Apollo akersekomas and the Magic Knot of Herakles (Published 2013)

REGIONALISM AND GLOBALISMIN ANTIQUITY

Exploring Their Limits

Edited by

FRANCO DE ANGELIS

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA————— 7 —————

PEETERSLEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA

2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Series Editor’s Introduction – G.R. Tsetskhladze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Preface – F. De Angelis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

List of illustrations and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Approaches to the Movement of Ancient Phenomena through Time and Space

F. De Angelis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 Innovation and the Transmission of Knowledge in Antiquity: A Look at Current Networking Models

Z.H. Archibald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CHAPTER 3 The Mediterranean Context of Greek Colonisation – A View from Prehistory

N. Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

CHAPTER 4 The Relationship between Egypt and the Levant during the 12th Dynasty: Four Case Studies and the Generation of Prestige

C. Wastlhuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

CHAPTER 5 Banquet, Marzeah, Symposion and Symposium during the Iron Age: Disparity and Mimicry

A.J. Nijboer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

CHAPTER 6 A Regional Performance Culture? The Case of Syracuse D.G. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

CHAPTER 7 Influence, Inspiration or Innovation? The Importance of Contexts in the Study of Iconography: The Case of the Mistress of Animals in 7th-century Greece

A.E. Barclay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

CHAPTER 8 Apollo akersekomas and the Magic Knot of Heracles A.M. Nicgorski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

CHAPTER 9 The Greek Bosporan Kingdom: Regionalism and Globalism in the Black Sea

G.R. Tsetskhladze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 10 Consumption and Choice in Ancient Sicily J.St P. Walsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

CHAPTER 11 Coan Asylia: Small-state Diplomacy and the Hippocratic Legend

E.D. Nelson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

CHAPTER 12 Gender, Sexuality and Space: Geopolitical Reflections on Propertius 3. 13 and 14

B. Weinlich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

CHAPTER 13 Régionalisme fiscal dans l’Égypte romaine: le cas des terres limnitiques mendésiennes

K. Blouin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

CHAPTER 14 L’arc honorifique de Trajan à Constantin: le triomphe de la romanitas

C. Blonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

CHAPTER 15 Glocalising an Empire: Rome in the 3rd Century AD M. Sommer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

CHAPTER 8

APOLLO AKERSEKOMASAND THE MAGIC KNOT OF HERACLES

Ann M. NICGORSKI

Abstract

The well-known Chatsworth Apollo (from Tamassos, Cyprus), a bronze wig (from the Temple of Apollo Alaios at Krimisa, near Cirò, southern Italy), and the so-called Omphalos Apollo statue type (best known from the fine version found in the Theatre of Dionysos in Athens), all date from ca. 470-450 BC, while sharing variations of the krobylos hairstyle with the same central motif, known to the Greeks as the apotropaic Heracles knot (Herakleotikon hamma). This article explores how the Heracles-knot motif is key to understanding the specific iconography of each statue as an expression of Apollo akersekomas (with unshorn hair), an image that refers to the god’s protective charge of ephebes during their transition into maturity. These contemporaneous statues with their similar Heracles-knot hairstyles are also considered here as far-flung regional expressions of an ancient and globally significant motif, named for Heracles (the myth-ical founder of many a Greek colony), which is found in direct association with Apollo, the ‘most Greek of the gods’, whose Delphic oracle represents a salient feature of the interconnectedness of Greek civilisation across the Mediterranean from Tamassos in Cyprus to Krimisa in southern Italy.

Today, if we think of a knot, we tend to think of a practical ligature like those

collected and classified by Clifford Ashley in his well-known and comprehen-

sive The Ashley Book of Knots (1944). This taxonomic approach to the subject

of ligatures, however, is generally at odds with ancient ways of thinking about

knots. Most likely because of the great practical value of knots in the ancient

Mediterranean region, they were also believed to possess great magical power.

To tie a knot was to bind together, to hinder or to stop. Symbolically, there-

fore, a knot could strengthen love and marriage, for example, while it shut out

evil and hindered the actions of evil-doers (see, for example, Day 1967;

Zischka 1977; Nicgorski 1995, 8-44). One well-known example of this ancient

mode of thought concerning knots is the story of Alexander the Great slicing

through or otherwise undoing the Gordian knot, a unique lashing on the yoke

178 ANN M. NICGORSKI

of King Gordios’ chariot that served as a public talisman in which was magi-

cally bound the fate of the Phrygian kings and of Asia.1

According to a number of Greek and Roman literary sources, including

Pliny the Elder (NH 28. 17. 64), Seneca (Epistle 87. 38), Festus (De verborum

significatione III s.v. ‘cingulo’ and ‘cinxiae Iunonis’), Apostolius (64a),

Athenaeus (11. 500A), Athenagoras (Legatio pro Christianis 20. 3), Macro-

bius (Saturnalia 1. 19. 16-18) and Oreibasius (Collectionum medicarum reli-

quiae 48. 8), one especially beneficent knot, endowed with apotropaic power,

was the square knot, known as the Herakleotikon hamma or the nodus

Herculeus.2 Of the 18 specific knot names known to us from ancient literature,

only this Heracles knot is named after a mythological figure. Although none of

the literary sources tells us why this is so, the most probable explanation is that

Heracles was supposed to have invented the knot, which he used to tie the

front legs of his magically impenetrable lion-skin as shown in numerous artis-

tic representations beginning in the third quarter of the 6th century BC.3 The

earliest representations of this beneficent knot, however, come from Egypt

where it functioned both as an independent amulet as demonstrated, for exam-

ple, by the four wooden knot amulets, called tjeset knots, from the foundation

deposits of Queen Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el Bahri, from ca. 1470 BC;4

and as the binding for the lotus and papyrus, which together symbolise the

political unity of Upper and Lower Egypt under the pharaohs as shown, for

example, on the throne of the pharaoh Chephren’s famous seated statue from

Giza, from ca. 2520-2494 BC (Cairo, Egyptian National Museum JE 10062:

Schäfer 1943; Nicgorski 2005, 108-09, fig. 6).

The amuletic Heracles knot also appears in early Greek art, binding, for

example, the fillets that consecrate the monumental kouroi (Nicgorski 1995,

97-102); the snaky belts of running apotropaic gorgons, such as the well-

known, early acroterion from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, Akropolis

Museum 701, 3798, 3553: Krauskopf and Dahlinger 1988, 306, no. 232;

Nicgorski 1995, 102-08); the snaky ends of Athena’s protective aegis, as

shown on both the north and east friezes of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi

(Delphi Museum: Homolle 1909, 86, 104; Nicgorski 1995, 113-15); and the

1 For the story, see Plutarch Alexander 18. 1-2; Arrian Anabasis 2. 3; Quintus Curtius 3. 1. 14-18; Justin 11. 7; Suda, s.v. ‘kathamma lueis’; Schol. on Euripides Hippolytus 671 (FGrH 135-36 F4).

