Destruction and Memory on the Athenian Acropolis

Rachel Kousser

Thc Parthenon, constructed between 447 and 432 BCE onthe Athenian Acropolis, stands as tile most lavish, technically

refined, and Programmatically cohesive temple on the Greekinainland, a fitting commemoration of the Athenians' spec-tacular and unex p ected victories in the Persian Wars (Fig. 1).The immense, all-marble structure was designed around acolossal statue of Athena Parthenos, depicted by the sculptorPicidias fully armed, and with an image of the goddess ofvictory, Nike, alighting on her left hand (Fig. 2). In its archi-tectural sculpture as well, the Parthenon repeatedly alludedto the iGreeks' struggle against the Persians, for instance,thri(gh famous mythological contests: battles between menan(I centaurs, Athenians and Amazons, Greeks and Trojans,gods and giants.

An intlriguing but rarely noted feature of these battle nar-ratives is that they combine images of effortless victory withthose of valiant but unmistakable defeat. The Parthenon'ssouth nielopes, for example, included not only scenes of mentriumphing over centaurs but also images of these humanprotagonists caught, wounded, or trampled to death by theirbestial opponents (Fig. 3). So, too, on the west metopes andthe shield of'Athena Parthenos, we see dead Athenians as wellas dead Amazons (Figs. 4, 5). These scenes of loss, althoughneglected by scholars, were in fact critical to the Parthenon'svisual program; they represented, through the distancingguise of myth, the price paid in human suffering for theachievement of Gireek victory.

Scholars have often stressed the thematic importance ofthe lersian Wars of 490 and 480-479 BCE fbr the art ofClassical Athens, above all, for the Periklean building pro-grain on the Acropolis.' But they have not paid sufficientattention to the Athenians' most direct experience of thewars: the destruction of their city's major sanctuaries by thePtersians in 1801 BCE 2 and the sack of the entire polis in 479.

The visual program of the Parthenon, shot through withscenes of suftering and loss, suggests the merit of reexamin-ing ihe temple in these terms. So does the building's site, onthe Ac ropolis-indeed, on the very foundations of an earlierteiple (destroy'ed by the Persians.

11 is thus heuristically useful to consider the Parthenon asa response to the ancient world's most fanlious-and notori-o(ls-act of iconoclasm. At the same time, it is important toshow how this response was neither inevitable nor easilyachiewvd. It was instead the culmination of a lengthy process,one that is rarely studied, but worth our attention, because ithelps to illuminate the end result. This process includes aseries of Athenian responses to the Persian sack, from thereuse of architecutral fragments in the citadel walls to thesculptural program of the Periklean Parthenon. As the dis-play of danaged objects gave way to reworkings of the storywithin the timeless world of myth, the memory of the sackbecanie increasingly divorced from its historical foundation.'

This analysis of the Parthenon and its antecedents has alsoa broader significance as part of the history of Orientalism, atopic of much recent interest for scholars of Classical Greece.Philologists have researched the use of Orientalist tropes invarious literary genres, while art historians have analyzedsuch topics as the depiction of Persians in Greek art,' thereception of Achaemenid material culture in Athens,7 andrepresentations of the Persian Wars in public Athenian mon-uments., One hitherto neglected area of inquiry has been theinterconnections between Orientalism and iconoclasm. Thedestruction of an enemy's sanctuaries was commonplace inancient warfare, and had been practiced by Greeks as well asPersians. Yet following the Acropolis sack, such iconoclasticactivity came to be seen as a paradigmatic example of "Ori-ental" impiety and violence. This consistent and highly influ-ential theme of Orientalist discourse originated in the EarlyClassical period and culminated in the Periklean Parthenon.

The significance of this discourse is twofold. To begin with,it is critical for oui interpretation of the Parthenon, whichmust be understood as a response to the destruction-thedesecration-of the Archaic Acropolis sanctuary and its im-ages. In this way, it is connected to a series of Orientalistmonuments and texts from Early Classical Greece and adoptstheir previously established narrative strategies (for instance,the use of mythological analogies for the Persians), albeit ina more comprehensive and far-reaching manner. Seen froman Orientalist perspective, the Parthenon therefore appearsless as a unique, unprecedented monument than as part of awell-established tradition, in which works of art helped topreserve and transform the memory of the Persian sack for anAthenian audience. This allows us to appreciate more fullythe debts to history of this "timeless" monument.!

The Athenians' extremely effective presentation of theAcropolis sack as a typically barbaric act has also had significant long-term consequences for scholarship in the historyof art. As Zainab Bahrani has argued, "Aligning themselveswith the ancient Greeks, [scholars] see the mutilation andtheft of statues as a barbaric act of violence."") And theirconclusions have been shaped bv Orientalist Greek texts andmonuments, rather than relevant Near Eastern sources:

not only have stereotypes been utilized in the interpreta-tion of this [iconoclastic] practice, but a privileging of onetype of ancient text over all others has also aided in itsperception as a "senseless" act of violence, and thus servesthe purposes of the Orientalist model by validating two ofits main abstractions as defined by [Edward] Said: Orien-tal violence and Oriental despotism.t '

This has complicated the interpretation of Near Eastern icon-oclasm, obscuring its connection to deep-seated beliefs re-garding the close relation between image and prototype.

264 ARI BIL I IIN SEPI F.MBER 20109 V1OIA ME XCI NUMBER 3

1 Temple of Athena Parthenos,Acropolis, Athens, 447-432 BCE(photograph FA6523-0_2100006,1,provided by the Forschungsarchiv fuirAntike Plastik, K61n)

A like attitnute has had a similarly problematic effect oil

classical scholarship. It has discouraged the analysis of icon-oclasnu in Helle,nic culthUe, although well-documented inci-dents such as the mutilation of the herms in Athens in 415

BCE during the Peloponnesian Wars demonstrate its signifi-

cance for the (.reeks. But the discourse on iconoclasmprescrved in Hlellenic literarv sources--in which it is always

the work of barbarians or social deviants--has allowed schol-

ars to characterize the destruction of images in Greek cultureas a limited and marginal phenomenon, unworthy of study.In so doing, historians of classical art have arbitrarily closed

offa potentially fruitful avenue of approach to their topic. Yetthe study of, Hellenic iconoclasm has important implicationsfo, the role of the image in (;reek society.

The Acropolis in 480 BCE: Siege and DestructionTo understand the significance of the Persian sack for the

Athenians, it is necessary to consider first the functions and

topography of the Acropolis. This rocky outcrop south of theArchaic city center had been inhabited from Mycenean timesonward, and by 480 BCE was both the site of the Athenians'most important temples and dedications and a well-fortifiedcitadel."" On this prominent, highly visible site were located

two major buildings. To the north stood the Late ArchaicTemple of Athena Polias, which housed a revered olive-wood

statue of the goddess, so old that the Athenians believed ithad fallen from heaven."' To the south was an all-marble

temple (the so-called Older Parthenon), likely initiated afterthe first Persian War in 490 BCE, and still under construction;at the time of the sack, the building reached only to theheight of the third column drum.' 5 Besides these majortemples, the site accommodated a number of more modest

but still significant constructions: a monumental ramp and

gateway to the Acropolis,' a great altar,17 a shrine to AthenaNike,'1 and a series of small-scale buildings generally identi-fied as sacred treasuries, whose architectural adornment has

1)F STRUC(T ON \N1 MEMORRY ON 11E ATFHENI AN A( ROPOI 1, 265

been preserved but whose foundations have not survived, dueto later rebuilding on the site. 9

Comnplenmenting this architectural ensemble was an impres-Sive population of statues and other votive dedications. Bestknown are the korai, which numbered at least fifty at the timeof the sack (Figs. 6, 8)):2 there were also a series of equestrianstatues, like the Rampin Rider, as well as victory monuments,such as the dedication of Kallimachos, which likely commem-orated this military leader's role in the Athenian victory atMarathon in 490 BCE.21 Such costly marble statues were most(Iften set uip) by the wealthy, but we have as well more humblevotives: bhlack- and red-figure vases, terracotta reliefs, bronzefigurines, and cult equipment. 22 As even this brief list ofmonuments suggests, the maps and models of the Late Ar-chaic Acropolis are thus somewhat misleading. In addition tothe ma•lor buildings they show, we have to imagine a spaceCraninied with objects of all sorts, everywhere; this was for theAthenians tihe best way to pay tribute to the numinous powerthat sutfitsed the entire site.

These buildings and monuments offer abundant testimonyto the sacred character of the Late Archaic Acropolis. Yetalthough the Athenians themselves, arid, subsequently, mod-crn scholars, have tended to focus on this aspect, the site'sstrategOic importance in 4801 BCE is also clear. In fact, this dual

nature of the Acropolis-as both citadel and sanctuary23•-

helps to explain the thoroughness of the Persians' destruc-tion of the site and, at the satne time, the vehemence of theAthenians' response to it.

In 480, the Acropolis was fortified all around with ancient

atnd imposing walls, constructed of immense, irregularlyshaped boulders, which identifies them as Mycenean in ori-gin (Fig. 7) .24 Within these ancient walls, augmented at thetop by new wooden palisades, the defenders of Athens madetieir last stand against the Persians. The story is given in

I let(rdotos, who provides our only extensive account of the

Persiatn sack; his description, moreover, can be corroboratedat nmany points by the archaeological evidence. 25 According

to I lterodotos, the defenders of the citadel were few in num-ber, since most Athenians had agreed to abandon the city;

following the plan of' their general, Themistokles, they hadsailed to the nearby island of Salamis and staked their hopeso0l a naval victory. 21 ' But those who remained in Athens putlit) a valiant defense, manring the walls and rolling downboulders onto the oncoming Persians. 2 7 Their defenses failedat last only because the Persians came tip the difficult eastside of tIle Acropolis, which the Athenians had left unguard-ed. 25 T,hC defellders, overwhelined, threw themselves off thecitadel walls or sought sanctuary in the Temple of AthenaPolias, where they were massacred by the Persians.29 The newmasters of the citadel tore down the walls, then plunderedand set fire to the buildings within.

It is inmportant to stress that this was, in terms of wartimestrategy, atn eminently sensible decision by the Persians. TheAcropolis had served as Athens's citadel from Myceneantities onward; it was a well-fortified and defensible militarysite, not just a collection of temples. Given that the Persiansdid not intend toi use it themselves, they were well advised todestioy it, lest it prove again a formidable base of operations

for the Athenians.

I towever, the Persians in 480 went far beyond what might

2 Allen LeQuire, after Pheidias, reconstruction of AthenaParthenos. Nashville Parthenon, Tennessee (photographcopyright the Metropolitan Government of Nashville/GarvLayda 2004)

be considered militarily useful. As the archaeological remainstestify, they not only destroyed the citadel's walls-whichwere, from a strategic point of view, the logical target-butalso burned the temples, tore down their architectural adorn-ment, attacked statues, overturned reliefs, smashed pots.:""Although recent scholars have correctly challenged the tra-ditional view (in which all damage to Archaic material wasautomatically attributed to the vindictive Persians), enoughevidence remains to suggest that this was a quite impressivelNthoroughgoing and targeted effort. ,

The damage wrought by the Persians can be clearly seen intheir treatment of statues. To begin with, it is useful toconsider the monument of Kallimachos mentioned above,with an inscribed column topped by a sculpted figure of Nikeor possibly Iris, messenger of the gods.1 '2 About sixteen and ahalf feet (five ineters) tall and set up in a prominent locationnortheast of the Older Parthenon, it was a highly visiblecelebration of the lopsided Athenian victory over the Persiansat Marathon; according to Herodotos, 6,400 Persians per-ished in the battle to 192 Athenians.:' Kallimachos's monu-ment appears to have attracted particular attention duringthe Acropolis sack. The inscribed column was broken into

266 ARI BU! AII IN SEP'I"EMBER 2009 VOI' ME XCI NUMBER I

3 South metope 28 of the Parthenon,Athens. British Museum, London(artwork in the public domain;photograph © The Trustees of theBritish Museum)

more than one hundred pieces, while the statue had its facesmashed and its body cut in two.

Elsewhere on the Acropolis, mutilated statues proliferate.One kore had her head, feet, and arms broken off; her bodywas also cut ofl at the knees-modern restoration has lefttraces of the ancient action visible-and the torso attacked,notably around the breasts and buttocks (Fig. 8). To judgefrom the long, narrow scars, this was done with an ax.:) Thehead of another kore was likewise attacked with an ax, whosemarks are visible particularly in a long cut to the back of thehead, made as though to split the skull.'1 ,5 These are only themost obvious cases; other statues manifest traces of burning,their surfaces pitted with small black marks or signs of ther-mal fracture analogous to those seen in the columin drums ofthe Older Parthenon. 36 Or the noses, cheeks, or chins havebeen smashed with what looks like a hammer or mallet (Fig.6); on male statues, the same weapon seems often to havebeen turned against their genitalia.37

Recently, scholars have argued that the destructiveness ofthe Persian sack has been exaggerated, and that more allow-ance should be made for accident and for later Athenianactions. It is, of course, reasonable to see some injuries asaccidental. The heads, artns, and feet of statues are necessar-ily fragile and tend to break ofI, even without iconoclasticeffort. Other in juries are harder to explain in this way-breaks at the waist, one of the thickest and most solid parts ofsculptures"--and many bear traces of human effort, such asthe ax and hammer marks described above. It has beenproposed that the Athenians themselves might have in juredsome Archaic sculptures to desacralize them before burial-beheading them as a form of"quasi-ritual 'killing' "-bbut this

seems to me unlikely.' 0 As close observation of the statuesshows, the damage follows predictable patterns, and themarks of beheading are congruent with those observed onsculptures clearly attacked by the Persians, as on the Acrop-olis kore attacked with an axe (Fig. 8). They are also congru-ent with material that can be associated with Persian attackson other cities, and more broadly with attacks on statueselsewhere in the Ancient Near East.4' I would therefore seethe broken, battered, and beheaded statues of the ArchaicAcropolis as predominantly Persian, not Athenian, handi-work.

