CHAPTER VII.

THE MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS, AND THE OLDEST DATED VICTOR STATUE.[2172] FIGURES 78-80. It has been assumed pretty generally by archæologists that the victor statues set up in the Altis at Olympia were uniformly of bronze. Scherer, in his inaugural dissertation _de olympionicarum Statuis_, which appeared in 1885, was the first to discuss the question fully,[2173] and his arguments and conclusions have been followed, for the most part, by later investigators. Thus Dittenberger and Purgold state unequivocally that these statues were “_ausnahmslos aus Bronze_”,[2174] while more recently Hitzig and Bluemner, in their great commentary on Pausanias, have again pronounced the dictum that “_die Siegerstatuen waren durchweg von Erz_”.[2175] Others, however, have not been quite so sweeping in their generalization. Thus Wolters believes that these statues, because they were set up in the open, were “_der Regel nach_” of bronze,[2176] and Furtwaengler and Urlichs assume that they were “_fast ausschliesslich aus Bronze_”.[2177] THE CASE FOR BRONZE. The arguments adduced by Scherer and others in defense of the contention seem at first sight, although inferential in character, quite conclusive. In the first place, it has been pointed out that all the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias in his victor _periegesis_,[2178] if recorded at all in Pliny’s _Historia Naturalis_, appear there in the catalogue of bronze founders as workers in bronze κατ’ ἐξοχήν, while none of them is known exclusively as a sculptor in marble. As Hagelaïdas is the first in point of time, who flourished from the third quarter of the sixth century B. C. to the second quarter of the fifth,[2179] Scherer believed that all statues from his date down—_posteriorum temporum_—were of bronze; and as Rhoikos and Theodoros, the inventors of bronze founding, flourished about Ols. 50 to 60 (= 580 to 540 B. C.),[2180] he believed that bronze might have been used up to their date. In the next place, the excavated bases, which have been identified as those of victor monuments, show footprints of bronze statues. Thirdly, actual bronze fragments, indubitably belonging to victor statues (of which two are attested by inscriptions), were found during the excavations of the Altis. These consist of the following: (_a_) An inscribed convex piece of bronze of imperial times, “_anscheinend vom Schenkel einer Bronzestatue herruehrend_.”[2181] (_b_) A similar inscribed fragment of the same period.[2182] (_c_) The remarkable life-size portrait head of a boxer or pancratiast, which we have already discussed and reproduced (Fig. 61 A and B).[2183] (_d_) A foot of masterly workmanship (Fig. 62) ascribed by Furtwaengler[2184] to the end of the third century B. C. Its position shows that the statue of which it was a part was represented in motion, and consequently it has been assigned to a victor statue. (_e_) A beautifully modeled right arm, somewhat under life-size, supposedly from the statue of a boy victor.[2185] (_f_) A right lower leg of excellent workmanship, assigned by Furtwaengler to the same period as fragment _e_.[2186] Still other bronze fragments of statues found at Olympia may have belonged to statues of victors, especially to those of boys.[2187] The small number of such fragments recovered—Scherer wrongly thought there was none—is explained by assuming that all of these statues were of bronze, and consequently were destroyed by the barbarians in their inroads into Greece during the early Middle Ages, when this metal was much prized.[2188] Another argument for believing that these statues were of bronze is the silence of Pausanias concerning the materials employed in them; for, in his enumeration of 192 such monuments, he mentions the material of only two statues, those of the boxer Praxidamas of Aegina[2189] and of the Opuntian pancratiast Rhexibios,[2190] and he mentions these because of their great antiquity, peculiar position in the Altis apart from the others (near the column of Oinomaos), and the fact that they were made of wood.[2191] Furthermore, in his book on _Achaia_ there occurs this passage in reference to the statue of the victor Promachos, which was set up in the Gymnasion of Pellene: καὶ αὐτοῦ [Προμάχου] καὶ εἰκόνας ποιήσαντες οἱ Πελληνεῖς τὴν μὲν ἐς Ὀλυμπίαν ἀνέθεσαν, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ, λίθου ταύτην καὶ οὐ χαλκοῦ.