2 For discussion of these sources, see Nicgorski 2005, 97-98. 3 See, for example, the red-figured image of Heracles with his Heracles-knotted lion-skin on

a bilingual amphora attributed to the Andokides Painter and the Lysippides Painter, ca. 525-520 BC, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (99.538). Nicgorski 2005, 97-101, fig. 1.

4 New York, Metropolitan Museum 22.3.258-259; 27.3.398-399; Winlock 1942, 52-53, 89, 107, pl. 42; Hayes 1959, 85 fig. 47, 86, 88; Brier 1980, 79, fig. 19; Nicgorski 2005, 109-10.

APOLLO AKERSEKOMAS AND THE MAGIC KNOT OF HERACLES 179

girdles or scarves of virgin goddesses and legendary mortal maidens, where it

must serve as a special amulet that protects the wearer’s virginity as illus-

trated, for example, by the late 5th-century BC Nike acroterion from the Stoa

of Zeus in the Athenian Agora (Athens, Agora Museum 5312: Athenian Agora

1990, 214; Nicgorski 1995, 115-17), and by the scarf of the bride or bride’s

companion (Ashmole and Yalouris’s fig. H) from the west pediment of the

Temple of Zeus at Olympia (Olympia Museum: Ashmole and Yalouris 1967,

figs. 110-114; Nicgorski 1995, 117-19). In the Hellenistic period, the knot

bursts into sudden popularity as a central motif in a wide variety of jewellery

types reflecting, perhaps, the adoption of the Heracles knot by Alexander the

Fig. 1: Chatsworth Head of Apollo, front view, from Tamassos, Cyprus,ca. 460 BC (London, British Museum 1958.4-13 I).


Fig. 2: Chatsworth Head of Apollo, right profile, from Tamassos, Cyprus, ca. 460 BC (London, British Museum 1958.4-13 I).


Great as a propagandistic symbol evocative of his kinship with the gods (see

Nicgorski 2005, 97-128).

Two especially intriguing and monumental examples of this widespread

Heracles-knot motif from the Early Classical period exist in association with

the god Apollo: the bronze Chatsworth Apollo head, discovered near the anci-

ent site of Tamassos in central Cyprus, dating to around 460 BC (Figs. 1-2)

(London, British Museum 1958.4-18 I: Wace 1938, pls. 8-9; Nicgorski 1995,

119-20, 174-88, 333-35; 1996, 368); and the bronze wig, from the Temple of

Fig. 3: Apollo wig, front view, from the Temple of Apollo Alaios, Krimisa (Cirò), ca. 460 BC (Reggio Calabria, Museo Nazionale 5354). Courtesy of the Deutsches

Archäologisches Institut in Rome. Photograph by Schwanke,DAI Neg. no. D-DAI-Rom 1985.0243. All rights reserved.


Apollo Alaios at Krimisa near modern Cirò in southern Italy, also dating to

around 460 BC (Figs. 3-4) (Reggio Calabria, Museo Nazionale 5354: Orsi

1933, 135-70, pl. 20; Nicgorski 1995, 119-20, 174-81, 336-38). Both of these

original bronzes feature an elaborate hairstyle with long locks bound centrally

above the forehead in a prominent Heracles knot. The two pieces are also

unique in that they involve specially bound hair, rather than an external fillet,

scarf, girdle or skin. This Heracles knot featured in the hairstyles of both the

Chatsworth Apollo head and the Cirò wig, remarkably similar and contempo-

raneous but far-flung regional expressions of an ancient and globally signifi-

cant motif, is considered here as a marker of Hellenic identity, named after

Heracles (the mythical founder of many a Greek colony), and found in direct

Fig. 4: Apollo wig, right profile, from the Temple of Apollo Alaios, Krimisa (Cirò), ca. 460 BC (Reggio Calabria, Museo Nazionale 5354). Courtesy of the Deutsches

Archäologisches Institut in Rome. Photograph by Schwanke,DAI Neg. no. D-DAI-Rom 1985.0246. All rights reserved.


association with Apollo, the ‘most Greek of the gods’, whose Delphic oracle

represents a salient feature of the interconnectedness of Greek civilisation

across the Mediterranean from Tamassos in Cyprus to Krimisa in southern

Italy. In considering the significance of this motif, it will be important to keep

in mind the words of E.B. Harrison (1988, 247), that

… iconography is not a code, where one symbol has one meaning, but a language, where the meaning of each word is affected by the context in which it appears, where meanings change as words do with time [and, ‘with place’], and where the intensity of meaning may vary from sharply emphatic to vague and colorless.

First, a few words about hair. Among the Greeks and the Romans, hair was

most closely associated with the spirit or essence of life that was thought to

reside in the head. An abundance of hair was also believed to signify maturity

and fertility as well as aristocratic status.5 The cutting of hair, therefore, was

regarded as an auspicious event. For instance, it was a common practice (a

nomos), in many places, for young men to dedicate a lock of their hair upon

passage into maturity to a life-giving river god, and above all to Apollo, the

special protector of young men.6 Thus Plutarch relates in his life of Theseus

(5. 1) that upon his coming of age Theseus travelled to Apollo’s sanctuary at

Delphi where he cut off and dedicated his front hair. Similarly, it was the cus-

tom for young women to dedicate a lock of their hair to a virgin goddess,

especially to Artemis, at the time of their marriage – an event that marked their

passage into maturity (for example Herodotus 4. 34; Pausanias 1. 43. 4). In

this case, the hair-offering may have been perceived as partially propitiatory,

designed to temper the wrath of the virgin goddesses at the marriages of their

followers. In general, however, the hair-offerings of both young men and

women can be understood as essential and personal dedications at an impor-

tant turning point in their lives, both as a way of achieving communion with

relevant deities and as a symbolic redemption from those who had previously

overseen and protected their lives (Burkert 1985, 70).

Art historical studies have also shown that the various hairstyles represented

in the arts of Bronze and Iron Age Greece indicate much more than the vicis-

situdes of fashion and the ‘playfulness’ of individual artists (see, for example,

Kenner 1972b, 29-33; Koehl 1986, 99-110; Davis 1986, 399-406; E. Harrison

5 See the following general studies: Sommer 1912; Steininger 1912, 2109-50; Sikes 1913, 474-77; Hatto 1967, 897-99; Hallpike 1987, 154-57. On the aristocratic associations of long hair in Greek literature, see Irwin 1990, 205-18.

