What Is A Frieze? Where Is This Frieze Located? Why Was There Animal Figures Allowed On The Frieze?

Sculpture from the Parthenon, in Athens' Acropolis

The Parthenon frieze is the high-relief Pentelic marble sculpture created to adorn the upper role of the Parthenon'south naos. Information technology was sculpted between c. 443 and 437 BC,^[1] about probable under the management of Pheidias. Of the 160 meters (524 ft) of the original frieze, 128 meters (420 ft) survives—some 80 percent.^[two] The residue is known only from the drawings attributed to French artist Jacques Carrey in 1674, xiii years before the Venetian bombardment that ruined the temple.

At present, the majority of the frieze is at the British Museum in London (forming the major role of the Elgin Marbles); the largest proportion of the rest is at the Acropolis Museum in Athens, and the remainder of fragments shared between six other institutions.^[3] Casts of the frieze may be found in the Beazley archive at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, at the Spurlock Museum in Urbana, in the Skulpturhalle at Basel and elsewhere.^[4]

Construction [edit]

Plutarch's Life of Pericles, 13.4–9, informs us "the man who directed all the projects and was overseer [episkopos] for him [Pericles] was Phidias... About everything was under his supervision, and, as we have said, he was in charge, owing to his friendship with Perikles, of all the other artists".^[5] The description was not architekton,^[6] the term usually given to the creative influence behind a building project, rather episkopos.^[seven] Simply it is from this merits, the circumstantial bear witness of Phidias'due south known work on the Athena Parthenos and his central role in the Periclean building programme that he is attributed authorship of the frieze.^[8] The frieze consists of 378 figures and 245 animals. It was 160 meters (524 ft) in length when complete, as well as 1 meter in height, and it projects v.6 cm forward at its maximum depth. Information technology is composed of 114 blocks of an average 1.22 meters in length, depicting two parallel files in procession. It was a particular novelty of the Parthenon that the cella carries an Ionic frieze over the hexastyle pronaos rather than Doric metopes, equally would have been expected of a Doric temple. Judging by the existence of regulae and guttae below the frieze on the due east wall this was an innovation introduced late in the building process and replaced the ten metopes and triglyphs that might otherwise have been placed at that place.^[9]

Alma-Tadema'southward 1868 'Phidias Showing the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends', reflecting contemporary reconstructions of the frieze'southward colour

The marble was quarried from Mount Pentelicus and transported 19 km to the acropolis of Athens. A persistent question has been whether it was carved in situ.^[x] Just below the moulding and above the tenia at that place is a aqueduct 17 mm loftier that would have served to give access to the sculptor's chisel when finishing the heads or feet on the relief; this scamillus or guide strip is the best evidence in that location is that the blocks were carved on the wall. Additionally, on practical grounds it is easier to motion a sculptor than a sculpture, and to use a crowbar to put them into place, potentially, could accept chipped the edges.^[xi] No information is recoverable on the workshop, but estimates range from three to 80 sculptors on the basis of style. Yet, American archaeologist Jenifer Neils suggests ix, on the grounds that this would be the least number necessary to produce the work in the time given.^[12] Information technology was finished with metal detailing and painted. No color, however, survives, but peradventure the background was blue, judging past comparison with grave stelae and the pigment remnants on the frieze of the Hephaisteion.^[xiii] Maybe figures held objects that were too rendered in paint such equally Poseidon'southward trident and the laurel in Apollo's hand.^[14] The many drill holes found in Hera'south and Apollo's heads bespeak that a gilded bronze wreath would probably accept crowned the deities.^[15]

The system of numbering the frieze blocks dates back to Adolf Michaelis'south 1871 work Der Parthenon, and since then Ian Jenkins has revised this scheme in the light of recent discoveries.^{[sixteen] [17]} The convention, hither preserved, is that blocks are numbered in Roman and figures in Arabic numerals, the figures are numbered left to right against the management of the procession on the n and due west and with information technology on the south.

