Classical cityscapes remained dominated by the major temples of the city’s patron divinities, especially when their location was elevated above the politico-legal, domestic, and business quarters of the town, as most famously in the city of Athens. Because Athens has always stood in the Western mind as the greatest of Greek cultural centers, so too its symbolic heart, the Acropolis, has been given intensive scholarly and touristic attention from the early pioneers of Classical Archaeology in the late eighteenth century AD (Stuart and Revett 1762—1816) onwards (see following Text Box).
The Athenian Acropolis
Many questions remain concerning the great building program here of the later fifth century BC, in which the Athenians constructed a new set of religious buildings to match their rich and powerful empire (Hurwit 1999, Beard 2002). The new design replaced monuments of the Archaic era, but on a grander scale (see Figure 11.1). A great entrance-portal, the Propylaea, brought the visitor onto the flat summit of the limestone hill which dominates the center of Athens. To the right of this monumental gate-complex is set the beautiful, small temple of Athena Nike (Athena Victorious), whilst directly ahead lay the great rectangular Parthenon temple (Athena the Maiden), containing a giant ivory and gold (chryselephantine) statue of the goddess. Left of the Parthenon a complex, split-level double sanctuary, the Erechtheion, celebrated Poseidon, Athena, Hephaestos, and a legendary hero Erechtheus. The rest of the hilltop gradually filled up with dedicatory statues and inscriptions throughout the era and into Roman times, since the entire Acropolis was now reserved for public cult and the display of the records cut in stone of individuals and the state.
The decorative scheme which ornaments the classic architectural design of the Parthenon (Figure 12.1) is in the most general terms well understood, but in critical details also poorly understood and subject to increasingly divergent theories. Let us start with the areas of general agreement.
The most visible artistic zone is at both ends of the building, where a large triangular area (pediment) tops the pillared facades. One end depicts the birth of Athena, the other the contest of Athena and Poseidon for the honor of being Athens’ patron; thus both celebrate the eponymous deity of the city and infer that even the Gods would fight for that privilege. Also, on the outside of the temple and above the outer ringing (peripteral) portico on the long and short sides, a regular series of square panels (metopes), show scenes familiar from other polis temples, portraying warfare of distinct types. An Ilioupersis commemorates the legendary Greek war at Anatolian Troy, whilst an Amazonomachy shows Greek warrior males defeating the female warriors of mythical barbarians in the region of the Black Sea. A Centauromachy displays a fight between drunken, lascivious Centaurs (half man, half horse) and Lapiths, a civilized mythical people defending their womenfolk. Finally the Gigantomachy shows
The epic battle of the Olympian Gods against the Giants. All these scenes have in common the contest of Classical Greek polis values against “The Other,” ways of life in various respects which are non-Greek and represent a threat to the Classical Greek world (Fullerton 2000). This opposition was both symbolic and real in contemporary power-politics. Thus for the Greeks, non-Greek invading armies were a permanent danger in the sixth and fifth centuries BC (Persians for the Aegean homeland, Phoenicians for the Greek colonial West, “barbarian” tribes and kingdoms for the Greek colonies around the Black Sea).
Invoking the Trojan War aligned Greek victories over such enemies with the heroic achievements of their ancestors, of particular resonance in Athens which had played a central role in the defeat of the Persians and still maintained vigilance through its maritime empire against further threats. The monstrous, primitive giants likewise were a symbol of the enormous armies of the Greeks’ enemies, whilst the Olympian gods were made in the form and character of the Greeks’ own concept of themselves as a people. Centaurs and Amazons challenged the mentality of Greek polis life. Civil disorder, abuse ofhospitality and ofindividual rights were defended by the civilized Lapiths. The Amazon race of warrior women represented the overturning of the male domination of the polis, both by claiming equality in physical accomplishment and heroism with men, and in spurning the correct female values of domesticated marriage, child-rearing, and breast-feeding, central to the inferior place allotted to respectable women in the Classical city-state.
Interpretive disagreement concerns the frieze above the interior wall on the long sides and above the interior portico on the short sides of the Parthenon. This location, together with the frieze’s height, makes visibility from the ground very difficult, although the craftsmen tilted the frieze downwards so that its features were somewhat clearer. As with much Greco-Roman monumental art, however, this rather challenges modern expectations that art is primarily there for anonymous viewers, whereas an equal role could be as a statement by the work’s commissioners, or for the Gods to appreciate.
The frieze has one theme, a procession winding around three sides of the temple, culminating with the head of the procession meeting a group of seated Gods and forming the “Peplos Scene” at the west end of the Parthenon. The traditional reading sees the people of contemporary Athens processing to the Acropolis, where they will sacrifice to Athena, and in the presence of the Gods dedicate a new garment (peplos) to the ancient statue of the goddess in the Erechtheion. An appropriate occasion was the four-yearly state procession and games of the Great Panathenaia. But there are unresolved difficulties. For example the “Peplos Scene” does not clearly show the presentation of the goddess’s new garment but perhaps something else. Alternative theories have been proposed, some obscure and perhaps incomprehensible to nonAthenian admirers visiting this monument of imperial propaganda. I still feel that the traditional reading is the most economical, and if we accept it then an interesting conclusion has been drawn by Foxhall (1995). A feature of the Classical polis was its careful prohibition against enhancing individual status, mindful of the not-long-distant threat of tyranny and elite families to the democratic citizen ethos dominant in at least half of Classical city-states. It is exceptional rather than common to find living people portrayed, and these are victorious generals or Olympic victors representing the community. But here the people of Athens represent themselves on their most elaborate state monument, at the highpoint of their city, and of course as a nation of perfectly-formed human beings. Moreover, as a sign of arrogance, even the Gods sit and admire this citizenry in a scene where both occupy the same stage. The Parthenon frieze represents overreaching self-admiration and a claim to superiority, matching the speech in praise of Athens by its first citizen Pericles as reported (or imagined?) by the contemporary historian Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War 2.38.2.), both basking in the great success of the Athenian imperial venture.
A. W. Lawrence and R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Architecture. New Haven 1996, xiv, unnumbered figures.
Finally and on a more general note, we should mention that the two main Classical architectural “orders” (Figures 12.2 and 12.3) were used widely and even in the same Greek sanctuary complexes, so that style and context are more important than any link to dialect or ethnicity which the labels “Doric/ Ionian” might imply (Lawrence and Tomlinson 1996).
World History
