For the purposes of scientific topography observation of the natural features and outlines is followed by exact investigation of the architectural structures or remnants, a process demanding high technical competence, acute judgment and practical experience, as well as wide and accurate scholarship. The building material and the manner of its employment furnish evidence no less important than the character of the masonry, the design andSources for Athenian topography.the modes of ornamentation. The testimony afforded by inscriptions is often of decisive importance, especially that of commemorative or votive tablets or of boundary-stones foundin situ; the value of this evidence is, on the other hand, sometimes neutralized owing to the former removal of building material already used and its incorporation in later structures. Thus sepulchral inscriptions have been found on the Acropolis, though no burials took place there in ancient times. In the next place comes the evidence derived from the whole range of ancient literature and specially from descriptions of the city or its different localities. The earliest known description of Athens was that of Diodorus,ὁ περιηγτής, who lived in the second half of the 4th centuryB.C.Among his successors were Polemon of Ilium (beginning of 2nd centuryB.C.), whose greatκοσμική περιήγησιςgave a minute account of the votive offerings on the Acropolis and the tombs on the Sacred Way; and Heliodorus (second half of the 2nd century) who wrote fifteen volumes on the monuments of Athens. Of these and other works of the earliest topographers only some fragments remain. In the period betweenA.D.143 and 159 Pausanias visited Athens at a time when the monuments of the great age were still in their perfection and the principal embellishments of the Roman period had already been completed. The first thirty chapters of his invaluableDescription of Greece(περιήγησις τῆς Ἑλλάδος) are devoted to Athens, its ports and environs. Pausanias makes no claim to exhaustiveness; he selected what was best worth noticing (τὰ ἀξιολογώτατα). His account, drawn up from notes taken in the main from personal observation, possesses an especial importance for topographical research, owing to his method of describing each object in the order in which he saw it during the course of his walks. His accuracy, which has been called in question by some scholars, has been remarkably vindicated by recent excavations at Athens and elsewhere. The list of ancient topographers closes with Pausanias. The literature of succeeding centuries furnishes only isolated references; the more important are found in the scholia on Aristophanes, the lexicons of Hesychius, Photius and others, and theEtymologicum Magnum. The notices of Athens during the earlier middle ages are scanty in the extreme. In 1395 Niccola da Martoni, a pilgrim from the Holy Land, visited Athens and wrote a description of a portion of the city. Of the work of Cyriac of Ancona, written about 1450, only some fragments remain, which are well supplemented by the contemporaneous description of the capable observer known as the “Anonymous of Milan.” Two treatises in Greek by unknown writers belong to the same period. The Dutchman Joannes Meursius (1579-1639) wrote three disquisitions on Athenian topography. The conquest by Venice in 1687 led to the publication of several works in that city, including the descriptions of De la Rue and Fanelli and the maps of Coronelli and others. The systematic study of Athenian topography was begun in the 17th century by French residents at Athens, the consuls Giraud and Chataignier and the Capuchin monks. The visit of the French physician Jacques Spon and the Englishman, Sir George Wheler or Wheeler (1650-1723), fortunately took place before the catastrophe of the Parthenon in 1687; Spon’sVoyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant, which contained the first scientific description of the ruins of Athens, appeared in 1678; Wheler’sJourney into Greece, in 1682. A period of British activity in research followed in the 18th century. The monumental work of James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, who spent three years at Athens (1751-1754), marked an epoch in the progress of Athenian topography and is still indispensable to its study, owing to the demolition of ancient buildings which began about the middle of the 18th century. To this period also belong the labours of Richard Pococke and Richard Dalton, Richard Chandler, E.D. Clarke and Edward Dodwell. The great work of W.M. Leake (Topography of Athens and the Demi, 2nd ed., 1841) brought the descriptive literature to an end and inaugurated the period of modern scientific research, in which German archaeologists have played a distinguished part.Recent investigation has thrown a new and unexpected light on the art, the monuments and the topography of the ancient city. Numerous and costly excavations have been carried out by the Greek government and by native and foreignRecent research.scientific societies, while accidental discoveries have been frequently made during the building of the modern town. The museums, enriched by a constant inflow of works of art and inscriptions, have been carefully and scientifically arranged, and afford opportunities for systematic study denied to scholars of the past generation. Improved means of communication have enabled many acute observers to apply the test of scrutiny on the spot to theories and conclusions mainly based on literary evidence; five foreign schools of archaeology, directed by eminent scholars, lend valuable aid to students of all nationalities, and lectures are frequently delivered in the museums and on the more interesting and important sites. The native archaeologists of the present day hold a recognized position in the scientific work; the patriotic sentiment of former times, which prompted their zeal but occasionally warped their judgment, has been merged in devotion to science for its own sake, and the supervision of excavations, as well as the control of the art-collections, is now in highly competent hands. Athens has thus become a centre of learning, a meeting-place for scholars and a basis for research in every part of the Greek world. The attention of many students has naturally been concentrated on the ancient city, the birthplace of European art and literature, and a great development of investigation and discussion in the special domain of Athenian archaeology has given birth to a voluminous literature. Many theories hitherto universally accepted have been called in question or proved to be unsound: the views of Leake, for instance, have been challenged on various points, though many of his conclusions have been justified and confirmed. The supreme importance of a study of Greek antiquities on the spot, long understood by scholars in Europe and in America, has gradually come to be recognized in England, where a close attention to ancient texts, not always adequately supplemented by a course of local study and observation, formerly fostered a peculiarly conservative attitude in regard to the problems of Greek archaeology. Since the foundation of the German Institute in 1874, Athenian topography has to a large extent become a speciality of German scholars, among whom Wilhelm Dörpfeld occupies a pre-eminent position owing to his great architectural attainments and unrivalled local knowledge. Many of his bold and novel theories have provoked strenuous opposition, while others have met with general acceptance, except among scholars of the more conservative type.
