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

suggests a distinctive technique of attachment—also evident on the holes in the
background blocks of the frieze and the top of the epistyle—these fragments have been
attributed to the sculpture of the frieze of the Erechtheion. 555 Because of the flatness of
their bottom and back sides, and also the dowels used to secure them in position against a
background, these fragments have been referred to as appliqués, but their designation as
sculptures in relief is not absent from scholarly discussions. 556 This point aside, the
existence of these fragments is instructive, for it constitutes material evidence that can
help decipher the zw~ia of the Chandler stele.
The subject of the frieze of the Erechtheion is unknown, but the fragments of
sculpture attributed to it show a variety of representations. 557 They depict men, women
and children in different poses—running, sitting, standing— natural features (e.g., rocks,
tree trunks), animals (e.g., horses), and objects (e.g., chairs, helmets). 558 In particular, the
characteristics on the basis of which discovered fragments of sculpture have been assigned to the frieze of
the Erechtheion. As Glowacki, 325, says, criteria, such as technique, material, style, and scale have also
been taken into account.
555 Fowler, “The Sculptures,” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 242-243; also Boulter, “The Frieze of the
Erechtheion” 7; Glowacki, “A New Fragment of the Erechtheion Frieze” 325.
556 Appliqué figures: Ridgway, Prayers in Stone 118; Palagia, “Classical Athens,” in Palagia, ed., Greek
Sculpture 143; sculpture in relief: Caskey, “The Inscriptions,” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 413; Boulter,
“The Erechtheion Frieze” 21. Although referring to images in clay or metal made from a mold, the
statement of Pollitt, Ancient View 288, that “when attached to a flat background,” these images are reliefs,
is helpful.
557 It is assumed that episodes from the life of Erechtheus are depicted, but no definite subject has been
identified. For a discussion of the scholarly attempts to determine the subject of the frieze, see Fowler,
“The Sculptures,” in Paton, ed., The Erechtheum 244, n. 3; also for a recent summary of the topic, Jenkins,
Greek Architecture and Its Sculpture 127.
558 The original height of each piece of sculpture is estimated on the basis of the height of the frieze; for the
pieces of the north portico, where the height of the frieze is 0.683m., it has been suggested that the original
maximum height of each sculpture would have been about 0.65 m., whereas the maximum height of the
sculptures of the cella, where the height of the frieze was 0.617m., would have been slightly shorter, that is,
about 0.58m.: Boulter, “The Frieze of the Erechtheion” 7; also Palagia, “Classical Athens,” in Palagia, ed.,
Greek Sculpture 141.
For a fragment of a female figure running to the left, see Fowler, “The Sculptures,” in Paton ed., The
Erechtheum 247, no. 4, pl. XL; also Boulter 8, no. 4, pls. 1-2. Although referring only to the upper part of
her body, namely, from the neck to the middle of her thighs, evidence that this figure was running is
preserved in the treatment of the chiton she wears. As Boulter 8, observes: “the curious fold of the chiton
on the right thigh, lying across the other drapery lines, not only varies the drapery pattern, but reinforces the
impression of rapid movement.” A now-headless female figure is depicted sitting on a seat “of no definite
281