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

pierced in some cases by dowel holes, while some others have flat backs also pierced by
dowel holes. These technical characteristics suggest that the larger sculptures to which
these fragments initially belonged were placed on and attached to a flat surface, and also
placed against and attached to a flat background. 554 On the basis of this evidence, which
Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1981) 93, who is careful not to equate this sculpture with that
of the frieze of the west cella; for two examples of the sculpture of the frieze, which are thought to be
Roman replacements, owing to the deeply cut grooves of their drapery, and the “hard” appearance of their
modeling, see Boulter, “The Frieze of the Erechtheion” 18-19, figs. 17-20; for the suggestion that “the
restoration of the west frieze left it plain,” see Palagia, 142-143, ns. 194-195.
For an assembled bibliography of the earliest discussions of the sculpture of the frieze, see Fowler, “The
Sculptures,” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 241, n. 3. Fowler’s discussion, 246-276, although it enumerates
a total of 112 fragments in addition to 12 uncertain ones, does not state provenience for all of them. The
provenience, for example, of a fragment of a female figure, 249, no. 11, is confined to the statement: “it is
said to have been found in front of the north portico.” For the discovery of additional fragments following
Fowler’s publication, see O. Broneer, “Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens, 1931-
1932,” Hesperia 2 (1933) 349-350, figs. 20-21; “Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in
Athens, 1933-1934,” Hesperia 4 (1935) 138-140, figs. 24-29; “Discoveries on the North Slope of the
Acropolis, 1938,” AJA 42 (1938) 445-450; also C. Koukouli, “Νέo Σύµπλεγµα από τη Ζωφόρο
του Ερεχθείου,” ADeltion 22 (1967) 133-148. For discussions of selective parts of this material including
some from Fowler’s study, see Boulter, “The Frieze of the Erechtheion” 7-28; also M. S. Brouskari,
“Ζώδια Λαΐνεα. Nouvelles figures de la fries de l’ Erechtheion,” in M. Schmidt, ed., Kanon: Festschrift
Ernst Berger zum 60. Geburtstag am 26. Februar 1988 gewidmet (Basel, 1988) 60-68. For a discussion of
the latest evidence and updated bibliography with special reference to studies of the reconstruction of the
frieze, see Glowacki 325-331.
554 For a discussion of these characteristics as central to the attribution of sculpture to the frieze of the
Erechtheion, see Glowacki, “A New Fragment of the Erechtheion Frieze” 325; for an example of a
fragment whose under and back sides are both flat, see Glowacki, 326, AS 196, pl. 65. The fragment
“depicts a Corinthian helmet set upon a thick, finished mass, which was modeled to create a slightly
undulating surface apparently intended to represent stone.” As Glowacki remarks, 326, “the bottom surface
is finished completely smooth, while the rear surface is flat and bears traces of a fine-pointed chisel.” For a
fragment that preserves evidence for holes on its under surface (one 0.01 m. in diameter, and six smaller
drill holes each 0.005 m. in diameter) see Fowler, “The Sculptures” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 257, no.
52. This fragment preserves the feet and part of the area above them of a female figure that is dressed in a
chiton and a himation and appears to walk slowly to her right. As Fowler, 326, indicates, the larger hole
contained lead, which functioned as adhesive substance for the iron dowel used to attach the piece to the
surface of the epistyle. Regarding the flat backs of the preserved fragments, Boulter, “The Frieze of the
Erechtheion” 20, maintains that they “were all uniformly worked first with a medium point over the rough
surface of the block as it came from the quarry. But there is a great variety in the degree of subsequent
finishing, perhaps because the work was left to assistants.” For example, the back of the fragmentary torso
of a male figure—Boulter, “The frieze of the Erechtheion” 18, no. AS 158, figs. 15-16—was worked with a
fine point. On the contrary, the back of a fragment preserving the lower portion of a female figure that is
seated on a rock—Boulter 17, no. 12, pl. 28b, fig. 10—appears to have been “first worked with a coarse
point and then smoothed with a claw chisel.” In addition, the back of a fragment that depicts a seated
female figure holding a boy on her lap—Boulter 13, no. 11, pls. 17-18, fig. 3, and 20—“was actually
finished with an abrasive.” Regarding examples of fragments that have a flat back and carry dowel holes,
246, no. 1 of Fowler’s study (246) preserves part of the thigh and adjacent portions of a standing figure
draped with a himation. According to Fowler, 246, “the flat surface at the back is dressed with a point and
chisel….and a dowel hole neatly wrought with a chisel is 0.17 m. from the lower edge.” Finally, it should
be mentioned that the presence of flat back and/or bottom sides and that of dowel holes are not the only
280