Threat Risk Assessment

Threat and Risk Assessment Questionnaire
Completion date:
Reviewed date:
Responsible ICT division:
<Operations or Business Services>
Service:
<Enter service being assessed>
Security Classification:
Unclassified
Confidentiality category:
ICT-IN-CONFIDENCE
threat and Risk assessment questionnaire completed by:
Section
Completed by:
Completed by:
Date
1. Current Operational Status
2. Privacy Focus
3. Documentation Focus

4. Employee Focus
5. Application Focus
6. Data Focus
7. Identity Management Focus
8. Physical Focus
9. Server Focus
10. Network Focus
11. Cloud Services
12. Third Party Agreements

Document version control
Version
Date
Author
Summary of changes
1.0
<date>
Author
<changes>
Table of contents
threat and Risk assessment questionnaire completed by:2
Document version control3
Table of contents4
Introduction5
Purpose of system5
Scope5
1.current operational status5
2.privacy focus5
3.documentation focus7
4.employee focus8
5.application focus9
6.data focus12
7.identity management focus14
8.physical focus16
9.server focus19
10.network focus21
11.cloud services24
12.third party agreements26
Associated documents27

references28
Document review28
Appendix A29
RACI Responsibility Matrix29
Appendix b29
semi quantitative analysis30
Threat and Risk Assessment Questionnaire 2 April 2015
Page 1 of 1
Introduction
This Threat and Risk Assessment Questionnaire, which is
agnostic to the technology being utilised, is designed to assist
in categorising and assessing the risks to services they provide
to business.
Each section should be completed by the person (or delegate)
who is responsible for that part of the system. NOTE: ONLY
complete sections of this document which are relevant to the
system being assessed.
Each section contains a list of best practice security standards
that should be considered during design, development and
implementation of the system, and may pose a risk if they have
not been considered. For each of these, a description of the
current controls in place and their effectiveness should be
added, along with the likelihood and the consequence if the risk
is not addressed. Refer to Appendix B for an explanation of how
to evaluate the Likelihood and Consequence. Purpose of system
<Describe the service that is being assessed>Scope
<Describe the scope of the threat and risk assessment including
any limitations>1. current operational status
Please select the current operational status of the service being
assessed?
Operational (currently in production)
In-Development (being designed, developed, or deployed)
Transition (currently undergoing a major upgrade or transition)

2. privacy focus
Answering Yes to any of the following questions may suggest
that consultation with a privacy officer is required or with the
NSW Privacy Commissioner who can provide advice on the
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.
Please answer the following questions about privacy regarding
the service being assessed.
(Source: Identifying Privacy Issues – IPC NSW)
Qualification
(Note: Personal Information = Personally Identifiable
Information and Health Information)
Yes / No / NA (Not Applicable)
Details
Controls to be used
2.1
Does the system involve the collection of personal information,
compulsorily or otherwise?
2.2
Does the system envisage a new use for personal information
that is already held?
2.3
Will the system change or create any system of regular
disclosure of personal information, whether to another part of
State or local government, or to the private sector, or to the
public at large?

2.4
Will the system restrict access by individuals to their own
personal information?
2.5
Will the system establish or amend a public register?
2.6
Does the system change or create any confidentiality provisions
or secrecy provisions relating to personal information?
2.7
Are any new or amended offences proposed relating to the
misuse of personal information?
2.8
Are any new or amended requirements proposed to store, secure
or retain personal information?
2.9
Will the system create an identification system, e.g. using a
name, a number, or a biometric signature like a fingerscan? Will
it require existing ID, such as a driver’s licence?

2.10
Does the system link or match personal information across or
within agencies?
2.11
Does the system involve exchange or transfer of personal
information outside NSW, whether with another government or
otherwise?
2.12
Does the system relate to handling personal information for
research or statistics, de-identified or otherwise?
2.13
Does the system contain any other measures that may affect
privacy?
3. documentation focus
Please answer the following questions about existing
documentation for the service being assessed.
Governance
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
RATING

3.1
Are there documented procedures for the system and are they
current?
3.2
Is there a system diagram and is it current?
3.3
Is the ICT change management process followed for all changes
to the system?
3.4
Is there DR documentation for this system, is it reviewed and
tested regularly?
3.5
Is there BCP documentation for this system, is it reviewed and
tested regularly?

4. employee focus
Please answer the following questions about staff resourcing
and funding of the service being assessed.
Awareness and Training
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
4.1
Have staff completed Information Security Awareness training?
4.2
Are staff members aware of security policy and guideline
changes?
4.3
Are staff aware of incident reporting procedures?

4.4
Are there adequate staff to implement/support the system? (i.e.
more than one)
4.5
Are staff adequately skilled?
4.6
Is applicable training available and funded for staff?
4.7
Is there sufficient funding to run the system according to
business requirements?
4.8
Are staff resources sufficient to manage the system?
(Technology, books, journals, etc)

4.9
Are key stakeholders identified and recorded?
5. application focus
Please answer the following application questions about the
service being assessed.
A. Application Development
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
5.1
Is the ICT System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) followed for
this system?
5.2
Do you perform a security code review during each phase of the
systems development?
5.3

Are all software developers working on the system given
orientation/made aware of the security requirements of the
system before commencing work?
B. Application in Production
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
5.4
Are only authorised users able to access and make modifications
to production software, configuration files, scripts, databases,
etc.?
5.5
Are the interactions by authorised users on the server, to
production software, configuration files, scripts, databases, etc.
are logged and stored?
5.6
All application database users have the least privilege required
to perform their application and/or job functions?

5.7
All logs containing restricted/confidential data are stored in a
secure and centralized location?
5.8
Stored passwords are encrypted by MD5 or a similar mechanism
and salted?
5.9
If a web application processes credit card payments, does it use
SSL and does it handle/store card holder data according to PCI-
DSS?
5.10
If a web application stores, processes, or transmits restricted
data, an application firewall is in place to protect the restricted
data?

5.11
Stored SQL data containing restricted or confidential
information is not directly manipulated?
5.12
All input fields are validated to mitigate the risk of SQL
injection (for web-based and non web-based applications)?
5.13
URL based SQL injections have been addressed and mitigated?
5.14
Load testing has been performed to identify any security bugs
related to threading and session management?
5.15
Is web application authentication of users conducted over

HTTPS and do not proxy, store or retransmit authentication
information?
5.16
Once a user has been authenticated on the system, the level of
security is not degraded beyond this baseline?
5.17
All authenticated mechanisms and sessions are encrypted?
5.18
All authentication interfaces do not mimic or might reasonably
confuse others with official authentication interfaces?
5.19
Development, test and production are separate environments
available for the system?

6. data focus
Please answer the following database and file system questions
about the service being assessed.
A. Data Classification
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
6.1
Does all critical business data have an identified owner?
6.2
Data is classified according to the NSW Classifications and
Labelling Guidelines?
6.3
Is access to sensitive customer data authorised by the data
owner?
6.4

All data files and locations that may contain confidential or
restricted data are documented?
B. Database
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
6.5
Is access to database software restricted to privileged users
based on a business requirement?
6.6
Is database access regularly reviewed?
6.7
Is confidential and restricted data encrypted in the table
columns of the database?

6.8
Restricted data fields are not used as a database key and is
consolidated into one table?
6.9
All database backup dumps and exports with restricted data are
encrypted and have restricted access?
6.10
The test environment is restricted and data is de-identified?
6.11
Database passwords are routinely changed and meet the criteria
for strong security standards?
6.12
Database vulnerability assessment scan has been run?

6.13
Database software is patched regularly?
C. Backup
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
6.14
Are backups of business critical data performed regularly?
6.15
Is there an automated way to verify all backups completed?
6.16
Do you periodically restore from backup tapes to ensure
integrity?

6.17
Are backup tapes stored in an environmentally controlled and
secure area?
6.18
Are backup tapes stored off-site and how is access protected?
6.19
Is a regular audit conducted to account for all backup tapes?
6.20
If backup tapes are ever destroyed is there a procedure?
7. identity management focus
Please answer the following questions about authentication for
the service being assessed
A. Account Management

Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
7.1
Is each customer account owned or sponsored by the customer?
7.2
Is concurrent access prohibited?
7.3
Are accounts locked out after a number of failed attempts?
7.4
Are accounts disabled after a period of inactivity?
7.7
Are accounts periodically reconciled to existing users?

7.8
Are privileged accounts set up for emergency access and logged
and subject to regular reviews?
7.9
Do you have a list of accounts with root or admin privileges?
7.10
Are default system accounts disabled? (e.g. Windows default
remote assistant accounts, Oracle’s default DBA account)
B. Password Management
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
7.5

Are users forced to change their password at first login and do
passwords expire periodically?
7.6
Are users prevented from re-using passwords?
7.7
All passwords contain 8 characters or more and contain
characters from at least two of the following: Alphabetic (a-z,
A-Z), Numeric (0-9), Punctuation and other characters?
7.8
Passwords are not sent “in clear text” (unencrypted) and are
transmitted securely?
7.9
All systems passwords have been changed from their default?

8. physical focus
Please answer the following questions about infrastructure
regarding the service being assessed.
A. Data Centre Security
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
8.1
A primarily responsible person and their backup has been
identified?
8.2
Access to restricted areas is based on a business need and is
periodically reviewed?
8.3
Alarms are working, monitored externally, maintained and
tested regularly?

8.4
Surveillance equipment is working, backed up, maintained and
tested regularly?
8.5
Adequate power supplies are in place and maintained?
8.6
UPS are in place, maintained and tested regularly?
8.7
Adequate aircon is in place, maintained and tested regularly?
8.8
Backup generator is in place, maintained and tested regularly?

8.9
Fire suppression systems are in place, maintained and tested
regularly?
8.10
Environment is regularly cleaned?
8.11
Appropriate work aids (WHS) are provided and in good
condition?
8.12
Work Health Safety is reviewed regularly?
8.13
Hardware with confidential or restricted data is physically
segmented from non-secure systems?

8.14
Data cables and power cables are separated?
B. Asset Inventory
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
8.15
Are their documented processes for removing equipment?
8.16
Is there an inventory kept of physical devices and is it regularly
reviewed?
8.17
Are there methods for the secure disposal of unwanted
equipment and documents?

8.18
Is there a process to ensure software inventory is maintained
and is accurate and current?
8.19
Is there an authorised list maintained of software that can be
installed?
8.20
Is license information kept and reviewed?
8.21
Devices are configured to lock and require a user to re-
authenticate if left unattended?

