180 



ANCIENT AND MODERN METHODS 



as to the genuineness of this work. Dr. Alfred Emerson 

 has expressed his belief in the "American Journal of 

 Archaeology," Vol. i., p. 153, that the work is a modern 

 fraud. In the following number of the Journal Mr. 

 Furtwangler defends the work, but would place it not 

 earlier than the first century B. C. He says it is not ar- 



Tig. 47. Grecian. 



chaic, but archaistic. Whether the work be genuine or 

 spurious I am not competent to judge. I may venture to 

 say, however, that the attitude of the shaft-hand is very 

 inaccurate. However absurd the drawing of the hand 

 often is in these early Greek releases, the artists have 

 rarely failed to adjust the arrow correctly in relation to 



Fig. 48. Grecian. 



the bend of the bow and the angle made by the string in 

 tension. In this bas-relief of Herakles, however, the at- 

 titude of shooting is one of which no artist capable of mak- 

 ing so robust and correct a body and pose would be guilty, 

 and it certainly lends some weight to the supposition of 

 Dr. Emerson as to the possible character of the work. 



