ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CITY OF ATHENS

Topographic Issues of the Acropolis

The content of the essay that follows is the same as that of the oral presentation; however, its form differs. As part of the oral presentation 92 images were also shown, thus playing a decisive part in determining its form. The present essay has resulted from a reorganization of the oral work, to make it as self-sufficient as possible, despite the small number of images in it.

As this is a vast topic, it has been deemed necessary to divide the essay into the following parts:

From the above division it immediately becomes clear that the examined topics are not a random selection from the total of the topography of the Acropolis. On the contrary, they constitute a separate unit, which can be found within the borders of its central section – Athena΄s sanctum. The sole exception to this is the Erechthaeum, whose western section, together with the smaller sanctums adjacent to it, are not exactly parts of Athena’s sanctum.

Although the archaeological topographic examination of the Acropolis is still continuing in our days, its prime time was the 19th century. Back then, extensive excavations brought to light remains of buildings, signs, countless works of art and a host of other aspects of life in sacred and other places, not only on the Acropolis but also in its immediate surroundings. The Great Excavation between 1885 and 1890 is the most important, but not the only outstanding point on this long archaeological journey. The progress made during that time becomes instantly obvious when one gets to study (even hastily) old publications or more recent reviews. As far as the figures of the buildings and the public places are concerned, a simple comparison between the ground plan drawn up in 1853 by J. Stuart and that composed after 1900 by W. Judeich should suffice. The latter contains not only all the monuments of the Acropolis but also those of the South slope, and also distinguishes the various historical periods starting from the Mycenaean Era up to more recent times. The ground plan that accompanies Michaelis' work (1871) represents the intermediate step along this evolutionary process. On that ground plan is expressed for the first time an interest in the medieval, and the historic phases that followed are suitably depicted both on the Propylaea and on the Parthenon.
However, apart from the grounds in and around the Acropolis, a great source of information are its walls themselves, especially the one in the North, with the enwalled architectural parts of two great temples: a great number of rough marble fulcrum of the Pre-Parthenon and large sections of the entablature from the ancient temple – epistyles, triglyphs, metopes and cornices in regular succession. At this point, however, it would be useful to make a brief review of the history and the methodological issues pertaining to the Acropolis excavations.

Excavations commenced in 1835 in the West and South of the Parthenon by Ludwig Ross, assisted by the architects Lorent and Schaubert. This was the first and also the last time that the findings and the conclusions from an excavation got published without any delay: only within a few months! (Tubinger Kunstblatt, 1835). It was also the first time that the stratigraphy was studied, and sketch incisions of the layers were drawn up to better substantiate the related study – perhaps Ross should also be credited with the inception of the archaeological stratigraphy method. Ross’s excavations took place in carefully selected positions, with considerable, for the standards of the time, economy – still they were exceptionally productive both in findings and in conclusions.

This brief enterprise was followed by a much larger one, directed by K. Pittakis (Κ. Πιττάκης), which lasted until the end of the Ottonian period. This enterprise aimed: at clearing the Acropolis of the numerous later-era buildings (already in ruins) that inundated it; at restoring the grounds back to the level of the Classical Era; at freeing stones that had fallen from the monuments; and at the subsequent initiation of relevant re-erection programmes. The digging work carried out all over the Acropolis during that long period exceeds in magnitude even the Great Excavation (1885-1890). Areas measuring many thousands of square metres were excavated at a depth of about two metres (outside the Propylaea the depth exceeded the five metres). However, that enterprise was not seen as a normal excavation neither by its leaders nor by the newer generations of archaeologists. Not a single drawing was made of the buildings and of the ground stratifications that were then dug up. Only a few of the mobile findings were drawn, together with ancient works of sculpture and signs that were, after all, the only target of the excavators. However, although it would have been possible to draw the mobile findings a lot later, non-mobile ones –buildings and historic ground layers– could not wait. Their destruction forever wiped out the ground testimonies, not only of the millennia that followed Christ, but also of a great part of Antiquity itself. Unfortunately, this situation continued for the following two decades (under the supervision of P. Eustratiades (Π. Ευστρατιάδης), especially inside the Propylaea and in the place where the Museum was built – for which a widespread and deep excavation was needed. Again no drawings of later buildings, no stratigraphy incisions and no adequate publications were made.

Over this long period some relatively minor excavations were made by foreigners, the most important of which, in terms of our presently examined topic, are: in the Southern web of the Parthenon’s stereobate by A. Paccard in 1845 and by E. Ziller in 1865; and in some parts of the Erechthaeum and of the Parthenon by C. Botticher in 1862.

With the beginning of the Great Excavation under the supervision of P. Kavvadias (Π. Καββαδίας) and with the cooperation of the architect G. Kawerau things improved.

The excavation began in the Northern part of the Acropolis and continued from West to East. Its main findings were the archaic Kores in the Northwest of the Erechtheum. Archaic art was already known, but it was only then that so many of its works became accessible at the same time. The marble Kores gave a very good idea of the temple’s decoration with rich offerings, and a collection of marble pieces of sculpture, located in room VI of the old museum of the Acropolis, gave a rather satisfactory knowledge of the content of the pediments of the ancient temple.

However, the biggest and most difficult part of the excavation was the one south of the Parthenon (1888), where the excavation reached the rock (where that was possible) at a depth that exceeded 15 metres from the axon of the temple. The drawings substantiation made by Kawerau was neat: many tens of metric designs in scales 1:50, 1:100, 1:200 and even more drawings of measurements and sketches of some mobile findings.

The photographic substantiation (mostly made by Dörpfeld with a camera of large shape), although relatively economical (about 100 photos), is generally of very high quality. The photographs have been taken with care and after good selection of topics, and the lighting is sometimes so good that very small details can become visible, including the stratigraphy of the ground itself.

