77-84

The interior arrangement of the Erechtheion

Σκινδαλαμοί

• Τραυλός, Ι.

The Erechtheion has been preserved in excellent condition, especially on the outside, for in the interior, separating walls,doors, floors,etc.,everything, disappeared during the conversion of the monument into a Christian church. The lack of sufficient evidence for restoring the interior arrangement, and, therefore, the position of the large number of the recorded sanctuaries which it included, as well as its original and asymmetrical arrangement in relation to other temples, created the impression that the Erechtheion was left unfinished, or that its original plan was altered during its construction. The Erechtheion, however, constitutes a complete monument, executed on the basis of a previously elaborated plan ; the existence of its many openings, doors and windows, and the presence of altars and shrines of a chthonic nature inside the temple, prove that this was a Temple - Telesterion. The cult of Athena Polias and Erechtheus had been established on the Acropolis from a very early date ; and, in particular, as we can deduce from two passagés of Homer and also from texts of the later Greek times, they were both worshipped together in the same temple.The first temple of Athena and Erechtheus, as well as those built later to replace it, including the great peripteral Peisistratian temple, whose foundations are still preserved, were built successively on the same site, on which, as generally believed, there was in prehistoric times the palace of Erechtheus where the goddess was first offered hospitality.Following the destruction of the sanctuaries on the Acropolis by the Persians in 480/79 B.C., the new temple, the Erechtheion, was not erected again on the same place, but a little further to the north, partly on the foundation of the northern side of the pteron of the Peisistratian temple. This transference from the established sacred place was not a result of the new Periclean re-organization of the Acropolis, but was apparently imposed by the imperative necessity to include within the temple the adjacent older shrines and revered relics ( martyria ) associated with the myths of the birth of the city.The problem which the architect had to face, was difficult and entirely unique : to erect a temple, in which should be included pre-existing cults and established sacred places. This difficulty was increased by the existing difference in height between their ground levels. Certainly, the outcome was very satisfactory, since the architect succeeded, by his free composition, not only to provide an appropriate solution for the building, but also to create an admirable architectural whole. The construction of the temple, of Ionic style and with rich architectural and sculptural decoration, began in 421 B.C., and after a short interruption due to the hardships of the Peloponnesian War, was completed in 406 B.C.From the interior arrangement of the temple, the only certain element, is the existence of the eastern cross wall dividing the cella into two distinct sections : an eastern, 9.837 X 7.318 m., and an almost square western, 9.837 X 10.753 m., the floor of which was 3.10 m. lower than that of the former. As to the western cross wall, and the two rooms reconstructed between the cross walls, no clear evidence exists that these were contemporary to the wholebuilding, and at this point there arises the major difficulty in restoring the plan of the original form of the temple.It is commonly believed that the eastern section was consecrated to Athena Polias, and that the altars of Poseidon - Erechtheus, Boutes and Hephaistos, were included in the western section, within the two rooms. However, an opposite viewpoint is also maintained, i.e. that the altars were in the eastern section, and that the place where the xoanon of Athena was located must be sought in the western section. I regard this latter view as more probable, not only because of the fact that Pausanias, on his route, seems to have visited first the eastern part of the Erechtheion with the altars, but also because I believe that it is more natural for the monumental north porch to have formed the entrance to the temple of Athena Polias (fig. 1 ). For the rest, Pausanias’ further description, in which he explicitly states that the temple of Athena was in direct continuation with the temple of Pandrosos, agrees with this arrangement. This is also supported by the anecdote recorded by Philochoros, since the dog which entered the temple of Athena Polias would only have been able to pass into the Pandr'oseion if the two shrines were contiguous (plan 1 ).Thus the «double building», as Pausanias correctly described the Erechtheion, consisted of two sections : first, the eastern section, adorned with frescoes and containing the altars and the three thrones of the priests, two of which were found on the Acropolis near the Erechtheion bearing the inscriptions : « of the priest of Hephaistos » and «of the priest of Boutes» ; second, the western section, which contained, in addition to the Prostomiaion with the sea, within adyta, as required for the mystery cult, the xoanon of Athena and the tomb of Erechtheus (plan 1, and K). The four stone door - leaves, 2.706 X 0.82 m., referred to in IG P, 372, and belonging to two doors, are, I believe, to be assigned precisely to the doors of these adyta. A third section, in the open air, organically connected with the building of the Erechtheion and forming an integral part of it, is the Pandroseion, which, in addition to the temple of Pandrosos and the tomb of Cecrops, included the sacred olive - tree and the altar of Zeus Herkeios.In the course of time, the Erechtheion, and especially its western section, underwent various repairs and alterations, the most important of which was the construction of the western cross wall, which was apparently necessitated by the need to support the roof. In general its construction is assigned to the Roman period, circa 27 B.C., that is contemporary with the reconstruction of the western face of the monument and the placing of the windowsbetween its columns (plan 2 ). There is no serious evidence to suggest that even part of the foundations of this new wall belonged to the Vth century B.C. Moreover, there is no positive indication in support of the view that the vertical separating wall, dividing the section between the cross walls into two rooms, ever existed. The existence of this wall has been accepted by almost all students of the Erechtheion because of the difference in level between the north and south walls of the cella. With the new reconstruction however (plans 1 and 2 ), this discrepancy creates no serious problem, since the lower part of the north wall would have been hidden by the bench, which commonly existed in temple - telesteria.Both the eastern and the western cross walls were demolished during the transformation of the Erechtheion into a Christian church in the Vllth century after Christ; the plan of this church can be restored with a high degree of certainty (plan 3 ). At that time the monument suffered its greatest destruction, and the traces of ancient worship within it were entirely lost.

• History and Archaeology

• Αρχαιολογία

αρχαία ελληνική αρχιτεκτονική, Ακρόπολη, Αθήνα

Περιέχει εικόνες και σχέδια