Post on 22-Jan-2023
STATUE, CULT AND REPRODUCTION
M I L E T T E G A I F M A N
‘Without repetition, art would lose its memory.’1 Alfred Gell’s pronouncement
may be applied to the case of classical Greece, to conclude that without emula-
tion, art would lose its memory or in itself be mostly lost.2 The ancient habit of
emulation, the reproduction of statues in three-dimensional replicas or in two-
dimensional images in a variety of media, is a primary source for the appearance
of the masterpieces of classical Greece that are no longer in existence.3 As the
only physical remnants from antiquity, which seem to bear some resemblance to
the lost originals, replications in their wide variety of forms are invaluable for the
reconstruction of lost works of art made by famous artists such as Pheidias or
Polykleitos.4
The desire to recreate the grandness of classical Greece can be seen as one of
the primary motivations for the school of Kopienkritik, for which copies are seen as
subsidiary to their assumed prototype. Behind this scholarly approach is a deep-
seated view of classical art in general, namely that the fifth and fourth centuries
BCE comprised the age of the great masters, the time when original works of art
were produced, while subsequent periods lacked originality and were typified
by copying and imitation.5 Indeed, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods repli-
cations are far more in evidence and appear to resemble their prototypes to a
greater degree than their counterparts of earlier periods. At the same time, the
culture of emulation was already in existence in archaic and classical Greece.6
One of what was, perhaps, the most replicated images of classical antiquity, the so-
called Athena ‘Parthenos’, was already reproduced in vase painting in the late fifth
century BCE, a relatively short time after its completion in 438 BCE (see plate 4.3).7
Though the existence of replications in the Greek context may not be news,
there has been relatively little attempt to account for this phenomenon in the
classical period.8 My particular concern here is with the implications of repli-
cating monuments of cult that are typically termed ‘cult statues’, or Kultbilder,
referring to images of the god that were venerated and that functioned as the
focal points of ritual.9 The subject of these monuments has been of great schol-
arly interest, yet the questions related to their replications have by and large been
left ignored.10 There are a number of reasons for this oversight. One may be the
influence of Kopienkritik, which approaches copies as surviving evidence for
reconstruction, but fails to account for their existence as works of art in their own
ART HISTORY . ISSN 0141-6790 . VOL 29 NO 2 . APRIL 2006 pp 258–279258 & Association of Art Historians 2006. Published by Blackwell Publishing,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
right. Replications should not be taken as a given, however, as chance survivors
from the past. Some works of art have been replicated repeatedly, so that it is
possible to recognize that a group of copies refers to the same lost original. At the
same time, the appearance of other monuments is virtually unknown, because it
is impossible to establish that some surviving works of art are copies of specific
prototypes that are no longer in existence.
The Athenian Acropolis is a case in point. The Athena ‘Parthenos’ was repli-
cated time and again so that it is possible to attempt reconstruction of the form of
the original,11 while the appearance of the ancient wooden statue that was the
main focal point of the grand Athenian festival – the Panathenaia,12 the so-called
Athena ‘Polias’ – is subject of great speculation; not only is there no detailed
description of the statue in the sources, but it is impossible to establish beyond
doubt that any ancient image is a visual reference or replication of this most
venerated object.13 That the general traits and form of the ‘Parthenos’ are well
known and the appearance of the ‘Polias’ is virtually unknown should not be
attributed entirely to fate or chance survival. At the very least, replications are
testimony to the specific selection of one monument, such as the ‘Parthenos’, to
serve as the model of another, and visually to denote the link between an image
and its prototype by means of a rhetoric of resemblance.
Another reason for ignoring copies in the discussion of images of cult may be
an implicit notion that replications need to be considered in their own context, as
the visual expressions of a wish to be affiliated in some way with the original;14
but that they are of lesser relevance to the meaning of the prototype in its own
place of origin. However, the process of replicating bears both on the image and
its model. Copies look back to their prototypes visually by suggesting resem-
blance, and at the same time they proliferate the appearance of the original and
make it more widespread. In the course of this process a kind of network of copies
is created whereby the original image is ‘expanded’, similarly to the way Gell
describes the expansion of an artist’s oeuvre.15
The fact that an image is propagated cannot be completely unrelated to its
significance in its own context, or that of its cult, especially if the copies were
produced roughly at the same time and in the same geographical area as the
original. At the very least, this process suggests that there existed some kind of
common knowledge of the appearance of the cult image. This should not be taken
for granted in the case of temple statues that were set within the confines of an
architectural structure, and were therefore not readily viewable. Replications of
such monuments indicate that although they were behind walls, typically in the
inner chamber, which could not be accessed at any time by the uninitiated, there
existed some shared idea of the appearance of the statue of the god inside the
temple.16 Copies of statues that were set in temples may not be useful for the
reconstruction of the actual role of an object in ritual practice. They are, however,
evidence of a choice to make visible that which is not easily accessible, and even
approachable through resemblance. Effectively, replications attest to the degree
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
259& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
in which the enclosed image of the god was embedded in daily experience outside
the confines of cultic space and ritual.
In what follows, I take the Athena ‘Parthenos’ as a case in point. First, I
consider the process of propagation of the image and how a monumental statue
becomes an image that is replicated. I then focus on some instances in the
network of replications of the Athena ‘Parthenos’ from the fifth and fourth
centuries BCE. By analysing these cases, I demonstrate how replications of
monuments of cult reveal aspects of the role of the divine image in cultic contexts
that are not described by the traditional scholarly classifications of ‘cult statue’ or
‘votive’. Replications show how the image of the god can become an iconic
monument that is embedded in daily experience outside the realm of ritual.
Furthermore, they reveal that it can serve as the emblem of the entire cult, not
only as the ‘representation’ of the divinity. Through emulation a monument of
cult can become instrumental in the creation of a network of cultic affiliations,
by visually marking the propagation of the cult itself.
The ‘Parthenos’ offers a test case for an inquiry into the replications of Greek
monuments of cult in the Greek context, not only because of the great variety of
evidence, but also because it was a monumental religious image that was set in
a central shrine, whose specific religious significance has been a matter of
considerable scholarly debate – specifically on the charged question of whether
the ‘Parthenos’ should be regarded as a ‘cult statue’ at all.17 The evidence of
replications for this monument is illuminating, precisely because it reveals
aspects of the image that bear directly on its religious and cultic significance but
go beyond its current scholarly classifications. As the ‘Parthenos’ was an excep-
tional monument in many respects, I conclude with a discussion of Xenophon’s
account of his own private replication of the famous cult statue of the Ephesian
Artemis.
AT HE N A : T H E M A K I N G O F A N I C O N
The ‘Parthenos’, the colossal gold and ivory statue of Athena set up in the
‘Parthenon’, in the goddess’s sanctuary on the Athenian Acropolis, was made by
one of Athens’s most famed artists and was perhaps one of the most replicated
images of classical antiquity.18 Pausanias, the travel writer of the second century
CE described the statue in the following words:19
The statue itself is made of ivory and gold. On the middle of her helmet is placed a likeness of
the Sphinx . . . and on either side of the helmet are griffins in relief. . . . The statue of Athena is
upright, with a tunic reaching to the feet, and on her breast the head of Medusa is worked in
ivory. She holds a statue of Victory about four cubits high, and in the other hand a spear; at her
feet lies a shield and near the spear is a serpent. This serpent would be Erichthonius. On the
pedestal is the birth of Pandora in relief. Hesiod and others have sung how this Pandora was the
first woman; before Pandora was born there was as yet no womankind.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
260 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
Further details on the mythological scenes on the statue’s surfaces are found in
the comments of Pliny the Elder, written in the first century CE:20
That Pheidias is extremely famous among all people . . . nobody doubts . . . I will offer some
small points of evidence to prove how great his inventiveness was. To do this, I shall use as proof
neither the beauty of the Zeus at Olympia nor the size of the Athena which he made at Athens
(since she is twenty six cubits high and is made of ivory and gold), but rather I shall use the
battle of the amazons which is carved in a circular pattern on the convex side of her shield;
likewise on the concave side of it he represented the struggle of the gods and giants, and on her
sandals that of the Lapiths and Centaurs, so fully did every part offer the opportunity for the
application of his art. On the base is carved the scene which they call ‘the Birth of Pandora,’
with twenty gods present at the birth. The Victory is especially marvellous, but experts admire
the serpent and also the bronze sphinx which is placed below the point of her spear.
