The Parthenon

Introduction

The Parthenon, executed between 447 and 432 BCE and dedicated in 438 BCE, initiated the Periclean building program on the Athenian Acropolis. It was meant to be the jewel of Athens. It was not the first building on the Acropolis to be constructed of marble, an honor that went to its predecessor, the Older Parthenon, but it was certainly the largest. It was minutely planned and executed, achieving what scholars have labeled “millimeter accuracy.” And it had more sculpture than any temple before or after, with ninety-two carved metopes around the exterior, a 160-meter-long frieze above the cella building, pedimental statues at front and back, and acroteria at the corners of its roof. The exact function of the Parthenon, whether a temple, treasury, votive, or all of these, has been debated. The building lasted through Antiquity and continued to serve religious purposes in later times, initially as a Christian church and then as an Islamic mosque. Changes were made as a result of these new functions, including the construction of an apse at the east end, a roof only over the cella for the church, and a minaret in conjunction with the mosque, but the modifications were relatively limited. The greatest damage occurred with the explosion of 1687, after which the building was left in ruins. Yet considering its long history of use, the temple is relatively well preserved and remarkably well known. It has long been the subject of study, but late-20th- and early 21st-century investigations undertaken as part of the Acropolis restoration program have uncovered new evidence and generated additional scholarship. The Parthenon thus lives on as a symbol of classical Athens and the Greek people.

General Overviews

The importance of the Parthenon means that it is discussed, often in some detail, in all of the handbooks on Greek architecture. In fact the passage in Dinsmoor 1975 (originally 1950) was deemed so substantive it was reprinted in Bruno 1996 (cited under Architecture and Sculpture of the Parthenon) along with various journal articles. Interested investigators can familiarize themselves with the characteristics and innovations of the architecture along with additional bibliography through these works. Two of the English-language publications (Dinsmoor 1975, Berve and Gruben 1963) are now old, and only Lawrence 1996 has been kept up to date through revisions. Lawrence 1996 is thus able to provide information gained from the late-20th-century investigations. While it is more succinct than the other two, it is both more readable and better illustrated than William Bell Dinsmoor’s discussion. Scholars have continued to publish handbooks in German, French, and Italian, but they are inaccessible to most Anglophone students. Of works not in English, Gruben 2001 provides an updated discussion along the same lines as Berve and Gruben 1963; Hellmann 2006 offers a well-illustrated account of the Classical Parthenon and its predecessors; and Lippolis, et al. 2007 discusses the Parthenon among other Acropolis buildings and notes its technical characteristics. The handbooks cited contain basic measurements of the building and essential plans and other illustrations, although they vary in the amount of detail provided.

Berve, Helmut, and Gottfried Gruben. Greek Temples, Theatres, and Shrines. Translated by R. Waterhouse. New York: Abrams, 1963.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Now dated but offers a thorough discussion in English with ample illustrations. This is especially useful for students, as it is clearly written.
Find this resource:
Dinsmoor, William Bell. The Architecture of Ancient Greece: An Account of Its Historic Development. New York: Norton, 1975.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A reprint, with a new preface and fifty-five new photographs, of the revised and enlarged third edition published in London by Batsford in 1950. This book offers a fairly extensive (pp. 159–179) exposition of the temple with essential information and observations. Despite its age, it remains authoritative.
Find this resource:
Gruben, Gottfried. Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer. 5th rev. ed. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a handy summary of Greek temples, including the Parthenon (pp. 170–190). Its various editions since 1966 have allowed it to remain up to date. It thus incorporates late-20th-century scholarship on the Parthenon and follows Manolis Korres’s proposals concerning the predecessors (see Korres 1997, cited under Predecessors). The book is available only in German.
Find this resource:
Hellmann, Marie-Christine. L’architecture grecque. Vol. 2, Architecture religieuse et funéraire. Paris: Picard, 2006.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The discussion of the Parthenon (pp. 82–88) does not focus as extensively on the Classical building as several of the other publications do, but emphasis is given to its predecessors. The author accepts the main function of the building as a treasury.
Find this resource:
Lawrence, Arnold Walter. Greek Architecture. 5th ed. Revised by R. A. Tomlinson. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Pages 108–115 offer a discussion in English of the building and its sculpture in addition to information on its predecessor and its later history. The Parthenon’s refinements are treated along with those of other buildings on pages 125–128.
Find this resource:
Lippolis, Enzo, Monica Livadiotti, and Giorgio Rocco. Architettura greca: Storia e monumenti del mondo della polis dale origini al V secolo. Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The discussion on the Parthenon is divided into two parts, pages 439–445 and 555–556. Although written in Italian, this more recent book is able to incorporate much of the latest scholarship.
Find this resource:
The Acropolis, Including the Parthenon

The Parthenon was the first building of the Periclean building program, which included three other important constructions on the Athenian Acropolis: the Propylaia, the Temple of Athena Nike, and the Erechtheion. It is therefore useful to consider it in conjunction with these buildings and with the architectural development of the Acropolis in general. A basic introduction to the Parthenon and other Acropolis monuments, along with excellent photographs, is available on the Acropolis Museum website. Acropolis of Athens presents narratives on the history and monuments of the Acropolis, including the Parthenon, written by archaeologists. Numerous scholarly books also focus on the overall sanctuary and include the Parthenon in their examinations. Hurwit 1999 traces the evidence for the Acropolis from Neolithic times, with various sections on the Parthenon. Holtzmann 2003 likewise takes a broad view, which allows the author to discuss the predecessors as well as the Classical building and their overall context. Rhodes 1995 is concerned as well with setting Acropolis structures in context. Economakis 1994 provides some general background while offering in-depth discussions of individual buildings and their restoration. In the author’s second book on the Acropolis, Hurwit 2004 directs attention specifically to the Periclean constructions, including the Classical Parthenon. All of these sources form a good starting point for an investigation of this particular building, since their discussions of the Parthenon tend to be more extensive than those of general handbooks on Greek architecture. The reader will also find these works useful in placing the temple in its architectural and historical context.

Acropolis Museum.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a guide to the collections of the museum, including information and illustrations of the Parthenon and its sculptures.
Find this resource:
Acropolis of Athens. Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Contains a section on the Acropolis, including the Parthenon, with background information and striking photographs.
Find this resource:
Economakis, Richard, ed. Acropolis Restoration: The CCAM Interventions. London: Academy Editions, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Despite its title, this book contains essays on such varied topics as the construction of Greek temples, the history of the monuments over time, and late-20th-century discoveries in addition to the history of interventions and the restoration program. The Parthenon figures prominently in these essays.
Find this resource:
Holtzmann, Bernard. L’Acropole d’Athènes: Monuments, cultes et histoire du sanctuaire d’Athèna Polias. Paris: Picard, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Covers the Acropolis from the Archaic and Classical periods to post-Antiquity, including detailed and up-to-date discussions of the Parthenon and its predecessors.
Find this resource:
Hurwit, Jeffrey M. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A broad overview of the Acropolis to the late 20th century. Argues for the Parthenon’s function as primarily a treasury, votive, and symbol. Main discussion on pages 161–188 with details on pages 313–314, but see also the frieze (pp. 222–228), the statue of Athena Parthenos (pp. 235–245), and the later history (pp. 293–295).
Find this resource:
Hurwit, Jeffrey M. The Acropolis in the Age of Pericles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Focuses specifically on the Periclean Acropolis, allowing for an extensive discussion of the Parthenon and the other buildings constructed in the sanctuary during the second half of the 5th century BCE. Book is designed for students but is useful to all investigators.
Find this resource:
Rhodes, Robin Francis. Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This provides a good overview for students. It emphasizes the context of the architecture and sculpture of the Parthenon both in the art of the period and among other buildings on the Acropolis (pp. 74–93, 104–110).
Find this resource:
Architecture and Sculpture of the Parthenon

Included in this section are single-author books, edited books containing a series of essays, and a website, all of which provide a general overview of various aspects of the building. The earliest in date, Michaelis 1871 gives an account of all aspects of the Parthenon and is still often cited. It raises the question of the function of the building and its status as a treasury, which has yet to be resolved. Both Woodford 1981 and Beard 2002 put the temple into a broad context, the former focusing more on the building itself and the latter on its history and significance from its construction to the early 21st century. The three edited volumes likewise look at the Parthenon from multiple points of view. The earliest, Bruno 1996 (originally published in 1974), begins with an overview of the building and then presents other scholars’ views of certain aspects of the Parthenon through essays that were, for the most part, already published in journals or books. The essays are divided into categories: the history of the building in its own and later times, its design, and its pedimental and frieze decoration. Tournikiotis 1994 offers important essays on various aspects of the Parthenon, including the architecture, early travelers and their depictions, and the later history of the building (see The Architecture, Early Travelers and Investigators, and Sculptural Program). Neils 2005 similarly aims for comprehensive coverage. This is accomplished by essays that set the background for the building in terms of its physical setting and contemporary politics and then discuss its architecture, including architects and refinements, its four areas of exterior sculpture (acroteria, pediments, metopes, and friezes), and its interior decoration, followed by its later history and importance. Acropolis 360 begins with a brief introduction to the building but provides views that show its geographic context, its details, and its relationship to a modern reproduction in Nashville, Tennessee. All of these sources offer the reader an overview of the temple in varying amounts of depth.