[2192] Most critics have inferred from these last words, “_the one in the Gymnasion being of stone and not of bronze_,” that, although Pausanias says nothing about the material of statues of victors in the Altis (barring the two just mentioned), by implication all these statues were of bronze; and they point out the fact that other writers furnish no evidence concerning the material used in them—an argument _ex silentio_ to the same effect. Besides these arguments many others have been urged on purely a priori grounds; _e. g._, that, since these statues stood in the open air, subject to all kinds of weathering, they must have been made of bronze;[2193] that metal statues would have been cheaper and more easily prepared than those of marble;[2194] that the later Peloponnesian schools of athletic sculpture, which were characterized by their predilection for bronze-founding, would nowhere have been more prominently in evidence than at Olympia; etc. Thus the case for the use of metal in these statues seems very well substantiated, and, for the reasons given, it can not be reasonably doubted that the vast majority of these monuments were made of bronze. But that they were not exclusively of metal, and that there were many exceptions to the general rule, not only can be conjectured on good grounds, but can be proved by discoveries made at the excavations. We shall briefly consider, then, each of the foregoing arguments in turn, and see whether, in the light of the accumulated evidence, they are really as well founded as they appear to be. THE CASE FOR STONE. As for the first point, that the statuaries mentioned by Pausanias appear only in Pliny’s catalogue of bronze founders, we must remember that Pausanias himself says[2195] that he is making only a selection of the victor monuments in the Altis, those of the more famous athletes. Therefore, the 192 monuments (of 187 victors)[2196] which he does mention must be only a fraction of the multitude of such monuments which once stood at Olympia. Pliny, to be sure, says that it was the custom for all victors to set up statues in the Altis;[2197] but this refers only to the privilege, of which many victors could not or did not avail themselves on account of poverty, early death, or for other reasons.[2198] Still, the number of such dedications must have been very great. Manifestly, therefore, we should not base an argument on the number mentioned. There must, then, have been many other artists employed at Olympia, some of whom may well have been workers in marble. Besides, of the statuaries actually named by Pausanias, many do not appear at all in Pliny’s work, and many of these may have been sculptors exclusively in stone. Of the names found in Pliny, six at least—Kalamis, Kanachos, Eutychides, Myron, Polykles, and Timarchides—appear both in the list of bronze-workers and in that of marble-sculptors.[2199] Similarly, in answer to the second argument that the excavated bases show footprints of bronze statues, we must admit that only a fraction of the bases which once supported statues in the Altis have been recovered. Not one-fifth of the victors mentioned by Pausanias are known to us through these bases.[2200] The fact that actual remains of bronze statues have been excavated at Olympia is matched by the fact that remnants of marble statues have also been found; and it does not seem reasonable, in the light of the evidence adduced by Treu, Furtwaengler, and others, to reject these as fragments of actual victor statues. These fragments include the following:[2201] (_a_, _b_) The two life-size archaic helmeted heads (Fig. 30) which we have ascribed to hoplite victors.[2202] (_c_, _d_, _e_) Fragments of statues of boy victors: _c_ = trunk with left upper leg, three-fifths life-size (Fig. 78);[2203] _d_ = breast, one-half life-size;[2204] _e_ = upper part of legs of a statue, two-thirds life-size.[2205] Besides these Treu also adduces fragments of four different boy statues, all of which are less than life-size.[2206] The reticence of Pausanias as to the material used in these statues is merely in accord with his custom, for he very rarely mentions the materials of monuments, and apparently only where monuments of bronze and stone or other materials stand close together in a circumscribed area, as for instance, in enumerating the various monuments in the Heraion at Olympia.