9. server focus
Please answer the following questions about the operating
system being used by the service being assessed.
Vulnerability and Hardening
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
9.1
Is there a process to obtain the latest security patches and
updates?
9.2
Is there a process to identify vulnerabilities?
9.3
Are automated tools used to assess system vulnerabilities?
9.4
Is a pen test conducted against systems to identify

vulnerabilities?
9.5
Do you have a security checklist for each operating system
deployed?
9.6
Do you perform reviews of your security checklist?
9.7
Are the security checklists updated regularly?
9.8
Are root or admin account privileges regulated on systems and
is this documented?

9.9
Are applications regulated from running as root or admin
privilege?
9.10
Are login banners on systems?
9.11
Is anti-virus installed on all operating systems?
9.12
Are the virus definitions automatically updated?
9.13
Are all email and ftp transmissions checked for malware?

9.14
Is access to directories that contain confidential or restricted
data, restricted?
9.15
Is security auditing enabled on business critical systems?
9.16
Logging of access to confidential or restricted information is
being performed and securely stored?
9.17
Failed logins are logged with IP address and timestamp
(archived and backed up) and repeated failures are locked out?
9.18
Are logs reviewed in a timely and consistent manner, with
identified events reviewed?

9.19
Is automatic alerting configured for defined thresholds?
9.20
Is an active SMTP service provided that allows unauthorised
parties to relay e-mail messages?
10. network focus
Please answer the following network questions about the service
being assessed
A. Router/Firewall/Switch /Proxy
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
10.1
Is there a current network diagram and is it maintained?
10.2

Have stateful firewalls been deployed at all external
connections?
10.3
Is the firewall configured with a policy that all services are
denied unless expressly permitted?
10.4
Is the risk of opening protocols and ports assessed before
implementing any changes on the firewall?
10.5
Is outgoing traffic directed to external proxy servers and are
they in the DMZ?
10.6
Are all services forbidden except when specifically requested?

10.7
Is logging enabled?
10.8
Are logs reviewed regularly and in a consistent manner with
identified events reviewed?
10.9
Are network devices hardened and backed up?
10.10
Is access restricted to those with a business need?
10.11
For remote administration are administrators securely
authenticated, if so how?

10.12
Are network devices regularly patched?
10.13
Is the business critical network configured with switches so that
sniffer software is ineffective?
B. VPN
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
10.14
Is a personal firewall implemented for computers which use a
VPN?
10.15
Is VPN access only granted to computers running antivirus
software and a personal firewall?

10.16
IS VPN access cancelled as soon as the business requirement is
no longer needed?
C. Intrusion Detection
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
10.17
Is the placement of the IDS reviewed to ensure appropriate
coverage?
10.18
Is there automated alerting configured?
10.19

Is the NIPS monitoring interconnections (internet, web-hosting
platforms, third party connections)?
D. Cryptography
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
10.20
Is there a register of all SSL certificates and their expiry date?
10.21
Do SSL certificates match domains?
10.22
Is SSL/HTTPS enforced for all web applications accessing
confidential and restricted data?

11. cloud services
Please answer the following questions if the service being
assessed is hosted outside of the organisation and is managed by
a service provider.
Access/Change/BCP/Service
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
11.1
Access Control: Is the solution Security Assertion Markup
Language 2.0 (SAML 2.0) compliant for authenticating users?
11.2
Change Control: Authorisation – what degree of granularity
does the system offer in defining roles?
11.3
Change Control: Isolation – what security standards are
followed in the operation of the service?

11.4
Change Control: Isolation – is compliance with internal security
standards assessed by a compliance audit at least annually?
11.5
Change Control: Isolation – what external application
vulnerability scans / assessments / audits are done and how
often?
11.6
Change Control: Isolation – does data transit non – Australian
networks, if so where?
11.7
Change Control: Isolation – is data stored outside of Australia,
if so where?
11.8
Business Continuity: what level of availability does the service
offer?

11.9
Business Continuity: what provisions are in place to exit the
service?
11.10
Business Continuity: what provisions are in place to protect
intellectual property?
11.11
Business Continuity: what provisions are in place for decryption
key escrow, for encrypted solutions?
11.12
Access, Change and Fault Reporting: what activity and resource
usage reports are provided?

11.13
Service Details: does the solution follow web standards? e.g.
OWASP
11.14
Service Details: if handling credit card details, is the solution
PCI-DSS compliant?
11.15
Service Details: what other auditable IT standards are followed
and how often are audits performed?
11.16
Service Details: are the results of audits and certifications made
available to customers?
12. third party agreements
Please answer the following questions about professional
services supplied to the organisation for the service being

assessed.
Contractors
Yes / No / NA
(Not Applicable)
Proposed Controls
CONSEQUENCES
LIKELIHOOD
Rating
12.1
Have the appropriate HR checks been completed and a non-
disclosure agreement signed?
12.2
Do the (proposed) team members have IT security
certifications? e.g. CISSP, TOGAF
12.3
Have the (proposed) team members worked on projects of
similar size, nature and complexity in the past?
12.4
Do the (proposed) team members have vendor or technology
specific certifications?

12.5
Are security standards such as OWASP or TOGAF followed in
development of solutions?
12.6
What coding methodology, review practices are followed in the
development of solutions?
12.7
Has the developer anticipated the need to perform a Privacy
Impact Assessment (PIA) and Threat and Risk Assessment
(TRA) and budgeted time to do so?
12.8
If so, how much time has been reserved?

12.9
How has the PIA and TRA been integrated into the development
process?
Associated documents
This Threat and Risk Assessment draws on information from the
following locations:
ICT Service Catalogue
<resources>references
Information and Privacy Commission, New South Wales,
Identifying Privacy Issues - Checklist
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Information
Security Office, Server Security Checklist
University of Toronto Information Risk and Risk Management
Assessment Questionnaire For Information Services, 09 April
2014
Manzoor, K. Vendor Security Risk Assessment Report,
University of IllinoisDocument review
This document shall be reviewed annually, or as required to
reflect changing requirements.Appendix ARACI Responsibility
Matrix
Project Step
Tasks
Director, ICT
Info Sec Team
Technical Services Team
Communications Team
Customer Services Team
Development Services
Other specialist units
Startup
1. Identification of requirements

2. Document scope
3. Resources
4. Audience
Initiate
5. Review of existing document
6. Risk assessment
Plan
7. Areas to address
8. Control selection
9. Risk treatment plan
10. Consultation
11. Draft document
Execute & Monitor

12. Approval and sign-off
Close/Review
13. Measurement program entry
14. Communication to stakeholders
15. Initiating flow-on reviews
R = Responsible A = Accountable C = Consulted I =
Informed
Appendix bsemi quantitative analysis
EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT CONTROLS
Unsatisfactory
No recovery plan; Change is across multiple systems / sites;
Change to a critical system that is a dependency for key
business system(s); Evidence is present that controls are non-
existent or completely ineffective and urgent improvements are
required; No contingencies are identified and activity disruption
is likely;
Inconsistent
Change cannot be verified until under normal load; Change
requires support from multiple sources (suppliers etc.); Pilot/Go
live of a new application; Controls are largely ineffective and

there is likelihood that controls will be breached; Few
contingencies are in place and significant activity disruptions
are expected;
Effective
Recovery plan untested; Previous change(s) have had issues;
Change is to a non critical system; Change tested successfully
but test environment does not replicate live environment; Most
controls are functioning, but areas for improvement are
identified; There is some likelihood that controls may be
breached; There is recent evidence that a small number of
controls have been breached; Contingencies are in place for a
few key areas to manage potential activity disruptions;
Highly Effective
Change replicates normal user behavior; History of successful
implementation; Successful implementation of pilot and
subsequent phases; Controls are effective but small
improvements could be made; There is a low likelihood that
controls may be breached; There are no recent examples of
control breaches; Control effectiveness is assessed regularly;
Contingencies are in place for key business areas to manage
potential activity disruptions;
Exceptional
Recovery plan is known and tested; Non-complex change;
Change tested successfully in test environment that fully
replicates live environment; Controls are effective and stable;
There is an extremely low probability of controls being
breached; There are no previous incidents of control breaches;
Control effectiveness is assessed frequently (more than once per
year); Comprehensive contingencies are in place to manage
most potential activity;
CONSEQUENCES
Catastrophic
Characteristics: Total loss of Data Centre; total loss of

operations > 48 hours; total loss of strategic data sets and
backups;
Causes: Building fire, natural disaster (earthquake) affecting the
city and surrounding area and/or building, pathogen, bomb, etc.
Recovery Time: Potentially very long (e.g. total loss of
building), significant staff losses including key IT disaster
recovery personnel.
Extreme
(Outage likely to exceed 3 days)
Characteristics: Total data centre failure (retain business areas),
Retain data centre but business areas lost; data availability lost
> 24 hours;
Causes: Data centre fire, multiple supply systems failure (power
combined with UPS), Building fire that partially destroys the
building, pathogen.
Recovery Time: Long depending on cause, some staff losses
that could include key IT disaster recovery personnel.
Major
(Outage likely to exceed 24 hours)
Characteristics: Partial data centre failure; major data storage
failure >24 hours; major communications loss >24 hours;
Causes: Multiple critical systems fail at the same time possible
due to power loss or fire/flood in the data centre.
Recovery Time: Medium-long depending on the equipment
impacted, staff losses unlikely.
Minor
(Outage will not exceed 24 hours)
Characteristics: The failure impacts business units and or floors
but the majority of staff can continue to operate.
Causes: Failure of one or more major applications, network
failure impacting one or more floors.
Recovery Time: Short-medium, DR unlikely to be initiated.
Isolated
(Outage will not exceed 4 hours)
Characteristics: Impact the delivery of one major business
application.