For the purposes of scientific topography observation of the natural features and outlines is followed by exact investigation of the architectural structures or remnants, a process demanding high technical competence, acute judgment and practical experience, as well as wide and accurate scholarship. The building material and the manner of its employment furnish evidence no less important than the character of the masonry, the design andSources for Athenian topography.the modes of ornamentation. The testimony afforded by inscriptions is often of decisive importance, especially that of commemorative or votive tablets or of boundary-stones foundin situ; the value of this evidence is, on the other hand, sometimes neutralized owing to the former removal of building material already used and its incorporation in later structures. Thus sepulchral inscriptions have been found on the Acropolis, though no burials took place there in ancient times. In the next place comes the evidence derived from the whole range of ancient literature and specially from descriptions of the city or its different localities. The earliest known description of Athens was that of Diodorus,ὁ περιηγτής, who lived in the second half of the 4th centuryB.C.Among his successors were Polemon of Ilium (beginning of 2nd centuryB.C.), whose greatκοσμική περιήγησιςgave a minute account of the votive offerings on the Acropolis and the tombs on the Sacred Way; and Heliodorus (second half of the 2nd century) who wrote fifteen volumes on the monuments of Athens. Of these and other works of the earliest topographers only some fragments remain. In the period betweenA.D.143 and 159 Pausanias visited Athens at a time when the monuments of the great age were still in their perfection and the principal embellishments of the Roman period had already been completed. The first thirty chapters of his invaluableDescription of Greece(περιήγησις τῆς Ἑλλάδος) are devoted to Athens, its ports and environs. Pausanias makes no claim to exhaustiveness; he selected what was best worth noticing (τὰ ἀξιολογώτατα). His account, drawn up from notes taken in the main from personal observation, possesses an especial importance for topographical research, owing to his method of describing each object in the order in which he saw it during the course of his walks. His accuracy, which has been called in question by some scholars, has been remarkably vindicated by recent excavations at Athens and elsewhere. The list of ancient topographers closes with Pausanias. The literature of succeeding centuries furnishes only isolated references; the more important are found in the scholia on Aristophanes, the lexicons of Hesychius, Photius and others, and theEtymologicum Magnum. The notices of Athens during the earlier middle ages are scanty in the extreme. In 1395 Niccola da Martoni, a pilgrim from the Holy Land, visited Athens and wrote a description of a portion of the city. Of the work of Cyriac of Ancona, written about 1450, only some fragments remain, which are well supplemented by the contemporaneous description of the capable observer known as the “Anonymous of Milan.” Two treatises in Greek by unknown writers belong to the same period. The Dutchman Joannes Meursius (1579-1639) wrote three disquisitions on Athenian topography. The conquest by Venice in 1687 led to the publication of several works in that city, including the descriptions of De la Rue and Fanelli and the maps of Coronelli and others. The systematic study of Athenian topography was begun in the 17th century by French residents at Athens, the consuls Giraud and Chataignier and the Capuchin monks. The visit of the French physician Jacques Spon and the Englishman, Sir George Wheler or Wheeler (1650-1723), fortunately took place before the catastrophe of the Parthenon in 1687; Spon’sVoyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant, which contained the first scientific description of the ruins of Athens, appeared in 1678; Wheler’sJourney into Greece, in 1682. A period of British activity in research followed in the 18th century. The monumental work of James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, who spent three years at Athens (1751-1754), marked an epoch in the progress of Athenian topography and is still indispensable to its study, owing to the demolition of ancient buildings which began about the middle of the 18th century. To this period also belong the labours of Richard Pococke and Richard Dalton, Richard Chandler, E.D. Clarke and Edward Dodwell. The great work of W.M. Leake (Topography of Athens and the Demi, 2nd ed., 1841) brought the descriptive literature to an end and inaugurated the period of modern scientific research, in which German archaeologists have played a distinguished part.
Recent investigation has thrown a new and unexpected light on the art, the monuments and the topography of the ancient city. Numerous and costly excavations have been carried out by the Greek government and by native and foreignRecent research.scientific societies, while accidental discoveries have been frequently made during the building of the modern town. The museums, enriched by a constant inflow of works of art and inscriptions, have been carefully and scientifically arranged, and afford opportunities for systematic study denied to scholars of the past generation. Improved means of communication have enabled many acute observers to apply the test of scrutiny on the spot to theories and conclusions mainly based on literary evidence; five foreign schools of archaeology, directed by eminent scholars, lend valuable aid to students of all nationalities, and lectures are frequently delivered in the museums and on the more interesting and important sites. The native archaeologists of the present day hold a recognized position in the scientific work; the patriotic sentiment of former times, which prompted their zeal but occasionally warped their judgment, has been merged in devotion to science for its own sake, and the supervision of excavations, as well as the control of the art-collections, is now in highly competent hands. Athens has thus become a centre of learning, a meeting-place for scholars and a basis for research in every part of the Greek world. The attention of many students has naturally been concentrated on the ancient city, the birthplace of European art and literature, and a great development of investigation and discussion in the special domain of Athenian archaeology has given birth to a voluminous literature. Many theories hitherto universally accepted have been called in question or proved to be unsound: the views of Leake, for instance, have been challenged on various points, though many of his conclusions have been justified and confirmed. The supreme importance of a study of Greek antiquities on the spot, long understood by scholars in Europe and in America, has gradually come to be recognized in England, where a close attention to ancient texts, not always adequately supplemented by a course of local study and observation, formerly fostered a peculiarly conservative attitude in regard to the problems of Greek archaeology. Since the foundation of the German Institute in 1874, Athenian topography has to a large extent become a speciality of German scholars, among whom Wilhelm Dörpfeld occupies a pre-eminent position owing to his great architectural attainments and unrivalled local knowledge. Many of his bold and novel theories have provoked strenuous opposition, while others have met with general acceptance, except among scholars of the more conservative type.
(Click to enlarge.)
