Gill, 'Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis Before Mnesicles', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9506
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9506-gill-entrance

@@@@95.6.7, Eiteljorg, Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis

Harrison Eiteljorg, II, <i>The Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis
Before Mnesicles.</i> Archaeological Institute of America,
Monographs, New Series 1. Boston (Ma). Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1995. Pp. xvi + 146, 18 pls., 39
figs. ISBN 0-8403-9391-1.

     Reviewed by David W.J. Gill -- University of Wales, Swansea 
          D.W.J.Gill@Swansea.ac.uk

     Although the entrance to the Athenian akropolis has received
much attention, this study is based on a re-excavation of the
area in 1975 (see H. Eiteljorg, II, "New finds concerning the
entrance to the Acropolis", <i>Athens Annals of Archaeology</i> 8
(1976) 94-95), further measurements in 1987, and a
photogrammetric survey of the Mycenaean wall in 1989. Even though
W.B. Dinsmoor, Jr. (<i>The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis,
vol. 1: The Predecessors</i> [Princeton, 1980]) was able to take
account of Eiteljorg's 1975 excavations, the later surveys have
raised questions about his conclusions. Eiteljorg recommends that
his work should be used alongside Dinsmoor (p. 2 n. 6). Both
studies move away from the view that there was a single period of
construction for the pre-Mnesicleian entrance; Eiteljorg differs
from Dinsmoor by questioning the assumption that there was
necessarily a forecourt and standard propylon. The main new piece
of evidence, which requires the new reconstructions, is the
consideration of the condition of the Mycenaean wall adjoining
the entrance (p. 56).

     The reader is helped in the interpretation of the entrance
remains by Eiteljorg's use of Computer-Assisted Drafting and
Design Programs alongside Photogrammetry. The technical aspects
are covered in a short section. This included used of AutoCAD and
Illustrator. Measurements were derived from the author's own work
as well as those from plans prepared by J.A. Bundgaard and W.B.
Dinsmoor, Jr. The photogrammetry method used the Rollei MR2
program and Desktop Phtogrammetry's PhotoCAD. It should be noted
that the data files used in this work are available from the
Center for the Study of Architecture (p. 7). The result of this
technology is a series of plans, three dimensional views and
reconstructions of the different phases of the entrance. These
include reconstructions proposed by Dinsmoor, Jr. Given the
limited nature of the remains of the earlier entrance, the use of
CAD has greatly enhanced the study.

     It would be wrong to assume that this is merely the
application of new technology to an area that is well described.
Throughout the volume E. takes the reader through the surviving
remains, virtually stone by stone, crack by crack; each minute
observation seem to have been taken into account when it came to
the reconstructions.

     The study starts with a discussion of the western approach
to the akropolis, and in particular the erection of a ramp during
the sixth century which remained in use until the construction of
the Propylaia. E. does not consider Vanderpool's suggestion that
the ramp was linked to the first Great Panathenaia as compelling
(p. 9). He notes that the orientation is not exactly on the same
axis as the later Propylaia. This ramp seems to have removed part
of an earlier Mycenaean terrace wall. The assumption is that the
entrance at this time consisted of the Mycenaean gate or a
successor.

     The "<i>In situ</i> remains of the Pre-Mnesiclean entrance"
are then presented (pp. 14-47). The extant remains are found in
six areas (A-F). The comments can be easily followed by the
fold-out fig. 1. The significant areas are the Lower Courtyard
(Areas A and C) and the Upper Courtyard (Area B), clustered
around the south-east wing of the later Propylaia. The Upper
Courtyard was reached via three marble steps at the top of the
ramp, and, it is suggested, entered an area bounded on three
sides by the Mycenaean walls (which are only certain on one
side); the gate would be at the end of this court. The Lower
Courtyard was in effect an open space at the top, and to the
south of, the ramp; it adjoined the Mycenaean wall (standing some
44 feet high) and the sanctuary of Athena Nike. As such it
provided direct access into the latter, and was probably at the
same elevation (p. 17). Along the line of the Mycenaean wall were
five steps leading down into the courtyard, some of which may
have been designed for standing rather than sitting (pp. 19-20).
E. suggests that they may been for those visiting the sanctuaries
or for watching the Panathenaic procession. In the lower
courtyard, and adjoining the marble steps into the upper
courtyard was the base of a tripod. The cuttings on which the
base was placed indicate that it was an integral part of the
initial design.

     E. demonstrates from cuttings in the rock that the line of
revetment slabs found against the Mycenaean wall in the lower
courtyard originally continued in the upper courtyard. However he
then suggests that there were two phases of construction
essentially in the upper courtyard. The first included the
removal of the revetted wall, the cutting back of the Mycenaean
wall, the introduction of benches along the side of the Mycenaean
wall and the inclusion of an anta at the top of the three marble
steps. The second phase included the removal of one of the lines
of benches, and the insertion of a parastas wall between the
Mycenaean wall and the anta on the top step. As there is no
apparent architectural evidence for a propylon building (p. 47),
E. suggests that the entrance of the akropolis consisted of two
open courtyards, separated by three steps, at the top of the
ramp; the upper courtyard gave access to what was in effect the
Mycenaean gateway in the walls.