Causes: Server floor, database failure, application level failure.
Recovery Time: Short – normally handled within normal IT
support timeframes.
LIKELIHOOD
Almost certain
Is expected to occur in most circumstances.
Could occur within ‘days to weeks’.
Likely
Will probably occur in most circumstances.
Could occur within ‘weeks to months’.
Possible
Might occur at some time.
Could occur ‘within a year or so’.
Unlikely
Could occur at some time.
Could occur ‘after several years’.
Rare
May occur only in exceptional circumstances.
A ‘100 year event’ or greater.
Risk Rating
Likelihood rating
Consequence rating
Isolated
Minor
Major
Extreme
Catastrophic
Almost certain
Moderate

Moderate
High
High
High
Likely
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Possible
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Unlikely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Rare
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Threat and Risk Assessment Questionnaire
2 April 2015
Page
1

of
1
Completion
date:
Reviewed date:
Responsible
ICT
division:
<Operations or Business Services>
S
ervice
:
<
Enter service being assessed
>
Security Classification:
Unclassified
Confidentiality category:

ICT
-
IN
-
CONFIDENCE
Threat and Risk Assessment
Questionnair
e
Threat and Risk Assessment Questionnaire 2 April 2015
Page 1 of 1
Completion date:
Reviewed date:
Responsible ICT division: <Operations or Business Services>
Service: <Enter service being assessed>
Security Classification: Unclassified
Confidentiality category: ICT-IN-CONFIDENCE
Threat and Risk Assessment
Questionnaire
Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze
Author(s): Jenifer Neils
Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 6-20
Published by: College Art Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051284 .
Accessed: 11/09/2013 14:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected]
.
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art
Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Wed, 11 Sep
2013 14:32:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051284?origin=JSTOR-pdf
Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze

Jenifer Neils
One of the greatest enigmas of classical art is the low-relief
frieze executed for the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis
sometime between 447 and 432 B.C.E. In spite of over two
hundred years of scholarship extending as far back as the
second volume ofJames Stuart and Nicholas Revett's famous
Antiquities of Athens published in 1787,1 many of the issues
pertaining to the Parthenon frieze are as yet unresolved. New
interpretations of the overall program and diverse identifica-
tions of individual figures or groups appear regularly in the
scholarly literature dealing with the frieze.2 Applications of
newer methodologies from semiotics to queer theory have led
to alternative readings of the relief and its iconography.3 And
yet today art historians are still confounded by what has been
called the best-known but least understood monument of
Greek art.
The reasons for the frieze's obscurity and the attendant
proliferation of interpretations are not hard to find. First, no
ancient literary or epigraphic source specifically cites the
frieze. Although in his second-century C.E. Guide to Greece
the periegete Pausanias mentioned the subject matter of the
Parthenon pediments, he ignored both the metopes and the
frieze.4 Plutarch's Life of Pericles (13.4-9 and 31.2-5) informs
us that Pheidias supervised the sculptural program of the
Parthenon and its team of artists, but the only work of art
actually attributed to his hand is the colossal gold and ivory

Athena Parthenos, which dominated the cella.5 Secondly, sec-
tions of the frieze are missing, and those that have survived
are not in good condition.6 The heads in particular were
badly damaged, reputedly at the end of the Ottoman occupa-
tion of Greece. The drawings of the frieze made in 1674
(thirteen years before the explosion of the temple) and
attributed to the Flemish artist Jacques Carrey, although not
entirely accurate, help somewhat in filling in the gaps, but
many obscure areas remain.7 Thirdly, all of the original paint
as well as the additions made in metal (indicated by drill
holes), which might aid in identifying individual figures, are
missing. Unlike the earlier frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at
Delphi or the much later one on the Pergamon Altar, this one
has no inscriptions, painted or carved, labeling the partici-
pants. Finally, there is no precedent in Greek art for an Ionic
frieze of this length and complexity on a Doric temple.8
Comparanda for the metopes and pediments are readily
available, as, for example, the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (ca.
470-456 B.C.E.), but the Parthenon frieze is unique in the
history of Greek architectural sculpture.
One particularly important but problematic section of the
frieze is the group of seated figures above the pronaos at the
east end of the Parthenon, now unanimously identified as
twelve Olympian deities with two attendants (Figs. 1, 2).
These, the only seated figures on the frieze, are configured
into two groups of six and represent the earliest extant

depiction of what later became the canonical Twelve Gods of
Greek and Roman art.9 Throughout the years these figures
have been variously identified and then interpreted in rela-
tion to the overall subject of the frieze, to the deity worshiped
in the temple (Athena), and to religion as practiced in the
cults of ancient Attica.10 Problems that seem to trouble
scholars are the presence of twelve gods on a temple of
Athena alone, the intended location of this conclave (Mt.
Olympos, Acropolis, or Agora?), the positioning of the gods
vis-it-vis each other (why, for instance, are such antithetical
goddesses as Artemis and Aphrodite linked arm in arm?), and
the fact that they are seated with their backs to the central,
and presumably most important, scene. There is the even
more basic issue of whether any viewer could have seen them,
positioned as they are directly behind the two central columns
of the east facade (Fig. 18). This paper will address the gods'
identification, the possible meanings that can be attributed to
their positions on the frieze, their peculiar spatial arrange-
ment, the temporal setting, and their influence on later art.
Iconography
The Greek gods are clearly the predominant theme of the
eastern end of the Parthenon (Figs. 1, 2); this makes sense
because the entrance to the Parthenon is here, the cult statue
faced in this direction, and the altar would have been at this
end of the temple.11 From the sculptures of the pediment to
the relief on the base of the cult statue the gods appear in
various groups witnessing or taking part in climactic events.
Seventeen of them react to the birth of Athena from the head
of Zeus in the east pediment; sixteen contend with the giants
in the east metopes; fourteen gather on the frieze to await a
religious procession; and twenty, according to Pliny (Natural
History 36.18), witnessed the adorning of the newly born

Pandora on the no-longer-extant base of the Athena Parthe-
nos.12 The number of divinities depicted in each area varies,
and most identifications are largely conjectural. It is only on
the frieze, where the gods are sufficiently well preserved, that
there is some consensus about their identifications.
The entire Ionic frieze measures 524 English feet in length
and just over 3 feet in height. The portion with the gods (Figs.
3-6) appears on three exceptionally long slabs of the 114 that
make up the frieze, and their appearance in the central
section of the east or major temple facade gives them special
prominence, as does their large size in relation to the humans
on the frieze. The frieze is isocephalic for both riding,
standing, and seated figures; hence, if the gods rose from
their seats they would be approximately 35 percent taller than
the humans standing near them. They are seated in groups of
six with one smaller (that is, younger) standing attendant in
each grouping.13 The most reliable clues to their identities
are the carved attributes, such as the petasos, or traveler's cap,
2013 14:32:48 PM
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON
FRIEZE 7
17 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 47
(4 ( 1 IA U
1 Parthenon, Athens, east frieze, drawing (Skulpturhalle Basel)

?0"W
40. ;-rrr~r~;~--i ~?- --- I --- lV-- --TTEI
2 Parthenon, east frieze, cast of slabs IV-VI (photo: D. Widmer)
41r
?I...... ......
3 Parthenon, east frieze, slab IV, 24-27
(photo: British Museum)
'
~-i
~~::~~a~c~ 4~B~R~.~i~'l-','B~LbPi[ -rr. ~i~i?. "
P ?I
-1 ~aF
.. *I? ::; .3? *i ~;?b??-I- .r
i3 ?~ "' - %
rr i)Z'Bbr~a~ar~~C~
~~
i--~ `ra BE - I?lpr~;r~61Fr~?raur._ -rie~~gb~Ly
.~i
?-
~; ?e
4 Parthenon, east frieze, slab V, 28-30
(photo: D. Widmer)
and boots of Hermes (E24), the torch of Demeter (E26), the

throne of Zeus (E30), the snaky aegis lying on the lap of
Athena (E36), and the crutch tucked under the arm of the
smith god Hephaistos (E37), a discreet allusion to his lame-
ness. Drill holes around his head indicate that the youthful
god E39 was wearing a headband, most likely the characteris-
tic laurel wreath of Apollo. Particular gestures associated with
individual deities provide another means of identifica-
tion-the brooding pose of Demeter mourning for her
daughter Persephone,14 the anakalypsis, or unveiling, of the
perpetual bride Hera (E29),15 or the restless knee-grabbing
pose of Ares (E27). Even more subtle is the gesture of Apollo,
who has hooked his right thumb inside his cloak, an incipient
act of revealing himself, suggestive of the god of truth and
light.16 Equally significant are the relationships of one god to
another. Hera, for instance, not only is seated beside her
2013 14:32:48 PM
8 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER
1
'4
5 Parthenon, east frieze, slab V, 36-37
''

6 Parthenon, east frieze, slab VI, 38-42
husband Zeus, but she also turns her upper body toward him.
The winged boy Eros (E42) lounges in the lap of his mother,
Aphrodite (E41), and tucks his right hand under her outer
garment. The youthful pair seated next to one another are
the inseparable siblings Apollo (E39) and Artemis (E40).
Of the fourteen figures this leaves two seated males (E25
and E38) and one standing female (E28) unaccounted for.
Although the twelve Olympians had not been codified as such
in the mid-fifth century B.C.E., one who was prominent among
them and must have been on the frieze is the older sea god
Poseidon, and he is usually identified as the bearded male
(E38) conversing with Apollo. A painted trident can be
supplied to his raised left hand. As for the other seated male
(E25), because of damage to the head it is not known whether
he was bearded or not, but by a process of elimination he is
taken to be Dionysos, although Herakles has been sug-
gested.17 The fact that he is seated on a cushion and leans
back onto another god, unlike the other deities except
Aphrodite, suggests the god of the symposium. His intimacy
with Hermes refers not only to their relationship as stepbroth-
ers but also to the care Hermes took of the baby Dionysos
when he placed him under the protection of the Nymphs.
Also supporting this identification is the fact that the god of
viticulture has his legs interlocked with those of another

agrarian deity, Demeter.18
Who then is the standing winged female (E28)? She is
posed directly beyond Hera, wears a long dress, and appears
to be arranging her hair. Her left hand is raised to the back of
her head, while her right hand seems to be adjusting the folds
of her dress.19 Alternatively, one could reconstruct her right
hand with a taenia, or ribbon, once rendered in paint.20 She is
traditionally interpreted as Iris, the messenger goddess, but
scholarly opinion has recently opted for Nike, the goddess of
victory.21 In Classical Greek art it is often difficult to
differenti-
ate these goddesses because both are usually depicted as
winged and in flight or rapid movement, as Iris (N) in the
west pediment.22 They also can both be shown pouring
libations from an oinochoe, or wine jug. Iris is most securely
identified when she carries her kerykeion, or caduceus, or
when she is shown in a short chiton and winged footgear;
wings, apparently, are not essential to her identity.23 More-
over, Nike is more closely associated with Zeus and Athena
than with Hera; a wingless Nike is thought to be Athena's
charioteer in the west pediment, and she crowns Athena in
east metope IV.
Taking the clues of gesture and relationship into account, it
is possible to revive an earlier identification for this figure,
namely Hebe.24 Hebe, the personification of youth, was the
daughter of Zeus and Hera, and this attendant figure stands
in intimate relation to Hera as Eros does to Aphrodite. Both

the scale and position of these two attendant figures suggest
that they are children still dependent on their mothers. The
familial connection is reinforced by the next figure to the left,
Ares, the son of Hera and brother of Hebe. As the god of
2013 14:32:48 PM
FRIEZE 9
,v, ~wl
FuYl 4
S4i4
r ';cl~b~d~4t;IVA
7 Sophilos, dinos, detail. London, British Museum
bloody battle, Ares was never a popular Olympian and,
therefore, not a common figure in Greek art. It would appear
that the designer of the frieze was making an effort to present
this dysfunctional Olympian family (recall the discord of Hera
and Zeus) in an idealized light. Family, whether of the gods
(east pediment) or of ancestral Athenians (west pediment), is
an important theme permeating the sculptural program of
the Parthenon. In addition to the family groups Aphrodite
and Eros and the twins Apollo and Artemis, Athena seems to
be shown with her ward Erichthonios, indicated by the fact
that here, as nowhere else in Greek art, she is seated next to

