia de Cyrenarque," CRAI (2001) 773-782.
96. Flowing bronze strands of hair, for example, were added to the forehead of
"Theseus" from the pediment of the temple of Apollo Sosianus in Rome, now in
Centrale Montemartini: E. La Rocca, Amazzonomachia (Rome 1985) fig. 12. In a
paper delivered at the colloquium "Structure, Image, Ornament: Architectural
Sculpture of the Greek World", held at the American School of Classical Studies
at Athens on November 27- 28, 2004, A. P. Horvath demonstrated that the holes
around the skull of Centaur "Eurytion" in the west pediment of the temple of
Zeus at Olympia and some of the holes in Pelops' head in the east pediment
served for the attachment of metallic locks ofhair. See also Ch. IV, p. 121 with
n . 21, p . 128 with n . 106.
97. E.g. marble half head of the fourth century B.C. (dedicated to Asklepios as a
body part) with inlaid eyes made of white marble and coloured stones: Athens,
National Museum 15244: M. Salta, "'Ynep TfiS yvvo:lKOS

Ao-KATJm0,'' in D. Damaskos (ed.), Errm)!J.[3zov G. Neumann) Benaki Museum

Supplement 2 (2003) 174, figs. 2-5.
98. E. g. head ofHygieia from a Hellenistic acrolith signed by Attalos the Athenian,
Pheneos Museum: B. Andreae, Skulpturdes Hellenismus (Munich 2001) fig. 53.
99. E. g. head of a Roman acrolith from the south slope of the Akropolis: Athens,
National Museum 177: Palagia, "Techniques," fig. 10; Kaltsas, no. 244; Salta
(supra n. 97) 174- 175, fig. 8; G. Despinis, Zu akrolithstatuen griechische1' und
romischer Zeit (Gottingen 2004) 297-298, figs. 48- 50.
100. E.g. Sabouroffhead, Berlin, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 308: V. Brinkmann,
Hisuren in Stein (Munich 1998) 55, B 16; P. Karanastassis, "Hocharchaische Plastik," in Bol (supra n. 11) 208, fig. 285. The suggestion that his facial hair was
made of plaster is in C. Bhi.mel, "Griechische Marmorkopfe mit Periicken," AA
1937, 52- 56, figs. 1, 3. It is more likely that he wore a bronze wig and beard,
as reconstructed in T. Schafer et al., "Marmor und Bronze," AntW 34 (2003)
575-577 (thanks are due to John Pollini for this reference).
101. For the suggestion that pitted skulls carried bronze helmets, see Schafer (supra
n. 100); Ch. II, p. 59 n. 95 and Ch. IV, p. 122. The rwo bronze pins at the back
of the skull of the Morya Youth (Morya, G. Whitaker Museum IG 4310), for
example, probably held a bronze helmet: N. Bonacasa and A. Buttitta (eds.), La
Statua mannorea di Mozia (Rome 1988) pl. IX,2. On the Morya Youth, see also
Ch. III, p. 100.
102. H. Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemaer (Berlin 1975) 130-133; Laronde and Queyrel
(supra n. 95) 757-759.
103. Museum of Fine Arts 59.51: Kyrieleis (supra n. 102) 175- 176, H 6, pls. 62 and
64; P. E. Stanwick, Portraits ofthe Ptolemies (Austin 2002) 58-59, figs. 265-266.
104. H .-V. Herrmann, D ie Olympia-Skulptu1'en (Darmstadt 1987) .
105. The use of preliminary models for the pediments of the temple of Zeus at
Olympia and of the Parthenon is now generally accepted: Bhi.mel (s upra n. 33)
33; Palagia (supra n. 61) 8; cf Ridgway (supra n. 82) 196. Rockwell's (supra n. 1)