Acropolis 360. Visual Media Center, Department of Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers information on the Parthenon, 360-degree views of its location, and comparisons with the Nashville Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Beard, Mary. The Parthenon. London: Profile, 2002.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the role of the Parthenon in its own time and especially later. Written in an engaging style, it provides an introduction to the full history of the building from the 5th century BCE to the early 21st century, aimed primarily at the general reader.
Find this resource:
Bruno, Vincent J., ed. The Parthenon. New York: Norton, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Originally published in 1974. Contains a selection of essays by various scholars on the history, architecture, and sculpture of the Parthenon. Bruno sets the background through his introductory discussion of the predecessors and history of the Parthenon and its sculptural decoration.
Find this resource:
Michaelis, Adolf. Der Parthenon. Leipzig: Brietkopf and Härtel, 1871.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A fundamental account of the temple, including its master artists, architecture, refinements, sculpture, and function, along with its subsequent history, investigations, and depictions.
Find this resource:
Neils, Jenifer, ed. The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Contains eleven chapters on topics ranging from the Parthenon’s geographic and historical context to its architectural traits and sculptural embellishments to its later history.
Find this resource:
Tournikiotis, Panayiotis, ed. The Parthenon and Its Impact in Modern Times. Athens, Greece: Melissa, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Essays from various authors examining not only the ancient building but also subsequent changes, perceptions, and impact.
Find this resource:
Woodford, Susan. The Parthenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A handy introductory book geared to students. Explains the motivations for the building, the basic forms and functions of a temple, the construction and form of this temple and its sculptures, and its history to the early 21st century.
Find this resource:
Conference Proceedings

It is unusual for a conference on Greek architecture to focus largely or exclusively on one building, but that is the case with the conferences whose publications are cited here. The individual contributions are often so important in themselves as to warrant a separate listing under the appropriate topic. The reader will find varying degrees of emphasis on the Parthenon. Berger 1984 provides the most extensive coverage in two volumes with entries by numerous scholars on the Parthenon’s historical context, its architecture and sculpture, and its later history. The papers in Cosmopoulos 2004 are mainly but not exclusively concerned with the sculpture. A concluding essay summarizes the contributions of the papers and the state of scholarship. Contributions in Hoepfner 1997 include archaeological context, predecessors, and interpretations of the Parthenon. Among the essays in Buitron-Oliver 1997 are three on the Parthenon’s sculptures, one each on the east pediment, the south metopes, and the frieze.

Berger, Ernst, ed. Parthenon-Kongress Basel: Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982. 2 vols. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book assembles papers delivered at a conference in 1982 by a number of important scholars. It also includes a bibliography of all publications on the Parthenon to date (pp. 459–495).
Find this resource:
Buitron-Oliver, Diana, ed. The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Compiles a series of essays from a symposium of the same name held at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts in 1993. Although this takes as its subject a much wider field of architectural sculpture, three essays look at aspects of the Parthenon sculptures.
Find this resource:
Cosmopoulos, Michael B., ed. The Parthenon and Its Sculptures. Papers delivered at a conference in Saint Louis, Missouri, in 2002. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
These papers focus mainly but not exclusively on the sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. At least one paper is devoted to each area of sculpture, offering new approaches to investigation and interpretation. Additional papers examine the later history and the marble of the building.
Find this resource:
Hoepfner, Wolfram, ed. Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis: Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin. Berlin: Archölogisches Seminar der Freien Universität Berlin, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This volume includes papers on other monuments, but the Parthenon is by far the main building discussed. Essays are almost exclusively written in German.
Find this resource:
Early Travelers and Investigators

Early visitors to the Acropolis offered documentation of the Parthenon but often according to their understanding of Classical architecture rather than what was visible. The first of these travelers to describe the building and to make drawings was Cyriac of Ancona in the 15th century. Although Cyriac’s three drawings are not very accurate, they show the entire Parthenon from the west end with its pedimental sculpture in two of them, as discussed in Mitchell 1974. The next records, produced in 1674, are the so-called Carrey drawings. These illustrate various parts of the architectural sculpture and provide valuable evidence for metopes now missing on the south side and the compositions of both pediments, the western one of which is now largely destroyed. These drawings, assembled in Bowie and Thimme 1971, offer a more reliable depiction of their subject matter than those of Cyriac, but even so details are often confusing. These two sets of images are the only representations of the temple before the explosion of 1687. The Parthenon was first scientifically studied in Stuart and Revett 2008, originally published in 1762. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett provided surprisingly accurate measurements and were able to determine such features as the 4:9 ratio in the width:length of the stylobate and the thicker corner columns. This work was followed by Penrose 1973, initially published in 1851. Francis Cranmer Penrose offered more extensive measurements and included a study of the refinements of the temple. Penrose’s meticulous documentation remains essential to the study of the building. Mallouchou-Tufano 1994 discusses these and other visitors and illustrates early depictions of the Parthenon in a useful overview. This essay also traces the development of approaches to the building through time.

Bowie, Theodore Robert, and Diether Thimme, eds. The Carrey Drawings of the Parthenon Sculptures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Outlines the history of the expedition to Athens of the Marquis de Nointel and his entourage, which included Jacques Carrey. The drawings attributed to Carrey include all thirty-two south metopes, large parts of the frieze, and both pediments.
Find this resource:
Mallouchou-Tufano, Fani. “The Parthenon from Cyriacus of Ancona to Frédéric Boissonas: Description, Research, and Depiction.” In The Parthenon and Its Impact in Modern Times. Edited by Panayiotis Tournikiotis, 162–199. Athens, Greece: Melissa, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Traces the history of visitors to the building and the depictions they made and demonstrates how they interpreted the Parthenon according to the aesthetic concepts and intellectual traditions of their own time.
Find this resource:
Mitchell, Charles. “Ciriaco d’Ancona: Fifteenth-Century Drawings and Descriptions of the Parthenon.” In The Parthenon. Edited by Vincent J. Bruno, 111–123. New York: Norton, 1974.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Cyriac of Ancona was the first modern traveler to document the architecture and sculpture of the Parthenon. Three drawings are extant that represent the building from the west and, in some cases, include images taken from the frieze and the south metopes.
Find this resource:
Penrose, Francis Cranmer. An Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture. New and enl. ed. Washington, DC: McGrath, 1973.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers a detailed account, with accurate measurements, of the architecture and its refinements. Originally published in 1851 and reprinted in 1888.
Find this resource:
Stuart, James, and Nicholas Revett. The Antiquities of Athens. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Original edition, London: John Haberkorn, 1762. On pages 1–14 provides descriptions and measured drawings of the building and its details as seen in the 18th century.
Find this resource:
The Architecture

Two in-depth studies of the architecture of the Parthenon have been published in multivolume series, exclusively or primarily in Greek. Orlandos 1976–1978 is still fundamental to a study of the building. The text is divided into two volumes published in successive years, with plates in a separate large folio. Anastasios K. Orlandos’s measurements are often relied on in other works, including Berger 1980. Korres, et al. 1983–2002 is a seven-volume series, with some divided into two or three parts, that presents the investigations carried out in preparation for the current restoration. Its topics include not only the architecture and changes to it through time but also proposals for the restoration project and the work of conservators. These volumes include detailed drawings and photographs. Korres 1994b, a short essay, offers highlights of both architectural and sculptural discoveries in regard to the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis. Manolis Korres notes the discovery of windows in the rear wall of the pronaos, the especially elaborate decoration of the ceiling in this space, and changes that, Korres believes, led to the introduction of the Ionic frieze. This account is especially useful for English speakers and for those interested in late antique phases of the Parthenon. Korres’s two other essays focus more specifically on the Classical building. The longer one, Korres 1994a, describes the components of the temple with dimensions and offers an argument for such features as the presumed Nikai corner acroteria followed by an elucidation of the history of investigations and focused discussions on the unique or unusual traits. The shorter essay, Korres 1996, provides additional information and drawings. Another succinct but fairly comprehensive essay is Barletta 2005, which describes the salient characteristics of the building (excluding its refinements), integrates the late-20th- and early 21st-century discoveries and proposals, and discusses the evidence for the architects. Berger 1980, on the basis of a scale model of the Parthenon, explores its design principles, and Coulton 1984 demonstrates its relationship with Cycladic architecture.