Prehistoric Athens.—Numerous traces of the “Mycenaean” epoch have recently been brought to light in Athens and its neighbourhood. Among the monuments of this age discovered in the surrounding districts are the rock-hewnThe early citadel.tombs of Spata, accidentally revealed by a landslip in 1877, and domed sepulchre at Menidí, near the ancient Acharnae, excavated by Lolling in 1879. Other “Mycenaean” landmarks have been laid bare at Eleusis, Thoricus, Halae and Aphidna. These structures, however, are of comparatively minor importance in point of dimensions and decoration; they were apparently designed as places of sepulture for local chieftains, whose domains were afterwards incorporated in the Athenian realm by theσυνοικισμός(synoecism) attributedto Theseus. The situation of the Acropolis, dominating the surrounding plain and possessing easy communication with the sea, favoured the formation of a relatively powerful state—inferior, however, to Tiryns and Mycenae; the myths of Cecrops, Erechtheus and Theseus bear witness to the might of the princes who ruled in the Athenian citadel, and here we may naturally expect to find traces of massive fortifications resembling in some degree those of the great Argolid cities. Such in fact have been brought to light by the modern excavations on the Acropolis (1885-1889). Remains of primitive polygonal walls which undoubtedly surrounded the entire area have been found at various points a little within the circuit of the existing parapet. The best-preserved portions are at the eastern extremity, at the northern side near the ancient “royal” exit, and at the south-western angle. The course of the walls can be traced with a few interruptions along the southern side. On the northern side are the foundations of a primitive tower and other remains, apparently of dwelling-houses, one of which may have been theπυκινὸς δόμος Ἐρεχθῆοςmentioned by Homer (Od. vii. 81). Among the foundations were discovered fragments of “Mycenaean” pottery. The various approaches to the citadel on the northern side—the rock-cut flight of steps north-east of the Erechtheum (q.v.), the stairs leading to the well Clepsydra, and the intermediate passage supposed to have furnished access to the Persians—are all to be attributed to the primitive epoch. Two pieces of polygonal wall, one beneath the bastion of Nike Apteros, the other in a direct line between the Roman gateway and the door of the Propylaea, are all that remain of the primitive defences of the main entrance.
These early fortifications of the Acropolis, ascribed to the primitive non-hellenic Pelasgi, must be distinguished from the Pelasgicum Or Pelargicum, which was in all probability an encircling wall, built round the base of theThe Pelasgicum.citadel and furnished with nine gates from which it derived the name of Enneapylon. Such a wall would be required to protect the clusters of dwellings around the Acropolis as well as the springs issuing from the rock, while the gates opening in various directions would give access to the surrounding pastures and gardens. This view, which is that of E. Curtius, alone harmonizes with the statement of Herodotus (vi. 137) that the wall was “around” (περί) the Acropolis, and that of Thucydides (ii. 17) that it was “beneath” (ὑπό) the fortress. Thus it would appear that the citadel had an outer and an inner line of defence in prehistoric times. The space enclosed by the outer wall was left unoccupied after the Persian wars in deference to an oracular response apparently dictated by military considerations, the maintenance of an open zone being desirable for the defence of the citadel. A portion of the outer wall has been recognized in a piece of primitive masonry discovered near the Odeum of Herodes Atticus; other traces will probably come to light when the northern and eastern slopes of the Acropolis have been completely explored. Leake, whom Frazer follows, assumed the Pelasgicum to be a fortified space at the western end of the Acropolis; this view necessitates the assumption that the nine gates were built one within the other, but early antiquity furnishes no instance of such a construction; Dörpfeld believes it to have extended from the grotto of Pan to the sacred precinct of Asclepius. The well-known passage of Lucian (Piscator, 47) cannot be regarded as decisive for any of the theories advanced, as any portion of the oldenceintedismantled by the Persians may have retained the name in later times. The Pelasgic wall enclosed the spring Clepsydra, beneath the north-western corner of the Acropolis, which furnished a water-supply to the defenders of the fortress. The spring, to which a staircase leads down, was once more included in a bastion during the War of Independence by the Greek chief Odysseus.
To the “Pelasgic” era may perhaps be referred (with Curtius and Milchhöfer) the immense double terrace on the north-eastern slope of the Pnyx (395 ft. by 212), the upper portion of which is cut out of the rock, while the lower isThe Pnyx.enclosed by a semicircular wall of massive masonry; the theory of these scholars, however, that the whole precinct was a sanctuary of the Pelasgian Zeus cannot be regarded as proved, nor is it easy to abandon the generally received view that this was the scene of the popular assemblies of later times, notwithstanding the apparent unsuitability of the ground and the insufficiency of room for a large multitude. These difficulties are met by the assumption that the semicircular masonry formed the base of a retaining-wall which rose to a considerable height, supporting a theatre-like structure capable of seating many thousand persons. The masonry may be attributed to the 5th century; the chiselling of the immense blocks is not “Cyclopean.” Projecting from the upper platform at the centre of the chord of the semicircular area is a cube of rock, 11 ft. square and 5 ft. high, approached on either side by a flight of steps leading to the top; this block, which Curtius supposes to have been the primitive altar of ZeusὝψιστος, may be safely identified with the orators’ bema,ὁ λίθος ἐν τῇ Πυκνί(Aristoph.Pax, 680). Plutarch’s statement that the Thirty Tyrants removed the bema so as to face the land instead of the sea is probably due to a misunderstanding. Other cubes of rock, apparently altars, exist in the neighbourhood. There can be little doubt that the Pnyx was the seat of an ancient cult; the meetings of the Ecclesia were of a religious character and were preceded by a sacrifice to ZeusἈγοραῖος; nor is it conceivable that, but for its sacred associations, a site would have been chosen so unsuitable for the purposes of a popular assembly as to need the addition of a costly artificial auditorium.
The Pnyx, the Hill of the Nymphs and the Museum Hill are covered with vestiges of early settlements which extend to a considerable distance towards the south-east in the direction of Phalerum. They consist of chambers ofRock-dwellings and tombs.various sizes, some of which were evidently human habitations, together with cisterns, channels, seats, steps, terraces and quadrangular tombs, all cut in the rock. This neighbourhood was held by Curtius to have been the site of the primeval rock city,κρανάα πόλις(Aristoph.Ach. 75), anterior to the occupation of the Acropolis and afterwards abandoned for the later settlement. It seems inconceivable, however, that any other site should have been preferred by the primitive settlers to the Acropolis, which offered the greatest advantages for defence; the Pnyx, owing to its proximity to the centres of civic life, can never have been deserted, and that portion which lay within the city walls must have been fully occupied when Athens was crowded during the Peloponnesian War. Some of the rock chambers originally intended for tombs were afterwards converted, perhaps under pressure of necessity, into habitations, as in the case of the so-called “Prison of Socrates,” which consists of three chambers horizontally excavated and a small round apartment of the “beehive” type. The remains on the Pnyx and its neighbourhood cannot all be assigned to one epoch, the prehistoric age. The dwellings do not correspond in size or details with the undoubtedly prehistoric abodes on the Acropolis. In view of the ancient law which forbade burial within the city, the tombs within the circuit of the city walls must either be earlier than the time of Themistocles or several centuries later; in the similar rock-tombs on the neighbouring slopes of the Acropolis and Areopagus both Mycenaean and Dipylon pottery have been found. But the numerous vertically excavated tombs outside the walls are of late date and belong for the most part to the Roman period.
