Page 1



In this 3rd edition of Crystal, Phoenix Ancient Art will show works that are of the highest quality and historical significance and epitomize the artistry and refinement of the cultures that encompass ancient Western civilization, representing over 7000 years of human creativity, from the 4th millennium B.C. to the early 15th century A.D. This magnificent collection, presented at this year’s XXVth Paris Biennale will include a glorious Phoenician ivory plaque with winged griffins flanking a sacred tree, a superb Egyptian statue of a kneeling priest, a stunning Greek Black figure Dinos with a boar hunt scene, and a breathtaking Herakles knotted gold belt with ornamentation, and a superlative Hellenistic sculpture of a young Alexander the Great! Together, these works exemplify timeless beauty and sophistication.




Sumerian, Jamdet Nasr Period – Early Dynastic, ca. 3100 B.C. Steatite H: 7 cm - D: 18.5 cm


The Sumerian civilization, one of the earliest manifestations of an urban society in history, developed along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in southern Mesopotamia in the centuries just before 3000 B.C. Although land along these rivers was fertile if it was well-watered, the climate of the region was mostly an inhospitable one. Early Sumerians had to overcome these adverse environmental conditions in order to maintain control over one of the most fertile areas known from antiquity. Their struggle with natural elements gave rise to beliefs that the cosmos was relatively unstable and that it was humankind’s responsibility to achieve and maintain order in a chaotic world. Complex urban organizations and religious cults arose in an attempt to comprehend the nature of this chaos and bring order to society. Stone vessels, like this example, were frequently found in palaces or religious structures, suggesting they had a special function and were used for ritual purposes. Among objects from the material culture of this period, stone vessels are, after cylinder seals, the most important sources of pictorial information. The exquisitely made bowl is carved in low relief and decorated with a procession of bulls; an ear of barley is placed horizontally above each bull; incised lines define and accentuate the anatomy of the animals. The subject – a long-established theme of herbivorous animals and plants – suggests the serenity of life in nature, and perhaps the presence of a god or goddess. Invoking a deity’s intercession for success, or in thanks for past bounty, would have been crucially important for the continued fertility of agricultural fields and herds of cattle. The considerable work and skill involved in the creation and decoration of such stone vessels, and the fact that the stone was imported, provided these objects with a particular significance and value even in antiquity. While more fragile ceramic vessels had to be continually replaced, stone vessels were produced in a limited range of shapes and were used for generations. The masterful workmanship of this bowl attests to the great skill that stone carvers attained at the beginning of the third millennium B.C. In keeping with the formal and hieratic artistic traditions of the Near East, the bodies of the bulls are depicted in profile while the heads of the animals face outward to the viewer. Design motifs that incorporate a row of animals in

this manner may be precursors to the types of animal and human figures that became fully developed later in the Early Dynastic period (3000 – 2340 B.C.).

PROVENANCE Ex collection Dr. Kurt Greineder , Beirut, 1960s; ex collection Dr. and Mrs Herbert Hidde, acquired in 1983; ex collection Mr et Mrs Michael Steinhardt, New York, acquired in 1982.

PUBLISHED IN Ancient Art from Collections in New York & Connecticut, Neuberger Museum, State University of New York, College at Purchase, 10 October 1982 – 13 February 1983, Jaime Uhlenbrock, curator, no. 1, p. 2, 5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Amiet, P., Art of the Ancient Near East, New York, 1980, no. 225, for a conical “cult vase” depicting a zone of bulls in relief, height 9.7 cm, Louvre Museum, Paris. Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, London, 1970, pp. 28-29, fig. 15, for a comparable bowl depicting a zone of bulls and ears of wheat carved in relief, height 5 cm, Baghdad, Irak Museum. Lutz, M., in Aruz, J., and Wallenfels, R. (eds.), Art of the First Cities, New York, 2003, p. 42, no. 12, for a conical bowl depicting a zone of bulls in relief, height 5.9 cm, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, no. VA 10113. Neuberger Museum, Ancient Art from Collections in New York and Connecticut, New York, 1982, pp 2 and 5, no. 1, for a comparable bowl depicting a zone of bulls and ears of wheat carved in relief, height 6.4 cm, private collection. Ortiz, G., In Pursuit of the Absolute Art of the Ancient World, Berne, 1996, no. 3, for a “ritual vase” depicting a bull, young heifer, and a sacred stable, height 6.2 cm. Parada, E., “Problems of Style and Iconography in Early Sculptures of Mesopotamia and Iran,” in In Memoriam: Otto J. Brendel, Mainz, 1976. 7



Western Central Asia, late 3rd – early 2nd millennium B.C. Silver H: 12.5 cm - D: 16 cm


A splendid and rare example of Central Asian silverworking, this delicately made cup was hammered from a single sheet of silver. It speaks for the early tradition of fine metalworking that developed in this region during the late third millennium and early second millennium B.C. The most exceptional examples known, all of which may have come from a single workshop, consist of a small number of cylindrical silver vessels, like this cup, decorated with elaborate figural scenes in low relief made by the repoussé technique. Incised lines contribute to the decoration of the cup, adding details to the finely delineated anatomy of human and animal figures. Weapons, garments, and jewelry are rendered with simple, deep lines engraved into the metal surface. Extending completely around sides of this cup, the figural narrative contains juxtaposing themes: the first scene portrays a brutal warlike conflict, followed by a one depicting a royal audience, and finally a scene of pastoral nature. The narrative depicted on the side of the cup begins with a bearded, muscular standing figure who is about to shoot an arrow from his fully drawn bow. Royally attired, a fillet composed of elliptically-shaped objects, likely beads, crowns his head. Around his neck he wears a tightly fitted triple necklace or choker, and bracelets, also decorated with elliptical shapes. A quiver full of arrows is secured on his back by a zigzag decorated baldric that hangs diagonally across his chest. The archer’s narrow waist is accentuated by a matching zigzag design waistband, beneath which is an additional rounded band or belt to hold his kilt-like skirt in place. The skirt is embellished with finely striated lines and a dot-in-circle design. He wears low boots or shoes, the tops of which are indicated at the ankles by double incised lines. Standing behind the archer, an attendant is similarly attired with footwear and a waistband. He is adorned with a double necklace and bracelets decorated with elliptically shaped objects, but he lacks a crowning fillet and wears a plain skirt. The archer’s bow and arrow are directed toward a captive male figure at the right. The captive’s arms are bound behind his back, tied at the wrists; he is already wounded in the back by one arrow. A smaller naked figure, whose back is pierced by two arrows, has already fallen victim to the archer’s prowess and lies upside down, diag10

