青年雕像（英文：kouros， (古希腊语：κοῦρος, 复数为kouroi)是一个现代词汇 用于描述自力支撑（free-standing）的古希腊雕塑。这类雕塑最早发现于古风时期，代表裸体男性青年雕像。在古希腊，“kouros”意为年轻的男孩，大多数情况特指贵族阶级的。尽管青年雕像在整个古希腊领土上都有发现，但主要还是集中在阿提卡和维奥蒂亚州。 “Kouros”这个术语最早由V.I.列奥纳多于1895年描述阿波罗，一个有关凯拉泰阿的年轻人用的。而后于1904年被Henri Lechat泛用于描述通常的男子形象。类似的雕像在希腊与地区被大量发现，主要集中于阿波罗的圣所中，而其中最大的雕像群位于维奥蒂亚州，Ptoion的阿波罗圣所，并于其中发现了超过一百件雕像。 这些自力支撑的雕塑大都为大理石材质，但也有小部分为石灰石，木制，青铜，象牙和陶瓦。它们通常为真人比例，但一些早期作品也有大至3米高的雕像。
青年雕像的出现对应了几种相应的功能需求。青年雕像曾被认为只用来代表太阳神阿波罗，正如在恳求者面前的花瓶画上所描述的一样。青年雕像和阿波罗的关系被萨摩斯岛上，由狄奥多罗斯创作的皮媞亚-阿波罗雕塑上的描述所支持。 正如“埃及风格，双臂置于两侧，双腿分开“。然而并不是所有的青年雕像都是神像，很多的青年雕像发现于墓地中，并很有可能是被当作了墓地标志或墓碑，或者被当作在游戏中获胜者的奖励（像奖杯），青年雕像还曾被当作神的祭品，(保萨尼亚斯将该类雕塑描述为阿奇恩，一种奥林匹克运动，潘克拉辛，作为青年雕像姿势的一种)， 因为有一些青年雕像是在阿波罗的圣所中被发现的。事实上，一些置于神的圣所的青年雕像上刻的不是神的名字，而是凡人的，比如'德尔斐双子'，克琉比斯和比同，他们应为他们的虔诚感到荣幸，因为他们的名字得到了相应的青年雕像对应。
关于古埃及雕塑(特别是荷鲁斯的雕像)是否对青年雕像有着直接影响是一个已经提出很久的猜想，因为古希腊和古埃及之间的贸易和文化关系被证实从公元7世纪中期起就存在了。在1978年一项由 Eleanor Guralnick 发起的项目将摄影测量法和聚类分析应用于许多古希腊和古埃及雕塑，并发现了关于埃及第二十六王朝的第二加农（Second Canon）和古希腊青年雕像有某种关系，而这种关系广泛分布在大量雕塑作品中，但并不普遍。
作为古希腊雕像的一部分，青年雕像的发展不可避免的与古希腊雕像整体发展紧密相连。早期的带达理克（Daedalic）式雕塑有两个学派，其中一些只能从古代文学中了解到它们的名字，比如 kolossos, bretas, andrias 和 xoanon 等等，在公元6世纪左右成为了自立支撑式雕塑；即是对希腊风格和宗教内部发展所做出的回应， 或是被异地文化影响的产物。其中外部因素对安那托利亚，叙利亚等地文化影响最深远的当属埃及。据了解，在七世纪中叶古希腊建立外贸城市諾克拉蒂斯之前，希腊人与埃及已有有长期的贸易关系， 解释了希腊是从何处学到埃及式雕塑技巧的。
Guralnick的工作成果以及Erik Iversen和Kim Levin先前的研究 大大增加了希腊雕塑家模仿埃及雕塑的讨论热度。埃及第二十六王朝时期雕塑的经典雕塑比例系统是由一个二十一右四分之一个部分（称之为格子）组成的，其中从脚底到双眼连线的距离是二十一格。这些格子在雕刻时被应用于协助定位人体的各个内脏，肌肉位置，相当于辅助线的功能。艾佛森（Iversen）表示纽约青年雕像正好符合这个比例。该发现是Guralnick通过对其他青年雕像，尤其是埃及佳能二世的形体数据的聚类分析和标准分数与地中海男子平均形体的比较，从而发现了这一点。后来她又对公元六世纪的两个少女雕像进行了相似的算法和比较，并发现大多数此类雕像都试图向理想的人类完美形体发展。
青年雕像是没有胡子，摆出一种死板的前进姿势，并且大部分都是裸体的雕像。 和埃及雕像对比来看，希腊的青年雕像通常会伸出左脚，表示走路的姿态，但这些雕像看起来要么只会站在原地，要么看起来能拔腿就走。一小部分早期青年雕像腰部会戴有腰带，但这种做法在公元六世纪消失了。这种腰带在传统上被认为是一种符号，代表了更为复杂的服饰， 但全身覆盖服装的雕塑也出现过，这意味着雕塑家们不是只是为了把复杂的服饰缩减为一个符号，而是腰带这个符号本身象征着某种特殊的含义。艺术史学家Brunilde Ridgway在她1977年写的The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture中提出，这种腰带可能代表阿波罗，运动员或者魔法力量的某种象征，但直至现在这个符号本身的意义仍然模糊。另外，还有一个有争议的问题是青年雕像的“裸体”是否代表着某种象征或者属性。如同之前提到的，裸体可以代表运动员或者英雄的裸体状态：“他在角力学校现身，使青年不朽”，但人们至今没有发现任何有关于奥林匹亚或者运动器械的例子。
除了在德尔福的阿波罗圣所，德罗斯和Mt.Ptoion发现的青年雕像外，在萨摩斯岛的赫拉神殿，苏尼翁的雅典娜和波塞冬神殿中也发现了相似的雕像，，因此青年雕像是因为阿波罗相关原因而雕刻这一假说是有问题的。虽说如此，但大多数青年雕像还是在阿波罗圣所内发现，并被确认是献给阿波罗的，这导致里奇韦（Ridgway）在公元七世纪将早期带有腰带式的青年雕像引入并取代更早的直立式雕像以用于代表阿波罗。 随着时间的推移，雕塑的供奉和丧葬功能开始淡化，其内在属性也被抛弃，雕塑形式和功能变得更加通用。到公元6世纪末为止，青年雕像已经发展到可以根据不同的环境和地点提供不同功能和意义了。 该“多元论”最初由历史学家让·杜卡特（Jean Ducat）提出， 由艺术史学家安德鲁·斯图尔特（Andrew Stewart）整理阐述。斯图尔特认为青年雕像与贵族分布有着直接关系，因为青年雕像的分布模式和古希腊贵族分布大相径庭。他认为这种神圣性和纪念性相互交替呈现的雕塑是对不朽贵族美德的认同。
青年雕像的起源年代不详，事实上，没有一类雕塑有着确切的起源时间。此外，当时学院的同质性也很强：当一个学院有了解剖学进展时，这些知识会迅速在各个研讨会中讨论，并散布至各个学院，以至于“区域差异被转化成为了共同进步”。 因此，我们现在使用由Gisela Richter所作的相对年代来划分青年雕像的发展史。她通过一些共同的解剖学特点将其划分为六个组，特别是比如écorché右边所示的肌肉群的区别。
