Divine Images and Human

Imaginations in Ancient Greece

and Rome

Edited by
Joannis Mylonopoulos

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2010
his book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Divine images and human imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome / edited by Joannis
Mylonopoulos.
p. cm. – (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world, ISSN 0927-7633 ; v. 170)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-90-04-17930-1 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Greece–Religion. 2. Rome–Religion. 3. Divine images and cult statues–Greece. 4. Divine
images and cult statues–Rome. I. Mylonopoulos, Joannis. II. Title. III. Series.

BL785.D58 2010
292.2'18–dc22
2009041612

ISSN 0927-7633
ISBN 978 90 04 17930 1

Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, he Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhof Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to he Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

 CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Introduction: Divine images versus cult images. An endless story

about theories, methods, and terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Joannis Mylonopoulos
A pantheon without attributes? Goddesses and gods in Minoan
and Mycenean iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fritz Blakolmer
Aniconism and the notion of “primitive” in Greek antiquity . . . . . . . . 63
Milette Gaifman
Finding the gods. Greek and Cypriot votive korai revisited . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Catherine M. Keesling
Gods and Statues—An approach to archaistic images in the ith
century bce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Fernande Hölscher
Greek priests and “cult statues”: In how far are they unnecessary? . . 121
Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge
heseus and the stone. he iconographic and ritual contexts of a
Greek votive relief in the Louvre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Gunnel Ekroth
Odysseus with a trident? he use of attributes in ancient Greek
imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Joannis Mylonopoulos
he life story of a cult statue as an allegory: Kallimachos’ Hermes
Perpheraios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Ivana Petrovic
vi contents

Arcadian cult images between religion and politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Tanja Scheer
Synnaos theos. Images of Roman emperors in Greek temples . . . . . . . . 241
Dirk Steuernagel
Simulacra deorum versus ornamenta aedium. he status of divine
images in the temples of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Sylvia Estienne
he dedication of cult statues at the altar. A Roman pictorial
formula for the introduction of new cults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Katja Moede
Ornamenta, monumenta, exempla. Greek images of gods in the
public spaces of Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Alessandra Bravi

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Index of passages cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Subject index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
 ABBREVIATIONS

AR Archaeological Reports
ARV 2 J.D. Beazley, Attic red-igure vase-painters, nd edition, Oxford

CEG Carmina epigraphica Graeca
CIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum
CMS Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, Berlin –
CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum
FGrHist Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby, Berlin
–
IG Inscriptiones Graecae
ILLRP Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicae
LGPN A lexicon of Greek personal names, ed. P.M. Fraser –
E. Matthews, Oxford –
LIMC Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zürich –
LSAM F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure, Paris 
LSCG F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris 
LSJ H.G. Liddell – R. Scott – H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexikon,
th edition, Oxford 
LSS F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément, Paris

OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae,  vols,
Leipzig –
Pf Callimachus,  vols, ed. R. Pfeiffer, Oxford –
RE Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Alterthumswissenschat,
Stuttgart – Munich –
SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum
SH Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones – P. Parsons,
Berlin – New York 
hesCRA hesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, Los Angeles –
West Iambi et Elegi Graeci,  vols, ed. M. West, nd edition, Oxford 
 ODYSSEUS WITH A TRIDENT?
THE USE OF ATTRIBUTES IN ANCIENT GREEK IMAGERY*

Joannis Mylonopoulos

he notion of asemos

State inancial problems were not a rarity in Greek history—or any his-
torical period for that matter. But if resources were limited, the resource-
fulness of those who wanted to obtain money was not. At the end of the
irst century bce and in the beginning of the irst century ce, many cities
in the Greek East were facing severe inancial problems. One of the most
imaginative solutions for solving such a capital shortage is epigraphically
attested for the Rhodian city of Lindos. In the year  ce, the Lindians
were unable to aford the upkeep of public sacriices and festivals in their
city. A very long decree refers to the various strategies for dealing with
this problem and ofers an invaluable insight in the various ways a com-
munity was treating sacred property. Lines  to  are of particular inter-
est, since they describe the fate of a special group of statues on the Lindian
acropolis:
And since there are some statues (andriantes) along the ascent and on
the top itself, which are without inscription (anepigraphoi) and undis-
tinguished (asamoi), it is expedient that these too shall be distinguished
(episamous esti), bearing inscriptions saying that they are dedicated to the
gods, it was voted by the Lindians: when this decree has been sanctioned,
the same epistatai shall lease out the inscription of each statue, the Lin-
dians deciding by vote whether the winning bid should be conirmed or
not, and if it will be decided that the winning bid should be conirmed,
they (the epistatai), ater having made an account of the rate for which
the inscription of each statue has been ceded, shall hand over the money
accrued from these to be sacred to the fund of Athana Lindia and Zeus
Polieus. hose who have purchased the inscription shall not have the per-
mission in any case not under any pretext to remove statues from the top;

* I would like to thank Angelos Chaniotis, Marco Fantuzzi, Fernande Hölscher, and

Chrysi Kotsifou for discussing with me various aspects of this paper.

 joannis mylonopoulos

otherwise they shall be liable to be accused of impiety. But if they make

a request, they shall have the permission to replace statues according to
what the Lindians agree on account of the request.1
hanks to the archaeological evidence, we know very well that both
inscriptions and statues were broadly re-used in antiquity, but this decree
is the only epigraphic attestation for an oicial sanction of such an opera-
tion concerning a whole group of dedications and not just single objects.
Many aspects of the text are problematic and at the same time highly
remarkable such as the auction of statue bases, the right to inscribe the
bases, but not to remove or change the statues themselves, the possibil-
ity to maintain the statue base and replace the statue standing on it ater
special permission. But the explicit characterisation of dedicated statues
as undistinguished (asamoi) is striking. It should be stressed that this is
the only text to provide clear epigraphic evidence of such asamoi andri-
antes. Only Dio Chrysostomos uses exactly the same terminology in his
Rhodian oration, where he accuses the Rhodians of re-using statues they
had forgotten, whom they were representing: “ . . . the most absurd plea is
to claim that ater all they don’t lay hands on either the identiiable stat-
ues or those whose owner is known, but that they do whatever they want
only with those that are indistinct and very old”.2
he meaning of the term anepigraphos used in the inscription is clear
and is deinitely referring to statues without an accompanying dedicatory
or honorary inscription. As regards the adjective asamos, H. Blanck
suggested that this term might designate a statue, which actually bore
an inscription, from whose letters the paint had faded away so that they

1 I.Lindos  l. –: πειδB δ κα6 νδριντες | [τ]ινς ντι ν τHJ ναβ[]σει κα6
α!τHJ τHJ *κρHα νεπ"γραφοι κα6 | *σαμοι, συνφρον δ []στι κα6 το1τους `μειν πισ-
μους πιγρ[α|φ]:ν ?χοντας τι εο‹$›ς νκεινται, δεδχαι Λινδ"οιςo κυ(ρωντος)
το δε | [τ]ο ψα(φ"σματος) το6 α!το6 πιστται μ[ισω]σντω 0κστου νδριν-
τος τ:ν | []πιγραφν, διαχειρο[τονησ]ντων Λινδ"ων, ε, δε$ το ε.ρισ|κοντος κατα-
κυρο [ν Z μ]), κα6 [ε3 κ]α [δ]ξEη το ε.ρισκντος κα|[τ]ακυρο ν, τ7 πεσ7ν ργ1-
ριον []π7 το1[τ]ων, καταβαλμε|[ν]οι λ[γ]ον, π[]σου 0[κ][σ]το[υ n] πιγραφ[:
πε]δ[η], παραδντω ,ερ7ν | [`]μ[ειν ε,ς] πα[ρ]ακα[τ]α[])καν τJς KΑ[]νας
τ[J]ς Λινδ"ας κα6 τ[ο | Δι7ς το Πολι]ωςo [το6 δ] Sνησ[μ]ε[ν]οι τ:ς πιγραφ:ς μB
| [χντων ξουσ"αν π]ε[νε]νκε$[ν] κ τJς *κρας νδριν[τας | τρπRω μηδ]εν6 μηδ
παρευρσει μηδεμιHJ Z ?νοχοι ντ[ω | σβει]Hαo ποιησμενοι δ τ:ν α3τησιν χντων
ξουσ["αν | μετενενκ]ε$ν t κα συνχωρ)σωσι δι: τJς α,τ)σιος Λ"ν[δ]ιοι (Translation
Kajava , –).
2 Dio Chrys. Or. .: 5 τοιο τς στιν τοπAτατος, (ς *ρα ο!δεν7ς tπτονται τν

γνωρ"μων νδριντων ο!δ οwς π"στατα" τις >ν ε,σιν, λλ: σ)μοις τισ6 κα6 σφδρα
παλαιο$ς καταχρνται.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

had become illegible.3 However, the fact that Dio uses the expression
asemos andrias in opposition to gnorimos andrias allows the assumption
that asamoi andriantes were indeed statues of undistinguished character.
In addition, the term anepigraphos would certainly have referred to
all the various modes of inscribing a statue base. he asamoi statues
must have been both those without a distinct, thus, without an easily
recognisable physical appearance and those without speciic attributes.4
Andrias is certainly not designating honorary statues in an exclusive
manner; S. Bettinetti demonstrated that the term andrias can specify
representations of both humans and gods.5 One of the earliest attestations
of this word appears in the dedicatory inscription of the colossal statue—
convincingly interpreted as an image of Apollon6—set up by the people
of Naxos beside the so-called oikos of the Naxians on Delos.
his intriguing Rhodian inscription raises the fundamental to this
article question about the signiicance of attributes and their use or even
absence in respect to the visual characterisation of images. But what
exactly is an attribute? Can we label every object and every animal in the
hand or next to a depicted divinity or mythological igure as an attribute?
Is the club in the hands of Athena or Iolaos an attribute contributing
to a better understanding of the essence of these igures? Does it really
help the viewer to recognise them? Or are they just holding it while
Herakles, the hero actually and normally connected with the club, is
using his own hands or a weapon other than his club against monsters
and wild animals?7 Is the club in the hands of Herakles an attribute and
in the hands of Athena or Iolaos just a piece of wood? Furthermore, do

3 Blanck , : “. . . auch solche, deren Inschrit durch Schwund der Farbe in den

Buchstaben schlecht leserlich geworden war”. Kajava ,  apparently misunderstood

Blanck’s suggestion, for he thinks that the German scholar was referring to painted
inscriptions. Based on the use of the term, Blanck argues that the statues referred to in
the inscription were of honorary character (Ehrenstatuen). However, both Scheer ,
– and Bettinetti , – demonstrated that from the terminological point of view
there is no clear distinction among the various uses of statues in ancient Greek literary
sources.
4 For example, Hygieia statues out of context are notoriously hard to recognise, see

Leventi  (and the review in Gnomon , , –); on the contrary a nude
Aphrodite can be recognised as such even without an inscription or accompanying
attributes.
5 Bettinetti , –.
6 See most recently Giuliani , .
7 Especially in the visual narrative of the irst labour, the Nemean Lion, Iolaos oten

appears holding the club of Herakles. he scene on an Athenian black-igure amphora in

Munich (Antikensammlung ; Brinkmann a,  ig. .) rendering the capture
 joannis mylonopoulos

artists use attributes only in order to allude to mythological narratives

and to the properties of gods and heroes, or do they also incorporate
them in a composition in order to enhance the aesthetic efect of a
work of art? What about the geographical and chronological contexts?
Do attributes in Archaic Athenian vase painting have the same function
like the attributes of an image in the Roman East like the Aphrodite of
Aphrodisias or Mes Askainos?

In modern scholarship, this complexity is all too oten not acknowl-

edged. Attributes are simply explained as signs used by vase-painters and
sculptors to visually identify and occasionally characterise heroic and
divine igures,8 exactly as in the representations of human beings a mask
is the attribute of an actor, a crown the attribute of an imperial priest,
and a beard the physical attribute of a philosopher. As recently as ,
D. Boschung, oversimplifying a very complex phenomenon, argued that
the visual concept of divine and heroic igures was ultimately deined
already in the seventh century bce.9 In their substantial contributions to
this issue, both R. Brilliant and A. Brelich considered attributes as icono-
graphic elements closely connected with the anthropomorphic concept
of Greek gods. But despite this similar starting point, these two schol-
ars employ a diferent methodological and epistemological approach.
Working within the realm of art history, Brilliant claims that attributes
are a particularity of Greek art and represent a primarily iconographic
means used to clearly distinguish between mortals and immortals.10 In
his discussion of attributes in Greek imagery and culture, the historian
of religion Brelich applies an evolutionist model and regards attributes
as remnants of a non-anthropomorphic concept of the divine. In the lat-
ter’s view, attributes originally were symbols and visual expressions per
se of the sacred that were reduced to attributes ater the emergence of the
anthropomorphic construction of the divine in ancient Greece.11

of the Cretan bull presents an intriguing case, since two clubs are depicted: one on the
ground behind Herakles and one held by Iolaos who is physically a copy of Herakles. he
signiicance of the attribute’s duplication remains puzzling.
8 Woodford , –.
9 Boschung , –. In Homer and Hesiod, gods and goddesses and their respec-

tive attributes are already established entities, but these literary concepts do not ind an
exact correspondence in visual art as early as this.
10 Brilliant , –.
11 Brelich .
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

Although both models have obvious interpretive merits, they manifest

weaknesses as well, for none of them seems to take into account certain
important aspects of a very complex phenomenon. hey do not consider,
for instance, theriomorphism—admittedly rare, but nevertheless present
in Greek imagery, not only in images of Pan and Acheloos, but also in
statues such as the horse-headed Demeter Melaina or the ish-bodied
Eurynome both in Phigaleia.12 All of them are widely neglected examples
of theriomorphic images of Greek divinities. Besides, if attributes were
indeed important in simply distinguishing between divine and human
beings, then the iconographic and semantic ambivalence of almost every
single attribute, the lack of signiicant and explicit attributive icono-
graphic elements in the visual construction of personiications and alle-
gories,13 and the generic characterisation of divine igures such as Ares
or Hades would demand an adequate explanation. In addition, the pos-
sible semantic diferences between the use of objects or even animals as
attributes and the conception of igures such as Nike, the Ploutos-child,
or the Graces as attributes of other divine igures have not been ade-
quately taken into consideration.
Furthermore, the use of attributes is certainly not an iconographic
phenomenon limited to Greek art; even if we detect close structural and
iconographic connections in the use and function of attributes between
the Christian and the so-called pagan Graeco-Roman art,14 so that we
could consider the use of attributes in Christian art as a continuation of
Greek and Roman visual attitudes, such possible interconnectivity obvi-
ously does not apply to Egyptian art. In addition, the partly anthropo-
morphic conception and representation of the divine in Minoan and
Mycenean art and the use of attributes as such and not solely as sym-
bols of the sacred contradicts Brelich’s evolutionist model. A similar
evolutionist and totemistic approach was most recently adopted by the
ethnologist K.-H. Kohl, who interprets the theriomorphic emblems on
ancient shields as a symbolic reminiscence of zoomorphic ancestors, who
were later transformed into divine anthropomorphic igures with their
respective original visual conception as an animal transmuted into an
iconographic attribute.15 he synchronous use of attributes as such, as
emblems evoking the divine, and as symbols actually replacing both in

12 Paus. .. and ...

13 Borg , .
14 Belting , –; Elsner , –.
15 Kohl , –.
 joannis mylonopoulos

iconographic and cultic terms16 the anthropomorphic representations of

Greek divinities constitutes a further “anomaly” in Brelich’s and Kohl’s
lineally conceived approaches. T.H. Carpenter rightly emphasised the
aspect of continuity in the use of a speciic attribute in connection with a
divine igure.17 Although it is certainly true that the degree of frequency is
an important parameter in the creation of a strong visual bond between
a divine or heroic igure and an attribute, it will be demonstrated that
attributes can also be used as a momentary and conditional visual refer-
ence in order to establish an interrelation between igures. For example,
the kantharos is not an attribute of Herakles. But on the famous bilingual
amphora in Munich (Antikensammlungen , last quarter of the sixth
century bce) the symposiast Herakles is depicted with this type of drink-
ing vessel, in order to stress the presence of the Greek hero par excellence
in a very speciic context: the Dionysian world of wine.18
As regards ancient attempts to elucidate the various functions and
meanings of attributes that could go beyond aetiological myths, the liter-
ary sources remain as in so may other cases almost totally silent.19 Nor-
mally, attributes are described as more or less functional gits presented
to heroes and gods by other divine igures who tend to be considered
as more powerful or simply older.20 Visually speaking, one of the most

16 On the interesting case of Zeus’ sceptre that was venerated in Chaironeia, see
Pirenne-Delforge’s paper in this volume. On Athena’s owls, see Monbrun  with ample
bibliographical references to the earlier research on the topic.
17 Carpenter , : “An object can only be called an attribute when there is a

demonstrable continuity in the appearance of that object with a speciic igure”.

18 Carpenter , –. In general, Wolf . Herakles’ images holding a kantharos

in a non-Dionysian context would have placed this speciic kind of vase among the hero’s
attributes such as the club or the lion’s skin that are not situational, but moreover almost
ixed part of the hero’s constructed visual identity. For example, winged boots can be
part of the visual identity of Hephaistos, but only in the very speciic narrative context of
Athena’s birth, Schefold ,  ig. . hus, the winged boots are only a situational
attribute of Hephaistos explaining and visualising the angst of the god and its need to
leave the scene of the wondrous birth as fast as possible.
19 In this context, the symbolic explanations of objects and animals that can func-

tion as attributes as provided in Artemidoros’ Oneirokritika should be excluded, since

Artemidoros’ explanations normally refer not to the divine or heroic igures seen with
the attributes, but to the person having the dreams.
20 Kallimachos (hymn .–) describes Artemis’ arrows and bow as a git of the

Cyclops, while the torch and the short chiton are presents of Zeus. According to Pseudo-
Apollodoros (Bibl. ..) Herakles received a sword from Hermes, a bow and arrows
from Apollon, a golden breastplate from Hephaistos, and a robe from Athena. Only his
club he had himself cut at Nemea; for the divergent traditions on the creation of the
Heraklian club, see infra n. . On the contrary, in the Homeric hymn to Apollon (Hom.
hymn .–) the young god demands the lyre and the crooked bows as his own.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

prominent cases for attributes presented as git is that of the winged cap
and sandals, the harpe, the kibisis, as well as the shield, which Perseus
received according to the literary sources from Hermes, Athena, and the
Nymphs.21 Every single attribute is a git to Perseus.22 he iconograph-
ical interconnections between Perseus and Hermes are striking—partly
also because of the similar attributes like the winged sandals23 and from
 /  bce the winged cap. Only the existence of further attributes like
the harpe or the kibisis for Perseus, the kerykeion for Hermes, and some
diferences in the clothing can help in securely diferentiating between
hero and god, especially in black igure scenes of Gorgo’s decapitation, in
which Perseus is oten still depicted bearded and sometimes with a peta-
sos. By the end of the sixth century and far more oten during the ith
century, Perseus is depicted holding the harpe.24 herefore, this attribute
constitutes the most reliable feature for identifying with certainty an iso-
lated igure wearing a winged cap with Perseus as in the case of several
squat lekythoi depicting Perseus in form of a bust (ig. ).
Most ancient authors were simply agnostic or disinterested in the sym-
bolic meanings of attributes. his “interpretive” attitude is best expressed
in an interesting passage in Pausanias’ Periegesis. While visiting Elis, Pau-
sanias describes a chryselephantine statue of Aphrodite made by Pheidias
that stood with one foot on a tortoise and a bronze one of the same god-
dess sitting on a he-goat. Although Pausanias is perfectly aware of the
unusual iconography of the images, he simply states: “the meaning of the
tortoise and of the he-goat I leave to those who care to guess”.25 Never-

21 he relevant ancient literary sources can be found in Jones Roccos , –.

he shield presented to the hero by Athena appears, however, very late in the visual
conception of the hero.
22 Schauenburg , – ofers a brief overview on the attributes associated with

Perseus.
23 Gialouris , – makes the interesting observation that the oldest and most

numerous representations of a heroic or a divine igure with winged sandals are those
of Perseus, thus, the iconographical material apparently contradicts the existing literary
evidence. In order to explain this alleged anomaly, however, Gialouris reconstructs an
epic poem in honour of Perseus (a Perseïs) by the Korinthian poet Eumelos, which could
have inluenced the iconography of Perseus. Recently, Marconi ,  f. convincingly
argued for the (neglected) early importance of Perseus as a hero closely associated with
travel and “colonial experience”. It would certainly be fruitful to reconsider Perseus’
iconography by taking into account this important aspect as well.
24 Schauenburg , –.
25 Paus. ..: τ: δ π6 τED χελAνEη τε κα6 ς τ7ν τργον παρ"ημι το$ς λουσιν

ε,κζειν (Translation W.H.S. Jones). In the case of Demeter Melaina, Pausanias reveals
a slightly diferent attitude referring to well-known traditions that explain the unusual
physiognomy and attributes of her statue in Phigaleia, Paus. ..: φK τRω μν δB τ7
 joannis mylonopoulos

theless, the same author is more than willing to ofer a brief explanation
for the peculiar rooster on the helmet of the chryselephantine statue of
Athena on the acropolis of Elis, an image allegedly made by Pheidias: “on
her helmet is an image of a cock, this bird being very ready to ight. he
bird might also be considered as sacred to Athena the worker”.26
Perhaps the most intriguing ancient explanation of a speciic mode of
representing the divine is Lukian’s reference to the Celtic Herakles. Ater
having described Herakles Ogmios as an extremely old, bald-headed
man with wrinkled sun-burned skin, Lukian stresses the fact that the
painted image is nevertheless Herakles “from head to heel as far as that
goes”, because it is equipped with the attributes of Herakles: the lion’s skin,
the club, the quiver, and the bent bow. he most bizarre element was,
however, that a considerable number of men were shown following the
hero chained to him from their ears by means of golden fetters attached
to his tongue. A Celt explained to the puzzled Lukian the unusual image
of the hero in the following way:
I will solve for you the riddle of the picture, stranger, as you seem to be
very much disturbed about it. We Celts do not agree with you Greeks in
thinking that Hermes is Eloquence: we identify Heracles with it, because
he is far more powerful than Hermes. And don’t be surprised that he is
represented as an old man, for eloquence and eloquence alone is wont to
show its full vigour in old age . . . if old Heracles here drags men ater him
who are tethered by the ears to his tongue, don’t be surprised, you know
the kinship between ears and tongue . . . in general, we consider that the
real Heracles was a wise man who achieved everything by eloquence and
applied persuasion as his principal force. His arrows represent words, I
suppose, keen, sure, and swit, which make their wounds in souls.27

ξανον ποι)σαντο ο^τως, νδρ6 ο!κ συντRω γνAμην γαR δ κα6 τ: ς μν)μην
δDλ στι (now why they had the image made ater this fashion is plain to any intelligent
man who is learned in tradition, Translation W.H.S. Jones).
26 Paus. ..: πεπο"ηται δ λεκτρυ;ν π6 τR κρνει, τι οsτοι προχειρτατα

?χουσιν ς μχας ο% λεκτρυνεςo δ1ναιτο δK 2ν κα6 KΑηνJς τDς KΕργνης %ερ7ς 5 Iρνις
νομ"ζεσαι.
27 Luk. Herc.: KΕγA σοι, ?φη, e ξνε, λ1σω τDς γραφDς τ7 α3νιγμαo πνυ γ:ρ ταρατ-

τομνRω ?οικας πρ7ς α!τ)ν. Τ7ν λγον 4με$ς ο% Κελτο6 ο!χ Uσπερ .με$ς ο% hΕλληνες
ΕρμDν ο,μεα ε=ναι, λλK Ηρακλε$ α!τ7ν ε,κζομεν, τι παρ: πολ το Ερμο ,σχυ-
ρτερος οsτος. Ε, δ γρων πεπο"ηται, μB αυμσEηςo μνος γ:ρ 5 λγος ν γ)ρHα φιλε$
ντελD πιδε"κνυσαι τBν κμ)ν . . . Uστε ε, τν <των κδεδεμνους το ς νρAπους
πρ7ς τBν γλτταν 5 γρων οsτος ΗρακλDς _λκει, μηδ το το αυμσEης ε,δ;ς τBν
<των κα6 γλAττης συγγνειαν . . . τ7 δK λον κα6 α!τ7ν 4με$ς τ7ν Ηρακλα λγRω τ:
πντα 4γο1μεα ξεργσασαι σοφ7ν γενμενον, κα6 πειο$ τ: πλε$στα βισασαι.
κα6 τ γε βλη α!το ο% λγοι ε,σ"ν, ο=μαι, +ξε$ς κα6 ε[στοχοι κα6 ταχε$ς κα6 τ:ς ψυχ:ς
τιτρAσκοντες (Translation A.M. Harmon).
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

Nevertheless, such quite exhaustive, allegorical, and above all late

explanations constitute an exception in the literary discourse and do not
discuss the ambiguous use of attributes in Greek imagery.28 hey do,
however, demonstrate the complexity of the subject.

In this contribution, the focus lies on attributes as signs of patronage,

as visual references to mythological narratives, as parts of the physi-
cal appearance of a divine or heroic igure, and inally as visual bonds
expressing “family” interconnections. he cases studied will demonstrate
that attributes were indeed powerful instruments of communication,
because they transported signiicant, cognitive information by means of
visual, non-verbal signs. In antiquity, attributes were certainly of great
help to viewers trying to understand the divine in its micro-individuality
manifested in a speciic, very concrete image. Furthermore, they were in
the position to exclude—up to a certain degree—over- and misinterpre-
tations, by guiding the viewer to a certain direction. Still, attributes were
also iconographic elements of an extremely ambiguous character.29 hus,
it cannot be stressed enough at this point that the functions and mean-
ings of attributes cannot be understood properly without taking into con-
sideration the geographical, chronological, and last but not least icono-
graphic context.

he ambiguous use of attributes

Even a modest selection of images clearly demonstrates not only that

almost every divine igure is associated with a large number of attributes,

28 Hafner . Borg , – is not categorically rejecting the existence of this
image, but she is, nonetheless, strongly questioning the idea that Lukian is actually refer-
ring to a real painting. According to Borg, the image of Herakles Ogmios represents most
probably a part of Lukian’s literary strategies that reveal his preferences for personiica-
tions and the theme of the arts’ contest. Even if we accept Borg’s well-founded scepticism,
and regardless of whether Lukian might have been both the creator and the exegetes of
the puzzling image or not, his text still remains not only an important example for liter-
ary ekphrasis, but also a major illustration of an eloquent interpretive approach to the use
and signiicance of divine attributes in Graeco-Roman antiquity.
29 On the contrary, Turner ,  argues that “the problem of identiication and of

subsequent signiicance, as with so much of the iconography of antiquity, is ours”. While

in most cases the “problem of identiication” is indeed ours, there can be no doubt that
already in antiquity images could be misunderstood or simply remain undecipherable,
see on this subject Keesling .
 joannis mylonopoulos

but also that generalisations can be extremely problematic. Certain meth-

odological issues must be mentioned at this point. Firstly, it should be
noted that the much-debated term “cult statue” will remain absent as far
as possible,30 in order to avoid any terminological and semantic misun-
derstandings. Furthermore, since the visual construction and reception
of the divine is deinitely not conined to images in the round, divine
images, mainly such on vases, will be also considered. Another factor is
that when we deal with Greek sculpture of especially the Classical period
we are oten facing the fundamental problem of what is Greek and what
could have been a later addition made by the Roman copyists.31 Finally,
due to destructions, intentional or not, a more practical problem further
complicates our approach: the vast majority of depictions of divinities in
the round lack the relevant attributes.
he statue of Eirene created by Kephisodotos around  bce is per-
haps the most telling example for the problems concerning the recon-
struction of missing attributes and the scholarly axioms preventing ob-
jective (re)considerations of Greek originals: the best-preserved Roman
copy of the bronze original is the marble statue in Munich (Glyptothek
), which shows Eirene holding only the Ploutos child with all other
attributes missing.32 Later representations of the Kephisodotean Eirene
on vases, coins, and gems consistently show the Ploutos child with the
cornucopia.33 he attribute, however, that the goddess is holding in her
let hand has been all too conidently identiied as a sceptre. Six Pana-
thenaic amphorae found in  in Eretria depict Eirene with the Ploutos
child on kioniskoi. Even more remarkable than the depiction of the statue
group on Panathenaic vases is their date: based on the mention of the
Athenian archon Kallimedes, the amphorae can be securely dated in
 /  bce. hus, the vases are chronologically almost contemporary
with the bronze original. On three of the amphorae, Eirene is indeed
shown holding a sceptre, but the remaining three depict the goddess with
a bunch of grapes in her let hand.34 he latter variation seems to antici-

30 For the use of the term “cult statue” in modern scholarship, see especially Donohue

.
31 In general Ridgway ; Geominy ; Mattusch .
32 Vierneisel-Schlörb , –.
33 hemelis ,  ig. ; La Rocca , –. ig. , ; hemelis ,

pl. .
34 hemelis ,  ig. ; La Rocca , –. ig. , ; hemelis ,

pl. . Eschbach , – esp.  does not discuss the obvious diference in the
attributes held by Eirene; he regards the substitution of the sceptre with the bunch of
grapes as a simple reduction of iconographic elements that could not really contribute to
the identiication of the igure.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

pate the Praxitelean group of Hermes with the Dionysos child even more
closely than has been already suggested.35 In any case, the statue group
of Eirene with the Ploutos child and its reception in contemporary art
clearly demonstrates how ambiguously attributes were used and under-
stood in antiquity: the sceptre and the bunch of grapes seem to have been
interchangeable already in the very early artistic responses to the newly
created image.36

Attributes as symbols of control

Most attributes seem to be a pars pro toto for a speciic activity or a more
general symbolic reference to one’s control and patronage over particular
aspects of nature and every day human life. Pincer tongs, hammer, and
sometimes anvil characterise Hephaistos as a smith and signalise his
protection of activities connected with metallurgy.37 he scenes depicting
Hephaistos in a context, in which tools such as a pincer make absolutely
no sense especially demonstrate how close the connection between the
god and his attributes actually is: for example, a young and beardless
Hephaistos is shown reclining like a symposiast on a kline on a red
igure crater in Schloss Fasanerie (inv. no. ) from the end of the
ith century bce depicting Erichthonios’ birth. Hephaistos is holding an
omphalos-phiale in his right and the pincer in his let hand (ig. ).38
A pincer is meaningless both in the general context of Erichthonios’
birth and for the concrete visualisation of Hephaistos as a symposiast.
Nevertheless, this instrument remains the only iconographic element
that explicitly identiies the youthful igure with Hephaistos. he return
of Hephaistos to Olympus certainly belongs to the most popular narrative
scenes: the god can be shown with or without a beard, riding a donkey or
sitting in a winged carriage, and yet despite these possible variations at
least one of his attributes is practically always part of his iconography.39
Even more intriguing are those scenes, in which the involvement of

35 Mylonopoulos forthcoming.
36 Valavanis , – does not discuss the problem of the attribute the goddess
is holding in her right hand on three of the Eretrian Panathenaic amphorae.
37 On the iconography of Hephaistos see in general Brommer  and Hermary –