Description [edit]

West frieze, XLVII, 132–136, British Museum

The narrative of the frieze begins at the southwest corner where the procession appears to divide into 2 separate files. The first tertiary of the westward frieze is not part of the procession, but instead, seems to be the preparatory stages for the participants. The beginning figure here is a align dressing, W30, followed by several men preparing the horses W28–23 until effigy W22 who, it has been suggested,^[18] may be engaged in the dokimasia, the tryout or enrollment of the knights.^[nineteen] W24 is an ambiguous figure who might be either the protesting owner of a rejected horse or a keryx (herald) whose hand held part of an otherwise lost salpinx (trumpet), merely either way this point marks the beginning of the procession proper.^[twenty]

The post-obit ranks W21–1 along with N75–136 and S1–61 are all of horsemen and establish 46% of the whole frieze.^[20] They are divided into two lines of ten ranks – the same number as that of the Attic tribes.^[21] All figures are beardless youths with the exception of two, W8 and W15, who along with S2–7 article of clothing Thracian dress of fur cap, a patterned cloak, and high boots; these have been identified past Martin Robertson as hipparchs.^[22] Next are the iv-horse chariots, each with charioteer and armed passenger, there are x on the south frieze and eleven on the due north. Since these passengers are sometimes depicted every bit dismounting they may be taken to correspond the apobatai, participants in the ceremonial race plant in Attica and Boeotia.^[23]

By N42 and S89 the equestrian parade is at an end, and the post-obit 16 figures on the n and 18 on the due south are taken to be the elders of Athens judging by their braided hair, an aspect of distinguished age in Classical fine art. Four of these figures raise their right paw in a clenched fist gesture suggestive of a pose associated with the thallophoroi (olive branch bearers) who were older men chosen in competition for their good looks alone. No drill holes, however, exist for whatsoever branch to be inserted in their hands. Next in line (S107–114, N20–28) are the musicians: four kithara (a variant of the lyre) and four aulos (flute) players. N16–19 and S115–118 (conjectured) maybe, every bit hydriaphoroi, the water-vessel carriers, here men, rather than metic girls mentioned in the literature on the Panathenaia. N13–15, S119–121 are the skaphephoroi, the tray bearers of the honeycombs and cakes used to entice the sacrificial animals to the altar. N1–12, S122–149 are the four cows and four sheep on the due north and ten cows on the south meant for sacrifice on the acropolis, presumably an abbreviated form of the hecatomb usually offered on this occasion – in that location is an a-b-a rhythm of placid and restive cows.^[24]

Weavers section of the frieze, East VII, 49–56, Louvre, (MR 825)

As the files converge on the east frieze we encounter the outset women celebrants E2–27, E50–51, E53–63. The priestesses behave the sacrificial instruments and paraphernalia including the phiale (phial or jug), oinochoai (wine jars), thymiaterion (incense burner), and in the example of E50–51, plainly they have just handed the marshal E49 a kanoun, making the girl the kanephoros.^[25] The side by side groups E18–23, E43–46, are problematic. Half dozen on the left and iv on the right, if one does not count two other figures who may or may not be marshals, then this group might be taken to exist the x eponymous heroes who gave their names to the 10 tribes. Their proximity to the deities indicates their importance, just selecting differently, and so nine of them may exist the archons of the polis or athlothetai officials who managed the procession; there is insufficient iconographic evidence to make up one's mind which interpretation is correct.

Interpretations of the figures varies. The twelve seated deities are taken to be the Olympians, they are one third taller than whatever other effigy on the frieze and are arranged in two groups of vi on diphroi (backless) stools, common forms of ancient furniture, with the exception of Zeus who is enthroned. Their backs are turned to what must exist the culminating event of the procession E31–35; five figures (iii children and two adults, and although desperately corroded, the two children on the left appear to exist girls bearing objects on their heads,^[26] while a third, peradventure a boy,^[27] profitable an developed who may be the archon basileus, in folding a piece of textile. This frieze often is interpreted equally the presentation of Athena's peplos, perhaps by the arrhephoroi, but debate exists regarding who the figures represent more than what ritual is represented.^[28]

Fashion [edit]