The Areopagus is now a bare rock possessing few architectural traces. The legend of its occupation by the Amazons (Aeschylus,Eum. 681 seq.) may be taken as indicating its military importance for an attack on the Acropolis; theThe Areopagus.Persians used it as apoint d’appuifor their assault. The seat of the old oligarchical council and court for homicide was probably on its eastern height. Here were the altar of Athena Areia and two stones, theλίθος Ὕβρεως, on which the accuser, and theλίθος Ἀναιδείας, on which the accused, took their stand. Beneath, at the north-eastern corner, is the cleft which formed the sanctuary of theΣεμναί, or Erinyes. There is no reason for disturbing the associations connected with thisspot as the scene of St Paul’s address to the Athenians (E. Gardner,Anc. Athens, p. 505).
Hellenic Period.—While modern research has added considerably to our knowledge of prehistoric Athens, a still greater light has been thrown on the architecture and topography of the city in the earlier historic or “archaic” era, the subsequent age of Athenian greatness, and the period of decadence which set in with the Macedonian conquest; the first extends from the dawn of history to 480-479B.C., when the city was destroyed by the Persians; the second, or classical, age closes in 322B.C., when Athens lost its political independence after the Lamian War; the third, or Hellenistic, in 146B.C., when the state fell under Roman protection. We must here group these important epochs together, as distinguished from the later period of Roman rule, and confine ourselves to a brief notice of their principal monuments and a record of the discoveries by which they have been illustrated in recent years.
The earliest settlement on the Acropolis was doubtless soon increased by groups of dwellings at its base, inhabited by the dependents of the princes who ruled in the stronghold. These habitations would naturally in the first instanceThe city in the “archaic” era.lie in close proximity to the western approach; after the building of the Pelasgicum they seem to have extended beyond its walls towards the south and south-west—towards the sea and the waters of the Ilissus. The district thus occupied sloped towards the sun and was sheltered by the Acropolis from the prevailing northerly winds. The Thesean synoecism led to the introduction of new cults and the foundation of new shrines partly on the Acropolis, partly in the inhabited district at its base both within and without the wall of the Pelasgicum. Some of the shrines in this region are mentioned by Thucydides in a passage which is of capital importance for the topography of the city at this period (ii. 15). By degrees the inhabited area began to comprise the open ground to the north-west, the nearer portion of the later Ceramicus, or “potters’ field” (afterwards divided by the walls of Themistocles into the Inner and Outer Ceramicus), and eventually extended to the north and east of the citadel, which, by the beginning of the 5th centuryB.C., had become the centre of a circular or wheel-shaped city,πόλιος τροχοειδέος ἄκρα κάρηνα(OracleapudHerod, vii. 140). To this enlarged city was applied, probably about the second half of the 6th century, the special designationτὸ ἄστυ, which afterwards distinguished Athens from its port, the Peiracus; the Acropolis was alreadyἡ πόλις(Thucyd. ii. 15). The city is supposed to have been surrounded by a wall before the time of Solon, the existence of which may be deduced from Thucydides’ account of the assassination of Hipparchus (vi. 57), but no certain traces of such a wall have been discovered; the materials may have been removed to build the walls of Themistocles.
The centre of commercial and civic life of the older group of communities, as of the greater city of the classical age, was the Agora or market. Here were the various public buildings, which, when the power of the princes onThe Agora.the citadel was transferred to the archons, formed the offices of the administrative magistracy. The site of the primitive Agora (ἀρχαία ἀγορά) was probably in the hollow between the Acropolis and the Pnyx, which formed a convenient meeting-place for the dwellers on the north and south sides of the fortress as well as for its inhabitants. In the time of the Peisistratids the Agora was enlarged so as to extend over the Inner Ceramicus on the north-west, apparently reaching the northern declivities of the Areopagus and the Acropolis on the south. After the Persian Wars the northern portion was used for commercial, the southern for political and ceremonial purposes. In the southern were the Orchestra, where the Dionysiac dances took place, and the famous statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton by Antenor which were carried away by Xerxes; also the Metroum, or temple of the Mother of the Gods, the Bouleuterium, or council-chamber of the Five Hundred, the Prytaneum, the hearth of the combined communities, where the guests of the state dined, the temple of the Dioscuri, and the Tholus, or Skias, a circular stone-domed building in which the Prytaneis were maintained at the public expense; in the northern were the Leocorium, where Hipparchus was slain, theστοὰ βασιλική, the famousστοὰ ποικίλη, where Zeno taught, and other structures. The Agora was commonly described as the “Ceramicus,” and Pausanias gives it this name; of the numerous buildings which he saw here scarcely a trace remains; their position, for the most part, is largely conjectural, and the exact boundaries of the Agora itself are uncertain. What are perhaps the remains of theστοὰ βασιλική, in which the Archon Basileus held his court and the Areopagus Council sat in later times, were brought to light in the winter of 1897-1898, when excavations were carried out on the eastern slope of the “Theseum” hill. Here was found a rectangular structure resembling a temple, but with a side door to the north; it possessed a portico of six columns. The north slope of the Areopagus, where a number of early tombs were found, was also explored, and the limits of the Agora on the south and north-west were approximately ascertained. A portion of the main road leading from the Dipylon to the Agora was discovered.