6 For example, Achilles’ offering of a hair lock to the river Spercheios (Iliad 23. 140-143). For Apollo’s special role as the protector of young men, see especially Hesiod Theogonia 347, as well as Homer Odyssey 19. 86. On hair offerings in general, see Sommer 1912, 2105-09; Eitrem 1915, 344-72, esp. 366-67 on hair-offerings made to river gods; Nilsson 1967, 136-39; Fauth 1972, 307-10.


1988, 247-54). In fact, these studies have demonstrated that the iconography of

hairstyles is highly significant in so far as they are related to a specific rite of

passage, which may indicate the age and status of the person represented – an

important clue to understanding the purpose and overall meaning of the repre-

sentation as a whole. For example, in her study of the statue of Apollo Lykeios

in Athens, E.J. Milleker (1986, 49) identifies the long braid, pulled up and

back from the centre of the forehead, as ‘the key to understanding the specific

iconography of the statue’. Milleker associates the yet unshorn hair of this

Apollo with the state of childhood and especially with the pais, the young pre-

adolescent boy. Furthermore, she associates the statue’s lack of pubic hair with

either the pais or the ephebe, and its large size and body formation with the

fully matured neos. According to Milleker (1986, 52), therefore, the statue as

a whole embodies the idea of passage itself – an appropriate type for the god

who oversaw this important transition from boyhood through adolescence to

manhood. Hairstyles in artworks may also signify ethnic identity or allude to a

specific political ideal. It seems likely, in addition, that when a hairstyle incor-

porates and emphasises an independent motif, such as the Heracles knot, which

has a demonstrated and widespread significance in other contexts, it will have

a special iconographic importance.

The earliest example of a Heracles knot appearing in the hair of Apollo is

not actually a hair knot, but rather a knot that joins above the forehead the two

short cords which are each bound to the end of one of the braids belonging to

the krobylos hairstyle of the so-called Omphalos Apollo type of about 470 to

460 BC, as exhibited by the well-known 2nd-century AD version in the

National Archaeological Museum in Athens (Figs. 5-7).7 The statue type owes

its name and its initial identification as Apollo to the omphalos that was actu-

ally found, in 1862, some distance apart from this version in the Theatre of

Dionysos in Athens.8 Although it was long ago shown that this omphalos can-

not be associated with the statue,9 there is bountiful evidence from other repli-

cas of the type that secures the identification as Apollo. Most important is the

fact that the original statue must have held the typical attributes of the archer

god, the strap of his quiver in his lowered right hand and, in his half-raised left

7 Ridgway 1970, 61-65, figs. 94-97. For additional bibliography, see Nicgorski 1995, 165-73, 282-85, pls. 27-29.

8 S. Karouzou 1968, 44, no. 46. On the find-spots of the statue and the omphalos, see Waldstein 1880, 80; and Conze 1869, 14-15, who reports specifically that the omphalos was found outside the orchestra between the parallel walls of the west parodos, while the statue was found behind the middle inscribed seats.

9 The omphalos is truncated on top and bears the traces of two feet. Long ago, Waldstein (1880, 80) demonstrated that the feet of the Apollo statue could not have stood in the position indicated on the omphalos base which is, in any case, too small for the statue.


Fig. 5: Omphalos Apollo, from the Theatre of Dionysos in Athens, Trajanic version of a bronze original dating to ca. 470-460 BC (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 45). Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens. Photograph by

H. Wagner, DAI Neg. no. D-DAI-ATH-1975/632. All rights reserved.


Fig. 6: Omphalos Apollo, detail of head (front view), from the Theatre of Dionysos in Athens, Trajanic version of a bronze original dating to ca. 470-460 BC

(Athens, National Archaeological Museum 45). Photograph by A. Nicgorski.


Fig. 7: Omphalos Apollo, detail of head (right profile), from the Theatre of Dionysos in Athens, Trajanic version of a bronze original dating to ca. 470-460 BC

(Athens, National Archaeological Museum 45). Photograph by A. Nicgorski.


hand, a bow. Key among the numerous replicas that preserve traces of these

attributes is the version now in a private collection in Pavia, which was restored

at an early date with these very attributes. A recent study of this replica by C.

Saletti (1979, 12-13) has demonstrated Walther Amelung’s earlier assertion

that puntelli assure the correctness of the restoration.

The Omphalos Apollo’s krobylos hairstyle itself also supports the identifica-

tion as Apollo.10 Indeed, during the Early Classical period, long braided locks

speak in favour of a deity, such as the Artemesion Zeus (or Poseidon) of about

460 to 450 BC (Athens, National Archaeological Museum Br. 15161: Ridgway

1970, 62-64, figs. 98-99), or a hero, such as warrior ‘I’ from the east pediment

of the Temple of Aphaia at Aegina of about 490 BC (Munich, Glyptothek:

Ridgway 1970, 17, fig. 12), as opposed to an athlete. The krobylos hairstyle of

the Omphalos Apollo, however, is distinct from these as well as from all other

known examples. For instance, in the Athens version, generally considered to

be the best copy overall, the long locks are tightly woven into two thick braids

that originate behind and above the ears and run parallel to each other across

the nape, around the head, and over the parted forehead bangs where two short

cords, tied to the braid ends, are bound together in the centre with a small

Heracles knot, a motif that is found in eight replicas of the type. It is this

Heracles knot, above all, that makes the krobylos of the Omphalos Apollo type

wholly unique. The detail appears in no other standard example of the kroby-

los hairstyle from the Early Classical period.11

Included among the eight versions of the Omphalos Apollo, with a Heracles

knot binding the cords above the forehead, are the four pieces generally con-

sidered to be the best replicas of the head: the head of the Athens statue;12 the

10 The krobylos hairstyle is first mentioned by Thucydides (1. 6. 3) as a roll or knot of hair worn by the Athenians (and their Ionic kindred) on the crown of the head and fastened by a tie of golden cicadas or grasshoppers as a sign of the autochthonism (as was the claim of the insect). See also Aristophanes Equites 1331. On the krobylos in general, see Schreiber 1883; 1884; Steininger 1912, 2117-24; C. Karouzou 1930-31; Stucchi 1953-55, 17, n. 36; Kenner 1972a, 17-32.

11 The Conservatori Charioteer and a related head in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican, eclectic works of the early Imperial period based in part on the Omphalos Apollo type, also depict a Heracles knot binding the long cords attached to the braid ends of the krobylos hairstyle. See von Steuben and Zanker 1966, 68-75, figs. 2 and 11; and Ridgway 1970, 64, 134-35, figs. 172-173.

