This paper is an extended version of one given to the Manchester University Seminar on Ancient Mediterranean Religions in October, 1971, and I am grateful to my colleagues in Manchester for their comments, in particular to Professor F. C. Thompson, Dr A. H. Jackson and Mr P. W. Martin. I should also like to acknowledge most gratefully the help and facilities given me by the staff of other museums, especially Mrs A. C. Brown and Dr C. M. Kraay of the Ashmolean Museum, and Dr R. A. Higgins and Mrs Catherine Johns of the British Museum.

For information about objects in their care and permission to publish their photographs, I should like to thank Mr R. W. Hamilton, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Mr D. P. Dawson, Bristol City Museum; Miss Susan Pearce, Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter; Mlle Christiane Dunant, Musée d'art et d'histoire, Geneva. Finally, my especial thanks to Professor C. M. Robertson and Mr J. Boardman for their suggestions and advice on reading a draft of this paper.

The following abbreviations have been used in this paper:

Dinsmoor: W. B. Dinsmoor, ‘The repair of the Athena Parthenos: a story of five dowels’ in AJA xxxviii (1934) 93–106.

Leipen: Neda Leipen, Athena Parthenos: a Reconstruction (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, 1971).

Picard: C. Picard, Manuel d'archéologie grecque: la sculpture, ii 1.

Num. Comm.: F. Imhoof-Blumer and Percy Gardner, A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias.

Overbeck: J. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen.

Richter, SCP: G. M. A. Richter, ‘Was there a vertical support under the Nike of the Athena Parthenos?’ in Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni (Milan, 1956) iii 147–153.

Schuchhardt: W.-H. Schuchhardt, ‘Athena Parthenos’ in Antike Plastik ii (1963) 317–53, pls. 20–37

Svoronos: J. N. Svoronos, Les Monnaies d'Athènes (Munich, 1923–6).

¹ Manchester Museum acc. no. 20,001. The ancient literary references to the statue are collected by Overbeck, nos. 627–32, 634, 639 and 645–90. There are good modern bibliographies in Leipen, pp. vii-x; Schuchhardt, 46, 53; Brommer, F., Athena Parthenos (Opus Nobile, no. 2: Bremen, 1957) 18–19Google Scholar; Picard, 375–96, footnotes (to 1939); Robinson, D. M., AJA xv (1911) 499–503Google Scholar; of these, Leipen and Picard also have commentaries and illustrations. For the shield, Harrison, Evelyn B., Hesperia xxxv (1966) 107 n. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strocka, V. M., Piräusreliefs und Parthenosschild (Bochum, 1967) 8Google Scholar.

² Exeter, Royal Albert Museum, inv. no. 5/1946/ 778; Leipen 11, no. 44, fig. 45. See below, p. 101, and cf. also a forgery in Exeter perhaps copying this figure, inv. no. 5/1946/592 = Leipen 11, no. 45, where the number is wrongly given.

³ Musée d'art et d'histoire, inv. no. MAH 7464: Leipen 11 no. 42, fig. 44; Deonna, W., REA xxi (1919) 20–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. i, who gives further references.

⁴ Robertson, C. M., ‘The Sculptures of the Parthenon’ in Parthenos and Parthenon (Supplement to Greece and Rome x [1963]) 47Google Scholar.

⁵ Loeschke, G., ‘Kopf der Athena Parthenos des Pheidias’ in Festschrift…des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande (Bonn, 1891) 5–15Google Scholar; Leipen 32.

⁶ Leipen 10 no. 38, fig. 42; Picard 385, fig. 161.

⁷ Num. Comm. pl. Y xxiii; Svoronos pls. 33–78.

⁸ Leipen 9 no. 36, fig. 38; Picard 384, fig. 160. The Copenhagen head, not known to Loeschke, fits well into his Type A (see n. 17 for references).

⁹ Shear, T. L., AJA xxviii (1924) 118Google Scholar, notes that on a large-scale statue this crest could be a strengthening feature, as long as it was continued down onto the shoulders.