Cavalcade south frieze, X XI, 26–28, British Museum

The Parthenon frieze is the defining monument of the High Classical style of Attic sculpture.^[29] It stands between the gradual eclipse of the Severe style, every bit witnessed on the Parthenon metopes,^[30] and the development of the Belatedly Classical Rich style, exemplified past the Nike balustrade. What sources the designer of the frieze drew upon is difficult to judge, certainly big scale narrative art was familiar to fifth-century Athenians as in the Stoa poikile painting by Polygnotos of Thasos. While there is an overall coherence to the piece of work in that location are blueprint differences on opposing sides of the frieze that has suggested to some scholars the possibility of more than than ane designer and a pattern of influence amidst them.^[31] There is greater nudity and frontally on the n than the south, the massing and distribution of figures is greatly different on the eastward than the more than widely spaced west, and the eastward and north generally exhibit greater innovation. This evidence, forth with the frequency with which Greek artists are idea to take collaborated, has led Jenifer Neils to hypothesize the existence of two designers working on the sculpture.^[32] This would admit the possibility of a later designer comparing and competing with the before, and so, explain the observable changes in limerick. Geographical orientations likewise may have dictated what would exist represented on ane side versus some other, i.east., Amazons to the west, and and then forth.

This artistic period is 1 of discovery of the expressive possibilities of the human being body; there is a greater liberty in the poses and gestures, and an increased attention to anatomical verisimilitude, every bit may be observed in the ponderated stances of figures W9 and W4, who partially conceptualize the Doryphoros of Polykleitos. There is a noticeable ease to the physiques of the frieze compared with the stiffness of the metopes along with an centre for such subtleties as knuckle joints, veins, and the careful articulation of musculature. One important innovation of the style is the use of drapery as an expression of motion, or to suggest the body below; in archaic and early classical sculpture, clothing fell over the body as if it were a curtain obscuring the form below, in these sculptures there is the billowing chlamydes of the horsemen and the multi-pleated peploi of the women that lends a surface movement and tension to their otherwise, static poses. Variation in the manes of the horses has been of particular interest to some scholars attempting to discern the artistic personalities of sculptors who laboured on the frieze or peradventure, indicating deliberate representation of different regional traditions,^[33] so far this Morellian analysis has been without conclusion.

Interpretation and theorize [edit]

Cattle led to cede, South XLV, 137–140, British Museum

As no description of the frieze survives from antiquity and many religious rituals involved hush-hush symbolism and traditions left unspoken, and so the question of the meaning of the sculpture has been a persistent and unresolved one. The get-go published effort at interpretation belongs to Cyriacus of Ancona in the 15th century, who referred to it equally the "victories of Athens in the time of Pericles".^[34] What is now the more accepted view of the piece, yet, namely that it depicts the Greater Panathenaic procession from the Leokoreion by the Dipylon Gate,^[35] to the Acropolis, was mooted past Stuart and Revett in the 2d volume of their Antiquities of Athens, 1787.^[36] Subsequent interpretations accept built largely on this theory, even if they disallow that a temple sculpture could represent a contemporary event rather than a mythological or historical one. It has just been in recent years that an alternative thesis in which the frieze depicts the founding myth of the city of Athens instead of the festival pompe has emerged.

Procession of tributes from the Apadana, Persepolis, offset half of the fifth century. Possibly an inspiration for the Parthenon Frieze