12 Because of the damage to its face (but not the hair), the Athens statue is not generally cited as the ‘best replica of the head’, although most scholars consider it to be the best replica overall. See, for example, Gauckler 1895, 110-11); Arias 1965, 187; Helbig 1966, 552 (H. von Steuben); Ridgway 1970, 61; Robertson 1975, 194. V. Poulsen (1937, 138-39) advocates a cross between the head of the Athens statue and the head of the Choiseul-Gouffier version in order to obtain the best sense of the original. For comparative analyses of the heads, see Noack 1929, 216-18; Johannowsky 1967-68, 376; Vierneisel-Schlörb 1979, 8.


Fig. 8: Head of Apollo (Omphalos type), front view, Roman version of a bronze original dating ca. 470-460 BC (Paris, Louvre Ma 691). Courtesy of the Département

des Antiquités grecques, étrusques et romaines, Musée du Louvre.Photograph by M. and P. Chuzeville.


head of the Choiseul-Gouffier version in the British Museum;13 a head in the

Louvre Museum in Paris (Fig. 8);14 and another head in the museum at

Cherchel (Algeria).15 Of these, the head of the Athens statue is superior in the

fineness of the engraved locks that descend from the crown and in the short

wisps of hair that escape beneath the braids onto the nape. Remarkable also is

the fluffy appearance of the forehead bangs and the detailed representation of

the braids with each group of twisted locks showing as many as five internal

divisions. These fine stylistic features are typical of bronze work as repre-

sented, for example, by the head of the Artemesion Zeus (or Poseidon) of

about 460 to 450 BC, and their presence in the head of the Athens statue sug-

gests that it must be considered as closest to the bronze original. The head in

the Louvre is also quite finely executed (although less well preserved), with

the twisted locks of the braids showing as many as four internal divisions.16

Furthermore, both the head of the statue in Athens and the head in the Louvre

represent, in a detailed and identical fashion, the binding of the short cords to

the braid ends as well as the central binding of the cords in a Heracles knot.

The Heracles knot must, therefore, be understood as a feature of the original

bronze statue.

The Omphalos Apollo must also be considered in relation to the two origi-

nal 5th-century bronzes that feature the Heracles-knot hairstyle: the Chats-

worth Apollo head from Cyprus (Figs. 1-2), from about 460 BC, and the

bronze wig from the Temple of Apollo Alaios at Krimisa near modern Cirò in

13 London, British Museum 209: Ridgway 1970, 61, 64, n. 8, fig. 96; Nicgorski 1995, 171-73, 286-88, pl. 30. McDowall (1904, 204) considered the head of the Choiseul-Gouffier version to be the best replica.

14 Paris, Louvre Ma 691: de Villefosse 1894; Nicgorski 1995, 172-73, 291-92, pl. 32. The Louvre replica is considered to be the best version of the head by de Villefosse (1894) and C. Karouzou (1930-31, 90).

15 Cherchel Museum: Gauckler 1895, 110-12, pl. 8.1; Nicgorski 1995, 172-73, 293-94, pl. 33. See also the photographs of the Cherchel version in the archives of the German Archaeological Institute in Rome (fiche no. 7, D10-12). The Cherchel head (along with the head of the Athens statue) is considered to be the best replica by Kaschnitz-Weinberg (1937, 17). The four other replicas that preserve the Heracles-knot binding include a version in Rome (Capitoline Museum 638), a version from Baiae in Naples (Museo Nazionale 153640), a version found in the Circus of Maxentius on the Via Appia Antica in Rome (Museo Nuovo 3046) and a version in the Vati-can (Galleria delle carte geografiche 45, old no. 803). Nicgorski 1995, 289-90, 295-300.

16 Neither the head of the Choiseul-Gouffier version nor the head in the Cherchel Museum exhibits the same degree of fineness in execution. Like many of the other replicas, they neglect the intricacies of the hair descending from the crown. See especially Noack (1929), whose fig. 4 is a photograph of the top of the Choiseul-Gouffier head beside the top of a cast of the Athens head. The Choiseul-Gouffier and Cherchel heads also exhibit a tendency, observed in many of the other replicas as well, only to block out roughly the forehead bangs, thereby losing the fluffy appearance characteristic of the original bronze. In addition, fewer internal divisions can be observed in the twisted locks of the braids.


southern Italy (Figs. 3-4), also from about 460 BC.17 The bronze wig features

a rare type of the krobylos – variations of which are also worn by warrior ‘I’

from the east pediment of the Temple of Aphaia at Aegina of about 490 BC

(Munich, Glyptothek: Ridgway 1970, 17, fig. 12), by a head in the Cleveland

Museum probably from southern Italy of about 470 BC (Ridgway 1970, 59-60,

n. 2, figs. 88-91), and by a bearded head in the Museo Chiaramonti of the

Vatican, a 1st-century AD version of an original of about 440 BC (Hafner

1960, 79-87, figs. 3-4; Helbig 1963 [W. Fuchs], 261-62, no. 342). All four of

these heads have in common braids that divide from the nape and travel for-

ward rather than braids that depart from the region behind the ears and travel

backward around the head, like the braids of the Omphalos Apollo type. The

braids of the Cirò wig, however, end abruptly just above the ear space in a

round tuft of hair.18 In front of the ear spaces, on either side of the wig, a group

of long locks descend from the crown and curve towards the front, where they

are bound together above the forehead in a large and emphatic Heracles knot.

The ends of this knot, which are abruptly cut off, preserve a number of attach-

ment holes that would have provided for a more logical as well as a more

ornamental finish to the knot ends.19 Other attachment holes can also be

observed along the lower edge of the rear portion of the wig below the braids,

which would have served to secure a number of separately cast spiral locks.20

In addition, numerous attachment holes can be seen along the circumference of

the narrow, tubular fillet that is wound around the entire wig passing over the

braids in back and just above the frontal Heracles knot (Fig. 4). These holes

are most likely to have been used to secure the gold, silver or gilded bronze

leaves of a laurel crown.21

17 Only three scholars have considered the dating of the wig as a separate question from the dating of the marble head with which it was found but does not fit. All three suggest an unspe-cific date in the Early Classical period. See Langlotz and Hirmer 1963, 84; Foti 1972, 63; Luppino 1987, 151. A couple of more recent publications, which do not consider the wig’s date separately from that of the marble head, include Boardman (1995, 165, fig. 191), who dates both the head and the wig, which he describes as ‘clearly early Classical’, to ca. 450 BC, and Picón (2002, 71, fig. 3d-e), who dates both the wig and the head to ca. 450-400 BC.

18 This detail is best observed on the proper right side of the wig, which is better preserved. See Fig. 4. The braids of warrior ‘I’ from Aegina also end just above the ears in a similarly abrupt fashion.

19 Orsi 1933, 145. These holes are visible in Fig. 3. However, for a closer view, see Luppino 1987, 148, who illustrates a colour detail of the Heracles knot.