onally placed with his head near the archer’s feet; another small naked figure stands in front of the bound prisoner. As this scene continues, another large-scale, royally attired figure is shown seated and wearing a fillet and triple necklace decorated with elliptically-shaped objects. Like the archer, his garments are elaborately patterned, in this case with rows of opposed semicircles and dot-in-circle design. Smaller scale attendants or royal subjects present themselves before the seated figure. Above them, near the rim of the cup, a bow and quiver hang above a couchant dog; other implements depicted above the seated figure are secured by forked sticks. To the right of the seated figure is a flock of couchant goats, an ibex, and sheep, all overseen by a seated shepherd at the upper right, holding a small stick or switch in his right hand. It has been suggested that silver vessels like this example represent the beginning of a long tradition of special display vessels made of precious metals on which ritual, mythological, or cosmological scenes are depicted. Among the finest parallels for this rare type of silver cup are those in the Louvre Museum, the Miho Museum in Japan, and the White-Levy Collection in New York. PROVENANCE Private collection, acquired on the British art market, London, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Amiet, P., L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500-1700 av. J.-C., Paris, 1986, for the Louvre and Miho Museum cups, see pp. 326-329, nos. 201 and 202. Aruz, J., Art of the First Cities: The Third Millenium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New York, 2003; for the Miho Museum cup, see 365-66, no. 257. Tosi, M., and Wardak, R., “The Fullow Hoard: A New Find from Bronze-Age Afghanistan”, East and West no. 22 (1972), pp. 9-17. Pittman, H., in Glories of the Past, New York, 1990, for the WhiteLevy cup, see pp. 43-44, no. 30.






Egyptian, 1550-1292 B.C. Pink granite (syenite) H: 18.7 cm


This head made of pink granite with black dots (syenite) has already been presented in a sales catalog which dates it to the early reign of Tuthmosis III. First and foremost, one might question if the figure represented is a god, a king or an individual. In view of the material, of the style and quality of the piece, one of the first two hypotheses is best. On the upper forehead, two horizontal lines suggest the lower part of the nemes scarf, a royal symbol, rather than the lower modius of a divine crown, like that of Amon for instance. The folds of the scarf converge over the remains of the left ear in a knot. This unusual but realistic detail strengthens the hypothesis of the nemes. Is it Tuthmosis III himself? The assumption appears to be difficult, though not impossible. This ruler is usually represented with close-set eyes, a thin nose, marked eyelids, prominent cheeks, a thin upper lip, an elongated lower lip. This does not appear here, only the deep dimple between the mouth and the chin is similar. The soothing smile is a distinctive feature of the 18th Dynasty, not necessarily of the beginning, as seen on the Tuthmosis IV of the Louvre. Caution is therefore required: this beautiful piece would probably represent a ruler of this Dynasty, but who can not be more precisely identified.

PROVENANCE Ex Count Von Arco collection, Munich, 1900-1920; Ex Austrian Private collection, acquired from Count Von Arco.

PUBLISHED IN Sotheby’s Catalog, Antiquities, New York, December 10, 2009, lot 4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Fay, B., Tuthmoside Studies, MDAIK, Cairo, p. 55, 1995. Laboury, D., «La statuaire de Thoutmosis III», Aegyptiaca Leodiensia, p. 5, Liège, 1998. Vandier, J., Manuel d’Archéologie Egyptienne, III, Paris, 1959, pl. 99. 16




Phoenician, ca. 8th century B.C. Ivory H: 10.6 cm


This finely carved, ajourĂŠ sculpture, finds its closest parallels among the Phoenician ivories found at the Assyrian city of Nimrud. The exquisitely detailed, openwork plaque is carved on both sides: heraldic griffins stand up on their hind legs, flanking a sacred tree. The open-beaked, winged creatures are composite animals, combining the smooth-skinned body of a lion with the crested head of a bird. Their crests are made up of three twisted and curling locks. A matching arrangement of long twisted locks, terminating in curls, extends down the back of their heads. Although a symmetrical composition, each griffin has its legs positioned at different heights, which creates a pleasing visual rhythm, accentuated by their curving tails and ornately detailed wings. As composite mythological animals, griffins are made up of the body of a terrestrial animal, a lion, and that of a celestial one, a bird. Griffins were therefore considered as beings that possessed a magic and power encompassing both the earth and the heavens. Griffins additionally functioned as apotropaic, protective beings, recalling the gold-protecting griffins of whom Herodotus writes, following Aristeas of Prokonnesos in his remarks on Scythia (3, 116; 4.13.27). Symbolizing the growth of plant life and fertility, the sacred tree is a common motif in Assyrian art and in most cultures of the ancient Near East. The sacred tree on this plaque is formed by a number of symmetrically placed flower buds, lotus flowers and palmette forms. These extend outward on curving branches from the ground-line and the sacred tree, the central shaft of which is missing. The sacred tree terminates in a palmette flower flanked by two curving volutes. Ivory was highly regarded as a rare commodity in antiquity, and carved ivories rank as one of the most important and beautiful forms of Phoenician art. These works carry on the traditions of Syro-Phoenician ivory carvers, who achieved a high degree of technical skill known in the Near East since the Bronze Age. In the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., the art of ivory carving became one of the main industries of the Levant, distinguished by a vast trade in luxury furnishings with workshops located in the 20

most prosperous cities of ancient Palestine, Syria, and Phoenicia. As evidenced by this ivory plaque, Phoenician artists were strongly influenced by the themes and style of Near Eastern art due to the close geographic proximity and cultural contact between these two civilizations. Phoenician ivories were primarily used to embellish furniture, the panels and plaques being applied to sacred or domestic furnishings such as thrones, altars, beds, tables, and stools. Sumptuously decorated wooden furniture inlaid with ivory panels was produced for the adornment of royal apartments for almost three centuries during the period of Assyrian supremacy. Many of the ivories from Nimrud were either imported as finished products through trade, or were brought there as booty from vassal states west of Assyria where elephants were native, and ivory carving was long established. Other ivories were carved at the Assyrian capital by local artisans or those who came from the west to work in the royal workshops.