Pausanias’s description and Pliny’s praise evoke the statue’s richness and abun-
dance in detail which had an impressive visual effect on ancient viewers. In these
pieces of ekphrasis, the lost art work becomes visible in the reader’s imagination
through a textual replication, which is guided by the authors’ preferences.21
These passages reveal these writers’ interest in matters such as materials, size and
the identification of mythological figures and scenes rather than in issues such as
hairstyle or drapery. The iconographic details included in these passages are used
for the modern identification of the statue’s replications.
The only physical remains from the statue, estimated to have been more than
ten metres high,22 are traces in the building’s floor, and blocks from the statue’s
base.23 The ‘Parthenos’ is known today in the shared visual memory through
numerous replications. Images of Pheidias’s gold-and-ivory Athena were minted
on coins;24 engraved in gems;25 chased and gilded in metalwork and jewellery;26
painted on vases; carved in relief; or sculpted in freestanding statuary. These are
found in a variety of geographic locations of classical antiquity; in the Greek
world of the classical and Hellenistic periods not only in Athens and mainland
Greece, but also throughout Asia Minor, in southern Italy and Sicily and the
Crimea; and during the Roman Empire in the capital as well as its provinces.
These different objects were found in a variety of contexts: in private homes, in
public buildings, in commercial areas, in sanctuaries, as well as burials.27
Although varied in their appearance, form and media, they are all classified as
types of replications of the ‘Parthenos’, because they are recognized as resem-
bling the original. By now, this catalogue of reproductions is almost taken for
granted.
Yet, how does one know that the ‘Lenormant Statuette’ of the Antonine period
(plate 4.1),28 the ‘Varvakeion’ Athena of the second century CE (plate 4.2),29 or an
image on Attic krater from the end of the fifth century BCE,30 or a carving on a
terracotta token from the fourth century BCE31 are all types of representation of
the same lost masterpiece? None of these replications comes even close to the
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
261& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
original in terms of size, craftsmanship, or materials. Furthermore, none of the
existing replicas of the ‘Parthenos’ include all the iconographic details that are
found in the literary descriptions of the statue. They do not all have the relief on
the statue’s base, the sphinx on the triple-crested helmet, or the depiction of the
gigantomachy on the shield. Furthermore, among these numerous replications
there is a great variety. For example, the ‘Lenormant Statuette’ (plate 4.1) has the
statue’s base in relief recalling the descriptions of the ‘Parthenos’ in the ancient
sources. It was therefore identified as a replica of the ‘Parthenos’ upon its
discovery in Athens in 1859, though it does not have the extended right hand
holding a Nike or the triple-crested helmet.32 The ‘Varvakeion’ (plate 4.2) has the
4.1 The Lenormant Statuette, a
Roman copy of Pheidias’s Athena
Parthenos, second century CE.
Unfinished marble, 42 cm.
Athens: National Archaeological
Museum, Inv. 128. Photo: Alinari/
Art Resource, NY.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
262 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
4.2 The Varvakeion Athena, a Roman copy of the Athena ‘Parthenos’,
second century CE. Marble, 105 cm. Athens: National Archaeological
Museum, Inv. 129. Photo: r Nimatallah/Art Resource, NY.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
263& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
triple-crested helmet with a sphinx, but does not have the reliefs on the statue
base, the shield, or sandals. Variations occur in the inclusion and positioning
of the basic attributes such as the shield, the snake or the spear next to the
goddesses. Perhaps one of most puzzling details is the column under the
goddess’s right hand, a source of great scholarly discussion, because it is found in
some versions, such as the ‘Varvakeion’, but is missing in many others.33 This
diversity is also apparent within modern reconstructions of the statue, whose aim
is to recreate a ‘true’ reproduction – as close as possible to the lost original.34
Nevertheless, all versions, ancient and modern alike, share some basic traits,
which link them with the lost imagined ‘Parthenos’. It is generally assumed that a
standing female figure wearing a peplos, a triple-crested helmet and an aegis,35
who is holding in her extended right hand a standing figure of Nike, and has a
shield, a spear and a coiling snake next to her is a replication of the Athena
‘Parthenos’.
In this visual tradition, the original is reduced to some basic iconographic
traits that visually denote the link between image and prototype.36 Matters of
medium, style, material, or quality of execution have great impact on the degree
of actual resemblance between the original statue and its replica; however, they
are of far lesser importance to the question of whether an image visually suggests
that it is meant to resemble an original. Thus, the model can be propagated
so that even a miniature impression on the simplest of materials, such as terra-
cotta, can be recognized as emulating the grand chryselephantine statue. The
‘Parthenos’ with its unique combination of iconographic features is particularly
effective as a prototype, for it makes the execution of a replication and the
recognition of the replica relatively easy to achieve. In a shared visual memory
Athena is reduced to some basic features that are relatively easy to reproduce in
different media. The statue becomes ‘iconized’.
AT H E N I A N R E P L I C AT I O N S O F T H E ‘ PA RT H E N O S ’
The first image which may perhaps be recognized as a ‘visual quotation’ of the
‘Parthenos’ is to be found on a column krater attributed to the Hephaistos
painter, and dated to 430–420 BCE (plate 4.3).37 The goddess is depicted at the
centre of a scene commonly known as ‘Ajax and Achilles Playing Dice,’38 a
favourite subject on Athenian painted pottery, famously rendered by Exekias.39
Athena stands between Ajax and Achilles, facing the front, her head turned in
profile to the left. She wears an Attic helmet, a peplos with an aegis and leans on a
spear held in her left hand. A small Nike stands on her extended right hand and
points towards the winner in the game: Achilles, on the left. The two heroes are
shown crouching, in profile; they have helmets on their heads, spears and shields
in their left hands and they point with their right hands to the game in process.
All three figures are shown on a platform, with Athena’s figure set above the
raised middle section, which serves as the game table for Ajax and Achilles. The
three figures appear as though they are set on a statue base, implying that all
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
264 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
three are statues. A young man, dressed in a mantle, approaches the group from
the left with his bent left hand raised.
The central figure of Athena does not have a snake or a shield and thus is not
strictly a copy of the ‘Parthenos’, and yet it is clearly related to chryselephantine
Athena, as indicated by the Nike on the extended right hand and by the carefully
drawn Attic helmet.40 Though a reference to the statue, the image of Athena is
rendered in a narrative context; in accordance with the iconographic tradition of
4.3 Athena and Nike with Heroes. Red figure column krater, attributed to the
Hephaistos Painter, 430–420 BCE. Berlin: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin, Inv. V.I. 3199. Photo: Johannes Laurentius. r Bildarchiv Preussischer
Kulturbesitz/Art Resource, NY.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
265& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
the scene, the goddess has her head turned to the left. She is thus both a rendi-
tion of the statue, and a representation of a mythological figure. Resemblance
between the image on the vase and statues that were found on the Athenian
Acropolis has been suggested for the figures of Achilles and Ajax as well,41
because the remains were found on the Athenian Acropolis of an archaic sculp-
tural group of the same theme.42 The comparison between the archaeological
finds from the Acropolis and the heroes on the vase shows that the image is not a
replication of these statues specifically, though it is a visual reference to a long
iconographic tradition, found on vases and in freestanding sculpture. Similarly,
the animated figures of Achilles and Ajax are both statues or artistic repre-
sentations, and mythological heroes in the midst of their game. Thus, while
making specific references to other monuments, and to an entire iconographic
tradition, this image shows how works of art transcend the boundaries between
myth and daily experience, by making the great mythological figures visible to a
viewer such as the young man shown on the left side of the vase.
