1

The Sculptural Decoration of the

Doric Order ca. 375 - 31 BC

Dorothy Louise Victoria King

Ph.D.
King’s College, London
2000
 2

Abstract

This thesis discusses the sculptural decoration of Doric structures in the Late

Classical and Hellenistic periods. The area examined is the Mediterranean basin, but

with greater emphasis placed on Greece, the islands, and western Turkey.

Architectural sculpture is divided by form, and analysed within these, the main

categories being: pedimental sculpture, acroteria, epithemata, metopes and friezes,

Caryatids and Atlas figures as figured supports, and arms and armour as decorative

motifs. A chapter is devoted to each category, with the material sub-divided by the

form of decoration (for example figured supports by pose; metopes into whether the

subject depicted is narrative or a series of repetitive motifs), and treated

chronologically. Numerous forms of buildings are covered, including tombs and

monuments, temples, theatres, other public buildings, and domestic architecture; it is

demonstrated, for example, that throughout the period most examples of Caryatids

decorated tombs. Related forms of decoration, such as when paint is used to imitate or

replace architectural sculpture, and the treatment of architectural sculpture by

succeeding generations, namely its restoration and re-use, are also discussed. Both

secondary and literary evidence are also included. A final chapter compares the main

forms of decoration of the Ionic and Corinthian orders during the same period,

notably the continuous frieze, and the influence of these monuments on others.
 3

Contents

Abstract
List of Illustrations
Introduction
Acknowledgements
The Sculptural Decoration of the Doric Order ca. 375 - 31 BC
1. Doric Pedimental Sculpture
1.1 Late Classical pedimental groups
1.2 An early Hellenistic pedimental group
1.3 Other Fourth century and Hellenistic pedimental figures
1.4 Related forms of decoration
1.5 Roman use and re-use of pedimental sculpture
1.6 Conclusion

2. Doric Friezes
2.1 Metopes with Narrative Scenes
2.2 Metopes with Repetitive Motifs
2.3 Continuous friezes
2.4 Conclusion

3. Doric Acroteria

4. Doric Epithemata

5. Figured Supports: Vitruvius’ Caryatids and Atlantes

4.1 Vitruvius’ Caryatids

4.2 Atlantes and Telamones

6. The Decorative Use of Arms and Armour on Doric Monuments

7. Excursus. The Sculptural Decoration of the Ionic and Corinthian

Orders ca. 375 - 31 BC
7.1 The Mausoleum and Other Tombs
7.2 Monumental Altars
7.3 Continuous Friezes
7.4 Ceiling Coffers
 4

7.5 Columnae caelatae and Bômospeira

7.6 Conclusion

8. General Conclusions

Bibliography

Illustrations (Figs. 1-67)

 5

New Introduction

My original plan had been to keep updating this thesis and publish it once enough
new material had come to light to make a dramatic difference to my findings. Then
life got in the way. Although some finds have been made, most of my theories have
borne up to scrutiny, and been well cited. Whilst several well respected academic
publishers have wanted to publish a book based on my thesis, all wanted to publish it
at a price that would have been prohibitive to students and archaeologists. Therefore I
have chosen instead to make the original thesis available at a token price via Amazon
Kindle.

In middle age I can look back and change my mind about various points. I have
chosen not to make those changes in this 'edition' but may later add an addendum to
it.

London, 2013.

Original Introduction
The purpose of this thesis is to provide a detailed treatment of the sculpture

that decorated Doric structures from the beginning of the second quarter of the fourth

century until the battle of Actium, research which has not been attempted hitherto.
Architectural sculpture of the Archaic and High Classical eras has been covered by

numerous works, both detailed and general, but until recently there has been

relatively little work done on the succeeding centuries. The emphasis of previous

scholarship has been on the architectural sculpture of the fifth century. This echoes

the bias of our key literary source for monuments, Pausanias, who had a marked

preference for Classical work (and ignored some major Hellenistic structures

altogether). This bias is also there in the shape of what has survived. Certain

monuments, such as the temples at Tegea and Ilion, have been extensively studied,

but many of the pieces of architectural sculpture included in this thesis are little
known and barely published.
 6

For the fourth century, for example, although Picard 1954 is in many ways out

of date, his is still the most comprehensive work on architectural sculpture of the

period. Ridgway 1990a and Ridgway 1997 provide general discussion of only the

more important monuments of the third and fourth centuries respectively. Webb

1996, despite the misleading title ‘Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture’, concentrates

on Western Anatolia in the Hellenistic period, but omits much evidence and

numerous important examples particularly in the category of monumental altars,

regularly redates structures without giving any reasons for doing so, and in my

opinion makes a number of incorrect sweeping statements based on insubstantial

evidence. Her conclusions are often highly tenuous, and not helped by the strictness

of her geographical boundaries which leads to a complete lack of comparison with

any material from other regions.

Ridgway 1999 is a recently published series of lectures she gave on

architectural sculpture. As she herself points out however she bases most of her

arguments “primarily on temples” (p. 25), and the majority of her examples are taken

from the Archaic and High Classical periods. She also states that her aim is in “asking

questions rather than providing answers” (p. ix). The lectures were a discussion of

ideas to do with architectural sculpture, and not intended as a survey of the genre. I

found the book extremely helpful, and it acted as a catalyst for the rewriting of my

conclusion, although I will disagree with some of the points Ridgway makes.

Ridgway points out (pp. 21 ff) that there have been problems in the methodology of

previous studies of architectural sculpture, largely because they have often been

included in general surveys of Greek sculpture, and so bound purely by chronology.

A number of studies have appeared on the decoration of different types of

buildings (Fedak 1990 on tombs; Rupp 1974 on altars; De Bernardi Ferrero 1970 on

theatres, and so forth). General studies have also been made on pediments

(Delivorrias 1974), acroteria (Gulaki 1981; Danner 1989), coffers (Tancke 1989) and

so forth, but other than Osada’s work on continuous friezes (1993), which specifically
covered the Hellenistic period, most again skim over it in favour of material from
 7

earlier centuries. The late Classical and Hellenistic periods are thus still largely the

undiscovered countries in the field of architectural sculpture.

The importance of architectural sculpture is that we are dealing with original

sculptures, not trying to reconstruct lost statues from Roman copies and secondary

evidence, and that one can fit architectural sculpture more firmly within a chronology

than most free-standing statues due to the archaeological study of its architectural

framework. Ridgway put it most succinctly when she pointed out that “It can be dated

with greater precision than sculpture in the round, because of its association with

specific buildings” (1999, p. 11). I have brought together a large quantity of sculpture

that decorated buildings from all four centuries, with the aim of seeing how forms of

decoration developed during the period in question, as well as bringing together a

significant body of examples that would stimulate further research in this field. This

is the first study to cover all the architectural sculpture of the Doric order, breaking

the material down into forms of decoration, including Hellenistic sculpture from the

whole of the Mediterranean area, and looking at the fourth century material that

preceded it to study continuity as well as evolution within the forms.

375 BC was chosen as the starting date; historically it falls after the

establishment of the Second Athenian Confederacy in 377, and after the King’s Peace

of 386 in Asia Minor which in turn led to the refounding of a number of cities,

stimulating artistic output and creating the Ionian Renaissance. At the beginning of

the period the Thebans defeated the Spartans at Leuctra (371). These events were part

of, and helped to create, a new political era that allowed for the rise of the

Macedonians and led into the Hellenistic Age. There was a geographical shift in that

the fourth century marked an artistic resurgence both in western Anatolia, and in the

Peloponnesian schools and building programmes, in contrast to Attic dominance of

the fifth century. In terms of art, and sculpture in particular, the High Classical period

was over. Octavian/Augustus provides an artistic terminus, as well as a historical one

with the end of the Hellenistic period after his defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra at
Actium.
 8

The primary aim of this thesis was to gather together for analysis as many

examples of architectural sculpture that decorated Doric buildings as possible. An

original intention had been to include a catalogue, but owing to the constrictions of

space, this proved to be unworkable as the thesis would have greatly exceeded the

word limit. So far as possible, all the sculpture has been examined and remeasured,

and archaeological reports studied to reconsider dating evidence. Even though many

of the examples are housed in large museums, often far from their original locations, I

tried to visit the sites to gain a sense of their space and environment. I formulated a

number of questions that I hoped to answer during the research: could one see any

continuity within the period, were there regional variations in style, did any new

trends or forms of decoration appear during the period; and indeed were there fewer

buildings of the Doric order erected with sculptural decoration than those of the Ionic

order ?

The geographical boundaries of the areas covered are relatively fluid.

Examples from Greece and Western Turkey are covered comprehensively, as are

Sicily and Southern Italy, all regions that were what can be described as having been

part of the ‘Greek World’. Although the terms ‘Classical’ and ‘Hellenistic’ are not

used in the title, it has been the intention to cover areas under Greek influence, so

Etruscan art is largely summarised. North Africa is more problematic; it is politically

inaccessible in parts and poorly published. In Egypt Greek forms are covered, but not

sculpture that is a continuation of the Pharaonic style. I have included examples from

other areas when they are relevant to a discussion, but the period is one of great

regional variations, with Hellenic influence covering a mass of land as great as that of

the Roman Empire but lacking its homogeneity. There is distortion within the

survival of material, as it was more likely to be preserved in backwaters where there

was less building work or looting. There is, for example, more material from

Sagalassos than from Athens, though few would dare to suggest that the former was

artistically superior to or more advanced than the latter.

 9

With regard to autopsy, I have not seen the material in North Africa (other

than in Tunisia), in the Near East (where much of the material is no longer extant),

Albania and Bulgaria. I have seen all accessible material related to the sculptural

decoration of Doric structures in western museums, and at sites in France, Italy,

Tunisia, Greece, except Macedonia1, and Turkey (except Pisidia2 and Limyra3). I

have seen only the most famous of the Ionic and Corinthian examples, or when they

were easily viewed in conjunction with Doric material; for example whilst studying

material in the Louvre, I took the opportunity to examine the blocks from the

Magnesia frieze.

The approach to the subject is by functional category, and since it was decided

for the reasons cited above to exclude a catalogue, all the material is presented within

the text, so that it necessarily includes a succinct description as well as commentary

and analysis. References to measurements (all in metres), condition and location of

sculptures are included in the footnotes with a full bibliography.

Forms of decoration are discussed by category, with separate chapters devoted

to pediments, friezes, acroteria, epithemata, and figured supports. The principal

chapters on pedimental sculpture and Doric friezes are broken down into sub-

categories, determined partly by forms of decoration, and partly by chronological

sequence. Arms and armour, which were regularly used as forms of decoration on

tombs and monuments have been grouped together in a separate section; this is cross-

referenced with other material so that when, for example, a shield is used as a

decorative motif in a metope it will be discussed in both the chapter on armour and

the chapter on Doric friezes.

This thesis deals with figured decoration. Categories such as antefixes, water

spouts, whether lion-headed or otherwise, and sima decoration, are not included as it

1 Permission to view the material was requested but denied.

2 The region is remote, and whilst I would have liked to have seen the material, I felt that the effort
required to do so was out of proportion to the importance of the material.
3 Permission to view the metopes of the Ptolemaion was requested from Prof. Borchhardt on a number
of occasions, but no reply received. I understand that a number of other scholars, notably Dr. Webb,
encountered the same difficulties.
 10

is felt that these bear more relation to architectural ornamentation than to architectural

sculpture. Although mouldings are not considered as sculpture, relief shields are.

Architectural sculpture covers a variety of different forms, with a hierarchy of

production within them. Some, such as monotonous metopes and relief shields, would

have been executed by masons; others by sculptors, some of whom enjoyed the

greatest renown.

Numismatic evidence is treated with caution. Many coins show shields within

the pediment, and a number represent bases on columns that are known to have been

Doric and not to have had bases. The depictions are schematised and though often

correct, the evidence they provide should not be and is not blindly relied upon.

Sweeping statements by previous writers, such as “The Doric order is ... rarely

used for temples” (Webb 1996, p. 6), are unhelpful, and merit reexamination. To this

end a seventh chapter in the form of an Excursus is devoted to monuments with

sculptured decoration of the Ionic and Corinthian orders. It is of necessity not

comprehensive in treatment, but is sufficient to demonstrate that the conclusion cited

about the relative numerical superiority of examples of Ionic and Corinthian

decoration is incorrect. Although some of the Ionic structures, such as the Mausoleum

and the Pergamon Altar, are better known, there were more Doric structures erected

with sculptural decoration. An informal survey of temples erected during the period,

regardless of whether they were decorated with sculpture or not, would also seem to

indicate that the greatest number were built in the Doric order.

A final chapter presents the general conclusions that may be drawn from this

study.
 11

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the following for the assistance with which they have provided me:

Prof. G.B. Waywell, my supervisor.

Dr. Antonio Corso, for sculpture, Vitruvius and generally supporting and assisting
me.
Prof. Alain Pasquier, the Louvre.
Dr. T. Spiropoulos, Ephor of Arcadia and Laconia.
Prof. Richard Tomlinson, architecture in general, and the Macedonian tombs.
Dr. Nicholas Hardwick, numismatics.
Dr. Jane Rowlandson and Prof. Pierre Gros, Ptolemaic Egypt.
Prof. Pontus Hellström, Labraunda.
Dr. Karim Arafat, KCL, for kindly commenting on Caryatids.
Dr. Peter Higgs, the British Museum, for allowing me to rummage around the
basements and for seeking out pieces hidden in obscure places. Dr. Susan Walker,
also of the BM, for initially suggesting Caryatids as an area of research.
Dr. Eugenio Politto, for southern Italy and Sicily, and for arms and armour.
Prof. R.R.R. Smith (Lincoln College, Oxford), Prof. Andrew Stewart (Berkeley) and
Dr. John Marszal (McGill), for allowing me to interrogate them on various aspects of
sculpture.
Dr. Pamela Webb, for discussing her work with me.
Dr. Nick Fields, armour and weapons.
Dr. Markus Kohl, for architecture [Portiques pergaméniens. Etudes d’histoire,
d’architecture et d’urbanisme, Diss. Aix-en-Provence, 1996].
The Peloponnesiaka Society, for inviting me to present the research on Caryatids at
their 5th International Congress.
Mr. & Mrs. Leon Levy.
Dr. Elizabeth Angelicoussis.
And my parents

This book is dedicated to Richard and Claire Lobel.

 12

The Sculptural Decoration of the Doric Order ca. 375-31 BC

1. Doric Pedimental sculpture

Since the beginning of monumental architecture, pedimental sculpture had

been a fundamental aspect of the Doric temple as a key element of its decoration. By

375 BC it had become a standard form. Not all Doric temples had pedimental

sculpture, but until the fourth century its use was restricted to buildings in the Doric

order. The Archaic Siphnian Treasury, Delphi, is an example of a small Ionic

structure with a figured pediment as well as a continuous frieze; the Classical Temple

of Nike on the Athenian Acropolis another. There were odd examples of small, highly
decorated Ionic structures in Greece with pedimental sculpture, but these were rare,

and figured pediments were a Doric phenomenon. As one of the most characteristic

aspects of Doric temples, it reached its culmination in the pediments of the Parthenon,

from which all later examples are to some extent derived.

A number of Doric temples in the Greek World were decorated with

pedimental sculpture in the fourth century. The third century saw fewer large-scale

examples; there are a large number of relief pediments from Taranto, but again their

production largely ceases after 275. There seems to have been a revival in the
popularity of the form during the late second century in the eastern Mediterranean,

possibly under Roman influence. One reason may have been that the regular use of

sculpture in the gable had continued in Italy, another that attempts were being made

to recreate the forms of the Classical period. Many terracotta examples from Italy are

extant from throughout the period; stone becomes popular in Late Republican and

early Imperial Italy. Pedimental groups are represented on numerous reliefs as having

decorated major temples,4 and the Romans’ fondness for pedimental sculpture is

reflected in their re-use of earlier groups, such as on the temple of Apollo Sosianus.

4 For example: a relief of an Ionic temple with an Amazonomachy in the pediment [Rehak 1990];
Flamens relief of the temple on the Quirinal with figures in the pediment that may depict a scene
linked to the origins of Rome [Paris 1988]; a relief with an Ionic temple with a classical-type
pedimental group [Lattimore 1974]; and a Corinthian temple depicted on a relief with pedimental
sculpture [Degrassi 1939].
 13

1.1 Late Classical pedimental groups

There are four important fourth century Doric temples, all in mainland

Greece, from which remains of pedimental sculpture are extant: the temples of

Asclepius at Epidauros, of Athena Alea at Tegea, of Athena at Mazi and of Apollo at

Delphi. The next major pedimental group we know of is from the Hieron of

Samothrace, which would seem to be from the first half of the third century, although

some prefer to date it to the second century. One can divide the themes depicted into

battles, as at Epidauros and Mazi, standardised representations of the god, as at

Delphi, and the more imaginative use of myths of particular relevance to the

sanctuary, as seen at Tegea and Samothrace. There is a lingering pedimental tradition

in the fourth century and early Hellenistic period, but it is nothing compared to the

quality of work on the Parthenon: in that sense the genre reached its apex with

Pheidias and his assistants, and was never to be equalled. The gables at Tegea seem to

be very much in the wake of those at Epidauros, but the backs of the sculptures are

notably less worked at Tegea, either an incipient sign of degeneration or a greater

awareness of the space the sculptures filled, where their backs were not seen by the

viewer, and the work at Samothrace follows on from these. An interesting trend to

note is the increase in the use of metal additions.

The Temple of Asclepius at Epidauros, was a relatively small peripteral

temple designed by Theodotos.5 Externally Doric, it was probably internally

Corinthian. The scale and expenditure, 138,000 dr. or 23 talents for which we have

information attested by the building inscriptions,6 are small compared to what was

produced in Athens in the fifth century: the size of the structure is less than a quarter

than that of the Parthenon. To put it into context, the total known costs for the
5 Yalouris 1992; Yalouris 1986; Stewart 1977, esp. pp. 87-9, 90, and passim; Stewart 1990, pp. 170-1,
273-4, pls. 455-65; Roux 1961, pp. 83-130; Boardman 1995, pp. 25-6, figs. 10-11; Delivorrias 1974,
pp. 193-6; Danner 1989, cat. nos. 111-3, pls. 11-12; Fuchs 1993, pp. 315, 356-7, 396, figs. 351, 397-8,
438; Ridgway 1997, pp. 34-40, ill. 5; Smith 1993.
6 On the building inscriptions see; Burford 1969, esp. pp. 55-6; Burford 1966, pp. 256-263; Yalouris
1992, esp. pp. 68-69.
 14

construction of the entire sanctuary are 202 talents, with a maximum estimate of 240;

this is the equivalent of approximately half the cost of the Parthenon.7 A considerable

number of fragments of the architectural sculpture, which was not mentioned by

Pausanias, have survived (fig. 1). The main interest of the temple is that the building

accounts survive and give us much information about working practices. The

structure took 4 years and 8 months to complete, although exactly which years these

were is not known: ca. 375-370 BC is likely, with the temple stylistically predating

the tholos. There is possibly a five to ten year variation, the construction predating or

contemporary with the beginning of the Mausoleum. Year I was probably not before

375 BC. This would fit into the known career of Timotheos, who also worked as one

of the sculptors on the Mausoleum according to Pliny. The cult statue by

Thrasymedes was finished and in place by 367 BC, when Dionysios, who had had it

copied for the Syracuse Asclepieion, died.8 The structure must have been complete

by then.

The temple has many features in its design that are more characteristic of

Hellenistic structures, and would have been highly innovative when it was built. Of

note are the compact dimensions of the temple, with a stylobate measuring 11.76 x

23.06 or covering one ninth the area of the Parthenon; the ratio of width to length is

as close to the Ionic ideal of 1:2 as one could create using the Doric order. The

columns were externally Doric 6 x 11, or in other words the number of flank columns

was twice those of the facades minus one, a ratio that became common in the

Hellenistic period and was given as the norm for the peripteral temple by Vitruvius

III.II.5. This was achieved by eliminating the opisthodomos and so creating a degree

of frontality, again a Hellenistic phenomenon. The structure was of poros and

limestone; the Pentelic marble used for the detailing and the sculptures was provided

separately from the stone for the rest of the building, as seen in the accounts. The

7 Burford 1969, p. 83.

8 The sources for the statues are, respectively, Pausanias II.27.2, and Cicero, De Deorum Natura,
III.34.83.
 15

internal dimensions of the pedimental space as reconstructed were: w. 10.71, ht. 1.15,

depth 0.395.9

The sequence of work for the sculpture, given by I.G. IV2 102, included the

construction of a workshop for the masons in Years Two and Three. The first

sculptural works undertaken, in the third year, were the typoi. It was in Year Four that

the sculptures for the east and west pediments, and the acroterial figures above each

pediment were carved. Work in Year Five lasted only eight months, and the

pedimental sculpture would have been installed towards the end of the period. Three

sculptors are named by the inscriptions: Timotheos, Hectoridas, the broken off name

..., who may have been the architect, and a blank where the name of the executor

of one pediment should be. One of the pediments is known to have been undertaken

by Hectoridas. The sculptor commissioned to undertake the other pedimental group is

not known; it has been suggested that it was ..., the guarantor for the two being

the same, but there is a lacuna in the inscriptions and it could have been anyone.

Waywell points out that ... need not be Theodotos the architect, as there were no

fewer than three others working on the temple whose names began in this way, 10 and

Burford objects to the lacuna being restored as ... .11 If the restoration of ...

is correct, he may perhaps have been responsible for the east pediment, whose

sculptures are of higher quality, and more progressive style, than those of the west.

This would leave Hectoridas the west pediment, for which he had two contracts; 1610

dr. for one half including the central group, and 1400 dr. for the figures of the other

kerkis.12 Timotheos worked on the sculpture above one of the gables, by implication

the acroteria, for 2240 dr.. We also know that the work was kept to a tight schedule

by the levying of fines; Timotheos was fined around one third of the cost of his

figures for being late.13

9 Roux 1961, pp. 97-8.

10 Waywell 1994b.
11 Burford 1966, p. 259.
12 I.G. IV2 102, lines 87, 109-10.
13 Burford 1969, p. 84.
 16

Compared to the Parthenon, where the pedimental floor is over 30 m wide and

the figures one and a half times life size, Epidauros was small and filled with delicate

pieces of work, the figures half life-size. Yet it was the next important pedimental

group after the Parthenon sculptures, the existence of pedimental sculptures at Bassae

being conjectural. There were fewer figures, the execution was of less high quality

and took under a year, reflecting the budget and the patrons’ priorities. It is interesting

to note the proportion of funds allotted to the sculpture: 13,622 dr. out of a known

budget of 138,000. The iconography is relatively routine and has only tangential

reference to Asclepius’ story or worship; one could question how relevant it was to

the function of the building.

The figures are less well worked at the back; not to the same extent as later in

the century, but the fronts and backs are easily discernible. The difference in the

finish of the carving is particularly noticeable on the drapery and horse heads. This is

unlike the fully carved High Classical sculptures used to decorate the Temple of

Apollo Sosianus, where the Romans felt comfortable reversing the figures in their

reuse, a fact noticed from the discrepancies that arise in the design rather than from

the quality of the work.14 The hands of several figures at Epidauros show signs of

having held an object, probably a spear.15 Others clasped the cylindrical handles of

swords, dowel holes indicating that blades would have been added separately. The

groups on plinths were set into the pedimental floor, their undersides roughly finished

in a form of anathyrosis. Many of the sculptures were attached to the walls by struts,

and have large square cuttings for these above the centre of gravity at their backs.16

Again one can contrast this with work in the previous century, where figures were

generally set into the horizontal cornice, usually with no additional supports. The

groups at Epidauros were generally cut from a single block, as in earlier works; later

at Tegea there seems to be little evidence for this.

14 See below, and Cook 1989.

15 for example Yalouris 1992, no. 131, no. 152
16 One, for example, is preserved on Yalouris 1992, cat no. 6; an animated figure lunging forward
towards an Amazon from the left hand corner, the penultimate figure of the east pediment.
 17

The subject of the pediment at the east end was the Iliupersis, its only link to

Asclepius being tenuous: according to one myth his sons, Podaleirios and Machaon,

were surgeons at Troy, the latter dying there. The family of Asclepius was

emphasised during the fourth century, particularly on votive reliefs. He was then still

a relatively new god, with a limited range of myths that were suitable for the

iconography of a temple pediment. No central group has been identified, and attempts

to fit the central acroterion into this space are highly debatable, owing to its smaller

scale. The figures from the east pediment are approximately one eighth larger than

those on the west, or just over one metre high. The reconstruction cannot be certain as

many pieces are missing, creating empty spaces. To the left of the centre was the

small archaising Palladion (fig. 2),17 on whose right shoulder there are remains of,

and an indentation for, a large female hand, presumably that of Cassandra, that was

dowelled on to hold it from behind. Around this group were a variety of fighting

figures. The corners were filled by deceased warriors,18 lying down naked; the

penultimate figures were similar,19 but dying rather than dead, and so in a less

horizontal pose. The reclining corner figures are a routine motif, but there is an

adventurous contorted representation within the pose.

To the left of the Palladion was a group of two women, the older one

comforting the kneeling girl.20 The lower half of a kneeling woman, facing left, is

tentatively identified as Hecuba;21 in a broken piece another Trojan woman can be

seen attacking a Greek, whose right leg is preserved, carved from the same block as

she is.22 An elderly bearded male head wearing a tiara, his hair being pulled by the

hand of a figure that stood behind him, is that of Priam being grabbed by

Neoptolemos (fig. 5).23 His open mouth screams in anguish, and is often shown as an

17 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 13 [Athens inv. 4680], p. 25, pl. 14: ht 0.45.
18 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 6 [Athens inv. 148] p. 21, pl. 8c-d: w to 0.87 (left), and cat. no. 24 [Athens
inv. 152] pp. 29-30, pl. 23c-f: w. 0.33 m (right), upper legs and hips only.
19 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 23 [Athens inv. 145] p. 29, pl. 23a-b, ht. 0.345, ( right), seat preserved.
20 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 19 [Athens inv. 4642] p. 28, pl. 18c, 19, 20 b: ht 0.30, w. 0.48, depth 0.40.
21 Athens NM inv. 146: ht. 0.50, w. 0.48.
22 Athens NM inv. 146a: ht 0.66, w 0.52.
23 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 16 [Athens inv. 144] pp. 26-7, pls. 16d-17b: ht 0.23.
 18

illustration of emotion contrasting sharply with the calm classicism of the other

figures. Although one can read into his expression early signs of the ‘emotive’ or

Baroque style, one should recall that he was seen as a barbarian, and it is for that

reason that it was acceptable to depict him in this way. He is restored seated on the

ground. On the back are traces of a join to another figure. There seem to have been

twenty-two figures in each pediment, including the horses but excluding the

Palladion: the larger size of the horses from the west accounts for the decrease in

space and thus leads to smaller figures on that side. The figures decrease in size

fractionally as they move outwards, but much of the reduction in height necessitated

by the slope of the pedimental frame is catered for by the poses.

The sculptures of the west pediment depicted the Trojan Amazonomachy,

with a mounted Amazon in the centre, their queen Penthesilea, fighting a naked

Greek. The rest of the composition was rather banal, with figures mostly grouped

around in pairs, and an assortment of interchangeable reclining, deceased24 and

kneeling figures filled the corners. The height of the figures was just under one metre.

There were a few horses but these were small owing to lack of space, and thus out of

proportion. This pediment, as noted above, may have been the one undertaken by

Hectoridas. Pheidian-type drapery, windblown from energetic action, dominates; this

is not surprising as all sculptors were working in that tradition.25 There is more

movement within the figures, mostly created by twists in the body, but otherwise little

development from the time of the Nike parapet. The main innovation within the

pediment is the interaction shown between figures within groups, previously

restricted to reliefs in architectural sculpture. An interesting group, from the right

hand side, is of a Greek pulling the hair of a kneeling Amazon, whose head only is

preserved;26 the motif is similar to that of the Priam from the other pediment. The

24 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 28 [Athens inv. 4492] p. 33, pl. 33: ht 0.29, w 0.93. Naked male torso, lying
on his drapery, from left corner. Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 40 [Athens inv. 4747] p. 44, pls. 50d-51c: w.
1.08, ht. with plinth 0.245. Male nude, from right corner; like cat. no. 28, but better preserved.
25 Brown 1973
26 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 39 [Athens inv. 4752] pp. 42-4, pls. 47e-50a: w. 0.94, ht. 0.648, d. 0.30.
 19

central composition, of the Amazon queen on her steed (fig. 3),27 trampling a Greek

under the hooves of the rearing horse, and framed by Greek warriors falling away on

either side,28 is highly sophisticated. It makes good use of the space available, filling

the gable to the point where the figure may have been cut off by the raking cornices.

To the queen herself one should add a fragment from the top of a female head with

holes and a groove for the attachment of a Phrygian cap, found by the west side of the

temple.29 The considerable number of holes for attachments on the queen and her

horse, more than on any of the other figures, shows how decorated, and therefore

important, she must have been. A slender figure, she wears a short chiton and

chlamys with high boots, typical of Amazon attire. Her raised right arm probably

once held a spear. As well as the composition, the execution, though conservative, is

rather better than that of many of the other figures; details such as veins are seen on

the horse’s belly. A second equestrian group involves a wounded Amazon falling off

her horse (fig. 4),30 with a hole in her right breast showing where a bronze spear was

once inserted. Her head would seem to survive in a fragment.31

The absence of the temple’s deity, Asclepius, from either pediment is highly

remarkable, with the only other known example being the Aphaia temple. The

Amazonomachy is best interpreted as part of, and another episode from, the Trojan

cycle, creating an iconographic link to the other pediment and tying it in however

tangentially with the story of the god’s sons. A genealogical history for the god is

created by the central acroterion of the east side that represents the abduction of the

god’s mother by his father. Asclepius’ sons in turn served at Troy, the scene depicted

in the gable below. The lateral Nikai acroteria would then represent the outcome of

the Trojan War, namely the Greek victory.

Unfortunately Epidauros begins to show how disappointing pedimental

sculpture was destined to become subsequent to, and when compared with, the

27 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 34 [Athens inv. 136] pp. 35-8, pls. 40-1, 42c: ht. 0.90, w. 0.81.
28 Yalouris 1992, cat. nos. 33-5.
29 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 113 [Athens inv. 141] p. 53, pl. 42e: ht 0.14.
30 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 37 [Athens inv. 137] p. 42, pls. 46a-b, 47a-c: ht. with arm 0.445, w. 0.475.
31 Athens NM inv. 142: ht. 0.11.
 20

Parthenon: of those artists and patrons who were erecting Doric temples, none could

match it for skill or funds, and Ionic temples had a different tradition. The pedimental

sculpture of the temple of Asclepius at Epidauros was technically competent, but little

more, and much the same may be said of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Scopas’

work at Tegea is the best example of the fourth century, but again pales when

compared to the previous era. These temples provide evidence for pedimental

continuity, but the sublime ingenuity of composition and excellence of finish on the

Parthenon is replaced by conservative design and decorative detail of execution.

Ridgway includes the Doric temple of Apollo Maleatas at Epidauros amongst

temples in the fourth century with architectural sculpture.32 Renewed excavations at

the site on the hill above the theatre have yielded a number of fragments of half life-

size figures, including the head of a youth (Athens NM 4837), the torso of a woman

in an unbelted peplos, and an arm.33 The sculptures are less fully worked at the back,

indicating their pedimental setting, and are likely to have been contemporary with

those of the temple of Asclepius. The temple also had female acroteria.

The temple of Athena Alea at Tegea,34 was much praised and described by

Pausanias 8.45,4-7, who named Scopas as its architect; it is presumed that he was also

the designer of its sculptural programme, since it was in this profession that he was

better known (fig. 6a); sculptor-architects were unusual, but examples exist from as

early as the sixth century, such as Rhoikos and Theodoros of Samos (cf. p. 212). The

temple, which replaced the Archaic predecessor, dates from ca. 345-335 BC, the

sculpture coming after the Mausoleum in his career. An interesting aspect of the

temple is its possible Hecatomnid patronage. The anti-Spartan iconography must

post-date Leuctra (371 BC), and belong to the time of the Arcadian League. Waywell

32 Ridgway 1981, p. 41 n. 6; Ridgway 1997, p. 41; Yalouris 1992, pp. 78-80, figs. 21-6;
Lambrinoudakis 1976; Papadimitriou 1949, pp. 365-6, fig. 3.
33 I have seen the acroteria in Athens, but not the pedimental figures, and base this on Ridgway.
34 Ridgway 1990a, p. 14; Stewart 1977, pp. 5-84; Stewart 1990, pp. 182-4, figs. 540-5; Marcadé
1986b; Delivorrias 1974, pp. 196-7; Brown 1973, figs. 39-40; Boardman 1995, p. 25, fig. 9; Fuchs
1993, pp. 396, 562, figs. 439, 679; Picard 1954, pp. 159-173, 178-92; Delivorrias 1973; Ridgway
1997, pp. 48-52, pl. 7; Ridgway 199, pp. 19-20. On the architecture: Norman 1984. A. Delivorrias, O.
Palagia and N. Yalouris are all currently working on the sculpture from the temple.
 21

has suggested that a relief representing Idrieus and Ada on either side of a statue of

the Labraundan Zeus, BM 1914.7-14.1, was a decree relief honouring the couple for

the donation of funds to the sanctuary, possibly for the rebuilding of the temple.35 It

can be noted that Scopas had worked on a number of sculptures for the Hecatomnids,

including some from the Mausoleum.36 If one assumes the patronage of the couple,

the start of the work must be dated to before 344 BC, when Idrieus died. The

inclusion of Zeus suggests funding for his altar opposite the temple, rather than the

temple itself.

With a stylobate measuring 19.19 x 47.55 and a 6 x 14 arrangement of the

Doric columns, unlike Epidauros, the temple was long, allowing for a spacious cella

and a deep opisthodomos. This was a venerable temple, reproducing the Archaic plan

for cult purposes. The even number of columns along the side was highly unusual; the

reasons usually cited for this are the north ramp and door in the middle of the cella

which would otherwise have been off-centre. Although a number of features were

incipiently Hellenistic and Ionicisms, others were almost archaising. The architecture

and sculpture were both of local marble from Doliana, ca. 8 km to the south of the

temple.37 The pedimental frame is reconstructed with a space of w. 16.45, ht. 1.90;

its floor was deep, ca. 0.62-0.70, in proportion to the height of the figures.

The pediments were crowded and the active figures often cut off by the

architectural boundaries. One can note a major change in the way the pediment was

designed, with active figures which were not fully finished on all surfaces, likely to

have been influenced by Scopas’ assignment on the Mausoleum, particularly by the

free-standing ‘frieze’ groups around the podium. Exaggerated expressions and poses

were designed to be seen from a distance. Although highly fragmentary, the

35 Waywell 1993. He clearly summarises all the other views about the relief. See also: Robertson
1975, p. 458; Gunter 1985, p. 120; Labraunda 1:3, pp. 32-3; Stewart 1976, pp. 68, 95, & n. 3; Stewart
1990, p. 182. I.G. 52.89
36 Scopas seems not to have worked for the Hecatomnids to the same extent as Praxiteles, though his
work on the column drums at Ephesos may have been funded by them. His known works in Caria
include, as well as the Mausoleum: an Athena (NH 36.22) and a Dionysos (NH 36.12) in Cnidus.
37 A white marble with a bluish tint given by the micaceous veins, crystalline with varying small to
medium grains. The quality varies considerably depending on which spot it was quarried at; at its best
it is mistaken for Parian.
 22

sculptures suggest action, with strong though not overly exaggerated musculature,

and the use of shadow, caused by drilling, to emphasise these and to create depth. The

figures filled the frame and were cut off by it. The overall mood was dramatic and a

precursor to the so-called Baroque style. The sculptures have generalised sculptural

forms, with the main muscles emphasised, and look better when viewed from below;

they are thus arguably more appropriate in execution for pedimental sculpture to be

viewed at a considerable height than the sculptures from Epidauros. The work can be

seen as a development from that of the temple in the Argolid. Stewart suggests

Scopas was influenced by the sculpture at Epidauros, where he possibly served an

apprenticeship.38

A fault of which many interpreters are guilty is that they seem to wish to

attribute everything from the area to the temple, and to ignore the large number of

other sculptures that would have been placed in and around it. One hundred and fifty

fragments, many of them extremely small, have been linked to the temple; some are

so worn that it is impossible to make out what they represent. The sculptures are too

fragmentary to allow discussion other than in the most general terms. Muscular male

body parts abound,39 but these are mostly in poor condition. The backs of the

sculptures are noticeably less worked than the fronts, with tool-marks clearly visible.

The claw had been used more at Epidauros, while the flat chisel, which was then

smoothed over, predominated at Tegea; a great deal of claw work can be seen, mostly

on the backs of figures, and one can note the use of the running drill to add definition

to the drapery.40 Some of the rasp marks would have been on visible surfaces, used

as texturing or as a key for colour, especially on the drapery. Tegea’s pediments are

very important technically, and their similarities to the Mausoleum sculptures show

how technique can and should be an important factor in defining schools of sculptors.

Small differences in technique reveal the various hands at work, but overall the style

38 Stewart 1977, p. 90.

39 eg. Stewart 1977, cat. nos. 11-13.
40 Stewart 1977, p. 41, notes parallels to the Mausoleum freestanding sculptures; and, p. 42 argues that
many of the techniques used are those of the Mausoleum, being taken one stage further.
 23

is uniform. The standing figures were dowelled to the wall and clamped to the floor

(fig. 6b). The sculptures stood on the cornice rather than being set into it, as they had

been at Epidauros. The reclining corner figures were placed in the pediment on the

cornice; they were on plinths, which were small, with a rock-like texture to the

roughly pointed surface, and can be seen as an element of landscaping.

The Late Roman destruction of the temple, when the pieces were scattered

and many built into later structures, explains the lack of useful provenances. An

example of the problems the pieces and their condition cause is Stewart cat. no. 25.

Stewart describes it as “Part of the left arm and side of torso. - Broken across at

height of armpit and just above interior angle of elbow; fragment of torso from third

to fifth ribs preserved.”41 Marcadé thinks that the piece should be turned the other

way around and sees it as “le côté droit du torse à partir du creux de l’aiselle: le

renflement correspond à mon avis à la région de l’omoplate droite soulevée et

l’arrachement oblique suit la saillie externe du pectoral droit.”42 He links it to

Stewart no. 11, admitting that it is not possible to test the pieces for a join due to the

mounting of the latter. The pieces, for which there are no good find spots, are

assigned by scale and iconography, and in relationship to the known narrative scenes

depicted in the metopes due to the extant inscribed architraves: the boar thus fits the

hunt, and helmets the battle.

The iconography of the east front depicted Tegean heroes in the metopes and

the pediment; it is linked to the locality rather than to the cult of Athena, and to the

Federal Altar of Arcadia that stood in front of it. The front of the temple was

‘Arcadian’, depicting the exploits of the descendants of Arcas, eponymous founder of

the dynasty, and of the nymph Erato. Atalanta was a Tegean heroine, and the

Calydonian Boar Hunt was a well known myth, that was also a popular subject in

sculpture, seen on the Sicyonian monopteros at Delphi, on Melian reliefs and at

Trysa; it was also used in Etruscan terracotta reliefs. The boar was linked to Tegea by

41 Stewart 1977, pp. 28-9.

42 Marcadé 1986b, p. 318.
 24

the fact that it had been killed by Atalanta, and its relics, according to Pausanias, were

inside the cella. The figures in the pediments are known, named by Pausanias 8.45,6-

7: he places the boar in the centre, with on one side Atalanta, Meleager, Theseus,

Telamon, Peleus, Polydeuces, Iolaüs, the sons of Thestius, and Prothoos and

Cometes, Meleager’s maternal uncles, whom he would kill; their inclusion

foreshadows the fight following the hunt for the boar’s relics, and the death of

Meleager. In the other wing were Epochos helping the wounded Ancaios, Castor,

Amphiaraos, Hippothoos and Peirithoos. Stewart suggests that three figures to the

right of the boar are missing from the description, and are needed to restore the

symmetry of the group. Cepheus, who was depicted in the metopes on that side of the

temple, may be one of the figures missing from the right kerkis of the pediment.43

Despite the fame of the combatants it is difficult to see how they would have been

differentiated, and the detail of the account suggests that the figures were in some

way identified, presumably with painted labels. Pausanias’ account gives a minimum

of seventeen figures, which would leave a gap at the apex of the gable, perhaps filled

with a tree, as represented on a Tegean coin, which shows Atalanta spearing the boar

in front of a tree,44 a feature also to be found in the Parthenon’s West pediment, and

perhaps in the Hephaisteion East pediment, assuming the ‘apple-pickers’ were in the

centre. The figures would have stood ca. 1.60 m high.

The state of preservation of the sculpture is poor: fragments, many of them

slight, of seven figures plus the boar, whose original length was ca. 1.70, and two

dogs45 have been linked to it.46 The boar’s head47 proves, if there was any doubt,

that the fragments are from the pediments. He had his left profile to the front as the

right, or back, is unworked, and has holes for attachments. Atalanta is the only

securely identified figure;48 the sole sculpture with evidence for piecing, she is on a

43 see Apollodoros, Mythographus I.8.2 for his inclusion.

44 Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Stewart 1977, pl. 29a.
45 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 6 [Tegea inv. 89] p. 15, pl. 5b-c: l 0.161, ht. 0.127, d. 0.106, a fragmentary
hound’s head, which presumably links to cat. no. 7 [Tegea no inv. no.] pl. 6a, part of the body of a dog.
46 Stewart 1977, cat. nos. 5-8 are certain, 9-16 less so: pp. 14-22, pls. 5-12.
47 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 5 [Athens inv. 178] pp. 14-15, pl. 5a: l. 0.42, ht. 0.29, d. 0.245.
48 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 8 [Tegea inv. 2297] pp. 16, 44, pl. 6b-c.
 25

slightly smaller scale (original ht. ca. 1.50). Marcadé dissociates her from the

pediment on these grounds,49 but one can note that women were, and often still are,

smaller than men, and that piecing is not unknown for important figures, such as the

Apollo from Delphi, the Parthenon west pediment Athena, two figures from the

Hephaisteion pediments, and several of the Mausoleum statues. Her arms were held

in place by a square dowel, again a feature seen on the Mausoleum.

The iconography of the western side of the temple depicted the life of

Telephos, the son of Heracles and of Auge, the priestess of Athena Alea at Tegea,

who was conceived within the sanctuary. This violation led to the exile of mother and

child, pushed out in a boat; they arrived in Asia Minor, where she reestablished the

cult, and he eventually became king. A link was thus created between the beginning

of the hero’s life, by the very location of the viewer in the sanctuary, and his death,

fore-shadowed in the pediment. Telephos was injured fighting Achilles at the river

Caïcos, the scene depicted in the western gable, when the Greeks stopped in Mysia on

their way to Troy. The battle of the Caïcos was a very unusual theme; the depiction of

battles was popular in pediments as they involved many figures and made it easy to

create rough symmetry, and this was the only major battle of this hero’s life.

Pausanias 8.45,2 says that the Tegeans took part in the Trojan war, though the

pedimental episode took place during Achilles’ voyage to the city. The six metopes

illustrated other episodes from the life of the hero.

Only highly fragmentary pieces of eight or nine figures, restored as originally

touching a height of 1.90 or a little over life-size, are linked to this gable.50 The

figures from the west are approximately one-sixth larger than those on the east; they

did not decrease in scale, as is shown by the preserved corner figures. At that scale,

around 16-18 figures are needed in the pediment to fill the space. It is not possible to

reconstruct the composition, but one can assume that Achilles and Telephos were in

the centre, supported by Dionysos and Athena, their respective patrons. Their fathers,

49 Marcadé 1986b, p. 318.

50 Stewart 1977, cat. nos. 16-21 he sees as certain, 22-26 less so: pp. 22-30, pls. 13-19.
 26

Peleus and Heracles, seem to have also been in attendance. The centre and apex of the

gable are likely to have been filled by the vine sent by Dionysos, which Telephos

tripped over. Podaleirios and Machaon, the sons of Asclepius, traditionally healed

Telephos at Troy; if the scene in the pediment was a calm one rather than an active

battle, they could have been included. In any case they create a conceptual link with

Asclepius, whose image, and that of Hygieia, flanked the cult statue of Athena within

the temple. The composition could have been either a battle group involving many

people fighting, or a duel attended by gods as ‘spectators’.

A piece of the upper legs of a reclining female from the left corner may have

been a topographical personification, or Hiera who died at the battle; she wore a

peplos and was on a base.51 Balancing her in the opposite corner there might have

been a male personification of the eponymous river, of which no piece has yet been

identified. The most important pieces are two male heads. One is of a beardless male,

reconstructed of two fragments, who wears the skin of the Nemean lion (fig. 8).52 He

should be Heracles, but given his youth might be Telephos donning the skin to

illustrate his ancestry; the Hecatomnids may have worn it in portraits on Rhodian

coins, and Alexander was certainly represented wearing it soon after. The right side is

better finished than the left, showing that he was on the left hand side of the

pediment; the pose, angle and scale of the figure suggest that it stood ca. 0.50 from

the centre of the pediment, which would perhaps suit a figure of Heracles backing up

Telephos. The head may be linked to a torso,53 creating a figure that was originally

ca. 1.90 tall. Another head wearing an ornate Attic helmet, is reconstructed of two

fragments, with nose and chin missing; because of the way it is carved, with emphasis

on the left of his face, it must have been placed in the right hand side of the gable (fig.

51 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 20 [Tegea inv. 194] p. 26, pl. 17b: l. 0.530, ht. 0.415, d. 0.355. May be linked
to a small fragmentary female head = Stewart 1977, cat. no. 19 [Tegea, unnumbered] pp. 25-6, pl. 17a:
ht. 0.282, w. 0.202, d. 0.135.
52 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 16 [Tegea inv. 60] pp. 22-3, pls. 13, 14 a-b: ht. 0.314, w. 0.239, d. 0.266.
53 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 26 [Tegea inv. 67] pp. 29-30, pl. 19c-d: ht. 0.442, w. 0.378, d. 0.254.
 27

7).54 The right side of this head is only roughly worked, and the back was originally

cut off by the frame. A third head wears a similar Attic helmet.55

The subject matter of the temple, like that of the heroon at Calydon, and the

Great Altar, or Heroon of Telephos, at Pergamon, shows the importance of mythical

ancestry. Such scenes became rarer in Hellenistic iconography, but are probably also

to be seen on the Hieron of Samothrace; given that no generic battle or similar scene

can be identified, Lehmann’s iconographic reconstruction, of the Infancy of Aëtion

(here pp. 38 ff), is likely. The iconography of the architectural sculpture at Tegea on

both sides of the temple can be interpreted as Athena assisting Tegeans against the

troubles brought about by the slights caused to other deities. As on the Parthenon, the

aspects that were emphasised were Athena as warrior, on the temple, and Athena as

daughter of Zeus, by the altar, believed to be contemporary, and axially placed in

front of it.

A temple, in the vicinity of Mazi in Elis, was discovered in 1939 and

excavated by Yalouris in 1960. It can, in my opinion, be positively identified with

Strabo’s56 temple of Athena at Mazi,57 and not the temple of Artemis Ephesia built

by Xenophon in the area.58 The peripteral temple was Doric, with 6 x 13 columns,

and an internal colonnade of unknown order. Much of the conglomerate

superstructure is known to have been recycled in local domestic housing of the early

54 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 17 [Athens inv. 180] pp. 23-4, pls. 14c-d, 15, 35c-d: ht. 0.326, w. 0.228, d.
0.262.
55 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 18 [Tegea inv. 61].
56 C. 343, which suggests, perhaps poetically, that there was a temple on the site in Homeric times. A
main town near the temple may have been ancient Makistos, as an inscription refers to its citizens as
‘Makistioi’ (Trianti 1986, pp. 166-8, fig. 5).
57 Lapalus 1947, pp. 203ff, 452; RA 1940, pp. 102-3; BCH 54-5, 1940-1, pp. 245-6, figs. 14-15; BCH
76, 1952, p. 223; BCH 85, 1961, pp. 719-22, figs. 1-4; Delivorrias 1974, p. 193; Trianti 1985; Trianti
1986; Boardman 1995, pp. 24-5, fig. 8; Picard 1954, pp. 1150-1; Ridgway 1997, pp. 30-2, 33-4, ills. 3-
4; Ridgway 1999, p. 190.. See Trianti 1986 for further bibliography. The temple is sometimes
identified as ‘the one at Mazi’ or some such variation, but since it is in a village now known by its
ancient name, I prefer to use that appellation.
58 Anab. V 3. 11 and Pausanias V. 6. 5-6: the temple was probably Ionic as it was imitating the
Archaic temple of Artemis at Ephesos. The temple of Artemis Ephesia was a famous temple, built after
Xenophon’s return to Greece, but before Leuctra, when his pro-Spartan stance was no longer
acceptable. This has however lead to confusion, with some still using the (incorrect) Xenophonic date
for the extant temple.
 28

twentieth century, but drums and slabs of the frieze, with blank metopes and rounded

glyphs, survive and suggest a fifth century date subsequent to the temple of Zeus at

Olympia for the architecture. The temple measures 15.85 x 35.10, which would allow

for a pedimental space ca. 9.20 wide; smaller than the temple at Bassae, but of similar

size to the Hephaisteion.

A number of two-thirds life-size sculptures have been excavated around the

temple. The style of these suggests that its decoration was by a sculptor aware of

Scopas’ work at Tegea, with some pieces quoting early Classical sculpture, and they

are in my opinion likely to date to ca, 340,59 rather than the late fifth century as

suggested by Trianti. Similarities to Tegea and the works of Scopas, as preserved in

Roman copies, can be seen in the shape of the eyes, particularly the canthus, which

are however colder and more Classical in appearance, of the lips and of the ears.

Picard as early as 1954 wrote: “Certaines influences scopasiques semblent apparaître:

bien qu’on ait daté l’édifice au début du IVe siècle, il conviendrait ainsi, semble-t-il,

d’en abaisser la date d’un demi-siècle ou plus; mais il serait prématuré de proposer

des conclusions, avant la fin des recherches et la publication attendue.”60 Although

Ridgway does not agree with my chronology, she has recently down-dated the figures

to the early fourth century, executed after the Triphylian cities gained autonomy in

399.61

The subject of the decoration seems to have been an Amazonomachy at the

west and a Gigantomachy at the east. It is surprising in what good condition some of

the pieces are: these are probably the best preserved pedimental heads of the fourth

century; had they appeared without such a good provenance, for example on the art

market, their authenticity may well have been questioned. The lack of weathering

suggests that the temple was destroyed quite early on. The male torsos show

59 Personal communications: Prof. Paolo Moreno has agreed to a Scopaic influence, in a direct line
down from Tegea, though the work is not by Scopas himself. Prof. Andrew Stewart also believes that
the pieces, rather than being ca. 400 BC, post-date Scopas. Prof. G.B. Waywell praises them as good
quality pieces of ca. 340 BC.
60 Picard 1954, p. 1151.
61 Ridgway 1997, pp. 31-2.
 29

differentiation between types of warriors. A number of bronze fragments were found

in trenches to the north of the temple, including an ornate shield, possibly an

attachment but more likely a votive offering. The lesser working around the back of

the figures is a pointer towards the later date.

The best preserved of the warriors, and the piece that sparked the initial

excavations, is a youthful warrior in a Corinthian helmet, leaning forward (fig. 9). 62

His lack of clothes reveals a body that suggests a later fourth century date. A crest

was attached to the crown of the helmet. He has a Scopaic, almost female face: one

would be tempted to associate the head with an Athena were there not such a good

join, worn away at the edges, but positive, to a male body. The edges of the helmet,

nose tip and lower lip are chipped but the head is in excellent condition. The surface

is mostly preserved. The torso is in two pieces: the first extends from the neck to the

top of the hips, including the shoulders and tops of the arms; the second is of the hips

and buttocks, excluding the front left third. He has the almost ‘melting’ torso of an

ephebe. The hair, seen between helmet and ears, is wispy. The modelling and

musculature of the body are much more sophisticated than those of the Argive

Heraion metope to which the publisher compares them:63 he is not in their wake, but

rather a development several steps beyond them. The rendition of the torso and rib-

cage is similar to that of some of the Mausoleum figures, to which Carter draws

parallels, and is one of the factors for his dating of the Priene coffers to the 340s.64

The body lunges forward in a manner that is far too early for ca. 400. The way the

muscles are emphasised and the general rendition of the body recall a more svelte,

more youthful version of the Lansdowne Heracles. Both arms were raised; the right

forward and higher, the left to the side.

This figure was found on the western side and linked to that gable, as are a

number of fragments.65 A bent right arm preserved with the hand, possibly female, is

62 Patras inv. 207: ht 0.67. Trianti 1986, p. 158 n. 14.

63 Athens NM inv. 1572.
64 eg Priene no. 13, BM 1166: Carter 1990, p. 130, pl. 14.1.
65 Olympia inv. no.s L 1052, L 1053, L 1063, L 1071, L 305+1039.
 30

made up of three main fragments.66 The clenched fingers hold a cylindrical object,

probably a sword handle, the blade of which was of bronze and attached. A right hand

is preserved, with chips, almost to the wrist.67 An armature links the little finger and

allows it to be free from the palm; a hole on the side of this finger suggests an

attachment. A bronze sword was probably held by the clenched fingers. A left foot is

preserved to the top of the arch, on a plinth.68 It originally wore footwear, with a

carved sole and leather straps painted on; the lack of demarcation of the toes suggests

boots rather than sandals and the foot’s slim shape links it to an Amazon. There are

also equine fragments, including hooves.69

Four heads have been found from the east, giving us a good idea of the head

types: the Classical representations of the gods are sharply differentiated from the

bestial faces of their Giant adversaries. The temple’s eponymous goddess took part in

the Gigantomachy, and she may be represented in the so-called ‘Artemis’ (fig. 11),70

a sub-Scopaic head that recalls Tegea 61.71 Reconstructed of two large fragments,

she is preserved to the top of the neck, but with parts of the chin and of the right jaw

missing. The face was fully worked, but the hair is more summarily treated; the

general hairstyle is still discernible and the wisps over the left ear, which were fully

worked, are crisp. The hair is unfinished, suggesting the addition of a helmet: if this

were Corinthian, one could identify the figure as Athena. The profile is Classicising,

with similarities to the Hera preserved on a Samos decree relief and attributed to

Alcamenes.

The head of Zeus is even stronger in its reference to fifth century sculpture,

here from the early Classical period (fig. 10).72 It recalls the style of the Aegina

heads, and is a retrospective element. The ornate hairstyle owes much to the influence

66 Olympia inv. L 1052.

67 Olympia inv. L 1053.
68 Olympia inv. L 1071.
69 Olympia inv. L 1063.
70 Patras inv. 203: ht. 0.19, ht. of face 0.14. Trianti 1986, p. 157 n. 9.
71 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 4.
72 Patras inv. 206: w. 0.175, ht. 0. 25. Trianti 1986, p. 157 n. 6.
 31

of metal-working, particularly on the crown. A double braid twists around the back. It

recalls the hairstyle of the Artemision Zeus and of the Omphalos Apollo type.

Similarities can also be noted to the head of a Carian Zeus from Mylasa now in

Boston.73 The left three-quarters are more carefully worked than the right, the left

ear barely detailed and the evidence for piecing, five holes on the right side-burn with

the broken stems of pins remaining in some, all show that that was the prominent

view-point; he was probably turned slightly outwards rather than in profile. The

working of the beard is less regular than the hair. The left profile is entirely

preserved, the jaw-line is missing along the right. The piece conserves the majority of

its surface, with a beautiful waxy finish. Piecing, although minor, is a feature seen on

this sculpture and others from the site; it is a technique mostly used from the

Mausoleum on, and argues against a late fifth century dating of the sculpture.

One head of a Giant has a ‘wild’ beard and bulging eyes (fig. 12). 74 He

shows his teeth in a snarl. This is a masterpiece of characterisation that narrowly

avoids falling into parody. It is less well preserved than the divine heads, for though

also made up of two pieces, the joins are worn away and areas are missing. The

second head is more subdued and more complete, turning to his left (fig. 13).75 It is

preserved to the top of the neck, but the left jaw-line is missing and the left side of the

nose is broken off. He wears an unusual helmet shaped as a sea-monster. Above the

ears are Maltese-cross shaped cuttings with a hole for attachments, presumably cheek

plates.

A large number of other pieces have come from this side of the temple:76 the

shoulder of a female statue with part of her arm covered in drapery; 77 part of a

forearm with the remains of a strut from a shield;78 a knee with a corner of cloth on

73 Comstock & Vermeule 1976, inv. 04.12, cat. no. 44, pp. 33-4.
74 Patras inv. 204: w. 0. 165, ht. 0.20. Trianti 1986, p. 157 n. 10.
75 Patras inv. 205: ht. 0.256, w. 0.145. Trianti 1986, p. 158 n. 11.
76 Olympia inv. L 293, L 294, L 295, L 297, L 299, L 300, L 302, L 310, L 316.
77 Olympia inv. L 300.
78 Olympia inv. L 299.
 32

the right hand side;79 a surprisingly detailed hand, with even the nails carved,

grasping a sword handle;80 two shins.81 Also a right foot with the carved sole of a

sandal, almost more detailed than the hand, broken off at the bridge. 82 It is attached

to a plinth. The second toe is longer than the first and the foot overall surprisingly

realistically represented, with details such as the toe-nails, which would not have been

visible, carved. This could possibly have come from a statue that stood on the ground.

The foot is female, with remains of drapery at the side. Assorted fragments of

drapery,83 from chitons, have also been found around the temple, along with a

forearm and hand that would appear to be female.84

The three pieces in Patras Museum (inv. 100, 101, 621), two naked male

torsos of warriors and the torso of a Nike, are from the decoration of a temple on the

river Charadros, between Bozaitika and Kastritsio, and are dated to the later first

quarter of the fourth century.85 The pieces are heavily worn and difficult to date

accurately due to the dearth of archaeological information about their find-spot,

although they are currently put a few years too early to be covered by this thesis. I

mention them because of the remains of a metal strut at the back of the larger figure

(inv. 100) which shows that he was attached to the wall of the gable, a feature not

seen again until Tegea.86

The details of the sculptures from Mazi clearly shows them to be the product

of a sculptor working in the aftermath of the Mausoleum and of Scopas. Some

similarities can be seen between his work and the Ariadne and Niobe Group, both

79 Olympia inv. L 295.

80 Olympia inv. L 316.
81 Olympia inv. L 294, L 297.
82 Olympia inv. L 293.
83 Olympia inv. L 296, L 298, L 304 and L 307a.
84 Olympia inv. no. L 303.
85 Trianti 1985, pp. 116-8, pls. 75-81; Trianti 1986, p. 164, pls. 143-144.2; Ridgway 1997, pp. 32-3.
86 I have heard a number of scholars postulate, in conversation rather than in print, that this is a feature
associated with Roman restoration (see the temple of Apollo Sosianus). In my opinion it is a feature
original to the second half of the fourth century. I regret that, although I examined these three
sculptures, I was unable to undertake further research on the group; my initial opinion is that they may
be closer in date to Tegea and Mazi than to the Argive Heraion.
 33

also seen as being by a follower of Scopas,87 but it would be premature to claim too

close a link without further research.

The late Archaic fifth temple of Apollo at Delphi was destroyed in 373 BC,

and construction on the sixth temple was immediately begun under the Corinthian

architect Spintharos, but work progressed slowly owing to financial difficulties, and

the roof was not in place before 337/6 BC. The rather conservative pedimental

sculptures are dated to ca. 335-325 (fig. 14).88 More specifically the accounts would

seem to indicate that Androsthenes was given his final payment for the sculptures in

327 BC, although these are too fragmentary to convey much else concerning the

sculptural decoration. According to the accounts, in 327 BC 112,000 dr. were paid

out for the twenty-four pedimental sculptures of Pentelic marble.89 This works out at

ca. 5000 Attic dr. per figure, reflecting the high cost of overland transportation,

compared to sea freight, to the isolated and elevated position. A similar inflation of

costs is seen in the figures for transporting the Corinthian stone building blocks,

which cost more to bring to Delphi by land from Kirrha than by sea from Corinth to

Kirrha, which was a greater distance. The only other architectural decoration in the

accounts would seem to have been stars in the coffers. Acroteria are likely, but have

yet to be identified. The subjects depicted are given by Pausanias 10.19,4, who also

names two Athenians, Praxias, a pupil of Calamis, and after his death Androsthenes, a

pupil of Eucadmus, as the sculptors.

For such an important temple, it is known that many contributed to the cost of

rebuilding. Waywell has pointed out that, as at Tegea, there were images of Idrieus

87 Stewart 1977, 118-20, 151. For the Niobids see here pp. 56-7.
88 Croissant & Marcadé 1972; Croissant 1986; Croissant 1980; Ridgway 1990, pp. 17-21, pl. 2a-b;
Stewart 1990, pp. 195-6; Stewart 1982; Boardman 1995, pp. 26-7, fig. 14; Flashar 1992, pp. 60-70,
figs. 30-1, 36; Croissant 1994; Guide de Delphes, pp. 77-84; BCH 98, 1974, 785-8, figs. 4-5; Ridgway
1997, p. 57; Ridgway 1999, pp. 188-9. On the architecture: Pouilloux 1983; Roux 1966; Bousquet
1977; Bousquet 1984, on the building inscription; Marchetti 1983. Also: Price & Trell 1977, pp. 87-89,
figs. 155-7, esp. fig. 156, a coin of Septimius Severus, which shows approximately five figures in the
pediment.
89 Stewart 1990, p. 2; Bousquet 1984, reprinted in: Bousquet 1988, esp. p. 696, and p. 44 for cost of
moving stone to the site for the building of the temple in general.
 34

and Ada in the sanctuary, this time two bronze statues of the ruling couple by Satyros,

their base preserved. He speculates that Idrieus and Ada may have been amongst the

donors of funds, presumably recorded on lost sections of the inscription. The group

was dedicated by the Milesians, linked to Delphi by the important cults of Apollo at

both sites, and by the importance of the god to the Hecatomnids; he appears on their

coins, and is the only deity to be identified amongst the remains of the Mausoleum

sculpture. Miletos, though not a Carian city, had strong associations with the dynasty.

Waywell links the patronage of the dynasty to Delphi, Priene and Tegea, suggesting

their financial support for “three of the greatest temples to be built or rebuilt during

the mid-fourth century B.C.”.90

Around one hundred and fifty fragmentary pieces from the gables have been

rediscovered since 1967 in the museum store-rooms: only twelve of these have

known find-spots. There has been much disagreement over the pediments, and it is

hard to find anyone who wholly agrees with Croissant’s reconstruction. 91 The most

controversial statue has been the seated Apollo (fig. 15), which he places in the centre

of the east gable, but which others believe comes from the Daochos Monument. The

standing figured identified by Croissant as Dionysos (fig. 16), and restored in the

centre of the west pediment is also controversial; that it represented that god is also

disputed, as are both its proposed location, and the joining of the head to the body. It

is however certain that the head and torso were excavated on the west side of the

temple, and the identification remains likely if unusual. Until access to the pieces is

granted, one must rely on Croissant, who follows Pausanias. He has been backed up

in many of his points by others, and at the very least the basic arrangement he

proposes is probably correct.

The problem of the reconstruction is aggravated by the fact that the sculptures

were ‘lost’ and that many of them are without provenances. It would also be easier to

fit figures if one could be certain of the dimensions of the gable, of which no

90 Waywell 1993, p. 83.

91 The discussion following the presentation, Croissant 1986, p. 197, gives a small selection of these
views. The conference proposed to discuss these has yet to take place.
 35

architectural pieces have been found. The depth would seem to be ca. 1.10, but most

of the figures were less than 0.50 deep; while the central figures were 0.60-.65 deep.

Each pedimental space must have been ca. 18.40 long with a max. ht. of ca. 2.30. The

figures are of two scales, at the east under 1.90 high with a breadth of ca. 1.15, and at

the west over 2.00 high with a breadth of ca. 1.35. There would appear to have been

no hierarchy of scale within the pedimental sculpture, with decreases in height

created by first the biological differences between men and women, and then by

changes in pose. The sculptures at Delphi illustrate the next stage of execution after

Tegea; their rears are not worked, but rather are hollowed out or cut away to relieve

the weight and to enable the pieces to fit within the pedimental space. The backs of

the statues show that they were attached by horizontal armatures, which helps to

clarify their position within the plane.

The west pediment is better preserved than the east. It was filled by a

Dionysos kitharoidos surrounded by dancing Thyiades (fig. 17), with an even number

of women around him that allowed for a symmetrical composition. In the centre stood

the god, with a mitra over long hair, a fleshy face and body. He has been

reconstructed from three pieces: the head and body found on the west side of the

temple plus the right shoulder. The head (inv. 2380) and torso (inv. 1344) combine to

create a preserved height over ca. 1.50; originally he would have stood over 2.00 tall,

and been well over life-size, creating a tight fit within the pedimental frame. The head

was originally inserted. It is as near certain as one can be that the head fits, or rather

does not fail to make a feasible join with the body; this is supported by the way that

the god’s long locks continue on both sides of the torso’s shoulders. He wears a

girdled chiton with looping folds beneath the wide belt. The dress is the standard

attire of Apollo, as is the kithara he held: this is an early but quite advanced example

of the transfer of Apolline iconography to Dionysos, which became popular later in

the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

The size of the figures allows for ten revellers, who as women were slightly
smaller than the god. These wore high-girdled crinkly chitons, which contrast with
 36

the rough textures of the animal skins wrapped around their bodies. The torsos of two

are well preserved: one from a standing figure turned to her right, the other from a

kneeling figure turned to her left. Neither is overly active. The right arm of the former

is raised, her other hand clasping the drapery at her left hip, in a pose of quiet ecstasy.

The second figure is twisted into strong contrapposto as she turns towards the centre.

Other fragments include two of a standing dancer that Croissant places to the left of

the centre, one of a standing female, a head with a ‘diadem’ (inv. 592) and the bust of

a seated female. One can reconstruct a composition of roughly symmetrical figures,

with differences in drapery and pose, gently breaking the balance and adding interest

to it.

The most problematic aspect is Pausanias’ mention of the setting sun in the

west pediment. To have attempted a night scene would have been difficult; the scene

depicted on the Echelos and Basile relief is set at night,92 but the ambience would

have been created through the use of paint, and though the representation of a

background setting is known in relief pediments, it is not definitively attested to in

those with free-standing sculpture. Croissant has suggested that this is in fact a

topographical confusion, the west being where the sun sets.93

Croissant believes that there were twelve figures in the east pediment: the

Apolline Triad and nine Muses, as demanded by Pausanias’ iconography. The Apollo

kitharoidos would have been flanked by Artemis and Leto, and the trio in turn

surrounded by the nine Muses. There would thus be four Muses on one side and five

on the other, creating an asymmetrical composition, which would, as far as I know

have been unprecedented: it seems an unlikely solution. A better one might be to add

Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses, which restores symmetry within the

composition and helps to better explain the fact that the figures in this pediment are

approximately 0.20 less wide than those in the west, which the addition of just a

single extra figure would not account for. The fragmentary seated male figure with

92 Athens NM 11255. I.G. II 2 4546; Walter 1937; Ridgway 1981, pp. 155-6, 200, fig. 98; Neumann
1979, p. 34 n. 42; LIMC VI (1992) s.v. Kephisos.
93 Croissant 1986, p. 193; Bousquet 1984, p. 695; Croissant 1980, p. 179.
 37

long hair, wearing a himation, and possibly holding a kithara originally made of

bronze, must be Apollo and thus the central figure. His back is not hollowed out, but

the non-extant seat was separately worked. To restore the Omphalos as his seat would

explain the curving profile of the backs of his legs, and locate the scene as taking

place within the sanctuary. A relief from the sanctuary, Delphi M. 3356, shows a god

seated on the Omphalos, surrounded by two standing women.94 Around him in the

pediment would have been grouped the female figures, standing, sitting on rocks and

crouching or kneeling. Two figures, neither appearing in Croissant’s reconstruction,

do not seem to have been Muses, and so should be identified as Artemis and Leto: a

draped female head of the right scale would be Leto (inv. 321), and the other is close

enough to the Artemis of Dresden to be identified as that goddess (inv. 3066).

Croissant believes that he has identified seven to nine pieces of the Muses; two

standing, three sitting and two more crouching or kneeling.

It can be argued that the Doric tradition of filling the gables of a temple with

sculptures carved in the round running was running out of steam, and that there was a

lack of ‘vitality’ after the fifth century. In some ways the fourth century groups,

particularly Delphi and Epidauros, were mannered and eclectic. They partly

reproduced earlier models, as at Epidauros and Mazi, and partly attest new directions

of Ionic sculpture, as at Tegea. Delphi and Mazi look backwards in many ways,

though both are in other aspects new. It is hard to draw any conclusions about the

four groups as a whole. Tegea would probably have been cutting edge in technique,

with a design by an innovative leading sculptor and iconography particularly relevant

to its location. The battles at Mazi and the groups at Delphi are relevant to their

temples’ deities, but are rather more routine. The link between the Epidauros battles

and Asclepius is at best tenuous.

Perhaps the greatest similarities can be seen in terms of technique and the fact

that the figures are less fully or highly worked than those of the fifth century,

94 Croissant 1980, p. 178, fig. 7; FD, IV, 6, pp. 57-9. For other reliefs showing Dionysos on the
Omphalos see AJA 86, 1982, pp. 229-33, pls. 30-2.
 38

particularly the Parthenon. The term ‘decline’ is too easy to use; whilst there might

have been a decline in the level of finish of the pieces, this, as in many other forms of

architectural decoration, may have been due to a greater awareness of the eventual

location of the figures and that the standard of the Parthenon was in many ways

wasted on figures that were high off the ground and would not have been seen close

up. The greater emphasis of form and action at Tegea would seem to have been an

answer to this problem. At Epidauros the backs of the figures were modelled, but not

in any great detail. At Tegea the backs were barely modelled; they are often flat,

making it easier to restore their position in relation to the plane. The rears of the

figures from Delphi were even less worked. On this basis one could argue for a

chronological development, but the figures from Mazi, and to a lesser extent those

from the third century Hieron of Samothrace, go against this trend.

Other than Delphi, all these fourth century temples with pedimental sculpture

were in the Peloponnese, and are the continuation of a period in the late fifth and

early fourth centuries during which there was an output of architectural sculpture in

the area (Bassae, the Argive Heraion, the figures in Patras Museum), and before

which architectural sculpture had been relatively scarce (the sanctuary at Olympia

being the prime exception). The most important trend to note is the shift in the

production of the majority of architectural sculpture from Attica in the fifth century to

the Peloponnese in the fourth, as a result of new patrons being created by historical

circumstances.

1.2 An early Hellenistic pedimental group

The hexastyle Doric epopteion or Hieron at Samothrace, seems to have been

begun after 320 BC, and was used for the Mysteries.95 The amount that was

constructed is disputed, and the publishers believe that it was not completed, the

95 Samothrace 3.1, pp. 253-328, figs. 211-257; Lehmann 1962; Lehmann 1972; Ridgway 1990, pp.
158-161; Morrow 1985, pp. 91, 116, 122; Carter 1983, pp. 56-70; Linfert 1976, pp. 126-8; Delivorrias
1974, p. 198; Fuchs 1993, p. 396, fig. 439a; Webb 1996, pp. 144-7, figs. 132-5.
 39

porch added and the pedimental sculpture executed (fig. 18), until after ca. 150 BC.

This chronological framework is debatable, and though the Nikai are later, there is no

reason why there should not have been one main phase of construction, that included

the pedimental sculpture, in the first half of the third century: one can note features

such as the glyphs, which vary in parts between rounded and flat tops, and suggest a

date at which the masons were moving from one accepted form of carving them to

another. Figure VII is of particularly high quality, in a Classicising vein, and concurs

with this dating. The well-built females are Classicising, as is the architecture. The

heavy influence of Thasian sculpture workshops, even if the work was not carried out

by one of these, and the use of Thasian marble for the architecture and sculpture, can

be interpreted as suggesting Ptolemaic influence, since for much of the third century

the island was under their domination.

The ‘first phase’ of construction would have taken place under the patronage

of Ptolemy II. The ‘second’, if there was one, should thus be attributed to one of his

descendants wishing to complete a family project, and would raise the question of

why they had waited so long to complete a building that was so important politically

and that family honour would have demanded they finish. The time-span one need

allow for the construction, and the mass of erections by Ptolemy Philadelphus and

Arsinöe II within the sanctuary, argues against the need for additional work later, and

means that it is possible to date the entire construction to the years before ca. 260 BC.

The ceramics are not exact in their dating, could only be of use for the foundations,

and do not in any case argue for two building phases. From its own qualities, and

owing to the emotive or proto-Baroque qualities of the sculpture in the pediment, a

late dating was until recently widely accepted; but with the recent redating of the

work of Damophon,96 and the securing of a quantity of ‘Baroque’ style sculpture

within the first third of the third century BC, that date must be raised considerably.

The architecture, and in many ways also the sculpture, can be characterised as

conservative early Hellenistic work, rather than a deliberately early Classicising work

96 Themelis 1993a; Themelis 1993b; Themelis 1994.

 40

of the Middle Hellenistic period. Although one can divide the work on the Hieron

into construction ‘phases’, no gap between these need be implied; i) the main

building, ii) the porch and coffers, iii) the pedimental and acroterial sculpture.

Architectural and sculptural styles were rapidly developing, so the whole is not

entirely homogeneous.

The main north pediment held a narrative group, but there is no evidence for

anything in the south; given the prostyle plan and frontal emphasis of the architecture,

it would be surprising if there were anything in the back gable, and the types of busts

in shields proposed are only known from the last decades of the second century, and

even if one accepts the later dating, one can still only speculate as to their existence.

The sculptural fragments are divided between the Kunsthistorisches Museum and the

Antikensammlung in Vienna, and Samothrace Museum.

Lehmann sees the gable fitted with thirteen figures, nos. I-XIII, which she

labels with Roman numerals from left corner to right. Figure no. VII stood in the

centre, with on each side one standing, two seated, two reclining, and one kneeling or

semi-reclining figures, creating a symmetrical composition. Twenty two pieces of

these survive, marked on the Lehmann reconstruction in Arabic numerals

corresponding to her catalogue; cat. no. 1 in the centre, cat. nos. 2-13 to the right and

cat. nos. 14-22 to the left. There were seven female figures and three infants; no. XI,

and so by implication the missing no. III, were male. The crinkly chiton of figure no.

VII is characteristic of Thasian sculpture, though not exclusively so. The same dress

can be seen on the torso of one of the seated females from the right side of the gable.

The chiton of no. V can be seen through her himation. This effect of drapery-through-

drapery is associated with the later Hellenistic period, but is used sporadically in the

third century, for example on the temple of Athena at Ilion, on the Tyche of Antioch,

and on the Baker dancer; it would not be inconceivable to find it used by a

sophisticated workshop of the second quarter of the third century.

 41

A feature to note is that the head of figure no. IX was carved separately,97

and piecing can be observed on cat. nos. 8, 12, 16, 17 and 19. Lehmann concludes

that these features indicate the later date, but one can argue that there are a number of

examples of its use within the fourth century, for example on the Mausoleum, at

Tegea, and on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Evidence for insertion can also be

noted on no. VIII and no. XI. The fronts show weathering, a feature expected of

sculpture that remained in situ on this wind-swept isle for so long. The backs were

very little worked compared to other pedimental groups; tool marks, especially the

claw chisel, are visible on the backs of all the figures. These can also be noted

elsewhere, for example on the undersides of arms, which are often rough, making it

easier to position the angle of figures. Many pieces were found by the north facade,

where they fell when the building was abandoned in Christian times. Some fragments,

eg. cat. no. 9, were found in conjunction with a lime-kiln near the Arsinoeion,

suggesting that many of the missing pieces were burnt. This reuse also explains the

number of sheared figures. Graduation of size can be noted, but the decrease in the

height of the pedimental frame as it moves away from the centre can mostly be

accounted for through pose. Pry holes on the sides of the outer figures can be noted,

showing that these were inserted from the corners inwards, with no. VII the last to be

put in place.

The iconography is disputed. Lehmann has made a good case for the narrative

having depicted the Infancy of Aëtion, which is dismissed by others, but was a local

myth that would have fitted the use of the building: Aëtion was, according to Clement

of Alexandria, the founder of the mysteries of Samothrace. The child is held by a life-

size female recalling the Athena Medici type in reverse, no. VII, whose preserved

97 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 7 [Antikensammlung inv. 677] pp. 260-1, fig. 222; . ht. 0.27. Torso from
shoulders to waist wearing a highly girded crinkly short-sleeved chiton. The pattern of the folds and
pose of the shoulders shows that she was turning sharply to her right. The head and neck were inserted.
Reconstructed from numerous fragments.
Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 8 [Antikensammlung] pp. 261-2, fig. 223. A left foot female in indented
sandal, only the toes visible beneath the chiton hem. Badly weathered. It was attached by a dowel.
Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 9 [Samothrace Museum inv. 49.613] pp. 262-3, figs. 224-6. A fragmentary
right foot wearing a sandal.
 42

lower half shows that she was striding forward.98 She is identified as Dike. To the

left of her were the Horai, nos. IV-VI: Karpo, who holds grapes, Thallo and Auxo.99

It is interesting to note that viticulture was important to the Ptolemies, who greatly

increased wine production in Egypt, and is an aspect of their rule, which they

emphasised. To the right was another female triad nos. VIII100 -IX101-X; the Graces,

the Fates, or possibly the Charites. Aëtion’s sister Harmonia filled the left corner,102

and his brother Dardanos,103 wearing Phrygian dress to symbolise Troy, the right.

No. XII, the penultimate reclining female from the right side, held a now lost

rhyton.104 Her manner suggests a personification, possibly Mount Saoce. Lehmann

98 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 1 [Kunsthistorisches Museum inv. 345] pp. 254-5, figs. 213-4, 253-4; ht.
excl. base 0.52; th. 0.47; ht. of base 0.045-0.05. Lower half of a female figure, broken across the hip
and thighs, wearing a himation over a crinkly chiton. Surface chipped, and that of the legs damaged.
Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 2 [Antikensammlung] pp. 255-6, fig. 115; ht. 0.233. Female upper arm with
traces of drapery.
Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 3 [Antikensammlung] pp. 256-7, figs. 216-7; w. 0.075. Fragmentary left hand
with drapery, the palm cut back and a dowel hole indicating that an object was held in it.
Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 4 [Antikensammlung] p. 257, fig. 218; w. 0.042. Right hand with a cutting for
an object gripped by it. The size suggests a child, held by the figure.
99 VI = Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 14 [Antikensammlung inv. n/a] pp. 268-9, fig. 231; ht. 0.525. Five
fragments making up the torso and hips of a standing draped female wearing a sleeveless chiton and
himation. Dowel hole for attachment behind left shoulder. Linked to: Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 15
[Samothrace Museum] p. 270, fig. 232; ht. 0.085. A female right foot wearing an indented sandal.
IV = Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 16 [Kunsthistorisches Museum inv. 344] pp. 271-2, figs. 233, 256.
Lower half of a seated female facing right, who holds grapes in her hand. The left foot was originally
pieced, as shown by the dowel hole and anathyrosis.
100 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 5 [Antikensammlung] pp. 258-9; figs. 219-220; ht. incl. drapery 0.46
Female left arm with most of the hand. A chlamys was draped over the upper arm and down from the
inside of the elbow. On it remains a dowel hole with bronze set in stucco, as well as a cutting for an
attribute held by the thumb and fingers.
Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 6 [Antikensammlung] pp. 259-60, fig. 221; ht. 0.122. Neck and chin of a
female, turned slightly to the right, originally inserted into a chiton-clad female. Badly damaged.
101 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 10 [Samothrace Museum] p. 264, fig. 227; w. across elbow 0.085. The
right elbow of a seated female figure, with part of rock it rested on, linked to figure X.
102 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 20 [Antikensammlung inv. n/a] p. 274, figs. 240-1; ht. 0.25, l. 0.307,
depth 0.23.Found to the SW of the Arsinoeion, by a kiln, the waist to mid thigh of a small semi-
reclining female figure, presumably a child, kneeling on left knee. Remains of a mantle around the
thighs. She rests on a low base that was not visible from the front. Barely weathered. Also linked to the
figure are Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 21 [Samothrace Museum] p. 275, fig. 242; l. 0.15. The right arm of
child preserved from elbow to wrist. and Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 22 [Samothrace Museum] p. 276,
fig. 243. A fragment of the left elbow.
103 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 13 [Antikensammlung inv. n/a] pp. 267-8, fig. 230; l. 0.105. Sleeved right
arm from above elbow to wrist, its scale suggesting a child.
104 Samothrace 3:1, cat. no. 12; [Kunsthistorisches Museum inv. 342] pp. 265-7, figs. 229, 257; ht.
0.58; l. 0.83, depth 0.31. The penultimate figure from right side of the pediment. A female with cloak
wrapped around her waist. Right hand and lower legs broken off.
 43

also suggests the possibility that the male no. XI105 may be Saon, eponymous hero of

Samothrace: there is little evidence for this, but if the myth were as localised as it

seems, he would surely have appeared. Thus the suggested iconographical

interpretation for the pediment is the Nurturing of Aëtion, in the presence of

personifications.

