The Date of the Older Parthenon 9781607244691, 1607244691

Citation preview

T h e Date of the Older Parthenon

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

240 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Date of the Older Parthenon

William Dinsmoor

gorgias press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-469-1

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The A^merican Journal of Archaeology, vol. 38 (1934).

Printed in the LTnited States of America

THE DATE OF THE OLDER PARTHENON this title, in 1 9 0 2 , was published an authoritative article by Professor Dorpfeld, apparently closing for all time the debated question of the age of the predecessor of the marble Parthenon which we see today. 1 Exactly a decade earlier Dorpfeld had published his architectural restoration of the Older Parthenon, 2 a study which was only slightly modified by his later article; and exactly a decade afterwards this plan in turn was drastically revised in a brilliant article by Dr. Hill.3 The date proposed by Dorpfeld, however, is still in favor; and it now seems desirable to review his arguments in the light of evidence made available since his publications. UNDER

1. ARCHITECTURAL E V I D E N C E

The various changes of opinion with regard to the date may be briefly summarized. (I) Before 1902 there was no reason to suppose that there had been more than one Older Parthenon, and the question was merely that of a single date. (A) I t was originally suggested by Leake that the Older Parthenon was prePersian, on the basis of the ambiguous reference by Hesychius (s.v. «aro^Trfoos! and the existence of architectural remains in the north wall of the Acropolis (marble drums and poros entablature blocks) which he assigned to this site, even before the foundations were discovered.4 The pre-Persian date was verified by Ross, who excavated south of the Parthenon in 1835-1836 and discovered that the terrace contained burnt Persian débris, and that both the foundation in situ and the marble drums in the north Acropolis wall showed traces of a conflagration.5 From this moment the pre-Persian date of the Older Parthenon seemed to be an assured fact. 6 (B) A second stage was marked by the Acropolis excavation of 1885-1890, when Dorpfeld identified the old poros temple of Athena and concluded that this must have been the temple to which Hesychius referred, proving, moreover, that it had been the true site of the poros entablature blocks in the north Acropolis wall. He immediately perceived that the marble column drums must belong to a different and later temple, namely, the foundation of the Older Parthenon, which he assigned to the period of Kimon. 7 This date he regarded as confirmed by the excavation of 1888 south of the Parthenon, revealing a terrace fill composed of fragments of 2 Ibid., 1892, pp. 158-189. Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt. 1902, pp. 379-416. 1 Leake, Topography of Athens, 1821, pp. xii, 282-284. Hill, A.J.A. 1912, pp. 535-558. 6 Ross, Arch. Aufs. I, pp. 82-117, 127-141; I I , pp. 285-286. 6 Leake, Topography1, I, pp. 554-556; Penrose, Athenian Architecture1, pp. 17-18, 73-75, pl. I X , X X X I V , X L ; Beulé, Acropole d'Athènes, I I , pp. 5 - 1 3 ; Strack, Arch. Zeit. 1862, pp. 241-245, pl. C L X C L X I ; Michaelis, Parthenon, pp. 112-113, 119-123; Burnouf, Legende athénienne, pp. 53-61; Ville et Acropole d'Athènes, pp. 164, 176, 179-181, 183-184; Penrose, Athenian Architecture2, pp. 18-20, 98-102, 116-118, pl. 9, 46; J.ll.S. 1891, pp. 275-297; 1892, pp. 32-47. All these writers, of course, were in error in one respect; the Older Parthenon was not the old finished temple of Athena burnt by the Persians, to which Hesychius seems to have referred. And Burnouf even claimed that the marble drums in the north wall were extra blocks from the Periclean structure (Ville et Acropole, p. 184). 7 Already in his first discussions of the poros temple {Ath. Mitt. 1885, pp. 275, 277; 1886, p. 165; 1887, p. 45; Ant. Denk. I , pl. 1), DBrpfeld had outlined his Kimonian theory of the Older Parthenon. 1 3

408 T H E ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

THE DATE OP THE OLDER PARTHENON

409

early buildings a n d sculptures which he regarded as those destroyed b y t h e Persians, accompanied b y potsherds of which m a n y were red-figured a n d therefore agreed with a d a t e early in t h e fifth c e n t u r y for this débris. 1 R e g a r d i n g all this material as " P e r s e r s c h u t t , " it seemed obvious t h a t it m u s t h a v e been deposited a t some t i m e a f t e r 480 B.C., t h o u g h before t h e age of Pericles, a n d so p r e s u m a b l y during t h e political supremacy of K i m o n , while building t h e great south wall. 2 T h e physical relationship showed t h a t t h e P a r t h e n o n f o u n d a t i o n m u s t in a n y case have a n t e d a t e d t h e south wall b y an u n k n o w n period of t i m e ; D o r p f e l d suggested t h a t it was begun shortly a f t e r t h e b a n i s h m e n t of Themistokles in 471 B.C., a n d such a d a t e won general acceptance. 3 M o r e exactly, F o u c a r t preferred 469 B.c. because of his reading of t h e S t r a s b o u r g P a p y r u s . 4 K o p p descended even f a r t h e r , to 454 B.C.5 F u r t w a n g l e r offered merely a variation in t h a t he preferred t o regard Themistokles as t h e builder, in 479 B.C.,6 a view which D o r p f e l d recognized as not impossible. 7 Of those who wrote a t this time, only Penrose adhered to t h e older view t h a t t h e Older P a r t h e n o n was pre-Persian. (II) I n 1902, however, Michaelis published his article on t h e 'Apxaîos News, arguing t h a t a reference t o such a s t r u c t u r e a p p a r e n t l y d a t i n g f r o m a b o u t 506 B.c. implied t h a t t h e r e were already at this early period two temples of A t h e n a on t h e Acropolis, one of t h e m being a hypothetical Older E r e c h t h e u m . B u t Dorpfeld, who rightly looked with suspicion u p o n t h e " O l d e r E r e c h t h e u m , " now reviewed t h e evidence bearing on t h e Older P a r t h e n o n and argued t h a t it, too, could be t h r u s t back as f a r as 506 B.C.8 His most i m p o r t a n t evidence was t h e resurrection of t h e d a t a furnished b y Ross concerning t h e b u r n t Persian débris a n d t h e traces of fire on t h e f o u n d a t i o n a n d column d r u m s ; a f t e r verifying these traces of a conflagration, D o r p feld r e t u r n e d t o t h e earlier t h e o r y t h a t t h e Older P a r t h e n o n h a d been destroyed b y fire in 480 B.C. A reexamination of t h e old p h o t o g r a p h s a n d sketches of 1888—the resulting sectional reconstruction of the s t r a t a (compare Fig. 1—after t h e lapse of f o u r t e e n years, being in itself a r e m a r k a b l e feat) showed t h a t t h e fill c o n t e m p o r a r y with t h e f o u n d a t i o n lacked b u r n t Persian débris a n d so a n t e d a t e d 480 B.C. F r o m these facts it would h a v e been n a t u r a l , a n d probably sufficient, to draw t h e inference t h a t t h e Older P a r t h e n o n h a d been commenced a short t i m e before 480 B.C., n a m e l y , immediately a f t e r t h e b a t t l e of M a r a t h o n in 490 B.C. B u t Dorpfeld went f a r t h e r . F o r he deduced two facts, either of which seemed a d e q u a t e evidence, b u t when combined a p p e a r e d t o f o r m irresistible proof, t h a t t h e Older P a r t h e n o n h a d passed t h r o u g h two building periods, with a change of plan which suggested a longer d u r a t i o n a n d a more n o t a b l e interruption t h a n could be f o u n d within t h e decade 1

Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt. 1888, pp. 106, 224, 431-435; 1892, pp. Ifi2, 187. 2 Ibid., 1892, pp. 188-189. Wolters, quoted in Graef, Vasen der Akropolis, I, p. xxiv (written about 1888) ; Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp. 467-470; Botticher, Akropolis, pp. 88, 91, 97-99; Miller, A.J.A. 1893, pp. 520-521; Graef, Jb. Arch. I. 1893, Anz., 15; Curtius, Stadtgesch. v. Athen, pp. 127-133; Beloch, Gr. Gesch.11, p. 583; Middleton, Plans and Drawings of Athenian Buildings, pp. 4-7, nos. 55, 57, 83, 103, 112, 120, p. 12 E, pl. I, II, X I I I ; F r a z e r , Pausanias,H,p. 306; Ed. Meyer, Forschungen zur alt. Gesch. II, p. 97, n. 1; Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis, pp. 81-107; Michaelis, Jb. 5 Arch. I. 1902, p. 12. > Foucart, Hev. phil. 1903, pp. 7-8. Kopp, Jb. Arch. I. 1890, p. 270. 6 Furtwangler, MeiMerwerke, pp. 162-168; Masterpieces, pp. 419-423; Busolt, Gr. Gesch.1 I l l 1, pp. 359-360; Diimmler, in Pauly-Wissowa, II, 1953-1954; Gardner, Ancient Athens, pp. 210-213. 7 Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt. 1897, pp. 167-168. »Cf. A J . A. 1932, pp. 307 ff„ and p. 311, n. 3. 3

410

WILLIAM B E L L DINSMOOR

I ® 1 ? a 55 W S * fc.«» Of 0 S ^ H 53 § « 02 . » 5 g