PROVENANCE Ex British private collection, collected in the 1960s – 1980s; ex American private collection, collected in 1980s – 1990s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnett, R. D., “Phoenicia and the Ivory Trade”, Archaeology No. 9 (1956), pp. 87 ff. Barnett, R. D., A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories, London, 1957, pp. 31-33, for origins and development of Syrian and Phoenician art; pp. 58-62, for Phoenicia in the Iron Age. Barnett, R. D., Ancient Ivories in the Middle East, Jerusalem, 1982; pp. 43-55, for Syria and Phoenicia in the Iron Age. Crawford, V., Harper, P., and Pittman, H., Assyrian Reliefs and Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Palace Reliefs of Assurnasirpal II and Ivory Carvings from Nimrud, New York, 1980. Herrmann, G., Ivories from Room SW37 Fort Shalmaneser, London, 1986; nos. 499, 500, 542, 543, 544, 561 and 617, for the carved ivories and plaques found at Nimrud that are close iconographic parallels to the griffins and sacred tree on this plaque. Kantor, H., “Syro-Palestinian Ivories”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies No. 15, (1956), pp. 153-174. Mallowan, M. E. L., The Nimrud Ivories, London, 1978, for Phoenician ivories. Uberti, M., “Ivory and Bone Carving”, in The Phoenicians, New York, 1988, pp. 404-418. 23



26th Dynasty, ca. 664–525 B.C. Graywacke H: 55 cm



Sporting a thick, old-fashioned hairstyle and wearing the traditional shendjit loincloth, this contemporary from the height of the Saite kings presents a small chapel containing the image of the god Ptah, patron of Memphis. It seems that this statue was, first and foremost, intended to assure the eternal salvation of a certain Padeheka, son of Pef-tjaû-esi who was interred in the necropolis at Saqqara.

state of preservation has nevertheless not changed the character of the sculpture or its amiable expressiveness. This remarkable naophorous statue, which testifies to the great statuary tradition of the 26th Dynasty, has happily endured through time and enriches our knowledge of the artistic mastery of the period.

Around the base are two symmetrically engraved formulas, commonly used in offerings whereby the offering given by the king to the gods will be beneficial to the owner of the statue. To the right, it is Ptah-Sokar who is invoked, called upon so that Padeheka will profit from the god’s food table, particularly on the day of the deity’s solemn procession. To the left, it is Anubis, the master embalmer whose sanctuary is found in northern Saqqara, where embalmers performed mummifications, supplied with linen and oils. On the front, under the double formula, four panels with small hieroglyphic inscriptions represent the two green and black ointments that protected the eyes of the deceased, the resins for fumigating the body during the mummification process, and the basic food needs. Although relatively rare, the name Padeheka was used throughout Western and Lower Egypt and at Memphis; it meant “the gift of the god Heka,” who in this case was the personification of magic. Scholarly, and therefore referred to as a “royal scribe,” Padeheka was a priest with the rank of “divine father.” The inscriptions on the base and the back pillar use the characteristic titles of the priesthood of Memphis (such as “inspector of the semou,”) and the honorific distinctions taken from the titles of the Old Kingdom, as it was fashionable to do during the Saite renaissance. He is referred to as the “staff of the people” and as the one “decorated by the King,” an ancient term of long ago that was bestowed upon the artists of the elite. Padheka’s principal responsibility was as the “director of the pure Chamber,” the place where embalming was conducted. An exemplary piece of workmanship, this sculptural masterpiece was damaged in an act of vandalism that is, without a doubt, attributable to the Christian era. Its

PROVENANCE Ex private collection, Paris, France, acquired in the 1960s.

PUBLISHED IN Yoyotte, J., Art of the Two Lands, Egypt from 4000 B.C. to 1000 A.D., New York, 2006, pp. 150-153, no. 51. 27




East Greek, or made in Etruria by an East Greek artist, ca. 540-520 B.C. from the “Campana” Group, attributed to the Ribbon Painter 1 Ceramic H: 19.7 cm



A container for mixing wine, the dinos 2 is a large rounded vessel with no foot or handles, and was therefore supported on a stand. The shape of ceramic dinoi is likely derived from 6th century B.C. bronze vessels, such as the inscribed dinos from the sanctuary of Hera on Samos, a type which itself was probably inspired by earlier examples from the Near East 3. In ancient literature dinoi were recorded as being given as prizes at games, including the funeral games of Patroklos and Pelias 4. Dinoi became popular among Athenian vase painters at the beginning of the sixth century B.C., two of the most notable examples being the dinos and stand painted by Sophilos in the British Museum 5, and a similar dinos and stand by the Gorgon Painter in the Louvre 6. An ivy wreathe is depicted on this dinos, the leaves of which have stems highlighted with added white slip, decorates a wide sloping lip that protrudes above the gracefully curving body of the vessel. A thin black band encircles the rim, and the shoulder is decorated in a loop pattern formed by a line looping up and down, and around two rows of large dots, with smaller dots between the top and bottom of the loops. The groundline for the hunt scene is formed by a thin, carefully drawn line, below which is a band of zigzag leaves, resembling a ribbon, a design that gives the Ribbon Painter his name. Below this a wide band of highly stylized, alternating lotus flowers and ivy leaves, and another band of a ribbon-like, zigzag of leaves encircle the bottom of the dinos. All the decorative bands are bordered by carefully drawn horizontal lines. The vessel’s interior is entirely black except for a reserved area in the center decorated with a dot-in-circle design. A “stacking mark,” made when the dinos was stacked on another object during firing in the kiln, appears as an impressed circle on the exterior, bottom of the vessel. The surface of the vase is burnished to a glossy, dark orange sheen, similar to that of the Ribbon Painter’s most famous work, the Ricci hydria in the Villa Giulia, with which this dinos also shares the loop pattern decoration and the same style of drawing for the depiction of young male figures 8. On the sides of the dinos five highly animated, running youths are engaged in a boar hunt, a unique scene for dinoi of the Campana Group. The two boars, one on each 33

