Czére Andrea szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 104. (Budapest, 2006)
JUDIT LEBEGYEV - ANDRÁS MÁRTON: Early Cycladic Objects in the Collection of Classical Antiquities
IS Inv. no.: 4709, height: 23.7 cm. Bibl.: Hekler 1929, 11, no. 2, pl. 2; Thimme 1976, no. 215; P. GetzPreziosi, "Five Sculptors in the Goulandris Collection," in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica. Studies in Memory ofN.P. Goulandris, London 1984, 47-71, figs. 17— 19a; P. Getz-Preziosi, Early Cycladic Sculpture. An Introduction, Malibu 1985, tigs. 69, 70, 78-79; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 117-120, no. 1, 163, pi. 42. 1; M. Marthari, "Tpía Ki>KA.aÖiKá ei5á>A.ia OTO Mouosío rqç lúpou," in N. Ch. Stampolidis (ep.), <PQZ KYKAAAIKON. TqiqriKOc TOUOÇ axr\ uvrjpq TOD NÍKOV ZaysipónovXov, A0T]va 1999, 34, 36, no. 13; GetzGentle 2001, 168, no. 1. 19 On the use of the terms "master", "sculptor", "figure-maker", etc., see Getz-Gentle 2001, xvi. The existence of the Ashmolean Master and the connection of his works has not gained unanimous acceptance: S. Sherratt, Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum. The Captive Spirit, Oxiord 2000, 156-157, no. 7.25. On the critique of her methods: A. C. Renfrew, The Cycladic Spirit. Pieces from the KP. Goulandris Collection, London and New York 1991, 110, 113, 115-116; J. F. Cherry, "Beazley in the Bronze Age? Reflections on Attribution Studies in Aegean Prehistory," in R. Laffineur and J. L. Crowley (eds.), EIKQN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 6-9 April 1992, AEGKUM 8, Liège 1992, 140-144, and in general on the possibilities of attribution studies in prehistory, idem., 134-140. On this see also, Ch. Morris, "Hands Up for the Individual! Ehe Role of Attribution Studies in Aegean Prehistory," Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3, no. 1 (1993), 41-66; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 639-641; Rehm 1997, 72; Marthari 1999, 33; C. Broodbank, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge 2000, 60. 20 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 117-120; Getz-Gentle 2001, 100-101. 'Ehe attribution of two of the seven pieces (Getz-Gentle 2001, 169, nos. 5, 7) is not convincing because of their fragmentary nature and different stylistic features. The figure in the Menil Collection, Houston, and the piece of the Ashmolean Museum are made of mottled marble similarly to the piece in Budapest: Sherratt 2000, 156-157, no. 7.25; Getz-Gentle 2001, 168, nos. 2, 4. :i Inv. no. MZ 356, height: 31.5 cm. The figure was confiscated on Naxos from looters. In the view of M. Marthari, the publisher, its genuineness is not provable, Marthari 1999, 30. Getz-Gentle 2001, 169, no. 6. The inventory number (AM 377) and the find place (Naxos) are incorrect. On the differentiation between the hands of Bronze Age masters and modern forgers by authenticated provenances, see Cull and Chippindale 1993, 637, tab. 16. 12 Earlv acquisition does not always veriiv the genuineness of a piece, Gill and Chippindale 1993, 617-619. On the forgery of Cycladic figures, see J. Riederer, in Thimme 1976, 94-96; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 616-621, 650-651; G. V. Stergiopoulos, "Cycladic Idols: stripped to the stone,"