20 See Orsi (1933, 145, fig. 108) for a detailed drawing and section. 21 Orsi 1933, 145, fig. 108. Orsi restores either a crown of myrtle or a crown of laurel.

A crown of laurel would also be restored by Picard (1939, 184, n. 3). For a sense of how the wig might have once appeared (although not atop the Cirò head), see Orsi’s reconstruction drawing (Orsi 1933, 139, fig. 104).


The bronze Cirò wig was found in the 2nd-century BC destruction debris of

the Temple of Apollo Alaios together with a bald marble head, two marble feet

and fragments of two marble hands – all of which the excavator, Paolo Orsi,

believed to belong to a standing acrolithic cult statue of the Early Classical

period.22 Subsequent studies, however, have shown that the wig is too small to

fit the head.23 There are three possible explanations for this curious circum-

stance. First, the wig may have been originally intended for the head but when

it was discovered that it did not fit, it was kept in the temple because of its

costly material and because of its association with the sacred cult image of

Apollo. Perhaps another similar wig, in a larger size, was then created for the

extant head of Apollo.24 A second possibility is that the wig was presented in

the temple as an independent votive offering, not necessarily to be connected

to the cult statue of Apollo (Ridgway 1970, 122, n. 19; Luppino 1987, 151).

These explanations seem unlikely, however, because of the separately cast

locks that would have been attached in back, making it difficult for the wig to

be displayed in any other way than atop a sculpted head (Lambrinoudakis

1984, 254, no. 561). Finally, the third, and most likely, possibility is that the

wig belonged to an earlier acrolithic cult statue of Apollo that does not sur-

vive, perhaps because it was sculpted from wood.25

The close similarity of the Cirò wig to the hairstyle worn by the contempo-

rary Chatsworth Apollo head from Cyprus (Figs. 1-2),26 likewise thought to

22 Orsi 1933, 135-70, esp. figs. 109-110. On the various reconstructions of this statue and the chronology of the temple and sanctuary, see Nicgorski 1995, 177, n. 406.

23 See, for example, Ashmole 1934, 25; Turano 1964, 63; Ridgway 1970, 122, n. 19; Rob-ertson 1975, 202; Lambrinoudakis 1984, 257, no. 593, 254, no. 561; Mattusch 1988, 181; Boardman 1995, 165; Picón 2002, 71.

24 See Ridgway 1970, 122, n. 19. Ridgway, however, notes that ‘the cranium of the Apollo shows slight concentric waves, and it is possible that it was once covered with gold foil; under a complete wig the plastic rendering of the cranium would be totally unnecessary.’

25 Langlotz 1963, 84; Lambrinoudakis 1984, 254, no. 561; Luppino 1987, 151; Nicgorski 1995, 178-79, n. 411; Picón 2002, 71.

26 The large majority of scholars date the Chatsworth Apollo head within the Early Classical period, either in the decade 470-460 BC or, more commonly, in the decade 460-450 BC, a time (460/459-448 BC) when Greek forces were constantly present on Cyprus in order to prevent re-occupation by the Persians. There are, however, three exceptions: Schuchhardt 318, who considers the head with its ‘small and weak’ mouth and its ‘vacant and base’ facial surfaces to be a work of Hadrianic classicism; Bol (1978, 21-22), who also considers the piece to be classicising, given the lack of cold-working in the hair, the engraved rather than inset brows, and the inlaid lips unusually formed from sheet metal; Rolley (1986, 233, no. 208), who argues that the head is either a Cypriot work of the second half of the 5th century BC or it is classicising. It is likely, however, especially in light of the similarities with the Cirò wig, that the differences cited by these scholars are to be explained by the ‘provincial’ provenance of the Chatsworth head.

This ‘provincial’ provenance, however, is the subject of some controversy and most scholars have found the Chatsworth Apollo difficult to place in terms of a school of origin. Hanfmann


belong to a cult statue of Apollo, also strongly suggests that the third explana-

tion, which posits an earlier, possibly wooden cult statue for the Temple of

Apollo Alaios at Krimisa, is most probable. Indeed, the most striking similar-

ity between the Chatsworth Apollo head and the Cirò wig is the large and

emphatic Heracles hair knot above the forehead, which in the Chatsworth head

is separately cast and soldered on (Haynes 1968, 104; Mattusch 1988, 155).

This knot of hair, formed from a group of locks that are gathered above the

ears, on either side of the head, and pulled in a sort of roll across the forehead

to the centre, indicates that the Chatsworth head (despite the fact that it lacks

braids) must also be understood as representing a variant of the more common

krobylos hairstyle. In addition, the hair on the back of the Chatsworth head

descends as far as the nape in finely engraved strands pressed close to the

curve of the head. There thick locks break free into a cascade of separately-

cast curls that fall onto the back of the neck. Shorter curls, also separately cast

and soldered on, fall over the ears and onto the temples.27 A slight concave

indentation around the crown of the head suggests that it was once adorned

with a laurel wreath, perhaps of gold.28 This special type of krobylos hairstyle

may also be reflected in a classicistic head of Apollo with a frontal Heracles

hair knot, now in Copenhagen, which is largely based on a similar Early Clas-

sical prototype.29 Likewise, the head of Apollo with a frontal hair knot and a

laurel wreath shown in profile on a 3rd- or 2nd-century BC red jasper ring-

stone, now in Indiana, also seems to be based on an Early Classical model not

unlike the Chatsworth head.30

(1967, 317) and Robertson (1975, 195), for instance, see in the head a work of native Cypriot art with a unique blend of Greek and Phoenician elements. However, all the scholars of Cypriot art, and many scholars of Greek art who have commented on the piece call it a Greek (generally Attic) import or the work of a Greek artist on Cyprus. See, for example, Gjerstad (1948, 338), who also states (488) that the Chatsworth Apollo does not belong to the ‘Cypriot history of art’; Masson 1964, 212; Vermeule 1976, 15; Karageorghis 1982, 158; Houser 1987, 159. Others, however, consider the Chatsworth head to be the work of an Ionian artist. See, for example, Pfeiff 1943, 84; Lawrence 1972, 128. Furthermore, Langlotz (1975, 157-62) and Lippold (1950, 122) identify the head as the work of an Ionian artist inspired by the Apollo Klarios of Kolophon, while Furtwängler (1896, 11-13), assigns the piece to Pythagoras of Rhegion.

27 The curls were soldered and not, as Wace (1938, 91-92) believed, riveted in place. The exist-ing rivets are modern ones for the re-attachment of the detached curls. See Haynes 1968, 111; Mattusch 1988, 155.