Many of the features seen in the sculpture from the Hieron are popular in the

second half of the second century, but none would have been without parallel in the

second quarter of the third century. This is not surprising given the importance of the

mystery cult the structure housed, and the undoubtedly rich and influential patron that

built it. Without additional evidence it is impossible to guarantee the iconography of

the pediment, but Lehmann has made a strong argument for it, and no-one has yet

come up with a viable alternative to her reconstruction.

1.3 Other Fourth century and Hellenistic pedimental figures

Sculpture has been linked to the pediments of a number of Doric temples of

the fourth and third centuries, although the only subsequent Hellenistic Doric building

which is definitely known to have had pedimental sculpture is the temple of Isis on

Delos. This dates to ca. 130, making it much later. It was imitated by the Ionic

Monument of Mithradates VI, ca. 100; both had busts dowelled into relief shields,

inspired by armour, in the pediment.

The pediment of the Metröon at Olympia,106 a structure tentatively dated to

within the fourth century, may have, according to Fuchs, held a semi-reclining nude

male youth (fig. 19). The figure is fractionally under two-thirds life-size, with a

maximum ht. 0.55, and is seen from its left side, sitting on a cloth-covered rock. It

105 Samothrace 3, cat. no. 11 [Kunsthistorisches Museum inv. 343] pp. 264-5, figs. 228, 255; w.
0.975, ht. 0.48; d. 0.35. Reclining male from right side of pediment. Leaning on rocky stuff. Mantle
over legs. Covers his genitals unlike Parthenon. Head, right hand missing, and lower legs cut off. Held
an object in his left hand. Rectangular cutting [0.053 x 0.043] on ‘rock’ below his right forearm, = pry
hole. Lehmann p. 265 interprets this as evidence that the sculptures were inserted in the pediment from
the corners moving inwards. Restored of three fragments.
106 Fuchs 1956; Picard 1954, pp. 1147-8, figs. 453-4; Samothrace 3:1, p. 317 n. 152; Herrmann 1972,
pp. 161 ff; Mallwitz 1972, p. 162 ff; Delivorrias 1974, p. 196.
 44

would fit within the centre of the left kerkis of the pediment. Some similarities can be

noted with figure 'D' from the East pediment of the Parthenon, leading to suggestions

that he might be Dionysus, as the man’s languid pose and soft flesh recall

representations of the god. The style of the piece would however better suit a date of

ca. 150 BC, and is thus at odds with the conventional dating of the temple. The

sculpture was found within the Prytaneion. The unworked back of the piece and the

remains of metal struts ensure its architectural nature, although the excessively high

number of these struts would seem to suggest that it was moved and repositioned on

more than one occasion. The scale of the work fits the restored size of the Metröon

pediment, max. ht. 1.20, and so if one sought an alternative, it would need to be not

dissimilar in its dimensions. A number of possibilities can be put forward if one

insists upon assigning it to the Metröon. The architecture is deliberately strongly

archaising so that it blends in with the earlier temples of Zeus and of Hera in the

sanctuary, making it harder to date. Conventional dating leans towards a date varying

between the beginning of the fourth century and ca. 300 BC, but placing its

construction later in the Hellenistic period cannot be ruled out. Another possibility is

that the piece was later moved to the earlier temple, a theory that the condition of the

piece would seem to support. As we shall see, the movement of pedimental groups,

and the addition of figures to them, are both documented in the Hellenistic period,

with the strongest case for refurbishment, after an earthquake, coming from Olympia.

The lower half of a Muse seated on a rock, Agora inv. S 1530, has been

attributed to the pediment of the temple of Apollo Patroos in the Athenian Agora

rebuilt ca. 340-330 BC, though this building may well have been Ionic (there are no

remains of the order, but the spacing of the columns beter suits that order). 107 The

temple of Athena Polias Nicephoros, Pergamon, built by Philetairos in the early third

century, has been shown through coins to have contained an archaistic cult statue. No

architectural sculpture has been found during recorded excavations, but a lion-bull

group, Oberlin College inv. 48.28, is sometimes, with no reliable grounds, attributed

107 Ridgway 1990, pp. 19, 236, pl. 117; Palagia 1980, p. 8, n. 18, figs. 2, 4 for a reconstruction of the
pediment.
 45

to the pediment.108 A lightly archaising group with a motif that goes back to Archaic

art, it would fit well with the conservative style of the architecture. The style of cult

statue and architectural sculpture need not however be similar; at Ilion, for example,

the cult statue depicted on coins is again archaising whilst the metopes are proto-

Baroque. The assignment, it must be noted, is highly tenuous, and the provenance of

Pergamon is itself highly speculative, even creative, most other such groups coming

from Attica and the Greek mainland.

Four sea-monsters from the Poseidonion, Tenos, are linked to the pediments,

but are more likely to have been acroterial, if they were architectural.

A third century reclining Heracles was found in a sanctuary, believed to have

been of Heracles Pancrates, by the Ilissos, in Attica.109 The piece probably came

from a pediment and although it cannot be linked to any particular structure, naiskoi

of the god were always Doric. The piece is weathered, especially on the chest, but

well preserved. The head and neck, penis, and toes of the right foot are missing. The

use of a running drill can be noted. The back is barely worked, and there is no

evidence of attachment, but as the centre of gravity is so low it would not have been

needed. The naked god reclines on a rock covered by a badly worn lion skin, leaning

on his left elbow and forearm. In his left hand he holds a bowl. The left leg is bent at

the knee and tucked away beneath the right leg, a strange pose for a pedimental

sculpture as when viewed from below it appears to be missing. The musculature was

originally strong and heroic. A piece of drapery comes across the buttocks at the back

and is pulled over the right thigh to fall onto the left calf.

To this selection we can add Pausanias 9.11.6, who tells us that the Labours of

Heracles were depicted in the gables of the Heracleion at Thebes. 110 The sculptures

are believed, on the basis of inscriptions, to date to ca. 346-339, at the end of a long

period of construction. Pausanias attributes them to Praxiteles. Corso argues that they

108 Ridgway 1990, pp. 162-3, pl. 74. See also Sturgeon 1975/6; Webb 1996, p. 24.
109 Travlos 1971, p. 278, figs. 360-1; Ridgway 1997, p. 57. First Ephoria; preserved ht. 0.60, l. 1.17.
110 Lapalus 1947, pp. 203ff, 455-6; Corso 1988, vol. 1, pp. 142-3, 173-6, 179, 181; Ridgway 1999,
pp. 18-19.
 46

were by the famous sculptor of that name, who he also believes worked on the

Mausoleum,111 though others assume them to have been by a son. They are likely to

have been designed by the sculptor and executed by his workshop. The source states

that eleven Labours were depicted. The Stymphalian birds and the Cleansing of the

Stables of Augeia were omitted, as these were not part of the Theban repertoire of

Heracles’ Labours, but respectively Arcadian and Elian. The story of Heracles

wrestling with the Libyan giant who guarded the Garden of the Hesperides, was

famous locally (Pind., Isthm., IV, 51-4). The position of the sculpture is surprising as

the depiction of the Labours would better suit the format of metopes. One cannot be

certain of the building’s order, but it is probable that the temple was Doric.

A building inscription from Delos gives details of pedimental sculpture for an

as yet unidentified building.112 Some identify this as the Monument of the Bulls, but

even if one were to accept that it was, there is no evidence for this form of decoration

there. The rest of the structure was highly decorated, and pedimental sculpture was

still popular when it was begun, so it is not impossible that the front gable was

decorated.113 The description of a frieze in the inscription would fit the one from the

Monument, and no other similar piece is known from the island, but the link has

remained controversial.

1.4 Related forms of decoration

The Great Tomb at Lefkadia had a decorated pediment.114 Stucco figures

formed the scene against a plaster background painted blue, but its condition is now

111 Vitruvius VII. Praef, 13. Corso 1988, vol. 1, pp. 62-4, 174, & vol. 3, p. 123. This view is shared by
Stewart 1990, pp. 180-1. Corso 1988, vol. 1, p. 174, also includes the altar of the temple of Artemis at
Ephesos amongst Praxiteles’ architectural sculpture. I prefer to be optimistic about Pausanias’
reliability; archaeological excavations have for example uncovered Archaic pedimental sculpture for
the temple of Apollo on Aegina confirming his passing reference in 7.26.6 (Ridgway 1999, p. 33 n.
47).
112 This is unpublished, information courtesy of the Ecole Française, Athens. Debates have all been
verbal, and I am unaware of any dating of the relief.
113 Restored internal dimensions: ht 1.365, w. 8.94.
114 Miller 1993b, cat. no. 18c.
 47

too fragmentary to reconstruct. The so-called Palmette Tomb at Lefkadia also had a

painted pediment against a blue background.115 A tomb at Kastri Neon Kerdyllion, a

necropolis to the northwest of Amphipolis, was recently found. It had what is

described as a ‘sculpted pediment’, presumably of relief stucco rather than filled with

free-standing sculpture. It is tentatively dated to the second half of the third century or

the first half of the second. Publication is awaited.116

The so-called tomb of Philip II, 336-317 BC, Tomb II at Vergina117 had a

simple single storey Doric facade, with a Doric architrave above which is a decorated

attic, ht. 1.16, length 5.56, with a fresco of a hunt set in a landscape. The mounted

man to the right, a preeminent figure identified as the occupier, is depicted as he is

about to slay the lion, an act that only kings had the prerogative to undertake. 118 It

also seems that only members of the ruling family were depicted on horseback, so he

and the other two riders, one of whom is likely to be his son, must be royal. 119 A

tomb at Aghios Athanasios, Sindos, 20 km from Thessalonica, uncovered in 1994,

had a similar vividly painted frieze on the facade, over Doric columns. 120 A

procession of gods and Macedonian warriors was depicted. Vergina Tomb III, the so-

called Prince’s Tomb linked to Alexander IV, from the last years of the fourth

century, had pilasters framing a door on a simpler facade. 121 Above the Doric frieze

is a recessed band to which the excavators believe was originally attached a frieze

painted on cloth or leather that has now rotted away.

Continuous friezes would appear to be an Ionicism, but here take the place of

the pediment and, given the lack of a roof creating a gable in a facade tomb, make

more sense architecturally. One can draw a parallel to the bands of free-standing

115 Miller 1993b, cat. no. 18f.

116 42, 1987, B’2, pp. 446-448; BCH 118, 1994, p. 765: “... avait un toit à deux pentes, un fronton
sculpté et des acrotères à palmette peinte.”
117 Andronikos 1980, p. 30; Andronikos 1984, pp. 106-119, figs. 7-71; Pollitt 1986, p. 192-4, fig. 205;
Hammond 1991, pp. 69-82; Miller 1993a, pp. 115-7; Scheibler 1994, pp. 90-2, figs. 37-8.
118 According to Hammond 1991, p. 75 (citing Andronikos 1984, p. 116).
119 According to Hammond 1991, p. 75
120 BSA-AR 41, 1995, p. 45; Kathemerine 5.2.95; Ancient Macedonia 6, not seen.
121 Andronikos 1980, pp. 37-8; Andronikos 1984, pp. 198ff.
 48

figures on the Mausoleum, which can be seen as friezes given an extra dimension, or

as opened-up pediments. The Prometheus group from the Sanctuary of Athena at

Pergamon, where the figures carved in high relief are attached to the back wall of a

stoa, is similar in conception.122

Pedimental sculpture has been linked to a number of Ionic temples, which

would be a new phenomenon under Doric influence. The temple of Zeus at

Labraunda, ca. 350-340, was Ionic but the architecture heavily influenced by Doric

conventions. There is evidence for it having had acroteria and sculpture in the

pediment.123 The Artemision at Ephesos is depicted on some coins as having

sculptures in the pediment, but the evidence is conflicting.124 The figures appear to

be the famous competition Amazons rather than new works. At some point the

Amazons may well have been placed in the gable, although it is more likely that the

coins merely illustrate the famous works that were inside the temple, in the same way

that the central columns are artificially widened to reveal the cult statue. A reclining

figure, Izmir Museum inv. 99, is linked to the Ionic temple of Dionysus at Teos; 125 a

second, badly worn figure is on site. Three sets of sculpture from Magnesia on the

Meander Agora, are seen by some as pedimental, but are attributed by Linfert to the

Altar.126 If they did come from a temple it would almost certainly have been Ionic as

that was the predominant order used for temples in the town. Any attempts made to

link the sculpture to the temple of Zeus Sosipolis in the Agora, ca. 221-180, should be

ignored as the pieces cannot possibly be fitted into the extremely shallow preserved

pediment.127

122 Brogan 1998.

123 Hellström 1994a, p. 37.
124 Price & Trell 1977, pp. 126-131, figs. 32, 221-229. Note particularly: fig. 32, a coin of Hadrian
from Eumeneia, BM, showing four figures in the pediment, and small acroteria above it; fig. 221, a
coin of Maximus with many more figures [ca. nine ?] in the pediment and a shield at its apex; fig. 224,
a silver cistophorous of Hadrian with two figures in the spaces between the three windows; fig. 229, a
coin of Antoninus Pius with one figure in the central of the three windows of the pediment.
125 Ridgway 1990, p. 156; Samothrace 3:1, pp. 315-6, figs. 262-3; Webb 1996, pp. 37, 73-4, fig. 31.
126 Ridgway 1990, pp. 161-2; Linfert 1976, pp. 31-33, figs. 28-37, pl. 6.
127 see Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 141, pls. 88-9.
 49

Two sarcophagi from the second half of the fourth century had gables filled

with ‘sculpture’ and provide secondary evidence. The Ionic Sarcophagus of the

Mourning Women,128 ca. 340, had two pediments that were virtually mirror-images

of each other with three low relief seated figures, in a composition similar to the

Athens NM inv. 1688 metope. The flesh of the figures in the pediments was coloured,

and they sat on rocks painted green (the same colour as the rocks on the Parthenon

frieze).129 The Alexander Sarcophagus,130 ca. 310, with no columns but Ionic

mouldings, had more figures in the pediment and in much higher relief, and so, to

accommodate these, the pediments are higher in proportion to their widths. An

attacking rider fills the centre of one gable, and a group with a prisoner being dragged

by his hair the other. Low relief panels in pediments had previously been used on the

Nereid Monument, in Greek,131 and in Persian art.132 Small relief pediments were

popular in Taranto, where they were used throughout the early Hellenistic period on

small funerary naiskoi of the Corinthian and Ionic orders, often in conjunction with a

Doric frieze, as on the Via Umbria Naiskos.133 The form these pediments took, with

numerous relief figures not restricted to being grounded by the horizontal cornice, as

128 Ht. 1.79. Mendel no. 10 [inv. 386], vol. 1, p. 48-73; Fleischer 1983; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, p. 15;
Fuchs 1993, pp. 448-9, fig. 519.
129 Fleischer 1983, p. 60; Ridgway 1999, p. 120.
130 Ht. 1.95. Mendel no. 68 [inv. 370], vol. 1, pp. 171-200; von Graeve 1970; Ridgway 1990a, pp.
112-3, 134-5, pls. 10-16; Fuchs 1993, pp. 455-8, figs. 532-7. Ridgway 1999, pp. 36-8, emphasises the
architectural nature of the sculptural decoration of the sarcophagus.
131 A small low relief pediment, with Archaising mourning figures, Zurich, Coll. Séminaire
Université; ht. 0.25, w. 0.86. Picard 1954, pp. 1281-2. Another pediment, possibly fourth century,
Hommel Collection in Zurich, with seated mourning figures. Fleischer 1983, pl. 47; Ridgway 1997, n.
88 p. 75.
132 Hanfmann 1974.
133 Group K, ca. 275-250: Carter 1977, cat. no. 208, [Taranto inv. 113840] ht. 14.5, w. 44.5, d. 12 cm;
relief from the Via Umbria Naiskos, a fragment of a riding Nereid, possibly from a marine cortege.
Group O, ca. 325-275 BC, Carter 1977, cat. no. 289 [Taranto inv. 154 + 155], ca. 325-275 BC; seven
extant figures from a pediment of the Rape of Persephone, an unusually appropriate scene for a tomb.
The figures, of relatively high relief, free from each other, were small in proportion to the space, and
thus numerous.
Group E, ca. 325: Carter 1977, cat. no. 92 [Taranto inv. 110072], ht. 14, w. 38, d. 7 cm; four figures
from an Amazonomachy set in a rock landscape, with a solitary tree stump. The fragment comprises
most of the left half of a low relief pediment, whose height is very low in comparison to its length.
Carter 1977, cat. no. 93 [Taranto inv. 473/1491] a corner fragment, possibly of the slaying of the
Niobids. Carter 1977, cat. no. 94 [Taranto inv. 167;] a fragment from the right side of a pedimental
relief with an Amazon and her opponent. Carter 1977, cat. no. 95 [seen on art market] a fragment that
Carter believes comes from the left half of a pediment.
 50

had been the case in the east Mediterranean, bears the closest resemblance to Italo-

Etruscan temple decoration. From the available evidence one can see that pediments

were reasonably regular in Tarentine sculpture, although the heavily decorated

naiskoi were not necessarily representative of larger buildings. The majority of our

evidence comes from ‘Group E’ of ca. 325, when the influence of the Greek

Mainland was at its strongest. That time was also one of war, which may explain the

overwhelming depiction of battle scenes.

There are a number of ‘floating’ pieces from the Hellenistic period for which

an architectural setting has been suggested. As a caveat one should note that pieces

not fully worked at the back could as easily have been designed to be placed against

walls as within pediments. Even when an architectural nature seems certain, the order

which the sculpture decorated cannot be known for pieces without provenances.

A small female figure seated in right profile on a rock, was found by the

sanctuary of Aphrodite at the foot of the Athenian acropolis. 134 The style suggests a

date in the second century. Extremely high girdling emphasises the attenuated torso,

as does the excessive roll of the himation around her waist. The crinkly chiton at the

top contrasts well with the heavy cloak and deeply cut hem. A dowel hole can be seen

in the base, suggesting some form of attachment. It would appear to have been

pedimental, from a small naiskos. The piece is generally well preserved, with only the

head and arms missing; there are dowel holes for the piecing of the latter. Traces of

the two small feet of a child remain on the ‘rock’ projecting above her left knee, and

the stub of her raised arm suggests that she held it. The figures can be identified as

Aphrodite and Eros, and the rock as indicating a cave, locating the scene represented

as within the sanctuary.

A female head from Corinth, first half of the first century BC, is believed by

Sturgeon to have been pedimental.135 A pedimental nature has been suggested for a

134 Athens N.M. 3257: ht. 0.365, with a base of 0.022. Samothrace 3:1, p. 317 & n. 151, fig. 265;
Broneer 1935, pp. 147-8, fig. 36.
135 Sturgeon 1996.
 51

fourth century marble head found near Thasos Agora.136 Two statues from the later

part of the fourth century and now in the Metropolitan Museum, may have been

pedimental as they were not fully worked at the back.137 Athens NM 194 is a small

marble head from a battle group, with no provenance but possibly from a pediment,

by a follower of the Scopaic style.138 Scopas executed a Marine Cortege, NH 36.26,

which Ahenobarbus brought from the East, possibly Bithynia, to decorate the Circus

Flaminius in Rome. Copies of the group suggest that its composition would not have

been out of place in a pediment. An original from the group may be preserved in the

Grimani Triton now in Berlin; the piece dates from the 350s and is notably less

worked at the back.139 The small-scale pedimental group of the rape of Persephone,

from Eleusis, is dated to the second century AD by Lindner; 140 Andreae has redated

it to the second half of the first century BC, arguing that there is no evidence for

Roman pedimental sculpture after the Augustan period.141

As well as the sculpting of figures to decorate the pediments of new temples, a

number of famous Classical pediments were restored. This conservation of

preexisting monuments demonstrates their importance during the period. Another

indication of this can be seen in the way that the Romans felt that some pedimental

sculpture was worth shipping to Rome for reuse on their on temples. These groups

may have provided an impetus for the numerous pedimental groups depicted on

reliefs of famous temples in the city.

The west pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia142 is an interesting

example of the way in which pediments were reworked. There were a series of

136 Devambez 1943, pp. 204-9, fig. 2, pl. X.

137 Metropolitan Museum no. 94 & n/a. Adam 1966, p. 16 [she sees no. 94 as having been designed to
fit in a niche]; Stewart 1977, p. 40.
138 Stewart 1977, p. 121; Karouzou 1968, p. 159. The piece, ht. 0.17, is in poor condition.
139 Stewart 1977, pp. 99-101, pl. 43.
140 Lindner 1982.
141 Andreae 1983, n. 24 p. 67.
142 Ashmole & Yalouris 1967, pp. 6, 21-2, 179, figs. 7-10, 16-17, 62-70; Ashmole 1972, p. 44;
Hannestad 1994, p. 16; Harrison 1990, p. 170; Ridgway 1999, p. 20. For the lion-headed waterspouts,
see Willemsen 1959. Also Mertens-Horn 1986, pp. 36-8, pl. 12.3, who points out that the Nemean lion
 52

restorations presumably following earthquakes, as seen in the variations of the lion-

head water spouts; the earlier examples are of Parian marble, the later ones of

Pentelic marble. The early Classical sculptures of the pediments were also of Parian

marble. Figure ‘A’, of Pentelic marble, can be dated on style and technique to the

second half of the fourth century, presumably a replacement of a damaged original

parallel to figure ‘V’. The arm of figure ‘V’ was replaced at the same date with one of

Pentelic marble, attached to the original Parian body. Sometime later in the

Hellenistic period, possibly ca. 200,143 figures ‘B’ and ‘U’, elderly women of

Pentelic marble reclining on cushions, were inserted as penultimate figures in the

corners. They seem not to be replacements, but rather additions to the pediment to

suit later tastes for more crowded compositions. The two are so different that one

should presume different hands in the execution: ‘U’ is the more Hellenistic in

design.

The insertion of additional figures is not dissimilar to the addition of bronze

attachments, which became increasingly popular, and may well have been added to

preexisting architectural sculpture in the way that golden shields and arms were added

as dedications to preexisting buildings. There were a number of Hellenistic additions

to this temple,144 which include in the west pediment a Lapith woman (figure ‘T’)

stabbing the centaur (figure ‘S’). In the east pediment a wreath was added to

Eurytion, and the Pelops, perhaps to conceal damage, was given a cuirasse, attested

by holes near the armpits and above the pubic hair, and a helmet, attached by holes

that remain on his temples.

Rather more disputed is the possible fourth century replacement or recutting

of the Athena, figure ‘L’, from the west pediment of the Parthenon, BM no. 304-L.

The architectural sculptures were definitely repaired in the Roman period, although as

of metope one was restored or replaced; Ashmole 1972 p. 150, dates it to the fourth century on the
basis of its style. The most recent work is by P. Rehak and J.G. Younger, who have been studying the
repairs to the sculpture and will publish a monograph on them. Preliminary summaries of their research
can be found in: AJA 98 (1994), pp. 333-4 on the east pediment; AJA 99 (1995), p. 309 on the west
pediment; AJA 100 (1996), pp. 367-8 on the metopes.
143 It is assumed that the second set of renovations took place at the same time as Damophon of
Messene’s renovation of the cult statue. For his recent redating see: Themelis 1993a / 1993b / 1994.
144 Ridgway 1990b, p. 190; Ashmole & Yalouris 1967, p. 13, figs. 46-7, 49.
 53

Harrison has pointed out, not all of the repairs had “characteristics that are

specifically Roman”.145 Ridgway suggests the possibility that the Athena was a

replacement of the late fourth century or Hellenistic period,146 a theory dismissed by

Palagia who sees the piece as being the original.147 A number of features to be found

on the figure are not seen on other sculpture of the fifth century, a phenomenon that is

surprising given the influence of the Parthenon and its pedimental sculpture. The head

was also inserted, a feature not generally accepted until later, when it was used, for

example on the Mausoleum, for the more important portraits.

Within the drapery of her peplos a strong contrast is created between broad

planes and deeply undercut folds. The latter are made by a running drill, whose use

even Palagia, p. 46, admits is unparalleled on the Parthenon sculptures. The running

drill is also used to raise the aegis off the surface of the right breast, beneath which

one can make out press folds. Press folds are also without parallel in the period, their

use not generally recognised before ca. 360. Palagia references the statue to Roman

copies of the Corinth-Mocenigo Goddess,148 presumably because of the press-folds;

these can also be seen on Acropolis 13641, and on the relief New York, Metropolitan

Museum inv. 65.11.11.149 The relief is dated to the beginning of the second half of

the fourth century, a period by which press folds are generally acknowledged to have

been in use, and thus cannot be an argument for a fifth century date for press folds.

As for Roman copies, it is generally acknowledged that these were often subject to

additions and variations. Granger-Taylor sees a press fold on a female figure of the

Parthenon frieze.150 This may well be a crude early attempt at this feature, or a later

recutting. A few other figures from the frieze have such ‘press folds’ but closer

examination makes it impossible to dismiss the possibility that these are minute flaws

in the marble or scratches on the surface.

145 Harrison 1990, pp. 169-170; Cook 1988, pp. 4-8; Palagia 1993, p. 13.
146 Ridgway 1981, p. 52.
147 Palagia 1993, pp. 9, 15, 45-6, figs. 92-4.
148 Palagia 1989.
149 Cook 1969, p. 66 & n. 11.
150 Block East III.10. Granger-Taylor 1987, p. 118.
 54

Due to the condition of the figure we must rely on early drawings for the

reconstruction of its animated pose.151 This was advanced for its time, but then the

Parthenon’s pedimental sculpture was executed by leading artists of the day. A

number of features found on the sculpture are not entirely consistent with its

conventional dating. Although heterodox, the question of whether or not figure ‘L’

might be a later replacement, or a recut and restored original, must, until our

knowledge of sculptural techniques improves, remain open.

1.5 Roman use and re-use of pedimental sculpture

In Etruscan, from the Archaic period on, and in Roman Republican Italy there

was a strong tradition of architectural sculpture, and quite a number of these terracotta

relief sculptures survive. The themes tend to be mythological. Paradoxically these

pediments became popular in Italy at around the same time as their decline in the east

Mediterranean. The most famous of the pediments is the second century Seven

Against Thebes from a temple at Talamone;152 the high relief figures emerged at

various levels from plaques attached to the wall. Other pediments from 375-31 BC

include groups from Tivoli,153 Dionysus discovering Ariadne from Cività Alba,154

Cività Castellana,155 Orvieto,156 Bieda,157 the Judgment of Paris (?) at Arezzo,158

151 Jacques Carrey (visited the Parthenon in 1674); see Palagia 1993, fig. 3. Mitchell 1974, p. 111-
123. Ciriaco (ca. 1391-1455) visited Athens three times: in April 1436, probably in 1437 and in
February 1444. His depictions of the west facade which are imaginative but rather unreliable and
largely incompatible with the archaeological evidence, are preserved in Hamilton Ms. 454 fol. 85 v,
Berlin Staatsbibliothek; Guiliano da Sangallo, Barberini Ms. Lat. 4424 fol. 28 v, Vatican.
152 Boardman 1994, p. 262, fig. 7.35; Brendel 1985, pp. 425, 426; von Vacano 1985, chs. 12-18; von
Freytag 1986; Andren 1940, pp. 227-34, pls. 82-3; Sensi 1987. The pedimental sculpture is now at
Obetello. I t was previously in Florence, Museo Archeologico, but should not be confused with a
smaller, unpublished pediment of the same subject in Florence.
153 Andren 1940, pp. 371-2, pl. 114; Roncalli 1979. Fourth century, Museo Gregoriano, Rome.
154 Brendel 1985, pp. 425, 426-7, fig. 324; Andren 1940, pp. 297-308, pls. 98-101; Verzar 1976, figs.
3-7. Bologna, Museo Civico; ca. 180-160 BC. There were two pediments, one where Ariadne was seen
from the front, the other from the back.
155 Celle, late fourth or early third century: Andren 1940, pp. 89-90, pl. 26. Lo Scasato, late fourth/
early third century: Andren 1940, pp. 125-134, pls. 46-8.
156 Cannicella Necropolis, 300 BC or after: Andren 1940, p. 189, pl. 71. Also figures survive from the
Belvedere Temple, mid fourth century: Brendel 1985, pp. 330-1; Andren 1940, pp. 171-6, pls. 64-7.
157 Late fourth or early third century: Andren 1940, p. 222, pl. 80.
158 Mid third century: Andren 1940, pp. 268-271, pls. 89-91, figs. 318-9.
 55

the Slaughter of the Niobids at Luni,159 Fiesole,160 the Rescue of Andromeda at

Falerii,161 Rome,162 the Discovery of Paris at Cosa,163 and Norba.164

From ca. 100 BC, largely under Roman influence, as new funds allowed for

new commissions, stone pedimental sculpture once again became popular; it was

executed outside of Italy, in areas that had a tradition of stone architectural

decoration. A temple at Ephesos, order unknown, is believed to have been built under

the patronage by Anthony and Cleopatra ca. 40-30 BC. The temple is believed to

have been originally dedicated to Dionysos, of whom Anthony proclaimed himself to

be a new incarnation, and the theme of its decoration, which was to have been the

Inebriation and Blinding of Polyphemos, Odyssey IX, 288ff, would thus be seen as an

illustration of the power of the god. The figures appear never to have been set into the

pediment, as by the time the structure was completed Octavian was in control of the

city and the temple was dedicated to Caesar, and eventually to Augustus and the

Imperial cult. The theme of the group was no longer appropriate, and its component

parts are believed to have languished in storage. The free-standing sculptural three-

quarter life size marble sculptures were later used as decoration on the so-called

Nymphaeum of Pollio on Kouretes Street, built in AD 93 and most likely dedicated to

Domitian.165 Ten figures survive, including the eponymous Cyclops, Odysseus and

eight other Greeks, two of them dead and a third dying. It is unclear from the

fragments whether or not there was a second group illustrating a related myth. Mostly

fragmentary and fire-damaged, with holes drilled for lead pipes fitted for their reuse

159 First half of second century: Andren 1940, pp. 283-294, pls. 93-96, figs. 339-40.
160 Second or first century: Andren 1940, p. 310, pl. 102.
161 Andren 1940, pp. 147-8, pl. 56, fig. 184.
162 Via Gregoriana ‘A’, late 2nd or early 1st century: Andren 1940, pp. 351-7, pls. 110-11. Via
Gregoriana ‘B’, post-dates ‘A’: Andren 1940, pp. 357-360. Via Appia Nuova, possibly second, though
more likely to be first century: Andren 1940, pp. 361-3, pl. 109.
163 Unpublished, from Temple B. There are also reliefs from the pediments of the temple of Jupiter
and the Port Temple, both fragmentary but believed to have been mythological.
164 Temple of Juno Lucina, late third century: Andren 1940, pp. 388-9.
165 Andreae 1982, pp. 69-90; Andreae 1983, esp. ch. VII, pp. 49-68, figs. 23-33, et passim; Fossel
1972/3, pp. 212-9; Engelmann 1973, pp. 89-90; Fleischer 1972; Andreae 1977; Andreae 1985; Suppan
1986; Andreae 1974, cat. no. B2, pp. 74-5, 79, 81, figs. 24-5; Alvino 1996, esp. pp. 205ff, fig. 12;
Webb 1996, pp. 83-4, fig. 48; LIMC, VI, p. 956, no. 85, s.v. Odysseus; Aurenhammer 1990, pp. 168-
177, n. 147. Selçuk Archaeological Museum inv. 1093, 1557-62, 14/38/72.
 56

as a fountain, the figures were set on quite pronounced plinths. The plaster

reconstruction is in the garden of Selçuk Museum. A pedimental frame ca. 12.50 wide

by ca. 1.30 high was needed to accommodate the group, requiring in turn a temple ca.

15.00 wide. The temple in the Agora, of 14.50 x 22.20, with 6 x 10 columns, is the

best suited, compatible in size and date. According to Andreae the figures may

possibly imitate an earlier Pergamene group of the Blinding, seen by Constantinos

Manasses in twelfth century Constantinople;166 the figures are very much under the

influence of the Gauls from the donation of Attalos. The same theme, and a very

similar composition, can be seen on a fragmentary terracotta pedimental relief from

Tortoreto, near Abruzzi, dating to the first century BC, which may also be a copy of

the earlier group.167 Technically, and in some respects in style, they show

similarities to the Memmius Monument of ca. 34 BC, and may have been executed by

the same workshop. The work is not of the highest quality, with a large number of

visible tool marks, though some may be from a reworking at the time of their reuse.

Webb seems to believe that the group was never intended to be pedimental, as it

hinders her conclusions about the lack of pedimental sculpture in the Hellenistic

period.168

Although the acquisition of well known Greek sculptures and their removal to

Rome is well documented,169 it is only relatively recently that groups of architectural

sculpture are being recognised. The pieces were not all works of the Hellenistic

period, but their removal took place within it, and it is an interesting phenomenon of

the period to note. La Rocca has published an Amazonomachy with Theseus and

Heracles,170 ca. 440-430, perhaps taken from Eretria after the sack of 198 by L.

Quinctius Flaminius, or that of Sulla in 82 BC. He links the High Classical sculptor to

166 Andreae 1974, p. 75 n. 3; Andreae 1983, p. 48

167 Andreae 1983, p. 66; Andreae 1974, p. 75, n. 9, figs. 28-9.
168 Webb 1996, p. 84; as with many other examples, she also suggests a Roman date.
169 Generally see: Pape 1975; Paribeni 1969; Stähler 1983; Blanck 1969; Boschung 1989.
170 La Rocca 1985; La Rocca 1986; La Rocca 1988, pp. 121-36; Boardman 1985, p. 175, figs. 134,
134a; Boardman 1994, p. 284, fig. 7.62; Stähler 1983, pp. 77-8; Harrison 1990, pp. 174-5; Cook
1989b; Ridgway 1999, p. 25 n. 5. Rome, Conservatori Museum.
 57

the circle of Alcamenes, and thinks that the Classical Parian marble sculpture was

added to the restored Archaic temple rather than a Classical temple, for which there is

no evidence. They were reused in Rome, fitted into the front pediment, ca. 17 wide

by ca. 2.40 high, of the Corinthian temple of Apollo Sosianus, as rebuilt in 30-20 BC.

The late Archaic kneeling Amazon archer, its pedimental nature attested by the strut

mark on the back as well as by its similarities to other pieces from the temple at

Eretria destroyed by the Persians, was probably brought over at the same time.171

Pliny, NH 36.28, mentions a famous group of Niobids in conjunction with the

temple. His use of est in is taken to mean in the temple; it could that the figures were

inside the temple, or that they were in(side) the pediment. The Uffizi Niobid group

are copies of an early Hellenistic group showing the work of an artist under the

influence of both Scopas’ and Praxiteles’ style; the originals of this group are

generally believed to be the sculptures Pliny refers to. It should be noted that a

partially preserved group of the Slaughter of the Niobids, also brought over to Rome,

may have been the pendant to the Etretrian Amazonomachy (cf. n. 169 for

bibliography). La Rocca has also suggested that a Niobid group, of which only three

figures are now extant, was deemed unsuitable as pedimental decoration in Rome and

thus placed instead in the Gardens of Sallust;172 it can be noted however that the

theme was part of the decoration of the temple of Apollo Palatinus, where the

symbolism represented Augustus’ struggle with, and victory over, Anthony. 173 The

Niobid now in Copenhagen and the Sosianus Hippolyta are particularly close in style.

The figures of both groups were all fully worked, even on the back which was

not designed to be seen. This was a feature of High Classical pedimental sculpture,

and allowed the figure of Theseus to be reversed and seen from the back in the

Roman composition, as has been pointed out by Cook. Cook also prefers to interpret

171 von Bothmer 1957, p. 124, pl. lxvii; Boardman 1978, p. 156, fig. 205.1. Rome, Conservatori
Museum inv. 12, ht. 0.69, ca. 500-490.
172 Boardman 1985, p. 175, fig. 133; La Rocca 1985, pp. 71-2, figs. 24-7, pls. 39-52; La Rocca 1986,
p. 55; Stähler 1983, pp. 77-8; Vierneisel 1979; Harrison 1990, pp. 175-6. Stumbling Niobid, Terme
inv. 72274, ht. 1.49; Fleeing Niobid, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg inv. 398, ht. 1.42; Fallen Niobid,
Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg inv. 399, l. 1.65.
173 Propertius 4.6.67.
 58

the Nike as originally having been an Amazon in long dress, a type known in the fifth

century, with cuttings for the wings added later; although it is less likely, she may

have been an acroterion. The Amazonomachy figures had holes cut into their backs

for struts, a feature absent on the Niobids which would seem to confirm that they

were not reused in an architectural space. The cuttings for supporting struts on this set

of sculptures is not contemporary to their creation but date from the time of their

Roman re-use; they came into use at Tegea in the fourth century and in the early

Hellenistic period as a result of the appearance of more elaborate compositions. There

was one large square cutting per figure, above the centre of gravity. Both groups were

‘cleaned’ upon their arrival in Rome, by a process that removed their surface. The

surface of the Niobids was recut to clarify their weathered contours, as were their

plinths, and locks of bronze hair were added to the Theseus.

The Amazonomachy represented would seem to be one of the Labours of

Heracles, when he tries to gain the girdle of Hippolyta. The inclusion of Theseus was

relatively standard in fifth century iconography. If the group came from the temple of

Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria, which seems likely, then it was repeating the theme

of the 499-490 BC pedimental groups destroyed by the Persians, which had been an

Amazonomachy with Achilles and Penthesilea. The Amazons constitute an

iconography particularly appropriate to a temple rebuilt after the defeat of the

Persians by the Greeks, although perhaps the Rape of Antiope would have had even

closer parallels to the Persians’ storming of the Acropolis. At the end of the

Hellenistic period the Amazons came to symbolise the Egyptians, another people led

by a queen, Cleopatra; the male Greek warriors represented the Romans.174

A second set of sculptures depicting the Slaying of the Niobids is to be found

in the Uffizi, Florence.175 These are Roman copies of a Hellenistic group; the
174 K. Scott, MemAmAc 1933, pp. 7-49; idem, Classical Philology 24, 1929, pp. 133-41. For Anthony
as Paris in Augustan iconography, see Griffin, JRS 67, 1977, p. 18ff; for Anthony and Cleopatra as
Heracles and Omphale, subverting Anthony’s self-representation as Heracles, see Zanker 1990, p. 59,
fig. 45.
175 14 or 15 figures, of an original 16, were found in 1583 beyond S. Giovanni Laterano, towards the
Porta Maggiore, Rome. They went to the Villa Medici, and then on to the Uffizi. Picard 1954, pp.
 59

originals have been dated to various times within the period, but are likely to be ca.

330-290 BC, by a sculptor working in the wake of Scopas and Praxiteles, elements of

both of whose styles he has absorbed.176 Since copies of the heads were found

amongst the tondi of the Mahdia shipwreck, possibly as early as ca. 120 but more

often dated to ca. 45 BC, this provides a terminus ante quem for the originals.177 The

widely copied figures are the most likely candidates for those said to have been

displayed at the temple of Apollo Sosianus by Pliny, NH 36.28.178 The figures can

easily be arranged into a composition that would suitably fill a pediment; Stewart

suggests that they originally decorated a temple in the East.179 If the figure were part

of the sculptural decoration of a temple, their level of imitation and influence is

paralleled only by the architectural sculpture of the Acropolis and a few other

buildings.

Delivorrias has recently reassembled some statues that he suggests are the

architectural sculpture of an “unknown Greek temple”, moved to Rome in antiquity

where they were used as a decorative group.180 The pieces are now in museums in

various countries, but would all seem to have been in Rome during the Renaissance.

Three of the pieces had previously been assigned as acroteria to the temple of

Apollo at Bassae:181 two running girls182 and an ‘Apollo’.183 Delivorrias disputes

linking the three figures in this way, on iconographic as well as on stylistic grounds;

the calm ‘Apollo’ contrasts too sharply with the energetic women. The representation

1185-1192; Mansuelli 1958, pp. 101-122; Cook 1964, pp. 36-9, fig. 3; Stewart 1977, pp. 118-20;
Smith 1991, pp. 107-8, fig. 140; Ridgway 1990a, pp. 82-4, pls. 44-6; Geominy 1984.
176 Other works linked to the sculptor include the Pothos and Aphrodite of Capua, and the so-called
Ariadne, Athens NM 182, with a copy in Berlin. There are also a number of similarities between the
group and the pedimental figures from the temple of Athena At Mazi.
177 See most recently von Prittwitz 1996. Cf. “Arms and armour”, pp. 164-5 for bibliography.
178 That fragments of copies have been found at Hadrian’s Villa, amongst a pantheon of other famous
sculptures, adds credence to this theory.
179 Stewart 1977, p. 119: he suggests that the figures were from the a temple of Apollo built by
Seleukos and brought to Rome in 32 BC.
180 Delivorrias 1990, pp. 11-46.
181 Picard 1943, pp. 49-80.
182 Delivorrias 1990, p. 12ff, figs. 1-3, 8, 13.
183 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek inv. 497, ht. 1.26. Gulaki 1981, p. 183, figs. 139-40, 142; Delivorrias
1990, pp. 12 ff, fig. 4.
 60

of the male is not usual for the god, and his eroticism and dress seem more eastern

than mainland Greek. He notes the relative masses of the two female figures, their

differing heights, depths and proportions, and suggests that only one, the figure

wearing a peplos,184 is an acroterion. She is the more weathered of the two pieces.

The figure wearing a chiton,185 with an unfinished back, he sees as from the

pediment of the same building. The ‘Apollo’ he also places within this pediment, and

suggests that it does not represent the god. The overall lack of weathering on the

pieces shows that they were removed early.

The theme he suggests for the group is of the Persuasion of Helen, with the

‘Apollo’ kitharoidos playing the central role of the shepherd Paris, which the eastern

dress would suit. The Vienna-Este Aphrodite he links to the same pediment, and

designates as Helen leaning against a tree.186 Her drapery clings to her so well that

she would be less erotic nude, and is in the same mood as the ‘Apollo’. The Albani

Aphrodite joins her as the figure representing the goddess. 187 The chiton-clad

running girl would be one of Helen’s maids either hastening towards the group to find

out what was going on, or running away to warn Menelaus. The former is more likely

given the shape of pediments. She would possibly have had a counterpart in the other

half of the pediment.

Delivorrias dates the whole to ca. 400 or the early fourth century, although he

admits that due to his inclusion of the Este Aphrodite one might wish to date it a little

later. This figure is problematic as it is unlikely to be before the third century and

may well be from the second, whilst many of the other figures could quite easily be

dated to the first half of the fourth, and it is difficult to reconcile the two dates. The

grouping of these figures within a third century pediment is appealing, but without a

more secure provenance for them one must reserve judgment.

184 Louvre inv. Ma 3072, ht. 1.13: upper half restored.

185 Louvre inv. Ma 3516, ht. 0.96.
186 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 1192. Delivorrias 1990, p. 25ff, figs. 17, 23.
187 Villa Albani, inv. 4. Delivorrias 1990, p. 31ff, fig. 27.
 61

1.6 Conclusion

By the early fourth century certain standard practices had evolved for

compositional design within the formats of pedimental sculpture: the filling of the

corners with reclining figures, personifications of rivers or slain warriors in battle

scenes, and the use of the cornice as a ground-line to anchor the scene;188 and these

continued to be employed throughout the late Classical and Hellenistic periods.

The appearance of sculptured pediments on Doric buildings is irregular. There

are sufficient examples in the fourth century Peloponnese and at Delphi to

demonstrate continuity from the Classical era in style and to some extent theme, but

thereafter usage is random and infrequent in the Greek world, the vibrancy of a

continuing tradition is lost, and styles become eclectic.

The sculptures from the Hieron on Samothrace and the Olympian Metröon are

Classicising, those from Mazi quote even more directly from early Classical types,

suggesting that pedimental sculpture might have been viewed in connection to

famous temples of a Golden Age past, rather than something that could be

contemporary. The Romans also tried to establish Classical links in their pediments,

as in the re-use of earlier sculpture on the temple of Apollo Sosianus, drawing

perhaps on the still continuing tradition in Italy. A large number of Tarentine

limestone and Etruscan pedimental groups, often worked in terracotta, survive, but it

was not until Augustus that large-scale marble works once again began to be

produced. Pedimental sculpture was sporadically used as decoration during the

Hellenistic period, generally on smaller scale buildings, and the re-use and restoration

of Classical groups shows that it continued to be appreciated.

188 The cornice was the ground-line for figures placed in the pediments, not for relief pediments such
as those from Tarentine naiskoi, where other criteria prevailed. The figures from the Poseidonion,
Tenos, if they were indeed pedimental, would illustrate an example of snake-like tails being used to fill
the corners of the gable, a rare occurrence of an Archaic practice.
 62

2. Doric Friezes

By 375 BC Doric friezes had developed as sequences of metopes and

triglyphs, and sculpted metopes were a phenomenon of the decoration of stone

temples from the mid-sixth century onwards. The adornment of metopes, the

principal decorative field of the Doric frieze, can be divided into two categories: those

with a series of narrative scenes; and those with repetitive motifs, which Ridgway

names ‘monotonous friezes’,189 where one or two alternating objects are repeated.

These two forms of decoration are not exclusive to the Doric frieze, but are also seen

on continuous friezes.

2.1 Metopes with Narrative Scenes

There is evidence for there having been carved metopes across the pronaos of

the temple of Artemis at Calydon, ca. 360, that depicted a battle, but they are now so

worn that their iconography is largely unintelligible.190 Broneer suggests that because

of the larger overlap of the triglyphs, the metopes over the pronaos of the fourth

century temple of Poseidon at Isthmia were carved, perhaps on a separate slab and

inserted, but they are no longer extant.191 Fragments of metopes with narrative

scenes from the prodomos of the Monument of the Bulls on Delos have emerged

during the excavations, but these are again so worn that they cannot be made out. 192

They are likely to have depicted a mythical battle, which would have been in keeping

with the iconography of this victory monument. Figured metopes have been

suggested as decoration on the temple of Apollo at Delphi, based on a reading of the

accounts, but no evidence has been found of them.193

189 Ridgway 1990a, pp. 169, 172.

190 Picard 1954, p. 1152; Ridgway 1997, p. 58; Junker 1993, p. 155.
191 Broneer 1971, p. 83
192 Although mentioned in several places, the metopes, in Delos Museum, are unpublished.
193 Bousquet 1988, pp. 51-7; at a cost of 1000 Attic dr. per panel bringing the total to two talents.
Tthere was a tradition of figured metopes in the sanctuary, as seen on the tholos and numerous
treasuries from the Archaic period onwards.
 63

Thus while we know of a number of temples from the fourth century which

had figured narrative metopes, we have substantial sculpture remains of metopes from

only two temples in the period 300-31 BC, at Ilion and at Messene. The motifs of

narrative metopes from the last decades of the Classical and of the Hellenistic periods

are generally of no great originality, often imitating compositions believed to be from

famous sculpture and painting. Ridgway noted that in the High Classical period

metopes were rare, with the Hephaisteion and Parthenon providing the only examples

of these in Attica at that time.194 Fragmentary metopes are however also known from

the Temple of Ares now in the Agora. In the Peloponnese, where metopal sequences

were placed over the porches rather than around the exterior, some fifth century

examples are extant (Bassae, the Argive Heraion, the temple of Zeus at Olympia).

The Marmaria Tholos, Delphi,195 generally dated to ca. 375-370, was

designed by Theodorus of Phocaea (Vitruvius VII.Praef.12).196 The decoration

consisted of a floral acroterion on the apex of the roof and of two Doric friezes with

forty eight sculpted narrative metopes. Owing to the shape of the building the metopal

panels, preserved in a mutilated state, are curved. Many were later burnt for lime,

whilst others were found built into a Late Antique wall and other structures, hence

their condition.

A Doric frieze with twenty-four larger metopes in very high relief ran around

the exterior of the colonnade (figs. 20, 23). The work was of high quality. Some

figures were carved nearly free, with few points of attachment to the background (fig.

23). Three better preserved panels give dimensions of ht. 0.65, w. 0.625, or near to

square, with an average panel thickness of 0.07. The majority of the fragments are

194 Ridgway 1981, pp. 27-8.

195 Seiler 1986, no. 7; Marcadé 1986a, pp. 169-173, pls. 145-8, n.1 for further bibliography; Marcadé
1986c; Boardman 1995, p. 26, fig. 13; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, p. 14; Stewart 1977, p. 87, pl. 25b-c;
Ridgway 1997, pp. 42-5, ills. 6-7; Ridgway 1999, pp. 51, 85; Guide de Delphes, large frieze, pp. 67-
71, figs. 31, 34, small frieze, pp. 73-75, figs 32-4. Fig. 20 in my illustrations shows left to right: invs.
4138ß / 3168 + 4314.7 / 4314.2 / 4776.11 / 4089 / 4226.
196 “Theodorus Phocaeus” is credited as the author of a treatise on the building. Since the
designers/architects wrote these, it is assumed that he was the architect. Jean Marcadé and Francis
Croissant (Guide de Delphes, pp. 67-9) suggest, on the basis of the closeness of the sculptures on the
tholos to those at Epidauros that Vitruvius’ name may be a corruption of Theodotos, the man named in
the inscriptions at Epidauros as the architect there, and the two being the same man.
 64

believed to depict an Amazonomachy. Generally the Greeks are characterised by a

powerful torso and flying chlamys, while the Amazons wear a costume of short belted

chiton and a chlamys, as well as boots and a Phrygian cap (fig. 21). There is much

movement and implied violence, often recalling the Bassae frieze, though depicted in

a more subtle manner. Most of the scenes included, or can be interpreted as involving,

Amazons, but other fragments, for example inv. 4313, suggest that a Centauromachy

was depicted on one half of the frieze.

The motifs depicted quote from art of the fifth century and the Pheidian

tradition. One metope shows a horse in right profile rearing, with a fragment of a

head. Other fragments, inv. 3168 + 4314.7, have been reconstructed into a naked man

trying to restrain it (fig. 22). This gesture of the halting of an animal, probably

derived from Polygnotan wall painting, finds many parallels in the fifth century

starting with the Parthenon (frieze block South XXIX; north metope A), amongst

them: the Nike temple parapet, Acropolis Museum nos. 972 & 7094, where a Nike

restrains a bull by pushing her foot against a rock; and Hephaisteion South Metope 3.

A second metope has a column with a dinos on the left, and to the right a warrior with

flying chlamys carrying a shield. In the centre there are remains of a figure that was

seeking sanctuary at the column, to escape the attacking warrior, inv. 4226 (fig. 24): a

similarity can be drawn with the scene on the Bassae frieze, where protection is

sought from a statue. The third block is badly damaged and of uncertain iconography.

The remains are usually interpreted as a dancer and a centaur, but Marcadé prefers to

see them as two fighting figures from the Amazonomachy, and restores other

fragments of figures without background to this battle, including inv. 4314+12677.

The smaller metopes, once again carved in very high relief, were positioned

along the top of the exterior of the cella wall. They measured 0.42 x 0.40, with an

average panel thickness of 0.04. Only fragments remain, all in poor condition. These

show heroic scenes, with the Labours of Heracles, and probably also those of Theseus

depicted, thus following the iconography of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi.

Remains of snakes from the Hydra have been identified.
 65

Seiler argues on architectural grounds that the tholos dated from the end of the

fifth century, the last date possible if one wishes, as he does, to see the city of Athens

as the donor. The theory is neither contradicted nor supported by the sculpture.

Marcadé prefers the traditional date, pointing out that fifth century motifs were

regularly copied in the fourth century and beyond; he believes it to be contemporary

with and stylistically evocative of the pedimental sculpture from Epidauros.

Although no remains of them have been found, the temple of Asclepios at

Epidauros is likely to have had carved metopes across the pronaos and painted

metopes around the peristyle.197 The building inscription from the temple, I.G. IV2,

102, lines 34-5, informs us that Timotheos was paid 900 dr for tupoi, the wording and

the use of the infinitive implying delivery and fulfilment of the contract rather than

payment in advance. The term has a number of meanings, of which two are possible

in this context: moulds, which would make no sense in this context, and low relief.

They are also interpreted to mean models, presumably for the pedimental sculpture,

but since the sculpture of each pediment cost 3010 dr., and these cost 900 dr., they

would have had to have been unusually impressive models. Stewart argues on the

basis of Euripides, Hypsipyle fr. 764N, ca. 406 BC, which “mentions painted typoi in

a pediment ... so if typoi could designate pedimental sculpture, why could they not

also designate models for them ?”;198 although elsewhere he seems to believe that

they were moulds.199 Euripides’ remark could be taken to refer to a pediment that

consisted of a painted relief slab. Elsewhere in the Epidauros inscriptions the term

used for models is paradeigma (I.G. IV2 1, no. 102 lines 251, 296, 303, and no. 103

line 91). In the same general time-span that word is also used at Delphi (F.D. III (5)

no. 19 line 106); in Athens, in Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens (XLIX,3) and at

Delos. One can quickly discount the tupoi as relating to the decoration of the

workshop, as the sums spent on this are carefully distinguished in the accounts from

197 Roux 1961, pp. 114-5; Roux 1956; Burford 1969, p. 57; Posch 1991; Yalouris 1992, pp. 70-2;
Stewart 1990, pp. 36, 66; Pollitt 1974, pp. 204-15 for models, and pp. 272-93 for typoi.
198 Stewart 1990, p. 33.
199 Stewart 1990, p. 66.
 66

those spent on the temple, and as a cost of 900 dr. would be too high in relation to the

amount spent on the structure. Low reliefs would thus make the most sense, though it

is unlikely that they were ivory panels to decorate the cult statue as Posch has

suggested, and one can most plausibly identify them as metopes over the pronaos.

Metopes have been found during excavations, on a scale that would fit the

exterior of the building; they are uncarved panels of poros attached to triglyphs.

Traces of red paint have been found on these,200 confirming the accounts, lines 23-4,

which inform us that Polemarchos of Stymphalos was paid 1,050 dr to paint the

exterior, which can be interpreted as having been the metopes, with red motifs on a

white background. The place in which the tupoi come in the accounts also suggests

that they would need to have been slotted in internally, as the facade was by

implication already architecturally complete but the roof not yet in place, so six

metopes by Timotheos, at 150 Aeginetan dr. each, across the pronaos, in the

Peloponnesian tradition,201 seems to be the best solution; each metope would have

cost 214 Attic dr., a sum one can favourably compare to the known cost of 60 Attic

dr. per figure for the Erechtheum frieze.202 The problem remains that there is no

definite record in the literature of metopes having been called tupoi, although

Pausanias did use the term,203 but there are a number of other words for which one

can cite only one known use.204

200 Roux 1961, p. 95.

201 A number of other Peloponnesian temples had metopes across the pronaos: Zeus at Olympia,
Bassae, Tegea, Artemis at Calydon. The temple of Poseidon at Isthmia is believed to have had
metopes, now lost, across the pronaos. Temple ‘E’ at Selinus was also decorated in this way. The
temple of Hera at Argos is the only temple in the Peloponnese known to have had figured metopes on
the exterior.
202 I.G. 13, 476, 169-183.
203 Ridgway 1999, pp. 33-4 n. 47. She argues that these are references to reliefs, but both examples
(8.31.1 at Megalopolis; 8.37.1-2 at Lycosoura) are clearly mentioned as part of the decoration of a
building, and the terminology need not preclude metopes. Pausanias’ descriptions are sometimes
vague; for example he writes of scenes above the columns on the Argive Heraion, which excavations
have confirmed to be metopes. The two structures for which Pausanias mentions are both
in sanctuaries largely built in the Hellenistic period, and located in the Peloponnese which had a
tradition of metopes across the pronaos, a location which is not inconsistent with the nebulous
descriptions.
204 For example the term ‘ratiocinatio’, from which the English word ‘ratiocination’ derives, is
exclusive to Vitruvius.
 67

The sculptural iconography of the western end of the temple of Athena Alea at

Tegea depicted the life of Telephos.205 The pediment showed Telephos fighting

Achilles at the Caïcos, while the six metopes over the opisthodomos depicted six

scenes illustrating his life and deeds, anticipating the episodes of the Telephos frieze

of the Pergamon Altar.206 Telephos was ‘adopted’ as the founder of Pergamon, so

the scenes on the altar were myth-historical depictions in architectural sculpture,

precursors of Roman historical narrative. Fragments of the architrave have been

found to the west of the temple at Tegea, with carved inscriptions naming the subjects

of the metopes above: AUGA - THLEFOS - A[LEOS].207

The metopes on the eastern end depicted the exploits of other Tegean

heroes;208 the evidence is part of the architrave with the inscribed name KAFEIDAI

found to the north of the building and linked to its northeast corner.209 The

inscription on the architrave was placed to the bottom left of a metope, meaning that

it was one of two inscribed words beneath it; Stewart restores the other as

IPPOKOWNTIDAI, beneath the missing right hand side of the metope.210 The

Capheidai were the twenty sons of Cepheus, who fought alongside Heracles against

the Spartan Hippocôntids, in favour of his deposed brother Tyndareus, both brothers

perhaps present at the boar hunt in the pediment on that side. So the battle between

the Arcadians and Spartans was depicted, possibly through the use of only two

representative figures. This was probably one of the last of the metopes, and the

whole series over the pronaos is likely to have depicted the valour of Cepheus and his

descendants. Cepheus, after whom the town of Caphyae was named, was the son of

Aleos. Auge, mother of Telephos, was his sister; so the metopes at either end depicted

deeds of the descendants of two local siblings. The other metopes would have held

205 Metopes frame: w. 1.022; ht. incl taenia 0.881. Stewart 1977, pp. 15, 30-2, 43-4, 46, 57-8, cat. nos.
27-32; Marcadé 1986b, pp. 320-2; Ridgway 1997, p. 49; Junker 1993, p. 159. The inscriptions = I.G.
V2, 78-9; Picard 1954, pp. 155-9.
206 Picard 1954, pp. 176-8; Stewart 1977, pp. 63-4.
207 Norman 1984, p. 173.
208 Stewart 1977, pp. 62-3; Picard 1954, pp. 155-9.
209 Norman 1984, p. 173; Lattimore 1976, p.8 n. 27.
210 Stewart 1977, p. 62.
 68

images of local mythology. Athena bestowing the eruma of Medusa on Cepheus, was

probably represented as this theme was an important component of the cycle and is

depicted on Tegean coins.211 The seduction of Aerope by Ares was another

prominent Tegean legend, and in turn led to the Miracle of the Milk. The combat of

Echemos, grandson of Cepheus, and Hykos the Dorian leader, a version of the David

and Goliath myth, where the Peloponnese was saved from Dorian invasion, was part

of Tegean legend, and also represented on coins.

The metopes had appliqué figures dowelled on, a method used for the

Erechtheion frieze, the frieze on the base of the Hephaisteion cult statues, and

possible also the metopes of the Androns at Labraunda. Dowelling was a cheaper and

less time-consuming way of creating high relief. The narratives of the metopes

probably echoed those of the pediments. Stewart identifies five fragmentary figures as

coming from the metopes, six each from the porches of the pronaos and the

opisthodomos.212 As these were appliqué none of the figures has any of the

background attached. There are huge variations in their scale, with figures ranging

from 0.60 to 1.40 high. As the metopes measured ht. 0.993 (excluding taenia of

0.881) by w. 1.022, it is hard to see how these fitted in, nor does their state of

preservation allow much to be deduced from them. Marcadé in particular is unhappy

about assigning them here, and notes that they could easily have been mixed up with

other fragments whilst in the museum and, even if not, could be from elsewhere.213

There would have been other sculptures at the sanctuary after all, and people who

could not afford large statues may have dedicated miniature groups. And even if, after

all that, they do come from the temple’s metopes, it is hard to know what can be

made out of these extremely worn, rather rigid and frontal figures. Nos. 28 and 29

have evidence for dowels, the former with metal remaining, but are still in very bad

211 Pausanias 3.47.5 gives the myth in relation to the other sanctuary of Athena at Tegea, that of
Athena Poliatis, indicating its importance to Tegea.
212 Stewart 1977, cat. nos. 27-32: pp. 30-2, 150, pls. 23a-b.
213 Marcadé 1986b, p. 327.
 69

condition, and would be of surprisingly poor quality for the workshop of a master

such as Scopas.

The temple of Athena at Ilion has been much discussed by scholars, who have

concentrated on questions of date and the possibility of Lysippan influence on the

Helios metope, but they have tended to ignore the other metopal reliefs, which are in

many ways superior.214 The iconography has also been largely overlooked. There

were sixty-four metopes on the exterior of this temple, whose stylobate measured

15.1 x 32.3, and the number and diversity of the fragments suggests that they were all

carved. This is believed to be the only large-scale temple other than the Parthenon

and the one at Foce del Sele that had the exterior metopes entirely figured. The

material, a coarse bluish marble, was used for both architecture and sculpture; the

same stone was used for the Great Altar at Pergamon. The metopes were the only

architectural sculpture. C.B. Rose, the current excavator, believes its date to be

Lysimachan, and has found evidence for structures on the site going back to the

eighth century BC.215 Schlief, one of the original publishers, is also said to have

favoured the earlier date, although Goethert’s Augustan preferences prevailed in

print. Many scholars, particularly Germans, follow the latter, most recently

Rumscheid.

In 334 Alexander the Great made offerings at the temple and promised 1,500

talents for its rebuilding, thus honouring the city of his beloved Iliad. 216 Time,

according to Strabo and other literary sources, did not allow for this legacy to be

acted upon until the time of Lysimachos, who, by building the temple of Athena at

Ilion, fulfilled Alexander’s vow and was staking his claim to be one of his successors.

214 Ridgway 1990a, pp. 150-154; Stewart 1990, p. 204, pls. 650-1; Goethert & Schlief 1962, pp. 23-
31, 41-2, nos. 1-23, pls. XI-XII; Süssenbach 1971, pp. 38-47; Schmidt-Donas 1981; Schuchhardt 1978,
pp. 92-3, fig. 15; Yaylali 1976, pp. 167-169; Jucker 1969; Holden 1964; Ephesos VI, pp. 150-1; Fuchs
1993, p. 423, fig. 482; Picard 1954, p. 1177, fig. 462; Dohrn 1989, pp. 310-12; Webb 1996, pp. 47-51,
figs. 1-4. On the architecture: Knell 1973, pp. 131-133; Hoepfner 1969; Price & Trell 1977, pp. 106-8,
figs. 193-7. On the Tabula Iliaca, the temple is visible at the top of the hill but its architectural details
are not clear enough to be of use.
215 This information was conveyed verbally.
216 Diodorus Siculus 18.4.5 says that Alexander left 15,000 talents in his will for the construction of
six holy places and a temple.
 70

Helios as Homeric witness of oaths (Iliad 3.277-80) was a doubly appropriate image

to depict. Lysimachos also is said by Strabo (13.1.26) to have built a defensive wall

of which, despite numerous published denials of its existence, traces may have been

found by Calvert; for sanctuaries this was often only a small boundary wall. Although

tradition left Ilion unwalled until the Roman period, Polybius 5.111 and Livy 37.37

both suggest a defensive wall at some point during the Hellenistic period. The

archaeological evidence is not incompatible with Strabo’s account, although most

assume he was confusing the site with Alexandria Troas.

The temple is supposed to have been ‘destroyed’ by Fimbria in 85 BC, but to

what extent is not known. The literary motif of destruction used in Roman histories

does not necessarily entail the razing to the ground of entire cities: excavations at

Carthage and Corinth, two of the most famously ‘destroyed’ cities, show that much

was in fact left standing. Whilst Cassius Dio 104.7 states that the town burnt down, he

does not mention the temple; Augustine and Aurelius do not significantly differ.217

Strabo 13.1.27 suggests that the damage was not excessive. In fact the only source

that does claim that the temple was burnt down, and that the destruction was total, is

Appian 41.53; he also adds that the cult-statue of Athena was not destroyed.

Two possibilities result: that after a minor fire the building was refurbished

and the sanctuary was rededicated, perhaps as a Sebasteion for Augustus whose name

was inscribed on the architrave (he visited sometime between 22 and 19 BC); or that

it was completely rebuilt. Examples show that the Romans could copy styles of the

various Greek ages, but they are rarely so good that they have managed to fool so

many scholars, and thus one must dismiss the latter theory. We know that there was a

fire in the town, so perhaps there was minor damage, very little of it structural, to the

temple, and thus the first theory is appealing, owing to overwhelming evidence for

this sort of activity by the Romans, but it would not affect the sculpture’s dating. The

cult statue at Ilion survived, and one can read into the literary accounts damage, and

an excuse for a refurbishment. As one can see from examples in Rome, Augustus

217 Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 3. 7; Aurelius, Victory, 17. Plutarch, Alexander, 8, says that he slept
with the Iliad under his pillow; the temple itself is mentioned in Iliad 6.297.
 71

often only refurbished what he claimed to have rebuilt. In Greece one can note other

such dedications, such as at Nemea, Rhamnous and Nero’s inscription on the

Parthenon. Alexander’s inscription is preserved from the temple of Athena at Priene,

which we know he did not build. One reason for which Augustus is likely to have laid

claim to this particular temple would have been an attempt to reinforce his link to

Troy and to Caesar, through whom he claimed descent from Aeneas. Karl Lehmann

has already shown that it is possible to reconstruct the bronze pins under the

Augustan inscription as having held letters that read ‘Lysimachos’.218

Unfortunately the foundations of the temple were removed in the rush to find

the Homeric city, and many of the architectural pieces are now lost. A number of the

extant elements are Roman, but other pieces, showing large stylistic discrepancies,

which are often ignored, are more likely to be Hellenistic. These lend credence to the

idea of Roman repairs. One need not see a dichotomy between the date suggested by

Strabo for the temple, and the architectural setting; the architectural ornamentation is

Hellenistic rather than Roman, as shown by advances in the study of Hellenistic

architecture, particularly the Doric order, largely ignored by previous generations of

scholars who had over-enthusiastically interpreted Vitruvius. Strong geometric glyphs

with a horizontal upper edge are known from fourth century Macedonian tombs and

find close parallels in the area in the third century, 219 and much variety between

glyphs can generally be noted in the fourth and third centuries BC. By the end of the

fourth century round topped glyphs were largely abandoned in favour of straight

lines, creating ears at the corners, as here. Tomlinson has noted that the style of the

architecture of this temple is Macedonian, and in particular has pointed out the strong

similarities between the Ilion capitals and those of the Altar Court at Samothrace.220

As our knowledge of Macedonian architecture increases, it is slowly confirming a

Lysimachan date for the temple.

218 Samothrace 4.1, 101 n. 42.

219 Especially on Rhodes, to whose sculpture school the metopes are linked: eg. the Propylon, ca. 300;
the stoas at Lindos, late third. Added importance is shown if one recalls the link so often made between
the Helios metope, and Lysippos’ quadriga of the coin, as reflected on coins and amphora stamps.
220 Tomlinson 1983, pp. 286-7; idem, JHS 83, 1963, pp. 219-20.
 72

The evolved style of Baroque of the sculpture and the use of features such as

drapery through drapery both suggest a date closer to 281 than to 301. One can also

note that the style of the metopes from the so-called Ptolemaion at Limyra,believed to

have been jointly dedicated to Arsinöe II, who had previously been Lysimachos’

wife, and that of some well-dated Tarentine sculpture, such as the Via Umbria

Naiskos, is Baroque. A link is created with the emotive style of Lysippos, who

worked on two colossi in Tarentum, and whose Rhodian group may be reproduced on

the Helios metope.221

Fragments of twelve metopes are preserved, along with some nineteenth

century descriptions222 and drawings223 of pieces since lost, a number of

miscellaneous heads,224 and assorted fragments.225 Features one can note are the

use of metal attachments and the sporadic appearance of ground lines. The

backgrounds are blank, devoid of any landscape or setting; it is probable that these

would have been painted in, and a few traces of pigment have been found. The panels

221 Sztetyllo 1966, pp. 50-3, fig. 6.

222 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 11, p. 28, & no. 12, p. 29; description preserved in Schliemann 1880,
pp. 625, 697.
223 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 10 [lost, formerly Calvert Coll., Çannakale Museum inv. 1958] p.
28, pl. 46c-d; ht 0.23; preserved in a drawing. A fragment of an arm wearing a cloak (here fig. 30
centre). Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 16, p. 29, pl. 48c; ht. ca. 0.27, w. ca. 0.40; Schliemann 1884, p.
230, fig. 116 drawing preserved. A long-haired, probably Barbarian, male head with an arm bent over
it, its hand clutching the crown in a gesture of pain or despair.
224 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 13 [Çannakale Museum] p. 29, pl. 47a; ht. 0.34 [incl. taenia of
0.115], w. 0.30, d 0.11, relief to 0.165. Fragment from the top of a metope with the helmeted head of a
beardless youth. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 18 [Berlin] p. 30 pl. 48a; ht. 0.102. A young head in a
Corinthian helmet looking upwards, presumably at an opponent. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 19
[Çannakale Museum] p. 30, pl. 48d; ht 0.15. Fragment of a helmeted head, showing the left profile.
Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 20 [Berlin] p. 30, pl. 49a-b; ht. 0.155. A weathered Barbarian head, with
long hair and a pathetic expression. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 21 [Çannakale Museum inv. 1607] p.
30, pl. 47c ; ht. 0.305, w. 0.175, relief to 0.11. Left profile of the front of a horse, the head missing.
Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 22 [Berlin] p. 30, pl. 49c-d; l. 0.16. Damaged fragment of a horse head in
right profile. Rough work on the left shows how deeply it was cut back to make it stand out from the
background, and a break shows where it joined. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 23 [lost] p. 30-1; l. ca.
0.14. Horse-head.
225 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 8 [Berlin] p. 27-8, pls. 8 bottom, 45a; ht. 0.60 [incl. taenia of 0.074],
w. 0.465, th. 0.33, ht. of relief 0.062. The upper right hand corner of metope, with triglyphs, on which
one can see the torso of a warrior turned to the left, probably towards the victorious opponent who
stands above him. A shield to the left of him belongs to this figure, traces of whose fingers are to be
seen on it. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 9 [Hissarlik] p. 28, pl. 45b; ht. 0.58, w. 0.73, d. 0.30. Part of a
triglyph on the left and a corner of a metope where traces of something remain attached to the
background above a ground line. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 14 [Çannakale Museum] p. 29, pl. 47b;
ht. 0.28, w. 0.28; very badly preserved fragment with a cuirassed warrior. Goethert & Schlief 1962, no.
15 [Çannakale Museum] p. 29, pl. 47d; ht 0.22, w 0.425, ht. of relief to 0.13. The legs of a reclining
figure, along a relief ground line, from the bottom of a metope.
 73

as preserved are not carved in particularly high relief, but a number of elements such

as arms and legs that have broken off were free of the background. The metopes were

carved on blocks with a triglyph attached to one side; the Helios was a corner metope

so has triglyphs on both sides and one on the left return. The panels were square, if

one includes the 0.10 taenia within the height. An Iliupersis was probably depicted on

the north side. The Gigantomachy panel of Athena and Encelados was found on the

eastern side and so is placed there. The Gigantomachy was appropriate to Athena, and

often depicted at the east, as in the pediment from Mazi. Both narratives appear in the

same place at Ilion as on the Parthenon, leading to the restoration of a Centauromachy

and an Amazonomachy, both of which one can fit fragments to, on the other sides.226

A number of the metopes recall the style of the sculpture from the temple of Athena

at Priene, ca. 340, where there were square high relief coffers in a single row around

the colonnade, and similarities can be noted to the carved plinths from the later

temple of Artemis Ephesia.227

The Helios Metope is the most well-known of those from the temple (fig.

25).228 The best preserved of the metopes, it is the only one where the figure has not

lost its head; although other heads have been found, they do not fit any of the figures

on the metopes. The triglyphs indicate that it was a corner block, from the eastern end

of the north side, presumably counterbalanced by a depiction of Selene, creating a

cosmic setting. The composition advances from left to right, with diagonals moving

upwards, and has a twist in order to show the chariot’s wheels. Within this there is a

distortion to create frontality, which is thus flattening. A wavy ground line is

indicated along the bottom of the metope. There are no holes for attachments so one

assumes that details of the chariot pulled by the four wheeling horses would have

been painted on; Jucker has noted traces of a wheel in the bottom left corner, as well

as outlines of the waves from which it emerged. A sense of speed is created by the

226 Goethert & Schlief 1962, p. 31, for similarity to and echo of the Parthenon.
227 Stewart 1990, p. 204, sees the link as being so strong that he suspects a workshop connection. For
bibliography see chapter 7, p. 196, here below.
228 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 1 [Berlin inv. 9582] pp. 24-5, pl. 34-40; ht. 0.858 [incl. 0.10 taenia],
l. 2.012, d. 0.322; ht. of relief 0.12.
 74

flying drapery, the god leaning forward, and the rhythm of the horses’ legs, but this is

not entirely successful. The horses themselves owe more to depictions of the later

fourth century than to any sense of the Baroque.

Many have noted that the sun-god’s fleshy face and leonine locks are similar

to portraits of Alexander, but that was the style of the time. Helios wears a long high-

girdled chiton, standard charioteer dress, and a mantle, which emphasise the diagonal

created by the horses. Although the design of the drapery is summary and perhaps

even unsophisticated, its execution is good. The drapery is surprisingly deeply cut for

a relief, as it is on the Rescue Metope, with undercutting of the cloak. The double row

of rays of the tiara worn by and identifying the god, are rendered in low relief. In

free-standing representations of the god attachments are used to indicate these, but

here it makes sense to carve them against the background. Something appears to have

been held in his right hand, possibly a whip rather than the reins. From the side one

can see that the hand was not clasped, so a whip would have had to be attached from

behind, rather than slotted into the gap as was more common. This is the only item

which one can reasonably speculate was attached, as due to the recession of the

planes and the distance from which it would have been viewed, it is difficult to see

how it would have been satisfactorily depicted in paint on the background. The reins

are likely to have been painted and ‘clasped’ in the concealed left hand.

The horses which were closer to the viewer, were sculpted in increasingly

higher relief, so that their legs, which were carved free from the background, have

snapped off. In the bottom right hand quarter the stubs of the struts by which the

forelegs would have been attached can still be seen. The representation of the horses

is not dissimilar to those of the Amazon and Chariot friezes of the Mausoleum, with

their pulled-back ears and flared nostrils adding a sense of drama. They appear

reticent, as if wishing to avoid the battle field that would have been depicted in the

succeeding panels, and which Helios’ right hand points towards.

Holden believes that this “evident difficulty in fitting his composition within
the limits of the metope’s field” is “evidence of the sculptor’s inability to cope with
 75

the problems of scale.”229 She, like several others, sees it as a provincial work. The

composition does not fit the space, with the horses cut off. Helios’ head and radiate

crown encroach upon the taenia and are then cut off by the cornice above it; this must

be deliberate, for had the sculptor wanted to continue the rays beyond the space the

use of attachments would have been more obvious. The tail of one horse and the hoof

of another are cut off. Thus the sculptor has set a spatial boundary and chosen to

break it, emphasising the feeling of movement towards the viewer. There is a great

sense of motion, with the figures not only bursting out of the frame, but also moving

forwards and beyond the plane, which can be seen as a Pheidian feature. The

overlapping of the taenia can also be seen on the metopes from the temple of

Poseidon at Messene, and an analogy can be drawn to the figures from Tegea cut off

by the pedimental frame. There is a similar breaking of boundaries on the Via Umbria

metopes, but the style of those had moved one step further towards the Baroque.

The similarity of the Helios metope to quadrigae on Rhodian amphora stamps,

and to heads of Helios on coins believed to represent a quadriga of Helios in the

town, attributed to Lysippos, has been noted.230 The sculptor’s work was very

important to the Rhodians, but for its influence to be felt so far one should probably

assign a sculptor of the Rhodian school. The common opinion that a provincial or

second-rate hand carved these reliefs (Stewart even goes so far as to see similarities to

the Belevi coffers) is largely a consequence of the incorrect later dating given to the

temple. If one considers them as following in the wake of the Pergamene school, they

would appear to be derivative, but as other examples come to light from this period, it

becomes clear that one must reassign the work to a sculptor who was pioneering an

emotive style that would lead to the full-blown Baroque of a century later. In

particular the horses and their exaggerated musculature show the skill of the artist.

There are four main levels of relief, so the work is not flat, but the feeling of

frontality within Helios helps create that impression. This is achieved with great

229 Holden 1964, p. 10.

230 Sztetyllo 1966, pp. 50-3, fig. 6.
 76

subtlety and so must be deliberate; it may be that the sculptor was trying to emphasise

the fact that he was copying a famous sculpture. We are more used to the depiction of

statuary within sculpture as being archaising, but there is no reason that works of

other styles should not be depicted. I propose to interpret the stilted style of the

Helios, at odds with that of the other metopes from the temple, as resulting from the

reproduction of Lysippos’ Rhodian Helios in his quadriga, which would also explain

the other unusual features of the god. The piece bridges the gap between Classical

calmness and the Hellenistic dramatic exaggeration of gesture in the other scenes.

The main metope surviving from the Gigantomachy is of Athena defeating

Encelados (fig. 26).231 Athena stands over the naked giant, about to impale him on

her now missing spear. They hold their shields approximately parallel to the plane,

with his seen at a slight angle from the front at the bottom right, and hers seen from

the inside at the centre top; an emblem is likely to have been painted on to add

interest. The pose of her arms and upper body, and the representation of her shield,

recall the images of Athena on Panathenaic amphorae from the mid fourth century on.

The Gigantomachy was one of the aspects of the goddess celebrated by the festival,

and a Panathenaia is known to have been celebrated at Troy.

This scene is less flat, and a greater depth of shadow is created, than on the

Helios metope. There would have been much more movement than the fragments and

comparison with the previous panel at first suggest. The general movement is

upwards and towards the left. The surfaces of the raised areas of the Athena are

broken off: her left arm, legs and breasts, and the hem of the apoptygma. The head

and right arm are missing completely. The giant is also damaged but the torso,

excluding genitals, and his upper legs are well preserved. The surfaces of his face and

right arm are broken off, and his legs below the knees are missing.