公元前615–590年: 这个日期是暂定的，大约在公元前七世纪末，六世纪初，由Richter从之前日期更准确的泰内亚–佛罗满萨雕像群推断出发展周期，以此推断出该组青年雕像的大概发源时间。此外，她还指出了该年代雕像与黑彩陶器的相似之处, 特别是涅索斯双耳罐 及其奔马双耳罐上的人像尤为相似。. 她还认为七世纪后四分之一部分New York-Sounion kouroi和early Corinthian pyxis之间的相似之处。当时值得一提的作品包括纽约青年雕像 (Met 32.11.1), 德米斯和克缇罗斯（Dermys and Kittylos， 雅典國家考古博物館 56号), 德尔斐双子 (德尔斐博物馆 467及1524号),苏尼翁青年雕像，以及帝洛斯巨人（Delos colossus）。
这个时期雕塑的主要特点是抽象及偏向几何外形的，它们象征了类似建筑结构的设计理念与凌驾于现实主义之上的表现主义部分的关系。这些雕塑所展现的四个面大体由立方体构成，却又不缺失细节，这些细节表明了这个时期的雕塑家们对人体解剖学一知半解。他们的试图将其塑造成和谐而又富有表现力的雕像，以至于其人体形态不合常理。苏尼翁青年雕像的躯干主要分为四面，切都表现扁平，其腰部以上的背面部分和脊柱对齐一起形成一条直线。雕塑颅骨的形态显示其表现形式并没有发展成熟：The skull is undeveloped; flat at the back and often on top. The ear is carved in one plane, and highly stylized. Tragus is knob like, either on cheek or lobe. Antitragus is not indicated. The eyes are large and flat, canthus is not marked, lachrymal caruncle is not indicated. The mouth is horizontal, with lips on same plane, and corners of mouth forming triangular depressions. Hair is arranged in parallel beaded tresses, which rarely radiates from the vertex. The Sterno-mastoids, when marked, are indicated by grooves running to the sternal notch. There is no indication of swelling of trapezius on the outline of shoulders. The clavicles are flat ridges along whole course of shoulders. Median line is sometimes marked by a groove from sternal notch to navel. The lower boundary of the thorax has the shape of a pointed arch. Rectus abdominis is formed by three or more transverse divisions above navel. The navel is generally a knob in a circular groove. Serratus magnus is not indicated. The shoulder blades are outlined by grooves on the surface of back. The erector spinae attachment to posterior part of the iliac crest is sometimes indicated by grooves in the lumbar regions. Forearm is supinated, with palm towards the body. Arms often separated from body between armpit and hand. Thumbs are large. Vastus internus descends to about the same level as vastus externus, the shin is vertical, and the malleoli are level. Weight is evenly distributed on both legs and the flanks are level.
C. 590–570 BC: this period witnesses a lull in Attica with perhaps only two identifiable works from the beginning of the era until the second quarter of century (NAMA 3858 and 4181), this might be due to the Solonic reforms and their restriction on the extravagance of private funerals. Activity is more vigorous in Boeotia, especially those from the Ptoan sanctuary and the Orchomenos kouros (NAMA 9), early work there is probably native. Also Corinth, Actium produces one of the best examples of the period (Louvre MNB 767), detailing still of in the form of grooves and ridges but there is the beginning of modeling