side, are huge and overly large in scale, almost as tall as the youths themselves – a detail that convincingly argues that this is more than an ordinary hunt. The Ribbon Painter was likely inspired by the most famous boar hunt known from Greek mythology, that of the Calydonian boar 9, which appears on dinoi 10, kraters, amphorae, and cups of the period 11. As related in the myth, which is first referenced in Homer’s Iliad (Book IX, 529-546), King Oeneus of Calydon, neglected to sacrifice the annual first fruits to Artemis and in revenge the goddess sent a great wild boar to ravage the countryside. It was left to Meleager, the son of Oeneus, to assemble hunters and hounds from many cities to kill the boar. Based upon surviving examples of Athenian black-figure vases, the first half of the 6th century B.C. was the greatest period of production for scenes of the Calydonian boar hunt. The adaptation of this imagery by the Ribbon Painter, an East Greek vase painter, demonstrates both his innovation and the sharing of such themes between Greek artists. The nude young men are beardless and have close cropped hair indicated with red slip. The shoulders of both boars are painted with red slip, and white slip highlights their undersides. The crest on the backs of both animals indicated by the notch or indentation, is typical of East Greek boars. Finely incised, well-placed lines indicate anatomical details on both the youths and boars and indicate the talented, sure hand of the Ribbon Painter. The boar on one side of the vase paws the ground in defiance, getting ready to charge the hunters, who are vulnerable and defenseless were it not for their potentially lethal spears. One spear has already wounded the boar on the opposite side of the vase – the animal is bleeding from the head or neck, as indicated by a row of dots in added red. The “Campana” Group, to which this dinos belongs, is likely a product of East Greek artists, perhaps working in Etruria. The vases painted by this group, comprised of the Ribbon Painter (formerly known as the Painter of Louvre E 737 and 739), the Eight Painter (formerly the Painter of Louvre E 736), and the newly added Hoof Painter, are mostly dinoi, many of which were in the Campana collection. The Ribbon Painter, to whom approximately fifteen vases have been attributed, produced remarkably fine 34

pots and is the leading painter of the group. This particular dinos, depicting the lively action of a real or mythological boar hunt framed by well-drawn, decorative details, can be considered among his finest vases. Condition: Intact with very well-preserved painted decoration. The burnished clay fabric of the vessel has fired to a glossy, dark orange surface; the slip for decorative bands and figures has fired to a deep black gloss, similar to the fine black gloss of Athenian pottery.

PROVENANCE Ex British Private collection, acquired in the 1980s. Ex American Private collection, 1980s-1990s; on loan at The Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 1994 – Inv.L94.AA.11.19.

PUBLISHED IN Hommes et dieux de la Grèce antique, cat. Exposition, Bruxelles, 1982, p. 69, no 24. J. Paul Getty Museum, on loan, 1994, no. inv. L94.AA.11.19. Hemelrijk, J. M., “Four New Campana Dinoi, a New Painter, Old Questions,” in Babesch: Bulletin Antike Beschaving, no. 82, 2007, pp. 365-421, figs. 1-82, and for this dinos in particular, pp. 368-369, figs. 22-28, with a thorough treatment of the subject and bibliography.





For dinoi of the Campana Group, including the Ribbon Painter and this dinos, see: J. M. Hemelrijk, “Four New Campana Dinoi, a New Painter, Old Questions,” Babesch: Bulletin Antike Beschaving 82 (2007): 365-421, figs. 1-82, and for this dinos in particular, 368-69, figs. 22-28, with a thorough treatment of the subject and bibliography. On “Campana” dinoi in general: F. Gaultier, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum (CVA) Louvre 24, 21-27, pls. 2-13, with a full account and bibliography; R. de Puma, CVA J. Paul Getty Museum 9, 30-31, pls. 498.3, 499-500; M. Cristofani, “La ceramica greco-orientale in Etruria,” Les Céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en occident (Paris, 1978), 193-94; R. M. Cook and J. M. Hemelrijk, “A Hydria of the Campana Group in Bonn,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 5 (1963): 107-20; R. M. Cook, “A List of Clazomenean Pottery,” Annual of the British School at Athens 47 (1952): 150-51; F. Villard, “Deux dinoi d’un peintre ionien au Louvre,” Monuments et mémoires. Fondation E. Piot 43 (1949): 33-57; for a comparable dinos, see Hommes et dieux de la Grèce antique (Brussels, 1982), 69, no. 24, loaned in 1994 to the J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. L94.AA.11.19. For the shape of a dinos, sometimes called a lebes: T. Schreiber, Athenian Vase Construction (Malibu, 1999), 98-105, figs. 11.1-21; J. V. Noble, The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery (New York, 1988), 53, figs. 108, and 109, a stamnos (Brussels A 717) by Smikros depicting a dinos and stand in use; G. Richter and M. Milne, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases (New York, 1935), 9-10, fig. 70.


Samos, Vathy Museum B 1759: G. Schmidt, “Heraion von Samos: Eine Brychon-Weihung und ihre Fundlage,” Athenische Mitteilungen 87 (1972): 167-68, pls. 62-66, appendix 4-5.


Richter and Milne 1935, 9-10.


London, British Museum 1971.11.-1.1, ca. 580-570 B.C.: J. D. Beazley, Parlipomena (Oxford, 1963), 19.16bis; J. Boardman, Athenian Black-Figure Vases (London, 1974), 18-19, fig. 24.


Paris, Louvre E 874, ca. 600-580 B.C.: J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford, 1956), 8.1; Boardman 1974, 17, fig. 11.1-2.


For the ornament on this dinos: Hemelrijk 2007, fig. 45A (type 8, for the lotus-ivy design); fig. 45B (“a,” for the ivy wreathe on the lip), fig. 45C (“f,” for the loop pattern on the shoulder).


Rome, Villa Giulia Museum, no inventory number. For the Ricci hydria: C. Bérard et al., A City of Images: Iconography and Society in Ancient Greece (Princeton, 1989), 54-55, fig. 74; J. Boardman, Early Greek Vase Painting (London, 1998), 22021, fig. 488.1-2, and for other examples of “Campana” dinoi: figs. 490-92 (Louvre E 739, Vienna, Würzburg H 5352, Boston 13.205).


For Meleager and images of the Calydonian boar hunt: S. Woodford and I Krauskopf, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae 6, 414-35.


For the closest comparative examples of the Calydonian boar hunt on Attic black-figure dinoi: Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, acc. no. 34.212, Painter of London B 76, CVA Boston Museum of Fine Arts 2, 8, pls. 64.1-4, 65.1; For the fragment of a dinos by Sophilos, Athens, Agora Museum P344, The Athenian Agora, XXIII, pl. 58.610.