28 First suggested by Wace (1938, 94), who mistakenly took a modern rivet for the re-attach-ment of the curls on the proper right side to be a metal nail for holding a wreath in place, an error repeated by Pfeiff (1943, 84). Picard (1939, 912) postulated an ivy rather than a laurel crown. Dikaios (1961, 101) and Houser (1987, 74), however, argue for a laurel wreath.

29 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 438. See F. Poulsen 1951, 71, pl. V. 30 Indiana University Art Museum 64.70.25. See Berry 1968, 26, no. 43; Lambrinoudakis

1984, 252, no. 544.


The Chatsworth Apollo head was found together with its complete body in

1836 by a group of local villagers digging for water in the dry Pidias riverbed

near the ancient site of Tamassos in central Cyprus. Unfortunately, in order to

remove the slightly over life-sized bronze statue from its find spot, the villag-

ers lashed it to a team of oxen and by dragging it across the stony ground

caused the head, arms and legs to separate from the body. These parts, the

finders observed, had been separately cast and soldered together. Afraid of

what action the Turkish authorities might take against them and unaware of the

value of their find, the villagers broke up the body, arms and legs and sold

them as scrap metal. The head, however, was preserved and was purchased by

a Mr Bondiziano of Larnaca. He in turn sold it to H.P. Borrell, a well-known

dealer and numismatist in Smyrna, from whom it was acquired in 1838 by the

6th Duke of Devonshire. The head was displayed in Chatsworth House, the

Duke’s ancestral home, until it was acquired in 1957 by the British Museum.31

According to Ludwig Ross, who questioned the villagers closely about the

find when he visited the ancient site of Tamassos in 1845, nine years after

their discovery, the statue’s body was nude, with visible genitalia, except for

something (that the villagers likened to their own cartridge-belts) worn around

its hips. The statue stood with left leg slightly advanced and, as far as Ross

could tell, with arms hanging vertically on either side.32 This description sug-

gests the body of an Archaic kouros wearing a mitra, a Cypriot loincloth, or

the wide belt that is indeed worn by a few extant Archaic kouroi.33 This con-

clusion is also supported by a bronze leg of the appropriate type, now in the

Louvre, that has been identified as part of the destroyed statue because of its

unique alloy, which is very close to that of the Chatsworth head.34

In 1889, Max Ohnefalsch-Richter conducted limited excavations in the area

where the Chatsworth head and associated body were found and was able to

identify a temenos sacred to Reshef-Apollo, which lies about 1 km north of the

ancient city walls and includes part of the present riverbed.35 Here he found

31 For a more complete account of the provenance of the Chatsworth head, see the original publication by Gjerstad (1945, 236-42).

32 Ross 1852, 161-63. See also Gjerstad 1945, 239; Wace 1938, 102; Houser 1987, 154. 33 Wace (1938, 104) and Langlotz (1975, 157) argue in favour of a mitra, while Lawrence

(1972, 128) suggests a Cypriot loincloth and Houser (1987, 154) a belt. 34 Both the head and the leg have, in addition to a similar composition of copper, tin and lead,

the unusual trace element of gold. See especially Craddock 1977, 114; as well as Buchholz 1978, 212; Mattusch 1988, 3, 14, 156; and Marie-Bénédicte 2007. There are, furthermore, reports that up until the end of the 19th century fragments of a hand and parts of the mitra, loincloth or belt still existed in the nearby village of Pera: Buchholz 1978, 212; Lambrinoudakis 1984, 253, no. 561.

35 Gjerstad 1945, 239; Wace 1938, 102; Buchholz 1978, 210-12; Houser 1987, 155. See also Masson 1964, 210-13.


a colossal, but headless, limestone statue, three bronze statuettes, and frag-

ments of large bronze statues including an ear, some bits of drapery and a hand

holding the tapered end of a conical helmet (which is now missing).36 Although

the excavation of this precinct remains incomplete and is lacking epigraphic

evidence as well as defined geographic boundaries, the identification of the

sanctuary as that of Reshef-Apollo is confirmed by the unique iconography of

the bronze statuettes. All three represent a man wearing a belt and a Cypriot

loincloth with a nude upper body and bare feet. The largest of the three statu-

ettes now in Berlin, from about 560-520 BC, also wears a conical helmet. The

man strides forward with his left leg slightly advanced and with his left arm

held vertically at his side while his right arm is raised at the elbow to his

shoulder in a gesture of greeting or of epiphany.37 These statuettes belong to a

well-known type that finds its origins in the Bronze Age Near East – a type

that is especially popular on Cyprus in both the Bronze and Iron Ages (Burkert

1975, 52-54, 56-57, 62-71). Walter Burkert, in an article from 1975, has per-

suasively identified all of these figures as representations of the western

Semitic god, Reshef, originally a weather god as well as a victorious god of

war, an underworld god, an archer god and an averter of plagues, who was

identified by the Greeks with the god Apollo (Burkert 1975, 51-79).

It seems probable that the slightly over life-sized bronze statue to which the

Chatsworth head once belonged was an important feature of this sanctuary of

Reshef-Apollo at Tamassos, and possibly the cult statue itself. Like the statu-

ettes found at the site, as well as similar statuettes found at other sanctuaries of

Reshef-Apollo on Cyprus, the large bronze statue had a nude torso, a belt or

loincloth, and a slightly advanced left leg. It is possible, in addition, that the

now-missing bronze hand holding part of a characteristic conical helmet,

which was found by Ohnefalsch-Richter, also belonged to the statue. This con-

clusion, that the Chatsworth Apollo may be the cult statue of Reshef-Apollo,

is supported by the fragments of a head carved from local limestone that were

found, in 1975, by Hans-Günter Buchholz on the nearby altar of Astarte-Aph-

rodite (Nicolaou 1977, 525-26; Buchholz 1978, 211-12, fig. 54b). The frag-

ments preserve the backside of the head, with long locks pressed close to the

curve of the crown and secured by a fillet, below which hangs a cascade of

36 For an inventory of the finds made by Ohnefalsch-Richter and an attempt to place them on a map of the Reshef-Apollo temenos area, see Buchholz 1978, 210-15. See also Gjerstad 1945, 239; Masson 1964, 210-13; Houser 1987, 155.

37 The three statuettes, one in the Nicosia Museum (B2613), one in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin (Misc. 81542/756) and one whose present location is unknown, are illustrated by Buchholz (1978, 213, figs. 55a-c). For a more detailed discussion of the statuettes in Nicosia and Berlin, see Masson 1968, 402-09.


loose, thick curls very similar to those of the Chatsworth Apollo. This head,

therefore, would seem to be a local imitation in a more traditional material of

the bronze cult statue (Rolley 1999, 396).

In the context of traditional representations of Reshef, however, the Chats-

worth head is unique in that it presumably wore a gold laurel wreath instead of

a helmet and that it has long hair bound in front in a prominent Heracles knot.

