No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The peculiar freshness and clarity of surface and detail which distinguishes so much of archaic Greek sculpture in marble seems to be due to the perfection of technical methods no less than to the consummate skill and genius of the artists. At present little investigation has been made as to what those technical methods were. Carl Blümel has laid a sure foundation for future study, but much can be done to amplify his conclusions. The following notes constitute an attempt to ascertain some of the technical facts from a study of the original works of art.
The simple drill.—Some light has recently been shed on the use of the drill in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. and the gradual transition from the simple to the running drill. But it is still a matter of some uncertainty when the drill came into use in the archaic period, first for minor and then for major detail; for it remained for centuries an adjunct only and did not become a major tool until Roman times.
1 Griechische Bildhauerarbeit (Berlin 1927).
2 Nevertheless those who have investigated the question are by no means in agreement. Thus Prof.Carpenter, Rhys (The Sculpture of the Nike Temple Parapet, 1929, p. 78Google Scholar) attributes the ‘transition from the stationary to the running drill’ to the ‘experimentation of the Masters of the Parapet.’ Prof.Ashmole, B. (J.H.S., 1930, p. 102Google Scholar) states categorically that ‘the runing drill was introduced in Athens between the time of the Parthenon Frieze and that of the balustrade of Athena Nike.’ MissRichter, (The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, 2nd ed. 1930, p. 145Google Scholar) believes it was introduced in ‘the first half of the fifth century.’ No doubt closer research will give more precision—for these three datings cover some sixty years.
3 National Museum, Athens, No. 1959.
4 A similar drill is used, but very sparingly for undercutting the drapery folds of the Artemis on the frieze of the Cnidian Treasury and on the drapery of the Herakles in the Cnidian pedimental relief.
5 Odyssey, IX. 383.
6 Artemis Orthia (1930), Plates LXIV–LXXIV.
7 For a full discussion of this question see A.J.A., 1903, p. 263 ff.
8 De Ridder: Bronzes de l' Acropole, No. 768, fig. 276.
9 Ibid., p. 290.
10 E.g. from Gournia (No. 967), Psychro Cave (Nos. 453 and 488), Pseira (Nos. 1592 and 1594).
11 The method of rubbing is clearly seen in those cases where the deep groove between the legs of the statuette has been so rubbed that a hole has been cut unintentionally right through the marble.
12 For examples of such characteristic surfaces see Carpenter, Rhys: The Sculptures of the Nike Balustrade (1930), pp. 8 and 17Google Scholar.
13 The emery mines of Naxos were made a Government monopoly in 1824. The average output per annum is about 17,000 tons. It constitutes one of the most important deposits of mineral wealth in Greece. Emery is also found in Asia Minor.
14 There are specimens from Icaria in the Mineralogical Dept. of the Museum at Oxford.
15 E.g. the ‘workshop of Pheidias’ at Olympia (Gardner, , Olympia, p. 243Google Scholar) and the similar ‘workshop’ on the Acropolis (Dooge, Acropolis, Plan: no. 107).
16 Isth. VI. 72.
17 
77. The stone here referred to is not the Naxian but the Armenian, which, according to Pliny, (N.H. 36. 22. 4)Google Scholar, superseded the Naxian. Of the Armenian stone Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. 
) says, 
18 S.v. 
There is in addition some textual confusion in this passage, which has remained unsolved by the few editors of this author. The confusion of whetstone with touchstone may be due to the writer having drawn part of his information from Theophrastus, who discusses touchstones immediately after his account of whetstones.
19 
Suidas more briefly cuts the Gordian knot!
20 Spratt, , Researches in Crete, I. 127Google Scholar.
21 Head, , Historia Numorum, p. 459Google Scholar.
22 N.H. XXXVI. 6. 9. Harena hoc fit et ferro videtur fieri, serra in praetenui linia prementi harenas versandoque tractu ipso secante, etc.
23 XXXVI. 22. 47.
24 S.v. 
25 V. 166: 
26 XLI. 7: 