In 1892 Dörpfeld began a series of excavations in the district between the Acropolis and the Pnyx with the object of determining the situation of the buildings described by Pausanias as existing in the neighbourhood of theThe Enneacrunus.Agora, and more especially the position of the Enneacrunus fountain. The Enneacrunus has hitherto been generally identified with the spring Callirrhoe in the bed of the Ilissus, a little to the south-east of the Olympieum; it is apparently, though not explicitly, placed by Thucydides (ii. 15) in proximity to that building, as well as the temple of Dionysusἐν λίμναιςand other shrines, the temples of Zeus Olympius and of Ge and the Pythium, which he mentions as situated mainly to the south of the Acropolis. On the other hand, Pausanias (i. 14. 1), who never deviates without reason from the topographical order of his narrative, mentions the Enneacrunus in the midst of his description of certain buildings which were undoubtedly in the region of the Agora, and unless he is guilty of an unaccountable digression the Enneacrunus which he saw must have lain west of the Acropolis. It is now generally agreed that the Agora of classical times covered the low ground between the hill of the “Theseum,” the Areopagus and the Pnyx; and Pausanias, in the course of his description, appears to have reached its southern end. The excavations revealed a main road of surprisingly narrow dimensions winding up from the Agora to the Acropolis. A little to the south-west of the point where the road turns towards the Propylaca was found a large rock-cut cistern or reservoir which Dörpfeld identifies with the Enneacrunus. The reservoir is supplied by a conduit of 6th-century tiles connected with an early stone aqueduct, the course of which is traceable beneath the Dionysiac theatre and the royal garden in the direction of the Upper Ilissus. These elaborate waterworks were, according to Dörpfeld, constructed by the Peisistratids in order to increase the supply from the ancient spring Callirrhoe; the fountain was furnished with nine jets and henceforth known as Enneacrunus. This identification has been hotly contested by many scholars, and the question must still be regarded as undecided. An interesting confirmation of Dörpfeld’s view is furnished by the map of Guillet and Coronelli, published in 1672, in which the Enneacrunus is depicted as a well with a stream of running water in the neighbourhood of the Pnyx. The fact that spring water is not now found in this locality is by no means fatal to the theory; recent engineering investigations have shown that much of the surface water of the Attic plain has sunk to a lower level. In front of the reservoir is a small open space towards which several roads converge; close by is a triangular enclosure of polygonal masonry, in which were found various relics relating to the worship of Dionysus, a very ancient wine-press (ληνός) and the remains of a small temple. Built over this early precinct, which Dörpfeld identifies with the Dionysiumἐν λίμναις, or Lenaeum, is a basilica-shaped building of the Roman period, apparently sacred to Bacchus; in this was found an inscription containing the rulesof the society of the Iobacchi. There is an obvious difficulty in assuming thatλίμναι, in the sense of “marshes,” existed in this confined area, but stagnant pools may still be seen here in winter. Dörpfeld’s identification of the Dionysium,ἐν λίμναιςcannot be regarded as proved; his view that another Pythium and another Olympieum existed in this neighbourhood is still less probable; but the inconclusiveness of these theories does not necessarily invalidate his identification of the Enneacrunus, with regard to the position of which the language of Thucydides is far from clear. Another enclosure, a little to the south, is proved by an inscription to have been a sanctuary of the hitherto unknown hero Amynos, with whose cult those of Asclepius and the hero Dexion were here associated; under the name Dexion, the poet Sophocles is said to have been worshipped after his death. The whole district adjoining the Areopagus was found to have been thickly built over; the small, mean dwelling-houses intersected by narrow, crooked lanes convey a vivid idea of the contrast between the modest private residences and the great public structures of the ancient city.
The age of the Peisistratids (560-511B.C.) marked an era in the history of Athenian topography. The greatest of their foundations, the temple of Olympian Zeus, will be referred to later. Among the monuments of theirThe Academy and Lyceum.rule, in addition to the enlarged Agora and the Enneacrunus, were the Academy and perhaps the Lyceum. The original name of the Academy may have been Hecademia, from Hecademus, an early proprietor (but seeAcademy, Greek). The famous seat of the Platonic philosophy was a gymnasium enlarged as a public park by Cimon; it lay about a mile to the north-west of the Dipylon Gate, with which it was connected by a street bordered with tombs. The Lyceum, where Aristotle taught, was originally a sanctuary of Apollo Lyceius. Like the Academy, it was an enclosure with a gymnasium and garden; it lay to the east of the city beyond the Diocharean Gate.
Little was known of the buildings on the Acropolis in the pre-Persian period before the great excavations of 1885-1888, which rank among the most surprising achievements of modern research. The results of these operations, which were conducted by the Archaeological Society under the direction of Kavvadias and Kawerau, must be summarized with the utmostThe Acropolis before the Persian wars.brevity. The great deposits of sculpture and pottery now unearthed, representing all that escaped from the the ravages of the Persians and the burning of the ancient shrines, afford a startling revelation of the development of Greek art in the 7th and 6th centuries. Numbers of statues—among them a series of draped and richly-coloured female figures—masterpieces of painted pottery, only equalled by the Attic vases found in Magna Grecia and Etruria, and numerous bronzes, were among the treasures of art now brought to light. All belong to the “archaic” epoch; only a few remains of the greater age were found, including some fragments of sculptures from the Parthenon and Erechtheum. We are principally concerned, however, with the results which add to our knowledge of the topography and architecture of the Acropolis. The entire area of the summit was now thoroughly explored, the excavations being carried down to the surface of the rock, which on the southern side was found to slope outwards to a depth of about 45 ft. In the lower strata were discovered the remnants of Cyclopean or prehistoric architecture already mentioned. Of later date, perhaps, are the limestone polygonal retaining walls on the west front, which extended on either side of the early entrance. Of these a portion may probably be attributed to the Peisistratids, in whose time the Acropolis once more became the stronghold of a despotism. Its fortifications, though not increased, were apparently strengthened by the Tyrants. To its embellishment they probably contributed the older ornamental entrance, facing south-west, the precursor of the greater structure of Mnesicles (seePropylaea) and the colonnade of the “Hecatompedon,” or earlier temple of Athena, at this time the only large sacred edifice on the citadel. The name was subsequently applied to the cella, or eastern chamber, of the Parthenon, which is exactly 100 ft. long, and also became a popular designation of the temple itself.