¹⁰ Paus. i 24.5: this is the normal interpretation of the passage, but the verb Pausanias uses is έπειργασμένοι, best taken as ‘worked in relief’, as Frazer translates. This could well refer to the cheek-pieces, in which case Pausanias has simply omitted the side-crests and their supports altogether.

¹¹ E.g. the Aspasios gem and the Koul Oba medallions (nn. 6 and 8) and see Mrs Leipen's list; cf. also the ‘New Series’ coins of Athens, Svoronos pls. 47.14–16; 50.1; 71.31; 75.16, 19, 21, 22.

¹² Robinson, D. M., AJA xv (1911)Google Scholar, 493 and figs. 1–3 = Leipen 13 no. 53, fig. 52. There is a similar confusion on some, though not all, of the ‘New Series' tetradrachms of Athens (and their imitations), where Pegasus’ body has shrunk to griffin-like proportions and his head has been adapted accordingly: v. Svoronos pls. 35.9–16; 38.11, 16, 17; 40.1, 9–12, etc., and Num. Comm. 127; compare also the coins referred to in n. 11.

¹³ Leipen 8 no. 30; 10 no. 38, fig. 42; 13 no. 58, fig. 55.

¹⁴ For further copies and discussions, see especially Furtwängler, AM vi (1881) 188, pl. vii. 2; Loeschke, op. cit. (n. 5) 7–8; Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Roman Britain (2nd ed., London, 1963) 134–5Google Scholar, no.24, pl. 28.

¹⁵ For the gem, see n. 8; for the coins, Num. Comm. pl. Y xxiv; Svoronos pl. 82.16, 19–21, 26; cf. also Lacroix, L., Les Reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques (Paris, 1949) 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 4, pl. xxiii 12.

¹⁶ Op. cit. (n. 5) 6–7; he illustrates the Berlin mould on p. 6.

¹⁷ For the coins, Svoronos pls. 33–78, passim; for the Copenhagen head, Pollak, L., ÖJh iv (1901) 147–50Google Scholar, figs. 171, 174, pl. iv; Brommer, F., Athena Parthenos (Opus Nobile, no. 2: Bremen, 1957)Google Scholar cover and pl. 7; Buschor, E., Medusa Rondanini (Stuttgart, 1958) pl. 9Google Scholar; further examples are quoted in Leipen 32.

¹⁸ Cf. Leipen 31–2 for a discussion of the hair-style.

¹⁹ Cf. Robinson, D. M., AJA xv (1911) 488Google Scholar; Leipen 34; add to their lists of necklace-wearing copies the fourth-century coin from Aphrodisias (Cilicia), Num. Comm. pl. Y xxii, Kraay, C. M. and Hirmer, M., Greek Coins (London, 1966) pl. 193, no. 670Google Scholar.

²⁰ See Cecil Smith, , BSA iii (1896–1897) 127–30Google Scholar, pl. ixa.

²¹ Shear, T. L., AJA xxviii (1924) pl. iiiGoogle Scholar.

²² Cf. Wilson, Lillian M., The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (Baltimore, 1938) 148–50Google Scholar, 152–64, especially 162–4, figs. 99, 102–3.

²³ Picard 390–1: he comments particularly on the treatment of the ‘Minerve au collier’.

²⁴ E.g. the Varvakeion statuette (Schuchhardt pl. 20); cf. Leipen 29–30 for a discussion of the sandal decoration.

²⁵ Cf. Ampelius, Lib. Mem. 8 ‘ad sinistram clipeus adpositus quem digito tangit’ (Overbeck no. 672).

²⁶ Cf. Schuchhardt 34, pl. 32.

²⁷ Jones, H. Stuart, Ancient Writers on Greek Sculpture p. 83Google Scholar, commenting on Pliny's description of the shield, NH xxxvi 18. The Toronto reconstruction fills the whole interior of the shield with the Gigantomachy, and decorates the off-set rim with a guilloche pattern. While artistically convincing on its own, this version has the drawback that very little of the figured decoration would actually have been seen once the snake was in place (Leipen 46–9 and figs. 86–7).

