THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.
) 261:50 –56, 2000
HISTORICAL NOTE
Anatomy and the Art of Archaic Greece
RUMY HILLOOWALA*
E
xcept for the European Re-
naissance, no culture in hu-
man history has contributed
so much to visual anatomy as did the
Greeks. The artwork depicting the hu-
man form from that period is legend-
ary. The Greek artists during the
Archaic period (650 – 480 B.C.) com-
bined narrative intent with stylistic
naturalism (Gombrich, 1961). Images
were important, not for just the mes-
sage they conveyed, but also for their
inherent aesthetic appeal. The medi-
um—the human figure—was more
important than the message (Board-
man, 1994a).
The Archaic Greek period spanned
approximately 170 years, to the start
of the Classical period. The anatomy
in Greek art can be studied both from
a morphological as well as a stylistic
approach. Leonardo da Vinci coined
the phrase “Sapere come vedere” — to
know how to see. For fuller apprecia-
tion, one needs to see not only what is
apparent to the eye, but also to under-
stand the use of the human form—the
medium—to convey the message of
the work of art. The evolution in style
from the early specimens to later ones
can be attributed to advances in the
Greeks’ knowledge of anatomy, the
acquisition of sophisticated sculptural
skills, and the urge to express more
complicated feelings and emotions
Dr. Hilloowala is a Professor of Anatomy
at West Virginia University. His research
interests are in craniofacial anatomy
and the history of anatomy as it applies
to art. His special interests are in the
Greek period, archaic to classical; Re-
naissance, especially Michelangelo and
Leonardo da Vinci; and 18th century
Florentine anatomical wax models.
*Correspondence to: Department of
Anatomy, School of Medicine, Robert C.
Byrd Health Sciences Center, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
26506-9128. Fax: (304) 293-8159; E-mail:
rhilloow.wvu.edu
© 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
through anatomy. Anatomical depic-
tion of young men, called kouroi, went
from the rudimentary to those that
were almost perfect specimens, and
were narrative in that anatomy was
used to convey feelings and emotions.
The evolution in style
from the early sculptures
to later ones can be
attributed to advances
in the Greeks’
knowledge of anatomy,
the acquisition of
sophisticated sculptural
skills, and the urge to
express more
complicated feelings
and emotions through
anatomy.
AN INTRODUCTION TO
APOLLOS AND KOUROI
The god Apollo, synonymous with nu-
merous statues of the standing youth,
is portrayed throughout the Archaic
period as an idealized anatomical
male figure, based on laws of propor-
tions and exemplifying the power of
physical beauty. The popular use of
the term Apollo may be due to a si-
multaneous inception of the Greek ar-
chaic art and the widespread cult of
Apollo during the late seventh century
at Delphi and Delos. Apollo is believed
by some to be of Anatolian (Turkish)
origin with specifically virile, if not
war-like, character. This eastern influ-
ence explains the new conception of
Apollo as a figure of action (Ridgway,
1977a.). Though Apollo symbolized
the evolution of the depiction of hu-
man anatomy through the period, the
Ionic word for a young man, kouros
(plural, ‘kouroi’), is much to be pre-
ferred to Apollo, which is a misnomer.
(Carpenter, 1960a).
The archaic kouroi were not war-
riors, nor were they cult statues. In
sanctuaries of male deities, they were
representatives of the worshiper offer-
ing more permanent and silent service
to a god than is possible by a mere
mortal (Ridgway, 1977b). Except for
the Sounion (a style of figure found in
a temple for Poseidon in south Attica,
Greece), most were found in the sanc-
tuaries for Apollo and thus they were
once known as Apollos (Boardman,
1978a).
GREEK GEOMETRIC PERIOD
(900 – 800 B.C.)
The provenance of human anatomy in
art dates back to more than 5,000
years in the cave art of the stick fig-
ures with exaggerated limbs. This ex-
aggeration was in proportion to their
function as opposed to the inert torso
in everyday activities. The preponder-
ance of the limbs over the torso as
seen in cave art and in the Bronze-age
Cycladic figures of the central Aegean
Cycladic islands (2400 –2300 B.C.)