The ancient Hecatompedon may in all probability be identified with an early temple, also 100 ft. long, the foundations of which were pointed out in 1885 by Dörpfeld on the ground immediately adjoining the south side of theThe old temple of Athena.Erechtheum. On this spot was apparently the primitive sanctuary of Athena, the rich templeπίων νηόςof Homer (Il.ii. 549), in which the cult of the goddess was associated with that of Erechtheus; the Homeric temple is identified by Furtwängler with the “compact house of Erechtheus” (Od. vii. 81), which, he holds, was not a royal palace, but a place of worship, and traces of it may perhaps be recognized in the fragments of prehistoric masonry enclosed by the existing foundations. The foundations seem to belong to the 7th century, except those of the colonnade, which was possibly added by Peisistratus. According to Dörpfeld, this was the “old temple” of Athena Polias, frequently mentioned in literature and inscriptions, in which was housed the most holy imageξόανονof the goddess which fell from heaven; it was burnt, but not completely destroyed, during the Persian War, and some of its external decorations were afterwards built into the north wall of the Acropolis; it was subsequently restored, he thinks, with or without its colonnade—in the former case a portion of the peristyle must have been removed when the Erechtheum was built so as to make room for the porch of the maidens; the building was set on fire in 406B.C.(Xen.Hell.i. 6. 1), and the conflagration is identical with that mentioned by Demosthenes (In Timocr.xxiv. 155); its “opisthodomos” served as the Athenian treasury in the 5th and 4th centuries; the temple is theἀρχαῖος νεὼς τῆς Πολιάδοςmentioned by Strabo (ix. 16), and it was still standing in the time of Pausanias, who applies to it the same name (i. 27. 3). The conclusion that the foundations are those of an old temple burnt by the Persians has been generally accepted, but other portions of Dörpfeld’s theory—more especially his assumption that the temple was restored after the Persian War—have provoked much controversy. Thus J.G. Frazer maintains the hitherto current theory that the earlier temple of Athena and Erechtheus was on the site of the Erechtheum; that the Erechtheum inherited the nameἀρχαῖος νεώςfrom its predecessor, and that the “opisthodomos” in which the treasures were kept was the west chamber of the Parthenon; Furtwängler and Milchhöfer hold the strange view that the “opisthodomos” was a separate building at the east end of the Acropolis, while Penrose thinks the building discovered by Dörpfeld was possibly the Cecropeum. E. Curtius and J.W. White, on the other hand, accept Dörpfeld’s identification, but believe that only the western portion of the temple or opisthodomos was rebuilt after the Persian War. Admitting the identification, we may perhaps conclude that the temple was repaired in order to provide a temporary home for the venerated image and other sacred objects; no traces of a restoration exist, but the walls probably remained standing after the Persian conflagration. The removal of the ancient temple was undoubtedly intended when the Erechtheum was built, but superstition and popular feeling may have prevented its demolition and the removal of theξόανονto the new edifice. The temple consisted of an eastern cella with pronaos; behind this was the opisthodomos, divided into three chambers—possibly treasuries—with a portico at the western end. The peristyle, if we compare the measurements of the stylobate with those of the drums built into the wall of the Acropolis, may be concluded to have consisted of six Doric columns at the ends and twelve at the sides. In one of the pediments was a gigantomachy, of which some fragments have been recovered.
In 1896 excavations with the object of exploring the whole northern and eastern slopes of the Acropolis were begun by Kavvadias. The pathway between the citadel and the Areopagus was found to be so narrow that it isThe grottoes of Pan and Apollo.certain the Panathenaic procession cannot have taken this route to the Acropolis. On the north-west rock the caves known as the grottoes of Pan and Apollo were cleared out; these consist of a slight high-arched indentationimmediately to the east of the Clepsydra and a double and somewhat deeper cavern a little farther to the east. In the first mentioned are a number of niches in whichπίνακες(votive tablets) were placed: some of these, inscribed with dedications to Apollo, have been discovered. The whole locality was the seat of the ancient cult of this deity, afterwards styled “Hypacraeus,” with which was associated the legend of Creüsa and the birth of Ion. The worship of Pan was introduced after the Persian wars, in consequence of an apparition seen by Pheidippides, the Athenian courier, in the mountains of Arcadia. Another cave more to the west was revealed by the demolition of the bastion of Odysseus. To the east a much deeper and hitherto unknown cavern has been revealed, which Kavvadias identifies with the grotto of Pan. Close to it are a series of steps hewn in the rock which connect with those discovered in 1886 within the Acropolis wall. Farther east is an underground passage leading eastward to a cave supposed to be the sanctuary of Aglaurus where the ephebi took the oath; with this passage is connected a secret staircase leading up through a cleft in the rock to the precinct of the Errephori on the Acropolis. It is conceivable that the priestesses employed this exit when descending on their mysterious errand.
In the fifty years between the Persian and the Peloponnesian wars architecture and plastic art attained their highest perfection in Athens. The almost complete destruction of the buildings on the Acropolis and in the lower city, amongThe classical period: the walls of Themistocles.them many temples and shrines which religious sentiment might otherwise have preserved, facilitated the realization of the magnificent architectural designs of Themistocles, Cimon and Pericles, while the rapid growth of the Athenian empire provided the state with the necessary means for the execution of these sumptuous projects. Of the great monuments of this epoch few traces remain except on the Acropolis. After the departure of the Persians the first necessity was the reconstruction of the defences of the city and the citadel. The walls of the city, now built under the direction of Themistocles, embraced a larger area than the previous circuit, with which they seem to have coincided at the Dipylon Gate on the north-west where the Sacred Way to Eleusis was joined by the principal carriage route to the Peiraeus and the roads to the Academy and Colonus. The other more important gates were the Peiraic and Melitan on the west; the Itonian on the south leading to Phalerum, the Diomean and Diocharean on the east, and the Acharnian on the north. The wall, which was strengthened with numerous towers, enclosed the quarters of Collytus on the north, Melite on the west, Limnae on the south-west and south, and Diomea on the east. The scanty traces which remain have not been systematically excavated except in the neighbourhood of the Dipylon; the discovery of sepulchral tablets built into the masonry illustrates the statement of Thucydides with regard to the employment of such material in the hasty construction of the walls. The circuit has been practically ascertained in its general lines, though not in details; it is given by Thucydides (ii. 13. 7) as 43 stades (about 5½ m.) exclusive of the portion between the points of junction with the long walls extending to the Peiraeus, but the whole circumference cannot have exceeded 37 stades. Possibly Thucydides, who in the passage referred to is dealing with the question of defence, included a portion of the contiguous long walls in his measurement; this explanation derives probability from his underestimate of the length of the long walls.