[2207] The only inference, therefore, to be drawn from Pausanias’ statement about the statue of Promachos mentioned is that this particular statue of a victor at Olympia was of bronze. We are not justified in going any further. Besides this stone statue at Pellene we have other actual notices of marble statues of Olympic victors outside Olympia, as those of Arrhachion at Phigalia[2208] (Fig. 79) and of Agias by Lysippos at Delphi (Pl. 28 and Fig. 68). If they existed outside Olympia, there is no reason why they should not have existed in the Altis also, _e. g._, the Lysippan marble head found there, which we assigned in the preceding chapter to the Akarnanian victor Philandridas (Frontispiece, and Fig. 69). Many of the older statues, like that of Arrhachion, conformed with the “Apollo” type, as we have shown in Ch. III,[5] and doubtless many such at Olympia were of marble. [Illustration: FIG. 78.—Small Marble Torso of a Boy Victor, from Olympia. Museum of Olympia.] Reinach’s argument that stone statues in Greece, because of their patina of color, were intended to be placed under cover in the porticoes or cellas of temples and elsewhere, while bronze ones were meant to stand in the open air, has been sufficiently combatted by H. Lechat,[2209] who argues that the use of paint in Greek architecture and on temple sculptures proves the contrary. As the paint was burnt in, it was reasonably durable, and if it did not prove so it was readily renewed. At Olympia, among several examples, we may cite the marble _Nike_ of Paionios, which stood in the open in the space to the east of the temple of Zeus[2210] (see Plans A and B), while, on the other hand, a bronze statue of Aphrodite stood within the Heraion.[2211] The argument that metal statues were cheaper than marble must also be questioned.[2212] In the earlier part of the present work we saw that, for economy’s sake, many victors set up small bronze statuettes instead of statues at Olympia, numbers of which have been recovered. That such dedications were common elsewhere is shown by the countless athlete statuettes—especially diskoboloi—which are to be found in all European museums.[2213] For similar reasons victors would choose in place of bronze the less durable and cheaper stone, as in the cases of Arrhachion and Promachos cited, or even wood, as in those of Rhexibios and Praxidamas. Still others, especially boy victors, would set up small marble statues, two-fifths to two-thirds life-size, as the fragments of the seven examples collected by Treu and already enumerated above show. Thus we see that the contention that the victor statues at Olympia were exclusively of bronze, in the light of the evidence adduced, is untenable. THE STATUE OF ARRHACHION AT PHIGALIA. In his description of Arkadia, Pausanias mentions seeing the stone statue of the pancratiast Arrhachion in the market-place of Phigalia. He describes it as archaic, especially in pose, the feet being close together and the arms hanging by the sides to the hips; and adds that he was told that it once bore an inscription which had become illegible in his day.[2214] This Arrhachion won three victories at Olympia in the pankration in Ols. 52-54 (= 572-564 B. C.).[2215] Therefore his statue is one of the oldest victor monuments of which we have record. At so early a date, before individual types of victor statues had been developed, we should expect, in harmony with the description of Pausanias, that this statue would conform in style with the well-known archaic “Apollo” type, the most characteristic of early Greek sculpture, which, as we saw in Chapter III, is exemplified in the long series of statues found all over the Greek world, the oldest class being represented by the example from Thera (Fig. 9), and one of the youngest by that from Tenea near Corinth (Pl. 8A). [Illustration: FIG. 79.—Stone Statue of the Olympic Victor Arrhachion, from Phigalia. In the Guards’ House at Bassai (Phigalia).] In his commentary on the passage of Pausanias, Sir J. G. Frazer records that during a visit in May, 1890, he saw a recently discovered archaic stone statue in a field just outside Pavlitsa, a village on the site of the southeastern precincts of the old city of Phigalia, some 2.5 miles from the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai. He thought that this statue agreed completely with Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s, even to the half-effaced inscription which he transcribed from its breast just below the neck.