(Fig. 1) is also seen during this period
as depicted in the Dipylon Vase, 760 –
750 B.C. (Fig. 2). The body is shown in
a silhouette. The torso is in the form
of double triangles, one truncated on
top of the other with the narrow part
representing the waist region. Both
extremities are linear with no charac-
teristic dimensions to indicate the var-
ious parts. Arms, legs, and torsos were
more for differentiating humans from
animals and other geometrical shapes.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Figure 1. Cycladic figure, after Dokathis-
mata variety, from Amorgos. 2400 –2300
B.C. National Archeological Museum, Ath-
ens. Height 20.5 cm.
Carpenter (1972a) offers a detailed ex-
planation of the motifs on the Dipylon
vase.
What was the artist trying to convey
in these figures? It was certainly not to
show the body as it is in nature. The
technical skills of the times did not
permit it; but more important, the art-
ist had no interest in a true portrayal.
There were few details on the body
and almost featureless faces, (Thom-
as, 1989) akin to those of Cycladic art.
The details were not necessary as art
was initially a form of writing and it
sufficed that the spectator recognizes
the idea it expressed (Ridder and De-
onna, 1927a).
Did the Geometric figure scenes de-
THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) 51
pend upon familiarity with the Hom-
eric epics (Snodgrass, 1979)? Homer
confirms this image of the human fig-
ure. He speaks of limbs rather than
the body because “the limbs are the
lively part that strikes the eye. Strictly
speaking, in Homer there are not even
words for arm and leg but only for
hand, forearm, upper arm, foot, calf,
and thigh. Likewise a comprehensive
word for the trunk is lacking” (Weg-
ner, 1961).
THE PROVENANCE OF POST-
GEOMETRIC GREEK ART
Greek art was a direct legacy of Egyp-
tian art. Naukratis in the Nile Delta,
close to present day Alexandria, was
the Egyptian trading center during
the sixth century. According to
Herodotus (484 – 425 B.C.) there was
no other Greek port in Egypt (Carpen-
ter, 1960b). There is further evidence
to support this point in Herodotus.
Evidence indicates that the Egyptian
influence spread to the rest of Greece
through east-Ionian centers such as
Miletus and Samos.
Artistic transmission from one cul-
ture or country to another can be ac-
complished by one or more of the fol-
lowing modes: (1) from trade; (2)
active interest by craftsman; (3) colo-
nization, emigration, or plunder. The
transmission of Egyptian influence to
Greece was by the first and second
modes (Boardman, 1994b).
Figure 2. Dipylon Vase (close-up). 760 –750 B.C. National Archeological Museum, Athens.
Height 155 cm.
The uniform style of the kouroi and
the analysis of the marble indicate a
more restricted provenance, from the
southern Aegean basin to the Cycladic
islands of Naxos and Paros (Getz-Pre-
ziosi, 1987). Naxos was the most pro-
ductive source of kouroi in the first
half of the sixth century B.C. Paros,
west of Naxos, acquired prominence
in the second half of the century.
From the islands the influence spread
to Attica, which did not get into the
picture until later in the Archaic pe-
riod (Ridgway, 1977c). Recent scien-
tific study of the kouros in the Getty
Museum (Santa Monica, California)
gives conclusive evidence that archaic
and classical Greece quarried marble
from the Cycladic islands as well as
the Greek mainland and Anatolia
(Margolis, 1989).
GREEK ORIENTALIZING PERIOD
(800 – 650 B.C.)
The returning Greeks, impressed by
the Egyptian statues but with no rea-
son for having such statues or under-
standing of the motives behind such
works, copied the Egyptian models,
but with modifications reflecting their
own traditions. The Egyptians, ob-
sessed with immortality, sculpted fig-
ures in the human form as an earthly
abode to which the spirit of the dead
could return. The face was an attempt
to portray the features of the de-
ceased, but the generic body was
52 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) HISTORICAL NOTE

GREEK ARCHAIC PERIOD (650 – The first monumental, free-stand-

480 B.C.)
In the Archaic period, the difference
in the portrayal of the human and the
divine became blurred. The Greeks
saw their gods in completely human
guise, nude like their athletes, differ-
ent only in their godlike superior
looks, strength and stature. Thus the
kouroi came to be known as Apollos,
and when depicted as aged, they were
called Zeus (Carpenter, 1960c).