Furthermore, the vase offers a visual comment on the role of the image of the
god in bridging the gap between human and divine, as it represents the effect of
the statuary group on a youth, its beholder. The depicted spectator responds to
the sight of the statuary group (with a statue resembling Pheidias’s masterpiece
at the centre) by raising his bent left arm, with his fingers slightly apart. This
gesture has been interpreted as suggesting astonishment,43 and the reaction is
further underscored by the behaviour of the two heroes, who do not acknowledge
the presence of the goddess between them, but turn their heads downwards to
the game, gesturing with their hands to the centre. By contrast, the young man
looks directly at the goddess, and her head is turned towards the left, looking
back at him.
The heroes’ behaviour corresponds with the traditional iconography of this
scene.44 Typically, in representations of this mythological motif, for which there
is no surviving textual source,45 Achilles and Ajax do not acknowledge the
presence of Athena between them, but turn their attention to the game. In the
mythological context, Athena is ‘really’ present, but the heroes are oblivious to
her presence. The heroes do not appear surprised or astonished at the sight of
the goddess, although such wonder is the typical response to the epiphany of a
divinity.46 Achilles and Ajax act as if the goddess is invisible to them. By contrast,
the statuary group provokes the response of astonishment from the young man,
as if he is experiencing an epiphany in looking directly at the goddess, even
though the group is just a work of art, and the goddess in particular is an image
resembling the statue crafted by a famous sculptor. This scene thus visually
conveys the role of a work of art such as the ‘Parthenos’ in denoting divine
presence and provoking the response of the sight of the god.
The image on the vase not only links myth and reality in general, but, by
visually referring to the ‘Parthenos’, it denotes a connection between the monu-
mental statue of Athena from the near-contemporary age of Perikles, and the
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
266 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
mythological Athena who presided over the game between Achilles and Ajax. The
goddess of the myth is the same as the statue on the Athenian Acropolis. In
visually quoting the statue, the image makes the analogy between the myth and
the near-present. The exact meaning of the story of Achilles and Ajax, who do not
engage in battle but play dice, is a matter of speculation because of the lack of
textual sources.47 But, whatever precise meanings or connotations of this myth
may have been evoked at the time, these are being compared here to the reality of
Athens of the late fifth century, the time of the Peloponnesian war.
Another image of Athena recalling the ‘Parthenos’ is found on an Athenian
document relief, dated to 427/6 BCE.48 This is the earliest of six Athenian docu-
ment reliefs which refer to the ‘Parthenos’ by recalling the iconography of Phei-
dias’s statue.49 In this earliest example, the figure of Athena is more a variation
rather than replication of the statue, because it is missing the figure of Nike. This
relief is carved on the top of a decree in honour of a man called Apollonophanes
of Kolophon, and it shows Athena with a shield and a coiling snake at her side,
crowning a man. The text specifies the honours granted by Athens to Apollono-
phanes, while the relief shows Athena crowning a small male figure, presumably
representing Apollonophanes. The other reliefs in this series complement the
written decrees on their main faces, and visually convey a relationship between
the goddess of Athens and an honoured mortal or another deity. In this series, the
animated figure of Athena with the familiar attributes of the ‘Parthenos’ takes a
form that recalls the statue. The replications that are more reminiscent of Phei-
dias’s gold-and-ivory original and include the Nike cluster in date around the
middle of the fourth century BCE.50 One of the decrees specifies that the stele is to
be erected on the Acropolis,51 and most of the other decrees were set up on the
Acropolis or in its environs.52 These monuments thus formed miniature reflec-
tions of the statue situated inside the Parthenon, outside the building and in a
space where it could be seen by the public.
These reliefs visually complicate the relationship between the representation
of the deity, the work of art and the real goddess, who engages in action: Athena
takes a form reminiscent of the statue, and at the same time the ‘Parthenos’ is
coming to life. This imagery shows the relationship between the person honoured
and the divine figure in the form of a statue. In two examples, Athena and the
miniature Nike are shown in profile, their heads turned to the right.53 They look
directly at the small mortal figure on the right, whose head is turned in profile
to the left, while his right hand is raised in a gesture of adoration.54 The Nike
extends a crown towards the person honoured. The divinity bestows her grace
upon the worshipper, who gestures his veneration. In one case, whose inscription
has not survived, an apparently female figure holding a large key is crowned by
the Nike (plate 4.4).55 Although this relief is incomplete and its exact provenance
is unknown, it directly relates to the meaning of the ‘Parthenos’ in the context
of Athenian cult. The key held by the female figure – presumably a temple key –
suggests that she is a priestess. In this relief the image of the ‘Parthenos’ is used to
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
267& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
convey the relationship between Athena and her servant, who performs the cultic
activity for the goddess and looks after the shrine and its content.56 The goddess,
in the form of Pheidias’s statue, honours the guardian of her shrine and her
image in it.
A different kind of proliferation of the ‘Parthenos’ can be seen in a terracotta
token with an impression of the statue, which was found in the Athenian Agora in
an archaeological context of the first half of the fourth century BCE.57 Though this
replication is of miniature proportions, it has all the statue’s main attributes:
a Nike, a shield, a spear and a coiling snake. As with similar tokens found in the
Athenian Agora, it is difficult to reconstruct the object’s usage. It does not have
any trace of a hole, and there is no indication that it was used as a seal.58 The fact
that it is unglazed and stamped on one side speaks against the possibility that
it was used for some kind of exchange. One possibility is that it served for some
type of identification. The terracotta token demonstrates the ways in which the
monumental statue was made available by reduction to its basic elements, so
that it could be impressed and replicated on a small portable item. The humble
nature of this object need not undermine the cultic connotations of the image.
Other tokens of similar size and type have images that are directly related to cult,
such as the impression of a man in a shrine, or an image of an altar.59 Such
specimens, as well as the impression of the ‘Parthenos’, show the extent to which
imagery related to cultic experience was widespread and literally embedded in
daily life.
4.4 Honorary decree, 4th century
BCE. Marble relief, 33� 22� 10 cm.
Berlin: Antikensammlung,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Inv. SK 881. r Bildarchiv
Preussischer Kulturbesitz/Art
Resource, NY.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
268 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
T H E ‘ PA RT H E N O S ’ O U T S I D E AT H E N S
The Athena ‘Parthenos’ was replicated outside Athens as early as the late fifth
century BCE, as indicated by a terracotta plaque which was found in Olynthos in
stratigraphic levels of excavation indicating a date in the late fifth century BCE
(plate 4.5).60 The hole at the top of the plaque and the domestic archaeological
context suggest that it was hung in a private home. An instant relationship to
the imagined original is suggested by the goddess’ attributes: the Nike held in
the extended right hand, the triple-crested helmet and the coiling snake at the
side. The ‘Parthenos’ may have been replicated in more than one plaque of this
type, since the remains of another plaque, with a figure of Nike, were uncovered
at the site, and interpreted as a second replication of the ‘Parthenos’. David M.
Robinson, who published the plaque, named it an ‘icon’ of Athena ‘Parthenos’ and
compared it to icons of the Virgin venerated by Roman Catholics.61 Kenneth Lapatin
4.5 Terracotta Plaque with the
Athena ‘Parthenos’ second half
of the fifth century BCE. Red-buff
clay, 22 � 12 cm, Olynthos,
Inv.516. From David M. Robinson,
The Terra-cottas of Olynthus found in
1928, Baltimore, Md., London,
1931, pl.37.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
269& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
noted that there is no evidence for cultic activity where the plaque was found, and
therefore doubted both the identification of the plaque and that it was an object of
veneration.62 Indeed, the analogy with Roman Catholic practises is dangerous, for
we have no means to ascertain the ancient attitudes towards this object. At the
same time, the fact that the plaque may be related to specific political affiliations
between Olynthos and Athens, as suggested by Lapatin, or may have been valued for
its reference to an esteemed masterpiece with a distinct aesthetic cache, need not
undermine its inherent religious value, which lies in its subject matter.