Marble Carving Techniques

116-117 statement that the use of models for pedimental figures is introduced
in the late sixth century B.C. is not supported by the evidence.
106. Cf. Chapter VI.
107. Berlin, Staatliche Antikensammlungen F 2415: Beazley, ARV2 776,1; Bluemel,
36, fig. 28; Rolley (supra n . 50) 69-70, fig. 61.
108. IG 13 474,251 and 476,258-263. G. P. Stevens et al., The Erechtheum (Cambridge,
Mass. 1927) 320-321, 394-395, 409; A. Burford, The Greek Temple Builders at
Epidauros (Liverpool1969) 218.
109. On Stones 67.
110. Now in Baia Castle, Museo Archeologico di Campi Flegrei: C. Landwehr, Die
antiken Gipsabgttsse aus Baiae (Berlin 1985); P. Minero, Baia. Il Castello) il museo)
!'area archeologica (Naples 2000) 50-52. For plaster casts taken of statues, see
Lucian, Iupp. Trag. 33.
111. Cf. Ridgway (supra n. 82) 189.
112. Typoi interpreted as preliminary models: N. Yalouris, "Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempels in Epidauros," AntP 21 (1992) 70-71.
113. The meaning of typos is elucidated by J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek Art
(New Haven and London 1974) 272-293.
114. Cf. Rolley (supra n. 50) 24-25. That Timotheos' typoi were appliques on the
statue base of Asklepios was suggested by W. Posch, "Die Tvnot des Timotheos,"
AA 1991, 69-73.
115. K. D. S. Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford
2001)71-73,96, 169, 173.
116. Pliny, NH 35.153. For an illustration of the process of taking casts from life, see
N. Penny, The Materials of Sculpture (New Haven and London 1993) fig. 177.
117. Pliny (supra n. 116). P. C. Bol, Antike Bronzetechnik (Munich 1985) 125.
118. Piraeus Museum 4646: C. C. Mattusch, Classical Bronzes (Ithaca and London 1996) 135-137; 0. Palagia, "Reflections on the Piraeus bronzes," in 0.
Palagia (ed.), Greek Offerings. Essays on Greek Art in Honour of john Boardman
(Oxford 1997) 184- 185; M. Fuchs, In Hoc Aetiam Genere Graeciae Nihil Cedamus
(Mainz/ Rhein 1999) 12-14.
119. Pausanias 1.16.3; 2.10.5; 9.10.2. V. M. Strocka, "Der Apollon des Kanachos in
Didyma und der Beginn des Strengen Stils," jdi 117 (2002) 81-125 . See also
Ch. VI, pp. 211-212. On copying and duplication in the archaic and classical
periods, see F. Brommer, "Vorhellenistische Kopien und Wiederholungen von
Statuen," in Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson. I (St. Louis 1951) 674-682; V. M.
Strocka, "Variante, Wiederholung und Serie in der griechischen Bildhauerei," jdi
94 (1979) 143-173 (particularly on duplication of reliefs); B.S. Ridgway, Roman
Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem ofthe Originals (Ann Arbor 1984) 5-14; L.-A.
Touchette, "The mechanics of Roman copy production?" in G. R. Tsetskhladze,
A. J. N. Prag and A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Periplous. Papers on Classical Art and
Archaeology Presented to Sir john Boardman (London 2000) 350-351.
120. Tehran Museum: Strocka (supra n. 119) 161-162; Ridgway (supra n. 119) 8, pl.
16;]. Boardman, Greek Scttlpture. The Classical Period (London 1991) 51, fig. 24.
121. E.g. Vatican Museum 754: Ridgway (supra n. 119) 8, pl. 17; Boardman (supra n.
120) fig. 25.
122. B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia. The Sculptures ofthe Temple ofZeus (London
1967) pls. 69 (east pediment seer L), 90 (west pediment Lapith Q), 144 and 147
(Athena and Herakles on metope ofNemean lion), 161 (Herakles on metope of
Stymphalian birds) .