Jacquemin .
38 Brommer , .
39 Brommer , –; Schöne , –; Hermary – Jacquemin , –

esp. no. . . . . . c. Wiesner  reconstructs a close connection
between the use of a donkey or a mule in such scenes and Hephaistos’ signiicance for
the working group of the smiths, since a god protecting a lower class cannot be visually
 joannis mylonopoulos

Dionysos is additionally symbolised by Hephaistos holding a deinitely

Dionysian attribute like the kantharos or the thyrsos.40
In an almost analogous way Hermes is characterised as a herald
through his kerykeion,41 and Artemis, Apollon, but also Herakles are
shown as hunters of both animals and humans holding bow and arrows.42
Similar is also the connection of Asklepios with the snake43 and of
Aphrodite with the iynx.44 he aforementioned objects and animals clear-
ly refer to speciic human activities. On the contrary, Poseidon’s trident
and Zeus’s thunderbolt have no equivalent in every day human activ-
ities.45 hey symbolise, instead, the power over elementary forces of
nature that could destroy a city.46

Attributes as signs of mythical narratives

hose attributes that seem to visualise very concrete moments in myth
certainly are both in their meaning and function more diferentiated
when compared to the aforementioned and universally known interre-

connected with horses. It should be said, though, that owning a donkey or a mule already
puts one into the middle class. Lower classes could not aford donkeys.
40 Brommer , – pl. . and .; Isler-Kerényi , –, but see also –

for a more general consideration of the motif of the mule rider in association with satyrs;
Isler-Kerényi , .
41 On Hermes see in general Zanker  and Siebert ; for the possible signii-

cance of the kerykeion as a commemorative symbol of the Greek victory over the Persians
at Mycale, see Knauer , –.
42 Among gods and heroes, Herakles is perhaps the one igure with the most extensive

iconographic variability in the weapons he uses (sword, club, bow and arrows, trident,
his own hands). He actively uses bow and arrows mainly against the Stymphalian birds
and Geryoneus, see Brize ; Kaeser ,  ig. .; Brinkmann b, ig. .. In
the east pediment of the Aphaia temple on Aigina, Herakles is also depicted as an archer.
On an Apulian volute-crater in Ruvo, Herakles is depicted wearing a winged hracian
helmet and holding a shield, Sichtermann , – no. . However, the hero can be
securely identiied, for all his usual attributes (Nemean lion’s skin, club, bow, and quiver)
are shown lying on the ground in front of the hero.
43 Schouten , –; Holtzmann .
44 On the iynx as a small bronze wheel used in love magic, see Gow ; Pirenne-

Delforge ; Graf , –; Pironti , –. Turner , – clearly
demonstrates that the bird iynx (wryneck) accompanies Aphrodite in several scenes on
South Italian vases. In addition, Turner makes a strong case for the identiication of the
isolated female heads on the same category of vases accompanied by a bird (most probably
an iynx) with Aphrodite.
45 Mylonopoulos , –.
46 For example, for Libanios (Or. .) drought and earthquake were the most severe

dangers for the existence of a city, and therefore Zeus and Poseidon were the most
venerated divinities.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

lations between igures of cult or mythology and speciic objects or ani-

mals. he most prominent example is the Nemean lion’s skin, which
besides the club is the most personal attribute for the characterisation
of Herakles and constitutes an eternal memory of the very irst labour of
the Panhellenic hero.47 Even in scenes that focus on more serene aspects
of Herakles’ personality such as the hero’s visit in the garden of the Hes-
perides, the lion skin remains omnipresent. Especially in red igure ren-
derings of the scenes, Herakles is oten depicted if not wearing the lion’s
skin, then at least sitting on it.48 In such an iconographic context, it
becomes very clear that the lion’s skin is almost used as a part of Her-
akles’ physique and cannot in any way be associated with the concrete
topic of the mythological narrative. he lion’s skin—an integral part of
the hero’s mythological past—becomes for Herakles what the horns are
for Pan or the wings for Eros: an extension of his bodily presence; the
possibly most glorious incident in the hero’s life is transformed into an
almost physical part of himself. In this sense, one could compare the
connection between the lion’s skin and Herakles with the one between
Athena and the aegis or the gorgoneion. However, in Athena’s case the two
attributes are gits, since the goddess did not have to struggle in order to
obtain them, while Herakles is actually the “creator” of his own attribute,
although his mythological past was indeed heteronomous. Moreover, the
club was also made by Herakles himself and does not represent a divine
git to the hero, so that Herakles owes the genesis of his two most impor-
tant attributes to his own eforts.49

47 he earliest depiction of Herakles wearing the lion’s skin seems to be on a Late

Protokorinthian alabastron (Florence, Mus.Arch. inv. no. ), but a bronze relief
found in the Heraion of Samos in  and dated around  bce shows the hero for
the irst time in Greek art with his head actually covered by the lion’s head, Brize ,
.
48 See, for example, Kokkorou-Arewras , – no.  (Herakles wearing the

lion’s skin in the garden of the Hesperids), no.  (Herakles sitting on the lion’s skin).
here are of course depictions of Herakles sitting on a cloak with the lion’s skin being
totally absent (no. ).
49 According to authors such as heokritos (Idyll. .–: τ7 μν α!τ7ς .π7

ζαRω Ελικνι ε.ρ;ν σ ν πυκινEDσιν 5λοσχερς ?σπασα 9"ζαις), Pseudo-Apollodoros

(Bibl. ..: 9παλον μν γ:ρ α!τ7ς ?τεμεν κ Νεμας), or Pausanias (..: τ7ν
δ Ηρακλα λγουσιν νευρντα τ7ν πρ7ς τED Σαρων"δι κτινον π7 το1του τεμε$ν
9παλον), Herakles made his club by himself. On the contrary, Diodoros in an elaborate
list counts the club among other numerous gits Herakles received by the gods and
associates it with Hephaistos (..: τ"μησαν α!τ7ν δωρεα$ς ο,κε"αις _καστος τν
εν, KΑηνJ μν ππλRω, hΗφαιστος δ 9οπλRω κα6 Aρακι). Compared to the lion’s
skin, the club seems to be even more closely connected with Herakles. For example, on
a red igure hydria in London (BM E , ca.  bce), the young, beardless Herakles
 joannis mylonopoulos

Furthermore, a group of cult and mythological igures is closely asso-

ciated with the dolphin, without however being part of the maritime
thiasos of Poseidon. he dolphin represents a very speciic moment
in the mythological vita of these igures. he dead bodies of Melik-
ertes / Palaimon, Hermias, and Hesiod are brought to the shore by dol-
phins. he child Melikertes and the youth Hermias are represented lying
or standing on a dolphin on coins of Korinth and Iasos respectively.50
Pausanias describes at least three large-scale statue groups of Melikertes
on the back of the dolphin in Korinth, in the temple of Poseidon at Isth-
mia, and in the monopteros of Melikertes / Palaimon also at Isthmia.51 For
Melikertes, Hermias, and Hesiod the dolphin embodies the guarantee for
a proper burial; on the contrary, for the founder of Taras, Phalanthos, and
for the poet Arion riding the dolphin means salvation and this is exactly
what coins from Taras and Lesbos depict.52
“Borrowed” attributes or such that are presented to a divine or heroic
igure as a git can also be a point of reference to a speciic part of a igure’s
mythological background, as the above briely discussed case of Perseus
with his winged cap and boots demonstrates. It is certainly of importance
that in the mythological narration about the Lydian queen Omphale
and Herakles, the visualisation of the gender roles being exchanged
occurs through the handing over of the lion’s skin and the club,53 despite
the fact that Herakles is shown more oten as an archer than ighting
with the club.54 he crucial issue is that arrows and bow are not so

can be identiied only on the basis of the club, although the general mythological context
remains thanks to the apple tree clear (compare, however, the youth behind the standing
Hesperid who has a similarly muscular body and sits on a cloak of the same type like
Herakles), Kokkorou-Arewras ,  no. . On heseus and his club, see Gunnel
Ekroth’s article in the present volume.
50 Melikertes / Palaimon: Pache , –. Hermias: Vollkommer ,  no. ,

.
51 Mylonopoulos , – ig.  pl. XIII.
52 Arion: Schefold ,  ig.  and  ig. . Phalanthos: Vollkommer ,

–.
53 Vollkommer , –; Boardman , , –; Schulze ; Llewellyn-

Jones .
54 here are, however, some depictions showing Omphale not only with club and lion’s

skin, but also holding Herakles’ bow and arrows: a) Electron coin from Phokaia, –
 bce (Schulze ,  ig. .); b) intaglio in Naples (Mus.Naz. ), irst cen-
tury bce (Boardman ,  no. ). It is noteworthy that bronze clubs could be dedi-
cated to Herakles, as examples from Gela and Apollonia clearly demonstrate. Manganaro
 suggests that such votive oferings had an additional apotropaic character, since evi-
dence from Gela and Delos shows that Herakles was obviously considered the protector
of private houses.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

exclusively connected with Herakles to be used both in the mythological

narration and its visual version as a symbolic indicator of the enforced
transvestitism. Furthermore, the hero is forced to hand over exactly those
two attributes, which he made himself (the club) or had to struggle for
(the Nemean lion’s skin). In this way, Herakles is not only loosing two
invaluable weapons, but he is also denuded of his identity as a Greek hero.

Attributes as part of the physical appearance

Attributes that are actually an inseparable part of a igure’s physical
appearance constitute a special category. Winged igures are an easily
recognisable group,55 but a clear distinction among individual igures
like Eros and Pothos,56 Iris, Eris and Nike,57 Hypnos and hanatos58 is
in many cases possible only thanks to an inscription or a very distinct
attribute (for example the iynx for Eros). On the contrary, both Erinys
in her close visual association with snakes and Kairos with his Lysippian
iconography remain quite distinguishable. A white ground lekythos in
Athens (ig. ) reveals the iconographic ambiguity of visually closely
related igures: Hypnos and hanatos are presented carrying the body
of a dead youth in front of a tree instead of a stele.59 Both igures are
bearded and wear tunics. Since there are no inscriptions identifying the
igures, there is no way to distinguish between Hypnos and hanatos.
One could argue that the igure carrying the upper part of the body is
Hypnos, since he is oten presented in this position on white ground

55 Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss the iconography of the winged potnia
theron and her connection to Artemis.
56 Bažant a, : “in appearance, activity and attributes there is no diference

between Pothos and other companions of Aphrodite”. For example, on a red igure pyxis
in London (BM E, ca.  bce), Aphrodite is shown on a chariot drawn by two winged
youths identiied as Pothos and Hedylogos only thanks to the accompanying inscriptions,
Bažant a,  no. ; Borg ,  ig. .
57 höne ,  fn. : “sofern Attribute oder Kontexte im Bild fehlen, kann es sich

bei gelügelten weiblichen Wesen in der griechischen Kunst ebenso um andere Gestalten
handeln, allen voran um die Götterbotin Iris sowie um Eris, Eos, Nyx und mitunter
Artemis”.
58 Bažant b, –; Mintsi ; Giudice ; Oakley , –.
59 Mintsi ,  suggests that the replacement of the stele through a tree serves “à

souligner que la scène se déroule en plein air”. he visits at the grave are always taking
place outdoor, so that an additional accentuation through a tree would be redundant. I
believe that the tree enhances the heroic character of the dead already manifested through
the presence of Hypnos and hanatos. Trees or sacred groves are oten associated with
graves of heroes, Mylonopoulos b, –.
 joannis mylonopoulos

lekythoi,60 but on Euphronios’ famous red igure calyx-crater—formerly

in New York and now in the Villa Giulia in Rome—it is, on the contrary,
hanatos who is depicted carrying the upper part of Sarpedon’s dead
body.
here is a very small group of images that show a winged Athena.61
Normally, these images are seen in the context of the Homeric tradi-
tion, according to which Athena (and Apollon) are referred to as birds.
F. Dirlmeier is most probably right in his assumption that the Home-
ric passages do not describe actual divine transformations into birds,
but rather qualitative analogies between the goddess and the birds she is
compared to.62 One of the most intriguing images on a late-sixth century
Athenian black igure olpe in Paris (Cabinet des médailles, inv.no. ,
Leagros group) shows a winged Athena carefully carrying the dead body
of a soldier or a hero across the sea (ig. ).63 here can be little doubt
that the character is Athena, although the identiication of a compara-
ble igure on a Klazomenian sarcophagus with Athena is still considered
problematic.64 P. Demargne considered the Attic versions of a winged
Athena as a loan from the Ionian coast of Asia Minor employing argu-
ments based on the chronology of the evidence.65 However, according
to his own LIMC-catalogue, Attic and Ionian examples are roughly con-
temporary. As regards the winged Athena on the olpe in Paris, we are
dealing in my view not with a transfer of iconographic attitudes from
one artistic landscape to another, but moreover with the adaptation of a
motif very well known in the context of images related to death. Mytho-
logical igures such as Hypnos, hanatos, Sphinx, or the Sirens, which

60 Bažant b,  no.  (Hypnos is the igure with the red-brownish body) and

no.  (Hypnos is the youthful, beardless igure).

61 Demargne , – nos. –. However, no.  is the Klazomenian sarcoph-

agus discussed below, while both no.  and  are coins depicting a head wearing a
winged helmet and not a winged igure. On no. , Perseus is probably depicted.
62 Dirlmeier .
63 Anti , – and Kron , – understand the scene as a depiction

of Athena Aithyia carrying the body of the dead hero Pandion from Athens to Megara,
while Vermeule ,  takes the dead male to be a simple unknown warrior.
64 A winged igure with shield on a red igure Klazomenian sarcophagus (Berlin Inv.

) has been identiied with Athena, see Zahn , – ig. . he iconography is,
however, not quite distinctive, and the igure is not shown in the characteristic moment
of carrying away a deceased, thus, adopting the iconography of a death demon. Cook
,  pl. .  with n.  clearly opposes this identiication and considers winged
igures on Klazomenian sarcophagi as a generic “type from the artistic repertory” and
suggests that attributes such as spear, shield, or helmet were nothing more than symbols
of “a military ambit”.
65 Demargne , .
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

are associated with the journey to the underworld, are shown winged.66
Even the four unnamed igures on a late sixth century bce black ig-
ure amphora in Munich (Antikensammlungen, inv.no. ) depicted
pouring water into an oversized pithos besides Sisyphos with the stone
are winged.67 Furthermore, death-bringing monsters like Gorgo are also
shown winged. In order to explain the image on the Attic olpe no models
from Asia Minor are really needed, for the painter obviously had struc-
turally similar images from his own Athenian Bilderwelt already in his
mind.
Moreover, some of the wooden sarcophagi from Pantikapaion dating
to the late irst or early second century ce were decorated with plaster
decoration in the appliqué technique. One of the recurring topics was
the murder of the Niobids. Among the surviving igures, the so-called
pedagogue is inexplicably shown with wings.68 W. Geominy explained
the unusual depiction of the winged pedagogue suggesting that the wings
would visually imply that the igure had “visionary qualities”.69 H. Schulze
rightly rejected this identiication, but did not ofer an alternative.70
he winged igure that accompanies the murdered Niobids must be
explained as a death demon. It could be the case that in the narrative and
visual context of the Niobids’ murder on the wooden sarcophagi from
Pantikapaion, we are dealing with a visual bricolage of the igure of the
old pedagogue with the winged death demons.71
heriomorphism in cult is actually not an omnipresent traditional fea-
ture of Greek religion, and yet there are still some examples of theri-
omorphic or partly theriomorphic deities. he already mentioned Pan
and Acheloos worshipped all around Greece as well as the horse-headed
Demeter Melaina and the ish-bodied Eurynome with their cult statues in

66 Vermeule , –. In my view, the author overemphasises the erotic conno-
tations in such scenes. See also Vollkommer  and Tsiafakis , –.
67 Keuls , – ig.  identiies the winged igures with souls, with eidola such

as shown lying over the heads of deceased persons on white ground lekythoi. I follow,
however, the interpretation of Vermeule , –. who sees in these igures winged
death demons.
68 Pinelli – Wasowicz , –.
69 Geominy , .
70 Schulze , .
71 On so-called Roman Endymion sarcophagi, the winged igure pouring a potion on

the sleeping Endymion is sometimes of the same iconographic type like the winged ped-
agogue on the wooden sarcophagi from Pantikapaion. he igure is usually interpreted as
Hypnos or a Hypnos-like creature. See, for example, the sarcophagus in he Getty Villa
(inv. no. .AA.: True , ).
 joannis mylonopoulos

Phigaleia in Arcadia are some of those instances of theriomorphic divine

igures that remain more or less outsiders until divinities like the Egyp-
tian Anubis or the amalgamated Abraxas become part of the Graeco-
Roman religious koine.72

Attributes and “family” connections

Attributes were also used in order to visually express interconnections
between individual igures belonging to a clearly deined group, for
mythical and divine igures did not exist in isolation: the use of common
attributes expressed this idea of togetherness. In this respect, the thiasoi
of Dionysos and Poseidon are a case to the point.73 Satyrs and maenads
are clearly connected with Dionysos through the holding of the thyrsos
or a kantharos. As it has been stressed above, Hephaistos—deinitely
not a member of the Dionysian thiasos—can still be depicted with a
kantharos, if the context requests an accentuation of the connection
between the two divinities. According to Pausanias, the statue of Zeus
Philios in Megalopolis made by Polykleitos portrayed the god seated
in a throne and holding a drinking bowl and a thyrsos, two clearly
Dionysian attributes. It remains unclear whether the attributes expressed
the family bonds between Zeus and Dionysos or a local visual and
religious conception of Zeus.74
Poseidon’s associates are also shown with attributes normally related
with this god. In imagery, Amphitrite remains either without any charac-
terisation through attributes and becomes recognisable only on the basis
of being depicted together with Poseidon or she acquires attributes that

72 In this respect, a small group of seal impressions found on Delos is very character-

istic of the imaginative attitude towards the visual constructions of the divine during the
Hellenistic period: on these impressions Eros is depicted with an anthropomorphic upper
part and a lower part in form of a scorpion, Stampolidis , – pl. XLVIII.-
XLIX.. Already during the Archaic period Cypriote limestone igurines of a ram-headed
male deity sitting on a throne were dedicated in sanctuaries in Ialysos, Knidos, Lindos,
Miletos, and Samos, Mylonopoulos a, –. On the so-called snake-legged god
and his possible association with Judaism, see Nagy .
73 Barringer , – traces some intriguing interconnections between the

Dionysian and the marine thiasoi.

74 Paus. ..: το περιβλου δ στιν ντ7ς Φιλ"ου Δι7ς νας, Πολυκλε"του μν

το KΑργε"ου τ7 *γαλμα, Διον1σRω δ μφερς· κορνο" τε γ:ρ τ: .ποδ)ματ στιν

α!τR κα6 ?χει τED χειρ6 ?κπωμα, τED δ 0τρHα 1ρσον (the reference to Polykleitos is a clear
indication that the statue antedates the foundation of Megalopolis and that it was brought
to the city from another Arcadian site, so that the unusual iconography of the statue
cannot be possibly explained in terms of a Late Classical or Hellenistic experimental new
“creation”).
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

are deinitely Poseidonian like the dolphin or a ish (perhaps a tuna).75

However, she is never shown holding the trident.76 Figures like Nereus,
the Nereids, hetis, Triton and the Tritons, the rare depicted igure of the
Halios Geron, and even a sea monster like Skylla are shown holding dol-
phins, ish, oars, or rudders.77 Some of these igures such as Nereus, the
Halios Geron, the Tritons are shown with the trident in their hands.78
Interestingly enough, Herakles is always depicted destroying Nereus’
house with a trident.79 Two fourth-century South Italian craters show
Skylla with a trident.80 here are also female igures associated with the
trident as demonstrated by two late Hellenistic gems showing Nereids.
Although it is really hard to tell for sure, I ind that the trident on the gems
is only shown in the background as a symbol of the Poseidonian presence
reminding us that the nymphs are part of the Poseidonian world.81 In the
speciic context of the Nereids and Poseidon’s visual symbol in the back-
ground, the trident could be compared in its function at least structurally
with the palm tree symbolising the birthplace of the Letoids.
Furthermore, a singular scene on a so-called Cabirion class skyphos
from the late ith century in Oxford (Ashmolean Museum, inv.no. V)
depicts Odysseus holding a trident and blown by the North Wind across
the sea (ig. ). Normally, the trident together with waves, amphorae,
and ish is interpreted as a visual element enhancing the maritime con-
text of the scene.82 However, it is noteworthy that Odysseus is not shown
wearing his typical hat, the pilos. Without the accompanying inscription
he could have been easily identiied with Poseidon. his is exactly the
point the vase painter wanted to make: Odysseus is not part of the mar-
itime thiasos of Poseidon, and yet he can bear the trident, since he is the

75 Kaempf-Dimitriadou , – no. . .  (dolphin) and no.  and 

(tuna).
76 he anonymous reviewer noted that the fact that Amphitrite as a female divinity is

not shown holding the trident—ater all either a weapon or a ishing instrument—should
not puzzle us. Even if gender could be indeed considered a parameter for Amphitrite’s
visual dissociation from the trident, the fact that even Aphrodite can be conceptualised
as a fully armed war-like divinity demonstrates that gender only cannot possibly explain
the complete separation of the trident as a symbol and attribute from Amphitrite.
77 Numerous examples can be easily found in the respective LIMC-volumes.
78 here are also some depictions of Zeus holding the trident, see for example Tiverios

,  no. .

79 Pipili ,  no. –.
80 Jentel , – no.  and .
81 Icard-Gianolio – Szabados ,  no.  and . On the contrary, the authors

note that the Nereids are actually holding the trident.

82 Vickers , .
 joannis mylonopoulos

only hero who has challenged the revengeful god and survived to tell the
story. We are dealing with an ironic comment on Poseidon’s powerless-
ness83 and the inscription guarantees that the viewer understands that
the male igure lying across the sea with the trident in his hand bears
a striking resemblance to Poseidon, but he is not the god! It is further
striking that on the other face of the vase, Odysseus wears his typical
pilos and no inscription accompanies the igure: the hero’s iconography
and the visual narrative, Kirke holding a skyphos in front of a loom,84
leave no room for misunderstandings. Obviously, artists used attributes
as an intellectual play that fulilled a similar function as the rare words
in Apollonios and Kallimachos or the atypical mythological allusions in
Lykophron. An unusual attribute could become the subject of discussion
among the participants in a symposion, while a cup full of wine was being
passed around from kline to kline. his reminds us that the presence of
attributes was connected with the type of object and with the contexts in
which this object was used. he example of the Cabirion class cup shows
that the study of attributes requires the approach of both the art historian
and the historian of cultural contexts.
Finally, more of a local Attic character is the tight connection between
Triptolemos and the tut of grain that primarily characterises Demeter. In
respect to Triptolemos, this attribute works both as a visual designation
of his role in spreading the expertise in agriculture and as a point of
interrelation between him and his protectress.85 In some rare instances
attributes can even visualise a blood relationship, like in the case of
Telephos shown wearing the lion skin just like his father Herakles in the
west pediment of the Athena Alea temple at Tegea. As A.F. Stewart has
already stressed, the Nemean lion’s skin can be seen in this context “as
an attribute of what one might call ‘aspiring Heraklids’ ” and Telephos is
certainly “the most heroic of the Heraklids and the most like his father”.86

83 Lowenstam ,  suggests that “Odysseus, as the model initiate appears in this

image emancipated from his former travails, indeed enjoying the privilege of those that
had harried him in the past”. For Lowenstam, the Kirke scene on the other side of the vase
symbolises the initiation to the mysteries of the Cabiric mysteries. He recognises in the
Odysseus-Boreas-scene the salvation that resulted from the initiation. he uniqueness
of the scene among the Cabirion class vases does not support the assumption that the
image of the huge bellied Odysseus lying over the sea holding a trident is an allusion to
salvation.
84 Moret .
85 On the iconography of Triptolemos, see Schwarz  and Hayashi .
86 Stewart , .
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

Divine images and the alleged speciicity of attributes

Almost none of the most commonly employed attributes can be con-

nected exclusively with a deity or a heroic igure. Even attributes that
are almost automatically connected with a divinity are used to charac-
terise igures with a totally diferent essence. his is due to the fact that
a great number of attributes are multifaceted.87 For example, the snake
in connection with Asklepios, Hygieia, or Amphiaraos visualises heal-
ing aspects, while on the contrary in connection with Gorgo, Erinys, or
the Phigaleian Demeter88 it certainly has a frightening efect. he exact
meaning of the snake accompanying the igures on the so-called Laco-
nian hero reliefs89 or in the representations of funerary banquets on grave
reliefs90 still remains a much-debated issue.
In addition, some attributes are so closely connected with speciic
aspects of everyday life that they can be used to signalise the existence
of exactly these aspects in the cultic or mythological personality of many
diferent gods and heroes. Musical instruments can admittedly have dif-
ferentiated meanings in various levels of understanding, but they basi-
cally remain what they simply are: devices to produce music. For exam-
ple, besides Apollon who as Mousagetes, Kitharodos, or Choragetes is
closely associated with music,91 several other divinities and mythologi-
cal igures can be depicted with a lyra or a kithara, foremost Orpheus,
but also Artemis, Athena, Herakles, Hermes, Cheiron, or Marsyas. Espe-
cially in the case of Herakles, the depiction of the hero playing music
must have reminded the viewer of Linos’ fate. Infuriated by his lack of

87 For a similarly critical approach to the signiicance of attributes as visual determi-

nants, see Metzger .

88 Both iconographically and iconologically, the statue of the Black Demeter in Phi-

galeia remains an intriguing example that perfectly reveals how innumerable the local
variations in the construction of the divine in ancient Greece really were. he wooden
statue was depicted seated on a stone (a possible reference to the agelastos petra in Eleu-
sis?) and the goddess had the head as well as the hair of a horse (a reference to her violation
by Poseidon), while several snakes and other beasts grew out of her head (a visual refer-
ence to Medusa and her association with Poseidon?). In her hands she held a dolphin
and a dove (references to Poseidon and Aphrodite?); Paus. ..: πεποιDσαι δ ο^τω
σφ"σι τ7 *γαλμα· καζεσαι μν π6 πτρHα, γυναικ6 δ οικναι τ*λλα πλBν κεφαλ)ν·
κεφαλBν δ κα6 κμην ε=χεν Cππου, κα6 δρακντων τε κα6 *λλων ηρ"ων ε,κνες προσ-
επεφ1κεσαν τED κεφαλED· χιτνα δ νεδδυτο κα6 ς *κρους το ς πδας· δελφ6ς δ
π6 τDς χειρ7ς Fν α!τED, περιστερ: δ 4 Iρνις π6 τED 0τρHα.
89 Hibler ; Salapata .
90 Fabricius , –.
91 See in general Flashar .
 joannis mylonopoulos

musical skills, Herakles murdered the unfortunate music teacher with

his lyre. Apollon playing music evidently was the visual exemplum of
a mousikos aner, while Herakles with the kithara or the lyre must have
been rather paradoxical, particularly since in most scenes he was shown
with his typical attributes that deinitely have nothing to do with musical
skills.92 Nevertheless, in the aedes Herculis Musarum in Rome a statue
group showed Herakles with the lyre accompanied by the nine Muses.
F. Nobilior had brought the statues to Rome from Ambrakia in  bce.93
he allegedly exclusive association of Hermes with the kerykeion can
be viewed under a diferent light, as soon as the iconography of igures
like Iris or Nike comes into mind, given that they were also shown
holding the kerykeion.94 Moreover, the scene of four winged youths (two
youths at a gaming-board under each handle) on an eye-cup dating
to  bce (Copenhagen, Nat.Mus. ) remains singular. hey all
hold a kerykeion. E. Simon’s identiication of the igures with Oneiroi,
a further group of divine heralds, appears compelling.95 More puzzling is
the depiction of ten older men all of them with a kerykeion in their hands
on an amphora in Rome dating about  bce.96

92 Schauenburg  demonstrated that the vast majority of such scenes can be

dated between  and . He also follows Boardman’s view that Herakles playing the
kithara and far more infrequently the lyra should be associated with musical contests
that Peisistratos introduced into the Panathenaea. See also Shapiro , – and
Schmölder-Veit .
93 Ritter , –. It is unclear whether Herakles and the Muses belonged to the

same statue group already in Ambrakia. Since Plinius (Nat.hist. .) only refers to
the Muses as part of the Ambrakian booty, there is a slight probability that the group
was indeed Nobilior’s reinvention for the Roman viewers. Ritter, however, argues for the
Greek origins of the constellation Herakles and the Muses.
94 he kerykeion as an attribute can be used both to characterise the general function

of a herold (huk. .: ?δοξεν οGν α!το$ς *νδρας ς κελ)τιον σβιβσαντας *νευ
κηρυκε"ου προσπμψαι το$ς KΑηνα"οις κα6 πε$ραν ποι)σασαι. πμψαντς τε ?λεγον
τοιδε) and to signalise a victory (Hdt. .: KΙο σι δ σφι φ)μη τε σπτατο ς τ7
στρατπεδον πJν κα6 κηρυκ)ιον φνη π6 τDς κυματωγDς κε"μενον· 4 δ φ)μη διDλ
σφι >δε, (ς ο% hΕλληνες τBν Μαρδον"ου στρατιBν νικRεν ν Βοιωτο$σι μαχμενοι). In
both cases the delivery of a message is the central aspect, but Nike with the kerykeion
concretely delivers a message about victory. On Nike holding a kerykeion, see höne ,
. –.  (höne speculates that Iris was using the kerykeion as the gods’ herald, while
Nike with the kerykeion was primarily a mediator between humans and gods); on Iris with
a kerykeion, see Kossatz-Deissmann , esp.  no.  (Iris holds a kerykeion and is
identiied thanks to an inscription).
95 Simon a,  no. . Vermeule ,  identiies the igures as winged messen-

gers associated with death and sees in the stafs they are holding magic wands.
96 Halm-Tisserant – Siebert , – no.  are probably right in suggesting that

the kerykeion is used here as a sceptre, therefore symbolising power and not a connection
with Hermes and his dominion.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

Demeter, Persephone/Kore, and Hekate can be shown with torches in

their hands, while Artemis Phosphoros is conceptualised as a light bearer
through both her epiclesis and the visual construction of her nature.97
Finally, the cornucopia is a far too common attribute to be discussed
here.98 Compared with the widespread use of the epiclesis Hippios/Hip-
pia for Poseidon, Athena, Hera, or Ares the depiction of divinities as rid-
ers is indeed very rare. Only Poseidon is explicitly depicted as a rider on
the famous Pelike from Policoro/Herakleia dating to the end of the ith
century bce.99 As a matter of fact, Poseidon is shown very oten riding a
dolphin, a sea horse, a sea monster, a bull, and even a hippalektrion.100

If attributes are indeed so polyvalent, is there any possibility to detect

at least some that exclusively characterise a single divinity? he already
mentioned case of Hephaistos and his pincer tongs seems to constitute an
exclusive interrelation between attribute and divine igure. he connec-
tion between Zeus and the thunderbolt appears to be a further example
of an exclusive use of an attribute in order to distinguish and characterise
a deity.101
he third example could have been Athena’s aegis with gorgoneion,
but there are at least two other divinities depicted wearing the aegis.102
Besides a gigantomachy scene on an amphora from Caere showing Zeus
holding an aegis-shield,103 the type of Jupiter Aigiochos presents the god
with an aegis loosely thrown over his let shoulder and the raised let
arm.104 However, neither the amphora from Caere nor the statue type of

97 Kahil , – no. – and . A late-fourth-century votive relief in

Athens (National Museum ) shows Artemis as huntress accompanied by a dog, but
holding in both hands torches, Kaltsas ,  no. .
98 Bemmann .
99 Simon ,  ig. . In depictions of the Gigantomachy on late-ith-century

vases, Poseidon is oten shown as a rider (see, for example, the amphora by the Suessula
painter in the Louvre, MNB )
100 Simon b, – no. –.
101 From the seventh and especially from the sixth century onwards the main type

of Zeus depicts the god in the habitus of Keraunios: standing, nude, and holding the
thunderbolt, see Tiverios , –.
102 Marx ,  n.  stresses that “Athena is the only divine being who ever wears

the aegis”, although she rightly refers to those cases in the Homeric poems, where Zeus
or Apollon also make use of the aegis. More diferentiated in Hartswick ,  with
n. : “it was a very speciic attribute not commonly transferred to others”.
103 Monumenti inediti pubblicati dall’instituto di corrispondenza archeologica  / ,

Rome –, pl. . It is perhaps of signiicance that Athena who is also depicted
ighting against Enkelados is not wearing the aegis.
104 Canciani , – no. .
 joannis mylonopoulos

Jupiter Aigiochos shows Zeus actually wearing the aegis around his neck
and covering the chest area and the upper part of the abdomen (ig. ). In
 a life-size marble statue of an apparently young god was excavated
in Aigion on the Peloponnese (ig. ). he god is shown naked except for
the aegis and the gorgoneion covering most of the upper part of his body.
Just on the basis of the aegis the statue was identiied in a preliminary
publication with Zeus, especially since, besides Athena, he is the only
divinity to be so closely connected through myth with the aegis.105 In
Aigion, Zeus was prominently honoured as Zeus Pais.106 Alternatively,
the statue could have been a theomorphic representation of a Roman
emperor in the habitus of a locally conceived Zeus Aigiochos.107
Almost inexplicable is, however, the scene on a black igure amphora
from the end of the sixth century bce in the British Museum (inv. no.
B) depicting a male and a female in a quadriga (ig. ). he female
wears the aegis, so that an identiication with Athena based exclusively on
the iconographic evidence provided by this speciic attribute would have
been the next thing to suggest. Her male companion would have been
most probably Poseidon.108 Inscriptions in genitive109 accompany both
igures and conirm that the male igure in indeed Poseidon,110 but the
painter himself identiies the female deity with Aphrodite.111 Such a scene
on a vase combining already at the end of the sixth century Poseidon

105 Petsas .

106 Osanna , –.
107 On theomorphic representations of Roman emperors in general, see recently Hallett

, –. Karanastassi ,  no.  ofered three possible identiications of the
statue with Zeus, the hero Aigaion, or an unknown emperor. I would like to exclude the
hypothesis that the statue depicted the local hero Aigaion.
108 On the close connection between Poseidon and Athena, see Mylonopoulos ,

–.
109 On an Athenian red-igure cup by the Euaion painter (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale

), an inscription accompanying a female igure holding a shat of wheat over an altar
reads “Demetros”. Similarly, an inscription reading “[K]ores” appears to the right of a
female igure pouring a libation over one of two altars on a white-ground kylix by the
Villa Giulia painter. Are we dealing with priestesses “belonging” to the deities referred to
in genitive, as suggested by J. Connelly (Connelly , –)? Or, do the inscriptions
specify that the viewer is confronted with images of a deity and not the deity herself, thus
making a rare ontological distinction?
110 Simon b, – no. . Simon suggests that the scene could have depicted

the two divinities on their way to rescue Aeneas.