in the full roundness of natural form. One of the more accomplished products of the time is the Thera kouros (NAMA 8), softer and less muscular in modeling it is more Ionian than Dorian though Thera was a Dorian colony. We may deduce the chronology of this period only if the dates for the Sounion and Volodmera groups are correct since there is no external evidence for the dates of this style; however, we can usefully compare the heads on vase painting of middle Corinthian 600-575 which share the same stolid expression, flat skull, large eyes and horizontal mouth.
The characteristics of this style are as follows. The ear is still carved in one plane, but less stylised. Eyes are not so large as before and more rounded. Mouth is horizontal but no longer always in one plane. The slight protrusions of flanks are sometimes prolonged into a girdle-like ridge, the sculptor occasionally marks the anterior spine of the crest. Shoulder blades are now separate raised planes. The erector spinae sometimes indicated as raised planes. Arms are generally joined to body. The depression over great trochanter is generally omitted. Shin sometimes curves inwards. Left flank is occasionally placed slightly forward.
British Museum, BM474, London.
C. 575–550 BC: named after an Attic kouros found at Volomandra (NAMA 1906) and a Corinthian specimen from Tenea (Munich 168) this period marks the flowering of the Middle Archaic, and these kouroi are contemporary with such works as the Berlin Standing Kore, the Moschophoros and the Bluebeard Pediment. There is a tension observable in this group between the solid, architectonic quality of early styles and the expressive possibilities of a vigorous, fluid naturalism . The anatomical novelties of this time are as follows. The ear is carved in more than one plane. A roundness of the eye is indicated henceforth. Lips curve upwards and meet more or less at corners, the upper lip protrudes over lower. Construction of neck is generalized, sterno-mastoids when indicated are marked by slightly modelled shapes. On the median line a groove along sternum is generally replaced by modelled shapes and only the linea alba is marked by only a groove. The lower boundary of thorax assumes the shape of a somewhat rounded arch. There is a slight indication of the external oblique bulging over the iliac crest. Shoulder blades are indicated as modelled shapes. The erector spinae is sometimes modelled. Size of thumb is normal. The vastus internus descends lower than vastus externus. Shins curve inwards. The external malleolus is lower and further back than the internal one. The little toes slant inwards. The metatarsal bones are lightly indicated.
