Student’s Last Name 1Student’s Last Name 2Student’s Na.docx

Student’s Last Name 1
Student’s Last Name 2
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Name
Date
The Sculptures of Gods
An ongoing exhibition of Greek and Roman sculpture in the
Getty Villa provides a splendid selection for the formal
analysis. Among the particular objects of interest is The
Lansdowne Dionysos, A.D. 1-200 (see Appendix A). It is a
curious example of the Roman copies of the Greek original
statues. Another item from the Roman collection is the Herm of
Hermes, second half of the 1st century A.D (see Appendix B),
created in the image of Hermes Propylaios authored by the
Greek sculptor Alkamenes around 430–420 B.C. Both artworks
belong to the same art canon and share the cultural origin. Both
are Roman imitations of the Greek tradition. Both are made of
marble. Yet, the two art objects under analysis differ between
one another considerably in terms of their sculptural formal
aspects, as well as both diverge from the Greek canons they
imitate in terms of functional purpose and symbolic meaning.
Seeming to a contemporary’s eye as fractured body fragments or
unfinished works, the items under consideration are, in fact,
canonical artistic renditions of the divine image within the
succession of two cultures, the Roman one adopting the shapes
of and being evidently inspired by the preceding Greek heritage.
The sculptures on display – lacking limbs and being
decapitated, as exemplified by the Dionysos, or being
represented by a sole head, like Hermes – are the body parts and
shapes as originally intended by their creators and not the result
of being age-worn and subject to breakage accidents. A headless
statue (torso) is an interesting feature of the Greek tradition and
its Roman rendition, since the identity of the art character is

supposedly guessed rather than recognized. A face is typically
considered the foremost important part for observation,
recognition and art focus overall. Contrary to this human logic
yet typical of the Greek art, the headless and faceless Roman
Dionysos is “guessed” by the animal skin half-covering his
body, being yet another reference to a canonical, generally
recognized image from the past art tradition of portrayal. In
contrast, god Hermes is performed in the form of a head
mounted on a pillar in the shape of a vertically standing cuboid.
This combination forms a typical Greek architectural ensemble
called the herm. In fact, the art term itself was derived from the
cult of Hermes. This logically leads the analysis to further
considering subject and content in more detail.
In terms of subject and content matter, the two statues do not
differ among each other as much as they differ from the Greek
origin after which they were created. For example, the original
Hermes herm was positioned near the entrance of the Athenian
Acropolis, thus, guarding it and forming a symbolic threshold at
the sacred zone. Yet, its Roman rendition already lost its sacred
functional purpose, being reported to serve as a decoration for
the Roman villa gardens, turning into a mere ornament. It is not
clear what purpose the Dionysos statue served in the time of its
creation in the Roman epoch. In the Greek times, the statues of
gods were considered the cult objects not aesthetically admired
but rather worshipped. Yet, it is known that in the twentieth
century the given torso of Dionysos adorned the garden of
Montecito. Thus, both are examples of the symbolic and
functional rethinking, reimaging and re-imagining, whereby the
original religious essence transformed into a matter of outdoors
decorum.
The artworks display cardinally different features when it
comes to line and balance, one being more dynamic and
asymmetrical compared to the other. The statue of Dionysos has
a relaxed, fluid posture of the young body, suggesting the mild
state of drunken euphoria that was often attributed to Dionysos
as the God of wine and festivity. Respectively, the statue’s lines

form a slightly tilted diagonal axis running from the raised non-
existent right arm through the body and to the left leg off which
the figure’s balance is shifted. His nudity is both a tribute to the
Greek and, later, Roman tradition of body worship as well as an
extra clue to indicate the frivolous, uncovered and uncensored
sexuality of the God of corporal pleasures. Allegedly, Hermes
also had its genitalia on display, as a separate element attached
to the pedestal pillar on the front (where currently the
distinctive hole is). The exposure of the genitals is explainable
both by the Greek tradition and by Hermes being the god of
fertility. Nowadays, these additional elements are lost. Thus,
unlike the half-bare Dionysos torso crafted in much realistic
detail, Hermes has a marble pillar as a substitute for his body,
making the artwork look more static, symmetrical, and even
geometric. His face also bears the evident traces of intended
symmetry in all the manifestations, for symmetry allegedly
equaled beauty and perfection. All in all, both being the typical
Roman copies of the Greek sculptural canons, the art objects
differ in terms of the body part chosen for portrayal and the way
they are rendered through line and balance.
The medium in both cases is marble, yet the artistic
representation differs cardinally. The entire piece of Dionysos
is a human torso performed with much attention to detail. The
marble is polished to the point it resembles the smooth human
(or godly) skin as it covers the muscles and bones underneath.
The work is so precise and masterful that stone gains its
perceived soft texture. It seems to be yielding and flexible like
the actual human body. The piece of animal skin that is used as
an element of an outfit for the god also looks extremely realistic
as it hangs from Dionysos’ shoulder, either half-hiding or half-
exposing his torso. Hence, in these two instances the skin – the
living human and dead animal – looks different, giving an
illusion of the two corresponding states: the inertness of the
dead flesh and the lively rigor of the young body. Contrastingly,
the herm rendition of Hermes gives the feeling of stone-hard
firmness and immobility. The strict geometrical shape makes

marble seem hyper-hard and rogue. This way, a noble material
gains the quality of a rough building block, even though it is
still used as an obelisk. As for the role of such effects on the
human perception of the statue, one may assume that the use of
a schematic pedestal for the head of the god is aimed at giving
grandeur to the persona portrayed. Pedestal per se has always
been regarded as an element that elevates whatever or whoever
is seated atop of it. The sculptural portrait of Hermes per se is
performed in a manner similar to the one described for
Dionysos, with the effect of a smooth skin and lively hair
arranged in half-natural half-geometrical wavelike patterns. The
duality of the realistic head attached to an inanimate cuboid
arouses a strange feeling of the pompous grandeur.
One particular strange similarity between the objects is the hair
– an element almost identical per se when viewed separately yet
being embedded into cardinally different contexts. Carved in
very similar patterns in terms of texture, shape and even length,
both art works’ hair strands fall on the characters’ shoulders.
The point of oddity is the fact that while Hermes does not have
actual shoulders portrayed as his head is basically attached to
the pillar to form a herm, Dionysos does have shoulders
naturalistically and fully cut in marble yet does not have the
head. As a result, the two strands of curly hair grow out of thin
air, being cut roughly where the neck cut is. Thus, this single
element unites the two art objects under the umbrella tradition
of the Greek sculpture and its later Roman adoption, making
them recognizable and easily attributed to the corresponding
epochs. Interestingly, the mentioned difference distinguishes
the artworks from one another as different types of sculpture
within the Roman and Greek cultures, yet not between these
cultures. Indeed, it is impossible and erroneous to say that one
is more typical of the Greek or Roman culture than the other.
They are both sculptural forms that ran continuously like a red
thread through two subsequent cultures, both surviving side by
side and being popular among the Romans just as well as they
originally were among the Greeks.

The effect of both works is overall realistic and at the same
time otherworldly. Both statues are portrayals of the Greek
gods. Dionysos has a distinctively human body with all its
biological male attributes. The human likeness is an ambiguous
form for depicting the creatures of the higher standing than
humans. Another interesting aspect is the human worship of the
godly bodies that are imprinted in marble in the ultimately
perfect physiological shapes (or at least the shapes people
considered perfect). In contrast, Hermes has a form of a head
mounted on the schematic representation of a body. It is
noteworthy that while other bodily features are ignored, the
pillar had the genitalia exquisitely carved and attached to it.
The resulting shape is a chimerical symbiosis of the human
body parts and three-dimensional geometrical figures altogether
representing a god. Overall, such a relationship between human
physiology, art, and myth as religion is multifaceted and
complex. In essence, gods are believed to have the human
corporeal form that literally brings the divine down to earth, to
the material world. At the same time, depicting these forms in
art and worshipping them brings the gods back to the ethereal
realm of the divine.
In conclusion, The Lansdowne Dionysos and Herm of Hermes
are curious examples of the longevity of the Greek tradition
through its imitation in the Roman times. Nevertheless, while
being the examples of inter-cultural heredity in terms of visual
representation canons, both pieces diverge from the Greek
tradition they imitate in functional purpose as they have lost
their initial religious meaning. To top it all, the two art objects
differ from each other in their sculptural forms, portraying
different bodily parts and doing it through diverging
architectural means.
Comment: In your paper, I think that you argued that the
sculptures show the importance of divine images in Greek and
Roman culture, but your thesis was not totally clear. The
strongest section of the paper was your discussion of line and
balance as static vs active. In this section, I got the sense that

you spend time looking at the works, Overall, however, you
relied too much on historical context to make your argument. I
would have liked you to think more about the overall effect of
the two pieces when crafting your thesis rather than using
historical context to make your argument. The paper relied too
much on narrative and iconography. When you did describe a
visual effect, you didn’t adequately use visual evidence to
explain how that effect was produced. C+
Appendix A
The Lansdowne Dionysos
(Source: http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/santa_barbara/)
Appendix B
Herm of Hermes
(Source:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/8636/unknown-
maker-herm-of-hermes-roman-second-half-of-1st-century-ad/ )
FootprintASSIGNMENT 4 FootprintPOSSIBLEPOINTS
POINTSEARNEDTHE 5 MAJOR SECTIONS 1. Title SlideTitle
of the PowerPoint - Is your title captivating and
descriptive?2Author's Name/ (You)1Class Name and Number +
Institution (CSU)1Page Header (flush left) + Page Number
(flush right)1Image/Graphic (Do you have an image that related
to your topic?)12. Footprint Definition Slide (explain in your
own words what an ecological and a carbon foorprint are.do not
copy and paste)53. Body (slides 3-10ish)FIRST THIRD OF
SLIDES Your footprint; how many earths would we need if
everyone lived like you do? 2What is the date you reach 1
earth?2A description of your current lifestyle and what
informed the results of your test.5A screen image of your test

results.3FINAL TWO THIRDS OF SLIDES Pick at least three
areas where you can lessen your footprint and identify them
(Ex: I eat a lot of red meat, I drive a lot, and I buy a lot of
clothes)5Pick at least three ways that you can reduce your
carbon footprint based on your test results and research the
most effective ways to do so. (Ex: Instead of eating red meat
everyday I will lessen my consumption by 18oz a week by
eating it only once a week.) Be as specific as you can
be.5Explain how you will achieve this and cite what you learned
from your research about how to do this. (Ex: I will take transit
1 day of the week instead of driving. I can access my job by
taking the #7 bus from my apartment to the Little Italy Redline
station and take the rapid downtown to work. Not driving that
day will reduce my emissions by 20lbs of carbon a week, which
is 1000lbs per year.) 5Use Images of some of the techniques for
reducing your footprint (images related to recycling, green
technologies/infrastructure, people biking, diagrams, etc.)
Images make your presentation look nicer and more interesting
to look at.54. Conclusion slide summing up how you will
change your life to reduce your footprint.55. Reference
Slide2REFERENCES Proper Format - (see APA guidelines)
Are your references properly cited including your images?
5WRITING STYLE + OVERALL PRESENTATIONWriting
Style - Is your text creatively written, interesting to read, and
orderly? Does it flow?25Overall Presentation - Is your paper
interesting to look at? Did you include images?10Grammar +
Spelling10FINAL GRADE1000APA FORMAT
INFORMATIONFor Information about APA format click below
or look in the Writing Resources folder on BlackboardPurdue
Online Writing LabRESOURCESPrimary source materials are
resources other than a website. Journal articles and digitized
bookscan count as primary resource materials for this paper, but
I also encourage you to visit the library.Diane's Research
Guidehttps://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/http://
researchguides.csuohio.edu/ust259