The way that Athena and Nike are presented on this plaque does imply a
formal link between this object and much later Christian icons. Both Athena and
Nike are shown frontally, looking directly at the viewer. They may be said to bear a
direct resemblance to the presentation of holy figures in Byzantine icons.63 This
frontal rendition of the goddess and particularly the Nike does not belong to
the iconographic tradition of the ‘Parthenos’ and stands out from among the
plethora of renditions of the image. Usually, the Nike turns slightly to the side.
Here, the image creates eye contact between the beholder and both Athena and
the Nike. The position of the viewer of the plaque is similar to that of the
honorands shown on the Athenian document reliefs, where the person who
stands in the direction of the gaze of the goddess and the Nike was the one who is
receiving honours. It cannot be concluded that in this image Athena ‘Parthenos’
was shown bestowing her grace upon the viewer; yet, the frontal confrontation
with the image of the goddess and the Nike, created by this plaque, prompts some
form of veneration of the image by a beholder,64 and this veneration would not
leave its traces in the archaeological record.
On coins, images resembling the statue were already minted in places such as
Side in Pamphylia and Nagidus in Cilicia by the first half of the fourth century
BCE.65 These are among the earliest issues by cities that adopted the image
‘Parthenos’ for their coins.66 Coinage with the ‘Parthenos’ testifies to a city’s
specific choice of a symbol that is directly related to the monumental statue on
the Athenian Acropolis. Notably, although recalling the Athenian statue, the
coins tend to vary in details. In the examples from Side in Pamphylia there is a
pomegranate next to the goddess, whereas at Nagidus there is a tree trunk under
Athena’s right hand. These images thus do not appear to be direct replicas, but
rather reminiscences. The adoption of this visual symbol conveys alliances
between a city, such as Side or Nagidus, and Athens, as well as ties among the
cities that choose this image. The degree of resemblance denotes the links, while
the differences proclaim a local version of the shared icon.
It has been suggested that the degree of variation in the numismatic material
indicates that the coins have images of local versions of the ‘Parthenos’, and that
the coinage reflects the actual establishment of shrines with statues that are
replicas of the Athenian model.67 It is difficult to assess the extent to which
images on coins speak of cultic actuality. Nonetheless, in one case, archaeological
excavations have revealed that the central cultic image in the shrine of Athena
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
270 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
Polias in Priene was a replication of the ‘Parthenos’.68 The remains of the statue
suggest that the image was a figure of Athena holding a Nike in her right hand.69
Although the temple was erected in the fourth century BCE, the date of the statue
is uncertain, but is in all likelihood from the second century BCE.70 The Priene
example is notable testimony to the replication of cult images in religious
contexts and for religious purposes into the Hellenistic period.
At the Athenian Acropolis the ‘Parthenos’ was neither the main focal point
of the central ritual nor was it associated with a stone-built altar. In Priene, by
contrast, the replication of the statue was aligned with the altar of the cult, and
the statue here served as the main focal point of ritual. The statue in Priene was of
marble not gold and ivory, and was two-thirds the size of its prototype. It was
nonetheless intended to be more visible to the visitors of the site than its Athen-
ian model which, as Joseph Coleman Carter has noted, was partially obscured by
the cella door.71 In Priene, the act of replication rendered the cultic ties between
Athens and Priene readily visible, as the replica of the ‘Parthenos’ was seen in its
entirety from the outside. In this case, the ‘Parthenos’ emerges as an emblem of
the cult on the Athenian Acropolis that visually conveyed the links between two
cult sites of Athena Polias.
The presence of the ‘Parthenos’ in Olynthos, on coins in a variety of cities, or
in the sanctuary of the Athena Polias in Priene, cannot be entirely unrelated to
the alliances between Athens and its allies. Furthermore, the image of the
‘Parthenos’ on official Athenian decrees certainly shows the extent to which the
image served as a kind of symbol of the Athenian people. Yet, these meanings
need not undermine its religious significance. The political circumstances in
which the ‘Parthenos’ saw its birth; the great financial resources that were put
into the statue; and the evidence for the actual cult of Athena on the Athenian
Acropolis whose main focal point was the ancient image of Athena Polis are some
of the reasons why the statue is often interpreted in secular terms.72 The
‘Parthenos’ is often classified as a great monument of the Athenian people, an
expression of the grandness of Periclean Athens, a kind of votive whose pure
religious value and ‘level of sanctity’ are secondary. This ‘secularization of
the image’ prompts the inevitable scholarly response: an attempt to restore the
statue’s legitimate place in the category of cult statues. However, what is at stake
is not the degree of sanctity of an image, but whether it was a cult image or not.
The evidence still suggests that even if the statue was a recipient of some ritual, as
has been suggested by some scholars,73 it was not the focal point of the grand
festival outside, which focused on the ancient wooden statue.
The ‘Parthenos’ is an illustration of a general trait of ancient religions, in
which politics and religion are inseparable.74 The statue’s contemporary repli-
cations reveal the image’s role as an instrumental emblem of the Athenian cult of
Athena Polias in Athens in the mid-fifth century BCE, a role embedded in daily
experience through the statue’s replications on objects such as a painted vase or a
terracotta token. On Athenian document reliefs the image performs the symbolic
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
271& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
gesture of bestowing honours on an ally on behalf of the Athenian people, and at
the same time it is the goddess Athena who crowns the venerating mortal.
Outside Athens, the proliferation of the image is inevitably related to the politics
of the time, and it is no surprise that replications of the ‘Parthenos’ are found in
cities that were Athens’s allies. Yet, for the people who hung the replication of the
statue in their home, it was not only a copy of an Athenian symbol, it was also the
goddess Athena who was looking directly at them. Images on coins may appear to
be the most politicized replications. However, these not only attest to political
affiliation between different locales, but also suggest cultic links between the
different cities.75 The evidence for the spread of the cult through the replication
of the statue is most clear in the case of Priene, where the copy of the ‘Parthenos’
visually proclaimed the sanctuary’s specific tie with the Athenian cult.