For boar hunting in antiquity and a listing of pottery depicting the Calydonian boar hunt, or possible images: J. Barringer, The Hunt in Ancient Greece (Baltimore, 2002), 147-173, fig. 80. From the period of red-figure vases, see: F. Kleiner, “The Kalydonian Hunt: A Reconstruction of a Painting from the Circle of Polygnotos,” Antike Kunst 15 (1977): 17, fig. 6. 37



Etruscan, ca. 500 B.C Gold and agate L: 57 cm


Elaborate gold-chain necklaces testify to the high technical competence of jewelers in Etruria, as well as to their patron’s exquisite taste. They are often decorated with multiple pendants that depict diverse images, such as palmette and volute floral elements, images of sirens, Acheloos, satyrs, and deities. The work of the Etruscan goldsmiths is remarkable for its splendor and the fact that it embodies a native Etruscan style all its own, although immigrant craftsmen from eastern Greece left their mark of influence on Etruscan techniques and styles. The art of carving precious stones into pendants flourished at Vulci and Tarquinia from the last decades of the 6th century B.C. and was probably learned in workshops established by East Greek masters. This necklace, a particularly innovative and richly decorated one, consists of a heavy loop-in-loop gold chain that terminates in hinged gold cups into which interchangeable sections of pendants can be fastened. The first interchangeable section consists of a gold tube from which hang seven pendants, the attaching loops of which are decorated with gold wire and beading, each loop angled to fit closely against the adjacent one. The pendants are decorated with repoussé heads that depict gods and mythological figures. The central pendant bears the head of the winged Pegasus at the top and a winged Gorgon head below; an eye agate is set between these in an elaborate dog-tooth bezel, bordered by beading and pomegranate-like shapes. To either side of the central pendant hang two matching pendants with heads at the top, perhaps depicting Apollo (the Etruscan Aplu), joined by a woven chain that attaches to the heads of satyrs or silenoi below. The next two pendants on either side are decorated with agates set in beaded bezels and surrounded by pomegranate-like shapes with winged Sirens or Harpies at the top joined by a woven chain to the horned heads of the river god Acheloos (the Etruscan Achlae) below. The final pair of pendants depict heads of the god Hermes (the Etruscan Turms) wearing his distinctive winged hat, or petasos, at the top and simple hollow beads below, again suggesting pomegranates, and separated by a woven chain, one of which is now missing. 40

The second interchangeable section consists of a gold tube from which are suspended six hollow pendants in the shape of bullae. Except for the central pendant, which depicts the head of a beardless male figure in profile, likely Apollo, each one is decorated with a repoussé design of acanthus, palmette scrolls, volutes, and wave motifs that encircle the slightly pointed ends of all six pendants.

PROVENANCE Ex collection Maurice Tempelsman, Paris – New York ca. 1980; ex collection Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cristofani, M., and Martelli, M., L’oro degli Etruschi, Novara 1983, pp. 158-159, no. 128, for a comparable necklace from Vulci in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; 179, no. 164, for an Acheloos head pendant on a comparable gold chain from Palestrina in the Villa Giulia National Etruscan Museum, Rome; 208-09, no. 215, a necklace with gold bullae pendants from Tarquinia in the British Museum, London. Haynes, S., Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History, London, 2000, p. 158, fig. 138, for a comparable necklace from Vulci in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.



Greek, late 4th – early 3rd century B.C. Gold, garnet, and emerald green glass L: 73 cm


For his ninth labor, Heracles was sent to retrieve the precious belt of Hippolyte, queen of the Amazons. Admete, the daughter of Eurysteus, urged her father to obtain it because of the special powers the belt provided to its wearer. In extant Greek literature, the belt is never described in detail and therefore we may never know exactly what it looked like. For the ancient Greek woman who wore this exquisite belt of gold, garnet, and emerald-like glass, the elaborately made belt would likely have reminded her of Hippolyte’s famous mythological belt, and similarly adding to the mortal wearer’s status and prestige. This belt belongs to a small group of particularly exquisite ornaments that are usually interpreted as diadems, although the French archaeologist Pierre Amandry questioned that purpose as early as 1958, suggesting they might be belts. Their common features consist of a large, lavishly decorated, central Heracles knot flanked by highly stylized pilaster capitals with one or two woven gold straps on both sides, sometimes of considerable length. This exquisite example may be among the earliest dating belts of the group. The belt is composed of three main parts: a large Heracles knot in the center and, on each side, a flat strap of interlinked chains with small loops at the end that allowed the wearer to fasten the straps together and even to adjust the size. Each strap is fitted toward the center with a gold ornament shaped like a pilaster capital, and at the end with a rounded, tongue-shaped panel. In addition, each strap slides through a square, gold capsule that functions as an extra decoration while keeping the strap in shape. The Heracles knot – our modern square knot – is made of two hollow, interlocking loops, their shape emphasized by beading and fine ornamental wire set along well-defined outer and inner edges. Running along the curves on the top of each loop is a series of stylized, elongated palmettes rendered in twisted wire and terminating in a pointed flower bud highlighted with inlaid green glass. Six individually made rosettes, also inlaid with green glass, add to the rich surface decoration. The 44

rosettes are arranged between three garnet cabochons: an oval gemstone in the center flanked by two circular ones, each gemstone mounted in settings with serrated edges. Thick gold wire volutes decorate the four corners of the Heracles knot. The green glass decoration on the knot corresponds with similarly inlaid flower bud designs on lateral plaques, which are hinged and link the knot to pilaster capitals at the end of the straps. The pilaster capitals are decorated with a broad border of ornamental wire and a flower bud design with inlaid green glass that repeats the decorative scheme of the lateral plaques. In addition, a large palmette with a pointed oval garnet in the center and two rosettes repeats the design theme of the Heracles knot. The rounded tongue-shaped panels that reinforce the terminal ends of the straps feature decoration similar to that of the pilaster capitals, including the green glass inlay. The belt illustrates several features indicating the characteristic trends of Greek jewelry that began around this time. The Heracles knot, while known before, became a leading motif for the design of jewelry. Polychrome decorative effect is used minimally on this piece in comparison to later Hellenistic work, but the belt already announces the lavish use of colored inlays that mark much of the jewelry of the 2nd century B.C. The red of the garnets cut for the cabochon, as on this piece, became the preferred color and was combined with emerald green, which was achieved by using the actual gemstone or green glass when it was not available. Decorative gold wire is now generously used for various shapes of geometric as well as naturalistic ornamentation. The belt’s elegant form and carefully balanced arrangement of decorative elements epitomizes the finest Greek jewelry produced during a transition from the restrained Classical style to the aesthetically pleasing richness of design so prevalent during the Hellenistic period. The restrained use of colored material enhances the gold work and the repetition of floral motifs adds a touch of the natural world. Such richly embellished gold metalwork reflects the great material wealth of the period, which first profited from the output of Macedonian and Thra-




cian goldmines exploited by Philip II of Macedonia, and then from the vast quantity of Persian gold circulated in the Greek world as a result of Alexander the Great’s conquests in the East.