Hephaistos (another child of Hera, but one whom she cast
out of Mt. Olympos because of his lameness). Athena, the
virgin goddess, had rejected the advances of Hephaistos,
resulting in the birth of the autochthonos Athenian king
Erichthonios from the Attic soil. This youth, whom Athena
graciously raised on the Acropolis, is surely alluded to in the
boy involved in the peplos ceremony (E35) standing just
behind Athena and Hephaistos.25 In discussing this overrid-
ing theme, Ira Mark has written, "The assembly presents in
one group the Olympians as protectors of the bearing and
raising of children, and in the other, the Olympians as, the
model for and protectors of marriage."26 As we shall see,
Hebe in one figure represents both marriage and offspring.
Hebe was clearly an important goddess as early as 580 B.C.E.,
as witnessed by her solo appearance at the wedding of Peleus
and Thetis on the dinos (bowl) signed by Sophilos (Fig. 7),27
but without an inscription we might never recognize her.
Since she lacks any distinctive attribute other than an oino-
choe, she is difficult to identify in Greek art.28 However, recent
studies of Hebe in fifth-century Athenian vase painting have
stressed her intimate association with her mother, Hera. On a
red-figure column krater by the Syriskos Painter of about 460
B.C.E., for instance, a winged girl pours a libation for Zeus,
seated to her right, while she holds hands with Hera, seated at
her left; it has been argued that the intimate gesture depicted
here is one of mother and daughter.29 Hebe is so closely allied
to Hera that she functions almost as an attribute of her

mother, as Eros does for Aphrodite. Thus, we can identify
Hera's young attendant on the large skyphos attributed to the
`` ?-/%; ~?- :*? ;? . :: r? ' ";
I!'?;~h~i~LrL~4~'~ffl#YY1Tc-.i?- Z-
r
8 Kleophon Painter, skyphos. Toledo Museum of Art, Gift of
Edward Drummond Libbey
:.~c~v. ,llsu~.alp
IN
9 Castelgiorgio Painter, kylix. London, British Museum
Kleophon Painter in Toledo (Fig. 8) as Hebe; she is fanning
her frustrated mother, who awaits the arrival of Hephaistos to
liberate her from her magic throne.30 Note especially how she
is standing directly beyond her mother, their legs overlap-
ping, indicative of their intimate, familial relationship.
In addition to being an attendant of Hera, Hebe has two
major roles in Greek mythology: as cupbearer to the gods and
as a bride of Herakles when he was deified after his labors. As
the female equivalent of Ganymede, she is shown on a
red-figure kylix by the Castelgiorgio Painter of about 480-470
B.C.E. saluting and holding an oinochoe for Hera, just as her
young male counterpart does for Zeus (Fig. 9).31 Although no
name is inscribed, her identification in this scene is assured
since she acts in the same role for her mother as Ganymede
does for Zeus. Also, the unusual presence of Ares between the

two cupbearers helps to confirm her identity. She is given
prominent wings, as on another cup to be discussed below
(Fig. 12). Winged or not, this image of Hebe as libation-
pourer for her parents is common in Attic vase painting,
although the figure is frequently mistaken for Nike or Iris.
Just as frequently Hebe is depicted as the bride of Herakles,
and again the context serves to identify her. She is often
shown in a chariot accompanying the hero during his apotheo-
2013 14:32:48 PM
1
.
, . ... . , - ,q
W'. . .....
I?i ?
-mm :
" m -• ..
10 Eretria Painter, epinetron. Athens, National Museum
(photo: DAI, Athens)
VA.Eat- ?x

11 Siana cup, detail. London, British Museum
sis; these apotheosis-by-chariot scenes are iconographically
indistinguishable from wedding scenes.32 Hebe does not need
wings in such scenes because she has an alternate mode of
travel and she is easily identified by her association with her
famous bridegroom. Hebe can also stand alone in a bridal
context, as on the Eretria Painter's red-figure epinetron
(thigh guard) of about 425-420 B.C.E. (Fig. 10).33 Here, she
plays an accessory role at the wedding of Harmonia, but her
gesture of arranging her hair is identical to that of E28 on the
frieze. In both instances she is making herself beautiful for
the coming ceremony, and the action of binding one's hair is
characteristic of brides in Attic red-figure vase painting of this
period.34
As the bride of Athena's favorite hero and future Olympian
Herakles, Hebe certainly deserves a place in the Olympian
family. In fact, there is an important precedent both for her
appearance among the Olympians and for the Olympians
gathered together, seated and awaiting an arrival-namely,
the scene of Herakles' introduction into Olympos. This
scheme was very popular in Attic sixth-century vase painting
and even figured on an Archaic limestone pediment on the
Acropolis.35 In these scenes Hebe is usually present, not only
because she is Herakles' bride/prize but also because she
represents the eternal Youth that the hero is awarded after his
labors. On one early Athenian Siana cup of about 560 B.C.E.

s,
?.:
?? :
iir~f- ~Z~F
a :-I,,.? J~.~a~i~~~rlPr-~I~4~p~sp~sa~?~?sy~~ ~.;-
a?a;l- ????I?
i.: -
12 Sosias Painter, kylix, detail. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Antikensammlung (photo: UteJung)
(Fig. 11) she is depicted as a young girl standing between an
enthroned Zeus and Hera, poised on her mother's footstool,
as Hermes, Athena, Artemis, and Ares lead Herakles into the
presence of his divine father.36 On a later black-figure hydria
of about 510 B.C.E. in Basel, Zeus and Hera sit enthroned in
the center with Hebe, crowned in myrtle facing them, while
two pairs of confronted gods, Herakles and Athena and
Hermes and Ares, flank them.37 Clearly, these vases suggest an
attempt to reconcile Herakles with his stepmother, Hera, via
his marriage to her daughter Hebe, and the inclusion of Ares,
normally a malevolent sign, is intended to indicate a harmoni-
ous Olympian family.38
But what of the fact that E28 has wings? As we have seen
above, Hebe with wings is not unknown in Athenian art, and
J. D. Beazley once made the astute comment, "Greek artists
are ready to wing and unwing at need.""39 On the Sosias

Painter's cup of about 500 B.C.E. in Berlin (Fig. 12), where her
name is inscribed, a winged Hebe stands between two seated
couples, Zeus and Hera and Poseidon and Amphitrite,
pouring a libation from her oinochoe into her mother's
proffered phiale.4? On the other side of the cup Herakles
approaches the assembly of Olympians escorted by Hermes,
Apollo, and Athena. As a winged female figure Hebe is
virtually interchangeable in Attic vase painting with Nike and
Iris, and so Athenians viewing the frieze would have taken
their cue from the girl's age, that is, her size, from her
proximity to Hera, both her mother and the goddess who
presided over Athenian weddings, and to her brother Ares,
the god of battle who needs youth on his side, and from her
gesture, which better suits a bride than it does Iris or Nike.
She, like Eros, is distinguished from the "official" Olympians
by the fact that she is winged. The wings also serve to indicate
that Hebe and Eros are immortals, since in size they are no
different from the mortals on the frieze.
Finally, Hebe as the personification of youth is a theme that
permeates the rest of the frieze, from the vigorous riders at
the rear of the procession to the nubile maidens who lead it
into the presence of the gods. Evelyn Harrison has written of
the frieze, "The great majority of the participants are very
young, because in each age the young represent the purest
potential, and the success of the state depends on the use it

2013 14:32:48 PM
FRIEZE I
makes of this potential.''41Just as Hebe restores Iolaus's youth
to enable him to be successful in battle in Euripides' Heraclei-
dae (lines 850-58), a play produced about 430 B.C.E.,42 so she
is important here for the idealized Athenian cavalry. Likewise,
her presence resonates with the mass of young girls of
marriageable age, the kanephoroi, on the east frieze. The
Athenian official who received the procession asked the
maidens' names and those of their fathers and mothers,
thereby assuring a citizenry based on legitimate and fruitful
marriage, an issue of great concern to Pericles, as evidenced
by his restrictive citizenship decree passed a few years earlier
(451/0 B.C.E.).43 Thus, the youthful citizens of the frieze in
general and Hebe in particular accord perfectly with Pericles'
model for the city as recorded by Thucydides and Plutarch.
Or to paraphrase Pericles' funeral oration after the siege of
Samos in 439 B.C.E. when he stated that the city without its
youth was like a year without spring: the Parthenon without
Hebe (Youth) is like a city without hope.