Barletta, Barbara A. “The Architecture and Architects of the Classical Parthenon.” In The Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 67–99. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Summarizes the evidence for the building and its architects.
Find this resource:
Berger, Ernst. “Das Basler Parthenon-Modell: Bemerkungen zur Architektur des Tempels.” Antike Kunst 23.1 (1980): 66–100.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article uses the construction of a 1:20 scale model of the Parthenon as a starting point for a detailed study of its design principles. These include the dimensions and divisions of its blocks and the theory and execution of its proportional system. The article includes a shorter discussion of the sculpture.
Find this resource:
Coulton, J. J. “The Parthenon and Periklean Doric.” In Parthenon-Kongress-Basel: Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982. Edited by Ernst Berger, 40–44, 368–369. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Points out Cycladic traits in the Parthenon, including those passed through the Cyclades but ultimately derived from western Greece.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “The Architecture of the Parthenon.” In The Parthenon and Its Impact in Modern Times. Edited by Panayiotis Tournikiotis, 55–97. Athens, Greece: Melissa, 1994a.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Begins with an account of the Parthenon’s predecessors and a description of the Classical building, then moves to a history of investigations and discusses specific details of the temple, including its use of Ionic forms.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “Recent Discoveries on the Acropolis.” In Acropolis Restoration: The CCAM Interventions. Edited by Richard Economakis, 174–179. London: Academy Editions, 1994b.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the results of late-20th-century investigations on the Acropolis, which have provided additional evidence for the Parthenon and other buildings.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “The Architecture of the Parthenon.” In The Parthenon: Architecture and Conservation. Edited by Manolis Korres, Georgios A. Panetsos, and Takashi Seki, 46–73. Athens, Greece: Foundation for Hellenic Culture, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers detailed drawings that supplement the discussion of the temple. In Greek, Japanese, and English.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis, Charalampos Bouras, Timothy Cullen, et al. Meletē apokatastaseōs tou Parthenōnos. 7 vols. Athens: Hypourgeio Politismou kai Epistemon, Epitrope Syntereseos Mnemeion Akropoleos, 1983–2002.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides results of detailed studies by several authors on various aspects of the temple in preparation for its restoration. Seven volumes in ten parts, in Greek with English summaries. Includes important new information and numerous original drawings and photographs.
Find this resource:
Orlandos, Anastasios K. Hē architektonikē tou Parthenōnos. 3 vols. Athens, Greece: Archaiologiki Etaireia, 1976–1978.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book, in Greek, offers a comprehensive and detailed examination of the building and its various components with extensive drawings.
Find this resource:
Predecessors

The Classical Parthenon had at least one predecessor, referred to in the literature as the Older Parthenon. Its remains and plan are elucidated in Hill 1912. Its initiation is generally dated c. 488 BCE, but it was not complete when the Persians invaded Athens in 480 BCE and destroyed it. Bundgaard 1976 argues for a later date, not before 458–457 BCE, leaving little time before the Classical period building, although this view remains anomalous. Because numerous architectural members of Pentelic marble had already been carved and assembled on the Acropolis, these were reused, when possible, in the Classical temple. The Older Parthenon thus had an impact on the design of its successor. It is often argued that the site was occupied even earlier by another temple, which may be considered the “grandfather” of the Parthenon. This is associated with the Hekatompedon mentioned in ancient sources, and the building remains labeled H-temple or H-architecture. Dinsmoor 1947 offers a reconstruction of this temple measuring fifty by one hundred feet (thus the name Hekatompedon) and with three columns in antis at front and rear. Plommer 1960 criticizes the reconstruction and even the existence of this building, preferring instead to place the H-architecture on an existing set of foundations (assigned to the Old Temple of Athena). Kissas 2008 follows suit, recognizing the same tooling marks on both groups of blocks. In a review of the scholarship and a presentation of new evidence, Korres 1997 restores the H-architecture to beneath the Classical Parthenon and reconstructs it with a peristyle of probably six by thirteen columns. Manolis Korres offers new evidence for its existence in leveling marks on the bedrock that follow a slightly divergent orientation. Like Dörpfeld 1892, Korres accepts that the large poros platform beneath the Classical Parthenon was built for an unfinished temple of enormous proportions but views it as preceding the Older Parthenon, begun around 500 BCE and soon abandoned. Thus the Classical temple would have had three predecessors. Carpenter 1970 also argues for an overlooked construction, in this case of the Kimonian period. Carpenter attributes it to Kallikrates, assigning the High Classical Parthenon to Iktinos only. It would have filled the otherwise long gap between the destruction of the Older Parthenon and the initiation of the Classical one, but evidence for its existence is lacking.

Bundgaard, J. A. Parthenon and the Mycenaean City on the Heights. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark, 1976.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers a date for the Older Parthenon no earlier than 458–457 BCE on stratigraphic grounds. He also attributes it to Kallikrates, normally considered one of the architects of the Classical building.
Find this resource:
Carpenter, Rhys. The Architects of the Parthenon. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1970.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues for a Kimonian-period Parthenon begun c. 465 BCE but not finished, and replaced by the Classical period construction, which incorporated several of its members, including some of the south metopes. Despite the early features and crude recutting recognized in certain metopes, his argument has not been followed.
Find this resource:
Dinsmoor, William Bell. “The Hekatompedon on the Athenian Acropolis.” American Journal of Archaeology 51.2 (1947): 109–151.
DOI: 10.2307/500750Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues for an early temple (grandfather) on the location of the later Parthenon, using elements of the H-architecture, applied animals on some metopes, and poros pedimental sculptures.
Find this resource:
Dörpfeld, Wilhelm. “Der ältere Parthenon.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 17 (1892): 158–189.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Identifies the poros platform underlying the Classical Parthenon as the foundations and krepis of a predecessor, which would have been about the same width but even longer than the Classical temple. He reconstructed it with the marble columns now attributed to the Older Parthenon, in an eight by nineteen configuration, and dates its beginning to the time of Kimon. It was not finished, as seen in the columns and krepis.
Find this resource:
Hill, Bert Hodge. “The Older Parthenon.” American Journal of Archaeology 16.4 (1912): 535–558.
DOI: 10.2307/497427Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Sets out the evidence for the Archaic temple, which is smaller than its platform and thus significantly smaller than that reconstructed by Dörpfeld. It is elongated, with six by sixteen columns, but the plan of its sekos corresponds with that of the Classical Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Kissas, Konstantin. Archaische Architektur der Athener Akropolis. Dachziegel-Metopen-Geisa-Akroterbasen, AF 24. Wiesbaden, Germany: Reichert Verlag, 2008.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses various Archaic architectural remains from the Acropolis, including members of the H-architecture, which he attributes to a temple on the north rather than on the location of the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “Die Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis.” In Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis: Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin. Edited by Wolfram Hoepfner, 218–243. Berlin: Archölogisches Seminar der Freien Universität Berlin, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides new evidence and interpretations of the predecessors of the Parthenon, including support for the “grandfather” of the Classical temple.
Find this resource:
Plommer, W. H. “The Archaic Acropolis: Some Problems.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 80 (1960): 127–159.
DOI: 10.2307/628383Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In discussing the Archaic Acropolis, Plommer reviews the evidence for the H-architecture and argues for its placement not on the site of the later Parthenon but on the foundations to the north. He nevertheless suggests that the plan of this temple foreshadowed that of the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Process of Construction

One characteristic of Greek architecture that is often overlooked is the construction process. This is not the case with the Parthenon. Waddell 2002 looks at the basis of design for a Doric Greek temple and explains how it was modified in the Parthenon because of the need to reuse the columns of its predecessor and to adhere to a 4:9 ratio as thoroughly as possible. Korres 1995 and Korres 2000 trace the construction process from the extraction of blocks in the quarries to their use in the building. The Parthenon was an expensive undertaking, as we learn from the accounts recorded on a stela. Dinsmoor 1913, with revisions in Dinsmoor 1921, reconstructs the sequence of work on the building and its sculptures. This same information is used in Pope 2000 to determine the relative importance of the various sources of funding. Burford 1963 adds to the discussion of the building accounts and draws on the author’s knowledge of ancient Greek construction projects more generally. The physical surroundings of Greek temples are often lost on the modern viewer, but Stevens 1940 corrects this in an examination of viewing angles, monuments, and buildings around the Parthenon.

