/5067608755_812435fb4a[1].jpg)
Location: Athens
The Temple of Athena Nike (the wingless goddess of victory),
originally the Temple of Athena Nike (Athena the Victorious) (Greek:
Ναός Αθηνάς Νίκης, Naós Athinás Níkis) is an ancient Greek marble temple
on the Athenian Acropolis, located southwest of the Propylaea and
standing on a pyrgos - a small ledge of rock reinforced by a marble
retaining wall. The building was built by the ancient Greek architect
Callicrates around 427-424 BC. The Athenians dedicated the temple to
Athena Nike (Ancient Greek: Αθηνᾶ Νίκη - Athena the Victorious), but by
the time of the Roman Empire both the original dedication of the temenos
and the history of its construction had been forgotten. Pausanias in the
2nd century AD. According to popular tradition, he wrote about the
"temple of the wingless goddess Nike".
Pyrgos, southwest of the
western entrance to the Acropolis, became a fortification (Mycenaean
bastion) in the late Helladic III period. In the first half of the sixth
century BC, a cult of Athena Nike, one of the hypostases of the goddess,
arose on the top of the bastion, associated with military rituals and
victories of the Athenians. The sanctuary was destroyed by the Persians
during the Greco-Persian Wars. In the middle of the fifth century BC,
the temenos was restored. Callicrates built a small temple (naiskos),
two altars and a repository for offerings on the bastion. In the last
third of the fifth century BC, the early classical sanctuary was covered
with earth during the reconstruction of the western slope of the
Acropolis, during the construction of the Propylaea of Mnesicles.
The new amphiprostyle temple of Athena Nike from the High Classical
period was built from Pentelic marble in the Attic version of the Ionic
order. Small in size, it had a rich decoration - a figurative frieze,
carved ornaments and polychrome painting. The steep walls of the bastion
from the north, west and south were protected by the parapet of Nike,
named after the frieze depicting winged Nikes celebrating victory and
making sacrifices to their patroness Athena. The main idea of the
monumental ensemble of the sanctuary was the victory of the Athenians
under the protection of Athena, expressed in the forms of mythological,
historical and allegorical subjects.
In the cella of the temple
there was a wooden cult statue. Athena Nike was presented as the goddess
of the coming peace: she had no spear, and in her hands she held a
helmet removed from her head and a pomegranate.
The temple stood
practically untouched until the end of the 17th century. Shortly before
the siege of the Acropolis in 1687, the Ottoman Turks who ruled Athens
dismantled the building, using its marble parts to build an artillery
battery at the entrance to the Acropolis. Parts of the ancient Greek
monument were discovered in the 1830s, during the dismantling of Turkish
fortifications. The temple was reassembled during the restoration of
1835-1845. Two more restorations were carried out in 1935-1940 and
2000-2010.
/2417599084_ceabe94374[1].jpg)
Ancient Greeks believed that it was here that King Aegeus stood, while waiting for his son Theseus. Ruler of Crete, king Minos, imposed a terrible tax on the Greeks. He forced Athenians to give up seven virgins and seven young men every month. They were transported to the island of Crete to Knossos. Where a terrible creature lived in a labyrinth created by a local king. With body of a man and a head of bull, Minotaur killed everyone who dared to come here. Theseus made a promise to his father Aegeus that he will change the sails on the ships from black to white if he killed the monster. The hero achieved his goal and even made it out. However on the way back he had to give up his loved Ariadne who helped him to escape from the labyrinth. He forgot to change the sails on the ship that was carrying him to Athens. It was believed that King Aegeus saw these sails, assumed his son was killed and jumped from this cliff into the sea. Thus the Aegean Sea got its name.
The confusion regarding the dedication of the temple, which arose in
the works of ancient writers, is also found in modern studies. The
cult of the goddess of victory Nike was formed in the early archaic
period on the basis of the poem "Theogony" by the ancient Greek poet
Hesiod. The iconography of Nike was already formed in the archaic
period. In vase painting and sculpture, the goddess was always
depicted winged. By the middle of the 5th century BC, the cult of
Athena Nike already existed on the bastion where the classical
temple was later located, but "Athena Nike" was not equated by the
Athenians with the goddess "Nike". Epiclesia "Athena Nike" strictly
denoted Victorious Athena (or Athena the Victorious) - one of the
variants of her cult, the name of which indicated that the goddess
guarded the bastion located at the entrance to the Acropolis, the
walls of which had long served the Athenians as a place to hang
military trophies.
Written sources contained two variants of
the names of the cult of the goddess, but the first and correct was
"Athena Nike", first recorded in an inscription on an altar of the
archaic period, later often used in an official context during the
5th-4th centuries BC, as well as in the Hellenistic period. In less
formal texts of the 5th century BC, the goddess of the cult on the
bastion was often called simply "Nike". Initially, the shortened
form of epicles was apparently colloquial, but over time it became
generally accepted, which gave rise to confusion between Athena
Nike, a hypostasis of Athena, and the goddess Nike. By the time of
the Roman Empire, the popular nickname had supplanted the true name
of the cult. Accordingly, the Athenians dedicated the temple of the
5th century BC to Athena Nike (the Victorious). Pausanias called
this temple, according to popular tradition, "the temple of the
wingless goddess of victory" (Nike Apteros). This name was explained
by the fact that the cult statue, which stood in the cella, depicted
the goddess without a spear and a frequent attribute of her
iconography - winged Nike. Over time, the Athenian people began to
consider her Nike directly and dubbed her "Wingless Victory". In the
2nd century AD, during the life of Pausanias, both the history of
the origin of the cult of Athena Nike and the history of the
construction of her temple were already forgotten. Pausanias,
explaining the name of the "Wingless Victory", reproduced the
historical myth associated with the wooden statue of the god of war
Enyalius in Sparta, chained in chains: "The Spartans believe that
Enyalius, being chained, will never escape from them, and the
Athenians also believe that they will always have "Victory", since
she has no wings."
In the Late Helladic III period, ancient Athens occupied a territory
that mostly coincided with the Acropolis hill. In the 2nd millennium
BC, the upper platform of the hill was surrounded by a ten-meter
high and six-meter thick wall made of limestone blocks. According to
legend, the wall was built by the Pelasgians, so the fortification
was called the Pelasgian wall. The Acropolis became a powerful
citadel that served as a reliable defense for the population of
Athens. The wall was partially damaged only during the two Persian
invasions of Attica in 480 and 479 BC. Access to the Acropolis was
arranged in two places - on the western and northern sides. On the
only gentle western slope, the fortifications were most powerful -
here was the entrance protected by bastions.