The absolute chronology of this period is provided by the dedication of Rhombos on the Moschophoros, which may belong to the same time as a decree referring to the Panathenaia of 566. The Moschophoros is stylistically similar to early in this group giving us an approximate upper limit of 570. Additionally the terracotta kneeling boy found in a well in the Agora and dated by its black-figure pottery sherd stratum to circa 550 shares the flat almond eyes, absence of the trapezium and pointed arch of the lower thorax that characterizes the late Tenea-Volomandra, furnishing us with a tentative lower boundary for the style.
Tenea kouros, Munich 168.
C. 555–540 BC: figures of this period are simpler than before; their muscles are no longer separately accentuated. There is a tendency to flowing contour and a generalization of form. The tragus now sometimes assumes its natural form. The anterior part of the helix, which is directed backwards (crus helicis), is often prominent, and joined with the upper end of tragus. The antitragus is sometimes tentatively indicated, though wrongly placed. The anterior triangle of the neck is now better understood. Navel generally modelled as a depression. Indication of external oblique bulging over iliac crest. The lower boundary of abdomen occasionally forms a deep curve. Forearm and arm sometimes correctly semi-pronated; both directed towards body. Arms sometimes arched towards body below the armpit. Big toe projects a little further or same as second toe. Four smaller toes and toe nails curve gently downwards.
"Astonishingly uniform" the products of this period are found across the Greek world in large quantities. This group is named after the best preserved example of the era (NAMA 1558). The date of this group is conjectured on the basis that one generation would be required for the development of the Melos group style prior to the more securely dated Anavysos-Ptoon style. However Richter argues there may be some relationship to other contemporary Greek art works, namely: the figures on Late Corinthian pottery circa 550 BC. exhibit the same degree of naturalism, and the archaic column sculptures from the Temple of Artemis Ephesos, thought to have been supplied by Croesus of Lydia, share some anatomical features. Of the important works that come done to us there is the colossal kouros from Megera (NAMA 13), a transitional early piece from Boeotia (Thebes 3) and an early Parian example (Louvre MND 888).
C. 540–520 BC: this is the era of the Peisistratos dynasty and marks the assumption of Athens as the centre of artistic activity in Greece. In this period of great development the anatomical proportions become normal, the forms modelled and the spine clearly S-shaped. The head is now spherical and well-developed. The tragus takes on its natural form, the antitragus is also indicated. Hair occasionally descends as far as nape of neck. The sterno-mastoids when marked are indicated by modelled shapes. Their attachment to sternum and clavicles is often not indicated, this results in a continuous hollow groove or run above the clavicle. There is an attempt to indicate the backward curve of clavicle. Groove along linea alba is sometimes continued below the navel. The lower boundary of thorax arch is indicated. In the flanks the swelling of the external part is well developed. Lower boundary of abdomen assumes shape of small semicircle or deep curve. The erector spinae always indicated as modelled shape. Generally hand and forearm is semi-pronated. Hands are no longer attached to body but joined by short supports. The metacarpal bones are sometimes indicated. The bulge of the vastus internus increases. Toes are no longer parallel but do not recede along a continuous curve. Toes and nails point upwards. The articulation of joints is well rendered. Sometimes the flank of the advanced leg is placed forward and higher than receding leg.