Picture 1

The marble column drums built into the Northern wall were first studied in 1807 by the famous W.M. Leake, who climbed up the steep rock, often risking his life. Leake, who was rarely mistaken, again arrived at a correct explanation: the drums must be parts of that older temple that Hesychios (Ησύχιος) had in mind when referring to the Parthenon (λ. εκατόμπεδος) “…νεώς εν τη ακροπόλει τη Παρθένα κατασκευασθείς υπό Αθηναίων, μείζων του εμπρησθέντος υπό των Περσών ποσι πεντήκοντα”.

This is how the study of the Preparthenon began. According to Leake, the Preparthenon must have been smaller than the Parthenon, and certainly older than Persian Wars. What Leake started was continued by Ross, in 1835, with excavations in the West and South of the Parthenon, which revealed the following:

1. A large quantity of rough drum in the East across an area that stretches up to the Southern wall, together with tools and other items specific to stonework -such as paint pots in containers- which we know to have been useful for making various notes and for checking the perfection of flat areas.
2. For its greatest part, the foundation of the Parthenon is much older than the temple. This part is independent and constitutes the originally visible pedestal of the older temple. From the dimensions of the pedestal (31,4 x 76,8 m) one can infer that that temple must also have been very large and rather oblong in figure.
3. At the East of the Parthenon the gigantic podium does not fit in with the Classical temple, but protrudes by about 5 metres from the line of the first marble step.
4. To seat the Classical temple the original podiuml had to be extended a little to the north. That extension was made using similar material -stones from Piraeus- but without caring much about elaborate appearance. Obviously, the new designs called for extended leveling of the ground via artificial landfills up to the level of the axon of the temple, while the older designs provided that all around the temple the ground would be much lower and that the upper section of the podium would be visible and thus elaborate.

Ross also studied extensively the sequence of the layers of the ground. Leake’s and Ross’s opinions as to the dating of the Pre-Parthenon were widely accepted with no disagreements, except insofar as the possible figure of the building was concerned. Let it be noted that, among others, this matter also occupied F.C. Penrose (1851), J.H. Strack (1860), E. Ziller (1865), A. Michaelis (1871) and E. Burnouf (1877). These specialists’ only worth-mentioning mistake was that they attributed to the temple not only the drums but also the sandstone entablature built into the Northern wall.

This mistake was corrected only in 1885 when W. Dörpfeld proved that the big incorporated entablature belongs to the ancient temple, the sandstone Peripteros temple of Athena. The foundations of this temple still survive north of the Erechtheum. Dörpfeld’s first announcement regarding the ancient temple also included a theory on the dating of the Pre-Parthenon, contrary to the that of Leake’s and Ross’: the plausible dating of the ancient temple from the 6th century (due to style) and the obvious destruction of the temples before the time of the construction of the Northern wall led Dörpfeld to the conclusion that it must have been that temple that got burnt by the Persians and not the semi-complete marble Pre-Parthenon. But why would the temple burnt by the Persians have to be only one? Based on written testimonies, Dörpfeld insisted, only one temple of Athena must have existed on the Acropolis before the Persian Wars. He saw no proof for the existence of another temple in that distant time thus came to the conclusion that the Pre-Parthenon should be dated after the Persian Wars, and more specifically around the time of Kimon. That theory resulted from a certain scientific conception of the shrine’s history and the evolution of the temple’s architecture; however also perhaps from some temptation to throw over old classic theories. The new theory had immense consequences for the course of the topographic study of the Acropolis.

Between 1885 and 1902, acceptance of Dörpfeld’s theories was almost universal. Everyone instantly sided with him and quickly rejected the reasons for which they had previously sided with Leake and Ross. Everyone except one man, F.C. Penrose.

The great scholar of the Parthenon’s architecture and author of the Principles of the Athenian Architecture (1851) already was part of a bygone era. He had been only 28 years old and exceptionally pioneering when he was making his greatest discoveries (1847); but at the time when he met Dörpfeld with obstinacy and prejudice he was already seventy years old and his direct contact with the Acropolis had almost ceased for decades. Although his conviction for the classic theory of Leake and Ross was correct, the arguments he used were sometimes unfair. Some of them were so unfortunate that caused more damage to his own work rather than to that of Dörpfeld’s (see Ch. 6).

Things remained like that until 1902, when a groundbreaking article appeared, under the title “Die Zeit des alteren Parthenon”. To everyone’s surprise, in this Dörpfeld himself supported a dating of the Pre-Parthenon before the Persian Wars. In the same year (1902), A. Michaelis had shown that during the ancient times there were two temples of Athena on the Acropolis, and certainly that must have influenced Dörpfeld very positively. Leake’s old theory assumed again its original prestige and its only faithful supporter, Penrose, got, toward the end of his life, his own back. However, Dörpfeld’s new study added something novel as well: the distinction between two phases of the construction history of the Pre-Parthenon. In the older phase (Parthenon I or Pa I), perhaps at the time of Kleisthenes (Κλεισθένης), the temple was, or rather was meant to be made of sandstone. In the more recent phase (Parthenon II or Pa II), after the battle of Marathon, the unfinished work was continued in marble (on this new distinction, Dörpfeld calls the Periclean Parthenon as Pa III).

Among other things, Dörpfeld’s change also betrays a rare for him flexibility. He was successful in “rescuing” himself, literally the last minute, based on someone else’s position, notably appropriating it and abandoning his own entirely opposite one.

