The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 4

part of Sparta, 354
" " Road from Booneta to Limnaion, Sparta, 365
" " Akropolis, Sparta, 368
Bull in a fresco at Tiryns, 374
Bull from tomb at Gizeh, Egypt, 376
Bull from Presse d'Avennes, 376
Egyptian vintage scene, Gizeh, 377
Bull on Vaphio Cup, 378
Hyponomos in the theatre at Sicyon, plans and sections, 389
End of conduit, etc., in theatre, Sicyon, 394
Two stone blocks, theatre, Sicyon, 406
Section of wall AA, Sicyon, 308
Plan of circular building, Sparta, 411
Section through wall, Sparta, 415
Enlarged plan of poros blocks, Sparta, 418
Some poros blocks in detail, Sparta, 420
View of walls, Sparta, 426
Plan of Excavations between Schenochori and Kontzopodi, 430
The Pelargikon restored, 489
The serpent (Echidna) in the poros pediment, Akropolis, Athens, 497
Page xii
COPYRIGHT, 1893, BY A.L. FROTHINGHAM, JR., AND ALLAN MARQUAND.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Page 1

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCH?OLOGY.
Vol. VIII. JANUARY-MARCH, 1893. No. I.

THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.
The excavations conducted by the Greek Arch?ological Society at Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886, Kabbadias and D?rpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century B.C. were decided once for all.[1] On these points little or nothing can be added to what has been done, and D?rpfeld's results must be accepted as final and certain.
[Footnote 1: D?RPFELD, Preliminary Report, Mitth. Ath., X, p. 275; Plans and restorations, Antike Denkm?ler, I, pls. 1, 2; Description and discussion, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 337.]
The history of the temple presents, however, several questions, some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built? Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions Page 2 have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first question has received one and the same answer from all. The material and the technical execution of the peripteros, entablature, etc., of the temple show conclusively that this part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos.[2] We may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the peripteros. These differences lead D?rpfeld to assume that the naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle) existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not deny the possibility that builders of one date may have employed different materials and methods, as convenience or economy dictated.[3] Positive proof is not to be hoped for in the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is in favor of D?rpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than the peristyle, etc.[4] It is further certain, that this temple was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to Ecat?mpedon]( see below p. 9). So far, we have the most positive possible evidence--that of the remains of the temple itself and the inscription giving its name. The evidence regarding the subsequent history of the temple is not so simple.
[Footnote 2: D?RPFELD, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 349.]
[Footnote 3: Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 345.]
[Footnote 4: On the other hand, see PETERSEN, Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 66.]
D?rpfeld (Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406; (3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias reads in our texts:--[Greek: Lelectai de moi kai proteron (17.1), ?s Athenaiois perissoteron ti e tois allois es ta theia esti spoudes, pr?toi men gar Athenan eponomasan Erganen pr?toi d'ac?lous Ermas... omou de sphisin en t? na? Spoudai?n daim?n estin.] D?rpfeld marks a lacuna between [Greek: Ermas] and Page 3 [Greek; omou], as do those editors who do not supply a recommendation. D?rpfeld, however, thinks the gap is far greater than has been supposed, including certainly the mention and probably the full description of the temple under discussion. His reasons are in substance about