Meaning
This brings us to the possible meaning of the groupings of
gods on the east frieze. Since 1829 there has been a general
trend to interpret the gods in terms of their cults, and more
specifically in terms of cult location or topography.44 Thus, in
1919 Carl Robert stated that seven of the twelve gods were
chosen in reference to specific cult sites "on or near" the
Acropolis; so, for example, Hephaistos and Poseidon sit next
to one another because they had nearby cults in the Erech-
theion.45 This design principle of cult identity led George
Elderkin in 1936 to misidentify Poseidon and Apollo as Butes
and Erechtheus and Artemis as Pandrosos because of their
shrines in or near the Erechtheion.46 These scholars and
others believed that Attic cults dictated the selection of the
twelve divinities for the frieze, and that one could correlate
their position on the frieze, north versus south, to their
primary cult locations in the city. In an important article
published in 1976, Elizabeth Pemberton advanced the system
of identification further by making the claim that the gods
were represented in cult guise, that is, they were portrayed in
such a way as to recall specific aspects of one of their cults.47
This idea has been developed by other scholars,48 but it has
resulted in considerable disagreement over what particular
cult epithet should be attached to any one deity. For instance,
Apollo is said to portray Apollo Hypoakraios (North Slope),
Apollo Patroos (Agora), Apollo Pythios (Ilissos), Apollo
Delphinios (Ionia), and Delian Apollo (Delos).
Relating the locations of the gods on the frieze to their
topographical associations within Attica is an interesting

methodological gambit, but one that has no foundation in
antiquity. While we have the benefit of accurate topographical
maps on which to plot cult locations, the ancient Athenian
pedestrian certainly related to the landscape in a different
and more intimate way, via landmarks, boundary stones, and
the roads and paths that led from one area to another. It is
anachronistic to impose our aerial vantage point on a popula-
tion that saw the terrain from a very different perspective.49
And how do we determine whether the designer placed
Apollo on the north side because of his cult in the Agora to
the northwest, his cult in Agrai to the south, or his cult in
Porto Rafti to the northeast? Nor does it make sense that the
ancient Athenian would want to identify a specific cult with the
gods on the frieze. It seems much more logical that the
Athenians in general and Pericles in particular would seek to
universalize the twelve gods rather than tie them to particular
cult places in Attica. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that
the Athenians viewed cult in more general terms. Dedicatory
inscriptions to Athena found on the Acropolis rarely use cult
epithets; in the Archaic and Classical periods 64 percent of
the inscriptions address the city goddess simply as "Athena"
or "the goddess," not as Athena Polias, Athena Parthenos, or
Athena Ergane.50 The topographical or cult guise scheme is
one that simply does not work for the frieze, so we should seek
another rationale for the arrangement of these important
figures. A rejection of this design principle in no way
diminishes the subtlety of the frieze; it in fact liberates us to
look for other factors influencing the design.
In a search for the possible meaning behind the groupings
of the gods on the frieze it is useful to return to the original

intent of the temple built in this particular location. It is
generally accepted that an older Parthenon was begun in the
480s as a thank offering for the victory at Marathon.51 This
temple, to the extent that it was constructed, was mostly
destroyed in the Persian sack of 480 B.C.E., with parts of it
later
prominently displayed in the north wall of the Acropolis. Its
successor was begun some forty years later in 447 B.C.E. at the
height of the Athenian empire. It is reasonable to assume that
this replacement temple was also a thank offering for military
victory. WhileJohn Boardman has argued that the Ionic frieze
was a specific commemoration of Marathon and its 192
Athenian victims,52 this second incarnation of the new temple
to Athena more likely refers to all the successful battles
against the Persians. Unlike the land victory at Marathon,
these battles (Salamis, Plataia, Mykale, Eurymedon) involved
both navy and infantry.
The land and sea duality may have resonance in the
arrangement of the gods. Recently Erika Simon has demon-
strated that the four gods in the right half of the assembly
(Fig. 6: Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, and Aphrodite) all relate
to Theseus, and in particular his voyage overseas to slay the
Minotaur.53 More generally they are all divinities related to
the sea and as such were worshiped in Attic ports, like Apollo
at Porto Rafti and later Phaleron, Poseidon at Sounion, and
Artemis at Aulis, Brauron, and Mounychia in the Piraeus. The
divine twins were born and worshiped in sea-girt Delos.

Aphrodite was literally born from the sea, and in addition she
was invoked by sailors as Aphrodite Euploia ("Of the Safe
Voyage").54 The four gods on the other side (Fig. 3) all have
strong associations with the land. Dionysos as god of viticul-
ture and Demeter as goddess of agriculture are firmly rooted
to the soil, and especially the Attic soil, as at Ikarion,
Eleutherai, and Eleusis.55 Hermes is both a god of herdsmen
and a god of the crossroads. He is closely connected with land
travel and was worshiped at herm shrines throughout the
Attic countryside. Finally, Ares is the god par excellence of
bloody hoplite battle; he had no temple in the city but was
worshiped in rural Acharnai.
The eight gods arranged thus in two groups referencing
land and sea reflect not only Athens's past glories in the wars
2013 14:32:48 PM
1
against the Persians but also its present power as realized in its
preeminent position as head of the Delian League. In this way
the gods' arrangement echoes Pericles' contemporary poli-
cies. As we have seen, his emphasis on citizen families and
women bearing children for the state (Thucydides 11.44)

finds its reflection in the close family groupings of the frieze
(Athena and Hephaistos together as "parents" of the king
Erichthonios; Hera and Zeus with Ares and Hebe). He twice
referred to Athenian military action on land and sea: "As a
matter of fact none of our enemies has yet been confronted
with our total strength, because we have to divide our
attention between our navy and the many missions on which
our troops are sent on land" (11.39); "For our adventurous
spirit has forced an entry into every sea and into every land
[7rITuav p v 0&kXarav Kai yfqv] and everywhere we have left
behind us everlasting memorials of good done to our friends
or suffering inflicted on our enemies" (11.41).56
One can find even closer links between the Olympian
divinities and Athenian battles against the Persians. The
nuptials of Hera and Zeus, for instance, were celebrated in an
annual festival in their sanctuary at Plataia, the site of the
Greeks' decisive land battle against Xerxes in 479 B.C.E.
Artemis was worshiped at the Euboian promontory of Cape
Artemision, where the Persian fleet was routed in 480 B.C.E. At
the festival honoring Artemis Mounychia, one of the most
important festivals held in Attica, Athenians also commemo-
rated the anniversary of their naval victory at Salamis, since
"on that day the goddess shone with a full moon upon the
Greeks as they were conquering at Salamis" (Plutarch, Mora-
lia 349f) .57 One could amplify these examples, but the point is
not to indicate that specific deities were associated with
specific battles but simply that the Athenians accorded the

Olympian gods the credit for their defeat of the Persians,
giving them reason to feel thankful to each and every one of
them. The Parthenon frieze, as also the east metopes, where
the gods individually battle the giants, and the east pediment,
where they witness the birth of Athena, pay homage to this
collectivity of gods without whom victory was impossible.58
Space
One of the persistently problematic aspects of the frieze,
which continues to confound scholars, is what for lack of a
better phrase might be called the seating plan of the gods. All
twelve are posed on diphroi, or simple stools, with the
exception of Zeus, who sits on a throne, his left arm resting on
the back. Two of the stools, as noted above, carry narrow
cushions, and Aphrodite's is luxuriously draped. Within the
two groups all figures are posed in profile to the left and right
respectively with the exception of Dionysos, who looks to the
left but is sitting to the right, placing him back-to-back with
Hermes (Fig. 3).59 The gods clearly are looking toward the
two files of processional figures who are approaching, and
Aphrodite is in fact frankly acknowledging the procession by
pointing it out to Eros. Directly in front of the gods are
clusters of male figures, variously identified as officials or
eponymous heroes,60 who seem to have already arrived and
are standing in groups conversing.
The problem resides in the fact that the gods, with one
exception (Dionysos), have their backs to the central scene,
the ceremony of the peplos, and the highpoint of the festival
in honor of Athena. As Jane E. Harrison once noted, "No
artist in his senses would have so arranged the slabs that

Athene should actually turn her back on the gift offered
her."61 Others have cited it as a design flaw; P. E. Corbett, for
example, states, "The composition has however a weakness,
which may at first pass unnoticed in the general excellence of
the execution; the gods turn their backs on the central group,
and though Apollo, Hephaestus and Hera look around at
their neighbours, and so toward the middle, the abruptness of
the division cannot be ignored."''62 Various ingenious explana-
tions have been offered as to why the gods are posed thus: the
artist's way of indicating their invisibility;63 the designer's
attempt to show that the ceremony of the peplos is taking
place within the Parthenon, and so out of sight;64 the central
ceremony represents not the presentation of the new peplos
but simply the folding of the old one, which is not worthy of
special notice;65 the possibility that the cloth is not a peplos at
all but some other garment offered to the statue of Athena.66
All of these proposed solutions, awkward at best, generally
cannot be reconciled with the overall high quality of the
design and execution of the frieze.
A new approach to the dilemma is clearly called for, one
that addresses the issues of space and setting, rather than
positing hypotheses based exclusively on iconography. It
seems clear that the designer of the frieze was wrestling with a
spatial problem; what we are presented with is his solution
and what we need to determine is the problem with which he
was confronted. By looking at other frieze compositions with
groups of deities, such as the east frieze of the Siphnian
Treasury at Delphi (ca. 525 B.C.E.) or the east frieze of the

so-called Hephaisteion in Athens (ca. 430 B.C.E.), we also find
two groupings of gods. However, they are confronting each
other. On the Siphnian Treasury the gods are debating the
outcome of a Trojan War battle depicted on the right half of
the frieze.67 In the Hephaisteion frieze six gods, divided into
two groups of three, are watching a battle taking place
between the groups.68 In the first instance the gods are meant
to be on Mt. Olympos, and in the latter case they are seated on
rocks, probably in the Attic countryside. Hence, in respect to
both arrangement and subject matter these scenes offer no
precise parallel for the east frieze of the Parthenon.
If we imagine the gods of the Parthenon frieze as acknowl-
edging the procession (as Aphrodite clearly indicates) and as
witnessing the peplos ceremony, as surely they must, then a
seating plan must be devised that takes into account these two
events. An arrangement that acknowledges both of these foci
is a semicircle. In 1892 A. H. Smith suggested that the peplos
ceremony was meant to be taking place "in front of the two
groups of gods, who sit in a continuous semicircle,"69 but this
idea has not been generally accepted by scholars even though
it neatly solves the spatial problems.70 Where exactly might
this semicircle be? Smith states, "These deities are supposed
to be invisible, and doubtless, in a picture they would have
been placed in the background, seated in a semicircle and
looking inwards.""71 However, by placing the semicircle of
seated gods in front of and facing the temple (which temple is
still an issue), the peplos ceremony can be read as taking
place in the center and the procession as arriving in two

2013 14:32:48 PM
FRIEZE 13
AM i o ?;
•
.....|
" ....
.. .... : ?. : ,.•,.
. i•
13 Parthenon, east
frieze, computer
reconstruction of seated
gods byJoe Delly
South North
Procession Procession
Peplos Ceremony
Eros
Hermes Aphrodite
Dionysos Artemis