     E. then turns to the "Evidence from Literary Sources" (pp.
49-52) to see if his theory fits the evidence. He considers that
a <i>propylon</i> is literally "that which is before the gate"
(p. 49). He suggests that the body of men who gathered in the
propylon to hear Peisistratos (Ar. <i>Ath. Pol.</i> 15) are
likely to have met in a courtyard (the same space presumably as
the later upper and lower courtyards) rather than a building.
Herodotus' (5.77) account of the quadriga made from the
Chalcidian ransom is placed by E. on the former Mycenaean terrace
on the left of the ramp as the propylon was entered. The key
piece of evidence for E. is Herodotus' (8.52) account of the
Persian attack on the akropolis, which he assumes is after the
construction of the upper and lower courtyards. He suggests that
the wooden barricades set alight by the Persians were probably
located in the region of the three marble steps. However, he
points out that if there had been a propylon above the steps the
Persians could have mount an assault on the gates, as the
building would have afforded some measure of protection. E.
concludes: "careful analysis of Herodotus' story seems to suggest
that there were gates but no outer porch and that the wooden
barricade must have faced (or nearly so) the Areopagus" (p. 52).
He also draws attention to Weller, Dinsmoor, Jr., and Bundgaard
who all considered a propylon building to be a source of
potential weakness in the defence of the acropolis.

     A key feature of the new reconstruction is E.'s observations
on the Mycenaean wall. He notes that the "the surviving portion
of the Mycenaean wall was constructed according to different
standards than the remainder of the wall" (pp. 53-54). In
particular he draws attention to blocks which have moved out of
true. He explains this in terms of this section of the wall being
rebuilt by masons where were inexperienced in this type of
construction. He finds the most economical explanation lying in
Herodotus' (9.13) comment that the Persians, in 480, "utterly
overthrew and demolished whatever wall or house or temple was
left standing". E. thus suggests that the Persians demolished the
gate and the wall immediately surrounding it. It was this wall
that was rebuilt in the reconstruction of the upper courtyard;
but the quality was such that the revetment wall and the anta
adjoining it were pushed out of true, and further repairs had to
be made.

     After providing the six phases of the construction
identified by Dinsmoor, Jr. (p. 57), E. presents his own three
phase construction which followed the construction of the ramp
during the sixth century.

1. The post-Marathon entrance. Unlike Dinsmoor, Jr., he considers
the upper and lower courtyards with the linking steps to be a
unified work. He draws attention to a stele socket which would
have stood on the top step and which had to be removed following
the insertion of the later parastas wall. This would indicate
that the wall on the top step was a later idea, and implies that
the steps were not acting as a stylobate for some kind of
forecourt building. He proposes that the three marble steps were
13 m. wide--perhaps with a break for a ramp in the middle--and
would have met the northern line of the ramp.

2. The first post-Persian entrance. If E. is right and it was the
Mycenaean gate that was destroyed by the Persians, it would seem
that there was a limited amount of demolition within the upper
courtyard.

3. The final pre-Mnesiclean entrance. This phase was caused by
the movement of the rebuilt Mycenaean wall. The parastas wall on
the upper step acted as a form of buttress. As such this third
phase may have included asymmetrical elements. This phase also
included the use of plaster to cover over joints and damaged
blocks.

     The chronology for these phases is slight. The main
<i>terminus post quem</i> is provided by reused material. In
particular the lower courtyard, and the earliest phase of the
upper courtyard, used metopes from the precursor of the Older
Parthenon to face the Mycenaean wall; E. considers their use as a
form of "beautification". The material would be available after
the start of the construction of the Older Parthenon. E. rejects
the <i>terminus ante quem</i> of the Persian destruction and does
not feel compelled by evidence of burning, some of which may date
from the Middle Ages (p. 80). Moreover some of the large marble
blocks in the upper courtyard may also have been intended for the
Older Parthenon (p. 81). He wisely notes that the only certain
<i>terminus ante quem</i> for the project is the construction of
the later Propylaia, although possibly the construction of the
Parthenon might indicate the initiation of the remodelling of the
akropolis. E.'s plan to have what he estimates as a year-long
project which coincides with the demolition of precursor of the
Older Parthenon has much in its favour; certainly it is more
economical with workmen time, who it is argued would be involved
with the construction of the Older Parthenon, than the several
phases of Dinsmoor, Jr., which would have to be placed in the
480s. Thus the second phase would reflect a repair of the
defences of the akropolis, and the third phase essential repairs
(possibly at the same time as activity in the Nike precinct) (p.
84). The way that E. considers how these projects were integrated
into other activity on the akropolis adds weight to his argument.
In passing we should note that E. does not consider that Building
B was located in the vicinity of the Pinakotheke (p. 58).

     The series of plans, three-dimensional drawings,
reconstructions and photographs enhance this book. The only other
drawing this reviewer would have liked to have seen is a view of
the propylon from the bottom of the ramp. The fold out plan of
the different areas of the propylon helps the reader, as does the
large print. For E. the simplification of the earlier entrance to
the akropolis makes "the Propylaea an even more significant
achievement and Mnesicles a more bold and creative architect" (p.
86). His study is a good reminder that architectural
reconstructions should be based on the extant evidence, rather
than what the excavator would like to have been there.