Picture 2

1. The staircase of the Pre-Parthenon had three rises. The first one was made of red limestone from Hymettos (Υμήττειος) (Kareas or Karas), while the other two of marble.
2. The stones of the staircase were of about the same height and width as the ones in the Classical temple; however, they were somewhat longer.
3. The first and second steps of the Southern side still survive in their original positions – exactly through the respective steps of the Classical temple. This can be seen in several places, in small later-era gaps of the Classical staircase, and especially in a position where a large part of the first stair of the temple had been long chiseled off. As a result, the SW corner of the older staircase was well visible. These findings show that the Pre-Parthenon did not occupy the whole area of the giant stereobate, but only 4/5 of it. It was 5 metres smaller in width and 7 metres smaller in length. Therefore it did not feature eight pillars, like Dörpfeld believed, but only six, with somewhat larger wheelbases than those in the Classical Parthenon. The pillars of the Preparthenon were the same diameter – exactly like Penrose had inferred.
4. The staircase of the alcove had two or perhaps only one rise (today the latter is proven) and the walls had a monumentally sized Lesbian cyma as their base.
5. The small ledge of the pilasters –as betrayed by the familiar base, decorated with a cyma– shows that the Prostases (προστάσεις) were columned (πρόστυλες). Penrose had come to the same conclusion, judging from the number (5) of the remaining first fulcrums of the Prostases (προστάσεις). The pillars of the Pronaos (Πρόναος) would have been only four if they had stood between the pilasters, as opposed to standing in front of them.
6. Despite the stones of the Pre-Parthenon being of equal size to those of the Classical temple, the distinction is possible on good criteria. The external surfaces of the Pre-Parthenon stones feature rough that is they are not treated to the finest level possible and the lead of the joints feature the single-sided chiseling needed for disjoining the stones. In most cases of older stones getting reused, new lead were used for the connections, so the disabled older lead make distinguishing older from newer stones very easy. In some cases, however, identification can be really problematic because no identification clues exist – except perhaps for some indicative dimensions.

After Hill’s brief but invaluable work, research of matters pertaining to the Parthenon stagnated for a long while, although views regarding its dating got expressed very frequently: G. Fougeres (1912) and R. Heberdey (1919) regarded it as a work of the newly-founded republic; H. Schräder (1922), Walter (1929) and W. Zschietzschmann (1934) regarded it as a work of the tyrants. What was mainly missing was a serious platform for the stratigraphic dating of the findings of the Great Excavation. That platform was no other than the abundant pottery of the grounds that had been excavated still that pottery remained unpublished. Its publication by B. Graef and E. Langlotz became possible only four decades later (vol 1, 1925, vol 2 1933) and up to that point all dating attempts had been made based on other evidence – also including a generous dosage of arbitrary assumptions.

Therefore, it was no coincidence that the first specialized study of the Pre-Parthenon’s dating appeared only as late as 1935. In this study (“The date of the older Parthenon”), W.B. Dinsmoor, using 26 well-dated sherds, whose position within the layers had been well documented, concluded that the Pre-Parthenon’s large pedestal was no older than 490 BC. The even more accurate estimate of 488 BC offered in the same study was based on an astronomical calculation of faults in the ancient calendar and on the hypothesis that the temple should have been looking to the sunrise on the festival in honour of Athena. In the same work, Dinsmoor insisted that nothing proved Dorpfeld’s distinction of two phases of the Pre-Parthenon.

Picture 3

Picture 4

Picture 5

Picture 6

Picture 7

1. In construction terms it is no use increasing the podium size of any one building when the ground type happens to be rock (the ground declination does not matter if the seats are carved horizontally) and the construction is made with good chiseled stones. The architecturally purposeful placement of the Dorian temple upon a podium is a rather rare occurrence (e.g. Sounion), and one would not have expected to encounter it in our present case because of the specific problems of the area around the Parthenon – but also due to the sizeable expenditure it would have involved. However, if something like that did happen, it would have been totally improper for the upper end of a podium to assume the improbable form of a step and not of one of the regular forms of pedestal crowing.
2. The horizontal surfaces of the steps of the Pre-Parthenon are equipped with elaborate protective remains whereas the equivalent, well preserved surface of the 25th layer of the stereobate does not feature (and never did) such remains (pic. 8, No 2, 3).
3. The face of the 22nd layer of the stereobate (pic. 8, No 2a) features elaborate protective remains similar to those of the Preparthenon’s staircase but a lot richer and more elaborately treated (pic. 8, No 3b).

Picture 8

4. The anatherosis of the Pre-Parthenon’s staircase stones (pic. 8, No 3) are about 10cm wide. Those of the stereobate’s upper layer are on average 15cm wide (pic. 8, No 2).
5. The stones of the staircase stones of the Preparthenon generally lack gomphoi. By contrast, the stones of the 22nd layer all feature gomphosis, notably in two places each (pic. 8, No 2 shows only one of the two wedges and one semi-wedge (παράγομφος).
6. For the corners of the stereobate more and bigger joints have been used than those of the Pre-Parthenon’s counterpart.

The stylistic and structural differences between the Pre-Parthenon’s steps and the sterobate (see 2-6 above) are very serious. Comparison with other monuments proves that the building style of the Pre-Parthenon’s staircase has its equivalent in the staircase of the Classical Parthenon’s staircase (signs of its semi-final form still survive, pic. 8, No 4c, 4d), and in its semi-final surfaces (for example on the Western entrance’s opening, pic. 8, No 4a), while the very different construction details of the stereobate have their equivalent rather in the foundation and the staircase of the ancient Olympeion (pic. 8, No 1-1b)!

However, although with respect to the distinction into phases it seems that one should agree with Dörpfeld, the same cannot be said about the hypothetical form of the Parthenon I. If the temple had featured eight columns, it should possess all the basic characteristics of a temple of that type (columns, wheelbases, epistyles, etc) smaller not only than the ones in the Classical Parthenon (by 13%) but also those in the ancient temple. In no way can this be combined with the degree of detail of the stereobate (Pic. 8). The height of the 22nd layer (first step of the staircase of Pa I) was almost 59cm, much higher (by 12%) than the steps of the Classical Parthenon (-51,6), but virtually equal to that of the steps of the Olympeion (-59)! Therefore, one should agree with Hill, who had expressed the view that if a Pa I had actually existed, it couldn’t have featured eight columns but only six. Such temple would have indeed been very monumental, with columns larger than two metres in diameter and wheelbases larger than five. That temple would have been much more comparable to the temple of Zeus in Olympia, than to the Classical Parthenon. In the latter, things are very different. Its great width and the use of eight instead of six columns at the fronts is the result of both very daring but also compromising decisions: a revolutionary increase in internal space, even at the expense of the space of the side wings, and as extensive reuse as possible of drums already prepared for a much narrower temple – the marble Pre-Parthenon.

The distinction into Pa I and Pa II phases suggests the following historical interpretation:
With the establishment of democracy, the building of the giant Olympeion, the most splendid programme of the old tyranny, came to a halt. The best confrontation with the stopped work would have been a relevant programme of the newly-established democracy: the construction of a new temple to honour Athena, on top of the Acropolis, to replace the older of the two archaic temples, i.e. the one with limestone pediments dating from Peisistratos (Πεισίστρατος) time. The new work would demand carrying up the hill thousands of stones of total weight between 2 and 15 tons, from the quarries of Piraeus, which, of course, were already on standby for the construction of the Olympeion. The new work, which could have begun around the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th century, progressed very fast. For the stereobate about ten thousand stones weighing two tons must have been carried from Piraeus to the Acropolis. The distance was ten kilometers, the first of which on very pliable soil, and the last on rising roads. Before the Persian offensive, the first step of the staircase was in place together with a considerable part of the second one. The transport of drums (a lot heavier than 10 tons!) had not begun yet.

After the success in Marathon this work continued, but only after it underwent a very serious revision. That change must have benefited it rather than harmed it. Instead of sandstone, the finest of materials, marble, was preferred; however the dimensions had to be reduced in order to compensate for some physical and financial differences between the two types of materials and to make completing it within reasonable time technically possible. Limiting the dimensions facilitated the new building’s coexistence with a small sanctum already present in its Northern side (see Ch. 8).

The new work must have been stopped already in 485 BC and not in 480 BC. With Darius’ death (485 BC) and Xerxes’ enthronement, a new much greater military threat became immediately apparent. Athens responded with a government change (Themistocles) and with the immediate application of a new defense programme (fortification of Piraeus, harbour works, the construction of a fleet), for which all possible resources must have been used. The very expensive work of temple building could not have continued… until the day when the Persians would burn the Acropolis.

From the abundant existing material testimonies it is estimated that within the short time that work on the marble pre-Parthenon lasted, the huge work of the staircase was ready, together with the heavier part of the columns. Hundreds of column drums were ready in the quarries and some capitals had already been transported to the Acropolis. Poles and numerous other stones for the walls were ready to be placed.

The distinction into Pa I and Pa II phases satisfies, besides everything else, what one could call quantitative appreciation of the completed work: without it, it would be even more difficult to explain how a work of that magnitude –huge stereobate and semi-complete marble temple– was completed in so little time!

The above do not seriously clash with Dinsmoor’s dating. Ten years before or after is not outside the accuracy limits of the stratigraphic dating.

The ancient landfill touching the Parthenon’s stereobate showed, as E. Ziller (1865) had first inferred, a repeated succession of three layers, corresponding to the robust stony layers of the stereobate itself: the first one was blue limestone (Lapis) from the cut on the rock within which were laid the foundations of the Northernmost stones of each layer; the second one was yellow Lapis from the unitary treatment of the upper surface of each layer – after it had been put in position; and, finally, the third one (of dark shade) was soil that supplemented the thickness of the aforementioned (also useful to facilitate the construction workers while placing new stones upon each new layer).

These landfills, inevitable because of the large quantities of discarded Lapis, but also necessary as auxiliary, constantly elevated work surfaces, were made at the same time as the stereobate at a time when the strong Acropolis wall (except, perhaps, for a part at its base) had not yet been constructed. That wall is the so-called ‘Kimoneion’. This is indicated by their North-to-South arrangement as well as by their strong downward end, which had as its only buttresses the low remains of the Mycenaean wall and some temporary revetment walls, built especially for this purpose.

With the construction of the Kimoneion wall (466 BC) new layers were added upon the old ones, this time arranged from South to North. Finally, other more extensive and posterior layers, contemporary to the Classical Parthenon covered both those of the Pre-Parthenon and those of the Kimoneion wall. These layers, three metres thick on average, contain the foundations of a large workshop built with stones of the Pre-Parthenon and conclude at the five uppermost standstone layers of the Southern wall, which represent a special historic phase of it, the Periclean superelevation.

The Periclean superelevation is distinguished from the purely Kimoneion part because it also features a greatly increased thickness (pic. 1). With this form it stretches up to the SE corner and, equally horizontally, it continues to the Eastern side. There, a problem becomes better visible: to achieve regular leveling up to the point of the horizontally carved level of the rock despite the NE angle of the Acropolis “Belvedere” the wall should have had seven more layers, over half a metre thick (not including the parapet). However, this omission is not because of some older destruction of its upper part. On the Eastern side, the upper still surviving layer is untreated and was never prepared to accept the next one (the part which collapsed in 1703 –and was replaced after 1750 with a newer construction– did not differ from the surviving one). The interruption of further raising the wall resulted in leaving the higher part of the rock unwalled, that is a large part of the Eastern side of the Acropolis.

The above observation, together with various details of the stratigraphy which Ross studied, the treatment of the Parthenon’s axon in the East and the South and from the level of the axon of the Northern wall on the NE of the Parthenon, allow the conclusion that the construction of the Southern and the Eastern wall is for some reason semi-complete. The original intention was to develop a unitary flat surface at the height of the temple’s axon (with only a very slight declination of about 1% for rain water) all over the area in the North, the East and the Northeast of the Parthenon up until the wall. For the full realization of the project, seven more layers would have to be placed upon the upper part of the wall (about 4m). That this plan was impossible to realize was also obvious to Dorpfeld, at least insofar as the Southern side was concerned (as indicated by a dotted line on the design incisions of the Southern wall) and must have also been quite plausible for P. Kalkos (Π. Κάλκος) who designed the museum with its rooftop chamber exactly under the level of the Parthenon’s axon.

The reasons for the postponement or maybe even the cancellation of the original plan to shape the grounds in the South and in the East of the Parthenon are not, of course, known. The most probable ones though are:

1. The general cease of works because of the Peloponnesian war.
2. So that the Parthenon’s visibility from the area of the Odeum and the temple of Dionysus would not get further reduced.
3. So that Pandion’s shrine would not ‘sink’ any further within the constantly rising landfills around it.

At this point it should be added that prior to the Classical Era such problems did not exist. The grounds of the Acropolis followed almost exactly the original natural shape of the rock and the wall –the work of the Mycenaean era– was adjusted not only to the horizontal inconsistencies if the rock’s perimeter, but also to its great height variations (the latter often goes unnoticed because the most usual depiction of the wall in archaelogical and other books is simply a ground plan). However, up until the dawning of the Classical Era, the difference in grounds level between the two sides of the Acropolis exceeded twenty metres. Artificial landfills had also been carried out then, but they were small, simply achieving only local equalization or rather moderation of any differences in height. Therefore, the inside of most temples –especially of the bigger ones- was still of unequal. The transformation of the Acropolis into a much more regular whole of horizontal parapets, with very high supportive walls, huge landfills and not insignificant chiselings out of the rock was the idea and work of the Classical Era (Picture 23).

Picture 9

Picture 10

Picture 11

• Instead of a graded staircase the temple only featured a single stylobate.
• The internal division of its alcove, which featured prostases on both its fronts, is more multiple that what is usually found in ancient temples. A partition separated the interior into an Eastern compartment, or Athena’s main temple, entered from the Eastern Prostase and a Western compartment with entrance from the Western Prostase. The Western compartment –the main temple– featured internal pillar rows, which split it into a central and two lateral sides. Dorpfeld claimed that the Western compartment was the opisthodomus (Οπισθόδομος), referred to both in the literature and on the inscriptions, in a special area of which, to the right, was Athena’s money, and in another to the left, that of the other gods. That view became almost generally accepted.
• The prostases of the alcove were exceptionally shallow. Dorpfeld found it difficult to interpret that, but in the end he assumed that they were distyles-in-antis. Later on, Schräder claimed that the prostases were Ionian four columns after an alcove renewal (which is supposed only on the theory of the succession of the two temples on the same foundation, see Ch. 7). Dörpfeld agreed with that too. Dinsmoor accepts that the prostases had been Ionian four columns since the beginning (so for him this matter is independent from that of the succession of the two temples upon the same foundation, which he rejects anyway). The examination of the matter today also concludes rather that the Prostases were colonnaded, but not that they had to be Ionian.
• The length of the temple, only 12 columns, seen in the light of what was the norm in the 6th century and more especially compared to what one might have expected from a temple with so many internal areas, looks exceptionally short. A reflection of that in the interior is the hard to miss atrophy of the Eastern compartment (main temple) and the shallowness of the prostases (pic. 10). Undoubtedly, the multiple stylistic peculiarities of that temple must be for particular reasons, much older than the temple itself. Sadly, however, the distant past of the ancient temple is not known. Still, all indications show that that is the most ancient temple of Athena upon the Acropolis, of course not in the form that we have come to know it, but in other, much older ones.
• Among the temple’s foundations were found, during the excavation, two bases of simple architecture. These bases, on which once stood, wooden columns approximately half a metre in diameter, were originally attributed to a hypothetical Mycenaean mansion. Afterwards, however, it was proved (C. Nylander) that they belonged to a temple of the Geometric Era that is to the predecessor of the Archaic Era temple.
• The one and only altar of Athena’s shrine once stood in the East of the ancient temple. In the East of the Parthenon or of the Erechtheum there were no other altars of Athena. It is plausible to conclude that even before the first temples on the position where the Parthenon or the Erechtheum would subsequently be built there already had been an even older temple across the one and only (and even older) altar.

The adjective “ancient” must have already been given to that temple (after the erection of the “original Parthenon” to distinguish it), however, it was retained by the new temple (of the 6th century) together with the position.

The Ancient Temple was, of course, a brilliant architectural work of the departing 6th century, with exquisite sculptural decoration. Its columns were smaller that the Parthenon’s by 1/5, but still featured larger capitals: 2.26x2.26m as opposed to 2.00x2.00m! Due to their positions and sizes these capitals must have been very impressive. As they were much wider that the epistyle, a large part of theirs protruded uncovered like a balcony (pic. 11). The entablature of the temple was of almost the same scale as the entablature of the Parthenon; its metopes, however, were plain flat plates (marble from Hymettos). The heavy horizontal cornice was the last upper sandstone part of the temple. On the pediments, except for the sculpted and the pediment cornices, all drums were also made of marble. So was the richly ornamented cornice above the pediment (pic. 11). The marble of the aforementioned parts had been imported from Paros. Finally, the Corinthian style tiling of the temple was also made of marble, but of material from the best quarries of Hymmetos. There always are a lot of questions regarding the architecture and the decoration of the prostases. Schrader’s assumption that the alcove featured an Ionian frieze to which should also be attributed the glyph No. 1342 of the Museum of the Acropolis, as well as some smaller items that belong together, is probably correct, but for the time being remains unproven. One thing looks certain though: the Ionian capital on which the hypothesis of an Ionian colonnade (Penrose) and the hypothesis of Ionian prostases (Schräder) were each based is too large for the dimensions of that temple (see Ch. 6).

Picture 12

Picture 13

Picture 14

In 1888 the excavation was already advancing to the Southern part of the Acropolis, uncovering –besides the aforementioned ancient technical works (landfills, revetment walls, foundations of workshops)– numerous fragments of sandstone sculptures and architectural limbs. These findings (if somewhat segmentally) together with some others also found in other locations on the Acropolis, made it possible for the first time to achieve knowledge of local architecture and sculpture earlier than the ancient temple. The classification of the fragments on the basis of their architectural scale or their stylistic features resulted in drawing up groups, each of which should belong in a different building or artistic whole. Finding the locations of all these buildings justifiably perplexed people. The first thing that comes to mind is that with the overall reformation of the Acropolis during the 5th century a lot of evidence for the original form and especially the position of ancient buildings must have been wiped out. It would have thus been plausible to choose conventional names for the buildings for which stray finds were the only evidence: “building A”, “building B”, “building C” and so on. One of them, “H” (pic. 15) attracted a lot of attention from the beginning because of its large size. That unique size, after all, made it clear that which architectural remains should belong together: fragments of very large sandstone sculptures (the “three-bodied daemon”, “Hercules”, “Hercules and Triton”, large snakes etc), fragments of capitals with very depressed echinus and estimated dimensions of about 1.80x1.80m, fragments of column-drums of comparable size and three big epistyles, incorporated into the external side of the Southern wall. Earlier, Dorpfeld had attributed these epistyles, which were always visible, to the ancient temple without distinction, although they were shorter and taller. That difference in height had only been noticed by Penrose in the past.

Picture 15

Picture 16

Picture 17

Picture 18

Picture 19

Picture 20

• In the Western side of the stereobate of the Pre-Parthenon, the stones of the 19th layer are skewed towards the –unfortunately– non-visible interior of the construction. Their declination from the axis of the temple is -3,5 degrees to the left. That same declination also appears in the (already commented on by Buschor) skewed rock carving, approximately in the midst of the Western side. Therefore, it is very likely that exactly behind the external stones of the Western side of the stereobate there is another latent construction whose orientation declines from the Parthenon’s axes by -3,5 degrees to the left.
• In the Southern side of the stereobate and for about 20m from the SW corner, the stones of the 18th layer are skewed towards the interior of the construction. Their declination from the axis of the temple is also -3,5 degrees to the left. The explanation is the same as in the previous case. It is possible though to assume that the skewed stones in question follow the hypothetical internal construction along the whole of its length, but only along its part that comes closest to the Southern side of the stereobate.
• The smaller shrine below the Parthenon’s Northern wing, consisting of a chapel and an altar (see Ch. 8), had a special orientation. The axis of the in situ pedestal of the statue displays a declination of -3,5 degrees to the left of the axis of the Classical temple.
• The fact that so many different elements show the same declination –small temple in the North, carving and peculiar structure of part of the stereobate in the West and again a peculiar structure of the stereobate in the South– makes it possible that the declining elements are in parallel to the sides of an internal building, whose orientation differs from that of the stereobate by -3,5 degrees. That unseen building, if it actually exists, must be the foundation or part of the foundations of a big temple that precedes Parthenon I.
• The Western side of that building does not seem to be positioned accidentally:
  it lies almost in line with the Western front of the ancient temple.
• The position of the small temple is not accidental. Its front is on the same line as the Eastern front of the ancient temple. Along the same line was also the front of a building to the North of the ancient temple, which was the predecessor of the Eastern part of the Erechtheum (pic. 23).

The above do not constitute proofs. They are mere indications, but such that cannot be overlooked, which declare the most probable position and the area size of the temple with the large sandstone pediments. The length of its staircase must have reached 46m approximately.

The drawing representation of that temple is possible thanks to the number and the variety of its material remains. What follows, however, is only a necessary first approach, based especially on these fragments, which more than anything else favour a simple calculation without great margins for error.

The drawing and comparison of the cross-section of the echinos of the best-surviving capitals fragments in natural scale proved the existence of individual differences in terms of the exact shape of the curve of the echinos the shape and size of the belts and even in terms of the precise diameter of the under neck. Based on these individual differences, it is shown that the surviving fragments come from at least 15 different capitals. It is thus beyond doubt that the temple was Peripteros and of course with six-columned. From the possible length of its staircase and from the length of its smaller metopes it is estimated that the possible number of columns on its longest sides was 13.

A very important means for the study of the “building H” is the middle of the epistyles that were used in the Southern wall. Its left end is a simple level, suitable for joining with three successive stones, 49cm, 49cm and 59cm in height. As it is not yet certain that the graded end is a genuine feature of the stone, it is also uncertain that the epistyle comes from a prostases. But even if it were possible to prove the authenticity end, there would still be need to investigate the type of the prostases: prostyle or in antis? An investigation of this type has already been done by I. Beyer, but remains unpublished.

The triglyphs were of two kinds:

• One-piece slabshaped triglyphs, paved, which in some manner constituted some kind of tilling at the upper part of the entablature, which was built with regular blocks.
• Triglyphs carved directly upon the wall’s surface and therefore consisting of successive stones each.

The temple’s metopes were of various kinds:

• Plain unornamented plates made of marble from Hymettos.
• Plain plates of marble from Hymettos with coloured engraved Doric sheets exactly underneath the head. Plates of this type survive reused in the tilling of the Mycenaean wall outside the Propylaea. In two of these plates is carved the famous sign IGII24.
• Metopes with marble sculptures, attached upon a plain level surface that consisted of successive sandstone bricks. These sculptures are no other than the famous sculpted representations of wild animals (leopards and lions upon marble from Hymettos) in Room I of the Acropolis Museum.
• Full-sculpted metopes made of marble from Hymettos. The familiar four horses on the front of a metope (Acropolis Museum 577) are nothing but part of such a metope. Its theme, a chariot drawn by four horses upon the front of a metope, as also in the very famous similar metope of temple C of Selinous, probably belongs to the thematic cycle of the Battle against the Giants.

So, the Battle against the Giants was also one of the themes on the “primary Parthenon” (“building H”), as it later was on the Classical Parthenon itself.
The temple’s pediments concentrated large compositions of lions in the middle, narrative representations of mythical or religious themes above, below and at their two ends. Knowledge of these pediments is mainly due to the excellent works of Schuchhardt and I. Beyer.

The sima of the temple was carved on marble from Hymettos and ran on all sides. In the Eastern and Western sides, which were corniced, the sima (σίμη) had greater height and additional engraved decoration: a strip with the decorative geometric theme of the “fishbone” in the Eastern side and a strip with checkered theme in the Western side. At the ends of the pediment, these strips concluded in large upright spirals. Upright spirals at the edges of an element of crowing are not a rare theme. It is encountered in a lot of monuments from various places and times. The closest parallels to the spirals of this temple are these of the archaic temple of ancient Istria. These spirals are a kind of antefixes with purely decorative value, without any symbolic meaning and thus do not substitute regular pictorial antefixes.

For the problem of the representation of antefixes that once decorated the pediments of the temple a lot of solutions have been suggested: the most famous of these made use of the sculpted leopards, lions (which probably belong to metopes though) even of fragments from a gorgon, a trace of which (toes) survives in a fragment of the cornice (Schräder). The present research showed that around the mid 6th century the early antefixes discussed above were replaced.

Fortunately, however, for the newer corner-ornaments there is safer evidence: their bases. Of these, various fragments survive, that come from the left of the Eastern pediment and from the central corner-ornaments of both pediments. These pediments were also carved on marble from Hymettos, exactly like the sima itself. The later dating of these bases can be recognized from the traces of the cogged tools that were used for carving.

Picture 22

Picture 23

Α. Unknown original form of the central temple in the Northern side of the central road, with altar towards the Eastern side and a small temple in the West. The temple stretches up to the other side of the road.

Β. (8th-7th century BC) Refurbishment of the temple. The temple is rather without colonnade made it by bricks with wooden columns and, towards the end of the period, features rich tilling. It houses the wooden statue of Athena. Another temple is re-erected in the Southern part of the temple, in the position of today’s Parthenon. From that point onwards, the two temples will coexist serving the two main hypostases of Athena. These hypostases are substantiated by the relevant iconography: the peaceful Athena Poleas is shown enthroned; the martial Athena is shown upright and fully armed.

C. (566 BC) Reorganization of the ritual of Panathenean (Παναθήναια) and quick rebuilding of the Southern temple (“building H” or “primary Parthenon”): six-columned peripteros with sandstone architecture and sandstone pediments. Some of its pediments and the perimeter of its tilling are made of marble from Hymettos. North of the temple a small shrine is developed (of the Ergane Athena?) with shrine and small temple or, rather, a small building (small temple without columns), similar to that of Athena Nike.

D. Under the Peisistratids: Rebuilding of the ancient temple: six pillars, colonnade, made of limestone and with marble pediments. North of the temple lie some small temples and shrines: Erechtheum, Pandroseion, Kekropion etc. In these temples there are already some small Doric buildings, small temples or/and buildings.

E. (End of 6th-beginnings of 5th century BC, programme of the newly founded republic to replace the relevant programme for the Olympeion) Work for the erection of a new, much larger temple (Parthenon I) in the place of the primary Parthenon. A great deal of space to the South is needed, over the declination of the rock and therefore the construction is needed of a bulky infrastructure (stereobate). The existing building is demolished, perhaps not in whole (the temporary preservation of part of it was still possible). Some of its metopes are used as tilling plates for the Mycenaean wall during the reformation of the Western entrance of the Acropolis. The preservation of the chapel is possible under conditions, and perhaps it is then that construction of the base of the Southern wall (see below). The whole programme is interrupted by the iminent Persian danger.

F. (490-495 BC, after the victory in Marathon) The plan is reviewed (Parthenon II, or marble pre-Parthenon), instead of sandstone marble is used, however the dimensions are somewhat restricted, which facilitates the further preservation of the shrine that looks to the North. The same programme includes the construction of a marble porch (Propylon) in the Western entrance of the Acropolis. In 485 BC, when works come to halt for the sake of defense programmes, the columns of the temple have been set up to the 2nd or 3rd drum and the cyma-bearing wall base (κυματιοφόρος τοιχοβάτης) is in place, while an equal or even greater quantity of marbles remains unused around the work and inside the quarries. Of the Propylon only the staircases and the poles of the walls have been constructed.

During all the above, the Southern side of the Acropolis existed with its old, Mycenaean-era form, main characteristic of which was the steep declination of the rock to the South, with the Mycenaean wall, in the meantime, half-destroyed, at a level much lower (up to 20m!) than the central slope of the rock.