Demeter Apollo
Ares Poseidon
Hera&Hebe Hephaistos
ZEUS & ATHENA
14 Seating plan of gods of the Parthenon, east frieze (author)
streams at the two ends of the arc of seated gods (Figs. 13, 14).
The north procession is received by Aphrodite and the south
by Hermes, the two divinities closest to the people.72 This
seating plan takes into account both the two files of the
procession and the ceremony. If we project this arc convexly
to the front of the Parthenon and then try to imagine how an
artist would depict this spatial arrangement on a flat frieze
without the devices of illusionism at his disposal, we arrive at
precisely the solution he adopted. The designer in effect had
to flatten the semicircle onto the low-relief band, leave space
in the center for the peplos ceremony, and rotate the gods
into profile positions for complete legibility.
A closer look at the poses of the gods lends support to this
configuration. In many instances we see them deliberately
turning to the front, unlike the gods of the Siphnian Treasury,
for example, who are in strict profile. Eight (Dionysos,
Demeter, Hera, Zeus, Hephaistos, Apollo, Artemis, Aphro-
dite) of the twelve present their upper bodies frontally, as if it
were a clue to the viewer that we are meant to read them thus.
The persistent overlapping of these figures, like the riders on

the north and south friezes, also suggests a three-dimensional
as opposed to planar arrangement. In an earlier period, vase
painters may have grappled with similar problems of trying to
represent the gods in a semicircle, as for example the nine
seated gods (including Herakles) on an amphora by Exekias
in Orvieto (Fig. 15).7 At first glance they appear to be placed
helter-skelter, overlapping and facing one way or the other, in
no apparent order, but if viewed as a concave semicircle with
x.
15 Exekias, amphora, detail. Orvieto, Museo Claudio Faina
(photo: DAI, Rome)
Zeus, Herakles, and Athena in the center, the arrangement is
much more logical. Thus, the varied poses of the gods on the
frieze, which seem at first glance to be natural and casual,
almost anecdotal, are clues to the viewer of a spatially more
complex composition.
It is often claimed that Greek art, whether painting or relief
sculpture, was purely two dimensional, with no attempt to
show depth other than via corporeal perspective. That Greek
artists of the fifth century B.C.E. were entirely capable of
designing in three-dimensional terms is indicated by vase
paintings, as, for instance, that on the outside of a cup in the
British Museum dated to about 490-480 B.C.E. and signed by
Douris (Fig. 16).74 This symposium scene shows banqueters
reclining on three couches, two of which are shown in profile,
the third depicted head-on with the symposiast's back toward

the viewer. Given the serving boy posed beyond the table
alongside the couch, this furniture is clearly meant to be
projecting beyond the picture plane and into our space. This
was a popular device in Attic red-figure vase painting of the
late sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E.75 and accurately reflects
the
actual space of the andron, or men's dining room, where
couches were arranged end-to-end along the four sides of the
usually square room.76 Thus, it would not have been a radical
departure for a Greek viewer to project the gods of the frieze
out into his space as he viewed the facade of the temple.77
Another element that supports this configuration of the
frieze is the pivotal figure E47 (Fig. 17), who is taken to be a
marshal. Although he is situated on the north half of the east
2013 14:32:48 PM
1
'1
.-A~~ '~~IP .!
v•:~~ C~IT~~~ I~ G~
_SL

16 Douris, kylix. London, British Museum
frieze just beyond the group of standing male figures (E43-
46), he is shown raising his right hand to beckon to the first
maiden at the head of the south procession (E17), who is
three slabs away (Fig. 1). IanJenkins has written, "His gesture
must be intended for the head of the procession on the south
side of the east frieze. Here we have a subtle reminder that the
two processions are in fact one."78 The marshal's sight line in
effect creates the cord of the semicircle by cutting across the
gods, the peplos ceremony, and the two groups of standing
male figures. His simple gesture across space serves to
indicate that all of these figures are physically situated
beyond, or in terms of the Acropolis topography, to the east of
the heads of the two processions. He serves also to separate
visually the human from the heroic/divine realm by creating
a dividing line across the intervening space.
In addition to these internal clues, there are two external
factors that support a semicircular arrangement. First, there is
a long tradition of setting out stools or couches for the gods in
a ceremony known as theoxenia, defined by Hesychios as a
common entertainment for all of the gods. Recently Michael
Jameson has shown that this ritual was much more common
than has been previously recognized.79 He describes it as "a
type of ritual in which the Greeks explicitly honored supernatu-.
ral figures by using the conventions of entertaining guests:
they issued an invitation, they set out a couch on which they
laid out coverings and put beside it a table which they

adorned with, among other things, dishes containing food
and drink."80 One of the fullest accounts describing such a
ritual is the law pertaining to the festival of Zeus Sosipolis and
the Twelve Gods at Magnesia on the Meander; it involved a
large procession, the carrying of the statues of the Twelve
Gods dressed in the most beautiful clothes possible, the
pitching of a tholos (presumably a temporary circular struc-
ture), the spreading of three of the most beautiful couches
possible, music, and animal sacrifice to specific deities.81 The
gods are not imagined as coming to partake in their own
animal sacrifice; instead, they are conceived of as guests
enjoying the honors accorded to the patron deities of the city.
The deities of the Parthenon frieze can be interpreted in this
collective sense as well, as a theoxenia, sitting on specially
prepared seats (stools, given the presence of female gods, as
women do not recline in Greek society) and witnessing the
specific rites held in honor of one of their members, Athena.
As early as 1937, Lily Ross Taylor proposed that the
religious ceremony on the east frieze might relate to the
Roman ritual of the sellisternium, which was based on Greek
cult practice.82 At Roman festivals and spectacles, stools,
thrones, and chairs, often richly draped and cushioned, were
set out for the gods in order to secure their presence and
goodwill for the ceremonies. She specifically noted the
elaborate draping of the stool of Aphrodite, which resembles
the draped stool depicted on Flavian coins. That such a rite

may be connected with the Parthenon is indicated by the
temple treasuries, which list "seven Chian couches, ten
Milesian couches, six thrones, four diphroi [regular stools]
and nine folding stools" for the year 434/3 B.C.E.83 One could
well imagine this furniture being set out for the gods on the
Acropolis during the Panathenaia, the festival in honor of
Athena, so that they could watch the procession's arrival at
the east end of the Acropolis, culminating with the presenta-
tion of the peplos and the hecatomb sacrifice to Athena at the
altar in front of her temple. Although some scholars have
suggested that the gods are on Mt. Olympos or in the Agora in
the city below,84 in most scenes of sacrificial processions in
Greek vase painting, the deity stands beyond the altar, so we
should imagine the Olympians situated similarly.85 What we
then see depicted on the frieze is the blessed epiphany of the
twelve gods who have literally and in an ideal sense accepted
the invitation of the Athenians to the theoxenia in honor of the
city's chief deity, have descended to the Acropolis, and have
taken their respective seats.
Second, it is possible to associate the circular arrangement
of the gods with another ritual practice, namely, dining in
sanctuaries in round buildings.86 The round building, or
tholos, was a distinctive type in ancient Greece, and a signifi-
cant number of these are found in sanctuaries. Evidence
suggests that, given the space limitations, they were used for
dining by seated rather than reclining banqueters. In Athens
the practice of dining in a round building was institutional-

ized by the Athenian democracy; the round building in the
Agora known as the Tholos functioned as a dining room for
fifty prytaneis (tribal representatives) and six to ten officials.87
The small size of this building (55 feet in diameter) makes it
clear that it probably could not accommodate couches for all
fifty officials, who must have sat on chairs or benches
arranged in a circle. Upright seating in a semicircular
arrangement is also characteristic of the Greek theater, where
spectators watched the drama taking place in the center,
where an altar was usually present. In view of these long-
standing Greek traditions, it is not improbable that the
Olympian gods of the friezes were arranged in a semicircle.
This arrangement has the added advantage iconographi-
cally of placing Athena and Zeus side by side (rather than
back to back), as they are so often shown in Greek, especially
Athenian, art. They fight together in the Gigantomachy, they
sit side by side in conclaves of the gods (as in Fig. 15), and they
were both worshiped on the Acropolis under the guise of city
divinities: Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias. Athena derived her
aegis and by extension her protective power from her father.88
Aeschylus demonstrated their intimate relationship at the
2013 14:32:48 PM