Burford, Alison. “The Builders of the Parthenon.” In Parthenos and Parthenon. Edited by G. T. W. Hooker, 23–35. Greece and Rome Supplement 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This informative essay discusses the process of construction on the basis of extant building accounts, methods known from elsewhere, and the evidence for the named architects and for Greek craftspeople in general.
Find this resource:
Dinsmoor, William Bell. “Attic Building Accounts, I: The Parthenon.” American Journal of Archaeology 17 (1913): 53–80.
DOI: 10.2307/497378Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses seventeen fragments assigned to the stela recording expenditures on the Parthenon. Reconstructs their positions in the stela, their dates, and the progress of the work.
Find this resource:
Dinsmoor, William Bell. “Attic Building Accounts, V: Supplementary Notes.” American Journal of Archaeology 25.3 (1921): 233–247.
DOI: 10.2307/497801Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses adjustments to his earlier placement (Dinsmoor 1913) of various fragments and the addition of three new ones. These changes require revisions of the chronology. The historical summary is reprinted at the end of the article, followed by a brief discussion of changes to the Erechtheion accounts of 408–407 BCE.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. From Pentelicon to the Parthenon. Athens, Greece: Melissa, 1995.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers a pictorial and narrative account of the quarries and the process of extracting marble, transporting it to the Acropolis, and building the Parthenon. Also instructive for observations on the Older Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. Stones of the Parthenon. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2000.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
As stated on the copyright page, based on the first part of Korres’s From Pentelicon to the Parthenon (Korres 1995). It provides a shorter account but one that is easily read and may be more readily available because of its publication by the J. Paul Getty Museum. First English edition.
Find this resource:
Pope, Spencer. “Financing and Design: The Development of the Parthenon Program and the Parthenon Building Accounts.” In Miscellanea Mediterranea. Edited by R. Ross Holloway, 61–69. Providence, RI: Center for Old World Archaeology and Art, Brown University, 2000.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the sources for funding, which were primarily the Treasurers of Athena, the main financial board in 5th-century Athens, and secondarily the Hellenotamiae or administrators of tribute money, who annually contributed one-sixtieth of the tribute. Other, smaller donations came from additional sources.
Find this resource:
Stevens, Gorham Phillips. The Setting of the Periclean Parthenon. Hesperia Supplement 3. Athens, Greece: American School of Classical Studies, 1940.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Reconstructs the architectural context of the Parthenon and argues for detailed planning to allow visibility from various points. The author takes account of surrounding structures and amply illustrates his points to give the modern reader a sense of the original appearance of the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Waddell, Gene. “The Principal Design Methods for Greek Doric Temples and Their Modification for the Parthenon.” Architectural History 45 (2002): 1–31.
DOI: 10.2307/1568774Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the triglyph as a module for the design of the Greek Doric temple. In the Parthenon the lower diameter of the columns was set by its predecessor, and the triglyph width was calculated from it. The ratio adopted here and elsewhere in the building was 1:2.25.
Find this resource:
Changes during Construction

Detailed investigations of the Parthenon have noted changes that took place during construction. Yeroulanou 1998 traces them in the Doric peristyle frieze on the east end and around the corners on the flanks. Marina Yeroulanou attributes them to adjustments made after the temple was initiated as a result of the strong corner contraction in this innovative temple. Korres 1994 discusses even more extensive alterations, including the resizing and relocation of columns and the movement of walls. Manolis Korres concludes that those cited are the result of a change in the type of frieze. Korres argues that a Doric frieze was planned first for the porches and, in a second phase, for the flanks of the sekos, but that it was replaced by an Ionic one. Dörpfeld 1884 had already noted the existence of Doric crowning elements on the porch architraves of the Parthenon and explained them as remnants of a planned Doric frieze. Wesenberg 1983 identifies some of the southern peristyle metopes as originally carved for the porches of the cella building. Barletta 2009, however, argues on the basis of arrangement and dimensions that the proposed Doric frieze on the cella building would not fit the allocated space. Instead, Barbara A. Barletta suggests that the Doric features of the porch peristyles reflect the Parthenon’s position as transitional between Doric and Ionic. The Ionic frieze would thus have been planned from the beginning, and its meaning (still uncertain) would not have changed.

Barletta, Barbara A. “In Defense of the Ionic Frieze of the Parthenon.” American Journal of Archaeology 113.4 (2009): 547–568.
DOI: 10.3764/aja.113.4.547Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Addresses the proposal of a Doric rather than an Ionic frieze originally planned for the sekos. By calculating the size and location of its parts, she argues that a Doric frieze would be ill suited to this position. Moreover, nothing in the building requires it.
Find this resource:
Dörpfeld, Wilhelm. “Der Tempel von Sunion.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 9 (1884): 324–337.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this discussion of Attic temples, Dörpfeld states that the porches of the Parthenon show Doric angle contraction and architrave crowns and suggests that the frieze was originally planned as Doric.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “Der Plan des Parthenon.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 109 (1994): 53–120.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Details changes during the course of construction to enlarge the east, north, and south ptera (porticoes) and the pronaos and to insert a new crowning above the interior face of the peristyle frieze, which he associates with the introduction of the Ionic sekos frieze and perhaps a pronaos frieze.
Find this resource:
Wesenberg, Burkhardt. “Parthenongebälk und Südmetopenproblem.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 98 (1983): 57–86.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article points out the inconsistencies in dimensions of members in the entablature and argues that they arise from a change in plan. The author accepts the earlier suggestion that the porch friezes were to be Doric and suggests that some of the south metopes were carved for that position.
Find this resource:
Yeroulanou, Marina. “Metopes and Architecture: The Hephaisteion and the Parthenon.” Annual of the British School at Athens 93 (1998): 401–425.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Studies the sizes of metopes and other blocks in the Parthenon and finds an inequality in the widths of the east metopes that cannot be explained by iconography. The irregularity extends to the metopes (or their supporting architrave) on the flanks at this end and must be related to changes during construction.
Find this resource:
Architects

As discussed in Barletta 2005 (cited under The Architecture), Plutarch (Life of Perikles 13.4) names Iktinos and Kallikrates as the architects of the Parthenon and Phidias as the general overseer of the Periclean program. Vitruvius (De architectura 7 praefatio 12) tells us that Iktinos wrote a treatise on the building with Karpion. Other ancient sources (Strabo 9.1.12 and 16, Pausanias 8.41.9) name only Iktinos as architect. These conflicting statements have been reconciled in various ways by modern scholars. Early on it was suggested that Karpion may have been concerned with the Older Parthenon (see Svenson-Evers 1996, pp. 212–213; Vollkommer 2001, pp. 404–405), and Gruben 2001 (p. 186, cited under General Overviews) argues that his name was perhaps erroneously written for that of Kallikrates. Wesenberg 1982 assigns Iktinos, and by extension Karpion, to the Older Parthenon, leaving Kallikrates responsible for its successor. Most authorities, however, accept Iktinos and Kallikrates as the architects of the Classical temple and reconcile the inconsistencies in the record by assuming that Iktinos was the senior partner. Research on the architects has focused on discerning their artistic contributions. Individual style is sought by comparing aspects of the Parthenon with those of other structures attributed to each man. Iktinos, who is better known in the sources, was said by Pausanias (8.41.7–9) to have designed the Temple of Apollo at Bassai. Thus modern scholars compare the two buildings, although many works, including Knell 1968, conclude that there are clear differences. Winter 1980 explains these differences in part by local traditions and economy and suggests that whereas Iktinos was responsible for the overall design, modifications to the interior were the work of a Peloponnesian architect. Other sources attribute to Iktinos the construction of the Telesterion at Eleusis, but this is less certain. Kallikrates’s career is even more problematic. He is associated with the construction of basic projects, such as walls, and of a phase of the Temple of Athena Nike, which may be either the elaborate structure currently existing or its simpler predecessor. If his projects were of a more practical nature, as McCredie 1979 argues, his contribution to the Parthenon may have been as a contractor rather than as a designer. Yet if, as both Shear 1963 and Dinsmoor 1996 assert, he designed the current version of the Nike temple, he may have been responsible for numerous innovations in Attic architecture.

Dinsmoor, Anastasia Norre. “Kallikrates.” In The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 17. Edited by J. Turner, 742. New York: Grove, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a handy, albeit brief, account of the architect’s contributions. Includes a short bibliography. The online version of this article has links to essays on buildings and on Iktinos, available by subscription through Oxford Art Online.
Find this resource:
Knell, H. “Iktinos: Baumeister des Parthenon und des Apollontempels von Phigalia-Bassae?” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 83 (1968): 100–117.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Noting similarities of the Temple of Apollo at Bassai with Athenian architecture as found in the Parthenon, Knell concludes that an Attic architect was at work on the Bassai temple but that it was not the same person who designed the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
McCredie, James R. “The Architects of the Parthenon.” In Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: A Tribute to P. H. von Blanckenhagen. Edited by Günter Kopcke and Mary B. Moore, 69–73. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1979.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Uses literary and archaeological evidence to discern the careers of Iktinos and Kallikrates and thus their probable contributions to the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Shear, Ione Mylonas. “Kallikrates.” Hesperia 32 (1963): 375–424.
DOI: 10.2307/147361Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Reconstructs Kallikrates’s career, beginning with the Ionic Temple of Athena Nike, which she believes to be that mentioned in an inscription. Based on similarities, the author accepts the Ilissos temple and the Doric Temple of the Athenians on Delos as works by this same architect and adds the Erechtheion to this group.
Find this resource:
Svenson-Evers, Hendrik. Die griechischen Architekten archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book provides the literary testimonia for the architects associated with the Parthenon (Iktinos, Kallikrates, and Karpion) and discusses modern scholarship regarding their contributions to Greek architecture (pp. 157–211, 212–213, 214–236, respectively). It explores structures assigned to Iktinos and Kallikrates and their dates.
Find this resource:
Vollkommer, Rainer, ed. Künstlerlexikon der Antike. Vol. 1. Munich: Saur, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this volume Manolis Korres investigates all three of the architects named in association with the Parthenon—Iktinos, Kallikrates, and Karpion (pp. 338–345, 387–393, 404–405, respectively)—and presents entries that are up to date and authoritative. Written in German.
Find this resource:
Wesenberg, Burkhardt. “Wer erbaute den Parthenon?” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 97 (1982): 99–125.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Dates Iktinos to the first half of the 5th century, with the Bassai temple late in his career. He attributes the Older Parthenon to Iktinos, who along with Karpion wrote on that version of the temple, and the Classical building to Kallikrates.
Find this resource:
Winter, Frederick E. “Tradition and Innovation in Doric Design III: The Work of Iktinos.” American Journal of Archaeology 84.4 (1980): 399–416.
DOI: 10.2307/504069Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the roles of the architects of the Parthenon, especially in regard to proposals in Dinsmoor 1975 (cited under General Overviews), as well as Carpenter 1970 and Bundgaard 1976 (both cited under Predecessors), and argues for the importance of the eight-column facade to the design.
Find this resource:
Specific Architectural Features