ing stone sculptures of the human fig-
ures appeared in the Archaic period
from the Poseidon temple at Sounion
in south Attica and seem to have a
potential for movement in three-di-
mensional space. The convincing
muscular structure of the kouroi from
the Apollo sanctuary on Mount Ptoon
in Boeatia (520 B.C.) make them more
alive and ready for action (Buitron-
Oliver, 1988). Emulating the Egyptian

Figure 3. Egyptian figure. ca. 2650 B.C. The

Vatican Museums, Rome.

based on a fixed formula. The Greeks,

however, soon divorced their figures
from this original intent by converting
them into the images of the living:
kouroi became athletes, deities, a be-
ing that represents an actual physi-
cally living body (Carpenter, 1972b).
Though this period contributed lit-
tle to the depiction of anatomy per se,
it was important in introducing the
stance of the advanced left leg (Fig. 3).
In the Egyptian hieroglyphics, the
symbol for walking is that of two legs
with the left leg in front of the right
(Gardiner, 1978). This stance is seen
in all Egyptian statuary. Subsequently
it was copied into Greek art where it
persisted into the Classical Greek pe-
riod. Figure 4. Sounion kouros. 615–590 B.C. National Archeological Museum, Athens. 3.05 m.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Figure 5. Ptoon kouros 520 – 485 B.C. National Archeological Museum, Florence. 66.5 cm.
tradition, both arms are pendant in
the kouroi, held close to the thighs
with clenched fists and the thumb
pointing downwards. Both feet are
flat on the ground, the knees rigid and
the left leg slightly advanced (Carpen-
ter, 1960d). Egyptian art inspired the
size, pose and type of kouroi, but its
nudity was a Greek innovation. (Bon-
fante, 1989).
Anatomy thus became paramount
in Greek statuary. Acquiring knowl-
edge of surface anatomy was not dif-
ficult, thanks to the bodies observed in
the gymnasiums and the Olympics. In
spite of this ready knowledge, the
THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) 53
body was not shown in its natural pro-
portion but based on theory. Parts of
the body were treated as separate en-
tities with no understanding of the co-
herent whole. Prior to the kouros, an-
atomical features other than the rib
cage, pectoral, and shoulder blades
were sketchy or absent. The organic
interrelation is still not present in the
kouros and has not completely moved
away from the rectangular block from
which it was made. (Boardman,
1978b.)
In the sixth century the kouroi show
more realism, though they are still
static and with little change in propor-
tions or stance. Anatomy is more ac-
curately rendered. Sinews and mus-
cles, which had been rendered by
grooves and ridges incised to differen-
tiate anatomical features, show more
subtle and realistic modeling. Exam-
ples are the indentations of the rectus
abdominis and the asymmetry of the
vasti muscles of the leg. These accom-
plishments became possible by acqui-
sition of advanced skill that allowed
integration of various features into a
holistic figure (Boardman, 1978c).
Was the sculptor after a more real-
istic anatomical representation? If he
was, he could have sculpted obviously
observable features, such as the eye,
realistically. He only needed to look
around and copy what he saw. Ar-
chaic Greek artists were not interested
in representational art. They were still
following the old Geometric formula
for composition of individual parts,
seen from a frontal view, and were
presenting images to be read, not
compared with life. The progress to-
wards realism was not by design or
accident, but by gradual evolution
(Boardman, 1978d). An artist’s work
is the combination of lessons learned,
nature observed, and his artistic in-
tent. The Egyptian influence that took
the artist away from the rendering of
the Geometric age made figures basic
symbols for effective communication.
Another century elapsed before real-
ism was sought and desired.
The much touted “Archaic smile”
was probably more a necessity than a
design. It may have been due to the
difficulty of carving the transition
from the mouth to the cheek. The
‘‘smile” was abandoned once tech-
nique made it possible to render the
mouth more realistic (Boardman,
1978e).