The characteristics of this group can be observed on the Siphnian Treasury which is dated on external evidence before 525 BC, therefore allowing time for the maturation of the style we can date the beginning of this group to, roughly, a generation prior. The earliest is perhaps the Munich kouros (Glyptothek 169) judging by the rendering of some of the muscles. Other significant Attic kouroi in this style are the Anavyssos (Base reads: "Stand and mourn Kroisos, first in line of battle and whom Ares [God of War] killed")(NAMA 3851), the akropolis torso (Akropolis 665, 596), and the Rayet head (Carlsberg Glyptothek 418). The island of Keos supplies us with one of the best examples of the time (NAMA 3686), notable for its advanced rendering of the back where the greatest protrusion of the back is level with that of the chest. Keos was likely under the cultural influence of Athens at this time and this kouros is comparable to and chronologically close to the Anavyssos kouros and akropolis head. From the Ptoan sanctuary in Boeotia we have the Ptoon 12 kouros (NAMA), "softer, less sturdy" suggests Richter it is, she asserts, a native Boeotian product and not an Athenian import.
Munich Kouros, Munich 169.
C. 520–485 BC: the last stage in the development of the kouros type is the period in which the Greek sculptor attained a full knowledge of human anatomy and used it to create a harmonious, proportionate whole. The features that now become expressed are as follows. The lachrymal caruncle is sometimes indicated. Lips curved upwards only in early examples, the upper lip protrudes markedly over the lower and lips are well shaped. Hair is generally short or rolled up behind, it radiates from a point near vertex and carved in wavy strands. The structure of neck is now correct. There is an indication of swelling of trapezium on the outline of shoulder, becoming more pronounced over time. Clavicles assume an s-shape and lose themselves in shoulders. The lower boundary of thorax assumes a semicircular arch. The rectus abdominis, now reduced in number to two, with the top one incorporated into lower boundary of thorax. There is a small raised plane caused by projection of xiphoid appendage sometimes observable at lower end of sternum. Navel has fold of skin above in most examples. The lower boundary of abdomen assumes shape of semicircle, and the upper edge of torso with two concave curves becomes regular in form. Forearm and hand correctly pronated. Arms sometimes held free from body. Flanks; occasionally at first later regularly, flank and buttock of supporting leg rise in conformity with action.
This period is framed by the stasis of the Peisistratid era and the beginning of Athenian democracy and the Persian war. The upper limit of this group may be fixed by the sculpture of the temple of Apollo, Delphi. Architecturally earlier than the Hekatompedon of Athens the Delphi temple has a probable date of c.520, thus the kouroi of its pediment which betray the swelling trapezium and semicircular lower boundary of the abdomen can be associated with later examples of the group. Yet these same youths have a grooved, narrow lower boundary to the thorax and their flanks are level, suggesting that they are early specimens of the style. Richter names this group after the kouros Ptoon 20, NAMA 20, which is likely a Boeotian work dedicated by Pythias of Akraiphia and Aischrion to Apollo of the silver bow. This along with the torso form Eutresis (Thebes 7) indicate a vigorous Boeotian school of sculpture which may have existed to serve the Ptoan sanctuary. Attic production is considerable up to c.500 BC after which it seems to peter out. Important late kouroi from Athens include the Aristodikos kouros (Ptoon 20 group, NAMA 3938), an akropolis statuette (NAMA 6445) and the bronze Apollo from Piraeus.
- In the accompanying epigraphy the dedicatory formula was X dedicated me to Y, there seems to have been no generic term for these sculptures used in the ancient literature, see Ian Morris, Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, 1994, p. 90
- Neer, Richard. Greek Art and Archaeology: A New History c.2500-c.150 BCE. New York, USA: Thames & Hudson Inc. 2012: 115. ISBN 978-0-500-28877-1.
- Archaeologike Ephemeris, 1895, col. 75, n. 1.
- Henri Lechat, La sculpture attique avant Phidias, 1904.
- J. Ducat, Les kouroi du Ptoion, 1971
- Jane Ellen Harrison (2010): Themis: A study to the Social origins of Greek Religion, Cambridge University Press. p. 441, ISBN 1108009492
- BM, E336
- I.98.9, see Richter Kouroi p.1
- Delphi, 467, 1524
- E Guralnick, Proportions of Kouroi, p.461, AJA, 1978
- i.e. E. Athes, ProcPhilSoc, 107, 1963, pp.60-81. Also R.M. Cook, Origins of Greek Sculpture , JHS 87, 1987, pp.24-32, and P. Kranz, AthMitt 81, 1972, pp.1-55
- Herodotus, II.1.54
- Though little Archaic sculpture has been found in Naukratis and that is not monumental, Ridgway, 1993, p.36.