FRIEZE 15
;jj:
,00?,-
~~~O~a ~ Ic~ca~r I mi~wr~s~I ~~ BCI I ~ At
's "~~o~ec~7t
17 Parthenon, east frieze, slab VI, 47
end of the Eumenides (lines 826-28) when Athena says to the
Furies, "I rely on Zeus ... I am the only one of the gods who
knows the keys to where his thunderbolts are kept." As the
two tutelary divinities of the Athenian Acropolis, father and
daughter belong close together here on the frieze,just as they
are together on the pediment above.89 First among equals,
they sit together enjoying both the theoxenia and the Panathe-
naia presented by the city in Athena's honor.
Time
Having situated the gods in space, is it also possible to
establish a temporal setting? The element of time in the
Parthenon frieze has been much discussed of late. Evelyn
Harrison sees four phases of Athenian history in the four
sections of the frieze: the west with Theseus as early times; the
north with groups of four as pre-Kleisthenic; the south with
groups of ten as the Democracy; and the east as "timeless."90

Lin Foxhall has distinguished between "human time" and
"monumental time" in Greek thought and singles out the
Parthenon frieze as the one monument that bridges both.91 A
unitarian might argue the view that the frieze represents a
time-space continuum like the painting of the Battle ,of
Marathon in the Stoa Poikile, in which there was a cotermi-
nous movement in time and space through the picture from
left to right, from beginning to end. Certainly, one of the
great artistic achievements of the frieze is its seamless move-
ment through time and space, from the preparations for the
procession at the west end to a sort of conclusion (some say
anticlimax) at the center of the east.
However, by restricting our consideration to the east end of
the temple, it is possible to take cues from the temporal
elements of the other sculptural decoration. In the east
metopes, for instance, it can be determined by the presence
of Helios at the far right that the long night of fighting the
giants is over, the tide has turned in favor of the gods, and
victory is assured. In the pediment above, the sun rises as the
moon (or night) sets, thereby providing the viewer not only
with a locale (heaven) but a time (dawn) as well. As for the
specific timing of the action, the full-length standing pose of
Athena indicates that the process of being born from the
head of Zeus is completed.92 Likewise, on the base of the
Athena Parthenos the action of creating Pandora is complete
and she is being adorned. All these sculptures suggest a phase
after the main action, a denouement so to speak, when the

future is assured, in striking contrast to the east pediment of
the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, where there is a strong sense
of foreboding and anticipation of events to come.
Returning to the east frieze, one can use these external
clues to detect an impression of conclusion in the narrative.
There is no sense of anxiety or foreboding here. The gods are
chatting casually after the main event, the presentation of the
peplos. The peplos itself is being folded up, not unfolded, to
be put away until the next ceremony.93 In temporal terms, the
frieze conveys that the goodwill of the gods is assured through
the timeless reenactment of the ritual, which has been carried
out successfully once again. In this sense the east frieze
transmits the same message as the chryselephantine statue in
which Nike has alighted on the hand of the goddess-namely,
victory is assured.
Influence
Given these messages borne by the gods on the east frieze, we
must inevitably ask the somewhat mundane question: Could
anyone even see them? Their location directly behind the
fourth and fifth columns of the east facade and their height at
forty feet are not favorable for viewing.94 Standing directly in
front of the east colonnade one saw only the two main
couples, Hera and Zeus at the left, and Athena and Poseidon
at the right, and their "children" Hebe and the boy-king
Erichthonios (Fig. 18). The other gods have to be viewed
from an angle; if one moves south of center one can align the
south group of gods between columns VI and V, and the north
group between columns V and IV (Fig. 19), but the ensemble

can never be viewed in its entirety. This pattern of viewing
supports the interpretations proposed above, namely, that on
the one hand the viewer is to relate to the family associations
of the gods and on the other to the division of land and sea
deities into distinct units within the larger collective.
We are also compelled to conclude that these figures could
be seen in antiquity because they exercised a perceptible
2013 14:32:48 PM
1
,I '
(4)
1~
18 Parthenon, east frieze, frontal view between central columns
(Stillwell, "The Panathenaic Frieze," pl. 63, fig. 14)
1/ /.
19 Parthenon, east frieze, diagonal view through columns
(Stillwell, pl. 63, fig. 13)
influence on later sculpture. An obvious example is the
fourth-century B.C.E. statue known as the Ares Ludovisi (Fig.

20), which echoes remarkably faithfully the leg-holding pose
of Ares on the frieze.95 However, the best-known example of
the frieze's influence in relief sculpture is from the Augustan
era, a period in which the style of fifth-century Greek art was
deliberately imitated. In particular, the two processions of
draped figures on the Ara Pacis in Rome consciously copy the
standing draped men and women of the east frieze, who also
approach from two directions.96 Less often cited in this
context is the panel showing the Italic goddess of fertility,
Tellus (Fig. 21).97 In her seated pose with right leg extended,
her attention to her offspring, her veiled head, and even to
the buttoned sleeve descending to her right elbow, she closely
resembles Aphrodite on the Parthenon frieze, enough to
suggest that the Roman artist adapted the figure for Tellus
simply by adding a second child.
AnotherJulio-Claudian work of art that bears echoes of the
Parthenon frieze is the Gemma Augustea (Fig. 22).98 In the
center a relaxed, half-draped Augustus sits enthroned facing
left, a lituus, or augur's staff, in his right hand, and his left arm
resting on the back of his throne. Although lacking a beard,
he closely resembles Zeus on the Parthenon frieze, and the
eagle under his throne is a direct allusion to Jupiter. His
companion, Roma, seated at his right side, look backs toward
Augustus just as Hera turns toward her husband. The youth
Germanicus standing beyond Roma recalls Hebe in his close

juxtaposition, so that the three can be read as a triad, like
Zeus, Hera, and their daughter. The somewhat awkward
composition in which the figures to the right of Augustus are
seated with their backs to him also evokes the arrangement of
"
": . : '
r
';-.
.;..
i.?. '-
w
i .. .-.
r
20 Ares Ludovisi. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano (photo:
Alinari)
the gods on the frieze. Perhaps we are meant to interpret the
seated figures on the Gemma Augustea in a similar fashion, that
is, as arranged in an arc awaiting the arrival of Tiberius. While
the figure of Tellus here does not copy the Aphrodite of the
frieze, her child tucks his right hand into his mother's
drapery, which may be a direct echo of the pose of Eros.

Extending the analogy even further, it is possible to see the
lower register of the Gemma Augustea as analogous to the
peplos ceremony, that is, as an event taking place in front of
the assembled mortals and divinities in the upper register.
The trophy being erected and the captured enemy indicate
that victory has been attained. While in Roman terms it
undoubtedly represents a specific rather than a timeless
event, in temporal terms it conveys the same message as the
Parthenon frieze.
These comparisons suggest that the Parthenon east frieze
not only was visible but that it also exerted an influence on
later, particularly Augustan art. That this prototype was
deliberately chosen is indicated by the fact that the Greek and
the Roman reliefs have similar political agendas. In the case of
Aphrodite and Tellus, the message is one of fecundity and
future prosperity. The triads Zeus/Hera/Hebe and Augustus/
Roma/Germanicus place a similar emphasis on progeny and
dynastic succession. At the right beyond the throne of
Augustus one sees the two gods Oikoumene and Neptune,
personifying respectively the cities of the empire and the
ocean that surrounded the world. Thus, the land and sea
duality that we have observed in the arrangement of gods on
2013 14:32:48 PM

FRIEZE 17
. I r
-? t--- ,,? .r;
.. j 1 ~ri~r 2. -?,:? ~*, .?, i,,
-.74 1 51 4
~g ~I~~se ~
1;
t s k
'?
i
/r'r i 3"i .; . s? :,, 4 :i
; :I^ ~,~ I ? ic:
~ei I if:
s?? .' i .. 5~
.??
.-~ ?Ir ? ?i.
-C
; ?..
Fr ~L

'?
?r?
~c
" ~.SE.' ~? i~YI~ rri
:1
i,
21 Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome, Tellus
panel (photo: Art Resource, New
York/Alinari)
0.4
Oak,
*
1
22 Gemma Augustea. Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum
the Parthenon frieze may be alluded to here in a Roman
cameo carved some five hundred years later.99 In spite of
distance and time, the Romans well understood the ideology
of Athenian imperial art, and they incorporated it into their
own artistic masterpieces.
Ruth Coulter Heede Professor of Art History at Case Western
Reserve
University, Jenifer Neils organized the exhibition Goddess and
Polis:
The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) and edited

the related volume of symposium papers, Worshipping Athena:
Panathenaia and Parthenon (1996). She is writing a book on the
Parthenon frieze [Department of Art History and Art, Case
Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7110].
Frequently Cited Sources
ARV2: J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters, 2d ed.
(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1963).
2013 14:32:48 PM
1
Berger, Ernst, ed., Parthenon-Kongress, Basel (Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern, 1984).
Brommer, Frank, Der Parthenonfries, 2 vols. (Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern, 1977).
Jenkins, Ian, The Parthenon Frieze (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1994).
LIMC: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 vols.
(Zurich: Artemis,
1981-97).
Mark, Ira, "The Gods on the East Frieze of the Parthenon,"
Hesperia 53

(1984): 189-342.
Neils, Jenifer, ed., Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and
Parthenon (Madison,
Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996).
Notes
All of us who deal with issues of classical sculpture and
Athenian iconography
are deeply indebted to the scholarship of Professor Evelyn B.
Harrison, as this
paper will attest. A consummate teacher, she is ever willing to
discuss new ideas
and share her wealth of knowledge of the ancient world. I am
also most
grateful to the many colleagues and students with whom I have
had fruitful
discussions about the Parthenon frieze over the years, in
particular Carla
Antonaccio, Malcolm Bell, Ian Jenkins, Olga Palagia, Alan
Shapiro, and Erika
Simon. Aspects of this paper were presented at Yale University
in January 1998
and at Lincoln College, Oxford, in April 1998; I thank the
audiences on both
occasions for their useful questions and observations. I also am
grateful to the
anonymous readers for the Art Bulletin, who offered many
helpful comments
on a draft of this article. I warmly thank Dyfri Williams and Ian
Jenkins for
assistance at the British Museum, as well as Tomas Lochman of
the Skulptur-
halle Basel and Alan Shapiro for providing photographs.

1. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, The Antiquities ofAthens,
vol. 2 (London:
J. Haberkorn, 1787), 4, 12. Surveys of the earlier literature on
the frieze up to
1871 can be found in Adolf Michaelis, Der Parthenon (Leipzig:
Breitkopf und
H~rtel, 1871), and from 1871 to 1976 in Brommer, 289-91.
2. For the most recent literature, see Ernst Berger and
Madeleine Gisler-
Huweiler, Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries, 2
vols. (Basel:
Skulpturhalle, 1996). The newest and most highly publicized
interpretation of
the frieze's subject is that of Joan B. Connelly, "Parthenon and
Parthenoi: A
Mythological Interpretation of the Parthenon Frieze," American
Journal of
Archaeology 100 (1996): 53-80. That her interpretation of the
central scene as
the sacrifice of the daughters of Erechtheus has met a surprising
degree of
acceptance in the popular literature is indicated by the latest
edition of H. W.