Cavalry Uniforms on the Parthenon Frieze?
Author(s): Tom Stevenson
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 107, No. 4
(Oct., 2003), pp. 629-654
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40024326
Accessed: 23-09-2018 22:09 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Journal of Archaeology
This content downloaded from 128.125.52.43 on Sun, 23 Sep
2018 22:09:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cavalry Uniforms on the Parthenon Frieze?
TOM STEVENSON
Abstract
In examining the horsemen on the Parthenon frieze,
particularly those on the south side, several commentators
have flirted more or less openly with the concept of a
cavalry "uniform," either for different tribes or for differ-
ent festivals. Through an examination of relevant litera-
ture, small-scale art, and the Parthenon frieze itself, I ar-
gue that the idea is without strong foundation. Literature,
vases, and small-scale reliefs indicate that cavalry dress was
not prescribed at either state or tribal level but was the
responsibility of each cavalryman. Variety rather than uni-
formity was the natural result. Even when we sense that
artists are depicting cavalrymen as types, there is consider-
able variation in the detail of their dress, and there are
significant differences between the small-scale depictions
and the Parthenon frieze. The south frieze of the
Parthenon does indeed distinguish ranks of riders by em-
ploying distinctive dress, but the north frieze employs a
different method, concentrating upon foregrounding and
pose. One cannot theorize from the south frieze alone.
The degree to which the frieze may be used as a documen-
tary source is called into question.*
The Parthenon frieze remains one of the most
enigmatic and intensely studied monuments of
Greek art. Many scholars have debated its subject,
date, and style. They have paid a great deal of atten-
tion to each of the various groups of figures on the
frieze, including the horsemen. A fact not always

emphasized, however, is that the horsemen on the
Parthenon frieze, who appear on the west, north,
and south sides, are represented differently on each
side.1 The west seems to show preliminaries to the
main procession, with horsemen dressing, prepar-
ing, and beginning to fall into formation. On the
north side, which carries on from the west, the horse-
men are not grouped evenly, and they do not dress
alike within their groups. On the south side, they
are divided neatly into 10 groups of six each and
the horsemen within each group are dressed alike.
The south side in particular has been seen as a re-
flection of the 10 tribes of democratic Athens, and
several commentators have tried to bolster the link
by giving loose thought to the idea of tribal "uni-
forms" (i.e., distinctive, recognizable dress). I argue
that the horsemen on the south frieze of the Par-
thenon are not shown in cavalry uniform. They are
represented according to an artistic choice, proba-
bly in deliberate contrast to the north. The idea of
uniforms for Athenian cavalry of the Periklean age
should remain highly conjectural. It is more likely
that there were general trends among the dress of
cavalrymen of this age but no mandated list of items,
either for particular tribal contingents or for the
cavalry as a whole, when participating in different
festivals or displays. Modern viewers find it difficult
to know the extent to which the Parthenon frieze
can be employed as a documentary source. The fol-
lowing discussion minimizes the extent to which
the frieze can be thought to provide literal depic-

tions of cavalry dress or possible uniforms.
Although I am against the notion of tribal uni-
forms for the cavalry, I concur with the traditional
explanation of the subject of the Parthenon frieze
as an idealized, contemporary Panathenaic festival.2
"Idealized" in the sense of a depersonalized, enno-
bling, often calm and youthful depiction, and "fes-
tival" rather than "procession" because various ele-
ments, such as racing chariots, allude to the festival
more broadly, that is, to events of the Great Panath-
enaia that occurred on days other than the day of
the procession.3 At any rate, it is not necessary to
contemplate that the different methods of depict-
ing the cavalry might imply a combination of histor-
ical and mythical settings within the frieze.4 Con-
temporary and near-contemporary depictions of
Athenian horsemen provide numerous parallels,
* I would like to thank Susanna Braund and Anne MacKay
for their help and encouragement. I am also heavily indebted
to the AJA's anonymous referees. All remaining errors are of
course my own.
1 Fundamental studies of the Parthenon frieze include Rob-
ertson and Frantz 1975; Brommer 1977; Jenkins 1994; Berger
and Gisler-Huwiler 1996; Neils 2001. For a plan of the frieze,
see Ashmole 1972, 120; Boardman 1985, fig. 95; Boardman and
Finn 1985, 238; Castriota 1992, 190 fig. 25; Jenkins 1994, 23
fig. 12b; Neils 2001, 34. The numbering system ofjenkins 1994
is employed in this essay.
2 1 argue this position at length in Stevenson (forthcoming) .
3 Note the six running chariots on the south side, slabs

XXVII-XXXII, figures 68-82 (= S XXVII-XXXII 68-82) , and
depictions of the hoplite apobates (dismounter) leaping on or
off a moving chariot as occurred during competition (e.g., N
XII 47, N XXVII 71).
4 1 see a single subject and occasion but some variation in
time and place. For a good discussion, see Neils 2001, 49-53.
629
American Journal of Archaeology 107(2003) 629-54
2018 22:09:05 UTC
630 TOM STEVENSON [AJA107
and scholars generally agree that the Parthenon
horsemen relate closely to the 10 tribal cavalry units
of Periklean Athens.5
While the idea that the frieze depicts cavalry uni-
forms is not widely supported, it is equally true that
no strong stance has been taken against it. This
makes for a degree of uncertainty and imprecision
at times. Evelyn Harrison points out that, unlike the
cavalcade of the north frieze, which displays a great
variety of dress even within a single rank of riders,
the horsemen of the south frieze are "uniformly
dressed within their ranks."6 In her view, "Ten groups
of riders, each with its own uniform, inevitably sug-
gest the ten Tribes into which the Athenian people
was divided by Kleisthenes. . . . We should expect
that the Athenian citizen looking at the south frieze

of the Parthenon could tell which Tribe was which."7
According to Jenifer Neils, "The knights . . . are
unexpressive, idealized types. . . . Yet in their vari-
ety of poses, dress, and headgear they also appear
as contemporary Athenians arrayed according to
their individual tribes."8
More recently, Jerome J. Pollitt has conjectured
not so much about tribal uniforms as about uni-
forms appropriate for particular occasions through-
out the year. He sees "throughout the frieze, the
ten tribal squadrons of the Periklean cavalry arrayed
in the varieties of armour and apparel (or the lack
of it) that were appropriate for the different sorts of
cavalry displays, reviews, and parades that Xeno-
phon (Hipparchikos 3) describes."9
Harrison's and Neils's comments seem to relate to
the south side more than the north; while Pollitt 's
relate perhaps more to the north than the south.
These kinds of opinions beg the question of what we
know about tribal uniforms for the Athenian cavalry.
Did the tribal units normally dress differently, one
from another? Did they have a distinct emblem or
color? Did the cavalry as a whole dress differently at
different festivals? Were measures ever taken to en-
sure uniformity of dress and equipment? In general,
I am skeptical of the concept of a uniform that citi-
zens could immediately recognize - tribal, festival, or
otherwise - for the Athenian cavalry in the Periklean

age. Though the tribes competed vigorously at festi-
val time, in a way that implies considerable tribal
pride, Carol Mattusch has argued that the Epony-
mous Heroes of the 10 tribes were not distinguished
from one another by attributes; emphasis was delib-
erately placed upon the polls rather than the phyle
(tribe).10 Tribal uniforms would perhaps have violat-
ed this principle, and they might have increased the
financial burden and inhibited the freedom of ex-
pression of the aristocratic individuals who comprised
the cavalry. There is little reason to doubt that the 10
clear groups of horsemen on the south side of the
Parthenon frieze allude to the cavalry units of the 10
tribes, an allusion assisted by the different dress of
each group,11 but this does not indicate that such
dress was exclusive to these tribes. I examine litera-
ture, art, and the Parthenon frieze itself, to dispel the
notion that Athenian citizens would have been able
to recognize the 10 tribal units of the Athenian caval-
ry through their wearing of distinctive uniforms.
LITERATURE
The idea of a "uniform" is a modern one. In rela-
tion to the military, it is usually taken to mean special
dress or equipment that marks a particular branch
of the armed forces. The fundamental point is that
all the members dress alike and in some particular
or general way distinctively from other units. A uni-
form can also indicate activity or time of the year,
such as with parade uniforms, summer uniforms, or
combat uniforms. Onlookers are able to recognize

the distinctiveness of the kit, and in modern profes-
5 The pictures and descriptions of cavalrymen on Attic vases
and reliefs of the Classical period assembled by Iain Spence
make it clear that all the items of dress worn by the horsemen
of the Parthenon frieze were in use in the Periklean age (Spen-
ce 1993, 231-60 [red-figure and white ground vases], 261-6
[reliefs] , pls. 1-15 [between pages 154-5] ; cf. Boardman 1985,
107).
6 Harrison 1984, 230.
7 Harrison 1984, 232. Harrison proceeds (232-3) to assign
particular cavalry dress on the south side to particular tribes
via
iconographical "clues" derived from the male figures conven-
tionally identified as the Eponymous Heroes on the east frieze.
There are two major problems with this attempt. The first is
that the "heroes" lack attributes. The second is that their com-
positional integrity as a group is far from assured. For instance,
some scholars feel that the "10 heroes" are in fact one marshal
plus nine officials, or even spectators or eminent Athenians;
others ask why the "heroes" should be distributed into two
groups of six and four respectively on either side of the central
figures of the east frieze. There is also the (understandable
but not inevitable) assumption that the tribal "uniform" would
bear some relation to the iconography of the tribe's hero. In
general, the identification of these figures is too uncertain to
link them with specific tribes, especially when they lack at-
tributes. For bibliography, see Jenkins 1985; Nagy 1992, 67-9.
8Neils 1992, 27. In fairness, it should be stated that there is

