THE AIM OF THIS chapter is to discuss a number of problems of technique and interpretation posed by the four cult-statue-bases produced by Pheidias and his chief pupils, Alkamenes and Agorakritos, between about 439 and 415 BC. Pheidias led the way with his base for the Athena Parthenos in the Parthenon, completed just before the dedication of the statue in 438. This was followed by his own base for the Zeus at Olympia in the mid-430s, then by Agorakritos’ base for the Nemesis at Rhamnous around 430.Alkamenes comes last, with his base for the group of Athena and Hephaistos in the Hephaisteion, probably completed around 415. What evidence we have shows that the bases were of stone, decorated with friezes of widely spaced relief figures in stiff poses. The figures on Pheidias’ base at Olympia were metalwork, those on the bases of his pupils were carved in marble; the evidence on the Parthenos base is inconclusive. The scenes are remarkable for their lack of narrative. The myths were recognised thanks to the names of the figures presumably painted on the background. The absence of narrative is not uncommon in contemporary vase-painting, where the figures are named to make up for the lack of action.

We begin with problems of technique. Pausanias (v.11.8) explicitly states that the figures on Zeus’ base were golden. The base itself was made of Eleusinian limestone as attested by fragments of the blocks inside the cella; the figures would have been attached, glowing against a dark background. Pausanias (v.11.10) remarks that a ledge of Parian marble surrounded the sunken floor of the cella in front of the statue-base, forming an impluvium that held olive oil for the protection of the ivory against the humid climate of Olympia. Examination of the marble in situ has revealed that the marble is in fact Pentelic: Pheidias seems to have imported Attic stones from home. Neda Leipen has argued that Pliny’s description of the birth of Pandora on the Parthenos base as caelatum est (NH xxxvi.18) implies that it was metalwork.