²⁸ Deonna, W., REA xxi (1919) 25Google Scholar.

²⁹ Cf. Paus. i 24.7, and see below p. 112, especially n. 109.

³⁰ Schuchhardt pl. 31; Becatti, G., Problemi Fidiaci (Milan-Florence, 1951) pl. 72Google Scholar, figs. 222–3. See Leipen 34–6, for a summary discussion of the Nike and the significance of her pose.

³¹ REA xxi (1919) 21.

³² The snake that appears to be wriggling up the column on some photographs is no more than a rootmark on the clay.

³³ E.g. G. M. A. Richter, The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks figs. 455–6.

³⁴ Leipen 11 no. 44, 28; cf. also Noack, F., JdI xlv (1930) 198–217Google Scholar, figs. 1–15, for a detailed analysis of the variations in the drapery.

³⁵ See Leipen 27 and Praschniker, , ÖJh xxxix (1952) 8Google Scholar, fig. 1 for a further discussion of the mouldings of the base.

³⁶ Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Roman Britain (2nd ed. London, 1963) 136Google Scholar, no. 26, pls. 23–4: now on loan to the Bristol City Museum but the property of Mrs C.-M. Bennett, to whom I am most grateful for her help and readiness to make the statuette available to me. This figurine is clearly based on Phidias' Athena Promachos, as Miss Toynbee says, but the position of the right hand surely indicates that the spear was held vertically, as one would expect for the Promachos, and not horizontally as she suggests.

³⁷ Cf. Pick, B. and Regling, K., Die Antiken Münzen von Dacien und Moesien (Berlin, 1898–1910)Google Scholar i, halbband 1, pl. xv, K.24; i, halbband 2, abt. 1, p. 632, nos. 2678–80, 2727 (coins); Leipen 15, no. 68 (Carnuntum head); Toynbee, op. cit. 134–5, no. 24, pl. 28 (Walbrook head).

³⁸ Winter, F., Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten iii 2, 176–8Google Scholar.

³⁹ E.g. Winter, op. at. 176.4–5, 10, 12 (and the further references given there): none of these are really ‘copies’ of the Athena Parthenos and they do not appear in Mrs Leipen's list. Other variations in dress occasionally appear among the copies: e.g. the statuette of the Roman period in the Acropolis Museum, Leipen 5, no. 11, that wears an Ionic chiton with buttoned sleeves.

⁴⁰ Dinsmoor 93 ff., especially 102–6; Picard 381–2; Stevens, G. P., Hesperia xxiv (1955) 270–6Google Scholar; xxx (1961) 1–7.

⁴¹ Dinsmoor 104–6, where he gives a list of the relevant replicas, with references. The reference to the activities of Antiochus IV at 106, nn. 4 and 5, should be to Granius Licinianus xxviii, not xxvii. Cf. also Mrs Leipen's comments on the fragments from Priene, Leipen 7, no. 22.

⁴² RM vii (1892) 158–65. The passage from chapter 5 of the Passio lists several pagan statues that were destroyed by the purging fire of God, and continues ‘Arsit et armata Minerva. Nihil illam gorgoneum pectus,nec defenditille picturatussplendor armorum, melius infelix, si pensa tractasset’.

⁴³ Marinus, , Procl. 30Google Scholar (quoted by Führer, op. cit. 164).

⁴⁴ Goethert, F. W., JdI xlix (1934) 157–61Google Scholar; Koch, H., AA 1935, 388–94Google Scholar; see also Leipen 18–19 for a summary discussion. Koch draws particular attention to the Piraeus shield-reliefs, but his arguments from the Athenian ‘New Series’ coinage become less convincing with its new lower dating (see next note).