An illuminating contrast may be drawn between the Acrop-olis statues injured by the Persians and the grave monumentstaken down and reused by the Athenians to rebuild their citywall in 479 BCE.42 Some scholars have sought to read thereworking and reuse of these grave monuments as highlymotivated, whether as the defacement of the images of theold aristocracy by the new postwar democrats or as the en-listment of powerful heroic ancestors in defense of the city. 4

3

Catherine Keesling has suggested that in some cases, at least,faces were obliterated in order to deprive the statues of their"power prior to incorporation in the wall.4' Close observa-tion of the sculptures, however, casts doubt on these theories.While the Acropolis statues were injured in a manner thatmight have been directed toward live human beings-throatsslit, hands and feet cut off-the grave monuments appearmore arbitrarily and pragmatically altered. For reliefs, pro-jecting surfaces were smoothed down (such as National Mu-seum, Athens, inv. nos. 5826, 2687), and monuments in theround were lopped and trimmed to approximate, insofar aspossible, foursquare blocks (such as Kerameikos Museum,

DESTRUCTION AND MEMORN ON IHE ATIIINIAN ACROPOLIS 267

4 West Melope 13 of the Parthenon, showing an Amazon (onhorseback) attacking a fallen Athenian (drawing by Marion(ox, artwork © John Boardman)

5 Shield of Athena Partlheinos showing a battle betweenAtlhenians and Amazons, with a (lead Athenian and a deadAimazon a( the base of the shield (drawing by E. B. Harrison,arlwork © E. B. Harrison)

Athens, iiv. no. P 1052)."ý' In both cases, the sculptures weretrcaled in a manner designed to enhance their usefulnesswithiun their new setting: the Themistoklean wall, rebuilt inhaste by the Athenians just after the conclusion of the PersianWars."'ý The grave monuments from the lower city of Athens

thus furnishi a useful example of the pragmatic despoliationand reuse of images, whereas the Acropolis sculptures exem-

plif• the programmatic mutilation of works of art.4 7

6 Kore from the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 520-510 BCE, foundin a cache of 14 statues near the Erechtheion. AcropolisMuseum, Athens, 670 (artwork in the public domain;photograph provided by Werner Forman/Art Resource)

On the Acropolis, the attacks on sculptures, and the de-struction of the sanctuarv more broadly, must have de-manded lengthy and painstaking effort. Why was it necessarv?To answer this question, one should begin by stressing thatAthens was not the only city to suffer such an attack at thehands of the Persians. Their invading armies had destroyed aswell, for example, temples of Apollo at Eretria, Abae, andDidyma.41 So, too, we know that the Persians attacked or

268 ARI BLIL I.EI+N S TLNEI BEM R 2009 N\i01tiMV XCI N -l BER \ t

7 A stretch of Mycenaean wall incorporated into that of theClassical Propylaea, late 13th centuly BCE. Acropolis, Athens(photograph provided by.]. M. Hurwit)

abducted images in a number of cities: the statue of ArtemisBraurnonia from Brauron, of Apollo fr om Didyma, and ofMardcukk frnom Babylon; ý" from Athens itself, they took the firstversion of the Tyrannicides monument, subsequently re-turned fi-om Susa to its place in the Athenian Agora byAlexander the Great or one of the Seleucids.50 The Persianactivity in Athens could be taken to be part of a broadercultural practice, which has been documented as well forother ancient Near Eastern cultures, such as the Medes,Babylonians, and Elanrites.'5 As Bahrani has pointed out,these incidents were by no means random.' Rather, theytestiFy to the widespread ancient Near Eastern belief that theimage could function as a substitute, an uncanny double, forthe person or god represented; therefore, damage to theimage could injure the prototype also, even beyond thegrave.

Although such convictions were denigrated, or even re-jected, in Greek philosophical speculation, they can fre-quently be discerned in Panhellenic myth as well as localreligious practices.5' They appear, for example, in the mythof the Abduction of the Palladion, in which Odysseus andDiomedes abduct the statue of Pallas Athena that protects

8 Kore attacked by the Persians, with ax marks on the torso.Acropolis Musetunm, Athens, 595 (artwork in the publicdomain; photograph provided by the Acropolis Museum)

Troy; only then can the city be taken. This popular mythindicates that the Greeks also found a powerful connectionbetween the physical form of the statue and the god it rep-resented.) So does the Greek practice of chaining downpotentially wayward statues, regularly attested in the literarysources, as well as the frequent resort to dolls inhabited byspirits in magic rites.55 And historical incidents-such as theminutilation of the herms during the Peloponnesian Wars, 56 orthe destruction of the portraits of Philip V and his ancestorsin 200 BCE 57V-demonstrate that later Athenians at least werewell aware of the powerful effects such iconoclastic acts couldhave, for good or ill. What is distinctive in Greek attitudestoward iconoclasm seems to be the manner in which it wasboth practiced and problematized--often typed as barbaricor deviant, yet recurrent in Hellenic culture.

1t consequently seems reasonable to assume that theGreeks recognized and understood the motivations behindlie Persian sack of the Acropolis. Indeed, their own previous

aclions may have constituted a concrete historical precedenttor it. According to I lerodotos (5.102), the Persians justified

thein attack as retaliation For Athens's involvement in the sackof the Persian plrovincial capital Sa dis, including the destruc-tion of the temple of Cybele there, in 499.'8 Notoriety hasattached itself to the Persian sack of the Athenian Acropolis,rather than, say, Sardis or Eretria, not because it was unusualat the time hot because of the extraordinary ways in which theAlhenians chose to commemorate it; their actions thus meritscrutiny next.

Initial Athenian Responses, 479-447 BCE: Ruins, Relics,and Ritual BurialFollowing their final victory over the Persians at the Battle ofPlataia in 479, the Athenians returned to their city to con-front a desolate landscape of hbroken statues and smoke-scarred temp)les. As is well known, they did not undertake alarge-scale rebuilding of the temples on the Acropolis untilthe initiation of the Parthenon in 447, some thirty yearslater."'9 In the interval, they were by no means inactive.Rathiir, they engaged in a number of commemorative prac-tic'es-creating, in cssence, ruins, relics, and ritual burials-whose' traces in the landscape were significant for the devel-opin(rit of the citadel latcr on. These practices have also theirown inherent interest, as a series of attempts by the Atheniansto (oitic to terins with, to represent, and sometimes to con-ccal the trannma of the Persian sack. In this way, they help toillustrate the workings of the collective memory of the Athe-nians in the Early Classical period. The commemorative ac-tiots took two forms: practices involving the damaged terrainof the Acriopolis itself, and Early Classical representations ofthe Persian Wars in literature and art. Taken together, theyshow the nianner in which the destruction of monumentsbegan to be depictcd by the Greeks as exclusively, and char-actcristically, barbaric-a paradigmatic example of the Per-sians' capacity for senseless violence. Typed as somethingG;reeks did not do, iconoclasm became "other," a develop-nicut with important consecquences for the future.

In recent years, scholars have paid particular attention tothe question of which monuments, precisely, were destroyedby the Persians.ý"" Beginning with Jeffrey Hurwit in 1989,ihese scholars have reexamined the evidence for the destruc-lion layer on the Acropolis (the so-called Perserschutt); theemphasis has been on using archaeological evidence to iden-fily which deposits consisted solely of Archaic material andwhich were mixed, incorporating sculptures of later date also.The goal has been to elucidate, with greater precision, thechrlonological development of Greek sculpture; this has beenmost recently and thoroughly carried out by Andrew Stew-

While my research is much indebted to these scholars, myappro)ach and aims are difierent. I draw on a wider range ofcvidetice (including historical and epigraphic sources as wellas archacolohgy) to analyze the Athenians' interventions onthe Acrtopolis during the Early Classical period; my focus is onthe varied strategies they adopted in order to come to termswith the Persian sack. In consequence, I have paid more

DESTRI CTION AND MEMORY ON itHE AIHEN1IAN ACROPOLIS 269

attention to the architectural remains, whether left in ruins orused as spolia. At the same time, I have concentrated on thosemonuments that are demonstrably Archaic in date and thatwere therefore available to the Persians at the time of thesack.62 They seem to me to offer the clearest and mostconcrete evidence for what the Athenians did in response tothe Persians' actions.

Let us begin with what was, significantly, not done, that is,with the temples left in ruins. Taken together, the literary,epigraphic, and archaeological evidence suggests that thetemples on the Acropolis remained virtually as tie Persianshad left them, with the possible exception of some shoring upof the Temple of Athena Polias."" The treatment of theruined temples constituted the most notable of the commem-orative practices adopted by the Athenians and must havehad the most far-reaching impact on the inhabitants' livedexperience. After all, in the Archaic period, these had beenthe preeminent religious buildings of Athens and the culmi-nation of the most important festival, the Panathenaia."4

They continued to preside over acts of worship-the very dayafter the sack, the Persian King Xerxes had his Athenianfollowers carry out sacrifices on the Acr opolis65'-and it musthave been quite striking for the Athenians to conduct theirobsequies among ruins, for a period of thirty years.""(• Even forthose who rarely ventured to the citadel, there wotld havebeen indications of the destruction in Athens's skyline. TheArchaic temples of the Acropolis were substantial, promi-nently placed buildings, and the largest among them, theTemple of Athena Polias, must have been visible from afar,just as the Parthenon is today. And then they were gone.Especially in the immediate aftermath of the sack, the ab-sence of these familiar landmarks must itself have repre-sented a kind of presence, a constant reminder of what wasno longer there.

Such reminders were, it should be said, by no meansrestricted to Athens. Even in the second century CE (that is,some six hundred years after the Persian Wars), the Greektravel writer Pausanias claimed he saw temples scarred by thePersians: the Temple of Hera on Samos, of Athena at Pho-caea, of Hera on the road to Phaleron, of Demeter atPhaleron, of Apollo at Abae, and all the temples in theterritory of Haliartus."77

Later literary sources, and most modern scholars, haveexplained these ruined temples with reference to oaths swornby the Greeks, most famously, in the case of Athens, the muchdebated "Oath of Plataia." According to the late-fourth-cen-tury Athenian orator Lykourgos, the Greeks fighting at theBattle of Plataia in 479 BCE promised that "of all the templesburned and thrown down by the barbarians I will rebuildnone, but I will leave them as a memorial for future genera-tions of the impiety of the barbarians" (Against Leokrates 81 ). bA similar oath was sworn by the lonians, according toIsokrates, an earlier-fourth-century orator (Panegvricus 155-57). The Plataia Oath is also given, with some alterations, bythe first-century BCE historian Diodorus Siculus (11.29.3-4),and Pausanias (10.35.2) explains the ruined temples at Abaeand Phaleron in analogous terms during the Roman period.There thus arose in the fourth century, if not earlier, a veryconsistent and frequently replicated literary discourse linkingthe ruins to memorN, with each smoke-scarred temple func-

27() AR I BUlt IA I IN SE PTIEM BE R 2009 X 0[ 1I XCI N UMISE R :

9 View of a section of wall northwestof the Erechtheion, containing partsof the entablature of the Temple ofAthena Polias, Acropolis, Athens(photograph by the author)

tioning as a memorial (hYpomriema) to Oriental violence andimpiety.

These oaths, although convenient explanations for theruined temples, are problematic, the "Oath of Plataia" pat -

ticularly so. It does not appear in contemporary fifth-centtirvsources; its absence in I-lerodotos, with his very full account ofthe Battle of Plataia, is particularly striking. So, too, thePlataia Oath is given differently on the only other fourth-century source for it, an inscribed stela set up in Acharnae,where the "temples clause" is left out;' ') Athenian accounts ofit were attacked as "falsified" by the fourth-century historianTheopompos:71 and Lykourgos is demonstrably inaccurateon historical questions elsewhere in his speech.7' Finally, inthe case of Athens, at least, the oath was conspicuously vio-lated by the construction of a series of temples from themid-fifth century BCE on, including not only the Parthenonbut also the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion, Nemesis atRhamnous, and Athena at Pallene, all on the sites of Atticsanctuaries destroyed by the Persians.72

Clearly, the written sources on the Plataia Oath are intension with one another, as well as with the archaeologicalevidence. Scholars have struggled to reconcile them, propos-ing, for example, that the oath may have been abrogatedafter the conclusion in about 450 BCE of a final peace treatywith Persia. 73 In support of this theory, some have cited a

passage in Plutarch's Poikles (17), describing what is knownto modern scholars as the Congress Decree. 7 According toPlutarch, this decree of about 450 BCE invited the Greekcities to a meeting in Athens, to discuss, among other mat-ters, "the Greek temples which the barbarians had burnt";when the Spartans refuised to attend, the idea was dropped.The account in Plutarch, if' accurate, could help to justifyAthenian rebuilding at this time; the Athenians could claitnto have sought a Panhellenic solution to the issue of the

destroyed temples before acting unilaterally. However, theauthenticity of the Congress Decree, like that of the PlataiaOath, has frequently been questioned; as it is preserved inonly one source, written over five hundred years after theevent, skepticism is perhaps in order.;'

Therefore, rather than placing stress on a formal Panhel-lenic oath or decree, the existence of which is difficult toprove, I would emphasize instead how the Athenians acted-leaving the temples in ruins for the first thirty years, and thengradually beginning the process of reconstruction, with theParthenon first, then the other temples on the Acropolis, andcontinuing even into the fourth century with sanctuaries suchas that of Apollo Patroos in the Agora. 76 Moreover, it isnoteworthy that these temples, set up to replace the onesdestroyed by the Persians, still coexisted with Monumentsmore visibly connected to the sack. Herodotos, for instance,saw walls scarred by the fires of the Persian sack on theAcropolis, and Pausanias recorded blackened and batteredstatues of Athena there as well.7' It is even possible that theback room of the Temple of Athena Polias survived the sackand was shored up enough to be used until the Erechtheion,a small Ionic temple, was completed at the end of the fifthcentury BCE; this, at any rate, is suggested by inscriptions thatrefer to precious offerings stored in the "Opisthodomos" (theGreek term for the back room of a temple), and Xenophon'snotice that the "ancient temple of Athena Polias" burneddown only in 406/5 BCE.78

Fragments of the ruined temples were also preserved anddisplayed as part of the rebuilt walls of the citadel (Figs. 9,10). Here we are on more secure ground than with the"Opisthodomos," since besides literary sources putting therebuilt walls in the Early Classical period, we have the archae-ological evidence of the walls themselves and of the excava-tions conducted in association with them. There are two

DESTRUCTION ANI) MEMORN ON TlHE ATIHNIAN ACROI'Ol IS 271

10 View ol a section of wall northeastoff he Ercchtleiion, containingcoltilin druils front tile ()lder

Parteiinon, Acropolis, Althens(photograph by the author)

Ina tjor stretlches of the rebuilt walls with temple fragments:I lie firsl northwest of the present-day Erechtheion, contain-ing parts of the entablature of the Temple of Athena Polias(Fig. 9), and the second northeast of the Erechtheion, incor-porating martle colunn drumns of the Older Parthenon (Fig.I0).

