6/21 The Acropolis

Athens, by any measure, and its Acropolis is but a scaled up version of the Mycenaean acropolis: it lies on a high vantage point overlooking the city, with a natural basin and access to water nearby. Additionally, it has remnants of Neolithic and Bronze Age civilizations found throughout the area. Unfortunately, it experienced the same type of collapse that consumed other civilizations around the area in the 12^th century BCE. For about 300 years, one could categorize this time period as the 1^st Dark Ages. Nevertheless, society recovered and experienced a period of growth through a process of synoecism, or the coming together of different communities. After the recovery from this downturn in history, a new political structure began to emerge, one in which there was no king or megaron. Instead, these institutions were replaced by the Gods and the temple, respectively. There seemed to be a movement away from secular control of society to one which worshipped the heavens. This same pattern can be found in ancient Roman history as well, as after the fall of the Roman Empire Christianity sought to remove all instances of Pagan, polytheistic tradition and replace it with a monotheistic tradition. The political power was also transferred, as it moved from the Acropolis to the Agora. Previously, kings had ruled from this higher part of the city, a sign of a monarchical society. However, as power shifted, Athens became more of a democratic society and power moved down to where the common people could be active participants in the debates of the day. As Athens rose in power, they began to build temples on top of the Acropolis. Evidence of 6 of these structures have been found, with each successive new edifice being built on top of the older ones, whether because it had been knocked down through wars, or the belief system had changed necessitating a different structure be built, or because of natural causes.

The most recent Parthenon built on the Acropolis was dedicated to Athena Parthenon and the heightened sense of nationalism after the victory at the battle of Marathon over the Persians. It also helped that the Athenians inherited wealth from the Persians after their defeat along with the discovery of a silver mine. These two factors played into the decision to make a temple completely out of marble, a previously unheard of feat. Concurrently with the construction of the Parthenon was the creation of the famed statue of Athena Parthenon by Phidias, one which would be placed within the temple upon its completion. What I find especially interesting about temple architecture is its rather simplistic program: the entire purpose of these structures was to act as a house to a God. If any of the Greek civilizations had come under hard economic times, would they simply deem these structures unnecessary? Or was the desire to build a house for their deity so strong that they would divert funds from other parts of their culture and dedicate themselves to build a temple? My guess is that since the Greeks were such a loyal people, the Athenians especially, that no amount of political strife would have prevented them from building a temple to the patron of Athens. While it is rather simple in conception, as I previously noted, the complexity occurs in the making and execution.

One of the best parts of the trip so far was the ability to go behind the scenes and actually see the contemporary attempts at restoring the Parthenon. We got a chance to see what kinds of tools the ancient Greeks used, how the Modern archaeologists and stonecutters are attempting to piece back together the old stones with freshly cut ones, and more insights than you would normally receive on your typical trip to the Acropolis. I had always learned that the entasis of a column was a result of the Greeks wanting to correct some kind of optical deficiency in the human eye; the bulge being an attempt to not make it seem like a column was too skinny. in addition, however, the Greeks attempted to imbue a column with the sense that it was bearing the actual weight of the stones above, adding a certain amount of drama to the entire structure as if they were about to collapse under the tremendous mass of the entablatures. I had never before looked at the entasis through this point of view. Once this insight was revealed, an entire new appreciation and dimension was revealed to me about these ancient structures. These ancient temples were not simply houses to the Gods. They were seen as living, plastic structures that turned inert stone into an especially dramatic presentation. Another feature that I had not realized about the Parthenon was that they curved the temple along the length of the plinth in both directions, a move that almost makes it seem like it will burst and explode at any minute. For the Greeks, it was apparently extremely difficult to make a straight line. We learned from the presentation of the differing methods they tried to use to do so. One of the methods involved measuring pieces of the temple from a flat expanse of water. Others involved stretching a piece of string. Therefore it is simply amazing at the precision in which the structures on the acropolis are rendered. There are absolutely no gaps between the drums of each column. Such minute details are what make this structure one of the pinnacles of accomplishment in Western culture.

The sculptural program of the Parthenon is another one of its distinguishing features that, although not existing today at the actual building, can be found depicted in Berlin at their archaeological museum and at the new Acropolis Museum by Bernard Tschumi. Both the pediments and metopes contained sculpture. The west side’s metopes depicted the battle vs. the Amazons, while the east side’s metopes depicted the battle of the Olympic Gods vs. various monsters. The east pediment depicted the birth of Athena, fully formed and armed from Zeus’ calf, while the west pediment depicted the struggle for who would protect the city: Athena or Poseidon. All of these creation myths represent something in the historical record that is a metaphor for some actual event. The metopes could be said to represent the struggle of the transition between a nomadic civilization and one which had tamed agriculture and become more civilized.

As I had never visited Athens before, it was quite a pleasure to visit one of the most important urban design fabrics of ancient architecture. Moving up the Acropolis through the Propylaea and seeing the Parthenon not frontally as the Romans may have designed it, but from an angle. The ability to view this structure as a three-dimensional form was a key element in the design of the Acropolis and the fact that the entrance to the temple was on the opposite side from where you entered from the Propylaea. This allows you the ability to walk almost fully around the building and develop a relationship with it, a processional feature that is quite pleasing. The buildings here were meant to be understood as a whole, blending with the surrounding landscape. I often wonder why architects design some of their buildings merely as a frontal composition. I mentioned this in my Venice journal but I think it bears repeating: I seem to appreciate a building more when I can walk completely around it and view it holistically. At the same time, I can understand site restrictions that may force only a frontal reading to a building. However, when allowed I would advise any designer (and myself) to consider all sides of a building.

The other building of note on the Acropolis is the Erechtheion, which was built 30 years after the Parthenon and seemingly has nothing to do with either the design or its layout. For one thing, its slender Ionic columns clash with the Doric arrangement of the main temple. It has a rather complex program, as it was dedicated to many deities and negotiates many height differences along the site. The projecting portico facing the Parthenon, however, does feature one of the most famous set of columns in antiquity. The Caryatids have a long and storied history and many theories abound as to the reason for their existence. Vitruvius said that they were slave women who had to hold up the entablature above as a sign of punishment and bondage. Others have suggested they were the 6 daughters of an ancient king who sacrificed themselves in battle. Whatever the case may be, it starts the conversation as to the derivation of the column itself. From my studies of ancient architecture, I was taught that the column which originated in Egypt was a representation in stone of a bundle of reeds. Other creation myths state that since these Greek temples were connected heavily with nature, they represent trees. However, still others state that the human body was a key factor in deriving the proportions of columns. I believe that it is probably a mixture of all of these theories. Many cultures from around the ancient world developed the use of columns in their architecture, so it shows by logic therefore that not all of them could have developed the column for the exact same reasons.