277

278

Greek Sculpture

123. Bluemel, 48-52.

124. I am grateful to Stelios Triantis for explaining this method to me.
125. On the three-calliper system, see Palagia, "Pointing machine."
126. E.g. west pediment Apollo: Bluemel, fig. 22.
127. B.S. Ridgway, The Seve1'e Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1970) 19.
128. If the Hermes at Olympia is an original work by Praxiteles, then the strut between
his hips and the tree-trunk (Adam, pl. 70a) may not have been removed because
the master himself did not go to Olympia to take care of the final details. The
fact that he is ofParian marble whereas all Roman sculptures at Olympia are of
Pentelic is an argument in favour of his originality.
129. Pausanias 1.3.4; Zenobios 5.82. See also 0. Palagia, "Pheidias epoiesen: attribution
as value judgement," in C. Morgan (ed.), Festschrift for G. B. Waywell, BICS
Supplement (forthcoming).
130. Palagia (supra n . 61) 7-9 and n. 8 with previous bibliography. Pheidias' impact
on the architectural sculptures of the Parthenon is discussed by Ridgway (supra
n. 82) 193-200.
131. IG I3 476 144-181; Stevens (supra n. 108) 386-389, 413-414.
132. This is especially evident in some pedimental figures of the temple of Asklepios
at Epidauros, e.g. dying warrior in right corner of west pediment, B. Schlarb,
Timotheos (Berlin 1965) pl. 6.
133. Vasari's Introduction to the Lives of the Artists: L. S. Maclehose and G. Baldwin
Brown, Vasan on Technique (New York 1960) 150- 151.
134. On Stones 67.
135. Ca. 1512-1518. London, Victoria and Albert Museum: J. Pope-Hennessy, Catalogue ofItalian Sculpture in the Victo1'i.a and Albert Museum (London 1964) no. 443.
136. Ca. 1902. Paris, Musee d' Orsay: C. Lampert, Rodin: Sculpture and Dmwings
(London 1986) 135, fig. 223; C. Mathieu, Guide to the Musee d'Orsay (Paris 1992)
192.
137. Archaic and classical reproductions: supra n. 119. For serial production of
bronzes, see Chapter VI.
138. See Ridgway (supra n. 119) 9-29; E. Bartman,AncientSculptuml CopiesinMiniatuYe
(Leiden, New York, Cologne 1992).
139. Mainly advocated by G. M.A. Richter, Ancient Italy (Ann Arbor 1955) 105-111,
fig. 295.
140. On the operation of the pointing machine and why it was not used in antiquity,
see now Palagia 2003, 57-64, fig. 1. See also Rockwell (supra n. 1) 121-122,
drawing 45; Bartman (supra n. 138) 69-70.
141. Supra n. 39.
142. Palagia, "Pointing machine," 62-63, figs. 9-10. Perforated mounds seen as evidence of the application of a pointing machine: Richter (supra n. 139).
143. P. Bruneau and J. Ducat, Guide de Delos (Paris 1983) 28-29. By the second
century A.D. the only inhabitants of Delos were the Athenian garrison: Pausanias
8.33.2.
144. G. Koch and H. Sichtermann, Romische Sarkophage (Munich 1982) 483, fig. 516.
On the sphinx, see supra n. 6.
145. Palagia, "Pointing machine," fig. 3.
146. Athens, National Museum 1660: Bhimel (supran. 33) 57- 58, no. 15, pls. 23-24b;
Bluemel, 46-48, fig. 36; Palagia, "Pointing machine," 63- 64, fig. 4. On a possible
Delian provenance, see Trianti (supra n. 6).

Marble Carving Techniques

147. M . B. Hollinshead, "From two to three dimensions in unfinished Roman sculpture," in Herrmann, Herz,Newman (supran. 12) 225-230 has argued that figures
carved from front to back were in fact copied from two-dimensional designs. The
pointing process, however, enables the sculptor to model the front before dealing with the back, as illustrated by a modern unfinished copy of the Varvakeion
Athena: Richter (supra n. 139) fig. 294.
148. Richter (supra n. 139) 109, fig. 296.
149. Athens, National Museum 245: Palagia, "Pointing machine," 61 , figs . 5- 8; Kaltsas, no. 576.
150. Palagia, "Techniques," 80, fig. 3. More copies of this piece, approximately of
the same size, are known, e.g. British Museum 1658, Palagia, "Techniques," 80,
fig. 4.
151. Athens, National Museum 128, from a workshop near the Pnyx: Bhimel (supra
n. 33) 66, no. 36, pl. 38c; Kaltsas, no. 190; G. Nick, D ie Athena Parthenos, AM-BH
19 (Mainz/ Rhein 2002) 239- 240, A 14, pl. 18,1.

279