Detailed studies of the Parthenon have uncovered important evidence for the thoroughness of its planning and execution, for its architectural features, and for its innovations. Dinsmoor 1923 contends that it, along with other Greek temples, employed proportions based not on geometry but on linear measurements. Through the author’s analysis, Stillwell 1969 finds evidence for the correlation of sculpture with its architectural context, in this case in regard to the frieze. Among Manolis Korres’s discoveries regarding the Parthenon is that it possessed windows flanking the door on the east front (Korres 1984), as also known from some later Attic buildings. Although the columns in the rear room are now lost, markings on the floor show that they stood on a base. It is generally assumed that they were of the Ionic order, but Pedersen 1989 makes a strong argument for Corinthian, which accords better with his reconstruction of the room as center spaced. Scholars have long been aware of refinements in the Parthenon. These are often explained as practical solutions or optical corrections. Mavrikios 1965 discusses their aesthetic value and likens their aim to that in sculpture, where balance is brought about through contrapposto (counterpose). Haselberger 2005, a longer essay, also stresses the relationship with innovations in sculpture, aptly pointing out that technical explanations for refinements, such as curvature, do not account for its continuation into upper members. This essay expands the discussion of the various types of refinements in the Parthenon and traces their presence in both earlier and later buildings. Korres 1999 elucidates a complex system of lesser-known refinements in the Parthenon that include different horizontal curvatures of separate components and locations in a course, differing amounts of entasis in pronaos and opisthodomos columns, and varied inclinations.

Dinsmoor, William Bell. “How the Parthenon Was Planned.” Architecture 47.6 (1923): 177–180.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Continued in Architecture 48.1 (1923): 241–244. Argues that the column diameter was set at 5 5/6 Attic feet (of 327 millimeters) in the Older Parthenon. From this were derived other dimensions and elements of design (as the eight-column facade) in the Classical temple. Adjustments to the plan were made as needed.
Find this resource:
Haselberger, Lothar. “Bending the Truth: Curvature and Other Refinements of the Parthenon.” In The Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 101–157. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses in detail the refinements of curvature, entasis, inclination, thickened corner columns, and corner contraction in the Parthenon and other buildings. Through comparative analysis, Haselberger shows that the adjustments were particularly strong in the Parthenon and that more emphasis was placed on the more important parts of the building.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “Der Pronaos und die Fenster des Parthenon.” In Parthenon-Kongress Basel: Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982. Edited by Ernst Berger, 47–54, 370–371. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses evidence for windows flanking the doorway to the naos and other features of the pronaos that distinguish it from the opisthodomos (opisthonaos).
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “Refinements of Refinements.” In Appearance and Essence: Refinements of Classical Architecture-Curvature; Proceedings of the Second Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture Held at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 2–4 April 1993. Edited by Lothar Haselberger, 79–104. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1999.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses refinements generally in Greek architecture but with a particular emphasis on the setting and architecture of the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Mavrikios, A. “Aesthetic Analysis concerning the Curvature of the Parthenon.” American Journal of Archaeology 69 (1965): 264–268.
DOI: 10.2307/502293Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Views curvature and other refinements as arising from an interest in plasticity and dynamism. This article was reprinted in Bruno 1996 (cited under Architecture and Sculpture of the Parthenon).
Find this resource:
Pedersen, Poul. The Parthenon and the Origin of the Corinthian Capital. Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press, 1989.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues for Corinthian rather than Ionic columns in the rear room. Corinthian columns would fit better the central arrangement suggested by the floor slabs and proposed by Pedersen.
Find this resource:
Stillwell, Richard. “The Panathenaic Frieze: Optical Relations.” Hesperia 38 (1969): 231–241.
DOI: 10.2307/147419Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Determines the location at which the frieze would be visible, a few feet wide and about thirty feet away. From this viewing distance, the composition encouraged the spectator to move northward along the west side and to approach the entrance on the east front. Ceiling beams correspond with figures on porches.
Find this resource:
Sculptural Program

Discussions of the overall sculptural program of the Parthenon range considerably in coverage. Both Brommer 1979 and Boardman 1985 provide the reader with a general discussion and numerous illustrations of the various components of the architectural sculpture (pediments, metopes, and frieze), while also offering evidence for the now-lost cult statue. By comparison, Cook 1984 presents a much shorter account but one that is useful to the casual reader. It also discusses Lord Elgin, his acquisition of the marbles, and their display in the British Museum. Similarly, Jenkins 2007 provides background information on the building and its sculptures followed by detailed and high-quality color views of individual works with captions. Choremi-Spetsieri 2004, with photographs by Sokratis Mavrommatis, offers a comprehensive history of the building and its sculptures along with excellent illustrations. Lagerlöf 2000 takes a different approach in giving far less description and no reconstructions of the sculptures. Instead, Margaretha Rossholm Lagerlöf focuses on their interpretation, with mixed results. Since much of her interest is in the viewer’s experience, she concentrates on selected components, the east pediment and the frieze, with considerably less attention to the other sculptures. Delivorrias 1994 and Korres 1994 aim for an overview in the context of a larger discussion of the Parthenon but give the reader much food for thought. Thus the former covers major issues regarding the preservation, reconstruction, and interpretation of the sculptures in a limited number of pages. At the same time, Angelos Delivorrias elaborates on his own views. So too Korres 1994 offers a brief summary of the architectural sculpture but with important points. This essay is particularly useful for the English-language reader, since the author reviews interpretations expressed elsewhere in other languages. In particular, Manolis Korres suggests that the frieze originally consisted of undecorated Doric metopes over the sekos walls with a later decision made to include sculpture in the metopes or to replace them with a sculpted frieze. This change would have been motivated by the decision to represent the Panathenaic procession, which the author views as demonstrating the Athenian political system and honoring the state. Korres also explains the decision to include a carved frieze in the pronaos, as shown by alterations to the columns.

Boardman, John. The Parthenon and Its Sculptures. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a general discussion of other aspects of the building but is primarily concerned with the sculpture. Discusses the various components of architectural sculpture with the generally accepted identifications and a discussion of the cult statue. Includes numerous black-and-white photographs and reconstructions.
Find this resource:
Brommer, Frank. The Sculptures of the Parthenon: Metopes, Frieze, Pediments, Cult-Statue. Translated by M. Whittal. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Also published in German: Die Parthenon-Skulpturen: Metopen, Fries, Giebel, Kultbild (Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1979). This book surveys the various members of the sculptural program listed in the title with remarks on individual compositions and figures accompanied by copious illustrations. Additionally, it addresses such important topics as conservation, bronze additions, and remains of paint.
Find this resource:
Choremi-Spetsieri, Alkistis. Ta glypta tou Parthenona: Akropole, Vretaniko Buseio, Louvro/The Sculptures of the Parthenon: Acropolis, British Museum, Louvre. Athens, Greece: Ephesus, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This bilingual book examines the most significant collections of the Parthenon sculptures as a group. The emphasis on viewing the sculptures together mirrors that taken in the Acropolis Museum (with casts where necessary), illustrated at the end of the book. Contains some excellent new photographs by Sokratis Mavrommatis.
Find this resource:
Cook, B. F. The Elgin Marbles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Owes its inception to a guide to the Elgin collection published in 1921 by Arthur Hamilton Smith and revised by various authors over the years. This book provides background to the sculptures in Athenian history, the Parthenon overall, and the iconographic program.
Find this resource:
Delivorrias, Angelos. “The Sculptures of the Parthenon: Form and Content.” In The Parthenon and Its Impact in Modern Times. Edited by Panayiotis Tournikiotis, 99–135. Athens, Greece: Melissa, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Surveys the sculptures from the different areas of the building in turn, citing identifications and scholarly interpretations of themes and compositions. In particular, illustrates various reconstructions of the east pediment and argues against a standing representation of Zeus. The author sees a marital theme underlying several areas of sculpture.
Find this resource:
Jenkins, Ian. The Parthenon Sculptures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Begins with an overview of the temple, its history, and its sculpture followed by individual chapters on the pediments, metopes, and frieze.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “The Sculptural Adornment of the Parthenon.” In Acropolis Restoration: The CCAM Interventions. Edited by Richard Economakis, 28–33. London: Academy Editions, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A short account of the architectural sculpture; stresses its unusual extent and points out the hierarchy of images arranged vertically, from earthly (frieze) to mythical (metopes) to divine (pediments), and horizontally, with a greater emphasis on deities on the east.
Find this resource:
Lagerlöf, Margaretha Rossholm. The Sculptures of the Parthenon: Aesthetics and Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book is concerned with the meaning of the sculptures and how that is conveyed through representation. It has been criticized for focusing more on the modern than on the ancient viewer.
Find this resource:
Pediments