G. (480 BC) Destruction of the Acropolis shrines and especially of the ancient temple. The semi-complete Pre-Parthenon is destroyed (and with it the possibly still preserved small parts of the original Parthenon). The semi-complete marble Propylon of the Acropolis is also destroyed.

H. After the Persian Wars Rough repair of part of the ancient temple. New construction or repair of a preexisting residence in the North of the temple (in the position of the Eastern section of the Erechtheum). In this residence is housed the ancient statue. Construction of part of the Northern wall. Erection of the Southern and Eastern wall (466 BC). It is not certain whether the base of this wall, with the reused material of the “building H”, is also Kimonean or older, that is from the end of the 6th-beginning of the 5th century and therefore if it is concurrent with the beginning of the dissolution of the “building H” and the use of its metopes for the tilling of the Mycenaean wall by the entrance of the Acropolis (this is still an issue to be investigated, see below). The destroyed semi-complete Propylon of the Acropolis was one of the first buildings that were repaired. The new construct, although a lot more economical than the original one, also remained incomplete.

I. (Pericles’ time) General revision of the total Acropolis plan and parallel programmes for the renewal from scratch or the abolishment of some buildings, including the already repaired ones. From the ancient temple only the Western part of its alcove is retained, i.e. the opisthodomos. The erection of the Erechtheum and of the Propylaea begins after the completion of the construction work on the Parthenon. In the foundations of the Erechtheum is used marble from the semi-complete Propylon, and stones from the stylobate of the ancient temple are used in the Western side of the platform of the Parthenon. The Parthenon itself (Parthenon III) has been designed to be a lot wider than the previous one, while it is no longer possible to increase its foundations to the South. Its increase to the North is thus combined with a suitable preservation of the small shrine within the Northern wing. This solution also dictates the exact position of the walls and columns of the temple, with the result that a part of the stereobate in the Southern side (about 1.60m wide) remains unused.

The shaping of the grounds in the South and East of the Parthenon, as well as the related works of completion of the upper section of the wall were never fully completed. This, however, is not the reason for the… absence of an altar in the East of the Parthenon.

The absence of an altar in the East of the Parthenon and the non existence, or non preservation, of testimonies to names of priestesses of the Parthenon are the reasons for a theory according to which the Parthenon must not have possessed actual religious but only political content. This theory is somewhat attractive because of its seemingly “modern” spirit (in reality it belongs to A Michaelis!), but at the end of the day there is no ground for it.

The number of altars, not only in the Athenian but almost in all Greek shrines, was independent from the number of temples. In Delos, there were a lot of temples of Apollo and only one altar to the god, and in Samos the great altar served more than one temples. For the same deity one altar would suffice, irrespective of whether the existence of more statues or other reasons resulted in the existence of more temples. On the other hand, some rather specialized hypostases of the same deity –Athena Nike, Hygeia, Ergane– would have special altars if they had special temples.

In support of the religious content of the Parthenon speaks the long succession of temples in the same position. So does the singularity of its ground plan. The great Western compartment was not made for the surface reason of housing the fund of the Delian League: the pre-Parthenon had an identical Western compartment a long time before the existence of the League. But such compartments also existed in the other temples of Athena on the Acropolis: Erechtheum, ancient temple, but never in other temples outside the Acropolis (in the temple of Apollo in Corinth the inability to represent a central door at the partition of the temple does not prove that the Western compartment had its entrance in the West! Eccentric or lateral doors are not uncommon in Greek temples, especially in those of Apollo: Vassai, Claros, Didyma, Selinous.

Quite plausibly thus, the Western compartment of the temples on the Acropolis, including the Parthenon, was a very important part of them, demanded by the particular traditions of the shrine and mainly by the retention of worships older than that of the Olympus gods.

But then, what remains of the famous political content of the Parthenon?

What remains is all that has been said about it (creation of work opportunities, promotion of political and cultural values, display of power etc)! In what was said previously no denial of the political content of the Parthenon was attempted, but rather a counter-argument to the contention that religious content was absent. The coexistence of religious and political content is not a matter unique to the Parthenon. What else is the content of works such as the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, Hagia Sophia or Saint Peter, to mention the most well known ones first; or the Doric temple of Segesta, the Siena Cathedral or the Speyr Cathedral? What are these, other than a multifaceted combination of religious and political content, which is catered for by very highly artistic means? The list is of course very long, in reality including every worthy to be mentioned religious work in the world. The Parthenon’s case is simply more (or much more) distinguished because of its exceptional place in the history of civilization.

Let the review of the topographical issues of the central shrine of the Acropolis close with a note for the now-existing possibilities for enriching older knowledge.

The general impression that the archaeological excavation of the Acropolis was exhausting is not exactly accurate. Large parts of the grounds of the Acropolis remain undug. These parts mainly stretch along the Southern and Eastern wall and it is exactly these, upon which the upper (and much wider on the inside) part of these walls is seated, that remained undug, because every time the excavation areas had very great lengths and thus carrying out works to support the unstable part of the wall was no easy matter. Now, however, behind the wall there again is landfill. Therefore an excavation via a well (with wooden points of support in its interior) would be possible to reach to the rock, exactly through the wall, without any danger. The chief objective of such excavation would be to date the lower part of the wall (see above and E. and G.), while another almost certain outcome is the massive collection of other important fragments of the sculptures already present in the museum. But the most important of all would be to remove from the outside, classify inside a big museum storehouse and to conserve thousands of stones and fragments of the ancient temple, of the “building H”, of the Pre-Parthenon and of the other buildings, so that their daily decay is stopped and deservedly serious studies of them can be made.