nothing in Neils's later book on the frieze (2001) that indi-
cates that she is confident about the idea of tribal cavalry uni-
forms. Most notably, on page 54 she says: "the sixty horsemen
[of the south side] are divided into ten ranks of six each, with
individual ranks distinguished by costume."
9 Pollitt 1997, 55.
10 Mattusch 1994. For a good discussion of popular attitudes
to tribal contests and to horsemen in relation to other branch-
es of the military in this period, see Pritchard 2000, 95-6, 110-
5, 199-200.
11 Cf. Spence 1993, 271: "This seems to be an attempt to
portray the ten tribal phylai or squadrons."
2018 22:09:05 UTC
2003] CAVALRY UNIFORMS ON THE PARTHENON
FRIEZE? 631
sional armies uniformity tends to be ensured by state
provision of a prescribed set of (often sophisticat-
ed) items of dress and equipment. Literary evidence
indicates that conditions and expectations in fifth-
century Athens were markedly different. The major
sources are Xenophon's Hipparchikos (How to be a Cav-
alry Commander) and Peri Hippikes ( On Horsemanship) ,
a few sections of the Athenaion Politeia ( Constitution of
the Athenians) assigned to Aristotle, and a small col-

lection of information and attitudes preserved in
works like Aristophanes' Hippeis (Knights). The Athe-
nian cavalry emerges not as a standing unit of profes-
sional soldiers but as a force of upper-class volun-
teers who were mobilized in times of emergency.12 It
seems likely that there were higher percentages of
petasoi (sun hats) and embades (boots), perhaps even
chlamydes (cloaks) and chitons among the cavalry
than among the hoplites and other ancillary forces
of the Athenian military, but these items fitted the
horsemen's conditions of service better (figs. 1-2);
they were not part of a state-provided (let alone tribe-
provided) uniform with a set number of items that
could have been recognized by the citizens of Ath-
ens. The state did provide an "establishment loan"
(katastasis) and a "grain allowance" (sitos) in the
Periklean period,13 but all indications are that it was
up to each cavalryman to secure a fit horse and suit-
able equipment.14 The state funding implies that a
certain number of the riders would have had trou-
ble maintaining their mounts in its absence. Some
riders, evidently, could not afford to equip them-
selves as comfortably as others. Differences in dress,
therefore, would have been produced by factors such
as fashion, comfort, protective quality, individual pref-
erence, and wealth. The set of dress items available
in the Periklean period was reasonably broad enough
to construct distinctive kits, if that had been a prior-
ity, but it seems not to have been; and when the set
expanded in later periods, especially in the fourth
century B.C., it was because of developments in cav-
alry warfare rather than for the purpose of distin-
guishing units.15 Xenophon recommends items of

equipment and dress, mainly defensive armor, such
as neck coverings, gauntlets, forearm covers for the
right arm, and pieces of horse armor, but he is clear-
ly concerned with the threat posed by Theban caval-
ry in battle. His tone seems to indicate that these
items were not standard, that many horsemen were
not using them, and that uniformity of kit had not
been a priority before he wrote.16 Furthermore, at no
point does Xenophon describe distinctive dress for
any of the 10 tribes, or recommend this as a practice.
The state, in the form of the Council of Five Hun-
dred, insisted on an annual dokimasia (inspection),
but this was apparently directed more at the physical
fitness of the horse and rider than at other elements
like equipment and dress.17 Xenophon is keen to
have riders who are able to mount from the spring
(e.g., Hipp. 1.5, 1.17) (fig. 3). In general, it seems
that cavalrymen themselves were responsible for what
they wore, and so a variety of attire and equipment
was the natural result.18 This applies particularly to
the fifth century B.C., while in the fourth century
B.C. Spence has shown that more cavalrymen were
opting for boots and breastplates in response to
changing conditions.19
Limited uniformity might be present within the
tribal contingents at festival time, but this interpre-
tation requires conjecture. Xenophon describes how
a phy larch (commander of a tribal contingent) , mind-
ful of his own reputation as well as that of his tribe,
could be pressured by a hipparch (one of the two
overall cavalry commanders) to ensure an awe-inspir-
ing display from his men (Hipp. 1.21-2). Such a phy-
larch might have commanded his men to dress im-

pressively, and possibly distinctively, even if this en-
tailed wearing just one particular item that was com-
mon and distinctive. In the second century B.C., at
the Theseia festival, inscriptions indicate that there
was a prize for the tribe with "the most dashing equip-
12 Spence 1993, xxix.
13 For the "establishment loan" and "grain allowance," see
Xen. Hipp. 1.2-3, 19, 22-3; Bugh 1988, 56-7, 60; Spence 1993,
16;Worleyl994,7l.
14 Xen. Hipp. 1.22-3; Bugh 1988, 193.
15 The plates and lists of vases and reliefs in Spence (1993,
231-66) show the variety of dress available in the Periklean
period. Headwear alone offered a fair range of choice, e.g.,
petasos (sun hat) , petasos-style helmet, alopekis (Thracian
fox-
skin cap) , alopekis-style cap, crested Corinthian helmet, crest-
ed Chalkidian helmet, crested Ionian helmet, wreath. In the
fourth century B.C., turban-style caps and Boiotian helmets
became available too.
16Xen. PeriHipp. 12.1-14; Hipp. 1.6-7. Spence (1993, 63)
feels that "even though the panoply [Xenophon] recom-
mends would have afforded considerable protection, it is
doubtful whether this quantity of armour was ever worn by
many hippeis"; cf. 64: "The conclusions based on the written
and sculptural evidence, therefore stand: not all cavalrymen
wore protective dress, but it is likely that many regularly rode
to battle in breastplate, helmet, and high boots. It is extremely
doubtful that the more esoteric items of equipment recom-
mended by Xenophon were ever widely accepted (or possi-

bly ever worn at all) , and the same is perhaps true of the horse
armour he discusses."
17 Ath. Pol. 49; Bugh 1988, 58-9; Spence 1993, 11, 14, 220;
Worleyl994, 71.
18 Spence (1993, 54) has shown that while some cavalrymen
were equipped with thejavelins of cornel wood recommended
by Xenophon (Peri Hipp. 12.12), others used a cane-shafted
spear, and still others a combination of both. It appears that
uniformity of offensive weapons was not imposed by the com-
manders or the Council any more than uniformity of dress.
19 On cavalry dress, see Spence 1993, xxix-xxxiii, 60-5, 118.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 1 . A red-figure cup by the Dokimasia Painter, ca. 480-
470, showing festival preliminaries or a cavalry inspection
(dokimasia) . Berlin F 2296. (Copyright Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikensammlung)
ment" (ton hippeon euhopliai).20 The inscription might
imply a review of distinctly dressed units, as on the
south frieze. In some modern cadet parades, howev-
er, the way the uniform is turned out, rather than
distinctive items, wins the good notice: the cut of a
man's collar, the shine of his boots or belt buckle, or
the closeness of his shave. The inscriptional evi-

dence, therefore, which dates well after the Classi-
cal period, is ambiguous. At other times during a
festival, in a similar manner to the north frieze, the
horsemen might have been mingled, as when com-
peting or performing complicated maneuvers of the
kind that Xenophon imperfectly describes (Hipp.
3.9). The horsemen then might have appeared in-
termingled and in distinctly dressed units even with-
in the context of a single festival. Both the north and
south friezes could depict this situation.
Yet this line of argument is tentative, and nothing
indicates that tribal units always dressed as they had
done at previous festivals. In fact, the pressure to
impress might have induced some phylarchs to in-
novate. Perhaps the appeal for citizens was to see
how their particular tribal unit looked at each
event - in other words, the men rather than the uni-
form marked the tribe. Flexibility might have been
advantageous. That argument aside, if tribal units
were known to favor distinctive dress, why does Xe-
nophon fail to mention this and instead write in gen-
eral terms about the cavalry as a whole? On what basis
did the phylarchs choose the appropriate dress for
their men? Were subsequent phylarchs bound by
the decisions of their predecessors? How did the
horsemen react to orders for impressive dress, espe-
cially during hard economic times? Did phylarchs
find it necessary to provide impressive dress for their
men?21 And the choice of garments worn in the Pana-
thenaia would have to take into account the heat of

summer, although the need for comfort commonly
takes second place to the need to impress - witness
businessmen wearing coats and ties, or guards of
honor wearing dress uniform, in warm climates. The
literary evidence is inconclusive on this matter; most
likely, the conditions of mounted service produced
certain common preferences but variations were also
20/G22.956.58-60; 957.36-41; 958.56-9; 960.22-4 (re-
stored); 961.22-4; Bugh 1988, 92 n. 38.
21 Theophrastos, one of the hipparchs of 220/19 B.C., was
crowned by the council, the demos, and the cavalrymen
(hippeis) . Among other benefactions, he had presented a gift
to the lochagoi (phylarchoi?) of 10 minas (1,000 drachmas) so
that the horsemen would be equipped with arms in the finest
way (tois hoplois hos arista kateskeuasmenoi): 7G22. 1303. 15-
1 6;
Bugh 1988, 192-3 ns. 19-21 with refs. This cannot have been
customary practice since it won such extraordinary notice.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 633
found within the set of items and colors available.
Philostratos ( VS550) says that the ephebes wore black
cloaks to commemorate their murder of Kopreus in

defense of the Herakleidai.22 This shows the possi-
bility of differentiation by color, but we should re-
member Spence's strong warnings against equating
Athenian cavalrymen with the ephebes; they were
two separate groups.23 The written sources do not
directly support the idea that cavalry wore a recog-
nizable tribal uniform that citizen viewers would have
been able to recognize from the depictions of horse-
men on the south frieze of the Parthenon. Nor do
the sources indicate that the entire cavalry wore uni-
forms that varied according to the occasion, whether
for general use or for a festival like the Great Panath-
enaia. In short, nothing in the literary evidence sus-
tains connotations of regulation and sanction for
military clothing or equipment.
ART
The artistic evidence for cavalry uniforms is gen-
erally small-scale and difficult to interpret, although
a reasonable number of depictions of Athenian
horsemen survives, especially on red-figure vases. A
range of activities and settings is represented on the
vases. These include battle scenes, which are by no
means dominant, scenes of farewell, scenes at a tomb,
scenes of review, exercising, training, hunting, and
competing.24 Certainly, a far broader impression of
the horsemen emerges in comparison to Xeno-
phon's evidence, which concentrates upon pre-
paredness for battle and performance at festivals.
The compositions, however, tend to focus upon in-
dividuals or small groups; in other words, there are
very few depictions of massed cavalry as on the Par-