⁴⁵ Lewis, D. M., Numismatic Chronicle ii (7th series: 1962) 275–300Google Scholar. Margaret Thompson holds that the coins were first minted in 196/5 (The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens [New York, 1961] 32–3, 107–8; Num. Chron. ii [1962] 301–33); Mattingly, (Num. Chron. ix [1969] 327–30)Google Scholar supports Lewis; his most recent discussion of the problem is in JHS xci (1971) 85–93.

⁴⁶ Pausanias vol. i xvii-xviii, xxiii.

⁴⁷ i 33.1 and iii 16.7–8 (cf. also viii 46.3).

⁴⁸ iv 31.6; the most probable date for Damophon seems to be early in the second century B.C.: cf. Levi, Peter, Pausanias (Harmondsworth, 1971) vol. ii 175 n. 143Google Scholar, and Dickins, G., BSA xii (1905–1906) 109–11Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ The account of the ψαιδρύνται would have provided another opportunity. On Pausanias' habit of digression, see Frazer, Pausanias, vol. i xviii, xl-xli, etc.

⁵⁰ Themistius, Orat. xxv 374Google Scholar (ed. Dindorf) (Overbeck no. 676; cf. nos. 645–79).

⁵¹ Clem. Al. Protrept. iv p. 41 (ed. Pott.); Plut., Per. 13Google Scholar (Overbeck nos. 650, 652); among the passages quoted by Overbeck, note especially no. 648 (Plin. xxxiv 54): ‘Phidias praeter lovem Olympium…fecit ex ebore aeque Minervam quae est in Parthenone stans’.

⁵² Overbeck nos. 680–7: Dinsmoor 96–8 gives a detailed history of the statue in this period.

⁵³ Schuchhardt 38 no. 18; cf. .Richter, G. M. A, AJA lxv (1961) 210Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Mallwitz, A. and Schiering, W., ‘Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia’ in Ol. Forsch, v (1964) 95Google Scholar, 103–7, 141 Cf. Robertson, C. M., in Parthenos and Parthenon (Supplement to Greece and Rome x [1963]) 46–7Google Scholar; Stevens, G. P., Hesperia xxvi (1957) 356–9Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, iv: the Terracottas no. 358, pl. 37; cf. id., AJA xv (1911) 482, n. 4 (quoting Furtwängler); Pollak, L., ÖJh iv (1901) 144–6Google Scholar; Leipen 2: for early copies, e.g. her nos. 17, 30, 55 and 58, and the vase by the Hephaistos Painter discussed on pp. 113–14 below.

⁵⁶ See above, p. 99; cf. also Robinson, D. M., AJA xv (1911) 487Google Scholar; Leipen 29. Large aegis: Varvakeion, Lenormant, Princeton, Madrid, Antiochus' small: Corinth mould, Patras, Argos, Turin bronze, Aspasios gem, Mariemont and perhaps Gortyn, Baltimore and Belgrade, and the marble copy in the seventeenth-century Codex Pighius (Leipen 7); two-piece aegis: Varvakeion, Lenormant, Princeton, Madrid, Belgrade, Patras, Antiochus', Minerve au collier, Pergamon; one-piece aegis: Manchester-Geneva, Exeter, Oxford, Argos (hybrid type); the fact that the majority of the copies (and the Medici type) have the two-part aegis, which is otherwise very rare, argues strongly for this having been the form of the original (cf. Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon [Leipzig, 1871] 281, no. 17)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Leipen 3, no. 1, fig. 1 and 12, no. 46, fig. 46 [sic]: Mrs Leipen wrongly attributes a patera to the Oxford figurine (Ashmolean Museum ace. no. 1954.95: Plate XXIIIa). This is of a fine pinkish-brown clay, hollow moulded with detail at the front only, and an oval vent-hole cut into the back. Many of the details are indistinct. On her head she has an Attic (or Chalcidian) helmet, with cheek-pieces raised, and triple crest, whose supports are unidentifiable. She wears a Romanised peplos, high-girt with long overfall. There seems to be a small aegis, with a small gorgoneion at the centre; snakes cannot be made out, but there are two large ‘buttons’ on the shoulder, presumably to hold both peplos and aegis—unless the gorgoneion is merely thought of as a large brooch on the peplos. The left leg is free, and the drapery swirls lightly as if she were coming to a standstill. The left arm is long and skinny, and grasps the top rim of a small, nearly round shield, which rests on a raised mass. Its outer rim is slightly off-set; in the centre is a gorgon-head in three-quarter view. The right arm is thick and wooden; it is unfinished below the elbow, and ends in a stump, though it is just possible that the end has been broken off: there is slight damage to the helmet-crests, the knees and base. There is no trace of what she was holding, but there was never a column, for the base is small, high and oval, and plain with a single moulding top and bottom. The figurine stands 19·4 cm. high, and was originally acquired in Syria, having probably been made there in the second century A.D.