PROVENANCE South German private collection, 1965.

PUBLISHED IN Phoenix Ancient Art, Greek and Roman Gold, Genève, 2007, no. 19.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Amandry, P., Collection Hélène Stathatos: Les bijoux antiques, Strasbourg, 1953, 118 ff., for belts similar to this example. Deppert-Lippitz, B., Griechischer Goldschmuck, Mainz, 1985. Formigli, E., and Heilmeyer, W.-D., Tarentiner Goldschmuck in Berlin, Berlin, 1990. Gantz, T., Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore, 1993; for the belt of Hippolyte and the ninth labor of Herakles, pp. 397-400. Hoffmann, H., and Davidson, P., Greek Gold: Jewelry from the Age of Alexander, Boston, 1965. Pfrommer, M., Untersuchungen zur Chronologie früh- und hochhellenistischen Goldschmucks, Tübingen, 1990; for belts or diadems designed with a Herakles knot flanked by plaques in the form of pilaster capitals, see pl. 12.3 and 13.1-2, all from Thessaly, now in the Benaki Museum, Athens; pl. 12.1, from Hadji Mouschkais / Pantikapaion in southern Russia, now in the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg; pl. 12.2, from Macedonia, now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; see also pl. 10.2, a long chain with a large Heracles knot may have functioned as a belt. Williams, D., and Ogden, J., Greek Gold: Jewelry of the Classical World, New York, 1994. 48




Greek, Hellenistic, 3rd – 2nd century B.C. Bronze H: 49 cm


A magnificent bronze sculpture of Alexander the Great, this powerful and inspiring image of the young ruler is an exceedingly rare, indeed unique, masterwork from the Hellenistic period. The figure was originally astride a mount with his upper legs firmly in place along the horse’s back, and his lower legs spread outward and extended back. Since stirrups were not used by the Greeks, the rider’s unsupported feet point out and down to the sides. The upraised right arm is bent at the elbow with the hand positioned to hold a spear or a much longer lance, the Macedonian sarisssa. The lowered left arm, also bent at the elbow, extends forward with the hand grasping the reigns of the horse. He is dressed in a short tunic, or chitoniskos, over which is worn a cuirass or corselet, which would have been made of bronze lined with leather. The cuirass takes the shape of a fine, muscular torso of heroic form, the “muscle cuirass type,” which suggests the anatomical perfection of the body that it protects. This idealized anatomy is clearly indicated by the pectoral muscles, nipples, and abdominal muscles on the front of the cuirass, and at the back, the shoulder blades and muscles along the spine. The openings of the armor for the neck, arms, and along the curving lower border of the cuirass are edged with a rounded fillet subtly marked with diagonal lines, as if indicating a twisted cord. Ribbon-shaped straps hang down from the neck and shoulders to the chest, and double row of fringed pteryges, straps of leather forming a protective skirt, hang down from the cuirass and spread out around the figure’s lower torso. Beneath the pteryges, the realistically rendered, soft folds of the chitoniskos drape across the right and left thigh of the figure. He wears high, sandal-like boots that are open and bound up the front with wide laces, and closed at the back with a continuous piece of leather protecting the ankle, the sides and back of his feet, and lower leg. Typical for an image of Alexander, his gaze is directed upward with his head turned to the left. The face is well formed with rounded cheeks and chin, above which are slightly parted, full lips, angular nose, expressive upraised eyes, all framed by windswept and wildly curling locks of hair – physical aspects which embody this figure with the richness of detail and sensuality of Hellenistic sculpture, as well as the superhuman stature and noble presence for which Alexander was noted in ancient literature. 52

An important parallel to this equestrian figure of Alexander is provided in the medium of wall painting, this in a figure from the—we may want to take this phrase out a frieze decorating the tomb of Philip II at Vergina, the site of ancient Aegai known to be the ancestral city of Macedonian kings. The central figure depicts the youthful Alexander upon horseback, wielding a spear in his upraised right hand while holding the reins of his mount in his lowered left hand. He is dressed in a chitoniskos and wears a leafy green wreath on his head. His pose and face, with full lips and large piercing eyes possessing a steady gaze, share the same pose, facial characteristics, and expression as this bronze figure. As a unique and outstanding example of Hellenistic sculpture, exact bronze parallels to this masterwork are wanting, however equestrian figures of Alexander of a similar type are known, and even these are few in number. One of the closest comparative statuettes, dating to the 2nd century B.C., is the young Alexander from Begram and now in the National Museum of Afghanistan. While the Begram bronze depicting Alexander is not a major work of art, the attire and pose of the youthful horse-rider is similar to that of the bronze considered here: the figure wears a cuirass over a chitoniskos, and is in the position of a rider, the legs being spread with knees back and feet pointed out; both arms are bent at the elbows, and the right hand is raised, originally holding a spear, while the left arm is lowered with the hand clenched as if holding the reins of a horse. In the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a second comparable example with regard to artistic conception and pose is found in the 3rd century B.C. figure of a bronze warrior wearing an elephant skin headdress. The bronze figure represents a mounted warrior who also once held a weapon in his raised right hand while utilizing the elephant skin as a protective helmet and cuirass. As with the previous example, the left arm is bent and the hand extends forward, grasping the edge of the elephant skin and probably the reigns of the horse as well. The horseman may represent Alexander as ruler of Egypt since the type is found on issues of silver tetradrachms minted by Ptolemy I of Egypt. With horse and rider found intact, the Ist century B.C. bronze statuette from the excavations at Herculaneum