During the
restoration work of the Temple of Athena Nike in 1936, ancient
cultural layers were studied. It has been established that on the
spur of the rocks protruding to the southwest from the hill there
stood a Mycenaean bastion, also built according to the Pelasgian
wall system: two walls of cyclopean stone blocks with the space
between them filled with broken stone and rubble. The Pelasgian wall
surrounded the citadel in such a way that there was a passage
between them, which opened to the southwest of the bastion. Inside,
the passage was blocked by several gates. It is assumed that a
similar bastion stood to the northwest, and all the buildings were
the famous nine gates of the Pelargic fortifications - "Enneapylon"
(nine gates). Archaeologist Gabriel Welter] dated the fortifications
to around 1200 BC. Subsequently, the Mycenaean bastion received a
second name - the tower (pyrgos) of Niki or the Niki bastion. In the
western wall of the pyrgos, the ancient builders made a niche
intended for the performance of some cult of great importance.
Inside the bastion, the foundations of an ancient sanctuary have
been preserved, which included several halls and rooms, in one of
which archaeologists discovered votive figurines. The finds
indicated that the ancient cult arose in this place in the Bronze
Age, but it is not possible to determine its dedication precisely,
although in specialized literature there were suggestions that the
goddess Nike was worshiped here. According to archaeological
research, before the construction of the classical temple of Athena
Nike, the top of the bastion was built up twice. The first
reconstruction is dated by the nature of the stonework to
approximately the early archaic period, but not later than the
second quarter of the 6th century BC. The second stage of
reconstruction, based on trapezoidal masonry similar to the
buildings in Sounion, Thorikos and Ramnount, is attributed by
archaeologists to the classical period, approximately 430 BC.
In 566 BC, the Athenians celebrated the Great Panathenaea for the
first time, a national holiday in honor of Athena. Feasts in honor
of the goddess (Athenaea and Panathenaea) had been held earlier, but
that year they held the first Great Panathenaea, a festival of
particular scope that was subsequently celebrated every four years.
An inscription from 566 BC found on the Acropolis read: "The
Hieropeai first established an agon for the bright-eyed maiden."
Agon was the name for religious ceremonies in honor of Athena. Other
inscriptions from that time included the term "dromos," which
originally meant horse racing, and then "games" in general. The
games in honor of Athena had been held earlier, but in 566 BC they
were supplemented with gymnastic competitions.
The emergence
of the cult of Athena Nike is also associated with the emergence of
the Great Panathenaea. An altar was installed on the Mycenaean
bastion on a low, single-step foundation with the inscription:
"Altar of Athena Nike. Made by Patroclus." The altar and the
inscription on it date back to the middle of the 6th century BC or
slightly earlier. During archaeological excavations, a poros base of
a cult statue, a storage area for offerings, and terracotta
figurines were discovered near the altar. The base is dated to
between 600 and 560 BC. The finds indicated that in the first half
of the 6th century BC, a temenos already existed on the upper
platform of the citadel. Based on the dating of all the finds, it is
assumed that the first sanctuary of Athena Nike was built between
580 and 560 BC, during a period of active construction activity on
the Acropolis.
In the second quarter of the 6th century BC.
the ancient center of Athens was transformed, as evidenced by the
reconstruction of the fortifications at the entrances to the
fortress, and the found parts of architectural structures - the Red
Pediment, the pediments of Hercules and the Olive Tree. This period
also saw a significant change in public and private rituals,
religious practices of the Athenians: the reorganization of the
Panathenaia, which included the creation of a new image of Athena,
who became the main goddess of the polis; the beginning of a
large-scale practice of dedications in the form of cult statues by
citizens. After the arrangement of the upper platform, two more
cults arose on the bastion, known from references by ancient
authors: the sanctuary of the Charites and the sanctuary of Artemis
(Hecate) Epipyrgidia (Keeper of the fortress).
In 560-510 BC,
tyranny was established in Athens. Peisistratos remained the archon
invariably, and after his death, his sons - Hippias and Hipparchus.
The Acropolis at this time became the residence of the tyrants, its
square Peisistratos considered part of his palace and transferred
there the cult of his family (Artemis Bravronskaya). However, the
tyrants paid special attention to the cult of Athena, who, as
Peisistratos believed, provided him with personal patronage.
Herodotus told a historical anecdote about the first return of the
tyrant to Athens with the assistance of Megacles, the leader of the
political group of the Paralia. The action was staged as if
Pisistratus was being returned to the city by the goddess herself,
for whom they found a beautiful, tall woman:
"Having dressed
this woman in full military armor, they ordered her to get on a
chariot and, having shown her how she should hold herself in order
to appear as beautiful as possible, they rode into the city, having
sent heralds ahead of them. The latter, having arrived in the city,
said... "Athenians, receive Pisistratus with a good feeling; Athena
herself has honored him more than all people and is now returning
him to her Acropolis." They repeated this, passing through different
places. Immediately, rumor spread through the villages that Athena
was returning Pisistratus; and in the city, the population was ready
to believe that this woman was the goddess herself."
The
anecdote was based on the idea of Athena's personal patronage of
Pisistratus, in the creation and rooting of which he himself was
very interested. The third and final victory for power, won by the
tyrant at the sanctuary of Athena in Pallene, was also associated
with the personal participation of the goddess.
A statue of
Athena Nike was created under Peisistratos. It is assumed that it
served as a prototype for the images of Athena on the Panathenaic
amphorae and coins of the 6th century BC and later period. Gabriel
Welter drew attention to the fact that the image of the goddess on
the amphorae remained unchanged for several centuries. The altar of
Athena Nike discovered by archaeologists also had a close
resemblance in form to the images of the altar on the Panathenaic
amphorae. Based on this, it is assumed that the statue of Athena
Nike stood on a low pedestal behind the altar in the open air in a
consecrated enclosure. Judging by the images, Athena covered herself
with a shield with an image of winged Pegasus, and in her hand she
held a spear ready to strike.
During the Greco-Persian Wars of 500–449 BC, the Persians captured Athens twice. Xerxes I's campaign in 480 BC saw the capture and plunder of the Acropolis. In 479 BC, Mardonius's invasion completed the devastation. The Acropolis was reduced to ruins, as were most of the city's houses, the agora, and the old fortress wall. During the conquests, the Persians also destroyed the sanctuary of Athena Nike on the Mycenaean bastion. However, the statue of Athena Nike was not damaged, as it had been transported to Salamis or Trizin. Before the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC, the Athenians swore a great oath that "the sanctuaries burned and destroyed by the barbarians" would not be rebuilt, as a reminder of the "lawlessness of the barbarians." Keeping their word, the inhabitants of the polis preserved many ruins on the Acropolis, in the city itself and other parts of Attica, as Herodotus, Strabo and Pausanias testified. The sanctuary of Athena Nike was covered with earth and it stood in this form until the middle of the century.
According to Plutarch, the first to raise the issue of restoring the
temples of the Acropolis was the statesman Pericles. Around 467 BC,
Cimon won the important battle at Eurymedon. Soon, the Athenians
concluded a truce with the Persians. In 456 BC, Pericles put forward
the idea of organizing a pan-Greek congress in Athens to discuss
the possibility of constructing new temples on the site of the
destroyed ones. The inhabitants of Sparta opposed this, which
prevented the implementation of the plan on a pan-Greek scale. In
449 BC, Athens concluded peace with the Persians and, despite the
opposition of the oligarchs, the plan for new construction on the
Acropolis was approved by the popular assembly. The foundation of
the Parthenon in 447/446 BC is the only date recorded in the sources
for the beginning of this construction process.