⁵⁸ Evelyn Harrison, B., Hesperia xxxv (1966) 106–12Google Scholar, especially 111–12; see also Schuchhardt 33–4; and Leipen 19–21 and n. 21 for a summary of the inscriptions and discussions relevant to the making of the statue and the metals used: she proposes a similar solution.

⁵⁹ Thuc. ii 13; cf. Plut., Per. 31Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Plin. xxxvi 18. References to occasions when parts of the statue may have been removed, and have been recorded in the temple-inventories, are collected by Dinsmoor 96.

⁶¹ Richter, , SCP 147–53Google Scholar. In fact the literary-silence is not quite complete, for Plutarch, (Per. 13.9)Google Scholar mentions Phidias' signature έντῆστήλη of the statue; but that στήλη, though it can also be an inscribed stone of any kind, such as a gravestone or a boundary post, is here used for the carved base of the statue, while the column would have been described by κίων, is made quite clear by Andocides' distinction between the two at i 38 (= Oratt. Attici 6.15): here Dioclides hides from his pursuers however, since one cannot hide between the base of a statue and the statue standing on it, we must assume that—if Andocides is describing a single group, which is not at all certain—it must have been a composition not unlike some of the dedicatory reliefs from the Acropolis cited in nn. 73 and 118, though carved in the round, with a plinth (στήλη) that supported the statue only, the column standing-separately.

⁶² See p. 100 above, and Plates XIX-XXII; also Schuchhardt 35, pls. 20, 21, 23.

⁶³ Cf. e.g. Stevens, , Hesperia xxx (1961) 2–4Google Scholar, fig. 2, and Leipen 38–40, figs. 79–80 for possible reconstructions.

⁶⁴ Richter, , SCP 148Google Scholar. In any case, such props are normally only added in marble to compensate for the greater tensile strength of bronze.

⁶⁵ Leipen 53, n. 104; cf. ibid. 36; the Argos, Gortyn and one of the Acropolis statues show possible traces of columns (her nos. 12, 15 and 17).

⁶⁶ JdI xlvii (1932) 12–46, especially 39–41 and figs. 1–5; cf. Stevens, , Hesperia xxiv (1955) 249Google Scholar; Leipen 24; Picard 379.

⁶⁷ Hesperia xxx (1961) 3.

⁶⁸ Hesperia xxiv (1955) 263—7; ibid. xxx (1961) 3–4: his suggestions appear to be borne out by the experi ence of the Royal Ontario Museum reconstruction (Leipen 36–40), while Miss Richter's attempted refutation is based on uninformed theorising, backed by contemporary work in the Metropolitan Museum that is not parallel, involving as it does conservation rather than construction, using modern steels, on a far smaller scale than the Parthenos, and whose longevity cannot yet be said to have been proved, when compared to Phidias' work (SCP 150–1).

⁶⁹ Athena at Pellene, described by Pausanias as an early work of Phidias' (vii 27.2): v. Frazer, , Pausanias, vol. iv 184, fig. 25Google Scholar; Num. Comm. pl. S x; Athena Lemnia: Furtwängler, Masterpieces pl. ii; Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks figs. 615—17; Athena Promachos (and such types in general): G. Becatti, Problemi Fidiaci pls. 86–7. Cf. also Furtwängler's comments on Phidias' development, with particular reference to the Parthenos and the Lemnia, op. cit. 10 ff.

