92 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTOR STATUES AT OLYMPIA. 
Apollo, and so it has been rightly assigned by Treu, not to the fifth, but 
to a later century. When long hair was no longer the fashion for 
athletes, a later artist might mistakenly think that the earlier plaits 
were genuinely Apolline, though we know that they were common to 
all early athletic art. Another head in the British Museum has been 
ably discussed by Mrs. Strong,! who shows that it comes from an 
Apollo and not from an athlete statue. It is similar to an Apollo 
pictured on a stater struck at Mytilene about 400 B.C.,? and con- 
sequently, like the statue from Olympia, it is merely an instance of 
the process of converting an athlete statue into that of an Apollo. 
The marble copy of the Diadoumenos of Polykleitos, found on 
the island of Delos in 1894, and now in the National Museum in 
Athens? (PI. 18), has a chlamys and a quiver introduced on the marble 
support against the right leg. Until recently these attributes were 
regarded as the arbitrary introductions of the Hellenistic copyist, 
who wished to convert the famous athlete statue into one of Apollo, 
but lately it has been suggested that they belonged to the original 
statue, which is assumed to have represented Apollo. Thus, Hauser 
has propounded the theory that the Diadoumenos was originally an 
Apollo.4’ He does not believe that the Delian sculptor could have 
transformed a short-haired athlete into an Apollo, since the typical 
Apollo after the time of Praxiteles was never represented as athletic. 
He later supported his theory that the Diadoumenos was originally an 
Apollo by the evidence of a bronze statuette and a Delphian coin, and 
reasserted his view that so virile a short-haired Apollo did not originate 
with the later copyist, but in the fifth century B. C.° Hauser’s argu- 
ment that Apollo was the original of the Diadowmenos seems as unsuc- 
cessful as his contention that Polykleitos’ other great creation, the 
Doryphoros, is to be classed as an Achilles.6 Loewy has sufficiently 
opposed Hauser’s theory of the Diadoumenos, by showing that the palm- 
tree prop in all the marble replicas of that statue points to athletic 
1Strena Helbigiana, 1900, p. 293; discussed also by Miss McDowall (/. c. and fig. 3, p. 206); 
a poor replica is in Munich: Furtw., Mw., p. 115, and fig. 21. 
2B. M. Coins, Troas, etc., Pl. XXXII, 1; McDowall, J. c., fig. 4, p. 207. 
3Bulle, 50, who gives the height 1.86 meters; von Mach, 115; Reinach, Rép., II, 2, 547, 9; 
other references infra, on p. 152, n. 5. 
4]h. oest. arch. Inst., VIII, 1905, pp. 42 f.; LX, 1906, pp. 279 f.; cf., Furtw.-Urlichs, Denkm., 
pp. 105-6, n. 1 (Engl. ed., p. 120). 
5 Th. oest. arch. Inst., XII, 1909, pp. 100 f. He thinks that the original may have been identi- 
cal with the statue of ’Awé\Awv avadobpevos standing before the temple of Ares at Athens, P., I, ~ 
8.4, and that the wats dvadobuevos of Pheidias at Olympia, P. VI, 4.5, also may have been an 
Apollo. He also interprets the figure of a charioteer entering a chariot on an Attic relief (Fig. 63), ° 
to be discussed later, as an Apollo: /b., VII, 1892, pp. 54 f. For the relief, see B. B., 21; von 
Mach, 56; F. W., no. 97; infra, pp. 269 f. 
6Cf., Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 18 (Achilleae). On these “‘Achillean” statues (a generic name 
for statues of athletes leaning on their spears, from Achilles, the typical hero of ephebes), see 
Furtwaengler, Jahrbuecher f. cl. Philol., Supplbd., LX, 1877, p. 47, n. 11. 