[2216] Through the courtesy of Dr. Svoronos, of the National Numismatic Museum in Athens, I have been able to procure a photograph of the monument from K. Kouroniotis, the Arkadian _Ephor_ of antiquities stationed at Bassai, and I present it herewith (Fig. 79). The statue is now cared for in the house of the temple guards. This statue, like all other examples of the series, represents a nude youth standing in a stiff, constrained attitude. It is badly mutilated and its surface is rough from weathering. Besides having lost its head, arms, and the lower part of the legs, it has been broken into two parts across the abdomen. The ends of curls on either side of the neck, extending a few inches over the breast, show that the head looked straight forward, thus following the usual law of “frontality,”[2217] which precluded any turning of the body; for a median line drawn down through the middle of the breastbone, the navel, and the αἰδοῖα would divide the statue into two equal halves. The body shows the quadrangular form of the earlier examples, the sculptor having worked in flat planes at right angles to one another, with the corners merely rounded off. The remains of arms broken off just below the shoulders show that they must have hung close to the sides. The shoulders are broad and square, and display none of the sloping lines characteristic of other examples, as, _e. g._, the one from Tenea. From the breast down the body is slender, the hips being very narrow. The legs show the usual flatness and the left one is slightly advanced, as is uniformly the case in every one of the series. They are somewhat more separated than in many other examples. The αἰδοῖα form a rude pyramidal mass, not being differentiated as they are, _e. g._, in the statues from Naxos and Orchomenos[2218] (Fig. 10). Some attempt at modeling is visible in the muscles of the breast and lower abdomen. In general, it may be said that the similarity in attitude of this statue to Egyptian works impresses us, as it does in all the examples of early Greek sculpture. As the subject of Oriental, especially Egyptian, influence on early Greek art has given rise to very diverse views, we shall make a short digression at this point to discuss this interesting question. EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE. This question has been under discussion in all its bearings ever since Brunn, in 1853, tried to demonstrate the originality of the Daidalian ξόανα,[2219] but, strangely enough, archæologists are not yet agreed as to its proper settlement. While some emphasize the spontaneous origin of Greek art, others quite as strongly advocate that the early Greek sculptor, at least, copied Egyptian models.[2220] Thus Furtwaengler, who early assumed a Cretan origin for the “Apollo” type of statues,[2221] later became convinced that it developed in Ionia through Greek contact with the colony of Naukratis in Egypt, which was founded in the middle of the seventh century B. C. He concluded that this plastic type “_ist bekanntlich nichts als die Nachahmung des Haupttypus aegyptischer statuarischer Kunst_”.[2222] Similarly Collignon traces the archaic male type to Egyptian influence, and assumes that this influence from the Nile valley was exerted on the Greek artist before the latter half of the seventh century B. C.[2223] On the other hand, H. Lechat, in his review of the evolution of Greek sculpture from its beginning, believes that the early sculptor owed but little to Egypt or the East.[2224] Deonna entirely rejects the assumption of Egyptian influence, believing that all the so-called characteristics of early Greek statues can be explained as the result of natural evolution in Greece itself.[2225] Von Mach also completely excludes all foreign influence when he says: “In her sculpture at least, Greece was independent of influence of any one of the countries that can at all come under consideration in this connection, Phœnicia, Assyria, and Egypt.”[2226] But here, as in so many questions about Greek art, the truth must lie between the two extremes.[2227] The economic conditions of early Greece certainly prove that the Greeks were dependent on outside peoples in many ways, and there is no a priori reason for denying this dependence in art. We clearly see Egyptian influence, for example, in the ceiling of the treasury of Orchomenos,[2228] and that the Greeks learned many animal decorative forms as well as a correct observation of nature from Assyrian art is clear, if we study the best examples of the late period of that art, the reliefs from the palace of Assurbanipal at Nineveh (Konyonjik), now in the British Museum. Such decorative designs could be easily transmitted to the Greeks by the Phœnicians on embroidered fabrics. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that early Greek artists, especially in the Greek colonies to the east and south of Greece, were acquainted with earlier models and especially with those of Egypt. The Greeks themselves of a later date recognized this debt to Egypt. This is shown by many passages in Pausanias, which mention the similarity existing between early Greek and Egyptian sculptures,[2229] and by the curious tale told by Diodoros about the Samian artist family of Rhoikos, according to which the latter’s two sons made the two halves of the statue of the _Pythian Apollo_ for Samos separately, Telekles working in Samos and Theodoros in Ephesos. When joined together the two parts fitted exactly, just as if they had been made by one and the same artist. Diodoros adds that τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῆς ἐργασίας παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μηδαμῶς ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις μάλιστα συντελεῖσθαι.[2230] Such a story is valuable in that it shows that the later Greeks believed that they had adopted the conventional Egyptian canon of proportions. If we compare any of the “Apollo” statues with Egyptian standing figures of any period of Egyptian art, as Bulle has done, the resemblances in detail between the two types will be found to be very striking. Thus from the Old Kingdom (Memphitic), which included the first eight dynasties of Manetho,[2231] we may cite the painted limestone statue of Ra-nefer and the wooden one of Tepemankh in the Museum of Cairo (Fig. 80), two men prominent in the fifth dynasty;[2232] or the wood statue of Ka-aper, the so-called _Sheik-el-Beled_, which represents the apogee of Memphitic art, and that of his “wife,” without legs or arms, the two statues being found similarly in a grave at Sakkarah (Memphis), and now being in the same museum.[2233] From the Middle Kingdom, including the eleventh to the seventeenth dynasties,[2234] we may mention the painted statue found at Dahshur and now in Cairo, which represents Horfuabra, the co-regent of Amenemhat III, who was one of the kings of the twelfth dynasty.[2235] From the New Empire, including the eighteenth to the twentieth dynasties,[2236] we cite the draped wood statue of the priestess Tui, a gem of Egyptian art, which was found in a grave near Gurna, and is now in the Louvre;[2237] and lastly the draped alabaster statue of Queen Amenerdis (or Amenartas) in Cairo, the wife of the Aethiopian King Piankhi, who began to absorb Egypt by 721-722 B. C., just before the twenty-fourth dynasty.[2238] After the early dynasties, the Egyptian type of statue was reduced to a fixed and mechanical canon, which was used over and over again with lifeless monotony. In all these statues, whose dates extend over a period of many centuries, we note the same technical characteristics which are observable in the Greek “Apollos,” with the exception that the latter are always nude and lifelike. These characteristics may be summarized thus: long hair falling down over the shoulders in a mass;[2239] shoulders broad in comparison with the hips; arms hanging down stiffly by the sides[2240] or crooked at the elbows;[2241] hands closed, with the thumbs facing forward and touching the ends of the index fingers; the left leg slightly advanced and the soles placed flat on the ground; high ears,[2242] and the upper body and head turned straight to the front.[2243] Only minor differences in the two types appear. Thus the left foot is always further advanced in the Egyptian than in the Greek statues, so that the former appear to have less movement and life.[2244] Since there is no trace of this type in Mycenæan art it seems impossible not to conclude that in some way, doubtless through Ionian sources, it was originally borrowed from Egypt. The imitation of the Egyptian models, however, was never slavishly done. The Greek artist immediately rendered the type his own by making it nude,[2245] and by transmuting the abstract lifeless schema of the Egyptians into a highly individualized one characterized by life and vigor.[2246] This Egyptian influence, it must be remarked, was operative only in the initial stage of Greek sculpture; it was soon lost, as the Greek artist came to rely upon himself. F. A. Lange has truly said: “_Die wahre Unabhaengigkeit der hellenischen Kultur ruht in ihrer Vollendung, nicht in ihren Anfaengen_”.[2247] [Illustration: FIG. 80.—Statues of Ra-nefer and Tepemankh, from Sakkarah. Museum of Cairo.] After this digression we will return to the statue of Arrhachion. Dr. Frazer was unable to decipher the inscription upon the breast with certainty, but made out the following letters, the last four of which are plainly visible in the photograph: ΕΥΝΛΙΑΔ. He believed them to be archaic and the first instance of an inscription on this class of statues. He thought that the name was that of a man, which favored the view that the “Apollo” statues represented mortals rather than gods. The letters form a combination manifestly not Greek, and so may have no significance; it is even possible that they were engraved in modern times.