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

" " " | | XII.--Map of the Excavations at
the Argive Heneum,|
XIII.--Hyponomos and Stage of the Theatre, Sicyon, 388-409
XIV.--Cloister of S. John Lateran, Rome, 437-447
XV.--Plan of the Akropolis at Athens, | | XVI.--Sections of the
Akropolis Excavations,| |- 473-556 XVII.--Herakles and the Old Man
of the Sea, | | XVIII.--Figure of Athena from a pediment, |
Page xi

FIGURES.
Bull on a Babylonian contract tablet, 190
Fac-simile of Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 192
General Sketch-plan of Sparta, 338
Sketch-plan of the Agora, Sparta, 341
" " Street called Apheta, Sparta, 345
" " Skias Street, Sparta, 349
" " Western 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 ARCHÆOLOGY.
Vol. VIII. JANUARY-MARCH, 1893. No. I.

THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.
The excavations conducted by the Greek Archæological 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 Dörpfeld 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 Dörpfeld's results must be accepted
as final and certain.
[Footnote 1: DÖRPFELD, Preliminary Report, Mitth. Ath., X, p. 275;
Plans and restorations, Antike Denkmäler, 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 Dörpfeld 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
Dörpfeld'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 Ecatômpedon]( 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: DÖRPFELD, 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.]
Dörpfeld (Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the following
conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the departure of the
Persians; (2) it