Pausanias (I.24.5) identifies the subjects of the two pediments, whose compositions are partially known from the Carrey drawings and extant sculptures. Yet the themes are not common in Greek art, and many of the sculptures are now missing. Thus the arrangements and the exact identifications of several figures are debated, as are the associations of particular fragments. As Despinis 1984 demonstrates, new fragments may be attributed. Brommer 1963 provides excellent documentation of the overall remains. The reader, however, may find its organization and expectation of previous knowledge somewhat difficult. For an introduction, although in German, Brommer 1975, a shorter book, is sufficient. The analysis in Palagia 1993 falls between these two in length and brings theories and bibliography up to date. While discussing the views of others and listing in the appendix (pp. 60–61) the identifications proposed for sculptures since 1963, Olga Palagia offers new observations and interpretations. In particular, the author sets the scene in the east pediment during the aftermath of Athena’s birth. This allows the author to accept previous suggestions that the missing figure of Zeus was represented as standing, an assumption also based on physical characteristics. Mostratos 2004 also reconstructs a standing Zeus, but rather than placing him at the center, flanked by Athena and Hera, as does Palagia, Georgios Mostratos shows Athena and Zeus on either side of a smaller, central Nike. Three other essays cited here focus on the west pediment. Pausanias tells us that it depicted the contest between Athena and Poseidon for the sovereignty of Attica. The Carrey drawings show the center, now lost, occupied by these two deities forcefully moving outward. Their exact action and the identification of the subsidiary figures are in dispute. Spaeth 1991 accepts the poses of the gods as expressing their conflict and assumes a similar antagonism in the figures beyond, which allude to the legendary war between Athens and Eleusis. Binder 1984 suggests that the poses of the central deities reflect, rather, their speed in offering their respective gifts and that Athena is recognized as first by Kekrops, who was entrusted with this decision. Pollitt 2000 also opts for a less antagonistic message that emphasizes the important and long-standing roles of both gods in Athenian history and cult.

Binder, Judith. “The West Pediment of the Parthenon: Poseidon.” In Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His 80th Birthday. GRBS Monographs 10. Edited by Kent J. Rigsby, 15–22. Durham, NC: Duke University, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues that priority rather than value of the tokens offered to the Athenians determined the victor in the contest of Athena and Poseidon. This explains the pose of Athena, who is racing toward Kekrops to confirm her victory.
Find this resource:
Brommer, Frank. Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel: Katalog und Untersuchung. 2 vols. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1963.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Combines a detailed text volume, with catalogue and discussion, and a profusely illustrated plate volume with some unusual views. Builds on previous scholarship but eliminates some pieces previously attributed and adds others. Although the interpretations of figures are not always accepted, observations and documentation are important.
Find this resource:
Brommer, Frank. Die Giebel des Parthenon, eine Einführung. 2d ed. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1975.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A short but well-illustrated introduction to the sculptures of the Parthenon with particular emphasis on the pediments. Presents some of the discoveries by the author that have been more extensively discussed in articles. First published in 1959.
Find this resource:
Despinis, Giorgos. “Neue Fragmente von Parthenonskulpturen und Bemerkungen zur Rekonstruktion des Parthenon-Ostgiebels.” In Parthenon-Kongress Basel: Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982. Edited by Ernst Berger, 293–302, 444–445. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Presents newly discovered fragments from the Parthenon sculptures, including some that Despinis attributes to the pediments. Among this last group is a large male hand, suitable for Zeus, whom he reconstructs as seated on the basis of other birth scenes and the position of the hand.
Find this resource:
Mostratos, Georgios. “A Reconstruction of the Parthenon’s East Pediment.” In The Parthenon and Its Sculptures. Edited by Michael B. Cosmopoulos, 114–149. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Reviews the scholarship regarding the identification of the extant figures and the moment depicted and uses this evidence, markings on the pedimental floor, the Carrey drawings, and representations in other arts to offer a reconstruction of the pediment.
Find this resource:
Palagia, Olga. The Pediments of the Parthenon. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1993.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a shorter, more updated account of the pediments than that in Brommer 1963. The book describes and discusses the individual figures from left to right. The difficult issue of the missing figures in the east pediment is treated separately. Palagia’s investigation benefits from personal autopsy of stylistic and technical characteristics.
Find this resource:
Pollitt, J. J. “Patriotism and the West Pediment of the Parthenon.” In Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman. Edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, and Anthony M. Snodgrass, 220–227. London: Thames and Hudson, 2000.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Surveys the literary evidence for the story depicted in the west pediment and relates it to the distinctive Athenian virtues of patriotism.
Find this resource:
Spaeth, Barbette Stanley. “Athenians and Eleusinians in the West Pediment of the Parthenon.” Hesperia 60.3 (1991): 331–362.
DOI: 10.2307/148069Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Identifies the subsidiary figures on the left side of the pediment behind Athena as members of the Athenian royal family and those on the right side behind Poseidon as their Eleusinian counterparts. Spaeth argues that these royal families were closely tied to the respective deities in art and cult.
Find this resource:
Metopes

Two books here take a comprehensive approach to the metopes. Brommer 1967 follows the format of the author’s earlier set on the pediments. Frank Brommer offers both documentation and an interpretation of the various metopes accompanied by thorough photographic support. He discusses earlier views while often disagreeing with them. So too some of Brommer’s own identifications, as either Persians or Amazons on the west and an Attic centauromachy on the south, have not been generally followed. Scholars opt instead for an Amazonomachy and the Thessalian centauromachy, respectively, as in Berger 1986 and Schwab 2005. Although much scholarship has been conducted since its publication, Brommer 1967 remains fundamental. Berger 1986, incorporates more recent studies into his own, providing an updated bibliography and new ideas. Its discussion includes all sides of the building but emphasizes the northern and eastern metopes. Berger’s investigation benefits from the details visible in plaster casts of the sculptures and makes clear the value of such casts. Schwab 2005, in a volume on the Parthenon, also provides an overview of the metopes. Being in English and shorter than the two books, it is especially useful to the student or general investigator. Other studies of the Parthenon metopes are concerned with one side or even individual panels. The best-known metopes are on the south side, since they escaped defacement by Christians and are recorded in the Carrey drawings. Nevertheless, the central section, which was lost in the explosion of 1687, is enigmatic. Scholars debate whether these metopes show a separate subject or are part of the centauromachy displayed toward the ends. Mantis 1997 offers inroads into solving this problem through the identification of new fragments and thus the further decipherment of the iconography. Osborne 1994 considers the theme of centaurs more broadly. Trianti 1992 adds to metopes on both the north and the south through the attribution or reassignment of fragments. Since relatively few of the north metopes survived the explosion and thus little is known of their details, the discovery of new fragments is particularly important. All fourteen of the east metopes are extant but poorly preserved, in large part because of defacement. As Tiverios 1982 points out, it is generally accepted that they portrayed a gigantomachy, but the identification of individual figures is debated. Assistance in discerning compositions is provided in Schwab 2004 using digital photography and image-based software.