It has been argued that tile reuse of these fragments waspragmatic, anl economical choice in the aftermath of a costlywar,'79 11F1 1 do nIot find this convincing. The fragments aretoo carefully arranged; the stretch northwest of the Erech-heion, ort example, included the architrave, triglyph-

metope frieze, and cornice fronm tile Temple of Athena Po-lias, the blocks arranged just as they would have been on the

ulieple itself. In addition, the fragments appear too unwieldylot- ust' oIl purely pragmatic grounds; the column drums, forexample, weigh seven tons each, and there are twenty-nine oftheem."' Not are the fragments selected those that were best

adapted to building a wall; plenty of plain rectangular blocksiii tile temples were available, but these were not the oneschosenl.l Ihistead, what we see are the most distinctively

Icttplelike architectural fragments, arranged in a mannerthat seems insistently to recall their fbrmer purpose-thecoltmn drunis lined tp in a row, the entablature extended toa distance very close to the length of the original temple.From significant viewing locations within the lower city, suchas the Agora, they are even now highly visible; for EarlyClassical viewers, they would have been yet more striking, asthey originally would have been brightly painted."2

Suich an arrangement, I believe, was not accidental. It was,atlher, a carefully calculated form of commemoration, al-

though its meaning for the Athenians is disputed. It hasrecently eetn interpreted by Hurwit as "a moving display ofruins high above the city of Athens, looming testimony to

Persian sacrilege, all eternal lament."": It is true that the

fragments on display were powerftl because of their directconnection to the Persian sack, because of their, as it were,participation in Athens's suffering. But without denying thesorrowful and commemorative function of the reused mate-rials, I feel it is also important to stress that their incorpora-tion within the walls of the citadel-strong, high, well built-made them equally emblems of power and pride. After all,the war they comimemorated brought suffering to Athens butalso, eventually, victory.

The kind of commemoration displayed in the citadel wallswas appropriate to the period in which they were created,soon after the conclusion of the Persian Wars. Although wecannot pin down the chronology of every section of the wallswith absolute certainty, we have archaeological and architec-tural evidence setting the construction of the relevant sec-tions of the north wall shortly after the war.14 The building ofthe wall came in conjunction with broader efforts to reshapethe landscape of the Acropolis, as terracing helped to pro-duce a more level and larger surface area. Interestingly, it isin the fill of these terraces that we find the great Archaicsculptures of the Acropolis: the pediments of' the AthenaPolias Temple, the freestanding equestrians, and, especially,the korai., 5 Best documented is a cache of at least ninestatues damaged in the Persian sack, which were found di-rectly behind the section of the north wall containing theruins of the Athena Polias Temple.8 6 It is clear that thestatues were buried and the wall constructed at the sametime; this can be dated soon after the wars on the basis ofnumismatic evidence.

8 7

The two actions-the burial of statues and the display ofarchitectural fragments-show interrelated but differing re-sponses to material damaged in the sack of the Acropolis.Whereas the damaged architectural fragments were con-verted, through reuse in the citadel walls, into a svmbol of

272 ART BUI I. Yi IN SI"I" BI kM R 2009 VOL U N F XCI NU MBIER 3

11 G. P. Stevens, drawing of the Classical Acropolis, lookingfrom the Propylaea toward the Bronze Athena by Pheidias,ca. 467-447 BCE. American School of Classical Studies atAthens, Gorham P. Stevens Papers (artwork © and photographprovided by the American School of Classical Studies atAthens)

strength, the same could not be done for the sculptures.

Although, as Parisanias (1.27.6) tells us, a few were displayedin their ruined state, the vast majority were simply buried.Perhaps the corporeal form of the statues made their appear-

ance too distressing for viewers; even today, there is some-thing viscerally upsetting about seeing their faces smashed,their throats slit, and their hands and feet broken off. Asreligious votives, though, they could not simply be thrownout.88 So the sculptures were assembled together and care-

fully buried within the sacred space of the Acropolis, wherethey remainedc-in a remarkable state of preservation, even

their paint still firesh-until disinterred at the end of thenineteenth century.89

Thus, in the years following the Persian destruction of theAcropolis, we can observe the Athenians experimenting witha range of different responses to the sack. One response wassimply to leave things as they were, memorializing the de-

struction through the ruins it created; this was the coursefollowed with the major temples. A second option was toreuse the damaged artifacts so as to recall, in programmaticfashion, both the attack itself and the eventual Athenianvictory, as architectural fragments from the destroyed tem-ples were used to build the new walls of the citadel. And athird option was to erase, insofar as possible, the memory of'the destruction, by burying the statues that so viscerally re-called it.

In addition to these commemorative strategies, closely con-nected to the ruins themselves, we have evidence for a fewmonuments of a more distanced and creative character.9)

Most significant among them was the colossal bronze Athenaby Pheidias, set up on the Acropolis in about 467-447 BCE(Fig. 11).2 Facing the sanctuary's entrance, it was placed on

axis with the ruined Temple of Athena Polias, as is demon-strated by the foundations of the statue's immense base,

preserved in situi.9 Like the north wall, and the (still-stand-ing?) ruins themselves, the statue perhaps served to remindviewers of the traumas of the Persian sack. At the same time,

it served to evoke prouder, more triumphant memories; thegoddess looked toward Salamis, site of Athens's great naval

victory over the Persians.7 ' 3 In later literary sources, at least,the colossal statue commemorated Athens's military successin a very direct and specific way; according to Pausanias, it was"a tithe from the Persians who landed at Marathon," whileDemosthenes declared it "dedicated by the city as a memorialof the war against the barbarians, the Greeks giving the

money for it."'9'4

The siting and funding for the statue are relatively welldocumented, but its appearance can be reconstructed only in

a very schematic, hypothetical manner. Fabricated from anexceptionally valuable and easily recyclable material, bronze,

it was melted down, and it left scant traces in the artisticrecord.95 A few points can, however, be made. The firstconcerns its colossal scale, so immense, according to Pausa-nias (1.28.2), that sailors coming into port could see the sunglinting off the tip of the statue's spear. The statue was alsotremendously expensive, as the fragmentarily preservedbuilding accounts for it testify; constructed over a period ofnine years, it is estimated to have cost about 83 talents." At a

time when the annual tribute from the Athenian Empireequaled about 400 talents, this was an extraordinary sunm tobe spending on a single work of arty! The bronze Athenatherefore stands as the largest, most ambitious statue known

to us in the Early Classical period; particularly in the yearspreceding the construction of the Parthenon, it must havedomninated the Acropolis and provided an eye-catching land-mark tor the entire city. In this way, it offered a striking andunsubtle assertion of Athens's resurgence after the PersianWars.

The statue's visual program may likewise have alluded tothe wars, albeit in a more oblique and metaphoric manner.According to Pausanias (1.28.2), the statue's shield was dec-orated with images of the battle between men and centaurs.This choice of decoration was highly significant; it was theAthenians' first attempt, on the Acropolis, to represent thePersian Wars through myth. The statue's decoration can beseen to foreshadow the more elaborate mythological pro-gram of the Parthenon, with its centaurs, Amazons, Trojans,

and giants. That such a representation was indeed plausiblefor the Early Classical period is best demonstrated by otherworks of art and literature from the era.

The Persian Wars in the Greek Imagination: Inventing theMyth of Oriental Violence in the Early Classical EraAfter the decisive Hellenic victory at Plataia in 479 BCE,Greek artists, poets, and orators began almost immediately toproduce works inspired by the Persian Wars. Whether osten-sibly "historical" in nature or of a more allusive, mythologicalcharacter, these artistic productions all aimed to highlightthe broader resonances of the wars for a Greek audienceseeking to understand their extraordinary and unexpectedmilitary success. These poems, speeches, and artworks of theEarly Classical period presented the wars as a struggle be-tween polar opposites: pious, self-controlled, freedom-lovingGreeks versus impious, uncontrollably violent Persians ruledby an autocratic monarch. Furthermore, these works oftentreated the desecration of temples and images as a paradig-matic example of Persian impiety and violence, as discussed

DESTRUCTION AND MEMORY ON 1li1 A1IFiNIAN A(CROPOiLIS 273

above. The representations of the Persian Wars in EarlyClassical literature and art, mythological as well as morehistorical treatments, reveal interconnections between Orien-talism and iconoclasm that anticipated the treatment of thesarne themes in the Parthenon.

Among the most prominent and influential Orientalistmonuments of Early Classical Athens was the Stoa Poikile.'"a(;ommissioned by Peisianax, the brother-in-law of the impor-tant politician Kimon, this multifunctional civic structure waserected in the northwest corner of the Athenian Agora inabout 470-60 B( E.',ý The building's foundations are pre-served and have recently been excavated; long gone, how-ever, are the paintings that were its most distinctive andsignificant feature.")( These included depictions of the Tro-jan Wat and its aftermath, the fight between Athenians andAmazons, and the Athenian victory over the Persians at Mar-athon in 490 BCE (Pausanias 1.15.1-16.1). The paintingsthus juxtaposed mythological with historical wars, suggestinganalogies between them. This proved a useful, and very in-fluential, narrative strategy. Through this juxtaposition, thevictors at Marathon were placed on par with the great Hel-lenic heroes, whereas the Persians were characterized as anal-ogous to their impious and womanly opponents. Set up in theAthenian civic center, commissioned by a close relative of theera's leading politician, and executed by major artists,'10 theStoa Poikile brought myth and history together into a highlyetff•etive synthesis; its significance is demonstrated by its re-fleciion in later artworks, as well as by the numerous refer-ences to it in literary texts. 1"2

Elsewhere in Athens as well, paintings on mythologicalthemes were deployed allusively to commemorate recent his-tory. O(ne such is a shrine to the Athenian hero Theseus,feat uring as its decoration scenes from the hero's life, includ-ing his battles with centaurs and Amazons. The shrine alsoheld Theseus's bones, providentially discovered by Kimon onSkyros, exhumed, and brought to Athens in 475 BCE. 1

113 Likethe Stoa Poikile, then, the shrine to Theseus had a clearconnection to contemporary politics, particularly those ofKimnon; its paintings were also executed by some of the sameartists.,4 It consequently seems reasonable to assume thathere as well the paintings were intended to commemoratethe Persian Wars, with the centaurs and Amazons standing inft-t !he bestial and effeminate Persians.

This hypothesis is strengthened by an analysis of contem-porary vase paintings. In the Early Classical period, vasesdecorated with Amazons strikingly emphasized both theAthenian protagonists in the battle--with Theseus to thefeO-and the "Oriental" character of the warrior women,who wear the soft, floppy headgear and brightly patternedcostumes of Persians and fight, like them, with bow and arrowor on horseback. On a red-figure dinos (a large mixing bowl)attiributed to the Group of Polygnotos, for example, a nudeTheses hinges forward to attack the fallen Amazon Andro-mache; both are identified by inscriptions (Fig. 12). WhileAndromache herself wears the costume of a Greek hoplite,she is armed with a bow and empty quiver as well as a smallax, likewise popular in Persian scenes; her comrades riding inon horseback sport a mix of Persian and Hellenic dress andweaponry. Another Amazon, on the reverse, stabs a Greekfrtom behind-a cowardly action associated with her highly

12 Attributed to the Group of Polygnotos, red-figure dinos,depicting the battle between Theseus and the Amazons,ca. 450 BCE, height 10112 in. British Museum, London,99.7.21.5 (artwork in the public domain; photograph C TheTrustees of the British Museum)

Orientalized costume. Similar scenes recur elsewhere, espe-cially in the works of the vase painter Polygnotos and hiscircle, working in Athens in about 450 BCE. They provideabundant testimony to the assimilation of Amiazons and Per-sians (a practice already visible from the Late Archaic era"),"),and to the denigration of the latter, as the Amazons aredepicted as ungallant, ineffective warriors.

In literary texts, similar analogies between mythologicaland historical foes were drawn, likewise to the detriiment ofthe Persians. In newly discovered fragments, the Keian poetSimonides exalted the Greeks who died at Plataia by compar-ing them to the Homeric heroes Achilles and Patroklos; thePersians, by contrast, were implicitly equated with the Tro-jans, including the "evil-minded" (kakophron) Paris.'140 The

274 ART BU[LLElTIN SEPV.IM\uR 2009 VOILUME XCI NU_MIBER 3

fragments also mentioned a "chariot of Justice," perhaps

fighting on the Greek side; this, too, appears to iniject a

moralizing tone into the depiction of the war.'1)7

A colmparably moralizing tone sounds even more clearly in

Hlellenic oratory. According to Herodotos (9.27), the Athe-

nians gained the honor of leading the left wing at the Battle

of Plataia by means of a speech they made in which they

enumerated all their great deeds from heroic times to the

present. In their speech, the Athenians described themselves

as the defenders of the weak and unjustly treated- having

aided the children of Herakles against the proud and tyran-

nical Eurystheus and ensured the pious burial of the Seven

against Thebes-as well as the upholders of a tradition of

Greek victory stretching finon the battle against the Amazons

to Troy and Marathon. So, too, the epitaphioi logoi (annual

funerary orations for Athens's war dead, buried at public

expense) presented the city's great deeds as both glorious

anid morally righteous; characteristic examples included Mar-

alhon, very regularly, as well as the defeat of the Amazons and

the battle for the burial of the Seven against Thebes. ') Thus,

in these poetic and oratorical texts, as in the monumental

paintings and decorated pots of the period, we can see the

beginnings of a consistent, repetitive, and rhetorically pow-

ertul discourse in which the Greeks always fought on the"right" side, against foes who were by turns bestial, effemi-

nate, impious, proud, tyrannical.