The archaic kouroi were made to be
viewed from the front. The figure is
divided into two equal halves by a
rigid central vertical axis passing
through the sagittal plane. This axis
shows no flexure, torsion or inclina-
tion of the torso. Under the condi-
tions, any modifications to suggest ac-
tion that might impart a living stance
to the statue was not possible, except
in the turning of the arm or advance-
ment of the leg (Ridder and Deonna
1927b). To prevent breakage, the arms
and legs were not totally separated.
The unnatural stance and the rigidity
54 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) HISTORICAL NOTE

Figure 6 (Left). Sounion (close-up of abdomen). 600 B.C. National Archeological Museum,
Athens. (total height, 1.65 m)

Figure 7 (Right). Ptoon (close-up of abdomen). 495 B.C. British Museum, London. (total
height, 1.01 m)

of the body was a combination of the
ineptness of the artist and the concept
of the body as an ideogram, a geomet-
rical abstraction (Ridder and Deonna,
1927c).
Being limited to a frontal view was a
blessing in disguise. The artists, in-
stead, were free to strive for more nor-
mal anatomical features. This ex-
plains the differences between the
earlier Sounion kouroi (ca. 615–590
B.C.) and the more advanced Ptoon
kouroi (520 – 485 B.C.).
Within and Without
The external appearance of the living
human body reflects its interior as it
molds the elastic covering of the skin.
In the Egyptian figures and early
kouroi, lacking the technique and the
finesse, various bodily features were
shown as linear inscriptions. It is this
dichotomy between the voluminal
shape of the living and the linear de-
sign that gives the archaic sculpture
its peculiar quality (Carpenter,
1972c). Grooves and ridges, incised
from without, indicate anatomical de-
tails. These incised traits remain on
the surface instead of penetrating
deeper and becoming part of the
body. In the late kouroi the elastic
skin is molded from within by the un-
derlying bones and muscles.
The incised surface treatment is an
influence of the technique used on
Phoenician metal bowls to show the
animals. This incisive technique was
the first step in the evolution from the
outline to the full black figure draw-
ings (Markoe, 1996). Similarly, the in-
cisions depicting anatomical features
were the initial steps, which evolved
into the molding of anatomical fea-
tures on the body.
Further, the concept of the “living
balance” (Carpenter, 1972d) replaces
the lifeless stance of the earlier fig-
ures. The archaic kouros may seem
stiff to us, but at the time it must have
appeared as daring and innovative.
The forward left leg was a promise of
mobility and of potential action
(Ridgway, 1977d). The sculptor real-
izes that the human being needs to
keep itself in equilibrium, not only
while walking but even when standing
and so axial rigidity is softened by
subtle, asymmetric equilibrium for
potential movement. The older
HISTORICAL NOTE
Sounion kuoroi achieved equilibrium
in balancing its mass of inert material
but lacked anatomical balance of a
living figure in motion, or on the verge
of motion as seen in those of the later
Ptoon group.
ANATOMICAL ANALYSIS OF
KOUROI
General Observations
Comparison of the early Sounion
kouros (Fig. 4) with the Ptoon (Fig. 5)
shows a gradual but perceptible evo-
lution in the depiction of anatomy.
The measurable ratios have been
greatly altered. The facial features are
smaller in relation to the head, which
in turn is smaller in relation to the
body. The latter is more robust in
comparison to the height. The hips
are relatively broader than the waist.
The upper and lower legs are in pro-
portion (Carpenter, 1960e).
In examples from the Sounion
group, the concept of the form is ab-
stract and geometrical. The general
shape of the figure displays four sur-
faces of a rectangular block. The pro-
portions of the figure are not anatom-
ically correct. The aim is not realism
but a simplified concept of the human
figure.
Examples from the Ptoon group
show the stance as less rigid and there
is greater freedom of form. The vari-
ous parts are well molded and con-
ceived in the round. Here one sees the
first break with the formula of frontal-
ity and symmetrical construction,
which had characterized anatomy
from the Egyptian to Archaic Greek
art.