Berger, Ernst. Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zu den Metopen. 2 vols. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1986.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The first of the comprehensive studies of the Parthenon sculptures derived from the assemblage of casts in Basel. It fully illustrates the casts and discusses the compositions and their interpretations, including new ones by the author.
Find this resource:
Brommer, Frank. Die Metopen des Parthenon: Katalog und Untersuchung. 2 vols. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1967.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Comprises a catalogue of the individual metopes and fragments followed by a general discussion (Volume 1) and detailed illustrations (Volume 2). Provides a meticulous study of the metopes, but the descriptions may require consultation of additional works. Despite its age, this book remains important for dimensions, details, and numerous illustrations.
Find this resource:
Mantis, Alexander. “Parthenon Central South Metopes: New Evidence.” In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome. Edited by Diana Buitron-Oliver, 67–81. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the discovery and recognition of new fragments of the south metopes.
Find this resource:
Osborne, Robin. “Framing the Centaur: Reading Fifth-Century Architectural Sculpture.” In Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Edited by Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne, 52–84. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Examines the centauromachy on the southern metopes in the context of the sculptural program overall and explains the popularity of the theme in 5th-century sculpture as highlighting the ambiguities of contemporary society.
Find this resource:
Schwab, Katherine A. “The Parthenon East Metopes, the Gigantomachy, and Digital Technology.” In The Parthenon and Its Sculptures. Edited by Michael B. Cosmopoulos, 150–165. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses Schwab’s use of digital photography and Adobe Photoshop to enhance the poorly preserved depictions on this group of fourteen metopes. Through comparisons with vase-painting representations and better preserved metopes from the Parthenon itself, restorations of the original scenes are proposed.
Find this resource:
Schwab, Katherine A. “Celebrations of Victory: The Metopes of the Parthenon.” In The Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 159–197. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a useful summary of the entire metopal program and its meaning. Begins with the general characteristics of the metopes and then focuses on each of the four sides.
Find this resource:
Tiverios, M. A. “Observations on the East Metopes of the Parthenon.” American Journal of Archaeology 86.2 (1982): 227–229.
DOI: 10.2307/504834Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This archaeological note discusses the identification of figures on the metopes and presents the author’s view of a symmetry (or correlation) in the placement of participants.
Find this resource:
Trianti, Ismini. “Neue Beobachtungen zu den Parthenon-Metopen.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 107 (1992): 187–197.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Attributes additional fragments of sculpture to metopes on the north and south sides of the temple, demonstrating the use of criteria such as tooling, weathering, marble veins, and scale.
Find this resource:
The Frieze

The carved frieze atop the cella building and in the peristyle was difficult to see, as pointed out in Stillwell 1969 (cited under Specific Architectural Features). Despite its visibility in short glimpses and its execution in low relief, the frieze presumably carried an important message in the iconographic program. Most scholars have followed James Stuart and Nicholas Revett’s identification of its subject as the Panathenaic Procession (see Stuart and Revett 2008, cited under Early Travelers and Investigators). Yet significant differences exist with written accounts of the procession, prompting much scholarship. It is thus understandable that the frieze receives more attention than other parts of the sculpture in late-20th- and early 21st-century books and articles. As with the other sculptures, Brommer 1977 provides a comprehensive study of the frieze. Because of its excellent documentation, this book is a good starting point for investigation. Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996 uses the plaster casts of the frieze in Basel to examine the remains of the sculpture and its images in detail. The plates of this two-volume set are of good quality and useful for deciphering the visual evidence. Neils 2001 also bases its visual documentation of the frieze, a line drawing and a CD-ROM, on the Basel casts. Jenifer Neils offers a comprehensive assessment of the sculpture, including an up-to-date review of earlier literature and interpretations and the thorny issue of repatriation, in a well-illustrated English-language book. Robertson 1975, a relatively short book, provides general background along with detailed photographs and discussions of the frieze slabs. It is useful for study but rather dated and out of print. Jenkins 1994 aims for an updated version similar in coverage and with excellent illustrations that is published under the auspices of the British Museum. Articles, as those cited here, often focus on specific components to reinterpret the meaning of the frieze. According to Harrison 1996, it represents different times in the history of the city and its political and social organization. Pollitt 1997 attributes the prominent but problematic display of the cavalry to Pericles’ creation of a regular cavalry corps, the anomalous apobatai to contests, and the processions to religious festivals more generally. Thus the frieze celebrates Athens’s overall cultural and religious life. Connelly 1996 presents an entirely new identification of the subject, derived from the mythical history of Athens, through new interpretations of scenes and the identification of the young figure in the center of the east front as female. This idea is provocative but not widely accepted.

Berger, Ernst, and Madeleine Gisler-Huwiler. Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries. 2 vols. Studien der Skulpturhalle Basel 3. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Documents the plaster casts of the Parthenon frieze in Basel accompanied by background remarks, commentary on the images, and bibliographic sources.
Find this resource:
Brommer, Frank. Der Parthenonfries: Katalog und Untersuchung. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1977.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This set follows Brommer’s others in format (see Brommer 1963 and Brommer 1975, both cited under Pediments, and Brommer 1967, cited under Metopes). Brommer discusses earlier views as well as his own, which are enhanced by his knowledge of vase painting. The plate volume includes both drawings and photographs that show each frieze slab, sometimes with joining casts or in a photographic reconstruction.
Find this resource:
Connelly, Joan Breton. “Parthenon and Parthenoi: A Mythological Interpretation of the Parthenon Frieze.” American Journal of Archaeology 100.1 (1996): 53–80.
DOI: 10.2307/506297Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues that the frieze represents the myth of Erechtheus’s victory over Eumolpos, with the sacrifice of Erechtheus’s daughters portrayed in the center of the east side.
Find this resource:
Harrison, Evelyn. “Web of History: A Conservative Reading of the Parthenon Frieze.” In Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 198–214. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues against several late-20th-century interpretations of the frieze and in favor of its representation of different times (early on west, contemporary on east) and organizations (four Ionian tribes on north, ten democratic tribes on south).
Find this resource:
Jenkins, Ian. The Parthenon Frieze. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Provides a summary of the temple and particularly the setting, style, and meaning of the frieze. It includes detailed photographs and reconstructions, where missing, of the frieze slabs with commentary.
Find this resource:
Neils, Jenifer. The Parthenon Frieze. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Covers several aspects of the frieze in eight chapters. She examines its religious context, execution, and style; the identification of individual figures and groups; the main interpretations; and its impact and the early 21st-century source of controversy.
Find this resource:
Pollitt, Jerome J. “The Meaning of the Parthenon Frieze.” In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome. Edited by Diana Buitron-Oliver, 51–65. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Questions the usual interpretation of the frieze as the Panathenaic procession and suggests that the iconography alludes more generally to distinctive traits of Athenian society as outlined by Pericles.
Find this resource:
Robertson, Martin. The Parthenon Frieze. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This relatively short but useful book provides general background on the city, the temple, and the frieze. Detailed photographs by Alison Frantz of the frieze slabs and reconstructions of the missing parts are accompanied by in-depth explanations.
Find this resource:
Contents of the Parthenon

Numerous offerings were stored inside the Parthenon, but they no longer exist and must be reconstructed from the texts and physical remains. Harris 1995 offers a detailed account of them as identified from inventories carved on stone. Diane Harris puts the treasures in context by explaining the function they served in Athenian religion and society and the means of accounting for them. The interior also contained the statue of Athena Parthenos executed by Phidias, whose career is traced in Harrison 1996. Questions about the function of the Parthenon affect whether that work was an actual cult image or a votive. These issues are explored in Nick 1997, a conference paper, and more thoroughly in Nick 2002, a book. The author argues that the Parthenon was a temple and its statue a cult image. Scholars have long focused on the appearance of the lost statue. Leipen 1971 details the author’s study of both the literary and the visual sources for it and the resulting reconstruction made for the Royal Ontario Museum. Vermeule 1984 presents a Severan period copy of the statue that preserves details of the helmet, aegis, and belt not found elsewhere. Lapatin 2005, by an authority on chryselephantine works, also discusses the appearance of the statue and supplements it with the author’s knowledge of production. This essay includes as well a (brief) discussion of the temple’s treasures. Fehr 2001–2002 uses the material, size, and iconography of the statue to interpret its political and social function. Many scholars have been concerned with individual aspects of the statue. The bibliography is extensive, and only a selection is provided here. Thus Hurwit 1995 begins with a description of the statue but focuses on its base, which portrayed the birth of Pandora. This story rarely appeared in contemporary art or literature, and although, according to myth, Athena participated in Pandora’s creation, this first woman was also labeled “an evil for mortal men” by Hesiod. Nevertheless, Jeffrey M. Hurwit skillfully integrates this myth into the sculptural program of the Parthenon and contemporary Athenian society. Both the awe-inspiring statue and these precious objects attest to the wealth, piety, and prestige of the city and its citizens. Therefore attempts to reconstruct them are especially important for understanding the effect the cult, the temple, and the statue had on Athenians.