⁷⁰ Lucian, , Imagines 4Google Scholar; Becatti, op. cit. pls. 89–91; Richter, op. cit. figs. 619–20.

⁷¹ Schrader, H., Phidias (Frankfurt, 1924) 39Google Scholar, figs. 8a-b. This argument assumes the ‘late dating’ of the Zeus as proven: cf. e.g. Schiering, W. in ol.Forsch, v (1964) 272–7Google Scholar.

⁷² Mrs Leipen reaches a similar conclusion by a different route, op. cit. 37: she also notes that the Greeks were quite used to having columns in their statues (cf. the dedicatory korai, Nikai and sphinxes, as well as other chryselephantine statues), so that Pausanias might well not have thought this one worth mentioning.

⁷³ Blümel, C., Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: Kat. der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen iii (1928) K104, pl. 83Google Scholar; Richter, , SCP 148Google Scholar; Stevens, , Hesperia xxx (1961) 5Google Scholar, pl. 1g. Cf. Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon 279 no. 7Google Scholar, pl. xv.

⁷⁴ Richter, , SCP 149–50Google Scholar; illustrated by von Sallet, A., Zeitschrift für Numismatik x (1883) 152–3Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Num. Comm. 126, pl. Y xxii; Richter, , SCP 149Google Scholar, fig. 1.

⁷⁶ Richter, , SCP 150Google Scholar, fig. 3; BMC Greek Coins of Ionia 235, nos. 57–8, pl. xxiv 13. That these coins are unreliable evidence for details of the Parthenos is shown by the position of the snake. Cf. also Leipen 39, for further arguments against these coins as evidence for an olive-tree in the original.

⁷⁷ Richter, , SCP 149Google Scholar, fig. 2.

⁷⁸ Kraay, C. M. and Hirmer, M., Greek Coins (London, 1966) 362Google Scholar, 364, pl. 192, nos. 661–2 (σίδη = pomegranate); contrast Richter, , SCP 149Google Scholar; for the pomegranate as an attribute of Athena, see Farnell, L. R., Cults of the Greek States (Oxford 1896–1909) i 313Google Scholar, 327, 339.

⁷⁹ BCH lxxxi (1957) 498, pl. xi 36; Stevens, , Hesperia xxx (1961) 5–6Google Scholar, pl. 1e. See also p. 110 below.

⁸⁰ Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon 280–1Google Scholar, nos. 14, 17, pl. xv; cf. Walter, O., Beschreibung der Reliefs im kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen (Vienna, 1923)Google Scholar nos. 39, 42, 48; cf. ibid. nos. 51–2 for similar types.

⁸¹ Michaelis, op. cit. 279–80 nos. 6, 13, pl. xv (reliefs); Svoronos pls. 82.29–41; 83.1–14, 22–3, 38, 40; cf. pl. 87.13, and see n. 76 above (coins).

⁸² E.g. Richter, , SCP 151–3Google Scholar. Miss Richter's discussion of the Greek love for asymmetry, based on the Athena Lemnia, will not do: for the Lemnia is in fact symmetrical, with the spear in the left hand balancing the helmet in the outstretched right, stressed by the goddess' gaze in that direction. In the Parthenos, outstretched hand and column balance shield, snake (and spear).

⁸³ Acc. no. 10453: once, Gayer-Anderson collection, and probably from Egypt; it is hollow, made in a two-part mould of fine reddish clay, with the edges crudely trimmed off; height 14–9 cm.

⁸⁴ See Winter, F., Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten iii 2Google Scholar, 80–103, 177.8 especially 91.4 = 177.8. For the shield, Buschor, Medusa Rondanini pls. 19, 28–9.

⁸⁵ Herbig, R., ‘Wo die Eule sass, ist ungewiss’ in RM lxvi (1959) 141Google Scholar, n. 16, pl. 34: Leipen 5, no. 13.