[2248] In any case we have the statement of Pausanias that the inscription was illegible in his day. There seems little doubt, then, that this mutilated and weather-worn statue is the very one seen and described by Pausanias and referred by him to the victor Arrhachion.[2249] It is presented here for two reasons. In the first place, it is the oldest dated Olympic victor statue in existence. Only three older ones are recorded, and none of these has survived to our time. These three are the statues of the Spartan Eutelidas at Olympia, who won the boys’ wrestling and pentathlon matches in Ol. 38 (= 628 B. C.);[2250] of the Athenian Kylon on the Akropolis, who won the double running-race in Ol. 35 (= 640 B. C.);[2251] of the Spartan Hetoimokles at Sparta, who won five times in wrestling at the beginning of the sixth century B. C.[2252] The statue of Oibotas of Dyme, who won the stade-race in Ol. 6 (= 756 B. C.), was not set up until Ol. 80 (= 460 B. C.);[2253] that of the Spartan Chionis, who won five running-races in Ols. 28-31 (= 668-656 B. C.), was made later by Myron.[2254] Pausanias’ statement (VI. 18.7) that the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, who won in Ols. 59 and 61 respectively (= 544 and 536 B. C.), were the oldest at Olympia, is of course incorrect. In the second place, the statue of Arrhachion actually proves what has often been assumed, that some of the statues classed as “Apollos” are really victor monuments. As this question has provoked a good deal of discussion in recent years, I will briefly review the arguments by which the opinion has gradually gained acceptance. EARLY VICTOR STATUES AND THE “APOLLO” TYPE. As the earlier examples of the series were discovered under peculiar circumstances, they gave no clue to their meaning. Thus the “Apollo” of Naxos was found in the quarries of the island, while that from Orchomenos (Fig. 10) was first seen in the convent of Skripou, its exact provenience being unknown. From the first they were denominated “Apollos,” chiefly because of their long hair[2255] and nudity,[2256] while the existence of many small bronzes in the same schema dedicated to the god,[2257] and cult statues of similar pose appearing on vase- and wall-paintings,[2258] helped to make the identification more probable. Certain ancient texts, describing archaic statues of Apollo in this pose, were also cited as evidence, and it was pointed out that many of these statues were actually found in or near sanctuaries of the god. Thus Diodoros, in his description of the ξόανον of the _Pythian Apollo_ made for the Samians by Telekles and Theodoros, which we have already mentioned, says: τὰς μὲν χεῖρας ἔχον παρατεταμένας, τὰ δὲ σκέλη διαβεβηκότα.[2259] Probably the gilded image by the Cretan Cheirisophos in the temple of Apollo at Tegea was of this type.[2260] The later type of “Apollo,” with the arms extended at the elbows, was doubtless followed in the statue of Apollo made for the Delians by Tektaios and Angelion,[2261] and in the works ascribed to Dipoinos and Skyllis and their school. It would be easy to give an extended list of such “Apollo” statues found in sanctuaries.[2262] We might instance one from Naukratis, Egypt;[2263] one from Delos;[2264] two from Aktion;[2265] several from Mount Ptoion in Bœotia;[2266] a copy of the head of the _Choiseul-Gouffier_ Apollo (Pl. 7A) found in Kyrene.[2267] Still others have been found in _temenoi_ of temples, _e. g._, two in that of Apollo at Naukratis,[2268] and one in that of Aphrodite there.[2269] However, against this exclusive interpretation doubts have been raised with ever-increasing precision, until now we can predicate with certainty what Loeschke long ago assumed, that the more statues of the series there are found, the less probable will it become that they should all be ascribed to Apollo.[2270] Conze and Michaelis first argued on the basis of Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue that this type was employed for victor statues.[2271] Koerte’s objection to their view on the ground of the long hair was refuted by Waldstein, who demonstrated that athletes were not represented with short hair until after the Persian wars; he pointed out that the archaic grave-figures of the mortals Dermys and Kitylos discovered at Tanagra, which were sculptured in a constrained attitude analogous to that of the “Apollos,” had long hair.