There are many similarities and dissimilarities between the sculpture of the Kouros and the sculpture of Menkaure. The Kouros (plural, the Kouri) is an ancient sculpture which represents a “large scale, hard stone, freestanding, nude” Greek man from the Archaic period (650 BCE- 480 BCE) (Dunham, 1). The Menkaure is a greywacke dyad statue representing King Menkaure and a woman from the Old Kingdom of Egypt (2490 BCE- 2472 BCE). This woman’s identity is uncertain, but she is thought to be the king’s wife, Queen Khamerernebty II. This essay shall highlight the various similarities and differences in the style, technique, meaning, and cultural context of both the sculptures mentioned above.
Origin
There is not much evidence regarding who created these works and where they originated. The dyad of Menkaure and his Queen was undoubtedly a work of art meant to perpetuate the Egyptian pharaoh’s glory. It might have served as an offering at the grave to preserve their representations in the afterlife. Excavators first discovered the Kouros under the guidance of George Reisner (Harvard University – Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) in 1910. However, there is no such apparent cause why Greek artists created the Kouros or what exactly influenced them for the same. Greek sculptors seem to have taken inspiration from different traditions and the empire’s historical relationships with Egypt and Near East and then combined it with unique native traditions to develop a distinctive Greek sculpture (Dunham, 11). It was initially believed that the Kouros represents King Apollo because of its youthful, charming appearance. Many theorists believe that the Kouri were warriors, or athletic victors or a means to aid homosexual eroticism. However, lack of evidence shows that the Kouros was primarily used as a votive offering or marker for an individual’s grave (Dunham, 6).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
One may note that the conventions related to the making of sculptures were different in Egypt and Greece during these times. This comparison between Menkaure and his Queen of the Old Kingdom of Egypt and the Kouros of Anavysos of the Archaic Greek period really showcases the differences between stylized or conventionalized style verses the more realistic approach of Ancient Greece. While anyone with ample wealth could get their sculptures made in the Archaic Greek period, only worthy kings and queens could get their statues and sculptures erected to perpetuate their power in the Old Kingdom of Egypt.
Tools and Techniques Used
There is no literary evidence to describe the tools which early Greek sculptors used to create the Kouros. However, the perfectly carved out figure of the Kouros affirms that sculptors had access to a wide variety of tools and techniques. Greek artists used tools like the point, mallet, flat, and round chisels, among others, to carve and shape the Kouri marble. They also used measuring tools like a square or simple drills and abrasives such as emery and pumice (Dunham, 5). To create the head and arms of the Kouros with greater perfection, they sometimes carved them out separately and then attached them through metal dowels or stone tenons (Dunham, 5).
The tools used by Egyptian sculptors are a mystery. Simultaneously, it is clear that several features of the Menkaure dyad are not complete because the dyad is poorly carved and lacks a proper quote of polish. The woman’s wig does not have any striations, and there is no pleating on King Menkaure’s wilt. Furthermore, the statue’s base is not inscribed, which suggests that the work was not fully completed. A few red pigment traces around the king’s facial region suggest that it might have been painted at some point in time. One can infer from these haphazard incomplete details that King Menkaure might have suffered an untimely death before completing the statue (Thompson, 111).
Major Inferences and Other Facts
The biggest obvious similarity between these two figures is the form and posture that they take on. In both pieces, the forms are very stiff with one leg in front of the other alluding to a walking motion and both arms straight down with their hands clenched in a fist. Menkaure and his Queen stand front-facing, but Menkaure’s head is slightly tilted towards his right away from the Queen. The creator must have thought within an architectural niche to make it seem both the figures are emerging out of the structure (Calvert, n.d.). Queen Khamerernebty II’s forward stride alongside the king is rare, as opposed to female depictions with feet usually closed together (Calvert, n.d.). Her aesthetically proportioned body and her stance highlight her entity as the king’s equal counterpart. This speaks volumes about the status of royal women in the Old Kingdom period. As mentioned above, all features suggest that the statue was left unfinished and incomplete.
Menkaure is only nude only till the waist, beyond which the king is clothed in a short-pleated skirt originally called the ‘shendjet’ (Calvert, n.d.). In contrast with this, the Kouros is an utterly nude figure. According to Dunham, the nude sphyrelaton was common in Archaic Greek sculptures as they principally portrayed a distinct culture of ideal ‘naturalistic nude men’ (Dunham, 112). The back slab supporting the Egyptian sculpture of Menkaure is much narrower than the dyad, making it less visible from the front, whereas the sculpture of the Greek Kouros is perfectly carved out. Thus, the Kouros appears more realistic than the sculpture of Menkaure (Thompson, 111).
Conclusion
The Egyptian sculpture of Menkaure shares many similarities and dissimilarities with the Greek sculpture of the Kouros. By individually studying their origin, process of creation, visual details, and historical information, one can decipher a sizable amount of information about society’s functioning in earlier times. In this case, the statues belong to the Egyptian Old Kingdom period and the Archaic Greek period. Small details such as the unfinished statue of Menkaure, Queen Khamerernebty II’s firm stance, and the nudity in the Kouros’ statue provide significant insights into the historical context of the artifacts. Overall, the art of ancient history reinforces the importance of further archaeological research.
Stuck on your essay?