111 An extraordinary case of a very close interconnection between Poseidon and Aph-

rodite dates to the Hellenistic period: in the hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes, Demetrios
is addressed as the son of Aphrodite and the mighty Poseidon, Athen. .e: e το
κρατ"στου πα$ Ποσειδνος, χα$ρε, κφροδ"της.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

with Aphrodite remains singular; an Aphrodite wearing the aegis of

Athena is to my best knowledge unparalleled.112 he relevant volume
of the CVA suggests an error in the inscription, the painter wanted to
write Amphitrites instead of Aphrodites.113 U. Heimberg goes further and
suggests that the painter had Amphitrite in mind, drew Athena, and
wrote Aphrodite.114
hose scholars, who accept the identiication of the female igure
with Aphrodite, recognise in the divine couple the patrons of Korinthia:
Poseidon Isthmios and Aphrodite on the Akrokorinth.115 But why would
an Athenian painter depict such a scene inspired by the Korinthian
patheon? I believe that this scene refers to an Athenian situation and
shows Aphrodite Pandemos, whose cult was established according to
Pausanias by heseus,116 and Poseidon, the divine father of the hero.117
he aegis constitutes a cunning visual reference to the military and
political aspects of the goddess.118 On the one hand, by employing such
an iconography, the painter leaves no doubt that this Aphrodite has
nothing to do with love. On the other hand, by using an inscription, he
demonstrates that he was perfectly aware of a possible misunderstanding
by the viewers.119

112 Villing , – ig.  and  refer to fragments of a ith century Korinthian

plate with the depiction of a goddess wearing a helmet and the aegis, whom I would
identify with Athena. Villing also discusses a fragment of a sixth-century Korinthian
pyxis with the depiction of Hera (accompanied by an inscription) wearing a garment
similar to an aegis. It seems to me that the garment is simply decorated with a ish
scale pattern. here are, of course, representations of Aphrodite in the context of the
Gigantomachy that show her fully armed and aggressively ighting in a quite Athena-
like manner. However, in these cases the narrative context explains the habitus, see, for
example, Shapiro ,  pl. c.
113 CVA Great Britain , : “but Aphrodite here is probably a mistake for Amphitrite”.

Flemberg ,  also argues for the identiication of the female igure with Amphitrite
and considers the inscription a mistake of the painter.
114 Heimberg , : “der Maler also möglicherweise sogar Amphitrite meinte,

Athena malte und Aphrodite schrieb”.

115 Blomberg , –. However, the author does not even refer to the iconographic

“anomaly” of an Aphrodite wearing an aegis.

116 Paus. ... According to a diferent tradition, Solon established the cult of Aph-

rodite Pandemos.
117 On the cult of Aphrodite Pandemos in Athens, see Pirenne-Delforge , –.
118 On Aphrodite’s political aspects, see Pirenne-Delforge , –; on the god-

dess’ military aspects, see most recently Pironti , –.

119 To my best knowledge Cook ,  is the only scholar who considered the pos-

sibility that the goddess depicted on the amphora could have been Aphrodite Pandemos:
“Aphrodite Pandemos was conceived as a goddess riding on a goat, which animal has in
this connection a phallic signiicance. Possibly this is a clue to the amphora in the British
 joannis mylonopoulos

Generic or absent attributes

Despite all uncertainties, the images discussed so far are thanks to the
context or the attributes or both explicable, if not always distinguishable.
here is, however, a number of divine or heroic igures that have either no
or very general attributes, so that their identiication can sometimes be
even impossible. In this respect, some early depictions of the judgement
of Paris are perhaps the most striking case. Although we are perfectly
aware of the mythological context and the concrete depicted moment,
it is absolutely impossible to distinguish between the three goddesses.120
Was this perhaps the aim of the painters? Did they wish to depict that
Paris’ decision had in fact nothing to do with the physical appearance of
the three goddesses?
In addition, Hades, Hestia, or Ares certainly belong to those divini-
ties that are not depicted frequently. In the case of Hades the lack of
attributes complicates his secure identiication that in most cases can be
achieved only thanks to an accompanying inscription or the context.121
Ares normally shown as a hoplite can be mistaken for a mortal, if he
is not identiied beyond any doubt through an accompanying inscrip-
tion.122 We are confronted with the same interpretive problems when it
comes to igures like Maia, Leto, Hygieia and even Hera. Especially the

Museum (Cat. of b.-f. Vases B ) which represents Poseidon riding in a quadriga with
‘Aphrodite,’ who wears an aegis”. Although I am convinced that Cook was right in iden-
tifying the goddess with Aphrodite Pandemos, I disagree with the quite simplistic expla-
nation he ofers for this unique association of Aphrodite with the aegis. Pirenne-Delforge
, – argues for a cult of Aphrodite Epitragia in Athens, who was certainly shown
sitting on a he-goat. It was perhaps Skopas who connected the iconography of Aphrodite
Epitragia with the cult of Aphrodite Pandemos: a bronze statue of an Aphrodite sitting on
a he-goat he created for the people of Elis was called by the worshippers Aphrodite Pan-
demos, Paus. ... here is no indication that the iconography of Aphrodite Pandemos
before the Eleian statue of Skopas was associated with the motif of the goddess sitting on
a he-goat.
120 Kossatz-Deissmann ,  no. – and –.
121 Probably the earliest image of Hades on a black igure kylix (London, BM B,

so-called Xenokles painter,  /  bce) presents Hades without any attributes. his is
all the more surprising, since he is depicted with Poseidon and Zeus, who are indeed
shown holding their respective attributes, the trident and the thunderbolt, Lindner ,
 no.  and –. On the contrary, Hades-Plouton—when conceptualised in an
Eleusinian narrative context as the husband of Persephone—is oten depicted holding a
cornucopia, Bemmann , –.
122 Bruneau , – refers to only three cases, in which Ares is securely identi-

ied on the basis of an inscription. In most cases, it is the narrative context and not Ares’
iconographical individuality that elucidates his presence in a scene.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

case of Hera is indeed a puzzling one, for she is normally shown with
a stephane and sceptre. However, both attributes can be connected with
other female deities and even humans of royal or priestly status.123 In
most cases the context (for example Hera sitting besides Zeus) allows a
secure identiication. It is interesting that on the famous white ground
kylix in Munich by the Sabourof Painter dating around – bce an
inscription accompanies Hera (ig.  and ).124 Did the painter want to
demonstrate that he was a person capable to write or did he want to play
it safe and avoid any misunderstandings about the exact identiication of
his masterly painted igure? he famous white ground kylix by the Villa
Giulia Painter in New York (MMA, ..) brings to light the visual
ambiguity of Hera’s imagery, since the standing female holding a scep-
tre and a phiale at an altar has been identiied on equally well-founded
arguments both as Hera and as a priestess (ig. ).125
Besides this more or less athenocentric series of images, a bronze
statue (about  cm high with its plinth) dating to the second half of the
sixth century bce and found next to the central stone pedestal inside a
Doric temple near the ancient city of Metropolis in southwest hessaly126
demonstrates the ambiguity of attributes in the process of the visual
construction of the divine in an artistic environment outside Athens. he
igure wears a conical helmet, a bell cuirass, as well as greaves. Originally
it held weapons in both hands, that are now lost, although remains of
an object resembling a spear were found near the pedestal. he general
iconography of a hoplite visualised through the martial attributes would
suggest that we are dealing with a temple for Ares, but inscriptions
from the site attest beyond any doubt that the temple was dedicated to
Apollon.127 he most famous cult statue of Apollon showing him with
helmet, spear, and bow was that of Apollon Amyklaios outside Sparta
as depicted on Imperial coins of Lakedaimon.128 he above mentioned

123 Kossatz-Deissmann , –. On priests and priestesses holding a sceptre as

a sign of their status, see most recently Connelly , –.
124 Wehgartner , – pl. I.
125 Connelly , – ig. ..
126 AR –, –; –, ; –, ; –, ; –,

.
127 Intzesiloglou .
128 Lambrinudakis et al. ,  no. a–c and : “ . . . unkanonische Darstellungen

eines bekleideten und bewafneten Apollon überliefert, in denen wohl noch frühe lokale,
noch nicht ganz integrierte Komponenten des göttlichen Wesens verharren”. Although
such a statement reveals a quasi evolutionist approach, it stresses, nevertheless, the
importance of local visual expressions of the divine.
 joannis mylonopoulos

unique and indeed inexplicable statue of Zeus Philios belongs to the same
category of iconographically puzzling images. It is obvious that variations
based on local religious conceptions deinitely played an important role
in the concrete use of attributes and in a more general context in the
visual constructions of the divine.

Finally, a grave relief from Sardis (Istanbul, Archaeological Museum,

inv. no. ) dating to the mid-second century bce constitutes both
a magniicent example for the use of attributes in a sepulchral context
and a striking case for the interplay between language and image.129
he stepanephoros Menophila, the daughter of Hermagenes, is shown
in a naiskos-like stele accompanied by two much smaller mourning
female igures, certainly servants (ig. ). Directly above the image area
an incised olive branch is shown, while behind the head of Menophila
a basket, a book roll, and a lily are depicted. To the right of the ig-
ure the letter A is incised. he monument leaves no room for misin-
terpretations or over-interpretations, since the accompanying epigram
(ig. ) not only meticulously explains the image, but furthermore rein-
forces the power of the visual signs by explicitly referring to them in
words:130

5 δDμος Μηνοφ"λαν Ερμαγνου he demos honoured Menophila

daughter of Hermagenes
(wreath)
(niche)
κομψ:ν κα6 χαρ"εσσα πτρος δε"κνυσι. he graceful stone shows a subtle person.
τ"ς ντ"; Who is she?
Μουσν μαν1ει γρμματαo Μηνοφ"λαν. he letters of the Muses are revealing it:
τε δK _νεκK ν στλHα γλυπτ7ν κρ"νον 8δ It’s Menophila.
κα6 *λφα Why are a lily and an A, a book and a
β1βλος κα6 τλαρος, το$ς δK ?(π)ι κα6 basket and above them a crown engraved
στφανος; – on the stone?

129 Phul – Möbius ,  no.  pl. . On the interplay between word and image,

see more generally Vian ; Goldhill – Osborne ; Rutter – Sparkes . Especially
on ekphrasis, see Elsner .
130 Robinson , –; Buckler – Robinson , – no. ; Peek ,

– no.  and ; Merkelbach – Stauber , –; see also the similar
epigram in Anth. Pal. ..–.
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

F σοφ"α‹μ› μν β"βλος, 5 δK αG περ6 κρατ6 he book is the wisdom, the crown bore
φορηε"ς above the head stands for the high oice
ρχ:ν μαν1ει, μουνογναν δ τ7 _ν, (stephanephoros), the A (number one)
ε!τκτου δK ρετJς τλαρος μνυμα, τ7 for being an only child, the basket for
δK *νος the well-ordered virtue, and the blossom
τ:ν κμν, δα"μων tντινK λη"σατο. – for the youth’s bloom stolen away by the
κο1φα τοι κνις μφ6 πλοι τοιEDδε daemon. he earth around you may it be
ανο1σEη. light, for you who died in this likeness.
α3, *γονοι δ γονε$ς, το$ς ?λιπες δκρυα. Alas, the parents, you let them only tears
and they have no children no more!

his extraordinary grave monument set up for the young Menophila,

commissioned by the people of Sardis, constitutes an outstanding com-
bination of private and public aspects of the deceased’s personality.131
Both in script and image the grave stele reveals in an unmistakable,
obvious, and quite emotional way the most important characteristics
of the deceased: intelligence, virtue, and successful public service as a
stephanephoros.132 At the same time the viewer receives the visual and
cognitive information that Menophila was young and the only child
of her parents.133 he end of the epigram directly expresses the emo-
tional loss of the parents, visually expressed through the mourning ser-
vants. he most crucial information is visually ofered to the viewer via
the attributes. he late-fourth century grave stele of Antipatros from
Ashkelon found in the Kerameikos (Athens, NM )134 reveals a sim-
ilar approach towards the exegetic and almost literal interconnection
between word and image, although no attributes are involved.135

131 Pircher , –; Gutzwiller , –; Fantuzzi – Hunter , –.
132 Connely , –.
133 Compared to more usual attributes like the book scrolls, the lily and the alpha are

indeed uncommon, Robinson , . On the contrary, Fantuzzi – Hunter , 
suggest that “the inscription includes a caption for the igures, because these are igures
whose meaning is, for the most part, not the conventional one”. Admittedly, book scrolls,
for example, were usually a male symbol, so that a book scroll must have been indeed an
unconventional attribute for a female deceased. Nevertheless, the meaning of the symbol
remained the conventional one: a visual sign for wisdom and literacy.
134 Clairmont ,  (ca.  bce); Scholl ,  no.  (end of fourth cen-

tury bce); Kaltsas ,  no.  (second half of fourth century bce). On the contrary,
Stager , – dates the monument in the third century bce.
135 he relief shows a lion and a human being struggling with each other over the body

of the deceased that lies on a bed. he bow of a ship with high prow is depicted in the
background. A Graeco-Phoenician grave inscription states the name of the deceased,
Antipatros from Ashkelon, the son of Aphrodisios, and that of the man who set up the
grave monument, Damsalos from Sidon, the son of Domano. A Greek epigram below
the relief explicitly refers to the image (μηε6ς νρAπων αυμαζτω ε,κνα τ)νδε,
(ς περ6 μν με λων, περ6 δγ πριρ’ γκτετνυσται. Fλε γ:ρ ε,χρολων τμ:
 joannis mylonopoulos

he famous Hellenistic epigram of Poseidippos appears slightly divergent

from the quasi exegetic function of the epigrams on Menophila’s or
Antipatros’ grave stelai that remain very closely connected with the
images they were destined to accompany. he epigram elucidates some
of the features of the Kairos statue made by Lysippos, without, however,
functioning as a simple textual “prompter” for the comprehension of the
statue’s deeper meaning:136

Τ"ς, πεν 5 πλστης; – ΣικυAνιος – Who and whence your sculptor? – From
Ο[νομα δB τ"ς; – Λ1σιππος – Σ δ Sikyon – And his name? – Lysippos –
τ"ς; – Καιρ7ς 5 πανδαμτωρ – Τ"πτε And who are you? – Kairos that subdues
δ’ π’ *κρα ββηκας; – KΑε6 τροχω – all – Why do you go on tiptoe? – I’m
Τ" δ ταρσο ς ποσσ6ν ?χεις διφυε$ς; – always running – And why a pair of
hΙπταμ’ .πηνμιος – Χειρ6 δ δεξιτερED wings on your feet? – I ly with the
τ" φρεις ξυρν; – KΑνδρσι δε$γμα, (ς wind – And why do you hold a razor in
κμDς πσης +ξ1τερος τελω – Η your right hand? – As a sign to men, that
δ κμη τ" κατ’ Iψιν; – Υπαντισαντι I am sharper than the sharpest edge –
λαβσαι, νB Δ"α – Τξπιεν πρ7ς Your hair, why is it over your eyes? –
τ" φαλακρ: πλει; – Τ7ν γ:ρ tπαξ For anyone I meet to take me by the
πτηνο$σι παραρξαντ με ποσσ6ν forelock – And Heavens, why are you
ο[τις ?’ %με"ρων δρξεται ξπιεν – bald behind? – Because once I’ve raced
Το[νεχ’ 5 τεχν"της σε διπλασεν; – by someone with winged feet, he’ll never
ΕCνεκεν .μων, ξε$νε, κα6 ν προ1ροις grab me behind no matter how strong
Dκε διδασκαλ"ην. his desire – Why did the artist fashion
you? – For your sake, stranger, and set
me up on the porch as a lesson.

λων σπορσαιo λλ: φ"λοι τ’ `μυναν κα" μοι κτρισαν τφον ο^τηι, οwς ?ελον
φιλων, %ερJς π7 νη7ς ,ντεςo Φοιν"κην δ’ ?λιπον, τε$δε χον6 σμα κκρυνμαι) and
anticipates the puzzlement of an Athenian viewer right in its beginning. he sacred ship
of the epigram has been identiied with the one shown in the background, while the
man holding back the beast is most probably personifying the friends who protected
Antipatros. he lion (the λων or ε,χρολων of the epigram) has been interpreted either
as a literal reference to Antipatros’ cause of death: attacked and killed by a lion, or as a
death demon (Clairmont , –). I consider Stagers interpretation of the lion as
a theriomorphic representation of Aphrodite Ourania / Astarte Shemayim (Stager ,
–) most unconvincing. In my view, the lion symbolises Antipatros’ deadly fate,
but is more than a simple death demon; it represents the threat that for some reasons the
body could have got lost (a shipwreck?) and thus could not have been buried properly.
he friends of Antipatros—obviously—did not win the battle over Antipatros’ death, but,
as stated in the epigram, protected the body, brought it to Athens and gave it a proper
burial. I think that the ship in the background points to a shipwreck as the cause of
Antipatros’ death and that the “architecture” of the scene (Antipatros’ body, the lion, and
the lion’s opponent create a triangle) was purposefully chosen, so as to match the well-
known heroic scenes of two soldiers or mythical heroes ighting over a dead body in the
battleield.
136 Anthologia Graeca .. he lengthiest description of the statue ofers the fourth

century ce author Kallistratos in his sixth ekphrasis.

 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

Several literary sources between the third century bce and the twelth
century ce present descriptions of the celebrated statue,137 but they don’t
ofer a completely congruent picture of the Lysippian original, as has
been repeatedly stressed.138 For example, the scales, which are a common
feature of the visual representations of Kairos are only referred to by the
fourth-century-ce orator Himerios.139 he beardless youthfulness of the
igure is stressed only by Kallistratos and Himerios,140 while the visual
tradition preserved both beardless and bearded igures of Kairos.141 Only
the winged feet, the razor, the long hair at the front, and the baldness at
the back of the head are common points of reference between the two
categories of sources.142 Regardless of the question about the reliability
of our literary and iconographic evidence as well as the primacy of the
visual over the textual sources or vice versa, all our evidence clearly
demonstrates that such a complex igure like the Lysippian Kairos could
only be visually constructed thanks to and based on an accumulation
of various sophisticated attributes. Even if the ancient and byzantine
Greek literary discourse does not refer to every single attribute present in
the preserved archaeological sources, it does, nevertheless, illustrate how
intensively people would think about the use and meaning of attributes.

Conclusions

Attributes are important agents of communication and they canalise the

viewer’s visual perception of the divine in a particular direction, without
entirely conining it. hanks to the attributes, divine and heroic images
are deinitely not an empty surface, upon which every single viewer can
independently project his or her own conception of the divine. Attributes

137 Lehmann – Kansteiner , – present the relevant literary sources with a

German translation.
138 Borg , : “keine der insgesamt sieben literarischen Beschreibungen entspricht

auch nur einer anderen genau”.

139 Himer. Or. .: ζυγR τBν λαι:ν πχοντα. Allan , – recognises close

semantic similarities between Kairos and Hermes that were visually expressed through
common attributes like the wings on their feet or the scales. On Hermes holding scales,
see Zanker , –.
140 Kallistr. Statuarum descriptiones .: α% παρεια6 δ α!το ε,ς *νος ρευμεναι

νεοτ)σιον (ρα"ζοντο πιβλλουσαι το$ς Iμμασιν nπαλ7ν ρ1ημα; Himer. Or. .:
ποιε$ πα$δα τ7 ε=δος nβρν.
141 Ensoli ; Moreno .
142 Zaccaria Ruggiu , –.
 joannis mylonopoulos

explain the essence and allude to the properties of a igure, they make it
recognisable, distinguishable, or at least they attempt to do so. hey tell
a whole story without using thousand words. But still, attributes are not
always as precise as an epiclesis: Artemis Phosphoros can be depicted
bearing torches, but Poseidon Hippios is not exclusively shown riding a
horse, but in most cases holding a trident. And yet, even the ambiguity or
the absence, for that matter, of attributes can be and was actually applied
as a meaningful and conscious artistic means. he early depictions of
Paris’ judgement that present the three goddesses in a generic manner
without any individual characteristics make a point that goes beyond the
simple rendering of a myth: they visually comment on Paris’ decision
making, for neither the goddesses’ physical appearance nor their gits
would have made any diference. he decision was already taken by a
power that is not even present, namely by Zeus. he scene of the woman
holding a sceptre and sacriicing on the kylix in New York (ig. ) plays
with its own ambiguity and invites the viewer to think about the identity
of the puzzling igure: is she Hera, is she a priestess, or is she a priestess
pretending to be Hera? he visual equation of Odysseus’ igure with
Poseidon on the Cabirion class cup in Oxford (ig. ) and the explicit
identiication of the igure as Odysseus through an inscription create and
dissolve ambiguity at the same time, and as a result, they challenge the
viewer to try and understand the artist’s motives. Attributes can be more
than simple signs of identiication, although their main purpose surely
was the deinition of a igure’s most important ontological features.
In the context of visual perception and communication between image
and viewer, attributes are an important and yet only one part of a whole
complex of visual strategies. he context remains the most fundamen-
tal parameter for identifying a divine igure: on vase paintings the co-
depicted igures, the broader mythological context of a scene delivers the
decisive clues for the identiication of a divinity that cannot be named
immediately on the basis of its attributes. Not every divine igure is as
easily distinguishable as Athena. In respect to statues centrally placed in
the middle of a temple’s cella, attributes were deinitely not necessary for
identifying the divinity in antiquity; every ancient visitor knew exactly
which temple he/she was actually visiting. Attributes were, however, in
this context the initial point for relecting upon the conception of the
divine: Why is Apollon Patroos on the Agora of Athens a mousikos aner?
Why is Apollon in the hessalian Metropolis a hoplite? Why does Deme-
ter in Phigaleia have a horse head, snakes instead of hair and holds a dol-
phin as well as a dove in her hands? Pausanias is once more one of the
 the use of attributes in ancient greek imagery 

most representative examples for someone visiting Greek temples and

thinking—at least in some occasions—about the various ways the divine
owners were represented in a speciic form. Poseidippos’ or Kallistratos’
intellectual engagement with the Lysippian Kairos or Loukian’s discus-
sion and perhaps even intellectual invention of Herakles Ogmios’ image
demonstrate that by the third century bce at the latest and even more
emphatically during the Imperial period a highly sophisticated discourse
was taking place that considered attributes not as visual products of myth
and cult, but as an allegorical artistic medium.
Finally, attributes are cultural constructs, with very diferent functions
in diferent periods. he Archaic korai and kouroi, which for the Lindi-
ans of the irst century ce would have been asamoi andriantes, indistin-
guishable and for this reason disturbing images, for the Archaic viewer
were agalmata, objects ofering aesthetic delight per se, a polyvalent visual
medium for the depiction of humans, heroes, and gods, and not a rid-
dle to be solved. For reasons we are still unable to comprehend, the
need to characterise divine images through attributes became increas-
ingly intense from the early ith century onwards. As soon as this pro-
cess started, there was no way back. In the Hellenistic period divine
images such as the Tyche of Antiocheia appear heavily overloaded with
attributes: every possible aspect needs to be explained and the images are
the visual product of concrete concepts leaving little room for ambigu-
ities, but not entirely excluding free associations. he point is that such
images have no mythological curriculum vitae, they have no past that can
be evoked with just one or two attributes. In this respect, they are much
alike Menophila. For a viewer passing by, Menophila was just another
deceased. he attributes and the epigram on her grave stele were the ele-
ments that provided all the signiicant information. hey made out of an
image an existing person.
However, in order to fully understand the modes of depicting a ig-
ure—either divine or human—a viewer had to know the cultural context
of the image and the local history of the place it stood. Otherwise, images
such as the youthful Zeus wearing the aegis and the gorgoneion in Aigion,
the hoplite-like Apollon in Metropolis, or the Dionysos-like Zeus in
Megalopolis would have remained unsolved visual puzzles, and the esprit
of the Cabirion class cup in Oxford (ig. ) or the metanarrative of the
early Paris’ judgement scenes would have gone unnoticed. One needed to
speak the same visual language with the images he or she was confronted
with.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aberson, M. . Temples votifs et butins de guerre dans la Rome républicaine,

Bibliotheca Helvetica romana , Rome.
Accame, S. . Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto,
Rome.
Ackerman, R. . he Myth and Ritual School: J.G. Frazer and the Cambridge
Ritualists, heorists of Myth, New York.
Acosta-Hughes, B. . Polyeideia: he Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic
Iambic Tradition, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London.
Acosta-Hughes, B. – Scodel, R. . “Aesop Poeta: Aesop and the Fable in
Callimachus’ Iambi”, in Callimachus II, ed. M.A. Harder – R.F. Regtuit –
G.C. Wakker, Leuven – Paris – Dudley, –.
Adamesteanu, D. . “ ‘Argoi Lithoi’ a Metaponto”, in Adriatica praehistorica
et antiqua, ed. G. Novak et al., Zagreb, –.
Aktseli, D. . Altäre in der archaischen und klassischen Kunst. Untersuchun-
gen zu Typologie und Ikonographie, Internationale Archäologie , Espel-
kamp.
al-Radi, S. . Phlamoudhi Vounari—A Sanctuary Site in Cyprus, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology , Göteborg.
Albers, G. . Spätmykenische Stadtheiligtümer. Systematische Analyse und
vergleichende Auswertung der archäologischen Befunde, British Archaeological
Reports International Series , Oxford.
Alcock, S.E. . Graecia capta. he Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge.
Aleshire, S.B. . he Athenian Asklepieion. he People, heir Dedications,
and the Inventories, Amsterdam.
———. . “he Economics of Dedication at the Athenian Asklepieion”, in
he Economics of Cult in the Ancient Greek World, Proceedings of the Uppsala
Symposium , ed. T. Linders – B. Alroth, Uppsala, –.
———. . “he Demos and the Priests: he Selection of Sacred Oicials at
Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus”, in Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian
Democratic Accounts presented to D.M. Lewis, ed. R. Osborne – S. Horn-
blower, Oxford, –.
Alexandridis, A. . Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses, Mainz.
Alexiou, A. . “Η μινωικ) ε μεK υψωμνων χειρAν”, Kretika Chronika
, –.
Alföldi, A. . Die zwei Lorbeerbäume des Augustus, Abhandlungen zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und
zur Geschichte des Altertums , Bonn.
Allan, A. . “Situational Aesthetics: he Deiication of Kairos, Son of Her-
mes”, in Personiication in the Greek World: From Antiquity to Byzantium, ed.
E. Stafford – J. Herrin, London, –.
Alusík, T. . “Tripartite Shrine in the Minoan Architecture and Iconogra-
phy”, Eirene , –.
 bibliography