As Athena pulls him by the hair, Encelados’ reaction is to lean forward, his

head held diagonally towards her, and to clasp her wrist in an attempt to alleviate the

hurt. The figures overlap, so that Encelados is literally at Athena’s feet. His gesture of

231 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 4 [Berlin] p. 26, pl. 43; ht. 0.82, pres w. 0.833, th. 0.335, ht. of relief
0.10.
 77

pain and pose of submission serve to accentuate the importance of the depiction of the

temple’s eponymous goddess. She twists his upper body away from the direction of

his legs and towards the plane, so that the viewer clearly sees his heavily muscled

torso and the brute strength of the being that she has subdued. It is well preserved,

and the most Baroque of the metopes, powerfully rendered as a sophisticated study of

musculature and the impact of twisting on it. From the pose one can deduce that his

feet and Athena’s were at approximately the same level. His right leg was bent. The

thigh of his left leg, which lay closest to the viewer, was flat on the ground; thus the

whole leg had to be flat. As the muscles are flexed one can assume that the foot was

pushing on a rock in the missing section, and away from his assailant. The

iconography of Encelados, and of the other Giants depicted, would necessitate a date

between the late fourth century and the middle of the second.232

There is also a strong element of contraposto within the figure of Athena; her

shoulders and arms turn towards her opponent, whilst her torso is frontal, and her legs

bend to the left hand side. She wears a high-girdled peplos, the apoptygma of which

is carved in broad planes that contrast with the deeply carved folds of the skirt; the

latter can be seen through the former. The sweep of her billowing overfold suggests

an active scene with much motion, and echoes the pose of her legs and upper arms.

The lack of an aegis is not uncommon in the Hellenistic period.

A second metope from the Gigantomachy is more fragmentary (fig. 29).233

The torso and right leg of a naked warrior can been seen as he falls back under the

advances of his adversary, and on to his right leg bent beneath him. His right arm was

raised, as shown by the muscles on that flank. No trace of the left arm remains on the

preserved part of the panel, so that too must have been lifted, perhaps in an attempt to

push away his attacker. The way in which the fallen figure is depicted is not divine,

and the heavy musculature of the torso, which leans backwards and is twisted towards

the front plane, suggests that he is a giant. The foot and shin of the upper figure,

232 Vian 1951, p. 23.

233 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 7 [Calvert Coll. in Çannakale Museum inv. 450] p. 27, pl. 44a-b; ht.
0.346; w. 0.59; th. ca. 0.22; ht. of relief 0.12 m.
 78

probably a god, can be seen pushing down on the remains of the warrior’s left thigh.

That the giant’s left thigh has not yet been pressed down to the ground suggests that

his opponent is depicted whilst in the action of putting his foot on it, and still had

most of his weight on his left leg. The base of the panel is not preserved, and the

angle at which the piece is photographed (the left hand side should be raised

fractionally) makes the poses and composition appear unnatural.

A corner from the bottom left of a metope, with part of the triglyph attached,

has snake coils which suggest that not all the giants had fully human bodies.234

Another fragment, now lost, shows the left profile of a naked torso. It is connected to

the lion-strangler on the Pergamon frieze owing to the remains of a claw on his arm,

but could equally well come from a scene of Cybele riding a lion as at Priene. 235

Previously only preserved in a drawing, I have been able to identify it in one of

Calvert’s photographs preserved in the DAI-Athens; it is reproduced here as fig. 30,

to the right of the photo.

The evidence for a Centauromachy is a bearded elderly head with unrefined

features, believed to be a centaur; the remaining bridge and outline of the nose

suggest that it was snubbed (fig. 30 left).236 Traces of a hand are still discernible

under his chin.

A metope with a rescue scene is likely to come from the Amazonomachy (fig.

28).237 A quarter of the width of the panel is missing from the right, and much of the

top is broken off. A figure on the left pulls another from the battlefield. The rescuer

wears a short non-Greek tunic and sandals whose soles are carved and whose straps

were painted. The figure being rescued is softly modelled, with a himation falling

away from the body; a protrusion on the figure’s chest would seem to suggest a

breast, but could be the remains of an over-large pectoral muscle as the figure seems

234 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 5 [Hissarlik] p.26, pl. 45c-d; ht. 0.605, w. 0.58, th. to. ca 0.31.
Giants with snake tails appear in the fourth century, and are often mixed with giants with fully human
bodies; Vian 1952, p. 147, p.93 no. 429.
235 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 6 [lost, formerly Calvert Coll.] p. 27, pl. 46a-b; ht. ca. 0.26.
236 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 17 [Calvert Coll. in Çannakale Museum] p. 29, pl. 48b; ht. 0.186.
237 Goethert & Schlief 1962, no. 3 [Berlin] pp. 25-6, pl. 42; ht. 0.468; w. 0.625; th 0.29; ht. of relief
0.06.
 79

otherwise to be male. Subtle variations can be seen in the positioning of the bodies in

profile, which contrasts with the strength and implied movement of the scene. The

modelling of the bodies is sophisticated, as is the, albeit minimal, use of drapery. In

the missing space on the right the legs of the wounded figure would have been

continued, and there may have been a third standing figure to fill the void above

them.

The composition of the second, more weathered, Amazonomachy panel is less

sophisticated but more dramatic (fig. 27).238 A standing Greek grabs the hair of the

woman kneeling to the left of him, and prepares to strike her with the weapon he held

in his raised left arm. He was clothed and probably cuirassed. She wears a short

chiton, and has a series of small holes around the waist for the attachment of a girdle.

One of the Labours of Heracles was to lay his hands on the Amazon Queen’s girdle,

and this may be represented here, although the composition also recalls Achilles and

Penthesilea from vase painting, notably the two amphorae of Exekias. The figures fill

little of the space available, and it is likely that painting on the background was used

to create a landscape setting. The carving is extremely worn; no trace, for example,

remains of the right arm of the kneeling female, or of the cuirasse and head of the

standing male. His lower legs and left arm are broken off. Despite the condition of the

piece one can still make out the deep folds within the drapery.

The so-called Ptolemaion at Limyra in Lycia, ca. 275-260, is linked to the

ruler cult of Ptolemy II and Arsinöe II. 239 Lycia was at that time under Ptolemaic

control, and Ptolemaia are known of elsewhere in Asia Minor in the third century; the

structure is a heroon rather than a tomb, and never contained a burial. The monument

is in a necropolis to the western side of the town. Its architecture is a conflation of

238 Goethert & Schlief 1962, cat. no. 2 [Istanbul no. 1138] p. 25, pls. 8 top, 41; ht. 0.842 [incl. taenia
of 0.072], l. 1.455, w. of metope 0.877, th. 0.295. Most of the triglyph to the left and the taenia are
preserved; top right corner and right profile are missing.
239 Ridgway 1990a, p. 196, pl. 95; Borchhardt 1990, p. 498; AJA 89, 1985, pp. 560-1, pl. 65.21; AJA
91, 1987, p. 18, and fig. 15 on p. 14; KST 7, 1985, pp. 439-99; G. Stanzl in Borchhardt 1992, pp. 151-
60, fig. 11 for metope, fig. 10 for reconstruction; Borchhardt 1991, p. 309, fig. 6; Rumscheid 1994, I p.
313, II pp. 35-6, cat. no. 130.2; Stanzl 1993, pp. 183-4, pls. XLIII.3-XLIV.6, XLV.8; Webb 1996, pp.
125-6, figs. 98-9. The sculptural and architectural remains are divided between Ankara Museum, the
dig-house, where the metopes are, and a store in the theatre.
 80

two types of structures, podium tombs, such as the Mausoleum, and circular tholoi

honouring rulers, such as the Philippeion which it is believed to copy. The Ionic

tholos of sixteen columns rested on a square base approximately ten metres high. As

at Belevi the base was crowned by a Doric frieze, but here the metopes are filled with

decorative scenes; a Doric frieze was also used in this location on the Hieron on

Delos. There would have been room for twelve metopes on each of the 14.66 wide

sides. Four limestone metopes, ht. 0.72, all depicting a Centauromachy, with Lapiths

fighting naked Greeks, have been found. Their over-exaggerated musculature and

movement can safely be described as Baroque, hence the initial later dating of the

whole structure in early reports to the period following the Pergamon altar.

The numerous planes and exaggerated carving create strong chiaroscuro.

Above the corner blocks stood pairs of free-standing, life-size marble lions which,

unlike the griffins at Belevi, are not inferior in quality to the other sculpture. None of

the sculpture from the Ionic upper level of the heroon, which include a chariot race

frieze, the lions and fragments of large statues of the ruling couple, can be described

as Baroque. The four metopes are all variations on a theme: a centaur and a Greek

fighting, the former’s torso facing towards the right hand side of every panel. Three

of the metopes were excavated around the western side of the monument (fig. 31); a

fourth was found reused within the Byzantine walls and is therefore very worn.240

The Greeks are all nude with extremely over exaggerated musculature. The scenes

have some overlapping of the taenia.

A series of Tarentine naiskoi was built between ca. 330-250, mostly around

300, of a soft local white limestone known as pietra tenera. 241 The majority of the

finds come from a necropolis within the city. Much of the sculpture, including that

from the the Via Umbria Naiskos, was Baroque in style, helping chronologically to

bridge the gap between fourth century Late Classical sculpture and Pergamene

240 Stanzl 1993, pl. XLIII.3. Centaur with traces of a Greek to the left and behind. Most of triglyph
preserved at right.
241 All catalogue numbers follow Carter 1975. Museo Nazionale, Taranto if no location given. See
also: Stewart 1990, pp. 196 & 205, figs. 591-2; Ridgway 1990a, pp. 180-5; Pollitt 1986, p. 112.
 81

Baroque sculpture. Carter makes a division between the ‘Hellenistic’ and slightly

later ‘Local’ style. The naiskoi were highly decorated, and often incorporated Doric

or continuous friezes. Most of the capitals found are Corinthian, often decorated with

small figures of sphinxes or erotes, though tombs with Doric or Ionic columns are

also known.242

The Via Umbria Naiskos, of Group K, ca. 275-250, is well dated by

foundation deposits that included Gnathian ware and other pottery.243 It stood eight

metres high on its base, and had Ionic columns, above which was a Doric frieze with

eight figured metopes; six on the front, and one on each return (fig. 32). The

iconography represents a battle between cavalry and Barbarian infantry, a general

subject likely to refer to Tarentine history, perhaps their recent war against the

Apulians. There is much sense of movement in the innovative compositions, with

good foreshortening and skilful handling of overlapping. Other sculptural decoration

includes a figured relief pediment with a marine cortege,244 an elaborate finial of

Scylla,245 and two small lateral floral acroteria.

The six preserved metopes, from left to right, depict: a) A standing naked

warrior with chlamys and sword on the left, a lying naked warrior on the right, and

the remains of the feet of a third warrior, on horse, above him. A diagonal break

means that a little more than the lower left half is preserved. 246 b) A vertical

fragment from the panel is preserved, showing a naked warrior kneeling on a shield,

under which is another warrior.247 c) Most of the lower half of the metope is

preserved with a horse. A join has been made to a torso fragment. The horse kneels,

with the warrior behind or astride facing the background, itself an innovative

depiction in sculpture.248 d) The best, near-fully preserved metope, with some

242 Roux 1961, pp. 381-2.

243 Carter 1975, cat. nos. 199-212, esp. pp. 20, 69-74, 108-9, pl. 70 for reconstruction, plus appendix
‘Tomb 24.’
244 Carter 1975, cat. no. 208.
245 Carter 1975, cat. nos. 209-210.
246 Carter 1975, cat. no. 199 [Taranto inv. 113845] pl. 32a: ht. 0.43, w. 0.43, d. 0.12.
247 Carter 1975, cat. no. 200 [Taranto inv. 113838] pl. 34a: ht. 0.43, w. 0.24, d. 0.12.
248 Carter 1975, cat. no. 201 [Taranto inv. 113839] pl. 32b: ht. 0.325, w. 0.38, d. 0.12.
 82

restorations, that makes clear the original Baroque drama of the panels (fig. 33). A

clothed rider attacks a naked warrior, who is trampled by the extremely animated

horse. The figures fill the full height and width of the scene, and some elements,

particularly at the top, go over the frame. There are three main horizontals within the

composition, the chlamys, the body of the horse and the defeated warrior, which are

counterbalanced by the verticals created by the rider, in the line of the body up his

right side and along his raised arm, the head and neck of the horse, and its legs. The

‘Greek’ on horseback has ‘leonine’ locks, though he should not be seen as a portrait

of Alexander. The scene faces right. As with all the metopes, the ground-lines project

outwards on ledges along the bottoms of the metopes.249 e) A vertical fragment of a

bearded warrior in barbarian dress, possibly the leader, and traces of a hand on his

head.250 f) A horizontal fragment with a horse and a cuirassed rider wearing a

billowing chlamys, facing right. Although damaged, one can still see that the original

must have been very detailed. Unusually the reins are depicted in stone and carved in

the round; they are generally missing in relief sculpture and thus assumed to have

been added in metal or painted.251 To these we can add some fragments that are

definitely from the metopes,252 and two others of similar scale which may belong to

a smaller frieze, for which there is no other evidence, or possibly from the pedimental

relief, although that too is uncertain.253

The evidence for metopes on other Tarentine naiskoi is nebulous, due to the

difficulty in sometimes ascertaining the exact nature of broken panels, but a few of

the other pieces from Taranto that were certainly metopes include Carter nos. 50, 56,

89, 214-5, 313, 409-12. To these examples of the Baroque style one can add the large

249 Carter 1975, cat. no. 202 [Taranto inv. 113768] pls. 33, 36c-d: ht. 51.5, w. 49.5, d. 12.
250 Carter 1975, cat. no. 203 [Taranto inv. 113836] pls. 34b, 36b: ht. 0.392, w. 0.23, d. 0.12.
251 Carter 1975, cat. no. 204 [Taranto inv. 113837] pl. 35a: ht. 0.27, w. 0.44, d. 0.12.
252 Carter 1975, cat. no. 205 [Taranto inv. 113845] pl. 35b: ht. 0.16, w. 0.145; horse’s head and neck,
whose size indicates a metopal origin. Carter 1975, cat. no. 206 [Taranto inv. 113851]; seven drapery
fragments. Carter 1975, cat. no. 207 [Taranto inv. 113841] pls. 35c, 36a; seventeen fragments of hands
and legs, male and equine, plus assorted others, amongst them a kneeling leg on a rock (ht. 0.117, w.
0.145).
253 Carter 1975, cat. no. 211 [Taranto inv. 113847], pl. 38b; horse-head, smaller in scale than no. 205.
Carter 1975, cat. no. 212 [Taranto inv. 113846], pl. 38c; fragment of a naked warrior, of the same scale
as the previous.
 83

frieze from the Monument of the Bulls on Delos,254 thus securely establishing the

use of the style in the period ca. 305-270, well before the time of the Pergamon Altar.

Athens NM inv. 1688, a metope between two triglyphs, was found in 1892 in

Aeolus Street, between the Tower of the Winds and the Stoa of Hadrian (fig. 34).255

The block is 1.16 long, and the metope 0.61 wide. It would appear to be from a

naiskos. In the scene three veiled women, two seated on rocks and the one behind

standing, mourn the deceased. All three heads are badly damaged. The same motif is

used on the pediments of the Mourning Women Sarcophagus (cf. p. 47 above), and

the metope is dated in relation to this iconography, in the second half of the fourth

century; as it is funerary, it should be prior to the 317/6 prohibition on sculpted tombs

(Cicero, de Legibus 2.66). The axiom of this terminus ante quem for the metope is

debatable. The entombed sarcophagus could not have been the source for the motif,

and the source itself is not known, but it is likely to have been based on a famous

composition to judge from the wide geographical spread of its use. The first metope

from the Tomba dell’ Altalena, Cyrene,256 a structure where the painted metopes

appear to copy famous Classical scenes, shows its continuity later in the Hellenistic

period, suggesting that it could alternatively post-date the Late Classical / Early

Hellenistic period, and belong to the later Hellenistic period.

Sparta Museum inv. 717, a block of bluish marble from a Doric frieze, with

two metopes of an Amazonomachy, was found reused as a lintel over the door of the

apothecary of Kopsomanikas.257 Its dating is uncertain; there are stylistic parallels to

the mid fourth century Amazon Sarcophagus, and the execution is similar to early

254 Marcadé 1951.

255 Fleischer 1983, pp. 54, 67, pl. 48.1; Picard 1954, pp. 1278-9; Wegener 1985, cat. no. 30, pp. 67 n.
278, 277, pl. 11.1; Stupperich 1977, cat. no. 103, p. 159; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, p. 15; Ridgway 1997,
p. 57; Junker 1993, p. 158.
256 Bacchielli 1976.
257 Ht. of block 0.50, length 1.33, th. 0.24; triglyph w. 0.33; metope w. 0.50, ht. 0.518. Tod & Wace
1906, pp. 204-5; Mantis 1985 (for the new pieces); LIMC I, 1982, p. 615, fig. 443; Ridgway 1997, p.
58; Junker 1993, pp. 159-60, pl. 29.2. AM 2, 1877, pp. 410-11 no. 240, pp. 411-2, no. 241, suggested a
link to a piece found by Col. Leake near a chapel, where it had recently been excavated, in Sinanbey,
near Sklavokhori (Amyklai), and given to the BM in 1839, with a riding Amazon fighting a Greek on
foot. This is however a Roman sarcophagus panel of Proconnesian marble, inv. GR 1839.8-6.5. See:
Walker 1990, no. 47, pp. 41-2, pl. 19.
 84

second century friezes, but it may date from as late as the first century BC. In the left

hand metope a nude Greek is about to slay a fallen Amazon. She wears a himation

rolled around the waist and a Phrygian cap, and holds a quiver; her left breast is bare.

In the right metope are two Amazons, in a scene whose iconography is unknown.

Three of the four heads are no longer extant. A provincial work, the design is superior

to the sculptor’s technique, with incipient traces of the Baroque style. The diagonally

cut sides of the block are unusual, but should not be read as indicating a polygonal

building; 258 it came from a small structure, perhaps a funerary heroon or monument.

Two further fragments were excavated in Sparta in 1976; inv. 6775, a near complete

metope with an Amazon restraining a rearing horse, and inv. 6776, the left third of a

metope with an Amazon defending herself against an attacker. The last piece is

interesting as it has the mason’s marks ‘AN’ on its upper surface.

A metope from Thera with a scene from a Centauromachy has been found,

but is associated with no known building; its size suggests a large tomb or a temple,

and its style a date in the second half of the fourth century.259

No rectangular triglyph altars with filled metopes are known, but Epidauros

Museum inv. 28, late fourth century, can be seen as secondary evidence for such

decoration.260 Its provenance is uncertain, but it is believed to have been found near

the temple of Asclepios. It is a marble relief imitating an altar, designed to be fixed to

a wall, and reconstructed of eleven main fragments, its overall condition extremely

258
Mantis gives this as a dodecagonon, based on his measurement of an angle of the block (this is
poorly preserved, and I measured a different angle). This is highly unlikely, not only because this
would have been such an unusual shape, but also because the arrangement, having had a metope on
one side of the angle and a triglyph on the other would have been strange. One should in any case
ignore the angle, for even if one accepts it, when one restores the whole on paper, one can also note
that some of the triglyphs and metopes would have had to cross blocks and continue at an angle to the
rest of the element, and that it is not possible to make the frieze join at the end, once one has worked
around 360 degrees. More likely, the joins of the blocks were simply cut diagonally rather than at a
right angle. This is unusual, but the technique has some parallels, notably of the panels with the
eponymous winds on the Tower of the Winds in Athens (information courtesy of Dr. H. Kienast), and
at Adamklissi (Dr. Antonio Corso).
259 Thera 3, p. 121, fig. 96; Webb 1996, p. 40 n. 49; Ridgway 1999, p. 155.
260 Rupp 1974, cat. no. 108, pp. 237-9, figs. 173-4; Roux 1961, p. 402, pl. 100.1; Ridgway 1966, p.
220 esp. n. 27; Ridgway 1997, p. 54, n. 61 p. 70; Junker 1993, pp. 157-8, pl. 29.1. The approximate
dimensions, as restored, are: min. l. 2.585, pres. ht. 0.79; frieze ht. 0.488, w. of triglyphs 0.25, ht. of
taenia 0.035; metopes, pres. w. 0.49, restored w. 0.50; max. ht. of relief 0.04. Aprox th. of panel
0.0385.
 85

poor. It consists of a Doric frieze with figured metopes, restored as having had three,

but owing to the poor state of preservation it would be impossible to say how many it

originally had; it is in low relief, with some light undercutting. The heads and feet of

the figures touched the frame. The left metope shows a frontal nude male with an

animal skin over his fore-arm. In the centre is Asclepios, in a himation, sitting on a

rock, and the remains to the right of a draped figure, possibly Hygieia. In the right

hand metope Athena gives a helmet to a man. Displayed to the left of the restored

relief is a piece that should belong, and that I would assign to a fourth metope, being

of the same scale, marble grain size and colour, technique, height of relief. The two

small joining fragments make up part of a horse and rider wearing a short chiton and

himation. The relief has one glyph carved on the return to add a sense of depth and

three-dimensionallity. The metopes are pretty much square, and have not yet become

horizontal rectangles, which suggests a date in the later fourth century, but the cavetto

above the frieze is generally considered to be a Hellenistic feature. Lotus volutes on

the ends show that it was not an architectural frieze. An interesting feature is that the

middle glyph is narrower than the outer glyphs, and all are flat-topped. The glyphs

end below the level of the taenia and have no ears. The full height of the right metope

is preserved. The metopes have no taenia.

Two poros metopes have been linked to the temple of Poseidon at Messene of

the early third century.261 Both panels are very worn, but show signs of drilling on

the drapery. As with a number of other Hellenistic metopes the scene overlaps the

taenia. The iconography is maritime, as is appropriate to the god, representing women

and sea-creatures. The scenes can be identified as Andromeda and the monster, and as

a Nereid riding a hippocamp.

A metope preserving the torso of a nude youth, his cloak billowing behind

him and his shield raised as he strides towards the right to attack his adversary, is now

261 Ergon 29, 1990, p. 29, fig. 36; BCH 115, 1991, p. 864, fig. 27; Themelis 1994, p. 4; Ridgway
1997, n. 91 p. 76; Junker 1993, p. 160.
 86

in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.262 A Greek work, it was found in what was the

Piazza delle Carrette, south-east of the Torre dei Conti, to the north-east of the Forum

Pacis, during construction of what is now the Via Cavour. It is believed to have been

found in a Late Antique lime kiln. Of a small-grained white marble with some surface

discoloration, the piece has been cut down and the marble itself is cracking. The relief

is quite high, with deep undercutting, but the figure is at no point free from the

background. The style and the large number of visible tool marks suggest a date in the

second half of the fourth century. Broneer links it to a metope of the same stone, size

and style in Cavalla Museum, which was found in 1961, built into a wall in

Aëdonochori near Amphipolis.263 A Greek on the left hand side attacks a fallen

Barbarian on the right. If the two are from the same structure, and this seems

probable, their scale suggests a large building, probably an unknown temple in the

vicinity of Amphipolis.

Three carved metopes, on two frieze blocks, are assigned to the proscenion of

the theatre at Thasos.264 The dedicatory inscription listing the donor,

[][][],265 places the structure, through

epigraphy and prosopography, within the last quarter of the fourth century. The

architecture does not exclude this date, although it better suits the first half or middle

years of the third century. The patronym of the dedicator is Thracian, as, it can be

argued, is the iconography. The two blocks were both at Limenas in 1882; the first at

the konak of Toussoun-bey, with a definite provenance from near the theatre, the

second at the house of Oeconomides. One block was taken to Istanbul. In 1914,

262 Braccio Nuovo, no. 14 in Room 6, inv. 1827. Preserved ht. 0.86, incl. taenia of ht. 0.143;
projection of taenia 0.02; pres. w. 0.50; th. 0.95. Mortared against a wall, but due to undergo
restoration towards the end of 1999. Dinsmoor 1960, links it to the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia;
dissociated by Broneer 1971, pp. 182-3.
263 Ht. 1.14; w. 1.16; th. 0.09; ht. of taenia 0.143, projection 0.02. Broneer 1971, p. 183; Lazarides
1969, p. 143, pl. 54.
264 Ht. of blocks 0.465; ht. of architrave with taenia 0.195; w. of triglyph 0.183; ht. of triglyph 0.273;
w. of metope 0.256 m; ht. of frieze 0.27 m; th. ca. 0.30. Ridgway 1990a, p. 176; Salviat 1960; Mendel
no. 1087, III pp. 325-6; Picard 1954, pp. 1174-6, fig. 461.
265 I.G. XII 8, 424; I.G. XII, Suppl. 1940, 339.
 87

before a context for the sculpture had been established, Mendel thought the metopes

to be from a small funerary heroon of ca. 200 BC.

The metope that remains on Thasos and the two now in Istanbul join to create

a block ca. 1.60 long, with a break on the left. The stone is large-grained white

Thasian marble. One metope, Limenas Museum inv. no. 68, depicts Dionysus in a

himation and wearing Thracian boots on his feet, pouring a libation to a panther (fig.

35). It has triglyphs on either side. The block in Istanbul has two figured metopes. In

the left hand panel a rider, wearing a short tunic and chlamys, approaches a tree, with

a snake wound around it, from behind which a boar emerges. A dog is shown under

the belly of the horse. The top of the scene is broken off, but he may have held a

spear with which he was hunting the boar. In the right hand panel a God or warrior,

cuirassed and helmeted, leans against his shield; he holds a spear in the other hand.

His head, turned to the left, is damaged.

The similarity of the depictions in one panel to the Mars Ultor type, and in

another to the Thracian Rider motif, has led Salviat to reject a Hellenistic date. The

suggestion is that the metopes were originally plain, and the central ones carved, in

situ, towards the end of the second century AD. Although examples exist from

unfinished buildings of frieze blocks where the surface of the metope is not cut back

but projects as far as the level of the front of the triglyphs and was ready for

carving,266 this presents some problems as the rest of the structure appears to be

complete. The quality of the carving is poor, but neither it, nor the technique, which

includes the use of a drill, preclude a Hellenistic date. Since the main objection to a

ca. 300 BC date is the iconography of the metopes, seen as overtly Thracian, it would

be useful to point out that neither of these scenes is without parallel in that period.

Vermeule has argued that the Mars Ultor type was heavily influenced by Leochares’

Ares in Halicarnassus,267 and therefore I would argue that this metope is an

intermediate stage in the development of the type. There are also similar Macedonian

266 Lauter 1986, pl. 40a.

267 Vermeule 1984, pp. 783-8, pls. CXX-CXXIII. Vitruvius 2.8.11: a colossal acrolithic Ares by
Leochares, or possibly Timotheos, on the hill above the Mausoleum.
 88

figures, for example the intercolumnar warrior from the Great Tomb at Lefkadia. The

riding figure, though popular in Thrace in the second century AD, was by no means

confined to this period, and is known in Archaic times; similar motifs in Thrace and

Macedonia are securely dated to the fourth century BC, for example on the frieze of

the so-called Tomb of Philip at Vergina. The motif is also to be found amongst the

decoration of the so-called tomb of Alcetas (died 319 BC), at Termessos. The lack of

figured metopes in the third century AD would also argue against that date. Crude

and low quality work, though often considered typical of Late Antique sculpture, was

not unknown in earlier periods; note particularly some of the Ptolemaic metopes from

Egypt.

A series of narrative metopes is preserved from the entablature of the so-

called Templum Pacis, now known as the Doric-Corinthian Temple, Paestum;

seventeen whole metopes and large fragments are extant, dating from the ca. 100-80

BC rebuilding.268 Architecturally they echo elements of earlier temples in the town;

for example the glyphs copy those of the temple of Poseidon. The theme of the

metopes is of a battle that includes a fleeing woman; women may be involved in the

fighting, which would make it an Amazonomachy. One metope has a naked man and

a horse standing by a crater on a column, an image seen in Classical iconography.

The middle Hellenistic Tomb N 171 at Cyrene, so-called of the Mnesarchi,

had a facade imitating a Doric portico.269 The Doric columns, definitely attested,

have low bases. The metopes are uncarved, other than those at the ends, where the

taenia is eliminated to create a taller space; these each carried a figure of a mourning

woman, depicted from the waist up.

A relief of a warrior found in Elis, Elis Museum inv. L 337, may have been a

metope; the block is incomplete in form, but there appears to have been a taenia

running along the top of it.270 A lost figure in the right side of the panel pulled the

268 Ht. of metopes 0.763 incl. 0.10 taenia; w. of metopes 0.805. Mertens 1988, pp. 568-9, fig. 85;
Krauss & Herbig 1939, pp. 47-67, nos. I-XVII, esp. pls. 9, 29, 36-41.
269 Stucchi 1975, pp. 149-151, fig. 123; Cassels 1955, pp. 19-20; Tomlinson 1967, pp. 254-255.
270 Ridgway 1981, p. 36; Ridgway 1997, n. 47 p. 68; Junker 1993, p. 178, pl. 35.2. Not seen.
 89

hair of the Greek, who wears a flying chlamys, and holds a shield in his left arm. The

style of the sculpture suggests the first half of the fourth century, but it has not been

associated with any building.

A terracotta plaque depicting Phrixus on the ram has been suggested as having

been a metope over the pronaos of the fourth century Metröon of Olympia.271 I

consider this unlikely, and believe that the piece was a small votive offering.

The Great Tomb at Lefkadia, ca. 300, is an interesting example of a

structure where the metopes were painted (fig. 37).272 The eleven metopes, w. ca.

0.40, are painted in a limited range of muted colours with trompe l’œuil shadows to

create the illusion of high-relief sculptures, and depict a Centauromachy. There are

two over the outer intercolumniations and three in the central one. Bruno sees them as

copying a selection from the south side of the Parthenon, and reflecting their, by then,

weathered colours. The Lefkadia metopes are simplified versions of them, and a case

can plausibly be made for their being ‘artistic quotations’; Lefkadia 1 would be a

copy of Parthenon South metope 3, Lefkadia 11 of Parthenon South 27, and Lefkadia

2 of Parthenon South 7. It is the most plausible explanation for the difference between

their earthy tones, barely contrasted against the white background, and the bright hues

of the continuous frieze and architectural elements. Only the panels to the left are

clear, but one can see that they do not reflect a contemporary style of metopal

sculpture. The painting is not of a particularly high standard, but the figures are

differentiated; for example the Lapiths’ skin is lighter than that of the Centaurs, and

their hair is blond.

One can see the influence of this type of Macedonian tomb, so far unique, on

such buildings as the now largely destroyed Tomba Lagrasta, Canosa (Tomb no. 3)

271 Fuchs & Rudnick 1992; Ridgway 1997, p. 68 n. 47 Ridgway 1999, p. 54.
272 Petsas 1966, pls. ; Fedak 1990, pp. 81, 84, 105-9, 113-4, 122, 167, 178, figs. 138-9, figs.
138-9; Ridgway 1990, pp. 185-7; Pollitt 1986, pp. 188-90, 240-2, figs. 201-2; Robertson 1975, pp.
568-571; Martin 1968, pp. 171-184; Bruno 1981, pp. 3-11, pl. 1; Bruno 1977, pp. 23-30; Rouveret
1990, pp. 174-7, fig. 10, pls. VII, VIII, IX.1, X.2; Scheibler 1994, p. 136, fig. 62; Miller 1993a, p. 117,
fig. 3; Miller 1993b, cat. no. 18c, p. 110; Ridgway 1999, pp. 77-8, 115-7, col. pl. 4. For the pigments,
all organic except the Egyptian blue:  8, 1985, pp. 47-51. The whole tomb is in
extremely poor condition with cracked plaster work, etc. The top and centre of the facade are no longer
extant.
 90

which had a similarly articulated facade of a Doric lower storey and an Ionic upper

one.273 Five metopes were carved and figured. The structure should probably be

dated to the third century, but as with the pottery from the area, its chronology is not

entirely certain, and it may be as late as the second century.

The six metopes from the Tomba dell’ Altalena, Cyrene, were also painted

(fig. 38).274 They were removed in 1848 by Vattier de Bourville from an as yet

unidentified, but previously well documented, tomb in the Haley Stawat, and are now

in the Louvre (inv. P 94-P 99). It is not certain whether the frieze was from the

interior or the exterior porch of the tomb, though the metopes’ state of preservation

suggests the former. The scenes were not painted in trompe l’œuil to imitate

sculpture, but rather seem to follow motifs from famous works of art, notably of the

fourth century from which one finds the most stylistic comparanda. The architectural

setting however, as shown in H.W. Beechey’s drawing, makes this dating unlikely.

The rock-cut tomb is of limestone, the metopes included, with an atrium and a

chamber. The wall from which they came had a simple door, with on either side

Doric half-columns attached to antae, and a Doric frieze above. The columns had

Ionic fluting, and a moulding replaced the echinus on the capital.

Seven leaves were painted on the curving taenia above the metopes,

alternating in red and white, and there was a painted egg and dart on the geison, the

outlines lightly incised, with yellow eggs and darker yellow darts on a red

background. The technique used is that of tempera rather than fresco. The dimensions

of the metopes are not regular, but they were approximately square: average ht. ca.

0.210 (including 0.024 taenia), average w. 0.179. The width of the metopes in relation

to that of the triglyphs was around 1.42:1, suggesting the second half of third century,

and the height to width ratio of the triglyphs, a classicising 1.71:1, would not preclude

their belonging to this period. So the architecture suggests a date in the third century,

273 Fedak 1990, pp. 108, 113-5, figs. 142, 151-2; Miller 1971, pp. 152-3; Jacobone 1962, p. 183;
Lauter 1986, pp. 213, 220, pls. 27b, 28a.
274 Stucchi 1975, p. 156; Bacchielli 1976, pp. 355-383; Cassels 1955, p. 20; Scheibler 1994, pp. 84,
134; Rouveret 1990, pp. 251-2.
 91

or possibly the early second, despite numerous fourth century iconographic parallels

for the paintings.

The first metope on the left has a scene similar to Athens NM inv. 1688,

which is also seen in the Mourning Women Sarcophagus pediments and scenes on

Tarentine sculpture and vases, showing how much it follows a set way of representing

mourning. One can suggest that the other panels also copied mainstream designs,

though perhaps to a lesser extent. Bacchielli gives other Hellenistic comparanda that

lead to an understanding of the iconography as a blend of scenes from the life of the

deceased, represented as an idealised Hellenistic woman, depicted in four panels, with

one panel, the first, showing the mourning of her, and another, the fifth, the myth of

Charon, which was popular in Hellenistic Cyrenaica. The metope with the

eponymous swing may follow Polygnotus’ famous Phaedra on a swing (Pausanias

10.29.3). Bacchielli finds many other comparisons for the scenes, some in sculpture,

others in painting, both in extant works and from what is known of famous artists’

oeuvres, suggesting that the decoration was not original, but rather chosen from a

selection of famous scenes. Metope five has a nimbus around the figure implying a

non-human, therefore either an apparition in the deceased’s life or a scene of myth.

There are variations in the colour of the drapery and hair, and characterisation is

expressed through jewellery and gesture. The architecture cannot allow an earlier

dating, so one must conclude that what was represented in the metopes was

deliberately old-fashioned, as Cyrene, whilst not at the forefront of artistic

development, was far from being a cultural back-water.

2.2 Metopes with Repetitive Motifs

The formulaic alternation of one or two stylised devices in metopes becomes

popular in the Hellenistic period, is swiftly adopted by the Etruscans, and then moves

into Roman art, becoming a staple of it. Some of the devices, such as bulls’ heads or
boucrania, phialai and tripods, have ritual significance, while others, such as rosettes,
 92

seem to have been purely decorative. It is often difficult to differentiate between

ornate phialai and rosettes. There seems however to be more evidence for the use of

such friezes on stelae, cinerary urns and other small pieces than on actual buildings.

The same motifs can be found in ‘monotonous’ use on Ionic or continuous friezes.

The first certain use of a truly ‘monotonous’ frieze is in the fourth century on

the Thymele at Epidauros, although according to the building inscriptions,

Polemarchos of Stymphalos was paid 1,050 dr. to paint the metopes on the exterior of

the earlier temple of Asclepios with red motifs on a white background, and the

triglyphs blue.275

The Doric tholos at Epidauros is named the Thymele by the building

inscription I.G. IV2 103, lines 125 & 162.276 The large building, encircled by

twenty-eight columns and with an external diameter of 28.2, must have served an

important function to cover approximately the same area as the temple. The names of

twenty eponymous priests are extant in the fragmentary inscriptions, suggesting a

period of construction of 27+ years over the period ca. 365/360 to 330 BC.

Architecturally one can see that it is a development of, and so later than, the Delphic

tholos. Pausanias 2.27.3-5 names Polykleitos the Younger as the architect, and notes

paintings inside of Love and Drunkenness by Pausias of Sicyon. A floral acroterion,

surviving in only a few fragments, is restored as ca. 2.00 high. The metopes are

adorned with ornate ‘Eierschale’ phialai with twelve cavities, the spaces between

these filled by lotus blossoms, which seem to be the earliest example in a cult

building of a motif that becomes common in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Traces of paint indicate the original colouring: white and yellow motifs on a red

background, between blue triglyphs. The nature of the depicted objects is not

however entirely certain: though they are generally called phialai, they might be

vegetable, possibly poppies, which were used in cults, particularly oracles, and in

275 I.G. IV2, 102, lines 23-4. (see above)

276 The best preserved metope is Epidauros Museum inv. no. 73: w. of metope 0.716, of triglyph
0.478, th. of block 0.447. Seiler 1986, no. 9; Burford 1966, pp. 275-81; Burford 1969, pp. 63-8; Roux
1961, pp. 131-200, esp. 140-2, 171, 195; Ridgway 1997, pp. 45-8, ills. 8-9; Ridgway 1999, p. 79, ill.
23.
 93

medicine, and thus would be appropriate decoration for the sanctuary. Pausanias

described the building as being of white marble, but the metopes appear to be of a

cheaper Corinthian stone, that paint would have concealed. There were also carved

coffers with lilies and lotuses framed by four acanthus leaves reaching into the

corners.

Bronze garlands are restored in the metopes of Andron B, Labraunda,

dedicated by Mausolus ca. 355-352, the evidence for these being holes in the upper

corners with traces of corroded bronze.277 Similar holes exist on Andron A,

dedicated by Idrieus ca. 351-347.278 Both buildings had facades with Ionic columns

and Doric entablatures, an early example of the mixing of the two orders. The use of

such large and expensive bronze attachments rather than carving the objects in

marble, would suggest an ostentatious display of wealth even by the standards of the

Hecatomnids. One can note that the main parts of the metopes betray none of the

discolouration usually associated with bronze. I would rather identify the remains as

those of pins that attached a monotonous marble motif, for example boucrania

dowelled on at the tips of the horns.

One can make an educated assumption that the use of decorative motifs would

have preceded the development of narrative scenes in Archaic art. The entablature of

a limestone funerary naiskos from Megara Hyblaea, now in Syracuse Museum,279

had two surviving sculpted metopes each filled with a delicately carved highly

stylised floral motif, and is important in the development of metopes, but

unfortunately highlights some of the discrepancies involved in the dating of

Hellenistic Doric structures. If it is of the late fourth century as some think,280 it is

artistically a less important piece, and sets no precedent. If however this is Archaic, as

277 Hellström 1994; Hellström 1995, p. 167; Ridgway 1997, p. 100.

278 Hellström 1995, pp. 166-7; Ridgway 1997, p. 100.
279 Width 1.22. Two metopes and a triglyph with tops in the shape of pointed arches. Above is an
Archaic or archaising moulding showing Ionicising influence.
280 Langlotz & Hirmer 1965, cat. no. 129, p. 289, on sculptural grounds, though rather reluctantly;
Coulton 1976, p. 115 n. 1, and Lawrence 1983, p. 386 n. 132.6, on architectural grounds; also Vallet &
Villard 1966.
 94

Ridgway and others are inclined to believe,281 partly because of the discovery of a

Kouros within the building, it would of course antedate Epidauros considerably.

Delos theatre, dated by inscription to ca. 274-246 BC, had a marble frieze

with boucrania and tripods alternating in the metopes, w. 0.225, of the proscenion

(fig. 39).282 These objects were used in rituals, illustrating the sacred nature of the

theatre. The Doric frieze of the proscenion of Ephesos theatre, had metopes which

were higher than they were wide, with alternating rosettes and phialai or different

rosettes.283 Stylistically it is late Hellenistic, but may have been built in the early

Augustan period. The ‘décor sculpté’ of the proscenion of the Hellenistic Theatre at

Dion is likely to have been metopes.284

The proscenion of the theatre at Apollonia of Illyria, a Corinthian colony in

Epirus, had a variety of figured motifs repeated in the metopes,285 dating to the mid

third century first phase of the complex. The metopes were square, ca. 0.535, carved

in limestone. Four different designs have been found so far, although one of them is

too worn to be identified. The other motifs represented are a high-handled kantharos,

imitating a metal object rather than a clay vase; a filleted boucranion whose horns are

decorated with flowers; and of a male tragic mask wearing a winged headdress.

The theatre at Letoon of Xanthos, Lycia, ca. 110-90 or soon after, had relief

masks in the metopes that formed a lintel above the arch of the south-west entrance,

between the theatre and the sanctuary of the eponymous triad.286 The decorated

frieze was on the theatre side; the metopes on the west side were blank. The marble

frieze was made up of blocks of irregular length, with one or two metopes and

triglyphs. The sixteen metopes, in situ, were filled by seven assorted motifs, carved in

281 Ridgway 1977, p. 247; Barletta 1990, pp. 63-4, 68, fig. 17, on architectural grounds. The
association of the kouros and structure is suggested by Gentili and repeated by Ridgway.
282 Located on site. Ht. of frieze 0.230; w. of triglyphs 0.150; w. of metope 0.225. Guide de Delos, pp.
246-8, no. 114, fig. 92 on p 247; Clarke 1991, pp. 176-8; Deonna 1938, pl. CVIII.949; Webb 1996, p.
136, fig. 116.
283 Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 45.3, pl. 41.3; de Bernardi Ferrero 1970, 55, fig. 48.
284 BCH 118, 1994, pp. 740-1; 1, 1987, pp. 261-8; 5, 1991, pp. 157-169.
285 Budina 1975, pp. 438-9, fig. 2; Mano 1978, p. 278, pl. II.3; Moretti 1993, p. 209, fig. 2.
286 Metopes: ht. 0.27, w. 0.25. Rumscheid 1994, vol. I, p. 313, II p. 35 cat. no. 129.2; Webb 1996, pp.
123-4, fig. 97; de Bernardi Ferrero 1970, pp. 80-1, figs. 92-3; Moretti 1993, p. 211, fig. 8.
 95

low relief but ornately detailed. A bearded image of the god Dionysos was in the first,

tenth and sixteenth metopes. A tragic mask adorned the second, sixth and eleventh

panels; with a single one of a comic old woman in the fourth. ‘Barbarian’ bearded

faces were in the third, seventh and thirteenth metopes; young women in the fifth and

twelfth.287 Heads of young satyrs are in the eighth and fourteenth panels; bald,

bearded Silenoi the ninth and fifteenth. The decoration reflected an aspect of the use

of the theatre, taking theatrical iconography, part of the actors’ costume, and using it

to illustrate the main characters of drama as well as the god Dionysos himself.

Masks were used to decorate a number of Late Hellenistic and Roman

theatres, but remained an unusual, though appropriate, form of decoration.288 It

reached the height of its popularity in the second half of the second and third

centuries AD. The shape of the mask lends itself to repetition, whilst its nature allows

for variety, making it perhaps surprising that it was not used more often. The use of

the mask as decoration was not restricted to theatres; tombs, gateways, stoas, and

other structures were decorated with them, for example at Aphrodisias.289

287 de Bernardi Ferrero 1970, p. 81, describes them as “due visi di fanciulle che richiamano le figlie di
Niobe”; he does not suggest, as Webb 1996, p. 124 n. 6, states, “that these may be the sons of Niobe”,
although given the sanctuary the theatre was attached to this need not be entirely unlikely.
288 In Asia Minor theatres at: Aphrodisias, dedicated 28 BC [Moretti 1993, p. 207]; Ephesos, AD 66
and mid second century AD [Moretti 1993, p. 210; de Bernardi Ferrero 1970, pp. 62-4]; Bargylia
[Moretti 1993, p. 210]; numerous friezes from the theatre at Myra, early third century AD [Moretti
1993, pp. 211-2, figs. 9-13]; Sagalassos, late second century AD [Moretti 1993, p. 212, fig. 15]; Perge,
ca. 200 AD [Moretti 1993, p. 212, figs. 16-18]; coffers at Aspendos, reign of Marcus Aurelius [Moretti
1993, pp. 212-3, fig. 19]; frieze and coffers at Side, second half of the second century AD [Moretti
1993, p. 213, figs. 20 & 22left]. The lintel of the north parodos, inscribed with the name of
Apollodoros, ca. 130-30 BC, from the theatre at Pergamon had a frieze where ivy garlands linked
masks rather than the more usual bulls’ heads or boucrania [Moretti 1993, p. 209, fig. 3;
Schwingenstein 1977, p. 43; Mendel no. 287, II pp. 47-9; de Bernardi Ferrero 1970, pp. 29, 30].
Similar friezes decorated the theatres at Kyme [Moretti 1993, p. 210]; at Halicarnassus, late first
century BC, where bulls’ heads alternated with masks, and were linked by fruit and leaf garlands
[Moretti 1993, p. 210, fig. 5; Lauter 1986, p. 174]; at Stratonikeia, Augustan [Moretti 1993, p. 211];
Tlos, late first BC [Moretti 1993, p. 211; de Bernardi Ferrero 1970, pp. 191-6]; Limyra, late second
century AD [Moretti 1993, p. 212]. A frieze is linked to, but is not certainly from, the theatre at Mylasa
[Moretti 1993, pp. 207, 208, 213, fig. 22right; Schwingenstein 1977, p. 43]. In Greece there is a
Severan frieze at the theatre at Philippi [Moretti 1993, p. 209]; the Odeon of Agrippa in Athens was
also decorated with masks [Moretti 1993, p. 216 n. 63]. In Italy there are examples of masks in the
decoration of theatres at: Casinum, Herculaneum, Ostia, Pompeii, possibly the one at Saepinum, at
Falerio, Firmum, Fiesole, Volterra, Parma, Pola, Verona, Vicetia, and the theatre of Marcellus at Rome
[Moretti 1993, pp. 208, 215-6; Fuchs 1987, pp. 147-9; Courtois 1989, p. 114]. Late Hellenistic
antefixes from the theatres at Locris and Monte Iato were decorated with Silenoi masks [Courtois
1989, p. 40].
289 Moretti 1993, p. 214.
 96

A Macedonian tomb at Phoenix-Thessaloniki, dating to the last quarter of the

fourth century, was recently found.290 Although the facade had no columns, a Doric

frieze with painted relief phialai in the seven metopes ran across it. The phialai were

painted yellow against a white background, the triglyphs blue. Rosettes filled the

metopes of a Hellenistic tomb at Messene.291 The tetrastyle amphiprostyle structure,

near the stadium, appears to be a heroon or founder’s tomb, and included sculptures

of lions as part of its decoration; it was clearly built in the wake of the Mausoleum.

From the Bouleuterion of Sagalassos, Pisidia, second half of the second

century, two limestone metopes with reliefs of wreaths have been found, and are

restored as alternating with blank metopes, running around the top of the outer wall of

the building. The wreaths are symbolic of victory, and fit with the martial decor of the

whole. The Doric frieze of the -shaped Fountain House at Sagalassos, first century

BC, was similar; alternate metopes held filleted wreaths.292 The Hieron, Delos, in

the sanctuary of Apollo, had boucrania and phialai alternating in the Doric frieze

around the top of the base.293

Armour was occasionally used as decoration in metopes. From the temple

beneath S. Leucio, Canosa, a hybrid structure with Ionic columns, Atlas figures and a

Doric entablature, one metope of the frieze is preserved, decorated with a relief

corselet.294 A number of Late Republican funerary monuments in Italy had arms and

cuirasses in the metopes.295 Athens NM inv. 1317 is a late second century BC stele

representing a temple facade; Corinthian columns support a Doric entablature of four

metopes with bulls’ heads in the outer panels, a helmet and corselet in the inner.296

290 42, 1987, B’2, p. 358, pl. 197a; BCH 118, 1994, p. 750, fig. 51; 1, 1987, pp. 261-8;
Miller 1993a, p. 117; Miller 1993b, cat. no. 30e.
291 Although I visited the structure, I did not see the friezes, and have this information second-hand.
Ridgway 1997, p. 48; Cooper & Fortenberry 1993.
292 Limestone, located on site. The structure is in the northern part of the town, between the theatre
and upper agora. Waelkens et al 1991, p. 197, figs. 3-4, pl. 37c; Sagalassos 1, p. 44; Webb 1996, pp.
130-1, fig. 107.
293 Deonna 1938, pl. CVIII.951; Webb 1996, n. 8 p. 38.
294 Pensabene 1990, cat. nos. 81, 84, pp. 287-8, pl. CXXVI.1-.4.
295 see Russo 1981.
296 Couilloud 1974, no. 118, pp. 105-7, pl. 27; Schmidt 1991, fig. 59.
 97

A Volterran urn has at the base a frieze with pseudo-triglyphs between which are

similar small-scale depictions of armour and shields in the ‘metopes’.297 From

Umbria comes a metope decorated with a low relief helmet, in the Museo Civico at

Gubbio.298

A number of Doric friezes with repetitive motifs in the metopes can be found

in Late Republican Italy. Among them is a Doric entablature from Schiavi d’Abruzzo,

now in the Museo di Chieti, of which four terracotta metopes survive with alternating

rosettes and bulls’ heads; it comes from a structure that had Ionic columns.299 The

podium from the sanctuary of Fortuna at Palestrina, was decorated with alternating

phialai and a variety of rosettes in the metopes.300 At Vastogirardi in Molise there is

a crude low relief Doric frieze with alternating phialai, bulls’ heads and theatrical

masks.301 It is probably from a funerary monument of ca. 300 BC. Two blocks are

preserved with: a) bulls’ heads and rosettes; b) bulls’ heads, phialai and masks; and a

fragment with a mask. Three square limestone metopes from a late second century

BC civic building in Capua, now in the Antiquarium at S. Maria Capua Vetere, were

decorated with a boar, greaves, and a tunic-clad man with a dog.302 A piece of a

Doric frieze with an amphora in one metope and a flower in the second, is built into

the wall of S. Vittoria, Monteleone.303 The entablature of the Corinthian Etrusco-

Republican temple at Fiesole, early first century BC, had a particularly unusual Doric

frieze with octoglyphs which were much smaller than the rosettes between them.304

Built into a wall of the Palazzo Communale at Amelia, in Umbria, is a block of a

frieze with a metope flanked by triglyphs; the iconography, a bird perched on a

schematic low relief pomegranate tree, shows it to have been from a funerary

297 Kraus 1976, fig. 5.

298 Verzar 1976, p. 128, fig. 20.
299 La Regina 1976, fig. 4.
300 Kraus 1976, p. 456, fig. 2; Fraser & Rönne 1967, no. 4, pl. 17.
301 Morel 1976, p. 260, figs. 4-6. Ht. of blocks 0.47.
302 Johannowsky 1976, figs. 1-3, p. 280.
303 Kraus 1976, fig. 3.
304 Kraus 1976, fig. 4; Fraser & Rönne 1967, p. 46.
 98

context.305 The popularity of metopes with repetitive motifs extends from the

Republican into the early Augustan period. A block of a Doric frieze, of Luni marble,

from a circular structure that once stood in the Cemeterio dei Giordani in Rome is

extant; one square metope has a low relief helmet, whilst a second metope has a

double width and is filled with a ship.306 The base of a monument to Sextus

Appuleius, now in Isernia Museum, had a frieze where the metopes were filled with

alternating depictions of armour and animals, including the Lupercalia, all executed

in very low relief .307

The development of Doric friezes in Ptolemaic Egypt is interesting. From the

known contexts of these examples, they would all seem to have been used as lintels

above doors, and a number of them had decorated metopes, with a mixture of Greek

and native Egyptian motifs. The friezes are not all ‘monotonous’ in that the same

design is not repeated in all of the metopes, nor are they narrative.

Alexandria inv. 19908, is a block with a square metope between two triglyphs,

dated to the second half of the second century BC.308 The panel is filled by a frontal

low relief knielauf figure; he is crudely executed and out of proportion, with a head so

enlarged that even viewing at a great height could not justify such a distortion.

Alexandria inv. 21792, is a block with a complete frieze of five triglyphs and

four metopes, the first of which is worn almost to the point of oblivion.309 The

metopes are fractionally wider than they are high. The outer panels are decorated with

Greek rosettes, the inner ones with stylised Egyptian papyrus flowers, simple motifs

rendered in very low relief. An inscription on the architrave carries a dedication to

Heron, a local deity, and names a year in the reigns of Ptolemy VII Euergetes II and

Cleopatra III, dating the piece exactly to 140 BC.

305 Verzar 1976, p. 128, fig. 19.

306 Block 1.39 x 0.58, th. 0.425; large metope 0.765 x 0.315. Dintsis 1986, pl. 8.4; Pietrangeli 1939.
307 Curtius 1933, pp. 198-200, figs. 7-9. The inscription: CIL IX 2687.
308 From Theadelphia (modern Batn Herit); limestone, ht. 0.28, l. 0.585, d. 0.14. Pensabene 1993, cat.
no. 957, p. 517, pl. 100.
309 From Theadelphia; limestone, ht. 0.355, l.1.19. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 951, p. 515, pl. 100.
 99

Alexandria inv. 20887, is a complete lintel block, on which is preserved a

Doric frieze of five triglyphs and four metopes.310 The metopes are approximately

twice as high as they are wide, and contain stylised foliage. In the first and third

panels two cable-marked volutes, facing each other, emerge from an acanthus leaf. In

the second and fourth panels the ends of the stems that form a vertical mandola,

within which is a flower, scroll outwards. The best preserved panel, on the left, shows

that the relief was quite high with under-carving. It dates to the second half of the

second century.

Alexandria inv. 20892, is a complete lintel block preserving the line of the

door and the Doric entablature with a meander-covered architrave and a frieze

composed of five triglyphs and four metopes, second half of second century.311 As

on inv. 20887 the glyphs have flat tops, and the taenia over the metopes is set back

rather than projecting out to the level of the taenia over the triglyphs. Within the

metopes are concentric _-shaped mouldings that recall the effect of coffers, and may

represent doorways. A similar effect is created in the metopes of a Doric frieze from

Tebtynis, but with simple coffers.312

Alexandria inv. 24024, is also a complete lintel block from the second half of

the second century preserving an undecorated architrave and a frieze composed of

five triglyphs and four metopes.313 The left hand side of the block is weathered, but

the right is well preserved. The triglyphs are square topped with a taenia, the top edge

of which is decorated with two small objects, presumably of some cultic significance.

The metopes are a little higher than they are wide, and have no taenia. They are

decorated with assorted foliate and vegetable motifs, the spaces around these filled by

small rosettes.

310 From Theadelphia; limestone, ht. 0.24, l. 1.25, d. 0.25. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 955, pp. 516-7, pl.
100 (in the entry for this piece the inv. no. is incorrectly given as 20892 - the number I have given can
be read off the photograph illustrating no. 956, which matches the description).
311 From Theadelphia; limestone, ht. 0.44, l. 1.37, d. 0.24. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 956, p. 517, pl.
100 (in the entry for this piece the inv. no. is incorrectly given as 20887 - the number I have given can
be read off the photograph illustrating no. 955, which matches the description).
312 Nowicka 1969, p. 111, fig. 65.
313 From Tebtynis; limestone, ht. 0.39, l. 1.28, d. 0.21. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 954, p. 516, pl.100.
 100

On Alexandria inv. 23579, the left side and centre are preserved of an unusual

block, with half a triglyph, a square metope, another triglyph and then a higher

rectangular panel that rises to above the taenia; the latter is the only one decorated,

with a flower surrounded by seven acanthus leaves.314 The projection of the leaves is

quite high, and details are marked through the use of drilling. The removal of the

taenia, rather than the scene merely overlapping it, can also be seen on Cyrene tomb

N171, and on the Julio-Claudian so-called Tomb of the Empress Helena in Jerusalem.

Alexandria inv. 3750 is a second century block reconstructed of two pieces,

the centre of which is made up of a rectangular metope framed by triglyphs, which

are in turn flanked by partial metopal panels.315 Insufficient remains do not allow us

to guess what was depicted on the left hand panel. In the centre the surface of the

design has been effaced by chisel marks, but the outline is that of an Egyptian

headdress such as those worn by Isis or Hathor. The preserved left side of the right

metope is less damaged, and would seem to have illustrated a papyrus boat carrying a

shabti-like figure before a shrine, a scene depicted extensively in native Egyptian art.

A near-complete lintel block in two pieces, Cairo inv. 27619 preserves an

architrave decorated with a scroll pattern, and a frieze of five triglyphs and four

metopes.316 The upper left corner is broken off, taking with it the first triglyph and

part of the metope. The Egyptian symbols represented in low relief in the panels are:

the serpent god Uraeus wearing the combined crown of Isis-Hathor, also represented

on its own in the following panel, then the pshent or combined crown of Upper and

Lower Egypt, and finally the serpent god Agathodaemon wearing the pshent. The

iconography, depicting in one half the symbols of the king, and in the other those of

native goddesses which came to be associated with and to symbolise the queen, is

interesting; the work is likely to be again from the second half of the second century.

314 From Oxyrhynchos (modern Bahnasa); limestone, ht. 0.295, l. 0.73, d. 0.135. Pensabene 1993, cat.
no. 952, pp. 515-6, pl. 100.
315 From the Western Necropolis of Alexandria; white limestone, ht. 0.38, l. 0.88, d. 0.37, metopes
0.228 x 0.27. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 953, p. 516, pl. 100.
316 From Athribis (modern Tell Athrib); soft white limestone, ht. 0.24, l. 0.89, d. 0.13. Edgar 1903, p.
67, pl. XXXI; LIMC, I, 1, 1981, v.s. Agathodaimon, p. 278, no. 10.
 101

Alexandria inv. 19907; a complete block with a square metope flanked by

triglyphs, the surface of the one on the left broken off. 317 In the metope is a high

relief herm of a bearded man, whose features are represented as Greek, but who wears

Egyptian dress. To the right of him there is what appears to be a crouching animal-

headed figure. The man may be the local deity Heron. The relief projects outwards to

the level of the front of the glyphs. The glyphs, as on inv. 25098, end in ‘u’ shaped

projections. The provenance of the piece, its links to the sanctuary and the level of

integration of Egyptian and Greek styles, all suggest a date within the second half of

the second century.

There is a similar Doric Frieze from Ptolemaic Egypt, with egyptianising

symbols in the metopes, in the British Museum.318

Alexandria inv. 25096 is a complete block with part of a Doric frieze,

preserving two thirds of the triglyph on the left, the whole triglyph from the right, and

a metope in between them.319 The metope is not carved, but rather had incisions

marking out the outline of a rosette which would have been painted. Second or first

century BC. A similar design can be seen on a Herodian metope from Masada, ca. 40

BC, reused in a later bath-building; here a crude twelve-petalled flower is created by

cutting away the background.320 Interestingly this technique, which creates a

uniform upper surface, is often found used in Egyptian reliefs. A painted metope of

the Charites is extant from the temple of Apollo at Thermon; the temple has been

redated to the early Hellenistic period from the Archaic.321

‘Monotonous’ friezes lead to what one can interpret as a ‘degeneration’ of

Doric friezes in the second century. Two marble friezes from a Hellenistic villa,

Pythagoreion, Samos, had triglyphs that turned into tripods, the glyphs becoming

317 From Theadelphia; limestone, ht. 0.274, l. 0.50, d. 0.18. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 958, p. 517, pl.
100.
318
EA 1907.7-17.10, unpublished, transferred to the Greek and Roman Dept., and now in the basement
storerooms. Flat-topped glyphs, with five mutules beneath the triglyphs. Block: ht. 0.346; depth 0.13;
width 0.61. Ht. metope 0.244; width metope 0.265; width triglyph 0.168.
319 Provenance unknown; limestone, l. 0.785. Pensabene 1993, cat. no. 959, p. 518, pl. 100.
320 Yadin 1966, p. 83.
321 Ridgway 1999, p. 34 n. 54; Papapostolou 1993, pp. 47-9.
 102

their legs, and between them high relief rosettes in the metopes.322 The building is

dated by ceramic evidence to the middle of the second century, though these friezes,

now in the Kastro Tigani, would appear to be later; one frieze is believed to have

been executed ca. 100 BC, the other to be a subsequent restoration. The first frieze,

inv. A73 & A100-1, is of higher quality (fig. 42). Inv. A103-4 seems to be a later less

skilful addition or restoration, closely but not accurately following the previous (figs.

43, 45). Inv. A73 has more space around the rosettes in the metopes than inv. A103-4.

In the latter much of the detail of the tripods is omitted, the petals are less concave,

and the darts of the plastic egg-and-dart taenia are also less pronounced.

In the Doric frieze on the north outer face of the mixed order Lesser Propylaea

at Eleusis, 54-50 BC, built by Appius Claudius Pulcher, there are low reliefs on two

alternate planes.323 Cistoi and wheat, the symbols of Demeter, are superimposed on

the triglyphs, alternating with more traditional rosettes and filleted boucrania in the

metopes (fig. 44). The motifs of wheat and rosettes are repeated on the cists carried

by the korai inside the gateway. Both this frieze and the previous one were used

within entablatures that crowned Corinthian columns.

A third example of this type of frieze is to be found on a block reused on an

exterior wall on the southern side of Panagia Georgoepikoos or the Old Mitropolis,

Athens.324 It is weathered but well preserved. At the left is a ‘triglyph’, the glyphs

replaced by a relief cuirasse and crossed spear, then a quite conventional metopal

panel with a rosette, a second ‘triglyph’ replaced this time by a cist, and finally a

metope with a boucranion wearing a beaded fillet. The frieze is a step further in its

development, in that the triglyphs are replaced by objects, instead of having them

322 Inv. A73: ht. 0.492, l. 1.139, th. 0.542. Inv. A100-1: ht. 0.492, l. 1.156, th. 0.542. Inv. A103-4: ht.
0.362, l. 2.086, th. 0.272. Lauter 1986, p. 263, pl. 40b; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 80.19-21, I p. 313, II
p. 25, pl. 55.1-3; Samos 14, pp. 42, 66, figs. 75-6.
323 Dedicatory inscription on the architrave. Ht. of entablature 0.995, of which architrave 0.35. Blank
metopes on sides. Hörmann 1932, pp. 45-50, pls. 6.2, 32, 42b; Dinsmoor 1975, pp. 286-7, pl. LXVII
top; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 369.5, pl. 195.1; Lauter 1986, p. 263, fig. 71b; Webb 1996, p. 30;
Ridgway 1999, p. 54.
324 Hörmann 1932, p. 47, fig. 36; Ridgway 1999, p. 54; Brommer 1980, pp. 547-8 with ill..
 103

superimposed on them. Owing to the similarities to the Eleusis frieze it is assigned to

a very late hellenistic Eleusinion in Athens, though may be Roman.

These are mannerisms, visual puns more commonly associated today with the

Post-modernist school of architecture. In the same spirit are the pairs of greaves on

the frieze of the Atrium of the fourth century Etruscan Tomb of the Reliefs, Cerveteri,

that recall triglyphs, with ‘jockey cap’ helmets in the ‘metopes’ formed between

them.325 A similar play on images is achieved on a block from Marsa Matrouh, now

in Alexandria Museum, likely to be early Roman, with a frieze whose form recalls

those of the Doric order: the triglyphs are replaced by uraei in shrines, but the guttae

beneath them are retained.326 Later the continuous friezes of Roman Corinthian

temples are broken up by consoles or other supports, with repeated motifs in between

them, that recall the shapes and rhythm of Doric friezes: for example, the Trajaneum

at Pergamon, and Temple N1 at Side.327 On a Punic tomb at Ahmed columns with

palm capitals support a frieze that shows the degeneration of Doric friezes; the

architectural framework of triglyphs and metopes is entirely omitted, and instead four

square panels are cut into the frieze, and filled with relief rosettes.328

The Doric frieze of the Stoa of Antigonos Gonatas, Delos, ca. 260-250, was

decorated with ‘monotonous’ motifs, but here they were high relief bulls’ heads

superimposed on to alternate triglyphs rather than placed in the metopes (fig. 41). 329

The metopes and undecorated triglyphs are of bluish marble from Tenos. The figured

triglyphs are of white Delian marble, with the bovine and architectural elements

carved of the same block rather than pieced. The triglyphs are extremely widely

spaced, to allow only the one in the intercolumniation to be figured. The undecorated

325 Janson 1972, p. 149, fig. 203; Blanck & Proietti 1986.
326 Pensabene 1993, p. 136.
327 Mansel 1978, figs. 141-2
328 Stucchi 1987b, fig. 64, pp. 279-80.
329 On site and Delos Museum. Antigonos Gonatas died 238 BC. The triglyphs measure w. 0.40, ht.
0.590, average th. of the undecorated ones 0.30; the glyphs d. 0.035, w. 0.70. The high relief bulls’
heads project ca. 0.25 of an average th. of 0.45-0.50; w. at eyes of bulls 0.29. Courby 1912, pp. 1-45;
Vallois 1944, I, pp. 37, 162-4; Guide de Delos, no. 29, pp. 141-2, fig. 28 on p. 143; Ridgway 1990a, p.
172 ; Clarke 1991, p. 171; Coulton 1976, p. 231; Miller 1971, pp. 205-6, pl. LXVIIIe; Webb 1996, pp.
136-7, figs. 117-8; Ridgway 1999, p. 54, fig. 15.
 104

triglyphs have taeniae, straight tops and ears, all of which Miller sees as part of the

Macedonian influence on the architecture. The height of the frieze is carefully

calculated to equal the upper diameter of the column, or 0.59, and its height in

relation to the architrave is 1.2:1. The bulls’ heads, of which over twenty have been

found, retain traces of red paint. The metopes due to their extreme width had no

taenia. In the centre of the facade their average width was 1.06, or approximately

twice their height, in the wings it is 0.84-0.87.

The heads on the Stoa’s triglyphs are so close to those of the protomes from

the Monument of the Bulls that the early excavators believed them to come from the

same building. Comparanda for the bulls’ heads can also be found on Delos in stucco

friezes from private houses of the second and first centuries. Stucco triglyphs are

known from Room H of the House of the Trident, second half of the second century

BC, decorated with similar heads in high relief, average th. 0.15-0.18. Around a

dozen are extant, the heads modelled separately and attached to the triglyphs by

bronze dowels. The heads were yellow with red eyes and nostrils. In a cistern

elsewhere in the house, one head was found attached to a triglyph.330

Private architecture has also produced some more canonical small stucco

Doric friezes. Much of the evidence comes from Delos, but sites in Asia Minor such

as Priene and Cnidus are also yielding stucco friezes and architectural members. A

stucco entablature with square or near square metopes was found in the House of the

Dioscuri, Delos, from which one bull’s head, Delos Museum inv. A.339, is extant.331

It is overly schematised, and too small for the space within which it sits. Delos

Museum inv. A.340, a Doric entablature, has a frieze with alternating rosettes and

small bulls’ heads, from a house in the area of the theatre, to the east of the Agora des

Competaliastes (fig. 46).332 The frieze is made up of three triglyphs, two whole and

two partial metopes. A fragment of a metope with a low relief boucranion was found

330 Bulard 1908, p. 154; Courby 1912, p. 40 n. 2, fig. 58; Webb 1996, pp. 140-1, figs. 123-7.
331 Courby 1912, p. 40 n. 2, fig. 59.
332 Delos Museum. Marcadé 1952, p. 110, fig. 9a; Webb 1996, n. 8 p. 38.
 105

in the House of Cleopatra, Delos.333 Also from the House of Cleopatra is a block

with a complete second frieze, not unlike the Alexandria lintel blocks, made up of

five triglyphs and four metopes (fig. 40).334 The left hand metope preserves a bull’s

head. In the other metopes are ‘shadows’ created by missing heads, which were

attached by pins. The friezes were found in the debris of the house, and not linked to

any particular room; they belong to the mid second century redecoration of this third

century house on Insula 3 in the Theatre Quarter. A dozen highly painted stucco

faces, ht. 0.15, depicting helmeted warriors and gorgoneia have been found in Room

H of the House of the Trident, Delos, last quarter of the second century.335 They are

linked to a small Doric frieze of painted blue stucco; triglyph ht. 0.20, w. 0.10;

metope w. 0.18. Webb seems to assume these and the bulls that decorated triglyphs

(see above) both came from same frieze,336 with discrepancies in the evidence due to

faulty recording of the excavations, but their sizes and forms of decoration would

appear to contradict this. House no. 30, Theatre Street, Priene, 337 has produced a

stucco head of a satyr, ht. 0.07, painted red, that in the second century decorated a

metope. Part of a Doric frieze, with triglyphs painted blue, was found with it.

These examples serve to illustrate how closely domestic decoration imitated

that of monumental architecture, with even unusual friezes, such as the one from the

Stoa of the Bulls being copied. Generally on Delos one can note that bulls and bulls’

heads were more popular than boucrania; the latter seem to have found more favour

with the early Ptolemies in Hellenic sanctuaries.

Altars decorated with triglyphs became popular in the Hellenistic period, but

most of these had no decoration in the metopes. Agora inv. S2525, is a round altar

with filleted boucrania and triglyphs covering the body.338 Although unique in

333 Delos Museum, no inv. number. Marcadé 1952, p. 110, fig. 9b; Webb 1996, 137-8.
334 Delos Museum, A. 339. Marcadé 1952, p. 110, fig. 9c; Webb 1996, 137-8.
335 Delos Museum. Marcadé 1952, p. 111, fig. 10; Belson 1981, vol. II, p. 65; Webb 1996, 140-1,
figs. 128-9.
336 Webb 1996, p. 141.
337 Webb 1996, p. 28 n. 26; Wiegand & Schrader 1904, pp. 310-12, figs. 337, 339, 341; Raeder 1984,
p. 21, fig. 7b.
338 Fraser 1977, p. 113 n. 148 (v), fig. 75b. Prof. David Rupp who is currently working on the
publication of the Agora altars has kindly allowed me to include this piece.
 106

Athens, it finds parallel altars at Epidauros, Nemea and Olympia, all with blank

metopes. It is crisp and well preserved at the bottom, but the top and one side are

missing. The cylinder rests, not in situ, on a three-stepped base, with the lower

moulding stepping in and out for the metopes and triglyphs. The style suggests that it

is early Hellenistic under Macedonian influence. A cylindrical altar from Delos, BM

no. 2484, is of uncertain date and in heavily worn condition.339 Bulls’ heads and

boucrania fill the body, at the top of which is a small Doric frieze with alternating

bulls’ heads and phialai. Another cylindrical altar on Cos is similar. 340 An

anonymous base of pale pink marble of uncertain date, located to the north of, and

similar to, the base of Philetairos, next to the temple of Apollo, has alternating

rosettes or phialai and boucrania in the metopes; the motifs are so small that they

seem lost in the space.341 The glyphs are flat topped. An Ionicising element is

present in the use of dentils.

In the Greek world repetitive Doric friezes were popular on reliefs and smaller

scale objects. The funerary Stele of Sasamas, from Zaverda, third century BC,

Istanbul cat. no. 1073, had no columns, but a Doric frieze ran along the top. On the

front were six triglyphs, with flat-topped glyphs, and five metopes containing

boucrania, as well as a metope and a triglyph on the returns. This was combined with

dentils below the architrave. Thebes Museum no. 60, a poros funerary relief imitating

a naiskos, had a low pediment above a Doric frieze with phialai in the metopes.342

And a grave relief in Chios Museum, first century BC, had Corinthian columns and a

Doric entablature. A funerary stele from Rhenea, ca. 100 BC, now in Mykonos

Museum, was carved to imitate a Corinthian temple facade, with a Doric frieze of

four metopes.343 The outer two metopes were filled with boucrania, and the two

inner with phialai. There is a large series of Boeotian stelae crowned by small Doric

339 Fraser 1977, fig. 73a

340 Fraser 1977, fig. 79d.
341 Guide de Délos, no. 14, p. 133; Deonna 1938, pl. CVIII.948, .950; Webb 1996, n. 8 p. 38; Fraser
1977, fig. 65c.
342 Fraser & Rönne 1957, p. 19, no. 35. Not seen by Fraser & Rönne.
343 Couilloud 1974, no. 57, pp. 81-3, fig. 2, pl. 12; Schmidt 1991, fig. 49.
 107

friezes; rosettes were the most common form of decoration in the metopes, although

the other usual motifs also appeared.344

There are also some Greek sarcophagi that include Doric friezes as part of

their decorative scheme.345 Perhaps the best known sarcophagus decorated in this

way however is the Republican one of L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, in the

Vatican.346 On larger scale Etruscan urns and sarcophagi one finds fluted pilasters,

usually Ionic, that echo triglyphs, with simple motifs such as phialai filling the

rectangular panel in between; the design of these recalls Doric friezes of triglyphs and

metopes. This can also be seen on the Porta Augusta at Perugia. Sarcophagi could

have several of these ‘modules’, while urns often had only one.

Two vases in the Metropolitan Museum are of interest, and should be noted.

They are the name vases for the Metope Painter, who is so called because of this

unusual pair of mid fourth century Apulian loutrophoroi on which are depicted Ionic

naiskoi with Doric friezes in the metopes of which he painted scenes from the

Amazonomachy. These are amongst the few depictions of architectural sculpture in

vase painting.347

2.3 Continuous friezes

There were relatively few continuous friezes within the decoration of the

Doric order, and these were not part of the canon, but as in the fifth century, a few are

known. One should note that the Doric temple of Dionysos Bresaeus, Lesbos, first

century BC, is the only Hellenistic example of a major building with a figured

continuous frieze on the architrave, in the manner of the Archaic temple at near by

344 Fraser & Rönne 1967.

345 Fedak 1990, p. 175.
346 Kraus 1976, p. 456, fig. 1.
347 Dr. Picon kindly brought these to my attention and allowed me to examine them in 1997.
MMMBull 53.2 (1995), p. 12; Ridgway 1999, pp. 54-5.
 108

Assos.348 The Heroon of Archocrates, Lindos, ca. 200 BC, had a stucco facade with

a Doric frieze of plain metopes and a continuous figured relief frieze on the attic of

alternating phialai and smaller acanthus females.349

The painted stucco battle frieze on the Great Tomb at Lefkadia separates the

two levels and their orders rather than belonging to the Doric order,350 although on

three other Macedonian tombs, already mentioned in ‘Pediments’, a frieze replaces

the pediment directly above the Doric order: Vergina Tombs II and III, and a tomb

uncovered in 1994 at Aghios Athanasios.

The best known Hellenistic continuous frieze must however be the high relief

marine cortege that ran along the base of the interior of the cella of the Monument of

the Bulls, Delos.351 The sculpture is dated to ca. 300 BC, which is as high as the

architecture will allow it to be, in the first generation of the Baroque style; it is an

important precursor to the Pergamon Altar, and the only monumental frieze in high

relief preceding it. Since the monument is believed to have commemorated a naval

victory and to have been designed to hold a trireme, the aquatic theme of the frieze

would have been entirely appropriate. The main room was articulated by Doric

pilasters between windows on the long walls, and separated from the back room by

columns.

2.4 Conclusion

348 Lawrence 1983, p. 286; Webb 1996, 152; Koldewey 1890, 63, pl. 28; Pottier & Hauvette-Besnault
1880, pp. 445-6. One block on site, but badly worn; ht. 0.415, l. 0.545.
349 Dyggve & Poulsen 1960, pp. 493-4, pl. XIIIb, XIII.18.
350 Osada 1993, cat. MF9, pp. 3-16, 20, 21-22, 24, 32, 37, 85, 107, 108, 145; Petsas 1966, esp. pp.
159-179; Gossel 1980, p. 169; Kleiner 1972, pp. 10ff; Rouveret 1990, p. 108. Continuous stucco frieze
with varying planes of relief. Some figures, at the level of the legs, are almost free from the
background.
351 Marcadé 1951, pp. 67-82, pls. 6-17; Lattimore 1976, pp. 31-2, 53-4, 58-9, pls. 22, 25; Marcadé
1970, pp. 359-362; Ridgway 1990a, pp.172-5; Guide de Délos, no. 24, pp. 138-40, fig. 27; Stewart
1990, p. 201; Osada 1993, cat. MF5, pp. 17-19, 102, 107, 108, 144; Webb 1996, pp. 134-5, figs. 111-2.
It may be possible to assign a Triton, BM 2220 (GR 1819.2-13.4), ht. 1.20, to the frieze; its provenance
is Delos, no other monument on the island with such a frieze is known, and it is carved of the same
Parian marble. New pieces of the frieze have been found since the Marcadé 1951 catalogue, but are
unpublished.
 109

It is apparent that there were a considerable number of narrative figured

metopes from the fourth and third centuries; these declined in popularity after ca. 260

although ‘monotonous’ friezes continued to be popular. Amongst narrative metopes

one can note an increase in popularity throughout the fourth century; they then almost

cease after ca. 260, to be briefly and sporadically resurrected in the Late Hellenistic

period. It would be misleading however to claim that continuous friezes were much

more popular, for there are relatively few of these attested from buildings.

The subjects chosen for narrative metopes showed no great originality and

mainly derived from those that were most popular in the Classical period.

Commonest in occurrence were the Amazonomachy, found on the Delphi Tholos, at

Ilion, Sparta and perhaps Paestum, and the Centauromachy, attested at the Delphi

Tholos, perhaps Ilion, the Limyra Ptolemaion, on the Thera metope and the Lefkadia

tomb. Warriors and battles were preferred on Tarentine naiskoi, and mourning

women are found on Athens NM 1688 and the Altalena Tomb in Cyrene. Subjects

that were selected as appropriate to the structures they decorated were Telephos and

Tegean heroes at Tegea, Andromeda and a Nereid on the Poseidon temple at

Messene, the marine thiasos on the Monument of the Bulls, Delos, and Dionysos in

Thasos theatre.

Monotonous motifs in metopes began to be used in the fourth century, and

soon became wide-spread; the same phenomenon can be noted in continuous friezes.

Boucrania, rosettes and phialai were the most popular designs, but a wide variety of

others were also used. A tendency to ‘mannerise’ the designs by playing jokes, such

as turning triglyphs into tripods, can be noted from the end of the second century. The

rhythm, if not the elements, of the Doric frieze were picked up by the Romans on

continuous friezes.

A large variety of techniques was employed in the execution of metopes

during the period. Extremely high relief was rare, but less high, middle and low relief

were commonly used. Engraving was used for simple designs, particularly on small-
scale pieces; the image would then have been highlighted with paint. Paint was used
 110

to embellish carved metopes, and on occasion replaced sculpture. Painted metopes

included simple monotonous motifs, for example on the outer metopes at Epidauros

as attested by the building inscriptions, as well as more complex narrative scenes, as

at Lefkadia and at Cyrene. Painted continuous friezes were also executed in

Macedonia and in Ptolemaic Egypt. The medium was more susceptible to the

elements than stone, so the evidence is distorted in terms of quantity, and it can be

assumed that many more structures had, now lost, painted decoration. The use of

additions in bronze, seems only to have occurred at Ilion, and even there not with

certainty. Dowelling figures to the metopal plane was used at Tegea, but nowhere

else; it was an unusual technique, so this is not surprising. The metopes from

Labraunda, with traces of bronze pins in the upper corners, are enigmatic; the

excavators’ attached bronze wreaths may rather have been other monotonous objects

dowelled in.

An important feature to note is the possible change of location of the Doric

frieze, meaning that it was not just restricted to the entablature above the columns, but

could decorate a base or podium below them; for example at Belevi, the Ptolemaion

at Limyra, the Hieron in the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delos, the tholoi on the middle

terraces at Palestrina, and the monotonous frieze from the interior of the Doric-

Corinthian Temple at Paestum. This was equally true of continuous friezes, where it

may have been a recognition of the difficulties of viewing finely executed sculpture

when displayed at a great height. Doric friezes were also used to decorate door lintels,

rather than continuing all the way around a wall. A number of blocks with figured

metopes from Alexandria and one from Delos are attested as such, as well as a

Macedonian tomb with undecorated metopes at Haliakmon.352

In Cyrene niches were cut into the metopes on the facades of tombs, and

portrait heads inserted. The date when this began is uncertain, but it is known on a

number of Hellenistic tombs, perhaps done by succeeding generations of the same

family, and continued into the Imperial period. In the Roman period cineraria were

352 Miller 1982, p. 158, figs. 15-16; 15, 1975, p. 293, fig. 3, no. 174.
 111

also sometimes inserted behind the busts;353 Tomb W 19 has niches cut into an

internal Doric frieze,354 as does the facade of Tomb N228.355 A tomb at Zania

Morazigh, Cyrenaica, has niches of varying sizes.356 A similar occurrence is seen at

a second tomb at the same site.357 They were cut to accomodate busts, first in the

Doric frieze as the family continued to use the Late Hellenistic tombs, then into the

Roman period elsewhere on the facade. Such a use of metopes, which is neater than

dotting the busts at random over the facade, is a possible reason why Doric friezes

became so popular in the area for tombs of all orders; it provided the most convenient

and aesthetically pleasing way of enlarging the decoration of the tomb. They would

over the years expand the decoration and commemoration of occupants of the tombs.

This is a feature seen on the facades of many other Cyrenaic tombs. 358 Cyrene

Museum inv. 1501-3, are three heads that were found inserted into tombs.359 All are

of poor quality. A number of other heads are known, but are still unpublished. I know

of no other examples of this from outside Cyrenaica, although there are a few similar

busts known from Ptolemaic Egypt, and the practice of funerary portrait busts in

niches in Roman Palmyra is related. Two Vespasianic metopes in the British Museum

with relief portrait busts create the same effect.360

353 Bacchielli 1980, p. 18 n. 7.

354 Cassels 1955, pp. 6, 20, pl. XIIb.
355 Bacchielli 1985, fig. 1.
356 Bacchielli 1987, p. 469, fig. 13; Stucchi 1975, p. 169, fig. 146.
357 Bacchielli 1987, pp. 469-71, figs. 14-15. = Cassels 1955, p. 21; Bacchielli 1980, pp. 31-4.
358 eg. Cassels 1955, p. 18, pl. VIIIb = Cyrene Tomb W 152 which has a regular cutting above the
door that would fit the shape of an aniconic bust; Cassels 1955, p. 19, pl. Xe = Tomb N 66, which has
a series of similar cuttings, but less regular and of varying sizes; Cassels 1955, p. 19, pl. XIIa = Tomb
N 229, with cuttings between the lintels of the doors; Santucci 1995, fig. 1 = Tomb N 226 a.k.a.
Tomba del Mosaico ad Arcobaleno; which has niches on the facade.
359 Bacchielli 1987, pp. 471-2, figs. 16-18.
360 Unpublished. Seen in the basement with Dr. Peter Higgs.
 112

3. Doric Acroteria

During the late Classical and Hellenistic periods acroteria were mostly placed

on Doric buildings, although there are examples extant from heavily decorated Ionic

structures such as the Nereid Monument and the Heroon of Pericles at Limyra; the

mainly Corinthian Tarentine naiskoi, again covered in elaborate architectural

sculpture, also had small acroteria along their roof lines. I have chosen to concentrate

on figured acroteria; there are numerous examples of floral acroteria, but their study

would fit better within a survey of architectural ornamentation than in one that

focuses on sculpture. The section is relatively brief as two admirable surveys of

acroteria have already appeared.361

Vitruvius 3.5.12 gives a canon for the proportions of acroteria relative to

pediments; the lateral acroteria were to be the same height as the centre of the

tympanal space, the central acroterion one eighth higher. This cannon was not

developed by Vitruvius, but rather he is recording a canon that had been observed

since the Archaic period. From the known evidence the canon seems to have been in

use as early as Aegina; other examples include the temple of the Athenians at Delos,

Epidauros, Tegea and the Samothrace Hieron. Fourth century figured acroteria on

temples tend to be used in conjunction with pedimental sculpture, but from the end of

the century buildings can, and often do, have acroteria without any other form of

decoration. Parallels can be seen in the use of figures along the roof-line, most

famously on the Mausoleum but almost ubiquitous on Etruscan and Republican

temples, and in the development of epithemata, which were in many ways

monumentalised central acroteria.

A number of fragments of female figures have been found near and assigned

to the Marmaria Tholos at Delphi.362 Their style, not dissimilar to the acroterial

females from Epidauros, suggests a contemporary date ca. 375-370. The two largest

361 Gulaki 1981; Danner 1989.

362 Roux 1952, p. 466, fig. 23; Marcadé 1977, p. 150, fig. 15-18; Marcadé 1986, p. 172, pl. 148.3-.4;
Marcadé 1993, pp. 25-30, figs. 15-22; Guide de Delphes, p. 75 figs 35-6.
 113

fragments are a chiton-clad torso, the garment falling away to reveal a breast, with the

remains of a raised left arm, and legs; there is no join between these two pieces, and

they may not come from the same sculpture (fig. 47).363 A right calf and ankle on the

same scale,364 the back of a head and neck,365 a right foot,366 a weathered

fragment of a torso,367 and a thigh,368 all belong to similar figures. The women

were dancing and probably Aurai; Marcadé restores them as dancing around the roof-

line of the tholos, with a lost floral acroterion at its apex. The restored height of the

figures would be 1.40, a little under life-size. At least four acroteria would have been

needed to create a sense of balance, making the sculptural decoration lavish, but since

there were already two figured Doric friezes, this is not unrealistic. As there were so

few tholoi it is hard to make comparisons, but the Thymele at Epidauros, a building

with more restrained sculptural decoration, had metopes with monotonous motifs on

the exterior, coffers filled with flowers, and only a central floral acroterion.

Two more figures from Delphi, inv. 8605-6, form a symmetrical pair of lateral

acroteria (fig. 49); their style suggests a date in the middle of the fourth century, or

soon after, and they lack any certain context.369 Marcadé suggests that they may

come from the limestone temple in the Marmaria, near which they may have been

found.370 Their costume consists of highly girdled chitons, and crossed bandeliers

which suggest huntresses. They were not winged. The iconography of the figures, not

unlike those from the temple of Artemis at Epidauros, would suit a structure

consecrated to that goddess, and recent research suggests that the limestone temple

may well have been dedicated to Artemis rather than to Athena. A head from Delphi,

inv. 3845, comes from a fourth century acroterion, its nature assured by the heavy

363 Torso: Delphi Museum inv. 4345+4352, ht. 0.50. Legs: inv. 8804, ht. 0.41. Danner 1989, cat. no.
160, pl. 26; Marcadé 1993, pp. 25-7, figs. 15-16.
364 Marcadé 1993, p. 27, fig. 17. Inv. 16794, ht. 0.24.
365 Marcadé 1993, p. 27, fig. 18. Inv. 16793, ht. 0.19.
366 Marcadé 1993, p. 30, fig. 22. No inv. number, ht. 0.12.
367 Marcadé 1993, p. 29, fig. 20. Inv. 16796, ht. 0.18.
368 Marcadé 1993, p. 30, fig. 21. Inv. 16795, ht. 0.155.
369 Marcadé 1993, pp. 22-4, fig. 14; Danner 1989, no. 110, pp. 18-19; Ridgway 1997, p. 56, pl. 11.
Inv. 8605, with left leg forward, ht. 0.40; inv. 8606, with right leg forward, ht. 0.35.
370 Marcadé 1993, p. 23.
 114

weathering on the left hand side of the head and face, mostly water damage. 371 It

was found where it had tumbled down the hillside, making it impossible to link it to

any structure. The features of the woman’s face, turning towards her right, show the

strong influence of the Praxitelean style, executed by a less competent master. Other

unassigned acroterial fragments in the stores at Delphi include a bent right arm with

drapery in its crook.372

The greater emphasis given to acroterial figures on the temple of Asclepios at

Epidauros, with three statues above each pediment, is unusual; there had been

acroteria on pediments from the beginning, and occasionally figures, but shield discs,

floral motifs and stylised palmettes were more common. However, given that the

temple of Asclepios was so highly decorated (see discussion under pedimental

sculpture), it is not altogether surprising that it is here that we will find possibly the

only large scale figured central acroteria within the scope of this thesis.

On the east side is the more elaborate group, of a naked male wearing a

himation, who moves dramatically from left to right: he is tentatively identified as

Apollo, the father of Asclepios, abducting Coronis, a local nymph who was to be his

mother.373 An unusual group, it is almost certainly acroterial; the style fits within

that of the temple’s sculpture, but the group definitely does not belong within the

pediments. On either side were two winged Nikai. The torso of one (fig. 54),374 with

much of her left wing preserved, and a fragment of the other, 375 have been found.

The theme of abduction had been used for the central acroterion on the ca. 425 temple

of the Athenians, Delos. The subsequent use of a complex group can been found on

the Heroon of Pericles at Limyra; on the apex of the gable Perseus was depicted

slaying Medusa, whilst her sisters were depicted as lateral acroteria. These are

371 Marcadé 1993, pp. 27-9, fig. 19. Inv. 3845, ht. 0.165.
372 Marcadé 1993, pp. 30-1, fig. 23. Inv. 16792, max. ht. 0.15, max. l. 0.16.
373 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 1 [Athens inv. 4723], pls. 1-2, pp. 17-19: ht. 0.94 incl. plinth. Ridgway
1999, pp. 60, 85, 89-90, ill. 19.
374 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 2 [Athens inv. 162 + 4693], pls. 3-5, p. 19: ht of torso 0.28, ht. including
wings 0.57, restored ht. 1.65. Danner 1989, cat. no. 112, pl. 12.
375 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 3 [Athens inv. 4761], p. 20, pl. 6: ht 0.51, restored ht. 1.25, w. 0.60. Danner
1989, cat. no. 111b, pl. 12; Schlörb 1965, pp. 25-28, pl. 8, fig. 29; Delivorrias 1974, p.195.
 115

examples where acroteria had more complex iconographies than merely standard

depictions of Nikai or nymphs. At Delos Boreas helped the Athenians, patrons of the

temple, to victory, after having abducted one of their princesses, Oreithyia. At Limyra

the local link is that Perseus was considered an ancestor of the Persians, and that

Pericles was a Persian Satrap.

On the western end a Nike stood in the centre, and was flanked by equestrian

figures. The Nike’s left arm was raised, and in her right hand she held a partridge, in

front of her body and to one side (fig. 53).376 In profile one sees the way the drapery

is swept back at her feet to create a large base on which the figure can balance. She

must be the central acroterion as she does not fit within the theme of the pediment,

and the reinforcement of the base is very much characteristic of these. She steps

forward, the diaphanous chiton clinging to her body; behind her is a windblown

cloak, and the remains of one wing. Her head is missing. Assuming the lateral

acroteria faced inwards, Athens NM 157, the superior figure, came from the right

(fig. 52).377 She rides side-saddle, but appears to be more firmly seated on her steed

than her counterpart, leaning towards its neck, around which she has her arm. She

wears slightly less nebulous drapery than her pair, with one leg fractionally more

heavily draped than the other. One breast is more visibly modelled through the cloth,

though both are draped. A long cloak trails behind. The preserved head is rather

neutral, in the tradition of the Bassae frieze, leading to the impression of a pleasant

but conventional figure. The meniskos on her head attests her acroterial nature. Holes

on the horse suggest that the bridle was added in bronze. The figure from the left is

similar, but less successful in treatment, since she is almost falling off the horse; her

head is missing (fig. 51).378 These equestrians are almost certainly Nereids,

emerging out of the sea schematically represented at the feet of the small prancing

376 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 25 [Athens inv. 155] pp. 30-1, pls. 24-26: ht. 0.85, restored ht. 1.25.
Danner 1989, cat. no. 111a, pl. 11; Schlörb 1965, pp. 25-28, pl. 8, fig. 29; Delivorrias 1974, p.195;
Gulaki 1981, pp. 68-71, fig. 26. On a proposed symbolism of the bird see: Stähler 1985, p. 330.
377 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 27 [Athens inv. 157] pp. 32-3, pls. 29-31: ht. 0.795, w. 0.58. Danner 1989,
cat. no. 174 a, pl. 32.
378 Yalouris 1992, cat. no. 26 [Athens inv. 156] pp. 31-2, pls. 27-8: ht. 0.68, restored ht. 0.795, w.
0.60. Danner 1989, cat. no. 174 b, pl. 32; Gulaki 1981, pp. 72-3, fig. 27.
 116

horses. They are competent works, slightly better than those over the other pediment,

but of no great originality, and slightly less worked at the backs.

The most surprising evidence given by the inscriptions is that the acroteria

above each pediment cost 2,240 dr., or over two-thirds of the cost of a complete

pedimental group (3,010 dr.): the acroterial figures are smaller than those in the

pediments, ca. 1.00 high excluding the plinths. Stewart suggests that the acroteria

were more expensive because of the better quality of the Pentelic marble used for

them, which was harder and therefore more resistant to the weather;379 harder stone

also takes longer to carve, and the acroteria were more fully worked around the back.

According to the building inscription IG IV2 102, Timotheos executed the acroteria

above the pediment by the sculptor whose name is missing in the accounts, and Qeo...

those above the pediment undertaken by Hectoridas. Which sculptors to link to which

side is not known. The west acroteria are of better quality, as is the east pediment,

these two being the most alike, so should be assigned to the better sculptor, probably

Qeo..., who is believed also to be the Master of the Lost Name. If this is correct, then

Timotheos, perhaps still at an early stage in his career, executed the east acroteria;

these betray poorer quality work and less sure handling, suggesting a still relatively

juvenile sculptor and work. It is an interesting, but hardly trailblazing commission,

and one that would fit comfortably at the start of his career, predating his work on the

Mausoleum. He was also commissioned to do the tupoi; if, as it seems, these were

metopes rather than models of the pedimental sculptures, implying the design of the

whole, they would have been less prestigious, but more in keeping with an artisan’s

status.

Acroteria were placed on the roof of the Doric temple of Apollo Maleatas at

Epidauros.380 Amongst the fragments is a badly preserved female head (Athens NM

4837), more weathered on the right side of the face where there is also a large hole at

the ear; marble, ht. 0.17, with a hole on crown for the attachment of a meniskos. The

379 Stewart 1977, p. 39.

380 Danner 1989, cat. 254; Yalouris 1992, p. 78, fig. 26; Lambrinoudakis 1976; Ridgway 1997, p. 41.
 117

chiton-clad bottom half of a figure (Athens NM 4703) was also found. Their style is

not dissimilar to the Asclepieion acroteria, and so they are believed to be

contemporary. They were found to the north of the temple.

Acroteria were the only decoration on the temple of Artemis at Epidauros,

which was a small Doric temple, 8.20 wide, dated to ca. 320-300; there are some

similarities to the temple of Asclepios, and the influence of the the temple of Zeus at

Nemea can also be detected (fig. 55). As at the temple of Artemis at Calydon, the

water-spouts were figured with hounds, and those on the corners represented boars,

both animals appropriate to the role of the eponymous goddess of the Hunt. There

would have been three acroteria on each facade. Four females in good condition,

tentatively described as Nikai, Athens NM inv. 159, 160, 161 and 2188, two heads

and a number of fragments survive, all of Parian marble.381 There were meniskoi on

the heads. No wings are preserved, but these may have been inset. As with the

architecture, they are in the style of those from the main temple, with transparent

wind-blown drapery.

The Nikai divide into pairs whose poses were reversed, but who wore peploi

which were draped the same way, so the folds of the drapery broke up the symmetry.

There was other diversity within their superficial similarity: different hairstyles, a

breast exposed or not, and so forth. The more modestly clad, inv. nos. 159, 160 and

161, are believed to come from the west. Fragments show that two were larger and

finer, so probably came from the east. They all wore belted peploi, that were

windblown, particularly at the legs. A strap across their chests creates a resemblance

to images of Artemis. Inv. 159 is the Nike in the best condition, and preserves signs

of numerous attachments in bronze, such as a ribbon wrapped around her chignon that

trailed down between her shoulder blades. She held an attribute in her hand, secured

to the body at the level of her abdomen. The building inscription previously assigned

381 Athens NM inv. 159, ht. excl. plinth 0.805; inv. 160, ht. excl. plinth 0.675; inv. 161, ht. excl.
plinth 0.695; inv. 2188, pres. ht. 0.235. Restored ht. 0.805. Ridgway 1990, pp. 149-150; Yalouris 1967,
pp. 25-37, pls. 22-38; Gulaki 1981, pp. 89-97, figs. 37-40; Roux 1961, pp. 201-22 for the dating, 212
for the acroteria, figs. 43-44; Danner 1989, cat. no. 113, pl. 14; Delivorrias 1974, pp. 197-8; Burford
1969, pp. 70-3; Stewart 1990, pp. 59-60.
 118

to the temple of Aphrodite is now linked to this temple,382 but it seems not to

mention the acroteria. Another inscription, from an unidentified building at

Epidauros, does however mention acroteria.383

Above the pediment at the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea there were lateral

acroterial females, fractionally over life-size and presumably Nikai: their bases have

not been found.384 They are conventional, and one can see the heritage of the late

fifth century and of Epidauros in the transparent garments and twisting poses, but

with different head types. Although Marcadé and Picard prefer to link Stewart nos. 1

and 3 to the Altar because of the use of a different marble, one can note that in

architecture a stone that bore weather better was often used for roofing,385 and this

practice may have been applied to the acroteria here. Stewart has argued that the

stone used may be better quality Doliana, as opposed to marble from a different

site.386 This shows an awareness on the part of the sculptor-designers of the

variations in exposure to weather due to differences of location, that acroteria were

more exposed to the elements. The opening of the peploi at the sides, and the careful

delineation of each leg, suggests that the sculptor was very sure of himself and of the

strength of his marble, as he has avoided creating a counterbalancing mass of back-

swept drapery from the knees down, used for example at Epidauros. The acroteria

were considerably less worked at the back, a new feature also followed by the

acroteria from the temple of Artemis at Epidauros. The acroteria were carved slightly

top-heavy, a refinement to counter the perspectival effect of being placed so high on a

building. Both figures are fairly uniformly weathered. They stood 1.85 tall,387

excluding their raised arm, and were thus smaller than the pedimental figures.

382 Burford 1969, pp. 70-1.

383 Burford 1969, p. 68, inscription no. VII.
384 Stewart 1977, pp. 8, 9-14, 39-40, 49-50, 59-60, 153 n. 11, cat. nos. 1-4; Gulaki 1981, p. 75;
Ridgway 1997, p. 51.
385 Observation, and discussions with Markus Kohl, Lille.
386 Stewart 1977, p. 39.
387 Stewart 1977, pp. 9-11, 59-60.
 119

One figure had her, now missing, right arm raised; her head, left forearm and

the legs from knees down are also no longer extant (fig. 56). 388 She is restored from

several joining fragments. The back and left side are less fully worked, suggesting

that she was placed on the right hand side of the pediment. She wore a peplos, falling

off the right breast, whose girdling was high but not tight. Her left leg was set

forward, with a twist in the waist towards it, as would have been the head; this creates

a movement outwards, and counterbalances the raised arm. She is linked to a right

hand.389 The figure is not winged, but rather is striding forwards. The wings may

have been pieced, wingless Nikai being rare, or it could have been a Nymph. This

acroterion, holding a taenia and wreath of athletic rather than martial victory, would

be more appropriate to the boar hunt pediment. Forest nymphs were appropriate to the

setting of the hunt, particularly if a tree motif in the centre of the pediment set the

scene. They would also have fitted in with the iconography of the altar opposite that

facade, where their role in the nurturing of Zeus was commemorated (Pausanias

3.47.3). Only the torso, preserved between the breasts and knees, wearing a peplos

and himation with quite high girdling, survives of the second figure, 390 but there are

clear similarities to the first, of which this was a more dramatic, but stylistically less

satisfactory, version. A ‘floating’ figure, it is likely to have been winged. The back is

very roughly worked out. The right arm was probably originally raised. The left half

of a head with a meniskos, which suggests that it was acroterial, is linked to the

acroterion.391 The figures are markedly different in style and probably from different

pediments. Pieces of a central floral acroterion, ht. ca. 2.10, have been found, so one

can dismiss the idea that there was a figure there.392

388 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 1 [Tegea inv. 59, a.k.a. ‘Atalanta’] pp. 9-11, 59-60, pls. 1-2: ht. 0.99.
Danner 1989, cat. no. 168, pl. 29.
389 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 2 [Tegea inv. 56]: l. 0.192.
390 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 3 [Tegea inv. 2288] pp. 11-14, 59-60, pls. 3-4: ht. 0.86. Danner 1989, cat.
no. 120, pl. 13; Gulaki 1981, pp. 74-78, figs. 28-9.
391 Stewart 1977, cat. no. 4 [Tegea inv. 61]: ht. 0.315.
392 Tegea Museum; restored ht. 2.10. Stewart 1977, p. 9, pl. 53; Danner 1989, cat. no. 89;
Gropengriesser 1961, cat. no. 129 D, pp. , 28-42, 48-9, 51, pls. 23-9; Ch. Christou, 23B’1, 1968, p.
149. Its ca. 2.10 height fits the canon given by Vitruvius 3.5.12. New fragments of it have been found,
and await publication.
 120

A possible fourth century central acroterion is a head from Corinth, with

similarities to those from the temple of Artemis Epidauros; there are dowel holes on

top, where Sturgeon suggests that there might originally have been the hand of an

attacker.393 No acroteria have yet been linked to the temples of Apollo at Delphi,

Zeus at Nemea, or Athena at Mazi.

The cult at the Hieron at Samothrace was popular in the Roman period, to

which time date the repairs as well as the replacement of the acroteria, which by then

would have weathered considerably.394 These replaced the central floral acroteria

and the Nikai. The previous Nikai seem to have been excessively attenuated figures

wearing chiton and himation, of poor workmanship: heavy struts were used to support

their raised arms, in which they held phialai and jugs. One Hellenistic Nike, from the

southwest corner, is well preserved, and is dated to ca. 100 BC, after the Pergamon

Altar, but as so often with work of such poor quality, dating is difficult. It is not

known for certain whether these Nikai in turn replaced earlier pieces that had been

damaged, perhaps by an earthquake, or overly weathered, but this is a likely

possibility given their exposed position and the wind-swept nature of the site.

There is definite evidence for floral central acroteria with lateral Nikai in both

the Hellenistic and Roman periods; from the north side the original Hellenistic pieces

have been found, and from the south the Roman replacements. The proposed first,

early Hellenistic Nikai, contemporary with the pedimental sculpture, were probably

closer to the Roman replacements than to the rarefied later Hellenistic examples. The

Nikai are restored as ca. 1.53 high, excluding their 0.06 base, which was close to the

1.47 ht. of the tympanum, and three-quarters of the height of the central floral

acroterion.395 These are the same proportions as those used at Epidauros, where the

central acroteria are higher than the lateral. All were winged figures. The floral

central acroteria, both Roman and Hellenistic, have a width at the base of ca. 1.20,

and are ca. 2 m high. If the height of the tympanum wall, 1.47 m, equals x, then the

393 Sturgeon 1996.

394 Samothrace 3, pp. 329-372, figs. 317-327; Webb 1996, p. 147, fig. 135.
395 Based on measurements taken in the museum of the reconstructed floral acroterion.
 121

height of the acroteria equals x plus one third. The acroteria from the Poseidonion at

Sounion, Aegina, the Erechtheion and those on the Mourning Women Sarcophagus

are all around one seventh to one sixth higher, and are closer to the prescription of

Vitruvius (3.5.12) that they should be one eighth higher.

One acroterion from the Temple of Despoina at Lycosoura396 is known, and

linked to the workshop of Damophon of Messene, the sculptor who created the cult

statue within the building (Pausanias 8.31.1-6); the work dates to after 223 BC, but

probably before 190. The piece (fig. 48), now in Megalopolis Museum, ht. 0.55, is

preserved from above the knees to the base of the neck; the shoulders survive, but not

the arms. The highly girdled peplos is carved deeply below the the neck; it is

represented as clinging heavily and moulding the legs. Round pins are carved on the

shoulders. The bust and shoulders are small in relation to the hips and legs. Its style is

so close to other works by Damophon, that presumably the acroterion is his design,

but largely executed by his workshop.

A fragmentary Pentelic marble Nike is linked to the Temple of the Athenians,

Delos:397 Delos Museum A 4284. It is believed to be a work dating from the later

fourth century. A number of other fragments may come from this building, or from

the temple of Apollo; they are very worn, and have holes for attachments.

An extremely worn winged Nike, Delos Museum inv. A 4285, once linked to

the temple of the Athenians, is now assigned to the Monument of the Bulls, ca. 300,

as an acroterion (fig. 50).398 Two fragments, with a diagonal join across the hips,

create a draped female, with the remains of wings on the back, who strode forward,

her left arm raised. A Nike, her iconography was in keeping with and appropriate to

the martial nature of this victory monument. It is believed to be a central acroterion,

implying that the lateral acroteria were also figured. The head, the left arm and part of

the right, and the legs from below the knees are missing. The figure fits into a

396 Themelis 1994, p. 20, pl. 15c-d.

397 Wester 1969, pp. 34-35; Danner 1989, cat. no. 189; Delivorrias 1990, figs. 6-7.
398 Picard 1952, pp. 79-83; Marcadé 1951, p. 85, fig. 11a, pl. XVII; Gulaki 1981, pp. 78-9, fig. 35;
Danner 1989, cat. no. 190; Gulaki 1981, 78-9, fig 35; Webb 1996, pp. 135-6, fig. 115. Ht. of the legs
0.56; combined ht. of the two fragments 0.73.
 122

framework for the evolution of female figures in statues, and echoed by the

develpoment in their representation as acroteria; stylistically it is a few decades after

Tegea. It was carved of Parian marble, as was the Marine frieze from the monument,

a durable substance that withstood weathering better than the marble used for the

lantern frieze. The style is quite conservative and classicising. This is unlike the

execution of the main frieze and the design of the building, but in keeping with the

temple-like facade which also had figured metopes.

A very different figure, whose attenuated fragmentary torso suggests a much

later date, seems to belong to the Temple of Isis, Delos, ca. 130.399 A Classicising

work, she looks more like a distressed nymph fleeing an attacker than a

personification of victory, although she was winged; an ethereal figure, who ‘floated’

over the corner of the gable. Another fragment may be associated with the torso: the

legs of a similar figure, perhaps the left lateral acroterion, are in situ on the restored

facade of the naiskos, while the torso, which appears to be from its pair, is in Delos

Museum, inv. A 5403. Both pieces are executed in white Delian marble.

Pausanias 2.11.8 informs us that one of the gables of the Temple of Asclepios

at Titane was decorated with a Heracles and Nikai at the angles: these figures are

more likely to have been acroterial than pedimental. Some rescue excavations have

taken place in the area, but the site has not yet been excavated. 400 Pausanias 8.22.7

mentions wooden birds over the temple of Artemis at Stymphalos; these are likely to

have been small acroterial figures on the gable or along the cornice, in the manner of

Etruscan temples.

Acroteria were also used as decoration on some Ionic temples, and figures

along the roof-line were used on a number of Ionic altars. A Nike is assigned to the

399 Marcadé 1951, fig. 11b; Marcadé 1970, p. 430 & n. 2; Webb 1996, p. 139.
400 Information courtesy of the archaeological service.
 123

temple of Zeus at Labraunda,401 built or completed by Idrieus. The lower torso of a

winged Nike, wearing a peplos with a knotted belt, was found to the south of, and is

attributed to a temple in, the Upper Gymnasium at Pergamon linked to Asclepios.402

A second torso, preserved from the shoulders to hips, wearing a similar peplos, was

found in the Lower market.403 Owing to its similarity to the previous piece it may be

possible to restore it to the same building. Two more acroteria were found in the

Temenos of Demeter at Pergamon. One figure is preserved from the waist to knees of

a female, striding forwards on her left leg.404 The second acroterion, extant between

the bust and knees, is of a female striding forward on her right leg. 405 Both figures

were two-thirds life-size, winged and wear peploi. All four Nikai from Pergamon are

of similar design and costume, and date to the second century BC. The Ionic temple

of Demeter was built 281-263 BC, so if the figures from her Temenos are to be

assigned to it, it must be assumed that they are later additions. The Doric order was

widely used in the city, and acroteria on Ionic temples can be seen as a Doricising

feature.

Although acroteria predominantly took the form of standing or striding female

figures, there are examples of the use of sphinxes within monumental architecture, as

well as from secondary evidence.406 All of these were female, except for those from

Labraunda and Sidon, which are in the Persian iconographic tradition. Two terracotta

sphinxes, Athens NM inv. 13415, decorated the Temple of Apollo at Thermon, the

temple having been re-dated from the Archaic period to the late fourth century.407

401 Bodrum Museum inv. D 59. Labraunda 1:3, pp. 37-8, fig. 11; Danner 1989, cat. no. 188;
Labraunda 2:5, pp. 13-16, 35-6, cat. no. 8; Ridgway 1997, p. 100.
402 Grote 1992, p. 180, pl. 15.2; Webb 1996, n. 42, p. 28. Bergama Museum, no inv. number, ht. 0.29.
403 Grote 1992, pp. 181-2, pl. 15.4. Bergama Museum, no inv. number, ht. 0.32.
404 Grote 1992, pp. 179-80, pl. 15.1; Webb 1996, pp. 55-6. Bergama Museum inv. no. 68, ht. 0.66.
405 Grote 1992, pp. 180-1, pl. 15.3. Bergama Museum inv. no. 71, ht. 0.73.
406 Woysch-Méautis 1982, pp. 83-7, 134-5; Cook 1969, p. 67, pl. 40. Sphinxes were very popular on
stelae in the middle part of fourth century, though generally winged female sphinxes wearing poloi. All
the examples flank either Sirens or floral acroteria. For example lateral, freestanding sphinx acroteria
on the following stele, most of them funerary: Athens NM 2578, 2117, 757; Berlin Staatliche Museum
K32 [inv. 866] and K40 [inv. 1492]; Brauron Museum BE 93; Munich Glyptothek VI:3 [493];
Metropolitan Museum, N. Y., 65.11.11 and 08.258.41; Boston 66.971. Also the Mourning Women
Sarcophagus (Mendel cat. no. 10).
407 van Buren 1926, p. 175, no. 20; Danner 1989, cat. no. 139, pl. 16. See under metopes.
 124

A dedicatory inscription naming Mausolus securely dates Andron B at

Labraunda to 355-352 BC; the order of the structure is mixed, with Ionic columns and

a Doric entablature. Archaising male sphinxes are restored as lateral acroteria, and a

floral palmette, for which there is no evidence, is restored in the centre. 408 One well

preserved Sphinx, the paws and left wing missing, ht. ca. 1.00, is now at Bodrum

Castle; it was found in Andron C. The head of second sphinx was found to the south-

east of the Andron in 1960. They are both on a tenon-like base, and although no

cuttings for acroteria are preserved on this structure, cuttings have been found on the

temple of Zeus assuring the contemporary use of acroteria at the site. As acroteria the

sphinxes from Labraunda would have been rather large in proportion to the size of the

Andron; a possibility is that they were placed on the ground, perhaps between the

outer columns. The wings are articulated by nineteen curving parallel lines. Clamps at

the base of the missing left wing point to an ancient repair. The ribs can be seen just

below the wings. A hole shows that a meniskos was attached above the polos, a

feature generally seen on acroteria but not exclusively. The hair was long at the front

and pulled into a chignon at the back; the rendering of the locks at the front together

with the stephane recalls some of the Hecatomnid women. The beards are demarcated

by horizontal grooves. These sphinxes are Eastern-inspired, Greek exempla being

female, although there are male sphinxes in the East; one can draw a parallel with

three slightly more Archaic heads from the sanctuary of Echmun at Sidon, 409 dating

to 375-350 or a few years before those from Labraunda, which again were either

acroterial or stood between columns. A sphinx is known from Xanthos, and

tentatively restored to the Nereid Monument,410 a ca. 390-380. The structure was

built in an area that fell under Hecatomnid control, and may have influenced the

design of the Mausoleum.

408 Gunter, 1985, pp. 115-6; Gunter 1989, pp. 92-4, 98, fig. 3; Hellström 1994; Hellström 1995, p.
166; Hellström & Thieme 1981, p. 68, fig. 17; Labraunda 1:3, pp. 45-56; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no.
117, pls. 65-7; Waywell 1994a, p. 60, fig. 7; Labraunda 2:5, pp. 21-30, cat. nos. 2-3; Ridgway 1997, p.
100.
409 Stucky 1993, pp. 263-4, pl. XLV.3. Beirut Museum.
410 Mertens-Horn 1986, p. 12, pl. 10.1; Krischen 1966, p. 102, pl. 31. BM no. 944, ht. 0.35, limestone.
 125

Even more unusual are the sea-creatures from the Poseidonion on Tenos,

which are better suited as acroteria than as pedimental sculpture, but whose nature as

architectural sculpture is again not secure.411 The temple is dated to the third century

on literary evidence, and we know that the sculptor of the cult statue, Telesinos of

Athens, was active during the first half of the century.412 Lattimore sees the

sculptures’ iconography as fitting a late Classical or early Hellenistic date, while

Queyrel has tried to down-date the pieces to the second century, yet one of the sea-

monsters is so similar to the Nereid’s mount from the Monument of the Bulls, that it

is likely that they and the temple are near-contemporary. Fragments of four creatures

have been found, carved of a bluish-white marble; they would seem to be

hippocamps, with ‘characterisation’ within them shown by small differences. Their

surfaces are weathered, showing that they stood outside. All the large fragments were

found inside the temple, and there is evidence of antique repairs. Carved in the round,

they stood on plinths and were pieced, held together by clamps. As restored they are

ca. 1.65 long by 1.40 high, which would be approximately the right size of acroteria

for the 12.99 wide temple.

It goes without saying that not all Nikai were acroterial; they could also be

placed on bases or columns as votives, for example Paionios’ at Olympia. Acroteria

found without a good provenance are thus difficult to positively identify; the Nike

from Halicarnassus, now in the BM, is a prime example. They can be seen to evolve

in two directions; as figures along the roof-lines of tombs and altars, and in a

monumentalised form as epithemata. There are few conclusions one can draw about

the figures, although those from Delphi show wide variety; progression in terms of

drapery, the marked attenuation of the figures in the second century, and so forth, are

related to the development of female statues rather than to their use within

architectural sculpture. The majority of the figures were winged. On monumental

411 Ridgway 1990a, pp. 154-5; Lattimore 1976, p. 32; Queyrel 1986, pp. 279-286, pls. 132-9;
Marcadé 1970, p. 362; Webb 1996, 133 n. 2. In Tenos Museum at Chora.
412 Poseidon Group by Telesinos of Athens: mentioned by Clement of Alexandria 4.41, quoting
Philochoros who died ca. 261, [=FGH 328 F176; which gives the name as Telesios]. This would date
the group, the temple that housed it, and architectural sculpture to ca. 267-261.
 126

buildings acroteria tended to be Nikai or similar females, as was appropriate; the

acroterial use of the other figures is less certain.

Figured central groups were popular on naiskoi, such as those at Taranto, and

from secondary evidence, on stelae and the Lycian sarcophagi, but on relatively few

larger buildings; the temple of Asclepios at Epidauros, the Ionic Heroon of Pericles at

Limyra and the Monument of the Bulls on Delos being the exceptions. The use of

piecing in the construction of acroteria was rare, probably owing to their exposed

positions on the roof, where structural strength to withstand assault by the elements

was required. Examples of piecing include the hand of SLA1 from the Samothrace

Hieron, and the wings of a figure from the temple of Demeter at Pergamon.

Acroteria played a larger role in the sculptural decoration of Ionic structures

than pediments. The use of large quantities of statues on the roof of temples was

popular in the decoration of Etruscan and Republican temples, a feature continued

into the Imperial period.413 As with pedimental sculpture, numerous acroteria were

taken to Italy by successive Roman invaders.414

413 Pliny NH 35.158; NH 36.6, on figures along the roofline of temples, specifically terracotta statues
placed on the fastigia.
414 For example the Nereids removed by Herrodes Atticus to decorate his villa at Loukou, Arcadia. In
general see Stähler 1983, with many examples.
 127

4. Doric Epithemata

A number of tombs and monuments were built during the period with a

pyramidal roof that supported a single sculpture or epithema on the apex. Those

whose architecture is preserved were podium tombs with engaged Doric columns; the

format is that of the Mausoleum which, although Ionic, must have been an influence.

The majority of the epithematic figures were of lions, a popular motif in funerary

iconography.

The Chaironea Lion Tomb (fig. 57), lying immediately to the east of the town,

is the only one of the series of monumental funerary lions from the Late Classical and

Hellenistic periods to be securely dated, by Pausanias 9.50.10, to soon after the

eponymous battle of 338 BC; he also attests that it was a Polyandrion without a

dedicatory inscription, which tallies with the archaeological evidence, and identifies

the beast as representing the men’s spirited struggle in the battle. 415 The tomb is also

mentioned by Strabo IX,37. The seated lion, of grey Boeotian marble, rebuilt on the

site, has an anatomy that follows convention rather than life, with a small head and

legs too large for the body. The lion is meant to be heroic, but the almost vertical

pose, not unlike a dog performing for a biscuit, is unseemly, and compared to the

Amphipolis lion, it appears malnourished. Overall it is unsuccessful in design; the

mane is wild and tousled, which emphasises the skinny ribs, the tail is rolled around a

hind leg. Reconstructed of eleven pieces, it measures approximately ht. 1.90 x l. 1.00.

The base is not extant, but one can guess that it would not have been dissimilar to

those of the tombs that follow.

The lion from the tomb at Amphipolis (fig. 58) is so close in form to that of

Chaironea, that they are dated together; its superior style suggests a few years later, at

the turn of the century.416 Picard supposes that it may have been the tomb of
415 Broneer 1941, pp. 40-1, 43, 45-7, 50, 58, 68, figs. 34-5; Kaftangioglov 1880, pp. 197-8;
Willemsen 1959, pp. 49, 52, pls. 58-9; Rice 1993, pp. 248; Mertens-Horn 1986, pp. 22, 51, pl. 18.2;
Markle 1994, p. 96; Vermeule 1972, pp. 51, 55; Picard 1954, pp. 1276-7, fig. 443. Diodorus XVI 88.2;
Diodorus XVI 86.6.
416 Fedak 1990, p. 78, fig. 91; Roger 1939; Broneer 1941; Miller & Miller 1972, pp. 150-8, figs. 6-10,
pls. 53, 54a-b; Willemsen 1959, pp. 52, 56ff, pl. 52; Stevens 1948, pp. 274-82; Rice 1993, pp. 248-9;
 128

Nearchos of Amphipolis, an admiral of Alexander. The structure lay on the right bank

of the Strymon, down-stream from this northern Greek town. Although it was situated

in the small necropolis to the south-west of, and serving, Amphipolis, there is no

evidence that it was a tomb, and one should bear in mind that it may have been a

cenotaph. The square foundations with sides of ca. 9.996, suggesting thirty feet of

0.332, were cut in to the slope and backed onto a hill. The upper level was decorated

by engaged Doric half-columns. Large parts of the Doric half-capitals survive, their

style suggesting a late fourth century date based on comparanda, and traces of the

entablature have now been found, as well as evidence for the shield Roger restores in

his elevation.417 Although the details of the restoration cannot be certain, it is

apparent that the foundations are small in relation to the size of the lion, so that even

though the lion looks large in proportion to the base, particularly when one compares

it to the Cnidus tomb, the rough ratio must be correct. The area around the structure

was known as ‘Marmara’, showing that it was a source of the stone in its later history,

though many regular poros blocks from its foundations and core have been found.

The dating, owing to the little architecture preserved, and disputed chronology of

comparanda, is difficult, but unlikely to be before the middle of the fourth century, or

much after the beginning of the third. The architecture of the base, particularly the use

of engaged Doric columns has led some to question this date, but although there are

not as many examples of this in Doric structures as there are in Ionic, the form was in

use since the sixth century, and there are enough examples from the fourth century

not to preclude this as a date.418

Picard 1954, pp. 14, 1277-8, fig. 5; Vermeule 1972, p. 51; Mertens-Horn 1986, p. 51, pl. 18.1; Rice
1993, pp. 115-122; Stupperich 1977, pp. 68ff, 257ff, pl. 49.
417 Miller & Miller 1972, no. 72, p. 154, figs. 8-9, pl. 54a-b; “wall block with lower part of an
engaged shield”. Projection of shield 0.129. Its diameter is not preserved; the minimum would be the
width of block, or 0.994, but it is likely to be more as only around one quarter of the height of the
shield is preserved on the block. The shield was made up of three courses in all, the one preserved
being the lowest. The reconstruction of the wall in fig. 9 would only fit the foundations of the lion
tomb if it had had a one-step rather than a three-step crepidoma.
418 Barletta 1990, pp. 61-2; Coulton 1976, p. 125 & n. 2; Roux 1961, table on pp. 422-3: all these list
numerous examples from the sixth century.
 129

The lion itself is recreated from fourteen fragments: it is not complete.419 It

was made of Thasian marble, ht. 5.37-40, and standing on a base 3.30 by 2.10, built

of limestone clad in creamy white marble. Its pose, sitting on its rump, is known since

the sixth century, and is the same as that of the lions from Thespiae and Chaironea.

The exaggerated anatomy, with inflated muscles and veins, is not unusual for a

sculpture placed so high on a building. The mane is surprisingly detailed, with the

hair immediately around the face differentiated from the rest, and it contrasts with the

smooth skin. The large locks make the hair seem less organic than on the other

examples. The mane runs down the front in a triangle, and one can note the rendition

of a fringe of hair along the back legs which is typical of fourth century and

Hellenistic representations of lions. Stylistically it is closest to the Chaironea lion,

notably in its mane, as well as in its pose. The eyes were carved, and not inlaid like

those of the Cnidus lion. The mouth was deeply carved, a feature also seen at

Chaironea. There is no trace of the animal’s tail. The lion was not monolithic, but

made up of six horizontal blocks with anathyrosis, held together by double-T and

hook clamps of iron set in lead, to which were dowled additional pieces. Some of the

blocks, particularly those at the top, were cut away to reduce the weight. This piecing

is the most unusual aspect of the lion, though it is a technique known and

occasionally used in the fourth century, and is more closely related to the techniques

used in masonry; similar hollowing and piecing can be seen on the Mausoleum

chariot group.

The seated lion from a Polyandrion at Thespiae, Boeotia, is now in Thebes

Museum;420 its date is uncertain, linked to local warriors fallen at Tanagra, Delion

and even Thermopylae, but it is likely to be amongst the first of the series of colossal

lions as grave-markers in the Greek world, probably from the last quarter of the fifth

century. Unfortunately not enough of the surviving architecture was recorded.

419 By A.N. Panayotakis: see Roger 1939, pl. VI.

420 Roger 1939, passim; Broneer 1941, pp. 46-7, 50, 59, 60; Willemsen 1959, p. 48, pl. 45. Ht. 1.63,
plinth 0.16, width 0.49, depth 1.30. Of white marble with traces of blue. Head damaged, front right
paw and part of left missing.
 130

Broneer, who sees this Polyandrion as the first extant lion monument, the engraved

names of the deceased giving it a date within the second half of the fifth century,

linked it to Delion. Either way, it is identified as one of a number of fifth century

lions, that fill in the gap between those of the Archaic and of the Hellenistic periods,

showing definite continuity of the form, increasing in size over the centuries. The

front right leg, part of the left and most of the rump of the Thespiae lion are missing.

If one is to believe the reconstruction, the tail lay flat on the ground underneath the

raised belly, hence no trace of it remains. Parallels can be drawn to the Attic Piraeus

Lion, now outside the Venice Arsenal,421 although this lion post-dated the Boeotian

one by a century or more, being from the late fourth or early third centuries. 422 The

pose of the monolithic Piraeus lion, three times life-size, is close to those from

Amphipolis and Chaironea but its rendition cruder; the tail is rolled in a rather too

affected fashion around a hind leg, and its over-stylised mane is very much in the

Archaic tradition, although the locks are not schematised enough to be overtly

Archaising.

The date of the Lion Tomb at Cnidus,423 in Caria, is debated, ranging from

Newton’s now largely dismissed early fourth century, on which Pullan’s

reconstruction is based, to Krischen’s ca. 175, on a comparison with the Bouleuterion

at Miletos. I do not find either’s arguments convincing, and prefer a date in the

second half of the fourth century. Stylistically the architecture is unlikely to be

421 Garland 1987, pp. 147, 216; Roger 1941, p. 19 n.1, fig. 11; Panagos 1968, pp. 11, 237-247;
Broneer 1941, pp. 40, 45, 68, figs. 31-3; Vermeule 1972, p. 53; Willemsen 1959, pp. 48, 130; Giglioli
1952, p. 5, pl. 3. It was brought over from a site to the north of Akte, by the entrance to the harbour, by
Morosini in 1687/8, along with several other lions from Athens. The animal, as the symbol of St.
Mark, had a special significance for the city. A second reclining Greek lion is in Venice. The heavily
restored sculpture comes from a tomb on the Sacred Way near the Dipylon Gate, and is dated to ca.
320 on anatomical parallels to Kerameikos mastiffs. Vermeule 1972, p. 53; Giglioli 1952, p. 8, pl. 4.
Two more lions flank the entrance to the Arsenal, one of them from Delos.
422 Panagos covers the various dates that have been proposed for it, most of them unlikely, from the
fifth century B.C. to the fifteenth AD. A pipe was inserted into the back in the seventeenth century, and
it was used as a fountain. The inscription has caused some debate, but is dated to the centuries
preceding its removal and is runic.
423 Fedak 1990, pp. 76-78, figs. 85-9; Krischen 1944, pp. 173-181, pls. 29-30; Rice 1993, pp. 249-51,
fig. 7; Dinsmoor 1975, p. 257; Lawrence 1983, p. 254, fig. 227; Stucchi 1987b, fig. 33, pp. 266-7;
Willemsen 1959, pp. 51ff, 59; Newton & Pullan 1862, pp. 480-511; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 92, pl.
59-60; Waywell 1996; Vermeule 1972, p. 54; Webb 1996, p. 121, fig. 94; Cook 1976, p. 142, fig. 111;
Picard 1954, p. 14, fig. 4; Ridgway 1997, p. 144. The foundations remain, facing south, on a steep
headland ca. 4-5 km to the East of New Cnidus.
 131

Classical, and the overall format would thus be loosely based on the near-by

Mausoleum. Its only decoration was a reclining lion, British Museum 1350, whose

pose is not dissimilar to that of the late fourth century Dipylon Lion/Hound. It was

placed on top of the pyramidal roof that topped the Doric base. A broken piece of a

relief shield, restored between the columns, was also found.

The monolithic lion, of a marble that may be Pentelic, almost three and a half

metres long originally,424 was frontal in the sense that his head faces his right flank,

at an angle of around seventy degrees, and his tail is wrapped around his hind leg on

that side, making his back the secondary view. In this sense he differs from the other

lions, as well as being in a different pose. Much of the underside was roughly

hollowed out to reduce the weight and relieve the stress placed on the structure. The

sculpture is in surprisingly good condition, though the surface is discoloured at the

front and in parts heavily weathered, particularly on the left flank and around the

rump where the tail is nearly worn away. The rear left foreleg and paw are missing, as

are the tips of the ears. The mouth was deeply drilled, and the lower jaw is now

broken off. As with the other features it was emphasised so as to be seen from a

distance. The running drill was used on the mouth, nostrils, locks of hair, and to

delineate the area between the legs. The eyes are hollow to a depth of ca. 0.10, width

0.125, with roughly carved sockets that suggest insertion, perhaps of a reflective

material, as in the lion with flashing eyes of Pliny, NH 36,17. The beast has abundant

fur, in its mane that reaches back ca. 0.70, as far back as the beginning of its hind

quarters, and in the fringes that run along the bottoms of the flanks and on the legs.

The mane is made up of schematic locks, in the shape of half-crescents curving

towards the right or front flank, that goes down into the triangular area between the

forelegs.

The square Polyandrion the beast rested upon was of lightly coloured marble

on a limestone core, surrounded by a high temenos wall. The foundations measure a

fraction over 12 m per side. Above the three stepped crepis were four engaged Doric

424 Length just over three metres as preserved, originally ca. 3.50; ht 1.80, th. 1.17.
 132

half-columns per side, with a Doric entablature. The shafts are fluted only

immediately below the capital, a feature also seen on the temple of Athena Polias at

Pergamon, traditionally dated to the early third century, but now being redated to the

late fourth.425 It is unclear whether this should be taken to indicate that it was

unfinished, or if it was a design feature. Engaged Doric columns are known from the

sixth century and are found again in the fourth.426 The central columns were more

widely spaced, with a round relief shield in between them: the intercolumniations

were of three metopes, with four over the middle bay. The central chamber had

eleven smaller ones radiating from it. Pullan’s reconstruction of the tomb is based on

the idea of it having been late Classical, and Krischen suggests that certain features of

it should be altered: the addition of an attic below the roof is without foundation, and

the double socle for the lion is more likely to have been single. Waywell agrees with

Krischen that the pyramidal roof is likely to have been made up of twelve steps rather

than ten. The tomb would originally have been around forty feet high as opposed to

Pullan’s sixty-one feet. Krischen has suggested that the columns on the reconstruction

are too low, but he is restoring them on a par with those from the Bouleuterion at

Miletos to reinforce his proposed later date. None of the information known about the

architecture or sculpture of the tomb precludes a date in the second half of the fourth

century, but the structure is unlikely to have been erected before the Mausoleum,

under whose knowledge and influence it was built. The influence of Halicarnassus, in

Caria, may have been responsible for the large number of such tombs around that

region, in the Doric as well as the Ionic order.427

425 Kohl 1996, p. 38 et passim.

426 Barletta 1990, pp. 61-2; Coulton 1976, p. 125 & n. 2; Roux 1961, table on pp. 422-3: all these list
numerous examples from the sixth century.
427 There was a third, now destroyed, Carian tomb of that type at Alinda, believed to be from the
fourth century. (Fedak 1990, p. 78, fig. 92). A monumental Doric tomb, its structure was very similar
to the Amphipolis tomb, with a square stylobate of ca. 3.9 sides. No crowning finial was recorded, but
this form of decoration would make sense, although a number of other tombs have straightforward
stepped pyramids as roofs (See Stucchi 1987b, pp. 249-303, figs. 1-94.). Not far to the north was the
mausoleum at Belevi, initial phase of construction ca. 289-281. Tombs from the following centuries
are numerous.
 133

A similar arrangement to this series of tombs can be seen on a more elaborate

Heroon at Sagalassos, second half or third quarter of second century BC.428 The

structure, 7.74 x 8.59, had a solid podium, then a three-stepped socle, crowned by the

frieze of dancing girls for which the structure is best known. Above was a Corinthian

distyle in antis naiskos with a pyramidal roof; a large marble lion with the head of a

bull under its front paw, found at the foot of the structure, is restored as an epithema.

The reclining lion, its head turned to the left, was set on a high plinth; the

workmanship is rougher than that of the frieze, confirming a location at some height

from the viewer. The inclusion of a bull or deer head under the front paws of

reclining lions is a feature often seen in Hellenistic Asia Minor, with examples at

Rhodes and flanking the entrance to the harbour at Miletos. 429 The Heroon was

intramural, located on a hill near the bouleuterion, to the northwest of the the Agora.

Though called a Heroon, the exact nature of the monument is uncertain; the discovery

of remains of a colossal statue ca. 4 m high, that appears to be a portrait of Alexander,

has led Waelkens to suggest that the structure may have been linked to his cult.430

The Scylla Monument at Bargylia,431 also in Caria, follows the basic

architecture of the tombs with lions as epithemata, but replaces these with the

eponymous monster. Like them it was built outside the town, by a necropolis, and an

inscription probably names one of the two occupants of the tomb, Melas, son of

Hermaiskos.432 This suggests that the structure was a tomb. The foundations were

recorded by Biliotti as measuring 7.62 x 6.70. The superstructure was of white

marble, with engaged fluted Doric half-columns and a pyramidal roof with room for

12 steps. The twelfth step of the pyramid, ht. 0.33, acted as a base for the group. The

base of the Scylla group was 1.83 x 1.37, and Waywell in his reconstruction takes the

sculptural group’s dimensions to be 1.80 x 1.50; the concept of the sculpture

428 Sagalassos is 75 km N of Antalya, and the ‘capital’ of Pisidia. Mitchell & Waelkens 1987, p. 38.
429 Waywell 1996.
430 Waelkens 1995, p. 32.
431 Waywell 1990; Waywell 1997; Tuchelt 1967, pp. 187-8, 193, no. 73; Rice 1993, pp. 251-2. For
the iconography of Scylla see: Walter-Karydi 1996.
432 British Museum no. 1039, described in the catalogue as a ‘statue base’, but Waywell has shown
that it was in fact an architectural block from the left side of the doorway.
 134

overlapping the base is a Hellenistic one. The overall height of the building, including

the sculpture, would have been ca. 12 m, with the height of the architecture restored

as ca. 9.75. Only traces of the entablature, fragments of a cornice with mutules, have

been found, but it is likely to have been Doric with blank metopes. Architecturally it

was quite similar to the Lion Tomb at Cnidus. Waywell dates the structure to the first

half of the second century, after Cnidus but preceding the tomb at Ta Marmara: this is

based on the typology of the sculpture as well as on the architecture.

The Scylla was pieced, so that she could more easily have been lifted into

place, and is reconstructed of five main fragments.433 The group was made of two

different marbles, with a finer white for her torso, and presumably her head, and a

slightly darker grey-white for the rest of the group. As reconstructed in the display the

group measures: ht. 1.83, w. 1.745, d. excluding tail 1.185, d. including tail 1.69 m.

The original height would have been ca. 2.25, or one and a half times life-size. The

lower part of the creature is made up of three ketea and one preserved fish tail, though

there were probably two originally. The dogs’ manes are treated as if fins, and this

emphasis on necking is similar to the seaweed skirt Scylla wears to mark the end of

her human torso. This can be seen from ca. 300 on Tritons, and on such creatures as

centaurs, for example at Belevi, where the articulation of the transition was used to

emphasise the duality of these creatures’ natures. There is a strong twist in the upper

part of the torso, with the right arm raised, the left lowered, which creates a spiral

within the composition, though overall there is a large degree of frontality. The

abdomen is worn and damaged, but still powerful, almost masculine; she does

however have breasts. A similarity in the representation can be noted to the

Tritonnesses from throne at Lycosoura.434 A sailor,435 whose sleeved arm is

amongst thirty or so smaller fragments from the group, was held by Scylla and fed to

the hounds; this assumption can be made not only on the basis of the aforementioned

433 British Museum G.R. 1865.12-12.1-5, Sculpture no. 1542.

434 Particularly Athens NM inv. 2171: now dated to ca. 223-190, see: Themelis 1993a / 1993b / 1994.
435 British Museum G.R. 1972.8-14.2.
 135

fragment, in which the arm is clasped by a canine paw, but by the pose of the dogs’

heads, and by Scyllan iconography as seen in representations in the minor arts.

The Scylla would have acted as a tomb ‘guardian’ in the manner of the lions,

but was a more adventurous choice. She appears to have been used in funerary

contexts,436 on Tarentine tombs437 and in Etruscan art,438 but otherwise little in

mainstream Greek art. Taranto has often been seen as the conduit through which

Greek art influenced that of Etruria, and one can see the monster represented on a

number of stone urns. She was also one of the motifs used in mass-produced, mould-

made terracotta urns from Chiusi in the second and first centuries BC. 439 On small

Chiusan urns she is on the front; she can also be located there on the larger limestone

urns, but is more often on one or both ends. There are a number of variations within

her Etruscan iconography but, as in Tarentine sculpture, she is always depicted

frontally.440 In fourth century Greek depictions, Scylla appears to be passive, while

in the third century she once again becomes aggressive and violent.

Lions were used from the Archaic period onwards as grave markers. A

popular use may have been as as a pun on the name of the deceased, such as

Leonidas,441 and Leon of Sinope.442 The monumental lion at Hamadan in Ekbatana

may have been erected by order of Alexander the Great to mark where Hephaestion

436 My examples are largely randomly selected, and are only a small selection.
437 Carter 1975, no. 28 [Amsterdam inv. 1599] a pedimental relief in which she devours a naked
youth; Carter 1975, no. 191 [Taranto MA inv. 166] a pedimental relief where she is set amongst
stylised waves; Carter 1975, nos. 209-210 [Taranto MA inv. 113845 & 113769] an acroterion from the
Via Umbria Naiskos of a Scylla with dog protomes and extraordinarily long tails that run down the
gable; Carter 1975, no. 215 [Taranto, no inv. number] a fragment of a tail from an acroterion, probably
of a Scylla; Carter 1975, no. 331 [seen on art market] a pedimental applique group of a sea monster
with a youth, the former possibly Scylla.
438 eg. Tomb of the Reliefs, Cerveteri: Blanck & Proietti 1986, pls. XII-XIII.
439 For example Florence MA inv. 5471, 5553, 5551, 5554, 552.
440 Between fish and snake tails, with or without wings and within the implements she wields. In
Etruscan art she seems not to be attacking anyone in particular, nor does she have dog protomes
regularly.
441 Herodotus 7.225, says that there was a lion on the tomb of Leonidas, ‘son of lion’, at
Thermopylae, and one can note that a Classical lion has come from the area of his second tomb at
Sparta.
442 His funerary stele, Athens NM 770, mid fourth century, with a seated lion depicted. Vermeule
1972, p. 55, pl. 13.11. A similar stele with seated lion, seen from left profile but with head turned to
face viewer, has been found in Macedonia: Makedonika 15, 1975, pp. 210-216, fig. 3.
 136

died.443 A similar lion, on limestone crepis base, is to be found at Pella.444

Lionesses on the other hand were associated with courtesans, and used to depict

allegories on their mausolea.445 The lions were standardised, depicted either

reclining or seated. By the fourth century the type of a lion crowning a

monumentalised Doric base, had been established, but due to lack of evidence it is

difficult to ascertain when it reached this point; the earlier type was of a simple base.

The Mausoleum is the first known structure with an epithema, of a quadriga, and also

illustrates the use of lions as grave guardians; standing lions were positioned on the

lower step of the pyramidal roof. A similar series of standing lions ran around the top

of the podium on the so-called Ptolemaion at Limyra,446 and free-standing lions

were again amongst the decoration of the so-called Founder’s Tomb by the stadium at

Messene.447 On a smaller scale one can note that reclining lions take the place of

lateral acroteria on the Alexander Sarcophagus and on the tomb of Nikeratos of Istria

at Kallithea.

The later tombs with epithemata are all Doric, though large acroteria similar

to epithemata appear on Ionic altars. The popularity of lions can be seen to be due to

their role as a guardian of the tomb, a role which would not be inconsistent with the

use of Scylla at Bargylia. Lions represented valour and courage, and one can also note

that they were Phoenician symbols of death, explaining their early and systematic use

in Asia Minor. In Phrygia the motif of paired lions was popular, seemingly

symbolising royal power, also a sign of apotropaia used as a motif to fight off evil.

Although the lion tomb has a longer history, many examples are from the same time-

span as the Macedonian tombs, but could not be more different in conception. They

are in the Greek and Lycian-Ionian tradition of having markers visible above ground.

One must conclude that the differentiation is deliberate.

443 Luschey 1968; Rice 1993, p. 249.

444 ADelt B 39, 1984, pp. 247-250.
445 Gardner 1896, p. 131. The tomb of Lais at Corinth, had a lioness with a ram to signify the
influence over men she held, and there was also a tongue-less lioness on the tomb of Leaena, an
Athenian courtesan who refused to betray the Tyrannicides.
446 Ridgway 1990a, p. 196.
447 Observed on site, and unpublished according to the excavators.
 137

The epithemata, which can be understood as more emphasised acroteria that

stood on top of a building that was in turn a glorified base, have in common a degree

of frontality. The buildings, which seem all to have been cenotaphs or tombs, follow

the same general construction, with the epithemata at the apex of a pyramidal roof

that bridges the gap between the sculpture and the top of a Doric pseudo-colonnade

on a podium. A number of other tombs followed the basic structure of these, but

replaced the stepped roof and sculpture with a simple gabled one. Others kept the

steps, but did not use them as a base for a figure. Thus one can see the series of

monuments as a fusion of a number of traditions: the trend towards increasingly

elaborate and grandiose bases, topped with acroteria.

 138

5. Doric Figured Supports:

Vitruvius’ Caryatids and Atlantes448

A number of different figures used as architectural supports or creating the

illusion of supporting can be found within the architectural sculpture of the Late

Classical and Hellenistic periods. The simplest way of dividing these into types is by

their pose rather than their gender.

Atlantes or Telamones provide support on the nape of their necks and on the

forearms, their arms bent back with their elbows thrust forwards, and their pose

expresses their function. Though the original iconography of the figures was male,

from the early Hellenistic period females, as well as differently characterised males,

began to appear; the form was adapted to suit the designers’ needs, most commonly

serving to represent the adherents of Dionysos in the decoration of theatres.

Caryatids are often associated with figures carved in the round and replacing

columns, which, as on the Erechtheion, were to be found only on Ionic buildings.

They were always female, and the figures never expressed the burden of their

supporting function (the Erechtheion maidens for example have one bent and

‘relaxed’ leg). At the end of the Hellenistic era a variant developed, where they

became cistophoroi, as on the Inner Propylon at Eleusis; this form continued to be

used in the Roman period.

Alternatively Caryatids have been identified as figures supporting

superstructures with the poloi on their heads and one or two of their raised hands who

were to be found within Doric contexts,449 although later this use was less rigidly

applied. Extant examples, almost all female, are known from the beginning of the

Hellenistic period and continue through to the time of the Antonines. Though

448 This chapter was first presented at the 5th International Peloponnesiaka Conference in Sept. 1995,
and a version published as King 1998.
449 Plommer 1979, although he was unable to provide any examples of these as sculptural decoration.
His article formed the basis for the research in this chapter, which is largely an elaboration on his
theory, with a large quantity of archaeological evidence found to back it up.
 139

generally depicted in relief there is an example of such figures carved in the round;

they could be placed between columns or take their place.

Vitruvius, a Republican Roman architect with an enthusiasm for Hellenistic

taste who wrote a treatise at the turn from the Hellenistic to Roman Imperial periods,

described both Atlantes and Caryatids in his treatise on architecture. This would

suggest that they were by then established and acknowledged forms of decoration,

and that one should look to sculptures preceding his time to identify and examine

their forms.

5.1 Vitruvius’ Caryatids

It has become common practice to refer to all female figured supports as

Caryatids, the most famous examples being those of the South Porch of the

Erechtheion in Athens. This assumption stems from a passage of Vitruvius (De

Architectura I. 1. 5), but if one examines the text of Vitruvius it soon becomes

apparent that he had a specific type in mind. There are relatively few mentions of the

term in ancient literature, and its use as a generic term can be traced back to the

eighteenth century, to Stuart and Revett, and to Winckelmann.450 A number of

works on figured supports have appeared,451 roughly dividing the figures by sex,

then by pose, and concluding that female figures or ‘Caryatids’ were to be found

within the framework of the Ionic order, and male, known as Atlantes or Telamones,

within the Doric. By reexamining these, and placing them in the context of recent

discoveries, one can shed light on the controversy.

To begin one should distinguish between the two types of sculpted Caryatids

in literature. The first are Vitruvius’ figures of women in submission used as

architectural sculpture. The second are dancers that formed part of a group by

Praxiteles, mentioned by Pliny N.H. XXXVI.23 as Caryatids or Thyades, the Delphic

450 Stuart & Revett 1755, p. 51; Winckelmann 1760, p. 185.

451 Vickers 1985; Lloyd-Morgan 1990; Schmidt-Colinet 1977; Mierzwinski 1980; Schmidt 1982; the
Budé commentary on Book One of Vitruvius, edited by Pierre Gros; Ridgway 1999, pp. 14, 44-6.
 140

name for the Maenad followers of Dionysus, almost certainly a Choregic monument,

and considered by some to be reproduced in the acanthus column dancers at

Delphi.452 There are a number of sources for the Caryatids who served as dancers at

the famous shrine of Artemis Caryatis.453 Pliny uses the term in reference to the

decoration of the Pantheon of Agrippa built by Diogenes of Athens. 454 For the first

type of submissive Caryatid, Vitruvius’ account is the key text:

Architects ought to be familiar with history because in their works they

often design many ornaments about which they ought to render an

account to inquirers. For example, if anyone in his work sets up, instead

of columns, marble statues of long-robed women which are called

Caryatids, and places mutules and cornices above them, he will thus

render an account to inquirers. Caria, a Peloponnesian state, conspired

with the Persian enemy against Greece. Afterwards the Greeks, gloriously

freed from war by their victory, with common purpose went on to declare

war on the inhabitants of Caria. The town was captured; the men were

killed; the state was humiliated. Their matrons were led away into slavery

and were not allowed to lay aside their draperies and ornaments. In this

way, and not at one time alone, were they led in triumph. Their slavery

was an eternal warning. Insult crushed them. They seemed to pay a

penalty for their fellow-citizens. And so the architects of that time

designed for public buildings figures of matrons placed to carry burdens;

in order that the punishment of the sin of the Caryatid women might be

known to posterity and historically recorded.

[Vitruvius, De Architectura, 1. 1. 5: Loeb trans. F. Granger]

452 Homolle 1917.

453 For example: Serv. Ecl. 8. 30; Stat. Theb. 4.
454 NH XXXVI. 38, describing the figures between columns; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, pp. 23-4, 39-40.
As the building burnt down, we can only guess at the figures, but Vitruvian Caryatids seem likely.
Copies of the Erechtheion Korai were used as part of the sculptural decoration of the Forum
Augustum, but such figures are never referred to as ‘Caryatids’ in any ancient literature.
 141

Vitruvius gives the story of the Caryatids as a digression on the necessity of

architects knowing some History. Unfortunately he himself seems to have made

mistakes, and thus the passage is open to interpretation. It has been suggested by

some that Caria, a Persian Satrapy in modern-day Turkey, is meant as the origin of

the women, which would better explain their Medising. Caria however is definitely

not in the Peloponnese, and it is hard specifically to pinpoint the humiliation that the

Greeks inflicted on it.455 The state is more likely to have been Caryae, a city in

Laconia visited by Pausanias (III, 10, 7); one should then however point out the

inconsistency in Vitruvius’ dating of its destruction to the years following the Persian

war. What is known of Caryae is that, according to Xenophon, Hellenica 6.5.25 &

7.1.28, it was destroyed in 370/369 by the Spartans during Laconian-Theban wars

after Leuctra.

Plommer pointed out that Vitruvius’ inclusion of the use of mutules, which

are to be found beneath triglyphs, indicates that the figures were placed within the

context of the Doric rather than the Ionic order.456 One can also read into the passage

that the figures were ‘burdened’ and physically supporting the superstructure,

presumably with their arms, atoning for their sins and not being honoured. They

replaced columns and so literally supported the superstructure, but must also have

been seen to do so in terms of their pose, bringing in an element of trompe l’œuil.

This makes improbable the inclusion within the Caryatid category of such

figures as the Erechtheion maidens, called in the building inscriptions Korai,457 the

455 That the Treasury of Cnidus at Delphi was built with columns carved as women, by a Carian city,
might seem further to back this interpretation, but in my opinion the figures are not the form of
decoration that Vitruvius refers to as Caryatids. Artemisia of Caria was represented as one of the
defeated Barbarians on the Stoa that the Spartans built in their Agora, according to Pausanias 3.11.3,
which would suggest that the Caryatid Monument was a closely related building, and that Vitruvius
confused the two monuments.
456 Plommer 1979, p. 98.
457 I.G. I2 372.86 = I.G. I3 474.8. It can of course be argued that these are accounts, and thus would
not use an ‘artistic’ name. Lauter 1976; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 174; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 5,
pp. 20, 67, 89, 106 of, 132, 217-8; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 23-5, figs. 4-5; Scholl 1995. And of course
the copies, the best known being those from above the porticoes of the Augustan Forum in Rome, and
the Canopus of the Villa Hadriana at Tivoli; see Schmidt 1973 for these and other copies. For copies
subsequently found at Corinth, see Williams & Fisher 1975, cat. no. 26 & 27, pp. 22-3, pls. 7-8;
Ridgway 1981, pp. 105-6. Another replica was recently found at the Porticus of the Villa of Herodes
 142

figures from the Delphi treasuries,458 and those from the Heroon of Pericle at

Limyra.459 These figures are honoured rather than dishonoured, and set into an Ionic

framework, with the weight of the superstructure resting solely on their heads. They

take the place of columns, perhaps as an evolution of columnae caelatae. The fame of

the figures was such that had Vitruvius been describing the Erechtheion Korai, it is

likely that he would have named them. The Cistophoroi from the interior of the Inner

Propylon at Eleusis, built in the twilight of the Hellenistic era, were variants upon

these, their raised arms supporting the baskets they carried on their heads, which in

turn supported the entablature;460 they were copied in the second century AD for a

building at Monte Porzio.461 The two sets of figures from the Villa of Herodes

Atticus on the Via Appia,462 and their copies from a monument, probably to

Atticus at Loukou, which was inspired by Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli in that it echoed its shape and was
decorated with many similar sculptural groups.
458 The Treasury of Cnidus, ca. 550 BC: Schaller 1973, cat. no. 134; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 1,
pp. 20, 67, 89, 109, 216; Schmidt 1982, pp. 60, 72-4, 77-8; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 21-2. The head
formerly assigned to the Cnidian Treasury, ca. 550/540: Schaller 1973, cat. no. 133; Schmidt-Colinet
1977, cat. W 2, pp. 20, 109, 216; Schmidt 1982, pp. 73, 74, 75, 78; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 21-2, fig.2.
The Siphnian Treasury, shortly before 525 BC: Schaller 1973, cat. no. 135; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat.
W 3, pp. 20, 67, 89, 109, 216-7; Schmidt 1982, pp. 27, 60, 72-80, 160; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 22-3.
459 Built ca. 370-350 BC, on the south side of the Limyra acropolis. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 6,
pp. 20, 69, 89, 109-10, 132, 218; Schmidt 1982, pp. 27, 84-6, 85, 110, pls. 15-17; Mierzwinski 1980, p.
25, fig. 6; Ridgway 1997, pp. 94-9, ills. 14-5; Boardman 1995, p. 191, fig. 222.
460 The building was promised by Appius Claudius Pulcher in 54 BC, but not complete on his death in
48 BC. Hörmann 1932, pp. 64-76, figs. 48-9, 52, pls. 15, 50-2; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 176, pp. 67, 153-
4; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 37, pp. 33, 79, 142, 229-30; Schmidt 1982, pp. 100-2, 111, 135;
Mierzwinski 1980, p. 34, figs. 15-6; Stewart 1990, pp. 231-2, fig. 868. CIL 3.547; cf. Cicero, ad
Atticum 6.I.26, 6.2. The torsos and heads of the figures are preserved in the Eleusis Museum and in the
Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge.
461 Six Antonine figures, four copying the two from Eleusis, and the outer two variants with one arm
lowered; these are better preserved and form the basis of the reconstruction of the earlier figures. The
figures are Villa Albani inv. 16, 24, 91 & 97, and Museo Torlonia no. 485 & unnumbered/possibly
lost. Hörmann 1932, p. 72, figs. 52-4; Schaller 1973, p. 154; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 38 & W 69,
pp. 34, 41-2, 87-8, 94, 142-3, 230-1, 240; Schmidt 1982, pp. 101.
462 BM 1746; Villa Albani inv. 19, 628 & 725; and Vatican Braccio Nuovo inv. 2270. Hörmann 1932,
p. 73, fig. 46; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 22a-e, pp. 26-9, 86-7, 94, 143, 223-4; Schmidt 1982, pp.
99-100, pls. 23, 25; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 26-7, fig. 8; inscription = CIG 6160; Kammerer-Grothaus
1974, pp. 140-9, pls. 89-91; Calza 1976, pp. 210-213; Tobin 1991, pp. 316-19. Albani inv. 19 is
inscribed ‘’ on the strut at the back of the head. A
Mithras slaying a bull from the Baths of Mithras and a cippus from a Mithraeum were found in Ostia,
both bearing the signature of Kriton of Athens, and of a similar date to the carved columns. If this is
the same sculptor, close examination of the women has led me to believe that they were almost entirely
recut and reworked, rather than just restored, in modern times, probably in the studio of Cavaceppi. A
small scale replica in Germany by him lends credence to this theory, as do recently found drawings of
the figures by an artist from within his circle (Private Collection, London). The sketch book included
studies of the Monte Porzio figures, at least one of which was in his studio at the time of his death.
 143

Demeter, found near the Mitropolis in Athens,463 are also to be seen as a

development of such figures.

As an example of the pose of the figures believed to have been those that

Vitruvius referred to as Caryatids, Plommer pointed out the existence of a Hadrianic

marble relief, ht. ca. 0.87, Naples Museum inv. 6715 / no. 149, from Pozzuoli, that

represents a Classical structure whose entablature is held up by two female figures

using their poloi and the palms of their raised hands.464 In the centre is a mourning

figure not dissimilar to the Persepolis Penelope, a type used in Roman art to represent

conquered regions. The entablature is not represented as Doric, but this may be

because the relief is schematised, or perhaps because by that time the Doric context

was no longer applied. Its inscription, ,465 would

suggest that it represented the elusive Caryatid Monument, but the problem in

identifying it as such lay in the fact that, as Plommer pointed out, other than the

Athena on an early Classical Atlas metope at Olympia,466 no examples were then

known of figures in this pose. Subsequently however three Doric tombs, and a

number of other sculptures, have been identified, and these provide strong evidence in

favour of the Caryatid Monument having had such figures, supporting the

superstructure with their palms and poloi. The chronology of these tombs is uncertain,

but they all belong to the Hellenistic period.

The first of these is a rock-cut tomb at Aghia Triadha, near Rhodes (fig.

60).467 A square ground-plan was formed by four klinai, at the heads of each of

463 Two bodies and a head: Athens NM inv. 640, 1641 & 1642. Schmidt 1982, pp. 97-100, pls. 22, 24;
Kammerer-Grothaus 1974, pp. 141 ff.
464 Maziot 1924, vol. 1 pp. 24, 58; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 54, pp. 42, 74, 93, 236; Andreae
1963, p. 15 n. 22; Plommer 1979, p. 99, pl. Vb; Schmidt 1982, n. 608, n. 655, n. 673; Picard 1955, pl.
24.3.
465 I.G. XIV.59; amongst the inscriptiones falsae, it was dismissed on the grounds that it was too close
to Vitruvius’ text.
466 Athena, with one raised palm, assists Heracles in holding up the sky. He is depicted in profile
supporting the universe, represented by the taenia, with his forearms and a cushion, a pose recalling
those of the Atlas figures of later sculpture. This small-scale representation may be one that influenced
the Caryatid Monument, the latter’s innovation being technically more challenging in the depiction of
the pose and in the appropriateness of the iconography.
467 Ridgway 1990a, p. 178, fig. 26; JHS-AR 28, 1982, p. 61; BCH 106, 1982, pp. 613-4, fig. 149;
Lauter 1986, pp. 221, 251, fig. 73b.
 144

which stood statues of women, carved in the round, and crowned by the circular

Doric entablature from which sprang a dome. The figures are highly fragmentary, but

preliminary restoration would seem to indicate that they supported the superstructure

with alternating raised palms and the poloi on their heads. Their dress, consisting of

long peploi, also conforms to the implications of Vitruvius’ textual source. The

presence of a dome leads one to assume a date in the later Hellenistic period, and

publication of the archaeologists’ evidence for dating is eagerly awaited.

The second example is better preserved, a Thracian tomb near Svestari in

modern Bulgaria.468 It dates from soon after 300 BC. The frontal figures, located in

the main chamber, are in high relief, but otherwise they fit Vitruvius’ description. Cut

into the limestone, they were fully painted, with much of the pigment remaining;

details were picked out in ochre, dark brown, blue, red and lilac. The figures stand on

ledges between Doric half-columns, and hold up a Doric entablature. The women

wear long chitons, the high-girdled overfolds of which are heavily stylised and have

been subject to local stylistic variations, turning into three acanthus leaves, below

which the long skirts continue, moulding the legs; the shoes protrude from the bottom

and are visible. There were ten of these figures in all, standing 1.20 m high: four on

the north wall opposite the door, and three on the two side walls. The south wall,

where the door was located, was undecorated.

The proportions of the women vary slightly but all are in roughly the same

pose. The corner figures have only their inner arms raised, the central figures both. As

on the Naples relief and in the Rhodian tomb, they bear the architrave on their hands

and poloi. Of particular interest are the faces, with expressions that appear to

represent pain and grief, which are quite unusual in Greek sculpture. Their features

are all differentiated and highly individual, with a variety of ages, and they appear to

be portraits rather than idealised figures. One might note especially the northernmost

468 Ridgway 1990a, pp. 178-9; Zazoff et al 1985, pp. 628-643, fig. 28; Boardman 1994, pp. 191-2, fig.
6.11; Cicikova 1984; Cicikova 1983; Cicikova 1985; Fol et al 1986; Valeva 1993, pp. 121-3, figs. 8-9.;
Valeva forthcoming.
 145

figure of the west wall, whose head is turned down in a look of great despair. The

tomb was built under the influence of Macedonian art. Although no examples of

Caryatids have been found amongst the rather limited architectural sculpture of these,

they do make an interesting appearance on the throne in the so-called Tomb of

Eurydice at Vergina,469 suggesting a possible chain of influence. Here there were

figures around three sides of the seat, supporting the armrests and the painted panel

that formed the back; male figures with raised right arms alternate with female ones

whose left arms are raised, both using one of their palms to effect the support. A

number of the figures are now missing.

Tomb N 228, Cyrene, is a rock-cut facade tomb, 6.93 wide, built some time

during the later Hellenistic period, probably ca. 150-50 BC.470 At the corners of the

facade there are Ionic quarter-columns engaged to pilasters; the whole is however

crowned by an undecorated Doric frieze, making this a structure of mixed order. In

the centre, between the doors, there are two Caryatids that supported the frieze with

their poloi and both raised palms. The figures are carved in relief, and not fully

depicted, turning into engaged half-columns with Doric fluting below the knees. The

figures are highly Classicising; they seem to wear chitons and the way that these are

represented, particularly the apoptygmata, is very much late Classical in style.471

The figures are quite worn, and the tomb has not yet been fully excavated, but the

figures, other than in their dress, appear to conform to Vitruvius’ prescription.

The Sanctuary of Fortuna at Praeneste,472 modern Palestrina, is depicted in

an engraving of Henry of Cleeves, who went to Italy in 1551 and saw the site before

469 M. Andronikos 1, 1987, pp. 81-4, figs. 8-11.

470 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 36, pp. 32-3, 71, 91, 229; Cassels 1955, pp. 21, 28, 29; Stucchi
1975, p. 152, fig. 129; Bacchielli 1980; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 33. Ht. of figures 0.73; ht. of frieze
0.275, made up of 16 triglyphs and 15 metopes. The whole uses the Ptolemaic foot of 0.365.
471 Bacchielli 1980, p. 15.
472 Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 29-30; Coarelli 1976, pp. 337-9; Coarelli 1978, pp. i-ix, esp. ix, on the
dating; Schmidt 1982, n. 810; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 49, pp. 38-9, 71, 91, 133-4, 234; Altmann
1906, pp. 41-2, fig. 12; Fasolo & Gullini 1953, p. 190, fig. 285, pl. 23.1.
 146

the Palazzo Barberini was built on it in 1640.473 A series of Caryatids, seemingly in

relief, is depicted in the engraving, encircling the crowning tholos. Whether these

figures were the artist’s fantasy or actually existed is debatable, with scholars tending

to believe the latter. The figures as represented are surprisingly similar to those on the

Vergina throne in the way that they stepped forwards, one arm raised, with billowing

apoptygmata. This sort of energetic supporting figure, combining elements

axiomatically linked to Nikai figures, was particularly popular in the depiction of

Caryatids on Roman sarcophagi. The figures at Palestrina would most likely have

backed on to piers, supporting the entablature with their heads and the palm of one

hand, and were probably carved of the same white marble as the rest of the adornment

of the sanctuary. It is unclear whether the spaces between the figures were solid or

open. A sculptured figure with these characteristics is on display in Room II on the

ground floor of the site museum; a female figure, inv. no. 135, ht. 1.60, she wears a

crinkly chiton and chlamys.474 Much of the piece is missing, but from the angle of

the shoulders one arm appears to have been raised. The back and sides are flat, as if

inserted into a wall, and have square cuttings for dowels to have held it into place.

She is dated stylistically by the curators to the end of the second century BC, a date

not far removed from that of the building of the upper sanctuary, which is dated by

Fasolo and Gullini to the mid second century BC.475

A pair of Caryatids from Mylasa, in Caria, were found in conjunction with a

Doric frieze and a frieze with masks, and are now in Istanbul.476 At the time, owing

to the mask frieze that was found, this was thought to indicate the location of the

473 Henrici a Cleve, ruinarum ruriumque aliquot delineationes excussae per Galleum, Antwerp, Fol.
16.
474 This figure is to my knowledge unpublished.
475 Fasolo & Gullini 1953, based on epigraphic evidence, repeated most recentlyin Gullini 1973. This
re-dating remains highly debated, many prefer still to date the architecture to a re-building soon after
the 80 BC destruction of the sanctuary by Sulla. This has been well argued in a series of articles by
Lugli (Rend.Linc. series 8, IX, 1954, pp. 51-87; Arch.Cl. VI, 1954, pp. 305-11).
476 Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 28-9, fig. 10; Schmidt 1982, pp. 89-90, 92, 97, pls. 18-19; Schmidt-Colinet
1977, cat. W 48, pp. 37, 71, 144, 148, 234; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 177, pp. 67-8, 155; Picard 1955, pp.
279-80; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 41, 57; Mendel nos. 253-4, vol. I, pp. 580-4. Istanbul nos. 253 &
254; ht. 1.82 & 1.89, incl. 0.065 plinths. Hauvette-Besnault & Dubois 1881, p. 38. Mask frieze:
Moretti 1993, pp. 207, 208, 213, fig. 22 right; Schwingenstein 1977, p. 43.
 147

city’s theatre; but a theatre has since been found elsewhere in the town, and it is now

believed that they might have decorated an elaborate funerary monument of the later

second or early first centuries BC. Both masks and figured supports tend to be part of

theatrical iconography, but masks could also be used on tombs,477 and Vitruvian

Caryatids almost exclusively were. The two figures formed a pair mirroring each

other’s poses. The inserted heads, which were held in place by dowels, are lost. The

arms are also missing, but their poses are easy to reconstruct; one arm was raised out

to one side, the elbow bent and the palm held upwards, while the other arm was

down. Carved of small-grained white marble, with a blue tint in places, the peplos-

clad figures have flattened backs, showing that they were placed against a wall. The

figures are almost certainly architectural, their heavy bodies, despite having had

pieced heads, allowing for the illusion of bearing weight; both figures show signs of

weathering. They are likely to have worn poloi, supporting the architrave on these

and on one raised hand; it is tempting to suggest that the lost Doric frieze was from

the entablature sustained, fulfilling the Vitruvian prescription.

A further type of Caryatid, with archaising and Severe style details, is known

through copies surviving at Athens, Tralles and Cherchel; it appears to be an eclectic

work of ca. 100 BC, rather than a Classical original, that was copied as late as the

Antonine period. The type is known as the Tralles-Cherchel Caryatid, after its most

famous known replicas. As with Vitruvian Caryatids the figures could have provided

support on their poloi and the palm of one raised arm; those from Tralles may have

been architectural, but the others were free-standing copies.

The oldest, and first discovered, figure was found at the Theatre at Tralles,478

and is now in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, no. 1189, ht. 1.86 incl. 0.03

plinth. A head from the figure’s pair in the Ecole Evangélique in Smyrna was

477 see Moretti 1993, p. 214.

478 Zagdoun 1989, cat. no. 207, pp. 24, 25, 173-4, pl. 52.189; Ridgway 1970, p. 144, no. 6; Schmidt
1982, pp. 92-5, 111, pl. 20.1-.2, 38.2; Laubscher 1966, pp. 126, 128-9, pls. 18.2, 24-5; Mendel cat. no.
541, vol. II, pp. 257-60; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 175; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 51, pp. 40, 144,
148, 235; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 117, 130-1; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 28-9, fig. 11; Özgan 1995, cat.
TR. 70, pp. 125-133, pl. 35.1, .3-.4, 36.1-.3; Picard 1955, p. 288 n. 24.
 148

destroyed in a fire and is now only preserved in a photograph; 479 part of the right

shoulder was preserved and showed that this was raised. Stylistically they date from

the first half of the first century BC. Carved in a small-grained white marble, the back

was summarily worked suggesting that the figure was placed against a wall; the left

arm of the extant statue was pieced below the shoulder, and is lost. Also missing are

the bottom of the plinth, a few fingers of the right hand, besides which there are

numerous chips. It was highly painted, traces of red remaining on the face and blue

on the polos. The figure wore a finely pleated short-sleeved chiton and a cloak folded

in two and wrapped around her body and over the left shoulder. Although the figures

were found in or by the theatre, there is insufficient evidence conclusively to state

that they formed an integral part of its decoration; by this late date such Caryatids

may no longer have been reserved purely for funerary structures, as they appear to

have been earlier in the Hellenistic period, but the use of those that both pre- and

postdated them would suggest that might still have been the case. Interestingly

Apaturius of Alabanda, according to the testimony of Vitruvius, had shown statues of

centaurs supporting architraves as part of the scenery he had designed for the small

theatre at Tralles.480

A version of the figure type was found in the palace of Juba II at Cherchel, the

ancient Caesarea of Mauritania, and dates to the 20s BC.481 A variant rather than an

exact copy, it was a cruder work, provincial and over-exaggerated. The head and

upper neck are broken off, the arms missing below the shoulders. The left arm was

raised. Two heads and the fragmentary pieces of their bodies, from Hadrianic or

Antonine copies, were found on the Athenian Acropolis.482 The number of examples

of the type, their wide geographical spread and the variations in their dates, would

479 EA 3207c.
480 Vitruvius 7.5.5: Etenim etiam Trallibus cum Apaturius Alabandius eleganti manu finxisset
scaenam in minusculo theatro, quod ecclesiasterion apud eos vocitatur, in eaque fecisset columnas,
signa, centauros sustinentes epistyla, tholorum rotunda tecta, fastigiorum prominentes versuras,
coronasque capitibus leoninis ornatas ...
481 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 52, pp. 40, 235-6; Schmidt 1982, pp. 92-5, 111; Özgan 1995, pp.
126-7, pl. 35.2.
482 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 53, pp. 41, 236; Schmidt 1982, pp. 93, 94; Raftopoulou 1985a;
Raftopoulou 1985b. Athens NM inv. 1682, ht. 0.36; 1683 ht. 0.33.
 149

suggest that they are replicas of well known originals. Their style suggests that this

was an eclectic work of the later Hellenistic period rather than the eponymous

Caryatid Monument.

A number of high relief Caryatids from Miletos Theatre,483 that decorated the

stage-front, are known; these appear to be divided into two sets, one Hellenistic and

one Roman, which employed Caryatid-like figures, with one raised arm to support, in

the place where figures in Atlantes-poses were generally found. One of the supporting

archaistic figures from Miletos differs greatly from the other two in the Louvre, and

Linfert would like to redate it to the third century, as a piece that was then in good

condition and reused in the second century AD Roman rebuilding. This idea is much

disputed, but the differences between Louvre Ma 2793 and 2794 are too great to be

ignored. Although the consensus leans towards a Roman date for both, one can make

a good case against it. The dating of the Hellenistic architectural sculptures is

generally put at ca. 300 or in the early third century, so as to be contemporary to, if

not preceding, the majority of the examples in the West; but the consensus is that the

colonists were the innovators, and that the Miletos figures should be dated to a

reworking of the mid-second century BC or after.

The figure believed to be Hellenistic, Louvre Ma 2793, ht. 1.65, is made up of

three main fragments; the torso, the upper thighs, and the knees and calves. The arms,

head and feet are missing. Her back is flat, with anathyrosis. She wears a chiton, with

a roll of drapery over the torso, as on the Mylasa figures, emphasising it. A strong

vertical line is created between her legs by two main folds and smaller ones on the

sides, but it is not as pronounced as examples from Magna Graecia. Although

archaising, it clings to many more Classicising forms. The position of the button on

her left shoulder emphasises that that arm was raised; the top of the right shoulder

shows that it was down. The lowered arm is on the side of the leg set forward. There

is a severe lack of modelling on the legs, and the anatomy is generally nebulous. The

483 Ridgway 1990a, p. 178; Linfert 1976, pp. 22-30, pls. 8-11; Fleischer, BonnJbb 179, 1979, pp. 765-
770; Linfert, BonnJbb 184, 1984, pp. 730-33; Webb 1996, p. 17; Fullerton 1987, pp. 271-2, pl. 19.3-4;
Schmidt 1982, pp. 95-7; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 28-9; Heres 1982; Zagdoun 1989, nos. 327, 328, 329,
pp. 77, 176-7, figs. 53-4; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, W 14a-d, pp. 37, 71, 144, 148, 232-3.
 150

vertical folds begin below the overhang. Linfert draws parallels between this figure,

which he believes to be early Hellenistic, and the sculptured column drums from

Ephesos, notably BM 1200.

The Roman figure, Louvre Ma 2794, ht. 1.41, has rather different drapery, its

chiton much more wispy, almost transparent under the peplos. The roll of the cloak is

different, and the vertical folds are much more emphasised: they jut out and begin

higher up, from the level of the roll. There is also more contrast within the elements

of the drapery, which is more deeply cut. She is made up of two main fragments, the

upper torso and the rest, and her back is rougher; the arms, the head, the knees and

below are missing. A socket also shows that the head and neck were originally

inserted. Louvre Ma 2795, ht. 1.90, is its pair. The differences, as if resulting from the

sculptor of one figure trying to emulate the other but failing, cannot be brushed off

merely as characterisation.

Three more figures have been linked to the Hellenistic decoration of the

theatre. A torso in the garden of the Basmane Museum in Izmir, inv. 74, ht. 0.90,

appears to be of the same design as the Louvre Hellenistic figure, and forms a pair

with it. A second figure in Izmir, in the Archaeological Museum, unpublished, is of a

different design, and presumably one of the Roman figures. Heres has added a figure

in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin to the corpus; the figure is of the same design as

the Hellenistic Caryatids, and again would seem to form a pair to Louvre Ma

2793.484 The evidence suggests that at least two pairs of figures decorated the

Hellenistic stage-front of the theatre at Miletos, and that these were reused, alongside

contemporary figures imitating them in the Roman rebuilding.

The majority of these examples of Caryatids would appear to come from

funerary contexts, so whatever the original pejorative intention of the figures when

the Caryatid Monument was set up, the form soon took on overtones of mourning. As

well as large-scale examples used as sculptural decoration on buildings, there are a

number of small-scale depictions of the pose. One example comes from a Messapian

484 Heres 1982.

 151

tomb at Vaste,485 near Lecce, from the last quarter of the third century. A large

female with both forearms raised, in the Atlantes pose, supports a battle frieze, ht.

0.30. The pose is of the theatrical type though in more sombre dress, and can be

compared to the two mourning supports from a Tarentine naiskos. Of more interest is

a small and badly worn low relief female figure at the end of the frieze, which wears a

polos and peplos, and supports the moulding above the frieze with one raised hand,

once again recalling the Neapolitan relief (fig. 59). A block of a Samian frieze is

preserved, dating from the middle Hellenistic period.486 Five erotes at play are

depicted, with on the right end an archaising Caryatid, providing support with her

polos and the raised palm of her outer hand. Presumably there would have been a

similar figure at the opposite ends of both friezes. Very similar small figures can be

found on a number of late Hellenistic funerary stelae, now in Istanbul,487 and on

either side of the doorway on a late fourth century or early Hellenistic rock-cut tomb

at Limyra.488 The upper section of a Hellenistic Boeotian Stele preserves the

pediment and entablature; the outer two metopes are filled with rosettes, the inner two

with phialai, and in between them are two small figures in long robes, supporting the

top of the metope with their head and raised arms.489 The figures are used in a

funerary context, and although their location within the architectural framework has

changed, in that they do not support the frieze but rather are placed within it, these

would appear to be miniature, symbolic Caryatids.

Interestingly an unpublished late Republican box found at Baiae/Cumae and

now on display in Naples Museo Nazionale, was decorated with ivory plaques

485 Ridgway 1990a, pp. 179-80, pl. 83; Schmidt 1982, p. 118; Bendinelli 1913, p. 14, fig. 4; L’Arab
1991; Osada 1993, cat. MF 11, pp. 107, 145; Süssenbach 1971, p. 69; Schaller 1973, p. 196; Schmidt-
Colinet 1977, cat. W 40, pp. 37, 232.
486 Osada 1993, cat. DF 10, pp. 101-2, 154; Samos 12, pp. 46-7, no. 172, pl. 79; Kähler 1948, p. 74.
Samos-Vathy Museum; ht. of frieze 0.19 m.
487 Istanbul inv. 4845, 5557, 5341, 5045; dated to the second and first centuries BC. Schmidt-Colinet
1977, cat. W 44-7, pp. 37, 71, 91, 110, 233-4.
488 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 39, pp. 36-7, 91, 110, 232.
489 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, n. 142; Fraser & Rönne 1957, Thebes no. 65, pp. 27-8, 62-4, pl. 12. Thebes
Museum inv. 66B. Schmidt-Colinet interprets the figure as the symbol of Tanit, but her similarity to
those on the Neapolitan box, the find spot and context would all suggest a schematised Caryatid.
 152

depicting small Caryatid figures.490 The inner figures had both arms raised,

supporting the frame of the reliefs with their heads and hands, whilst the women on

the outer plaques had only one hand in the air. The box was found placed in a tomb.

Relief figures of women were carved on to the piers that supported the arches

on the lower level of the Monument of Caius Memmius that stands on the corner of

Kouretes and Domitian Streets at Ephesos.491 That the structure was built by

Memmius, born in 70 and suffect consul in 34, is attested by an inscription. Possibly

the repository of his ashes, but more likely to be a propagandist monument or

cenotaph, it is a structure in the Corinthian order, built for a Roman following

Hellenistic form, at the twilight of the period. The attic had relief panels, depicting

men between pilasters; these are likely to have been ancestors of the eponymous, a

grandson of Sulla. The figures carved on the supports on three sides of the building

wore long dresses with Archaising omega folds. Their damaged torsos make it

difficult to reconstruct the figures, but they appear to have had one or both arms

raised, with the palm of the hand facing up, but these palms may not have reached to

the lintel so as to give the illusion of supporting it. Even if one can argue that the

figures did not meet all the criteria for being described as Caryatids, one can see their

source of influence, particularly in the use of such figures on a sepulchral monument.

Caryatids were used by the Romans, almost exclusively in a funerary context, and

they decorated a number of Roman Sarcophagi.492 Caryatids were carved on the

490 I noted this box in the Room of Ivories on the first floor whilst visiting the museum. A curator
kindly opened the case so that I could examine the piece. Neither of us could find an inventory number
of the box, nor could he find it in the museum’s inventory. On another shelf in the same cabinet is a
very finely carved bone or ivory figure of a bearded Telamone, ca. 0.13 high, and probably late first or
early second century AD.
491 Ephesos VII, especially Bammer, pp. 26-9, 85-6, figs. 14, 14a, 15, 15d, 15g, 16, 16a-d, 16f-g;
Outschar 1990; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 5, pp. 39, 71, 91, 110-1, 133, 235; Schmidt 1982, n. 810;
Mierzwinski 1980, p. 29; Webb 1996, pp. 82-3, figs. 43-7.
492 There are a number of sarcophagi with figures in the Caryatid pose, all dating to the Hadrianic and
Antonine periods. Amongst them: Palazzo Barberini no. 59, Palestrina [Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W
58]; fragment in Taranto, Museo Civico [Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 59]; Achilles sarcophagus from
Crete in the Townley Collection, British Museum [Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 60]; Achilles
sarcophagus from Kertsch in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg [Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 61];
Amazon sarcophagus from Thessaloniki, Louvre [Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 62]; lost sarcophagus
previously in La Goyle [Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 63]; Amazon sarcophagus, Istanbul no. 63
[Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 64]; Hippolytos sarcophagus from Thessaloniki, Istanbul no. 125
[Schmidt-Colinet cat. 1977, W 65]. Also Mendel cat. no. 15, vol. I, pp. 82-4; Mendel cat. no. 21, vol. I,
pp. 38-104; a sarcophagus with Erotes in Side [Mansel 1978, p. 293, figs. 331-2]. There are many
 153

corners of a rock-cut sarcophagus at Cyrene which, though sometimes dated to the

Hellenistic period, is more likely to be Roman.493

Thus one can see that there are quite a number of sculptural examples of the

Naples pose in the Hellenistic period, and conclude that this is the type that seems the

most likely for Vitruvius’ Caryatids. A second text, Athenaios 241d quoting Lynceus

of Samos, a contemporary of Menander, reinforces the theory. In it Eucrates speaks of

dining in a dilapidated house of which he says:

when one dines here, one has to use one’s left hand,

as Caryatids do, to hold up the roof.

Although the pose does not preclude dancers, the idea of figures supporting a ceiling

would be more in keeping with those described by Vitruvius.

The pose, of a female figure supporting with her head and one or both hands,

was not new in Greek art,494 but its use in large-scale sculpture is only documented

from the beginning of the Hellenistic period. My argument is that the designers of the

Caryatid Monument adapted the figures to their own means, and provided the catalyst

for their being copied in subsequent architectural sculpture for the decoration, at least

initially, of tombs.

The question of where and by which Greeks the Caryatid Monument was

erected arises. The Spartans would seem the most obvious answer, having erected

structures with figured supports previously, the Amyklaeon495 and the Persian

others that are similar, for example in the Vatican and the Museo Nazionale in Rome, but few are as
well preserved, so it is often difficult to fully restore the pose of the figures, the corners being highly
susceptible to damage.
493 Tomb N 84. Bacchielli 1980, n. 34; Cassels 1955, pp. 21, 27; Stucchi 1975, p. 536; Pacho 1827,
pl. XXXIX.2.
494 It was used since the Archaic period for small-scale objects, such as perirrhanteria, mirrors
[Congdon 1981, nos. 7a, 14, 25, 26, 28, 94, 115] and supports for bowls and vessels [Gulaki 1981, p.
159, fig. 104-5].
495 Throne of Apollo / Tomb of Hyacinthos, built by Bathycles of Magnesia in the late sixth or early
fifth century; Pausanias 3, 18, 9-10. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 4, pp. 20, 67, 89, 105-8, 131, 217;
Schmidt 1982, pp. 19, 25, 69, 77, 78f, 80, 82, 147; Martin 1976; Faustoferri 1993; Mierzwinski 1980,
p. 23, fig. 3.
 154

Stoa496 being the most famous examples. Plommer suggests that it may have been a

table-like structure built inside the Persian Stoa, or possibly the alteration of the

building to which Pausanias alludes.497

An alternative is that the Monument was in a Panhellenic sanctuary. If this

were the case it is strange that Pausanias nowhere mentions it. Of course it could have

been destroyed by the second century AD, or he may simply have failed to include it

in his description of the Persian Stoa, given his lack of interest in architecture, and

particularly stoas. The fact that Vitruvius confuses the Caryatids with the Persian

War, and that Artemisia of Caria who was defeated in it was amongst the figures

represented on the Persian Stoa would seem to reinforce the link between the two

structures. And after all, as Pausanias said in 3, 11. 1, there were many wonderful

sights in the city of Sparta, as there were at Athens, and that he could not list them all.

496 Pausanias 3, 11. 3; Vitruvius 1. 1. 6. Schmidt 1982, pp. 20-1, 62, 72; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, pp.
135, 138; Coulton 1976, pp. 13, 39. The reconstruction of the stoa is itself complex and an area that
few have covered. The Persians and their allies were represented on or above the columns, depending
on one’s interpretation of the text. Picard 1935, suggests carved relief panels attached to the fronts of
the pilasters. Bacchielli 1980, pp. 20-1, backs the idea of figures against, rather than over, columns, by
noting the inscription of the Stele of the Iobacchi, Athens NM, (Bacchielli 1980, fig. 14); within the
inscription, I.G. II/III2 1368, carved on a column shaft, it mentions itself as “ ” the column,
meaning carved on the column rather than above it, which it is.
497 Plommer 1979, pp. 100-1, pl. Vc. He illustrates a small terracotta figure, ht. ca. 12 cm, found in a
Hellenistic building at the north-east end of the Spartan Acropolis, that he feels may have imitated it.
Ridgway 1999, p. 64 n. 24, p. 148; Schneider 1986, pp. 109-114, esp. n. 739, pl. 32.2-3.
A number of Roman stoas and porticoes had figured supports as decoration, but with no illusion that
they are supporting the structure: for example the Stoa on the Agora at Corinth with Barbarians
(Schmidt 1982, pp. 132-3) and the Incantadas from Thessaloniki now in the Louvre (Schmidt 1982, p.
130; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, p. 98).
 155

5.2 Atlantes and Telamones

Atlantes or Telamones provide support on the nape of their necks and on the

forearms of their raised and bent back arms. Their elbows were thus thrust forwards

from and slightly above their heads; their necks, generally reinforced by the

representation of a beard, were also extended in an attempt to create a vertical

surface, as well as the illusion of burdened figures. The earliest extant examples of

these are from the early Classical Olympieion at Agrigento;498 the structure is known

to have been restored in the early Hellenistic period and may have acted as a model

for subsequent imitators. Figures in the Atlantes pose, named after the mythical figure

who held up the universe, could be male or female in the Hellenistic period. They

were popular for the decoration of theatres, where their iconography was adapted to

suit the context, and their attributes became those of the retinue of Dionysos. Bearded

males that were not followers of the god appear to have been Vitruvius’ Atlantes

rather than figures in the Atlantes pose. Since Vitruvius does not fully differentiate

the term Telamon, I use them interchangeably. They were carved in high relief, and

tended to incorporate a Doric frieze, which they supported. Kneeling figures acting as

supports are also known, but few date from before the Roman Imperial period; those

from the parodos walls of the theatrum tectum at Pompeii,499 ca. 80-75 BC, and

from the theatre at Pietrabondante,500 late Hellenistic, were variants of the Atlantes

pose, but most were not.

The most popular type of figured supports in the fourth century and

Hellenistic period are not Caryatids, but Maenads and Satyrs in the Atlantes pose to

be found in high-relief supporting stage fronts with their forearms. The figures

498 Koldewey & Puchstein 1899, p. 161, fig. 143; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 184; Castiglione 1975, figs.
208-9; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, pp. 47, 69, 89, 131-2, 242; Schmidt 1982, p. 41, 112-3, 116, 122, 123,
161; Jannot 1984, p. 579; Mierzwinski 1980, pp. 35-6, figs. 17-8; Schneider 1986, pp. 103 ff.
499 Tufa figures, ht. 0.80. Schaller 1973, cat. no. 190b; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 41, 122; Castiglione
1975, p. 211, figs. 220-1; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 19, pp. 49, 73, 100, 246; Schmidt 1982, pp.
120-1; Fuchs 1987, pl. 9.2-3.
500 Bovianum vetus, Molise; ht. 0.98. Schaller 1973, cat. no. 190a; Castiglione 1975, p. 211, fig. 222;
Schwingenstein 1977, p. 41; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, pp. 49, 73, 91, 100, 244; Schmidt 1982, p. 121.
 156

involve a thematic change to fit the function of the building; they become, for

example, part of the Dionysiac retinue at theatres. These supports were common in

Magna Graecia and Sicily, with examples in the East at Delos and Athens, though the

dating of the last is disputed and may be Roman. There is also residual evidence for

them in painting and on small-scale objects from Etruscan culture, all funerary. The

pose of the figures seems to develop from those decorating the exterior of the temple

of Zeus at Agrigento. The examples whose order is known are all placed in

conjunction with the Doric order. Such figures are described in De Architectura,

where they are identified as Atlantes or Telamones.

Again, if statues of the male figure support brackets or cornices, we call

them telamones, nor do we find in any treatises what they are and why

they are so called. But the Greeks call them Atlantes. For, in history, Atlas

is represented as sustaining the universe, because he was the first by his

powerful intellect and skill to set forth to mankind the sun’s course and

the revolutions of the moon and all the stars. And therefore because of this

service he is represented by painters and statuaries as sustaining the

world.

[Vitruvius, De Architectura, 6. 7. 6: Loeb trans. F. Granger]

Vitruvius, recording their use before the writing of his treatise, does not place

the figures within an order, although the archaeological evidence suggests a Doric

context, but rather includes them in his section on housing, after a digression on the

Greek Xystos. An example exists of male figured supports used in such a context: the

so-called Portico of the Hermeses, of the Xystos of Cyrene Gymnasium, for which

Stucchi proposed a mid second century BC date,501 although others prefer the time

of Commodus.502 The portico ran along the west of building, and was a wall

501 Stucchi 1975, pp. 127-8, figs. 109-10; Luni 1976, pp. 229-30.
502 Burkhalter 1992, p. 368, fig. 10.
 157

articulated by alternating high-relief figures of Hermes and Hercules carved on to

piers, with a Doric entablature linking them above. Between the pillars there are

window-like openings. As recommended by Vitruvius, the Xystos is smaller in size

than the stadium.

The earliest securely dated figured supports come from Monte Iato theatre.503

Monte Iato was a highly Hellenised city, inland in Western Sicily, given the status of

a polis in the middle of the fourth century. This led to much construction, including

the theatre for which one can note three main phases of work: during the last years of

the fourth century, ca. 200 BC, and later rebuilding. The sculpted supports, two

Maenads and two Silenoi, which are now in the Museo Civico Ietino, San Cipirello,

are attributed to the stage front or parodoi of the first phase. That they belong to the

theatre is attested by their find spots within it. Schmidt feels that their details indicate

a position above eye-level. Two large contemporary lions, lying down on bases along

the line of the parodoi, facing outwards, were located in the front rows of the

auditorium at the level of the thrones. This unusual place for sculpture, and the high

overall quality of the detail, shows how decorated the theatre must have been.

Here the use of supporting figures is largely illusionistic, for though they seem

to have an active role in carrying the weight of the building, and one can note the

strain depicted within the musculature of the Silenoi’s chests, the burden is on the

uncarved rear of the blocks. Each of the high relief figures is sculpted on to the front

of three super-imposed blocks of local stone and was covered in a light layer of

stucco. They can be seen as figured ‘pilasters’, with broader rears applied to or set

within the walls. The poses of both sets of over-life size figures are similar,

‘supporting’ with their forearms and napes, legs straight. There are slight differences

between the ‘pairs’; some would see this as indicative of different dates, though here

it is probably just an attempt at characterisation. Such a Dionysiac retinue was

appropriate for a theatre.

503 Figures of limestone, ht. ca. 2.00. Ridgway 1990a, p. 178; Schmidt 1982, pp. 26, 114-5, 119; Ribi
& Isler-Kerényi 1976; Jannot 1984, pp. 579-80; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 31, fig. 12; Schmidt-Colinet
1977, cat. W 30 & M 2, pp. 31, 47, 69, 91, 144, 227-8, 242; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 39-40. For the
chronology of the theatre: Isler 1984, pp. 25-32; Courtois 1989, p. 36, fig. 19.
 158

The Maenads are particularly archaising, though less so than many later

examples (fig. 63). One can see this expressed in their hair, and in their high-girdled

symmetrical peploi, with ‘omega’ folds at the overhang and hem. Long hair falls over

the front of their shoulders, and on their heads are ivy and berry wreaths around poloi;

one polos has an edge preserved that may be architectural. The Maenads are

especially well preserved. The Silenoi are whole, but less well preserved (fig. 64).

They have long beards, and wear fleece loin-cloths that create a less symmetrical

appearance than the Maenads’ drapery. Traces of one leaf garland can be seen by

their bestial ears, and of another across their muscular chests. One can note a

similarity between these Silenoi and the one from Athens that is sometimes assigned

to the Lycourgan building.

To the patronage of Hieron II of Syracuse (269-215 BC) a number of figured

supports can be ascribed. A Maenad and a Satyr, both of local stone and now in

Syracuse Museum have been attributed to the architectural decoration of Syracuse

Theatre, dating to the period of his reign. Both figures are like the Akragan Atlantes

in pose. The upper part of a Maenad, carved in-the-round, was found in the orchestra,

so is secured as part of the decoration.504 She wears an ivy wreath, and has more

Classicising drapery than the Iato Maenads, but still with Archaic motifs. The rear,

which was not intended to have been visible, is roughly worked, and the continuation

of some details suggests that it was against a wall, but perhaps not attached to one.

The figure is quite bulky, and may well have served as a support. An oddity is the

extension of the back of the neck, which may have joined it to the wall behind.

The Satyr, of which only a damaged upper torso with a head and part of a

fleece-covered pelvis survive, is without provenance, but its structure is quite

different, resembling more the carved front of a high-relief pilaster.505 Though

504 Maenad, preserved from waist up, Syracuse Museo Archeologico inv. 37.379; limestone with
stucco, pres. ht. 0.72. Schaller 1973, cat. no. 183; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 40-1, 130; Schmidt-
Colinet 1977, cat. W 31, pp. 32, 69, 144, 228; Ridgway 1990a, p. 177; Schmidt 1982, p. 115; Langlotz
& Hirmer 1965, pl. 156; Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976, p. 39, pls. 22.1-2, 23.1, 22.3; Courtois 1989, pp.
29-33 esp. 33, figs. 11-15; Jannot 1984, p. 579; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 31.
505 Satyr preserved in two fragments, Syracuse Museo Archeologico inv. 916; limestone with remains
of stucco. Schaller 1973, cat. no. 186; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 3, pp. 47, 69, 144, 242-3; Schmidt
1982, pp. 115-6; Jannot 1984, p. 579. For further bibliography see previous note.
 159

similar in general outline and made of the same kind of stone covered in stucco as the

Maenad, the two pieces are diametrically opposed in mood. The difference in the

treatment of the back, along with the popularity of male counterparts to Maenads in

theatres, leads Schmidt to assign him to a different part of the theatre from the female

support, but still within it. Yet a pair of feet, from a Satyr or Silenos, and attached in a

similar way, can still be seen at the near-by Altar of Hieron II,506 and I propose to

assign it there instead of the theatre. The altar, measuring 194.5 x 20.85 m with an

original height of ca. 10 m, is the biggest known. There were staircases at each end,

and fragments of two different sizes of Doric entablatures have been found, one of

which crowned the figures. Jannot sees the Altar as deliberately copying the earlier

temple at Agrigento, to create links with the past.507

What is particularly interesting about Hieron II is that Athenaios 208b,

quoting Moschion, describes a ship the tyrant gave to a Ptolemy, the Syracusia, later

renamed the Alexandris.508 The passage is better known for its description of

mosaics, but also mentions the exterior of the ship. At the top of this there was a row

of Atlantes, either in relief or possibly painted, six cubits high, or ca. 2.70 m, with a

triglyph frieze above them, thus indicating once again the association of these figures

with the Doric order.

The upper bodies of two terracotta Silenoi, one with a garland on his head,509

the other without,510 were found in Syracuse. They are close enough to the Satyr

linked to the Altar of Hieron II, or to the theatre, to be believed to have been copying

it; their scale suggests that they were part of the decorative scheme of a Late

Republican house. A similar phenomenon can be seen at Agrigento. A Hellenistic

terracotta vessel from here had small relief Atlantes figures that acted as handles.511

506 Yavis 1949, cat. no. 71.19; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 5, pp. 48, 91, 243; Koldewey &
Puchstein 1899, p. 72, fig. 54; Jannot 1984, pp. 579, 594-5; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 30; Schmidt 1982, n.
711.
507 Jannot 1984, p. 579.
508 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 6, pp. 48, 132, 243; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 30; Schmidt 1982, pp. 17,
24, 25, 119.
509 Syracuse Museo Archeologico inv. 2043. Schmidt 1982, n. 711.
510 Syracuse Museo Archeologico inv. 43525. Schmidt 1982, n. 711.
511 Agrigento Museo Archeologico. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, n. 139, n. 212.
 160

A Telamon is also depicted on a red figure vase from the town.512 The figures

depicted on both of these are close enough to the monumental Atlantes of the

Olympieion for one to argue that they were imitators; if one wished to speculate

further one could view them as souvenirs produced for visitors.

Delos theatre, from the late third century, is the only theatre outside the West

in which it is certain that the supporting figures are Hellenistic originals; these are

two Silenoi, life-size, Delos A 4175-.513 They backed on to a square pillar with

sides of 0.20-0.22, which is approximately the size of the pillars of the proscenion,

though these were constructed using a different method. It is likely that the figures

supported the ends of the stage. These bearded figures are characterised by rolls of

flab on the stomach, and bald heads crowned with ivy wreaths; a cloth was wrapped

around their waist and upper thighs. They are quite damaged; one is preserved from

the head to the bottom of his thighs, ht. 0.95, the other as a torso, ht. 0.62. They

‘supported’ with their head and shoulders. The two figures would have been

symmetrical, with one Silenos having his weight on the right leg, his head turned

towards that side, and the other figure in the opposite pose. Another supporting

figure, Delos A 4177, may also have been part of the decoration of the theatre; it is on

the same scale and technically similar to the other figures, although its features are

those of a barbarian rather than a Silenos.514

Attempts have also been made to redate a Satyr from the Theatre of Dionysos

in Athens, inv. 2302,515 to the ca. 330 Lycourgan restoration, on the grounds that it

differs greatly from the other figures, which are generally dated as Hadrianic.516 This

512 Agrigento Museo Archeologico. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 7, pp. 48, 91, 243. Unpublished.
513 Ridgway 1990a, p. 177; Guide de Delos, pp. 246-8, no. 114, fig 92 on p 247; Marcadé 1970, pp.
198, 449, pl XXII; Deonna 1938, pl. CVIII, no. 949; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 188; Castiglione 1975, fig.
213; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, M 63, pp. 58-9, 91, 144, 258; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 38-9, 130-1;
Schmidt 1982, pp. 124-5, 170. For a possible third figure, which can no longer be located, see: BCH
13, 1889, p. 369; BCH 20, 1896, p. 391, fig. 6.
514 Upper torso and head only preserved, ht. 0.38; on site. Castiglione 1975, fig. 215; Schmidt-Colinet
1977, cat. M 64, pp. 59, 258; Marcadé 1970, p. 198 n. 4, pl. XXII.
515 Herbig 1935, pp. 9-10, pl. 5.1-.2; Ridgway 1990a, p. 177; Castiglione 1975, p. 217; Schmidt-
Colinet 1977, cat. M 80, p. 263; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 39-40; Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976, pp. 39-
40, pl 20.2-3; Schmidt 1982, pp. 123-5; Maass 1972, p. 31; Jannot 1984, p. 580.
516 inv. 294, 295, 296, 299, 301. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 79, pp. 62, 64, 77-8, 94-5, 144, 262-3.
 161

has been controversial, and Schmidt dismisses the idea, although she admits that there

are no concrete grounds why the piece should not date to the early Hellenistic period.

Although poorly preserved, the figure is different in style and execution from the

Roman examples. Neither theory has found extensive support, but should not be

dismissed. Interestingly the figure is close to those from Monte Iato, which may have

derived from it;517 this figure type was much copied in the Roman period,518

suggesting that the originals were in a rather more illustrious location than an obscure

theatre in the mountains of Sicily.

The link between Atlantes and the decoration of theatres is so strong that the

publishers of a tufa Telamon figure found built into a wall of the late Mediaeval

Palazzo Dardes in Venosa saw it as evidence for a Roman theatre in the town.519

Although the pose is that of a standard Atlas figure, supporting with forearms and the

back of its neck, the rendition of the corpulent naked body is unusual. The figure

probably dates from the Late Republican or early Imperial period. Atlantes continued

to be used for the decoration of theatres in the Roman period, for example the

Telamones from Nîmes and from Falerio,520 but to a lesser extent. At some theatres

the figures may have replaced or supplemented Hellenistic figures, as appears to be

the case with the Athens figures, and the Caryatids at Miletos, whilst at others they

were new creations that followed the Hellenistic manner of decorating theatres.

Segesta theatre, ca. 200-175 BC, a classic example of a Hellenistic theatre

converted into a Roman one in the first century BC, had high-relief figured supports

of Pan decorating the ends of the parascenia.521 The Hellenistic figures, ht. ca. 2.80,

with their heads preserved, are related to figured columns: they supported a basket on

their heads with one raised arm, which in turn supported the entablature. The Pans,

517 Maass 1972, p. 31.

518 Copies include full size Satyrs, and small-scale ones; see Schmidt 1982, n. 756.
519 Marchi et al 1990, p. 14, fig. 26. The legs from the knees down are missing. As the figure is built
into a wall it was impossible to examine its back and sides, but from its mass and design it appears to
have been an architectural support.
520 Schmidt 1982, n. 731; Jannot 1984, p. 588; Fuchs 1987, pl. 18.1-1.
521 Now in the Casa di Custodia, Segesta. Schaller 1973, cat. no. 189; Schwingenstein 1977, pp. 39,
130; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 66, pp. 58, 69, 91, 144, 258-9; Schmidt 1982, p. 126; Courtois
1989, pp. 47-9, esp 48 & 47 n. 120, figs. 29-31.
 162

though not in the Atlas pose, continue the theme of followers of Dionysos as

decoration in theatres, and the use of supporting figures within these. A number of

copies of the figures were made during the Roman period, all to the same size. Two

figures in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, nos. 5 & 23, come from the

Theatre of Pompey in Rome. The figures are heavily restored, and it is uncertain from

which phase of the building they originate; Schmidt dates them to the second century

AD, though they need not be so late.522 A single figure is now in a private collection

on Capri.523 Another pair of figures comes from the Canopus of Hadrian’s Villa at

Tivoli;524 there they were arranged in a setting with copies of the Erechtheion Kore

type, suggesting knowledge of a thematic link between the two types, both originating

in architectural sculpture where they were used as figured supports. The Velletri

sarcophagus also makes such a link, with depictions of buildings with different types

of figured supports.525

Jannot states that there were no funerary examples of Telamones known in the

west Greek world,526 in contrast to the larger role they play in Etruscan funerary

iconography. Some examples from Southern Italy of female figures in the Atlantes

pose do however exist: one pair is definitely from a tomb, while the other is likely to

be from a funerary naiskos. In contrast the majority of Hellenistic Caryatids come

from funerary structures in Greece and the east Mediterranean; this may be either

because the Caryatid Monument was originally a cenotaph, or because the figures

themselves became symbols of mourning. A late fourth century Messapian tomb at

Vaste di Puglia, near Lecce, has yielded four archaising female figures in the Atlantes

pose;527 these did not serve an architectural function, but rather lined one wall, and

522 Ht. 2.80. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 76, pp. 60, 261-2; Schmidt 1982, p. 126. The figures have
been heavily recut.
523 Schmidt 1982, n. 768.
524 Inv. 2249, ht. 2.80. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 86, pp. 65-6, 77-8, 93-4, 117-, 265; Schmidt
1982, pp. 106-7, 125-6, n. 640, n. 770.
525 Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cats. W 19, W 55, M 34, M 74, pp. 26, 42, 78, 94, 124-6, 236. Museo
Civico; marble, ht. 1.45.
526 Jannot 1984, p. 580.
527 One figure in Lecce Museo Archeologico; two more figures and a torso in Taranto Museo
Archeologica, formerly in the Palazzo F. Basile, Spongano. Limestone, ht. w. plinth 1.49-1.57.
Castiglione 1975, fig. 211; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 29, pp. 31, 69, 111-2, 227; Mierzwinski
 163

supported a continuous frieze. None of the pieces are now whole, but between them

one can reconstruct the figures entirely, and note that rather than being in mirror-

image pairs, which was the norm, they were almost identical. Interestingly, as

previously noted, the small Amazonomachy frieze at one end has a depiction of a

Vitruvian Caryatid. Two Tarentine figures, now in Geneva, are likely to have

decorated a naiskos of the late fourth or early third century BC (fig. 65).528 The

figures back on to pillars. The drapery has nice swallow-tail folds, but overall they are

not overtly archaising. Differences within the two sculptures’ details were probably

due to the carver rather than to any attempt at differentiation; again neither figure is

whole.

A Telamon previously linked to a theatre has now been reassigned to the so-

called temple beneath S. Leucio, Canosa; the structure is highly unusual, and may in

fact have been a tomb or monument. The figure, a young satyr clad in a fur loincloth,

was made up of numerous blocks of stone, of which three survive, and was coated in

stucco, traces of which remain; the colossal figure was originally ca. five metres high,

and presumably one of a pair.529 The structure was of mixed order, but the figures

supported a figured Doric frieze; its date is uncertain, but is it believed to be from the

middle Hellenistic period.

Although no monumental sculptures of Etruscan Atlantes used as architectural

decoration survive,530 there is enough secondary evidence to show their popularity in

funerary contexts. Four Etruscan cinerary urns decorated with Telamones flanking the

scenes depicted are extant, all believed to have originated in Volterra. No. 82 in the

Museo Guarnacci, Volterra, with a firm provenance from Volterra, has nude, bearded

and heavily muscled men on the ends of the urn, flanking a scene depicting the

1980, p. 31, fig. 13; Schaller 1973, cat. no. 182, pp. 69, 156; Schmidt 1982, pp. 117-8, pl. 31.1. And cf.
above, n. 461.
528 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève, inv. 19579 & 19580: limestone, ht. 0.47 & 0.34, w. 0.13 &
0.11. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. W 28, pp. 31, 69, 111-2, 227; Chamay & Maier 1990, cat. no. 78, p.
71, pl. 77; Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976, p. 41, pl. 21.3; Jannot 1984, p. 579; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 31;
Schaller 1973, cat. no. 180; Castiglione 1975, fig. 212; Schmidt 1982, p. 118.
529 Pensabene 1990, cat. nos. 97-99, pp. 292-3, pl. CXXXI.1-.4.
530 For a small terracotta figure from Bolsena that probably decorated a doorway, see below.
 164

departure to the underworld.531 It dates from the first half of the third century BC.

Museo Guarnacci no. 315,532 dated ca. 150-130 BC, has similar figures around a

scene of a husband bidding farewell to his wife. It was made by L’Atelier des rosettes

et des palmettes, a group whose eponymous friezes are a derivation of the small-scale

Doric friezes that were popularly depicted on Etruscan cinerary urns. Above it is a

row of dentils. On Museo Guarnacci no. 273, ca. 150-130 BC, the Telamon figures,

the right hand one of which is missing, flank a Centauromachy. 533 Along the base of

the alabaster urn runs a Doric frieze. Florence MA inv. 7784495(?) is a very poorly

preserved urn with similar figures again positioned around a Centauromachy, and

dated to ca. 150-130.534 A Doric frieze runs along the base. It would appear to be

from the same workshop and a replica of the previous piece. On a fifth urn, Museo

Guarnacci no. 186, depicting the Seven Against Thebes, the Telamones are replaced

with kneeling figures on brackets within the entablature, whose upper bodies are in

the Atlas pose and would appear to be captives.535 The alabaster urn is very late

Etruscan, dating to the beginning of the first century BC.

Related paintings are known from two Tarquinian tombs. In the Tomba del

Trifone, Tarquinia, late second century, two of the pillars are decorated with the

eponymous figures, who have the upper bodies of Atlantes but are anguiped.536

There is also a female figure, but with wings. The paintings from the Tomba Tartaglia

at Corneto, believed to date to the second half of the third century BC, are no longer

531 Ht. of Atlantes 0.28. Jannot 1984, pp. 581, 598; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 12, pp. 49, 69, 91,
115, 245; Pairault 1972, p. 72; Cristofani 1977, cat. no. 100.
532 Ht. of Atlantes 0.30. Jannot 1984, pp. 581-2; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 13, pp. 49, 69, 91, 115,
245; Brunn & Körte 1916, vol. III, p. 80, pl. LXXVI.7; Pairault 1972, pp. 64-5, figs. 28b, 29.
533 Ht. of Atlantes 0.30. Jannot 1984, pp. 582, 598-9, fig. 2; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 14a, pp. 49,
69, 91, 115, 245; Brunn & Körte 1916, vol. II, pp. 169-70, pl. LXX.8; Durm 1905, pp. 72-3, fig. 76;
Pairault 1972, fig. 22.
534 Ht. of Atlantes 0.28. Jannot 1984, p. 582; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 14b, pp. 49, 69, 91, 115,
245; Brunn & Körte 1916, vol. II, pl. LXX.8a. The inventory number is unclear, and it was not
possible to find a catalogue or archive number to clarify it.
535 Ht. of urn o.48. Jannot 1984, pp. 583-4, 593; von Vacano 1960, pp. 57-9, 60-1, 72, pl. 21.7;
Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 59, pp. 56, 72, 93, 116, 256; Kraus 1976, pp. 459, 469, fig. 5.
536 Jannot 1984, pp. 584-5; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 32, pp. 52, 73, 249; Giglioli 1935, p. 72, pl.
388.4; Cristofani 1969, pp. 209 ff, pl. 11; Brendel 1985, pp. 419-20. A figure similar to the female is
depicted in the wall paintings of the House of the Menander at Pompeii (Beyen 1960, p. 153, fig. 186)
and on some capitals; they are probably an off-shoot of Caryatids.
 165

extant; they were fortunately preserved in an eighteenth century engraving.537 The

tomb was found in 1699, and had paintings that ran along the upper halves of the

walls; the decoration of two of the walls was preserved at that time, with ten figures

divided into scenes by three Telamones. The Telamones are believed to have stood on

‘ground lines’, possibly bases, not shown in the engraving. They supported rounded

forms below the ceiling, which can be interpreted as the universe. Jannot restores a

fourth figure, not depicted by Dempster, for the sake of symmetry.

Bone and ivory boxes were favoured by the Etruscans, and a number of these

have been found in burials. One drawn by Durm in Florence, Museo Archeologico,

but unfortunately now missing, follows the format of the cinerary urns.538 All that

remained of the bone box was one schematic Atlas figure, whose form was nearly

rectangular, and the small Doric frieze that he and his pair would have supported,

decorated with alternating rosettes and boucrania in the metopes. The frieze shows

continuity of the idea that Atlantes were part of the decoration of the Doric order. The

work is relatively crude, but details such as mutules beneath the triglyphs are

represented. The bearded figure was rendered in simple outline, standing on a low

plinth. Plaques from a box with similar figures were found in Tomb no. 20 of the

Osteria Necropolis, Vulci.539 The four figures originally decorated one or two boxes,

but it is difficult to pair any two as they vary considerably. They are dated by their

archaeological context to the late third century BC. Another box, now in Naples, had

ivory plaques depicting Caryatid figures.

A young Telamon-type figure, possibly a satyr, was found in a room of a Late

Republican villa at Gozzo, Malta.540 Preserved from the waist up, the surface is

badly worn, but the expression on the face is conserved and appears to be one of pain.

The figure acted as an architectural support, as attested by the pose, the flattened top

537 Preserved in Dempster, De Etruria Regali, 1723, vol. 2, pl. LXXXXIIX. Jannot 1984, pp. 585-8,
598, fig. 3; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 11, pp. 49, 112-5, 244.
538 Jannot 1984, pp. 590-1, fig. 5; Durm 1905, p. 72, fig. 75.
539 Villa Giulia inv. 63425. Jannot 1984, pp. 591-2, figs. 6-7.
540 Pres. ht. 0.539. Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 17, pp. 49, 144, 246; Jannot 1984, p. 580; Schmidt
1982, p. 119; Castiglione 1975, p. 215, fig. 218.
 166

of the skull and the fact that it was attached to a pillar at the back. From a private

House at Centuripe, ca. 100-75, come four terracotta figures, two Satyrs and a pair of

female figures, probably Maenads; three-quarter life-size, they appear to have

decorated two doorways rather than supported a cornice.541 Their arms are variations

on the Atlantes pose, folded back to a lesser degree. Due to the nature of the material,

the figures are damaged and not fully preserved. Terracotta Atlas figures from a

second century BC private Villa at Fregellae were recently discovered during

excavations.542 An early Imperial female terracotta figure in the Atlantes pose was

part of the decoration of the House of Josef II at Pompeii, and shows the continuity of

this form of decoration in private architecture; she wears a peplos, and is slightly

archaising.543

Terracotta was used for a number of small-scale figures in this pose, but due

to the nature of the material they were decorative trompe l’œuil figures rather than

actual structural supports. Many of the sculptures lack a context; all the examples

come from Italy. The torso of a small terracotta Atlas was found in Bolsena. 544 The

back is smooth and unworked, showing that it was placed against a vertical surface.

Remains show that though the arms were folded back, the head could not have served

as a support. Nude, the figure is heavily muscled and close to those from the Baths at

Pompeii; Jannot restores the figure as from a similar frieze, but ca. 200 BC so earlier

in date.

Perhaps the most famous terracotta examples are the row of figures arranged

as a frieze around the walls of the Tepidarium of the Forum Baths, Pompeii, dated by

inscription to 80-75 BC.545 The figures support with their forearms and the pseudo-

541 Syracuse Museo Archeologico inv. 27727, 27728, 27731 & 27732. Castiglione 1975, pp. 211-2,
fig. 210; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cats. W 32, M 16, pp. 32, 49, 69, 144, 228, 245; Jannot 1984, pp. 579,
580; Mierzwinski 1980, p. 31, fig. 14; Schaller 1973, nos. 181, 187, pp. 69, 71; Schmidt 1982, pp. 116,
117, n. 711.
542 Summer 1995. Ridgway 1999, p. 64 n. 24. I have not seen these figures.
543 Naples MN inv. 4830; ht. 0.70. Schmidt 1982, p. 118; Castiglione 1975, fig. 216; Schmidt-Colinet
1977, n. 141.
544 Florence MA; preserved ht. 0.26, restored ht ca. 0.30. Jannot 1984, pp. 588-9, 598; Schmidt 1982,
p. 119; Castiglione 1975, p. 215, fig. 217.
545 Ht. excl. bases 0.60-.61; ht. of bases 0.10. Castiglione 1975, pp. 211-2, figs. 206-7; Jannot 1984, p.
580; Schmidt 1982, p. 117; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 18, 49, 71-2, 90-1, 245.
 167

poloi they wear on their heads. There is variety within the figures, with some nude

and others wearing different types of loincloths; the heights of their poloi also differ.

This belies the suggestion that they were mass-produced mould-made figures. Four

monumental terracotta Atlantes dated to the first century BC were found in

Aquileia.546 They are large and flat, and would have decorated the exterior of a

building, though not necessarily a theatre. Most terracotta Atlantes would have served

as decoration in private architecture.

Two male Telamones come from a Hellenistic structure in Solunto; the figures

are carved in relief on a slab of stone, and probably flanked a doorway or were placed

between columns, rather than replacing them and acting as architectural supports.547

A similar male figure comes from Monte Scaglioso, ca. 300 BC; the figure is larger,

better preserved, and in slightly higher relief, with more defined musculature. 548 It

was built into a wall, and could have been used as a support.

A poros Atlas figure was found beneath the northern part of the Roman agora

of Thessaloniki, and is believed to come from a Hellenistic building of ca. 150-50

BC.549 The sculpture is preserved from the head to the upper thighs, including the

shoulders, but its arms are missing. It is battered but otherwise quite well preserved,

and reconstructed of three fragments: the torso, lower hips and thighs, and the

buttocks. The head, which had a taenia, is set forwards with the beard strengthening

the neck and relieving some of the pressure on it. The naked figure is a Telamon or

Atlas figure, not a Silenos, with exaggerated musculature that was clearly not

modelled from life and so fails to create an illusion of the great burden he was meant

to be supporting. The back of the figure was notably less worked than the front,

suggesting that it stood against a wall rather than being attached to one, and it shows

546 Acquilea Museo Archeologico; ht. 2.30. Jannot 1984, pp. 588-9; Schmidt 1982, p. 119; Brusin
1934, pp. 111-2, fig. 66.
547 Sandstone, pres. ht. 0.62 & 0.93; Palermo Museo Nazionale. Koldewey & Puchstein 1899, p. 158;
Schmidt-Colinet 1977, cat. M 8, pp. 48, 244; Jannot 1984, p. 580; Schmidt 1982, n. 711.
548 Limestone, ht. 2.50; Reggio Calabria Museo Archeologico. Schaller 1973, cat. no. 185; Schmidt-
Colinet 1977, cat. M 9, pp. 49, 244; Schmidt 1982, p. 116, pl. 28; Jannot 1984, p. 580.
549 Stefanidou-Tiberiou 1996. The figure is not to be confused with the late Hellenistic / Augustan
limestone relief with an Atlas figure found during the 1960s in the Agora, and now in Thessaloniki
Archaeological Museum (Schmidt-Colinet 1977, n. 221; Schmidt 1982, n. 732).
 168

no obvious points of attachment other than at the crown and forearms. The clean

break below the shoulders and the presence of dowel holes indicate that the arms

were pieced. The large figure, originally ca. three metres tall, was probably set

against rather than into a wall.

The form originally used to represent the encumbered figure of Atlas, who

laboured under the burden of supporting the universe, developed iconographically to

fit the context. In tombs mourning women were depicted, whilst in theatres they

became Satyrs, Silenoi and Maenads, as part of the Dionysiac retinue. Atlantes were

particularly popular for the decoration of the theatres in Italy and Sicily, although

they were also to be found in the East Mediterranean. There are no examples known

for sure to have decorated temples: arguably Canosa was one, but otherwise there are

no certain examples between Agrigento and the Hadrianic period. The figures, like

Caryatids in the East, were part of Etruscan funerary iconography, and possibly to a

lesser extent in southern Italy. Atlantes were later incorporated into the repertoire

used for the decoration of private houses in Italy; there are a number of examples of

these in terracotta, and the stone figure from Malta.

Vitruvius, writing in the last years of the Republic and the beginning of

Augustus’ power, mentioned two types of figures used within the sculptural

decoration of buildings. Although he did not describe them at length, it is clear that

their contexts and the structures they decorated were Doric. The form of Atlantes is

clear, but that of Caryatids is more controversial. Vitruvius’ text however clearly

excludes the famous carved female figures who replaced columns in the

Erechtheion’s south porch from being described, as they generally are, as Caryatids;

the framework within which the Athenian maidens and their like were placed is Ionic,

they were not represented as demeaned, and they are both chronologically and

geographically inconsistent with the account. The numerous figures from the
Hellenistic period, and firmly placed within the repertoire of the Doric order, are
 169

those that supported a Doric entablature with their poloi and the palms of their raised

hands; these are clearly the women Vitruvius refers to as Caryatids. The pose itself

was not new, being known from perirrhanteria, mirror handles, and many

Achaemenid examples, but its use in monumental Greek sculpture presumably was.
 170

6. The Decorative Use of Arms and Armour

on Doric Monuments

Arms and armour, particularly the easily executed round relief shield, were a

popular decorative motif in the Hellenistic period, and continued to be used by the

Romans. Sometimes they formed a separate decorative type, for example in their

intercolumnar use where there are sufficient examples that allow it to form a distinct

category, whilst at other times they were used within a decorative format such as a

frieze. Sometimes unruly piles of armour were depicted, which is interpreted as

representing the equipment captured from the enemy. Whilst the depiction of helmets

at times bordered on fantasy, that of arms and shields is generally viewed as having

reflected reality. Shields were principally represented life-size. The hoplite shield,

diameter ca. 0.97 lifesize, can be identified by its off-set rim.550 The sarissa shield,

diameter ca. 0.65, was entirely convex; often plain it could also be elaborately

decorated with concentric rings or spirals.551 The frequently used term ‘Macedonian

shield’ is highly misleading;552 it generally refers to the Hoplite shield, but can

encompass others as well, and its use should be avoided. The builders of the Nereid

Monument, and of Lycian and Carian rock-cut tombs of the late fifth and fourth

centuries, are unlikely to have considered the shields that they incorporated into the

structures’ decoration to be symbols of Macedonian nationalism. Therefore shields

need not all post-date the rise to power of the Macedonians, or be symbolic of them.

The late fourth century Tomb III at Vergina, has a simple facade of a door

flanked by pilasters, with a Doric frieze running along the top of these. 553 Between

the door and the pilasters are relief stucco Hoplite shields, whose painted blazons, a

head of Medusa and a garland, one can still make out. This is the earliest securely

dated architectural example of the use of decorative shields outside southwestern

550 Markle 1982.

551 Markle 1977.
552 For example: Liampi 1990.
553 Andronikos 1980, pp. 37-8; Andronikos 1984, pp. 198-9.
 171

Anatolia. The Macedonian Tomb at Spella of Eordaia, second quarter of second

century BC, had a Doric facade of four engaged columns and a pediment, with two

relief Hoplite shields between the outer columns.554 These had painted decoration

with a small gorgoneion in the centre. Miniature relief Hoplite shields have also been

found decorating the door of a Macedonian tomb.555

A broken relief Hoplite shield found on the site is restored within the central

more widely spaced intercolumniation, between engaged Doric columns on the Lion

Tomb at Cnidus.556 A similar round shield decorated the central intercolumniation of

the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis.557

The polyandron of Ta Marmara at Akbuk, is often described as a Heroon,

although there is no justification for the use of this term (fig. 66). 558 A square

monument, with sides of ca. 12 metres, it was built of local limestone covered in

stucco and painted. There were six engaged Doric columns on three sides of the cella,

with relief hoplite shields, diam. 1.29, between them, and on the fourth side there

were four engaged columns around a doorway. The shields, the only known

sculptural decoration on the tomb, were coloured red with yellow edges, and hung on

trompe l’œuil red straps painted onto the wall. The structure is believed to date from

the middle of the second century, but may be earlier.

Perhaps one of the most interesting examples of the decorative use of armour

comes from the early first century BC Tomb of Hamrath at Suweida in Syria,559 no

longer extant. Relief circular and oval shields, corselets, and helmets decorated the

five intercolumniations on each side. The bilingual inscription, in Greek and Aramaic,

identifies it as having been built for her by her husband Odainath. The Greek word

554 BCH 118, 1994, p. 738, fig. 34; Karamitrou-Mentesidi 1985.

555 Makedonika 27, 1989-90, pp. 209-221, figs. 3-5.
556 Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 92.1, pl. 60.1.
557 For a new fragment of it, see Miller & Miller 1972, pp. 156-8.
558 Fedak 1990, p. 87, fig. 110; Wiegand 1902, pp. 149-50, figs. 5-6; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 353.6,
pl. 184.6; Lauter 1986, p. 215, pl. 47a; Webb 1996, p. 103, fig. 76. The shield is on site, at Akbuk,
which is ca. 11.5 km to the north-east Didyma, and 15 km south of Miletos.
559 Lawrence 1983, p. 287, fig. 266; Fedak 1990, pp. 148-9, fig. 221; Gawlikowski 1970, pp. 22-3,
fig. 6; Markle 1994, pp. 89-91; Stucchi 1987b, fig. 14, p. 255; de Vogüé 1865, pp. 29-31, pl. 1. The
town is now known as Es-Suweda. Outer intercolumniation w. 1.80, interior intercolumniations w.
1.84. W. of columns at base 0.89, ht. 4.61. Inscription = CIS I 162.
 172

used to designate the tomb is , while the Aramaic calls it NPS, which means

soul and by extension personification. Shields alone may well have been decorative,

but armour suggests a warrior. Although armour would at first seem an inappropriate

decorative attribute for a woman, one should bear in mind the long history of warrior-

queens in the pre-Islamic Near East. Not just restricting ourselves to this area, one can

note a number of examples, from Samiramis through Tomyris, the two Artemisias,

Dynamis, and culminating in the much later Zenobia.560 So although women were

marginalised in mainstream Greek society, the countries on its fringes were more

prepared to regard a martial leader, who could acquire power regardless of their sex,

and thus Hamrath may well have been a warrior. The basalt structure was a square

with sides of ca. 11 metres, with engaged Doric columns, a Doric entablature, and

surmounted by a pyramidal roof. The device of intercolumnar shields is taken one

step further by the inclusion of helmets and corselets, as well as a number of different

forms of shields. Another similar late Hellenistic Mausoleum at El Hermel in Syria,

has two levels of Doric pilasters. On the lower level the pilasters were at the corners,

allowing for large panels decorated with relief representations of animals, arms and

armour.561 At Sarsina, Italy, on the Mausoleum of P. Verginius Paetus, a square

structure with a pyramidal roof, there were low relief depictions of armour between

the Doric pilasters.562 These were crowned by a frieze with rosettes in the metopes.

Relief stucco shields decorated the antechamber of the Macedonian Great

Tomb at Lefkadia,563 and painted armour the interior of the Tomb of Lyson and

Kallikles.564 Painted armour on the walls can also be noted in a number of

Campanian and Etruscan tombs. Tombs of other orders with decorative relief shields

include: the Ionic Tomb 3 at Basse-Selce, possibly ancient Pelion;565 the tomb

560 See Abbott 1941; Fraser 1988, pp. 14-26, 107-128.

561 Perdrizet 1938; Gawlikowski 1970, p. 27, fig. 9; Stucchi 1987b, fig. 54, p. 276.
562 Stucchi 1987b, pp. 264-6; Aurigemma 1963, pp. 89-94, fig. 98.
563 Rouveret 1990, p. 186.
564 Miller 1971, p. 161, pls. LII-LIII; Miller 1993a, p. 115, fig. 1; Miller 1993b; Markle 1982, pp. 96-
7, figs. 16-17; Dintsis 1986, cat. no. 206, pl. 47.4.
565 RA 1986, p. 142, fig. 25. Two different shields decorating the wings of the facade.
 173

believed to be that of Alkestas at Termessos;566 Tomb N 13 at Cyrene;567 a tomb in

the Dokuz Sokale Necropolis, Rhodes.568 A number of Carian and Lycian rock-cut

tombs, probably dating to the fourth century, had shields in their pediments; their

orders varied, but Ionic was the most popular. The third level of Mausoleum no. 2 at

Ptolemais, Hellenistic, was decorated with relief Hoplite shields between the

columns;569 the capitals are lost, but they are known to have been baseless, and so

the order was probably Doric, as was the lower level. The whole was crowned by a

stepped pyramidal roof. The lower level of a Punic tomb at El Khroub, Algeria, had a

door on each side, flanked by relief Hoplite shields.570 The upper level had a

colonnade of uncertain order then a pyramidal roof. Cyrene Tomb N 191, had

schematised corselets and shields with emblems between Corinthian pilasters on all

four sides.571 The structure could be Hellenistic, the large winged scarab on the

facade suggesting the Ptolemaic period, but its dating is uncertain. At Sagalassos

there were numerous third and second century osteothecae embellished with low

relief arms and armour, for example one with a sarissa shield decorated with

concentric rings of varying sizes;572 a Hellenistic funerary monument with a

continuous weaponry frieze has also been found.573 Armour was a popular motif in

the adornment of Pisidian structures, often used on tombs; and one can note its

continuity into the Roman period, especially at Ariassos. The monument at Giannitsa,

near Pella, was a circular heroon on crepis of diam. 51 m with a tumulus above. 574 It

was made up of seven courses of stone, the fifth of which was decorated by relief

sarissa shields, diam. 0.62, max. projection 0.065.

566 Pekridou 1986. He died in 319 BC.

567 Cassels 1955, p. 21, pl. VIIIa. A hoplite shield above the door, no order articulating the facade.
568 AAA 6, 1973, p. 116.
569 Stucchi 1987b, pp. 284-94, 358-364, figs. 70-82, 190-8.
570 Stucchi 1987b, pp. 297-99, figs. 89-90; Fedak 1990, figs. 190-1.
571 Stucchi 1987b, p. 308, figs. 102-3.
572 Mitchell 1991, p. 130, pl. 9.1; Sagalassos I, p. 42, fig. 18.
573 Mitchell 1991, p. 130; Sagalassos 1, p. 45; Waelkens et al 1990, p. 193.
574 Lazaridi 1990, pp. 224-5; BCH 11, 1987, p. 547. Archontiko Yannitsôn is 4.5 km NW of Pella.
 174

Piles of arms and armour are known to have been amongst the principal

decoration of the Pyre of Hephaestion, 324 BC, built by Deinocrates of Rhodes, the

architect of Alexandria.575 The term  is interpreted as a ziggourat, and suggests

a stepped pyramid, inspired as much by Persian tombs as by their hellenising

imitators such as the Mausoleum. The structure had square sides of one stadion, or ca.

180 m, and a height of over 58 m. The sixth and highest level had piles of Persian

armour. Orders are likely to have articulated the levels, amongst them the Doric. The

funerary cart of Alexander also had arms, placed above the coffin.576

Shields were often used in the decoration of tombs. When they appear on their

own, they may either reflect the attested practice of dedicating armour and tools at

shrines, or they may have been designed to avert evil. The head of Medusa suggests

the latter, but she appears rarely, and is in any case known to have been used as a

decorative motif on shields. A parallel can be drawn with the epithematic monuments

crowned by a lion or Scylla, which can be interpreted as guardian figures designed to

protect the tombs. Shields were popular forms of decoration, painted and sculpted

inside and outside tombs from the fourth century on, perhaps reflecting an aspect of

daily life. Real arms and armour were dedicated at tombs since the so-called Homeric

period, a practice that continued during the period covered here;577 the use of these

in the embellishment of tombs would have supplemented rather than fully replaced

the decorative items. Miller sees the warrior and armour scenes depicted on tombs as

“the visual counterpart to those funerary epigrams which extol the virtues of the

departed warrior.”578

Arms and armour were not restricted to decorating the walls of tombs, but

were also occasionally found in the metopes of Doric friezes. One metope with a

relief corselet is preserved from the so-called temple beneath S. Leucio, Canosa,

575 Diodorus 17, 110; 8, 114, & 41, 115; Arian, Anabasis, VII, 4, 9; Justin, 12, 12; Plutarch,
Alexander, 72, giving the wrong architect’s name.
576 Diodorus 18, 26, 27.
577 Hill Richardson 1996. For Apulian amphorae depicting naiskoi with ‘real’ armour dedicated at
them; Getty 79.AE.25.2; Hermitage 4323; British Museum F 284.
578 Miller 1993a, p. 117.
 175

possibly a tomb;579 arms and cuirasses filled the metopes of a number of Late

Republican funerary monuments in Italy.580 An Umbrian metope, in the Museo

Civico at Gubbio, for example, was decorated with a low relief helmet.581 Volterra

urns could also have small Doric friezes that were decorated in this way. 582 In Greek

funerary reliefs this can also be seen; Athens NM inv. 1317, a late second century BC

Boeotian stele has a Doric entablature of four metopes with bulls’ heads in the outer

pair, a helmet and corselet in the inner.583

A good example of this can be seen in the atrium of the fourth or third century

Etruscan Tomb of the Reliefs at Cerveteri, which is decorated by brightly painted

stucco reliefs, amongst them hunting dogs and equipment, hoplite shields and

weapons, covering the walls and the faces of the Aeolic pillars.584 The shields were

painted ochre to recall bronze, the sword blades grey to recall iron. Set amongst these

attributes are busts of the deceased, emphasising the link between the decoration and

the lives of the tomb’s occupants. A frieze runs along the top of the long walls, where

pairs of greaves create an effect that recalls the breaking-up of Doric friezes by

triglyphs. The space between them is filled by helmets.

Shields and occasionally weapons were popular motifs in the decoration of

Bouleuteria in Asia Minor. A high-relief panel, usually believed to be architectural,

was found in conjunction with the mid-fourth century Bouleuterion of Iasos.585 The

style of the figure suggests a date during the period of Hecatomnid influence. Several

fragments of it are preserved and allow for a reconstruction of the whole, showing an

Archaistic man, originally full length, reclining on a kline. Behind his head, in the top

right hand corner of the panel, one can see the bottom half of a low relief shield. If the

dating is correct, it precedes the Macedonian examples. The top of the block is

579 Pensabene 1990, cat. nos. 81, 84, pp. 287-8, pl. CXXVI.1-.4.
580 See Russo 1981.
581 Verzar 1976, p. 128, fig. 20.
582 for example: Kraus 1976, fig. 5.
583 Couilloud 1974, no. 118, pp. 105-7, pl. 27; Schmidt 1991, fig. 59.
584 Janson 1972, p. 149, fig. 203; Blanck & Proietti 1986.
585 Angiollillo 1994.
 176

smoothly finished, although there is no reason that there may not have been another

panel above, possibly only showing the continuation of the shield, and given the

height of the building, it would even be surprising if there had not been another panel.

Angiollillo wishes to reassign it to the Heroon of the eponymous founder of the city,

but there is no reason it should not come from the Bouleuterion. One can draw a

parallel between this reclining figure, in front of a shield, and Totenmahl reliefs,

although more armour was usually depicted on the latter.586

The Bouleuterion of Miletos, built between 175 and 163 BC, was decorated

with marble relief shields.587 These were carved across several courses of the walls,

rather than on one block, with a diam. of 1.28; a number of blocks survive and are on

site. Attached Doric half-columns, with pilasters at the corners, articulating the

exterior are restored on the front and the south sides: on the longer wall shields and

windows are believed to have alternated in an uncertain pattern in the thirteen

intercolumniations, while the five intercolumniations on the shorter walls are all filled

with shields in the reconstruction. The design of the other wall is less certain, but is

likely to have been similar. The Corinthian propylon of the bouleuterion complex was

decorated by a continuous weapons frieze, continuing the military theme;588 Webb

tries to reassign this to the Roman cenotaph in the centre of the courtyard, between

the two structures,589 for which the over ten meters preserved is rather too long.

There were similar reliefs near the tops of the intercolumniations on the

exterior walls of the Bouleuterion of Sagalassos, Pisidia, later second century BC.590

The reconstruction of the building is uncertain, but two shields, a helmet and a leather

586 For example: Dintsis 1986, cat. no. 142, pl. 34.1; cat. no. 141, pl. 34.3; cat. no. 140, pl. 34.2; cat.
no. 39, pl. 7.6; cat. no. 40, pl. 7.7.
587 Wiegand 1902, pp. 151-5; Lawrence 1984, pp. 355-7, fig.s 351-2; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 153.6,
pl 99.4; Clarke 1991 p. 192; Knackfuss 1908, esp. p. 52, fig. 44; Markle 1994, p. 89; Webb 1996, p.
102. An inscription shows that it was built using funds from Antiochus IV (175-164 B.C.).
588 Now in Istanbul, Mendel nos. 1272-1280, aprox ht. 0.605-0.613 m, including mouldings of 0.096
above and 0.075-0.08 below; decorated field ht 0.35-0.38, aprox. l. preserved 10.614 m. Not of
particularly high quality, and this is reflected in the irregularity of the measurements.
589 Webb 1996, p. 102.
590 Mitchell 1991, p. 132, pl. 8.3; Mitchell & Waelkens 1987, pp. 40-2, figs. 1-2, pl. 3a-b; Mitchell &
Waelkens 1988, pp. 61-2, fig. 2, pl. Va; Webb 1996, p. 130, piers figs. 104-5, relief armour fig. 106;
Sagalassos I, pp. 26, 43-4. The building is situated on the west side of the Upper Agora, with the
remains on site.
 177

cuirasse with double pteryges have been found, and are believed to be from the

decoration of the upper sides, which were articulated by Doric pilasters. The lower

level is assumed to have been plain. The corselet, ht. 0.42, and helmet, ht. 0.42, were

each carved on one block; the two shields, diam. 0.59, had the recessed rims that

overlapped on to adjoining blocks. The west side, which faced a hill-side, is not

believed to have been decorated. The upper level was topped by a Doric entablature

which had wreaths in the metopes, and the Corinthian piers of a proposed loggia on

the east side were decorated with relief three-quarter life size figures of Ares with a

female prisoner, and of Athena with a male prisoner. The whole structure was built of

a local limestone. From what we know of bouleuteria this one was unusually highly

decorated, with the overall theme one of martial victory.

A marble gable block from the apex of one of the end walls of the

Bouleuterion of Heracleia on the Latmos, Caria, second half of the second century, is

decorated with a round low relief shield, diam. 0.695.591 Wall blocks with relief

shields, now lost,592 show that the arrangement was probably similar to that of the

Bouleuterion of Miletos, as may have been the Bouleuterion of Stratonikeia.593 The

door lintels of the Bouleuterion of Ariassos, Pisidia, later second or first century, were

decorated with on the west a simple shield, and on the north a sword covered by a

shield.594 A similar relief shield is to be found on the lintel over the door of the

building at the south end of the Agora at Ariassos,595 possibly the prytaneion. Such

martial emblems seem to have been particularly favoured in Pisidia.

Given the martial nature of shields it is not surprising that they were used for

the decoration of the Hellenistic Gate Towers of Perge, Pamphylia (fig. 67).596 The

round towers were topped by a Doric frieze, and below this the wall was punctuated

591 Rumscheid 1994, cat 66.11, pl. 49.2; Lauter 1986, pp. 161 ff; Webb 1996, p. 27 n. 19, p. 102 n. 5;
Tuchelt 1975, pp. 112-4, fig. 7.
592 Krischen et al 1941, pp. 22-33, pl. 28.
593 Blocks on site.
594 Mitchell & Waelkens 1989, pp. 65-6, pl. XIIb; Webb 1996, p. 132. Ariassos is 25 km to the south
of Sagalassos. The building is on the west side of the town.
595 Mitchell & Waelkens 1989, p. 65.
596 Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 292, pl. 141.
 178

by windows, in between which were round relief shields. A block on which is carved

a shield, with a profile helmet on it, possibly as an emblem, now in the

Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, comes from the Magnesia Gate at Ephesos.597

Weapons also decorated the Hellenistic fortifications at Selge and Side, both in

Pisidia. From the Walls of Selge trophy reliefs with low relief corselets, elaborate

sarissa shields and simpler hoplite shields are preserved.598 They decorated the Doric

gateway and towers of the city. The frieze followed the line of the walls and the two

piers that flanked the doorway, attested by the corner blocks. On the weapons frieze

from the west gate at Side one or two objects were depicted on each block, with a

taenia running along the bottom and a simple moulding along the top.599 Helmets,

swords and corselets were the motifs depicted. The level of relief came out to the

same plane as that of the cornices. The schematised corselets have little depth, but fill

the full height of the frieze; their leather skirts are a Roman influence, suggesting

later Hellenistic date. Carved straps hang from trompe l’oeuil nails over swords.

The only Doric base decorated with armour is the Trophy at Leuctra that

Markle sees as having been erected by the Thebans after their 371 BC victory over

the Lacedaemonians, though it may be third century. 600 It was a cylindrical base

with a Doric frieze, then a cornice, and above these ten life-size hoplite shields with

offset rims carved in low relief on curving trapezoidal blocks. The shields were

placed above each metope.

The Hellenistic Monument of the Shields at Dion is so named after its

decoration: alternating hoplite shields and corselets are depicted as if hanging on the

monument.601 They are carved in high relief across the stone courses. The rims of

the shields are barely raised off the background, but their domes are in quite high

597 Webb 1996, p. 33; Dintsis 1986, cat. no. 136, pl. 33.6.
598 Matachatschek & Schwartz 1981, esp. pp. 42-5, 89-93, figs. 12, 17, 67-8, pls. 17-19; Mitchell
1991, p. 126, pl. 6.1; Dintsis 1986, cat. no. 18, pl. 5.1.
599 Mansel 1968, pp. 262-9, figs. 10, 34-49; Mansel 1978, pp. 55-65, figs. 54, 61-6; Dintsis 1986, cat.
no. 249a, pl. 68.4.
600 Prakt 1958, pp. 43-4, pls. 34-7; BCH 83, 1959, pp. 675-9, fig. 6. Ht. of metopes 0.68; diam. of
shields 0.97. White limestone.
601 Torelli 1988, p. 106, pl. 17.2; Markle 1994, p. 92.
 179

relief. On the cuirasses the trompe l’œuil effect is created of their having been pierced

by weapons; they belonged to the defeated not to the victors. The structure would

seem to date from after 200 BC. There is a similar monument at Thasos, probably

also Hellenistic in date; it is highly fragmentary and with schematised decoration

consisting of corselets and hoplite shields with off-set rims.602

At Veroia there is a large rectangular base decorated with a mixture of hoplite

shields with offset rims, diam. 0.95, and rimless shields, of the type used by the

Macedonian phalanx, diam. 0.70-.75.603 Both shield types are round, and were

carved in relief over several courses; the shields only decorated the front of the 6.24 x

2.86 monument. It was incorporated into the later city walls, and is thus quite well

preserved; thirteen blocks are extant, five with shields or parts of shields. Markle sees

it as having held sculpture that commemorated the 287 BC victory of Pyrrhus of

Epirus over Demetrios Poliorketes at the battle of Veroia. A particularly unusual

feature is that the shields project further than the 0.047 moulding at the top of the

blocks. Such structures were not restricted to Greece, as can be seen by the Armour

Monument erected at Paestum in the second century BC. 604 Built of limestone and

covered in stucco, it was embellished by corselets, and by round (diam. 0.68) and

oval shields. The shields were ‘hung’ on the sides, whilst the corselets rested on a

ledge, preserved along the bottom of the blocks. The fragments of the base come from

the area of the Porta Sirena, and are now in Paestum Museum.

