The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 8

of the temple was restored. D?RPFELD, p. 425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained until the erection of the Erechtheion.]
This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully discussed by D?rpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts without further discussion all points which seem to me to have been definitively settled by them.
Page 9 Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of the greater part (republished by D?rpfeld) is clear at least in a general way. The [Greek: tamiai] are to make a list of certain objects on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The servants of the temple, priests, etc., are to follow certain rules or be punished by fines. The [Greek: tamiai] are to open in person the doors of the chambers in the temple. These rules would not concern us except for the fact that the various parts of the building are mentioned. The whole building is called [Greek: to Ecatompedon]; parts of it are the [Greek: proneion], the [Greek: ne?s], the [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: ta oikemata]. There can be no doubt that these are respectively the eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and the two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most important of all is the fact that the whole building was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to Ekatompedon.]. The word [Greek: opisthodomos] does not occur in the inscription, and we cannot tell whether the western half of the building was called opisthodomos in the sixth century or not. Very likely it was.
Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that [Greek: to Ecatompedon] is the [Greek: ne? o Ecatompedos] often mentioned in the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] and elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the [Greek: ve?s o Ecatompedos]. Lolling maintains that the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, that the western room of the Parthenon was the opisthodomos, and that the [Greek: ne?s o Ecatompedos], was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name [Greek: Ecatompedon] or [Greek: ne? o Ekatompedos], Lolling thinks the pre-Persian temple was also called [Greek: archaios (palaios) ne?s].[18] D?rpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, the western part of the Page 10 "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the [Greek: ne?s o Ekatompedos], leaving the question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called [Greek: to Ecatompedon] in the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference in the expressions [Greek: to Ecatompedon] and [Greek: o ne?s o Ecatompedos].[19] Both Lolling and D?rpfeld agree that the [Greek: prone?s] of the inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon.[20]
[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the [Greek: archaios ne?s] of the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] CIA, II, 753, 758 (cf. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same inscriptions the [Greek: epistatai] of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that [Greek: archaios ne?s] means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.]
[Footnote 19: Mitth., xv, p. 427 ff.]
[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression [Greek: en t? ne? t? Ecatomped?] could not be used of a part of a building of which [Greek: prone?s] and [Greek: Parthen?n] were parts, i.e., that a part of a temple could not be called [Greek: ne?s]. Yet in the inscription published by Lolling the [Greek: proneion] and the [Greek: ne?s] are mentioned in apparent contradistinction to [Greek: apan to Ecatompedon]. It seems, as D?rpfeld says, only natural that the [Greek: ne?s] should belong to the same building as the [Greek: prone?s].]
Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed over by one board of [Greek: tamiai] to the next (Ueberyab-Urkunden or "transmission-lists") are parts of a statue of Athena with a base and a [Greek Nike] and a shield [Greek: en t? Ekatomped?]. The material of this statue is gold and ivory. The only gold and ivory statue of Athena on the Acropolis was, so far as is known, the so-called Parthenos of Pheidias. Those inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos stood in the Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that