The
restoration of the sanctuary of Athena Nike dates back to the middle
of the 5th century BC. All construction work was completed between
465 and 435 BC. At this time, a small temple, a naisk, and two new
altars were built on the Mycenaean bastion, and the ancient pedestal
of the cult statue was adapted for storage (eschara) of terracotta
figurines. The beginning of the restoration work is determined on
the basis of the dating of the foundation of the naisk. The temple
stood on a stone slab that was not used in the construction of the
new southern wall of the Acropolis (the wall of Kimon), which began
to be built around 467 BC. The decree appointing a lifelong
priestess of the cult of Athena Nike and authorizing the contractor
Callicrates to draw up a technical assignment for the manufacture of
the door to the sanctuary, the construction of the temple and the
altar, under the supervision of a commission of three people, is
probably associated with the new construction on the Mycenaean
bastion. Discovered during archaeological excavations, the naisk
temple was a simple U-shaped cella built from Aeginetan poros,
surrounded by walls on three sides and open to the east. The length
of the structure was 3.65 m, the width - 2.47 m. The repository,
made of two blocks of the archaic pedestal of a cult statue, was
located in the northwestern corner of the naisk. Terracotta
figurines, potsherds and bones lay inside. The location and shape of
the repository clearly indicated that it was built at the same time
as the naisk. A small rectangular altar stood on the axis of the
naisk to the east. Monolithic, made of the same Aeginetan poros as
the naisk, it had a protruding base and crown. The base was in the
form of a reverse goose, the crown was a goose and the backs were in
the form of volutes. The altar rested on a large stone slab]. In the
northern corner of the bastion there was another altar made of
Aeginetan poros, square in shape. The Mycenaean bastion was
surrounded by a curved retaining wall of trapezoidal shape. The wall
projected above the platform where the naiskos with altars stood. It
probably served as a support for the parapet or performed the same
function as the peribolos in other temenos.
Construction
490 BC was a turning point in the development of
ancient Greek culture, which entered the classical stage of its
development. Victory in the Battle of Marathon, which had great
moral significance for the Athenians, and the discovery of the rich
marble quarries of Pentelicon near Athens made it possible to begin
construction of a new marble temple in honor of Athena Polias. The
Persian invasions suspended the work. The subsequent victory at
Plataea and the creation of the Athenian Maritime Union made Athens
the economic and political leader among the Greek cities. From the
middle of the 5th century BC, the reconstruction of the Acropolis
began, during which the statue of Athena Promachos, the Parthenon,
the Propylaea of Mnesicles, the new Ionic temple of Athena Nike
and other structures were erected. During the artistic flowering of
the classical period, Athens experienced the influence of the
artistic traditions of all of Ancient Greece. In the buildings of
the Acropolis, the features of the Ionic and Doric orders were
combined into a harmonious whole for the first time.
At the
time when the construction of the Parthenon was being completed, the
Athenian Assembly was concerned with the reconstruction of the
Acropolis, its western entrance and the demarcation of the
boundaries between the territories of the sanctuaries. In 434/433
BC, a decree was passed on the costs of planning - the Callias
Decree. The purpose of the redevelopment was to create a proper
entrance to the Parthenon so that visitors could approach it and the
sacred area with Athena's olive tree and Poseidon's spring from the
most advantageous side for viewing. The redevelopment plan was
entrusted to a commission headed by the architect Mnesicles, who
created a project for the construction of the Propylaea, which was a
complex portico in three parts: a central one with five gates, and
two side ones, protruding slightly forward to the west and flanking
the path. It was not possible to fully implement the project, since
it was proposed to allocate part of the sanctuaries of Artemis
Brauronia and Athena Nike for the side porticoes, which the priests
opposed. The Athenians built the Propylaea for five years, from 437
to 432 BC. The Peloponnesian War interrupted the construction, and
Mnesicles' project remained forever unfinished. The southern wing of
the building was built twice as narrow as the northern one. It
overlooked the sacred precinct of Athena Nike with a small portico,
which had a marble bench for resting, and here was also the passage
to the site of the temple of Athena Nike. At the same time as the
construction of the Propylaea, or very soon after its completion,
the Mycenaean bastion was built on top. The layout and nature of the
construction technique of the foundations indicated that the
decision to rebuild the citadel was made already at the initial
stage of the construction of the Propylaea. The temple-naiskos of
Callicrates, the altars and the repository were covered with earth,
and the fortification itself was built with a new wall of marble
blocks. The reconstruction made the bastion more even in lines, and
the sanctuary platform significantly larger in area. The new walls
were built from hewn Pentelic marble laid on poros blocks. The
masonry was crowned by a row of marble blocks with a break in the
form of a reverse gooseneck at the bottom and a rampart at the top.
The upper row of masonry was almost at the same level as the middle
of the Propylaea crepis. In the western wall, a double niche that
had existed since the late Helladic period was preserved. Its shape,
with a square pillar in the middle, was repeated by the builders in
marble.
During the construction of the Propylaea and the
reconstruction of the bastion, two entrances to the sanctuary
appeared: through the southern wing of the Propylaea, and by means
of a small staircase built into the bastion on the northern side.
The first was the main entrance, since an open double portal was
erected in the southern wing, convenient for sacred processions and
the carrying of sacrificial offerings. A narrow and steep staircase
led visitors directly to the sanctuary from the western ascent to
the Acropolis. The lower flight, now destroyed, adjoined the podium
of the southern wing of the Propylaea. A second short flight of
eight steps, five of which remain, went around the gate pillar at
the western corner of the podium and led directly to the platform of
the sanctuary.
At the top of the rebuilt bastion,
construction began on a new tetrastyle and amphiprostyle marble
temple. A special decree appointed a builder, instructed him to draw
up a technical specification, and allocated funds for the
construction work. The proposal was made by Hipponicus, son of
Callias, and the construction of the temple was entrusted to
Callicrates. For a long time, the dating of the structure was
controversial. The most likely date for the construction of the
building itself is considered to be 427-424 BC. In general, the
construction of the Temple of Athena Nike, from the concept to the
artistic design, dates back to about 435-416 BC. In terms of
architecture, the temple had a strong resemblance to a group of
Attic buildings erected around the same time: the Propylaea of
Mnesicles (437-432 BC), the temple on the Ilissos River (c.
435-430 BC) and the Erechtheion (c. 420-413, 409-406 BC).