Round bases, such as the one now in Delos Museum, with a continuous frieze

of three helmets, two sets of greaves and three sets of crossed filleted swords, were

also erected.605 Carved of a large grained white marble, it would have supported a

life-size statue. There are similar cylindrical bases on Delos, with a piles of shields,

and with elaborately decorated sarissa shields, from the Agora of Theophrastos.606

602 Jacquemin 1985b, p. 577 n. 48. The main pieces are Thasos inv. 1005A&D, 1005B&C, 1005E,
inv. 1005F & inv. 1008.
603 Markle 1982, pp. 92-3, figs. 9-10; Markle 1994, pp. 83-97, pl. 8; Christodoulou, Ancient
Macedonia 6, pp. 307-332.
604 Torelli 1988, p. 106, pls. 15.2-.4, 16.3.
605 Ht. 0.34, max. diam. 0.86. Jacquemin 1985b, pp. 569-78, figs. 1-6; Dintsis 1986, cat. no. 240.
606 Marcadé 1970, pl. 3; Jacquemin 1985b, 570, fig. 1.
 180

Statue bases with relief weaponry as decoration are known from other sites; for

example a statue of Aetolia at Delphi.607

Although panels with relief depictions of arms and armour were relatively

popular,608 continuous friezes decorated in this manner were scarce. One example is

the frieze from the Corinthian propylon of the Bouleuterion at Miletos, another from a

Doric temple immediately to the west of the Bouleuterion of Sagalassos. 609 Blocks

are preserved from the entablature of the temple, carved on one side with an

undecorated Doric frieze, and on the other, from the interior, with a frieze of weapons

and armour. The exterior was articulated by Doric columns, but the interior is not

believed to have had any specific order.

Busts in shields appear in the pediments of the small Doric Temple of Isis,

Delos610 and of the Monument of Mithradates IV, both in Serapeion C, and may

derive from figured shields attached to pediments, as at Olympia. Portraits on shields

are attested in early Republican times by Pliny, 611 who says that Appius Claudius in

495 BC set up imagines clipeatae of his ancestors in the temple of Bellona. On the

Delian temple of Isis, dedicated before 135 or 130 BC, the head, which may have

depicted Helios, was inserted separately and held in place by a dowel; it is lost. The

marble shield carved on the central pedimental block, diam. ca. 1 m, survives, and has

been incorporated into the reconstruction of the building in the Serapeion C. An

inscription preserved from a small Ionic naiskos, also in Serapeion C, suggests that it

607 Dintsis 1986, cat. no. 257, pl. 73.1.

608 For example on the North-east Stoa in the sanctuary of Athena Polias Nicephoros, Pergamon, the
upper balustrades which linked the Ionic columns, were decorated with relief piles of armour,
reflecting the martial aspect of the goddess worshipped there, as well as the victories of its patron
Eumenes II ( Lawrence 1983, pp. 267-8, fig. 241; Coulton 1976, p. 275; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no.
188.11, pl. 113.3; Webb 1996, pp. 57-61.). A similar panel decorated the propylon of the sanctuary
(Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 187, pl. 112.4.).
609 Mitchell & Waelkens 1987, pp. 42-3; Webb 1996, p. 131 n. 22.
610 Marcadé 1970, pp. 139, 140 n. 8; Guide de Délos no. 100.I; Webb 1996, pp. 138-9. A distyle in
antis Doric temple, ca. 5.25 x 12.30, it is dated by I.D. no. 2041, recording the dedication of the
temple, and by I.D. no. 2044, showing that the statue of Isis Nemesis was in place in 128/7.
611 N.H. 35, 12. See also: Barr-Sharrar 1990, p. 464; Vermeule 1965.
 181

too might have had an imago clipeata in its pediment.612 A similar form of

embellishment was used in the pediment of the Ionic west side of the Propylon of

Magnesia Agora, first half of the second century, where there was a relief shield,

diam. 1.20, carved across two courses of the marble pedimental blocks.613 Such

shields in pediments are depicted on a number of Hellenistic stelae, and were a simple

and convenient way of filling a triangular space.

Rows of busts emerging from plastic shields are known from the Mithradates

Monument, Delos, 102/1 BC, a small Ionic distyle in antis naiskos. 614 An altar in

front of the has connotations of deification, but as the king was then still living it

implies a living god. Altars were quite regular and should not automatically be linked

to heroisation, though on the other hand one should not preclude it being seen as a

heroon. The portraits inside were identified by the inscriptions beneath the tondi

naming those depicted, all members of the ruler’s inner circle. The busts were carved

on to the shields, diam. ca. 0.76-.80; the head and neck inserted separately and

dowelled into place. The elaborate shields were carved on several courses of the the

wall blocks. The background of the ca. 9 m long frieze on which they sit is cut

slightly back from the rest of the wall to emphasise them; the recess is not great

enough to compensate for their depth. The thirteenth tondo in the exterior gable, diam

ca. 0.70, is identified as representing Mithradates IV, the eponymous ‘hero’. All the

heads were attached to slightly different cuttings, assisting in assigning the one extant

head, ht. 0.33, and making it more or less certain that it is Diophantos. The heads are

set to face lightly downwards towards the viewer, allowing them to be visible. There

is variety amongst the dress of the busts, with a mixture of civilian dress and military

uniforms.

612 I.D. no. 2042. Marcadé 1970, p. 139 n. 4.

613 Webb 1996, pp. 33, 93-4. On site.
614 Identified by inscription: I.D. 1562. Winkes 1969, pp. 10-12, 152-6, cat. Delos 1; Chapouthier
1935, pp. 13-42, fig. 36; Lawrence 1983, p. 284, fig. 262; Gross 1954, pp. 105-117; Heintze 1949, p.
36 ff, nos. 1-13; Guide de Délos, no. 94, p. 140; Rumscheid 1994, pediment = cat. no. 365.5, pl. 193.4;
interior = cat. no. 365.6, pl. 193.4; von Prittwitz 1996; Marcadé 1970, pp. 137-41, 319-323, 326, 331;
Abramson 1978, p. 172; Webb 1996, pp. 141-2, figs. 130-1.
 182

A similar arrangement is seen in the hall used for ritual meals at the Heroon of

Leon at Calydon, late second century.615 Fragments of fourteen Pentelic marble

tondi were found in a number of rooms of the Heroon; diameter of tondi ca. 0.55-.60,

height of heads ca. 0.25-.30. The eight complete busts illustrate the ‘founder’ of the

heroon as Meleager, the only head that wore a bronze wreath and the only one that

was classicising, in the company of Olympian deities. A third set of late Hellenistic

shield portraits has been recovered from the Mahdia shipwreck, and is now in the

Bardo Museum, Tunis: the heads appear to be copying famous statues, including the

Niobids and the Invitation to the Dance.616 One should note the piecing of the heads

and the higher point of attachment to the shields. The most interesting feature is that

the shields had already been in place in another structure; they were being shipped for

sale and were thus going to be reused. Von Prittwitz sees them as Dionysian deities

rather than Olympian, and decorative elements for a heroon. He sees both sets as well

as a number of other tondi as from the last quarter of the second century, and all

linked to one Attic workshop. The Mahdia ship almost certainly loaded its cargo in

Athens, so an origin is assigned to Attica. The ‘satyr’ bust is of Pentelic marble, the

rest of the figures of Parian. As at Calydon one head wore a bronze wreath, and is

likely to have been the ‘hero’. The sculpture naturally predates the shipwreck, which

may be as early as 120 BC, and is prior to ca. 45 BC.

Pedimental reliefs with unfinished shields, probably intended to be imagines

clipeatae, are known from the Gymnasium-Asclepios Temple at Pergamon, dating to

the middle or second half of the second century. 617 The temple’s frieze was also

unfinished.The structure appears to have been originally intended to be Doric, or of

mixed order, but was completed as Ionic, and may have been the temple of Dionysos

615 Winkes 1969, pp. 13, 167-71, cat. Kalydon 1; Poulsen & Rhomaios 1927, pp. 59-68, figs. 86-111;
Dyggve et al 1934, pp. 73 ff, 361 ff, figs. 74-96; Lawrence 1983, p. 284; Lauter 1986, p. 250, fig. 68a;
Heintze 1949, pp. 41ff; Klauser 1942, Heft 62, p. 8ff, fig. 3; Gross 1954, p. 115; Bol 1988; von
Prittwitz 1996; Stewart 1977, p. 4; Barr-Sharrar 1987, pp. 97-8 & n. 10, 144, 151.
616 Barr-Sharrar 1987, p. 25 n. 69; von Prittwitz 1994; von Prittwitz 1996. For their condition after so
long at the bottom of the sea, see Ouertani 1994.
617 Diameter of shields 0.85. Dinsmoor 1975, p. 273 n. 2; Webb 1996, pp. 66-7; Schwandner 1990,
pp. 86-93.
 183

by Hermogenes referred to by Vitruvius. Tondi with portraits remained popular well

into the fifth century AD, and were during the Roman period a speciality of

Aphrodisias.618

Real arms and armour could also be attached to buildings, usually temples: in

the literary sources these are often described as being of gold. After the battle of

Tanagra in 457 BC the Spartans dedicated a shield with a relief depiction of Medusa,

to be attached to the apex of the pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, under the

central acroterion of Nike (Pausanias 5.10.4); Mummius later attached twenty-one

gilded shields to the external frieze (Pausanias 5.10.5). A disk on the apex of the

pediment appears in a number of numismatic depictions of temples, and one

presumes was used elsewhere. At Olympia one can also note that bronze weapons

were added during the Hellenistic period to the compositions of the pediments.

Demetrios Poliorketes attached arms to the Parthenon, Alexander and Nero are both

known to have attached shields to it; the holes for attachment in the architrave, one

under each metope, are still clearly visible. Alexander also dedicated three hundred

Persian suits of armour on the Acropolis. Delphi boasted on its architraves shields

from the Athenians to commemorate Marathon, presumably reattached after the

rebuilding, and Gallic arms, including unusual shields, dedicated by the Aetolians

after the fourth Sacred War (Pausanias 10.19.4). There are numerous other examples

of this practice in literature, and one can note that early acroteria took the form of

shields or disks.

The decorative use of arms and armour was not restricted to the Doric order: it

was sometimes used in conjunction with the Ionic or Corinthian, to whose slender

proportions it was perhaps less well suited, sometimes on spaces with no demarcated

order, but was most common on Doric structures. One of the most appealing aspects

of the shield as a decorative motif must have been that it was relatively easy to carve.

The geographical range in which shields and armour were used as decoration is a

large one, although they were particularly popular in southern Anatolia and in

618 Vermeule 1965, p. 386; Smith 1991b, pp. 144-158 for a group of philosophers, with inscribed
names, excavated there.
 184

Macedonia. Their use on military monuments needs little explanation, and on tombs

they were presumably depicted to emphasise the martial prowess of the deceased. The

use of shields to decorate bouleuteria is more puzzling, though war was an activity of

state. In Pisidia, a particularly martial area, weaponry was used to decorate a broad

spectrum of structures. Literary accounts make it clear that real armour was attached

to buildings, so in this form of embellishment architectural sculpture imitated life.

The shields and arms depicted need not however have been ones still in use (see

Veroia), and there was no discernible development of the form, making its dating by

other means necessary. The depictions of arms and armour in the sculptural

decoration of buildings reflects both the display of captured booty and the weapons

dedicated by warriors, a practice mentioned in literature since the earliest period, and

depicted in numerous vase paintings.

 185

7. Excursus. The Sculptural Decoration of the

Ionic and Corinthian Orders ca. 375 - 31 BC

The use of sculptural decoration was not exclusive to the Doric order. Ionic

structures had their own patterns of decoration largely established in east Greece and

the Cycladic islands, where it was more popular to erect them. The sculptural

decoration of the Corinthian order followed that of the Ionic except for examples

specifically mentioned in previous chapters, such as Tarentine naiskoi with figured

pediments and Doric friezes The Corinthian tended to use the continuous frieze as its

main form of decoration, although, as noted, buildings with Doric friezes were also

erected. Corinthian buildings were erected in the Hellenistic period, but the greatest
use of the order was during Roman Imperial times.

Once again there has not been not even a general survey of the architectural

sculpture of these two orders in the fourth to first centuries. This chapter provides

one, with the aim of showing what developments were taking place in architectural

sculpture during the period, to demonstrate how developments in the decoration of,

for example, Ionic tombs influenced those constructing Doric monuments. The

section also allows for the contrasting of trends in the decoration of the two orders,

and for a comparison of the way in which Doric structures employed architectural
sculpture with the way Ionic and Corinthian ones did so. It is therefore justifiable to

do a reasonably in-depth survey covering the period concerned, to illustrate the usage

of different types of sculptural decoration and to form the basis of a quantative

comparison. No previous studies show how Hellenistic Ionic architectural sculpture

developed out of that of the fourth century, the two periods being normally treated as

if wholly separate.

Small structures, such as the Tarentine naiskoi, could be elaborately

decorated, but larger ones tended to be sparser in their embellishments; notable

exceptions to this were the Mausoleum and the Pergamon Altar, whose fame evolved
from their lavishness. The Mausoleum was highly influential in the following

centuries. The Pergamon Altar was the apogee of the trend started in the late fourth
 186

century of building highly decorated _-shaped altars. The use of figures between

columns, notably on _-shaped Altars, and of continuous friezes are the main ways in

which the decoration of the other orders varies from that of the Doric. Columnae

caelatae and bômospeira can sometimes be found on temples, as can decorated

coffers and acroteria. Pedimental sculpture, a Doric form, was also occasionally used

for the decoration of Ionic and Corinthian structures, but generally on the smaller

scale examples. Perhaps the most surprising point is that relatively few Ionic and

Corinthian structures had architectural sculpture in proportion to Doric ones. It is

axiomatic to state that the majority of temples built, regardless of whether they had

architectural sculpture or not, were Ionic rather than Doric, but the archaeological

evidence contradicts this.

7.1 The Mausoleum and Other Tombs

One of the most influential buildings in terms of architectural sculpture was

the late Classical tomb of Mausolus, a founder’s tomb and perhaps also a heroon.

Noted for its scale and ornamentation, many elements of the Mausoleum of

Halicarnassus were widely imitated, and it became known as one of the Wonders of

the World.619 The new plan of Halicarnassus was laid out ca. 368/7, with space

allowed for the tomb. Work was probably not begun until ca. 360; it is likely to have

stopped on the death of Artemisia in 351 and so lasted approximately ten years.

Although details of the reconstruction will always be debated, its form and general

principles have been convincingly reconstructed by Waywell. A base that steps in in

three parts supports an Ionic peristyle and chamber, which in turn supports a stepped

pseudo-pyramidal roof. The whole blends Greek ornamentation, local Carian-Lycian

forms and Persian iconography. The shape of the pyramid is often interpreted as

619 N.H. 36.30-1; Vitruvius VII.Praef.12-13; Pausanias 8.16.4; Stampolides 1988; Boardman 1995,
pp. 27-8, fig. 22; Ashmole 1972, pp. 147-191; Fuchs 1993, pp. 452-3, figs. 520-7; Stewart 1977, pp.
95-8; Stewart 1990, pp. 23, 28, 41, 50, 61, 180-2, 227, 274, 281-6, 317-8, 321, figs. 524-38; Stucchi
1987b, p. 266, fig. 32; Waywell 1989; Waywell 1994a, pp. 64-5, 68-71, figs. 15-9; Waywell 1994b;
Hoepfner 1996; Ridgway 1997, esp. pp. 111-135, ills. 16-18c, pls. 26-9; Cook 1989a; Jeppesen 1998.
B.F. Cook’s book on the friezes is now with the publishers (Oxford).
 187

Egyptianising, but it is a form that had been used before locally, makes the most

logical use of the space, and could equally well have been inspired by the stepped

tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae. It must be stressed that whilst Mausolus was artistically

Philhellene, he was a native Carian who, in his position as Satrap, was a vassal of the

Achaemenid emperor.

The decoration of the tomb was elaborate and lavish. Several sculptors are

listed as having worked on the structure. Technical and stylistic links between the

Mausoleum and the subsequent work of Scopas at Tegea are clear, and so it seems

likely that the others listed in the sources, namely Timotheos, Bryaxis, Praxiteles and

Leochares, were also employed at Halicarnassus. According to Pliny (N.H. 36.30-1),

who excludes Praxiteles, they each executed one side. This would allow for the

inclusion of only four of them, hence perhaps his omission of Praxiteles. A more

likely scenario is that the work was divided by level, allowing all the sculptors listed

to have worked on the Mausoleum, and to then go on to achieve greater fame. An

analogy would be one of the Renaissance workshops out of which came a number of

great artists. The future fame of the sculptors is deceptive, as many of them may still

have been in the early stages of their careers, or lured by the largesse of a ruler

determined to impress with his patronage. They are all attested as having worked

elsewhere in Caria, particularly at Cnidus.

Vitruvius 7.Praef.12 lists a treatise on the building by Satyros and Pytheos;

since these were generally written by those in charge of a structure’s design and

execution, one can safely assume that this was the case here. Satyros is attested by a

base for bronze statues of Idrieus and Ada at Delphi as a Hecatomnid portraitist, so is

likely to have executed the portraits, and to have been in overall charge of the

sculpture.620 Pytheos’ fame as an architect is great, and a number of structures linked

to him fell within the Hecatomnid sphere of influence, so it would not be

controversial to assume that he was the architect of the Mausoleum; he may also have

executed the crowning chariot group as stated by Pliny, but with so many talented

620 Satyros is not named by Pliny which suggests that he worked largely locally, and that his work
was not widely known in Rome. He was a Hecatomnid court sculptor, and is attested as a portraitist.
 188

sculptors around, this appears unlikely. A wide variety of marbles was used on the

Mausoleum, including Pentelic, Proconnesian, and Parian, the latter used especially

for the pieced additions to figures, usually the bare flesh of heads and limbs.621

The sculpture that decorated the monument, comprised from top to bottom: on

the apex a chariot drawn by four horses, which would have held a statue; as it was a

satrapal chariot, of the Persian type, used for ceremonial purposes rather than war, it

is likely to have contained Mausolus, alone or with another figure such as Helios. The

depiction of a quadriga can found on the ‘roof’ friezes of the Mourning Women

sarcophagus, and in Roman times, on temples and triumphal arches. It would appear

that the origin of the type was on the Mausoleum. The horses are carved in broad

planes, with almost impressionistic treatment of hair and mane. They provide also

good evidence for the techniques of construction, a notable feature being the amount

of piecing here as in all the categories of sculpture. One joining surface of the hind

half of a horse was hastily hollowed out; this seems to have been done on top of the

Mausoleum when the masons were trying to assemble the horses, and emergency re-

cutting was needed to get them into position. The lack of finish, particularly notable

on the fragments of hooves and legs on plinths, indicates that the sculptors knew they

were being carved for distant viewing. Recent tests show that the horses were

coloured red, probably as a base for gilding.

The base for the chariot group which rested on the uppermost step of the roof,

was decorated with the frieze depicting a Centauromachy; ht. 0.90, original length ca.

33 m. The fragments show that it was stilted in composition, though as it was

positioned some 40 m above the ground, this would not have been visible. Figures of

walking lions carved from single blocks of Pentelic marble stood along the roof-line,

set within the cuttings that are preserved on the widened lower steps; fifty six animals

are likely to have been carved, as to have thirty six, or one per intercolumniation,

would have left disproportionately wide gaps. The example of later monuments partly

imitating the Mausoleum, notably the Limyra Ptolemaion and the Belevi tomb,

621 Information courtesy of Prof. Waywell, and Dr. Susan Walker, British Museum, who is working
on the varieties of marble used on the monument.
 189

suggests that they should be restored as facing each other in pairs, although their find-

spots on the north side could indicate that they faced inwards towards the centre of

each facade. They are a blend of Eastern stylised design and Greek anatomical

details. There is some evidence for repair to the lions, for example when tails broke

off during carving.622

Colossal portrait statues of the Hecatomnids are believed to have stood

between the Ionic columns, although it is not certain whether one was placed in each

of the 36 intercolumniations. Their location has never been proven, but their frontal

design and large number makes this likely. An alternative was suggested by Waywell

(1989), though he seems to remain in some doubt about it himself, that there were

only females between the columns, as on the Mourning Women Sarcophagus. 623 If

one restores the tomb in this way, the location of the colossal male figures would

have to be accounted for in the podium groups. Figures between columns are not

unprecedented, as on the Nereid Monument, and may have been a more common

feature of Archaic colonnades than we now think, but there are no previous examples

known with portraits. The male figures were generally realistic and individualised

representations to judge from the ‘Mausolus’, whilst the women were idealised. The

so-called Mausolus statue is heroised, but has a low and wide brow, broadly spaced

eyes and high cheekbones. His long hair, close-cut beard and moustache give an

individualistic feel, unlike the idealised archaistic curls and sakkos caps of the

females. His stance is not Polycleitan: the left heel is raised, but the thigh and knee of

each leg are on the same frontal plane, making it more naturalistic and a less forced

version of the stance. His protruding stomach is both covered and emphasised by the

drapery pulling over the hip. The drapery is particularly skilfully represented, more

dramatic than that of the Phidian-Alcamenean tradition. It is not at all monotonous,

and in the sophistication of its artifice one can clearly see a catalyst for the Hellenistic

styles. Press-folds run laterally, and very noticeably, across the front and sides.

622 Jenkins 1994.

623 The background to the women on the sarcophagus was painted blue. Fleischer 1983, p. 60;
Ridgway 1999, p. 119.
 190

As later at Priene, the thirty four coffers of the pteron ceiling were carved in

high relief. Only a few fragments are preserved, recording the exploits of Theseus,

and perhaps also Heracles. A chariot frieze was also found, poorly preserved and

carved on to thin blocks which were not load-bearing. On the Ptolemaion at Limyra

this subject was depicted crowning the outer wall of the cella, behind the columns.

The girdling of the figures is high, but not excessively so, and characteristic of the

dress of charioteers. The lack of depth of the slabs suggests that the blocks did not

serve the dual nature of being both decorative and structural as it is clear that they

could have borne little weight.

The Amazon frieze, ht. 0.90, crowned the podium, and so was located

immediately below the colonnade; for this purpose ca. 116 m would have been

needed, making it the next longest frieze known after the Parthenon. A corner block

found in Bodrum castle proves that it continued around all four sides of the tomb. The

quality of finish and intricacy of design of the frieze differ notably from, and are

inferior to, the Parthenon frieze, but it would have been located higher up, some 18 m

above the ground, and in some ways should be seen more as a large narrative

moulding or decorative frieze than a virtuoso work of art. The figures were designed

mainly in fighting pairs, and depicted against a background painted ultramarine blue,

which would have emphasised them. The bodies alternated between those painted

brown, and those that were unpainted, with coloured drapery. 624 The composition is

stylised, with the emphasis on the play of diagonals. There is a variety of poses, both

aggressive and graceful. The relief is compact and quite deep, with very little

influence from the Parthenon. The neatness, clarity and elegance of the scenes, and

the designer’s mastery of anatomy, are all characteristic of their age, at the apex of it,

preshadowing the work of Hellenistic sculptors. There is girdling of the dresses, but it

is quite low. The heads face many directions, but there is still a tendency to make

them profile, or if not set them in three-quarter view.

624 Stewart 1990, p. 41; Ridgway 1999, p. 120.

 191

Both Heracles and Theseus take part, identifying it as the Themiskyra

Amazonomachy, also seen on the temple of Apollo at Bassae and on the base of the

throne of Zeus at Olympia, as well as in the pedimental sculpture that was to decorate

the temple of Apollo Sosianus in Rome. This version of the myth is closely linked to

Athens, but had special significance in Caria since Hippolyte’s axe was said to have

been dedicated in the temple of Zeus Stratios at Labraunda, becoming one of the

attributes with which the god was routinely depicted.625 The frieze is important in

that it illustrates the use of Greek mythology on the Mausoleum, and reveals a

dichotomy between the monarchic sculpture in-the-round and the reliefs, where two

out of the three friezes are Greek, showing Greek heroes, as did the coffers. This

appears to be the first use of an Amazonomachy on a tomb, a feature later in the

fourth century imitated on the Kallithea tomb, and on the Amazon Sarcophagus.

An Amazon on the slab BM 1014 twists around in energetic battle, and her

chiton swings open; she recalls and is therefore often associated with Scopas’

Maenad. Those who have tried to assign different sculpture to different hands have

concentrated on this frieze as blocks from several sides appear to be preserved. It

should be noted that it was a relatively minor work amongst the rest of the

architectural sculpture, probably designed by a master, but almost certainly executed

by a workshop.626 Whilst one can argue for minor discrepancies in style amongst the

blocks of the frieze, it is at best futile to attempt to identify individual hands. Notably

joins have over the years been made between panels of the Amazonomachy frieze

previously assigned to different sculptors, and there is no marked discrepancy

between the style of the figures on each side of the corner block, although the state of

conservation hinders detailed commentary. The division of the Mausoleum’s

decoration into individual sides, as claimed by Pliny (N.H. 36.30), is unlikely, and in

terms of execution, impractical; the employment of different sculptors for different

625 Strabo XIV.659; Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae, 45.

626 This is the author’s personal opinion.
 192

types of sculpture, and thus operating at different levels, horizontally dividing the

sculptural decoration of the structure, is more likely.

The difference between the dimensions of the foundation of the Mausoleum

and the restored width of the colonnades, combined with surviving evidence for

extended statue bases with cavetto mouldings and cuttings for figure groups, prove

that the podium was stepped in between its base and top. This created a series of

ledges, certainly two and possibly three, that held sculpture carved in-the-round,

treated like expanded pedimental groups without the restricting raking cornices or

free-standing friezes, a feature which was highly innovative for Ionian sculpture. The

relationship of the sculpture to the architecture is important. This is an attempt to

produce an Ionian version of pedimental sculpture, to be applied to large scale

buildings. The fragments in the BM are small but numerous, with a variety of scales

and themes, suggesting more than one step; three steps fit the proportions of the

building and accommodate the number of differing iconographies identified amongst

the remains.627 It is likely to have been on the podium that the named sculptors

principally worked. Timotheos had experience of pediments from Epidauros, and

Scopas would soon demonstrate his ability in this area at Tegea.

The largest and highest of the steps assigned to the podium probably held

groups depicting hunting and the sacrifice of animals. The Persian rider, whose

pieced upper body is lost, came from a hunt scene. The horse he is depicted as riding

is of a different type from those that pulled the quadriga on the summit. It may depict

Mausolus himself out riding, wearing an eastern outfit of tunic and trousers that

would have been suitable for such an activity. There are traces of a painted blue and

red saddle-cloth of the kind seen on the Alexander Sarcophagus, where similar figure

types also occur. Below these there appear to have been standing figures of heroic

size. On the lowest level were life-size figures forming a battle scene; the ledge on

which these stood was only 0.72 wide, so the statues were angled to the background.

627 Waywell 1978, p. 35 ff et passim.

 193

A number of life size worn heads of Greek type, and of at least one Persian, are extant

and were probably from statues placed here.

The hunting of leopards or lions was popular in the artistic repertoire of the

east, though it was also represented in mainland Greek art. With overt monarchic

connotations of strength as an extension of and alternative to the battle, it was

regularly used in the iconography of Alexander and taken up by his successors. One

side of the Alexander Sarcophagus represents a lion hunt, and appears to have been

largely based on a group from the Mausoleum; the other side depicted a battle scene,

again notable for the similarities to the one depicted on the Mausoleum’s lowest

ledge. The Greek workshop that created the sarcophagus for Abdalonymos, a vassal

of Alexander, was clearly aware of the Mausoleum, adapting its sculptures to depict

exploits with which the Sidonian king would like to be associated, all represented in

heroic composition. A miniature relief hunting scene ran below the colonnade on the

later Mourning Women Sarcophagus, also from the Sidonian necropolis at Ayaâ; the

whole is a small-scale reproduction of a heroon-temple-tomb of a detailed

architectural form.

It can also be pointed out that the influence of the Mausoleum can be seen in

the left figure on side D of the sarcophagus, which is of the Artemisia-Ada-Orans

Type. The women on the sarcophagus, possibly members of his household, can be

interpreted as representing the Heliades, mythical mourners for their brother Phaeton.

Such figures are attested by an inscription from the architrave of the inner courtyard

at Belevi as having stood between the columns.628 If one wished to restore only the

colossal figures of women between the columns on the Mausoleum, these too could

be interpreted as the Hecatomnid women as representing Heliades, although there is

no direct evidence for this link. Sun-worship was important in southwestern Anatolia

and Phoenicia, with an emphasis on Apollo, the only deity whose image has been

positively identified amongst the Mausoleum remains, as a representative of the sun.

628 For further discussion and reconstruction of the iconography see King 1997, p. 209.
 194

Mausolus, and later Artemisia, built a lavishly decorated and highly influential

tomb, impressive both in terms of quality and quantity, constituting the high-point of

an extensive artistic patronage from which the Macedonians and Alexander, followed

by his successors, borrowed heavily.629 Although to have copied the whole would

have been beyond the purse of most individuals, many elements of it were imitated,

and it was emulated in concept by a majority of the built tombs and monuments that

followed. As well as the examples previously cited, which copied elements of the

sculpture, the Mausoleum provided a special impetus in both the east and the

mainland for the building of podium tombs, a form previously largely restricted to

Caria and Lycia; the closest imitators are those at Belevi, near Ephesos, and Kallithea,

near Piraeus. Mausolus was not strictly a monarch in name, but he was very much so

in practice, and the scale and iconography of his tomb and patronage in general were

ostentatiously monarchic. Such lavish emphasis of resources on the individual rather

than the state, evidently deriving from non-Greek precedents in Lycia and Persia, was

new when applied to Greeks or Greek-based metics. Private citizens followed his

example to such an extent that elaborate tombs and other monuments were soon

outlawed by restrictive legislation in Athens, introduced by Demetrios of Phaleron in

317/6 (Cicero, de Legibus 2.66).

A remarkable example of the type of structure likely to have inspired the ban

is a podium tomb built ca. 340-330 by Nikeratos of Istria, at Kallithea near

Piraeus.630 Pentelic marble figures, of which the headless statues of Nikeratos, his

son Polyxenos, and a smaller slave boy survive, stood between the Ionic columns of

the naiskos that formed the upper storey. As on the Mausoleum, these portrait statues

of Hellenised metics were placed facing outwards against a background of a darker

stone wall, here of blue Eleusinian limestone. Traces of paint survive, showing that

the clothes were coloured, as were details of the sandals, but again the flesh was left

629 Waywell 1994a, esp. pp. 64-5, 68-71.

630 Piraeus Museum. Original height of the tomb ca 8.30. Ridgway 1990, pp. 31-2; Stewart 1990, p.
193; Tsirivakos 1972; Tsirivakos 1968; Tsirivakos 1971; BCH 92, 1968, pp. 749-53; JHS-AR 15,
1969, p. 6; Waywell 1994a, p. 68; Morrow 1985, pp. 81-2, 85, 87, pls. 61, 66; Osada 1993, cats. MF1
& DF4.
 195

white. An Amazonomachy frieze, of which three blocks survive, crowned the podium

in a clear reference to the Mausoleum, although the weaker composition was

restricted to combatants on foot, at least on the front. Again friezes around podia were

not new, but their use on the Mausoleum seems to have popularised them. Another

famous tomb, now lost, that of Theodectes of Phaselis, a Lycian poet who became a

leading tragedian at Athens ca. 350 BC and was to teach Alexander the Great, went

further, being decorated with statues of poets, and implying a (poetic, rather than

sanguine) genealogy from Homer.631

The tomb at Belevi was built near the Archaic mound of Pixodarus, 15 km to

the northeast of Ephesos, along the old road to Sardis.632 The structure was begun by

Lysimachos, and its iconography strongly ties in with his family; as the refounder of

the city he had the right to be buried within it, so it is more likely that it was intended

for a relation rather than Lysimachos himself.633 The architecture is early

Hellenistic, ca. 290-280, with many elements that are stylistically Macedonian, and

an interesting mix of orders. Although articulated by Corinthian columns above a

Doric podium, the superstructure is Ionic, and in a style that owes a great deal to the

Mausoleum.

Square coffers decorated the ceiling within the colonnade.634 They all had a

regular taenia that acted as a ground line and anchored the scene; the background was

painted blue and the figures enlivened with a variety of vivid colours. On the north

side funerary games were represented, of which seven scenes are extant. These

include one of a crowd, one of a victor crowning himself, and another of an umpire

presiding over a boxing match. Their iconography is original in terms of sculpture,

but the motifs are well known from earlier vase paintings. The coffers from the three

631 Pausanias 1.37.4; Waywell 1994a, p. 69.

632 Selçuk and Izmir Museum store-rooms. Fedak 1990, pp. 79-83; Ephesos VI; Ridgway 1990a, pp.
187-96, figs. 28-9, pls. 86-95; Willemsen 1959, pp. 66, 69, pl. 68; Süssenbach 1976, pp. 53-60, figs. 3-
13; Carter 1983, pp. 34, 67-8; Dintsis 1986, cat. nos. 79-80, pp. 228-9, pls. 15.1, 20.3, cat. no. 200, p.
271, pl. 46.8; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, p. 17; Stewart 1990, pp. 204-5; Stucchi 1987b, figs. 34, 36, pp.
267-8; Picard 1954, pp. 14, 17; Lund 1992, p. 177; Osada 1993 , cat. DF6; Webb 1996, pp. 76-9, figs.
32-9; King 1997, pp. 208-10, 211; Hoepfner 1993; Rumscheid 1994, 1 pp. 70-6, 2 pp. 8-9, no. 28.
633 As I argued: King 1997, esp. p. 209
634 Sides 0.80. Ephesos VI, pp. 73-88, 128-142, figs. 53-70, 99-108.
 196

other sides, of which seventeen are extant, depicted a Centauromachy. Some of the

Lapiths wore Macedonian helmets and armour, and the whole can be interpreted as

symbolising Lysimachos’ recent subjugation of the ‘barbarian’ Thracians. The scenes

are traditional and vaguely classicising in pose, with some more lively figures

intermixed, and much foreshortening. The Centaurs have a mane or fringe of hair to

mark and define the transition between their human and equine parts, as well as

equine ears, both contemporary developments in their iconography that became

standard in the Hellenistic period. The only landscape element is a tree in one of the

coffers.

On the roof-line pairs of life-size horses decorated the corners,635 whilst

along the sides marble vases positioned over the columns were flanked by pairs of

standing winged lion-griffins.636 The beasts vary widely, with some represented as

more Archaistic than others. They are stylised figures in the Achaemenid tradition.

The roof-line pieces are particularly poor work and were added later, when the

structure is believed to have been adapted for the burial of Antiochus II Theos; they

are crude examples of Seleucid iconography and style.

The figured coffers, and the placing of animal sculptures along the roof-line,

are features previously seen on the Mausoleum, a structure whose general shape the

tomb at Belevi imitated, although a plain Doric podium replaced the Ionic stepped

base at Halicarnassus. There is no surviving pyramidal roof, but as the structure is

unfinished it may originally have been envisioned. The possible inclusion of Heliades

at Halicarnassus has already been discussed. At Belevi they are definitely attested as

having stood between the Palm columns in the courtyard by an inscribed

architrave.637 The inscription is in the plural,  suggesting a number of

figures; excavated fragments of arms one and a half times life-size are likely to have

belonged to these statues.

635 Ht. 2.25. Ephesos VI, pp. 92-4, 146, figs. 80-2.
636 Ephesos VI, pp. 89-91, 142-146, figs. 71-79, 112-115.
637 Ephesos VI, pp. 47, 148, figs. 35, 35b, fig. 42a.
 197

7.2 Monumental Altars

Intercolumnar figures became an integral part of the canon of sculptural

decoration of the Ionic order from the fourth century onwards. Both the Nereid

Monument and the Mausoleum displayed statues between the Ionic columns of their

peristyles, and Heliades stood between Palm columns of the interior at Belevi; the

Mourning Women sarcophagus had a similar effect. Figures between columns,

whether free-standing or carved in relief, along with continuous friezes, were the

most popular forms of decoration of monumental _-shaped altars. Although a few

prestigious altars, such as the one at Pergamon, were lavishly decorated with

sculpture, most were much simpler, and the examples that follow are largely
exceptions. Not all _-shaped altars had Ionic colonnades, but the mouldings defining

them belong to that order. It is however in the construction and embellishment of

these structures that Hellenistic architecture differs most markedly from that of the

Classical period.

The rectangular _-shaped Altar of Athena at Priene was articulated by eleven

by six engaged Ionic columns, between which stood figures on ledges carved in high

relief.638 Carter has argued that the design of the structure is fourth century, probably

by Pytheos, although it was built later. The most likely date is during the last quarter
of the third century, under the patronage of Ptolemy IV Philopator, who identified

himself with Apollo, thus explaining the appearance of the god and the Muses on an

altar of Athena. Webb prefers to date it to the early second century BC, seeing

parallels between the bases of the columns and those of Hermogenes; since the

architect was active in the last quarter of the third century, the distinction is a fine

one.639 The overall design is not unlike that of the Mourning Women Sarcophagus in

638 One relief panel is in Berlin, another in Istanbul and two more in Miletos; one panel is now lost
and only known from photographs. Carter 1983, pp. 181-209, pls. 29-32, reviewed by R. Fleischer,
Gnomon 57, 1985, pp. 344-52; Ridgway 1990a, pp. 164-67, fig. 22, pls. 75-6; Rumscheid 1994, cat.
no. 294; Webb 1996, pp. 99-100, figs. 73-; Waywell 1994a, p. 60, fig. 4.
639 Webb 1996, p. 100.
 198

appearance, except that on the sarcophagus the women lean against ledges rather than

stand on them.

The Federal Altar at Tegea, dedicated to Zeus, is believed to have been

contemporary with the temple of Athena; it was axially aligned in front of the east

side of the temple, on which were depicted the exploits of Arcadian heroes. 640 The

sculptural decoration of the altar, as described by Pausanias 8.47.2, covered two

themes: the infancy of Zeus, when he was cared for by the Arcadian nymphs; and his

offspring the Muses, with their mother Mnemosyne. The altar was partially excavated

in the past, and is believed to have been a _-shaped altar on a podium, not dissimilar

to the altar at Priene, whose design, though not execution, may have been

synchronous. The mouldings found were Ionic in style. It was an example from the

very end of the Classical period of an altar type that would become popular in the

Hellenistic period, designed by someone with an awareness of developments taking

place in Asia Minor, and who had seen Pytheos’ designs for the altar at Priene.

The Muses and Mnemosyne would thus have been statues that stood in the ten

intercolumniations, and the infancy of Zeus a series of smaller panels or a frieze

decorating the interior, probably on the altar itself. Waywell restores Athens NM

3602, the so-called Hygieia, a Parian marble head, as one of the statues of the Muses

from the exterior, noting that the style of the head is not unlike that of the Mausoleum

Apollo.641 It is a high quality work, definitely not from the temple’s architectural

sculpture, and only sketchily demarcated at the back suggesting that it was designed

to go against a wall. Picard noted the similarities between this head and the Ephesos-

Cherchel Muse type, comparing them to the Mausoleum portraits, and on this basis

assigning it to Satyros.642 This would fit with the Tegea Relief, found near the altar

and now in the British Museum; it depicts Zeus Labraundeus flanked by figures of

Idrieus and Ada, believed to reproduce a portrait group of the couple, of which a

640 Picard 1933; Picard 1934; Picard 1942; Picard 1954, pp. 193-205; Stewart 1977, pp. 50, 68, 83-4,
100; Norman 1984, pp. 190-1; Waywell 1993, p. 83, & see n. 28 for further bibliography; Waywell
1994a, p. 62; Ridgway 1997, p. 54.
641 Waywell 1993, p. 83.
642 Picard 1954, p. 205.
 199

signed base at Delphi names Satyros as the sculptor. The altar was dedicated to Zeus,

who was also represented on the relief. The decree relief, identified as such due to its

proportions, could therefore be seen as having been erected to commemorate a

Hecatomnid donation of funds and the provision of the services of one of their

leading court sculptors, for work on the Arcadian altar, a politically very important

structure. This interpretation seems more likely than that the relief celebrated the

work of Scopas on the temple, although the Hecatomnids could have been patrons of

that too. If however they were aiding in the construction of the altar, rather than

temple, it would have been a stronger political statement; in either case it would

demonstrate the Hecatomnids’ support for the League after Leuctra.

The Altar of Artemis Protothronia at Ephesos was built in the last third of the

fourth century immediately to the west of the rebuilt temple.643 Bammer restores it

as having had columns between which were carved relief panels; this is disputed by

Kuhn, who sees it as hard to reconcile with the simple remains, and by Webb who

believes it to have been Roman Imperial in date, but otherwise Bammer’s version is

generally accepted. The reliefs depicted an Amazonomachy, and more specifically the

famous fifth century competition Amazons that were displayed in the temple. The

Amazons, as legendary founders of Ephesos and embodiments of the spirit of

Artemis, were a highly appropriate decorative theme. Since the altar formed a key

part of the lavish rebuilding programme at the sanctuary that included the temple, it is

not unlikely that Praxiteles would have worked on it (as Strabo implies), just as

indeed Scopas may have produced one of the columnae caelatae of the naos. The

extant panels and fragments are not in the style of Praxiteles. Life-size sculptures

carved in the round, that include pieces of draped figures and a horse from a quadriga,

were found in the 1960s/1970s by the Austrian excavators. The sculptures are still

unpublished to my knowledge, but Prof. Waywell, who has seen them, has told me

643 Strabo 14.641. Bammer 1967 [he reassigns a meander frieze from second Cent. AD theatre];
Bammer 1976; Bammer 1978; Kuhn 1984; Stewart 1990, p. 195; Corso 1988, vol. I, p. 174; Webb
1996, p. 84 n. 2; Picard 1954, p. 111; Waywell 1978, p. 67 n. 1, noting the similarity of the horse’s
head to those of the Mausoleum; Waywell 1994a, pp. 61-2.
 200

that they appear to be fourth century, and in a style that would not preclude the hand

of Praxiteles.

The Fourth Mimiambus of Herondas, dated to 280-265, describes an altar,

seemingly of Asclepios, which was decorated with statues of gods, both Olympian

and obscure, and other figures, carved by the sons of Praxiteles. These were

presumably Kephisodotos II and Timarchos, who also worked jointly on the

decoration of the Altar of Athena at Thebes (Pausanias 9.12.4). Herondas’ text

suggests that they, along with their patron, inscribed the base; he does not specify a

location for the altar, although it would seem to have been in a famous sanctuary. The

statues presumably stood between Ionic columns on the exterior of a _-shaped altar.

Kephisodotos II and Timarchos were active from 345 to 290, possibly still working as

late as 275 BC. By Pliny’s floruit in 296 they would appear to have been well

established.

Unfortunately it is hard, though not impossible, to reconcile this account with

the excavated remains of the Altar of Asclepios, Cos;644 Herondas may have been

referring to a previous altar, or to one at a different site. The temple on the middle

terrace was built ca. 280, and the altar would presumably have been contemporary;

this would fit chronologically with both the sculptors and the poem. The altar was

reworked in the mid-second century, but to what extent is unclear. The sculptural

remains are fragmentary, but the the style of many of them suggests that they were

carved in the wake of Praxiteles. They could thus be by his sons, and as statues rather

than reliefs could easily have be reincorporated into the later altar’s decoration. Other

pieces are of later style, notably a semi-clad Aphrodite, and could have been carved

for the altar’s second century incarnation, or be votives.

644 Ridgway 1990a, pp. 163-4; Kos I, pp. 25-31, fig. 22, pl. 12; Kabus-Preisshoffen 1989, cat. nos. 1-
18a, pp. 66-78, pls. 10-14; Waywell 1994a, p. 62, fig. 10; Stewart 1990, pp. 46, 295-7; Ridgway 1999,
pp. 13, 30 n. 33. On the Mimiambus of Herondas see: Webster 1966, pp. 72-82. For the sons of
Praxiteles; Bieber 1924, pp. 242-251; Lauter 1980.
 201

The _-shaped Altar of Artemis at Magnesia, ca. 200-170 BC, would appear to

have been built, or completed, immediately before the temple.645 High relief figures,

including but not exclusively depicting gods, many of whose identities remain

uncertain, are one and a half times life-size, and carved of white marble with a

creamy yellow hue. There were also two monotonous friezes embellishing the altar;

an acanthus frieze, and a frieze of bulls’ heads linked with garlands. The shape of the

altar and the location of the architectural sculpture upon it are highly disputed.

Lacking evidence to the contrary, the example of other altars should be followed,

with the panels with relief figures being intercolumnar and on the exterior. The

friezes are likely to have decorated the sacrificial altar on the interior.

The monumental Great Altar at Pergamon, situated on a terrace below the

temple of Athena, was dedicated by Eumenes II (197-159 BC), and is a late example

of the Baroque style of sculpture, most clearly illustrating its culmination. 646 Its

exact date, and even its nature, are uncertain. A controversial reexamination of the

pottery would suggest that the foundations were laid in the 160s, although the 180s

are still preferred by many. Work must have continued into the reign of Attalos II

(159-138), and parts remained unfinished. Generally referred to as an Altar of Zeus, it

is also interpreted as a Heroon of Telephos, since a third century apsidal heroon of the

mythical king has been found beneath it. It could have combined the two roles, as

well as having been an impressive offering, and an example of the city’s powers of

artistic patronage. The sculptural decoration was lavish. The base was carved with a

645 Pergamon Museum in Berlin; Aydin Museum, Turkey. von Gerkan 1929; Özgan 1982; Ridgway
1990a, pp. 167-8, fig. 23; Linfert 1976, pp. 36, 164-77; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 138, pl. 85; Hoepfner
1989, pp. 603-18; Hoepfner 1990, pp. 16-18, figs. 25-8; Webb 1996, pp. 94-6, figs. 65-72.
646 The superstructure and friezes are in Berlin. One fragment is in Istanbul. An unpublished head in
the British Museum is believed to be from the Altar; I thank Dr. Peter Higgs for this information.
Another fragment, formerly in the Arundel collection, is in the County Library, Worksop, Derbyshire.
Osada 1993, cats. MF 12, MF 14; Pergamon III.1; Pergamon III.2; Pergamon VII; Stewart 1990, pp.
210-213, pls. 692-716; Müller 1973; Bruns 1949; Kähler 1948; Stähler 1966; Pfanner 1979; Fuchs
1993, pp. 458-466, figs. 539-46; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, pp. 18-24; Webb 1996, pp. 61-6, figs. 22-7;
Pollitt 1986, pp. 97-110, figs. 97-113; Smith 1991, pp. 157-166; Börker 1990; Hoepfner 1989, 619-34;
Schmidt-Donas 1993; Kunze 1990a; Kunze 1990b; Schmidt 1990; Callaghan 1981; Stähler 1978; Radt
1981; Andreae 1992; Dintsis 1986, cat. nos. 133, 229-232, 234, pls. 32.10, 58.3-.5, 59.1, 59.3. Lucius
Ampelius, Liber Memorialis, 8.14.
 202

Gigantomachy. The Telephos frieze ran around the interior walls of the altar court,

and epithematic quadrigae, of which 16 horses are extant, were on the roof.

The Gigantomachy frieze, ht. 2.3, l. 136, was carved in very high relief with

extensive drilling to enhance form through shadow, and many tool marks were left

clearly visible. The figures were labelled with carved inscriptions, the gods’ names at

the top of the band, the giants at the bottom, clearly emphasising the hierarchy. The

extent to which such labels were used to clarify iconography is uncertain, but other

extant examples include the Archaic Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, the third century

Heroon at Belevi and the temple of Athena at Tegea, and it is possible that they were

used elsewhere in paint and therefore lost, and were more common than has been

thought. There are also a large number of sculptors’ signatures extant; these are less

usual on architectural sculpture, but are found on the near-contemporary altar of the

Nymphs at Cnidus, and an altar of Asclepios is said to have been signed by

Praxiteles’ sons. The artists came from around the Aegean; Athens, Rhodes, Tralles

and Pergamon itself, all reputable sculptural centres. The slabs are not uniform in

size, but rather joins were made where they would least hinder the representation of

the narrative. The Gods are roughly grouped together into family compositions. The

sophisticated iconography suggests that the conceptualisation was the work of one of

the kingdom’s many scholars, possibly though not necessarily Krates from Mallos.

Presumably, as elsewhere, the Gigantomachy was intended to illustrate the triumph of

wisdom, exemplified by law, over the anarchy of barbarian forces personifying

opponents recently fought in numerous wars.

The iconography of the Telephos frieze, ht. 1.5, l. 91.5, is less sure due to its

fragmentary state, and the order of the scenes is still uncertain. It is more episodic, but

with a stronger narrative, and the scenes are strongly grounded within their

topographical setting. The frieze was made in complete technical contrast to the

Gigantomachy, sculpted on panels of regular size, that were divided up by the

columns that stood between it and the viewer. The figures were carved in relief that
was still high, but projected less, and without the same play of light and dark due to
 203

its shaded location. The whole depicted the life and deeds of Telephos, the mythical

king of Mysia from whose Arcadian followers Pergamenes claimed to have been

descended.

The so-called Nymph Altar at Cnidus was a _-shaped altar, dating to ca. 160

BC, of which five blocks of the frieze are extant.647 These were found reused in a

wall and excavated on site. The Cilician sculptor, who signed the work (Theon

Antiocheus epoiese ta tria xoidia), is known from signatures elsewhere on Cnidus.

Several scenes seem to depict nymphs, one labelled “”, hence the altar’s

name.

The foundations of the _-shaped Altar of Dionysos, Cos, 13.39 x 8.80, were

found in the southeastern part of the city and date to soon after the middle of the

second century.648 It was not articulated by Ionic columns, but had Ionic mouldings.

The frieze was found reused in the Byzantine castle, in the courtyard of which its

remains are now on display; 13 blocks, or around half the frieze, are extant, of which

two are carved on both sides and so are restored at the ends. The scenes carved depict

the exploits of Dionysos, constituting unusual iconography; a rare subject in

Hellenistic sculpture, other examples include the friezes of the Lysicrates Monument

and the temple of Dionysos at Teos, and a relief from Cyzikos with a Dionysiac

thiasos cortege.649 Interesting features to note are the numerous mason’s marks, and

the fact that not all the blocks appear to have been fully carved or finished; some also

have repairs that seem to be contemporary with the carving. A number of technical

details, including the mason’s marks, are similar to those on the Pergamon Altar. The

Cos frieze is unusual in style, combining parts that are Classicising, and precursors of

Neo-Attic art, with more eclectic ones; elements recalling the Telephos frieze show

647 Marble; ht. 0.70. They are currently in the site store. Love 1973, pp. 421-3; Webb 1996, pp. 121-2,
figs. 95-6; Stampolides 1984; Bruns-Özgan 1994.
648 Ht. 0.62-.63. Schwarzenberger 1969, pp. 95-6, fig. 3; Stampolides 1981; Osada, cat. MF 22;
Ridgway 1990a, pp. 156-7, fig. 19; Yaylali 1976, pp. 161-2; Webb 1996, pp. 153-4, fig. 141; AD 40,
1985, A, pp. 287-8, fig. 1, pls. 45-50, for new fragments.
649 Osada 1993, cat. MF 25.
 204

that it was created with knowledge of Pergamene art, which is not unexpected as Cos

was at the time ruled by Pergamene overlords.

The Altar of Hecate at Lagina, was contemporary with the temple. 650 One

marble block with both seated and standing figures, and originally from the corner, is

now in Istanbul. A second block was left on the site after the excavations and is now

lost. It was probably by the same designer and hands as the temple frieze; the

iconography is equally obscure, and the style similar.

Prof. Marcadé has been working on a mid-Hellenistic _-shaped altar recently

excavated at the Letoon of Xanthos, Lycia. He has succeeded in reconstructing the

highly fragmentary figures of heavily draped, standing women, and restores them

between Ionic columns on the exterior.651

These altars seem without exception to have been of Ionic form, being

supplied with Ionic mouldings, if not always with Ionic columns. Elaborate _-shaped

altars could be decorated with figures, carved in relief or free-standing, set between

columns or attached half-columns, or with figured friezes. The most lavish altars had

both, as well as figures along the roof-line. The norm however, as on temples, was for

more modest altars to have one or two repetitive friezes; for example the Altar of

Poseidon and Amphitrite, Tenos, which featured a relief frieze of boucrania linked by

garlands.652

7.3 Continuous Friezes

Just as with the other forms of its architectural sculpture, the excellence of the

Parthenon’s frieze was not maintained in subsequent continuous friezes, perhaps

because the quality of the work was too fine and represented an unnecessary

expenditure of time and thus money when it was barely visible: its relief was too

shallow, located in a shaded position, and could not be seen. Interest turned instead to

650 Webb 1996, pp. 115-6; Mendel vol. III, pp. 536-41; Schober 1933, pp. 105-8, figs. 44-5.
651 I was unclear whether the exterior was articulated by Ionic columns or attached half-columns. Full
publication is eagerly awaited; for initial reports see Marcadé in CRAI.
652 Webb 1996, p. 133, figs. 108-9.
 205

repetitive but more dramatic compositions with bolder, more widely spaced figures

which facilitated viewing from the ground. The style of these friezes was more like

that of narrative mouldings and, as they were placed higher up on buildings, and

further from the viewer, the quality decreased. The themes depicted tended to involve

myths related to the god to whom the temple was dedicated, although at Lagina a

historical event with the goddess present was depicted on the north side, and at

Chryse the scenes were of more relevance to the area than to Apollo himself. It can

also be argued that the Amazons had myth-historical links to the area around

Magnesia, particularly emphasised at the sanctuaries of Amyzon and of Labraunda.

The entablature of the Ionic temple of Artemis Leucophryene, Magnesia on

the Maeander, bore a figured frieze of large-grained light grey marble depicting an

Amazonomachy.653 Vitruvius (3.2.6 & 7.Praef.12) gives the architect as

Hermogenes, who was working there ca. 200 and in the early second century. The

frieze was originally ca. 174.60 long, of which about 78 %, or 134.5, is preserved.

The preserved whole blocks show marked variations in lengths, between 1.22-3.77.

Blocks from the west, the front, are of better quality than those from the other sides.

On the whole the work is fairly rough and over-emphasised, designed to be viewed

from a great distance, but some surprising details, such as the veins on the horses’

bellies, were carved. The often summary execution is in recognition of the fact that

the frieze was located around 16 m off the ground. The frieze would have been

painted, with colour differentiating the confused figures and emphasising the

dramatic impact of the scene. A few figures have weapons indicated through carving,

eg. on block no.11 the Amazon figure 4, but mostly weapons were added in bronze.

As with the majority of Amazonomachies after 400 BC, all the Greeks are on foot,

whilst many of the Amazons are riding.

653 Orhan Bingöl is excavating the site. The blocks of the Amazonomachy frieze are divided between
Istanbul, Berlin and the Louvre. The two blocks of the monotonous opisthodomos frieze (ht. 0.80, of
which 0.1 for the moulding) are on site. Ridgway 1990a, pp. 155-6, pl. 73; Osada 1993, cat. MF 20;
Yaylali 1976; Davesne 1982; Mendel cat. nos. 146-187a, vol. 1, pp. 365-419; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no.
137, pl. 78-81; Hoepfner 1990, p. 8-11, fig. 11, 13-16; Pfrommer 1990, pp. 69-80, fig. 1-2, 5, 6, 9.
Fuchs 1993, fig. 549, p. 467; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, pp. 24-5; Dintsis 1986, cat. nos. 31, 185, 237a-b,
pls. 6.1, 43.1, 60.3-.4; Webb 1996, pp. 90-2, figs. 53-8; Ridgway 1999, pp. 78-9, ill. 15.
 206

There is variety in the poses of the horses and humans represented, but due to

the large number of figures depicted there is also a great deal of repetition leading to a

sense of rhythm, rather than mere monotony. Within the repetition of motifs there are

differentiations: for example two rearing horses bearing differently posed riders are

set next to each other. Figures are seen from angles covering 3600 showing front,

back, profile and diagonal views; there is much overlapping of figures. Poses and

motifs are repeated regularly, almost as if to create a pattern. Variations in dress and

armour add interest. The Amazons, in short high-girdled chitons, boots and Phrygian

caps, are on horse-back, and carry smaller round shields than the Greeks. The right

breast is exposed on some of the figures. The draped Greeks wear cuirasses over

chitons and boots or bare feet, bandeliers over the right shoulder and helmets, though

some of the Greeks are also nude and helmet-less. A bearded warrior carrying a club,

and at times a lion skin or cap, is identified as Heracles; he is depicted four times,

presumably once on each side. Many of the heads are preserved, and these are similar

to those on the Sparta inv. 717 metopes. Some panels are more crowded than others

and the anatomy is generally better in the less crowded ones. The action-packed

design is Baroque in mood, if not in execution.

The Ionic temple of Dionysos at Teos, seems to be ca. 200-190, with a

Hadrianic rebuilding that may have reincorporated some of the Hellenistic frieze

blocks along with contemporary replacements.654 Again Vitruvius (3.3.8 &

7.Praef.12) gives the architect as Hermogenes. The 18 extant blocks are all believed

to be Roman, but possibly copying the frieze of the Hellenistic predecessor; they

represent Dionysiac scenes, including a thiasos and a battle.

A frieze with a Dionysiac thiasos has been linked to an Ionic temple of

Dionysos at Cnidus recorded by the Dilettanti; its style suggests a second century

654 Numan Tuna is currently working on the temple. Two slabs of the frieze are in the British
Museum, a number in Izmir Archaeological Museum, and new pieces on site. Ridgway 1990a, p. 156;
Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 345, pl. 185-7; Hahland 1950; Yaylali 1976, pp. 116-120, 161; Linfert 1976,
p. 164 n. 652; Herrmann 1965; Uz 1990; Osada 1993, cat. MF 30; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, pp. 24-5;
Webb 1996, pp. 72-3, figs. 29-30; Ridgway 1999, p. 29 n. 27.
 207

date.655 One block of the marble frieze, found reused in a later wall immediately to

the south, is now in the forecourt of Datça School; on it four figures of Maenads and

Satyrs flank a wine-vase. Other small fragments were built into the walls of the

Byzantine church constructed on the foundations of the temple.The iconography is

appropriate to that god, and the remains of the frieze were found close to the temple,

definitively linking the two.

The Ionic temple of Apollo at Alabanda in Caria was designed by Menesthes

(Vitruvius 3.2.6), and had a continuous frieze with an Amazonomachy, of which four

heavily worn blocks were excavated.656 The composition shows the figures in

groups of three, as on the Mausoleum friezes, and in a variety of poses. The frieze of

the temple of Apollo Smintheus at Chryse in the Troad continued the theme of the

columnae caelatae with representations of the Iliad and Iliupersis.657 Three blocks in

poor condition of an estimated 60+ survive, dating to the third quarter of the second

century.

The Corinthian temple of Hecate at Lagina in Caria had a continuous narrative

frieze in the manner of an Ionic temple.658 Three sides depicted the gods and their

655 Ridgway 1990a, p. 156; Yaylali 1976, pp. 161-2; Osada 1993, cat. MF 23; Schwarzenberger 1969,
pp. 83, 88-103, no. 4, fig. 3; Love 1972, p. 68; Newton 1840, p. 24, pl. 1; Süssenbach 1971, pp. 117,
246; Webb 1996, p. 122.
656 The location of the four frieze blocks that were removed from the Byzantine walls, where they had
been reused, is not known; early publications that list their location in Istanbul are incorrect. It is hoped
that they were reburied on site and will eventually be found. Pres. ht. 0.58-.68; total length found 5.61.
Ridgway 1990a, pp. 157-8; Osada 1993, cat. MF 21; Yaylali 1976, p. 116; Sturgeon 1978, p. 232;
Rumscheid 1994, cat. 8.4, pl. 3.1; Weber 1969; Hoepfner 1990, p. 31, fig. 12; Schober 1933, pp. 16-
19; Webb 1996, pp. 106-7.
657 The frieze blocks have been at the new site Museum since 1993. Ridgway 1990a, p. 158; Osada
1993, cat. MF 17; Yayali 1976, pp. 129, 162-3; Weber 1966; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 31, pl. 16-30;
Süssenbach 1971, p. 82; Bingöl 1980; Hoepfner 1990, p. 30, fig. 11; Bingöl 1990; Bingöl 1991;
Hahland 1950. Coskun Özgünel is working on the site; he has found the fourth century predecessor of
the temple, attributed by some to Scopas (see Picard 1954, p. 146).
658 34 blocks, ht. 0.93, including all four corners are in Istanbul. The site is being excavated by Ahmet
Tirpan, who has found new fragments of the frieze (AJA 100, 1995, p. 317). Newton visited the site
while excavating at Halicarnassus; he decided against acquiring the frieze, but brought one female arm
back to the British Museum, on the existence of which I would like to thank Dr. Peter Higgs for
information. As at Magnesia the size of the blocks varied considerably: l. 0.900-1.775. 41.17 is extant,
or aprox. half the original length of 83.70. Osada 1993, cat. MF 31, pp. 64-90; Rumscheid 1994, cat.
no. 122, pl. 69-75; Chamonard 1895; Mendel vol. I, pp. 428-542; Schober 1933; Junghölter 1989;
Junghölter 1990; Hoepfner 1990, p. 31, fig. 12; Fuchs 1993, pp. 466-7, fig. 548; Carroll-Spillecke
1985, pp. 27-9; Dintsis 1986, pl. 42.6, Beil 7, 275; Webb 1996, pp. 108-115, figs. 81-93; Simon 1993;
Stewart 1990, p. 226, figs. 828-30.
 208

deeds, with Hecate depicted on each, and are interpreted as illustrating Hesiod’s

Theogony; the east, or front, would be the birth of Zeus with the eponymous goddess

bringing the stone to Cronos, the west a Gigantomachy, and on the south side a

complex allegorical scene of myth and religious ceremony. On the north Hecate and

other gods were depicted as assisting at what is interpreted as representing an alliance

of local Carian cities with Rome, a historical event of 166 BC. Unusually for such a

frieze the background settings are emphasised. The temple is assigned to Menesthes

or his school,659 whose dates have recently been raised from the early years of the

first century to the last third of the second.

Parts of a late Hellenistic frieze depicting a Gigantomachy from a temple,

believed to have been that of Zeus Solymeus, have been found at Termessos.660 The

frieze is heavily under Pergamene influence, with a number of similarities to the

frieze from the Pergamon Altar; given that the town was under the control of

Pergamon, and the similarities of other Pisidian friezes to the Pergamene Baroque

style, this is not altogether surprising. Two pieces of an Amazonomachy frieze,

believed to have been part of the decoration of a temple, were found at Soloi,

Cyprus.661

The predominant theme depicted in continuous friezes during the period was

the battle; battles were also a popular theme for the decoration of metopes, and of

pediments. The temples of Artemis at Magnesia and of Apollo at Alabanda were both

decorated with friezes depicting Amazonomachies. The Kallithea Monument, in

imitation of the Mausoleum, has already been noted; Athens NM inv. 3614, is a

similar frieze, but of higher quality.662 A third Athenian Amazonomachy has been

found in the Kerameikos.663 Centauromachies were less common, but one was again

depicted on the Mausoleum, and another on the frieze of an unknown Hellenistic

659 Schober 1933, pp. 15-6.

660 Mitchell 1991, p. 129; Vian 1951, no. 51, pl. 9.
661 Webb 1996, n. 48 pp. 39-40; Vessberg & Westholm 1956, pp. 94-5, pl. 13.1.
662 Ht. 0.55, w. 1.08. Ridgway 1990a, p. 32; Osada 1993, cat. MF2.
663 Ht. 0.30. Carroll-Spillecke 1985, p. 16; Ridgway 1990a, pp. 32-3.
 209

building at Mylasa.664 Notably, there are as many depictions of Amazonomachies in

metopes during the period, and more of Centauromachies. A limestone frieze

depicting Greeks fighting Persians decorated the base of the so-called Second Heroon

at Sagalassos, located to the east of the Upper Agora and dated to the first half of the

first century BC.665 The Oxford-Athens Frieze, ca. 320, shows Greeks fighting

Greeks,666 and a frieze from Ephesos depicts a Celtomachy. 667 Such ‘real’ battles

became increasingly popular, with the depiction of adversaries historically fought

rather than mythical creatures such as Centaurs,668 and in turn led to depictions of

historical battles such as the defeat of the Macedonians by L. Aemilius Paullus, as

depicted on his monument at Delphi. This continued to be a theme of Roman art,

reaching its culmination in such intricately executed friezes as the one on Trajan’s

column. Related to battles are depictions of chariot races, the best known being those

from the Mausoleum669 and from the Ptolemaion at Limyra,670 although there is

also a fine example, amongst others, from Veroia.671 There are numerous other

examples from around the Mediterranean of friezes depicting battles.672

Classical subjects, where myths were depicted, remained popular. The Marine

Thiasos, a theme best known from Scopas’ free-standing group, was depicted in high

relief on the interior of the Monument of the Bulls.673 At the other extreme is a

miniature, low relief white marble frieze from Molos;674 a third representation is

664 The three extant blocks are in Istanbul; ht. 0.255, l. 3.860. Osada 1993, cat. DF28; Webb 1996, n.
49 p. 40; Mendel, vol. 2, p. 44, cat. no. 286.
665 Sagalassos 1, p. 44, fig. 32; Mitchell & Waelkens 1988, p. 64, pls. 7b-c.
666 Ashmolean and Acropolis Museum invs. 409, 409a & 409b; ht. 0.405. Ridgway 1990a, p. 33;
Osada 1993, cat. MF4.
667 Osada 1993, cat. MF28.
668 The Amazons seem not to have been viewed in the same way, and research is increasingly finding
evidence of female-dominated societies on the fringes of the Greek world.
669 Most recently: Tancke 1990, pp. 95-6, figs. 1-2, no. 1.
670 Tancke 1990, pp. 100-2, fig. 7, no. 5; Osada 1993, cat. DF7. Plus AJA 100, 1995, p. 313: new
fragments of the frieze found that include Persian war chariots.
671 Osada 1993, cat. DF8.
672 Osada, cats. MF18, MF26, MF27, amongst others.
673 Osada 1993, cat. MF5, pp. 17-20.
674 Athens NM inv. 221-2. Osada 1993, cat. DF 13.
 210

from Cyzikos,675 and a frieze from Pergamon depicting a battle between sea-

monsters is related.676

Two blocks survive on Delos from a small frieze that depicted the Labours of

Theseus; it decorated a small Ionic structure of the mid-fourth century.677 The frieze

of the Labours of Heracles, reused in the later theatre at Delphi, has now been redated

to the later Hellenistic period, after 160-159 BC.678 A smaller, more decorative

frieze at Pergamon also depicted the Labours of Heracles, again basing itself largely

on fifth-century examples.679

More whimsical scenes developed in the later Hellenistic period, and included

the depiction of Erotes, both at battle and at play. These were particularly used on

small-scale friezes, and the theme was enthusiastically adopted by the Romans for

both wall-painting and mosaics. The majority of examples come from Pergamon,680

but there are also examples from Samos,681 Miletos, and from Athens.682

A frieze at Termessos depicting the myth of Iphigeneia, last quarter of the

second century, was local work, executed under Pergamene influence. 683 It is linked

to, and may have decorated, a small Corinthian tholos.

A more famous Pisidian frieze is from Sagalassos, and depicts near life-size

dancing girls.684 It decorated a Corinthian podium monument built to the NW of the

675 Osada 1993, cat. MF24.

676 Osada 1993, cat. DF15.
677 Picard 1954, pp. 1114 ff, figs. 450-2; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, p. 12.
678 Sturgeon 1978; refuted by Jacquemin 1985a; Osada 1993, cat. MF29.
679 Osada 1993, cat. DF22.
680 See: Osada 1993, cats. DF 14, DF 16, DF 17; Webb 1996, p. 56, and n. 30 p. 39.
681 Osada 1993, cat. DF 10.
682 Osada 1993, cat. DF 5; Broneer 1935, pp. 143 ff, figs. 33 ff. The continuous frieze of naked erotes
(the erotes held candelabra and oinochoae, the objects depicted alternating) has a rough back that
shows it was architectural. It comes from a shrine in the sanctuary of Aphrodite on the north slope of
the Acropolis, dating to the second half of the fourth century BC or early Hellenistic. An interesting
feature is that, of the two large blocks preserved in Athens NM, inv. 1451 is original and inv. 1452 a
Roman restoration, indicating that it was considered worth repairing. There is also a fragment, inv.
3969.
683 Local limestone. Stähler 1968; Sagalassos I, p. 25; Osada 1993, cat. MF19; Mitchell 1991, p. 129;
LIMC VI (1992) s.v. Iphigeneia 5.
684 Ht. 1.17-0.18. Excavation store in Aglasum and Burdur Museum. Fleischer 1975; Fleischer 1978;
Fleischer 1979; Fleischer 1981; Fleischer 1984, pp. 141-4; Mitchell 1991, p. 132; Carroll-Spillecke
1985, p. 25; Sagalassos I, p. 25; Mitchell & Waelkens 1987, p. 38; Osada 1993, cat. DF24; Webb
1996, pp. 127-9, figs. 100-3; AJA 97, 1993, p. 121; AJA 100, 1995, p. 312, figs. 30-1.
 211

Agora, and already mentioned in the section on Doric Epithemata. The frieze, of light

grey large-grained stone,685 ran around only three sides of the building, the north

side being against a hill; this sort of frontality can be seen elsewhere at Sagalassos,

notably on the Bouleuterion. Both the architecture and the sculpture suggest a date in

the middle or second half of second century. The blocks are of irregular size, with one

or two women carved in high relief on each of them. The women are linked by the

action of holding the ends of each others’ himatia, and of looking back towards the

figure behind them. Although some of the figures are still, most are dancing actively.

There is some alternation of costume and pose amongst the dancers, and these are

framed by musicians; so far a kithara player and a flautist have been found. The

drapery is crisp, with deep drilling particularly for the crinkly chitons, and the illusion

is created of drapery seen through drapery. The quality and preservation of the frieze

are extremely good. Again the influence of Pergamene Baroque is discernible.

Fleischer sees mechanical evidence for copying on a block from the east side. 686 Of

particular interest is a head that was added as a repair; provisionally dated to the

Antonine period, its eyes are slightly raised and there are clearly visible rasp marks,

in my opinion suggesting a later date.687 A base that held a reclining lion with a

bull’s head between its paws is restored as an epithema. The structure is more

elaborate than the Doric epithematic monuments, and is in the tradition of the

Mausoleum. The head of a statue, restored as ca. 4 m high and depicting a young

Alexander, was found at the base of the heroon; clearly built for an important person,

previously believed to have been a local hero, it is now linked to his cult.

Three blocks of a second, smaller frieze of dancing girls from Sagalassos are

preserved;688 it strongly recalls the previous frieze and was contemporary with it, but

is of poorer quality. One block almost exactly copies the larger frieze. Friezes of

685 The stone has pink overtones. Originally published as marble, it is now believed possibly to be
limestone. I assumed the stone to be a local marble. The quality of the carving is astonishing given the
size of the grains.
686 Fleischer 1979.
687 AJA 100, 1995, fig. 31.
688 Ht. 0.50. Sagalassos I, pp. 42-3, figs. 20-23.
 212

dancing women were a popular theme, appreciated for their decorative value and, in a

constantly changing political climate, perhaps also for their lack of iconographic

controversy. A Hellenistic frieze at Delphi may represent the followers of Dionysos,

who was worshipped there alongside Apollo from the fourth century.689 Closer to

the Pisidian frieze is one from Narona, early or mid Hellenistic, that originally

decorated the entablature of a building.690 Of particular interest is one block where

two heads seem to have been added separately to the background; these seem to have

been pieced rather than restored. Two blocks preserved four figures on each, all in

different dress; no heads survive.

A number of small friezes depicting Archaising dancing women are known

from around the eastern Mediterranean. Their similarities, but geographical disparity,

provide another argument for the use of pattern-books, whatever their level of

sophistication. One, perhaps the best known, decorated the entablature of the

Temenos Propylon on Samothrace.691 Its date is controversial; the excavators put it

at 350-330, but it is likely to have been erected after ca. 330, and possibly as late as

the turn of the century. The other friezes are dated in relation to it; a Hellenistic frieze

from Phanagoria,692 and a frieze, believed to be ca. 325-275, that decorated the

interior chamber of a Doric rock-cut podium tomb at Antiphellos, Lycia.693 A frieze

from Dionysopolis in Bulgaria is described in terms that suggest it was similar.694

There are a large number of Etruscan terracotta friezes with narrative

depictions, which will not be discussed here.

Friezes crowning podia were a new departure in mainstream Greek art, and

had previously only been seen in this location in SW Anatolia. In the wake of the

689 Ecole Française, Athènes, neg. no. 31.539; inv. 5752 & 2170.
690 Modern Metkovic, Croatia, now in Split-Spalato Museum; ht. 0.445. Picard 1954, pp. 1193-4, figs.
468-9; Osada 1993, cat. DF 25.
691 On site and one block in the Louvre. Ridgway 1990a, pp. 26-8, fig. 10; Samothrace 5, pp. 172-
264; Osada 1993, cat. DF1; Fuchs 1993, p. 458, fig. 538; Zagdoun 1989, cat. no. 443, pp. 20, 25, 32,
64, 163-4, 233, 253, pl. 48, fig. 176; Ridgway 1997, pp. 142, 143. BSA-AR 41, 1995, p. 53: more
blocks of the frieze found, confirming that it ran around the building, not just above the door.
692 Two fragments in the Pushkin Museum, Moscow, and a third recently excavated. Osada 1993, cat.
DF27; JHS-AR 30, 1984, p. 90, fig. 22.
693 Modern Kas. Osada 1993, cat. DF2; Fedak 1990, pp. 78-9, fig. 93 a-b.
694 Osada 1993, cat. DF9.
 213

Mausoleum it became regular to have continuous friezes running around the podium,

immediately below the colonnade; that this was also done with Doric friezes has

already been noted. A continuation of this is the use of friezes for the decoration of

statue bases, where to describe them as ‘architectural sculpture’ would be stretching

the definition, and of free-standing walls.

The juxtaposition of bands of friezes, one on top of the other, as seen on the

Nereid Monument, was sporadically used. Double rows of friezes decorated the main

outer face and all the interior faces of the walls surrounding the heroon complex at

Gjölbaschi-Trysa in Lycia, recently redated to ca. 380-370 BC.695 The Tribune of

Echmoun at Sidon, ca. 340-320, possibly executed by the same workshop as the

Mourning Women Sarcophagus, is an unusual monument, believed to be an altar,

decorated with superimposed rows of narrative friezes.696 This feature can also be

seen on the base of the Monument of L. Aemilius Paullus at Delphi, where a frieze in

the Hellenistic tradition depicts the battle fought by the eponymous Roman victor in

168/7 BC.697 The Classicising battle frieze was adapted to historical narrative, with

observed rather than purely heroising details. It has highly successful perspective and

foreshortening. The lack of a setting, other than a ground-line, appears to be a

deliberately old-fashioned feature, but given the height at which the frieze was

displayed, was also appropriate. The frieze ran around the top of the base which held

an equestrian statue to commemorate the Senator’s defeat of the Macedonians.

As with Doric friezes, and in amplification of a point already made about the

decoration of altars, the most common form of decoration was the monotonous frieze,

where one to three objects were regularly repeated. As continuous friezes were not

broken-up by triglyphs the designers had greater liberty in the arrangement of these.

Boucrania or bull’s heads, although other animals were represented when appropriate

695 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Gschwantler 1993; Oberleitner 1993; Bruns-Özgan 1987, pp.
56-81, pls. 9-13; Carroll-Spillecke 1985, pp. 11-13; Eichler 1950; Childs 1978, pp. 18; Dintsis 1986,
pp. 66, 68, 111, 112, pls. 24.3, pl. 27.3, 37.9.
696 Will 1976; Stucky 1981; Stucky 1984; Will 1985; Stucky 1993, vol. I, pp. 265-6, pls. XLVI.4.
697 Ht. of frieze 0.31. Plutarch, Aemilius 28; von Vacano 1988; Zinserling 1965; Kähler 1965;
Jacquemain & Laroche 1985, pp. 207-18, figs. 8-13; Markle 1982, p. 96, figs. 19-21; Fuchs 1993, p.
466, fig. 547; Stewart 1990, p. 220, fig. 786.
 214

to the structure they decorated, were linked by garlands, which added rhythm and

filled the space between them. Phialai were sometimes carved in the space above the

garland. An early second century frieze from the Temenos of the sanctuary of Athena

Nicephoros, Pergamon, includes owls, symbols of Athena, and eagles, symbols of her

father Zeus, which alternate with phialai above the garlands.698 On the Ionic temple

of Demeter at Pergamon, 281-263 BC, figures of Nikai were added to the frieze of

garlanded boucrania.699 The temple of Apollo Chresterios at Aegae, 46-30 BC, had a

decorative frieze with filleted bulls’ heads linked by garlands above which were

phialai.700 A vegetable frieze with palmettes, lotus flowers and vines was used on

the exterior of the temple of Hemithea at Kastabos, dated 300-280 from a deposit of

coins, but possibly later owing to lack of any comparanda.701 The internal frieze of

the temple of Apollo at Didyma illustrates a trend associated with the later Hellenistic

period, the rinceaux frieze. Here it would perhaps be most accurate to describe it as

Roman in design, but executed using Hellenistic Greek methods of carving. Amongst

the vegetation were carved griffins, symbols of the Seleucid patrons of the temple,

and heads of Medusa. The simplest friezes consisted of a series of rosettes, but it

should be stressed that many structures were left devoid of decoration.

7.4 Ceiling Coffers

One can draw a parallel between the formats of metopes and ceiling coffers,

which became popular during the fourth century, but not in any great quantity.

Coffers became more elaborate, and their design did not take into account the fact

that they were displayed upside-down. Like metopes they could form a ring around a

building, though they were often only found in the pronaos. The basic information

698 Webb 1996, p. 61, fig. 21; Ridgway 1999, p. 54.

699 Webb 1996, p. 55, fig. 14.
700 Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 1, pl. 1.
701 Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 78, I p. 19, II pp. 24-5, pls. 52-3; Ridgway 1997, p. 143.
 215

about the temple of Athena at Priene702 reinforces the similarity. The coffers were

roughly square 0.70 fields with figures approximately 0.50-0.60 high, or one third

life-size. The theme depicted, a Gigantomachy, was popular for Doric friezes,

although the inclusion of Amazons was unusual. Most panels had two figures, some

three or only one, and a taenia helped to ‘ground’ the scene. The height of the relief is

0.07-.14, with a maximum of 0.15. Its architect was Pytheos (Vitruvius 1.1.12),

working at Priene after the Mausoleum. His dislike of Doric as a temple order is well-

attested, and these new, highly decorative coffers formed an alternative to metopes, as

well as acting as an antidote to the continuous frieze; structurally they were also

needed to span the single coffers of the broad Ionic intercolumniations.

Although simply decorated coffers had been in use for a long time, those

located in the ceiling of the peristyle, or the porch in prostyle structures, came to be

more elaborately figured in the fourth century. One can attribute this to the new

direction in which architecture moved during the Ionian Revival, as well as to

Pytheos’ influential aesthetic sensibilities. The coffer was used mostly for the

decoration of Ionic structures, although architects could if they wished create square

coffers in Doric structures. Within monumental architecture examples of decorated

coffers employed on Doric structures include the Temenos Propylon 703 and the

Hieron of Samothrace, the temple of Athena at Ilion;704 on Ionic structures the

Mausoleum of Halicarnassus705 and the temple of Athena at Priene;706 and the

Corinthian Belevi Tomb.707 Painted heads appeared on the coffers of the Nereid

Monument,708 a feature also seen on fourth century tombs around the Black Sea. The

building inscriptions of the Doric temples of Apollo at Delphi and Asclepios at

702 Carter 1983, pp. 56-70; Tancke 1989, cat. no. 6, pp. 30-41, 243-261, pls. III.1, V.2, XXV-XXIX;
Boardman 1995, p. 30; Waywell 1994a, p. 59; Ridgway 1997, pp. 135-40, ills. 19-20; Ridgway 1999,
p. 56.
703 Stewart 1977, pp. 107-8; Tancke 1989, cat. no. 4, pp. 22-25, 232-4, pls. III.2, XX-XXI.
704 Goethert & Schlief 1962, pp. 13-14, 33.
705 Tancke 1989, pp. 18-22, 229-232, pls. II.3, X-XIX, XXX.1; Jenkins 1994.
706 Carter 1983, cat. nos. 1-67, pp. 19-20, 44-180.
707 Tancke 1989, cat. no. 5, pp. 25-30, 234-242, pls. V.1, XXII-XXIV, XXX.2; Ephesos VI, pp. 73-
88, figs. 53-70; King 1997, p. 209; Ridgway 1999, pp. 56, 77, ill. 13.
708 Tancke 1989 pp. 11-7.
 216

Epidauros suggest that the coffers were figured.709 The coffers inside the porch of

the Hieron of Samothrace can fit into the fourth and third century tradition, as seen on

the Temenos. Centaurs were depicted in the large coffers of the porch; they have

equine ears, again a feature associated with the second century, but seen on the Belevi

Mausoleum. The use of a taenia at the top of the scene, a feature from metopes, also

suggests an earlier date. Their slightly Baroque quality can also be found at Belevi

and in Tarentine sculpture.710 Like narrative metopes, coffers ceased to be popular

after the early Hellenistic period; the last examples are on the Hieron and at Belevi.