Given the negative 10oral character attributed, by implica-

tion, to the Persians, it is perhaps not surprising that violence

toward images should have been added to the catalog of their

misdeeds. It was in fact presented as the particularly offensive

outgrowth of two of their leading negative characteristics:

their impiety and their capacity for senseless violence. As

such, the destruction of images was highlighted by Aeschylus

in the Persians, produced in 472 BCE. At the climax of the

play, Aeschylus has the Persian King Darius-come back as a

ghost to advise his wife and son after the catastrophic defeatsat Salamis and Plataia--declare that it was this destruction

that brought on divine vengeance: "For coming to the land of

Hellas [the Persians] were not restrained by religious awe

from looting the statues of the gods nor froom burning tem-

ples. But altars were destroyed, the statues of the gods over-

turned froom their bases in utter confusion" (Aeschylus, Per-

siants 809-12). In Herodotos (8.109), Themistokles in a

speech after Salamis described Xerxes as "one who acts in the

same way toward temples and private property, burning and

throwing down the statues of the gods, who evet) scourged

the sea atid sank shackles in it." And in rejecting the Persian

Mardonios's offer of an alliance in 479 BCE, the Athenians

claimed, according to Herodotos (8.144), that there were

matry obstacles to collaboration, "first and most importantly,

there is the firing and burning of thre statues of the gods and

their dwellings, and we must avenge them to tile utmost

rather than making a treaty with those who have done such

things."These judgments-and perhaps others, no longer pre-

served-were highly influential, as is demonstrated by later

texts that commemorated the Persian destruction of the

Acropolis and characterized iconoclasm as an un-Greek, "bar-

barian" activity. These included not only the fourth-century

orators discussed above in relation to the "Oath of Plataia"

but also the ostensibly less polemical historians. Herodotos

furnished a very extensive catalog of the Persian destruction

of temples and statues; besides Xerxes' attack (In the Athe-

nian Acropolis, he listed Cambyses' burning of the statues of

the Kabeiroi at Memphis in Egypt (3.37), Darius's plundering

arid burning of the Temple of Apollo at Didynma (6.19), the

same king's sack of the sanctuaries of Eretria (6.101), Xerxes'

destruction of the Temple of Apollo at Abae (8.33), and his

desecration of the cult statue of Poseidon at Potidaea (8.129).

For Herodotos, then, iconoclasm appeared as a long-standing

and fiequently repeated tactic of Persian war making, de-

ployed against other foreigners (the Egyptians, for one) as

well as Greeks.Later historians echoed Herodotos's conclusions. In his

history of the Peloponnesian Wars, Thucydicles rarely men-

tioned the destruction of temples and images; in an account

of battles between Greeks, it ought not to have occurred. In

the exceptional instance when it happened-when the Athe-

nians occupied and fortified a Boeotian sanctuary at De-

lium-it was condemned in speeches as contrary to "universal

custom" and "the law of the Hellenes" (4.97), thus bolstering

Herodotos's point by arguing its converse. For Polybius, by

contrast, the desecration of temples and cult statues signaled

the hubristic overreaching and barbaric-indeed, mentally

deranged-character of the Macedonian King Philip V; in

the pragmatic author's words, "the excessive destroying of

temples and statues and all their furnishings, which neither

offers aid to one's own affairs in preparing resistance, nor

cripples the enemy going in to battle- how can one riot say

that this is the act of a maddened mind and attitude?"

(5.11.4-5). Philip, in Polybius's view, would have done better

to follow the example of his predecessor Alexander the

Great, who in his conquest of Persia "spared the things

dedicated to the gods, although it was in this way that the

Persians had most erred when in Greece" (5.10.8).Given the importance accorded to Persian iconoclasm in

literary texts, we might ft-utifully inquire whether it figured in

Greek art as well. Here the evidence is more limited, and less

explicit. Greek vase paintings occasionally depicted Persians,

but they were most commonly shown in battle scenes, not

sacking cities or destroying temples.Il°) We do, however, have

numerous Early Classical images of a city sacked, its sanctu-aries violated, and its inhabitants killed. The city in question

is Troy. Scholars have suggested that these scenes, for in-

stance, on the famous Vivenzio hydria (water jug) in Naples,

were inspired by the Athenian artists' experiences during the

Persian Wars.'11+ To speculate further, one might say that the

images of the violation of sanctuary in particular-Priam

killed while seated on an altar, Kassandra torn by Ajax from

a statue of Athena-ireferenced the Acropolis sack, universal-ized through the invocation of canonical Hellenic myth. If

this hypothesis is correct, then the scenes provided a way of

representing the Persian destruction of the Acropolis that

was very different in character from the ruins and relics

discussed above. Here not just the aftereffects but the sack

itself was shown, its violent and impious slaughter placed

center stage. At the same time, it was distanced through the

use of myth, with the real Athenians killed in 480 BCE

replaced by the suffering Trojans. I " This narrative strategy,

in which myth served to exalt history arid simultaneously to

pcrniiit ai contemlplative distance from it, would subsequentlyhe deployed to great advantage by the sculptors of tile Par-Ihe1lionl.

Victory Monument and War Memorial: The Construction ofthe Parthenon, 447-432 BCEBy ,447 B(CE, tile Athenians inhabited a very different cityfroln the one dlestroyed by the Persians. They had scored aseries of mnililary successes against their old enemnies, mostprominitinly the Battle of the Eurymedon of about 466, andtheir city had become by far the preeminent naval power in(;reece., 12 Athens's internal politics were radically demo-crafic, its foreign policy, imperialistic; tile conjunction of thetwo encouraged massive spending on public works projectssulch aIs the Paarthenon, overseen by a committee and com-plee(d in the remanrkably brief span of fifteen years.'' " In itsvisual fortn-abovc all, in its costly materials, complex icon-ographic program, and technically sophisticated style of ex-ecutionI-the great temple constituted both document andcelebration of these achievements; as such, it functioned as avictory nlonillnen|, as noted by many scholars.' 14 But thistriumphal rhetoric, so ably communicated by the Parthenon,should not obscure the building's debt to the past and its rolein commemorating past suffering. In fact, it was only throughtdi evotcation of this suffering that the achievements of thepresenlt took on nieaning-Ide glittering triumphs of the newAthenian Empire thrown into sharp relief, as it were, againstfli' background of a darker and more difficult history.

Iii dih Parthenon, this history was made manifest in anumbter of different ways. As Andrew Stewart has recentlydemonstrated, the tuilding's proportions related it to tile(lestroved Tenplt of Athena Polias; tile width of tile Parthe-non's cella equaled that of the platftmn of the earlier temple,almost 70 feet (21.3 meters), or 72 Attic feet.1 " The same72-fooit module was used throughout the Periklean buildingprogram, determining as well

the Propylaia's east and west porches, the Erechtheion'sentire western side, and the length of its celia. Moreover,tlie Frechtheiou and Parthenon are twoi modules apart at

ieitr nearest point; the Parthenon's western terrace liesotite module to the east of the Propylaia's projected centralaxis; and the shrine of Kekrops (an extension of theFIrelchI lieiot i's western side) is four modules distant fromhe I i opylaia's cast porch.,

Tit pervasive uste of this module canmnot be chance; rather, itmust rtelect the architect's intention to incorporate withintie new building program a trace of the past, by this meansto make the destroyed temple live again. These elementsindicate the careful coomprehensiveness with which thePeriklean mbuilding program was planned, as each buildingwas at oticte connected to its fellows and to its rttined ante-(edent.

For tlhose without tllhe architect's advanced technical knowl-edge, however, other connections to the past would havebeen tiorc striking. Two seem particularly significant here.Onc wits the Parthenon's direct phy-1,sical connection to thepast, as the building occupied the site, and utilized the ma-terials, of its ruined predecessor. The second was the temple's

DFIS-TRt (:TION ANI) MEMORY ON TiE AFIHIENIAN W( ROPOL IS 275

metaphoric connection to past history, as the conflict betweenAthens and Persia was retold and reconfigured throughmyth. Taken together, these differing but complementarycommemorative strategies helped to create a temple bal-anced between opposing tensions, both victory monumentand war memorial. In this way, they contributed to the senseof balance, and of the reconciliation of opposites, that is socharacteristic a feature of the Parthenon.

In their "recycling" of building materials, the architects ofthe Parthenon were particularly ingenious but by no meansunique. The builders of a Classical wall and footbridge atEleusis likewise reused materials from the Archaic sanctuary,as their epigraphic accounts describe in detail.' 7 Elsewhereon the Acropolis we have evidence for recycling, for instance,the flight of steps west of the Parthenon, constructed fromblocks of the Temple of Athena Polias. i" Still, the Parthenonstands out in this respect for the extent of material recycledand the limitations this placed oil the design of the newtemple.' 'To begin with, the building occupied the footprintof its ruined predecessor, a massive limestone podium somethirty-six feet (eleven meters) high on its southern side (Fig.13). i21 The only change was a sixteen-and-a-half-foot (five-meter) extension of the platform to the north, made toaccommodate the broader cella of the new temple; this wasrequired because of the colossal statue of Athena Parthenosto be housed in its interior. 12 1 The extension brought a smallpreexisting shrine, perhaps that of Athena Ergane, men-tioned by Pausanias, 122 within the walls of the Classical Par-thenon. The location and architectural components of theshrine were carefully maintained, its height raised, and thenorthern colonnade of the new temple designed so thatthe shrine fit comfortably within it. Thus, as the sanctuary wasrenewed and expanded, the old cults were maintained; theeffort this entailed suggests the continued importance to theAthenians of the established sacred topography of the site.'1.

The Parthenon also incorporated within its architecturalform all tile remaining blocks of its ruined predecessor; theonly exceptions were those too damaged by thermal fractureto be useful, such as the column drums built into the citadel'snorth wall. 12" This, too, was a decision that had considerableimplications for the design of the new building. The diameterof the column drums, for example, was critical in determin-ing proportional relations throughout the temple.' 25 At thesame time, the reused blocks had to be deployed very care-fully, due to the refinements-the subtle departures from amonotonous, mathematically determined sameness-seen inboth the Classical building and its predecessor.1 2" The OlderParthenon had already incorporated into its foundations theupward curvature, bowing toward the center of each side,that is so vivid and effective a feature of the Classical tem-ple.' 27 Because of this feature, the blocks used to constructthe Archaic building were not of uniform dimensions, butvaried slightly depending on their placement within the tem-ple, as they accommodated and extended the curvature seenin the foundations. Recycled for the Classical Parthenon, theyhad to be measured carefully, placed selectively, and in somecases reworked for new locations within the building.12 8

As with the reused fragments in the citadel walls, so, too,the recvcled materials deployed in the Parthenon have some-times been explained in pragmatic, economic terms. It is

276 ARY Bt I.I.EFIN SEPIEMBER 2009 VO(II/UME XCI NUMBER 3

13 Foundations from the OlderParthenon visible beneath theClassical temple, Acropolis, Athens(photograph provided by theArchaeological PhotographicCollection, American School ofClassical Studies at Athens)

certainly true that these precut, readily available blocks would

have saved the Athenians money-estimated at about one-

quarter of the construction budget for the temple'2 9-_since

quarrying and transport figured hugely in the cost of' any

stone building. But the reused blocks had a significance that

went beyond the purely economic. As the Athenians con-

structed their new temple on the site of the Older Parthenon,

using materials derived from it, they could imagine that theruined sanctuary had been reborn, larger in scale, more

elaborate in its sculptural decoration, but also physically con-

nected to the past.' I

It is worth highlighting the difference between this reuse ofarchitectural fragments and that seen earlier on the citadel

walls. On the walls, the damaged materials stand out; they

visually assert their separation from their surroundings and

their connection to the past. The recycled fragments in the

Parthenon, by contrast, are integrated into their architecturalsetting, often indistinguishable from new materials. The aim

here was to create a unified impression, so that one saw the

building as an organic whole, not as a collection of frag-

ments. The memory of destruction was effaced-or, at any

rate, covered over, in the manner of a palimpsest-with a new

creation.Yet the architectural ensemble does not tell the whole

story. In the Parthenon, the memory of the Persian sack was

preserved not so much through concrete reference to thehistorical past as symbolically, through myth. As noted above,

the battles displayed in the metopes and on the AthenaParthenos statue are critical here. They connected the Per-

sians with negative mythological exemplars such as the cen-

taurs and Amazons, perhaps inspired by the Orientalist mon-

uments discussed above, such as the Stoa Poikile. At the same

time, by depicting defeated and dying Greeks, the images

testified to the formidable qualities of the Greeks' opponentsand the high price paid to secure victory against them.

That price is figured very explicitly on the Parthenon'smetopes. South metope 28 depicts one of the scenes of battle

between men and centaurs; on it, the centaur's victory is clear(Fig. 3). The centaur dominates the metope, his body cutting

a great diagonal swath across it, from his left arm, raised in a

commanding gesture, to his triumphantly waving tail. Rear-

ing on his hind legs, he is poised to come crashing down on

the chest of his unfortunate victim. Even the animal skin he

wears seems to have taken on his aggressive, victorious char-

acter, as itsjaws and claws point directly down at the defeatedenemy. By contrast, the centaur's victim has no hope. While

his knees (and once, perhaps, his arms also) arc upward in a

semblance of resistance, it can end only in futility. His body,

crumpled on the ground, already has the appearance of acorpse.

This metope, with its clear and deliberate depiction of theman's defeat, is by no means unique. Useful comparisons aremetope I (where the man seems about to be lifted off the

ground and strangled), metope 4 (where he is being bashed

on the head by a wine jug), and metope 30 (where he is

thrust down to the ground, flailing, with the centaur about to

attack from above). Indeed, of the eighteen metopes with thetheme of men fighting centaurs, fully a third of them display

the men in mortal danger, and a number of others are

equivocal. There are, of course, images where the men aresuccessful, as in metope 27.13' But as an ensemble, the Par-

thenon south metopes highlight the price of victory, not itseffortless achievement.