⁸⁶ Svoronos pls. 82.42; 83.38, 40. On the Koul Oba and Toronto medallions it perches on one of the cheek-pieces (Leipen figs. 42, 55); and some have seen an owl among the figures on the helmet-vizor on some of the coins (see Num. Comm. 127–8). That it is an intruder is clearly shown by Mrs Leipen, who points out that the Ontario (and Louvre) medallions also insert a tiny Nike on either side of the head below the ear, presumably to break up the flat shiny surface of the gold (op. cit. 40–1). Cf. also Overbeck nos. 677–9, and Harrison, E. B., Hesperia xxxv (1966) 110Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Langlotz, , Phidiasprobleme 74–6Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Svoronos pl. 49.1, with ibid. ‘Table des matières’ p. v (Pick).

⁸⁹ Thompson, H. A., Hesperia xxvii (1958) 155–6Google Scholar, pl. 44b-d: a hoard of 133 coins, probably dropped in the Herulian sack of a.d. 267. Of the reverses, 76 show Athena; 27 of these are of the Athena Parthenos, two are variants of the type, and three show the variant with the owl.

⁹⁰ Svoronos pls. 82.1–83.19: the coins of this period that have on their reverse a view of the Acropolis only further this feeling of unreliability, since they depict the statue outside the Parthenon impartially as Promachos or Parthenos, ibid. pl. 98.19–43.

⁹¹ Ibid. pl 82.1–4.

⁹² Ibid. pls. 82.29–41; 83.1–14, 22–3.

⁹³ Ibid. pl. 82.1–4, in the canonical position behind the shield; on the other coins illustrated by Svoronos he does not appear at all.

⁹⁴ Ibid. pl. 82.42.

⁹⁵ Ibid. pl. 83.38, 40.

⁹⁶ Ibid. pl. 87.13; cf. Fehl, P., Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes xxiv (1961) 33–4Google Scholar, for a discussion of the idea of the Nike as a votive offering.

⁹⁷ Svoronos pl. 87.14.

⁹⁸ Similar problems arise over the terracotta medallion found in the Athenian Agora in 1957 (Leipen 12, no. 52, fig. 51; Thompson, H. A., Hesperia xxvii [1958] 159–60Google Scholar, pl. 46d).

⁹⁹ In Svoronos, ‘Table des matières’, p. vi, with pl. 83.20–3; for the Velletri Athena see Furtwängler, Masterpieces fig. 58.

¹⁰⁰ Coins: e.g. Patras (Num. Comm. pl. Q, xiv), Phigalea (ibid. pl. V xix), Corinth (ibid. pl. E xcii, xciii), Methana (ibid. pl. M iii, 4th row), Argos (ibid. pl. GG Suppl. II ii), Methone, Pylos and Kyparissia (ibid. pl. P xi, xii, xv, xviii). Gems: Tornaritou-Mathiopoulou, E., AE 1953–1954 iii (1961) 205Google Scholar, figs. 3–4.

¹⁰¹ E.g. BMC Coins of the Roman Empire iv nos. 553–61, 587–91.

¹⁰² Svoronos pl. 83.15–21; on pl. 84.24–6 she holds it on her left arm; cf. Num. Comm. pl. Y xix.

¹⁰³ Cf. Ashmolean Museum no. 1954.95 (n. 57 and Plate XXIIIa), and Winter, F., Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten iii 2Google Scholar, 176.5c-d; also ibid. 176.12. The most recent account of the shield-decoration is Leipen 41–50, especially 47 and fig. 83; on page 16 n. 13 she lists the surviving replicas, on page 54 n. 129 all the earlier discussions, of which MissHarrison, 's (Hesperia xxxv [1966] 107–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 119–32, pls. 38-g) is perhaps the most convincing. For the ancient accounts, see Overbeck, nos. 667–76; on the repair, see above, pp. 102–6.

¹⁰⁴ Schuchhardt 33–4, pl. 30b; Buschor, , Medusa Rondanini 15–16Google Scholar, pl. 16.3; Harrison, op. cit. 114.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Ras, S., BCH lxviii–lxix (1944–1945) 79Google Scholar; for the coins, Lacroix, L., Les Reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques (Paris, 1949) 268–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. xxiii 5–9.

