EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE. 329 
sculptor, at least, copied Egyptian models.!. Thus Furtwaengler, who 
early assumed a Cretan origin for the “Apollo” type of statues,? 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’.2 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.4- 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.6 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.6 Von Mach also 
completely excludes all foreign influence when he says: “In her sculp- 
ture at least, Greece was independent of influence of any one of the 
countries that can at all come under consideration in this connection, 
Phoenicia, Assyria, and Egypt.’ But here, as in so many questions 
about Greek art, the truth must lie between the two extremes.’ 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 Egyp- 
tian influence, for example, in the ceiling of the treasury of Orchomenos,?® 
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 
“1See bibliography in Collignon, I, pp. 117-18; cf. G. Kieseritzky, Jb., VII, 1892, pp. 182 f. 
PAZ. le, 1882, pp. 55 f. 
3Mw., p. 712. 
4T, pp. 117-19; more fully in Gaz. Arch., 1886, pp. 235 f.; cf. also his later treatment in Mon. 
Piot, XX, 1913, pp. 5 f.; he assumes less influence in the corresponding archaic draped female 
type. Cf. also, for a similar view, F. W., p. 11 (to no. 14); von Sybel, Weltgesch. d. Kunst, p. 114; 
Kieseritzky, J. c.; Loewy, Jh. oest. arch. Inst., XII, 1909, pp. 243 f.; cf. id., bid., XIV, 1911, 
pp. 1f.;id., Griech. Plastik, 1911, p.5. While Loewy believes Egyptian influence reached Greece 
via Crete, Poulson believes that it came via Phoenicia: see the latter’s Der Orient u. d. frueh- 
griech. Kunst, 1912, and cf. his article in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., XXXIV, 1914, cols. 61 f.; 
Richardson, p. 39; E. Kroker, Jb., I, 1886, pp. 114 f.; ete. 
5Gaz. B.-A., XXI, 1899, pp. 177 f.; 313 f.; for a similar view, see also Overbeck, I, pp. 37 f. 
eLes Malin archaiques, aes AL f.; te, L Archéologie, sa valeur, ses methodes, II, pp. 193 f.; 
id., L’influence égyptienne sur l’attitude at type statuaire debout dans l’archaisme grec, in Fest- 
ae H. Bluemner ueberreicht, 1914, pp. 102-142. 
7Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles, 1903, p. 84. On p. 324, however, he admits Oriental 
influence on the Greek minor arts, especially that of Assyria on early vases. 
8So Pottier, B. C. H., XVIII, 1894, pp. 408 f.; cf. Gardner, Hbk., pp. 47 f.; Sculpt., pp. 17 f.; ete. 
*Schliemann, ieee Pl. I (restored); Berroe Chipiez, VIII, p. 543, fig. 220 eemearl) 
ior’ on p. 544, fig. 221, from Schliemann); Springer-Michaelis, p. 115, fig. 246; etc. 