7.5 Columnae caelatae and Bômospeira

Although the only known uses of columnae caelatae, or sculptured column

drums, before the fourth century were on the Archaic Artemision, destroyed by fire in

356, and on the Archaic Didymaion, there are a number of examples of their use later

in the Greek world. The most famous come from the Ionic fourth century temple of

Artemis at Ephesos,711 whose Archaic predecessor had also, as noted, had carved

column drums (derived from Egyptian examples). Later occurrences of the decorative

form presumably were influenced by this structure. There was much money around

the area at the time, so funds were probably raised quickly to rebuild the famous

temple. Due to its size, the construction period was lengthy, and is much disputed;

enough of the structure was in place by 339 for a statue of Philip II to be dedicated

709 Tancke 1989, pp. 14-17; Burford 1969, pp. 57, 202; Roux 1961, pp. 118, 127, 170; Carter 1983,
pp. 56-70, in his history of coffers sums up the views. The Epidauros inscription = I.G. IV2 102, lines
34, 54-5; this refers to , which Roux interprets as painted masks, and Burford
suggests were probably made of wood and carved with heads.
710 Samothrace 3, pp. pp. 237-253; Tancke 1989, cat. no. 7, pp. 41-3, 261-4, pls. IV.2, XXXI.1-2;
Mantis 1986; Webb 1996, p. 145, fig. 133. The twenty-six fragmentary are in the Kunsthistorisches
Museum, Vienna and in Samothrace Museum. Restored size: 0.82 square sides.
711 The temple measured 64.8 x 125.1, with a restored ht. of ca. 32 m. The remains of the sculpture
are divided between the British Museum, Selçuk Museum and the University of Marburg (I have not
seen the last, and owe the reference to Dr. Webb). Pliny, NH 36.95-6; Strabo 14.1.22 [641C];
Ridgway 1990, pp. 28-30, fig. 11, pls. 5-6; Linfert 1976, pp. 16-17; Rügler 1988; Winter 1980;
Bammer 1972, esp. pp. 40-2 for dating, pls. 6-8, reviewed by W.H. Plommer, JHS 94, 1974, pp. 249-
51.; Boardman 1995, pp. 29-30, fig. 23; Fuchs 1993, p. 455, fig. 529; Stewart 1977, p. 103; Stewart
1990, p. 195; Waywell 1994a, p. 59, fig. 2; Webb 1996, pp. 80-2, figs. 40-2; Ridgway 1997, pp. 141-2;
Büyükkolanci 1993, cat. nos. 4-6, pp. 100-4; Ridgway 1999, p. 43. For numismatic evidence: Price &
Trell, 1977, pp. 126-131, figs. 32, 221-229.
 217

within it, but it was not finished by the time of Alexander’s visit in 334, when his

offer of funds to assist completion was refused.712 Strabo 14.1.22, basing his account

on the inscribed decrees he saw, names the architect as Cheirocrates; he supplements

this with the information that this was the man Alexander had intended to use as the

architect for Alexandria; if so, it should be by Deinocrates, as given by Vitruvius

2.Praef.1. The immense temple had 127 columns, of which 36 were carved with

sculpted reliefs according to Pliny N.H. 36.95-6;713 the drums decreased slightly in

diameter towards the centre of the facade. The columnae caelatae were a deliberate

conservatism; although not archaising in style they were in concept, following the

example of the temple of Croesos. The extant drums, fragments of seven of which

have been found, can be divided into the work of two main hands, both seemingly

Attic; the iconography is uncertain, but combines scenes of myths and of ceremonies.

One of the drums is assigned to Scopas by Pliny, which would make its execution

likely to predate ca. 330. Bammer suggests the possibility that, as at the later

Smintheon, the columnae caelatae were placed at the tops of the column shafts,714

but this goes against the numismatic evidence. Find spots suggest that they decorated

both facades. The remains of five or six high square plinths, also with scenes carved

in high relief, survive; they appear to depict myths related to Heracles. Their location

is uncertain; they may have been placed under the carved drums or positioned in

another part of the temple.

At the temple of Apollo Smintheus at Chryse, in the Troad, the columnae

caelatae were placed at the tops of the columns.715 This position is assured by the

712 Plutarch, Alexander, 3.3.

713 The arrangement of these on the octastyle temple is puzzling. A Hadrianic coin, which
imaginatively shows Amazons in the gable, is taken as reliable in its depiction of all the columns of the
facade having been carved. The gap between the columns is accepted as artistic licence in order to
allow the cult statue to be seen. The solution of Picard (1927, p. 268) is that there were two rows of
carved column drums at the front and back of the temple, bringing the number to 32, and that Pliny
mistakenly included the pairs of carved plinths on each length, assuming that there were only four, for
drums, the two being the same height when an Ionic base is restored under the columnae caelatae.
714 Bammer 1972, p. 22. Contra, see: Plommer’s review, JHS 94, 1974, p. 250.
715 The site, near Gülpinar, is currently being excavated by Coskun Özgünel. Many new pieces have
been found, which are to be published by Abdullah Yaylali. The material is at the new site Museum.
Ridgway 1990, p. 158; AJA 86, 1982, p. 573; AJA 89, 1985, pp. 565-6; AJA 91, 1987, p. 28; L.I.M.C.
 218

fluting around the bottom of the blocks. Seven marble drums have been published;

three with monotonous boucrania and garlands, and four with Iliadic narrative scenes.

The temple’s frieze continued the theme with representations of the Iliad and

Iliupersis. The narrative scenes depict the mythical history of the Troad, with an

emphasis on the role of the temple’s eponymous god, and on that of his priest

Chryses. The Ionic temple is dated first half to mid second century BC. Unlike the

iconography of continuous friezes, for example at Alabanda, where the scenes

represented were relevant to Apollo, the scenes depicted here have a stronger link to

the location of the temple, which was near Troy, than to the eponymous god.

Stewart suggests that a third century piece in the Graeco-Roman Museum in

Alexandria could be either a carved column drum or a cylindrical altar.716 An

unfinished marble cylinder with relief outlines of figures prepared for carving was

found in the House of the Diadoumenos, in the Lake District on Delos, first half of

the second century.717 Again it was not certainly a carved column drum, but may

have been from the Ionic peristyle. Six heavily draped figures, believed to be women,

circle the piece; their style is faintly Egyptianising. Columnae caelatae depicting filial

loyalty have been read into the numerous descriptions of the temple built in honour of

Apollonis by her sons at Cyzikos (ca. 175-159). The temple however has not been

found, and there are problems with interpretations of literary descriptions, and a

number of other possible explanations remain for them.718

Related to columnae caelatae are bômospeira, or carved plinths, a feature also

seen at Ephesos.719 The Federal Dictynnaion in western Crete had bômospeira.720

There were sculpted polygonal plinths below the bases of the columns at the temple

vol. 2, s.v. Apollon, pp. 231-2, no. 378; Bingöl 1989, pp. 115-126, figs. 1-5; Webb 1996, pp. 52-4,
figs. 5-12; Bingöl 1991; Ridgway 1999, p. 43.
716 Stewart 1990, pp. 203, 204, fig. 639.
717 Site. Chamonard 1924, pp. 426-31, pl. 66a; Picard 1927, p. 270, fig. 7; Webb 1996, p. 137, fig.
120.
718 Picard 1927, pp. 269-70; Webb 1996, p. 17; Ridgway 1999, p. 13; Stupperich 1990. A fragment of
a carved drum, ht. 0.30 fom an Archaic temple, ca. 540, in the town, which depicts dancing figures
(Istanbul); Boardman 1978, p. 161, fig. 220; Antike Kunst viii, pl. 28.2; AJA lxvi, pl. 100.21; Ridgway
1999, p. 42; Akurgal 1961, pp. 256-7, figs. 200, 220. I have not seen the piece.
719 In general see: Picard 1927, pp. 255-273.
720 Picard 1954, p. 1176.
 219

of Apollo at Didyma.721 These must have been planned early on in the construction,

as due to logistics they would have to have been set into place before the rest of the

columns, but were probably not executed until quite late, possibly by the Romans.

There were bases in the pronaos of the temple of Artemis at Sardis, which were again

prepared for carving but not finished.722 Hanfmann dates them to the third century,

probably from the 220-214 BC renovations of Achaeus, under the influence if not the

guidance of Hermogenes, and reused in the reworking of AD 17. 723 Webb mentions

columnae caelatae at an unexcavated temple at Lagon, Pamphylia, which I have not

seen, and describes them as Roman Imperial in date.724 Picard describes these as

bômospeira, and states that they were under each column of the facade. 725 The term

is attested by ancient building inscriptions.726 Both forms of decoration are eclectic,

used sporadically by the Greeks and Romans.

7.6 Conclusion

This review of the Ionic and Corinthian orders reveals the categories of

sculptural decoration that were applied to the two orders between the fourth and first

centuries BC. On the whole they show a distinct approach from Doric order

structures, as previously elaborated, but there is some cross-fertilisation which results

in the shared use of categories of decoration by different orders.

721 Ridgway 1999, p. 43.

722 Picard 1927, pp. 254-60, fig. 6; Picard 1954, p. 1178; Butler 1922, pp. 106-7; Butler 1923; Butler
1925, p. 43, figs. 38-9; Webb 1996, p. 17.
723 Hanfmann 1983, p. 120.
724 Webb 1996, p. 17. I am wary of the dating as Webb has a tendency to down-date structures to that
period, most notably sculptures from Teos, the temple of Artemis at Sardis, and the Altar of Artemis at
Ephesos.
725 Picard 1927, p. 260.
726 Picard 1927, pp. 260-1.
 220

Some forms of decoration generally associated with the Doric order, such as

pedimental sculpture and acroteria, were also at times to be found on Ionic and

Corinthian structures. Small Ionic, Corinthian or mixed order structures often had

small figured reliefs in their pediments; for example the Tarentine naiskoi. Larger

buildings tended to have plain pediments, although there are odd examples that would

go against the rule. The Ionic Monument of Mithradates VI had a bust dowelled into a

relief shield in the pediment. Two reclining figures from Teos may have once graced

the pediment, and the excavators suggested that there might have been figures in the

gables of the temple of Zeus at Labraunda. These are discussed in the chapter on

Doric Pedimental Sculpture. In the Roman Republican period important Corinthian

temples were often decorated with pedimental sculpture.

Acroteria were also a form sporadically used as part of the decoration of Ionic

temples, and are discussed in conjunction with the examples from Doric contexts.

Figured coffers were carved as part of the decoration on a number of buildings, first

Ionic and then Doric, dating from the mid-fourth to the early third centuries, then on

rare occasions into the Roman period. Epithemata, or crowning sculptural groups,

which were developed particularly in the Hellenistic period for the decoration of the

roofs of Doric monumental tombs, seem to have derived their existence from the

quadriga on the summit of the Ionic Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, for which the

sculpture type may have been specifically invented by Pytheos.

The principal way in which the decoration of the Ionic order differed from the

Doric was in the use of the continuous frieze, which allowed for the depiction of an

uninterrupted narrative. When friezes were carved on Corinthian structures they were

generally continuous, although there are also a large number of examples with Doric

friezes; this is particularly notable outside of Greece and Western Anatolia. Figures

between columns, employed on altars and tomb monuments, are another important

feature of Ionic-Corinthian sculptural decoration not seen on Doric buildings. The

Corinthian order began to be used externally in the later fourth century, and largely
followed the forms of the Ionic, an order that it eventually superseded in popularity
 221

during the Roman Imperial period. The favoured Roman usage of statues between

columns, for example on theatre or nymphaeum facades, derives therefore from the

Hellenistic Ionic tradition rather than from the Doric.

The conclusion of the review of evidence in this chapter (which remains a

survey rather than a comprehensive treatment) is that the use of sculptural decoration

in Ionic architecture of the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods was not more

frequent than that employed by the Doric order, and arguably less so. Ionic forms of

sculpture differed from and in some respects complemented their more traditional

Doric counterparts, being to a large extent the calculated invention and application of

Ionian theoretical architects, Pytheos in the fourth century, and Hermogenes in the

late third century BC.

 222

8. General Conclusions

The previous seven chapters have attempted to review the evidence for the

different categories of Doric sculptural decoration over a period of about 350 years

covering much of the fourth century and the Hellenistic period, and an excursus

summarised and contrasted for comparative purposes the Ionic and Corinthian

material.

In treating the Doric sculptural evidence, although some forms of decoration

tended to be used to embellish particular types of building, even if not exclusively so,

it was deemed more appropriate to divide the material by category of decoration:

pedimental sculpture, acroteria, epithemata, friezes, and so forth. Figured supports

were divided by pose, and metopes were divided by the nature of the subject depicted

(narrative versus non-narrative scenes). Within these categories the material was

treated chronologically.

Owing to the vast quantity of material of different natures brought together

mainly on the criterion that the examples were part of the sculptural decoration of a

Doric or part-Doric structure, the process of drawing useful or significant conclusions

is hazardous and requires caution. Nevertheless the attempt will now be made to draw

together the threads of analysis and discussion previously made in individual chapters

or sections into a broader concluding commentary.

The pedimental sculpture of four Doric temples of the fourth century survives;

one at Delphi, and three in the Peloponnese. The third century saw only one

monumental structure, the Hieron of Samothrace, decorated with pedimental

sculpture. Figured pediments were a feature of Tarentine naiskoi, but the production

of these largely ceases after ca. 275. There was a revival in the popularity of the form

during the late second century in the East Mediterranean, under Roman influence,

notably the Polyphemos group at Ephesos. This was probably due to a combination of
the fact that pedimental sculpture had continued in use as a form of decoration in
 223

Italy, and that the Romans were attempting to recreate the forms of the Classical

period. Many Late Republican and early Imperial Flamens reliefs depict temples with

pedimental sculpture, and there is evidence that a number of earlier Greek groups

were re-used on Roman temples. This suggests a revival of interest in pedimental

sculpture as a form of decoration, after a long period during which the momentum

had been lost.

The use of the word ‘decline’ is difficult to avoid when discussing pedimental

sculpture from the late Classical period onwards. Whilst there was no decline within

the abilities of sculptors in general, one must acknowledge that different demands

were made of pedimental groups in the fourth century, and that all pale in comparison

with the fifth century’s Parthenon. The sculptures from Scillountia are however a

revelation, and superior in quality to much that was produced in the preceding

century.

The marriage of the critic John Ruskin failed because on his wedding night he

was shocked at the difference between his wife, a real woman, and the images created

by artists that he had previously seen, notably statues of Phryne.727 He was unable to

reconcile the two, and acknowledge that in his bed and at his side a real woman may

have been more useful than his canvas or marble ideal. In many ways this is the

attitude of scholars looking at late Classical and Hellenistic pedimental sculpture. The

artists were aware that execution of work of the highest quality was wasted on

sculpture that would only ever be seen from a distance, so they concentrated on

emphasising and exaggerating forms. The same change in direction, and implicit

acknowledgement of the location and purpose of the sculpture can be noted in other

architectural sculpture, for example continuous friezes.

The iconography of the pediments at Samothrace and Tegea is linked to the

site, representing specific local myths, but elsewhere it tends to be more general; the

battles depicted at Scillountia are part of the mythical repertoire of Athena, the

727 Lutyens 1972, pp. 154-7; Hilton 1985, pp. 117-20. The marriage lasted six years, but was never
consummated. The evidence for this is the letters of Ruskin produced for the annulment, and the reason
is given in a letter written by Effie Ruskin to her father, 7 March 1854: “... that he had imagined
women were quite different to what he saw I was, and that the reason he did not make me his wife”.
 224

eponymous goddess, in that she by tradition took part in the Gigantomachy and acted

as patron of the heroes that fought the Amazons. Elsewhere, as at Epidauros, the

connection between the scene depicted and the site or god can be highly tenuous. If

the Polyphemos Group at Ephesos was indeed intended to decorated a temple of

Dionysos built by Mark Anthony, it would have sculptural decoration

iconographically appropriate to the nature of the structure that housed it.

Webb claims of the Hellenistic period that “Even the tradition of portraying

complex scenes in pedimental relief ... did not carry down, and the only Hellenistic

pedimental reliefs are the shield and the imago clipeata.”728 She goes on to state that

the use of “sculptured metopes containing narrative scenes” came to an end after the

early Hellenistic period. She is not alone in this view, based as it is on a flawed and

incomplete survey of the evidence, and she is repeating what has been stated by other

scholars for some time. Although the extant evidence is far from overwhelming in its

quantity, it exists in sufficient amount to suggest that the execution of pedimental

sculpture never entirely ceased. Some periods appear to have been more barren than

others, but even in the fifth century pedimental sculpture was an exception rather than

the norm. The enthusiasm of the Republican Romans can be seen not only in the

groups they commissioned, but in earlier ones they chose to restore, or even to

‘liberate’; they fused the east Mediterranean tradition of stone sculpture in the gables

with the Etrusco-Italian tradition where terracotta pediments continued to be

produced throughout the fourth century and the Hellenistic age in Italy.

There were two main ways in which metopes, the decorative field of the Doric

frieze, were decorated: those with a series of narrative scenes; and those where the

friezes were repetitive or ‘monotonous’, where one or two alternating objects were

regularly repeated. Both forms are also seen on continuous friezes. As with

continuous friezes, Doric friezes were sometimes imitated in or replaced by paint. A

feature of note is the change in location of the frieze; it was no longer restricted to the

728 Webb 1996, p. 37.

 225

entablature, and could be used for the decoration of a podium (the Ptolemaion at

Limyra; tomb at Belevi). This trend can also be noted for continuous friezes.

There are a number of structures with narrative figured metopes from the

fourth century and the first half of the third century, but the production of these

almost ceases after ca. 260. Again a ‘decline’ is often spoken of, although Ridgway

noted that in the High Classical period metopes were rare, with the Hephaisteion and

Parthenon the only examples of these known in Attica at the time she was writing. 729

Fragmentary metopes have been identified from the Temple of Ares moved under

Augustus to the Agora since her book was published, but this still brings the total to

only three temples decorated with metopes in Attica. There were needless to say the

treasuries at Delphi and examples in the Peloponnese such as the Argive Heraion, but

one cannot over-emphasise that once again the use of sculpted metopes on buildings

was the exception rather than the norm. So one can in fact note that there was an

increase in the use of metopes with figured narrative scenes during the fourth century,

although they then almost ceased after the first third of the third century, to be briefly

and sporadically resurrected later in the Hellenistic period. It would be misleading

however to claim that continuous friezes were much more popular, for there are also

relatively few of these attested from buildings.

The first extant example of the use of sculpted ‘monotonous’ motifs in

metopes was in the fourth century, on the Thymele at Epidauros.730 The form of

decoration was swiftly taken up, and rapidly increased in popularity; boucrania and

phialai, both with ritual significance, as well as rosettes, were the most commonly

depicted objects. The use of these constitutes the major way in which the sculptural

decoration of buildings from the mid-fourth century onwards differed from the

Archaic and High Classical forms of decoration that preceded it. The use of inanimate

objects carved in stone to form part of the decoration of a building was the

729 Ridgway 1981, pp. 27-8.

730 Although according to the building inscriptions (I.G. IV2, 102, lines 23-4) Palemarchos of
Stymphale was paid 1,050 dr. to paint motifs in the exterior metopes of the temple of Asclepios at
Epidauros.
 226

predominant form of sculptural embellishment used throughout the period, and

continued as such under the Romans.

The ‘Mannerisation’ of the design of some friezes through visual jokes, such

as turning triglyphs into tripods, occurred sporadically from the end of the second

century, demonstrating the flexibility of the canon and willingness to adapt. The

rhythm, if not the architectural elements, of the Doric frieze were picked up by the

Romans on continuous friezes, where consoles broke up the bands of the frieze into

squares that were filled with carved ornaments.731

There are examples during the late Classical and Hellenistic periods of

acroteria from Ionic and Corinthian structures, but they were mostly placed on Doric

buildings. The canon for the size of acroteria as a ratio of the height of the gable, as

recorded by Vitruvius 3.5.12, continued to be adhered to, as it had been since the late

Archaic period. Where temples were decorated with pedimental sculpture, acroteria

are generally also known; when they are not attested, as on the temples of Apollo at

Delphi and of Athena Scillountia, it is almost certainly because they are now lost

rather than that they were not executed. Acroteria were the only form of decoration

on a number of buildings (temple of Artemis at Epidauros). Their position on the

structure left them exposed to the elements, where they suffered greater weathering

than pedimental groups or friezes, and so they were at times replaced; this is attested

at the Hieron of Samothrace. Most acroteria were of female figures, and the majority

of those represented, generally winged, figures of Nikai; however not all Nikai were

necessarily acroterial. The statues developed in much the same way and were

subjected to the same trends as free-standing draped female figures (attenuation of

form, variations in drapery and the height of girdling, and so forth); they are dated in

relation to these rather than due to any development resulting from their nature as

architectural sculpture.732

731 Medusa frieze of Temple N1, Side (Mansel 1978, figs. 61, 63); frieze with low relief triglyph-like
brackets and masks, from the theatre, Side (Mansel 1978, fig. 100).
732 Although pedimental sculpture is dated by style in relation to free-standing sculpture, criteria such
as the development of placement in the gable, and the techniques used to achieve this, are included
within the formula.
 227

Related to acroteria is the use of figures along the roof-line, most famously on

the Mausoleum, but ubiquitous on many Etrusco-Italian and Roman temples,733 as

well as on monumental altars such as Pergamon. Epithemata, which were colossal

central acroteria on monumentalised architectural bases, were an evolution of these

figures. The Doric epithematic monuments all followed the same format of a Doric

pseudo-peripteros on a podium, with a stepped pseudo-pyramidal roof that formed the

base for the sculpture. The Doric monuments are all believed to have had a funerary

nature, although it cannot be demonstrated that they were all tombs. Other than the

Scylla at Bargylia, all the sculptures were of lions. Both motifs were well established

as part of funerary iconography, and their fierce natures suggest that they were

intended to be seen as guardians of the tombs. Epithemata were not restricted to Doric

structures; a lion is assigned to the apex of the Corinthian Heroon at Sagalassos, and

the chariot group from the Ionic Mausoleum was an epithema; the form was taken up

as part of the decoration of elaborate Ionic altars, where it reached its culmination.

Caryatids and Atlantes are two forms of architectural sculpture about which

Vitruvius wrote in his late Republican treatise. His descriptions, although brief, make

it clear that the figures formed part of the sculptural decoration of the Doric order. I

chose to divide the figures by pose rather than by sex, as has generally previously

been done, which allowed for the figure types to be more clearly identified. The form

of Atlantes has long been known, but columns carved as women and set in an Ionic

framework have long been labelled ‘Caryatids’. By dissociating the Ionic figures, and

by examining female figured supports set in a Doric framework, it has been possible

to identify the figures that Vitruvius refers to in his text as sculptures of women that

supported the entablature with their poloi and also the palms of one or two upturned

hands. The development of both types of figure can be traced, and with time they

adhere less rigidly to their origins. The majority of examples of Caryatids dating to

the Hellenistic period formed part of the decoration of tombs; this suggests that the

original monument soon took on the interpretation of a funerary nature, where the

733 See the numerous Flamens reliefs and coins; for example the Curia Iulia on denarii of Octavian
(Zanker 1990, fig. 43c), a sestercius depicting the temple of Concordia, Rome (Zanker 1990, fig. 90).
 228

women were depicted as mourning for their husbands. Atlantes developed in

iconography to suit their location, and the pose was at times also used for women; on

tombs they were mourners, in theatres they became satyrs, Silenoi and Maenads.

Real arms and armour were often attached to buildings, and sculptured

versions decorating buildings reflected this. The round relief shield, an easily

executed form, began to appear on the facades of Macedonian tombs, and in the

pediments of Lycian rock-cut tombs in the fourth century, and became a popular

decorative motif in the Hellenistic period, which continued to be used by the Romans.

With time the repertoire was expanded to include arms and armour. Unlike

monotonous motifs such as phialai and boucrania which were restricted to friezes,

they could appear as decoration on various parts of a building. The structures they

decorated were predominantly, but not exclusively, Doric. The geographical range of

this form of decoration is wide, but much of the evidence is concentrated in southern

Asia Minor, notably Pisidia, North Africa and Italy. Their use on military monuments

is self-explanatory, whilst on tombs one can assume that the occupant was, or wanted

to be perceived as having been, a warrior. On bouleuteria one can suggest that they

were intended to reflect the martial might of the state, whose armies were its agents.

Again the lack of development of many forms, notably the Hoplite shield which

continued to be represented in the same manner throughout the period, and the

anachronistic depiction of items of military equipment no longer in active use, all

make independent dating difficult; architectural setting and stratigraphy are therefore

once again important.

Although much work has been done on continuous Ionic friezes, I hope to

have been able to demonstrate that it was not a category that dominated post-fifth

century architectural sculpture to the exclusion of all others. Webb’s comments that

“during the Hellenistic period, when the Ionic order proliferated, the most common

format for architectural sculpture was the frieze” and “continuous friezes are

distributed across a broad range of sites” are somewhat misleading. 734 She would be

734 Webb 1996, p. 20.

 229

correct if her definition of friezes included Doric as well as continuous friezes, but it

does not; such views are part of the long tradition of research that takes the

Hermogenean view of the superiority of the Ionic to the extreme. The extant Ionic

friezes are mostly to be found in Western Anatolia, the area covered in her research;

whilst she claims that this reflects the rest of the Mediterranean, her conclusions are

heavily biased by the narrow geographical limits she has set herself. Though friezes,

both Doric and Ionic, were popular, they were by no means the only form used for the

decoration of buildings and monuments in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods.

It is also clear that, having seen the evidence, one should no longer be able to make

sweeping statements about the preponderance of Ionic architectural sculpture, and the

dearth of Doric ornamentation.

One can make a number of comments about the decoration of different types

of Doric structures, but categories of architectural sculpture were not canonically

assigned to individual building types. If large-scale pedimental sculptures were found

without a context, one could be almost certain that they came from a temple, because

all known groups come from temples. Based on patterns of distribution, large

metopes would also be linked to a temple, as the two in Cavalla and Rome have been.

Although pedimental sculpture was largely restricted to temples, the gables of

some naiskoi were also filled with sculpture. Small-scale relief pediments tended to

be from tomb monuments, as at Xanthos, the Athenian relief with mourning women

in Zurich, and the whole series of early Hellenistic tombs at Tarentum. The temple of

Asclepios at Epidauros, with sculpted gables and acroteria, painted exterior metopes,

and possibly also carved metopes over the pronaos, as well as carved coffers, was

unusually highly decorated for a temple. This number of different categories of

decoration, although sometimes seen on small naiskoi, was not the norm for temple

decoration; it is a throw-back to the lavish temples of fifth century Athens such as the

Parthenon and Hephaisteion, and was not to be repeated. Temples that had
architectural sculpture on the exterior tended to have either pedimental sculpture with
 230

acroteria, or acroteria, or a figured frieze, but not all three. The vast majority of Doric

temples that were built, as with temples built using the other orders, were never

intended to have any sculptural decoration incorporated within their designs.

Pedimental sculpture is linked to Teos, but the other Ionic and Corinthian temples that

had architectural sculpture had continuous friezes; again it should be stressed that

very few temples had figured friezes, more had friezes with repetitive motifs, but

most Ionic temples had undecorated entablatures and no other architectural sculpture.

Only one Doric temple had a carved continuous architrave as part of its entablature, at

Assos, an anachronism in imitation of a venerable Archaic temple nearby.

Acroteria developed into epithemata, which were to be found on both altars

and monumental tombs of both orders. The majority of figured acroteria can also be

linked to temples, but once again small structures such as naiskoi and tombs used

them as part of their decoration. Figures on the roof or roof-line were an Ionicism,

and not found on Doric structures. There was a long tradition of lions as part of

funerary iconography, and the climax of these is a series of monuments with large-

scale lions on the apex of pyramidal roofs. The placement within the structure of the

lions from the Doric Founder’s Tomb near the stadium at Messene is not certain, but

they may be an example of the Ionian form of decoration, as seen on the Limyra

Ptolemaion, of putting standing figures of lions on the corners of the podium, or on

the roof-line; however, until further work is done on the structure, such speculation is

risky.

Figured metopes were also a form of decoration that could be used on Doric

temples, though more often in the fourth and early third centuries than later in the

Hellenistic period. Tombs quite regularly used metopes as part of their decoration,

particularly in Italy. They are the form about which it is hardest to generalise about

the kind of building they would have decorated. Without a context, one is dependent

on scale; large metopes, like large-scale pedimental groups, probably came from a

temple (Conservatori-Cavalla frieze), whilst smaller ones are assigned to tombs

 231

(Athens NM inv. 1688) or monuments (Sparta Museum inv. 717), largely based on

their iconography.

Most examples of Caryatids, including secondary evidence, and all early

examples, were funerary (Aghia Triadha, Sveštari, Cyrene). This use continued

during the Roman period. At some point the link between the figures and death

weakened; because of the inclusion of Caryatids, it can be guessed that the structure

at Mylasa from which they came was a tomb, but at Miletos one sees their use as part

of the decoration of a theatre, as a fusion with the Atlantes figures. Atlantes were

used for the decoration of many different structures, including a xystos (Cyrene) and

tombs (particularly in Italy), but were most closely associated with the decoration of

theatres (Monte Iato, Delos, Syracuse, Athens). A number of theatres also included

Doric friezes as part of their decoration (Delos, Ephesos, Apollonia of Illyria, Letoon

of Xanthos), though only the frieze from Thasos had narrative scenes. The masks in

the metopes of the Letoon theatre were particularly appropriate for the decoration of

this type of structure. The friezes from the other theatres had the sort of repetitive

objects one can associate with rituals, but that are found on numerous other structures

and had no specific link to the theatre.

Carved arms and armour were used for the decoration of tombs and military

monuments throughout the region, and were for the most part restricted to the

decoration of these structures. Arms and armour had long been dedicated in

sanctuaries and on tombs, and were probably the origin of the form of decoration.

When they were used for the decoration of buildings other than these, the examples

are mostly to be found in Anatolia, most notably Pisidian, where weaponry was

depicted as part of the sculptural embellishment of a number of different types of

civic structures, including sanctuaries.

The early fourth century is the time when buildings other than temples, and

exceptional structures in sanctuaries such as the treasuries at Delphi, began to be

embellished with sculptural decoration. The decoration of propylaea was a trend that
began in the later fourth century with the first example at Epidauros, and continued
 232

through the Hellenistic period (Samothrace, Pergamon, Miletos), culminating in the

elaborate Inner Propylon at Eleusis. Archaic and Classical propylaea were

undecorated. The same phenomenon can be noted for bouleuteria which in Hellenistic

Anatolia were decorated, usually very simply with carved relief shields. The

sculptural decoration of theatres was also a new feature in the fourth century,

reflecting their permanence, and the move towards their construction in stone rather

than as temporary erections in wood. It was the monumentalisation of many building

types, and their elaboration in stone, that allowed for the addition of architectural

sculpture.

The themes depicted in architectural sculpture varied according to tastes and

preferences in different periods. In the Archaic and High Classical periods the

Gigantomachy was a very popular and regularly depicted battle scene in the

iconography of sacred architecture, but during the period covered by this thesis it

declined in the regularity of its use. The exterior frieze of the Pergamon Altar springs

to mind, but beside it there are few examples. Although the battle had been depicted

in many sixth and fifth century pediments, the only depiction in this location after the

Argive Heraion is on the temple of Athena Scillountia; the fourth century temple of

Apollo at Delphi repeated the theme of its Archaic predecessor in the east, but not in

the west pediment where this battle had been represented. The only depiction of the

Gigantomachy in a Doric frieze was in the metopes of the temple of Athena at Ilion,

where the themes of the friezes followed those of the Parthenon. Even from the

decoration of Ionic and Corinthian buildings there are few examples; apart from the

Pergamon Altar, there are only the coffers from the temple of Athena at Priene, the

frieze from the Hecateion at Lagina and the frieze from the temple of Zeus Solymeus

at Termessos. A point to note however is that there is a shift in the point of the battle

depicted; there is an emphasis on the gods represented as winning the battle, as at

Pergamon, rather than battling against well matched adversaries. The shift in mood
evolves during the period, and reflects trends in free-standing sculptural groups. It
 233

should be noted that whilst the Amazonomachy and the Centauromachy came to be

used on buildings other than temples, the Gigantomachy in architectural sculpture

seems to have been restricted to temples and to the monumental altar at Pergamon.

The Amazonomachy is the battle most regularly depicted in fourth century

and Hellenistic architectural sculpture. The Amazonomachy was depicted on Doric

buildings on the exterior metopes from the tholos at Delphi, and the metopes at Ilion,

and in one of the gables on temple of Athena at Scillountia and the temple of

Asclepios at Epidauros. The two pedimental depictions were in the Peloponnese, and

continued the popular tradition of the theme as part of the iconography of the

decoration of fifth and early fourth century temples in that region (Olympia, Argive

Heraion, Bassae). Ilion, like the Argive Heraion, was once again following the

Parthenon.

There were depictions of the battle on the continuous friezes from the Ionic

temple of Artemis at Magnesia, the temple of Apollo at Alabanda, and the Corinthian

Hecateion at Lagina. Amazons were also depicted on a frieze from a temple at Soloi

on Cyprus, in some of the coffers on the Ionic temple of Athena at Priene, and twice

in the friezes at Trysa. Relief copies of the fifth century competition Amazons formed

part of the decoration of the fourth century altar of Artemis at Ephesos. The depiction

of Amazons was most commonly linked to temples of Artemis and of Apollo, though

as female warriors they were also appropriate to Athena. A popular subject, their use

was not restricted to these gods, their use on funerary monuments was a new

departure from the fourth century onwards. The Mausoleum was the first example of

the battle depicted as part of the decoration on a tomb, and from there its popularity

on this form of building rapidly spread; there were a number of fourth century Attic

tombs with an Amazonomachy (Kallithea, several tombs in the Kerameikos), and it

was regularly used as part of funerary iconography in Anatolia (Mylasa tomb). The

use soon spread to Italy; at Taras Amazonomachies were part of the iconography of a

large number of funerary naiskoi where they are interpreted canonically as

representing adversaries the town was fighting in wars at that time, and a similar
 234

interpretation can be made for the frieze from the Messapian tomb at Vaste near

Lecce. Amazonomachies were a popular theme on Doric metopes, depicted in the

friezes of the small octagonal monument in Sparta, many of the aforementioned

Tarentine naiskoi, and the Doric-Corinthian temple at Paestum.

The interpretation of the theme must have varied from area to area; in Athens

it was anti-Persian, an interpretation unlikely to have been made of the battle when

used in fourth century Ionia and Caria, where the Amazons were honoured as

founders of many sanctuaries. It rarely possible to identify which of the

Amazonomachies was depicted. At Epidauros it is likely to have been part of the

Trojan cycle as this is the only possible link, however tangential, one can make to the

story of Asclepios, his sons having served as doctors during that war. When both

Heracles and Theseus take part it can firmly be identified as the Themiskyra

Amazonomachy, seen on the Mausoleum frieze, as well as in the pedimental

sculpture that was reused to decorate the temple of Apollo Sosianus in Rome. On the

frieze from the Propylon of Miletos Bouleuterion one can identify pelta shields which

were associated with the Amazons.

The Centauromachy was another mythical battle regularly represented in

architectural sculpture. It had been popular in the sixth and fifth centuries, and

continued to be a theme used as part of the sculptural decoration of buildings. Though

not depicted in pedimental sculpture of the period, there are quite a few metopes that

depict this battle. Since the Centauromachy was depicted on the Parthenon, it is once

again imitated by a frieze on the Doric temple at Ilion. The Athenian metopes also

provided the source for the painted metopes on the Great Tomb at Lefkadia. A

metope from Thera, without context, depicts a scene from a Centauromachy, as do the

metopes that encircled the podium on the Ptolemaion at Limyra, the metopes from the

exterior of the Delphi tholos, and those from a number of Tarentine naiskoi. Of the

three battles this is the only one where there are more examples from Doric metopes

than from architectural continuous friezes. The coffers of the Corinthian Mausoleum
at Belevi depicted a Centauromachy to represent Lysimachos’ victories over the
 235

Thracians735 and there are representations on the Trysa friezes and a number of

small friezes (eg. Mylasa) but other than the Centauromachy frieze that decorated the

base of the chariot group on the Mausoleum, and which would not have been easily

visible to a spectator, there are no monumental examples from Ionic buildings.

Occasionally Centaurs appeared not engaging in a battle; at Teos they process

amongst the gods on the temple of Dionysos, and in the coffers of the Samothrace

Hieron they revel in Dionysiac style.

These three battles were the most popular narratives depicted in architectural

sculpture, but others were to be found. The marine thiasos, a subject associated with

Scopas’ group was depicted in the metopes from Messene and on the continuous

frieze from the so-called Monument of the Bulls on Delos. The depiction of the myth

of Perseus and Medusa was extremely popular in architectural sculpture of the

Archaic period, but not used during the fifth century. It is depicted in the friezes at

Trysa and as an acroterion on the Ionic Heroon of Pericles at Limyra, both fourth

century erections in an area that was then under Persian control; that the Persians

were believed to be descended from this hero may explain their use.

The Iliupersis was depicted in the metopes at Ilion, a temple which it has been

already noted, like the Argive Heraion, seems to have represented the same battles as

the Parthenon, although it seems a surprising subject for a temple located at Troy

itself. The sack of Troy was depicted in a pediment at Epidauros, but otherwise

appears to have been a rarely used subject. The pediment at Tegea with Telephos

fighting a battle depicted an episode of the Trojan cycle, and some Amazonomachies

could also have been part of the Trojan cycle but most are now difficult to interpret

precisely.

In scenes of battle, one iconographic trend was towards the emphasis on the

depiction of the ‘defeat’ of the barbarian or non-Greek opponent rather than as an

engagement of equals; the Greeks are prominently winning on the stucco frieze of the

Great Tomb at Lefkadia, and the Gods are clearly shown as the winners in

735 see King 1997, p. 207.

 236

Gigantomachies, such as at Pergamon. This was a shift, at a time of numerous wars,

when the ending of the myths was more clearly emphasised for reasons of

propaganda. This trend is more pronounced on continuous friezes than on metopes;

although the Greek figures seem to be ‘winning’ more than the non-Greeks at Ilion,

this may be an accident of preservation, and at Limyra the Centaurs alternate with the

men in having the upper hand in their duels.

Thematic links can be made between sets of sculpture; both sets of pedimental

sculpture at Epidauros are episodes from the Trojan war. Athena took a central role in

the battles depicted in both gables at Scillountia, and in all four shown in the frieze at

Ilion. One can also link acroteria to pediments; Nikai above battle scenes to represent

the Greeks’ victories. At Epidauros again the links are more complex, as one can link

the central acroterion over the east pediment, depicting Asclepios’ parentage, with the

the scene in the gable below, depicting his sons’ exploits. The rear of the temple of

Athena at Tegea depicted the life of Telephos; episodes of his story and deeds in the

metopes, his death foreshadowed by the battle he fought in the pediment, and the

structure on which these sculptures were situated in the sanctuary where he was

conceived. The iconography of such groups shows how sophisticated the conception

of architectural sculpture could be. Often though more prosaic iconography was used,

with ritual objects linked to the use of the building carved repeatedly, such as masks

on theatres.

Architectural sculpture can be divided into a hierarchy of quality of sculpture

and skill needed to undertake its execution; at the summit would be pedimental

groups and acroteria, the closest to free-standing sculpture, then relief narrative

friezes, then at the bottom the simple monotonous motifs such as those to be found in

metopes and relief shields. One can note a move in certain categories, notably friezes,

away from a more sculptural approach, and towards a decorative one, where they are

treated as architectural embellishment in the manner of mouldings. Were it not for

their symbolic values, many of the poorer quality repetitive metopes and relief shields
 237

might fall into this category; the technique of their execution differs little from that of

mouldings, although their use is less regular.

The differences in skill required both for the design and execution of different

forms of sculptural decoration makes it hard to make any general statements about

those that carved them. Phialai in a Doric frieze are likely to have been carved by the

same masons that undertook the mouldings; the Epidauros inscriptions indicate that it

was Hectoridas who designed the water-spouts, suggesting that a master-sculptor may

have been in charge of the same task for metopal fillers elsewhere, although he is

unlikely to have executed them.

The status of sculptors in general is debatable, and of those that executed the

various forms of architectural sculpture even more so. Lucian (The Dream, 9) claimed

that he switched from being a sculptor to a rhetorician for the higher status, and

implied that they were seen as a labourers. The extent to which he may have been

exaggerating for effect is unclear. The majority of sculptors were probably viewed as

artisans rather than masters, and so paid manual wages, although it seems that even

famous sculptors were willing to work for reduced wages on sacred and prestigious

projects. Those that worked on architectural sculpture spanned as diverse a group as

Praxiteles and his family, who are well attested as having been wealthy and socially

prominent, to humble masons, but for the majority there is no evidence. Sculptors

spanned a wide variety of classes, and it would be impossible to generalise about

them without undertaking a commentary of each of the social strata that made up the

various societies around the Mediterranean.

Polykleitos II or III was an architect as well as a sculptor,736 and Scopas was

presumably the sculptor as well as the architect at Tegea. 737 Architects seem to have

been educated men of the ruling class, and for these men one can reasonably assume a

high status. There were architect-sculptors in the sixth century, such as Rhoikos and

736 Burford 1969, pp. 144-5. Pausanias 2.27.5 gives him as the builder of both the theatre and the
tholos at Epidauros.
737 Picard (1954, p. 146) also suggests Scopas as the architect of the fourth century temple of Apollo
Smintheos preceding the extant structure, as well as the sculptor of the statue of Apollo inside it.
Picard based his evidence for this on the use of the plural in Strabo 13.1.48 [604 C].
 238

Theodoros of Samos,738 but it seems largely to have been a phenomenon of the

fourth century; since both Polykleitos and Scopas moved from sculpture to

architecture, one can speculate that they were able to do so because successful

sculptors were by that time of a higher social standing. Most architectural sculpture is

anonymous, so when the name of a sculptor is preserved by a source such as

Pausanias, this suggests an appreciation of his work by succeeding generations.

On the dynamics between a sculptor and his patron, and the mechanisms of

agreeing to the design of and then executing a building, Ridgway (1999, p. 185) had

to concede that “after looking at the evidence available, I was unable to reach firm

conclusions - we simply do not know enough to tell”. One can make a number of

observations, and discuss the countless speculations that surround these, but many of

these, as in Ridgway’s book, are based largely on information about projects that

chronologically fall before the start of this thesis. Much of the evidence for the

decision-making process is based on what we know of the Periclean building

programme, and on the accounts from the temple of Asclepios at Epidauros, a

monument that falls within this work’s time-frame, at the very beginning of it. In both

these cases it was a democratic, transparent process with detailed contracts that were

publicly displayed, those inscriptions being partially extant, and boards appointed to

supervise the work. A similar process can be noted from building inscriptions that

survive on Delos, but this is unlikely to have been the case in a less democratic state.

Some forms of decoration such as metopes, friezes and carved columns had to

be planned early in the building programme so that they were prepared within the

correct time-span and could be fitted into the framework of the building as work

progressed. The exceptions to this would be the few dowelled figures on friezes and

metopes, where the decorative elements could have been added once the roof was in

place. Deeper gables and stronger cornices were needed if pedimental groups were

intended,739 and suitable bases for acroteria to rest on, but both forms of sculpture

738 Stewart 1990, pp. 244-5.

739 Coulton 1982, pp. 149-51; Ridgway 1999, p. 187.
 239

could conceivably be added at a later date, as seems to have been the case at

Scillountia.

There are few literary sources for architectural sculpture, a point Ridgway

elaborates on (1999, pp. 12ff), but there are a number of building accounts preserved.

The extant inscriptions that deal with the sculptural programmes of buildings in the

ancient world are an important source of evidence, but those that are preserved can

only tell us about the practices at that particular site rather than allow us to build up

enough information to draw a conclusion. Burford (1969) has published and analysed

the accounts from Epidauros, covering eight buildings, not all of them identified.

Bousquet (1988) reconstructed the fragmentary accounts for the temple of Apollo at

Delphi. At Epidauros we know that sculptors were contracted for a set of sculptures

(three acroteria or half a gable), and paid on delivery. The Drachmas used at

Epidauros are Aeginetan, so 3,010 dr. is equivalent to 4,300 Attic dr., at a 7:10 rate of

exchange. The accounts work out at just under 200 Attic dr. per figure. The

inscriptions from the temple of Apollo at Delphi are highly fragmentary; they have

however revealed that the two pediments cost 112,000 dr., and that the majority of the

sum went on expenses incurred in transporting the marble to the site. In the fifth

century all workers on the Parthenon were hired by the day. On the Erechtheion a

daily wage was paid for the building work,740 but for the frieze the sculptors were

paid by the piece; four sculptors were each paid 60 dr. per approximately half life-

size figure they produced,741 this manner of working being possible because the

figures were carved separately and then dowelled on to the frieze.

A number of famous sculptors are credited with the design of architectural

sculpture, mostly pedimental groups, the execution of which would then have been

undertaken by the men that formed their workshops. Ridgway suggests that two

sculptors are named as having worked on the pedimental sculpture for the temple of

Apollo at Delphi, because one died and the other took over.742 This is not necessarily

740 I.G. I2, 372-4.

741 I.G. 13, 476, 169-183.
742 Ridgway 1999, p. 211 n. 17.
 240

the case as there are a number of projects where more than one sculptor is known to

have been active, such as the Mausoleum. The Mausoleum was an extremely large-

scale project to which a number of famous sculptors were linked by literary sources;

one of them must have been in charge of the sculptural programme, and this is

generally supposed to have been Satyros as he is the one that wrote a treatise on the

monument jointly with the architect Pytheos. The sculpture and architectural setting

are so closely inter-related that neither could have been designed without the other, so

one must postulate close consultation between and collaboration of both architect and

sculptor. Plutarch describes Pheidias as having ‘directed everything and was the

overseer of everything’, that is the whole Periclean building programme.743 This

may be a Roman interpretation, telling us more about contemporary practices, or an

accurate description of his role on the project. Either way it has influenced our view

of how projects worked, for it seems natural and indeed necessary that one man

should be in charge.

At Epidauros three sculptors are named in the building inscriptions as having

worked on the temple of Asclepios, with a lacuna for the possible inclusion of a

fourth, but forty others are attested as having participated in the execution of the

sculpture.744 The sculptors that had worked on the Erechtheion frieze had also been

included in that building’s accounts. Little is known about workshops and their

practices, but they are unlikely to have been very different from those of the

Renaissance, which are well documented; those that are part of a workshop are

generally obscure, unless they go on to achieve fame after they have left. A Pandios

or Pandeios was part of Scopas’ workshop at Tegea. He died there after

experimenting with plants,745 and the immortality of his name is assured by the

manner of his death rather than through his skill as a sculptor. On the Mausoleum,

Jeppesen has identified the signature of a sculptor on a block of the chariot frieze,

743 Ridgway 1999, p. 193; Plutarch, Per., 13.4-9; 31.2-5: episkopos.

744 Waywell 1994b.
745 Theophrastos, Hist. plantarum, 9,13,4ff,613.
 241

Apollo[....] epo[iei],746 a man whose identity is otherwise unknown, and whose

existence as part of the team that worked on the monument is only preserved by the

fortuitous survival of the block on which he chose to carve these words.

As well as building accounts, a number of inscriptions linked to the sculptural

decoration of buildings are preserved. These fall into clear categories: labels

identifying the iconography represented, thus clarifying the narrative for the

spectator, and signatures of the artists and dedicatory inscriptions.

There are a number of examples of the labelling of themes depicted in

architectural sculpture, but again this was a quite rare phenomenon. Fragments of the

architraves from both the east and west sides of the temple of Athena at Tegea have

been found, and have fragmentary inscriptions allowing us to reconstruct the

iconography of the metopes. The stories depicted were of local Peloponnesian

significance, and it may have been felt to be necessary to enlighten the visitor as to

their identities. The architraves of the temple at Tegea provide a rare known use of

engraved explanatory inscriptions. The painted figures depicted between the Doric

half-columns on the facade of the Great Tomb at Lefkadia were also identified by

labels. The earliest preserved example of such labelling is the late Archaic geison of

the Cabirion of Thebes which was inscribed with the name of Parthenopaios, son of

Atalanta,747 although traces of the labels which were painted on the frieze of the

Archaic Siphnian Treasury at Delphi can still be made out. The Archaic temple of

Athena at Karthaia on Kea had inscribed labels that identified the acroteria as having

depicted the story of the rape of Antiope by Theseus,748 but one scholar has now

suggested that these were in fact fourth century additions.749

Vases in the Classical period continued to have written labels identifying

those depicted, and it is possible that they occasionally continued to be painted on or

below reliefs but are now lost. The term  inscribed on the architrave of the

746 Jeppessen 1998, p. 176; Jeppessen 1992, p. 87, pl. 23.2a; Ridgway 1997, p. 121.
747 RA 1941, I, pp. 93-4
748 Ridgway 1999, p. 157; Ohnesorg 1994, with fig. 1.a-b depicting the inscription.
749 Walter-Karydi 1994.
 242

inner courtyard at Belevi has allowed the figures that stood between the columns to

be identified.750 The figures on the Gigantomachy frieze of the Pergamon Altar were

identified on adjacent blocks by engraved labels, the gods named above the scene,

and the giants below it. (This is in contrast to the Telephos frieze were there appear

not to have been labels to identify the iconography.) Figures in several scenes are

labelled on the eponymous altar at Cnidus. Labels were regularly added to

Roman frescoes, such as the Esquiline Odysseus frieze,751 and mosaics. Painted, as

opposed to engraved, labels were almost certainly more regular than the evidence

suggests, painting being a technique particularly vulnerable to the ravages of time.

This form of labelling may have been a deliberate archaism, revived in the fourth

century and used in the Hellenistic period, but there is a dearth of extant Archaic

examples that they might have imitated. It is more likely that labels were occasionally

painted on or below reliefs to enlighten the viewer as to their iconography, but are

now lost due to weathering that has removed the paint.

The discovery of the Mausoleum signature is important as there are so few

known inscribed signatures on architectural sculpture. The names of some sculptors

are preserved in literary sources, notably Pausanias, but these tended to be the better-

known artists, or those who worked on temples and monuments in important centres

(Tegea, Delphi). The sculptors from the Epidauros Asclepieion are known from the

preserved building inscriptions rather than literature. The signatures of numerous

sculptors appear on blocks of the Gigantomachy frieze of the Great Altar of

Pergamon, allowing us to identify the use of artists from a wide geographical spread

but this was exceptional. One block of the Nymph Altar, Cnidus, was signed by

Theon of Antioch in Cilicia, a sculptor known from signatures elsewhere. These are

the only known structures of this period on which the architectural sculpture was

signed, although the Fourth Mimiambus of Herondas suggests that the Altar of

Asclepios was signed by the sons of Praxiteles. As Stewart noted: “after the archaic

750 Ephesos VI, pp. 47, 148, figs. 35, 35b, fig. 42a.
751 Scheibler 1994, pp. 126, 177, pl. VIIIb.
 243

period, architectural sculpture and gravestones were almost never signed.”752 There

are a few examples of signatures in the Archaic and Classical periods (the friezes of

the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, the Sicyonian having labels, and the Nike of

Paionios at Olympia), but again they were never a regular feature. Signatures on

architectural sculpture were also highly unusual in the Roman period, a notable

exception being on the Via Appia ‘Caryatids’.

A variety of techniques was employed in the execution of architectural

sculpture, and since this covers so many different forms of sculpture (low relief, high

relief, carved in the round), it is not easy to make any useful generalisations.

Acroteria, epithemata and pedimental groups were carved in the round; the degree of

finish at the back of figures placed in gables varied, and there are examples of relief

pediments. Metopes, friezes and relief shields were carved in relief. The metopal

figures at Tegea were carved separately and dowelled onto the panels, an unusual

technique seen previously on the Erechtheion frieze and later on Tarentine naiskoi.753

The motifs in the metopes of the Androns at Labraunda seem also to have been added

in this way. Caryatids and Atlantes were generally carved in high relief, although

some figures were carved free and then placed against a wall. The use of metal

additions was popular throughout the fourth century and Hellenistic period, and one

can note that items were added to the earlier pediments of the temple of Zeus at

Olympia, perhaps as a way of updating them.

For most architectural sculpture the stone used was a local one that was

readily available; at Tegea the marble came from the near-by quarries at Doliana, and

on Delos the marble used was Delian. The marble chosen for the acroteria at Tegea

seems to be of better quality than that used for the pediments, but this phenomenon

has not been noted elsewhere. Often, for example for the carving of metopes, this was

the same material that was used for the architecture. When a better quality of stone,

752 Stewart 1990, p. 23.

753 Carter 1975, p. 14. Examples include his cat. nos. 306, 361, and so forth.
 244

usually marble, was brought to the site there tends to be a correlation between its

origin and that of the sculptors, where known. At Delphi one can note that both the

architect and the stone for the building were from Corinth, whilst the sculptors were

Athenian and the marble used for the sculpture Pentelic. At Epidauros the marble was

Pentelic, that being the closest quarry and easily transported by sea; whether the

sculptors were actually Athenian is debatable, but their style shows that they were

working under Athenian influence. This is a trend rather than an absolute rule; it has

already been noted that although Scopas was Parian, the marble used at Tegea was

not. For a monument on the scale of the Mausoleum marble was brought in from a

wide variety of sources; Parian and Pentelic are amongst the marbles identified, and

one can note that the origins of the principal sculptors included Athens and Paros.

Much of the evidence for colouring is lost, due to weathering whilst the

sculpture was on the buildings, and oxidisation following unearthing, so only general

comments can be made and examples given, rather than conclusions. The majority of

the evidence would appear to indicate red paint, but this may have been applied as a

base for gilding, and it should be noted that the blue and black paints the Greeks used

left a red imprint when it fell off, notably leading to what could now appear to be red

eyes.754 Thus there is relatively little evidence for the painting of architectural

sculpture, but friezes appear to have had a blue background to set off the figures

(Mausoleum Amazonomachy; battle at Lefkadia), and it is generally believed that

metopes were also set against a painted blue background. The metopes of the

Parthenon had coloured backgrounds, but interestingly the Centauromachy metopes at

Lefkadia, which Bruno has argued copied them, had a white background. It may be

that by the fourth century fashions had changed, for the accounts from Epidauros

show that the exterior painted metopes on the temple of Asclepios had red motifs,

traces of which are extant, on a white background, between triglyphs painted blue.755

On the Helios metope from Ilion traces of paint show that the wheels of the god’s

754 Ridgway 1999, pp. 106-8.

755 I.G. IV2 1, no. 102 lines 23-4.
 245

chariot, and the waves from which it emerged were painted on to the panel. The use

of paint instead of or to supplement low relief to create a landscape setting seems to

have replaced the use of a plain wash of colour for the background in relief sculpture.

Figures, carved in relief and in the round, probably continued to be tinted to show

details of clothing and physical appearance (hair and eyes), but yet again the majority

of the evidence is no longer extant due to weathering.756

Polychromy could also be achieved through the use of coloured and

contrasting stones; blue stone for the uncarved triglyphs on the stoa of Antigonos

Gonatas; white marble figures standing against a background wall of blue stone are a

feature of the Mausoleum, and of the Kallithea tomb that imitated it. Although the

late fourth century Ionic temple of Aphrodite(?) at Messa, has no architectural

sculpture, Ridgway points out that the frieze was made of a red stone.757 She

compares this to the use of the blue stone for the Erechtheion frieze, on to which

white marble figures were dowelled. Three colours of stone were used for the

superstructure of the Lysicrates Monument.

The pedimental groups and metopes of the Parthenon and the temple of Zeus

at Olympia were both repaired in the fourth century and Hellenistic periods,

suggesting that there was enough appreciation for these sculptures for this to be done.

The acroteria on the Samothrace Hieron were also replaced. All three were important

centres of cult that continued to be well maintained until the Christian period, but

numerous less important pieces of architectural sculpture were also repaired, such the

continuous frieze with Erotes in Athens.

Given the labour involved in transporting it to Italy, compared to the effort

needed to make replacements, presumably architectural sculpture was as much

admired by the Romans as some free-standing sculpture, and the use of what would

by then have been ‘antique’ sculpture as part of the decoration of a building would

756 Traces of paint survive on quite a few sculptures from the Mausoleum, particularly the coffers,
and show how brightly coloured architectural sculpture could be; see Jenkins 1994. Due to their
sheltered position on the building the coffers from Belevi also preserve traces of paint, and were
similarly coloured to those from the Mausoleum.
757 Ridgway 1997, pp. 142-3; Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 148, I pp. 59-70, II pp. 24-5, pls. 52-3.
 246

have conferred prestige. Large quantities of Greek architectural sculpture, including

pedimental groups, acroteria and metopes, are mentioned in literary sources as having

been shipped to Rome during the Hellenistic period, and some of these have been

unearthed in Italy (metope believed to be from Amphipolis; pedimental figures re-

used on the temple of Apollo Sosianus).

There is a degree of copying within architectural sculpture, and the large

distances between the examples suggest that at least drawings, if not pattern books,

were circulating. The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus is the prime example of a

Monument that was highly influential and much imitated. The sculptural decoration

of the Parthenon was accurately copied during the Hellenistic period: the metopes at

Lefkadia and a pediment at Eleusis. The motif of three mourning women is to be

found on the Mourning Women Sarcophagus from Sidon, and on metopes from

Athens and Cyrene. The three examples were found far apart, and it seems that these

copied a lost piece, generally assumed to have been a famous free-standing group.

One can differentiate between the Caryatid Monument which appears to have been

influential and inspired many tombs, and figures such as the Tralles-Cherchel

Caryatids which were copies of a lost original. Towards the end of the Hellenistic

period a school of Neo-Attic sculpture emerged which was highly influenced by

Classical sculpture, and produced free copies of architectural sculpture such as the

Nike frieze, as well as the friezes of archaising dancing girls.758

Vitruvius is the only ancient commentator to give us any information about

the place of architectural sculpture within architecture, and the information he gives

us is rather limited. The evidence suggests that his prescriptions regarding the height

of acroteria as a ratio of the height of the gable were accurate, and probably reflected

a lost canon used since the Archaic period. He mentioned Atlas figures, although only

one example out of the many known sets decorated a xystos, which was his

recommendation. Plommer (1979) suggested that the figures Vitruvius described as

Caryatids were not of the type that decorated the Erechtheion porch. Using Vitruvius’

758 see most recently Fullerton 1996; Touchette 1995.

 247

rather sparse description it has finally been possible to accurately identify the figures

he referred to, which decorated Doric structures.

The trends in architectural sculpture on monumental architecture are reflected

in the decorative schemes of domestic houses; the use of repetitive motifs in friezes

can be found in private buildings at Priene and on Delos, and Telamon figures are

used for the decoration of a number of Italian villas. Secondary evidence such as

stelae, cinerary urns and sarcophagi, even vases, also use small-scale replicas of

monumental sculptural decoration as part of their embellishment.

Hellenistic Doric architecture has yet to be studied in any depth, so much of

the sculpture still had to be dated as much on stylistic grounds as on the architectural

framework within which it was set. This leads to wide variations in dating. Ionic

structures, an order that is much better documented than the Doric, also suffer to

some extent from a lack of a concordance on dating. The problems of dating are due

to the lack of a chronological framework within architecture; that in itself would be

difficult to create for the Hellenistic period as there was no progressive Darwinian

evolution of forms.

There were also a number of styles within architectural sculpture itself;

Baroque, Archaising, Mannerist, Classicising (both Early and High), etc., can all be

noted. The appearance of all of these makes the art of the period interesting in its

variety, but hinders dating and the establishment of a chronology since their use was

not restricted to different or successive time spans. The metope from Megara Hyblaea

is dated to both the Archaic and Hellenistic periods by different scholars, whilst the

Scillountia and Samothrace Hieron pediments have a variation in dating of a century.

Sculptures which had Baroque features such as Ilion were traditionally dated to the

period following the Pergamon Altar, as being in its wake, but could just as easily, as

at Ilion, been earlier stages in the evolution of the style that found its culmination at

Pergamon. The term Baroque is used to describe the dramatic style in sculpture,
where emotions and actions are emphasised, often by the use of contrasts achieved
 248

through heavy drilling and chiaroscuro. Precursors of the style can be seen in the later

fourth century, in the work of sculptors such as Lysippos, and it emerges ca. 300 with

the internal frieze of the Monument of the Bulls as the first securely dated example.

Sporadically used in the third century, the style culminates at Pergamon in the

Gigantomachy frieze of the Great Altar.

The use of multiple orders on one structure was sporadically found in the fifth

century, and became a natural development on structures such as stoas where there

was a second aisle or storey. As the Corinthian order started to be used to articulate

the exteriors of buildings, styles of decoration had to be found to ornament structures

in this order. The solution was to adopt the forms that decorated Ionic buildings,

notably the continuous frieze. This was the obvious solution given that the columns of

the Corinthian order were crowned by an Ionic entablature, and this was most

regularly, though not universally used (Hecateion, Lagina). Many small structures,

such as a large proportion of the Tarentine naiskoi, used Doric friezes in conjunction

with Corinthian columns, a trend reflected in secondary evidence such as reliefs. The

Corinthian order was first employed on the exterior of buildings in the second half of

the fourth century, and although some early examples were given sculptural

ornamentation (Lysicrates Monument; Belevi) the majority of those built in the

Hellenistic period were not. The tomb at Belevi followed earlier tombs in Western

Anatolia in having a frieze that crowned the podium, but unlike its predecessors it

used a Doric rather than a continuous frieze, and is the first example of this. The

figured coffers from the tomb are a feature found more regularly on Ionic peripteral

structures but again not unknown for the Doric order; the sculptures along the podium

and intercolumnar figures in the inner courtyard are regional features of Ionic

monuments.

The question of the visibility and accessibility of the decoration is an

interesting one. The trend from the fourth century on was on the emphasis of forms
 249

and movement in architectural sculpture, which culminated in the style that is termed

Baroque. The larger the building and the higher the sculpture was placed on it, then

the bolder the design needed to be to compensate for the greater distance from the

viewer. Even then not all architectural sculpture would have been clearly visible, and

was probably included to increase the decoration of a structure and create a sense of

opulence; the Mausoleum was the prime example of this. Sculptors were aware of

this, and so the level of finish varied; pedimental figures were often only roughly

shaped on the side that faced the tympanum wall, and even cut down on that side to

fit the space, whilst friezes could be rendered with simplified schematic figures that

were emphasised with paint. Other structures were never intended to be viewed for

extended periods. Macedonian tombs were covered over, and despite the care taken in

their decoration were not intended to be seen or visited after the funeral had taken

place.

Ridgway (1999, p. 79) identifies difficulties in and lack of visibility, and an

awareness of these problems, for the rise in ‘monotonous’ friezes, where one or more

objects were regularly repeated to create a pattern. Linked to this trend would be

‘narrative’ friezes where groups of figures and poses were regularly and repeatedly

used to create a sense of rhythm; the figures, dancing girls for example, took the place

of objects, and were treated in a similar manner.

On the Parthenon some of the metopes had bead-and-reel carved on the

astragal, on others the astragal was left plain and the decoration added in paint, the

two techniques being indistinguishable from the ground. The anthemion carved on the

Erechtheion frieze was similarly rendered in paint on the Nike temple.759 These

examples show that there was an awareness in the fifth century that illusions of

carving could be created through the use of paint, and fool the naked eye, and the

execution of such summary carving continued in use within the fourth century and

Hellenistic period.

759 Ridgway 1999, pp. 107-8.

 250

Turning finally to questions of chronology and temporal divisions,

Octavian/Augustus provides an artistic terminus, as well as a historical one for the

end of the Hellenistic period, as he created a new impetus in the arts through his

lavish building programmes and patronage. ‘Roman’ art was however already

established by the time of Actium, especially at Ephesos and on Delos which had by

then been part of their empire for some time, and one could argue that some states,

such as Sparta for example, were still nominally independent in the period after the

battle. It is clear that artistic trends and practices were not restricted by political

boundaries.

If one wishes to break the centuries up into periods, a post-Classical age of

375-260, followed by a time of decreased output of architectural sculpture, and then a

revival of interest under the Roman over-lords from the end of the second century,

would make the most sense in the east Mediterranean. Ridgway (1999, p. 2) claimed

a lack of pre-Imperial Roman architectural sculpture, whilst the evidence

demonstrates that this was not the case, with Etruscan and Republican examples in

Italy in all the major categories. There was a strong tradition of terracotta pedimental

sculpture in Etruscan and Republican Italy, that preceded the monumentalisation of

architectural sculpture in stone, and the Romans largely continued the forms of

decoration in use in areas that came within their empire.

In the west, notably the Italian peninsula, there was greater continuity; there is

a slight decline in the evidence for the production of terracotta pedimental sculpture

during the period compared to the High Classical age, but at no point did it cease. A

similar trend can be noted within Doric friezes with non-narrative motifs in the

Eastern Mediterranean.

One original aim, to study the sculpture in the context of the architecture in an

attempt to build up a more precise chronological framework, proved to be largely

impossible. The pedimental sculpture from the temple of Athena Scillountia was
redated as in the wake of Tegea and the Mausoleum, and in comparison to the Priene
 251

coffers, on the evidence of comparisons. The architectural setting proved to be in too

poor condition to accurately date, and in any case the sculptures were a later addition.

The same can be said of Doric friezes; were many taken out of context, they would be

hard to date. Although metopes constitute the most ‘architectural’ of the forms of

Doric decoration in that they are framed and formed by architectural motifs, it was

not possible to discern any but the most generally chronological framework for their

development, there being no sequential evolution of the forms of Doric architecture.

It seems to have become less fashionable to decorate the exteriors of temples

with sculpture in the Hellenistic period, though Ionic altars and civic structures

increased in sculptural additions. Pliny N.H. 34.52 claimed that art stopped in the

121st Olympiad (296-2 BC) and resumed in the 156th (156-2 BC). In terms of the

architectural sculpture of Doric monuments one can see that the years after ca. 275

heralded a decrease in its popularity. Most forms of decoration continued however to

be sporadically used throughout the period, and monotonous friezes and Atlas figures

increased in popularity.

Doric Architectural sculpture for the most part adorned public buildings,

which were designed to be seen and admired, to create an impression as well as to

perform a function. For these reasons the way their builders chose to decorate them is

the ultimate expression of how they saw themselves and wanted to be seen by others.

The study presented in this thesis has shown, it is hoped, by what means these effects

were achieved in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods.

 252

Bibliography

Abott 1941 = N. Abbott, Pre-Islamic Arab Queens, American Journal of Semitic

Languages and Literature LVIII, 1941, pp. 1-22.

Abramson 1978 = H. Abramson, Greek Hero-Shrines, Diss. Berkeley 1978.

Adam 1966 = S. Adam, The Technique of Greek Sculpture, London 1966.

Akurgal 1961 = E. Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens, 1961.

Altmann 1906 = W. Altmann, Die italischen Rundbauten, Berlin 1906.

Alvino 1996 = G. Alvino, Il IX libro dell’ Odissea: l’offerta della coppa di vino, il
gruppo fittile di colle cesarano e il gruppo scultoreo di efeso, in Ulisse: il mito e la
memoria, catalogue, Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome 1996, pp. 200-209.

Andreae 1963 = B. Andreae, Studien zur römischen Grabkunst, RomMitt Erg.-H 9,

1963.

Andreae 1974 = B. Andreae, Die römischen Repliken der Mythologischen

Skulpturengruppen von Sperlonga, AntP 14, 1974, pp. 61-105.

Andreae 1977 = B. Andreae, Vorschlag für eine Rekonstruktion der Polyphem-

Gruppe von ,Festschrift für Frank Brommer, Mainz 1977, pp. 1-11, pls. 1-4.

Andreae 1982 =B. Andreae, Odysseus: Archäologie des europäischen

Menschenbildes, Frankfurt 1982.

Andreae 1983 = B. Andreae, L’immagine di Ulisse, Mito e archeologia, Torino 1983.

Andreae 1985 = B. Andreae, Die Polyphem-Gruppe von Ephesos, Lebendige

Altertumswissenschaft, Festsgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahre von Hermann
Vetters, Vienna 1985, pp. 209-11, pl. XXI.

Andreae 1992 = B. Andreae, Phyromachos - Schöpfer des Pergamonaltars, AW 23,

1992, p. 65.

Andren 1940 = A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples,

Leipzig 1940.

Andronikos 1980 = M. Andronikos, The Royal Graves at Vergina, Athens 1980.

Andronikos 1984 = M. Andronikos, Vergina: the Royal Tombs and the Ancient City,
Athens 1984.

Angiollillo 1994 = S. Angiollillo, Il Rilievo dal Bouleuterion di Iassos, in Sculpture

of Caria and the Dodecanese, (British Museum 1994), I. Jenkins & G.B. Waywell,
eds., London 1997, pp. 105-8.
 253

Ashmole 1972 = B. Ashmole, Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece, London

1972.

Ashmole & Yalouris 1967 = B. Ashmole & N. Yalouris, Olympia: the sculptures of
the temple of Zeus, London 1967.

Aurenhammer 1990 = M. Aurenhammer, Die Skulpturen von Ephesos; Bildwerke aus

stein; Idealplastik I, Forschungen in Ephesos X/1, Vienna 1990.

Aurigemma 1963 =S. Aurigemma, I monumenti della necropoli di Sarsina, Boll.

Centro st. Stor. arch. 19, 1963, pp. 89-94.

Bacchielli 1976 = L. Bacchielli, Le pitture della “Tomba dell’ Altalena” di Cirene nel
Museo del Louvre, QALibia 8, 1976, pp. 355-383.

Bacchielli 1980 = L. Bacchielli, La Tomba delle ‘Cariatidi’ ed il decorativismo nell’

architectura tardo-ellenistica di Cirene, QALibia 11, 1980, pp. 11-34.

Bacchielli 1987 = L. Bacchielli, La sculptura Libya in Cirenaica e la variabilità delle

risposte al contatto culturale greco-romano, QALibia 12, 1981, pp. 459-488.

Bammer 1967 = A. Bammer, Geometrie und Ornament als Antithese bei

Doppelmäandern in Ephesos, in Festschrift für Fritz Eichler, Vienna 1967, pp. 10-22.

Bammer 1972 = A. Bammer, Die Architektur des jungeren Artemision von Ephesos,
Wiesbaden 1972.

Bammer 1976 = A. Bammer, Amazonen und das Artemision von Ephesos, RA 1976,
pp. 91-102

Bammer 1978 = A. Bammer, Der archaische und klassische Altar der Artemis von
Ephesos, Acta of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara
1978, pp. 517-21, pls. 153-6.

Barletta 1990 = B.A. Barletta, An “Ionian Sea” Style in Archaic Doric Architecture,
AJA 94, 1990, pp. 45-72.

Barr-Sharrar 1987 = B. Barr-Sharrar, The Hellenistic and Early Imperial Decorative

Bust, Mainz 1987.

Barr-Sharrar 1990 = B. Barr-Sharrar, The relationship of the Decorative Bust to

Major Sculpture, in Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für klassische
Archäologie, Mainz 1990, p. 464.

Bauer 1977 = H. Bauer, Lysicratesdenkmal, Baubestand und Rekonstruktion, AthMitt

92, 1977, pp. 204-227, Beil. 5-10, pls. 91-6.

Belson 1981 = J.D. Belson, The Gorgoneion in Greek Architecture, Diss. Bryn Mawr
1981.
 254

Bendinelli 1913 = G. Bendinelli, Un ipogeo sepolcrale a Lecce con fregi scolpiti,

Ausonia 8, 1913, pp. 7-26, pl. 1.

De Bernardi Ferrero 1970 = D. de Bernardi Ferrero, Teatri in Asia Minor, vol. 3:

Città dalla Troade all Pamfillia, Rome 1970.

Bernhard 1974 = M.L. Bernhard, Sztuka Grecka: IV wieku p.n.e., Warsaw 1974.

Beyen 1960 = H. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, The Hague 1960.

Bieber 1924 = M. Bieber, Die Söhne des Praxiteles, JdI 38-9, 1923-4, pp. 242-275,
pls. 6-7.

Bingöl 1980 = O. Bingöl, Die Figuraltrommeln des Apollon-Smintheus-Tempel,

Belleten 174, 1980, pp. 257-264, figs. 1-4.

Bingöl 1989 = O. Bingöl, Zu den Columnae Caelatae, in Festschrift Akurgal =

Anadolu 22, 1981/83, pp. 115-126, figs. 1-5.

Bingöl 1990a = O. Bingöl, Überlegungen zum Ionischen Gebälk, IstMitt 40, 1990,
pp. 101-8, pls. 18-9.

Bingöl 1990b = O. Bingöl, Der Oberbau des Smintheion in der Troas, in W.

Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische
Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 45-50.

Bingöl 1991 = O. Bingöl, Die problematischen Bauglieder des Simtheion, RA 1991,

pp. 115-128.

Blanck 1969 = H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehredenkmäler bei

Griechen und Römern, 1969.

Blanck & Proietti 1986 = H. Blanck & G. Proietti, La Tomba dei Rilievi di Cerveteri,
Rome 1986.

Boardman 1978 = J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: the Archaic Period, London 1978.

Boardman 1985 = J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: the Classical Period, London 1985.

Boardman 1994 = J. Boardman, The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity, London

1994.

Boardman 1995 = J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: the Late Classical Period, London
1995.

Bol 1988 = P.C. Bol, Die Marmorbüsten aus dem Heroon von Kalydon in Agrinion,
Archäeologisches Museum inv. Nr. 28-36, AntP 19, 1988, pp. 35-47, pls. 24-33.

Bommelaer 1983 = J.-F. Bommelaer, La construction du temple classique de

Delphes, BCH 107, 1983, pp. 191-216.
 255

Börker 1990 = Ch. Börker, Zur Datierung des Pergamon-Altares, Akten des XIII
Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Mainz 1990, pp. 591-2.

Borchhardt 1990 = J. Borchhardt, Limyra, Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses

für klassische Archäologie, Mainz 1990, p. 498.

Borchhardt 1991 = J. Borchhardt, Ein Ptolemaion in Limyra, RA 1991, pp. 309-322.

Borchhardt 1992 = J. Borchhardt, Die Ausgrabungen am Ptolemaion 1984-1990, 61,

1991-2, Beiblatt, pp. 151-66, figs. 10-16.

Boschung 1989 = D. Boschung, Nobilia opera: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte griechischer

Meisterwerke im Kaiserzeitlischen Rom, AntK 32, 1989, pp. 8-16, pls. 2-4.

von Bothmer 1957 = D. von Bothmer, Amazons in Greek Art, Oxford 1957.

Bousquet 1977 = J. Bousquet, Inscriptions de Delphes: Notes sur les comptes des
naopes, Etudes Delphiques, BCH Suppl. 4, 1977, pp. 91-101.

Bousquet 1984 = J. Bousquet, Inscriptions de Delphes, BCH 108, 1984, pp. 695-701.

Bousquet 1988 =J. Bousquet, Etudes sur les Comptes de Delphes, BEFAR 267, Paris
1988.

Brendel 1985 = O. Brendel, Etruscan Art, 2nd edition, London 1985.

Brogan 1998 =T. Brogan, The Prometheus Group in Context, K.J. Hartswick & M.C.
Sturgeon, eds., ins: Studies in Honor of Brunhilde Sismondo Ridgway,
Philadelphia 1998, pp. 39-52.

Brommer 1980 = F. Brommer, Plemochoe, AA 1980, pp. 544-49.

Broneer 1935 = O. Broneer, Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in

Athens, 1933-34, Hesperia 4, 1935, pp. 109-188, pl. 1.

Broneer 1941 = O. Broneer, The Lion Monument at Amphipolis, Cambridge 1941.

Broneer 1971 = O. Broneer, Isthmia 1: Temple of Poseidon, Princeton 1971.

Brown 1973 = B.R. Brown, Anticlassicism in Greek Sculpture of the Fourth Century
BC, New York 1973.

Bruneau et al 1970 = P. Bruneau et al, L’Ilot de la Maison des Comédiens, EAD 27

Paris 1970.

Brunn & Körte 1916 = H. Brunn & G. Körte, I rilievi delle urne etrusche, Rome-
Berlin 1916.

Bruno 1977 = V.J. Bruno, Form and Colour in Greek Painting, New York 1977.
 256

Bruno 1981 = V.J. Bruno, The Painted Metopes at Lefkadia and the Problem of Color
in Doric Sculptured Metopes, AJA 85, 1981, pp. 3-11, pl. 1.

Bruns 1949 = G. Bruns, Der grosse Altar von Pergamon, Berlin 1949.

Bruns-Özgan 1987 = C. Bruns-Özgan, Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4.

Jahrhunderts v. Chr., IstMitt-BH 33, Tübingen 1987.

Bruns-Özgan 1994 =Ch. Bruns-Özgan, Fries eines hellenistischen Altars in Knidos,

JdI 110, 1994, pp. 239-276.

Brusin 1934 = G. Brusin, Scavi di Aquilea, Udine 1934.

Budina 1975 = D. Budina, Fouilles archéoloogiques 1973: Apollonie (Fier), Iliria 3,

1975, pp. 433-9.

Bulard 1908 = M. Bulard, Peintures murales et mosaïques de Délos, MonPiot 14,

1908.

Burford 1966 = A. Burford, Notes on the Epidaurian Building Inscriptions, BSA 61,
1966, pp. 254-323.

Burford 1969 = A. Burford, The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros, Liverpool

1969.

Burkhalter 1992 = F. Burkhalter, Le Gymnase d’Alexandrie, BCH 116, 1992, pp.

345-373.

Butler 1922 = H.C. Butler, Sardis I, Leyden 1922.

Butler 1923 = H.C. Butler, The Elevated Columns at Sardis and the Sculpted
Pedestals from Ephesos, in Anatolian Studies for William Ramsay, Manchester 1923,
pp. 51-7.

Butler 1925 = H.C. Butler, The Temple of Artemis, Sardis 2.1, Leyden 1925.

van Buren 1926 = E.D. van Buren, Greek Fictile Revetments in the Archaic Period,
1926.

Büyükkolanci 1993 = M. Büyükkolanci, Fragmente der Bauplastik des Artemision

von Ephesos: Funde aus den Grabungen bei der Johanneskirche in Selçuk, ÖJh 62,
1993, pp. 95-104.

Callaghan 1981 = P.J. Callaghan, On the date of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon,
BICS 28, 1981, pp. 115-21.