The design of connecting Athens with the Peiraeus by long parallel walls is ascribed by Plutarch to Themistocles. The “Long Walls” (τὰ μακρὰ τείχη, τὰ σκέλη) consisted of (1) the “North Wall” (τὸ βόρειον τεῖχος), (2) theThe “Long Walls”.“Middle” or “South Wall” (τὸ διὰ μέσου τεῖχος, Plato,Gorg.555 Ε;τὸ νότιον τεῖχος); and (3) the “Phaleric Wall” (τὸ Φαληρικὸν τεῖχος; The north and Phaleric walls were perhaps founded by Cimon, and were completed about 457B.C.in the early administration of Pericles; the middle wall was built about 445B.C.The lines of the north and middle walls have been ascertained from the remnants still existing in the 18th century and the scantier traces now visible. The north wall, leaving the city circuit at a point near the modern Observatory, ran from north-east to south-west near the present road to the Peiraeus, until it reached the Peiraeus walls a little to the east of their northernmost bend. The middle wall, beginning south of the Pnyx near the Melitan Gate, gradually approached the northern wall and, following a parallel course at an interval of 550 ft., diverged to the east near the modern New Phalerum and joined the Peiraeus walls on the height of Munychia where they turn inland from the sea. The course of the Phaleric wall has been much disputed. The widely-received view of Curtius that it ran to Cape Kolias (now Old Phalerum) on the east of the Phaleric bay is not accepted by recent topographers. The exigencies of the defensive system planned by Themistocles could only have been satisfied by a juncture of the Phaleric wall with that of the Peiraeus. The existence of any third wall was denied by Leake, according to whose theory the southern parallel wall would be identical with the Phaleric. The language of Thucydides, however, seems decisive with regard to the existence of three walls. The Phaleric wall, branching from the city circuit at some point farther east than the middle or south wall, may have followed the ridge of the Sikelia heights, where some traces of fortifications remain, and then traversed the Phalerum plain till it reached the Peiraeus defences at a point a little to the north-west of their junction with the middle wall. The Phaleric wall, proving indefensible, was abandoned towards the close of the Peloponnesian war; with the other two walls it was completely destroyed after the surrender of the city, and was not rebuilt when they were restored by Conon in 393B.C.The parallel walls fell into decay, during the Hellenistic period, and according to Strabo (ix. 396) were once more demolished by Sulla.
The great advantages which the Peiraic promontory with its three natural harbours offered for purposes of defence and commerce were first recognized by Themistocles, in whose archonship (493B.C.) the fortifications of theThe Peiraeus.Peiraeus were begun. Before his time the Athenians used as a port the roadstead of Phalerum at the north-eastern corner of Phalerum bay partly sheltered by Cape Kolias. As soon as the building of the city walls had been completed, Themistocles resumed the construction of the Peiraeus defences, which protected the larger harbour of Cantharus on the west and the smaller ports of Zea and Munychia (respectively south-west and south-east of the Munychia heights), terminating in moles at their entrances and enclosing the entire promontory on the land and sea sides except a portion of the south-west shore of the peninsula of Acte. The walls, built of finely compacted blocks, were about 10 ft. in thickness and upwards of 60 ft. in height, and were strengthened by towers. The town was laid out at great expense in straight, broad streets, intersecting each other at right angles, by the architect Hippodamus of Miletus in the time of Pericles. In the centre was the Agora of Hippodamus; on the western margin of the Cantharus harbour extended the emporium, or Digma, the centre of commercial activity, flanked by a series of porticoes; at its northern end, near the entrance to the inner harbour, was another Agora, on the site of the modern market-place, and near it theμακρὰ στοά, the corn depot of the state. This inner and shallower harbour, perhaps theκωφὸς λιμήν, was afterwards excluded from the town precinct by the walls of Conon, which traversing its opening on an embankment (τὸ διὰ μέσου χῶμα) ran round the outer shore of the western promontory of Eëtionea, previously enclosed, with some space to the north-west, by the wider circuit of Themistocles. In the harbours of Zea and Munychia traces may be seen of the remarkable series of galley-slips in which the Athenian fleet was built and repaired. The galley-slips around Zea were roofed by a row of gables supported by stone columns, each gable sheltering two triremes. Among the other noteworthy buildings of the Peiraeus were the arsenal (σκευοθήκη) of Philo and the temples of Zeus Soter, the patron god of the sailors, of the Cnidian Artemis, built by Cimon, and of Artemis Munychia,situated near the fort on the Munychia height; traces of a temple of Asclepius, of two theatres and of a hippodrome remain. The fine marble lion of the classical period which stood at the mouth of the Cantharus harbour gave the Peiraeus its medieval and modern names of Porto Leone and Porto Draco; it was carried away to Venice by Morosini.
In 1870 the Greek Archaeological Society undertook a series of excavations in the Outer Ceramicus, which had already been partially explored by various scholars. The operations, which were carried on at intervals till 1890,The Dipylon and Ceramicus.resulted in the discovery of the Dipylon Gate, the principal entrance of ancient Athens. The Dipylon consists of an outer and an inner gate separated by an oblong courtyard and flanked on either side by towers; the gates were themselves double, being each composed of two apertures intended for the incoming and outgoing traffic. An opening in the city wall a little to the south-west, supposed to have been the Sacred Gate (ἱερὰ πύλη), was in all probability an outlet for the waters of the Eridanus. This stream, which has hitherto been regarded as the eastern branch of the Ilissus rising at Kaesariane, has been identified by Dörpfeld with a brook descending from the south slope of Lycabettus and conducted in an artificial channel to the north-western end of the city, where it made its exit through the walls, eventually joining the Ilissus. The channel was open in Greek times, but was afterwards covered by Roman arches; it appears to have served as the main drain of the city. Between this outlet and the Dipylon were found a boundary-stone, inscribedὄρος Κεραμεικοῦ, which remains in its place, and the foundations of a large rectangular building, possibly the Pompeium, which may have been a robing-room for the processions which passed this way. On either side of the Dipylon the walls of Themistocles, faced on the outside by a later wall, have been traced for a considerable distance. The excavation of the outlying cemetery revealed the unique “Street of the Tombs” and brought to light a great number of sepulchral monuments, many of which remainin situ. Especially noteworthy are thestelae(reliefs) representing scenes of leave-taking, which, though often of simple workmanship, are characterized by a touching dignity and restraint of feeling. In this neighbourhood were found a great number of tombs containing vases of all periods, which furnish a marvellous record of the development of Attic ceramic art. A considerable portion of the district remains unexplored.
