EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE. 333 
certainty, but made out the following letters, the last four of which 
are plainly visible in the photograph: ETNAIAA. 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.!' 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.? 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.);? of the Athenian Kylon on the Akropolis, who won the double 
running-race in Ol. 35 (=640 B.C.);4 of the Spartan Hetoimokles at 
Sparta, who won five times in wrestling at the beginning of the sixth 
century B. C.’ 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.);° 
that of the Spartan Chionis, who won five running-races in Ols. 28-31 
(= 668-656 B. C.), was made later by Myron.’ 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. 
1This is the view of K. Kouroniotis, who carefully examined them. I quote his words incor- 
porated in Dr. Svoronos’ letter to me of Dec. 29, 1911: 7a ypadupara eri Tod Koppod, vouitw 
ére d€ Exovot Kappiay onuaciay, tows dé uddLoTA eive TA XAPAYuaTA VéoU TLVOs. 
The inscriptions on the great majority of victor monuments found at Olympia were engraved 
upon the horizontal upper face of the base in front of the feet—at least down to the fourth century 
B. C.: see Inschr. v. Ol., p. 235. Dittenberger and Purgold have referred two inscribed convex 
bronze fragments found in the Altis to the flanks of victor statues set up in imperial times: idid., 
nos. 234-5. 
2Only one other victor from Phigalia is known, Narykidas, who won wéa\y some time in 
the first half of the fourth century B. C., as the mutilated epigram and artist’s name found upon 
fragments of the pedestal of his statue at Olympia attest, a date out of the question for our statue: 
see Inschr.v. Ol., no. 161: cf. P., VI, 6, 1; Foerster, no. 324. 
sP., VI, 15.8; Hyde, 148; Foerster, 61, 62. 
4P., I, 28.1; cf. for the date, Foerster, no. 55. See infra, p. 362. 
5P., III, 13.9; Foerster, nos. 86-90. See infra, p. 362. 6P., VI, 3.8; Hyde, 29; Foerster, 6. 
7P., VI, 13.2; it was accordingly set up about Ols. 77-8 (=472-468 B. C.): see Hyde, no. 111, 
and cf. p. 48; Foerster, 39, 41-46. See infra, p. 362. 