X E N O P H O N A N D T HE E P H E S I A N A RT E M I S
The case of the proliferation of the ‘Parthenos’ in the fifth century BCE may appear
as somewhat exceptional. Indeed, it may be unique in the number of replications
and in their geographical spread. Yet, the phenomenon is not unique in classical
Greece. In a passage from the Anabasis, Xenophon the Athenian, writing of himself
in the third person, describes how he established a shrine for the Ephesian
Artemis in his newly purchased territory in Scillus in the Peloponnese:76
In the time of Xenophon’s exile and while he was living at Scillus, near Olympia, where he had
been established as a colonist by the Lacedaemonians, Megabyzus came to Olympia to attend
the games and returned to him his deposit. Upon receiving it Xenophon bought a plot of
ground for the goddess in a place which Apollo’s oracle appointed. As it chanced, there flowed
through the plot a river named Selinus; and at Ephesus likewise a Selinus river flows past the
temple of Artemis. In both streams, moreover, there are fish and mussels, while in the plot at
Scillus there is hunting of all manner of beasts of the chase. [9] Here Xenophon built an altar
and a temple with the sacred money, and from that time forth he would every year take the
tithe of the products of the land in their season and offer sacrifice to the goddess, all the
citizens and the men and women of the neighbourhood taking part in the festival. (. . .) [12]
Immediately surrounding the temple is a grove of cultivated trees, producing all sorts of dessert
fruits in their season. The temple itself is like the one at Ephesus, although small as compared
with great, and the image of the goddess, although cypress wood as compared with gold, is like
the Ephesian image. [13] Beside the temple stands a tablet with this inscription: The place
is sacred to Artemis. He who holds it and enjoys its fruits must offer the tithe every year in
sacrifice, and from the remainder must keep the temple in repair. If any one leaves these things
undone, the goddess will look to it.77
In this passage Xenophon describes the establishment of a shrine to Artemis at
Scillus in accordance with the Delphic oracle. He compares and contrasts the plot
of land at Scillus and the temple of Artemis at Ephesos. He notes the similarities –
both have a river named Selinus flowing by, that has fish and mussels – and the
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
272 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
difference, in that Scillus has wildlife for hunting. It is against the background of
resemblance in the geographic features between the two locations that Xenophon
sets up a shrine of the Ephesian Artemis. Further in the passage he compares his
sanctuary with the one at Ephesos, contrasting image and prototype. Of the temple
he says that it looks like (eikastai) the one at Ephesos, although it is smaller, and of
the image he asserts that it resembles (eoiken) the model although it is made of
cypress wood instead of the original’s gold. Using the Greek terms for resemblance,
Xenophon describes the establishment of a shrine affiliated with the grand sanc-
tuary at Ephesos through replication of the original temple and its image. By
virtue of their apparent resemblance, statues and shrines – both those of Asia
Minor and those in the Peloponnese – can be recognized as images and sanctuaries
of Artemis of Ephesos. Xenophon does not describe the actual form and appear-
ance of either copy or original. The reader of the passage does not get a sense of any
iconographic details of the image, or of the impression that it might have made on
viewers in antiquity. This is noteworthy, since the Artemis of Ephesos is known for
its multiple ‘breasts’, at least from the numerous replications of the statue dating
from the Hellenistic and Roman periods.78 Although neither these nor any other
formal features of the statue are mentioned, the significant characteristic of
Xenophon’s Artemis is its derivative nature as a replica, rather than its status as an
independent work of art with a distinctive iconography.
Xenophon’s account provides one of the earliest testimonies for the prolif-
eration of the well-known cult and image of Artemis of Ephesos that were repli-
cated time and again in the Roman period in a variety of sites throughout the
Roman empire.79 Yet, the phenomenon of filial cults is already attested in the
Archaic period, during the age of Greek colonization, when a new colony estab-
lished a shrine that was affiliated to a cult of the mother city. In this context, the
transfer of an item from a sanctuary in the mother city to the newly established
shrine in the colony signified the transfer of the cult. Such an object, which is
termed aphydruma from the first century BCE onwards, could have been a copy of a
monument of cult.80 The creation of such cultic chains was part of the politics of
Greek colonization.81 Notably, Xenophon’s description opens with the assertion
that he was established as a colonist in the Peloponnese, and his filial shrine is
presented as central for the settlement in Scillus. In the process of creating such
links between different sites, the cultic image was instrumental in marking ties
between the two sanctuaries, through replication.82
Walter Benjamin presented the concept of aura of an art work as embedded
in its unique setting and function: ‘The unique value of the ‘‘authentic’’ work of
art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value.’83 And of the age of
mechanical reproduction he wrote:
. . . for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art
from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
273& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for
example, one can make any number of prints to ask for the ‘authentic’ print makes no sense.
But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the
total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on
another practice – politics.84
Benjamin maintained a perception of Greek art as embedded in ritual, in its
unique context.85 However, Greek monuments of cult were propagated outside the
confines of the inner sanctum. They may not have been mechanically reproduced
from a photographic print, but they were replicated in other ways, some of which
afforded repeated reproduction of the same image: images on coins, or terracotta
reliefs made from moulds. Some of the phenomena that Benjamin ascribed to the
modern era can be seen in the Greek context; the value of the original monuments
of cult was not limited to their ritual value, but depended on their reproducibility
or their ‘exhibition value’, in Benjamin’s terms. It is here that politics enters, much
earlier chronologically than in Benjamin’s Marxist schema – politics of the sort
that is inextricably bound with religion. Replications of Greek monuments of cult
reveal a visual aspect of the inseparability of the two spheres of politics and reli-
gion. Thanks to the significance of the visibility of such ‘iconized’ monuments, a
monumental work of art may still be present in shared visual memory.
Notes
My deep gratitude is due to Jas Elsner for giving me the opportunity to present
this paper in a colloquium on replications in Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and
especially for his insightful comments. I thank Jennifer Trimble for her careful
readings and invaluable remarks. The ideas presented here owe much to stimu-
lating discussions with William A.P. Childs, Robin Osborne and Alan Shapiro.
1 Alfred Gell, Art and Agency: An Anthropological
Theory, Oxford, 1998, 233.
2 On the general dearth of evidence from the
classical period (specifically 450 BCE–330 BCE),
see Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, ‘Defining the
Issue: the Greek Period’, in Brunilde Sismondo
Ridgway, ed., Second Chance: Greek Sculptural
Studies Revisited, London, 2004, 381.
3 For a discussion of the types of replications
in the Greek context, see Brunilde Sismondo
Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture,
Princeton, 1981, 192.
4 Any treatment of the works of Pheidias
and Polykleitos ultimately relies on copies in
addition to literary sources; see, for example,
Evelyn B. Harrison, ‘Pheidias’, in Olga Palagia
and Jerome J. Pollitt, eds, Personal Styles in
Greek Sculpture, Cambridge and New York, 1996,
28–65; Adolf H. Borbein, ‘Polykleitos’, in Palagia
and Pollitt, Personal Styles, 66–90; and for a
discussion and defence of Kopienkritik, see C.H.
Hellett, ‘Kopienkritik and the Works of Poly-
kleitos’, in Warren G. Moon, ed., Polykleitos, the
Doryphoros, and Tradition, Madison, Wis., 1995,
121–160.
5 On the system of Kopienkritik, its roots in Johann
Joachim Winckelmann’s influential writings and
German Romanticism, as well as its modelling
after philological methodologies, see Elaine
K. Gazda, ‘Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of
Emulation’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,
97, 1995, 124–9; Ridgway, ‘Defining the Issue’,
382–3; Ellen Perry, The Aesthetics of Emulation in
the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome, Cambridge, 2005,
78–90. On Winckelmann’s philhellenism, see
Suzanne L. Marchand, Down from Olympus: Archae-
ology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970,
Princeton, 1996, 7–16.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
274 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
6 Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture,
192–3; Ridgway, ‘Defining the Issue’, 382–4; and
Carol C. Mattusch, Classical Bronzes: the Art and
Craft of Greek and Roman Statuary, Ithaca, 1996,
141–90.
7 Column krater, Berlin Staatliche Museum 3199,
ARV2 1114.9. For more recent bibliography on the
‘Parthenos’, see Gabriele Nick, Die Athena Parthenos,
Studien zum griechischen Kultbild und seiner Rezeption,
Mainz, 2003; Kenneth D.S. Lapatin, Chryselephan-
tine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World,
Oxford and New York, 2001, 63–78; Neda Leipen,
Athena Parthenos; a Reconstruction, Toronto, 1971.
See further detailed discussion below.
8 The subject of emulation in antiquity has
recently been of great scholarly interest, yet the
discussion is basically kept within the Roman
sphere. For example, Elaine K. Gazda, The Ancient
Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and
Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity, Ann
Arbor, Mich., 2002; Perry, The Aesthetics of Emula-
tion. For a general discussion of Greek copies, see,
Ridgway, ‘Defining the Issue’.
9 See Irene Bald Romano, ‘Early Greek Cult
Images’, PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania,
1980, 2–4; Elisabeth Ida Faulstich, Hellenistische
Kultstatuen und ihre Vorbilder, Frankfurt am Main,
1997, 31–45; Tanja Susanne Scheer, Die Gottheit
und ihr Bild: Untersuchungen zur Funktion grie-
chischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Munich,
2000, 4–8; Simona Bettinetti, La statua di culto
nella pratica rituale greca, Bari, 2001, 7–10; Nick,
Die Athena Parthenos, 9–10. The validity of this
modern term has been questioned; see Alice A.