The contention that the scene depicts the festival for Athena is fraught with issues. Later sources indicate that a number of classes of individual who performed a role in the procession are non nowadays in the frieze, these include: the hoplites, the allies in the Delian League, the skiaphoroi or umbrella bearers, the female person hydraiphoroi (merely male hydrai bearers are portrayed), the thetes, slaves, metics, the Panathenaic ship, and some would propose the kanephoros, although at that place is evidence that she is accounted for.^[37] That what we now encounter was meant to be a generic image of the religious festival is problematic since no other temple sculpture depicts a gimmicky issue involving mortals. Locating the scene in mythical or historical time has been the principal difficulty of the line of inquiry. John Boardman has suggested that the cavalry portray the heroization of the Marathonomachoi, the hoplites who brutal at Marathon in 490, and that, therefore these riders were the Athenians who took role in the terminal pre-war Greater Panathenaia.^[38] In support, he points out the number of horsemen, chariot passengers (merely not charioteers), grooms, and marshals comes to the aforementioned as the number Herodotos gives for the Athenian expressionless: 192. Equally suggestive of a reference to the Persian Wars is the similarity several scholars have noted of the frieze to the Apadana sculpture in Persepolis. This has variously been posited to exist democratic Athens counter-posing itself to oriental tyranny,^[39] or, aristocratic Athens emulating the Regal East.^[xl] Further to this zeitgeist statement at that place is J.J. Politt'south contention that the frieze embodies a Periclean manifesto, which favours the cultural institutions of agones (or contests, equally witnessed by the apobatai), sacrifices, and military training besides as a number of other autonomous virtues.^[41] More recent scholarship pursuing this vein has fabricated the frieze a site of ideological tension betwixt the elite and the demos with perhaps, only the elite present, and merely veiled reference to the ten tribes.^[42]

The so-called peplos scene, Due east V, 31–35, London

The pediments, metopes, and shield of the Parthenos all illustrate the mythological past and every bit the deities are observing on the due east frieze, it is natural to reach for a mythological explanation. Chrysoula Kardara,^[43] has ventured that the relief shows the states the first Panathenaic procession instituted under the mythical King Kekrops. This explanation would account for the absence of the allies and the ship, as these post-date the original practise of the sacrificial rite. In show she offers E35 as the future King Erichthonios presenting the first peplos to his predecessor Kekrops, iconographically similar to the boy's depiction on a fragmentary kylix of the 450s.^[44] A recent interpretation by Joan Breton Connelly identifies the fundamental scene on the east frieze (hence above the door to the cella and focal betoken of the procession) not equally the handing over of Athena's peplos by the arrhephoroi, just the donning of sacrificial garb past the daughter of King Erechtheus in preparation for the sacrifice of her life.^[45] An interpretation suggested by the text of the fragmentary papyrus remains of Euripides's Erichtheus,^[46] wherein her life is demanded in order to salve the metropolis from Eumolpos and the Eleusinians. Thus, the deities turn their backs to preclude pollution from the sight of her death. A contentious field of study in the field, Connelly's solution to the problem of meaning poses equally many problems as information technology answers.^[47]

Influence [edit]

Gemma Augustea, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna

The earliest surviving works of art that exhibit traces of the influence of the Parthenon frieze belong to the media of vase painting and grave stelae where nosotros may observe some echo not but of motifs, themes, poses, but tenor, as well. Direct imitation, and indeed quotation, of the frieze begins to be pronounced effectually 430 BC. One example, an explicit copy, is a pelike attributed to the Wedding Painter of a youth "parking upward" a horse exactly in the manner of figure W25 on the frieze.^[48] While those vase paintings that resemble the frieze cluster around 430, the vases that quote the pediments are datable nearer to the terminate of the century, giving further bear witness of the priority of the sculptural program.^[49] More accomplished painters as well found inspiration in the sculpture, namely Polygnotos I and his group, especially the Peleus Painter, the Kleophon Painter and the late work of the Achilles Painter. Later painters of talent also managed to capture the mood of eusebeia, or thoughtful piety of the procession, as, for example, on the volute krater of the Kleophon Painter of a sacrifice to Apollo,^[50] which shares the quiet dignity of the best of High Classical sculpture.^[51]

The bear on of the frieze may be sought in the Attic relief sculpture of the late fifth century; this resonance also may be discovered to some degree in the public works of the Hephaisteion frieze and the Nike Athena balustrade, where the imagery of the seated deities and the sandal-binder respectively, probable owes a debt to the Parthenon. There also are traces plant on the private commissions of grave stelae from the catamenia, for example, the "cat stele" from Aegina bears a distinct similarity to figures N135–6.^[52] As does the Hermes of the four-figure relief known from a Roman re-create.^[53] Later classicizing art of the Hellenistic and Roman eras also looked to the frieze for inspiration as attested past the Lycian Sarcophagus of Sidon, Phoenicia, the Ara Pacis Augustae, the Gemma Augustea, and many pieces of the Hadrianic generation.^[54]

