STATUE, CULT AND REPRODUCTION

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.


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



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



STATUE, CULT AND REPRODUCTION

Documents

Transcript of STATUE, CULT AND REPRODUCTION