Fehr, Burkhard. “Die Parthenos im Parthenon zwischen ‘recepta religio’ und politischem Kalkül.” Hephaistos 19–20 (2001–2002): 39–66.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Explores the individual characteristics of the statue and their meanings.
Find this resource:
Harris, Diane. The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Examines inventories recorded for the treasures of the Parthenon and those of the Erechtheion to elucidate the contents of these buildings. They include such items as furniture, vessels, and ritual objects that were stored in baskets and on shelves in various rooms. The identification of those rooms is not so straightforward, however.
Find this resource:
Harrison, Evelyn B. “Phidias.” In Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture. Edited by Olga Palagia and J. J. Pollitt, 16–65. Yale Classical Studies 30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the works and contributions of Phidias, including the Athena Parthenos.
Find this resource:
Hurwit, Jeffrey M. “Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos.” American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (1995): 171–186.
DOI: 10.2307/506338Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses what appears to be an unusual choice of theme for the base of the cult image, the birth of Pandora, but relates it to the overall message of the Parthenon’s sculptures.
Find this resource:
Lapatin, Kenneth. “The Statue of Athena and Other Treasures in the Parthenon.” In The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 261–291. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This essay discusses the evidence for the statue of Athena Parthenos, which consists of cuttings in the temple floor and some blocks of its base, descriptions by ancient authors, and a few extant copies. It also explores the materials (wood, gold, and ivory) used and the techniques of construction.
Find this resource:
Leipen, Neda. Athena Parthenos: A Reconstruction. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1971.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Examines literary and archaeological evidence (e.g., statues, heads, reliefs) for the statue, discusses its history, and offers a thorough description of the figure and its details as reconstructed in the museum. The reconstruction draws not only on the evidence assembled here but also on the practical experience of the project.
Find this resource:
Nick, Gabriele. “Die Athena Parthenos: Ein griechisches Kultbild.” In Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis: Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin. Edited by Wolfram Hoepfner, 22–24. Berlin: Archölogisches Seminar der Freien Universität Berlin, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Briefly summarizes issues explored in the author’s 1994 dissertation regarding the identification and function of the Greek cult statue, especially as it pertains to the Athena Parthenos.
Find this resource:
Nick, Gabriele. Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zum griechischen Kultbild und seiner Rezeption. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 2002.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A revised version of the author’s 1994 dissertation. It explores the terminology used for cult statues and both archaeological and literary evidence for them and the function of the building itself. Against this background Nick assesses the Athena Parthenos as a possible cult image.
Find this resource:
Vermeule, Cornelius C. “The Athena Parthenos in Boston.” In Parthenon-Kongress Basel: Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982. Edited by Ernst Berger, 197. Mainz, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Briefly presents a statue in Boston that shows details not preserved in any other known copy. Such evidence adds to our knowledge of the original work.
Find this resource:
Historical and Religious Context

Various approaches are used to place the Parthenon in its historical and religious context. Kallet 2005 traces the development of the Athenian Empire, military power, and democracy to set the background for construction of the Parthenon. Kallet-Marx 1989 focuses more specifically on epigraphic evidence, which the author adduces to contradict the long-held notion that tribute from Athens’s allies served as the main funding source for the building. This undermines the interpretation of the Parthenon as reflecting Athenian imperialism. Osborne 1994 examines the sculpture as seen by visitors to discern the message they would gain from viewing the Parthenon. Robin Osborne finds a reflection of contemporary conditions, such as democracy and Athenian military superiority, and an emphasis on women’s place in society. Marconi 2009–2010 offers a wide-ranging investigation of the frieze as one of several components of sculpture and explains the excess of decoration as an expression of the wealth and power of the city. The question regarding the function of the Parthenon is intimately connected with that of the cults and statues of Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias, as explored in Herington 1955. Platt 2011 probes the visual contrast between the two images in a broader discussion of manifestations of the divine. Whereas the size, naturalism, and radiance of the Parthenos offered an encounter with the divine, the origin and material of the Polias provided a more symbolic embodiment of Athena.

Herington, Cecil John. Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1955.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Uses evidence provided by the Athenas’ names, statues, cults, and temples to examine the relationship of the Athena Parthenos to the Athena Polias and therefore the role of each on the Acropolis.
Find this resource:
Kallet, Lisa. “Wealth, Power, and Prestige: Athens at Home and Abroad.” In The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 35–65. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers a highly readable account of the historical, political, economic, and religious context in which the Parthenon and other members of the Acropolis building program arose.
Find this resource:
Kallet-Marx, Lisa. “Did Tribute Fund the Parthenon?” Classical Antiquity 8.3 (1989): 252–266.
DOI: 10.2307/25010908Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues that Athena’s treasury, and not tribute derived from the Athenian Empire, provided the majority of the funding for the Parthenon.
Find this resource:
Marconi, Clemente. “The Parthenon Frieze: Degrees of Visibility.” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 55–56 (2009–2010): 156–173.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Explores the visibility of the frieze and argues from the difficulty of viewing it that it served to reinforce the conspicuous consumption of the building.
Find this resource:
Osborne, Robin. “Democracy and Imperialism in the Panathenaic Procession: The Parthenon Frieze in Its Context.” In The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy: Proceedings of an International Conference Celebrating 2,500 Years since the Birth of Democracy in Greece, Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 4–6, 1992. Edited by William D. E. Coulson, 143–150. Oxford: Oxbow, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Despite the title, this essay considers the frieze as only one component of the sculptural program that the viewer would assess in interpreting the message of the building.
Find this resource:
Platt, Verity J. Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature, and Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Explains the viewer’s response to the image of Athena Parthenos along with other ancient cult statues and suggests that it was enhanced by the sculptural decoration of the building.
Find this resource:
Later History

Although the later history of the Parthenon has not been the subject of as much scholarly investigation as that of Antiquity, it has nevertheless attracted attention. The temple had a long and diverse afterlife, first as a Christian church and later as a Muslim mosque. This history is succinctly elucidated in Ousterhout 2005, which discusses the changes to the building within those of the society. Kaldellis 2009 presents a longer exposition on the Byzantine use of the Parthenon as a church and argues that its importance intensified as a pilgrimage site in that period. When political power passed to the Ottomans, the Parthenon was converted into a mosque. Yet the most significant physical change occurred during a battle between the Ottomans and the Venetians, when the building was hit by a shell, causing the destruction of much of the central portion. St. Clair and Picken 2004 describes its state immediately after the explosion on the basis of a newly discovered manuscript. The building was further damaged by both successful and unsuccessful attempts to remove its sculptures. The best-known collector is Lord Elgin, who sent parts of the pediments, metopes, and frieze to England and eventually sold the sculptures to the British Museum. His acquisition of the marbles was and continues to be highly controversial, as detailed in Hitchens 1988 and St. Clair 1998, in the latter case with new documents. The Greeks have pressed for the return of these sculptures, and the stewardship of this collection has come under scrutiny. St. Clair 1998 includes a chapter on the cleaning carried out in 1937 and 1938, which resulted in an especially white surface and, the author argues, irreparable damage. That charge is answered on behalf of the museum in Jenkins 2001. Ian Jenkins details the history of cleaning and, while acknowledging that the controversial 1930s cleaning was a mistake, justifies the museum’s stewardship of the marbles. Meanwhile, the rest of the building has undergone extensive study and restoration, necessitated by the ravages of time and improper previous attempts at conservation, as discussed in Korres 1994.

Hitchens, Christopher. Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles. New York: Hill and Wang, 1988.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Begins with a short history of the Parthenon from its inception to the late 20th century and ends with a discussion of restoration efforts. The main body of the work focuses on the acquisition, controversies, and arguments regarding the Elgin marbles.
Find this resource:
Jenkins, Ian. Cleaning and Controversy: The Parthenon Sculptures, 1811–1939. London: British Museum, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Discusses the cleanings of the Parthenon sculptures and particularly that of 1937–1938, which resulted in considerable controversy, and publishes the archival documents from that cleaning.
Find this resource:
Kaldellis, Anthony. The Christian Parthenon: Classicism and Pilgrimage in Byzantine Athens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Examines the Parthenon in late Antiquity and especially in the Byzantine period, when it was converted into a church. Kaldellis argues from literary evidence that the building enjoyed more esteem in Byzantine times than it had in Antiquity.
Find this resource:
Korres, Manolis. “The Restoration of the Parthenon.” In Acropolis Restoration: The CCAM Interventions. Edited by Richard Economakis, 110–135. London: Academy Editions, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Explains the motivations for the restoration project and the process of carrying it out. Describes the type of equipment used, the hierarchy of projects, and the goal of minimizing disturbance to the building. Provides the reader with an understanding of the political and physical difficulties of this long-term project.
Find this resource:
Ousterhout, Robert. “‘Bestride the Very Peak of Heaven’: The Parthenon after Antiquity.” In The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Jenifer Neils, 293–329. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Traces the history of the building from its damage by fire in late Antiquity to its conversion first into a Christian church and later into a mosque with the addition of a minaret, to the explosion of 1687 that turned it into a ruin, and to the insertion of a smaller mosque in the remaining shell.
Find this resource:
St. Clair, William. Lord Elgin and the Marbles. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780192880536.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This third and completely revised edition adds new chapters to the account of the acquisition of the Parthenon sculptures by Lord Elgin. Of particular interest are the history of the Parthenon from the 19th century to the late 20th century, charges leveled against the stewardship of the marbles, and questions of repatriation.
Find this resource:
St. Clair, William, and Robert Picken. “The Parthenon in 1687: New Sources.” In The Parthenon and Its Sculptures. Edited by Michael B. Cosmopoulos, 166–195. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Notes the Christian and Muslim transformations and concludes that the Parthenon was not much changed from its Christian phase before the explosion in 1687. A newly found manuscript describes the temple in the following years, with little additional damage and perhaps retaining the polychromy of the pedimental sculptures.
Find this resource: