and each of the thousands of objects placed on the Acropolis was put there with one
god or another in mind. Thus these products of the Attic artisans’ labor were part of
the marvelously complex interweaving of economic, artistic, and political motivations
that shaped Athenians’ responses to their gods.
GUIDE TO FURTHER READINGThe newThesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum(ThesCRA) is a useful compendium of
images related to Greek (and Roman) religion. While virtually any study of Greek art
or archaeology will include, to one degree or another, material manifestations of religion,
Robertson 1975 continues to be an invaluable source of artistic contexts for material remains.
Whitley 2001 provides archaeological contexts for a broad range of sanctuaries and festivals,
while Simon 1983 specifically treats the archaeology of Attic festivals.
Neils 1992 is a reliable and richly illustrated source for on overview of the Panathenaic
festival. Vos 1981 discusses use of the amphoras; Bentz 1998 gives a catalog of the surviving
vases; A. Johnston 1987 presents the epigraphical evidence. For the Panathenaic frieze from the
Parthenon, Jenkins 1994 and Neils 2001 both provide sensible discussions and good images.
Boardman 1985 includes a well-illustrated overview of the Parthenon sculpture. For recon-
structions of the east metopes, see Prashniker 1928. Carpenter 1997b discusses the metope
with Apollo and that god’s changing role in the Gigantomachy. For evidence for the lost
statue of Athena Parthenos see Herrington 1955 and Leipen 1971. Hurwit 1999 gives a
Figure 26.14 Sleep and Death lifting the body of a dead warrior on a white-ground lekythos
from Athens, ca. 450 BC. London D 58. After Robert 1879: pl. 2
Greek Religion and Art 419