Meet too [edit]

• Metopes of the Parthenon
• Pediments of the Parthenon

References [edit]

1. ^ 438 was the yr of the dedication of the Parthenon and is ordinarily taken every bit an upper limit for completion of the frieze, see I Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze and Perikles' cavalry of yard, p149–150, in Hurwit, 2005, for a discussion of the dating trouble.
2. ^ Jenkins, 2002, p.49
3. ^ 80m in London and 50m in Athens according to the Greek Culture Ministry'south website accessed 27.6.2010. The six other museums existence: Musée du Louvre; Vatican Museums; National Museum, Copenhagen; Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna; University Museum, Würzburg; Glyptothek, Munich, from the British Museum website accessed 27.6.2010
4. ^ For example, in the Architecture Hall at the Academy of Washington, Seattle, in the Museum of the Center for the Acropolis Studies at Athens, at the Western Australian Museum in Perth, at Hammerwood Park about E Grinstead in Sussex, at the Nashville Parthenon, and at the University of Strasbourg (France)
5. ^ πάντα δὲ διεῖπε καὶ πάντων ἐπίσκοπος ἦν αὐτῷ Φειδίας, καίτοι μεγάλους ἀρχιτέκτονας ἐχόντων καὶ τεχνίτας τῶν ἔργων…πάντα δ᾽ ἦν σχεδὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, καὶ πᾶσιν, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, ἐπεστάτει τοῖς τεχνίταις διὰ φιλίαν Περικλέους. Plutarch's Lives. with an English Translation. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1914
6. ^ Liddell Scott Jones, ἀρχι-τέκτων, chief-artificer, master-builder, director of works
7. ^ LSJ, ἐπίσκοπ-ος, one who watches over, overseer, guardian
8. ^ Ridgway, 1981, p.17, designates the creative person as the "Parthenon Principal" precisely to avert the problem of attribution. She also speculates on whether Perikles might have been responsible for the overall conception of the Parthenon'due south sculptural program, see note iii, p.17.
9. ^ Neils, 2001, p.38
10. ^ Neils, 2001, p.77, also note eight for the historiography of the problem.
11. ^ Neils, 2001, p.77
12. ^ Neils, 2001, p.87
13. ^ Neils, 2001, p.88 "Information technology is mostly assumed that the background of the frieze was painted blue, on analogy with the blue background of other fifth-century relief sculptures, namely, grave stelae. Maybe the closest comparison is with the Hephaisteion frieze, which co-ordinate to several early travellers to Greece preserved traces of a blue background in addition to other paint…The Elusinian limestone used for the background of the Erechtheion frieze is also dark blue in colour. Thus, we can safely assume that at least the background of the Parthenon frieze was more or less as the nineteenth-century Dutch painter Alma-Tadema depicted it."
14. ^ Neils, 2001, p.90
15. ^ Neils, 2001, p.91
16. ^ Jenkins, 1994, pp.50–ane
17. ^ Peculiarly the manuscript of Francis Vernon of 1675, describing the frieze prior to the Venetian battery which shed new lite on the "Carrey drawings" of 1674, see Bowie, Thimme, 1971, and B. D. Meritt, The Epigraphic notes of Francis Vernon, in Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia Suppl. 8, Princeton 1949)
18. ^ Robertson, Frantz, 1975, notes to plate nine.
19. ^ however Bugh, 1988 however, has argued that the scene is unrelated to the military and specific to the religious procession, see Neils, 2001, p.128
20. ^ ^{a b} Neils, 2001, p.132
21. ^ The Athenian cavalry was organised past tribe of phylai and commanded by ten officers known every bit phlyarchs
22. ^ Robertson, Frantz, 1975, p.46
23. ^ Kyle, 1993, see Neils, 2001, p.138
24. ^ Neils, 2001, p.154
25. ^ Roccos, 1999, pp.641–66.
26. ^ Either baskets, Wesenberg, 1995, or stools, Boardman, 1999, pp.305–330
27. ^ Brommer,1977, pp.269–70 may identify the being of a temple boy of Athena in Athens, see also Harrison, The Web of History: A conservative reading of the Parthenon Frieze in Neils, 1996, p.204