thenon frieze. Moreover, there is a noticeable youth-
fulness about the figures, some are naked, and some
are accompanied by kalos inscriptions. These fea-
tures seem to relate to pederastic customs and ho-
moerotic attraction.25 Other features, notably items
of Thracian dress, have induced scholars in the wake
of Francois Lissarrague to assess images of horse-
men in relation to liminal groups and the concept
of the oppositional "other." Representations of Scyth-
ians seem to peak in the late sixth century B.C. and
Thracians in the early fifth century B.C. These races
were admired for exotic dress, deadly weaponry, and
musical talent but also despised for savage, "barbari-
an" traits and behavior. Representations of Athenian
cavalrymen in the Classical period are akin to the
liminal images in that they stand in binary opposi-
tion to hoplites, the regular and fundamental image
of the Athenian warrior, but they are positive rather
than negative in their associations.26 Robin Osborne
sees a process of "rounding up" at work, so that hop-
lites are being encouraged to emulate elite behav-
ior and are at the same time resisting elite monopoly
of an image.27 It is obvious that artistic conventions
and social ideology need to be borne in mind. Scenes,
therefore, are constructed rather than "captured
from life." It is not necessarily the case, then, that art
would reflect tribal or festival uniforms if they actual-
ly existed. Yet it must be significant that art seems
never to indicate anything of the kind.
Close parallels have been noticed between the
Parthenon west frieze and the horsemen shown on a
well known series of red-figure cups, whose scenes

regularly combine two or three youthful horsemen
and their spirited mounts with boyish grooms and
bearded, older figures who seem to be assessing them
or recording details about them. Herbert Cahn iden-
tified the cup scenes as representations of the doki-
masia, the annual examination of men and inspec-
tion of horses by the Council of Five Hundred (cf.
Ath. Pol 49). Glenn Bugh and Jenifer Neils favor the
view that the cups show the preliminaries to festival
processions (figs. 1-2). 28 Vase painters certainly
would have been familiar with the latter, which took
place in the vicinity of the Dipylon Gate, but it seems
reasonable to think that the two sets of occasions
demanded broadly similar behavior: preparing, in-
specting, mounting, and riding. Perhaps the doki-
masia should not be excluded altogether from the
relevant associations. The young men depicted
would surely have been deemed fit for either reli-
gious or military activity. The cups also show the vari-
ety of costumes that appears on the north and south
sides of the frieze, including the petasos (sun hat) ,
and Thracian hats with flaps, whose introduction
Cahn dates to the middle of the sixth century B.C.
On these cups nakedness is common without
being predominant. The majority of cavalrymen are
22 Cf. Wilkins (1990), who cites /G22.2029 = Dittenberger,
Sylloge3 870.
^The tendency to call the cavalrymen mounted ephebes is
relatively widespread, e.g., Simon 1983, 59-60; Jenkins 1994,
33; Hurwit 1999, 233. The ephebes received no equestrian
training in the Classical period, however, and their very exist-

ence at this time is uncertain (Spence 1993, 269-70).
24 For the vases discussed in this section, see the plates and
lists in Spence 1993, 231-66; cf. Bugh 1988, 14-20. The most
suggestive study is by Lissarrague 1990, 191-231.
25 See Spence 1993, e.g., 234 no. 8 and 240 no. 43 for kalos
examples; cf. Lissarrague 1990, 217-8. On nakedness and ho-
moeroticism, see Osborne 1997; Stewart 1997, esp. 1-10.
26 Lissarrague 1990, esp. 210-6 (Thracians), 217-30 (kalos-
inscriptions, inspections, departures) .
27 Osborne 2000, esp. 41-2 for "rounding up."
28 Cahn 1973, 1986; Bugh 1988, 14-8, pls. 1-2; Neils 2001,
127-32; Lissarrague 1990, 220-9.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 2. Opposite side of the red-figure cup in fig. 1, by the
Dokimasia Painter, ca. 480-470, showing festival
preliminaries or a cavalry inspection (dokimasia). Berlin F
2296. (Copyright Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikensammlung)
depicted as beardless youths, while their command-
ers or members of the Council are usually shown
with beards. Side A of a cup by Onesimos, for in-

stance, dated to the first quarter of the fifth century,
portrays naked youths involved in equestrian train-
ing (one youth is trying to mount with the aid of a
spear) (fig. 3), and side B shows two youths, one of
whom is naked, training or exercising a horse. The
interior has a naked youth, his long hair tied in a
bun, wearing a sun hat, carrying a spear in his right
hand, with an animal (leopard?) skin draped over
his left arm. He probably represents a dismounted
cavalryman and the animal skin a saddlecloth.29 Na-
ked cavalrymen are frequently depicted in scenes
of competition racing.30
Many more clothed than unclothed horsemen
appear in Attic art, however. Boots, cloaks, and sun
hats, the latter not so common on the Parthenon
frieze, are the items of clothing most in evidence,
and they recur often, so that pictures of horsemen on
Attic vases in the fifth century B.C. acquire a conven-
tional air in many instances. The horsemen cannot
all have been from the same tribe, and the impres-
sion we frequently derive is that the artists are depict-
ing a type - a sign for "horseman" rather than a par-
ticular horseman who would have had particular trib-
al affiliations. Convention is also plainly obvious in
depictions of cavalrymen on grave stelai, such as those
commonly shown riding down a fallen hoplite.31
Reliefs depicting horsemen in tribal groups are
exceedingly rare but obviously vital for any study of
the horsemen's clothing. Two stand out in particu-
lar. The first, dating to the mid fourth century B.C., is

usually called the Bryaxis base (fig. 4) ,32 The reliefs
on three sides and inscription on the fourth side of
this base commemorate victories by three phylarchs
from the same family, whose names are Demainetos,
Demeas, and Demosthenes. On the left face is a
bearded horseman, riding a stallion from left to right
toward a tripod. He is bareheaded, barefooted, and
29 Munich 2639 (J 515). Cup. Staatliche Antikensammlun-
gen und Glyptothek, Munich. ARV2 324.61, 1645; Spence
1993, 201, 237 no. 28, pl. 1.
30 E.g., Neils 2001, 22-3, figs. 20-1: a Panathenaic prize-
amphora attributed to the Eucharides Painter, ca. 490 B.C.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1956.171.3. Kyle
(1992, 91) refers to the nudity of the boy jockeys.
31 E.g., Spence 1993, 263 no. 12, pl. 11 (Dexileos monu-
ment), 265 no. 26, and others.
32 Athens, NM 1773; Travlos 1971, 18-9; Bugh 1988, 60 fig.
6; Spence 1993, 200, 264 no. 21.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 635
Fig. 3. A red-figure cup by Onesimos, dated to the first quarter
of the fifth century, portraying naked youths
involved in equestrian training. Munich 2639 (J 515) .

(Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Miinchen)
dressed in a chiton with a girdle. He appears to be
holding the reins in his left hand and the horse's
mane in his right. The rear face depicts a similar
figure except that the rider's right hand is flat on
the horse's neck. The right face mirrors the rear face,
probably including the position of the hands, though
damage renders this uncertain. Here we have three
men from the same tribe who are dressed identically
(bareheaded, barefooted, chiton, girdle). Are the
representations merely types? Or does their identi-
cal dress link them as members of the same family or
denote a recognizable tribal or festival or display
uniform? There is little to recommend the uniform
concept: none of the horsemen in the 10 groups on
the south frieze of the Parthenon is dressed precise-
ly like the men honored on the Bryaxis monument.
The second relief, dating to the early fourth cen-
tury B.C. and known as the Leontis relief, commem-
orates a victory by cavalry of the Leontis tribe (fig.
5).33 A rank of five horsemen is shown riding to the
right, each cavalryman overlapping the man to his
left. The right-hand figure is a bearded man, surely
the phylarch, dressed perhaps in a Thracian cap
(rather than a helmet), chiton, and high boots; the
two to his left are bareheaded youths in chitons. The
two figures on the left-hand end of the rank are frag-
mentary (both heads are missing), but the one on
the extreme left is also in a chiton. Several complica-
tions for the concept of a uniform arise here. One is
that the commander is dressed differently from his
men (cap and boots are additional), though the idea

of distinctive dress for someone in command is not
improbable in itself. Secondly, as with the Bryaxis
base, no group on the south frieze of the Parthenon
is dressed precisely like the commander (cap, chi-
ton, boots) or the other riders (chitons only) here.
Thirdly, although both these reliefs commemorate
victories in the event known as the anthippasia, the
two groups of riders are not dressed identically. It
might be objected that neither relief mentions a spe-
cific festival and the anthippasia featured in a num-
ber of festivals, the Panathenaia among them. A chi-
ton-only uniform, as on the Leontis relief, would be
appropriate for the heat of high summer; other uni-
forms might have been worn for festivals and dis-
plays at different times of the year. Yet the nature of
the anthippasia, a massed charge done three times
by opposing lines of five tribal units each (cf. Xen.
33 Athens, Stoa of Attalos I 7167; Bugh 1988, 63-5, fig. 7;
Spence 1993, 200, 266 no. 36. For a reconstruction, see Camp
1986, 121 fig. 96.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 4. The Bryaxis base, mid fourth century, showing one of
three phylarchs victorious in the anthippasia.
(Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1773)