Donohue, ‘The Greek Images of the Gods:
Considerations on Terminology and Metho-
dology’, Hephaistos, 15, 1997, 31–45.
10 For example, Bettinetti, La statua di culto, 61–2,
discusses the term aphydruma (see below) and
notes the role of copying a statue for cult
transfer, but does not address the evidence of
replications in general. An exception is Nick, Die
Athena Parthenos, 177–207, who discusses the
‘Parthenos’ specifically, and takes the numerous
replications of the statue as reflections of its
legitimate role as a ‘cult statue’ (see further
discussion below).
11 There are more than two hundred replicas of
the ‘Parthenos’ preserved. For a good selection,
see Leipen, Athena Parthenos; for discussion, see
Kenneth D.S. Lapatin, ‘The Ancient Reception of
Pheidias’ Athena Parthenos: The Physical Evidence
in Context’, in Lorna Hardwick and S. Ireland,
eds, The Reception of Classical Texts and Images: the
January Conference 1996 Held at the Open University,
Milton Keynes, UK, 3/4th January 1996: Selected
Proceedings, Milton Keynes, 1996; Lapatin, Chryse-
lephantine Statuary, 66; and especially Nick, Die
Athena Parthenos, 177–205.
12 On the Panathenaia, see, for example, Noel
Robertson, ‘Athena’s Shrines and Festivals’, in
Jenifer Neils, ed., Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia
and Parthenon, Madison, Wis., 1996, 56–65.
13 The ancient wooden statue, the Athena ‘Polias’,
was the main focus of the Panathenaia. Pausanias
reports (Pausanias, I.26.6) that it is said to have
fallen from the sky. There is no conclusive
evidence for its exact appearance. See, for
example, C.J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and
Athena Polias: a Study in the Religion of Periclean
Athens, Manchester, 1955; Romano, Early Greek
Cult Images, 42–57; John Magruder Mansfield,
‘The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos’,
PhD diss., University of California Berkeley, 1986,
135–88. For a proposition to associate a group of
images on coins of the third century BCE with the
statue, see John H. Kroll, ‘The Ancient Image of
Athena Polias’, Hesperia, supplement 20, 1982,
65–76.
14 For example, Ridgway, ‘Defining the Issue’.
15 Gell, Art and Agency, 234–5.
16 Based on the available evidence, it is generally
assumed that the main Greek rituals were
performed outside the temple at an open-air
altar and that the temples were not easily
accessible to the general public at any time.
Nonetheless, some temples were open to the
public, at least to some degree. For discussion,
see P.E. Corbett, ‘Greek Temples and Greek
Worshippers’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies, 17, 1970, 149–58; and Mary B. Hollins-
head, ‘ ‘‘Adyton,’’ ‘‘Opisthodomos,’’ and the Inner
Room of the Greek Temple’, Hesperia, 68, 1999,
189–218, with further references. On the reli-
gious significance of viewing cult statues and the
desire to see the image of the god, see Scheer, Die
Gottheit und ihr Bild, 66–75.
17 The question of the nature of the ‘Parthenos’ has
been a source of academic discussion for over a
century. The debate focuses on the question of
whether the statue was a ‘cult statue’ or a grand
‘votive’. At stake here is not only Pheidias’s
creation, but also the building in which it was
housed: the Parthenon. The main arguments
against the identification of the ‘Parthenos’ and
its house as ‘cult statue and ‘temple’ are: the lack
of a evidence for a priesthood of the ‘Parthenos’;
the lack of a permanent altar associated with the
building; and the fact that the central cultic
activity on the Athenian Acropolis focused on
the old wooden statue, which was housed in the
Erechtheion. For example, in his recent book
(meant for a non-specialist audience), Jeffrey
Hurwit introduces the building not as cultic
temple, but a kind of a great treasury of the
Athenian people: see Jeffrey M. Hurwit, The Acro-
polis in the Age of Pericles, Cambridge, 2004, 153–4.
Nick, Die Athena Parthenos, is a book whose
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
275& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
purpose is to argue that the ‘Parthenos’ was a
‘cult statue’. For a summary of the debate,
see Nick, Die Athena Parthenos, 1–7; for different
positions on the question, see, for example,
Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias; F.
Preisshofen, ‘Zur Funktion des Parthenon nach
den schriftlichen Quellen’, in Parthenon-Kongress
Basel. Referate und Berichte. 4. bis 8. April 1982, ed. E.
Berger, Mainz, 1984, 15–18, 361; Mansfield, The
Robe of Athena, 232; Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway,
‘Images of Athena on the Akropolis’, in Jenifer
Neils, ed., Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and
Parthenon, Madison, Wis., 1996, 135; Bernhard
Schmaltz, ‘Die Parthenos des Phidias – zwischen
Kult und Repr.asentanz’, in Wolfram Hoepfner,
ed., Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis: inter-
nationales symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin,
Berlin, 1997, 25–30.
18 There are more than two hundred replications in
a variety of forms and media of the ‘Parthenos’:
Leipen, Athena Parthenos; Lapatin, ‘The Ancient
Reception of Pheidias’ Athena Parthenos’; Lapatin,
Chryselephantine Statuary, 78.
19 Pausanias I.24.5–7. Pausanias Description of
Greece with an English translation by W.H.S.
Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod, M.A.,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and
London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1918. (Loeb
Classical Library).
20 Pliny, Natural History, 36.18. Translation from the
Latin original adapted from Jerome J. Pollitt, The
Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents,
Cambridge, 1990, 56–8.
21 On the genre of ekphrasis, see Jas Elsner, Art
and the Roman Viewer, Cambridge, 1995, 24–9; on
Pausanian ekphrasis, see Anthony M. Snodgrass
‘Pausanias and the Chest of Kypselos’, in Susan
Alcock, John Cherry and Jas Elsner, eds, Pausa-
nias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, Oxford,
2001, 127–41.
22 Leipen, Athena Parthenos, 23.
23 Leipen, Athena Parthenos, 23–4; Lapatin, Chrysele-
phantine Statuary, 69–70.
24 Leon Lacroix, Les reproductions de statues sur les
monnaies grecques: la statuaire archaıque et classique,
Liege, 1949, 269–81.
25 For example, Leipen, Athena Parthenos, 9–10.
26 Leipen, Athena Parthenos, 10–11; Reynold Alleyne
Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery, London, 1961,
128.
27 See Lapatin, ‘The Ancient Reception of Pheidias’
Athena Parthenos’, 4–15, with further references.
28 Athens, National Museum, inv. no. 128. Pentelic
marble, total height 42 cm; Leipen, Athena
Parthenos, 3; Nick, Die Athena Parthenos, 239.
29 Athens, National Museum inv. no. 129. Pentelic
marble, total height 104.5 cm; Leipen,
Athena Parthenos, 3–4, Nick, Die Athena Parthenos,
240.
30 Berlin Staatliche Museum 3199, ARV2 1114.9.
31 Athens, Agora Museum 1353. Terracotta token,
diameter 2.5 cm; John McK. Camp, ‘Excavations
in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia, 65, 1996, 241–2,
Fig. 20.
32 The statuette was found by the French scholar F.
Lenormant near the Pnyx in Athens; see Leipen,
Athena Parthenos, 3, with further bibliography.
33 The question of whether there existed a column
under the right hand of the ‘Parthenos’ is a
source of an ongoing scholarly debate. See,
for example, in favour of the column: Leipen,
Athena Parthenos, 36–40; Harrison, ‘Pheidias’,
42–3. Against the column (at least in the
original design), see: Brunilde Sismondo
Ridgway, ‘Parthenon and Parthenos’, in Brunilde
Sismondo Ridgway, ed., Second Chance: Greek
Sculptural Studies Revisited, London, 2004, 509–
522; Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary, 86–8.