Nor are the south metopes unique; their emphasis on the

price of victory is typical for the other contests depicted on

the Parthenon. The west metopes, for example, present the

battle between men and Amazons. They are poorly preserved,but through close analysis of the fragments and comparison

with similar imagery on contemporary vase paintings, we can

reconstruct them in part. About half the metopes appear to

have carried the image of a mounted Amazon attacking afallen Greek soldier; this visual formula indicated that theGreek would die (Fig. 4). Here, then, even more than on thesouth side of the Parthenon, the battle was hard fought, andfrequently the Amazons-mythological analogues for thePersians for at least a generation-were shown triumphant.

The other contests depicted on the Parthenon metopes areeven harder to read; the scenes were hacked away by lateroccupants of the building, most likely early Christians.' 3

2 Inthe case of the gigantomnachy (battle between gods and gi-ants) ott the east tietopes, at least, we should probably imag-ine that scenes of failure were absent; the gods could not havebeen pictured losing. Nonetheless, the metopes' focus ondefeat as well as victory is significant. And it was reiteratedelsewhere ott the Parthenon, most notably on a series ofsculptures from the chryselephantine statue of Athena Par-thenos.

The colossal statue of Athena has not been preserved; itwas likely destroyed by a fire that struck the Parthenon in thethird century CE.":1: However, we know from replicas of it aswell as literary accounts that the same mythological cyclesseen otn the metopes ornamented the statue; the centauro-miachy figured on Athena's sandals, the Amazonomachy onthe exterior of her shield, and the battle between gods andgiants otn the interior of the shield.""ii The Amazonomachy isparticularly well documented, both in statuettes, such as thePatras Athena, and in a series of full-scale copies known as thePiraets reliefs. 135 What the copies make clear, through theirdepiction of a fortified citadel as the setting, is that we havehere the Athenian Amazonomachy, that is, the Amazons'attack ott the Athenian Acropolis after their leader, Hip-polyta, was abducted by Theseus.• • The parallels with thePersian attack are highlighted, for instance, through scenesof the Amazons scaling the walls and bringing torches to setfire to the citadel,just as the Persians did.t3 7 So, too, the fightis set within a rocky landscape, and the defeated, such as thefigure known as the "death leap" Amazon, throw themselvesdown from the heights (Fig. 5, at lower right). This focus onthe Acropolis setting for the battle is very unusual within thecontext of Classical Amazononiachies, and it did not emerge,at least in preserved rmonutments, prior to the building of theParthenon."8 Its use here is significant; it serves to enhancethe historical resonances of this exemplary myth, to make theconnections clearer for contemporary viewers.

At the same time, the Athenians' use of myth, in theParthenos Armazonomachy as elsewhere, had a number ofadvantages over the direct representation of contemporaryevents. To begin with, it gave the Persian Wars a heroic, evencosmological significance, recasting the historical events aspart of a transcendental struggle between good and evil,civilization and barbarism. As the Athenians were pictured asheroes and the Persians beasts or women, the moral com-plexities of the events in question were smoothed away andtheir paradigmatic character heightened; they became easier,more comfortable, to renmember. Similarly, the trauma ofthese events was lessened through the rtse of myth. While thebattered korai had proved too painful to endure (too vivid areminder, perhaps, of the sufferings of the actual Athenianskilled in the sack), the defeat and death of Greeks was easierto accept when refracted through the lens of myth; this had

DESTRUCTION AND MEMORY ON TtHE ATlHENIAN ACROPOILIS 277

a distancing effect for viewers. Finally, mythology offered theopportunity to, as it were, rewrite history, to memorializeinitial defeats as the natural concomitant of eventual victory.After all, in the mythological battles depicted on the Parthe-non, the Greeks always win; on the Acropolis in 480 BCE, thereality was otherwise. In this way, the mythological imagesthat decorated the Parthenon can be understood as centralto its commemorative purpose; as they retold history throughmyth, they served the selective process of memorializing andforgetting necessary to collective memory.1 39

Looking back, we find that patterns of commemoration onthe Athenian Acropolis seen just after the Persian sack differradically from those found in the Periklean Parthenon. Re-sponses to the sack in its immediate aftermath weregrounded in the concrete historical circumstances of theevent, commemorating it with ruins, relics, and the ritualburial of damaged sculptures. In the Parthenon, however, thehistory of the sack was, quite literally, fundamental to thebuilding, as the temple made use of the footprint and archi-tectural remains of its destroyed predecessor. But the Parthe-non's relation to the past was at the same time obscured, asthese elements were integrated into a new architectural cre-ation, which appeared as an organic whole. In its sculpturaldecoration, this connection to the past was thoroughly trans-formed, as history was retold through myth.

These perceptions yield an enhanced understanding of theParthenon and its relation to the past, as well as some illu-minating broader implications concerning the role of theimage in Greek society. Scholars have often interpreted mon-uments such as the Parthenon simply as sophisticated worksof art, focusing on issues of connoisseurship (chronolopy,attribution, workshop style) or, more recently, semiotics. Al-though such scholarly approaches have added much to ourinsight of Greek art, they have at the same time tended toobscure some key aspects of it. In particular, they have sub-ordinated its 'functional qualities to its aesthetic effect; in sodoing, they have deprived Greek images of some of theiraffective power.

The balance can be redressed by focusing particularly onthe functions of images and on emotive rather than aestheticresponses to them. As I have shown, objects such as theAcropolis korai were intended to evoke a powerful reactionfrom viewers-so powerful that they were burned and hackedto pieces, and then buried to hide the traces of such anattack. And monuments like the architectural fragments inthe Acropolis north wall or, in later years, the Parthenonitself were not created simply to delight the eves, and satisfythe pride, of their Athenian viewers. They were instead in-tended to memorialize collective experience and to shape theAthenians' memories of their traumatic, but ultimately victo-rious, past history. This powerful and, indeed, generativefunction for monuments is best expressed by Demosthenes,who once urged his Athenian audience, "Reflect, then, thatyour ancestors set up those trophies, not that you may gaze atthem in wonder, but that you may also imitate the virtues ofthe men who set them up."'140

Rachel Kousser is an associate proftssor at Brooklyn College andmember o] the doctoral facult'y at the CUNY Graduate (enter, where

278 AR I IL IJ I IN SFP I E MI FR 20W) VOl I.t1 MF X\CI N MBI ER I

she teaches the historv oj (;reek and Roman art. She is the author ofHellenistic and Roman Ideal Sculpture: The Allure of the

Classical (Cambridge University Press, 2008) [l)epartment of Art,Brooklyn College, 2900 Bedford Avenue, BrooklYn, N.Y. 11210,

rkousser-@brookl''n.- iuny.edu i.

NotesThis project has henleited from tile generosity of many scholars and institti-tiIls. Thanks are (file to Richard Powell, Marianne Wardle, and the threeanonymultis readers of fhe Alt Bull,tin; to andiences at Columbia University,tie Universitv of Toronto, and Winthrop College; to Andrew Stewart andClatherine Keesling tlr making thein forthcoming work available to ntie' and toAndreas (e('issler of tile Forschttngsarchi% fiir Antike Plastik, Cologne; wy(;,IL.ada of(the Mitropolitan (Government of Nashville; Meghan Mazella of tileBritish Museninj;ohn Boardinan; Tricia Smith on Art Resourte;J. M. HiL-W,it;Ilte stall of the Act opolis MInseUiliW; Eelyn tHarison: and Natalia Vogeikoff-Biogan oftlice American School of Classical Studies ait Athens, For assistance

with photographs. This pro)ject was made possible throgh til ie financialsupport of tile dean of (',raduale Studies, Brooklyn (Ciolege, ilth New FactlityFund, the Whiting Fonldation, and the PS-CUINY Research Fotndation. ToEveli I larrison, who has taught ime so miuch about the Parthenon, this ar ticleis loviigly dedicated.

1. See, lte example, l)avid Casiriota, 1INth, Ethos, and ActualitY: QfficialArt in Eifth Comoat B-C. Athens (Madison: Unihersitv of'"Wisconsiri

Priss, 1992) ; Jeffrev Hurwit, The Arrolneli, in/ the Age n/ Pei'kles (Cailn-

iridge: Caunhi idgc L.nivtrsitv Press, 2004), esp. chap. 2, "Landscapeof McnioiN: The Past ot lilthe Classical Aciopolis," 49-86; and.J. J. Pol-lit, "C(osciousness and Conscience," chap. 2 of A it and Axpelienence inClassl G(reece' ( .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 15-63.

2. These sanctuaries included not onld l those of till' Acropolis, which arethe foculs of attention here, bill also many, in the Agora, among therr

lilt Mi1roon and Temple of Apollo PaioIs, as well ats the sallt1ar%of Poscidon at Sorunion, and likely tile sarictuai% ot" Denieter at Elet,sis. Onl the Agora sanctuaries, see T. Leslie Shear.Jr., "The PersianDestruction of Athens: Evidence from the Agora Depostas(," Hesperia

62, no. 4 ( 1993): 383-482; and Hoier Thonipson, "Athens Faces Ad-versitv," llespeiia 50 (1981): 344-46; on1 Solution, see 1. Shear, entiyin tile Prinfelon Enrv-fipedia of Class•ital Siles (Princeton: Princeton Uni-

versiiv Press. 1976), s.N. "Sounion," 854; and oIl Eleusis, see DeborahBoedeckcr, "'Fie View from Elcusis: Demeter in the Persian Wais," inlColootel IResponvý,, It the Pov•an Wars,: ed. Enina Bridges, Edith Hall.

and P.,i . Rhodes (Oxlord: Oxfiord University Press, 2007), 70-71.

3. Htrodotos 9.13.4. lin iy emphasis onl memory, I have beer) inspired above all by the

research of Maurice H alwachs, On1 Col,e/tive Metors, rnansi. Lewis A.Cosei ((C,hi ago: University of Chicago Press, 1992): and Pierre Nora,ed., Reatens ol Ae,nio?y: The Con.siriction let the Perriceh Pos•t, trans. Arthur

(Golhaininer, 3 vols, (New York: Columhia Universit% Press, 1i96-).Fot Ilhe anlcienlt world, tischill contributions have been mlade by Susan

Alcock, Archaeohogies o/ the Cieek Pa.t: LanislapIe, Alonmioents, (tid Memo-rir% (Canihiidge: Cambridge Universit,y Press, 2002); Caila Antonac-cio, .4n Ailhaeolq* oAne Totn: bb (Cult and Heto Cult in Earl ý Gr,eet(L,anliani, Md.: Rowinan and Littlefield, 1995); and Nicole Lotaux,Divided Ciri: Oil Afeinory (tied Pinbgciling in Ancient Athens, nrans. C'orinne

Pache withl Jeff Fort (New York: Zone Books. 2002). So far, however,archaeological ap•proaches 14 the study (if memlory in Classical Athenshave not beenl cssaved.

5. Foi example, ot-e tiagcdy, Edith Hfall, Inventing the Barbarian: Gieek Self-

Dlhinitioa thlrogh TralI eldl (Oxfoird: Clarendon l'ress. 19891); andThonlas illirisen, The Eolplinevs o Asia: Amhl-vius ' "Perslians" and theillistorv o/tk Ifi(,Flh Centaley (l.ondoll: DUckworlth, 2000); for histors,

Pericles (Georges, Batbarian A'sia arnd the (Creek Ex'lerienre Iotn the ArchaonPeriod it) the Age o/ Xeno/lhon (Balimore: .iohns Hopkins U niversityPicss, 199-4); and lor. fullerary orations, Nicole L.oratix, Ih nvention•

o/ Athens: The /lunerl Oiation Ii1 the Clalssiral City. trans. Alan Sheridan(Cambridge, Mass.: l lrvard Uni%crsitv Press. 1986), esp. 155-71.

6. Wtilf Raeck, Zii n Beerbarenbild in der Kunst Athens in1 6. unll 5. .tahrhun-de/t v. (hi. (Born: Rutioi Habel, 1981).

7. Margaret Miller, Athens and Ps1ia in the 'l/th ('entu.) B.C.: A StudY /i1Cultural Rbef'/eivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

8. Castriota, Atyth. Ethos, and Arfunli/Y'.

9. The Parthenon's tepulation its a timeless molnument goes back to tileancient welllId itscIt:see Plutarch, Perikles 13.1-5.

10. Zailnab Bahrain, "A¥ssault and Abduction: 'Fie Fate of the Royal Image

in thie Ancient Neaw East," Art History 18, no. 3 (1995): 363-82, at372.

11. Ibid., 364; if. Edward Said. Orientalistm (New XYok: Vintage Books,1978), 4.

12. Oil the mutilation of tile berms, see Douglas MacDowell. ed., On tlheA1vsterie': Anldokides (1962; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19891): J. L. Marr,"Xlndocides' Part in lltle MsteriIs and I lerniae Affairs of 415 B.C.,"O.assual Quarirtv' 21, no. 2 (1971): 326-38K Robin Oshorne, , "TheErection and Mutilation ofIthe Herniae," Pyoceeding. 1ol the CamrnidgePhilologi'al Sooiety 31 (1985): 17-73; and S. G, Todd, "Resisiting tileHernis and the Mvsteries,- in L aw1, Rhetorir, and Cornmed ill (Classial Ath-en%. ed. D. 1. Cairns and R. A, Kliox (Swansea: Classical Press of'Wales. 2004), 87-102. A fiew scholars have examined cases of the de-struction of images in (i reece; tbese include Caroline Houser, "SlainStatues: Classical Murder Mysteries," in Praklika ton XII DliethnoesSunedriou Klasikes Archaiologiai (Athens, 1988), 112-15; and CatherineKeesling, "Endoios's Painting fro1n the Themistoklean Wall: A Recon-struction," Htesperia 6i8, no. 4 (1999): 509-48.

13. For the Mscenvati Acropolis, see Spyros E. lakovidis. An' (lvenaean

Arropoliv of'Athens, trans. Miriam Casket (Athens: Archaeological Soci-etv at Athens, 2006): tile best historical survey is.jeflrev Hturwit, The

Athenian Acropioli: 11istoly. AfNthologi, and ,lnhaeolo,gI /rinl the NeolithiaEra to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999).