Hipp. 3.1 1) , is such that it might have been most spec-
tacular when done in armor. Could this explain the
horsemen in armor on the Parthenon frieze? It seems
not. Bugh, for instance, feels that the anthippasia is a
development subsequent to the Periklean age, so if
armor was worn for the anthippasia this would not
explain its presence on the frieze.34 Much conjec-
ture is involved, however, and we have not found a
precise match for anything on the south frieze in
this (admittedly meager) evidence.
On the reverse of the Leontis relief is the partially
preserved figure of a lion, obviously an allusion to
the name of the tribe. There are no such symbols on
the Parthenon frieze, especially in conjunction with
the groups of riders on the south side, where we
might expect to find a tribal "emblem" if the aim was
to identify each particular tribe. While informal uses
of a particular color or item for a special purpose
cannot be ruled out entirely, the point is about for-
mality, consistency, and the ability to be recognized
immediately, then over time. It is not at all clear that
special devices, colors, or items of dress are employed
prominently in any of this evidence. Instead, the
weight of probability is that Athenian artists were ac-
customed to evoking their horsemen rather than re-
cording them with absolute precision. Of particular
interest was the aura of the cavalry.35 Note, for instance,
the conventional elements on the Leontis relief, es-
pecially the prancing horses,36 the short hair of the
younger riders, and the beard of their commander,
which signals that he is the figure of age and respon-

sibility. This was a common way of depicting Athe-
34 Bugh 1988, 59-60, noting that epigraphic evidence for
the anthippasia dates from the fourth and third centuries B.C.
For Kyle 1992, 94, the anthippasia "may have been included in
the Panathenaia earlier" than the inscriptions indicate. Neils
(1994, 152) thinks that the anthippasia may have been added
to the Panathenaia "at the end of the fifth century when the
Athenian cavalry was developed."
35 In Aristophanes' Frogs (653), "Dionysos" denies a cry of
pain by pretending that it was a cry of joy and excitement at
seeing the cavalry. "The Rider's Base," a funerary relief of the
mid sixth century B.C., shows four riders in low relief moving
to the left: Kerameikos Museum P 1001; Neils 2001, 45, fig.
34. The riders differ in age (two are clean-shaven, two are
bearded), hairstyle, dress, and position on their mounts, so
that considerable variety relieves the similarities inevitable in
having four horsemen moving in a line in the same direction.
Neils (2001, 45) states: "This funerary relief, and others like
it with single riders, are clearly meant to honor the deceased
in commemorating him permanently as an Athenian knight."
36 Cf. Xen. Peri Hipp. 11.1 (on a high and showy action),
cf. 11.8 (on prancing): "This is the attitude in which artists
represent the horses on which gods and heroes ride, and men
who manage such horses gracefully have a magnificent ap-
pearance. Indeed, a prancing horse is a thing so graceful, ter-
rible and astonishing that it rivets the gaze of all beholders,
young and old alike. At all events no one leaves him or is tired
of gazing at him so long as he shows off his brilliance." Bugh
(1988, 78) thinks that Xenophon may have been thinking
of the Parthenon frieze here. Similarly, Demetrios (On Style
2.76) writes that prancing and rearing steeds in battle (which
the anthippasia was designed to stimulate) produced the best

subject for a painter.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 637
Fig. 5. Commemorative marble relief of the tribe Leontis for
victory in the anthippasia, ca.
400. (Athens. Stoa of Attalos I 7167. American School of
Classical Studies at Athens: Agora
Excavations)
nian riders and their commanders,37 and it demon-
strates that we are dealing not with photographic
realism but with ideological representation that is
subject to various artistic, aesthetic, and ideological
rules and concerns. The individual riders, as well as
their clothing, are types, not individual likenesses.
In fact, the aid to identification that comes in the
form of the lion might be taken to imply that there
was nothing immediately distinctive about the tribe's
cavalry dress, as depicted in the Leontis relief.
Iain Spence concluded from his own examina-
tion of the artistic evidence that there is little to
distinguish Athenian cavalrymen on campaign
from the same aristocrats when out hunting, al-

though the use of breastplate, helmet, and boots
became more standard in the fourth century B.C. -
the first great age of heavy cavalry - for protective
reasons and in line with cavalry reforms undertak-
en on the advice of figures such as Xenophon.38
The idea of a uniform inhibits individual expres-
sion and emphasizes the group; it promotes equal-
ity among the group members. On the one hand,
Athenian aristocrats were socialized to resist such
pressures. On the other hand, boots and armor
made good sense for protection and permitted of-
fensive impact in battle - as the Macedonians
showed above all. If greater uniformity did develop
for defensive reasons, it is likely that the Periklean
age by comparison was far less regulated and even
marked by a relative lack of uniformity. Xenophon
called for maximum effectiveness in battle in prep-
aration for a Theban invasion. Variation is possible,
however, beyond the items of defensive armor that
he recommends, and it was probably unnecessary
for him to specify further details about battle dress.
THE PARTHENON FRIEZE
The discussion thus far indicates that the caval-
rymen on the south side of the Parthenon frieze
are not wearing uniforms. Their representation,
then, is a matter of choice and contrast, and we
should approach them as art rather than document.
It was not usually a concern of the artist to depict
massed ranks of Athenian cavalrymen on small-scale
works such as the vases and reliefs discussed above.

The Parthenon frieze, however, presented an op-
portunity and a challenge to do just this (figs. 6-8).
The challenge of depicting tribal units appears to
37 Spence 1993, 199-201, cf. 268: "The depiction of cavalry-
men as young men and their officers as older, bearded men
was very common in Athenian art and literature." For an argu-
ment that cavalrymen were predominantly in their 20s or 30s,
see Bugh 1988, 63-70.
38 Spence 1993, 118, cf. xxix-xxxiii, 60-5.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 6. The Parthenon frieze, west side.
(Drawing by R. Rosenzweig. Reprinted
with the permission of Cambridge
University Press)
Fig. 7. The Parthenon frieze, north side.
University Press)
2018 22:09:05 UTC

Continued on following page
2018 22:09:05 UTC
2018 22:09:05 UTC
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 8. The Parthenon frieze, south side.
University Press)
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Continued on following page
2018 22:09:05 UTC

have been answered in two different ways: through
distinctive dress on the south side and through units
differentiated by foregrounded commanders in
certain poses on the north. The existence of two
methods is a further indication that distinctive dress
was not an inevitable way of identifying the tribal
units. Only the south side seems to suggest the
possible use of tribal uniforms. The distinctive dress
surely marks the units without specifically identify-
ing the tribes on the south. On the north the tribal
divisions are more difficult to describe with preci-
sion, though it seems best to support Jenkins's view
that there are 10 units composed of varying num-
bers of horsemen there. Here I conclude with some
theories about why the different methods of repre-
sentation have been employed.
The frieze procession begins at the southwest
corner of the Parthenon (i.e., not the center west)
and runs in two streams down the long sides (i.e.,
the north and the south sides) . The west has a dis-
tinct air of excitement and preparation about it. A
higher proportion of nakedness is seen here than
elsewhere on the frieze (e.g., W III 6). On the
north, a number of the youths also exhibit naked-
ness, though the majority are clothed in a variety of
garments, topped at times by sun hats, helmets, or
wreaths. The impression made by the riders on the

north is quite different from that made on the south.
It is partly a matter of dress: long-sleeved chitons
appear at times on the north, as do combinations
that include crested helmets with body armor (e.g.,
N XLIII 118) (fig. 9). These do not appear on the
south. More noticeable, however, is the irregularity
and variety of the north versus the regularity and
uniformity of the south. The 60 horsemen appear
to be divided into 10 groups on the north, though
dress varies within each group and numbers vary
within each group.39 The ranks are depicted in the
39 See esp. Jenkins 1994, 30, 99; cf. Boardman 1985, 107;
Pollitt 1997, 55; Boardman 1999, 328.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 645
Fig. 9. Horsemen of the north frieze. N XLIII 115-121
(Jenkins) = 113-119 (British Museum). (Copyright
British Museum)
Fig. 10. Ian Jenkins's plan of the horsemen of the north frieze
(N 75-N 135) with rank leaders indicated. (Jenkins 1994, 99;
reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press)
manner of an unfolded hand of cards. As a conse-
quence, Jenkins uses the foregrounded figures in
order to identify the rank commanders on the north.

This method produces the following commanders:
N 80, N 82, N 89, N 98, N 102, N 108, N 113, N120,
N 127, N 135 (fig. 10). Several uncertainties sur-
round his second group (N 81-82), which com-
prises only two riders; his fifth and sixth groups (N
99-102, N 103-108), which slightly overlap; and
perhaps his final group (N 128-135), where the
"rank commander" (N 135) is dismounted and
plainly challenged for prominence by the nudity
and gesture to advance of N 133 (fig. 11). More-
over, N 131 shows a commander's concern for his
men as he turns to look back at those falling be-
hind. The last group, which is the closest to the
west end and therefore the first coming from that
direction, is the only group not entirely mounted
and prepared. It acts as a link with the activity of the
west frieze. Jenkins does seem correct in defining
the group as he has, but the prominence of N 133
is remarkable. Perhaps the uniqueness of this group
in being somewhat unassembled affords us a choice
that is not generally available elsewhere on this side.
Jenifer Neils has recently challenged Jenkins's
thesis.40 In short, she discerns eight groups of rid-
40 Neils 2001, 53-60.
2018 22:09:05 UTC

Fig. 11. Horsemen of the north frieze. N XLVII 131-136
(Jenkins) = 129-134 (British Museum). (Copyright
British Museum)
Fig. 12. Jenifer Neils's plan of the horsemen of the north frieze
(N 75-N 135) with rank leaders indicated.
(Drawing by R. Rosenzweig after Collignon; reprinted with the
permission of Cambridge University Press)
ers on the north and two groups on the west (com-
manded by the two hipparchs), totaling 10 groups
of 77 riders overall. She takes more account of nu-
dity, pose, and gesture than of the foregrounding
of figures. This method results in the following
rank commanders: N 82, N 89, N 98, N 105, N 113,
N 120, N 127, N 133 (fig. 12). Six of these riders
are commanders for Jenkins too, and N 133 mere-
ly replaces N 135 in charge of the final group. In
fact Neils proposes relatively minor modifications
to the Jenkins arrangement (N 80 is relieved of
command and N 102 and N 108 are replaced by N
105). Jenkins's second group (N 81-82) is sub-
sumed into his first group (N 75-80) and N 82 is
given command over the fragmentary N 80, al-
though the two figures seem to have been similar,
and N 82 has none of the visual cues that Neils
sees as significant in identifying other "command-
ers": nudity, a backward looking pose, or a gesture
signaling advance (fig. 13). The greatest differ-
ence of opinion concerns Jenkins's fourth, fifth,

and sixth groups (N 91-98, N 99-102, N 103-
108). Neils prefers to see two groups here that
have collided and coalesced. Their commanders
would be N 98 and N 105 (figs. 14-15). Yet al-
though the latter is an impressive nude study, his
claims to command over those of the foreground-
ed figures N 102 and N 108 are not inevitable. N
108 is not especially distinguished by nudity, pose,
or gesture, though he closely resembles N 82 (fig.
15, cf. 13). N 102 is another fragmentary figure,
but enough survives to show that he rides a notice-
ably spirited, rearing horse, exhibits nudity, looks
back, and has his hand raised to his head in what
can reasonably be taken to be a gesture of com-
mand. His claims to command and attention prob-
ably outweigh those of N 105, who does exhibit
nudity and look behind but is also admitted by
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 647
Fig. 13. Horsemen of the north frieze. N XXXI 81-83 (Jenkins)
= 78-80 (British Museum). (Copyright British
Museum)
Fig. 14. Horsemen of the north frieze. N XXXVI 96-99
(Jenkins). Athens, Acropolis Museum 862.