34 Compare, for example, the model by M. Simart of
1855 (Leipen, Athena Parthenos, 81), the recon-
struction at the Royal Ontario Museum (Leipen,
Athena Parthenos, 82), and the statue by Alan
LeQuire in the modern Parthenon in Nashville,
Tennessee (Hurwit, The Acropolis in the Age of Peri-
cles, 22, fig. 21).
35 On the aegis, a breastplate covered with goatskin
with the gorgon’s head at the centre, see S.
Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds, Oxford Clas-
sical Dictionary, Oxford, 1996, 17.
36 For a theoretical discussion of the chain of
replications in archaeology, see Whitney Davis,
Replications: Archaeology, Art History, Psychoanalysis,
University Park, Pa., 1996, 77–82.
37 Berlin Staatliche Museum 3199, ARV2 1114.9; Karl
Schefold, ‘Statuen auf Vasenbildern’, Jahrbuch des
Deutschen Arch.aologischen Instituts, 52, 1937, 30–3;
H.-G. Buchholz, ‘Brettspieler’, in Siegfried Laser,
ed., Sport und Spiel, Gottingen, 1987, 177; Thomas
Mannack, The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-
Painting, Oxford, 2001, 87–8.
38 John Boardman, ‘Exekias’, American Journal of
Archaeology, 82, 1978, 18–24; Susan Woodford,
‘Ajax and Achilles Playing a Game on an Olpe
in Oxford’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 102, 1982,
173–83; Buchholz, ‘Brettspieler’, 126–84.
39 Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 344, ABV
145.13.
40 The main reason for identifying the figure of
Athena as a reference to the ‘Parthenos’ is the
Nike in her extended right hand. It should be
noted, however, that it has been suggested that
Pheidias’s Bronze Athena, a statue that was
made in the middle of the fifth century BCE prior
to the ‘Parthenos’ and erected outdoors, on the
Athenian Acropolis, where it was seen from far
away, held a Nike in its extended right hand.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
276 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
Thus, one may suggest that the image on the
vase is a reference to Pheidias’s Bronze Athena
and not the ‘Parthenos’. The argument against
this possible objection is that the appearance of
the Bronze Athena, especially whether the statue
had a Nike, is entirely a matter of scholarly
speculation; there is no comprehensive descrip-
tion of the statue in the literary sources, and
there is no mention of the statue as being Nike-
phoros. The reconstruction of the statue as having
a Nike is based on Roman coins of the third
century CE. Furthermore, in all the images that
were proposed as possible representations of the
Bronze Athena, she does not have an Attic
helmet but a Corinthian helmet, whereas the
‘Parthenos’ is usually represented with an Attic
helmet, as she is on the vase. The Athena on the
vase has the helmet with the earpieces covering
her ears, while typically in replications of the
‘Parthenos’ the earpieces are raised. Still, the
different helmets in the image suggest that
there was a conscious choice to have the goddess
with an Attic helmet, which distinguishes hers
from the helmets of Achilles and Ajax. This
entire discussion illustrates the kinds of diffi-
culties one faces when treating this material.
Although the question is of probability rather
than certainty, the cumulative evidence points
to the ‘Parthenos’ as the model for the figure on
the vase. For proposed reconstruction of Phei-
dias’s Bronze Athena, see B. Pick, ‘Mitteilungen
aus dem Kerameikos-Lampen v: Die Promachos
des Phidias und die Kerameikos-Lampen’, Mittei-
lungen des Deutschen Arch.aologischen Instituts, Athen-
ische Abteilung, 56, 1931, 59–74; Lacroix, Les repro-
ductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques, 281–6;
Pierre Demargne ‘Athena’ in Lexicon Iconographi-
cum Mythologiae Classicae, 2:1, 972, no. 145; for
illustration, see Hurwit, The Acropolis in the Age of
Pericles, 56, fig. 63 (the Nike is illustrated in dotted
lines); and for discussion, see Harrison, ‘Pheidias’,
28–34, who accepts the Corinthian helmet and
hairstyle proposed for the statue, but doubts the
general reconstruction. On the helmet of the
‘Parthenos’, see Leipen, Athena Parthenos, 32–3.
41 Schefold, ‘Statuen auf Vasenbildern’, 32, noted
the statue base.
42 Hans Schrader, Archaische Marmor-Skulpturen im
Akropolis-museum zu Athen, Vienna, 1909, 67–71.
43 I adopt Karl Schefold’s interpretation of the
gesture. Schefold, ‘Statuen auf Vasenbildern’, 32.
Notably, the gesture is reminiscent of gestures of
adoration of worshippers on votive reliefs,
although they typically have their right hand
raised, and not the left. Compare, for example,
Folkert T. van Straten, ‘Gifts for the Gods’, in
Henk S. Versnel, ed., Faith, Hope and Worship:
Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World,
Leiden, 1981, Figs 8–9; and see similar gesture in
Athenian document reliefs discussed further
below.
44 Compare with other renditions in Buchholz,
‘Brettspieler’, 126–84.
45 There may be an allusion to the game in Aris-
tophanes, Frogs, 1400–1401, which may be a line
from Euripides’s unpreserved play Telephos. See
Kenneth James Dover, Aristophanes Frogs, Oxford,
1993, 368; and discussion, Boardman, ‘Exekias’,
19–20, with further references.
46 The typical response to the epiphany of a god is
the combination of thambos (amazement) and
sebas (fear). For example, at the sight of Demeter
in the Homeric Hymn the onlookers are filled
with thambos and sebas (Dem. 190); see Nicholas
James Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter,
Oxford, 1974, 208, 210. On epiphany in the
Graeco-Roman world and its relationship to
visual culture, see Verity Platt, ‘Epiphany and
Representation in Graeco-Roman Culture: Art,
Literature, Religion’, DPhil thesis, Oxford Univer-
sity, 2004.
47 Notably, John Boardman interpreted the depic-
tions of the scene in the Archaic period as
related to the political situation in Athens in the
sixth century BCE. He suggested that they are a
response to the Athenians being taken by
surprise by Peisistratos and his troops and that
these scenes show that even heroes such as Ajax
and Achilles can be preoccupied by their game
and ignore the danger of attack (Boardman,
‘Exekias’, 21–4).
48 Athens, Epigraphical Museum 6615, IG I3 65;
Carol L. Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs: Art and
Politics in Ancient Athens, Oxford, 1995, 113–14, no.
65; Marion Meyer, Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs,
Berlin, 1989, 265 no. A2.
49 The other five: Athenian honorary decree of
Dionysios I of Syracuse, Athens, Epigraphical
Museum, 6899, IG II2 18, 394/3 BC; Lawton, Attic
Document Reliefs, 90, no. 16; Meyer, Die griechischen
Urkundenreliefs, 276, no. A38; Athenian honorary
decree of Philiskos of Sestos, Athens, National
Museum 1474 IG II2 133, 355/4 BCE; Lawton, Attic
Document Reliefs, 96–7, no. 30; Meyer, Die grie-
chischen Urkundenreliefs, 285–6, no. A70; Athenian
honorary decree of unknown location, middle of
fourth century BCE (Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs,
130, no. 106); Meyer, Die griechischen Urkundenre-
liefs, 287, no. A75; honorary decree (fragmentary
inscription), Athens, National Museum, 2985, IG
II2 406, third quarter of the fourth century BCE,
Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs, 139, no. 132; Meyer,
Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs, 296–7, no. A109;
honorary decree, Berlin, Staatliche Museen,
Antikensammlung K104, second half of fourth
century BCE, Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs, 151–2,
no. 164; Meyer, Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs,
301–302, no. A129.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
277& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
50 See previous note.
51 Honorary decree of Philiskos of Sestos, Lawton,
Attic Document Reliefs, 96–7, no. 30.