These features suggest that the statue also represents the Greek god Apollo

whose Cypriot name, Apeilon, is closely related to Apellon, the pre-Homeric

name of the god. This name, as Jane Harrison (1927, 439-44) and Burkert

(1985, 144-45), quoted here, have demonstrated, is

… scarcely to be separated from the institution of the apellai, annual gatherings of the tribal or phratry organization such as are attested in Delphi and Laconia, and which, from the month name Apellaios, can be inferred for the entire Dorian-northwest Greek area…. An important act on such an occasion is the admission of new members, youths who have come of age: the apellai are of necessity an ini-tiation festival as well. Apellon the ephebos stands accordingly on the threshold of manhood, but still with the long hair of the boy: akersekomas, with unshorn hair, has been an epithet of Apollo since the Iliad.

The image of the long-haired Apollo, therefore, evokes the god’s protective

charge of young men during the important transition into maturity. The apo-

tropaic Heracles knot that binds this long hair above the forehead of the

Chatsworth Apollo head surely functions in this context as a powerful amulet

promising a successful rite of passage, free from maleficent influences, for all

those who seek the god’s special protection. Such a meaning may also be

attributed to the Heracles knot of the Cirò wig, which probably belongs to an

Early Classical, wooden cult statue of the Temple of Apollo Alaios at Krimisa

in southern Italy, and to that of the Omphalos Apollo. In these two examples,

it is also important to consider the braids, which as twisted and bound locks of

hair were understood to have a similar theurgical power for ensnaring or avert-

ing evil spirits.38 The krobylos hairstyle, therefore, as seen in these examples,

functions as a natural diadem, a complete protective crown which, like the

pedimental crown of a temple, culminates in a central apotropaic feature.

These far-flung, yet iconographically significant, similar and contemporane-

ous, representations of Apollo also demonstrate the important role of specific

cults and ritual practice in the Greek experience of interconnectedness within

a broad Mediterranean network.

38 Kenner 1972a, 19-26. For this reason, ancient Greek children are frequently represented wearing braids and hair knots. See, for example, Milleker 1986, 49-50.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arias, P.E. 1965: Problemi di scultura greca (Bologna).Ashley, C. 1944: The Ashley Book of Knots (New York).Ashmole, B. 1934: Late Archaic and Early Classical Greek Sculpture in Sicily and

South Italy (London).Ashmole, B. and Yalouris, N. 1967: Olympia: The Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus

(London).Athenian Agora 1990: The Athenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavation and the Museum,

4th ed. (Athens).Berry, B.Y. 1968: Ancient Gems from the Collection of Burton Y. Berry (Bloomington).Boardman, J. 1995: Greek Sculpture: The Late Classical Period and Sculpture in Col-

onies and Overseas (London).Bol, P.C. 1978: Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia (Berlin).Brier, B. 1980: Ancient Egyptian Magic (New York).Buchholz, H.-G. 1978: ‘Tamassos, Zypern 1974-1976’. AA, 210-15.Burkert, W. 1975: ‘Reshep-figuren, Apollon von Amyklai und die ‘Erfindung’ des

Opfers auf Cypern’. Grazer Beiträge 4, 51-79.—. 1985: Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (Cambridge).Conze, A. 1869: ‘Apollostatue in Athen’. In Conze, A., Beiträge zur Geschichte der

griechische Plastik (Halle), 13-21.Craddock, P.T. 1977: ‘The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etrus-

can and Roman Civilizations 2: The Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greeks’. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 4, 103-23.

Davis, E. 1986: ‘Youth and Age in the Thera Frescoes’. AJA 90, 399-406.Day, C.L. 1967: Quipus and Witches’ Knots: The Role of the Knot in Primitive and

Ancient Cultures (Lawrence, KS).de Villefosse, A.H. 1894: ‘Tète d’Apollon (Musée du Louvre)’. Monuments et Mémoires.

Fondation E. Piot 1, 61-76.Dikaios, P. 1961: A Guide to the Cyprus Museum, 3rd ed. (Nicosia).Eitrem, S. 1915: Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer (Christiania;

reprinted Hildesheim 1977).Fauth, W. 1972: ‘Opfer’. Der kleine Pauly: Lexicon der Antike 4, 307-10.Foti, G. 1972: Il Museo Nazionale di Reggio Calabria (Naples).Furtwängler, A. 1896: ‘Ein altgriechische Bronzekopf des Herzogs von Devonshire’. In

Furtwängler, A., Intermezzi: Kunstgeschichtliche Studien (Leipzig/Berlin), 3-13.Gauckler, P. 1895: Musée de Cherchel (Paris).Gjerstad, E. 1945: ‘The Story of the Chatsworth Head’. Eranos 43, 236-42.—. 1948: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV.2: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic

and Cypro-Classical Periods (Stockholm).Hafner, G. 1960: ‘Ein vergessenes Meisterwerk’. In Eckstein, F. (ed.), Theoria: Fest-

schrift für W.-H. Schuchhardt (Baden-Baden), 79-87.Hallpike, C.R. 1987: ‘Hair’. In Eliade, M. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 6

(New York/London), 154-57.Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1967: Classical Sculpture (London).Harrison, E.B. 1988: ‘Greek Sculpted Coiffures and Ritual Haircuts’. In Hägg, R.,

Marinatos, N. and Nordquist, G.C. (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice (Gothen-burg/Stockholm), 247-54.


Harrison, J. 1927: Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (New York).Hatto, W. 1967: ‘Haartracht, Haarschmuck’. Der kleine Pauly: Lexicon der Antike 2,

897-99.Hayes, W.C. 1959: The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian

Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (1675-1080 B.C.) (New York).

Haynes, D. 1968: ‘The Technique of the Chatsworth Head’. Revue Archéologique, 101-12.Helbig, W. 1963: Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in

Rom I: Die päpstlichen Sammlungen im Vatikan und Lateran, 4th ed. by W. Fuchs (Tübingen).

—. 1966: Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom II: Die Städtischen Sammlungen: Kapitolinische Museen und Museo Barracco. Die Staatlichen Sammlungen: Ara Pacis, Galleria Borghese, Galleria Spada, Museo Pigorini, Antiquitaten auf Forum und Palatin, 4th ed. by H. von Steuben (Tübingen).

Homolle, T. 1909: Fouilles de Delphes, vol. IV.1 (Paris).Houser, C. 1987: Greek Monumental Bronze Sculpture of the Fifth and Fourth Centu-

ries B.C. (New York).Irwin, M.E. 1990: ‘Odysseus’ “Hyacinthine Hair” in Odyssey 6.231’. Phoenix 44, 205-18.Johannowsky, W. 1967-68: ‘Una nuova replica della testa dell’“Apollo dell’Omphalos”

da Baia’. Annuario della Scuola Acheologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 45-46, 373-79.