¹⁰⁶ Tornaritou-Mathiopoulou, E., AE 1953–1954 iii (1961) 202Google Scholar with n. 3, and Lehmann-Hartleben, K., JdI xlvii (1932) 21–7Google Scholar; illustrated e.g. Picard figs. 159 (Pergamon), 163 (Minerve au collier); Schreiber, T., Die Athena des Parthenos (Leipzig, 1883)Google Scholar pl. iib, and Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks fig. 774 (Antiochus' Athena). Contrast the reconstruction suggested by the Royal Ontario Museum (Leipen 29 and fig. 71); Pausanias says that the original was actually holding a spear in its hand (i 24.7).

¹⁰⁷ Notably the Ashmolean terracotta (n. 57 and Plate XXIIIa); also Winter, F., Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten iii 2Google Scholar, 176.4–5.

¹⁰⁸ Becatti, G., Problemi Fidiaci 116–17Google Scholar. Miss Harrison's slightly more convincing reconstruction follows the same basic setting (Hesperia xxxv [1966] 119–31, pl. 38). On the angle of the shield, see also Smith, C., BSA iii (1896–1897) 135Google Scholar; Picard 378–9, following the Belgrade replica (his fig. 158), suggests that the shield was also held at a slight angle to the vertical. Cf. also Leipen 50, who notes that the snake not only played a compositional and mythological role, but also acted as a prop for the shield.

¹⁰⁹ Fehl, P., Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes xxiv (1961) 29–33Google Scholar; Leipen 50; Smith, C., BSA iii (1896–1897) 142–4Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Palermo, Mus. Naz. G1283, from Gela: ARV² 599.2; P. Arias, M. Hirmer and B. B. Shefton, A History of Greek Vase-Painting pls. 176–81.

¹¹¹ Paus, i 15.2; Harpocration, s.v. ‘Пολύγνωτος’ (Overbeck no. 1042); Suidas, s.v. ‘Пολύγνωτος’. See above pp. 20–45 and Plate Va-b (Palgmo krater).

¹¹² See Arias, Hirmer and Shefton, op. cit. pl. 179 and also pp. 354–7 for a discussion of the influences on the Niobid Painter, with further references.

¹¹³ ARV² 601.23 (calyx-krater by the Niobid Painter); ARV² 869.55 (white-ground cup by the Tarquinia Painter); ARV² 764.9 (rhyton by the Sotades Painter): all are in the British Museum (nos. E467, D4, E789). The figure on the Tarquinia Painter's cup is named Anesidora, but it looks as if the Pandora story was intended. Cf. also Mrs Leipen's comments, op. cit. 24–5.

¹¹⁴ Pf. Quint, xii 10.9 (Overbeck no. 721); Tornaritou-Mathiopoulou, E., AE 1953–1954 iii (1961) 201Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Berlin 3199: ARV² 1114.9.

¹¹⁶ JdI lii (1937) 32–3, fig. 1; cf. Furtwängler, A., AA 1892, 102–3Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Schrader, H., Archaische Marmor-Skulpturen (Vienna, 1909) 67–71Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ See n. 73. Many of the dedicatory reliefs that feature Athena are clearly adaptations of the Parthenos-motif: see p. 108, and Walter, O., Beschreibung der Reliefs im kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen (Vienna, 1923) 27–48Google Scholar, nos. 38–78; cf. also the Athena relief from the Lanckoronski collection, where a herm is used as a support in a similar composition (Langlotz, , Phidiasprobleme 75–6 and pl. 22d)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon 276–84Google Scholar, especially 279 and 281.

¹²⁰ Problemi Fidiaci 122–3, pl. 6g. The shield-decoration, inside and out, had relatively little influence on later iconography: see Leipen 42–50.

¹²¹ See Deonna, , REA xxi (1919) 25–6Google Scholar.