14. On the olive-wood stat'e, see Patisanias 1.26.6, For tile Temple ofAthena Polias, see William Childs, -rhe Date of the Old Temple of

Athena oIl the Athenian Acropolis." in I/e T Ahaeolo( N of Athens andAttiree, under the Demora(N', ed. William Coulson et al. (Oxford: OxbowBooks, 1994), 1-6, arguing tio a (tite aftei the establishment of thedemocract, in 510 BCE; and Manolis Korres, "Athenian Classical Ar-ichitecture," liI Athens: Fr1ne the Classical Period /o the Ivesent fDaY, ed.Korres et al. (New Castle. DO'.: Oak Knoll Press, 200(3), 7, reiteratinga date during the reign iii the Peisistratid I-i-ants, about 525 BCE.

15. While a date prior to the Persian Wars ior the Older Parthenon hassometimes been disputed-for example, by.J. A. Bundgaard, P'arthenonand tlhe Al ((cenran Cit('/T on the HeIf'hts (Coplenhagen: National Museumof Denmark, 1976), esp. 48-53, 61-70; and Rhys C(arpentei, The Archi-tects o/ the P iarhenon (Harniondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1970).esp. 66-67-it has now been given additional support fi1on tiie e%i-dence of thermnal cracking inl the bUilding'S column drums. presurn-

ably caused by fire (hiring thel Persian sack of the Acropolis. A helpfuldisCUSsito that makes use of new archaeological ex%idence from1 therecent reconstruction of' the buiiling is in Manolis Korres. "DieAtheia-Tenipt-i atif der Akropolis," in Kult and Kultbaulen auf0 er Ak-rapolis, ed. Wotiiram Hoepfnier (Berlin: Schrifiten des Seminars foirKlassische Archiaologie der Freien Uniiversitit Berlin, 19971, 218-43:oIl the coniroversv, see Hurwit. The Acropolis in the Age o/' Perikh,', 67-75.

16. (On the ramp and gateway, see W. B. Iinsmoor Jr., The Protoylaia to theAthenian Arroliolis. 2 vols. (Princeton: American School of ClassicalStUdies at Athens, 1980-20041), so. 1, 38-514, arguing for tile exis-tence of ini "Older Propylon" initiated under the detlocracy and, likethe Older Parthenon, never finished; and Htarrison Eiteljorlg II, TheEntrance to the Athenian Acropolis before AMnesu les (Dubiqtie. Ia.: Ken-dall/Hi urt. 1995), 85-86, who disputes the existence of tile OlderPropylon and sees only an earlier Mycenean gatewaN.

17.

18.

1Huiwit. The Athenian A(.rofpolis. 192.

Iha Mark, T'he San/tuam / 4IAthena Nike in A4hens: Archilec/ural .Stagi and

Chronolo/gy' (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens,

1993). 31-35, 125.-28; and lone MIlonas Shear, "Tile Western Ap-proach to the Atlenian Acropotlis, Journal o/ Hel/'nic Studiis 119

(1999): 86-127, esp. 120-25.

19. Hurwit., TheAthenian Acrorelii/. 112-15. Recently. Tonio 1161Hscher hasidentified these buildings as spaces fol ri11al dining, perhaps in totI-Junction with the Panathenaic Festival. I 161scher, "Sclhatzhi5user--Bani-

kenihaiuser'" in fthake: Plesisrhn/t ficr,]irg Schiilrr zone 75 Geburtstag ant 25

April 2001, ed. Stephanie B6hil and Klaus-Vahtin von it kstehd (WinIz-burg: Ergon Verlag. 2001), 143-52.

20. Katerina Kairakasi, Arrhaic Korai, trans. J. Paul Gettl Tlrust (los Ange-

les: Getty Puhlit al(iols. 2003), 115-41: Catherine M. Keesling, The Vi-

/i'e statues o/ theAlhenian Acro5olis (Cambridge: Cambridge U.niversits

Press, 2003), 97-161; Ernst Langlotz, "Die Koren," in Die ArnhaiNchen

Afanotriildwerke der Akropolis, 2 vtls., ed. Hans Scht ader (Frankfurt:

Vittorio Klosterniann, 1939), vol. 1. 13-184; and Marv Stieber, The Poet-ins qJ'A/IIarneive in the Attie Korai (,A'stin: iU.'niversii v of Texas Press,

2004). The kore front the Athenian Acropolis (Fig. 6) was utind in acache of fourteen statties near the Ereclitheion.

21. Evelyn Harrison, "The Victors of KaMliniachos," (;reek, Roman, and BViz-antine Studies 12, noi. 1 (1971 )i: 1-24; Catheritie Keesling, "The Kalli-

machos Monument on the Athenian Acropolis (1,61 256) and AtIle-nian Commemoration of the Persian Wars," in Aidelo Techneessa Lithou:

Ar4hair and Classical Greek Effigauon, ed. Marinel Baumbach, Anditej

Petrovic, and Ivaria Petrovic (Cambridge: Carmbridge University Press,

Iti t htoning); Konstantin Kissa, D/ic Afimlttiwn Statuen- und SclepnbeoenA4rehaischre 1x,it (Bonn: Rudolf I labelt, 2101)0), 195-98, no. 54; Manolis

Korits, "Retenit)t Disiovcris ol ilth Atropolis," in Atropolis Restoration:'lo, CCAM lIntementions, ed. Rirhaid Econornakis (ltondon: Academny

Editions, 191941, 174-79, esp. 178; Antony Raubitsrlick, DeditationsItrm the Athenian Akroptolis (Cambridge, Mass.: Archaeological InistitUeof Anriiia, 1949), 18-20, til). 13; and ideni, "Two MonutmentsE"lec'tedr allcr Ire VictorN of Maratlhon," Aneericanjournmal ol[An'haeoltokq

41t, no. I 119i40t): 5.-59i (0I] thle' inscription, see also P. A. Hlansen,Careina it Flngraje'hi a (umaeta, 2 vols. (Berlin: Waaler dcle Griyter, 1983-89), iol. I, 256 (lictcariti, C) C),); and lnst etiones (;raerae, 3rd ed.(Betr[lin: Waller dc G;ruvtct, 19181 -), vol. 1, 784 (hereafter, 1G;). For tihe

oittl Aichitic sculplures of tit'e Acropolis, see (;uiy Dickins, ArthauiS, ullture, vol. I, Catalguae o /the, Aet polms Museim ((Canmbridge: Carn-bridge U niwi't sits Press, 19121; artd Sthrader, Mie Archaischen Maroothildiorrke deo Akrololi•.s

22. Fell an oveivim/ of tle tange ot'dedications seen on tile Acropolis,

seit I lI Irwit, The Athenian Ae roIttolit/, 57- 6 1.23. CL. ibid., 98.

24. Ibid., 71-78,25. 1Ihctodolos 8.51-53. At(liacologicill corroboration of' Hercedorces's ac-

(oltitliimhalles the material evidence of' tlbe fire- set by (fie Persians,onl whinh] see Manolis Korrcs, "Onl the North Aciopolis Wall," in FExca-vating Clavwi•at Cutlture: Reeent Atehaeological Dis(ovenies in (,reece, ed.Minria Stallalopouhol and Marina Yerouhurou, BAR Intelrnational Se-

rits (O)xtrd: Ai Ntcoprcss, 2002), 179-86, esp. 184. There is also therl(ti'tit disioverT of iltn shrite ot Aglaturos otilite east side oft tile'A(Iropolis, where ilhe historian (Hetrodotos 8,53) asserts that tile Per-

sians scaled the walls. George IDontas, "The True Aglaurion," Hesperia52, no. 1 (1983): 4t8-63.

26. 1 Itltditlos 7.143.

27. I ci odotlos 8.52.

28. I lcrodIols 8,53,

29. Ibit.311. 1 lin-wit, The ,Athenian Aclopoim, 135-36.

31. F'oi s( holin ly c hallengcs to the tnaditional view, see,Jelf'ey tt1uT-wit,

"li'he Kxitios Boity: Disiovsr\, Re(onstrsction, and D)ate," Arneriian Jour-nal olA r(harolok7, 93 ( 19189): 4 1- 80; Astrid Lindenlatif, "Der Perser-

s thull dci Aditner Akropolis," in Hoepft'ner, Kult tnd Kultbaueutn atIt'rAkrolltit, 46-115, esp. 86-92; Martin Steskal, Der Z'iTt6rungsbefund4180/79 die /thei A/itkro/tolit Elo' l'ne lst/die ztm rtablierten Cho( nologie-

geeilt (I limburg: Verlag D)r. Kovac. 2004), csp. 165-811; arid Andrew,S(cwarlI, "The Persian arid Cardilaginian Invasions of 480 B.C.E. andthe B•eginning of the( Classical Style," pl. 1, "Tire Stratigraphy, Chro-

urology, and Signitfiancc f tIhe Acropolis Deposits," Ame'ricanjouJtrtalo"li A ottaeelg II 2, no. 31 (2008): 377-412. Htowever, comparison withWthet, betlet-docnneriited sites, snth Iis the Athenian Agira, clearlyillusnfates tihe destium-fw,encss of tile Persian sack, oin which see T. I,.8he;tr, "The IPersian Destruction of'Athens." And Steskal's approachin parmi ular has beef) critiqued, lot' instance, by Maria Chiara Mo-timo, "L.a (Cohnata Pcrsiana: Appunti still'esistenza e la definizione di

ina lintasinit," Annnatltio della S, uola Artheologica tit Atene 82 (2004):187-95.

32. ()it the Nike. see ii. 21 above. Ott its possible identification as Iris, seeKeesling, "The Kallin7achos Monument

33. 1lfeeodolos 6. 117.

34.

35. Acropolis Ninscurn, Athens, iriv. no. 303.

36. Inditdtlauf, "i)ei Pcistischuu der Adictner Akropolis," 86-89. Lin-dclikint's is tlti' most Iottough ietent discussion of evidence for firedaunagc. although site disputes tire idea that all marks of"fire are ricc-

cssaiily Itroni ttle Persian saik. AXcording to her, arnong the sculp-lines most clearly injuled by fine ait Acropol is Museurm inv. nos. 293,152, 588, 655, 6;58, 665, 672, 6i

73, 676, 680, 6r86t, 687, 690, 6478. Ott

lhe evidence olthi)r tllila fractu.re in the Older Parthenon material,see Koirres, "O(Inthe North Acropolis Wall."

37. tFor the kotai with inimned faces found Iin a cache by the Erechtlicion,see L,indenlaulf, "lDer Perserschumt der Atherier Akropolis," 79. To tie,

Ilest kmrai look most likely damaged by a harnmer or niallet, sittceIhe marks ate small and discrete in character, when comtpared to thebroad, ltrg strokes of axes seen elsewhere (Fig. 8). For inale figures,one( might considei also, lot- examtple, Acropolis Mulseurln, irnv. nos.5991, 624 (the( Calf'Beartcr), 6$92, 3719t.

38. Iii . "hIrw it, Ktitios Boy,Pi esp. 6!-61; 1,inderilaurf, "Der Perserschuttder Athencr Akropolis," 75-92; Steskal, Doe Zrektirungtbefudit 480179der Athearp Akioloolis, 16(5-80t.

39. Foi example, AX i opolis Museum, inv, nos. 601, 602, 626, 684, 1685,686.

DESTRUCTION AND MEMORY ON HIiE ATHIENIAN ACROPOLIS 279

40. Huisst, "The Kritios BoN," 62; and Keesling, The ilotive Statues. 49-50.For examples of post-Persian mitontimental bronze sculptures that havebeen decapitated, see Houser, "Slain Statues"; for Severe Style nmarblestatues that have sutifered a similar fate, see Stewart, "hite Persian andCarthaginian Invasions," 388, 407.

41. On Persian destruction layers elsewhere. see Marv Boyce. "Persian Re-ligion in the Achenienid Age," in Introd ion: The Pet ian Period. ed.W. Davies and Lotis Finkelstein, Cambridge Ilistors oftJudaisnl (Caii-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 279-307, esp. 293-94(Babylon); Lindenlatf, "Der Perserscrttt der Athener Akropolis," 84-85; T. 1. Shear, "The Persian Destruction of Athens" (Athenian Ag-ora): K. Tucheli. "Die Perserzerst6rung von Branchidai-l)idvina undihire Folgen--ArclhiohtgisclI Betrachtet," Archdfologischer A4nzir,ger 103,no. 3 (1988): 427-38 (Didvryna): and Volkniar son (Graeve, "GrahtigaLlf deni Kalabaktepe," Istanbuh,7 Alitteilungen 36 (1986): 37-51 (Mile-tos). Ott attacks ott statues in the ancient Near East, see Bahrati, "As-sault and Abduction"; T. Beran, "Leben tnr Tod der Bilder," in AdBeen et Fidliter Seminandum: emtgoabc fit Katlheinz I)elleri, el. GerlindeMatter arnd Ursula Magen (Keselaer: Verlag Bltzon und Bercker,1988), 55-60; and Prudence Harper arid Piere Ainiet, "Tlie Meso-potainian Presence: Mesopotanmian MoVtILInents Found at Susa," iniThe Royal City ol eSusa, ed. Harper, Joan Artz, and Franrroise Tallori(New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992), 159-82.

42. Balbina BKiblei, "Die archaischen attischen Grals-rlen in drlr thernis-tokleischen Stadtunrater: GrabscUrihding oder Apotropation?" Philolo-gus 145. no. 1 (20011: 3 -15: and Keesling, "Endoios's Painting fromthe Thernistoklean Wall."

43. Against aristocrats: I,ambert Schneider anrd Christoph 116cker, (Gtie-chistiev c est land: Antik und Byzanz, Islam und Klassizionus :zuimlien Korea-this(hem Golf nd nordtrgienhisihen Bergland (Cologne: DuMont Bucitvirilag, 1996), 123; and enlisting ancestors: Klaus StA;ibler, lotm undhainktion: Kunstwerke als politisches Atusdiutkshittel (Miirster: L(,,ARII-Verlag, 1993), 18-23.

44. Keesling, "Enrloios's Painting fIiom the Therilistoklean Wall," 518.

45. A te•w examples exist of ironurnents ft(om the Theriistoklean wallwhere the sculptures' faces appeal to hase been targeted: it is notclear, however, that this was necessarily done at tire titmte of the incorporation of these images into the will rather than earlier, fnt exxat]-pie, bh the Persians. For one suci sCUilpItr, see Keesling, "Endoios'sPainting front the Thernistoklean Wall." Surveying the sculptures fiiotthe wall as at group, however, one's oveiall impression is oft pragroaticalteration to fit the requirements of the wall.