Karageorghis, V. 1982: Cyprus from the Stone Age to the Romans (London).Karouzou, C. 1930-31: ‘Ho Poseidon tou Artemisiou’. Arkaiologikon Deltion 13, 78-99.Karouzou, S. 1968: National Archaeological Museum, Collection of Sculpture: A Cat-

alogue (Athens).Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G. 1937: Sculture del Magazzino del Museo Vaticano (Vatican City).Kenner, H. 1972a: Der Apoll vom Belvedere (Vienna).—. 1972b: ‘Das Mädchen von Antium’. Antike Welt 3, 29-33.Koehl, R.B. 1986: ‘The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage’. JHS 106, 99-110.Krauskopf, I. and Dahlinger, S.-C. 1988: ‘Gorgon, Gorgones’. LIMC IV, 285-330.Lambrinoudakis, W. 1984: ‘Apollon’. LIMC II, 183-327.Langlotz, E. 1975: Studien zur Nordostgriechischen Kunst (Mainz).Langlotz, E. and Hirmer, M. 1963: Die Kunst der Westgriechen in Sizilien und Unter-

italien (Munich).Lawrence, A.W. 1972: Greek and Roman Sculpture (London).Lippold, G. 1950: Handbuch der Archäologie III.1: Die griechische Plastik (Munich).Luppino, S. 1987: Il Museo Nazionale di Reggio Calabria (Rome).McDowall, K.A. 1904: ‘Two Heads Related to the Choiseul-Gouffier Type’. JHS 24,

203-07.Marie-Bénédicte, A. 2007: ‘Leg of a Statue’. <http://www.louvre.org/llv/oeuvres/detail_

notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225417&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225417&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500785&baseIndex=15&bmLocale=en#>.

Masson, O. 1964: ‘Kypriaka I. Recherches sur les antiquités de Tamassos’. BCH 88, 199-238.

—, 1968: ‘Deux statuettes de bronze de Tamassos’. BCH 92, 402-09.


Mattusch, C.C. 1988: Greek Bronze Statuary: From the Beginnings through the Fifth Century (Ithaca, NY).

Milleker, E.J. 1986: The Statue of Apollo Lykeios in Athens (Dissertation, New York University).

Nicgorski, A. 1995: The Iconography of the Herakles Knot and the Herakles-Knot Hairstyle of Apollo and Aphrodite (Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).

—. 1996: ‘The Chatsworth Apollo and the Magic Knot of Herakles’. AJA 100, 368.—. 2005: ‘The Magic Knot of Herakles, the Propaganda of Alexander the Great and

Tomb II at Vergina’. In Rawlings, L. and H. Bowden (eds.), Herakles and Hercu-les: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity (Swansea), 97-128.

Nicolaou, K. 1977: ‘Archaeological News from Cyprus, 1975’. AJA 81, 523-32.Nilsson, M.P. 1967: Geschichte der griechischen Religion II: Die hellenistische und

römische Zeit, 3rd ed. (Munich).Noack, F. 1929: ‘Der neue Gott aus dem Meere’. Die Antike 5, 214-20.Orsi, P. 1933: Templum Apollinis Alaei ad Crimisa promontoium (Rome).Pfeiff, K.A. 1943: Apollon: Die Wandlung seines Bildes in der griechischen Kunst

(Frankfurt).Picard, C. 1939: Manuel d’archéologie grecque: La sculpture, vol. 2 (Paris).Picón, C.A. 2002: ‘Sculptural Styles of Magna Graecia’. In Bennett, M. et al. (eds.),

Magna Graecia: Greek Art from South Italy and Sicily (Cleveland), 68-81.Poulsen, F. 1951: Catalogue of the Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek

(Copenhagen).Poulsen, V.H. 1937: ‘Der strenge Stil’. Acta Archaeologica 8, 1-148.Ridgway, B.S. 1970: The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton).Robertson, M. 1975: A History of Greek Art (Cambridge).Rolley, C. 1986: Greek Bronzes (London).—. 1999: La sculpture grecque II: La période classique (Paris).Ross, L. 1852: Reisen nach Kos, Halikarnassos, Rhodes und der Insel Cypern (Halle).Saletti, C. 1979: ‘Una copia “ritrovata” dell’Apollo tipo Omphalos’. Arte Lombarda 51,

12-13.Schäfer, H. 1943: ‘Die “Vereinigung der beiden Länder” Ursprung, Gehalt und Form

eines ägyptischen Sinnbildes im Wandel der Geschichte’. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo Abteilung 12, 73-95.

Schreiber, T. 1883: ‘Der altattische Krobylos’. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäolo-gischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 8, 246-73.

—. 1884: ‘Der altattische Krobylos II. Kallimachos und Pasiteles’. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 9, 232-54.

Schuchhardt, W.-H. 1962: ‘Zum Akrolithkopf von Cirò’. AJA 66, 317-18.Sikes, E.E. 1913: ‘Hair and Nails’. In Hastings, J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and

Ethics, vol. 6 (New York), 474-77.Sommer, L. 1912: Das Haar im Aberglauben und Religion der Griechen (Dissertation,

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich).Steininger, E. 1912: ‘Haartracht und Haarschmuck’. RE 7, 2109-2250.von Steuben, H. and Zanker, P. 1966: ‘Wagenlenker und Omphalosapollon’. AA, 68-75.Stucchi, S. 1953-55: ‘Statua di Apollo Saettante dalle rovine del tempio Sosiano’. Bul-

lettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 75, 3-47.


Turano, C. 1964: ‘L’acrolito di Cirò’. Klearchos 6, 61-72.Vermeule, C. 1976: Greek and Roman Cyprus: Art from Classical through Late

Antique Times (Boston).Vierneisel-Schlörb, B. 1979: Glyptothek München, Katalog der Skulpturen II: Klas-

sische Skulpturen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Munich).Wace, A.B. 1938: ‘The Chatsworth Head’. JHS 58, 90-95.Waldstein, C. 1880: ‘Pythagoras of Rhegion and the Early Athlete Statues’. JHS 1, 178-89.Winlock, H.E. 1942: Excavations at Deir El Bahri 1911-1931 (New York).Zischka, U. 1977: Zur sakralen und profanen Anwendung des Knotenmotivs als magis-

ches Mittlel, Symbol oder Dekor: Eine vergleichend-volkskundliche Untersuchung (Munich).

Apollo akersekomas and the Magic Knot of Herakles (Published 2013)

Documents

Transcript of Apollo akersekomas and the Magic Knot of Herakles (Published 2013)