- Iversen MittKairo 15, 1957, 134-147, and Canon and Proportion in Egyptian Art, 1955. Levin AJA 68, 1964, 13-28.
- Subsequent study by Jane B. Carter and Laura J. Steinberg, Kouroi and statistics, AJA, 114.1, 2010, casts doubt on Guralnick's results. They maintain that while there two principal groups of kouroi there is not a statistically significant correlation between the Greek and Egyptian forms, and the differences can be accounted for by the variation in the development of regional styles.
- This is begging the question, of course, whether kouroi so defined form a different category from other male figures, namely draped youths, cuirassed or armed warriors, or bearded figures. See Ridgway, Archaic Sculpture, pp. 91–94.
- Neer, Richard. Greek Art and Archaeology. New York, New York: Thames and Hudson. 2012: 115. ISBN 978-0500288771.
- Deonna, Broadman for example, see Ridgway p. 72 note 28.
- Ridgway pp. 72–73
- Whitley, J. The archaeology of ancient Greece, 2007, p. 218.
- Ridgway, B. The Archaic style in Greek sculpture, 1993, p. 74
- Ducat, 1971, pp. 444-5
- Stewart, 1990, pp. 109–110
- Delos Museum A4085 and A334, See Richter, Kouroi, p.27
- For a corrective to the teleological assumption that the archaic artist's aim was for naturalism see Hurwit, The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100-480 BC., 1985, pp.255-7.
- Richter Kouroi, p.5
- Richter, Kouroi, p. 38.
- NAMA 1002
- Lullies CV Munich, fasc. 1, pls. 1-11.
- Richter, Kouroi, p.38.
- Payne, Necrocorinthia, p.293, pl. 47, 7-9.
- Richter, Kouroi, p.59.
- Payne, Necrocorinthia, pl.48, nos. 1-4.
- Richter, Kouroi, p62
- Richter, Kouroi, p.77.
- Vanderpool, Hesperia, VI, 1937, p.434
- Richter, Kouroi, p.90.
- Richter, Kouroi, p.93
- Herodotus I.92 claims Croesus supplied the columns, that the surviving fragments are those is unsure, see F.N. Pryce, Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum, 1928, 1, 1, p.47. Richter, Kouroi, p.94.
- Herodotus III.57-8, based, of course, on the orthodox chronology and not the Vickers-Francis revised chronology.
- Richter, Kouroi, p.115.
- Richter, Kouroi, p.113
- Richter, Kouroi, pp.129-30
- Though other origins have been suggested, see Deonna, p.158 f.
- Richter, Kouroi, p.127
- Richter, Kouros, p136, 159 bis
- Boardman, J. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period, a handbook, 1991.
- Buschor, E. Frühgriechische Jünglinge 1950.
- Caskey, L.D. The Proportions of the Apollo of Tenea, American Journal of Archaeology, 73, 1924.
- Deonna, W. Les 'Apollons Archaïques', étude sur le type masculin de la statuaire greque au VIme siècle avant notre ère, 1909.
- Guralnick, Eleanor Profiles of Kouroi, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 399–409.
- Guralnick, E. The Proportions of Kouroi, American Journal of Archaeology, 1978
- Richter, Gisela M.A. A Handbook of Greek Art: Third Edition, 1963.
- Richter, G.M.A. Kouroi, Archaic Greek Youths, A study of the development of the Kouros type in Greek sculpture, 1960.
- Ridgway, R.S. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, 2nd. edition, 1993.
- Stewart, A. Greek Sculpture, 1990.
- Franssen, J. Votiv und Repräsentation. Statuarische Weihungen archaischer Zeit aus Samos und Attika. Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte, Heidelberg 2011. (Archäologie und Geschichte, Bd. 13) ISBN 978-3-935289-36-8