provides a complete equestrian composition portraying Alexander the Great. The statuette is generally believed by scholars to be inspired by a monumental work, and most agree that the Herculaneum bronze, like the bronze equestrian sculpture of Alexander considered here, reflects the large sculptural composition of Alexander on Horseback created by the sculptor Lysippos. In antiquity it was reported that Alexander issued an edict that only Lysippos should be permitted to cast his figure in bronze (Pliny, Naturalis Historia 7.125). Plutarch (Alexander 4.1-7) tells us that Alexander’s “outward appearance is best conveyed by portraits of Lysippos, the only sculptor whom the king thought was good enough to represent him… the poise of his neck, which was tilted slightly to the left, and the melting glance of his eyes, the artist accurately observed.” The equestrian sculpture of Alexander was commissioned to commemorate the first major victory in his military campaigns to conquer Persia and lands beyond. The famous statue formed part of a composition to commemorate the twenty-five equestrians, Alexander’s Companions, who fell in the battle of Granikos in 334 B.C., which was one of the first major victories for the twenty-two year old leader. The original monumental sculpture was erected in the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus at Dion near the foothills of Mt. Olympos, the place from which Alexander began his military campaign after making a ceremonial sacrifice. In 146 B.C. the Roman general Quintus Caecilius Metellus had this monumental composition of Alexander and his Macedonians transported to Rome, where it was rededicated within the newly constructed Porticus Metelli, and is now lost to us. The equestrian bronze sculptures of Alexander from Begram and Herculaneum are echoes of the great masterwork by Lysippos. Like the equestrian bronze portrait of Alexander from Dion, this magnificent and inspiring bronze image of Alexander the Great brings to mind that important victory, a profound moment in history. At that time the first wave of Hellenism, combined with the dynamic and visionary leadership of this young Macedonian king, surged onward to the lands in Africa, the Near East, and Asia that Alexander subdued, introducing new cultural traditions that transformed the ancient world and subsequently influenced our own.


PROVENANCE Ex private collection Mr. T., Switzerland, acquired in the 1950s; ex private collection Davray, France, 1970; ex private collection, Geneva-Paris acquired circa 1980s-1990s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cuirassed sculpture: Vermeule, C. C., “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” Berytus no. 13, 1959, pp 1-82; and supplements in Berytus no. 15, 1964, pp. 95-109; no. 16, 1966, pp. 95-110; no. 23, 1974, pp. 5-26; Stemmer, K., Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen, Berlin, 1978. For Macedonian military equipment: Snodgrass, A. M., Arms and Armor of the Greeks, Baltimore, 1999, pp. 114-130; Markle, M., “Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great,” in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Washington, 1982, pp. 87-111. Painted figure of Alexander from Vergina: Andronicos, M., Vergina: The Royal Tombs, Athens, 1984, pp. 101-117, figs. 57-70. Bronze Alexander from Begram: Hiebert, F., and Cambon, P., Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul, Washington, 2008, p. 208, n. 227; Stewart, A., Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley, 1993, p. 423, fig. 52, with select bibliography; Rolley, C., Greek Bronzes, London, 1986, p. 204, fig. 278; Bieber, M., Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art, Chicago, 1964, p. 37, fig. 23. Bronze Alexander from Egypt, Metropolitan Museum of Art 55.11.11: Picón, C., Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2007, p. 441, n. 202; Pandermalis, D., Alexander the Great: Treasures from an Epic Era 56

of Hellenism, New York, 2004, p. 28, n. 7; Hemingway, S., The Horse and Jockey from Artemesion, Berkeley, 2004, p. 26, fig. 16; Smith, R. R. R., Hellenistic Sculpture, London, 1991, p. 19, fig. 9; Yalouris, N., et al., The Search for Alexander: An Exhibition, Boston, 1980, p. 123, n. 46. Bronze Alexander from Herculaneum: Mattusch, C., Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture Around the Bay of Naples, New York, 2008, pp. 250-251, n. 116, with select bibliography; Pandermalis, D., Alexander the Great: Treasures from an Epic Era of Hellenism, New York, 2004, p. 24, n. 4; Moreno, P., Lisippo: l’arte e la fortuna, Milan, 1995, pp. 152-155, n. 4.18.2, with bibliography; Stewart, A., Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley, 1993, pp. 45 and 123-128 fig. 21. Sculpture of Lysippos: Moreno, P., Lisippo: l’arte e la fortuna, Milan, 1995; Calcani, G., Cavalieri di bronzo: la torma di Alessandro opera di Lisippo, Rome, 1989.



Roman, Late 1st century B.C. – 1st century A.D. Aubergine and white mosaic glass H: 6.7 cm - D: 23.5 cm


Mosaic glass vessels possessing such bold, striking designs, and in such a good state of preservation, are quite rare. In antiquity such vessels were highly desirable objects and were included among the household goods of the wealthiest individuals. While this type of mosaic ribbed glass bowl was known in Italy and the western Roman provinces, where “western style” bowls are attributed to the Romano-Italian industry of the Augustan and Tiberian periods, their distribution extends to Egypt and to other areas of the Eastern Mediterranean. An exquisite example of the mosaic glass technique, this aubergine colored bowl is decorated with a multitude of white volutes that, seen from above, form spiral designs that are arranged in circles from the rim to the bottom of the bowl. The underside of the bowl is slightly concave, the result of the glassmaker’s use of a pontil, an iron rod for handling hot glass during the modeling process. The exterior is decorated with twenty-nine ribs or flutings, evenly spaced and radiating out from the bottom of the bowl toward the rim. Such fluted forms were popular among the repertoire of shapes produced by glassmakers during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Complete and in an excellent state of preservation, the bowl’s extraordinary dimensions surpass the average size of these unusual glass vessels. The production of mosaic glass is a complex and painstaking operation requiring tremendous skill and remarkable experience on the part of the glassmaker. The glassmaker must first produce the polychrome glass rods or “canes” that will be cut into small discs. Their chromatic composition determines the color design of the vessel: the combination of two colors, white and aubergine, merged into a single glass cane would provide a decorative effect like that of this bowl. Glass discs cut from the cane are heated and placed next to each other in a stone or ceramic mold having the form of the bowl. This procedure is combined with the technique of pressing the glass into the mold, hence the term “moldpressed,” followed by tooling and polishing to obtain a finely finished, uniform surface..