2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 1 5. Horsemen of the north frieze. N XXXVIII 105-1 09
(Jenkins) - 103-107 (British Museum) . (Copyright
British Museum)
Neils to be "embedded" within his rank of riders
(fig. 15).41 Though certainly important and indeed
characteristic of a good number of Jenkins's com-
manders (e.g., N 89, N 98, N102, N 113, N 120, N
127), it appears that nudity and gesture and pose
are not as decisive in distinguishing the groups of
horsemen as Jenkins's method of identifying the
foregrounded figures. Furthermore, Neils distin-
guishes two groups on the west side (W 2-11, W
13-21), largely because of the two hipparchs (W
VIII 15 and W IV 8), identified by their beards, and
the pose of the dismounted figure W VI 12, who
provides something of a caesura between the north-
ern and southern ends as he faces in the opposite
direction to the procession and uses a rock to assist
in pulling on his footwear (figs. 16-18). Yet at a
later point Neils herself compares the cloak and
nudity of W XII 22 to the rank leaders,42 and the
method she employs on the north might also yield
W II 2 as a "commander," for he exhibits precisely
the kind of nudity, pose, and gesture that she looks
for there (figs. 19-20).

In contrast with the north, the south exhibits far
greater orderliness: 60 riders are divided into 10
groups of 6 each, with each group marked by its
own distinctive dress, the individual horsemen over-
lapping one on another. The faces of all the figures
on the frieze are serious, calm, and introverted, even
when they are moving or exerting themselves. In
general one is struck by the uniformity of facial type
in contrast to the great diversity of pose and garb,
the combination of which conveys notions of both
the individual and the group.
The horsemen of the south frieze are not pre-
served as well as those on the north.43 Starting from
the west, the dress of the 10 groups on the south
can be listed thus:
Group 1. short cloak, chiton, knee-length boots,
and Thracian cap (S 2-7);
Group 2. cloak only (S 8-13); S 8 wears a sun hat
pushed back behind his head;
Group 3. short chiton, double-belted, and boots
(S 14-19);
Group 4. cloak over a chiton (S 20-25);
41 Neils 2001 , 56: "The division between the fourth and fifth
groups falls at the embedded figure N 105."
42 Neils 2001, 128.

43 For the horsemen on the south, see Harrison 1984, 230-
4; Jenkins 1994,54-63.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 649
Fig. 16. Horsemen of the west frieze (detail). WVIII 15:
Hipparch. Cast from the Skulpturhalle, Basel. (Photo
courtesy of D. Widmer SH 629)
Group 5. metal body armor, chiton, and boots (S
26-31) (fig. 21);
Group 6. leather armor with flaps, chiton, boots,
and a cap with a long tail (S 32-37) (fig. 22);
Group 7. cloak, chiton, boots, and an open-faced
Attic helmet with cheek-flaps raised (S 38-43);
Group 8. chiton and boots (S 44-49); the last
rider of this much damaged group (S 44) wears
the pelt of an animal over his tunic;
Group 9. cloak, chiton, boots, and sun hat (S 50-
55); only S 52 has his sun hat pushed back; and
Group 10. chiton and boots (S 56-61).
Use of tribal uniforms requires that each tribe's

dress is distinctly different, and indeed there are
some variations: the first group is the only one that
wears the Thracian cap; the second group, which is
the only one not to wear a chiton, is consequently
the only one to exhibit nakedness; group five is
alone in wearing metal body armor; group six is the
only one to wear leather body protection; the cap-
with-tail is likewise peculiar to group six; group sev-
en is alone in wearing the open-faced helmet; the
animal pelt appears only with group eight; the sun
hat, so common on vases, is here worn only by group
nine (plus one in group two). However, there are
similarities, too: nine of the ten groups wear tunics,
eight wear boots, and five wear cloaks. Groups three,
eight, and ten, 30% of the total force, are basically
attired the same, in chiton and boots, though per-
haps the chitons were originally painted different
colors.
In combination, the north and south sides con-
vey an attractive, exciting, kaleidoscopic, impres-
sive image of the Athenian cavalry. It is hardly ob-
jective. Surely group two on the south, for instance,
would at times have been permitted and found it
necessary to wear clothes, thus changing their trib-
al "uniform," and groups two and four could have
worn boots, just as group nine (and one rider in
group two) probably did not have a monopoly on
sun hats on a strong summer's day. Furthermore, if
we are looking for attire appropriate to the Great
Panathenaia, then it must be said that the groups
wearing cloaks and armor would have sweltered.
Ridgway emphasizes that we can find semi-nude
figures next to a youth entirely muffled in his man-

tle (cf. W VII 14, W IX 17, and the figures around
them). Hardly explicable as a function of climate,
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 17. Horsemen of the west frieze (detail). W IV 8:
Hipparch. Cast from the Skulpturhalle, Basel. (Photo
courtesy of D. Widmer SH 625)
Fig. 18. Horsemen of the west frieze (detail). W VI 12:
Sandal-binder. Athens, Acropolis Museum. (Copyright
Deutsches Archaologisches Institut - Athen 1976/700;
photo courtesy of Hellner)
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 651
Fig. 19. Horsemen of the west frieze. W XII 22-24. Cast from
the Skulpturhalle, Basel. (Photo courtesy of D.
WidmerSH633)
Fig. 20. Horsemen of the west frieze. W II 2-3. (Copyright
British Museum)

2018 22:09:05 UTC
Fig. 21. Horsemen of the south frieze. S X 26-27 (Jenkins).
(Copyright British Museum)
Fig. 22. Horsemen of the south frieze. S XIII 34-37 (Jenkins).
(Copyright British Museum)
2018 22:09:05 UTC
FRIEZE? 653
this marks the composition as a product of "artistic
selection for variety's sake,"44 and acts as a salutary
reminder that there are clear limits to any sea'rch
for realism in the frieze. It is art and ideology rather
than photographic realism.
Is a simple desire for variety the reason for con-
trasting representations of the horsemen on the
north and south? Were there perhaps two design-
ers?45 In my view there are richer possibilities. For
instance, if the fundamental aim was to evoke the
10 tribes and hence the democracy, the frieze

does this well. Given that the south frieze was prob-
ably the last carved,46 I have wondered whether
dissatisfaction with the groupings on the (already
completed) north was registered through the
more regular arrangement of the south, where
10 groups are far more effectively distinguished.
A better explanation considers the experience
of the ancient viewer. Osborne argues that a view-
er would appreciate the frieze by measuring its
elements in terms of conformity and difference.47
Such a viewer, one imagines, would follow the
processional route, which passed from the west
to the east along the north side of the temple.48
This viewer would notice the variety of dress on
the north side; his impression would be formed
as he proceeded. If this viewer returned via the
south side, the same arrangement (experienced
already on the north) would not work as well in
capturing his interest and support, especially in
view of the similarity in facial features. So per-
haps the frieze employs 10 groups of uniformly
dressed riders as a (different) way of keeping the
viewer's attention and engagement on this side;
it is representation according to a different con-
ceptual order. Yet it seems that we have long been
inclined to overestimate the visibility of the frieze,
which perhaps (as some have thought) acted like
a fabulous votive relief designed to ensure con-
stant positive reciprocity between Athena and her
city.49 If it was not as visible as has often been
thought (to mortals at least), it might be that the
aim was to ensure the consistent attention of Ath-
ena rather than mortals, hence the difference be-
tween north and south.

The horsemen of the Parthenon frieze are un-
deniably products of a process of ennoblement.
They are the best examples of young Athenian man-
hood, dedicating themselves to Athena and her
polis. Temple decorum, social and sexual attitudes,
and artistic convention required that they should
not be portraits of the living. Hence we find an un-
relieved similarity, even monotony, of expression.
Their mannerisms and dress are evoked, not pho-
tographed. The prime concern was probably not to
describe tribal or festival uniforms, for which there
is no strong evidence, but to attract attention, stim-
ulate the viewer, offset monotony, distinguish be-
tween groups, present a glorious aura, and create
an eye-catching procession that was worth joining
and supporting at an extraordinary level. There are
clear limits on the degree to which works of Greek
art should be treated as documentary sources. In
this particular instance, the idea of cavalry uniforms
on the Parthenon frieze is misleading and should
perhaps be qualified heavily in future, or even
dropped, as an anachronism.
DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND
ANCIENT HISTORY
UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
BRISBANE
AUSTRALIA
[email protected]
44Ridgwayl981,82n. 16.

45 Neils (2001, 70-1) discusses the possibility of two
designers.
46Ashmole 1972, 136; Jenkins 1994, 22, cf. 18.
47 Osborne 1987, 103.
48 See Jenkins 1994, 19 for a plan of the Acropolis ca. 400
B.C. showing the processional pathway along the north side
of the Parthenon; cf. Pollitt 1997, figs. 29, 30. Blundell (1998,
Works Cited
Ashmole, B. 1972. Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece.
London: Phaidon.
Berger, E., and M. Gisler-Huwiler. 1996. Der Parthenon
in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Blundell, S. 1998. "Marriage and the Maiden: Narra-
tives on the Parthenon." In The Sacred and the Feminine
in Ancient Greece, edited by S. Blundell and M. Will-
iamson, 47-70. London: Routledge.
Boardman, J. 1985. Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period.
London: Thames and Hudson.
iM:305-30.
Boardman, J., and D. Finn. 1985. The Parthenon and Its
Sculptures. London: Thames and Hudson.
57, 69 n. 18) thinks that a spectator moving toward the east
could have walked along either the north or the south side,
though the northern route was "the more likely, since this
was on the shady side of the temple, and was followed by

festival processions."
49 On the (in) visibility of the frieze, see Boardman 1999,
306-7. On the frieze as a votive relief, see Kroll 1979.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
654 T. STEVENSON, CAVALRY UNIFORMS ON THE
PARTHENON FRIEZE?
Brommer, F. 1977. Der Parthenonfries: Katalogund Unter-
suchung. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Bugh, G.R. 1988. The Horsemen of Athens. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Cahn, H. 1973. "Dokimasia." RA.3-22.
und Vasenmalerei: Festschrift fur K. Schauenberg, edited
by E. Bohr and W. Martini, 91-3. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Camp,J.M. 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the
Heart of Athens. London: Thames and Hudson.
Castnota, D. 1992. Myth, Ethos and Actuality: Official Art
in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Harrison, E.B. 1984. "Time in the Parthenon Frieze. In
Der Parthenon-Kongress Basel, Referate und Bericht 4. bis
8. April 1982, edited by E. Berger, 230-4, 416-8. Mainz:

