The Judgment of Animals in Classical Greece: Animal Sculpture and ...

The existing blocks that form the background of the frieze rest on a widened
epistyle 550 and carry holes indicating that something was fastened to them by means of
dowels. 551 In addition, holes exist in the top surface of the epistyle indicating that
something was fastened there as well. 552 Turning to the extant sculpture, marble
fragments are all that survive today. 553 Some of these fragments have flat bottom sides
550
Paton et al., “Description,” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 24: “A scratch line on the top of the epistyle
marks the position of the frieze, which was set 0.054 m. back of the upper fascia of the epistyle”; also
Fowler, “The Sculptures,” in Paton, The Erechtheum 239, fig. 150, presents a reconstructed view of the
position of the epistyle, frieze, and cornice of the building, and further maintains that those portions of the
epistyle that were covered with decoration, which he identifies as sculpture, exhibit a lesser degree of
weathering than those that were not. The same idea is also expressed by P. N. Boulter, “The Frieze of the
Erechtheion,” AP 10 (1970) 7 and 20, who mentions that “the architrave was widened somewhat to
accommodate the bases [of pieces of sculpture].”
551
For an illustration of the shape of the dowels used, see Fowler, “The Sculptures,” in Paton, ed., The
Erechtheum 195, fig. 120, and pls. III, IV, V, VI, XXI, and LXVI for the positions of the dowel holes in the
blocks of the background. Using the frieze of the north porch as an example, Fowler, 242, pls. VI, XXI,
XLVI, maintains that “in the existing dark blocks of the frieze of this porch (about 21 m. in length) there
are 59 dowel holes, not including several small round holes which may have served for fastening
attributes.” He also states, 242, that each piece of sculpture “was fastened to the background by a single
dowel,” and 243, that “the dowels were fixed in the holes with lead.” Regarding the study of holes on the
stone blocks, he says, 242, n. 3, that “the average distance between the dowel holes is 0.536 m., and the
average number of holes per meter is 2.81 m.” On the basis of this evidence, he estimates that the frieze of
the north porch (total length ca. 25 m.) consisted of about 70 dowel holes that corresponded to a total of 70
pieces of sculpture. He does caution, however, that matching the dowel holes in the blocks to those of the
fragments does not lead to an accurate reconstruction of the frieze because exact correspondence in the
measurements of the holes cannot be expected. Boulter, “The Frieze of the Erechtheion” 8, n. 6, agrees
with Fowler’s conclusion; therefore, she considers his estimate of 70 pieces of sculpture for the frieze of
the north porch accurate. As for the overall spacing of these pieces, Fowler, 245, maintains that “the
positions of the dowel holes in the background show that the space was well filled without overcrowding.”
552
Fowler, “The Sculptures,” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 243, n. 4; also Boulter, “The Frieze of the
Erechtheion” 20.
553
Although not everyone is so sure of marble identifications, both K. Glowacki, “A New Fragment of the
Erechtheion Frieze,” Hesperia 64 (1995) 325, and Boulter, “The Frieze of the Erechtheion” 7, identify the
marble of these fragments as Pentelic. Palagia, “Classical Athens,” in Palagia, ed., Greek Sculpture 142, n.
193, clarifies that the fragments “of the Erechtheion frieze are usually described as made of Pentelic
marble. They are in fact of Parian marble with a few exceptionally made of Pentelic, such as Acr[opolis]
Mus[eum] 1071,” which depicts two female figures. She attributes this phenomenon to the possibility that
“the contractors ran out of Parian marble and were obliged to use Pentelic near the end of the project.”
None of the extant sculpture was discovered in its original setting, and as Glowacki, 326, points out, one of
the major problems associated with the study of these fragments is the lack of their recorded provenience.
Eighteenth-century drawings of the Erechtheion (Paton, ed., The Erechtheum pls. L-LII) show no sculpture
associated with its frieze, thus providing the earliest illustrative evidence for the condition of this part of the
building. In addition, it is not clear whether the west side of the frieze of the cella, which was destroyed by
fire in the first century B.C., was supplied with sculpture after its restoration. As Fowler, “The Sculptures,”
in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 240, maintains, the replaced blocks on this side bear no evidence of dowel
holes for the attachment of sculpture. Some of the surviving sculpture, however, has been considered to be
of Roman workmanship, despite its close imitation of fifth-century style, and therefore, features
prominently in discussions of this side of the frieze. For such a discussion, see B. S. Ridgway, Fifth-
279