Amedick, R. . Frühkaiserzeitliche Bildhauerstile im alten Rom. Entwurf und

Verbreitung kaiserzeitlicher Repräsentationskunst, Rheinfelden.
Ampolo, C. –. “Tesori e oferte nei santuari greci”, Scienze dell’Anti-
chità. Storia, archeologia, antropologia –, –.
Anderson, M.L. . “A Proposal for a New Reconstruction of the Altar of the
Vicomagistri”, Bollettino. Monumenti, musei e gallerie pontiicie , –.
Anderson, M.L. – Nista, L. . Roman Portraits in Context. Imperial and
Private Likenesses from the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome.
Ando, C. . Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire,
Berkeley – Los Angeles – London.
van Andringa, W. . “Le vase de Sains-du-Nord et le culte de l’imago
dans les sanctuaires gallo-romains”, in Archéologie des sanctuaires en Gaule
romaine, ed. W. van Andriga, Saint-Etienne, –.
Anguissola, A. . “Note on Aphidruma : Statues and heir Function; :
Strabo on the Transfer of Cults”, Classical Quarterly , –.
Anti, C. . “Athena marina e alata”, Monumenti Antichi , –.
Antliff, M. – Leighten, P. . “Primitive”, in Critical Terms for Art History,
ed. R.S. Nelson – R. Shiff, Chicago, –.
Arafat, K.W. . Pausanias’ Greece: Ancient Artists and Roman Rulers, New
York.
Asper, M. . “Review of E. Lelli, Callimaco. Iambi XIV–XVII. Roma ”,
Bryn Mawr Classical Review ...
Athanassakis, A. . “From the Phallic Cairn to Shepherd God and Divine
Herald” Eranos , –.
Auberson, P. – Schefold, K. . Führer durch Eretria, Bern.
Auffarth, C. . “Pausanias, Patrai und die Griechen”, in Römische Reichs-
religion und Provinzialreligion, ed. H. Cancik – J. Rüpke, Tübingen, –
.
———. . “Herrscherkult und Christuskult”, in Die Praxis der Herrscherver-
ehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen, ed. H. Cancik – K. Hitzl, Tübingen,
–.
Barber, E.A. . “Callimachea Varia”, Classical Review N.S. , –.
Barber, R. . “he Greeks and heir Sculpture—Interrelationships of Func-
tion, Style, and Display”, in ‘Owls to Athens’—Essays on Classical Subjects Pre-
sented to Sir Kenneth Dover, ed. E.M. Craik, Oxford, –.
Barclay, A.E. . “he Potnia heron: Adaptation of a Near Eastern Image”,
in Laffineur – Hägg , –.
Bardill, J. . “he Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in Constantino-
ple: A Topographical Study”, American Journal of Archaeology , –.
Barringer, J.M. . Divine Escorts. Nereids in Archaic and Classical Greek
Art, Ann Arbor.
———. . he Hunt in Ancient Greece, Baltimore – London.
Barron, J.P. . “New Light on Old Walls: he Murals of the heseion”, Journal
of Hellenic Studies , –.
Bauer, F.A. . Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike. Untersuchungen
zur Ausstattung des öfentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Kon-
stantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz.
 bibliography 

Baumbach, L. . “he Mycenaean Contribution to the Study of Greek Reli-

gion in the Bronze Age”, Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici , –.
Bažant, J. a. “Pothos I”, in LIMC VII., –.
———. b. “hanatos”, LIMC VII., –.
Baxter, T.M.S. . he Cratylus. Plato’s Critique of Naming, Leiden – New
York – Cologne.
Bazemore, G.B. . “Gender, Sex and the Cypriot Syllabic Inscriptions—
Females in the Written Record of Ancient Cyprus”, in Engendering Aphrodite.
Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, ed. D. Bolger – N. Serwint, Boston,
–.
Beard M. – North J. eds. . Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient
World, Ithaca.
Bekker, I. ed. –. Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium, I–II,
Bonn.
Belting, H. . Bild und Kult. Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der
Kunst, th edition, Munich.
Bemmann, K. . Füllhörner in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, Frankfurt.
Bentz, M. . Panathenäische Preisamphoren, Basel.
Benveniste, E. –. “L’ expression du serment dans la Grèce ancienne”,
Revue de l’histoire des religions , –.
Bérard, C. – Durand, J.-L. . “Entrer en imagerie”, in La cité des images, ed.
C. Bérard, Lausanne, –.
Bergemann, J. . Demos und hanatos. Untersuchungen zum Wertsystem der
Polis im Spiegel der attischen Grabreliefs des . Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und zur
Funktion der gleichzeitigen Grabbauten, Munich.
Berger, A. . “Georgios Kedrenos, Konstantinos von Rhodos und die Sieben
Weltwunder”, Millennium , –.
Bergmann, M. . Die Strahlen der Herrscher, Mainz.
Bernhardt, R. . Imperium und Eleutheria, Ph.D. Hamburg.
———. . Polis und römische Herrschat in der späten Republik (–),
Berlin – New York.
Berns, L. –. “Socratic and Non-Socratic Philosophy. A Note on Xeno-
phon’s Memorabilia, .. and ”, Review of Metaphysics , –.
Beschi, L. –a. “Contributi di topograia ateniese”, Annuario della scu-
ola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente –, –.
———. –b. “Il monumento di Telemachos, fondatore dell’Asklepieion
ateniese”, Annuario della scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane
in oriente –, –.
———. . “Il rilievo di Telemachos ricompletato”, Αρχαιολογικ νλεκτα
ξ Αηνν , –.
Betancourt, P.P. . “Discontinuity in the Minoan-Mycenaean Religions:
Smooth Development or Disruptions and War?”, in Polemos. Le contexte guer-
rier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze, Actes de la e Rencontre égéenne internationale,
Université de Liège, – avril , Aegaeum , vol. I, ed. R. Laffineur,
Liège – Austin, –.
———. . Introduction to Aegean Art, Philadelphia.
Bettinetti, S. . La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca, Bari.
 bibliography

Bing, P. . he Well-Read Muse. Present and Past in Callimachus and the
Hellenistic Poets, Göttingen.
———. . “he Bios-Tradition and Poets’ Lives in Hellenistic Poetry”, in
Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor, –.
———. . “Ergänzungsspiel in the Epigrams of Callimachus”, Antike und
Abendland , –.
———. . “he Un-Read Muse? Inscribed Epigram and Its Readers in Antiq-
uity”, in Hellenistic Epigrams, Hellenistica Groningana , ed. M.A. Harder –
R.F. Regtuit – G.C. Wakker, Louvain – Paris, –.
Bintliff, J.L. . Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric
Greece, British Archaeological Reports International Series , Oxford.
Blakolmer, F. . “Minoan Wall-painting: he Transformation of a Crat into
an Art Form”, in TEXNH. Cratsmen, Cratswomen and Cratsmanship in the
Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the th International Aegean Conference,
Philadelphia, Temple University, – April , Aegaeum , vol. I, ed.
R. Laffineur – P.P. Betancourt, Liège – Austin, –.
———. a. “Minoisch-mykenische ‘Prozessionsfresken’: Überlegungen zu
den dargestellten und den nicht dargestellten Gaben”, in Keimelion. he For-
mation of Elites and Elitist Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the
Homeric Period, Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom . bis . Februar
 in Salzburg, Denkschriten Wien , Veröfentlichungen der Mykenis-
chen Kommission , ed. E. Alram-Stern – G. Nightingale, Vienna, –
.
———. b. “he Silver Battle Krater from Shat Grave IV at Mycenae: Evi-
dence of Fighting ‘Heroes’ on Minoan Palace Walls at Knossos?”, in EPOS. Re-
considering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology, Proceedings of the
th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA-he J. Paul Getty
Villa, – April , Aegaeum , ed. R. Laffineur – S.P. Morris, Liège –
Austin, –.
Blanck, H. . Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Grie-
chen und Römern, Rome.
Bloch, R. . “L’ Ara Pietatis Augustae”, in Cagiano de Azevedo , –.
Bloedow, E.F. . “Evidence for an Early Date for the Cult of Cretan Zeus”,
Kernos , –.
Bloesch, H. . Agalma, Kleinod, Weihgeschenk, Götterbild. Ein Beitrag zur
frühgriechischen Kultur- und Religionsgeschichte, Bern.
Blok, J.H. . “Phye’s Procession: Culture, Politics and Peisistratid Rule”, in
Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence, ed. H. Sancisi-
Weerdenburg, Amsterdam, –.
Blomberg, P.E. . On Corinthian Iconography. he Bridled Winged Horse and
the Helmeted Female Head in the Sixth Century bc, Uppsala.
Blum, H. . Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen,
Frankfurt.
Blümel, C. . Der Fries des Tempels der Athena Nike, Berlin.
———. . Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Römische Bildnisse, Berlin.
von Blumenthal, A. . Die Schätzung des Archilochos im Altertume, Stutt-
gart.
 bibliography 

Boardman, J. . Athenian Red Figure Vases: he Archaic Period. A Handbook,

London.
———. . Athenian Red Figure Vases: he Classical Period. A Handbook,
London.
———. . “Omphale”, in LIMC VII., –.
———. . Greek Art, London – New York.
Boardman, J. et al. . “Greek Dedications I—Greek Votive Objects” in
hesCRA I, –.
Bodei-Giglioni, G. . “Pecunia fanatica. L’incidenza economica dei templi
laziali”, Rivista storica italiana , –.
Boëlle, C. . “Po-ti-ni-ja: unité ou pluralité?”, in Laffineur – Hägg ,
–.
Boetto, G. . “Ceppi litici ‘Sacri’ e culti aniconici a Metaponto e a Locri”,
Archeologia Subacquea , –.
Böhme, C. . Princeps und Polis. Untersuchungen zur Herrschatsform des
Augustus über bedeutende Orte in Griechenland, Munich.
Bol, P.C. . “Zum Heros des Weihreliefs in Venedig”, Archäologischer An-
zeiger, –.
Bol, R. . “Ein Bildnis der Claudia Octavia aus dem olympischen Metroon”,
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
Bolkestein, H. . heophrastos’ Charakter der Deisidaimonia als religions-
geschichtliche Urkunde, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten .,
Giessen.
Bollmann, B. . “La distribuzione delle scholae delle corporazioni a Roma”,
in La Rome impériale. Démographie et logistique, Actes de la table ronde, Rome
 mars , Paris, –.
———. . Römische Vereinshäuser. Untersuchungen zu den Scholae der römis-
chen Berufs-, Kult- und Augustalen-Kollegien in Italien, Mainz.
Bömer, F. . Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechen-
land und Rom. . Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt, Akademie der
Wissenschaten und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwis-
senschatlichen Klasse, Jahrgang , Nr. , Mainz.
Bonanno, A. . Portraits and Other Heads on Roman Historical Relief up to
the Age of Septimius Severus, British Archaeological Reports Supplement Series
, Oxford.
———. . “Imperial and Private Portraiture. A Case of Non-Dependence”, in
Ritratto uiciale e ritratto privato, Atti della II conferenza internationale sul
ritratto romano, Roma – settembre , ed. N. Bonacasa – G. Rizzo,
Rome, –.
Borbein, A.H. . “Die griechische Statue des . Jahrhunderts v. Chr.”, Jahr-
buch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
———. . “Tendenzen der Stilgeschichte der bildenden Kunst und politisch-
soziale Entwicklungen zwischen Kleisthenes und Perikles”, in Demokratie
und Architektur. Symposion Konstanz .-.., ed. W. Schuller – W.
Hoepfner – E.L. Schwandner, Munich, –.
Borg, B. . Der Logos des Mythos. Allegorien und Personiikationen in der
frühen griechischen Kunst, Munich.
 bibliography

———. . “Bilder zum Hören-Bilder zum Sehen: Lukians Ekphraseis und die
Rekonstruktion antiker Kunstwerke”, Millennium , –.
Borthwick, E.K. . “Notes on the ‘Superstitious’ Man of hephrastus”,
Eranos , –.
Boschung, D. . Die Bildnisse des Caligula, Das römische Herrscherbild .,
Berlin.
———. . Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Das römische Herrscherbild .,
Berlin.
———. a Gens Augusta. Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeu-
tung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses, Monumenta
artis Romanae , Mainz.
———. b “Das römische Kaiserbildnis und seine Aufnahme im griechischen
Osten”, in Patris und Imperium. Kulturelle und politische Identität in den
Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit, Köln
, Bulletin van de Antieke Beschaving Suppl. , ed. C. Berns et al., Leuven,
–.
———. . “Kultbilder als Vermittler religiöser Vorstellungen”, in Kult und
Kommunikation. Medien in Heiligtümern der Antike, ed. C. Frevel – H. von
Hesberg, Wiesbaden, –.
Bötticher, K. . Der Baumkultus der Hellenen, Berlin.
Boulotis, C. . “Zur Deutung des Freskofragmentes Nr.  aus der Tiryn-
ther Frauenprozession”, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt , –.
———. a. “Nochmals zum Prozessionsfresko von Knossos: Palast und Dar-
bringung von Prestige-Objekten”, in he Function of the Minoan Palaces, Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in
Athens, ed. R. Hägg – N. Marinatos, Stockholm, –.
———. b. “he Aegean Area in Prehistoric Times: Cults and Beliefs About
the Sea”, in Greece and the Sea, ed. A. Delivorrias, Amsterdam, –.
———. . “La déesse minoenne à la rame-gouvernail”, in Proceedings of the
First Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Piraeus, , Tropis ,
ed. H. Tzalas, Athens, –.
———. . “Synnaoi heoi: A Cult Phenomenon of the Aegean Late Bronze
Age”, in Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, Proceed-
ings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, ed.
R. Hägg – G.C. Nordquist, Stockholm, .
Brahms, T. . Archaismus, Frankfurt.
Branigan, K. . “he Genesis of the Household Goddess”, Studi micenei ed
egeo-anatolici , –.
Bravi, A. forthcoming. Opere d’arte greche e spazi pubblici romani: decorum e
senso pratico dell’arte.
Brelich, A. . “Attributo”, in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale,
Rome, –.
———. . “Religione micenea: osservazioni metodologiche”, in Atti e Memorie
del o Congresso internazionale di Micenologia, vol. I, Rome, –.
Bremmer, J.N. . “Modi di comunicazione con il divino: la preghiera, la
divinazione ed il sacriicio nella civiltà greca”, in I Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte,
Società I. Noi e i Greci, ed. S. Settis, Torino, –.
 bibliography 

Brendel, O. . “Immolatio Boum”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologis-

chen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
Brice, W.C. . “he Libation Tables Inscribed in Linear A”, in Res Mycenaeae.
Akten des VII. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Nürnberg vom
.–. April , ed. A. Heubeck – G. Neumann, Göttingen, –.
Brilliant, R. . “Simboli e attributi. III. Grecia e Roma”, in Enciclopedia
dell’arte antica classica e orientale, Rome, –.
Brinkmann, V. a. “Siebte Tat: Der Fang des kretischen Stieres”, in Wünsche
, –.
———. b. “Zehnte Tat: Der Raub der Rinder des Geryoneus”, in Wünsche
, –.
Brize, P. . Die Geryoneis des Stesichoros und die frühe griechische Kunst,
Würzburg.
———. . “Samos und Stesichoros. Zu einem früharchaischen Bronzeblech”,
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen ,
–.
Broder, P.-A. . “La manipulation des images dans les processions en Grèce
ancienne”, in Image et religion dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine. Actes du colloque
de Rome, – décembre , Naples, –.
Brommer, F. . Hephaistos. Der Schmiedegott in der antiken Kunst, Mainz.
———. . “heseus-Deutungen”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, –.
———. a. “heseus-Deutungen II”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, –.
———. b. heseus. Die Taten des griechischen Helden in der antiken Kunst
und Literatur, Darmstadt.
———. . “Gott oder Mensch?”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts , –.
Brüggemann, N. . “Kontexte und Funktionen von Kouroi im archaischen
Griechenland”, in M. Meyer – N. Brüggemann, Kore und Kouros. Weihe-
gaben für die Götter, Vienna, –.
Bruit-Zaidman, L. – Gherchanec, F. eds. . Τ ρχαα dans les mondes
grec et romain. Déinitions et usages de la “notion d’archaïsme”, Strasbourg (=
Ktema ).
Bruit-Zaidman, L. – Schmitt Pantel, P. . Die Religion der Griechen. Kult
und Mythos, Munich.
Brulé, P. . La ille d’Athènes—La religion des illes à Athènes à l’époque clas-
sique: Mythes, cultes et société, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon
, Paris.
Bruneau, Ph. . “Ares”, in LIMC II., –.
Bruns, G. . “Umbaute Götterfelsen als kultische Zentren in Kulträumen
und Altären”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
Buckler, W.H. – Robinson, D.M. . Greek and Latin Inscriptions , Sardis
, Leiden.
Buitron-Oliver, D. . Douris: A Master Painter of Athenian Red-Figure
Vases, Kerameus , Mainz.
Burford, A. . Cratsmen in Greek and Roman society, London.
Burkert, W. . Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical, Cambridge Mass.
———. . “Initiation”, in hesCRA II, –.
 bibliography

Burrell, B. . Neokoroi. Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Leiden – Boston.
Butler, H.C. . he Excavations –, Sardis ., Leiden.
———. . Architecture. he Temple of Artemis, Sardis ., Leiden.
Buxton, R. ed. . Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, Oxford.
Cagiano de Azevedo, M. . Le antichità di Villa Medici, Rome.
Cain, C.D. . “Dancing in the Dark: Deconstructing a Narrative of Epiphany
on the Isopata Ring”, American Journal of Archaeology , –.
Cain, H.-U. . “Hellenistische Kultbilder. Religiöse Präsenz und museale
Präsentation der Götter im Heiligtum und beim Fest”, in Stadtbild und Bürger-
bild im Hellenismus, Kolloquium München , ed. M. Wörrle – P. Zanker,
Munich, –.
Calame, C. . hésée et l’imaginaire athénien. Légende et culte en Grèce
antique, Lausanne.
Cameron, A. . “he heotokos in th Century Constantinople”, Journal of
heological Studies , –.
———. . “Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late th Century Byzan-
tium”, Past and Present , –.
Cameron, A. – Herrin, J. . Constatinople in the Early Eight Century: he
Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, Leiden.
Camp, J.M. . he Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart of Classical
Athens, New Aspects of Antiquity, London.
Canciani, F. . “Zeus / Iuppiter”, in LIMC VIII., –.
Cancik, H. . “Grösse und Kolossalität als religiöse und aesthetische Kate-
gorien. Versuch einer Begrifsbestimmung am Beispiel von Statius, Silve I :
Ecus Maximus Domitiani Imperatoris”, in Genres in visible representations,
Visible Religion , Leiden, –.
Cappelli, R. –. “L’ altare del Belvedere. Un saggio di nuova interpre-
tazione”, Annali della facoltà di lettere e ilosoia, Università degli studi di Peru-
gia, . Studi classici , N.S. , –.
———. . “Augusto e il culto di Vesta sul Palatino”, Bollettino di archeologia
–, –.
Carandini, A. – Carafa, P. . Palatium e Sacra Via, . Prima delle ura, l’età
delle ura e l’età case arcaiche, BA –, Rome.
Carettoni, G. . Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin, Mainz.
———. . “Die Bauten des Augustus auf dem Palatin”, in Kaiser Augustus und
die verlorene Republik, Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau . Juni – . August
, Berlin, –.
Carpenter, T.H. . “he Tyrrhenian Group: Problems of Provenance”, Ox-
ford Journal of Archaeology , –.
———. . Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art, Oxford.
Carter, J.C. he Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene, Lon-
don.
Casabona, J. . Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacriices en Grèce des
origines à la in de l’époque classique, Aix-en-Provence.
Caskey, M.E. –. “Τα π)λινα αγλματα απ την Αγ"α Ειρ)νη της
Κας”, Αρχαιογνωσα , –.
———. . Keos II. he Temple at Ayia Irini I. he Statues, Mainz.
 bibliography 

———. . “Τα π)λινα αγλματα απ τον προϊστορικ οικισμ της Αγ"ας
Ειρ)νης στην Κα”, Αρχαιολογα και Τχνες , –.
Cassimatis, H. . “A propos de l’utilisation du motif iconographique: autel-
trône? une bizarrerie de l’imagerie”, in Proceedings of the rd symposium on
ancient Greek and related pottery, Copenhagen August -September , ,
ed. J. Christiansen – T. Melander, Copenhagen, –.
Cecamore, C. –. “Apollo e Vesta sul Palatino fra Augusto e Vespa-
siano”, Bullettino della commissione archeologica comunale di Roma , –.
Cermanović-Kuzmanović, A. et. al. . “Heros equitans”, in LIMC VI.,
–.
Chadwick, J. . “What Do We Know About Mycenaean Religion?”, in Linear
B: A  Survey, Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de
Louvain , ed. A. Morpurgo Davies – Y. Duhoux, Louvain-la-Neuve, –
.
Champeaux, J. . “Les cultes de Jupiter et de Junon à Préneste”, Revue des
études latines , –.
Chantraine, P. . Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, histoire
des mots, Paris.
Chapin, A.P. –. “Maidenhood and Marriage: he Reproductive Lives
of the Girls and Women from Xeste , hera”, Aegean Archaeology , –.
Childs, W.A.P. . “Le rôle de Chypre dans la naissance de la plastique
monumentale en Grèce”, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes , –.
Chroust, A.-H. . Socrates, Man and Myth. he Two Socratic Apologies of
Xenophon, London.
Clairmont, C.W. . Gravestone and Epigram. Greek Memorials from the
Archaic and Classical Period, Mainz.
———. . Classical Attic Tombstones, Kilchberg.
Clauss, M. . Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im römischen Reich, Stuttgart –
Leipzig.
Clay, D. . Archilochos Heros. he Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis, Washing-
ton.
Clayman, D.L. . Callimachus’ Iambi, Leiden.
Clerc, C. . Les théories relatives au culte des images chez les auteurs grecs du
IIe siècle après J.-C., Paris.
Clinton, K. “Sacriice at the Eleusinian Mysteries”, in Early Greek Cult Practice,
Proceedings of the Fith International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at
Athens, – June, , ed. R. Hägg – N. Marinatos – G. Nordquist,
Stockholm , –.
———. . Myth and Cult. he Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. he
Martin P. Nilsson Lectures on Greek religion, Delivered – November 
at the Swedish Institute at Athens, Stockholm.
Closterman, W.E. . “Family Ideology and Family History: he Function
of Funerary Markers in Classical Attic Peribolos Tombs”, American Journal of
Archaeology , –.
Coarelli, F. . ed. Studi su Praeneste, Perugia.
———. . Foro Romano. Periodo Archaico, Rome.
———. . I santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana, Rome.
 bibliography

———. . “Rom. Die Stadtplanung von Caesar bis Augustus”, in Kaiser
Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau .
Juni – . August , Berlin, –.
Comella, A. a. I rilievi votivi greci di periodo arcaico e classico. Difusione,
ideologia, committenza, Bibliotheca archaeologica , Bari.
———. b. “Testimonianze di importanti avvenimenti della vita sociale dei
giovani ateniesi nei rilievi votivi attici”, in Iconograia . Studi sull’imagine,
Atti del convegno (Padova,  maggio –  giugno ), Antenor – Quaderni ,
ed. I. Colpo – I. Favaretto – F. Ghedini, Rome, –.
Connelly, J.B. . Votive Sculpture of Hellenistic Cyprus, Nicosia.
———. . “Standing Before One’s God: Votive Sculpture and the Cypriot
Religious Tradition”, he Biblical Archaeologist , –.
———. . “Narrative and Image in Attic Vase Painting. Ajax and Kassandra at
the Trojan Palladion”, in Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, ed. P.J. Holliday,
Cambridge, –
———. . Portrait of a Priestess. Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Prince-
ton.
Connor, W.R. . “heseus in Classical Athens”, in he Quest for heseus, ed.
A.G. Ward et al., London, –.
———. . “Tribes, Festivals, and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and Political
Manipulation in Archaic Greece”, Journal of Hellenic Studies , – [repr.
in Buxton , –].
———. , “heseus and his City”, in Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek
World, Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium , Boreas , ed. P. Hell-
ström – B. Alroth, Uppsala, –.
Cook, A.B. . “Animal Worship in the Mycenaean Age”, Journal of Hellenic
Studies , –.
Cook, R.M. . Clazomenian sarcophagi, Mainz.
Cooper, C. . “Hyperides and the Trial of Phryne”, Phoenix , –.
Corbett, P.E. . “Greek Temples and Greek Worshippers: he Literary and
Archaeological Evidence”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the
University of London , –.
Cormack, R. . “. Psalter with the Veneration of an Icon of the Virgin
Mary Hodegetria”, in Byzantium –, ed. R. Cormack – M. Vassilaki,
London, –. .
Corso, A. . Prassitele. Fonti epigraiche e letterarie. Vita e opere, vol. , Rome.
———. . “Ancient Greek Sculptors as Magicians”, Numismatica e antichità
classiche. Quaderni ticinesi , –.
———. . “Attitudes to the Visual Arts of Classical Greece in Late Antiquity”,
Eulimene , –
———. . he Art of Praxiteles II. he Mature Years, Rome.
Counts, D. . “Prolegomena to the Study of Cypriote Sculpture”, Cahiers du
Centre d’Études Chypriotes , –.
Counts, D. – Toumazou, M.K. . “Artemis at Athienou-Malloura”, Cahiers
du Centre d’Études Chypriotes , –.
Cozza, L. . “Ricomposizione di alcuni rilievi di Villa Medici”, Bollettino
d’arte , –.
 bibliography 

Curtius, E. – Adler, F. eds. . Olympia. Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deut-
schen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung, Berlin.
Cutler, A. . “he De signis of Nicetas Choniates. A Reappraisal”, American
Journal of Archaeology , , –.
D’Agata, A.L. . “Late Minoan Crete and Horns of Consecrations: A Symbol
in Action”, in Laffineur – Crowley , –.
———. . “he ‘Lord’ of Asine reconsidered: Technique, type and chronol-
ogy”, in Asine III. Supplementary Studies on the Swedish Excavations –
, vol. I, ed. R. Hägg – G.C. Nordquist – B. Wells, Stockholm, –.
D’Alessio, G.B. . “Apollo Delio, i Cabiri Milesii e la Cavalle di Tracia.
Osservazioni su Callimaco frr. –Pf.”, Zeitschrit für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik , –.
———. ed. . Callimaco Inni Epigrammi Frammenti,  vols, Milan.
Damaskos, D. . Untersuchungen zu hellenistischen Kultbildern, Stuttgart.
Danielidou, D. . “Sitopotinija των ΜυκηνAν κα6 μυκηναϊκ) Πτνια”, in
Φλια "Επη εις Γε%ργιον Ε. Μυλωνν, vol. I, Athens, –.
Daut, R. . Imago. Untersuchungen zum Bildbegrif der Römer, Bibliothek der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaten ., Heidelberg.
Daux, G. . “Le calendrier de horikos au Musée J. Paul Getty”, L’ Antiquité
classique , –.
———. . “Sacriices à horikos”, he J. Paul Getty Museum Journal , –
.
Davis, E.N. . “Youth and Age in the hera Frescoes”, American Journal of
Archaeology , –.
———. . “Art and Politics in the Aegean: he Missing Ruler”, in he Role of
the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans,
Louisiana,  December , Aegaeum , ed. P. Rehak, Liège – Austin, –
.
Dawkins, R.M. . “Ancient Statues in Medieval Constantinople”, Folklore ,
–.
De Cesare, M. . Le statue in immagine. Studi sulle raigurazioni di statue
nella pittura vascolare greca, Rome.
De Franciscis, A. . Il sacello degli Augustali a Miseno, Naples.
De Miro, E. – Godart, L. – Sacconi, A. . eds. Atti e Memorie del Secondo
Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma – Napoli, – ottobre ,
Incunabula Graeca ,  vols, Rome.
De Visser, M.W. . Die nicht menschengestaltigen Götter der Griechen, Lei-
den.
Degani, E. ed. . Hipponax. Testimonia et Fragmenta, nd edition, Stutt-
gart.
Degrassi, A. . “Esistette sul Palatino un tempio di Vesta?”, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
———. . Inscriptiones Italiae XIII . Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani, Rome.
Degrassi, N. –. “La dimora di Augusto sul Palatino e la base di
Sorrento”, Rendiconti. Atti della Pontiicia accademia romana di archeologia
, –.
 bibliography

Delplace, C. . “Le grifon créto-mycénien”, L’ Antiquité classique , –

.
Demargne, P. . “Athena”, in LIMC II., –.
Deneken, F. –. “Heros”, in Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und
römischen Mythologie, vol. :, ed. W.H. Roscher, Leipzig, –.
Deshours, N. . Les Mystères d’Andania. Étude d’épigraphie et d’histoire
religieuse, Ausonius. Scripta Antiqua , Bordeaux.
Despinis, G.  (). “Τ: γλυπτ: τν ετωμτων το ναο τDς KΑηνJς
Ν"κης”, Αρχαιολογικ(ν Δελτον ., –.
Dessenne, A. . “Le grifon créto-mycénien. Inventaire et remarques”, Bul-
letin de correspondance hellénique , –.
Deubner, L. . “Das Heroenrelief des Museo Torlonia”, Archäologischer
Anzeiger, –.
———. . Attische Feste, Berlin.
Devambez, P. . “Piliers hermaïques et stèles”, Revue archéologique, –.
Dewailly, M. . “Le sanctuaire d’Apollon à Claros. Place et fonction des
dieux d’après leurs images”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité
, (= Image et religion—Méthodes et problématiques pour l’antiquité gréco-
romaine: Le rôle de l’image divine dans la déinition de l’espace sacré), –
.
Dewailly, M. – Pécasse, M. – Verger, S. . “Les sculptures archaïques de
Claros”, Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot , –.
Dick, F. . Lituus und Galerus, Ph.D. Vienna.
Dickins, G. . A Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum Sculptures I, Archaic
Sculpture, Cambridge.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K. . “Comments on a Popular Model of Minoan Religion”,
Oxford Journal of Archaeology ., –.
Dietrich, B.C. . “Notes on the Linear B Tablets in the Context of Myce-
naean and Greek Religion”, in Atti e Memorie del o Congresso internazionale
di Micenologia, vol. I, Rome, –.
———. . “he Sanctuary of Apollo at Kourion”, in he Sanctuary of Apollo
Hylates at Kourion-Excavations in the Archaic Precinct, Studies in Mediter-
ranean Archaeology , ed. D. Buitron-Oliver, Jonsered, –.
Diggle, J. . heophrastus. Characters, Cambridge Classical Texts and Com-
mentaries , Cambridge.
Dignas, B. . Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor,
Oxford.
———. . “Rhodian Priests ater the Synoecism”, Ancient Society , –.
Dimopoulou, N. – Olivier, J.-P. – Rethemiotakis, G. . “Une statuette en
argile MR IIIA de Poros / Irakliou avec inscription en linéaire A”, Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique , –.
Dimopoulou, N. – Rethemiotakis, G. . “he ‘Sacred Conversation’ Ring
from Poros”, in Pini , –.
Dirlmeier, F. . Die Vogelgestalt homerischer Götter, Heidelberg.
Dittenberger, W. – Purgold, K. . Die Inschriten von Olympia, Olympia.
Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung ,
Berlin.
 bibliography 