Around 421-415 BC, between the Treaty of Nikias and the Athenian
campaign in Sicily, the Mycenaean bastion received its final
architectural design: along the entire perimeter, from the small
staircase on the northern side to the southern wall, it was
surrounded by a low parapet of Nike (42 m long and 1.05 m high) made
of Pentelic marble, on which bronze railings were installed. On the
outer side, facing the city, the marble slabs of the balustrade were
covered with a single sculptural frieze.
The typology of ancient Greek temples developed gradually from the
7th century BC. The main room, where the cult statue was located,
was called naos in Greek, and cella in Roman. In an ancient temple
there could be several naoses dedicated to different gods, therefore
in specialized literature the cella is often called the entire
central core of the temple. The cella usually had no decorative
decoration on the outside and looked like a wall made of stone
blocks. The cella was framed by colonnades on one, two or more
sides, which is what gave rise to the various types of ancient Greek
temples, each of which was used throughout the classical period.
The Temple of Athena Nike was a tetrastyle and amphiprostyle
type. Amphiprostyle (in Greek: amphi - on both sides, pro - in
front, stylos - behind) - a temple with a two-sided orientation, was
an important step in the evolution of Greek temple types. The basis
of the amphiprostyle layout was the prostyle, in which another
portico was added to the wall opposite the main façade. Although the
porticoes were erected identically, an additional entrance was not
arranged in the back wall of the amphiprostyle temple. Tetrastyle
means that the porticoes of the temple were four-columned. This type
of temple was rarely used in ancient Greek architecture, since in
the context of understanding ancient urban ensembles, two-sided
orientation was more the exception than the rule.
The Temple
on the Ilissos River is the earliest known amphiprostyle in ancient
Greek architecture. With a size of 5.85 m along the stylobate, with
Ionic tetrastyle porticoes and without an opisthodomos, it was an
obvious prototype of the Temple of Athena Nike. Apparently,
Callicrates reworked his own plan for the Temple of Athena Nike for
the Temple of Athena Nike (associated with the Temple of Artemis
Agrotera), removing the pronaos and reducing the width of the
building. Nevertheless, it was the Temple of Athena Nike that became
one of the most famous ancient Greek amphiprostyles. In the
Acropolis ensemble, its two-sided orientation played a key role in
organizing the main entrance (in connection with the Propylaea),
which predetermined the use of such a volume. The rear portico of
the temple was visible from the outside when ascending the
Acropolis.
The volumetric-spatial composition of the temple is represented by a small oblong cella with two porticoes. The dimensions of the cella were 4.19 m wide × 3.78 m deep. The depth of the eastern portico was 1.67 m; the western one was 1.70 m. The foundation, replaced with reinforced concrete in the 1930s, consisted of an outer ring of Piraeus limestone blocks and four to five rows of poros slabs. On the foundation lay a marble three-step stylobate measuring 5.64 m wide × 8.286 m deep. The porticoes of the temple opened with four Ionic columns, parallel to which, on a raised and architecturally distinguished base, rested the cella, facing the eastern facade with two antae. Between the antae stood two narrow columns of square cross-section, in the passage of which there was a door 1.40 m wide. The spaces between the columns and antae were covered with metal gratings. The cella had neither a pronaos nor an opisthodomos, and its western wall was blank. The temple was crowned with pediments that have not survived. In the refined style typical of the architecture of Athens in the 5th century BC, the composition of the temple was enlivened by various curvature techniques. The axis of the two central columns in the porticos deviated by 0.022 m towards the cella. The side walls of the cella tapered upwards and sloped outwards, so that the difference between their base and crown was 0.022 m. The corner columns of the porticos inclined diagonally towards the cella by 0.031 m. The corners of the temple antae were aligned with the slope of the corner columns, while their front side stood strictly vertically, and did not tilt towards the portico, as was usually the case in ancient Greek temples. The steps of the stylobate slightly protruded forward (about 0.003-0.004 m), and the risers were recessed. The stylobate itself did not have a bend in the horizontal lines.
The unusual character of the temple architecture was reflected not
only in the layout and composition, but also in the order. The
emergence of the Attic version of the Ionic order, presented in the
Temple of Athena Nike, is associated with the construction of the
most important buildings in Athens of the classical period,
primarily on the Acropolis, the ensemble of which was created as the
center of all of Hellas. Its architecture had to be recognizable to
all residents of Ancient Greece. This formulation of the task
predetermined that the Attic Ionic order became a kind of fusion of
various architectural traditions: the work of Attic architects in
the forms of the Doric order and the characteristic features of the
Asia Minor Ionic order. If the Doric buildings of the Acropolis of
the classical period had details of the Ionic order, then in the
temple of Athena Nike elements characteristic of the Doric order
appeared: painted rather than carved decoration of the sima,
three-sided profiling of the capitals of the anta, heavier
proportions of the order, a three-part entablature, a gable roof,
pediments and others.
The bases of the columns of the temple
of Athena Nike belonged to the type that by the second half of the
5th century BC had only recently begun to be used in Attica. The
Attic base of the Ionic order, the first example of which appeared
in the Athenian stoa in Delphi, received the best drawing in the
structures of the Acropolis of the classical period. Such a base
consisted of two tori, separated by a scotia, while the shape of the
scotia determined the expansion of the base downwards. The upper
torus in the temple bases was a complex cross-section of a series of
rollers installed over a scotia, which rested on the lower torus,
which had the cross-section of a simple shaft. A feature of the
temple bases was the small height of the lower torus, which was ⅕ of
the total height of the base, while it usually occupied ⅓. Along the
bottom of the antae, the walls of the cella outside and two square
columns there was a break that repeated the shape of the profiles of
the bases.
The columns of the temple had relatively stocky
proportions, with a ratio of the height of the column to its base of
7.82 times. This ratio is one of the heaviest among the known
temples of the Ionic order. The visual weighting of the proportions
of the order, most likely, was thought out by the builder
specifically to create the desired impression - severity and
impressiveness of the building, a special scale. With lighter
proportions, the small temple could get lost against the background
of the monumental Doric Propylaea of Mnesicles.
The column
capitals, like the bases, belonged to the recently created Attic
type of order and had characteristic features: double baluster rims,
convex "eyes" of the volutes, a strongly protruding echinus with a
cut in the form of ionics and arrows, as well as an abacus with a
cut in the form of ionics. Capitals of this type were first used in
the Propylaea of Mnesicles. In the temple of Athena Nike, they
were close in proportion to the Propylaea, although they were
executed on a reduced scale. In composition, they are richer, with
strongly protruding spirals and tightly twisted curls of the
volutes. This type of capital was developed in the Erechtheion
order, where it is presented in an even more skillful, decoratively
complex form.