46. Thucrdides 1.93.3.

47. 1 thank Dr. Jutta Stroszeck of the Kerairreikos Museum frt discussingthese issues with tlte.

48. Herodotos 6.101 (Fretria), 8.33 (Abae), 6.19 (Didcvirra).

49. Pausanias 8.46 (Brauron arid Didrlial; Herodotos 1.183 (BabIsltr;Herodrotos names this god Zeus).

50. Pausanrias 1.8.5: Pliny, Natural Hnislwor 34.70; arid Arrian, Analeasis3.16.7- 8.

51. See n. 41 above; cf. also Paul-Alain BeaulieCt. "An Episode in the Fallof Babylon to tbe Petsians,"Jiournal ol ,Neitt Easteln Studies 52, no. 4(1993): 241-6]1, describing tie first attack by the Persians ott Babyoht,when tile defenders gathered tip all tile cult stattes of tihe surround-ing territories arid brought them inside the citY for protection.

52. Balraini, "Assault arid Abduction."

53. Deborah Steiner, Image,i it Afind: Statues in Artaii and Classical (GreekLiteiature atnd Thouttght (Princeton: Princeton Uniiersits Press, 2(11).

54. Christopher Faraone, ITlismans and Trojn Hor Mes: (Guardian Statues inAncient Greek Alyth and Ritual (Oxtord: Oxtord UniversniN Press, 1992),94-112.

55. Chained statutes: Pausanias 3.15.7-10: arid G eorgios Despinis, "FinGeliesseltes G6tterbild," in MAsuteion: Beitrige zur antiken Plavli/,-Eestschit/f l Iu hren yon Peter Comelis Bol, ed. Hans son Steuiben, G,6tzLahusen, and Haritini Kotsidu (Mhriesee: Bibliopolis, 21107), 235-45;voodoo dolls: Christopher Faraone, "Binding and BuPting tre Forcesof Evil: T1ie Detfisive LUTse of 'Voodoo Dolls' in Ancient Greece," Cla( -Vical Antiquity 101, no. 2 (1991): 165-205.

56. See it. 12 above.

57. Livs 31.44.4-9; Harriet Flower, The Art of Ftrgetting: Distgrace and Obliz-i ton in. P Roman Political ulfture (Chapel Hill: tTniversits of North Caro-lina Press, 2(106), 34-41: Caroline Htuser, "'(reek MonumentalBronze Sculpture of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C." (PhD diss.,Harvard Unisersitv, 1975), 255-81; and T. leslie SrearJr., "TIre Athe-nian Agora: Excavations ofi 1971," Hesperia 42 (1973): 121-

79, esp.

130-34, 165-68.

58. George Hantinann, "TIre Fourth Campaign at Sardis (1961)," Bulletinof the American Schools ol Oriental Resiarch 166, no. 1 (1962): 1-57, esp.

ILindcnlaul, "lDer Perserschun der Athener Akropolis," 90-92.

28() ARI IW. IAiAIN SHP'IENIRFR 2009 VUII iF XCI Nu MBER 3

5-153 and Joinl Pedlev, A nient l,iterary Sourres on Snidis, ArrhaeologiralE/Apnoration o.Santis (Carrinhiidge, Mass.: Harvaid Universitv Press,1972), 48-49. 74.

59. I(; If. '36-51. W. B. Dinsmnoor, "Atic Building Accounts," pt. 1, "TheParthenon," AIleimaao Journal ol Iiehae/olaj 17, no. 1 (1913): 53-80; l)t.5, "Suppieviientar Notes." 25. no. 3 (1921): 233-47: and B. D. Me-rin, "Fiagientis of Attic Building Accounns," Ainriaitjoui•al oA/Arihae-ologv, 36. no. 4 (1932): 472-76,

60. Hlurwil. "The Kritios BON"; Lindenlaut, "Der PerserschUtt der AthenrerAkli opolis"; Steskal, Do /i,'rtOirungsbejnond 480179 der -Ithener Akropolis;and Siewart "The Peisian and Carthagiinian Invasions."

61. Stewart, "TIh Pei sian.i and Carthaginian Invasions." Steskal, Do- Zeri%i/iung,%belioid 480/79 d.ei Athener. kropolis. has looked also at vasepaintitg, in order to aigue that the invention of red-figure postdatesthe Persian sack. Foir criticisiis of his iietliod and conclusinns, see in.311 abo%c.

62. It is cleai Ihat given thie extraordinarily large amonunt of fill neededfor terracing-solile 13,000 Cubic vards (10,000 cubic nieters) for thenorth via i al, and 52,000-59,000 cubii vards (40,000-45,000 CubicInters) fioi the south wall--nuch was brought up fioun the lowet city(Stewnat, "Tlhe Persian anid Carthiaginian Inhasiins," 389); we cannot,thcrefote. be certain that evetything found on the Acropolis was origi-nalh set iupi there. In Insy analysis, I hase conseqieniV foctl used oitliose lnlonninents that cai most plausibly be associated with theAcropolis, liir example, the architectural fIragments and statues stchas the korai and the Nike of Kalliniachos. The Nike's base was foundin still, as were those of some korai.

63. Flu',I Temple of Aheria Polias is discussed below. Liteuars soutces, themost detailed o fwhich is Plutarch (Po'ikhes 12-14), make clear thatilit temples set e not rehuilt umii tile age of Perikles. We are also foritiunate in having dated inscriptional evidence, most significanly, fi-

nancial aiconiis of' the bfilding process, on which see ti. 59 above.

Final.hi there is archaeological evidence from ithe exca'ations carriedout oinl the Aropolis, although the most significant are from hlie late

nineteenth ccti'uv anid imperlect * i l recorded. Nonetheless, they show

ciearIs that the rie'a arolind tiie Parttlhnon was reterraced in associa-tion with the ionstruction oi the tericple: this can be dated to tilenid-tfifhtitentur by mieans of finds in the fill (Flurwi|t, "The KritiosBos,- 62-63). Fori the possible sin•sival into the Early Classical periodof parti of the Temple of Athena Polias, see in. 78 behlw.

64. ()In the Pariatheriaiia. see .1enifer Neils, ed., Ilornhipping Athena: Pana-

lhenaia tnd P'arthenon (Madison: U'niversitsl of Wisconsin Press, 1996).

65. IHerodottos 8.54.

66. Fori lith kind of actiitis ihat took plac' oin ithi A

ciopolis. see luirwit,"The Aciopolis in Athenian Life" arid L,itetatul-c," chap. 3 of The, Athe-

nian Acroi/otis, 35-63.

67. Pausailias 7.5A,t (Sarios and Phoiaea), 10.35.2-3 (Phaleron, Abac,Hilalialtus).

68. Major recent discissions ofo the oath frion a historical perspective 'il-clude Peter Siewcit, Doe Eid von tMalmoa (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Ver-

lagsbuchfiandhlng, 1972) (affirlning its historicity but denlying that ofhlie "te-iples clause"); Russell Meiggs, The Athenian E'ipire (Oxford:

Oxford Uniisrsity Press. 1999), 152-56, 504-7 (affirming its historic-

itsy); P.A . Rhodes arid Robin Osborne, (irek Historical ln.sc•pi n/ins, 404-

323 B.C. (Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press, 2003), 440-49 (declaringthat with lthe evidence currently available, no secure decision can he

i tached); and rI-ans ,an llWees, " 'The Oath of the Sworn Bands': TheAchatnae Stela, the Oath of' Plataea, and Archaic Spartan Warfare," in0)a1s IJ i/ti Sparta, edt Mischa M'ier, Andreas Luther, and Lukas Thorn-

nien (Muni(ith: Frank Steiner Veilag, 2006), 124-64 (arguing fill atkcirncl )f histo[rical truth11, hnt also mulch totnrth-cen t irv invention, es-pec ially including tile "temples clause").

69. Peter Kienz, "The Oath of Marathon, Not Plata|iia?" ftvetia 76, no. 4(2007): 731-42: arid Lotis Robert, lE'lud's eigratphiques et philologiques(Paris: LhibieiI Ancienne lIIonot Champion, 1938), 302-16: the

foillnev ai-get's that time Atclharriae stela aottally preserves all earlieroiith sworn at Maratholn.

70. "TheI llcnic oath whit ii the Athenians say the Hellenes swore be-tiol het' hattle at Plataia is talsified as is it'e treaty of the Atheniansand ou, Helencs with King Darius. Arid furtlicruiore. lie says the bat-

t' it i Maraiion was not what evetrone keeps repeating it was, and 'allthe other things that flie cir' of the Athenians brags abott and usesto) (fil)( Ihe 11clienes., " TheV0pouipos, quote-d in Theon, 1Prog.,ninOt--

niata 2, trans, W. Robert (Connor, 'heOpioipus and Flifth-Centurt, A/thens(Washinglton, D.C: Centel for HIellenic Studies, 1968), 78: oin the pas-

sage, see C 1onnor, 78-89.

71. Rhodes arid Osborne, (Greek Historical lnsritvtiins, ,144-45.

72. Oni the temples in the Attic countryside, see Korres, "Athenian Classi-cal Architecture," 21-TI.

73. For example, Hurwit, The Athenian Acrot5olis, 157-58; Korres, "Athe-iian Classical Arihitecture," 10: arid Pollitt, Art and Experience in Classi-cal Creece, 65-66.

74. On the Congress Decree, see E. F. Bloedow, " 'Olysipian' Thoughts:Plutarch on Pericles' Congress Decree," Q/iu.scula Atheniensia 21(1996): 7-12; Brian MacDonald, "The Authenticit of the CongressDecree," PlstOnmia 31, no. 1 (1982): 120-23; and Meiggs. Thie Athenian"tipire. 152-53.

75. The most extensive and convincing stateluent of the skeptical positionis that of Robin Seager, "The Congress Decree: Some Doubts and aHypothesis," Htstoria 18, no. 2 (1969): 129-41.

76. On the slow process of Athenian rebuilding, see Mark, The Stintuatyof Alhena Nike in Athe'is, 101-2.

77. Herodotos 5.77; and Pausanias 1.27.6.

78. Inscriptions: IG 1. 52A, lines 15-18 (first Kallias decree), Ix V. 52B,lines 24-25 (second Kallias dectee); and Xenophon, Hellanira 1.6.1.Oti the mintch vexed question of the connection between the"Opisthtociomnos" mentioned in inscriptions and litertai sources antdthe Archaic Temple of Athena Polias, see the jUiciCicils summars in

Jeffrey Hurwit, "Space arid Theme: The Setting of the Parthenon." inThe Pnir/henon from Antiqtuity to the Present, cd. Jenifer Neils (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2005), 9-33, esp. 22-25.

79. For example, Steskal, Do A-ers/mntbngsbund 480/79 der Athener Akroiol/.210-11.

80. Hurwit, The Athenian Atroj)olis, 142.

81. It is true that, due to Greek huilding methods, the cotlnin drums of'the Olter Parthenon were tiie major materials available tor use friomthat temple; such drimis were the first components laid down in anynew building. However, if the builders of the north wall had simplywished to build in a burry with whatever came to hand, they mightalso have made use of material from the podium arnd floor of thetemiple. both composed of large rectilinear blocks that might havebeen thought convenient tor erecting a wall.

82.

83.

I thank Linda Saflran fto pointing this out to tile.

Hturnit, The Arrotiolis in the Age of Peri/les, 70.

84. The most abundant evidence for dating comes froin the stretch of' thenorth wall that contains fragments of the Temple of Athena Polias.An excavation of the area behind it in 1886 by P. K•ivvadias arid G.ILrwerau brought to light chips from building the wall, Archaic statuesand inscriptions, and a hoard of Late Archaic coins. For the excava-tion, see Kavvadias, "Anaskaphai en tei Akropolei," Arch/tiologike Ethe-mners, 1886, 73-82: Kassadias and Kawerau, Die pugra7bung mier Akrolpo-I/ its noahre 1885 bis iahre 189/i (Athens: Hestia, 1906), 24-32: ardStewart, "The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions," 381-85. Onl thecoins, see Chester G. Star-r, Athenian Coinage, 480-449 B.C. (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 19701), 3-7; and Stewart, 383-85. Additional infotilation oii the dating of the north wall comes froni the stidy of itsarchitectural construction (Korres, "On the North Acropolis Wall").Some scholars have dated the construnction of the north wall to theKinionian period, some ten years after Theiiistokles, including Vassi-

fis Lambrinoudakis, "Le mtoI de I'enceinte classique d'Acropoled'Ath&nes et son r6le de p6ribole," Cont/ves Rendus de' IAcadcmie des

hIscriptions el Bel/es-Leutres, 1999, 551-61; and Steskal, Der Zerstcn'ungsbe-fund 480/79 der Athener Akroutolis, 210-11. lin so doing, they rely onliterary evidence linking the south wall to Kimon (Plutarch, Kimnion13.6-7; Nepos, Cinzon 5.2). Buit since the south wall alone is specifi-call' mentioned in the literary sources, this is not necessarily convinc-ing.

85. For the findspots of the sculptures, see Schrader, Die Archais(hen Mar-inthildiverke der Akropolis.

86. The number of statues found in this cache has been debated. Lan-glotz, "Die Koren," 8, 33 n. 4, in his fundamental publication oil theAcropolis korai, identified fourteen statues from this location, butStewart, "The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions," 382 n. 21, has re-cently demonstrated that this was based on a misinderstanding, thatonly inle are securely identifiable now. The identifiable scrulpturesare the korai in the Acropolis MuseUrm, ins. nos. 670, 672, 673. 677,678. 680-82. antd the Nike. Acropolis Musetnm ins. no. 690.

87. For the excavation arid the numismnatic evidence. see n. 84 above.Finds from the cache inclided at least nile sculptures as well as fiveArchaic inscriptions, building materials, a colnmin drunt of the Tem-ple of Athena Polias, and various statue bases, sherds, and ashes. Forthe inscriptions, see Rauhitscliek, Dedirationsfiorin the Athenian Akrop/o-its, nos. 6, 13, 14, 197, 217.