28. ^ While information technology is largely uncontroversial (stride Connelly) that this scene is the presentation of the peplos, since that was the purpose of the Panathenaic procession, the identification of these figures is not. Information technology may be that the two girls, Due east 31-2, are the diphrophoroi, metic girls who carried the stools for the kanephoroi, but Neils, 2001, p.168 dismisses this argument since they plainly play a cardinal role in the cult of Athena here. She likewise notes that the arrephoroi were involved in the weaving of the peplos, specifically warping the looms for it during the festival of Chalkeia nine months earlier. The figure E35 was identified as a girl past Stuart and Revett, an ascription repudiated by Adolf Michaelis in 1871. That this figure was a male child was the orthodox interpretation until Martin Robertson pointed out the presence of venus rings on her neck, Robertson, Frantz, 1975. See too Neils, 2001, p.169.
29. ^ As Neils, 2001, p.95 notes, "for many it represents the epitome of the high Classical Style", however Cook, 1976, p.124 makes the useful qualification, "For the character of the Loftier Classical Fashion it is easy to rely too much on the architectural sculpture of the Parthenon, since they form the only large body of original work of first-rate quality that has survived".
30. ^ Ridgway, 1981, p.16, "it is certainly truthful that near of the South metopes... retain distinctive traits of the Severe style. This feature is best explained, even so, in terms of lingering tradition, and it is quite possible that the various Fifth century styles developed in the process of carving, since highly avant-garde details can be noticed in whatever remains of some other metopes, or, for that affair, in some of the South series as well."
31. ^ Neils, 2001, p.70
32. ^ Neils, 2001, p.71
33. ^ Schuchhardt, 1930, pp.218–80, detects 79 individual sculptors.
34. ^ Cyriacus of Ancona, 2003, p.19
35. ^ Robertson Athena'due south Shrines and Festivals p.58 in Neils 1996. Before the construction of the Pompeion c. 400 BC the Leokoreion was the marshalling indicate for the festival procession, Thucydides half dozen.57. Nevertheless the ritual infinite may accept changed equally the city'south topography developed, "this side of the city, the northwest sector, was but developed in the sixth century, and mostly in the 2d half under the tyrants. Early Athens lay elsewhere, and until the 6th century the Panathenaic parade took quite a dissimilar road." Robertson in Neils 1996 p.58.
36. ^ Stuart, Revett, 2002, p.31
37. ^ Ross Holloway, 1966, pp.223–226 lists the testimonia for the Panathenaic procession
38. ^ J. Boardman, The Parthenon Frieze – another wait, in Festschrift fur Frank Brommer, p.39–49, 1977
39. ^ Lawrence, 1951, pp.116–19, besides Ashmole, 1972, p.117
40. ^ Root, 1989, pp.103–twenty.
41. ^ Pollitt, 1972, p.87.
42. ^ See L. Maurizio, The Panathenaic Procession:Athens' Participatory Commonwealth on Display?, in Boedeker, 1998
43. ^ Kadara, 1964, pp.62–158, see also Brommer, 1977, p.149.
44. ^ Acropolis 396
45. ^ Connelly, 1993, pp.58–80
46. ^ Fragments are preserved in Lycurgus Against Leocrates, 101 and on papyrus Sorbonne 2328
47. ^ "Revolutionary" in the words of Sarah Peirce in the written report on the symposium on "Parthenon and Panathenaia." at Princeton University, September 18, 1993. accessed fifteen.8.2010, it was also the context of Neils'south book. See Neils, 2001, p.eight.
48. ^ Berlin F 2357
49. ^ Niels, 2001, p.204
50. ^ Ferrara T57
51. ^ Robertson, 1992, p.223, "One of the artist's masterpieces…[i]n the pictures on this vase the Kleophon Painter is still Periklean in the happiest sense".
52. ^ NAMA 715
53. ^ Louvre MA 854
54. ^ For example the marble relief from Hadrian's villa BM 2206