Doepner, D. . Steine und Pfeiler für die Götter. Weihgeschenkgattungen in

westgriechischen Stadtheiligumern, Palilia , Rome.
Donohue, A.A. . Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture, Atlanta.
———. . “he Greek Images of the Gods: Considerations on Terminology
and Methodology”, Hephaistos , –.
———. . Greek Sculpture and the Problem of Description, Cambridge – New
York.
Dontas, G.S. . “he True Aglaurion”, Hesperia , –.
Dörpfeld, W. . Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia, Olympia. Die Ergebnisse
der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung , Berlin.
———. . “VI. Architektonisches. . Metroon”, in Die Ausgrabungen zu Olym-
pia IV. Übersicht der Arbeiten und Funde vom Winter und Frühjahr –
, ed. E. Curtius – F. Adler – G. Treu, Berlin, –.
———. . Alt Olympia, Berlin.
Dörpfeld, W. – Ippel, A. . “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon –”, Mit-
teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –
.
Douglas, M. . Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo, London – New York.
Doumas, C.G. . “Η ξεστ)  και οι κυανοκφαλοι στην τχνη της Θ)ρας”,
in Ειλαπνη. Τ*μος τιμητικ*ς για τον καηγητ+ Νικ*λαο Πλτωνα, ed.
L. Kastranaki – G. Orphanou – N. Giannadakis, Irakleion, –.
———. . he Wall-Paintings of hera, Athens.
———. . “Age and Gender in the heran Wall Paintings”, in Proceedings of
the First International Symposium ‘he Wall Paintings of hera’,  August –
 September , vol. II, ed. S. Sherratt, Athens, –.
Dow, S. – Jameson, M.H. . “he Purported Decree of hemistokles: Stele
and Inscription”, American Journal of Archaeology , –.
Dubourdieu, A. . Les origines et le développement du culte des Pénates à
Rome, Rome.
Dugas, C. . “Le sanctuaire d’Aléa Athéna à Tégée”, Bulletin de correspon-
dance hellénique , –.
Dugas, C. – Flacelière, R. . hésée. Images et récits, Paris.
Durand, J.-L. – Frontisi-Ducroux, F. . “Idoles, igures, images: autour de
Dionysos” Revue archéologique, –.
Dürk, A.-M. . “Bronzezeitliche Arktoi? Zum Verständnis der Toniguren
von Ayia Irini”, hetis , –.
Edelmann, M. . Menschen auf griechischen Weihreliefs, Quellen und For-
schungen zur antiken Welt , Munich.
Eitrem, S. . “Hermes”, in RE VIII., –.
———. . “Hermes”, in RE Suppl. III, –.
Ekroth, G. . “Altars on Attic Vases: he Identiication of Bomos and
Eschara”, in Ceramics in Context, Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium
on Ancient Pottery Held at Stockholm, – June , Stockholm Studies in
Classical Archaeology , ed. C. Scheffer, Stockholm, –.
———. . he Sacriicial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic and Clas-
sical Periods, Kernos Suppl. , Liège.
 bibliography

———. . “Burnt, Cooked or Raw? Divine and Human Culinary Desires
at Greek Animal Sacriice”, in Transformations in Sacriicial Practices. From
Antiquity to Modern Times, ed. E. Stavrianopoulou – A. Michaels –
C. Ambos, Berlin, –.
———. forthcoming. “Why (Not) Paint an Altar? A Study of When, Where and
Why Altars Appear on Attic Red-Figure Vases”, in he World of Greek Vases,
Colloquium at the Danish Academy in Rome, – January, , Analecta
Romana Suppl., ed. L. Hannestad et al., Copenhagen.
Ellinger, P. . La légende nationale phocidienne. Artémis, les situations
extrêmes et les récits de guerre d’anéantissement, Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique Suppl. , Paris.
Elsner, J. . “Image and Ritual: Relections on the Religious Appreciation of
Classical Art”, Classical Quarterly ., –.
———. ed. . he Verbal and the Visual: Cultures of Ekphrasis in Antiquity,
Ramus , nos. –, Bendigo.
———. . Roman Eyes. Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text, Princeton.
Engelmann, H. . Die Inschriten von Kyme, Bonn.
Ensoli, S. . “Kairós”, in Lisippo. L’ arte e la fortuna, ed. P. Moreno, Rome,
–.
Eschbach, N. . Statuen auf panathenäischen Preisamphoren des . Jhs. v.
Chr., Mainz.
Estienne, S. . Les dieux dans la ville. Recherches sur les statues de dieux dans
l’ espace et les rites publics de Rome, d’ Auguste à Sévère Alexandre, Ph.D. Paris.
Étienne, R. – Varène, P. . Sanctuaire de Claros. L’ architecture. Les propylées
et les monuments de la voie sacrée, Paris.
Evans, A. . he Palace of Minos at Knossos, vol. I, London.
———. . he Palace of Minos at Knossos, vol. II, London.
———. . he Palace of Minos at Knossos, vol. IV, London.
Fantuzzi, M. – Hunter, R.L. . Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic
Poetry, Cambridge.
Faraone, C.A. . Talismans and Trojan Horses, Oxford.
———. . “Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic
Magic in the Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies”, Journal of
Hellenic Studies , –.
Fasolo, F. – Gullini, G. . Il santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina,
Rome.
Faulstich, E.I. . Hellenistische Kultstatuen und ihre Vorbilder, Frankfurt.
Felletti Maj, B.M. . La tradizione italica nell’arte romana, Rome.
Felten, F. . Griechische tektonische Friese archaischer und klassischer Zeit,
Schriten aus dem Athenaion der klassischen Archäologie Salzburg , Wald-
sassen.
Felten, W. . Attische Unterweltsdarstellungen des VI. und V. Jh. v. Chr.,
Münchner archäologische Studien , Munich.
Fernandez, N. . “Les lieux de culte de l’âge du Bronze en Crète: question
de méthode”, Revue archéologique, –.
Ferrary, J.-L. . “Les inscriptions de Claros en honneur de Romains”, Bul-
letin de correspondance hellénique , –.
 bibliography 

Ferrary, J.-L. – Verger, S. . “Contribution à l’histoire du sanctuaire de

Claros à la in du IIe et au Ier siècle av. J.-C.”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie
des inscriptions et belles-lettres, –.
Ferrence, S.C. – Bendersky, G. . “herapy with Safron and the Goddess
at hera”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine ., –.
Filges, A. . Standbilder jugendlicher Göttinnen. Klassische und Frühhel-
lenistische Gewandstatuen mit Brustwulst und ihre kaiserzeitliche Rezeption,
Cologne.
Finney, P.C. . he Invisible God: he Earliest Christians on Art, New York.
Fischer-Hansen, T. . “Vesta”, in LIMC V., –.
Fishwick, D. . he Imperial Cult in the Latin West I : Studies in the Ruler
Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, Études préliminaires aux
religions orientales dans l’empire romain , Leiden.
———. . he Imperial Cult in the Latin West II : Studies in the Ruler Cult of
the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, Études préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans l’empire romain , Leiden.
Fittschen, K. . “Review of H.-G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen
Darstellung der römischen Kaiser, Monumenta artis Romanae , Berlin ”,
Bonner Jahrbücher , –.
Fittschen, K. – Zanker, P. . Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capi-
tolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom
, Mainz.
Flashar, M. . Apollon Kitharodos. Statuarische Typen des musischen Apol-
lon, Cologne.
Flemberg, J. . Venus Armata. Studien zur bewafneten Aphrodite in der
griechisch-römischen Kunst, Stockholm.
Fless, F. . Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrömischen historischen Re-
liefs. Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie, Funktion und Benennung, Mainz.
Foster, K.P. . Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age, New Haven – London.
Fourrier, S. . “Petite plastique chypriote de Délos”, Bulletin de correspon-
dance hellénique , –.
Fränkel, M. . Die Inschriten von Pergamon, Altertümer von Pergamon .,
Berlin.
Fraschetti, A. . “La mort d’Agrippa et l’autel du Belvédère. Un certain
type d’hommage”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité , –
.
———. . “Augusto e Vesta sul Palatino”, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte , ,
–.
Frateantonio, C. . Religion und Städtekonkurrenz. Zum politischen und
kulturellen Kontext von Pausanias’ “Periegese”, Berlin.
Frazer, J.G. . Pausanias’s Description of Greece, London.
———. . he Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, London – New
York.
Freedberg, D. . he Power of Images. Studies in the History and heory of
Response, Chicago.
French, E.B. a. “Cult places at Mycenae”, in Hägg – Marinatos , –
.
 bibliography

———. b. “Mycenaean Figures and Figurines, heir Typology and Function”,
in Hägg – Marinatos , –.
———. . “he Figures and Figurines”, in A.C. Renfrew, he Archaeology of
Cult. he Sanctuary at Phylakopi, he Annual of the British School at Athens
Suppl. , London, –.
Frickenhaus, A. . “Das Herakleion von Melite”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . Lenäenvasen, Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste der archaeologi-
schen Gesellschat zu Berlin , Berlin.
Friedland, E.A. . “Visualizing Deities in the Roman Near East: Aspects of
Athena and Athena-Allat”, in he Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near
East. Relections on Culture, Ideology, and Power, ed. Y.Z. Eliav et. al. Leuven,
–.
von Fritze, H. . Die Münzen von Pergamon, Berlin.
Froehner, W. . Les inscriptions grecques du Louvre, Paris.
Frontisi-Ducroux, F. . “Les limites de l’anthropomorphisme d’Hermès
et Dionysos”, in Corps des dieux, ed. C. Malamoud – J.-P. Vernant, Paris,
–.
———. . “Les igures funéraires de Cyrène: stratégies de iguration de l’invi-
sible”, in Image et religion dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine. Actes du colloque de
Rome, – décembre , Naples, –.
Frost, F.J. . “Plutarch and heseus”, he Classical Bulletin , – (=
Politics and the Athenians. Essays on Athenian History and Historiography,
Toronto , –).
Fullerton, M.D. . “he Location and Archaism of Hekate Epipyrgidia”,
Archäologischer Anzeiger, –.
———. . he Archaistic Style in Roman Statuary, Leiden.
Funke, H. . “Götterbild”, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum ,
–.
Furumark, A. . “Gods of Ancient Crete”, Opuscula Atheniensia , –
.
———. . “Linear A and Minoan Religion”, Opuscula Atheniensia , –.
Gabathuler, M. . Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter, Basel.
Gaber-Saletan, P. . Regional Styles in Cypriote Sculpture: he Sculpture
from Idalion, New York.
Gaifman, M. . Beyond Mimesis in Greek Religious Art: Aniconism in the
Archaic and Classical Periods, Ph.D. Princeton.
———. . “he Aniconic Image of the Roman Near East”, in he Variety of
Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, ed.
T. Kaizer, Leiden, –.
———. forthcoming. “he Absent Figure of the Present God”, in Epiphany:
Envisioning the Divine in the Ancient World, ed. V. Platt – G. Petridou,
Leiden.
Garland, R. . Introducing New Gods. he Politics of Athenian Religion,
London.
Gazda, E.K. – Haeckl, A.E. . “Roman Portraiture. Relections on the
Question of Context”, Journal of Roman Archaeology , –.
 bibliography 

Gebauer, J. . Pompe und hysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf

schwarz- und rotigurigen Vasen, Eikon , Münster.
Geominy, W. . Die Florentiner Niobiden, Bonn.
———. . “Zwischen Kennerschat und Cliché. Römische Kopien und die
Geschichte ihrer Bewertung”, in Rezeption und Identität. Die kulturelle Aus-
einandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europäisches Paradigma, ed. G.
Vogt-Spira – B. Rommel, Stuttgart, –.
Georgoudi, S. . “Lysimachè, la prêtresse”, in La Grèce au féminin, ed.
N. Loraux, Paris, –.
———. . “Athanatous therapeuein. Rélexions sur des femmes au service
des dieux”, in Ιδ0α κα1 δημοσ0α. Les cadres “privés” et “publics” de la religion
grecque antique, Kernos Suppl. , ed. V. Dasen – M. Piérart, Liège, –.
Georgoudi, S. – Pirenne-Delforge, V. . “Personnel du culte (Grèce)”, in
hesCRA V, –.
Gérard-Rousseau, M. . Les mentions religieuses dans les tablettes mycé-
niennes, Rome.
Gerber, D.E. ed. . Greek Iambic Poetry, Cambridge Mass. – London.
Gesell, G.C. . Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete, SIMA ,
Göteborg.
Gialouris, N. . “Πτερεντα Πδιλα”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
, –.
Gill, D. . “Trapezomata. A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacriice”, Harvard
heological Review , –.
———. . Greek Cult Tables, New York – London .
Gill, M.A.V. . “Note on the Hagia Pelagia Cylinder”, Bulletin of the Institute
of Classical Studies of the University of London , –.
Giudice, E. . “Hypnos, hanatos ed il viaggio della morte sulle lekythoi
funerarie a fondo bianco”, Ostraka , –.
Giuliani, L. . Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechi-
schen Kunst, Munich.
———. . “Der Koloss der Naxier”, in Meisterwerke der antiken Kunst, ed.
L. Giuliani, Munich, –.
Gladigow, B. –. “Präsenz der Bilder-Präsenz der Götter. Kultbilder
und Bilder der Götter in der griechischen Religion”, Visible Religion –, –
.
———. . “Anikonische Kulte”, in Handbuch religionswissenschatlicher
Grundbegrife , ed. H. Cancik, Stuttgart – Cologne, –.
———. . “Epiphanie, Statuette, Kultbild. Griechische Gottesvorstellungen
im Wechsel von Kontext und Medium”, in Genres in visible representations,
Visible Religion , Leiden, –.
———. . “Zur Ikonographie und Pragmatik römischer Kultbilder”, in Icono-
logia sacra. Mythos, Bildkunst und Dichtung in der Religions- und Sozialge-
schichte Alteuropas. Festschrit K. Hauck, Arbeiten zur Frühmittelalterfor-
schung , ed. H. Keller – N. Staubach, Berlin – New York, –
Goette, H.R. . Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen, Beiträge zur Er-
schliessung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur ,
Mainz.
 bibliography

Goette, H.R. – Hammerstaedt, J. . Das antike Athen. Ein literarischer

Stadtführer, Munich.
Goldhill, S. – Osborne, R. eds. . Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture,
Cambridge.
Goldman, H. . “he Origin of the Greek Herm”, American Journal of
Archaeology , –.
Gombrich, E.H. . Symbolic Images. Studies in the Art of the Renaissance,
London.
Goodison, L. – Morris, C. . “Beyond the ‘Great Mother’: he Sacred
World of the Minoans”, in Ancient Goddesses: he Myths and the Evidence,
ed. L. Goodison – C. Morris, London, –.
Gordon, R.L. . “he Real and the Imaginary: Production and Religion in
the Graeco-Roman World”, Art History , –.
Gow, A.S.F. . “gΙυγξ, Ρμβος, Rhombus, Turbo”, Journal of Hellenic Studies
, –.
Grabler, F. . Die Kreuzfahrer erobern Konstantinopel. Die Regierungszeit
der Kaiser Alexios Angelos, Isaak Angelos und Alexios Dukas, die Schicksale
der Stadt nach der Einnahme sowie das “Buch von den Bildsäulen” (–)
aus dem Geschichtswerk des Niketas Choniates, Graz.
Graf, F. . Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Un-
tersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia,
Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana , Rome.
———. . “Apollon Lykeios in Metapont”, in Πρακτικ του Η" Διενο3ς
Συνεδρου Ελληνικ+ς και Λατινικ+ς Επιγραφικ+ς , Athens, –.
———. . La magie dans l’ antiquité gréco-romaine, Paris.
———. . “Der Eigensinn der Götterbilder in antiken religiösen Diskursen”,
in Homo Pictor, Colloquium Rauricum , ed. G. Boehm, Leipzig, –.
———. . “What is New About Greek Sacriice”, in Kykeon. Studies in Honour
of H.S. Versnel, Religions of the Graeco-Roman World , ed. H.F.J. Horst-
manshoff et al., Leiden, –.
Grandjean, Y. – Salviat, F. . Guide de hasos, Sites et monuments ,
Athens.
Gray, V. . “Xenophon’s Image of Socrates in the Memorabilia”, Prudentia
., –.
———. . he Framing of Socrates: the Literary Interpretation of Xenophon’s
Memorabilia, Hermes Einzelschriten , Stuttgart.
Greenewalt, Jr. C.H. – Rautman, M.L. . “he Sardis Campaigns of ,
, and ”, American Journal of Archaeology , –.
Grenade, P. . Essai sur les origines du principat. Investiture et renouvellement
des pouvoirs impériaux, Paris.
Gros, P. . Aurea templa. Recherches sur l’architecture religieuse de Rome à
l’ époque d’Auguste, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome ,
Rome.
———. . Vitruve et la tradition des traités d’architecture: fabrica et ratiocinatio,
Collection de l’École française de Rome , Rome.
Gros, P. – Sauron, G. “Das politische programm der öfentlichen Bauten”, in
Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-
Bau . Juni – . August , Berlin, –.
 bibliography 

Gruben, G. . “Beobachtungen zum Artemis-Tempel von Sardis”, Mitteilun-

gen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . Tempel und Heiligtümer der Griechen, th edition, Munich.
Gschnitzer, F. . “Bemerkungen zum Zusammenwirken von Magistraten
und Priestern in der griechischen Welt”, Ktema , –.
Guarducci, M. . “Vesta sul Palatino”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
———. . “Enea e Vesta”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti-
tuts. Abteilung Rom , –.
———. . Epigraia greca . Epigrai di carattere privato, Rome.
Guberti Basset, S. . “he Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantino-
ple”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers , –.
———. . “Excellent Oferings: he Lausos Collection in Constantinople”, he
Art Bulletin , –.
———. . he Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople, Cambridge .
Gummerus, H. . “Darstellungen aus dem Handwerk auf römischen Grab-
und Votivsteinen in Italien”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archälogischen Instituts
, –.
Güntner, G. . Göttervereine und Götterversamlungen auf attischen Weihre-
liefs. Untersuchungen zur Typologie und Bedeutung, Beiträge zur Archäologie
, Würzburg.
Gutzwiller, K.J. . Poetic Garlands. Hellenistic Epigram in Context, Berke-
ley.
Hackens, T. . “La couronne leurie d’Héra”, in Greek Numismatics and
Archaeology, Essays in Honor of Margaret hompson, ed. O. Mørkholm –
N.M. Waggoner, Wetteren, –.
Hackländer, N. . Der archaistische Dionysos, Frankfurt.
van Haeperen, F. . Le collège pontiical, ème s. a. C. – ème s. p. C. Contri-
bution à l’étude de la religion publique romaine, Études de philologie, d’arché-
ologie et d’histoire anciennes , Brussels – Rome.
Hafner, G. . “Herakles, Geras, Ogmios”, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani-
schen Zentralmuseums Mainz , –.
Hägg, R. . “Die göttliche Epiphanie im minoischen Ritual”, Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . “Mycenaean Religion: he Helladic and the Minoan Components”,
in Linear B: A  Survey, Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguis-
tique de Louvain , ed. A. Morpurgo Davies – Y. Duhoux, Louvain-la-
Neuve, –.
———. . “he Religion of the Mycenaeans Twenty-Four Years ater the 
Mycenological Congress in Rome”, in De Miro – Godart – Sacconi ,
vol. , –.
———. . “Religious Syncretism at Knossos in Post-Palatial Crete?”, in La
Crète mycénienne, Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l’École
française d’Athènes, – Mars , Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
Suppl. , ed. J. Driessen – A. Farnoux, Athens, –.
Hägg, R. – Lindau, Y. . “he Minoan ‘Snake Frame’ Reconsidered”, Opus-
cula Atheniensia , –.
 bibliography

Hägg, R. – Marinatos, N. . eds. Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze
Age, Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute
in Athens, – May, , Stockholm.
Haider, P.W. . “Minoan Deities in an Egyptian Medical Text”, in Laffi-
neur – Hägg , –
Halfmann, H. . Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiser-
reisen im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart.
Hall, J.M. . “Arcades his Oris: Greek Projections on the Italian Ethno-
scape?”, in Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity, ed.
E. Gruen, Stuttgart, –.
Hallager, E. . he Master Impression. A Clay Sealing from the Greek-
Swedish Excavations at Kastelli, Khania, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
, Göteborg.
Hallett, C.H. . he Roman Nude. Heroic Statuary  bc – ad , Ox-
ford.
Halm-Tisserant, M. – Siebert, G. . “Kerykeion”, in LIMC VIII., –
.
Hamiaux, M. . Les sculptures grecques I. Des origines à la in du IVe siècle
avant J.-C., Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités grecques, étrusques
et romaines, Paris.
Hamilton, N. et al. . “Viewpoint: Can We Interpret Figurines?”, Cambridge
Archaeological Journal , –.
Hanell, K. . “Das Opfer des Augustus an der Ara Pacis. Eine archäologi-
sche und historische Untersuchung”, Opuscula Romana , –.
Hanfmann, G.M.A. . From Croesus to Constantine. he Cities of Western
Asia Minor and heir Arts in Greek and Roman Times, AnnArbor.
Hanfmann, G.M.A. – Frazer, K.J. . “he Artemis Temple: New Sound-
ings”, in A Survey of Sardis and the Major Monuments outside the City Walls,
ed. G.M.A. Hanfmann – J.C. Waldbaum, Cambridge Mass. – London, –
.
Hanfmann, G.M.A. – Ramage, N.H. . Sculpture from Sardis. he Finds
hrough , Cambridge Mass.
Hänlein-Schäfer, H. . Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des
ersten römischen Kaisers, Rome.
Harris, W.V. . Ancient Literacy, Cambridge Mass.
Harrison, E.B. . “Sculpture in stone”, in he Human Figure in Early
Greek Art, ed. J. Sweeney – L. Curry – Y. Tzedakis, Washington DC, –
.
———. . “he Glories of the Athenians: Observations on the Program of the
Frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike”, in he Interpretation of Architectural
Sculpture in Greece and Rome, Studies in the History of Art , Center for
Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers , ed. D. Buitron-
Oliver, Hanover – London, –.
Harrison, E.L. . “he Seated Figure on the Belvedere Altar”, Revue archéo-
logique, –.
Harrison, T. . Divinity and History: he Religion of Herodotus, Oxford
.
 bibliography 

Hartland, S. . “Review of M.W. de Visser, De Graecorum Diis non Ref-

erentibus Speciem Humanum. Ph.D. hesis, Leiden ”, Folklore , –
.
Hartswick, K.J. . “he Gorgoneion on the Aegis of Athena: Genesis,
Suppression, and Survival”, Revue archéologique, –.
Hausmann, U. . Griechische Weihreliefs, Berlin.
Haussoullier, B. . La vie municipale en Attique. Essai sur l’organisation des
dèmes au quatrième siècle, Paris.
Hayashi, T. . Bedeutung und Wandel des Triptolemosbildes vom .-. Jh. v.
Chr., Würzburg.
Heimberg, U. . Das Bild des Poseidon in der griechischen Vasenmalerei,
Freiburg.
Hekler, A. . “Neue Porträtforschungen in Athen”, Archäologischer Anzei-
ger, –.
Helbig, W. . Führer durch die öfentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertü-
mer in Rom, th edition, vol. I, Tübingen.
———. . Führer durch die öfentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in
Rom, th edition, vol. II, Tübingen.
Hennemeyer, A. . “Die Arbeiten im Athenaheiligtum”, in W. Raeck, “Prie-
ne. Neue Forschungen an einem alten Grabungsort”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen
, –.
Herington, C.J. . Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias. A Study in the
Religion of Periclean Athens, Manchester.
Hermary, A. . “Divinités chypriotes I”, Report of the Department of Antiq-
uities, Cyprus, –.
———. . “Eros”, in LIMC III., –.
———. . Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre – Sculptures, Paris.
———. a. “Nouveaux documents sur le sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Idalion
(Ohnefalsch-Richter )”, in Mélanges Olivier Masson, Cahiers du Centre
d’Études Chypriotes , –.
———. b. “Votive Oferings in the Sanctuaries of Cyprus, Rhodes, and Crete
During the Late Geometric and Archaic Periods”, in Eastern Mediterranean,
Cyprus – Dodecanese – Crete, th–th Cent. bc, Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposium Held at Rethymno, Crete in May , ed. V. Kara-
georghis – N. Stampolidis, Athens, –.
Hermary, A. – Jacquemin, A. . “Hephaistos”, in LIMC IV., –.
Herrmann, H.-V. . Omphalos, Orbis antiquus , Münster.
Herter, H. . “heseus der Athener”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie ,
–, –.
———. . “heseus”, in RE Suppl. XIII, –.
von Hesberg, H. . “Archäologische Denkmäler zum römischen Kaiser-
kult”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.., –.
———. . “Bildsyntax und Erzählweise in der hellenistischen Flächenkunst”,
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
Hibler, D. . “he Hero-Reliefs of Laconia: Changes in Form and Function”,
in Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, ed. O. Palagia – W. Coulson,
Oxford, –.
 bibliography

Hiller, S. . “Minoan QE-RA-SI-JA. he Religious Impact of the hera

Volcano on Minoan Crete”, in hera and the Aegean World, Papers Presented
at the Second International Scientiic Congress, Santorini, Greece, vol. I, ed.
C. Doumas, London, –.
———. . “Mykenische Heiligtümer: Das Zeugnis der Linear B-Texte”, in
Hägg – Marinatos , –.
———. . “Mycenaean Traditions in Early Greek Cult Images”, in he Greek
Renaissance of the Eighth Century bc: Tradition and Innovation, Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, –
June, , ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, –.
———. . “Te-o-po-ri-ja”, in Aux origines de l’hellénisme. La Crète et la Grèce,
Hommage à Henri Van Efenterre, Paris, –.
———. a. “Zur Rezeption Ägyptischer Motive in der Minoischen Fresken-
kunst”, Egypt and the Levant , –.
———. b. “Knossos and Pylos. A Case of Special Relationship?”, Cretan
Studies , –.
———. c. “Spätbronzezeitliche Mythologie: die Aussage der Linear B-Texte”
in Hellenische Mythologie / Vorgeschichte, Tagung, .–.., Ohlstadt /
Oberbayern, Altenburg, –.
———. . “Cretan Sanctuaries and Mycenaean Palatial Administration at
Knossos”, in La Crète mycénienne, Actes de la table ronde internationale orga-
nisée par l’École française d’Athènes, – Mars , Bulletin de correspon-
dance hellénique Suppl. , ed. J. Driessen – A. Farnoux, Athens, –.
———. . “he hrone Room and Great East Hall. Questions of Iconography”,
in Πεπραγμνα του Θ" Διενο3ς Κρητολογικο3 Συνεδρου, Ελο3ντα, –
Οκτωβρου , vol. I., Irakleio, –.
Hiller, S. – Panagl, O. . Die frühgriechischen Texte aus mykenischer Zeit,
nd edition, Darmstadt.
Hiller von Gaertringen, F. . Inschriten von Priene, Berlin.
Himmelmann, N. . Ideale Nacktheit in der griechischen Kunst, Jahrbuch des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Suppl. , Berlin – New York.
Himmelmann-Wildschütz, N. . Zur Eigenart des klassischen Götterbildes,
Munich.
Hitchcock, L.A. . Minoan Architecture. A Contextual Analysis, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology Paperback , Jonsered.
Hitzl, K. . Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon, Olympische
Forschungen , Berlin – New York.
———. . “Kultstätten und Praxis des Kaiserkults anhand von Fallbeispie-
len”, in Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen, ed.
H. Cancik – K. Hitzl, Tübingen, –.
von den Hoff, R. . “Die Pracht der Schalen und die Tatkrat des Heros.
heseuszyklen auf Symposiongeschirr in Athen”, in Die griechische Klassik.
Idee oder Wirklichkeit, Mainz, –.
———. . “heseuskult”, in heseus. Der Held der Athener, ed. M. Flashar –
R. von den Hoff – B. Kreuzer, Munich, –.
Hollein, H.-G. . Bürgerbild und Bildwelt der attischen Demokratie auf den
rotigurigen Vasen des .-. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Frankfurt.
 bibliography 

Holloway, R.R. . “Why Korai?”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology , –
.
Hölscher, F. . “Kultbild”, in hesCRA IV, –.
Hölscher, T. . Staatsdenkmal und Publikum vom Untergang der Republik
bis zur Festigung des Kaisertums, Xenia , Konstanz.
———. . “Denkmäler der Schlacht von Actium”, Klio , –.
———. . Römische Bildsprache als semantisches System, Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenscahten, Heidelberg ., Heidelberg.
———. . “Historische Reliefs”, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik,
Austellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau . Juni – . August , Berlin, –
.
———. . “Griechische Bilder für den römischen Senat”, in Festschrit für
N. Himmelmann: Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Hermeneutik, ed. H.-U. Cain
– H. Gabelmann – D. Salzmann, Mainz, –.
———. . “Griechische Formensprache und römisches Wertesystem. Kul-
tureller Transfer in der Dimension der Zeit”, in Akten des XXVIII. Interna-
tionalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, ed. T.W. Gaethgens, Berlin, –
.
———. . “Ritual und Bildsprache: Zur Deutung der Reliefs an der Brüstung
um das Heiligtum der Athena Nike in Athen”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . “Greek Styles and Greek Art in Augustan Rome: Issues of the
Present Versus Records of the Past”, in Classical Pasts: he Classical Traditions
of Greece and Rome, ed. J.I. Porter, Princeton, –.
———. . “Fromme Frauen um Augustus. Konvergenzen und Divergenzen
zwischen Bilderwelt und Lebenswelt”, in Römische Bilderwelten, ed. F. Höl-
scher – T. Hölscher, Heidelberg, –.
———. forthcoming. Visual Power in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Sather Classical
Lectures.
Holtzmann, B. . “Asklepios”, in LIMC II., –.
———. . “Les sculptures de Claros”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscrip-
tions et belles-lettres, –.
Hommel, P. . Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit, Ber-
lin.
Hood, S. . “A Crystal Eye from Knossos”, in ΙΘΑΚΗ. Festschrit für Jörg
Schäfer zum . Geburtstag am . April , ed. S. Böhm – K.-V. von
Eickstedt, Würzburg, –.
Hooker, E.M. . “he Sanctuary and Altar of Chryse in Attic Red-Figure
Vase-Paintings of the Late Fith and Early Fourth Centuries bc”, Journal of
Hellenic Studies , –.
Hooker, J.T. . Mycenaean Greece, London – Boston.
———. . “An Athena at Mycenae?”, in J.T. Hooker, Scripta Minora.
Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek
Subjects, ed. F. Amory – P. Considine – S. Hooker, Amsterdam, –
.
Horster, M. . “Review of M. Clauss, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im
römischen Reich, Stuttgart – Leipzig ”, Klio , –.
 bibliography