Calza 1976 = R. Calza, La Villa di Massenzio sulla via Appia, Rome 1976.

Carroll-Spillecke 1985 = M. Carroll-Spillecke, Landscape depictions in Greek Relief

Sculpture, Frankfurt 1985.
 257

Carter 1975 = J.C. Carter, The Sculpture of Taras, TAPS 65.7, Philadelphia 1975.

Carter 1983 = J.C. Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene,
London 1983.

Carter 1990 = J.C. Carter, Pytheos, Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für
klassische Archäologie, Mainz 1990, pp. 120-36, pls. 14-16.1.

Cassels 1955 = J. Cassels, The cemeteries of Cyrene, BSR 23, 1955, pp. 1-43, pls. I-
XIII.

Castiglione 1975 = L. Castiglione, Zur Plastik von Pompeji in der frühkolonialen

Zeit, in B. Andreae & H. Kyrieleis, eds., Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Bongers
1975, pp. 221-4.

Chamay & Maier 1990 = J. Chamay & J.-L. Maier, Sculptures en Pierre du Musée de
Genève, I, Art Grec, Mainz 1990.

Chamonard 1895 = J. Chamonard, Les sculptures de la frise du temple d’Hécate à

Lagina, BCH 19, 1895, pp. 235-262.

Chamonard 1924 = F. Chamonard, Le quartier du théâtre, EAD 8, Paris 1924, 2 vols

Chapouthier 1935 = F. Chapouthier, Le Sanctuaire des Dieux de Samothrace, EAD

16, Paris 1935.

Childs 1978 = W.A.P. Childs, The City Reliefs of Lycia, Princeton 1978.

Cicikova 1983 = M. Cicikova, Grobniitsata ot Sveštari, Iskusstvo 38, 1983, Heft 4,

pp. 18-27.

Cicikova 1984 = M. Cicikova, Découverte d’une tombe royale Thrace, Archéologija

190, 1984, pp. 17-23.

Cicikova 1985 = M. Cicikova, Tombeau royal thrace de Sveštari, in

, Athens 1985, vol.
B, pp. 50-56, pls. 13-14.

Clarke 1991 = D.A. Clarke, Doric proportions in Greek Monuments: 600-110 BC,
Diss. Toronto 1991.

Coarelli 1976 = F. Coarelli, reply, in P. Zanker, E. Teil, eds., Hellenismus in

Mittelitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp. 337-9.

Coarelli 1978 = F. Coarelli, Studi su Praeneste, Perugia 1978.

Comstock & Vermeule 1976 = M.B. Comstock & C.C. Vermeule III, Sculpture in
Stone of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston 1976.

Congdon 1981 = L.O. Congdon, Caryatid Mirrors of Ancient Greece, Mainz 1981.
 258

Cook 1964 = R.M. Cook, Niobe and her Children, Cambridge 1964.

Cook 1976 = B.F. Cook, Greek and Roman Art in the British Museum, London 1976.

Cook 1969 = B.F. Cook, An Attic Grave Stele in New York, AntP 9, 1969, pp. 65-72,
pls. 40-5.

Cook 1988 = B.F. Cook, Parthenon West Pediment B/C: The Serpent-fragment, in
Kanon, Festschrift Ernst Berger, AntK-BH 15, 1988, pp. 4-8.

Cook 1989a = B.F. Cook, The Sculptors of the Mausoleum friezes, in T. Linders & P.
Hellström, eds., Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Boreas (Uppsala) 17,
1989, pp. 31-44.

Cook 1989b = R.M. Cook, The Pediment of Apollo Sosianus, AA 1989, pp. 525-8.

Cooper & Fortenberry 1993 = F.A. Cooper & D. Fortenberry, The Heroon at
Messene, AJA 97, 1993, p. 337.

Corso 1988 = A. Corso, Prassitele: Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e Opere,

QXenia 10, Rome 1988-90, 3 vols., vol. 4 forthcoming.

Couilloud 1974 = M.-T. Couilloud, Les Monuments Funéraires de Rhénée, EAD 30,
Paris 1974.

Coulton 1976 = J.J. Coulton, The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa,
Oxford 1976.

Coulton 1982 = J.J. Coulton, Ancient Greek Architects at Work, Oxford 1982.

Courby 1912 = F. Courby, Le Portique d’Antigone, EAD 5, Paris 1912.

Courtois 1989 = C. Courtois, Le bâtiment de scène des théâtres d’Italie et de Sicile;

étude chronologique et typologique, Louvain-La-Neuve 1989.

Cristofani 1969 = M. Cristofani, La Tomba del Trifone, MemLinc 8, XIV.4, 1969, pp.
209 ff, pl. 11.

Cristofani 1977 = M. Cristofani, Urne Volterrane, Florence 1977, vol. 2.

Croissant 1980= F. Croissant, Les Frontons du temple du IVe siècle à Delphes:

Premiers essais de restitution, RA 1980, pp. 172-9.

Croissant 1986 = F. Croissant, Les frontons du temple du IVe siècle à Delphes:

Esquisse d’une restitution, in H. Kyrieleis, ed., Archaische und Klassische
Griechische Plastik, vol. 2, Mainz 1986, pp. 187-197, pls. 154-6 and Beil no. 5.

Croissant 1994 = F. Croissant, Le Dionysos du fronton occidental de Delphes:

histoire d’un faux problème, BCH 118, 1994, pp. 353-60.
 259

Croissant & Marcadé 1972 = F. Croissant & J. Marcadé, Sculptures des frontons du
temple du IVe siècle, BCH 96, 1972, pp. 887-895.

Curtius 1933 = L. Curtius, Ikonographische Beiträge, RomMitt 48, 1933, pp. 182-243.

Danner 1989 = P. Danner, Griechische Akrotere der Archaischen und Klassischen

Zeit, RdA Suppl. 5, Rome 1989.

Davesne 1982 = A. Davesne, La Frise du temple d’Artémis à Magnésie du Méandre,

Catalogue des fragments du Musée du Louvre, Paris 1982.

Degrassi 1939 = N. Degrassi, Un rilievo storico del Foro di Cesare, BullCom 67,
1939, pp. 61-80, pls. I-IV.

Delivorrias 1973 = A. Delivorrias, Skopadikà (I): Télèphe et la bataille du Caïque au

fronton ouest du temple d’Athéna à Tégée, BCH 97, 1973, pp. 111-135.

Delivorrias 1974 = A. Delivorrias, Attische Giebelskulpturen und Akrotere des

fünften Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1974.

Delivorrias 1990 = A. Delivorrias, Disiecta Membra: the remarkable history of some

sculptures from an unknown temple, in Marble: Art Historical and Scientific
Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture, Malibu 1990, pp. 11-46.

Deonna 1938 = W. Deonna, Le Mobilier Délien, EAD 18, Paris 1938, 2 vols.

Devambez 1943 = P. Devambez, Sculptures Thasiennes, BCH 66-7, 1942-3, pp. 200-
227, pls. X-XIII.

Dinsmoor 1960 = W.B. Dinsmoor, A Greek Sculptured Metope in Rome, Hesperia

29, 1960, pp. 304-15, pl. 71.

Dinsmoor 1961 = W.B. Dinsmoor, Rhamnountine Fantasies, Hesperia 30, 1961, pp.
179-204, pl. 32.

Dinsmoor 1975 = W.B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece, New York
1975.

Dintsis 1986 = P. Dintsis, Hellenistiche Helme, Rome 1986.

Dohrn 1989 = T. Dohrn, Auf den Spuren des Eutychides, RomMitt 96, 1989, pp. 305-
12, pls. 59-61.

Drerup 1976 = H. Drerup, Zur Bezichnung “Karyatide”, MarbWinkProg 1975/6, pp.

11-14.

Durm 1905 = J. Durm, Die Baukunst der Etrusker, Stuttgart 1905.

Dyggve 1948 = E. Dyggve, Das Laphrion, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes

Sclskab, Arkaeoligisk-Kunsthistorische Skrifter, t. 50, no. 2, 1948.
 260

Dyggve et al 1934 = E. Dyggve, F. Poulsen, K. Rhomaios, Das Heroon von Kalydon,

Copenhagen 1934.

Dyggve & Poulsen 1960 = E. Dyggve & V. Poulsen, Lindos III:II, Berlin 1960.

Edgar 1903 = C.C. Edgar, Greek Sculpture, Catalogue générale du Musée du Caire,
Cairo 1903.

Eichler 1950 = F. Eichler, Die Reliefs des Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa, Vienna
1950.

Engelmann 1973 = H. Engelmann, Zum Pollionymphäum in Ephesos, ZPE 10, 1973,

pp. 89-90.

Ephesos VI = C. Praschniker & M. Theuer, Das Mausoleum von Belevi,

Forschungen in Ephesos 6, Vienna 1979.

Ephesos VII = W. Alzinger & A. Bammer, Das Monument des C. Memmius,

Forschungen in Ephesos 7, Vienna 1971.

Fasolo & Gullini 1953 = G. Fasolo & F. Gullini, Il Santuario della Fortuna
Primigenia di Praeneste, Rome 1953.

Faustoferri 1993 = A. Faustoferri, The Throne of Apollo at Amyklai: its Significance

and Chronology, in W. Coulson & O. Palagia, eds., Sculpture of Arcadia and
Laconia, Oxford 1993, pp. 159-66.

Fedak 1990 = J. Fedak, Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age, Toronto 1990.

Fittschen 1979 = K. Fittschen, Juba II und seine Residenz Jol/Caesarea (Cherchel), in

H.G. Horn & C.B. Rüger, eds., Die Numider, Reiter und Könige nördlich der Sahara,
1979, pp. 227-42, figs. 128-31.

Flashar 1992 = M. Flashar, Apollon Kitharodos, Böhlau 1992.

Fleischer 1972 = R. Fleischer, Späthellenistische gruppe vom Pollionnymphaeum mit

dem Polyphemabenteuer des Odysseus, OJI-BH, 2 Bd. zum 49, 1972, pp. 137-164.

Fleischer 1975 = R. Fleischer, Ein hellenistischer Fries aus Sagalassos in Pisidien,

ÖJh 50, 1972-5, pp. 117-124.

Fleischer 1978 = R. Fleischer, Ein hellenistischer Fries aus Sagalassos in Pisidien,

Acta of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara 1978, pp.
661-5, pls. 197-8.

Fleischer 1979 = R. Fleischer, Forschungen in Sagalassos, IstMitt 29, 1979, pp. 273-
307, pl. 71-91.

Fleischer 1981 = R. Fleischer, Der hellenistische Fries von Sagalassos in Pisidien,

AntW 12, 1981, pp. 3-16.
 261

Fleischer 1983 = R. Fleischer, Der Klagefrauensarkophage, Istanbul 1983.

Fleischer 1984 = R. Fleischer, Zur Datierung des Frieses von Sagalassos, AA 1984,
pp. 141-4.

Fol et al 1986 = A. Fol et al, The Thracian Tomb near the Village of Sveštari, Sofia
1986.

Fossel 1972/3 = E. Fossel, Zum Tempel auf dem Staatsmarkt von Ephesos, ÖJh 50,
1972/3, pp. 212-9.

Fraser 1977 = P.M. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments, Oxford 1977.

Fraser 1988 = A. Fraser, The Warrior Queens, London 1988.

Fraser & Rönne 1957 = P.M. Fraser & T. Rönne, Boeotian and West Greek
Tombstones, Lund 1957.

von Freeden 1983 = J. von Freeden, Oikia Kyrrhestou: Studien zum sogennanten
Turm der Winde in Athen, Rome 1983.

von Freeden 1985 = J. von Freeden, Studien zum sogenannten Turm der Winde in
Athen, Archaeologica 29, 1985.

von Freytag 1986 = B. von Freytag, Das Giebelrelief von Telamon, 1986.

Fuchs 1956 = W. Fuchs, Dionysos aus dem Metroon-Giebel ?, AthMitt 71, 1956, pp.
66-75, pls. 44-5.

Fuchs 1987 = M. Fuchs, Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theatre in

Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum, Mainz am Rhein 1987.

Fuchs & Rudnick 1992 = W. Fuchs & B. Rudnick, Phrixos auf dem Widder, Boreas
14-15, 1991-2, pp. 45-9.

Fuchs 1993 = W. Fuchs, Die Skulptur der Griechen, 4th ed., München 1993.

Fullerton 1987 = M.D. Fullerton, Archaistic Statuary of the Hellenistic period,

AthMitt 102, 1987, pp. 259-78.

Fullerton 1996 =M.D. Fullerton, Atticism, Classicism and the Origins of Neo-Attic
Sculpture, in Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens 1996); W.D.E.
Coulson & O. Palagia, eds., Oxford 1998, pp. 93-9.

von Gaertringen 1904 = F.H. von Gaertringen, Thera 3, Berlin 1904.

Gardner 1896 = P. Gardner, Sculptured Tombs of Hellas, London 1896.

Garland 1987 = R. Garland, The Piraeus, London 1987.

 262

Gawlikowski 1970 = M. Gawlikowski, Monuments Funéraires de Palmyre, Etudes et

Travaux 9, 1970.

Geominy 1984 = W. Geominy, Die Florentiner Niobeden, Bonn 1984.

von Gerkan 1929 = A. von Gerkan, Der Altar des Artemis-Tenpels in Magnesia am
Mäander, Berlin 1929.

Giglioli 1935 = G.Q. Giglioli, L’arte etrusca, Milan 1935.

Giglioli 1952 = G.Q. Gigliolo, I leoni dell’Arsenale di Venezia, ArchClass 4, 1952,

pp. 1-9.

Goethert & Schlief 1962 = F. W. Goethert & H. Schlief, Der Athenatempel von Ilion,
Berlin 1962.

Gossel 1981 = B. Gossel, Makedonische Kammergräber, 1980.

Gropengriesser 1961 = H. Gropengriesser, Die Pflanzlichen Acrotere Klassischer

Tempel, Mainz 1961.

Grote 1992 = U. Grote, Bauplastik aus Pergamon, in Festschrift für Max Wegner zum
90. Geburstag, Bonn 1992, pp. 179-187, pl. 15.

von Graeve 1970 = V. von Graeve, Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt,
Berlin 1970.

Granger-Taylor 1987 = H. Granger-Taylor, The Emperor’s Clothes: the Fold Lines,

BClevMus 74.3, 1987, pp. 114-23.

Gross 1954 = W.H. Gross, Die Mithradates-Kapelle auf Delos, AuA 4, 1954, pp. 105-
117. (not seen)

Gschwantler 1993 = K. Gschwantler, Baüme, Säulen, Mauern: Zum Fugenschluß der

Reliefs von Gölbasi-Trysa, in J. Borchardt & G. Dobesch, eds., Akten des II.
Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Vienna 1993, vol. II, pp. 77-85, pls. XVII-XX.

Guide de Délos = Ph. Bruneau & J. Ducat, Guide de Délos, 3rd ed., Paris 1983.

Guide de Delphes = J.-Fr. Bommelaer, Guide de Delphes, Le Musée, Athens 1991.

Gulaki 1981 = A. Gulaki, Klassische und klassizistische Nikedarstellungen, Diss.

Bonn 1981.

Gullini 1973 = G. Gulini, La datazione e l’inquadramento stilistico del santuario della

Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina, in Temporini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt, 1973, vol. I,4, pp. 746-95.

Gunter 1985 = A.C. Gunter, Looking at Hekatomnid patronage from Labraunda, REA
87, 1985, pp. 113-124.
 263

Gunter 1989 = A.C. Gunter, Sculptural Dedications at Labraunda, in T. Linders & P.

Hellström, eds., Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Boreas (Uppsala) 17,
1989, pp. 91-98.

Hahland 1950 = W. Hahland, Der Fries des Dionysostempels in Teos, ÖJh 38, 1950,
pp. 66-109.

Hammond 1991 = N.G.L. Hammond, The Royal Tombs at Vergina: evolution and
identities, BSA 86, 1991, pp. 69-82.

Hanfmann 1974 = G.M.A. Hanfmann, A Pediment of the Persian Era from Sardis, in
Mélanges Mansel, Ankara 1974, Vol. I, pp. 289-302, pls. 99-104.

Hanfmann 1983 = G.M.A. Hanfmann, Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times,

Cambridge Mass., 1983.

Hannestad 1994 = N. Hannestad, Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture: Conservation,

Modernization, Production, Århus 1994.

Harrison 1990 = E.B. Harrison, Repair, Reuse, and Reworking of ancient Greek
Sculpture, in Marble: Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture,
Malibu 1990, pp. 163-184.

Hauvette-Besnault & Dubois 1881 = A. Hauvette-Besnault & M. Dubois, Antiquités

de Mylasa, BCH 5, 1881, pp. 31-41.

Heintze 1949 = H.F. von Heintze, Imago clipeata, Diss. Hamburg 1949.

Hellström 1994a = P. Hellström, Architecture. Characteristic building-types and

particularities of style and technique. Possible implications for Hellenistic
architecture, in J. Isager, ed., Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Odense
1994, pp. 36-57.

Hellström 1994b = P. Hellström, Sculpture from Labraynda, in Sculpture of Caria

and the Dodecanese, (British Museum 1994), I. Jenkins & G.B. Waywell, eds.,
London 1997, pp. 109-13.

Hellström 1995 = P. Hellström, The Andrones at Labraynda. Dining Halls for

Protohellenistic Kings, in Basilea: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige, Mainz
1995, pp. 164-9.

Hellström & Thieme 1981 = P. Hellström & T. Thieme, The Androns at Labraunda,
MedMusB, 16, 1981, pp. 58-74.

Herbig 1935 = R. Herbig, Das Dionysos-Theatre in Athen, vol. 2, Berlin 1935.

Herdejürgen 1968 = H. Herdejürgen, Untersuchungen zur thronenden Göttin aus

Tarent in Berlin und zur archaischen und archaistischen Schrägmanteltracht, Bayern
1968.
 264

Heres 1982 = H. Heres, Eine archaistische Karyatide aus dem Theater von Milet,
Eirene 18, 1982, pp. 5-11.

Herrmann 1965 = P. Herrmann, Antiochos der Grosse und Teos, Anatolia 9, 1965,
pp. 29-159.

Herrmann 1972 = H.K. Herrmann, Olympia, Heiligtum und WettKampfstätte, Berlin

1972.

Herzog 1932 = R. Herzog, Kos I: Asklepieion, Berlin 1932.

Hill Richardson 1993 = E. Hill Richardson, The Muscle Cuirass in Etruria and
Southern Italy: Votive Bronzes, AJA 100, 1996, pp. 91-120.

Hilton 1985 = T. Hilton, John Ruskin: The Early Years, Yale 1985.

Hoepfner 1969 = W. Hoepfner, Zum Entwurf des Athena-Tempels in Ilion, AthMitt

84, 1969, pp. 165-181, pls. 77-8, Beil 2-3.

Hoepfner 1989 = W. Hoepfner, Zu den grossen Altären von Magnesia und Pergamon,
AA 1989, pp. 601-634.

Hoepfner 1990 = W. Hoepfner, Bauten und Bedeutung des Hermogenes, in W.

Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische
Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 1-34.

Hoepfner 1993 = W. Hoepfner, Zum Mausoleum von Belevi, AA 1993, pp. 111-23.

Hoepfner 1996 = W. Hoepfner, Zum Maussolleion von Halikarnassos, AA 1996, pp.

95-114.

Hörmann 1932 = H. Hörmann, Die inneren Propyläen von Eleusis, Berlin 1932.

Holden 1964 = B.M. Holden, The Metopes of the temple of Athena at Ilion,
Northampton, Mass. 1964.

Hommole 1917 = Th. Homolle, L’Origine des Caryatides, RA 5, 1917, pp. 1-67.

Isager 1990 = J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society, London 1991.

Isler 1984 = H.P. Isler, Grabungen auf dem Monte Iato 1983, AntK 27, 1984, pp. 25-
32.

Jacobone 1962 = N. Jacobone, Canusium, 3rd edition, Lecce 1962.

Jacquemin 1985a = A. Jacquemin, Note sur la frise du théâtre de Delphes, BCH 109,
1985, pp. 585-7.

Jacquemin 1985b = A. Jacquemin, Trois bases à relief de Délos, BCH 109, 1985, pp.
569-583.
 265

Jacquemain & Laroche 1982 = A. Jacquemain & D. Laroche, Notes sur trois piliers
delphiques, BCH 106, 1982, pp. 190-18.

Jannot 1984 = J.-R. Jannot, Un ordre étrusque à Télamons, MEFRA 96, 1984, pp.
579-600.

Janson 1972 = H.W. Janson, A History of Art, London 1972.

Jenkins 1994 = I. Jenkins, C. Gratziu, A. Middleton, The polychromy of the

Mausoleum, in Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese, (British Museum 1994), I.
Jenkins & G.B. Waywell, eds., London 1997, pp. 35-40.

Jeppesen 1989 = K. Jeppesen, What did the Maussolleion look like ?, in T. Linders &
P. Hellström, eds., Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Boreas (Uppsala)
17, 1989, pp. 15-22.

Jeppessen 1992 = K. Jeppessen, Tot Operum Opus, Ergebnisse der Dänischen

Forschungen zum Maussolleion von Halikarnass seit 1966, JdI 107, 1992, pp. 59-102.

Jeppesen 1998 = K. Jeppesen, Das Maussolleion von Halikarnass, Forschungbericht

1997, Proceedings of the Danish Institute in Athens 2, 1998, pp. 161-231.

Johannowsky 1976 = W. Johannowsky, La situazione in Campania, in P. Zanker, E.

Teil, eds., Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp. 267-99.

Jucker 1969 = H. Jucker, Zur Helios-Metope aus Ilion, AA 1969, pp. 248-256.

Junghölter 1989 = U. Junghölter, Zur Komposition der Lagina-Friese und zur

Deutung des Nordfrieses, Diss. Marburg 1989.

Junghölter 1990 = U. Junghölter, Zur Komposition des Lagina-Nordfrieses, in Akten

des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Mainz 1990, pp.
388-9.

Junker 1993 = K. Junker, Der ältere Tempel im Heraion am Sele, Köln 1993.

Kabus-Preisshoffen 1989 = R. Kabus-Preisshoffen, Die hellenistische Plastik der

Insel Kos, AthMitt-BH 14, Berlin 1989.

Kähler 1948 = H. Kähler, Der grosse Fries von Pergamon, Untersuchnungen zur
Kunstgeschichte und Geschichte Pergamons, Berlin 1948.

Kähler 1965 = H. Kähler, Der Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius Paullus in
Delphi, Monumenta Artis Romanae V, 1965.

Kaftangioglov 1880 = L. Kaftangioglov, The Chaeronian lion, RIBA 10, 1880, pp.
197-8.

Kammerer-Grothaus 1974 = H. Kammerer-Grothaus, Der Deus Rediculus im

Triopion des Herodes Atticus, RomMitt 81, 1974, pp. 131-252.
 266

Karamitrou-Mentesidi 1985 = G. Karamhtrou-Mentesidh, O makedonikos tajos sih

Sphlia Eordaias,  40a, 1985, pp. 242-280, figs. 1-14, pls. 117-132. See also idem,
 42B.2, 1987, pp. 419-20; idem,  1, 1987, pp. 23-36.

Karouzou 1962 = S. Karusu, Ein Akroter klassischer Zeit, AthMitt 77, 1962, pp. 178-
192, pls. 44-52.

Karouzou 1968 = S. Karouzou, National Archaeological Museum, Collection of

Sculpture; A Catalogue, Athens 1968.

King 1997 = Dorothy King, Pergamene Palm Capitals and other Foliate Fancies,
NumAntCl 26, 1997, pp. 205-225.

King 1998 = Dorothy King, Figured Supports: Vitruvius’ Caryatids and Atlantes,
NumAntCl 27, 1998, pp. 275-305.

Klauser 1942 = Th. Klauser, Vom Heroon zur Märtyrerbasilika, Kriegsvorträge der
Rheinischen Friedrichs-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 1942, Heft 62, p. 8ff. (not seen )

Knackfuss 1908 = H. Knackfuss, Das Rathaus von Milet, Milet 1.2, Berlin 1908.

Knell 1973 = H. Knell, Der Athenatempel in Ilion: Eine Korrektur zur

Grundrissrekonstruktion, AA 1973, pp. 131-133.

Kohl 1996 =M. Kohl, Portiques pergaméniens. Etudes d’histoire, d’architecture et

d’urbanisme, Diss. Aix-en-Provence, 1996

Koldewey 1890 = R. Koldewey, Die Antike Baureste der Insel Lesbos, Berlin 1890.

Koldewey & Puchstein 1899 = R. Koldewey & O. Puchstein, Die griechischen

Tempel in Unteritalien und Sizilien, Berlin 1899.

Kraus 1976 = Th. Kraus, Überlegungen zum Bauornament, in P. Zanker, E. Teil, eds.,
Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp. 455-70.

Krauss & Herbig 1939 = F. Krauss & R. Herbig, Der Korinthisch-dorische Tempel
am Forum von Paestum, 1939.

Kreeb 1990 = M. Kreeb, Hermogenes - Quellen- und Datierungsprobleme, in W.

Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische
Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 103-113.

Krischen 1944 = F. Krischen, Löwenmonument und Mausolleion, RomMitt 59,1944,

pp. 173-181, pls. 29-30.

Krischen 1966 = F. Krischen, Weltwunder der Baukunst in Babylonien und Ionien,

Tübingen 1966.

Krischen et al 1941 = F. Krischen, W. Wulzinger, A. von Gerkan, Antike Rathauser,

Berlin 1941.
 267

Kuhn 1984 = G. Kuhn, Der Altar des Artemis in Ephesos, AthMitt 99, 1984, pp. 199-
216.

Kunze 1990a = M. Kunze, Neue Beobachtungen zum Pergamonaltar, in B. Andreae,

ed., Phyromachos-Probleme. Mit einem Anhang zur Datierung des grossen Altares
von Pergamon, RomMitt Supp. 31, 1990, pp. 123-139.

Kunze 1990b = M. Kunze, Der Altar von Pergamon, hellenistische und römische
Architektur, Berlin 1990.

Labraunda 1:3 = P. Hellström & T. Thieme, The Temple of Zeus, Labraunda 1:3,
Stockholm 1982.

Labraunda 2:5 = A.C. Gunter, The Sculpture from Labraunda, Labraunda 2:5,
Stockholm 1995.

Lambrinoudakis 1976 = V. Lambrinoudakis, Architektonika glupta apo to hieron tou

Maleatou Apollonos, Acts of the First International Congress of Pelopnnesian
Studies, Athens 1976-8, pp. 1-12, pls. 1-8.

von Lanckoronski 1892 = K.G. von Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens,
1892, 2 vols.

Langlotz & Hirmer 1965 = E. Langlotz and M. Hirmer, The Art of Magnia Graecia,
London 1965.

Lapalus 1947 = E. Lapalus, Le fronton Sculpté en Grèce, Paris 1947.

L’Arab 1991 = G. L’Arab, L’Ipogeo delle Cariatidi di Vaste, Taras 11, 1991, pp. 19-
40.

Lattimore 1974 = S. Lattimore, A Greek Pediment on a Roman Temple, AJA 78,

1974, pp. 55-61.

Lattimore 1976 = S. Lattimore, The Marine Thiasos in Greek Sculpture, Los Angeles
1976.

Laubscher 1966 = H.P. Laubscher, Skulpturen aus Tralles, IstMitt 16, 1966, pp. 124-
9.

Lauter 1976 = H. Lauter, Die Koren des Erechtheion, AntP 16, 1976.

Lauter 1980 = H. Lauter, Zur wirtschaftlichen Position der Praxiteles-familie im

spätklassischen Athen, AA 1980, pp. 525-31.

Lauter 1986 = H. Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellenismus, Darmstadt 1986.

Lazarides 1969 = D. Lazarides, , Thessaloniki 1969.

Lazaridi 1990 = M.D. Lazaridh,

, Thessaloniki 1990.
 268

Lawrence 1983 = A.W. Lawrence, rev. by R.A. Tomlinson, Greek Architecture,

London 1983.

Lehmann 1962 = P.W. Lehmann, The Pedimental Sculptures of the Hieron in

Samothrace, New York 1962.

Lehmann 1972 = P.W. Lehmann, Addendum to Samothrace, Volume 3: The Lateral

Akroteria, Hesperia 41, 1972, pp. 463-5, pls. 113-4.

Liampi 1990 = K. Liampi, Der makedonische Schild als politisc-propaganditisches

Mittel in der hellenistischen Zeit, in Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für
klassische Archäologie, Mainz 1990, p. 560.

LIMC = L. Kahlil, ed., Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zurich &

Munich, 1981ff.

Lindner 1982 = R. Linder, Die Giebelgruppe von Eleusis mit Raub der Persephone,
JDI 97, 1982, pp. 303-400.

Linfert 1976 = A. Linfert, Kunstzentren hellenistischer Zeit, Wiesenbad 1976.

Lloyd-Morgan 1990 = G. Lloyd-Morgan, Caryatids and other supporters, in M.

Henig, ed., Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, Oxford
1990, pp. 143-151.

Love 1972 = I.C. Love, A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Knidos, 1970,
AJA 76, 1972, pp. 61-76, pls. 15-30.

Love 1973 = I.C. Love, A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Knidos, 1972,
AJA 77, 1973, pp. 413-24, pls. 76-8.

Lund 1992 = H.S. Lund, Lysimachus, London 1992.

Luni 1976 = M. Luni, Documenti per la storia della istituzione ginnasiale e

dell’attività atletica in Cirenaica, in rapporto a quelle della Grecia, QALibia 8, 1976,
pp. 223-84.

Luschey 1968 = H. Luschey, MittIran 1, 1968, pp. 115-122. [not seen]

Lutyens 1972 = M. Lutyens, The Ruskins and the Grays, London 1972.

Maass 1972 = M. Maass, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheatres, Athens 1972.

Mallwitz 1972 = A. Mallwitz, Olympia und seine Bauten, Berlin 1972.

Mano 1978 = A. Mano, Teatri antik i Apolonisë, Iliria VII/VIII, 1977/8, pp. 275-284,
pls. II.3, III.2.

Mansel 1968 = A.M. Mansel, Osttor und Waffenreliefs von Side, AA 1968, pp. 239-
79.
 269

Mansel 1978 = A.M. Mansel, Side, Ankara 1978.

Mansuelli 1958 = G.A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffizi, vol. 1, Rome 1958.

Mantis 1985 = A. ,

in Athens 1983,
Athens 1985, vol. B, pp. 177-83, pl. 39.

Mantis 1996 = A. , in

Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens 1996), W.D.E. Coulson & O.
Palagia, eds., Oxford 1998, pp. 209-225.

Marcadé 1951 = J. Marcadé, Les sculptures décoratives du Monument des Taureaux à

Délos, BCH 75, 1951, pp. 55-89, pls. VI-XVII.

Marcadé 1952 = J. Marcadé, A propos des statuettes hellénistiques en aragonite du

Musée de Délos, BCH 76, 1952, pp. 96-135, pls. III-IV.

Marcadé 1970 = J. Marcadé, Au Musée de Délos, Essai sur la sculpture hellénistique

en ronde bosse, Paris 1970.

Marcadé 1986a = J. Marcadé, Les Sculptures Décoratives de la Tholos de Marmaria à

Delphes: état actuel du dossier, in H. Kyrieleis, ed., Archaische und Klassische
Griechische Plastik, vol. 2, Mainz 1986, pp. 169-173, pls. 145-8.

Marcadé 1986b = J. Marcadé, Tegeatika, BCH 110, 1986, pp. 317-29.

Marcadé 1986c = J. Marcadé, Nouveaux fragments de plaque d'une métope de la

tholos de marmaria à Delphes, BCH 110, 1986, pp. 625-632.

Marcadé 1993 = J. Marcadé, Acrotères delphiques, RA 1993, pp. 3-32.

Marchi et al 1990 = M.L. Marchi, G. Sabbatini, M. Salvatore, Venosa: nuove

acquisizioni archeologiche, Basilicata, Leukania 2, Venosa 1990, pp. 11-49.

Markle 1977 = M.M. Markle III, The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related
Armour, AJA 81, 1977, pp. 323-3.

Markle 1982 = M.M. Markle, Veria in Macedonian arms and tactics under Alexander
the Great, in B. Barr-Sharra & E.N. Borza, eds., Macedonia and Greece in Late
Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art, vol. 10,
Washington 1982, pp. 87-111.

Markle 1994 = M.M. Markle, A Shield Monument from Veria, MedArch 7, 1994, pp.
83-97, pl. 8.

Martin 1968 = R. Martin, Sculpture et peinture dans les façades monumentales au IVe
siècle av. J.-C., RA 1968, pp. 171-184.
 270

Martin 1976 = R. Martin, Bathyclès de Magnésie et le ‘trone’ d’Apollon à Amyklae,

RA 1976, pp. 205-218.

Matachatschek & Schwartz 1981 = A. Matachatschek & M. Schwatz,

Bauforschungen in Selge, Selge, Vienna 1981, pp. 3-141.

Maziot 1924 = F. Maziot, Les Ruines de Pompéi, Paris 1824.

Mendel vols. I-III = G. Mendel, Musées impériaux Ottomans. Catalogue des

sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, Constantinople, 1912-1914, 3 vols.

Mertens 1988 = D. Mertens, Note sull’architettura di Poseidonia-Paestum: Problemi e

stato della ricerca, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Atti del 27e Convegno di Studi sulla
Magna Grecia, Taranto 1988, pp. 541-74, pl. 80-86.

Mertens-Horn 1986 = M. Mertens-Horn, Studien zu griechischen Löwenbildern,

RomMitt 93, 1986, pp. 1-61, pls. 1-19.

Mierzwinski 1980 = M. Mierzwinski, Typologia Podpòr figuralnycyh w architekturze

antycznej, Archaeologia (Warsaw) 31, 1980, pp. 19-47.

Miller 1971 = S.G. Miller, Hellenistic Macedonian Architecture, Its Style and Painted
Ornamentation, Diss. Bryn Mawr 1971.

Miller 1982 = S.G. Miller, Macedonian Tombs: Their Architecture and Architectural
Decoration, in B. Barr-Sharra & E.N. Borza, eds., Macedonia and Greece in Late
Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art, vol. 10,
Washington 1982, pp. 153-171.

Miller 1993a = S.G. Miller, The Iconography of Tomb Painting in Hellenistic

Macedonia, in E.M. Moormann, ed., Function and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting,
BABesch Suppl., 1993, pp. 115-8.

Miller 1993b = S.G. Miller, The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles, A Painted Macedonian
Tomb, Mainz 1993.

Miller & Miller 1972 = S.G. Miller & S.G. Miller, Architectural blocks from the
Strymon,  27A, 1972, pp. 140-69, pls.49-56.

Mitchell 1974 = C. Mitchell, Ciriaco d’Ancona, in V.J. Bruno, ed., The Parthenon,
New York 1974, pp. 111-123.

Mitchell 1991 = S. Mitchell, The Hellenization of Pisidia, MedArch 4, 1991, pp. 119-
45, pls. 6-19.

Mitchell & Waelkens 1987 = St. Mitchell & M. Waelkens, Sagalassus and Cremma
1986, Anatolian Studies 37, 1987, pp. 37-48.

Mitchell & Waelkens 1988 = St. Mitchell & M. Waelkens, Cremma and Sagalassus
1987, Anatolian Studies 38, 1988, pp. 53-65, pls. I-VIII.
 271

Mitchell & Waelkens 1989 = St. Mitchell & M. Waelkens, Ariassos and Sagalassos
1988, Anatolian Studies 39, 1989, pp. 61-77.

Morel 1976 = J.-P. Morel, Le Sanctuaire de Vastogirardi (Molise) et les influences

hellénistiques en Italie centrale, in P. Zanker, E. Teil, eds., Hellenismus in
Mittelitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp. 255-266.

Moretti 1993 = J.-Ch. Moretti, Des masques et des théâtres en Grèce et en Asie
Mineure, REA 95, 1993, pp. 207-223.

Morrow 1985 =K.D. Morrow, Greek footwear and the dating of sculpture, Madison
1985.

Müller 1973 = W. Müller, Der Pergamon-Altar, Leipzig 1973.

Neumann 1979 = G. Neumann, Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs, 1979.

Newton 1840 = C.T. Newton, Antiquities of Ionia, vol.III, London 1840.

Newton & Pullan 1862 = C.T. Newton and R.P. Pullan, A History of Discoveries at
Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae, vol. II, 2, London 1862.

Norman 1984 = N.J. Norman, The Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, AJA 88, 1984,
pp. 169-94.

Nowicka 1969 = M. Nowicka, La maison privée dans l’Egypte Ptolemaïque,

Bibliotheca Antiqua 9, Warsaw 1969.

Oberleitner 1993 = W. Oberleitner, Vergangenheit und Zukunft des Heroon von

Trysa, in J. Borchardt & G. Dobesch, eds., Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-
Symposions, Vienna 1993, vol. II, pp. 211-9, pls. LVII-LXII.

Oberleitner 1994 = W. Oberleitner, Das Heroon von Trysa: ein lykisches Fürstengrab
des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Mainz 1994.

Ohnersorg 1994 = A. Ohnesorg, Die Mittelakrotere des Peripteraltempels in Karthaia:

Zur Rekostruktion der Mittelakroterebasen, AA, 1994, pp. 349-54.

Osada 1993 = T. Osada, Stilentwicklung hellenistischer Relieffriese, Frankfurt 1993.

Ouertani 1994 = N. Ouertani, Remarques à propos de la collection en marbre, in G.

Hellenkemper Salies, H.H. von Prittwitz und Graffon, G. Bauchhenß, eds., Das
Wrack: Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia, Köln 1994, vol. 1, pp. 289-301.

Outschar 1990 = U. Outschar, Zum Monument des Memmius, ÖJh 75, 1990, pp. 60-
8.

Özgan 1982 = R.Özgan, Zur Datierung des Artemisaltars in Magnesia am Mäander,

IstMitt 32, 1982, pp. 196-209, pls. 42-7.
 272

Özgan 1995 = R. Özgan, Die griechische und römischen Skulpturen aus Tralleis,
Asia Minor Studien 15, Bonn 1995.

Özgünel 1990 = C. Özgünel, Das Fundament de Smitheion in der Troas, in W.

Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische
Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 35-44.

Pacho 1827 = J.R. Pacho, Relation d’un Voyage dans la Marmarique, La Cyrénaïque
et les oasis, Paris 1827.

Pairault 1972 = F.-H. Pairault, Recherches sur quelques séries d’urnes, Rome 1972.

Palagia 1980 = O. Palagia, Euphranor, Leiden 1980.

Palagia 1989 = O. Palagia, A classical variant of the Corinth/Mocenigo Goddess:

Demeter/Kore or Athena, BSA 84, 1989, pp. 323-31, pls. 45-7.

Palagia 1993 = O. Palagia, The Pediments of the Parthenon, Leiden 1993.

Panagos 1968 = C. Panagos, Le Pirée, Athens 1968.

Papadimitriou 1949 = J. Papadimitriou, Le sanctuaire d’Apollon Maléatas a Epidaure,

BCH 73, 1949, pp. 361-83, pl. XIX.

Papapostolou 1993 = I.A. Papapostolou, Thermon, Ergon 1993, pp. 44-58.

Pape 1975 = M. Pape, Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre öffentliche
Aufstellung in Rom, Diss. Hamburg 1975.

Paribeni 1953 = E. Paribeni, Museo Nazionale Romano: Sculture Greche, Rome

1953.

Paribeni 1969 = E. Paribeni, Considerazioni sulle sculture originali greche di Roma,

in La Magna Grecia e Roma nell’età arcaica, Atti del 8e Convegno di Studi sulla
Magna Grecia, Taranto 1969, pp. 83-89, pls. I-III.

Paris 1988 = R. Paris, Una lettura del frontone del tempio di Quirino sul frammento
del ‘rilievo Hartwig’ nel Museo Nazionale Romano, BollArte 52, 1988, pp. 27-38.

Pekridou 1986 = A. Pekridou, Das Alkestas-Grab in Termessos, IstMitt-BH 32, 1986.

Pensabene 1990 = P. Pensabene, Il tempio ellenistico di S. Leucio a Canosa, in Italici

in Magna grecia, M. Tagliente, ed., Leukania 3, 1990, pp. 269-349, pls. CII-CXL.

Pensabene 1993 = P. Pensabene, Repertario d’arte dell’Egitto Greco-Romano, vol.

C.III, Rome 1993.

Perdrizet 1938 = P. Perdrizet, Le monument de Hermel, Syria 19, 1938, pp. 47-71,
pls. XI-XIII.

Pergamon III.1 = J. Schrammen, Der grosse Altar, Pergamon III.1, Berlin 1896.
 273

Pergamon III.2 = H. Winnefeld, Die Friese des Grossen Altars, Pergamon III.2,
Berlin 1910.

Pergamon VII = F. Winter, Die Skulpturen mit Ausnahme der Altarreliefs, Pergamon
VII, Berlin 1908.

Petsas 1966 = F. Petsa, , Athens 1966.

Pfanner 1979 = M. Pfanner, Bemerkungen zur Komposition und Interpretation des

grossen Frieses von Pergamon, AA 1979, pp. 46-57.

Pfrommer 1990 = M. Pfrommer, Wurzeln hermogeneischer Bauornamentik, in W.

Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische
Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 69-80.

Picard 1921 = Ch. Picard, L’établissament des Poseidoniastes de Berytos, EAD 6,

Paris 1921.

Picard 1927 = Ch. Picard, Notes d’Archéologie Grècque, REA 29, 1927, pp. 241-285.

Picard 1933 = Ch. Picard, Remarques sur les sculptures monumentales du sanctuaire
d’Aléa Athéna a Tégée: I. L’Autel fédéral, REG 46, 1933, pp. 381-422.

Picard 1934 = Ch. Picard, Remarques sur les sculptures monumentales du sanctuaire
d’Aléa Athéna a Tégée: II. Côté oriental du temple, REG 47, 1934, pp. 393-4.

Picard 1935 = Ch. Picard, Vitruve, Le Portique des Perses a Sparte, et les Origines de
L’ <<ordre Persan>>, CRAI 1935, pp. 215-235.

Picard 1942 = Ch. Picard, Satyros, fils d’Isotimos, REA 44, 1942, pp. 5-24.

Picard 1943 = Ch. Picard, Acrotères latéraux au temple d’Apollon de Phigalie-

Bassae, MonPiot 39, 1943, pp. 49-80, pls. VI-VII.

Picard 1952 = Ch. Picard, Démétrios Poliorcète et le Néôrion de Délos, RA 1952, II,
pp. 79-83.

Picard 1954 = Ch. Picard, Manuel d’archéologie grecque, la sculpture, vol. IV.2,
Paris 1954.

Picard 1955 = Ch. Picard, Les Caryatides du Théâtre de Vienne, in Anthemon: Scritti
di archeologia e di antichit’ classiche in onore di Carlo Anti, Florence 1955, pp. 273-
80.

Pietrangeli 1939 = C. Pietrangeli, Frammento di trabeazione romana del cemeterio

dei Giordani, BullCom 67, 1939, pp. 31-6, pls. I-II.

Plommer 1979 = W.H. Plommer, Vitruvius and the origin of Caryatids, JHS 99, 1979,
pp. 97-102, pls. IV-V.
 274

Pollitt 1986 = J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge 1986.

Poulsen & Rhomaios 1927 = F. Poulsen, K. Rhomaios, 1. vorläufiger Bericht über

die dänisch-griechischen Ausgrabungen in Kalydon, Copenhagen 1927.

Posch 1991 = W. Posch, Die  des Timotheos, AA 1991, pp. 69-73.

Pottier & Hauvette-Besnault 1880 = E. Pottier & Am. Hauvette-Besnault, Inscriptions

de Lesbos, BCH 4, 1880, pp. 417-448.

Pouilloux 1983 = Jean Pouilloux, La Contruction du Temple Classique de Delphes,

BCH 107, 1983, pp. 191-216.

Price & Trell 1977 = M.J. Price & B.L. Trell, Coins and their Cities: Architecture on
the ancient coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine, London 1977.

von Prittwitz 1994 = H.H. von Prittwitz und Graffon, Die Marmortondi, in G.
Hellenkemper Salies, H.H. von Prittwitz und Graffon, G. Bauchhenß, eds., Das
Wrack: Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia, Köln 1994, vol. 1, pp. 303-328.

von Prittwitz 1996 = H.H. von Prittwitz und Graffon, The Divine Circle: the
Roundels of Mahdia, in Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens 1996);
W.D.E. Coulson & O. Palagia, eds., Oxford 1998, pp. 69-73.

Queyrel 1986 = F. Queyrel, in R. Etienne & J-P Braun, Tenos I: Le Sanctuaire de

Poseidon et D’Amphitrite, Paris 1986.

Radt 1981 = W.Radt, Der ‘Alexanderkopf’ in Istanbul, Ein Kopf aus dem Grossen
Fries des Pergamon-Altäres, AA 1981, pp. 583-96.

Raeder 1984 = J. Raeder, Priene: Funde aus einer griechischen Stadt, Berlin 1984.

Raftopoulous 1985a = E.G. Raftopoulo, Neue Zeugnisse archaistischer Plastik im

Athener Nationalmuseum, AthMitt 100, 1985, pp. 355-365, pls. 72-80.

Raftopoulous 1985b = E.G. Raftopoulou, Autour de nouveaux documents du courant

classicisant au Musée National,
, Athens 1983, Athens
1985, vol. G, pp. 230-3, pls. 50-2.

La Regina 1976 = A. La Regina, Il Sannio, in P. Zanker, E. Teil, eds., Hellenismus in

Mittelitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp. 219-57.

Rehak 1990 = P. Rehak, The Ionic temple relief in the Capitoline: the temple of
Victory on the Palatine, JRA 3, 1990, pp. 172-186, figs. 1-4.

Reuterswärd 1960 = P. Reuterswärd, Studien zur Polychromie der Plastik.

Griechenland und Rom, Stockholm 1960.

Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976 = A. Ribi & C. Isler-Kerényi, Die Stützfiguren des
griechischen Theatre von Iaitas, Studia Ietina 1, 1976, pp. 13-48, pls. 1-19.
 275

Rice 1993 = E.E. Rice, The glorious dead: commemoration of the fallen and portrayal
of victory in the late classical and hellenistic world, in J. Rich & G. Shipley, eds.,
War and Society in the Greek World, London 1993, pp. 224-57.

Ridgway 1966 = B.S. Ridgway, The Two Reliefs from Epidauros, AJA 70, 1966, pp.
217-222, pls. 49-50.

Ridgway 1970 = B.S. Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton 1970.

Ridgway 1977 = B.S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton
1977.

Ridgway 1981 = B.S. Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Princeton
1981.

Ridgway 1990a = B.S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331-200
BC, Princeton 1990.

Ridgway 1990b = B.S. Ridgway, Metal Attachments in Greek Marble Sculpture, in

Marble: Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture, Malibu
1990, pp. 185-206.

Ridgway 1997 = B.S. Ridgway, Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Princeton

1997.

Ridgway 1999 = B.S. Ridgway, Prayers in Stone, Greek Architectural Sculpture (ca.
600-100 B.C.E.), Berkeley 1999.

Robertson 1975 = M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art, Cambridge 1975.

La Rocca 1985 = E. La Rocca, Amazonomachia: Le sculture frontonali del tempio di

Apollo Sosiano, Rome 1985.

La Rocca 1986 = E. La Rocca, Le sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sosiano a

Roma, in H. Kyrieleis, ed., Archaische und Klassische Griechische Plastik, vol. 2,
Mainz 1986, pp. 51-8, pls. 95-99, Beil 3.

La Rocca 1988 = E. La Rocca, Der Apollo-Sosianus-Tempel, in Kaiser Augustus und

die verlorene Republik, Berlin 1988, pp. 121-36.

Roger 1939 = J. Roger, Le monument au Lion d’Amphipolis, BCH 63-5, 1939-41, pp.
4-42, pls. I-X.

Roncalli 1979 = F. Roncalli, Figure in terracotta dal fronte di un tempio ellenistico a

Tivoli, in Greece and Italy in the Classical World, Acta of the XIth International
Congress of Classical Archaeology, London 1979, pp. 226-7.

Rouveret 1990 = A. Rouveret, Histoire et Imaginaire de la Peinture Ancienne, Paris

1990.
 276

Roux 1952 = G. Roux, Le Toit de la Tholos de Marmaria et la couverture des

monuments circulaires grecs, BCH 76, 1952, pp. 442-83.

Roux 1956 = G. Roux, Sur quelques termes d’architecture, BCH 80, 1956, pp. 507-
21.

Roux 1961 = G.Roux, L’Architecture de L’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe Siècles avant J.-
C., Paris 1961.

Roux 1966 = G. Roux, Les comptes du IVe siècle et la reconstruction du temple

d’Apollon à Delphes, RA 1966, pp. 245-96.

Rügler 1988 = A. Rügler, Die columnae caelatae des jüngeren Artemisions von
Ephesos, IstMitt-BH 34, Tübingen 1988.

Rumscheid 1994 = F. Rumscheid, Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen

Bauornamentik des Hellenismus, Mainz 1994, 2 vols.

Rupp 1974 = D.W. Rupp, Greek Altars, Diss. Bryn Mawr 1974.

Russo 1981 = S. Russo, Fregi d’Armi in Monumenti Funerari Romani dell’Abruzzo,

Rivista di Archaelogia 5, 1981, pp. 30-43.

Sagalassos 1 = M. Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos, vol. 1, Leuven 1992.

Sagalassos 2 = M. Waelkens & J. Poblome, Sagalassos, vol. 2, Leuven 1993.

Salviat 1960 = Fr. Salviat, Le Batiment de scène du théâtre de Thasos, BCH 84, 1960,
pp. 300-316.

Samos 12 = R. Horn, Hellenistiche Bildwerke auf Samos, Samos XII, Bonn 1972.

Samos 14 = R. Trölle-Kastenbein, Das Kastro Tigani: Die Bauten und Funde

griechische, römischer und byzantinischer Zeit, Samos XIV, Bonn 1974.

Samothrace 3 = P.W. Lehmann et al, The Hieron, Samothrace 3, Princeton 1969, 3

vols.

Samothrace 4 = K. Lehmann, The Hall of Votive Gifts, Samothrace 4, Princeton

1962.

Samothrace 5 = P.W. Lehmann, D. Spittle, et al, The Temenos, Samothrace 5,

Princeton 1982.

Santucci 1995 = A. Santucci, La tomba Cirenea N 226: dal monumento ellenistico

alla riformulazione architettonica romana, QALibia 10, 1985, pp. 53-61.

Schaller 1973 = F. Schaller-Harl, Stützfiguren in der griechischen Kunst, Diss.

Vienna 1973.

Schliemann 1880 = H. Schliemann, Ilios, London 1880.

 277

Schliemann 1884 = H. Schliemann, Troja, London 1884.

Schlörb 1965 = B. Schlörb, Timotheos, JdI Ergänzungsheft 22, 1965.

Schmidt 1973 = E.A. Schmidt, Die Kopien der Erechtheionkore, AntP 13, 1973.

Schmidt 1982 = E.M. Schmidt, Geschichte der Karyatide, Würzburg 1982.

Schmidt 1990 = Th.-M. Schmidt, Der späte Beginn und der vorzeitige Abbruch der
Arbeiten am Pergamonaltar, in B. Andreae, ed., Phyromachos-Probleme. Mit einem
Anhang zur Datierung des grossen Altares von Pergamon, RomMitt Supp. 31, 1990,
pp. 141-162.

Schmidt 1991 = S. Schmidt, Hellenistische Grabreliefs, Köln 1991.

Schmidt-Colinet 1977 = A. Schmidt-Colinet, Antike Stüzefiguren, Frankfurt 1977.

Schmidt-Donas 1991 = B. Schmidt-Donas, Zur Datierung der Metopen des Athena-

Tempels von Ilion, IstMitt 41, 1991, pp. 363-415, pls. 46-8.

Schmidt-Donas 1993 = B. Schmidt-Dounas, Anklänge an altorientalische

Mischwesen in Gigantomachiefries des Pergamonaltares, Boreas 16, 1993, pp. 5-17,
pls. 1-3.

Schneider 1986 = R.M. Schneider, Bunte Barbaren, Worms 1986.

Scholl 1995 = A. Scholl, : Zur Deutung der Korenhalle des Erechtheion,
JdI 110, pp. 179-212

Schrober 1933 = A. Schrober, Der Fries des Hekateions von Lagina, 1933.

Schuchhardt 1978 = W.-H. Schuchhardt, Relief mit Pferd und Negerknaben im

National-Museum in Athen N.M. 4464, AntP 17, 1978, pp. 75-99, pls. 41-9.

Schwandner 1990 = E.-L. Schwandner, Beobachtungen zur Hellenistischen

Tempelarchitektur von Pergamon, in W. Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner, eds.,
Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 85-102.

Schwarzenberger 1969 = E. Schwarzenberger, Knidische Miszelle, BonnJbb 169,

1969, pp. 88-103.

Schwingenstein 1977 = Ch. Schwingenstein, Die Figurenausstattung des

griechischen Theatrebäudes, Diss. Munich 1977.

Seiler 1986 = F. Seiler, Die griechische Tholos, Mainz 1986.

Sensi 1987 = L. Sensi, Gli scavi di G. Sordini sul Poggio di Talamonaccio (20.4-
4.6.1892), Florence 1987.
 278

Simon 1993 = E. Simon, Der Laginafries und der Hekatehymnos in Hesiods

Theogonie, AA 108, 1993, pp. 227-284.

Smith 1991 = R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture, London 1991.

Smith 1991b = R.R.R. Smith, Late Roman Philosophers, Aphrodisias Papers 2, Ann
Arbor 1991, pp. 144-158.

Smith 1993 = A.C. Smith, Athenianizing Associations in the Sculpture of the Temple
of Asklepios at Epidauros, AJA 97, 1993, p. 300.

Stähler 1966 = K.-P. Stähler, Das Unklassische am Telephosfries: die Friese des
Pergamonaltares im Rahmen der hellenistischen Plastik, Münster 1966.

Stähler 1968 = K.-P. Stähler, Zu den Iphigeniereliefs in Termessos, AA 1968, pp.

280-9.

Stähler 1978 = K. Stähler, Überlegungen zur architektonischen Gestalt des

Pergamonaltäres, in Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für F.K.
Dörmer, EPRO 66, Leiden 1978, pp. 838-67.

Stähler 1983 = K.-P. Stähler, Giebelfigureneines hochklassischen Tempels, Boreas 6,

1983, pp. 72-8, pl. 9.

Stähler 1985 = K.-P. Stähler, Klassische Akrotere, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift
für Hedwig Kenne, vol. 2, Vienna & Berlin 1985, pp. 326-332, pl. LIV.

Stampolides 1984 = N.C. Stampolides, ‘Der Nymphanaltar’ in Knidos und der

Bildauer Theon aus Antiochia, AA 1984, pp. 113-26.

Stampolides 1987 = ,

Thessaloniki 1987.

Stampolides 1988 = N.C. Stampolides, The Kos Fragment and the Genoese Slab from
the Mausoleum, in S. Dietz & I. Papachristodoulou, Archaeology in the Dodecanese,
Copenhagen 1988, pp. 184-190.

Stampolides 1989 = N.C. Stampolides, On the provenance of the marble of the

Mausoleum Amazonomachia frieze, in T. Linders & P. Hellström, eds., Architecture
and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Boreas (Uppsala) 17, 1989, pp. 45-50.

Stampolides 1990 = N.C. Stampolides, Hermogenes, seine Werk und seine Schule
vom Ende des 3. bis zum Ende des I. Jhs. v. Chr., in W. Hoepfner, E.L. Schwandner,
eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, Berlin 1990, pp. 115-121.

Stanzl 1993 = G. Stanzl, Das sogennante Ptolemaion in Limyra - Ergebnisse der

Ausgrabungen 1984-89, in J. Borchardt & G. Dobesch, eds., Akten des II.
Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Vienna 1993, vol. 2, pp. 183-90, pls. XLIII-
XLIX.

Stefanidou-Tiberiou 1996 = Th. Stefanidou-Tiberiou, 

 279

, in W.D.E. Coulson & O.

Palagia, eds., Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens 1996), Oxford 1998,
pp. 227-33.

Stevens 1948 = P. Stevens, Model of the Lion of Amphipolis, in Mélanges Picard,

Paris 1948, pp. 274-82.

Stewart 1977 = A.F. Stewart, Skopas of Paros, Park Ridge 1977.

Stewart 1982 = A.F. Stewart, Dionysos at Delphi: The Pediments of the Sixth Temple
of Apollo and Religious reform in the Age of Alexander, in B. Barr-Sharra & E.N.
Borza, eds., Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times,
Studies in the History of Art, vol. 10, Washington 1982, pp. 205-228.

Stewart 1990 = A.F. Stewart, Greek Sculpture, Yale 1990.

Stuart & Revett 1755 = J. Stuart & N. Revett, The Antiquities of Athens, London
1755.

Stucchi 1975 = S. Stucchi, Architettura Cirenaica, Rome 1975.

Stucchi 1987a = S. Stucchi, Il naiskos <<di Lysanias>> riconsiderato, QALibia 12,

1987, pp. 191-220.

Stucchi 1987b = S. Stucchi, L’architettura funeraria suburbana cirenaica in rapporto a

quelle della chora viciniore ed a quelle libya ulteriore, con speciale riguardo all’ età
ellenistica, QALibia 12, 1987, pp. 249-377.

Stucky 1981 = R.A. Stucky, Les divinités de la tribune du sanctuaire d’Echmoun à

Sidon, Problème de leur identification, in Méthodologie iconographique, Actes du
Colloque de Strasbourg, Strasbourg 1981, pp. 91-3

Stucky 1984 = R.A. Stucky, Tribune d’Echmoun, Ein griechischer Reliefzyklus des 4.
Jh. v. Chr. in Sidon, AntK-BH 13, Basel 1984.

Stucky 1993 = R.A. Stucky, Lykien-Karien-Phönizien. Kulturelle Kontakte zwische

Kleinasien und der Levante während der Perserherrschaft, in J. Borchardt & G.
Dobesch, eds., Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Vienna 1993, vol. 1,
pp. 261-8, pls. XLV-XLVIII.

Stupperich 1977 = R. Stupperich, Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal in Klassische

Athen, Diss. Münster 1977.

Stupperich 1990 = R. Stupperich, Zu den Stylopinakia am Tempel der Apollonis in

Kyzikos, in E. Schwertheim, ed., Mysische Studien, Asia Minor Studien I, Bonn
1990, pp. 101-109.

Sturgeon 1975/6 = M.C. Sturgeon, A Hellenistic Lion-Bull Group in Oberlin, Allen

Memorial Art Museum Bulletin 33, 1975/6, pp. 28-43, figs. 1-2.
 280

Sturgeon 1978 = M.C. Sturgeon, A New Monument to Herakles at Delphi, AJA 82,
1978, pp. 226-235.

Sturgeon 1996 = M.C. Sturgeon, Hellenistic Sculpture at Corinthin: The State of the
Question, in Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens 1996), W.D.E.
Coulson, O. Palagia, eds., Oxford 1998, pp. 1-13.

Süssenbach 1971 = U. Süssenbach, Der Frühhellenismus im griechischen Kampf-

Reliefen, Bonn 1971.

Suppan 1986 = A. Suppan, Der Sterbende Krieger von Ephesos aus dem
Pollionnymphaeum, AW 17, 1986, pp. 38-40.

Sztetyllo 1966 = Z. Sztetyllo, Quelques problèmes relatifs à l’iconographie des

timbres amphoriques: la représentarion des statues, Etudes et Travaux 3, 1966, pp.
45-80.

Tancke 1989 = K. Tancke, Figuralkassetten griechischer und römischer steindecken,

Frankfurt 1989.

Tancke 1990 = K. Tancke, Wagenrennen, JdI 105, 1990, pp. 95-127.

Themelis 1993a = P. Themelis, , in O.

Palagia & W. Coulson, eds., Sculpture of Arcadia and Laconia, Oxford 1993, pp. 99-
109.

Themelis 1993b = P. Themelis, Damophon von Messene, seine Werk im Lichte der
neuen ausgrabungen, AntK 36, 1993, pp. 24-40, pls. 3-9.

Themelis 1994 = P. Themelis, Damophon of Messene: new evidence, in K.A.

Sheedy, ed., Archaeology in the Peloponnese, Oxford 1994, pp. 2-37, pls. 1-18.

Thera 3 = F.H. von Gaertringen, Thera 3, Berlin 1904.

Tobin 1991 = J.L. Tobin, The monuments of Herodes Atticus, Diss. Pennsylvania
1991.

Tod & Wace 1906 = M.N Tod & A.J.B Wace, A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum,
Oxford 1906.

Tomlinson 1967 = R.A. Tomlinson, False-Facade Tombs at Cyrene, BSA 62, 1967,
pp. 241-256, pls. 44-7.

Tomlinson 1983 = R.A. Tomlinson, Southern Greek Influences on Macedonian

Architecture, III , Thessaloniki 1983, pp. 285-9.

Torelli 1988 = M. Torelli, Paestum romana, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Atti del 27e

Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1988, pp. 33-115, pls. I-XXI.

Touchette 1995 = L.-A. Touchette, The Dancing Maenad Reliefs, BICS Suppl. 62,
London 1995.
 281

Travlos 1971 = J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York 1971.

Trianti 1985 = , ,

Diss. Thessaloniki, 1985.

Trianti 1986 = , ,

H. Kyrieleis, ed., Archaische und Klassische Griechische Plastik, vol. 2, Mainz 1986,
pp. 155-168, figs. 1-5, pls. 136-144.

Tsirivakos 1968 = E.K. Tsirivakos, Vorläufiger Bericht über eine Grabung in

Kallithea, AAA 1, 1968, pp. 35-6; idem, Nouvelles theCallithéa, AAA 1, 1968, pp.
108-9; idem, Erratum, AAA 1, 1968, p. 212.

Tsirivakos 1971 = E.K. Tsirivakos, Kallithea: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung, AAA 4,

1971, pp. 108-110.

Tuchelt 1967 = K. Tuchelt, Scylla: Zu einem neugefundenen Tonmodel aus Didyma,

IstMitt 17, 1967, pp. 173-94, pl. 17.

Tuchelt 1975 = K. Tuchelt, Buleuterion und Ara Augusti: Bemerkungen zur

Rathausanlage von Milet, IstMitt 25, 1975, pp. 91-135.

Uz 1990 = D. Uz, The Temple of Dionysos at Teos, in W. Hoepfner, E.L.

Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, Berlin 1990,
pp. 51-61.

von Vacano 1960 = O.W. von Vacano, Studien an volterraner Urnreliefs, RomMitt
67, 1960, pp. 48-97.

von Vacano 1985 = O.W. von Vacano, Gli Etruschi a Talamonaccio, Bologna 1985.

von Vacano 1988 = O.W. von Vacano, Regio instratu ornatus, Beobachtungen zur
Deutung des Reliefs des L. Aemilius Paullus in Delphi, in H. Büsing & F. Hiller, eds.,
Bathron: Beiträge zur Architektur und verwandten küsten für Heinrich Drerup zu
seinem 80. Geburstag, Saarbrücken 1988, pp. 378-86.

Valeva 1993 = J. Valeva, Hellenistic Tombs in Thrace and Macedonia: Their Form
and Decorations, in E.M. Moormann, ed., Function and Spatial Analysis of Wall
Painting, BABesch Suppl., 1993, pp. 119-126.

Valeva forth. = J. Valeva, an article on Sveštari, in Festschrift for G. Mihailov, Sofia,

forthcoming. (not seen)

Vallet & Villard 1966 = G. Vallet & F. Villard, Mégara Hyblaea IV, le temple du IVe
siècle, Paris 1966.

Vallois 1944 = R. Vallois, L’Architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Delos, 2 vols.,

Paris 1944 & 1966.
 282

Vermeule 1965 = C.C. Veurmeule III, A Greek theme and its survivals, the Ruler’s
Shield in Tomb and Temple, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109,
1965, pp. 361-397.

Vermeule 1972 = C.C. Vermeule III, Greek Funerary Animals, 450-300 B.C., AJA
76, 1972, pp. 49-59, pls. 11-14.

Vermeule 1984 = C.C. Vermeule III, From Halicarnassus to Alexandria in the

Hellenistic Age: the Ares of Halicarnassus by Leochares, in N. Boacasa, A. Di Vita,
eds., Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, Studi in onore di A. Adriani, Rome
1984, vol. 3, pp. 783-8, pls. CXX-CXXIII.

Verzar 1976 = M. Verzar, Archäologische Zeugnisse aus Umbrien, in P. Zanker, E.

Teil, eds., Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp. 117-42.

Vessberg & Westholm 1956 = O. Vessberg, A. Westholm, The Hellenistic and

Roman Periods in Cyprus, Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4.3, Stockholm 1956.

Vian 1951 = F. Vian, Répertoire des gigantomachies figurées dans l’art grec et
romain, Paris 1951.

Vian 1952 = F. Vian, La Guerre des Géants, Paris 1952.

Vickers 1985 = M. Vickers, Persepolis, Vitruvius and the Erectheum Caryatids: the
iconography of medism and servitude, RA 1985, pp. 3-28.

Vierneisel 1979 = K. Vierneisel, Untersuchungen zu den Niobidenfiguren Rom-

Kopenhagen-Berlin, in Greece and Italy in the Classical World, Acta of the XIth
International Congress of Classical Archaeology London 1979, p. 223.

de Vogüé 1865 = E.M. de Vogüé, Syrie Centrale, Architecture civile et religieuse du I

au VII siècle, vol. 1, Paris 1865.

Waelkens 1995 = M. Waelkens, The Rise and Fall of Sagalassos, Archaeology 48,
1995, pp. 28-34.

Waelkens et al 1990 = M. Waelkens, St. Mitchell, E. Owens, Sagalassos 1989,

Anatolian Studies 40, 1990, pp. 185-198, pls. XXVII-XXIX.

Waelkens et al 1991 = M. Waelkens, A. Harmankaya, W. Viaene, The Excavations at

Sagalassos 1990, Anatolian Studies 41, 1991, pp. 197-213.

Waelkens & Owen 1994 = M. Waelkens & E. Owens, The Excavations at Sagalassos
1993, Anatolian Studies 44, 1994, pp. 169-186.

Walker 1990 = S. Walker, Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum, London 1990.

Walter 1937 = Otto Walter, Arch Eph 1937, pp. 97-119.

Walter-Karydi 1994 = E. Walter-Karydi, Zur Rekonstruktion der Mittelakroter-

gruppen, AA 1994, pp. 354-64.
 283

Walter-Karydi 1996 = E. Walter-Karydi, Dangerous is Beautiful: the Elemental

Quality of a Hellenistic Scylla, in Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens
1996); W.D.E. Coulson & O. Palagia, eds., Oxford 1998, pp. 271-9.

Waywell 1978 = G.B. Waywell, The Free-Standing Sculptures of the Mausoleum at

Halicarnassus, London 1978.

Waywell 1980 = G.B. Waywell, Mausolea in South-west Asia Minor, Yayla 3, 1980,
pp. 4-11.

Waywell 1989 = G.B. Waywell, Further thoughts on the placing and interpretation of
the Freestanding Sculptures from the Mausoleum, in T. Linders & P. Hellström, eds.,
Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Boreas (Uppsala) 17, 1989, pp. 23-30.

Waywell 1990 = G.B. Waywell, The Scylla Monument from Bargylia: its Sculptural
Remains, Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie,
Mainz 1990, pp. 386-8.

Waywell 1993 = G.B. Waywell, The Ada, Zeus and Idrieus Relief from Tegea in the
British Museum, in O. Palagia & W. Coulson, eds., Sculpture from Arcadia and
Laconia, Oxford 1993, pp. 79-86, pl. 58.3.

Waywell 1994a = G.B. Waywell, Sculpture in the Ionian Renaissance, in J. Isager,

ed., Hecatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Odense 1994, pp. 58-72.

Waywell 1994b = G.B. Waywell, The Sculptors of the Mausoleum, in Sculpture of

Caria and the Dodecanese, (British Museum 1994), I. Jenkins & G.B. Waywell, eds.,
London 1997, pp. 60-7.

Waywell 1996 = G.B. Waywell, The Lion Tomb of Knidos, in Regional Schools in
Hellenistic Sculpture, (Athens 1996); W.D.E. Coulson & O. Palagia, eds., Oxford
1998, pp. 235-41.

Waywell 1997 = G.B. Waywell, The Scylla Monument from Bargylia, AntP 25,
1997, pp. 75-119, pls. 59-66.

Webb 1996 = P. Webb, Hellenistic architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in

Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands, Madison 1996.

Weber 1966 = H. Weber, Zum Apollon Smintheus-Tempel in der Troas, IstMitt 16,
1966, pp. 100-114, pls. 13-16.

Weber 1969 = H. Weber, Der Zeus-Tempel von Aezani - ein panhellenisches

Heiligtum der Kaiserzeit, AthMitt 84, 1969, pp. 182-201, pls. 79-81.

Webster 1966 = T.B.L. Webster, The Art of Greece: The Age of Hellenism, New York
1966.
 284

Wegener 1985 = S. Wegener, Funktion und Bedeutung landschhaft Elemente in der

griechischen Reliefkunst archaischer bis hellenistischer Zeit, Frankfurt 1985.

Wester 1969 = U. Wester, Die Akroterfiguren des Tempels der Atheners auf Delos,
Diss. Heidelberg 1969.

Wiegand 1902 = T. Wiegand, Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht über Die Ausgrabungen der
Königlichen Museen zu Milet, AA 17, 1902, pp. 147-55.

Wiegand & Schrader 1904 = Th. Wiegand & H. Schrader, Priene, Berlin 1904.

Will 1976 = E. Will, Un nouveau monument de l’art grec en Phénicie, La

<<tribune>> du sanctuaire d’Echmoun à Sidon, BCH 100, 1976, pp. 565-74.

Will 1985 = E. Will, Un problème d’interpretatio graeca, La pseudo-tribune

d’Echmoun à Sidon, Syria 62, 1985, pp. 105-24.

Willemsen 1959 = F. Willemsen, Die Löwenkopf-wasserspeier vom Dach des Zeus-

Tempels, Olympische Forschungen IV, Berlin 1959.

Williams & Fisher 1975 = C.K. Williams II & J.E. Fisher, Corinth 1974: Forum
South-west, Hesperia 44, 1975, pp. 1-50, pls. 1-11.

Winckelmann 1760 = J.J. Winckelmann, Anmerkungen über die Baukunst der Alten,
Leipzig 1760.

Winkes 1969 = R. Winkes, Clipeata Imago: Studien zu einer römischen Bildsform,

Bonn 1969.

Winter 1980 = F. Winter, Toward a Chronology of the Later Artemision at Ephesos,

AJA 84, 1980, p. 240.

Woysch-Méautis 1982 = D. Woysch-Méautis, La représentation des animaux et des

êtres fabuleux sur les monuments funéraires grecs, Lausanne 1982.

Yadin 1966 = Y. Yadin, Masada, London 1966.

Yalouris 1967 = N. Yalouris, , 22A, 1967,

pp. 25-37, pls. 22-38.

Yalouris 1986 = N. Yalouris, Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempels von Epidauros,

in, H. Kyrieleis, ed., Archaische und Klassische Griechische Plastik, vol. 2, Mainz
1986, pp. 175-186, pls. 149-53, Beil 4.

Yalouris 1992 = N. Yalouris, Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempels in Epidauros,

AntP 21, 1992.

Yavis 1949 = C.G. Yavis, Greek Altars, St. Louis 1949.

Yaylali 1976 = A. Yaylali, Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia am Mäander,
IstMitt-Beiheft 15, Tübingen 1976.
 285

Zagdoun 1989 = M.-A. Zagdoun, La Sculpture Archaïsante dans L’Art Hellénistique

et dans L’Art Romain du Haut-Empire, Paris 1989.

Zanker 1990 = P. Zanker, trans. A. Shapiro, The Power of Images in the Age of
Augustus, Ann Arbor 1990.

Zazoff et al 1985 = P. Zazoff, Ch. Höcker, L. Schneider, Zur thrakischen Kunst im

Frühhellenismus, AA 1985, pp. 595-643.

Zinserling 1965 = G. Zinserling, Das politische Programm des Aemilius Paullus im

Spiegel seines Siegesmonuments in Delphi, in Ch. Welskopf, ed., Neue Beiträge zur
Geschichte der alten Welt, vol. 2, 1965, pp. 163-172.
 286

List of Illustrations
NB - Although I have included the list of illustrations which illustrated the original
P.h.D. thesis in 1999, for copyright reasons I have not been able to include them in
this Kindle edition.

Figure 1 Reconstruction of the pediments of the temple of Asclepius, Epidauros.

(Yalouris 1986, Beil 4).

Figure 2 Palladion from the temple of Asclepius, Epidauros. (Boardman 1995, fig.
10.5).

Figure 3 Amazon from the temple of Asclepius, Epidauros. (Boardman 1995, fig.
10.2).

Figure 4 Dead Amazon from the temple of Asclepius, Epidauros. (Boardman 1995,
fig. 10.3).

Figure 5 Head of Priam from the temple of Asclepius, Epidauros. (Boardman 1995,
fig. 10.4).

Figure 6a Reconstruction of the pediments of the temple of Athena Alea, Tegea.

(Stewart 1977, fig. 53).

Figure 6b Diagram showing attachment of pedimental sculpture, temple of Athena

Alea, Tegea. (Stewart 1977, fig. 3).

Figure 7 Cast of head from the temple of Athena Alea, Tegea. (Stewart 1990, fig.
543).

Figure 8 Head from the temple of Athena Alea, Tegea. (Stewart 1990, fig. 542).

Figure 9 Patras inv. 207, from the temple of Athena, Mazi. (Trianti 1986).

Figure 10 Patras inv. 206, from the temple of Athena, Mazi. (Trianti 1986).

Figure 11 Patras inv. 203, from the temple of Athena, Mazi. (Trianti 1986).

Figure 12 Patras inv. 204, from the temple of Athena, Mazi. (Trianti 1986).

Figure 13 Patras inv. 205, from the temple of Athena, Mazi. (Trianti 1986).

Figure 14 Reconstruction of the pediments of the temple of Apollo at Delphi.

(Croissant 1986, Beil 5).

Figure 15 Apollo from the temple of Apollo at Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes,
negs. R. 2869.11+14; R. 2869.16).

Figure 16 Dionysos from the temple of Apollo at Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes,
negs. 19299; 47276).
 287

Figure 17 Thyiades from the temple of Apollo at Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes,
negs. L. 2354.4A; L. 1726.30A).

Figure 18 Reconstruction of the pediment of the Hieron, Samothrace. (Samothrace

3.1, figs. 211-2).

Figure 19 Figure assigned to the Metröon at Olympia. (DAI Athens, negs. OL. 3706;
OL. 3704).

Figure 20 Reconstructed frieze of the Marmaria Tholos, Delphi. (Ecole Française,

Athènes, neg. R. 2833.15+16).

Figure 21 Metope from the Marmaria Tholos, Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg.
R. 2765.12+14).

Figure 22 Metope from the Marmaria Tholos, Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes,
negs. R. 1368.9+10; R. 1368.5+6).

Figure 23 Metope from the Marmaria Tholos, Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg.
R. 2765.18).

Figure 24 Metope from the Marmaria Tholos, Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg.
12161).

Figure 25 Helios metope from the temple of Athena at Ilion. (Ridgway 1990a, pl. 70).

Figure 26 Gigantomachy metope from the temple of Athena at Ilion. (Ridgway

1990a, pl. 71).

Figure 27 Amazonomachy metope from the temple of Athena at Ilion. (Webb 1996,
fig. 4).

Figure 28 Rescue metope from the temple of Athena at Ilion. (Ridgway 1990a, pl.
72).

Figure 29 Gigantomachy metope from the temple of Athena at Ilion. (DAI Athens,
Calvert Collection).

Figure 30 Fragments from the temple of Athena at Ilion. (DAI Athens, Calvert
Collection).

Figure 31 Metopes from the Ptolemaion at Limyra. (Stanzl 1993, pl. XLIII).

Figure 32 Reconstruction of the Via Umbria Naiskos. (Carter 1975).

Figure 33 Metope from the Via Umbria Naiskos. (Carter 1975).

Figure 34 The Mourning Women metope, Athens NM inv. 1688. (Fleischer 1983, pl.
48.1).

Figure 35 Metope from Thasos. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg. 52981).

 288

Figure 36 Metope from Messene. (Ergon 29, 1990, p. 29, fig. 36).

Figure 37 Reconstruction of the facade of the Great Tomb, Lefkadia. (Petsas 1966, pl.
G).

Figure 38 Metopes from the Tomba dell’ Altalena, Cyrene. (Bacchielli 1976, pl. II).

Figure 39 Frieze from Delos Theatre. (Webb 1996, fig. 116).

Figure 40 Lintel from the House of Cleopatra, Delos. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg.
3233).

Figure 41 Frieze from the Stoa of Antigonos. (Webb 1996, fig. 117).

Figure 42 Frieze from a Villa at Pythagoreion. (Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 80.19).

Figure 43 Frieze from a Villa at Pythagoreion. (Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 80.21).

Figure 44 Frieze from the Lesser Propylon, Eleusis. (Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 396.4-
5).

Figure 45 Frieze from a Villa at Pythagoreion. (Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 80.20).

Figure 46 Delos Mus. inv. A.340. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg. 1363).

Figure 47 Acroteria from the Marmaria Tholos, Delphi. (Ecole Française, Athènes,
negs. 30065; 30068).

Figure 48 Acroterion from the temple of Despoina, Lycosoura. (DAI Athens, neg.
MEGAL. 7).

Figure 49 Acroterion, Delphi Museum inv. 8605. (Ridgway 1997, pl. 11).

Figure 50 Acroterion from the Monument of the Bulls, Delos. (Ridgway 1990a, pl.
79).

Figure 51 Acroterion from the temple of Asclepius at Epidauros. (Boardman 1995,

fig. 11.1).

Figure 52 Acroterion from the temple of Asclepius at Epidauros. (Stewart 1990, fig.
458).

Figure 53 Acroterion from the temple of Asclepius at Epidauros. (Stewart 1990, fig.
456).

Figure 54 Acroterion from the temple of Asclepius at Epidauros. (Stewart 1990, fig.
455).

Figure 55 Reconstruction of the temple of Artemis in Epidauros Museum with cast of

an acroterion, showing proportions. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg. 50877).
 289

Figure 56 Acroterion from the temple of Athena Alea, Tegea Museum inv. 59.(Ecole
Française, Athènes, neg. 2522).

Figure 57 Chaironea Lion. (Ecole Française, Athènes, neg. 25008).

Figure 58 Fragments of the Amphipolis Lion at the time of excavation. (Ecole

Française, Athènes, negs. 10353; 10347).

Figure 59 Messapian tomb at Vaste. (Ridgway 1990a, pl. 83).

Figure 60 Tomb at Aghia Triada, Rhodes. (Ridgway 1990a, fig. 26).

Figure 61 Thracian tomb near Svestari. (Zazoff et al 1985, fig. 28; Boardman 1994,
fig. 6.11).

Figure 62 Tomb N 228, Cyrene. (Bacchielli 1980).

Figure 63 Maenad from Monte Iato. (Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976, pl. 2).

Figure 64 Silenos from Monte Iato. (Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976, pl. 10).

Figure 65 Tarentine figures, Geneva. (Ribi & Isler-Kerényi 1976, pl. 21.3).

Figure 66 Ta Marmara. (Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 352).

Figure 67 Gate Towers of Perge. (Rumscheid 1994, cat. no. 292).