Stance
The stance is rigidly frontal in the
early Sounion. In the later Ptoon the
hip and the buttock of the supporting
leg is slightly elevated, foreshadowing
the rhythmic movement of the body in
the Early Classical period (the Kritios
Boy) and beyond. The advances from
the Sounion to the Ptoon show not
only an increase in the knowledge of
anatomy but also advanced profi-
ciency in stone carving. The archaic
sculptors had difficulty in attaining
their arduous and skillful task, partly
for lack of experience and also be-
cause they visualized the body as a
THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) 55
Figure 8. Kritios Boy. 480 B.C. Acropolis Mu-
seum, Athens. 86 cm.
linear, two-dimensional structure.
The linearity was due to proportions
and well defined boundaries, which
can be measured exactly (Carpenter,
1960f). A more free interpretation was
not acceptable as it would be at odds
with the numerical canon. It was a
period of part exaltation at continu-
ally mastering new techniques and
part frustration at techniques found
wanting.
Specific Observations
A very detailed analysis of the ana-
tomical features of the various groups
and of an individual kouros can be
found in the extensive work by Gisela
Richter (1970). A few intriguing com-
parisons are listed here.
Head
As time progressed, the foreheads be-
came higher and the skulls more
rounded. The cheek bones are better
modelled and attention has been
given to the ear (Cook, 1973).
Eyes
In the Sounion the eyes are large, al-
mond shaped, and extend the entire
width of the face. They are smaller in
Ptoon and set further apart and cor-
rectly tilted downwards (Carpenter,
1960e).
Neck
The sternocleidomastoid and the tra-
pezius muscles are absent or stylized.
In Ptoon the rendition is correct.
Torso
The vertebral column is straight in the
Sounion but shows the normal pri-
mary and secondary curvatures in the
Ptoon. The separation, in the midline,
between the pectoralis major muscles
is incised in the Sounion but properly
modelled in the Ptoon. The abdomen
in the Sounion (Fig. 6) is thin, flat and
oval in shape with narrow upper and
lower boundaries. The inguinal liga-
ments are straight and at an acute an-
gle to each other. In the Ptoon (Fig. 7)
the subcostal border is more semicir-
cular and the inguinal ligament
curved inferiorly. In the Sounion
there is no bulge of the abdominal
wall over the iliac crest but it is clearly
seen in the Ptoon. The rectus abdomi-
nis shows three or more intersections
above the umbilicus in the Sounion
but show the normal configuration in
the Ptoon.
Upper Extremity
In the Sounion the scapula is indi-
cated by double incised lines but is
well modeled in the Ptoon. The unnat-
ural arm twist—the forearm facing
ventrally and the palm of the hand
facing medially—in the Sounion is
corrected in the Ptoon (Boardman,
1978f).
Lower Extremity
The lower extent of the vastus media-
lis and lateralis muscles are at the
56 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.)
same level in the Sounion but the me-
dialis is at the correct lower level in
the Ptoon. The patella, in the Sounion
is squarish and the bulge of the gas-
trocnemius muscle is absent while
both are normal in appearance in
Ptoon. The medial and lateral malleoli
are at the same level in the Sounion
but the medial is higher in the Ptoon.
POST ARCHAIC PERIOD
At the end of the Archaic (kouroi) pe-
riod, the knowledge of anatomy and
naturalism had been improved to an
appreciable extent. The next problem
was to adapt the human figure to mo-
tion and action. The strictly frontal
attitude is abandoned, the head is
turned, the weight of the body is on
one leg with an upward and backward
swing of the pelvis on the same side.
In the earlier statues the shoulders
still faced frontally. Later, the upper
part of the body is made to rotate in
an opposite direction from that of the
pelvis. The distance between the
shoulder and pelvis on the side of the
weight bearing leg is now shorter than
on the side of the flexed leg. The knee
of the flexed leg is higher than that of
the other.
EARLY CLASSICAL PERIOD (480 –
450 B.C.)
At the end of the Archaic period the
stage was set for some of the most
magnificent sculpture of the “Golden
Age of Greece” — the Classical Greek
period. Apollo as a youth is once again
evidenced in the Kritios Boy (480
B.C.) (Fig. 8). It shows the transitional
stage from the Archaic to the Classical
period. In contrast to the stylized ab-
dominal wall of the Archaic kouroi,
the Kritios Boy shows more promi-
nence, especially in the inguinal re-
gion. The figure is more animated.