[2272] We now know that the hair of some of the “Apollos” is short, which shows the irrelevancy of this argument,[2273] and we also know that nudity characterizes many archaic statues of mortals. Nor do we learn much from dedications, for we have examples of statues of gods dedicated to other gods and even to goddesses.[2274] _Ex votos_ were often more concerned with the dedicator than with the god to whom the statue was dedicated. Doubtless the cult statues portrayed on vase-paintings are actually those of Apollo, for at this epoch other gods, such as Hermes and Dionysos, are bearded.[2275] Moreover, that a more advanced _schema_ for representing the god Apollo had already become fixed toward the end of the sixth century B. C., we know from ancient descriptions of the statue of the god made for the Delians by Tektaios and Angelion, which represented him in the usual archaic attitude, _i. e._, of the statue of Arrhachion, but with the notable difference that the forearms were outstretched.[2276] That this was the recognized type in the early years of the fifth century B. C., is attested by the bronze statue of the god fashioned by the elder Kanachos of Sikyon for Branchidai, the pose of which is known from several statuettes and from a long series of Milesian coins.[2277] For conservative reasons this favorite pose was kept for cult statues even into the fourth century B. C., as we learn from representations on coins of the golden statue of the god set up in the inmost shrine of the temple at Delphi.[2278] But that many of the earlier examples of the “Apollo” series do represent the god, should not be denied. We agree with Homolle that the old appellation “Apollo,” after having received too much favor, has now by reaction become censured too severely, and in general should still be applied to those statues of the series which have been discovered in or near sanctuaries of the god, and in the absence of any other indication to the contrary, also to those which stand upon bases inscribed with dedications to him.[2279] Such a statue was found on the island of Thasos at the bottom of the cella of the temple of Apollo at Alki and is now in Constantinople.[2280] The colossal statue found on the island of Delos just south of the temple of Apollo,[2281] and the huge torso discovered in Megara[2282] may be referred to the god, for their size favors an ascription to a deity rather than to mortals. And many other examples of the type found in sanctuaries may very well represent Apollo and other gods.[2283] That several of the series were also funerary in character is abundantly proved by the fact that they were discovered in the neighborhood of tombs. Thus the _Apollo of Tenea_ (Pl. 8A) decorated a tomb in the necropolis of Tenea near Corinth.[2284] Likewise the example from Thera (Fig. 9) was found in a rock-cut niche.[2285] Another, now in the British Museum, was found in the _dromos_ of a tomb on the island of Cyprus,[2286] while a fourth was unearthed from the necropolis of Megara Hyblaia in Sicily.[2287] The one found at Volomandra in Attika in 1900 was also found in an old cemetery.[2288] These furnish proof enough of the sepulchral character of many of these statues. Such funerary monuments may, of course, have been been set up also in memory of victors. We are now in a position, on the basis of Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue and the actual monument itself, to maintain with certainty what hitherto has been conjectured only, that although some of these archaic sculptures represent Apollo and other gods, sepulchral dedications, and _ex votos_ in general, others were intended to represent athletes also. Doubtless the other early victor monuments recorded, such as the wooden statues of Praxidamas and Rhexibios, and those of Eutelidas, Kylon, and Hetoimokles, already discussed in Ch. III, conformed with the earlier type, while that of Milo, described by Philostratos,[2289] conformed with the later. Certain examples of the series have already been ascribed to victors. Thus the marble head of Attic workmanship found in or near Athens and known as the Rayet-Jacobsen head (Fig. 22), has been referred to a pancratiast because of its swollen and deformed ears.[2290] Certain statuettes of the same pose as the “Apollos” have been looked upon as copies of athlete statues.[2291] So the early doubts[2292] as to the meaning of these archaic sculptures have been resolved in many cases. We have added one well-attested example to show that they sometimes represented victor monuments.