Sources [edit]

• Ashmole, B. (1972) Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece.
• Boardman, J. (1985). The Parthenon and its Sculptures, University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-76498-7
• Boardman, J. (1999) The Parthenon Frieze: a closer await, Revue Archeologique, 99:2, p. 305–330.
• Boedeker, D. (2003) Democracy, Empire and the Arts in 5th-century Athens.
• Bowie, T., Thimme, D. (1971) The Carrey Drawings of the Parthenon Sculptures.
• Brommer, F. (1977). Der Parthenonfries.
• Bugh, Thou. (1988) The Horsemen of Athens.
• Connelly, J.B. (1993) Parthenon and Parthenoi: A Mythological Interpretation of the Parthenon Frieze, AJA 100, 58–eighty
• Cook, R.M. (1976) Greek Art, Its Character and Influence.
• Cyriac of Ancona, Afterward Travels, ed. Clive. Foss, Edward Williams Bodnar, I Tatti Renaissance Library, 2003.
• Donohue, A. A., (ed). (2005) Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives.
• Höckmann, U., Krug, A. (eds), (1977) Festschrift für Frank Brommer.
• Hurwit, J.Thou. (ed) (2005) Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives.
• Jenkins, I. (2002). The Parthenon Frieze, British Museum Press. ISBN 0-7141-2237-8
• Kardara, C. (1964) Γλαυχκώπις, ο Aρχαϊκός Nαός και το Θέμα της Zωφόρου του Παρθενώνα', Archaiologike Ephemeris, 62–158.
• Kyle, D.G. (1993) Athletics in Ancient Athens.
• Lawrence, A.Due west. (1951) The Acropolis and Persepolis, JHS, 1951, p. 116–19
• Lycurgus Confronting Leocrates
• Michaelis, A (1871) Der Parthenon
• Neils, J. (2001). The Parthenon Frieze, Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN 0-521-64161-6
• Neils, J. (ed.) (1993). Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Athens, Princeton Academy Printing. ISBN 0-691-03612-8
• Neils, J. (ed) (1996) Worshipping Athena.
• Osada, T. (ed.) (2016) The Parthenon Frieze. The Ritual Communication betwixt the Goddess and the Polis. Parthenon Project Japan 2011-2014, Phoibos Verlag, Wien 2016, ISBN 978-three-85161-124-three.
• Pollitt, J.J. (1972) Art and Experience in Classical Hellenic republic.
• Ridgway, B. (1981) Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture.
• Robertson, 1000. (1992) The Art of Vase Painting in Classical Athens.
• Robertson, M. and A. Frantz. (1975). The Parthenon Frieze, Oxford University Press.
• Roccos, L.J. The Kanephoros and her Festival Mantle in Greek Fine art, AJA 99, p. 641–66.
• Root, Margaret Absurd (1985) The Parthenon Frieze and the Apadana Reliefs at Persepolis: Reassessing a Programmatic Relationship, American Journal of Archaeology:89, p. 103–20.
• Schuchhardt, West.H. (1930) Die Entstehung des Parthenonfries, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 45, p. 218–fourscore.
• Stuart, Revett, The Antiquities of Athens: And Other Monuments of Hellenic republic, Elibron Classics edition, 2002
• Ross Holloway, R. (1966) The Archaic Acropolis and the Parthenon Frieze, The Art Message, Vol. 48, No. two, p. 223–226
• Wesenberg, B. (1995) Panathenaische Peplosdedikation und Arrhephorie. Zur Thematik des Parthenonfrieses JdI 110, p. 149–78.

External links [edit]

• Bout of the Parthenon frieze, Greek Culture Ministry website
• Flash blitheness reconstruction of the frieze
• Hammerwood copy of the frieze
• Duveen gallery at the British Museum

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon_Frieze

Posted by: millardfornow38.blogspot.com

Share this post