The corner Ionic column capitals were installed
in the temple, the earliest of those known. Due to the fact that the
capital of the Ionic order had a different appearance on the main
and side facades, it became necessary to turn the volute at the
corners at an angle of 45° to both facades. The capitals in the
spaces formed by the volutes on the echines were supplemented with a
cut in the form of four-petal palmettes of the so-called "flaming"
type, first used in the design of the floral acroteria of the
Parthenon. The capitals in the antae of the cella consisted of three
main profiles, from top to bottom - a fillet, a reverse gooseneck
and a quarter shaft. In this case, the last two breaks were
supplemented by an astragal. This form was reproduced in the
crowning of square columns, and the two upper ones, a fillet and a
reverse gooseneck, ran like epicranitis along the top of the cella
walls. The temple presents a classic example of a three-part (Attic)
version of the Ionic entablature: an architrave divided into three
fascias, a continuous sculptural frieze, and a cornice without
dentils. In a manner more suitable for the heavy Doric order, the
builder increased the height of the architrave relative to the spans
it covered and the overall height of the entablature, which was ²⁄₉
the height of the order. The architrave of the temple had a rich
profile. Its main part was divided into three fascias, crowned with
a tenia in the form of three breaks - a narrow fillet, a quarter
shaft, and an astragal. The stepped architrave, typical of Ionia,
was an innovation for Attica at the time of the temple's
construction. Previously, it was used only in the interiors of
Athenian buildings, and in the Temple of Athena Nike it was first
used to decorate the exterior. The use of a narrow fillet for
crowning the quarter shaft in the fascia and sima was also unique.
The sculptural frieze of the entablature protected the
projecting cornice from the rain. The pediments that crowned the
temple have not survived. On the cornice of the eastern facade,
archaeologists found traces of the attachment of a sculptural
composition. During the restoration of 2000-2010, the caissons of
the porticoes, the cornice, the sima and part of the eastern
pediment were recreated, assembled from authentic fragments and new
marble inserts. The original and new drainage holes, made in strict
accordance with the authentic ones, with decor in the form of
mascarons of lion heads were installed on the sima. The restoration
of the eastern pediment also included a significant number of
original fragments.
Most of the details of the temple were never covered with carved ornaments, which were assumed for an Ionic temple of this type. The exceptions were the skillfully processed upper tori of the column bases and the echines of the capitals. In other places, the carving was replaced by bright polychrome painting. Traces of paint were found on the architrave, capitals of the antae and coffers. Along the sima, a strip of painted ornament of alternating lotuses and palmettes was recorded. The antae and the inner walls of the cella were covered with a rich and bright ornament, traces of which have been preserved in some places, but the paints have lost their color and become indistinguishable. Individual details of the sculptural frieze of the parapet of Nike were also originally emphasized by paint, but by now no traces of it remain.
The frieze of the entablature was sculpted in the period between
the creation of two major monuments of the late 5th century BC — the
Parthenon sculptures completed in 432 BC and the Erechtheion frieze
of 409–406 BC. The dating is determined by stylistic analysis. In
the Temple of Athena Nike, the drapery of the figures is more linear
than in the Parthenon, and the “combs” of the fabrics are longer.
The latter were of the same width and were located more widely and
evenly. The fabric is thinner and on some figures it fits closely to
the body, which marked the beginning of the wet drapery technique.
The lines of the fabric bends on the frieze look more lively and
free. This design direction was developed in the Erechtheion frieze.
The peplophoros on the eastern frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike
are draped in much the same way as the caryatids of the Erechtheion
portico. In addition to the Parthenon and the Erechtheion, the
dating is confirmed by four small reliefs executed on stone slabs of
city-state documents: the Bridge Decree (422/421 BC), the Treaty
between Athens and Argos (417/416 BC), the decree on rewarding the
citizens of Neapolis in Thrace and the annual report of the
Treasurer of Athena (both 410/409 BC). The last two reliefs are the
most unlike the temple frieze, while the relief on the Bridge
Decree, on the contrary, is closest in style. The relief of the
Treaty between Athens and Argos was distinguished by features of a
developed "rich style", already a subsequent stage in the
development of ancient Greek sculpture. Thus, the creation of the
frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike can be dated to approximately
420-418 BC, that is, immediately after the Peace of Nicias. Although
the friezes of the temple's entablature are relatively well
preserved, their iconography is debatable. The southern frieze is
the only one that is confidently associated with historical events.
The battle scenes on the western and northern friezes have been
interpreted in specialist literature as both mythical and
historical. The German archaeologist Karl Blümel believed that the
southern frieze depicted a moment from the Greco-Persian Wars, while
the western and northern friezes depicted episodes from the
Peloponnesian War, that is, a battle between the Greeks. According
to another version, the western and northern friezes depict scenes
from the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC: on the northern façade, the
struggle between the Greeks and the Persians; on the western, the
struggle between the Greeks, possibly the Athenians, and the
Thebans, who fought at Plataea on the side of the Persians. Andrew
Stewart believed that all three friezes reinterpreted the concept of
valor in a specifically Attic key. This concept of "democratic
heroism" combined traditional and new ideas: the friezes were a
story that reflected contemporary ideas about the "true" Athenian,
who, regardless of the risk, was ready to take bold and decisive
action, and thus repeatedly achieve victories.
The frieze of
the southern façade is in many ways similar to the painting of the
Battle of Marathon, created for the Painted Stoa around 460 BC.
Apparently, the original plot was shortened, selecting only the
critical moments of the battle. In the frieze, the Greeks attacked
from left to right, pushing the Persians into the coastal marshes,
partially encircling them and penetrating the enemy ranks. Due to
this, the depiction of the battle looks confusing. One Persian
jumped off his horse stuck in the marsh, while another was thrown
over his head by his horse. The Athenian polemarch Callimachus led
the attack from the center of the frieze to the left, which
emphasized the encirclement of the enemy army. At the same time, on
the right side, the remnants of the Persian army began a fighting
retreat to the ships, where their ranks again met the army of
pursuers. The sculptor did not strive to reproduce the historical
event realistically: the composition had nothing to do with the real
tactics of a massive phalanx attack, and the Athenians are shown in
a heroic guise, naked except for cloaks and helmets, fighting the
fully equipped Persians. The frieze had a propaganda function,
glorifying not only the victory in battle, but also the physical
strength of the Athenians, on which they relied more than on
weapons. The marathonomachoi are shown rushing forward or jumping
back to strike again with unprecedented speed, while their movements
are emphasized by fluttering cloaks. The Persians, on the contrary,
looked slow. This approach to depicting the Athenians first appeared
in the Amazonomachy scene on the shield of Athena Parthenos (c.
447-438 BC), and in the southern frieze of the temple it reached its
most vivid and graphic expression.
The friezes of the
northern and western facades also depicted battles. The absence of
obvious analogies with mythical battles, as well as unique details
(a trophy on the western frieze; a poorly preserved scene on the
right side of the northern frieze, probably of a peaceful nature)
hinted that the subjects were historical. However, there is no
established opinion in the specialized literature as to what events
were depicted in these cases. The nature of the scenes depicted had
direct parallels with the frieze of the southern facade: the motif
of heroic duels and the almost complete nudity of the fighting
Athenians were again at the forefront. The presence of a trophy in
the western frieze and an unusual peaceful scene in the northern
frieze is most likely connected with the visual culture of the
Athenians, who wanted the viewer to grasp the meaning of the
compositions from these clues.