Howe, T.N. . “he Toichobat Curvature of the Artemis Temple at Sardis
and the End of the Late Hellenistic Tradition of Temple Design”, in Appear-
ance and Essence. Reinements of Classical Architecture, Proceedings of the
Second Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture, Philadelphia , ed.
L. Haselberger, Philadelphia, –.
Hsu, F.L.K. . “Rethinking the Concept ‘Primitive’ ”, Current Anthropology ,
–.
Hübner, G. . “Ein Porträtkopf aus Pergamon”, in Ritratto uiciale e ritratto
privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano, Roma
, ed. N. Bonacasa – G. Rizza, Rome, –.
Huet, V. – Lissarrague, F. . “Style archaïsant et archaïsation des rites
sur les reliefs néoattiques”, in Bruit-Zaidman – Gherchanoc , –
.
Humphreys, S.C. . “Family Tombs and Tomb-Cult in Ancient Athens:
Tradition or Traditionalism?”, in he Family, Women, and Death, nd edition,
Ann Arbor, –.
Hupfloher, A. . Kulte im kaiserzeitlichen Sparta. Eine Rekonstruktion
anhand der Priesterämter, Berlin.
———. . “Kaiserkult in einem überregionalen Heiligtum: das Beispiel Olym-
pia”, in Kult-Politik—Ethnos. Überregionale Heiligtümer im Umfeld von Kult
und Politik, Historia Einzelschriten , ed. K. Freitag – P. Funke – M.
Haake, Stuttgart, –.
Hurwit, J.M. . he Athenian Acropolis. History, Mythology, and Archaeology
from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge.
Icard-Gianolio, N. . “Les ofrandes votives à Chypre”, in hesCRA I, –
.
Inan, J. – Rosenbaum, E. . Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture
in Asia Minor, London.
Intzesiloglou, C.G. . “A Newly Discovered Archaic Bronze Statue From
Metropolis (hessaly)”, in From the Parts to the Whole: Volume , Acta of
the th International Bronze Congress, Held at Cambridge Mass., May  –
June , , Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. , ed. C.C. Mattusch –
A. Brauer – S.E. Knudsen, Portsmouth, –.
Ioakimidou, C. . Die Statuenreihen griechischer Poleis und Bünde aus spät-
archaischer und klassischer Zeit, Munich.
Isler, H.P. . Acheloos. Eine Monographie, Bern.
———. . “Acheloos”, in LIMC I., –.
Isler-Kerényi, C. . Civilizing Violence. Satyrs on th-Century Greek Vases,
Göttingen.
———. . Dionysos in Archaic Greece. An Understanding hrough Images,
Leiden.
Jacoby, F. . Diagoras : ;εος, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissen-
schaten ., Berlin.
Jahn, O. . “Athene Parthenos”, Archaeologische Zeitung , .
Jaillard, D. . “ ‘Images’ des dieux et pratiques rituelles dans les maisons
grecques. L’ exemple de Zeus Ktesios”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome.
Antiquité , –.
 bibliography 

James, L. . “Pray Not to Fall into Temptation and Be on Your Guard: Pagan
Statues in Christian Constantinople”, Gesta , –.
Jameson, M.H. . “A Decree of hemistokles from Troizen”, Hesperia ,
–.
———. . “A Revised Text of the Decree of hemistokles from Troizen”,
Hesperia , –.
Janin, R. . Constantinople byzantin, Paris.
Jenkins, I. . Greek Architecture and Its Sculpture, Cambridge Mass.
Jenkins, R. . “he Bronze Athena at Byzantium”, Journal of Hellenic Studies
, –.
———. . “Further Evidence Regarding the Bronze Athena at Byzantium”, he
Annual of the British School at Athens , –.
Jones, D.W. . Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete, Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology Paperback , Göteborg.
Jones Roccos, L. . “Perseus”, in LIMC VII., –.
Jördens, A. – Becht-Jördens, G. . “Ein Eberunterkiefer als ‘Staatssymbol’
des Ätolischen Bundes (IG XII ,). Politische Identitätssuche im Mythos
nach dem Ende der spartanischen Hegemonie”, Klio , –.
Jost, M. . Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, Études péloponnésiennes , Paris.
———. . “Évergétisme et tradition religieuse à Mantinée au Ier siècle avant
J.-C.”, in Splendissima ciuitas. Études d’histoire romaine en hommage à François
Jacques, ed. A. Chastagnol – S. Demougin – C. Lepelley, Paris, –.
Jucker, H. . “Die Prinzen auf dem Augustus-Relief in Ravenna”, in Mé-
langes d’histoire ancienne et d’archéologie oferts à P. Collart, Cahiers d’archéo-
logie romande , Lausanne, –.
———. . “Ipse suos Genius adsit visurus honores”, in Classica et Provincialia.
Festschrit E. Diez, Graz, –.
Jung, R. . “Kultbilder in der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis”, in Standorte. Kontext
und Funktion antiker Skulptur, ed. K. Stemmer, Berlin, –.
———. . “Review of E. Sapouna-Sakellarakis, Die bronzenen Menschenig-
uren auf Kreta und in der Ägäis, Prähistorische Bronzefunde I, , Stuttgart
”, Prähistorische Zeitschrit , –.
Kaeser, B. . “Fünte Tat: Die stymphalischen Vögel”, in Wünsche ,
–.
Kahil, L. . “Artemis”, in LIMC II., –.
Kajava, M. . “Inscriptions at Auction”, Arctos , –.
Kaltsas, N. . Ενικ* Αρχαιολογικ* Μουσεο. Τα γλυπτ, Athens.
———. . Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Athens.
Karakasi, K. . Archaic Korai, Los Angeles.
Karanastassi, P. . “Zeus: Römische Kaiserzeit”, in LIMC VIII., –
.
Karlsson, K. . Face to Face with the Absent Buddha: he Formation of
Buddhist Aniconic Art, Ph.D. Uppsala.
Kearns, E. . he Heroes of Attica, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
of the University of London Suppl. , London.
Keesling, C.M. a. “Rereading the Acropolis Dedications”, in Lettered Atti-
ca—A Day of Attic Epigraphy, ed. D. Jordan – J. Traill, Toronto, –.
 bibliography

———. b. he Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge.

———. . “Misunderstood Gestures: Iconatrophy and the Reception of Greek
Sculpture in the Roman Imperial Period”, Classical Antiquity , –.
Kekulé von Stradonitz, R. . “Über den Apoll des Kanachos”, Sitzungs-
berichte der königlich-preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaten, Sitzung der
philosophisch-historischen Classe vom . April , XXIII, Berlin, –.
Kenzler, U. . “Archaia Agora? Zur ursprunglischen Lage der Agora
Athens”, Hephaistos , –.
Kerkhecker, A. . Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, Oxford.
Keuls, E. . he Water Carriers in Hades: A Study of Catharsis hrough Toil
in Classical Antiquity, Amsterdam.
Kienast, D. . “Antonius, Augustus, die Kaiser und Athen”, in Klassisches
Altertum, Spätantike und frühes Christentum. Festschrit A. Lippold, ed. K.
Dietz – D. Hennig – H. Kaletsch, Würzburg, –.
———. . Augustus. Princeps und Monarch, Darmstadt.
Kilian, K. . “Mykenische Heiligtümer der Peloponnes”, in Kotinos. Fest-
schrit für Erika Simon, ed. H. Froning – T. Hölscher – H. Mielsch, Mainz,
–.
Klöckner, A. . “Votive als Gegenstände des Rituals-Votive als Bilder von
Ritualen. Das Beispeil der griechischen Weihreliefs”, in Archäologie und Ri-
tual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen
Ägyptens und Griechenlands, ed. J. Mylonopoulos – H. Roeder, Vienna,
–.
Knauer, E.R. . “Mitra and Kerykeion. Some Relections on Symbolic At-
tributes in the Art of the Classical Period”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, –
.
Knittlmayr, B. . Die attische Aristokratie und ihre Helden, Heidelberg.
Knoepfler, D. . “Cupido ille propter quem hespiae visuntur: une mésa-
venture insoupçonnée de l’Éros de Praxitèle et l’institution du concours des
Erôtideia”, in Nomen Latinum: mélanges de langue, de littérature et de civilisa-
tion latines oferts au professeur André Schneider à l’occasion de son départ à
la retraite, Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté des Lettres – Université de
Neuchâtel , ed. D. Knoepfler, Geneva, –.
Koehl, R.B. . “he Chietain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage”, Journal of
Hellenic Studies , –.
Koenigs, W. . “Der Athenatempel von Priene. Bericht über die –
durchgeführten Untersuchungen”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen , –.
Koep, L. – Herrmann, A. . “Consecratio II”, in Reallexikon für Antike und
Christentum , –.
Koeppel, G.M. a. “he Grand Pictorial Tradition of Roman Historical
Representation During the Early Empire”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt II.., –.
———. b. “Die Ara Pietatis Augustae. Ein Geisterbau”, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
———. . “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit. . Stadtrömis-
che Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus augusteischer und ju-
lisch-claudischer Zeit”, Bonner Jahrbücher , –.
 bibliography 

Kohl, K.-H. . Die Macht der Dinge. Geschichte und heorie sakraler Objekte,
Munich.
Kokkorou-Alewras, G. . “Herakles and the Hesperides”, in LIMC V.,
–.
Kolbe, H.G. –. “Noch einmal Vesta auf dem Palatin”, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom –, –.
Konsolaki, E.  (). “Μανα. |Αγιος Κωνσταντ"νος”, Αρχαιολογικ(ν
Δελτον , –.
———. . “A Group of New Mycenaean Horsemen From Methana”, in Melete-
mata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he
Enters his th Year, Aegaeum , vol. II, ed. P.P. Betancourt et al., Liège –
Austin, –.
———. . “Τα μυκηναϊκ ειδAλια απ τον |Αγιο Κωνσταντ"νο Μενων”,
in Αργοσαρωνικ*ς. Πρακτικ του ου Διενο3ς Συνεδρου Ιστορας και
Αρχαιολογας Αργοσαρωνικο3, Π*ρος, – Ιουνου , vol. I, ed.
E. Konsolaki, Athens, –.
Konsolaki-Yannopoulou, E. . “A Mycenaean Sanctuary on Methana”, in
Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, Proceedings of the Ninth International
Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, – June , ed. R. Hägg,
Stockholm, –.
———. . “Mycenaean Religious Architecture: he Archaeological Evidence
From Ayios Konstantinos, Methana”, in Wedde a, –.
Konstan, D. . “he Dynamics of Imitation: Callimachus’ First Iambus”, in
Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, ed. M.A. Harder – R.F. Regtuit – G.C. Wakker,
Groningen, –.
Korres, G.S. . “Παραστσεις προσφορς ιερς εσ)τος και ιερο1 π-
πλου και τα περ" αυτς προβλ)ματα και συναφ) ργα”, in Πεπραγμνα
του Δ" Διενο3ς Κρητολογικο3 Συνεδρου, vol. II, Athens, –.
Körte, G. . Göttinger Bronzen, Göttingen.
Kossatz-Deissmann, A. . “Hera”, LIMC IV., –.
———. . “Iris I”, in LIMC V., –.
———. . “Paridis iudicium”, in LIMC VII., –.
———. . “Darstellungen von Kultorten”, in hesCRA IV, –.
Köster, R. . Die Bauornamentik der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit, Milet
., Berlin – New York.
Koumanoudes, S. . “Θησως σηκς”, Αρχαιολογικ< Εφημερς, –.
Kraiker, W. . “Archäologische Funde. Griechenland”, Archäologischer An-
zeiger, –.
Krämer, E. . Hermen bärtiger Götter. Klassische Vorbilder und Formen der
Rezeption, Münster.
Kreikenbom, D. . Griechische und römische Kolossalportraits bis zum späten
ersten Jahrhundert n. Chr., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Suppl. , Berlin – New York.
Krentz, P.M. . “he Oath of Marathon, Not Plataia?”, Hesperia , –.
Kreutz, N. . Zeus und die griechischen Poleis. Topographische und reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen von archaischer bis in hellenistische Zeit,
Tübinger Archäologische Forschungen , Tübingen.
 bibliography

Kritzas, C. –. “KΑνBρ φρων τα ρον. Σχλια σ’ _να μνημε$ο τDς

KΑγορJς το gΑργους”, in Πρακτικ το= Ε" Διενο=ς Συνεδρου Πελοπον-
νησιακν Σπουδν II, Athens, –.
Kroll, J. . “Das Gottesbild aus dem Wasser” in Märchen, Mythos, Dichtung.
Festschrit F. von der Leyens, Munich, –.
———. . “he Ancient Image of Athena Polias”, in Studies in Athenian
Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. hompson,
Hesperia Suppl. , Princeton, –.
Kron, U. . Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen. Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und
Darstellung, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung
Athen Suppl. , Berlin.
———. . “Akademos”, in LIMC I., –.
———. . “Heilge Steine”, in Kotinos. Festschrit für Erika Simon, ed. H. Fron-
ing – T. Hölscher – H. Mielsch, Mainz, –.
Kunckel, H. . Der römische Genius, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom Suppl. , Heidelberg.
Kunze, C. . Zum Greifen nah. Stilphänomene in der hellenistischen Skulptur
und ihre inhaltliche Interpretation, Munich.
Kunze-Götte, E. . Der Kleophrades-Maler unter Malern schwarziguriger
Amphoren. Eine Werkstattstudie, Munich.
Kuper, A. . he Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illu-
sion, London – New York.
———. . he Reinvention of Primitive Society: Transformations of a Myth,
London – New York.
Kyriakidis, E. a. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean. he Minoan Peak San-
cuaries, London.
———. b. “Unidentiied Floating Objects on Minoan Seals”, American Jour-
nal of Archaeology , –.
Kyrieleis, H. . “New Cypriot Finds From the Heraion of Samos”, in Cyprus
and the Eastern Mediterranean in the Iron Age, ed. V. Tatton-Brown, Lon-
don, –.
La Rocca, E. . “Eirene e Ploutos”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts , –.
———. . “Pantheon”, in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae V, Corrigenda,
Rome, –.
Laffi, U. . “La lex aedis Furfensis”, in La cultura italica. Atti del convegno
della società italiana di Glottologia (Pisa, dicembre ), Orientamenti lin-
guistici , Pisa, –.
Laffineur, R. . “Seeing is Believing: Relexions on Divine Imagery in the
Aegean Bronze Age”, in Laffineur – Hägg , –.
Laffineur, R. – Crowley, J.L. . eds. ΕΙΚΩΝ. Aegean Bronze Age Iconogra-
phy: Shaping a Methodology, Proceedings of the th International Aegean Con-
ference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia – April , Aegaeum ,
Liège.
Laffineur, R. – Hägg, R. . eds. POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean
Bronze Age, Proceedings of the th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg,
Göteborg University, – April , Aegaeum , Liège – Austin.
 bibliography 

Lafond, Y. . “Pausanias et l’histoire du Péloponnèse depuis la conquête

romaine”, in Pausanias historien: huit exposés suivis de discussions, Entre-
tiens sur l’antiquité classique , ed. D. Musti – J. Bingen, Geneva, –
.
Lahusen, G. . “Sur l’origine et la terminologie des portraits romains”, in
Le regard de Rome. Portraits romains des musées de Mérida, Toulouse et
Tarragona, Toulouse, –.
———. . “Zu römischen Statuen und Bildnisse aus Gold und Silber”, Zeit-
schrit für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , –.
Lambert, S.D. . he Phratries of Attica, Michigan Monographs in Classical
Antiquity, Ann Arbor.
Lambrinudakis, W. et al. . “Apollon”, in LIMC II., –.
Lane Fox, R.J. . “heophrastus’ Characters and the Historian”, Proceedings
of the Cambridge Philological Society , –.
Lapatin, K. . Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean
World, Oxford.
———. . “Review of J.A. MacGillivray – J.M. Driessen – L.H. Sackett (eds.),
he Palaikastro Kouros. A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and Its Aegean
Bronze Age Context, British School at Athens Studies , London ”, Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology , –.
Laubscher, H.P. . Arcus Nocus und Arcus Claudii, Nachrichten der Akade-
mie der Wissenschaten in Göttingen. I. Philologisch-historische Klasse , Göt-
tingen.
Laviosa, C. –. “Una forma minoica per fusione a cera perduta”, Annu-
ario della scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente –,
N.S. –, –.
———. . “Il Lord di Asine è una ‘singe’?”, in Atti e Memorie del o Congresso
internazionale di Micenologia, vol. I, Rome, –.
Lawton, C.L. . Attic Document Reliefs. Art and Politics in Ancient Athens,
Oxford.
———. . “Children in Classical Attic Votive Reliefs”, in Constructions of
Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, Hesperia Suppl. , ed. A. Cohen –
J.B. Rutter, Princeton, –
Lazzarini, M.L. . Le formule delle dediche votive nella grecia arcaica, Atti
della Academia nazionale dei lincei. Memorie. Classe di scienze morali, storiche
e ilologiche, ser. , vol. :, Rome.
Le Guen-Pollet, B. . “Espace sacriiciel et corps des bêtes immolées.
Remarques sur le vocabulaire désignant la part du prêtre dans la Grèce
antique de l’ époque classique à l’ époque impériale”, in L’ espace sacriiciel dans
les civilisations méditerranéennes de l’Antiquité, ed. R. Etienne – M.-Th. Le
Dinahet, Paris, –.
Lebessi, A. . “Der Berliner Widderträger. Hirt oder hervorragender Bür-
ger?”, in Festschrit für Nikolaus Himmelmann, ed. H.-U. Cain – H. Gabel-
mann – D. Salzmann, Mainz, –.
Lechat, H. . Au Musée de l’Acropole. Études sur la sculpture en Attique avant
la ruine de l’Acropole lors de l’invasion de Xerxès, Annales de l’Université de
Lyon X, Paris – Lyon.
 bibliography

Lee, M. . “Constru(ct)ing Gender in the Feminine Greek Peplos”, in he

Clothed Body in the Ancient World, ed. L. Cleland – M. Harlow – L. Lle-
wellyn-Jones, Oxford, –.
Lefèvre, E. . Das Bild-Programm des Apollo-Tempels auf dem Palatin, Xenia
, Konstanz.
Lefkowitz, M. . he Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore.
Legrand, P.-E. . “Sacerdos-Grèce”, in Dictionnaire des Antiquités IV, Paris,
–.
Lehmann, L. – Kansteiner, S. . “. Lysipp (Λ1σιππος) aus Sikyon”, in
Text und Skulptur. Berühmte Bildhauer und Bronzegießer der Antike in Wort
und Bild, ed. S. Kansteiner et al., Berlin, –.
Lejeune, M. – Dubois, L. . “Dédicaces archaïques de Claros”, Comptes
rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, –.
Lenormant, F. . “Les bétyles”, Revue de l’histoire des religions , –
.
van Leuven, J.C. . “Mycenaean Goddesses Called Potnia”, Kadmos , –
.
———. . “he Nilssonian Origin of Mycenaean Mythology”, in De Miro –
Godart – Sacconi , vol. II, –.
Leventi, I. . Hygieia in Classical Greek Art, Αρχαιογνωσα Suppl. , Ath-
ens.
Levi, D. . Festòs e la civiltà minoica I, Incunabula Graeca , Rome.
Lewerentz, A. . Stehende männliche Gewandstatuen im Hellenismus, Ham-
burg.
Libertini, G. . “ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΑΚΑ”, Αρχαιολογικ< Εφημερς, –.
Linand de Bellefonds, P. et al. . “Images de culte”, in hesCRA II, –
.
Lindner, R. . “Hades”, in LIMC IV., –.
Lippolis, E. –. “Apollo Patroos, Ares, Zeus Eleutherios: culto e archi-
tettura di stato ad Atene tra la democrazia e i Macedoni”, Annuario della
scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente –, N.S. –
, –.
———. . “Culto e iconograie della coroplastica votiva—problemi interpreta-
tivi a Taranto e nel mondo greco”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Anti-
quité  (= Image et religion—Méthodes et problématiques pour l’antiquité
gréco-romaine: Le rôle de l’image divine dans la déinition de l’espace sacré),
–.
Liverani, P. . “Ancora sulla ricostruzione dell’ara dei vicomagistri”, Bollet-
tino dei monumenti, musei e gallerie pontiicie , –.
———. . “Il ciclo dei ritratti dell’ediicio absidato di Bassus a Roselle: icono-
graia imperiale e gloriicazione familiare”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
Llewellyn-Jones, L. . Aphrodite’s Tortoise. he Veiled Woman of Ancient
Greece, Swansea.
———. . “Herakles Re-Dressed: Gender, Clothing, and the Construction of
a Greek Hero”, in Herakles and Hercules. Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity,
ed. L. Rawlings – H. Bowden, Swansea, –.
 bibliography 

Long, C.R. . he Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus. A Study of Late Minoan and
Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeo-
logy , Göteborg.
Lovejoy, A.O. – Boas, G. . Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity.
Contributions to the History of Primitivism, New York.
Lowenstam, S. . As Witnessed by Images. he Trojan War Tradition in Greek
and Etruscan Art, Baltimore.
Löwy, E. . “Zwei Reliefs der Villa Albani”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts , –.
Luce, J.-M. . “hésée, le synœcisme et l’ Agora d’Athènes”, Revue archéolo-
gique, –.
Lullies, R. . Die Typen der griechischen Herme, Königsberg.
Ma, J. . “A Horse from Teos: Epigraphical Notes on the Ionian-Hellespon-
tine Association of Dionysiac Artists”, in he Greek heatre and Festivals,
Documentary Studies, ed. P. Wilson, Oxford, –.
Maass, E. . “Heilige Steine”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie , –
.
MacGillivray, J.A. – Driessen, J.M. – Sackett, L.H. . eds. he Palaikastro
Kouros. A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and Its Aegean Bronze Age
Context, British School at Athens Studies , London.
MacGillivray, J.A. – Sackett, H. . “he Palaikastro Kouros: he Cretan
God as a Young Man”, in MacGillivray – Driessen – Sackett , –
.
Machaira, V. . “Η σπονδ) στον ηρωικ και στο εϊκ κ1κλο”, in Αγα(ς
δαμων Mythes et cultes. Études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahil,
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Suppl. , Paris, –.
Maderna, C. . Jupiter, Diomedes und Merkur als Vorbilder für römische
Bildnisstatuen, Heidelberg.
Madigan, B. . “A Statue in the Temple of Apollo at Bassai”, in Sculpture
from Arcadia and Laconia. Proceedings of an International Conference Held
at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, April –, , ed.
O. Palagia – W. Coulson, Oxford, –.
Magdalino, P. . “he Bath of Leo the Wise and the Macedonian Renais-
sance Revisited: Topography, Iconography, Ceremonial, Ideology”, Dumbar-
ton Oaks Papers , –.
Magoulias, H. . O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, De-
troit.
Maier, F.G. . “Priest Kings in Cyprus”, in Early Society in Cyprus, ed.
E. Peltenburg, Edinburgh, –.
Malkin, I. . “What is an Aphidruma?”, Classical Antiquity , –.
———. . Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge – New
York.
Mallwitz, A. . Olympia und seine Bauten, Munich.
Manakidou, F. . Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der hellenistischen Dich-
tung, Stuttgart.
Mandowsky, E. – Mitchell, C. . Pirro Ligorio’s Roman Antiquities. he
Drawings in MS XIII.B  in the National Library in Naples, London.
 bibliography

Manganaro, G. . “La mazza di Herakles”, Epigraphica , –.

Mango, C. . “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder”, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers , –.
———. . “he Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate”, in
Constantinople: he Fabric of the City: Dumbarton Oaks Symposium ,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers , –.
Mango, C. – Vickers, M. – Francis, E.D. . “he Palace of Lausus at
Constantinople and Its Collection of Ancient Statues”, Journal of the History
of Collections , –.
Mangold, M. . Kassandra in Athen, Berlin.
Mansfield, J.M. . he Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos, Ph.D.
UC Berkeley.
Mantis, A.G. . Προβλ+ματα της εικονογραφας των ιερει%ν και των
ιερων στην αρχαα ελληνικ+ τχνη, Αρχαιολογικ(ν Δελτον Suppl. ,
Athens.
Maran, J. – Stavrianopoulou, E. . “Πτνιος KΑν)ρ—Relections on the
ideology of Mycenaean kingship”, in Keimelion. he Formation of Elites and
Elitist Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period. Akten
des internationalen Kongresses vom . bis . Februar  in Salzburg, Denk-
schriten Wien , ed. E. Alram-Stern – G. Nightingale, Vienna, –
.
Marchand, S.L. . Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in
Germany, –, Princeton.
Marconi, C. . Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek
World, New York.
Marengo, S.M. . “Le multae”, in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle inanze muni-
cipali in Occidente ed in Oriente, Actes du colloque Rome, – mai ,
Collection de l’École française de Rome , Rome, –.
Marinatos, N. . “he Function and Interpretation of the heran Frescoes”,
in L’iconographie minoenne, Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (– avril
), Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Suppl. , ed. P. Darcque – J.-
C. Poursat, Paris, –.
———. . Minoan Sacriicial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism, Stockholm.
———. . “An Ofering of Safron to the Minoan Goddess of Nature. he Role
of the Monkey and the Importance of Safron”, in Gits to the Gods, Proceedings
of the Uppsala Symposium , Boreas , ed. T. Linders – G.C. Nordquist,
Uppsala, –.
———. . “he Fresco from Room  at Mycenae: Problems of Method and
Interpretation”, in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Cen-
tenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester,
April , ed. E.B. French – K.A. Wardle, Bristol, –.
———. . Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia.
Marinatos, N. – Hägg, R. . “Anthropomorphic Cult Images in Minoan
Crete”, in Minoan Society, Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium , ed.
O. Krzyszkowska – L. Nixon, Bristol, –.
Marinatos, S. . Kleidung, Haar- und Barttracht, Archaeologia Homerica B,
Göttingen.
 bibliography 

Markoe, G. . “Egyptianizing Male Votive Statuary From Cyprus—A Reex-

amination”, Levant , –.
Martha, J. . Les sacerdoces athéniens, Paris.
Martin, D.B. . Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Chris-
tians, Cambridge Mass.
Marx, P.A. . “he Introduction of the Gorgoneion to the Shield and Aegis
of Athena and the Question of Endoios”, Revue archéologique, –.
Masson, O. . Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques—Recueil critique et
commenté, Paris.
Masson, O. – Hermary, A. . “À propos du ‘prêtre à la colombe’ de New
York”, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes , –.
Matheson, S.B. . Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Classical Athens, Wiscon-
sin.
———. . “A Farewell with Arms. Departing Warriors on Athenian Vases”,
in Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives, ed. J.M. Bar-
ringer – J.M. Hurwit, Austin, –.
Mattern, T. . “Kleonai –. Vorbericht über die Arbeiten im Her-
akleion”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, –.
Mattusch, C.C. . “In Search of the Greek Bronze Original”, in he Ancient
Art of Emulation. Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition From the Present
to Classical Antiquity, ed. E.K. Gazda, Ann Arbor, –.
Matz, F. . Göttererscheinung und Kultbild im minoischen Kreta, Akademie
der Wissenschaten und der Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und
Sozialwissenschatlichen Klasse ., Wiesbaden.
Mavrogiannis, T. . Aeneas und Euander. Mythische Vergangenheit und
Politik in Rom vom . Jh. v. Chr. bis zur Zeit des Augustus, Naples.
May, J.M.F. . Ainos, Its History and Coinage – B.C., Oxford.
Mayor, A. . he First Fossil Hunters, Paleontology in Greek and Roman
Times, Princeton.
McCauley, B. . “Heroes and Power: he Politics of Bone Transferal”, in
Ancient Greek Hero Cult, Proceedings of the Fith International Seminar on
Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology
and Ancient History, Göteborg University, – April , ed. R. Hägg,
Stockholm, –.
McGovan, E.R. . “Experiencing and Experimenting with Embodied
Archaeology: Re-Embodying the Sacred Gestures of Neopalatial Minoan
Crete”, in Embodied Identities, Archaeological Review from Cambridge ., ed.
I. Vella Gregory, Cambridge, –.
Meiggs, R. – Lewis, D. eds. . A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to
the End of the Fith Century bc, revised edition, Oxford.
Mekacher, N. . Die vestalischen Jungfrauen in der römsichen Kaiserzeit,
Palilia , Wiesbaden.
Merec, R. . “Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des Domitian in
Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua. Festschrit H. Kenner , Vienna – Berlin, –
.
Merkelbach, R. – Stauber, J. . Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen
Osten. . Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion, Stuttgart – Leipzig.
 bibliography

Mettinger, T.N.D. . No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient

Near Eastern Context, Stockholm.
Metzger, H. . “Sur le valeur de l’ attribut dans l’interprétation de certaines
igures du monde éleusinien”, in ΕΙΔΩΛΟΠΟΙΙΑ. Actes du colloque sur les
problèmes de l’image dans le monde méditerranéen classique, ed. H. Metzger,
Rome, –.
Metzler, D. –. “Anikonische Darstellungen”, Visible Religion –, –
.
Meyer, D. . “Die Einbeziehung des Lesers in den Epigrammen des Kalli-
machos”, in Callimachus, ed. M.A. Harder – R.F. Regtuit – G.C. Wakker,
Groningen, –.
———. . Inszeniertes Lesevergnügen. Das inschritliche Epigramm und seine
Rezeption bei Kallimachos, Stuttgart.
Meyer, H. . Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen: von ihrem
Ursprunge bis zum höchsten Flor, Dresden.
Meyer, M. . Die griechsichen Urkundenreliefs, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen Suppl. , Berlin.
Mikalson, J.D. . Athenian Popular Religion, Chapel Hill.
———. . Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Hellenistic Culture and Society ,
Berkeley.
Mikocki, T. . Sub specie deae, Rivista di archeologia Suppl. , Rome.
Militello, P. . Haghia Triadha I. Gli afreschi, Padua.
———. . “Minoische Tradition und mykenische Innovation: Wandbilder
und Kultaktivitäten in Agia Triada in SM IIIA”, Jahrbuch des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts , –.
Millar, F. . A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief under heodosius II
(–), Sather Classical Lectures , Berkeley.
Miller, S.G. . “he Altar of the Six Goddesses in hessalian Pherai”,
California Studies in Classical Antiquity , –.
———. . “Architecture as Evidence for the Identity of the Early Polis”, in
Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium August, – , Acts
of the Copenhagen Polis Centre , Copenhagen, –.
Mills, H. . “Greek Clothing Regulations: Sacred and Profane?”, Zeitschrit
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , –.
Mills, S. . heseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire, Oxford.
Miniero, P. . he Sacellum of the Augustales at Miseno, Naples.
Mintsi, E. . “Hypnos et hanatos sur les lécythes attiques à fond blanc
(deuxième moitié du Ve siècle av. J.-C.)”, Revue des études anciennes , –
.
Mitford, T.B. . “Further Contributions to the Epigraphy of Cyprus”, Amer-
ican Journal of Archaeology , –.
Moede, K. . “Aeneas, Latinus und die Ara Pacis”, Archäologischer Anzeiger,
–.
———. . Ritual und Bild, Ph.D. Greifswald.
———. . “Reliefs, Public, and Private (Including Sarcophagi)”, in he Black-
well Companion to the Ancient World . Roman Religion, ed. J. Rüpke, Oxford,
–.
 bibliography 