PROVENANCE Private collection.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beretta, M., and Di Pasquale, G., Vitrum: Il vetro fra arte e scienza nel mondo romano, Florence, 2004, p. 207, n. 1.22, for a comparable, but fragmentary bowl from Pompeii. Goldstein, S. M., Pre-roman and Early Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass, New York, 1979, pp. 188-191, n. 501512, for several parallels to this bowl, particularly the shallow ribbed bowl, n. 501, from the Western Roman Empire. Grose, D. F., Early Ancient Glass, New York, 1989, pp. 241-250, for mosaic glass bowls, particularly fig. 123, a shallow ribbed bowl, Yale University Art Gallery, 1955.6.238. Kunina, N., Ancient Glass in the Hermitage Collection, St. Petersburg, 1997 pp. 268, n. 93. Oliver, A., “Millefiori Glass in Antiquity,” in Journal of Glass Studies no. 10, 1968, pp. 48-70. Scattoza-Höricht, L., I vetri romani di Ercolano, Rome, 1986. 61



Roman, 1st – 2nd century A.D. Marble H: 98 cm


In Greek mythology the sole mission of the goddess Leto, daughter of Coeus and Phoebe, is to become the mother of Apollo and Artemis. She is described in Hesiod’s Theogony (406-408) as “always mild, kind to men and the deathless gods, mild from the beginning, gentlest in all Olympus.” Such qualities seem to be embodied in this Roman sculpture of the goddess: Leto possesses a serene and peaceful countenance, expressed by her softly modeled face and neatly coiffed hair held in place by a fillet. The goddess projects an aura of maternal power and confidence by her stance and graceful, rhythmic movement accentuated by flowing drapery. Wearing a himation and a peplos with a kolpos overfold, she holds up her tiny children, Artemis and Apollo, who sit upon her upper arms. In the Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, the Greek island of Delos allows Leto to give birth to her twins with the provision that this “floating island” would become stable and the center for the main cult of Apollo. The goddess’ own cult is closely connected with that of Apollo and Artemis, as on Delos where she had her own sanctuary, and at Ephesus where the birth legend emphasizing Artemis was connected to the local cult. Leto is also entrusted with the care of younger members of society that is otherwise the concern of Apollo and Artemis. In the sanctuaries of Delos, Ephesos, and Chios her cult was independent and important enough to have its own priestess. As reported by Semos of Delos (Athenaios 14.2.614a), the Delian sanctuary to Leto, the Letoon, contained a small wooden image of the goddess, a rare representation of her standing alone. More often depicted as a triad, images of Leto, Apollo, and Artemis are attested by 7th century B.C. statuettes from Dreros on Crete, and depictions of the group are not uncommon in Greek vase-painting. A marble Leto carrying Apollo and Artemis, found near the Circus of Maxentius and now in Rome’s Museo Torlonia, is one of the best preserved sculptures that can be compared to this example. The Torlonia Leto is dated to the 3rd century A.D. and, while not as finely made as this one, it possesses the same aura of calm and peace. The sculptor of the Torlonia Leto likely drew his inspiration from works influenced by the late fourth century Greek master, Euphranor. The highly sculpted treatment of Leto’s 64

heavy and ornate drapery, which seems to take on a life of its own on both on the Torlonia Leto and on this example, is similar in conception to that of Euphranor’s well-known cult statue of Apollo from the Athenian Agora. Roman imperial coinage dating to the 3rd century A.D. provides numismatic evidence for the sculptural type depicting Leto in a grouping similar to this sculpture. All the coins are bronze issues, and show the goddess holding up Apollo and Artemis on her arms with drapery billowing outward from her body. Most significantly, a coin from Tripolis in Lydia depicts the figure of Leto within a temple, with her pose and drapery virtually the same as this marble sculpture. Another coin from the same city shows the goddess standing before an altar upon which a crown and two palms are represented. Other examples from Ephesus, Kremna in Pisidia, and Tabala in Lydia show the goddess with flowing drapery, again similar to this work. The depictions of Leto with Apollo and Artemis on these coins provide strong evidence for the existence of a notable cult statue of the triad. The fame of the cult statue must have generated a number of finely made copies, of which this marble sculpture is an exquisite example. Considering this, and the Greek dedicatory inscription on the base of the statue, this sculpture of Leto, Apollo, and Artemis ranks among the more significant works of Roman marble sculpture.


PROVENANCE Ex-collection H-P. Roth, Lenzbourg, Switzerland, acquired ca. 1925-1930; ex-collection A. Ruegg, collector and restorer, 1982; important art gallery, Geneva, Switzerland, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture: The Late Classical Period, London, 1995, fig. 30, for the cult statue of Apollo by Euphranor, from the Athenian Agora, ca. 340-330 B.C. (Agora S 2154). Boer, C. (trans.), The Homeric Hymns, Chicago, 1970. Bruneau, P., Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale, Paris, 1970. Evelyn-White, H. (trans.), Hesiod: The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, London, 1982. Kahil, L., and Icard-Gianolio N., “Leto,” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae no. 6 (1992), pp. 256-264, and 132, no. 25, for the sculpture of Leto with Apollo and Artemis in Rome, Museo Torlonia 68; p. 131, nos. 13, 16, 17, 18 and 20, for Roman imperial bronze coins from Asia Minor depicting Leto with Apollo and Artemis. 69



Selection of objects

Ali Aboutaam and Hicham Aboutaam

Project manager

Hélène Yubero, Geneva


Antiquities Research Center, New York

Graphic concept

mostra-design.com, Geneva


Hughes Dubois, Paris and Bruxelles Stefan Hagen, New York Maggie Nimkin, New York


CA Design, Wanchai, Hong Kong

In New York

Hicham Aboutaam Electrum, Exclusive Agent for Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. 47 East 66th Street New York, NY 10065, USA T +1 212 288 7518 F +1 212 288 7121 E info@phoenixancientart.com www.phoenixancientart.com

In Geneva

Ali Aboutaam Michael C. Hedqvist Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. 6, rue Verdaine - Case postale 3516 1211 Genève 3, Suisse T +41 22 318 80 10 F +41 22 310 03 88 E paa@phoenixancientart.com www.phoenixancientart.com

©2010 Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. 71

Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. New York Electrum, Exclusive Agent 47 East 66th Street - New York, NY 10065, USA T +1 212 288 7518 - F +1 212 288 7121

ISBN: 978-0-9785649-6-4

Geneva 6, rue Verdaine - 1204 Geneva - Switzerland T +41 22 318 80 10 - F +41 22 310 03 88 www.phoenixancientart.com

9 780978 564964

E 9 0 0 0

Profile for emyphoenix

Phoenix Ancient Art 2010 Crystal III  

In this 3rd edition of Crystal, Phoenix Ancient Art will show works that are of the highest quality and historical significance and epitomiz...

Phoenix Ancient Art 2010 Crystal III  

In this 3rd edition of Crystal, Phoenix Ancient Art will show works that are of the highest quality and historical significance and epitomiz...