Philipp von Zabern.
Hurwit,J. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mytholo-
gy, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, I.D. 1985. "The Composition of the So-Called
Eponymous Heroes on the East Frieze of the Par-
thenon." AJA 89:121-7.
seum Press.
KrollJ.H. 1979. "The Parthenon Frieze as a Votive Re-
lief." AJA 83:349-52.
Kyle, D.G. 1992. "The Panathenaic Games: Sacred and
Civic Athletics." In Goddess andPolis: The Panathenaic
Festival in Ancient Athens, edited by J. Neils, 77-101,
203-8. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lissarrague, F. 1990. Lautre guerrier: Archers, peltastes, cav-
aliers dans Vimagerie attique. Paris and Rome: La De-
couverte and L'Ecole francaise de Rome.
Mattusch, C.C. 1994. "The Eponymous Heroes: The Idea
of Sculptural Groups." In The Archaeology of Athens
and Attica under the Democracy, edited by W.D.E. Coul-
son, O. Palagia, T.L. Shear, H.A. Shapiro, and FJ. Frost,
73-81. Oxbow Monograph 37. Oxford: Oxbow.
Nagy, B. 1992. "Athenian Officials on the Parthenon
Frieze." AJA 96:55-69.
Neils, J. 1992. "The Panathenaia: An Introduction." In
Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient

Athens, edited by J. Neils, 13-27. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
ogy." In The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the
Democracy, edited by W.D.E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T.L.
Shear, H.A. Shapiro, and FJ. Frost, 151-60. Oxbow
Monograph 37. Oxford: Oxbow.
bridge University Press.
Osborne, R. 1987. "The Viewing and Obscuring of the
Parthenon Frieze. "JHS 107:98-105.
and Greek Art." Gender and History 9:504-28.
tory." In Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construc-
tion of the Other in Greek Art, edited by B. Cohen, 23-42.
Leiden: Brill.
Pollitt, J J. 1997. "The Meaning of the Parthenon Frieze."
In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece
and Rome, edited by D. Buitron-Oliver, 51-65. Studies
in the History of Art 49, Center for Advanced Study
in the Visual Arts Symposium Papers 29. Washington,
D.C.: National Gallery of Art.
Pritchard, D.M. 2000. "The Fractured Imaginary: Popu-
lar Thinking on Citizen Soldiers and Warfare in Fifth-
Century Athens." Ph.D. diss., Macquarie University.
Ridgway, B. 1981. Fifth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Robertson, M., and A. Fran tz. 1975. 1 he Parthenon tneze.
London: Phaidon.

Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Com-
mentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Spence, I.G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social
and Military History with Particular Reference to Athens.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Stevenson, T. Forthcoming. "The Parthenon Frieze as
an Idealized, Contemporary Panathenaic Festival."
In Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, edited by
D. Phillips and D. Pritchard, 235-82. Swansea: Uni-
versity of Wales Classical Press.
Stewart, A. 1997. Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Travlos,J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. Lon-
don: Thames and Hudson.
Wilkins,J. 1990. "The Young of Athens: Religion and
Society in Herakleidai of Euripides." CQ 40:329-35.
Worley, L. 1994. Hippeis: The Cavalry of Ancient Greece.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
2018 22:09:05 UTC
Contents629630631632633634635636637[638][639][640][641][
642][643]644645646647648649650651652653654Issue Table of
ContentsAmerican Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 107, No. 4
(Oct., 2003), pp. 525-696, i-xivVolume InformationFront
MatterArchaeological Manifestations of Empire: Assyria's
Imprint on Southeastern Anatolia [pp. 525-557]The
Archaeology of Community on Bronze Age Cyprus: Politiko
"Phorades" in Context [pp. 559-

580]周攠䍬慳獩捡氠䝲敥欠卨楰睲散欠慴⁔敫瑡ş⁂畲湵Ⱐ呵牫敹⁛灰⸠㔸ㄭ㘰
そThe Changing Role of Herding in the Early Iron Age of Crete:
Some Implications of Settlement Shift for Economy [pp. 601-
627]Cavalry Uniforms on the Parthenon Frieze? [pp. 629-
654]ReviewsReview ArticleIntegrating Maritime Archaeology
[pp. 655-658]Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 659-
660]Review: untitled [pp. 660-661]Review: untitled [pp. 661-
672]Review: untitled [p. 673-673]Review: untitled [pp. 673-
682]Review: untitled [pp. 682-684]Review: untitled [p. 684-
687]Review: untitled [pp. 687-689]Review: untitled [p. 689-
693]Review: untitled [pp. 693-694]Books Received [pp. 694-
696]Back Matter
Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze
Author(s): Jenifer Neils
Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 6-20
Published by: CAA
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3051284
Accessed: 23-09-2018 21:59 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
CAA is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Art Bulletin
2018 21:59:29 UTC
Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze
Jenifer Neils
One of the greatest enigmas of classical art is the low-relief
frieze executed for the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis
sometime between 447 and 432 B.C.E. In spite of over two
hundred years of scholarship extending as far back as the
second volume ofJames Stuart and Nicholas Revett's famous
Antiquities of Athens published in 1787,1 many of the issues
pertaining to the Parthenon frieze are as yet unresolved. New
interpretations of the overall program and diverse identifica-
tions of individual figures or groups appear regularly in the
scholarly literature dealing with the frieze.2 Applications of
newer methodologies from semiotics to queer theory have led
to alternative readings of the relief and its iconography.3 And
yet today art historians are still confounded by what has been

called the best-known but least understood monument of
Greek art.
The reasons for the frieze's obscurity and the attendant
proliferation of interpretations are not hard to find. First, no
ancient literary or epigraphic source specifically cites the
frieze. Although in his second-century C.E. Guide to Greece
the periegete Pausanias mentioned the subject matter of the
Parthenon pediments, he ignored both the metopes and the
frieze.4 Plutarch's Life of Pericles (13.4-9 and 31.2-5) informs
us that Pheidias supervised the sculptural program of the
Parthenon and its team of artists, but the only work of art
actually attributed to his hand is the colossal gold and ivory
Athena Parthenos, which dominated the cella.5 Secondly, sec-
tions of the frieze are missing, and those that have survived
are not in good condition.6 The heads in particular were
badly damaged, reputedly at the end of the Ottoman occupa-
tion of Greece. The drawings of the frieze made in 1674
(thirteen years before the explosion of the temple) and
attributed to the Flemish artist Jacques Carrey, although not
entirely accurate, help somewhat in filling in the gaps, but
many obscure areas remain.7 Thirdly, all of the original paint
as well as the additions made in metal (indicated by drill
holes), which might aid in identifying individual figures, are
missing. Unlike the earlier frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at
Delphi or the much later one on the Pergamon Altar, this one
has no inscriptions, painted or carved, labeling the partici-
pants. Finally, there is no precedent in Greek art for an Ionic
frieze of this length and complexity on a Doric temple.8
Comparanda for the metopes and pediments are readily
available, as, for example, the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (ca.
470-456 B.C.E.), but the Parthenon frieze is unique in the
history of Greek architectural sculpture.

One particularly important but problematic section of the
frieze is the group of seated figures above the pronaos at the
east end of the Parthenon, now unanimously identified as
twelve Olympian deities with two attendants (Figs. 1, 2).
These, the only seated figures on the frieze, are configured
into two groups of six and represent the earliest extant
depiction of what later became the canonical Twelve Gods of
Greek and Roman art.9 Throughout the years these figures
have been variously identified and then interpreted in rela-
tion to the overall subject of the frieze, to the deity worshiped
in the temple (Athena), and to religion as practiced in the
cults of ancient Attica.10 Problems that seem to trouble
scholars are the presence of twelve gods on a temple of
Athena alone, the intended location of this conclave (Mt.
Olympos, Acropolis, or Agora?), the positioning of the gods
vis-it-vis each other (why, for instance, are such antithetical
goddesses as Artemis and Aphrodite linked arm in arm?), and
the fact that they are seated with their backs to the central,
and presumably most important, scene. There is the even
more basic issue of whether any viewer could have seen them,
positioned as they are directly behind the two central columns
of the east facade (Fig. 18). This paper will address the gods'
identification, the possible meanings that can be attributed to
their positions on the frieze, their peculiar spatial arrange-
ment, the temporal setting, and their influence on later art.
Iconography
The Greek gods are clearly the predominant theme of the
eastern end of the Parthenon (Figs. 1, 2); this makes sense
because the entrance to the Parthenon is here, the cult statue
faced in this direction, and the altar would have been at this
end of the temple.11 From the sculptures of the pediment to
the relief on the base of the cult statue the gods appear in

various groups witnessing or taking part in climactic events.
Seventeen of them react to the birth of Athena from the head
of Zeus in the east pediment; sixteen contend with the giants
in the east metopes; fourteen gather on the frieze to await a
religious procession; and twenty, according to Pliny (Natural
History 36.18), witnessed the adorning of the newly born
Pandora on the no-longer-extant base of the Athena Parthe-
nos.12 The number of divinities depicted in each area varies,
and most identifications are largely conjectural. It is only on
the frieze, where the gods are sufficiently well preserved, that
there is some consensus about their identifications.
The entire Ionic frieze measures 524 English feet in length
and just over 3 feet in height. The portion with the gods (Figs.
3-6) appears on three exceptionally long slabs of the 114 that
make up the frieze, and their appearance in the central
section of the east or major temple facade gives them special
prominence, as does their large size in relation to the humans
on the frieze. The frieze is isocephalic for both riding,
standing, and seated figures; hence, if the gods rose from
their seats they would be approximately 35 percent taller than
the humans standing near them. They are seated in groups of
six with one smaller (that is, younger) standing attendant in
each grouping.13 The most reliable clues to their identities
are the carved attributes, such as the petasos, or traveler's cap,
2018 21:59:29 UTC
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON
FRIEZE 7