Few details have survived from
the northern frieze. The lower part of the fragmentary slab depicted
a mysterious scene in which men stood around a large platform,
interpreted as the foot of a large ship. The plot of the only intact
slab showed a battle raging directly over the bodies of the slain
warriors, as well as the pursuit and capture of a bearded warrior,
who threw off his Corinthian helmet as he fled. Nearby, above an
abandoned shield, two riderless horses were running away from the
battle. The classical archaeologist Andreas Furtwängler associated
the scene with the Battle of Plataea. In his opinion, the northern
frieze depicts the battle of the Athenians with the Boeotian allies
of the Persians. Other hypotheses about the depiction of mythical
episodes of the Trojan War and the exploits of Theseus on the frieze
have not found support among researchers. The western frieze
depicted a battle between Greek hoplites and was noted for its
interesting details: numerous corpses scattered across the
battlefield and a trophy installed in the center. Archaeologist
Elizabeth Pemberton associated the frieze with the victory of the
Athenians led by the marathonomachos Myronides over the Corinthians
in Megaris in 458 BC. Since the battle consisted of two episodes
that took place in a short period of time, this could explain the
depiction of a large number of dead warriors on the frieze.
Classicist Jane Ellen Harrison saw here an episode from the exploits
of Theseus. Having counted the dead warriors, she assumed that the
frieze depicted the return of the corpses of the Seven against
Thebes. In later studies, the most likely hypothesis was that the
battle depicted some historical victory of the Athenians over the
Spartans. Since the western frieze of the temple was the first to
appear before visitors ascending the Acropolis, the Athenians were
supposed to place in it a hint of an important military triumph,
which was relevant at the time.
The assembly of gods on the
eastern frieze was added to the design to testify to the victories
of the Athenians and to give the entire cycle a special solemnity.
This plot had neither mythological nor allegorical subtext, having
arisen simply by analogy with other ancient Greek works. Athena Nike
was depicted exactly in the center of the composition, between the
seated Zeus and Poseidon. The frieze was a clear reference to the
eastern pediment of the Parthenon, where in the scene of the birth
of the goddess, all three were located in exactly the same order,
only Poseidon was depicted standing. Researchers have formed a
common opinion regarding the figures placed in the far left corner:
Eros is depicted second from the left with his mother Aphrodite. The
goddess placed her foot on a stone, which was a topographic allusion
to the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos on the southern slope of the
Acropolis, located near the Mycenaean bastion. On the other side of
Eros stood Aphrodite's companion Peitho. Further on were the three
Charites or Graces. Next to her was a seated figure of the goddess.
It has been interpreted in different ways. Most likely, the relief
depicted the mother of the Graces, Eurynome or Hestia. Further on,
moving to the right, were: Leto, Apollo, Artemis, Dionysus,
Amphitrite, Poseidon, Athena, Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Hygieia, Kore,
Demeter and a seated Themis surrounded by two Horus.
The
composition's character was striking in its departure from the
traditional narrative: when compared with the sculpture of the
Parthenon and the battle scenes of the other friezes, the immobility
and strictly frontal arrangement of the figures of the gods, and the
absence of the living dynamism of the Parthenon pediments, were
striking. Only the figures in the left corner are shown in motion,
probably bringing news of the victory depicted on the southern
frieze. Apparently, the sculptor wanted to combine two opposing
views of the divine essence in the work: the traditional idea of
divine intervention in human affairs (which was the very meaning
of the existence of temples) and the feature that made the gods gods
- their detachment from worldly affairs. Fifty years earlier, a
similar narrative had appeared in the metope of the Temple of Zeus
at Olympia, depicting Athena ordering Hercules to clean out the
Augean stables. The devastating plague of 430-427 BC. could provoke
a feeling of discontent with the Olympic gods for their indifference
to human misfortunes. Probably for this reason, the figures of the
gods are unnaturally calm, but their very image on the frieze at the
same time paradoxically testifies to divine participation in the
victories of the Athenians.
The sculptures of the pediments and acroteria were sculpted immediately after the frieze was completed, around 418-416 BC. The temple pediments, 0.555 m high, had small statuary compositions attached to the geison with thin metal rods. Only a few fragments of the sculptures have survived, but they were enough to determine the plot of the Gigantomachy on the eastern pediment. The western pediment most likely housed a composition on the plot of the Amazonomachy. The sculptor's choice of these mythological subjects is directly related to the dedication of the temple to Athena. The goddess's role in repelling the giants' attack on the Olympian gods was perceived as her greatest triumph. The Gigantomachy plot is depicted not only on the eastern metopes of the Parthenon and the shield of the statue of Athena Parthenos, but was also embroidered on the Panathenaic peplos, which was presented as a gift to the goddess every four years, during the great festival in her honor. The most natural would be the placement in the second pediment of the temple of Amazonomachy - another great legendary feat, which consisted of the defeat of the Amazons at the walls of the Acropolis. In the Parthenon, the plot was depicted on the western metopes and, again, on the shield of the statue of Athena Parthenos. In both cases, Gigantomachy and Amazonomachy were placed side by side in one work and were clearly considered two sides of the same coin. Other mythological themes (Centauromachy, "Destruction of Ilion", etc.) were not suitable for the plot design of the temple, since they would not have been able to convey the idea that the valor of the Athenians in defending their homeland is comparable to the valor of the gods in defending their home - Olympus.
According to epigraphy, the acroteria of the temple were covered with
gilding. A gilded plate from one of them was deposited in the treasury
of the Hecatompedon, about which a corresponding entry was made in
382/381 BC. During archaeological work, two blocks of the base of the
central acroterium of the eastern facade were discovered, in which
cavities were cut out to accommodate the sculpture and dowels with which
the base was attached to the pediment. Six fragments of the bases of the
four corner acroteria have also survived. Archaeological data indicate
that the acroteria were made of bronze and were disproportionately large
in size compared to the temple itself. Bright gilding and large size
allowed them to be visually distinguished in the monumental ensemble of
the western slope of the Acropolis.
It is impossible to say
anything definite about the nature and subject of the sculptures, since
the acroteria have been completely lost. The first attempt to
reconstruct them was made by the German archaeologist Andreas Linfert in
1968, who placed three marble sculptures from the collections of the
National Archaeological Museum, the Acropolis Museum and the Louvre on
the surviving bases. Later, researchers rejected Linfert's hypothesis,
since the acroteria were clearly made of bronze, not marble. The
following year, classical philologist Patricia Nils Boulter linked the
central acroterium of the temple with a fragmentary Attic inscription
mentioning Bellerophon, Pegasus and the Chimera. The inscription was
later identified as part of reports on the construction of the
Erechtheion. Boulter's hypothesis was not supported by other
researchers, especially in terms of the iconography of Bellerophon, a
mythical hero of Corinthian origin, extremely unpopular in Athens.