With the weight on the left leg, the hip
on the same side is higher than the
right. This animation is absent in the
upper half of the body, the shoulders
are level and the head turned slightly
to the right (Carpenter, 1972e).
What was the impetus for the
change from the Archaic to the early
Classical? How did the change occur?
The stiff and frozen figures called
kouroi first move one foot forward,
then bend their arms, and then soften
their mask-like smile. Later at the
time of the Persian wars the symmetry
of the tense posture is broken, the
bodies receive a slight twist and life
seems to enter the marble (Gombrich,
1972).
It was not that the naturalism was
intruding on the precise canonical
strictures of Archaic art, since nature
was always present. In all probability,
the evolution in anatomy and style
from the Archaic period arose both
out of the need for a better medium
for adequate expression, and because
the figures were executed by more
skillful sculptors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank the fol-
lowing Museums for the permission
to photograph the art objects: The Na-
tional Archeological Museum, Athens;
The Vatican Museums, Rome; The
National Archeological Museum, Flo-
rence; The Acropolis Museum, Ath-
ens; and The British Museum, Lon-
don.
LITERATURE CITED
Boardman J. 1978. Greek sculpture: the
archaic period. New York and Toronto:
Oxford University Press. a. p 22, b. pp
23–24, c. p 65, d. p 65, e. p 66, f. p 65, g.
p 20.
Boardman J. 1994. The diffusion of classi-
cal art in antiquity. London: Thomas and
Hudson. a. p 7, b. p 312.
Bonfante L. 1989. Nudity as a costume in
classical art. American Journal of Ar-
chaeology. 93: 543–570.
Buitron-Oliver D. 1988. The Human figure
in early Greek art. Archaeology 41:62–
65.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Carpenter R. 1960. Greek sculpture a crit-
ical review. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press. a. p 10, b. p 15, c. p 20, d.
p 10, e. p 46, f. p 47.
Carpenter R. 1972. Greek Art. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. a.
pp 40 – 43, b. p 19, c. p 138, d. pp 100 and
139, e. p 139.
Cook R. 1973. Greek Art its Development
Character and Influence. New York: Far-
rar, Straus Giroux. p 94.
Gardiner A. 1978. Egyptian grammar: be-
ing an introduction to the study of hei-
roglyphs. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ash-
molean Museum. p 457.
Getz-Preziosi P. 1987. Sculptors of the Cy-
clades: individual and tradition in the
third millennium B.C. Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press. p 5.
Gombrich, EH. 1961. Art and illusion. New
York: Bollingen Foundation, distributed
by Pantheon Books. p133.
Gombrich EH. 1972. Art and illusion. a
study in the psychology of pictorial pre-
sentation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press. p 117.
Herodotus. 1987. The history. Translated
by Grene, D.Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press. 1–1.
Margolis SV. 1989. Authenticating ancient
marble sculpture. Scientific American
260:104 –110.
Markoe G. 1996. The emergence of orien-
talizing in Greek art: some observations
on the interchange between Greeks and
Phoenicians in the eighth and seventh
centuries B.C.. Bulletin of the American
School of Oriental Research. 301:47– 67.
Richter G. 1970. Kouroi archaic Greek
youths. London and New York: Phaidon.
Ridder A, Deonna W. 1927. Art in Greece.
New York: Alfred A Knopf. a. p 180, b. p
181, c. p 182.
Ridgway BS. 1977. The archaic style in
greek sculpture. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press. a. p 26, b. p 50, c. p
46, d. pp 27–28, e. p 63.
Snodgrass A. 1979. Poet and painter in 8th
century Greece. Proceedings of the Cam-
bridge Philological Society 205:118 –30.
Cited in Thomas C. 1989.
Thomas C. 1989. Greek geometric narra-
tive art and orality. Art History 12:257–
267.
Walston C. 1927. Notes on Greek sculp-
ture. Cambridge: University Press. pp
10 –11.
Wegner M. 1961. Greek masterworks of
art. Translated by Charlotte La Rue. New
York: George Braziller. p 60.
Wells J. 1923. Studies in Herodotus. Ox-
ford: Basil Blackwell. p 5.