17 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 47
(4 ( 1 IA U
1 Parthenon, Athens, east frieze, drawing (Skulpturhalle Basel)
?0"W
40.
;-rrr~r~;~--i ~?- --- I --- lV-- --TTEI
2 Parthenon, east frieze, cast of slabs IV-VI (photo: D.
Widmer)
41r
?I...... ......
3 Parthenon, east frieze, slab IV, 24-27
(photo: British Museum)
'
~-i
~~::~~a~c~ 4~B~R~.~i~'l-','B~LbPi[
-rr. ~i~i?. "
P ?I
-1 ~aF
.. *I? ::; .3? *i ~;?b??-I- .r
i3 ?~ "' - %
rr i)Z'Bbr~a~ar~~C~

~~
i--~ `ra BE - I?lpr~;r~61Fr~?raur._ -rie~~gb~Ly
.~i
?-
~; ?e
4 Parthenon, east frieze, slab V, 28-30
(photo: D. Widmer)
and boots of Hermes (E24), the torch of Demeter (E26), the
throne of Zeus (E30), the snaky aegis lying on the lap of
Athena (E36), and the crutch tucked under the arm of the
smith god Hephaistos (E37), a discreet allusion to his lame-
ness. Drill holes around his head indicate that the youthful
god E39 was wearing a headband, most likely the characteris-
tic laurel wreath of Apollo. Particular gestures associated with
individual deities provide another means of identifica-
tion-the brooding pose of Demeter mourning for her
daughter Persephone,14 the anakalypsis, or unveiling, of the
perpetual bride Hera (E29),15 or the restless knee-grabbing
pose of Ares (E27). Even more subtle is the gesture of Apollo,
who has hooked his right thumb inside his cloak, an incipient
act of revealing himself, suggestive of the god of truth and
light.16 Equally significant are the relationships of one god to
another. Hera, for instance, not only is seated beside her
2018 21:59:29 UTC

8 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER
1
'4
5 Parthenon, east frieze, slab V, 36-37
''
6 Parthenon, east frieze, slab VI, 38-42
husband Zeus, but she also turns her upper body toward him.
The winged boy Eros (E42) lounges in the lap of his mother,
Aphrodite (E41), and tucks his right hand under her outer
garment. The youthful pair seated next to one another are
the inseparable siblings Apollo (E39) and Artemis (E40).
Of the fourteen figures this leaves two seated males (E25
and E38) and one standing female (E28) unaccounted for.
Although the twelve Olympians had not been codified as such
in the mid-fifth century B.C.E., one who was prominent among
them and must have been on the frieze is the older sea god
Poseidon, and he is usually identified as the bearded male
(E38) conversing with Apollo. A painted trident can be
supplied to his raised left hand. As for the other seated male
(E25), because of damage to the head it is not known whether
he was bearded or not, but by a process of elimination he is
taken to be Dionysos, although Herakles has been sug-
gested.17 The fact that he is seated on a cushion and leans
back onto another god, unlike the other deities except
Aphrodite, suggests the god of the symposium. His intimacy
with Hermes refers not only to their relationship as stepbroth-
ers but also to the care Hermes took of the baby Dionysos
when he placed him under the protection of the Nymphs.

Also supporting this identification is the fact that the god of
viticulture has his legs interlocked with those of another
agrarian deity, Demeter.18
Who then is the standing winged female (E28)? She is
posed directly beyond Hera, wears a long dress, and appears
to be arranging her hair. Her left hand is raised to the back of
her head, while her right hand seems to be adjusting the folds
of her dress.19 Alternatively, one could reconstruct her right
hand with a taenia, or ribbon, once rendered in paint.20 She is
traditionally interpreted as Iris, the messenger goddess, but
scholarly opinion has recently opted for Nike, the goddess of
victory.21 In Classical Greek art it is often difficult to
differenti-
ate these goddesses because both are usually depicted as
winged and in flight or rapid movement, as Iris (N) in the
west pediment.22 They also can both be shown pouring
libations from an oinochoe, or wine jug. Iris is most securely
identified when she carries her kerykeion, or caduceus, or
when she is shown in a short chiton and winged footgear;
wings, apparently, are not essential to her identity.23 More-
over, Nike is more closely associated with Zeus and Athena
than with Hera; a wingless Nike is thought to be Athena's
charioteer in the west pediment, and she crowns Athena in
east metope IV.
Taking the clues of gesture and relationship into account, it
is possible to revive an earlier identification for this figure,
namely Hebe.24 Hebe, the personification of youth, was the
daughter of Zeus and Hera, and this attendant figure stands
in intimate relation to Hera as Eros does to Aphrodite. Both
the scale and position of these two attendant figures suggest
that they are children still dependent on their mothers. The
familial connection is reinforced by the next figure to the left,
Ares, the son of Hera and brother of Hebe. As the god of

2018 21:59:29 UTC
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON
FRIEZE 9
,v,
~wl
FuYl 4
S4i4
r ';cl~b~d~4t;IVA
7 Sophilos, dinos, detail. London, British Museum
bloody battle, Ares was never a popular Olympian and,
therefore, not a common figure in Greek art. It would appear
that the designer of the frieze was making an effort to present
this dysfunctional Olympian family (recall the discord of Hera
and Zeus) in an idealized light. Family, whether of the gods
(east pediment) or of ancestral Athenians (west pediment), is
an important theme permeating the sculptural program of
the Parthenon. In addition to the family groups Aphrodite
and Eros and the twins Apollo and Artemis, Athena seems to
be shown with her ward Erichthonios, indicated by the fact
that here, as nowhere else in Greek art, she is seated next to
Hephaistos (another child of Hera, but one whom she cast
out of Mt. Olympos because of his lameness). Athena, the
virgin goddess, had rejected the advances of Hephaistos,
resulting in the birth of the autochthonos Athenian king
Erichthonios from the Attic soil. This youth, whom Athena

graciously raised on the Acropolis, is surely alluded to in the
boy involved in the peplos ceremony (E35) standing just
behind Athena and Hephaistos.25 In discussing this overrid-
ing theme, Ira Mark has written, "The assembly presents in
one group the Olympians as protectors of the bearing and
raising of children, and in the other, the Olympians as, the
model for and protectors of marriage."26 As we shall see,
Hebe in one figure represents both marriage and offspring.
Hebe was clearly an important goddess as early as 580 B.C.E.,
as witnessed by her solo appearance at the wedding of Peleus
and Thetis on the dinos (bowl) signed by Sophilos (Fig. 7),27
but without an inscription we might never recognize her.
Since she lacks any distinctive attribute other than an oino-
choe, she is difficult to identify in Greek art.28 However,
recent
studies of Hebe in fifth-century Athenian vase painting have
stressed her intimate association with her mother, Hera. On a
red-figure column krater by the Syriskos Painter of about 460
B.C.E., for instance, a winged girl pours a libation for Zeus,
seated to her right, while she holds hands with Hera, seated at
her left; it has been argued that the intimate gesture depicted
here is one of mother and daughter.29 Hebe is so closely allied
to Hera that she functions almost as an attribute of her
mother, as Eros does for Aphrodite. Thus, we can identify
Hera's young attendant on the large skyphos attributed to the
``
?-/%; ~?-
:*?
;? .

::
r? '
";
I!'?;~h~i~LrL~4~'~ffl#YY1Tc-.i?-
Z-
r
8 Kleophon Painter, skyphos. Toledo Museum of Art, Gift of
Edward Drummond Libbey
:.~c~v. ,llsu~.alp
IN
9 Castelgiorgio Painter, kylix. London, British Museum
Kleophon Painter in Toledo (Fig. 8) as Hebe; she is fanning
her frustrated mother, who awaits the arrival of Hephaistos to
liberate her from her magic throne.30 Note especially how she
is standing directly beyond her mother, their legs overlap-
ping, indicative of their intimate, familial relationship.
In addition to being an attendant of Hera, Hebe has two
major roles in Greek mythology: as cupbearer to the gods and
as a bride of Herakles when he was deified after his labors. As
the female equivalent of Ganymede, she is shown on a
red-figure kylix by the Castelgiorgio Painter of about 480-470
B.C.E. saluting and holding an oinochoe for Hera, just as her
young male counterpart does for Zeus (Fig. 9).31 Although no
name is inscribed, her identification in this scene is assured
since she acts in the same role for her mother as Ganymede

does for Zeus. Also, the unusual presence of Ares between the
two cupbearers helps to confirm her identity. She is given
prominent wings, as on another cup to be discussed below
(Fig. 12). Winged or not, this image of Hebe as libation-
pourer for her parents is common in Attic vase painting,
although the figure is frequently mistaken for Nike or Iris.
Just as frequently Hebe is depicted as the bride of Herakles,
and again the context serves to identify her. She is often
shown in a chariot accompanying the hero during his apotheo-
2018 21:59:29 UTC
10 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI
NUMBER 1
. , . ... . , - ,q W'. . .....
I?i ?
-mm : " m - ..
10 Eretria Painter, epinetron. Athens, National Museum
(photo: DAI, Athens)
VA.Eat- ?x
11 Siana cup, detail. London, British Museum
sis; these apotheosis-by-chariot scenes are iconographically
indistinguishable from wedding scenes.32 Hebe does not need
wings in such scenes because she has an alternate mode of

travel and she is easily identified by her association with her
famous bridegroom. Hebe can also stand alone in a bridal
context, as on the Eretria Painter's red-figure epinetron
(thigh guard) of about 425-420 B.C.E. (Fig. 10).33 Here, she
plays an accessory role at the wedding of Harmonia, but her
gesture of arranging her hair is identical to that of E28 on the
frieze. In both instances she is making herself beautiful for
the coming ceremony, and the action of binding one's hair is
characteristic of brides in Attic red-figure vase painting of this
period.34
As the bride of Athena's favorite hero and future Olympian
Herakles, Hebe certainly deserves a place in the Olympian
family. In fact, there is an important precedent both for her
appearance among the Olympians and for the Olympians
gathered together, seated and awaiting an arrival-namely,
the scene of Herakles' introduction into Olympos. This
scheme was very popular in Attic sixth-century vase painting
and even figured on an Archaic limestone pediment on the
Acropolis.35 In these scenes Hebe is usually present, not only
because she is Herakles' bride/prize but also because she
represents the eternal Youth that the hero is awarded after his
labors. On one early Athenian Siana cup of about 560 B.C.E.
s,
?.:
?? :
iir~f- ~Z~F
a :-I,,.? J~.~a~i~~~rlPr-~I~4~p~sp~sa~?~?sy~~ ~.;-
a?a;l- ????I?
i.: -

Student’s Last Name 1Student’s Last Name 2Student’s Na.docx

Student’s Last Name 1Student’s Last Name 2Student’s Na.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from deanmtaylor1545

More from deanmtaylor1545 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Student’s Last Name 1Student’s Last Name 2Student’s Na.docx