Subsequently, researchers proposed three most likely options for
reconstructing the central acroterion of the eastern pediment: in the
form of a large tripod, a trophy, or a winged Nike, like the statue of
Nike Paeonius. These reconstruction options were based on the general
context of the architecture of the Temple of Athena Nike and the
military rituals of the Athenians. Allegorical sculptures of tripods,
trophies, and statues of Nike, placed on a dais, were erected by the
Athenians in Marathon, Salamis, and other places associated with
military victories. The tripod could be a reference to the Athenian
tripod in Delphi and the tripods of the Monument of the Eponyms; the
trophy - to the Athenian monuments in Marathon and Salamis, as well as
the frieze of the parapet of Nike; statue of winged Nike - on the statue
of Nike Paeonia in Olympia. The corner sculptures most likely had the
form of winged Nikes.
The frieze, installed on the outer side of the parapet of the Nike
bastion, was made by six sculptors (two for each facade), among whom
were probably Callimachus and Paeonius, the author of the famous Nike
statue at Olympia. The only established fact regarding the authorship is
the conclusion that the work was carried out by sculptors of the Phidias
school. The composition of the frieze was influenced by the Parthenon.
In both cases, a parallel counter-movement of figures is shown on the
northern and southern facades towards the center, that is, the frieze of
the western facade. By the early 1930s, archaeologists had discovered 44
fragments of the frieze, not counting individual parts, connected
together in large blocks. Initially, it was believed that the sculptures
covered the parapet only on the northern facade and on a small
north-eastern section above the stairs (about 11 m). Over time, traces
of blocks were discovered on the cornice and steps of the temple on the
western side (the total length increased to about 19 m). The discovered
block of the southwest corner confirmed that the parapet also extended
along the southern facade of the bastion. The total estimated length of
the parapet increased to almost 42 meters. According to the
reconstruction by William Bell Dinsmoor, the parapet consisted of 32
blocks, on which a total of 65 figures were placed.
The artistic
style of the frieze, the most skillful of all the sculptural works of
the temple, can be used to judge the final stage of the design of the
monumental ensemble of the sanctuary. The difference in the style of the
slabs can be traced consistently, from the northern facade to the
southern, which is typical for a monument sculpted over several years.
The group of the most artistically expressive reliefs from the southern
facade included: Nike adjusting her sandal, seated Athena and a
well-preserved standing Nike. In style, they most closely resembled the
sculptures of the Erechtheion frieze, in which, however, the drapery had
a deeper cut, a uniform shape and a more pronounced play of light and
shadow.
The standing Nike most closely resembled the sculptures
of the Erechtheion. Her peplos fell between her legs in a series of thin
and high "ridges", creating the effect of shaded furrows between them.
In the Erechtheion frieze, this technique was more clearly executed, as
was the more developed contrapposto. One of the standing figures on the
southern parapet frieze swayed in contrapposto. Athena was depicted in a
similar position on the reliefs of the annual report of the Treasurer of
Athena and the decree on the awarding of citizens of Neapolis in Thrace
in 410/409 BC. The other two figures had even more developed poses, with
a leg extended forward. The carving of the parapet, executed later than
the figures, was of an earlier style than the reliefs themselves,
clearly contrasting with them. A comparison shows that the parapet
frieze had already been completed by the time the construction of the
Erechtheion was stopped in 413 BC. Considering the need to complete the
pediments and acroteria after the entablature frieze was created, the
date for the start of the parapet sculptures can be determined to be
around 416 BC.
The frieze of each of the three facades depicted
Athena and Nike, busy preparing for the victory celebrations: some of
them, as on the frieze of the Parthenon, led sacrificial animals, others
placed captured trophies. Athena of the southern frieze sat in a chair
carved into the rock. Her helmet lay on her knees, and her shield with
the head of the Gorgon in the center leaned against the foot of the
chair. Even in a sitting position, Athena was depicted above the Nikes
surrounding her, busy preparing the sacrifice. The meaning of the
frieze's plot was the idea of Athena Nike's special patronage of the
Athenians. The heroic battle scenes of the temple frieze here gave way
to calm episodes of worship of the goddess. The parapet frieze
complemented the temple frieze in an allegorical form: military triumphs
naturally turned into scenes of divine celebration; the brutal killings
of war - into ritual animal sacrifices; extreme excitement was replaced
by graceful calm, and dangers, tragedies and horror - by the smile of
fate and Elysium. The Nike parapet frieze, in this context, was one of
the earliest such large-scale allegorical narratives in ancient Greek
art. In the 20th century, the Nike parapet gained great fame and was
appreciated by the general public and experts as one of the most
beautiful and significant surviving works of art of Ancient Greece.
In the cella of the temple stood a wooden cult statue, the
description of which is preserved in the dictionary of Harpocration
under the word "Athena Nike":
Lycurgus in the book "On the
Priesthood" says that they revered a wooden wingless statue of Athena,
holding a pomegranate in her right hand and a helmet in her left; the
commentator Heliodorus reports that the Athenians revered her in the
first book of his work on the Acropolis.
Valerius Harpocration,
Dictionary of the Ten Orators
Wooden statues in the classical
period were usually covered partially or completely with gilding, ivory
or marble. Presumably, the statue of Athena Nike was also covered with
gilding, and the face, hands and feet protruding from under the clothes
could have been made of marble. Athena Nike was represented in the
temple as the goddess of peace: she had no spear, and in her hands she
held a helmet removed from her head and a pomegranate. In Ancient
Greece, the pomegranate was a widespread attribute of peace, fertility
and prosperity. The statue was made from the trophies captured by the
Athenians during the Archidamian War: the victory over the Ambraciots
and the return of Olpe occurred in the winter of 426/425 BC, and in the
summer of 425 BC - the end of the civil war in Corfu and the conquest of
Anactorium. There is a record of two golden Nikes consecrated in 426/425
BC in honor of the celebration of victories. The statue of Athena Nike
could have been consecrated as early as 424 BC, or, as some monuments of
this period, in the last years of the Archidamian War or in honor of the
Peace of Nikias.
During the reforms of Lycurgus of Athens around
338-326 BC, Athens was rebuilt and decorated. In particular, Lycurgus
initiated the restoration of a number of statues made of precious
metals, including the statue of Athena Nike, which at that time was
already about a hundred years old. A surviving inscription from that
time reported on the establishment of a restoration committee by the
state council and the adoption of a resolution on the sacrifice,
according to which the priestess of Athena Nike was instructed to
present the sacrifice on behalf of the people, in order to appease the
goddess. The attention to the cult statue of the state council testified
to the fact that the cult of Athena Nike remained important at that
time.
Over time, the Athenians forgot the history of the origin
of the cult of Athena Nike and began to call her "Wingless Victory".