Moggi, M. – Osanna, M. . Pausania. Guida della Grecia VIII. L’ Arcadia,

Milan.
Moltesen, M. – Herz, N. – Moon, J. . “he Lepsius marbles”, in Ancient
Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance, ed. M. Waelkens – N. Herz –
L. Moens, Leuven, –.
Monbrun, P. . “La chouette-hoplite d’Athéna et la Crète des archers. Les
‘dessous’ d’une allergie réciproque”, Revue des études anciennes , –.
Moore, A.D. . “he Large Monochrome Terracotta Figures From Myce-
nae: he Problem of Interpretation”, in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers
Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at
Athens, April , ed. E.B. French – K.A. Wardle, Bristol, –.
Moore, A.D. – Taylour, W.D. . he Temple Complex, Well Built Mycenae
, Oxford.
Moreno, P. . “Kairós”, in Lisippo. L’ arte e la fortuna, ed. P. Moreno, Rome,
–.
Moret, J.-M. . “Un ancêtre du Phylactère: le pilier inscrit des vases italiotes”,
Revue archéologique, –.
———. . “Circé tisseuse sur les vases du Cabirion”, Revue archéologique, –
.
Morgan, C. . “From Palace to Polis? Religious Developments on the Greek
Mainland During the Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition”, in Religion and Power
in the Ancient Greek World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium, Boreas ,
ed. P. Hellström – B. Alroth, Uppsala, –.
Morgan, L. . “Frontal Face and the Symbolism of Death in Aegean Glyptic”,
in Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, – septem-
bre , Clermont-Ferrand, CMS Suppl. , ed. I. Pini – J.-C. Poursat, Berlin,
–.
———. . “he Cult Centre at Mycenae and the Duality of Life and Death”, in
Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron, he Annual of the British
School at Athens Studies , ed. L. Morgan, London, –.
Morris, C. . “he Language of Gesture in Minoan Religion”, in Laffi-
neur – Hägg , –.
———. . “From Ideologies of Motherhood to Collecting Mother Goddesses”,
in Archaeology and European Modernity: Producing and Consuming the ‘Mi-
noans’, Creta Antica , ed. Y. Hamilakis – N. Momigliano, Catania ,
–.
Morris, C. – Peatfield, A. . “Experiencing Ritual: Shamanic Elements in
Minoan Religion”, in Wedde a, –.
Morris, I. . “he Strong Principle of Equality and the Archaic Origins of
Greek Democracy”, in Demokratia, ed. J. Ober – C. Hedrick, Princeton, –
.
Moss, M.L. . he Minoan Pantheon. Towards an Understanding of Its Nature
and Extent, British Archaeological Reports International Series , Ox-
ford.
Motte, A. . “Figures du prêtre dans la littérature grecque”, in La igure du
prêtre dans les grandes traditions religieuses, ed. A. Motte – P. Marchetti,
Leuven, –.
 bibliography

Mountjoy, P.A. . “Ritual Associations for LM I B Marine Style Vases”,

in L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (– avril
), Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Suppl. , ed. P. Darcque – J.-
C. Poursat, Paris, –.
Moussy, C. . “Ornamentum et ornatus: de Plaute à la Vulgate”, Revue des
études latines , –.
Müller, K.O. – Welcker, F.G. . Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst,
Breslau.
———. . Ancient Art and Its Remains, or A Manual of the Archaeology of Art,
transl. J. Leitch, London.
Müller, W. . “Kultbild” in RE Suppl. V, –.
Müller, W. . Kretische Tongefäße mit Meeresdekor, Archäologische For-
schungen , Berlin.
———. . “Zu Stil und Zeitstellung des Bildthemas Herr der Löwen”, in Pini
, –.
Musgrave, J.H. . “he Anatomy of a Minoan Masterpiece”, in Ivory in
Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic
Period, British Museum Occasional Paper , ed. J.L. Fitton, London, –
.
Musti, D. . Pausanias, Guida della Grecia, Rome.
Mylonas, G.E. . Eleusis and the Eleusinian mysteries, Princeton.
Mylonopoulos, J. . Πελοπ*ννησος ο@κητ+ριον Ποσειδνος. Heiligtümer
und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes, Kernos Suppl. , Liège.
———. . “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Communication hrough Ritual:
An Archaeological Perspective”, in Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-
Roman World, Kernos Suppl. , ed. E. Stavrianopoulou, Liège, –.
———. a. “ ‘Fremde’ Weihungen in Heiligtümern der Ostägäis im . und .
Jh. v. Chr.”, in Austausch von Gütern, Ideen und Technologien in der Ägäis und
im östlichen Mittelmeer, –, Weilheim.
———. b. “Natur als Heiligtum-Natur im Heiligtum”, in Religion und Raum,
Archiv für Religionsgeschichte , ed. F. Hölscher – T. Hölscher, Leipzig,
–.
———. forthcoming. “Eirene and Ploutos: New houghts and Old Problems”.
Myres, J.L. –. “he Sanctuary-Site of Petsofà”, he Annual of the British
School at Athens , –.
———. . Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.
———. –. “Excavations in Cyprus, ”, he Annual of the British
School at Athens , –.
Nagy, Á.M. . “Figuring out the Anguipede (‘Snake-Legged God’) and His
Relation to Judaism”, Journal of Roman Archaeology , –.
Naumann, G. . Griechische Weihinschriten, Halle.
Navarre, O. . Caractères, Paris.
Neer, R.T. . Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting: he Crat of
Democracy, ca. – B.C.E, Cambridge.
Neils, J. . he Youthful Deeds of heseus, Archaeologica , Rome.
———. . “heseus”, in LIMC VII., –.
 bibliography 

———. . “Yet Another Red-Figure Panathenaic Amphora”, in Festschrit in

Honour of J. Richard Green = Mediterranean Archaeology , –.
Neumann, G. . Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs, Tübinger Studien zur
Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte , Tübingen.
Nicolaou, I. . Cypriot Inscribed Stones, Nicosia.
Nielsen, T.H. et al. . “Athenian Grave Monuments and Social Class”, Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies , –.
Niemeier, W.-D. . “Zur Deutung des hronraumes von Knossos”, Mittei-
lungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . “Das Stuckrelief des ‘Prinzen mit der Federkrone’ aus Knossos und
minoische Götterdarstellungen”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . “Zur Ikonographie von Gottheiten und Adoranten in den Kult-
szenen auf minoischen und mykenischen Siegeln”, in Fragen und Probleme
der bronzezeitlichen Glyptik. Beiträge zum . internationalen Marburger Siegel-
Symposium, .–. September , CMS Suppl. , ed. I. Pini, Berlin, –.
———. . “Cult Scenes on Gold Rings from the Argolid”, in Celebrations
of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, ed. R. Hägg –
G.C. Nordquist, Stockholm, –.
Niemeyer, H.-G. . Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen
Kaiser, Monumenta artis Romanae , Berlin.
Nilsson, M.P. . Die Religion der Griechen, Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch
, Tübingen.
———. . Greek Popular Religion, New York.
———. . Greek Folk Religion, New York.
———. . Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. . Die Religion Griechen-
lands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschat, rd edition, Munich.
———. . he Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion,
nd edition, Lund.
———. . Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. . Die hellenistische und
römische Zeit, rd edition, Munich.
Nock, A.D. . “Σ1νναος ες”, in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World ,
ed. Z. Stewart, Cambridge Mass., – (originally published in Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology , , –).
Nollé, J. . Side im Altertum, Inschriten griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien
., Bonn.
Oakley, J.H. . Picturing Death in Classical Athens. he Evidence of the White
Lekythoi, Cambridge Studies in Classical Art and Iconography, Cambridge.
Oenbrink, W. . Das Bild im Bilde. Zur Darstellung von Götterstatuen und
Kultbildern auf griechischen Vasen, Frankfurt.
Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. . Kypros, the Bible and Homer, London.
Oldfather, C.H. ed. . Diodorus of Sicily,  vols., London – New York.
Osanna, M. . Santuari e culti dell’Achaia antica, Naples.
Osborne, M.J. . Naturalization in Athens, vol. , Brussels.
———. . Naturalization in Athens, vol. –, Brussels.
———. . Naturalization in Athens, vol. , Brussels.
 bibliography

Osborne, M.J. – Byrne, S.G. . Foreign Residents of Athens. An Annex to the
Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica, Studia hellenistica , Leuven.
Osborne, R. . “he Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai”, Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society N.S. –, –.
———. . “Looking On—Greek Style: Does the Sculpted Girl Speak to Wom-
en, Too?”, in Classical Greece-Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, ed.
I. Morris, Cambridge, –.
———. . “Law, the Democratic Citizen, and Representation of Women in
Classical Athens”, in Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society, ed. R. Os-
borne, Cambridge, –.
Østby, E. . “Recent Excavations in the Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea”,
in Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, Proceedings of the Ninth International
Symposion at the Swedish Institute at Athens, – june , ed. R. Hägg,
Stockholm, –.
Østby, E. et al. ., “he Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea”, Opuscula
Atheniensia , –.
Otto, B. –. “Kultisches und Ikonographisches zum minoisch-myke-
nischen Dionysos”, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschat in Wien
–, –.
Overbeck, J.A. a. “Über das Cultusobjekt bei den Griechen in seinen
ältesten Gestaltungen”, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich-säch-
sischen Akademie der Wissenschaten zu Leipzig, philologisch-historische Klas-
se , –.
———. b. “Über die Bedeutung des grieschischen Götterbildes und die
aus derselben liessenden kunstgeschichtlichen Consequenzen”, Berichte über
die Verhandlungen der königlich-sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaten zu
Leipzig, philologisch-historische Klasse , –.
———. . Die antiken Schritquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei
den Griechen, nd edition, Hildesheim.
Pache, C. . Baby and Child Heroes in Ancient Greece, Urbana.
Pakkanen, P. –. “he Relationship Between Continuity and Change
in Dark Age Greek Religion: A Methodological Study”, Opuscula Atheniensia
–, –.
Palagia, O. . “No Demokratia” in he Archaeology of Athens and Attica
under the Democracy, ed. W.D.E. Coulson et al., Oxford, –.
———. . “Interpretations of Two Athenian Friezes: he Temple on the Ilissos
and the Temple of Athena Nike”, in Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems
and Perspectives, ed. J.M. Barringer – J.M. Hurwit, Austin, –.
———. . “Archaism and the Quest for Immortality in Attic Sculpture During
the Peloponnesian War”, in Art in Athens During the Peloponnesian War, ed.
O. Palagia, Cambridge, –
Paliompeis, S. . Studien zur Innenausstattung griechischer Tempel. Skulptur
und Malerei, Ph.D. Mainz.
Panagiotaki, M. . he Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos, he Annual of
the British School at Athens Suppl. , London.
Panciera, S. . “Fasti fabrum tignariorum urbis Romae”, Zeitschrit für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik , –.
 bibliography 

Paoletti, O. . “Kassandra I”, in LIMC VII., –.

Papachatzis, N.D. . Παυσανου AΕλλδος Περι+γησις . Αχαϊκ και
Αρκαδικ, Athens.
Papadopoulos, J.K. . Ceramicus redivivus. he Early Iron Age Potters’
Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora, Hesperia Suppl. , Prince-
ton.
Papalexandrou, N. . he Visual Poetics of Power. Warriors, Youths, and
Tripods in Early Greece, Lexington.
Pape, M. . Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre öfentliche
Aufstellung in Rom. Von der Eroberung von Syrakus bis in augusteische Zeit,
Ph.D. Hamburg.
Parke, H.W. . Festivals of the Athenians, London.
Parker, R. . Athenian Religion. A History, Oxford.
———. a. “Greek Dedications I—Introduction, Literary and Epigraphical
Sources”, in hesCRA I, –.
———. b. “What Are Sacred Laws?”, in he Law and he Courts in Ancient
Greece, ed. E.M. Harris – L. Rubinstein, London, –.
———. . Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.
Parker, R. – Obbink, D. . “Aus der Arbeit der ‘Inscriptiones Graecae’
VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I”, Chiron , –.
———. . “Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II”, Chiron , –.
Patterson, C.B. . Pericles’ Citizenship Law of  /  bc, nd edition, Sa-
lem.
Payne, H. – Mackworth-Young, G. . Archaic Marble Sculpture from the
Acropolis, nd edition, London.
Peatfield, A.A.D. . “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society”, Opus-
cula Atheniensia , –.
———. . “Ater the ‘Big Bang’—What? Or Minoan Symbols and Shrines
Beyond Palatial Collapse” in Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space
in Ancient Greece, ed. S.E. Alcock – R. Osborne, Oxford, –.
———. . “Minoan Religion”, in Cretan Quests. British Explorers, Excavators
and Historians, ed. D. Huxley, London, –.
Pedley, J.G. . “Cycladic inluences in Sixth-Century Sculpture of Attica”, in
Athens Comes of Age – From Solon to Salamis, ed. W.A.P. Childs, Princeton,
–.
Peek, W. . Griechische Grabgedichte, Berlin.
Pekáry, T. . Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschat, Das
römische Herrscherbild ., Berlin.
Pélékidis, C. . Histoire de l’ éphébie attique des origines à  avant Jésus-
Christ, École française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires , Paris.
Pemberton, E.G. . “he East and West Friezes of the Temple of Athena
Nike”, American Journal of Archaeology , –.
Peschlow-Bindokat, A. . “Demeter und Persephone in der attischen
Kunst des . bis . Jahrhunderts”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts , –.
Petersen, E. . “L’ Ara Pacis Augustae”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
 bibliography

———. . Ara Pacis Augustae, Vienna.

Peterson Murray, S. . “Reconsidering the Room of the Ladies at Akrotiri”,
in ΧΑΡΙΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Hesperia Suppl. , ed.
A.P. Chapin, Princeton, –.
Petrovic, A. – Petrovic, I. . “Stop and Smell the Statues. Callimachus’
Epigram  Pf. Reconsidered (Four Times)”, Materiali e discussioni per l’anna-
lisi dei testi classici , –.
Petrovic, I. . “Delusions of Grandeur: Homer, Zeus and the Telchines in
Callimachus’ Reply (Aitia Fr. ) and Iambus ”, Antike und Abendland , –
.
———. . Von den Toren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp. Artemiskult bei
heokrit und Kallimachos, Leiden – Boston.
Petsas, F. . “Α,γ"οχος π7 τ7 Α3γιον”, Αρχαιολογικ Ανλεκτα ξ Αη-
νν , –.
Pfeiffer, R. . Die neuen Diegeseis zu Kallimachosgedichten, Sitzungsberichte
der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaten, philologisch-historische Klasse
, Munich.
———. . “he Image of the Delian Apollo and Apolline Ethics”, Journal of
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes , –.
Pfister, F. –. Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, Religionsgeschichtliche
Versuche und Vorarbeiten :–, Giessen.
Pfuhl, E. – Möbius, H. . Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs I, Mainz.
Picard, C. –. “Statues et ex-voto du ‘stibadeion’ dionysiaque de Délos”,
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique –, –.
Picard, G. . “Les oiciants aux pieds nus”, Bulletin de la Société Nationale
des Antiquaires de France, –.
Pietilä-Castren, L. . “Some Aspects of the Life of Lucius Mummius Acha-
icus”, Arctos , –.
———. . Magniicentia publica. he Victory Monuments of the Roman Gener-
als in the Era of the Punic Wars, Commentationes humanarum litterarum ,
Helsinski.
Pietz, W. . “Fetish”, in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. R.S. Nelson –
R. Shiff, Chicago, –.
Pilali-Papasteriou, A. . “Social Evidence From the Interpretation of
Middle Minoan igurines”, in he Meaning of hings. Material Culture and
Symbolic Expression, ed. I. Hodder, London, –.
Pinelli, P. – Wasowicz, A. . Catalogue des bois et stucs grecs et romains
provenant de Kertch, Paris.
Pini, I. . “Chronological Problems of Some Late Minoan Signet Rings”, in
Temple University Aegean Symposium , ed. P.P. Betancourt, Philadelphia,
–.
———. . ed. Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. In-
ternationales Siegel-Symposium, Marburg, .–. September , CMS
Suppl. , Berlin.
Pirenne-Delforge, V. . “L’iynge dans le discours mythique et les procé-
dures magiques”, Kernos , –.
———. . “Les Charites à Athènes et dans l’île de Cos”, Kernos , –.
 bibliography 

———. . “La cité, les dêmotelê hiera et les prêtres”, in Ιδ0α κα1 δημοσ0α. Les
cadres “privés” et “publics” de la religion grecque antique, Kernos Suppl. , ed.
V. Dasen – M. Piérart, Liège, –.
———. a. “Des marmites pour un méchant petit hermès! ou comment
consacrer une statue”, in Image et religion dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine. Actes
du colloque de Rome, – décembre , Naples, –.
———. b. Retour à la source. Pausanias et la religion grecque, Kernos Suppl.
, Liège.
Pironti, G. . Entre ciel et guerre. Figures d’Aphrodite en Grèce ancienne,
Kernos Suppl. , Liège.
———. forthcoming. “Sous le ciel d’Éryx. À propos d’Élien, Sur la nature des
animaux, X, ”, in Architecturer l’invisible. Modes de mise en présence et
formes d’approches des instances, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, ed.
M. Cartry – J.-L. Durand – R. Piettre, Turnhout.
Platner, S.B. – Ashby, T. . A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome,
Rome.
Platon, L. . “Το ανγλυφο ρυτ της Ζκρου, κτω απ να νο σημασιο-
λογικ πρ"σμα”, in Αργονα3της. Τιμητικ*ς τ*μος για τον καηγητ+ Χρστο
Γ. Ντο3μα απ* τους μαητς του στο Πανεπιστ+μιο Αην%ν, ed. A. Vla-
chopoulos – K. Birtacha, Athens, –.
Platt, V. . “Evasive Epiphanies in Ekphrastic Epigram”, in Elsner
.
Podlecki, A.J. . “Cimon, Skyros and ‘heseus’ bones”, Journal of Hellenic
Studies , –.
Pollitt, J.J. . Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge.
Pope, M. . “Cretan Axe-Heads with Linear A inscriptions”, he Annual of
the British School at Athens , –.
Porter, J.I. . “Ideals and Ruins: Pausanias, Longinus, and the Second
Sophistic”, in Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, ed. S.E. Al-
cock et al., Oxford – New York, –.
Post, A. . Römische Hütmantelstatuen, Münster.
Postlethwaite, N. . “he Death of Zeus Kretagenes”, Kernos , –
.
Pötscher, W. . Aspekte und Probleme der minoischen Religion. Ein Versuch,
Hildesheim.
Potts, A. . Flesh and he Ideal: Winckelmann and he Origins of Art History,
New Haven – London.
———. . “Introduction”, in Winckelmann , –.
Poursat, J.-C. . “Review of J.A. MacGillivray – J.M. Driessen – L.H. Sackett
(eds.), he Palaikastro Kouros. A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and Its
Aegean Bronze Age Context, British School at Athens Studies , London ”,
Topoi ., –.
Preger, T. . ed. Patria Konstantinupoleos, Scriptores Originum Constatino-
politanarum II, Leipzig.
Price, S.R.F. . Rituals and Power. he Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor,
Cambridge.
———. . Religions of the Greeks, Cambridge.
 bibliography

Prost, F. . “Norme et image divine. L’ exemple de la ‘statue d’or’ de l’Acro-

pole”, in La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne, Kernos Suppl. ,
ed. P. Brulé, Liège, –.
Pryce, F.N. . Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Ro-
man Antiquities of the British Museum I. – Cypriote and Etruscan, Lon-
don.
Pucci, G. . “La statua, la maschera, il segno”, in La maschera, il doppio e il
ritratto, ed. M. Bettini, Rome – Bari, –.
Pullan, R.P. – Fergusson, J. – Newton, C.T. . Antiquities of Ionia ,
London.
Pulsinger, B. . Form und Funktion der Beizeichen in der ägäischen Glyptik,
MA Vienna.
Pülz, S. . Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Bauornamentik von Didyma,
Istanbuler Mitteilungen Suppl. , Tübingen.
Queyrel, F. . Les portraits des Attalides, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises
d’Athènes et de Rome , Athens – Paris.
Raeck, W. . “Zeus Philios in Pergamon”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, –
.
Rankin, H.D. . Archilochos of Paros, Park Ridge.
Raptou, E. . Athènes et Chypre à l’époque perse (VIe–IVe s. av. J.-C.),
Collection de la Maison de l’Orient , Lyon.
Raubitschek, A. – Jeffery, L.H.  (). Dedications From the Athenian
Acropolis. A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fith Centuries bc,
Cambridge.
Rea, J.A. . Legendary Rome. Myth, Monuments, and Memory on the Palatine
and Capitoline, London.
Regard, F. . “he Catholic Mule: E.B. Tylor’s Chimeric Perception of
Otherness”, Journal of Victorian Culture , –.
Rehak, P. . “New Observations on the Mycenaean Warrior Goddess”,
Archäologischer Anzeiger, –.
———. . “Tradition and Innovation in the Fresco from Room  in the ‘Cult
Center’ at Mycenae”, in Laffineur – Crowley , –.
———. . “he Mycenaean ‘Warrior Goddess’ Revisited”, in Polemos. Le
contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze, Actes de la e Rencontre égéenne
internationale, Université de Liège, – avril , Aegaeum , vol. I, ed.
R. Laffineur, Liège – Austin, –.
———. . “he Isopata Ring and the Question of Narrative in Neopalatial
Glyptic”, in Pini , –.
Reinmuth, O.W. . “he Ephebate and Citizenship in Attica”, Transactions
and Proceedings of the American Philological Association , –.
———. . “he Genesis of the Athenian Ephebeia”, Transactions and Proceed-
ings of the American Philological Assosication , –.
Reisch, E. . “Argoi lithoi”, in RE II., –.
Renfrew, A.C. . he Archaeology of Cult. he Sanctuary at Phylakopi, he
Annual of the British School at Athens Suppl. , London.
Rethemiotakis, G. . Ανρωπομορφικ+ πηλοπλαστικ+ στην Κρ+τη, Ath-
ens.
 bibliography 

Reusch, H. . “Zum Wandschmuck des hronsaales in Knossos”, in Minoica.

Festschrit zum . Geburtstag von Johannes Sundwall, ed. E. Grumach, Ber-
lin, –.
Reuter, U.R. . Ara Pietatis Augustae, Münster.
Reyes, A.T. . Archaic Cyprus—A Study of the Textual and Archaeological
Evidence, Oxford.
Rhodes, P.J. . A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Ox-
ford.
Rhodes P.J. – Osborne, R. . Greek Historical Inscriptions – bc. Edited
with Introduction, Translations, and Commentaries, Oxford.
Rhomaios, K.A. . “KΑρκαδικο6 0ρμα$”, Αρχαιολογικ< Εφημερς, –.
Rhomiopoulou, K. . Ελληνορομαϊκ γλυπτ του Ενικο3 Αρχαιολογι-
κο3 Μουσεου, Athens.
Richter, G.M.A. . Korai—Archaic Greek Maidens. A Study of the Develop-
ment of the Kore Type in Greek Sculpture, London – New York.
Ridgway, B.S. . “Of Kouroi and Korai, Attic Variety”, in Studies in Athenian
Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presented to Homer A. hompson,
Hesperia Suppl. , Princeton, –.
———. . Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: he Problem of the Originals, Ann
Arbor.
———. . “Birds, ‘Meniskoi’, and Head Attributes in Archaic Greece”, Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology , –.
———. . “Images of Athena on the Akropolis” in Goddess and Polis – he
Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, ed. J. Neils, Princeton, –.
———. . he Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, nd edition, Chicago.
Riemann, H. . “Zum Forumstempel und zum unteren Heiligtum der For-
tuna Primigenia zu Praeneste”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
Riethmüller, J.W. . “Bothros and Tetrastyle: he Heroon of Asclepius in
Athens”, in Ancient Greek Hero Cult, Proceedings of the Fith International
Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Department of Classical
Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, – April , ed.
R. Hägg, Stockholm, –.
Rigsby, K.J. . Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, Berke-
ley.
Ritter, S. . Hercules in der römischen Kunst von den Anfängen bis Augustus,
Heidelberg.
Robert, L. . “Documents d’Asie Mineure”, Bulletin de correspondance hel-
lénique , –.
———. . “Documents d’Asie Mineure”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
, –.
Robertson, M. . “Greek Art and Religion” in Greek Religion and Society,
ed. P.E. Easterling – J.V. Muir, Cambridge, –.
Robertson, N. . “Solon’s Axiones and Kyrbeis, and the Sixth-Century
Background”, Historia , –.
———. . Festivals and Legends: he Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of
Public Ritual, Phoenix Suppl. , Toronto.
 bibliography

———. . “Athena and Early Greek Society: Palladium Shrines and Promon-
tory Shrines”, in Religion in the Ancient World: New hemes and Approaches,
ed. M. Dillon, Amsterdam, –.
———. . “he City Center of Archaic Athens”, Hesperia , –.
Robertson Smith, W. . Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. First Series.
he Fundamental Institutions, Burnett Lectures, Aberdeen University, -
, New York.
Robinson, D.M. . “Two Epitaphs from Sardis”, in Anatolian Studies Pre-
sented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, ed. W.H. Buckler – W.M. Calder,
Manchester, –.
Rodenwaldt, G. . “Ein Votivpinax aus Mykenä”, Mitteilungen des Deut-
schen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . heoi rheia zoöntes, Berlin.
Rolley, C. . “Encore les φιδρ1ματα: sur la fondation de Marseille, de ha-
sos et de Rome”, Annali dell’Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli.
Dipartimento di studi del mondo classico e del Mediterraneo antico. Sezione
di archeologia e storia antica N.S. , –.
Romano, I.B. . Early Greek Cult Images, PhD University of Pennsylvania.
———. . “Early Greek Cult Images and Cult Practices”, in Early Greek Cult
Practice, Proceedings of the Fith International Symposium at the Swedish Insti-
tute at Athens, – June, , ed. R. Hägg – N. Marinatos – G. Nord-
quist, Stockholm – Göteborg, –.
Rose, C.B. . Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-
Claudian Period, Cambridge.
Rosen, R.M. . “Hipponax and the Homeric Odysseus”, Eikasmos , –
.
———. . “he Hellenistic Epigrams on Archilochus and Hipponax”, in Brill’s
Companion to Hellenistic Epigram down to Philip, ed. P. Bing – J.S. Bruss,
Leiden, –.
Ross, L. . “Akademos und heseus”, Archäologische Zeitung , –.
Ross Tylor, L. . “he Mother of the Lares”, American Journal of Archaeology
, –.
Rossetti, G.M. . Imagining the Primitive in Naturalist and Modernist Liter-
ature, Columbia.
Rouse, W.H.D. . Greek Votive Oferings, Cambridge.
Rückert, B. . Die Herme im öfentlichen und privaten Leben der Griechen.
Untersuchungen zur Funktion der griechischen Herme als Grenzmal, Inschrif-
tenträger und Kultbild des Hermes, Regensburg.
Rudhardt, J. . Du mythe, de la religion grecque et de la compréhension
d’autrui, Geneva.
———. . Notions fondamentales et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce
classique, nd edition, Paris.
Rüpke, J. . “Controllers and Professionals. Analyzing Religious Specialists”,
Numen , –.
Rumscheid, F. . Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des
Hellenismus, Mainz.
———. . Priene. Führer durch das “Pompeji Kleinasiens”, Istanbul.
 bibliography 

———. . “Den Anschluß verpasst: Priene in der (frühen) Kaiserzeit”, in Patris
und Imperium. Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen
Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit, Köln , Bulletin van de
Antieke Beschaving Suppl. , ed. C. Berns et. al., Leuven, –.
Rutkowski, B. . “Temple and Cult Statue in the Aegean World”, in Πε-
πραγμνα του Γ" Διενο3ς Κρητολογικο3 Συνεδρου, vol. I, Athens, –
.
———. . Frühgriechische Kultdarstellungen, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen Suppl. , Berlin.
———. . he Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven – London.
———. a. Petsophas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary, Warsaw.
———. b. “Prayer (Adoration) Gestures in Prehistoric Greece”, Archeologia
(Warsaw) , –.
Rutter, N.K. – Sparkes, B.A. eds. . Word and Image in Ancient Greece,
Edinburgh.
Saglio, E. . “Argoi Lithoi”, in Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines
I., ed. C. Daremberg – E. Saglio, Paris, –.
Sakellarakis, Y. – Olivier, J.-P. . “Un vase en pierre avec inscription
en linéaire A du sanctuaire de sommet minoen de Cythère”, Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique , –.
Sakellarakis, Y. – Sapouna-Sakellarakis, E. . Archanes. Minoan Crete
in a New Light, Athens.
Salapata, G. . “he Laconian Hero Reliefs in the Light of Terracotta
Plaques” in Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, ed. O. Palagia – W. Coul-
son, Oxford, –.
Salomon, N. . “Making a World of Diference—Gender, Asymmetry, and
the Greek Nude”, in Naked Truths—Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical
Art and Archaeology, ed. A.O. Koloski-Ostrow – C.L. Lyons, London, –
.
Samter, E. . “Vestalinnenopfer”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologi-
schen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
Sapouna-Sakellarakis, E. . Die bronzenen Menscheniguren auf Kreta
und in der Ägäis, Prähistorische Bronzefunde I., Stuttgart.
Schauenburg, K. . Perseus in der Kunst des Altertums, Bonn.
———. . “Herakles Musikos”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti-
tuts , –.
Schede, M. . “Heiligtümer in Priene”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologi-
schen Instituts , –.
Scheer, T.S. . Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroen-
mythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte, Munich.
———. . “Res Gestae Divi Augusti . Die Restituierung göttlichen Eigen-
tums in Kleinasien durch Augustus”, in Rom und der Griechische Osten. Fest-
schrit H.H. Schmitt, ed. C. Schubert – K. Brodersen, Stuttgart, –.
———. . “Ein Museum griechischer ‘Frühgeschichte’ im Apollontempel von
Sikyon”, Klio , –.
———. . Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer
Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Zetemata , Munich.
 bibliography

———. . “Heidnische Vergangenheit und christliche Gegenwart: Die Kult-

bilder der Götter in der Spätantike”, in Epochenwandel? Kunst und Kultur
zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, ed. F.A. Bauer – N. Zimmermann, Mainz,
–.
Schefold, K. . “Statuen auf Vasenbildern”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts , –.
———. . “Kleisthenes”, Museum Helveticum , –.
———. . “Die Bedeutung der kretischen Meerbilder”, Antike Kunst , –
.
———. . Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der spätarchaischen Kunst,
Münster.
———. . Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der Früh- und Hochar-
chaischen Kunst, Munich.
———. . Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, nd edition,
Basel.
Schefold, K. – Jung, F. . Die Urkönige, Perseus, Bellerophon, Herakles und
heseus in der klassischen und hellenistischen Kunst, Munich.
Scheid, J. . “Le lamine de Jupiter, les Vestales et le général triomphant.
Variations romaines sur le thème de la iguration des dieux”, Le temps de la
rélexion , –.
———. . “Les espaces cultuels et leur interprétation”, Klio , –.
———. . “Pline le Jeune et les sanctuaires d’Italie. Observations sur les
lettres IV., VIII. et IX.”, in Splendissima civitas. Études d’histoire romaine
en hommage à François Jacques, ed. A. Chastagnol – S. Demougin –
C. Lepelley, Paris, –.
———. . Commentarii fratrum arvalium qui supersunt. Les copies épigra-
phiques des protocoles annuels de la confrérie arvale ( av. –  ap. J.-C.),
Roma antica , Rome.
Schlögl, R. – Giesen, B. – Osterhammel, J. . eds. Die Wirklichkeit der
Symbole. Grundlagen der Kommunikation in historischen und gegenwärtigen
Gesellschaten, Konstanz.
Schmaltz, G.C.R. . “he Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?”, Hesperia ,
–.
Schmidt, G. . Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion von Samos, Samos ,
Bonn.
Schmidt-Dounas, B. –. “Statuen hellenistischer Könige als Synnaoi
heoi”, Εγνατα , –.
Schmitt Pantel, P. . La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les
cités grecques, Collection de l’École française de Rome , Rome.
Schmölder-Veit, A. . “Der Held der Taten greit in die Saiten”, in Wün-
sche , –.
Schneider, L.A. . Zur sozialen Bedeutung der archaischen Korenstatuen,
Hamburg.
Schneider, L.A. – Höcker, C. . Die Akropolis von Athen. Antikes Heiligtum
und modernes Reiseziel, Cologne.
Schoep, I. . “Ritual, Politics and Script on Minoan Crete”, Aegean Archae-
ology , –.
 bibliography 