52 The exact finding spot is not clear, or is not
documented for all reliefs. The Athenian decree
in honour of Apollonophoanes of Kolophon,
Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs, 113–114, no. 65 was
found on the Acropolis; honorary decree Lawton,
Attic Document Reliefs, 130, no. 106 was found on
the Acropolis; the Athenian decree in honour of
Dionysios I of Syracuse, Lawton, Attic Document
Reliefs, 90, no. 16, was found in the Theatre of
Dionysus, which is not far from the Acropolis;
The honorary decree Lawton, Attic Document
Reliefs, 139, no. 132 was found at the south wing
of the Propylaia, the entrance to the Acropolis.
53 Honorary decree of Philiskos of Sestos, Lawton,
Attic Document Reliefs, 96–7, no. 30; honorary dec-
ree, Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs, 130–1, no. 106.
54 A similar gesture recurs repeatedly on votive
reliefs of the fourth century BCE that specifically
show the veneration of a deity by a group of
worshippers. See, for example, van Straten, ‘Gifts
for the Gods’, Figs 8–9.
55 Honorary decree, Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs,
151–2, no.164.
56 Nick, Die Athena Parthenos, 191, insists that the
image is of the ‘Parthenos’ crowning the
priestess of Athena Polias. This interpretation is
possible, though it cannot be supported by the
available evidence, which is only the image on
the relief. As there is no documented provenance
for the stele nor a preserved inscription, the
identification of the figure holding the key as a
priestess of Athena Polias specifically remains
speculative.
57 Athens, Agora Museum 1353. Terracotta token,
diameter 2.5 cm; McK. Camp, ‘Excavations in the
Athenian Agora’.
58 For discussion of usage of terracotta tokens
found in the Agora, see Mabel L. Lang and
Margaret Crosby, Weights, Measures and Tokens,
Princeton, 1964, 125–6.
59 Lang and Crosby, Weights, Measures and Tokens,
128, nos C10 (two erotes on an altar), C11 (a man
in a small shrine), C12 (nude male sacrificing).
60 David M. Robinson, Architecture and Sculpture:
Houses and other Buildings, Baltimore and London,
1930, 116; David M. Robinson, The Terra-cottas of
Olynthus found in 1928, Baltimore and London,
1931, 65–6.
61 Robinson, The Terra-cottas of Olynthus, 66.
62 Lapatin, ‘The Ancient Reception of Pheidias’,
Athena Parthenos, 9.
63 On the frontality of Byzantine icons, see Hans
Belting, Likeness and Presence: a History of the Image
before the Era of Art, Chicago and London, 1994,
78–80.
64 Note the following comments on images of
Christian saints: Belting, Likeness and Presence, 80:
‘They are shown frontal, fixed stance, an attitude
that demands our veneration.’
65 George Francis Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of
Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia, London, 1897, pl. 26,
7–11; George Francis Hill, Catalogue of the Greek
Coins of Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia, London, 1900,
pl. XIX, 14.
66 Replications on coins are found in cities of Asia
Minor, such as Priene, Notion and Aphrodisias.
In Athens the ‘Parthenos’ was replicated in the
‘new style’ tetradrachms of the second century
BCE. See Lacroix, Les reproductions de statues sur les
monnaies grecques, 269–81; Margaret Thompson,
The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens, New York,
1961, 32.
67 Lacroix, Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies
grecques, 269–81.
68 Joseph Coleman Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanc-
tuary of Athena Polias at Priene, London, 1983, 210–
49; Martha Weber, ‘Zur .Uberlieferung der Gold-
elfebeinstatue des Phieidas in Parthenon’, Jahr-
buch des Deutschen Arch.aologischen Instituts, 108,
1993, 83–100.
69 For drawing of reconstruction which is based
partly on the actual remains and partly on
coinage from Priene of the Roman period, see
Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena
Polias at Priene, 224.
70 This dating for the statue is based on the finds of
coins under the statue’s base, see Carter, The
Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene,
231–7. Nonetheless, Martha Weber argued for
a date in the fourth century BCE, based on
her stylistic analysis; see Weber, ‘Zur .Uberlie-
ferung der Goldelfebeinstatue des Phieidas in
Parthenon’, 98–9; and Nick, who rejects this
dating (Nick, Die Athena Parthenos, 195–7).
71 Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena
Polias at Priene, 216.
72 For discussion of the finances of the statue, see
Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary, 64–5.
73 Mansfield, The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic
Peplos, 232, interpreted the mention of the word
trapeza, which literally means table, in a fourth-
century Athenian inventory of the ‘Parthenos’,
as implying that there was an offering table in
front of the statue, which would suggest that
the statue was a recipient of some ritual. This
interpretation has been accepted by others, for
example, Ridgway, ‘Images of Athena on the
Akropolis’, 135.
74 Compare, for example, Peregrine Horden and
Nicholas Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: a Study of
Mediterranean History, Oxford, 2000, 438–59.
75 On the role of Athenian cults in strengthening
the ties between Athens and its allies, see Russell
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
278 & ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006
Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, Oxford, 1972, 290–
305.
76 On this passage, see Christopher Tuplin, ‘Xeno-
phon, Artemis and Scillus’, in Thomas J. Figueira,
ed., Spartan Society, Swansea, 2004, 251–79;
Robert Parker, ‘One Man’s Piety: The Religious
Dimension of the Anabasis’, in Robin Lane Fox,
ed., The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand,
New Haven and London, 2004, 137–8; Otto
Lendle, Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis (B .ucher
1–7), Darmstadt, 1995, 320–2.
77 Xenophon, Anabasis, V.3.7–13, trans. Carleton L.
Brownson.
78 On the Artemis of Ephesos, see, for example,
Robert Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte
kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien, Leiden, 1973;
Robert Fleischer, ‘Artemis Ephesia’, Lexicon Icono-
graphicum Mythologiae Classicae, 2:1, 1984, 755–63;
Frederick E. Brenk, ‘Artemis of Ephesos: An Avant
Garde Goddess’, Kernos, 11, 1998, 157–71.
79 See Jas Elsner, ‘The Origins of the Icon:
Pilgrimage, Religion and Visual Culture in the
Roman East as ‘‘Resistance’’ to the Centre’, in
Susan E. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the
East, Oxford, 1997, 180–4.
80 On the transfer of cult and the term aphydruma,
see Irad Malkin, ‘What is an Aphydruma?’, Calif-
ornia Studies in Classical Antiquity, 10, 1991, 77–95;
and previous discussions, Jean Brunel, ‘A propos
des transferts de culte: un sens meconnu du mot
aphydruma’, Revue de philologie, de litterature
et d’histoire ancienne, 27, 1953, 21–33; Louis Robert,
Hellenica, 13, 1965, 122–3; Michel Gras, ‘Le temple
de Diane sur L’Aventin’, Revue des etudes anciennes,
99, 55–6.
81 On the phenomenon of transfer of cults, see
Irad Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient
Greece, Leiden, 1987, 114–34. For an example of
the establishment of a chain of cults of Apollo
Karneios, see Irad Malkin, Myth and Territory
in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge, 1994,
143–67.
82 Note that Strabo, the geographer of the first
century BCE, described the transfer of the cult of
Artemis of Ephesos in the Archaic period to
Massalia (Marseille) by setting up an aphydruma
and to its daughter colonies by setting up images
in the form of the Massalian prototype. See
Strabo, IV.1.4. For discussion, see Malkin, ‘What is
an Aphydruma?’, 78–86.
83 Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction’, in Illuminations, New
York, 1969, 224.
84 Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction’, 224.
85 This view essentially conforms with the tradi-
tional perception of the age of classical Greek art
as the era of originals. See note above.
S TAT U E , C U L T A N D R E P R O D U C T I O N
279& ASSOCIATION OF ART HISTORIANS 2006