Janson's History of Art, 5th ed., rev. (New York: Harry N.
Abrams, 1997), 149,
fig. 194. For a convincing refutation, see Evelyn B. Harrison,
"The Web of
History: A Conservative Reading of the Parthenon Frieze," in
Neils, 198-214.
Since my article deals primarily with the gods, I will not
address directly the
meaning of the central scene, although I follow the traditional
interpretation
of it as the peplos ceremony of the Greater Panathenaia during
which a

specially woven robe was presented to the cult statue of the
goddess. I will treat
this subject in greater depth in my forthcoming book, Viewing
the Parthenon
Frieze: Style, Iconography, and Historiography, Cambridge
University Press.
3. See, for example, John G. Younger, "Gender and Sexuality in
the
Parthenon Frieze," in Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and
Gender in Classical Art
and Archaeology, ed. Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow and Claire L.
Lyons (London:
Routledge, 1997), 120-53; and Jenifer Neils, "Priest and Pais: A
Semiotic
Approach" (forthcoming).
4. Pausanias (1.24.5), the primary source for a description of
the Athenian
Acropolis in the 2d century c.E., mentions only the pediments
of the
Parthenon and the chryselephantine statue inside. For a
discussion of
Pausanias's method, see Christian Habicht, Pausanias' Guide to
Ancient Greece
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
5. For the sources on Pheidias, see Jerome J. Pollitt, The Art
ofAncient Greece:
Sources and Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990), 53-65.
For a recent discussion of the oeuvre of Pheidias, see Evelyn B.
Harrison,
"Pheidias," in Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture, Yale
Classical Studies, vol. 30,

ed. Olga Palagia and J. J. Pollitt (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,
1996), 16-65; she sees links between the style of the frieze and
works assigned
to Alkamenes, a student of Pheidias (40).
6. For reconstructions of the missing sections of the frieze, see
Brommer
andJenkins, passim.
7. Theodore R. Bowie and Dieter Thimme, eds., The Carrey
Drawings of the
Parthenon Sculpture (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University
Press, 1971).
8. For a discussion of the development of the Ionic frieze and
Archaic
precedents, see Brunilde S. Ridgway, "Notes on the
Development of the Greek
Frieze," Hesperia 35 (1966): 188-204; and David Castriota,
Myth, Ethos, and
Actuality: Oficial Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens (Madison,
Wis.: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1992), 202-26.
9. On the Twelve Gods, see Charlotte R. Long, The Twelve
Gods of Greece and
Rome (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987); and Gratia Berger-Doer,
"Dodekatheoi," in
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), vol. 3
(1986), 646-58. The
canonical Twelve Gods consist of six males and six females; on
the frieze
Dionysos replaces Hestia. See also Stella Georgoudi, "Les
Douze Dieux des
Grecs: Variations sur un theme," in Mythes grecs au figure de

l'antiquiti au
baroque, ed. Stella Georgoudi and Jean-Pierre Vernant (Paris:
Gallimard,
1996), 43-80.
10. For a list of the earlier interpretations, see Michaelis (as in
n. 1), 262-63;
Brommer, 257-63; and Berger and Gisler-Huweiler (as in n. 2),
153-56,
160-65.
11. There are no traces of an altar in front of the Parthenon; to
date the only
altar to Athena is situated to the north, on axis with the Old
Athena Temple,
destroyed by the Persians in 480 B.C.E. For the topography of
the Acropolis, see
John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New
York: Praeger, 1971),
52-71.
12. For the east pediment, see Frank Brommer, Die Skulpturen
der Parthenon-
Giebel (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1963); Olga Palagia, The
Pediments of the
Parthenon (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). For the east metopes, see
Frank Brommer,
Die Metopen des Parthenon (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1967),
22-38; M. A.
Tiverios, "Observations on the East Metopes of the Parthenon,"
American
Journal of Archaeology 86 (1982): 227-29; Ernst Berger, Der
Parthenon in Basel:
Dokumentation zu den Metopen des Parthenon, vol. 2 (Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern,
1986); and Katherine A. Schwab, "Parthenon East Metope XI:

Herakles and
the Gigantomachy," American Journal of Archaeology 100
(1996): 81-90. For the
base of the Athena Parthenos, see Neda Leipen, Athena
Parthenos: A Reconstruc-
tion (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1971), 23-27; Laszlo
Berczelly, "Pan-
dora and Panathenaia," Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium
Historiam Pertinentia 8
(1990): 53-86; Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and
the Athena
Parthenos," American Journal of Archaeology 99 (1995): 171-
86; and Harrison
(as in n. 5), 48-51.
13. The numbering of the slabs and individual figures
followsJenkins.
14. On this brooding gesture, see Gerhard Neumann, Gesten und
Gebarden in
dergriechischen Kunst (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1965), 136-
45. Some scholars
have taken this figure to be Hekate because of the torch.
15. On this gesture associated with brides, see John H. Oakley
and Rebecca
H. Sinos, The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison, Wis.:
University of Wisconsin
Press, 1993), 30.
16. See Evelyn B. Harrison, "Apollo's Cloak," in Studies in
Classical Art and
Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen,
ed. Giinter Kopcke
and Mary B. Moore (Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin, 1979),
91-98.

17. Based on this figure's robust physique, Martin Robertson
has argued
that he might be Herakles rather than Dionysos; see Robertson,
"Two
Question-marks on the Parthenon," in Kopcke and Moore (as in
n. 16),
75-78. See also the discussion of this identification and a
defense of the figure
as Dionysos in Thomas Carpenter, Dionysian Imagery in Fifth-
Century Athens
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 90-92.
18. For the relationship of Demeter and Dionysos as a quasi
marriage, see
Harrison (as in n. 2) in Neils, 206.
19. For a discussion of the theme of dressing in the Parthenon
frieze, see
Jenifer Neils, "Pride, Pomp, and Circumstance: The
Iconography of Proces-
sion," in Neils, 177-97.
20. As done, for instance, by Mark, 306, fig. 1.
21. See Brommer, 114, 259-60; Mark, 304-12. John Boardman
in Greek
Sculpture: The Classical Period; A Handbook (London: Thames
and Hudson,
1985), fig. 94, labels the figure "Nike (or Iris)."
22. Cf. the comments regarding Nike of Mark, 310: "She is a
graceful,
delicate being, most often floating, weightless. .. "
23. On the iconography of Iris, see LIMC, vol. 5 (1990), s.v.

"Iris." The
inscribed Iris on a red-figure pyxis of ca. 460-450 B.C.E. from
Attica in Berlin
(3308, ARV2, 977, no. 1), for instance, is not winged; see
LIMC, vol. 5 (1990),
747, no. 56.
24. The identification of this figure as Hebe was very common
in the 19th
century; see Michaelis (as in n. 1), 262. A more recent study
that supports the
identification of Hebe is that of Chrysoula Kardara, "Glaukopis-
O Archaios
Naos kai to Thema tes Zophorou Parthenonos," Archaiologike
Ephemeris 1961
(1964): 116-18, 131.
25. Mark, 291, asserts that there is no iconographic tradition for
the pairing
of Athena and Hephaistos, claiming that they "are never so
represented on
vases." In fact, they appear together at three important birth
scenes depicted
on Attic vases: that of Athena herself, who emerged from Zeus's
head after the
blow delivered by Hephaistos; that of their "son" Erichthonios;
and that of
Pandora. While later (329-30) he cites the births of Pandora and
Erichtho-
nios, he concludes, "Without question the Parthenon stands
apart from these
precedents."
26. Mark, 312. I would not agree with him when he goes on to
say: "Typical
mythological characteristics and affiliations have been placed to

the side." The
emphasis on the societal institutions of marriage and family can
be easily
effected by accentuating the gods' most characteristic traits and
their
mythological/familial associations.
27. London, British Museum, GR 1971.11-1.1. See Dyfri
Williams, Greek
Vases (London: British Museum, 1985), 26-28, figs. 30, 31.
28. For Hebe in general, see Annie-France Laurens, "Hebe I," in
LIMC, vol.
4 (1988), 458-64.
29. New York, private collection. ARV2, 260, no. 15. Beazley
identifies the
figure as "Nike (or rather Iris)," presumably because of Hermes
at the far left.
A convincing identification of the winged libation-pourer as
Hebe appears in
Annie-France Laurens, "Identification d'H(be?
Le nom, I'un et le multiple,"
in Images et socidte en Grice ancienne, Cahiers d'Arch(ologie
Romande,
no. 36
(Lausanne: Institut
d'Arch(ologie
et d'Histoire Ancienne, Universit& de
Lausanne, 1987), 59-72. For the identification of Hebe with
Hera on the name
vase of the Cleveland Painter based on a unique passage from

the Iliad, see
2013 14:32:48 PM
FRIEZE 19
Jenifer Neils, "The Cleveland Painter," Cleveland Studies in the
History of Art 1
(1996): 24-25.
30. Toledo Museum of Art, 82.88. See Cedric G. Boulter and
Kurt Luckner,
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Toledo Museum of Art, U.S.A.,
fasc. 20, Toledo
Museum of Art, fasc. 2 (Toledo: Toledo Museum of Art, 1984),
11-13, pls.
84-87. The figure is not identified in the text.
31. London, British Museum, 4 E67. ARV2, 386, no. 3, 1649.
See LIMC, vol. 4
(1988), 461, no. 34.
32. The earliest is probably the Ricci Hydria in the Villa Giulia;
see
Annie-France Laurens, "Pour une 'Systhematique'
iconographique: Lecture
du vase Ricci de la Villa Giulia," in Iconographie classique et
identitis rigionales,
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, suppl., 14 (Paris:

Diffusion de
Boccard, 1986): 45-56, where Hebe grabs Herakles by the arm
as she boards
the chariot.
33. Athens, National Museum, 1629. ARV2, 1250, no. 34. See
Adrienne
Lezzi-Hafter, Der Eretria-maler; Kerameus, vol. 6 (Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern,
1988), 253-62, 347-48, no. 257, pls. 168, 169.
34. For the binding of the hair as an emblematic motif with
nuptial
connotations, see Victoria Sabetai, "Aspects of Nuptial and
Genre Imagery in
Fifth-Century Athens: Issues of Interpretation and
Methodology," in Athenian
Potters and Painters, ed. John H. Oakley, William D. E.
Coulson, and Olga
Palagia (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997), 319-35, esp. 328-29. See
also Oakley
and Sinos (as in n.15), figs. 21, 23, 24.
35. See LIMC, vol. 5 (1990), 160-63, s.v. "Herakles," nos.
3292-312. For
discussion of these groups of deities at Herakles' apotheosis, see
Heinrich
Knell, Die Darstellung der G6itterversammlung in der attischen
Kunst des VI. u. V
Jahrhunderts v. Chr (Darmstadt: H. Knell, 1965), 47-61; and H.
Alan Shapiro,
Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern, 1989),
157-63.

36. London, British Museum, B 379. See H.A.G. Brijder, Siana
Cups I and
Komast Cups (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum, 1983), 146-
47, 246-47, no.
121, pl. 24.
37. Basel, Antikenmuseum, BS 499. See LIMC, vol. 5 (1990),
162, s.v.
"Herakles," no. 3308.
38. For a discussion of red-figure vases that depict the
apotheosis of
Herakles, many of which include Hebe, see K. W. Arafat,
Classical Zeus: A Study
in Art and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990),
104-12. For Ares,
see Irmgard Beck, Ares in Vasenmalerei, Relief und
Rundplastik, Archdologische
Studien, vol. 7 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984).
39.J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-Figure: A Sketch (London: Oxford
University
Press, 1928), 21. A red-figure lekythos by the Klugmann Painter
(Martin von
Wagner Museum, Wurzburg, 555) that is contemporary with the
frieze shows a
rare winged Artemis; ARV2, 1198, no. 8. See John Boardman,
Athenian Red
Figure Vases: The Classical Period (London: Thames and
Hudson, 1989), fig. 215.
40. Berlin, Antikenmuseum, F 2278. ARV2, 260, no. 15. See
Nikolaus
Himmelmann-Wildschfitz, "Die G6tterversammlung des Sosias-
Schale," Mar-
burger Winckelmann-programm (1960): 41-88, pls. 4-12;

Threat Risk Assessment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Threat Risk Assessment

Similar to Threat Risk Assessment (20)

More from MARRY7

More from MARRY7 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Threat Risk Assessment