The Acropolis had been dismantled as a fortress after the expulsion of Hippias; its defenders against the Persians found it necessary to erect a wooden barricade at its entrance. The fortifications were again demolished by theThe Acropolis of the classical period: its fortifications and area.Persians, after whose departure the existing north wall was erected in the time of Themistocles; many columns, metopes and other fragments from the buildings destroyed by the Persians were built into it, possibly owing to haste, as in the case of the city walls, but more probably with the design of commemorating the great historic catastrophe, as the wall was visible from the Agora. The fine walls of the south and east sides were built by Cimon after the victory of the Eurymedon, 468B.C.; they extend considerably beyond the old Pelasgic circuit, the intervening space being filled up with earth and the débris of the ruined buildings so as to increase the level space of the summit. On the northern side Cimon completed the wall of Themistocles at both ends and added to its height; the ground behind was levelled up on this side also, the platform of the Acropolis thus receiving its present shape and dimensions. The staircase leading down to the sanctuary of Aglaurus was enclosed in masonry. At the south-western corner, on the right of the approach to the old entrance, a bastion of early masonry was encased in a rectangular projection which formed a base for the temple of Nike. The great engineering works of Cimon provided a suitable area for the magnificent structures of the age of Pericles.
The greater monuments of the classical epoch on the Acropolis are described in separate articles (seeParthenon,Erechtheum,Propylaea). Next in interest to these noble structures is the beautiful little temple of Athena Nike, wrongly designated NikeThe monuments on the Acropolis.Apteros (Wingless Victory), standing on the bastion already mentioned; it was begun after 450B.C.and was probably finished after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. The temple, which is entirely of Pentelic marble, is amphiprostyle tetrastyle, with fluted Ionic columns, on a stylobate of three steps; its length is 27 ft., its breadth 18½ ft., and its total height, from the apex of the pediment to the bottom of the steps, 23 ft. The frieze, running round the entire building, represents on its eastern side a number of deities, on its northern and southern sides Greeks fighting with Persians, and on its western side Greeks fighting with Greeks. Before the east front was the altar of Athena Nike. The irregularly shaped precinct around the temple was enclosed by a balustrade about 3 ft. 2 in. in height, decorated on the outside with beautiful reliefs representing a number of winged Victories engaged in the worship of Athena. The elaborate treatment of the drapery enveloping these female figures suggests an approach to the mannerism of later times; this and other indications point to the probability that the balustrade was added in the latter years of the Peloponnesian War. The temple was still standing in 1676; some eight years later it was demolished by the Turks, and its stones built into a bastion; on the removal of the bastion in 1835 the temple was successfully reconstructed by Ross with the employment of little new material. At either corner of the Propylaea entrance were equestrian statues dedicated by the Athenian knights; the bases with inscriptions have lately been recovered. From the inner exit of the Propylaea a passage led towards the east along the north side of the Parthenon; almost directly facing the entrance was the colossal bronze statue of Athena (afterwards called Athena Promachos) by Pheidias, probably set up by Cimon in commemoration of the Persian defeat. The statue, which was 30 ft. high, represented the goddess as fully armed; the gleam of her helmet and spear could be seen by the mariners approaching from Cape Sunium (Pausanias i. 28). On both sides of the passage were numerous statues, among them that of Athena Hygeïa, set up by Pericles to commemorate the recovery of a favourite slave who was injured during the building of the Parthenon, a colossal bronze image of the wooden horse of Troy, and Myron’s group of Marsyas with Athena throwing away her flute. Another statue by Myron, the famous Perseus, stood near the precinct of Artemis Brauronia. In this sacred enclosure, which lay between the south-eastern corner of the Propylaea and the wall of Cimon, no traces of a temple have been found. Adjoining it to the east are the remains of a large rectangular building, which was apparently fronted by a colonnade; this has been identified with theΧαλκοθήκη, a storehouse of bronze implements and arms, which was formerly supposed to lie against the north wall near the Propylaea. Beyond the Parthenon, a little to the north-east, was the great altar of Athena, and near it the statue and altar of Zeus Polieus. With regard to the buildings on the east end of the Acropolis, where the present museums stand, no certainty exists; among the many statues here were those of Xanthippus, the father of Pericles, and of Anacreon. Immediately west of the Erechtheum is the Pandroseum or temenos of Pandrosos, the daughter of Cecrops, the excavation of which has revealed no traces of the temple (ναός) seen here by Pausanias (i. 27). The site of this precinct, in which the sacred olive tree of Athena grew, has been almost certainly fixed by an inscription found in the bastion of Odysseus. At its north-western extremity is a platform of levelled rock which may have supported the altar of Zeus Hypsistus. Farther west, along the north wall of the Acropolis, is the space probably occupied by the abode and playground of the Errephori. Between this precinct and the Propylaea were a number of statues, among them the celebrated heifer of Myron, and perhaps his Erechtheus; the Lemnian Athena of Pheidias, and his effigy of his friend Pericles.
The reconstruction of the city after its demolition by the Persians was not carried out on the lines of a definite plan like that of the Peiraeus. The houses were hastily repaired, and thenarrow, crooked streets remained; the influence of Themistocles,The city in the classical period.who aimed at transferring the capital to the Peiraeus, was probably directed against any costly scheme of restoration, except on the Acropolis. The period of Cimon’s administration, however, especially the interval between his victory on the Eurymedon and his ostracism (468-461B.C.), was marked by great architectural activity in the lower city as well as on the citadel. To his time may be referred many of the buildings around the Agora (probably rebuilt on the former sites) and elsewhere, and the passage, orδρόμος, from the Agora to the Dipylon flanked by long porticos. The Theseum or temple of Theseus, which lay to the east of the Agora near the Acropolis, was built by Cimon: here he deposited the bones of the national hero which he brought from Scyros about 470B.C.The only building in the city which can with certainty be assigned to the administration of Pericles is the Odeum, beneath the southern declivity of the Acropolis, a structure mainly of wood, said to have been built in imitation of the tent of Xerxes: it was used for musical contests and the rehearsal of plays. Of the various temples in which statues by Pheidias, Alcamenes and other great sculptors are known to have been placed, no traces have yet been discovered; excavation has not been possible in a large portion of the lower city, which has always been inhabited. The only extant structures of the classical period are the Hephaesteum, the Dionysiac theatre, and the choragic monument of Lysicrates. The remains of a small Ionic temple which were standing by the Ilissus in the time of Stuart have disappeared.