88. On the widespread belief, in Classical antiquity, that religious votivescould not be discarded bit reqtired burial within a sancttary, seeMichael Doriderer, "Irreversible Deponierung von..Grosspiastik bIeGriechien, Etruskern ind R6mern," Jahreshefte des 0sti"rchis/then Ar-

chdiologischen Institutes in Wien 61 (1991-92): 192-275, esp. 203-7.

89. ti )ii painting of Archaic sculptures, see Vinzeliz Britickinann andRainnind Winische, 'ds., Bunte Giitter: Die Farhigkeit antikei Sku/ptur(Munich: Staatliche Antikensairminihig tnd Glyptothek, 2004).

90. For example, the "Mourning Athena" stela described by Pierce De-inargne ii 1,exitot ironog,raphicum mythologiar dassicate (Zurich: Artemis

Verlag, 1981), s.v. "AIhena," 10)15, no. 625; and the Athena Leninia,dest ribed in Pausanias 1.28.2 and by Detaiargne, s.v. "Athena," 976,io. 1917.

91. The slatue is often tefetrred to in the scholarly literature ias tileAtlhta Icn iPoiafhos. Since this title is attested only in one, verv late,soiiiiic-a scholiut to D)emosthenes' Against Andtrtion (597.5)-1

hait,ie avoided tiltl me here. For tile dating of the statue, see EvelynI lart ison, "Pheidias," in P'eymonal Styl^'s in Greek Sculpture, ed. J. j. Pollitt

and Olga Palagia, •',le Classical Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-vcisitv ptess, 1996), 16-65, esp. 30. Other useful discussions of thestanti include I lurwit, The Athenian Atropolis, 151-52; and Carol Mat-iusth, Class.ial IBronuez: The Art and ('ralt o/Greek and Roman Statuary(Ithaca, N.Y, Cornell University t'ress, 1996), 125-28; ftor literarysoulccs, we have descriptions in Pausanias (1.28) and Demosthenes

(/)ei laa l'egatione I9.272), alldt inscriptional evidence for the construc-tion of thi statue and its cost (/(; 1V. 435, lines 427-31). For a restora-lion and inteliepctation of the inscription, see W. B. Dinsinoor, "AtticBuihling Ai counts," pli. 4, "'h Statue of Athena Protlachos," Amen-eauot rnti/al o/ Anrehaeol'gy 25, no. 2 (1921): 118-29.

92. lht wit. The Athenian Atropolis, 152.

93. Ibid., 151-53.

94.

95.

Pausanlias 1.28.2: and Demosthenes, l)e ilaso legatione 19.272.

The only (I ltain t cfites-ltuations of it are oit Ronian-cria Atheniani oins, which depicm, in abbii eiated and schematic fiorm, somtie of themajiol monuments onl the( Acropolis. Hiarrison, "Plicidias," 32-34.

96. Dinsilloor, "The Stntue of fAtena Prounachos," 126.

97. Andrew Stewart, Clissical G,ree(e and the Birth o/I Western Art (Cam-Itidge: Canibfidge University Press, 2008), 7.

98. ()t tilhe Stoa Poikile, see Mark Stansbury-O'Donnell, "The PaintingP'rogram in thft' Stoa P'oikile," in Ppneldean Athens and Its Legao', ed. ,Ju-(hitll Baltinger and jeffiey Iltfurit (Austin: University of Texas Press,200}5), 73-87, with abundant ptevious bibliography.

99. For tle iati nig of tile iniument, determined through pottery frontits fioundations, see ibid., 81.

100. O)n the ixitaation, see T. Leslie Shear Jr., "The Athenian Agora: Ex-cavations of 198()-1982," Itespoia 53, no. 1 (1984): 1-57, esp. 13-16,

18.

101. The paintings were exiecuted fy sonme of the nlost fatmous artists ofile Eal1v IClassical cra. Polygnotos is said to have done the Tro'tjan"WaI s(cu's (fPlutaich, Kinion 4.5-6), Mikon, ilit' Aniazions (Aristo-phaelis, Lvm/atta 677-79), while Marathon is variously ascribed toI'olygnots, Mikon, or a third candidate, Panainos, brothel ofIheidias. Aelian, De natura animalium 7.38 (Polygnotos or Mikon);

Pausanias 5.11.6 (Panaiuos); Pitny, Nettural Ilistor' 35.57 (Paninaos).

102. Fot possible riflections in later art, see Evelyn Harrison, "The SouthFIie/e oft ile Nike Temple And the Marathon Paintiing in the PaintedStoa," Ametnian out rnal ol Arehaeolottg 76 (1972): 353-78; the articlealso piovides a utsef'ul catalog off tfie most relevant literary sources forhlc(- paintings, which should be supplemented by the more broad-1anging sele4 tion on tlhe huilding in R F. EWycherley, Literary and Epi

pal/phtial Tesitiptnia, vol. 3, The Athenian Agora: Results it /'tIxcentationstt/ndudted I'n the Amenican School qi/ Classical Studies at Athens (Princeton:

American Scltool of Classical Studies at Athens, 1957), 31-45.

103. Vausanias 1.17.2-6; flit other literary reftirences to the Thescion, seeW h iett lIy, I,iterurv and E'pIgiaphirat Iestinonia, 113-19; the shrine'sdecoiation is discussed ill Castriota, Mth, E'thos, and Actuality, 33-63.

104. V'olvgnotos is mentioned fy liarpokration (Wycherley, Literaryt andI]n/tVrPd a! "lretimonia, 114); and Mikon Iy Paitsanias (1.17.3).

105. Pittite D)evatinez and Aliki Kauflnmann-Satnaras, entry in Lexiron icono-giaphitun rti tholog•iae Hassiaee, s.v. "Aniazones," 637.

106. I'he O.etrh/ rhuýs Papitlri, ed. and trans. Bernard P. Grenfell and ArthiurS. limit. 72 sils. ( lotdon: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898-), 3965 and2327 (lit'iahter PO)'s), trans. D)ehorah Boedecket and D1avid Sider,,.ds., The Neiv Simonides: Contexts of Maise and Desire (Oxftrd: Oxford

University Ptess, 2001(), 25, 28-29; the whlume also contains ai selec-tuin otf ssays oil Sinonides lisefitl here.

107. /'Ox'. 23127, lines 11-12: iranis. Boedeckc' and Sider, Th'e Ne7v Sirno-nide%, 28. C'f Eta Stehle, "A Bard of the Iron Age and His AuxiliaryMuse," it) Boedecker and Sider, 106-19, esp. 113.

108. L,otaux, Thi Invention o/ Athen.s, 132-71,

109.

110.

Ract k, Zomtn Barharnbih/ in dem Kunst Athens.

,John Boardman, "The Kleophrades Painter at Troy," Antike Kunst 19,

D)ESTRUcrION AND MEMORY ON THE ATHIENIAN ACROPOIIS 281

no. 1 (1976): 3-18, esp. 14-15; and Margaret Miller. "Priam, King ofTroy," in The Ages o• Homer: A Tribute to Emil)y ovonsend 1erme,le, ed.Jane Cartel and Sarah Morris (Austin: University of Texas Press,1995), 449-65, esp. 460.

111. The fact that the Trojans were here depicted sympathetically, andelsewhere (as in the Stoa Poikile and Simonides) in a polemical andunsympathetic manner, is testimony to the malleability of myth inClassical Greek culture.

112. For Greek military history in the Early Classical period, particularlyAthens, see P. J. Rhodes, "The Delian League to 449 B.C.," in TheIifth Century B.C., ed. D. M. Lewis et al., Cambridge Ancient HistomN(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 34-61.

113. For committee oversight of expenditures relating to the Parthenon,see the financial accounts discussed in in. 59 above. As to the speed ofbuilding, Manolis Korres has calculated that with the stoneworkingtools available today, and using the same number of masons andsculptors, construction on the Parthenon wosld take at least twice aslong. Korres, From Pentelicon to the Parthenon (Athens: Melissa Publish-ing House, 1995), 7.

114. For example, Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis, esp. 228-32; JeniferNeils, The Parthenon Frieze (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001), 173'-201: Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis, "Twerty-First Cenmnr Pertspectives on the Parthenon," Journal of Helleni Studies 123 (2003):191-96; Pollitt, Art and Expernence in Classical Greece, 80-82; andKatherine Schwab, "Celebrations of Victory: The Metopes of the Pat-thenon," in Neils, The Parthenon, 159-97.

115. Stewart, Classial Greece and the Birth of Wuestern Art, 132-33.

116. Ibid., 133.

117. IfG IV. 81, lines 5-9. T. Leslie ShearJr., "The Demolished Temple atEleusis," in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Stulpture, and Topographiy(Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1982),128-40.

118. Hturit, "The Setting of the Parthenon." 26.

119. Barbara Barletta, "The Architecture and Architects of the ClassicalParthenon," in Neils, The Parthenon, 67-99, esp. 68-72.

120. The recent reconstruction of the huilding histors on the site of theParthenon by Manolis Korres ("Die AthenaITenmpel atif der Akropo-lis") includes not one but a series of predecessors: an "Ur-Parthenon"dating to the early to mid-sixth century, followed by two Late Archaicbuilding phases, one in poros (a soft stone), the other marble. Mostsignificant, however, is the marble predecessor dated to abott 490BCE and destroyed by the Persians, Out focus here.

121. Hurwit, The Athenian Acrapolis, 166.

122. For the shrine, see especially Korres, "Die Athena-Tempel ant der Ak-ropolis," 227; and for its identification with Athena Ergane, see Hur-wit, The Acropolis in the Age qf PeYk1rs, 74-76; and Pausanias 1.24.3.

123. For analogous examples of this kind of "historic preservation," seeHu,rwit, "Landscape of Metnors: The Presence of the Past on theAthenian Acropolis," chap. 2 of The Acropolis in the Age of Petikles, 49-86.

124. Korres, "On the North Acropolis Wall," 184.

125. On the proportional relations within the Classical Parthenon, see Bait-letta, "The Architecture and Architects of the Classical Parthenon,"72-74; and Manolis Korres, "The Architecture of the Parthenon," inThe Parthenon and Its Impact in Modemr Times, ed. Panavotis Tourniki-otis (Athens: Melissa Publishing Hotse, 1994), 55-97, esp. 88-90. Tifecohtion drums were recut, reducing their diameter about 8 inches (20centimeters). Korres, From Pentelinon to the Parthenon, 56, 60 n. 37.

126. Lothar Haselberger, "Bending the Trith: Ctrvature and Other Re-finements in the Parthenon," in Neils, The Parthenon, 100-157.

127. For the curvature of the Older Parthenon, see ibid., 119. It should benoted that, due to the extension of the podium and the differentplan of the new building, the curvature had to be reworked, on whichsee Francis Cranmer Penrose, An Investigation of the PIriniples of Athe-nian Architeeture (1888; Washington, D.C.: McGrath, 1973), 20, 29-35.

128. 1 thank Francesco Benelli for pointing out the challenges involved inthis to me. Ot the reuse of materials, see Korres, Fromo Pentelicon to thePanhenon, 56. Bundgaard, Parthenon and the Mlyenean Cit'V, 61-67, dis-cusses reused material fitom the Older Parthenon, although his con-clusion-that the entire building was essentially taken apart, alteredvery minimallv, and put together again--cannot stand in light ofmore recent discoveries, on which see especially Korres, "Recent Dis-coveries on the Acropolis."

129. Spencer A. Pope, "Financing the Design: The Development of theParthenon Program and tie Parthenon Building Accounts," in Aliso,l-lanea Aleditt'rranea, ed. Ross Holloway, Archaeologica Transatlantica(Providence: Brown Universitv, 2000), 61-69, esp. 65-66.

282 ART tt I ILAIN SItPIEMBIER 2009 VOLU ME XCI NiMBER 3

130. As argued by, ior example, Hurwit, The Acropohi% in t(h Age ojPerikles,72-76.

131. Andrew Stewatt. Greek Srulpture: An Explorahion (New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press. 1990), pl1

320.

132. (. Rodeinvaidt, "Interpretatio Cristiana." Atchiiologiseher Anzeiger 3-4(1933). 401-5.

133. Mary Beard. The Parthenon (Cambridge, Mass.: Hlarvard UniversityPress, 2003). 54.

134. Literary descriptions of the statue ate preseivsed in Pliny (Natural IHis-tory 36. 18-19) and Patsanias (1 .24.5-7). Of Motdern stUdies, particu-latrl tseitfid are Milette Gaitmian. "Statue, CIlt and Rept(oduction," AptIItIA1t1V 29, no. 2 (2006): 258-79; Kenneth Lapatin, "The Statue ofAthena and Other Treasures in the Parthenon," in Neils, The Parthe-non, 260-91; Neda ILeipen, Athena Parthenos: A IReomnirurtion (Toron-to: Royal Ontario Museunt, 1971): and Gaabriele Nick, Die Athena Pat-theros: Studien zum Griothi.mhen KAtdbild und seiner Rreultion (Maini:Vetlag Philipp yot Zabern. 2002).

135. On the A.nazonornachiv, see Evelyn Harrison, "The Composition of'the Aniazoniotnachy oin the Shield of Athena Parthenos," Iesi/enia 35.no. 2 (1966): 107-33; idem, "Motifs of the City-Siege on the Shield ofAthena Parthenos." American Journal ofArchaeolopg 85, tan. 3 (1981):281-317; and V. M. Strocka, Pirdusrclid.s und Parthenosshild (Bochuln:Buchhandltng WasotUth, 1967).

136. The Athenian AniazonomachN is described in Aesilsitis (Eumenides688), Plutarch (Theseus 26-27), and Pausanias (1.2. I6). For the argu-ment in favor of the Athenian Ainazorionomachy. see especiallY lHarri-soil. "Motifs of the City-Siege."

137. Harrison, -Motifs of the City-Siege," 295-96.

138. Devambez and Katiffimann-Samaras, Lexicon iqgnwaiphi,ion mythnlhgiaedca,sicae, s.v. "Amazones," 601-3, nos. 232-47.

139. On collective inemorv, see it. 4 above.

140. Demosthenes, Fwo the liberty qj the Rhodiam 35, in Demosuthmnes, trans.J. H. Vince (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930), vol. 1,432.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Destruction and Memory on the Athenian AcropolisSOURCE: Art Bull 91 no3 S 2009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.collegeart.org/caa/news/index.html