———. forthcoming. “Les tablettes en linéaire A et l’identiication des espaces

civils et religieux”, in, Espace religieux et espace civil en Grèce à l’époque
mycénienne. Actes des Journées d’archéologie et de philologie mycénienne, er
février  et er mars , Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la
Méditerranée, ed. I. Boehm – S. Müller.
Scholl, A. . Die attischen Bildfeldstelen des . Jhs. v.Chr. Untersuchungen
zu den kleinformatigen Grabreliefs im spätklassischen Athen, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen Suppl. , Berlin.
Schöne, A. . Der hiasos. Eine ikonographische Untersuchung über das
Gefolge des Dionysos in der attischen Vasenmalerei des . und . Jhs. v. Chr.,
Göteborg.
Schörner, G. . Votive im römischen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zur
späthellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kunst- und Religionsgeschichte, Stutt-
gart.
Schouten, J. . he Rod and Serpent of Asklepios, Amsterdam.
Schowalter, D.N. . “he Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple: A Context
for Imperial Honors”, in Pergamon. Citadel of the Gods, Harvard heological
Studies , ed. H. Koester, Harrisburg, –.
Schraudolph, E. . Römische Götterweihungen mit Reliefschmuck aus Ital-
ien. Altäre, Basen und Reliefs, Heidelberg.
Schulze, H. . Ammen und Pädagogen. Sklavinnen und Sklaven als Erzieher
in der antiken Kunst und Gesellschat, Mainz.
———. . “Held in Frauenkleider—Herakles bei Omphale”, in Wünsche
, –.
Schürmann, W. . Typologie und Bedeutung der stadtrömischen Minerva-
Kultbilder, Rome.
Schurr, C. a. “Die alte Agora Athens”, Zeitschrit für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik , –.
———. b. “Zur Topographie der heaterstätten und der Tripodenstrasse in
Athen”, Zeitschrit für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , –.
Schwarz, G. . Triptolemos. Ikonographie einer Agrar- und Mysteriengot-
theit, Graz.
Schwarzer, H. . “Untersuchungen zum hellenistischen Herrscherkult in
Pergamon”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen , –.
Scott Ryberg, I. . Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art, Memoirs of the
American Academy in Rome , Rome.
Segre, M. . “Osservazioni epigraiche sulla vendita di sacerdozio”, Rendi-
conti. Classe di lettere e scienze morali e storiche, Istituto lombardo, Accademia
di scienze e lettere , –
———. . “Osservazioni epigraiche sulla vendita di sacerdozio”, Rendiconti.
Classe di lettere e scienze morali e storiche, Istituto lombardo, Accademia di
scienze e lettere , –.
Semper, G. . Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, or, Practical Aesthetics,
Los Angeles.
Senff, R. . Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion. Architektur und Statuenaus-
stattung eines zyprischen Heiligtums, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology ,
Jonsered .
 bibliography

Servadei, C. . La igura di heseus nella ceramica Attica. Iconograia e

iconologia del mito nell’Atene arcaica e classica, Bologna.
Serwint, N. . “he Terracotta Sculpture from Marion”, in Cypriote Terracot-
tas. Proceedings of the First International Conference of Cypriote Studies, ed.
F. Vandenabeele – R. Laffineur, Brussels – Liège, –.
Shapiro, H.A. . “heseus, Athens, and Troizen”, Archäologischer Anzeiger,
–.
———. . Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz.
———. . “Zum Wandel der attischen Gesellschat nach den Perserkriegen im
Spiegel der Akropolis-Weihungen”, in Gab es Griechische Wunder? Griechen-
land zwischen dem Ende des . und der Mitte des . Jahrhunderts v. Chr., ed.
D. Papenfuss – V.M. Strocka, Mainz, –.
Shapiro, H.A. et al. . “Dance”, in hesCRA II, –.
Shear, T.L. . “he Campaign of ”, Hesperia , –.
Shear, Jr., T.L. . “he Athenian Agora: Excavations of ”, Hesperia ,
–.
———. . “KΙσονμους τK KΑ)νας ποιηστην: the Agora and the Democ-
racy”, in he Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, Pro-
ceedings of an International Conference Celebrating  Years Since the Birth
of Democracy in Greece, Held at the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, December –, , Oxbow Monographs , ed. W.D.E. Coulson et
al., Oxford, –.
Sheedy, K.A. . “he Idalion Stater Found in a Tomb at Marion in ”,
Numismatic Chronicle , –.
Sichermann, H. . Griechische Vasen in Unteritalien aus der Sammlung Jatta
in Ruvo, Tübingen.
Siebert, A.V. . Instrumenta sacra. Untersuchungen zu römischen Opfer-,
Kult- und Priestergeräten, Berlin.
Siebert, G. . “Hermes”, in LIMC V., –.
Siewert, P. . Der Eid von Plataiai, Vestigia , Munich.
———. . “he Ephebic Oath in Fith-Century Athens”, Journal of Hellenic
Studies , –.
Simon, E. . “Nonnos und das Elfenbeinkästchen aus Veroli”, Jahrbuch des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
———. . Festivals of Attica, Madison.
———. . “Hekate in Athen”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. –. “Τ: γλυπτ: το ναο κα6 το ωρακε"ου τDς KΑηνJς
Ν"κης”, Αρχαιογνωσα , –.
———. . Augustus. Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende, Mu-
nich.
———. . “Zur Sandalenlöserin der Nikebalustrade”, in Kanon. Festschrit
Ernst Berger zum . Geburtstag am . Februar gewidmet, Antike Kunst Suppl.
, ed. M. Schmidt, Basel, –.
———. . Die Götter der Römer, Munich.
———. a. “Oneiros, Oneiroi”, in LIMC VII.,  f.
———. b. “Poseidon”, in LIMC VII., –.
 bibliography 

———. . “Kybele”, in LIMC VIII., –.

———. . Die Götter der Griechen, th edition, Munich.
———. . “Libation”, in hesCRA I, –.
Simon, E. – Hirmer, A. – Hirmer, M. . Die griechischen Vasen, Munich.
Smith, J.Z. . Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities
and the Religions of Late Antiquity, Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion,
London – Chicago.
Söldner, M. . “Statuenbasen? Die ‘lachen Basen’. Motivgeschichte und
Problematik eines Bildelements in der unteritalischen Vasenmalerei”, Jahr-
buch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. . “heseus Liting the Rock and a Cup near the
Pithos Painter”, Journal of Hellenic Studies , –.
———. . heseus as Son and Stepson. A Tentative Illustration of the Greek
Mythological Mentality, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the
University of London Suppl. , London.
———. . “Further Aspects of Polis Religion”, Annali dell’Istituto universitario
orientale di Napoli. Dipartimento di studi del mondo classico e del Mediter-
raneo antico. Sezione di archeologia e storia antica , – [reprinted in
Buxton , –].
———. . “What is Polis Religion?”, in he Greek City from Homer to Alexan-
der, ed. O. Murray – S. Price, Oxford, – [reprinted in Buxton ,
–].
———. a. ‘Reading’ Greek Death, to the End of the Classical Period, Oxford.
———. b. “Male and Female, Public and Private, Ancient and Modern”, in
Pandora. Women in Classical Greece, ed. E.D. Reeder, Princeton, –.
Speck, P. . “Ikonoklasmus und die Anfänge der makedonischen Renais-
sance”, in Varia I, Poikilia Byzantina , ed. R.-J. Lilie – P. Speck Bonn, –
.
Spivey, N.J. . Understanding Greek Sculpture: Ancient Meanings, Modern
Readings, London.
Stafford, E.J. . “Héraklès: encore et toujours le problème du heros-theos”,
Kernos , –.
Stager, J.M.S. . “ ‘Let No One Wonder at his Image’. A Phoenician Funer-
ary Stele in Athens”, Hesperia , –.
Stampolidis, N. . Τα σφραγσματα της Δ+λου . Ο ερωτικ*ς κ3κλος,
vol. I, Paris.
Stavrianopoulou, E. a. “Priester gesucht, Erfahrung erwünscht!”, in Die
Welt der Rituale. Von der Antike bis heute, ed. C. Ambos et al., Darmstadt,
–.
———. b. “Die Würde des Priesters ist unantastbar”, in Die Welt der Rituale.
Von der Antike bis heute, ed. C. Ambos et al., Darmstadt, –.
Stears, K. . “Dead Women’s Society: Constructing Female Gender in
Classical Athenian Funerary Sculpture”, in Time, Tradition and Society in
Greek Archaeology—Bridging the ‘Great Divide’, ed. N. Spencer, New York,
–.
Steiner, D. . Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Litera-
ture and hought, Princeton.
 bibliography

Steinhauer, G. . Το αρχαιολογικ* μουσεο Πειραι%ς, Athens.

Stengel, P. . Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer, Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschat, Munich.
Steuernagel, D. . “Der gute Staatsbürger. Zur Interpretation des Kuros”,
Hephaistos , –.
Stewart, A.F. . Skopas of Paros, Park Ridge.
———. . “When is a Kouros Not an Apollo? he Tenea ‘Apollo’ Revisited”,
in Corinthiaca-Studies in Honor of D. Amyx, ed. M. del Chiaro, Columbia,
–.
———. . Greek Sculpture: an Exploration, New Haven.
———. . Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece, Cambridge.
———. a. “Alkamenes at Ephesos and in Athens”, Zeitschrit für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik , –.
———. b “Alkamenes’ Two Herms Again”, Zeitschrit für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik , –.
Stewart, P. . “Baetyls as Statues? Cult Images in the Roman Near East”, in
he Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Relections on Culture,
Ideology, and Power, ed. Y.Z. Eliav et. al. Leuven, –.
Stichel, R.H.W. . “Eine Athena des Phidias in Konstantinopel”, Boreas ,
–.
Stieber, M. . he Poetics of Appearance in the Attic Korai, Austin.
Stiller, H. . Das Traianeum, Altertümer von Pergamon ., Berlin.
van Straten, F.T. . “Did the Greeks Kneel before heir Gods?”, Bulletin van
de Antieke Beschaving , –.
———. . “Gits for the Gods”, in Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious
Mentality in the Ancient World, Studies in Greek and Roman Religion , ed.
H.S. Versnel, Leiden, –.
———. . “Unclassical Religion in Classical Greece: he Archaeological Evi-
dence”, in Πρακτικ του ΧΙΙ διενο3ς συνεδρου κλασικ+ς αρχαιολογας,
Α+ναι, – Σεπτεμβρου , Athens, –.
———. . “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries”, in Le sanctuaire grec,
Fondation Hardt Entretiens sur l’antiquité , Geneva, –.
———. . Hierà kalá. Images of Animal Sacriice in Archaic and Classical
Greece, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World , Leiden.
Stuart, M. . “How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed hroughout the
Roman Empire?”, American Journal of Archaeology , –.
Stuart Jones, H. . “Notes on Roman Historical Sculptures”, Papers of the
British School at Rome , –.
Svoboda, D.-F. . Die Schlange in minoischer und mykenischer Zeit, MA
Vienna.
Swain, S. . Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the
Greek World, ad –, Oxford – New York.
Tagalidou, E. . Weihreliefs an Herakles aus klassischer Zeit, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology Paperback , Jonsered.
Tanner, J. . “Portraits, Power, and Patronage in the Late Roman Republic”,
Journal of Roman Studies , –.
———. . he Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece: Religion, Society and
Artistic Rationalisation, Cambridge.
 bibliography 

Tatton-Brown, V.A. . “Varia—Matters Arising From the Preparations for

the A.G. Leventis Gallery”, in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean in the
Iron Age, ed. V.A. Tatton-Brown, London, –.
Taylour, W. . “New Light on Mycenaean Religion”, Antiquity , –
.
Themelis, P. . “KΕρτρια: ΠομπικB 5δ7ς κα6 Παναηναϊκο6 μφορε$ς”,
Αρχαιολογικ Ανλεκτα ξ Αηνν , –.
———. . “KΕρτρια. Παναηναϊκο6 μφορε$ς. Σχσεις με πλαστικ)”, in
ΣΤΗΛΗ. Τ*μος ε@ς μν+μην Νικολου Κοντολοντος, ed. V.K. Lambrinοu-
dakis, Athens, –.
———.  (). “KΑνασκαφB στBν KΕρτρια”, Πρακτικ τς ν Α+ναις
Αρχαιολογικς AΕταιρεας, –.
von Thiersch, F.W. . Ueber die epochen der bildenden Kunst unter den
Griechen, Munich.
Thomas, R. . Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cambridge.
———. . Herodotus in Context, Cambridge.
Thomas, Y. . “Les ornements, la cité, le patrimoine”, in Images romaines,
Actes de la table ronde organisée à l’ENS, – octobre , Études de
littérature ancienne , ed. C. Auvray-Assayas, Paris, –.
———. . “La valeur des choses. Le droit romain hors la religion”, Annales.
Histoire, sciences sociales , –.
Thompson, H.A. – Wycherley, R.E. . he Athenian Agora XIV. he Agora
of Athens. he History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center, Princeton.
Thöne, C. . Ikonographische Studien zu Nike im . Jahrhundert v. Chr.
Untersuchungen zur Wirkungsweise und Wesensart, Heidelberg.
Tiverios, M. . “Zeus: Early Times to th Cent. bc”, in LIMC VIII., –
.
Torelli, M. . Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, Ann
Arbor.
———. . “L’immagine dell’ideologia augustea nell’agorà di Atene”, Ostraka ,
–.
Touchefeu, O. . “Aias II”, in LIMC I., –.
Trčková-Flamee, A. . “Motif of the Snake and Its Meanings in the Minoan
Iconography. he Relation Between Crete, Egypt and Near East”, Eirene ,
–.
Trendall, A.D. – Cambitoglou, A. . he Red-Figured Vases of Apulia.
I. Early and Middle Apulian, Oxford.
Treu, G. . Die Bildwerke von Olympia in Stein und hon, Olympia. Die
Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung , Berlin.
True, M. . he J. Paul Getty Museum. Handbook of the Antiquities Collection,
Singapore.
True, M. et al. . “Greek processions”, in hesCRA I, –.
Trummer, R. . Die Denkmäler des Kaiserkults in der römischen Provinz
Achaia, Ph.D. Graz.
Trümpy, C. . “Nochmals zu den mykenischen Fr-Täfelchen. Die Zeitan-
gaben innerhalb der pylischen Ölrationenserie”, Studi micenei ed egeo-anato-
lici , –.
 bibliography

———. . Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monats-

folgen, Heidelberg.
Tsiafakis, D. . “ΠΕΛΩΡΑ. Fabulous Creatures and / or Demons of
Death?”, in he Centaur’s Smile. he Human Animal in Early Greek Art, ed.
J.M. Padgett, Princeton, –.
Tuchelt, K. . Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien, Teil . Roma und
Promagistrate, Istanbuler Mitteilungen Suppl. , Tübingen.
Turcan, R. . Iconography of Religions XVII.: Religion Romaine I et II,
Leiden.
Turner, J.A. . Hiereiai—Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient
Greece, Ph.D. UC Santa Barbara.
Turner, M. . “Aphrodite and Her Birds: he Iconology of Pagenstecher
Lekythoi”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of
London , –.
Tylor, E.B. . Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythol-
ogy, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom, London.
Tzonou-Herbst, I.N. . A Contextual Analysis of Mycenaean Terracotta
Figurines, Ph.D. Cincinnati.
Ulbrich, A. . “An Archaeology of Cult? Cypriot Sanctuaries in th Cen-
tury Archaeology”, in Cyprus in the th Century ad—Fact, Fancy, and Fic-
tion, Papers of the nd British Museum Classical Colloquium, December ,
ed. V. Tatton-Brown, Oxford, –.
Ussher, R.G. . he Characters of heophrastus, London.
Valavanis, P.D. . Παναηναϊκο αμφορες απ* την Ερτρια. Συμβολ+
στην αττικ+ αγγειογραφα του ου π.χ. αι%να, Athens.
Varner, E.R. . Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio Memoriae and
Roman Imperial Portraiture, Leiden.
Vermeule, C.C. . “Cypriote Sculpture, the Late Archaic and Early Clas-
sical Periods: Towards a More Precise Understanding”, American Journal of
Archaeology , –.
Vermeule, E. . Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Berke-
ley.
Vernant, J.-P. . “Hestia Hermès. Sur l’expression religieuse de l’espace et du
mouvement chez les Grecs”, in J.-P. Vernant, Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs.
Études de psychologie historique, Paris, –.
———. . Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs. Études de psychologie historique, nd
edition, Paris.
———. . “De la présentiication de l’invisible à l’imitation de l’apparence”, in
J.-P. Vernant, Entre mythe et politique, Paris, –.
Versnel, H.S. . “What Did Ancient Man See When He Saw a God? Some
Relexions on Greco-Roman Epiphany”, in Eigies Dei, ed. D. van der Plas,
Leiden, –.
Vian, F. ed. . Texte et image, Paris.
Vick, B. . “Greek Origins and Organic Metaphors: Ideals of Cultural Auton-
omy in Neohumanist Germany from Winckelmann to Curtius”, Journal of the
History of Ideas, –.
Vickers, M. . Ancient Greek Pottery, Oxford.
 bibliography 

Vidal-Naquet, P. . he Black Hunter. Forms of hought and Forms of Society

in the Greek World, Baltimore – London.
Vierneisel-Schlörb, B. . Klassische Skulpturen des . und . Jahrhunderts
v. Chr., Katalog der Skulpturen—Glyptothek München , Munich.
Vikela, E. . Die Weihreliefs aus dem Athener Pankrates-Heiligtum am Ilissos.
Religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung und Typologie, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen Suppl. , Berlin.
———. . “Der Hymnus aus Palaikastro. Eine Spurensuche nach Überresten
der minoischen Religion”, in Im Labyrinth des Minos. Kreta: Die erste euro-
päische Hochkultur, Catalogue of Exhibition Karlsruhe, Munich, –.
———. . “Greek Votive Objects”, in hesCRA I, –.
Villing, A.C. . “Aspects of Athena in the Greek Polis: Sparta and Corinth”,
in What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, ed. A.B. Lloyd,
London, –.
Viviers, D. . Recherches sur les ateliers de sculpteurs et la cité d’Athènes à
l’époque archaïque, Brussels.
Vlachopoulos, A. . “Β"ρα-μινα. Το χρονικ της συντ)ρησης μ"ας τοι-
χογραφ"ας απ το Ακρωτ)ρι (–)”, in Αργονα3της. Τιμητικ*ς τ*-
μος για τον καηγητ+ Χρστο Γ. Ντο3μα απ* τους μαητς του στο Πανε-
πιστ+μιο Αην%ν, ed. A. Vlachopoulos – K. Birtacha, Athens, –.
Vlizos, S. . Der thronende Zeus. Eine Untersuchung zur statuarischen Ikono-
graphie des Gottes in der spätklassischen und hellenistischen Kunst, Rahden.
Voigtländer, W. . Der jüngste Apollontempel von Didyma, Istanbuler Mit-
teilungen Suppl. , Tübingen.
Vollkommer, R. . Herakles in the Art of Classical Greece, Oxford.
———. . “Hermias”, in LIMC V.,  f.
———. . “Zur Deutung der Löwenfrau in der frühgriechischen Kunst”,
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen ,
–.
———. . “Phalanthos”, in LIMC VIII., –.
Voyatzis, M. . he Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea, Göteborg.
Walberg, G. . Middle Minoan III—A Time of Transition, Studies in Mediter-
ranean Archaeology , Jonsered.
Walker, H.J. . heseus and Athens, New York – Oxford.
Walter, O. . “Der Säulenbau des Herakles”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen , –.
———. . “ΚΟΥΡΗΤΙΚΗ ΤΡΙΑΣ”, Jahrbuch des Österreichischen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts , –.
Warren, P. . Minoan Religion as Ritual Action, Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology Paperback , Göteborg.
———. . “Shield and Goddess in Minoan Crete and the Aegean”, in Πεπραγ-
μνα του Η" Διενο3ς Κρητολογικο3 Συνεδρου, Ηρκλειο, – Σεπτεμ-
βρου , vol. I., Irakleio, –.
———. . “Ηλ1σιον Μινωικν”, in ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΟΣ. Archäologis-
che Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrit für Stefan Hiller zum .
Geburtstag, ed. F. Lang – C. Reinholdt – J. Weilhartner, Vienna, –
.
 bibliography

Watrous, L.V. . “Some Observations on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries”, in

POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the th
International Aegean Conference, Univ. of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut,
– April , Aegaeum , vol. II, ed. R. Laffineur – W.-D. Niemeier,
Liège – Austin, –.
Wedde, M. . “Pictorial Architecture: For a heory-Based Analysis of Imag-
ery”, in Laffineur – Crowley , –.
———. . “Talking Hands: A Study of Minoan and Mycenaean Ritual Ges-
tures—Some Preliminary Notes”, in Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeol-
ogy Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he Enters his th Year, Aegaeum ,
vol. III, ed. P.P. Betancourt et al., Liège – Austin, –.
———. a. ed. Celebrations. Sanctuaries and the Vestiges of Cult Activity.
Selected Papers and Discussions from the Tenth Anniversary Symposion of the
Norwegian Institute at Athens, – May , Papers from the Norwegian
Institute at Athens , Bergen.
———. b. “On the Road to the Godhead: Aegean Bronze Age Glyptic Pro-
cession Scenes”, in Wedde a, –.
van Wees, H. . “ ‘he Oath of the Sworn Bands’. he Acharnae Stela,
the Oath of Plataea and Archaic Spartan Warfare”, in Das frühe Sparta, ed.
A. Luther – M. Meier – L. Thommen, Munich, –.
Wegener, S. . Funktion und Bedeutung landschatlicher Elemente in der
griechischen Reliekunst archaischer bis hellenistischer Zeit, Frankfurt.
Wehgartner, I. . Attisch weißgrundige Keramik. Maltechniken, Werkstät-
ten, Formen, Verwendung, Mainz.
Weilhartner, J. . Mykenische Opfergaben nach Aussage der Linear B-
Texte, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaten, philosophisch-historische
Klasse, Denkschriten , Mykenische Studien , Vienna.
Weill, N. . “Un tête de kouros archaïque à Salamine de Chypre”, in Salamine
de Chypre IV, Paris, –.
Weingarten, J. . he Zakro Master and His Place in Prehistory, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology Paperback , Göteborg.
———. . he Transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius: A
Study in Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age, Studies in Mediter-
ranean Archaeology , Partille.
———. . “Review of O. Krzyszkowska, Aegean Seals. An Introduction, London
”, Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici , –.
Weitzmann, K. . “he Character and Intellectual Origins of the Mace-
donian Renaissance”, in K. Weitzmann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine
Manuscript Illumination, Chicago, –.
Wernicke, K. . “Olympische Beiträge. . Die Altäre von Olympia”, Jahrbuch
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –.
Werth, N. . Hekate. Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Göttin, Hamburg.
West, M. . Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin.
———. ed. . Iambi et Elegi Graeci,  vols, nd edition, Oxford.
White, R.J. . he Interpretation of Dreams. Oneirocritica, Park Ridge.
Whitehead, D. . he Demes of Attica  /  – ca.  bc. A Political and
Social Study, Princeton.
 bibliography 

Whittaker, H. . “he Relationship Between Mycenaean Sacred and Do-

mestic Architecture”, in De Miro – Godart – Sacconi , vol. III, –
.
———. . Mycenaean Cult Buildings. A Study of heir Architecture and
Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, Ber-
gen.
———. . “Religion and Power. he Nature of Minoan Inluence on Early
Mycenaean Religion”, Opuscula Atheniensia , –.
Wiegand, T. – Schrader, H. . Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und
Untersuchungen in den Jahren –, Berlin.
Wiemer, H.-U. . “Käuliche Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos”, Chiron
, –.
Wiesner, J. . “Der Gott auf dem Esel”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, –
.
Wilkins, J. . “he Young of Athens: Religion and Society in Herakleidai of
Euripides”, Classical Quarterly , –.
Willers, D. . Zu den Anfängen der archaistischen Plastik in Griechenland,
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Athen Suppl.
, Berlin.
———. . “Hekateion”, in Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig III,
ed. E. Berger, Basel, – no. .
Winckelmann, J.J. . Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums, Dresden.
———. . History of the Art of Antiquity, transl. H.F. Mallgrave, Los Ange-
les.
Winter, F. . Die Skulpturen mit Ausnahme der Altarreliefs, Altertümer von
Pergamon ., Berlin.
Winters, T.F. . “Kleisthenes and Athenian Nomenclature”, Journal of Hel-
lenic Studies , –.
Witschel, C. . “Römische Kaiserstatuen als Tempelkultbilder”, in Stan-
dorte. Kontext und Funktion antiker Skulptur, ed. K. Stemmer, Berlin, –
.
Wittkover, R. –. “Eagle and Serpent”, Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes , –, –.
Wolf, S.R. . Herakles beim Gelage. Eine motiv- und bedeutungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung des Bildes in der archaisch-frühklassischen Vasenmalerei, Colo-
gne.
Woodford, S. . “Cults of Heracles in Attica”, in Studies Presented to George
M.A. Hanfmann, Fogg Art Museum. Harvard University. Monographs in Art
and Archaeology , ed. D.G. Mitten – J.G. Pedley – J.A. Scott, Mainz, –
.
———. . Images of Myths in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.
Woodhead, A.G. . he Study of Greek Inscriptions, nd edition, London.
Woodhouse, W.J. . “Priest, Priesthood, Greek”, in Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics , –.
Wörrle, M. . “Inschriten von Herakleia am Latmos II. Das Priestertum
der Athena Latmia”, Chiron , –.
Wrede, H. . Die antike Herme, Mainz.
 bibliography

Wriedt Sørensen, L. . “he Divine Image?”, in Proceedings of the Second

International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Brussels, ed. F. Vandenabeele –
R. Laffineur, Brussels, –.
———. . “Cypriot Women of the Archaic Period—Evidence from Sculpture”,
in Engendering Aphrodite. Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, ed. D. Bol-
ger – N. Serwint, Boston, –.
Wünsche, R. ed. . Herakles-Herkules, Munich.
Wycherley, R.E. . he Athenian Agora III. Literary and Epigraphical Testi-
monia, Princeton.
Yon, M. . Un depot de sculptures archaïques, Salamine de Chypre V, Par-
is.
———. . “Coré aux narcisses ou le parfum de la dame en noir”, in Architecture
et poésie dans le monde grec—Hommage à Georges Roux, ed. R. Étienne – M.-
T. le Dinahet – M. Yon, Lyon, –.
Younger, J.G. . “Time & Event in Aegean Art”, in ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡΙ-
ΣΤΕΙΟΣ. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrit für
Stefan Hiller zum . Geburtstag, ed. F. Lang – C. Reinholdt – J. Weilhart-
ner, Vienna, –.
Zaccaria Ruggiu, A. . Le forme del tempo. Aion Chronos Kairos, Pa-
dua.
Zahn, R. . “Klazomenischer Tonsarg im Antiquarium der königlichen
Museen zu Berlin”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts , –
.
Zanker, G. . Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art, Madison,
Wisc.
Zanker, P. . Wandel der Hermesgestalt in der attischen Vasenmalerei, Bonn.
———. . Forum Augustum: Das Bildprogramm, Tübingen.
———. . “Der Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vaticans”, Mitteilungen des Deut-
schen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom , –.
———. –. “Über die Werkstätten augusteischer Larenaltäre und damit
zusammmenhängende Probleme der Interpretation”, Bullettino della commis-
sione archeologica comunale di Roma , –.
———. a. Provinzielle Kaiserporträts, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Abhandlungen N.F. , Munich.
———. b. “Der Apollontempel auf dem Palatin. Ausstattung und politis-
che Sinnbezüge nach der Schlacht von Actium”, in Città e architettura nella
Roma imperiale. Atti del seminario del  ottobre  nel o anniversario
dell’Accademia di Danimarca, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Suppl. ,
Odense, –.
———. . Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, nd edition, Munich.
———. . “In Search of the Roman Viewer”, in Interpretation of Architectural
Sculpture in Greece and Rome. Proceedings of the Symposium ‘he Interpreta-
tion of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome’, , ed. D.M. Buitron-
Oliver, Washington DC, –.
———. . “Bild-Räume und Betrachter im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. Fragen und
Anregungen für Interpreten”, in Klassische Archäologie: Eine Einführung, ed.
A. Borbein – T. Hölscher – P. Zanker, Berlin, –.
 bibliography 

Zevi, F. . “Monumenti e aspetti culturali di Ostia repubblicana”, in Hellenis-

mus in Mittelitalien. Kolloquium Göttingen , Abhandlungen der Akademie
der Wissenschaten in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, . Folge, .,
ed. P. Zanker, Göttingen, –.
———. . “Ostie sous la République”, in Ostia. Port et porte de la Rome antique.
Catalogue de l’exposition, ed. J.-P. Descœudres, Geneva, –.
Ziehen, L. . “Hiereis”, RE VIII , –.
Zimmer, G. . Römische Berufsdarstellungen, Berlin.
Ziolkowki, A. . “Pantheon”, in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae IV,
Rome, –.
Zographou, G. . “L’ argumentation d’Hérodote concernant les emprunts
faits par les Grecs à la religion égyptienne”, Kernos , –.
Zolotnikova, O. . “he Cult of Zeus Lykaios”, in Ancient Arcadia, Papers
from the Norwegian Institute at Athens , ed. E. Østby, Athens, –.
Zoumbaki, S.B. . Elis und Olympia in der Kaiserzeit. Das Leben einer
Gesellschat zwischen Stadt und Heiligtum auf prosopographischer Grundlage,
Meletemata , Athens.
 MYLONOPOULOS

. Red igure squat lekythos, Bonn, Akademisches

Kunstmuseum der Universität  ©
Archäologisches Institut der Universität Bonn
 figures

. Red igure krater, Schloss Fasanerie  © Hessische

Hausstitung, Museum Schloss Fasanerie, Eichenzell / Fulda
 figures 

. White ground lekythos, Athens, National Museum  © Author

 figures

. Black igure olpe, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet

des Médailles  (drawing), ater: Anti ,  ig. 

. Boeotian black igure skyphos, Oxford,

Asmolean Museum V © Ashmolean Museum
 figures 

. Marble statue of Jupiter Aigiochos, Cyrene

Museum ., ater: Canciani , ig. b.
 figures

. Marble statue, Aigion, Archaeological

Museum, ater: Petsas ,  ig. .
Reproduced with permission of
the Sixth Ephorate of Prehistorical
and Classical Antiquitites, Patras
 figures 

. Black igure amphora, London, he British

Museum B © he Trustess of he British Museum

. Kylix, Munich, Antikensammlungen J ©

Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek
 figures

. Kylix, Munich, Antikensammlungen J (detail)

© Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek

. Kylix, New York, he Metropolitan

Museum of Art .. © Author
 figures 

. Grave stele from Sardis, Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 

© German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul (D-DAI-IST  / )
 figures

. Grave stele from Sardis (detail), Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 
© German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul (D-DAI-IST R )