
doi: 10.2307/503126
(pl. 75, fig. 2, BM 423, commonly designated by the letter o, and pl. 75, fig. I, BM 424, commonly called g) were lifted and the upper surfaces of the epistyles under them were examined for traces of the original setting and fastening of the frieze blocks. Photographs and a measured drawing of the tops of the epistyles thus exposed were made, and then the casts were replaced in the positions which they had previously occupied.' The main purpose of the investigation was to reexamine the evidence for the succession of the frieze blocks on the south side of the temple. There has been no general agreement among scholars as to the original order of these blocks, and yet the recovery of the original composition of the frieze is vital for our understanding of it as a monument in the history of art. Comparison with the friezes of the Hephaisteion, which have remained in place since the temple was first built, had convinced me that the slab BM 424 (g) must have been designed as the central block of the south side. The order of the southern slabs would thus have been, from west to east: 1, f+e, g, o, a. Orlandos wrote in his article on the 1935-40 reconstruction of the temple in BCH (1947-48) that the blocks remaining on the temple were placed according to the order assigned by him in 1915 and that the casts of the British Museum slabs were placed according to the same arrangement.2 The present casts, however, are arranged not according to the disposition advocated by Orlandos in 1915 but in that recommended by Bliimel in his article in Jdl (I950-50I). Neither Orlandos nor Blfimel seems to mention this fact. Whereas Bliimel agreed with Orlandos that the first three blocks from the west should be 1, f+e, o, making o the central block, Orlandos had not assigned any surviving block to the fourth space, while Bliimel placed there the block g, assigned by Orlandos to the north side. It is clear that the cement casts, which Orlandos says were furnished by the British Museum, were made with the intention that the two blocks should
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