However, the goddess of victory Nike was always depicted as winged,
while Athena the Victorious could not and should not have wings. The
absence of a spear and shield from the statue of Athena and the presence
of a pomegranate in her hand, more typical of Aphrodite, also caused
bewilderment among descendants, about which an epigram was written:
Old-born virgin, you upset me, Cypris,
In your bold hand you hold
the gift intended for me.
Do you remember, once in a dispute on the
slopes of rocky Ida
To me, not to you, Paris gave this apple.
Shield and spear are dear to you; but the apple befits me...
Do we
need to repeat the disasters of the previous war!
Reliable
archaeological data about the cult statue has not survived. Four slabs
of the cella floor were broken by the Ottoman Turks during the
construction of a powder magazine under the temple, and no fragments of
the base of the statue could be found.
Three stone blocks of the altar altar have been preserved at the lower step of the temple ridge on the eastern side. Few fragments remain of the altar itself. Judging by the details of its poros base and traces left on the altar, the altar stood at a distance of 1.70 m from the stylobate of the temple and was about 3.9 m in diameter. In the northeastern corner of the sanctuary, paving slabs have been preserved. Another section of them in the northwestern corner was relaid during the restoration of the 1930s. The slabs, carved from Pentelic marble, rested on poros guides (crossbars). The surviving parts of the paving rested on a backfill of Pentelic marble fragments.
The 4th century BC in the history of Hellas became a time of constant
wars between the Greek city-states, interrupted only by short periods of
unstable truces. After the defeat in the Peloponnesian War, Attica
plunged into an economic crisis, poverty spread throughout the recently
prosperous state. The prosperity of Athens quickly recovered, and by the
middle of the century Piraeus, the sea gate of the city, once again
became one of the largest trading ports in the Mediterranean. The gap
between rich and poor remained very significant. Family clans and
individual citizens now played a greater role in public life, and the
economy became as important a sphere as politics. Changes also affected
the culture of Athens, in particular architecture. It was in the 4th
century BC that the idea of the period of Pericles' reforms as a
"golden age" arose, and the Acropolis ensemble began to be considered
the highest artistic achievement of the Athenians. Demonstrations of
personal wealth, the construction of luxurious residential buildings and
majestic funerary monuments became fashionable. Public construction, on
the contrary, declined. The history of the Acropolis of the late
classical period is more associated with the construction of dedicatory
monuments than with the construction of buildings.
In the middle
of the century, the Macedonian king Philip II managed to turn his state
into the largest military power in the Balkans, defeating the powerful
Chalcidian League in 348 BC. At first, Philip imposed a policy of
patronage on the Greek cities, which the latter, especially the
Athenians, were unhappy with. In 338 BC, the Macedonian army, led by
Philip's eighteen-year-old son Alexander, invaded central Greece,
defeating the combined army of the Thebans and Athenians at the Battle
of Chaeronea and forcing the cities into an unwanted alliance. Athens
joined the Corinthian League created by Philip and lost its political
independence, although for the next sixteen years it retained autonomy
in deciding local affairs. 338-322 BC is called the last classical
period in the history of Athens, its "silver age". This time was marked
by the energetic activity of Lycurgus of Athens, who reformed the city
finances and organized work to decorate the polis. The politician hoped
that Alexander the Great, who headed his father's empire and went on a
campaign to Asia, would never return to his homeland, and then Athens
would be able to regain its political independence and former glory.
Lycurgus's reforms were preparation for these desired events.
According to ancient sources, huge sums were spent on decorating the
Acropolis. All the statues associated with the cult of Athena received a
new, rich decoration. In particular, the statue of Athena Nike was
restored and the acroteria of her temple were again covered with gold,
removed during the crisis of 407/406 BC. Lycurgus did not erect any new
buildings on the Acropolis, but he did organize the construction of the
main Athenian monument of the late classical era, the marble Theatre of
Dionysus. The area adjacent to the Acropolis to the south, where the
theatre was located, began to be overgrown with numerous dedicatory
monuments, in various forms reproducing the Athenian buildings of the
"golden age" of Pericles. It is known that one of the choregical
monuments of the late 4th century BC was a copy of the Temple of Athena
Nike.
After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his empire
disintegrated into several parts, and the so-called Hellenistic era
began. Almost no information has survived about the history of the
sanctuary of Athena Nike during the Hellenistic period. In epigraphy,
the last mentions of the epiclese of Athena Nike were found in SEG XXX
69 (c. 304-302 BC), IG II² 677, SEG XXVII 2 (c. 250 BC), IG II² 1006,
SEG XXI 474 (122/121). At the end of the classical period, all mentions
of the priestess of Athena Nike disappeared, while the priestess of
Athena Polias was often mentioned in the Hellenistic and subsequent eras
as the "high priestess" of Athens. Indirect information about the temple
has survived in the 3rd century BC. In the Battle of Lysimachia in 277
BC, the Macedonian king Antigonus II Gonatas defeated the Galatian army.
A stele was erected on the Acropolis, in the sanctuary of the Temple of
Athena Nike, in honor of this victory. Apparently, the installation of
the monument in this place had an ideological function, as it echoed the
sculptural design dedicated to the victories of the Athenians over the
Persians.
By the 1st century BC, the Hellenistic states,
including Greece, became part of the Roman Empire. During the period of
Roman rule, new statues and monuments were erected on the Acropolis next
to classical temples, but there was virtually no major construction. In
the middle of the 1st century AD. On the western slope of the Acropolis,
a monumental Roman flight of marble steps was built, designed to provide
access to the plateau of sacrificial animals, which were led from south
to north along a ramp along the western wall of the Mycenaean bastion.
The northern end of the ramp opened onto a marble-paved terrace that
extended from the northwest corner of the bastion to the southwest
corner of the Agrippa Monument.
In 267 CE, Athens was attacked by
the Germanic tribe of the Heruli. Archaeological excavations have shown
that the Acropolis was attacked during the raid. The ancient monuments
were set on fire, most of them were never restored. A significant part
of the buildings and statues were dismantled for materials for the
construction of a defensive wall and for the repair of the most revered
buildings, in particular the Parthenon. After the expulsion of the
Heruli, the western slope of the Acropolis was fortified for the first
time since 479 BC. The post-Heruli fortifications had two gates. One of
them is well preserved and is known as the Beulé Gate, named after the
archaeologist Charles Ernest Beulé, who discovered it in the mid-19th
century. The second gate was erected with its façade to the southwest;
on the southeast side it abutted the Mycenaean bastion, and on the other
it ended in a rectangular tower. It was installed on a ramp along which
the procession with sacrificial animals ascended the Acropolis.
The Roman Emperor Theodosius I issued a decree in 392 prohibiting the
performance of pagan rituals. From that time on, the cult of Athena Nike
ceased to exist.
After the division of the Roman Empire in 395, the Greeks came under
the rule of Byzantium. The largest temples of the Acropolis, the
Parthenon and the Erechtheion, were rebuilt into Christian churches
during the seven-hundred-year Byzantine rule. The Propylaea were used as
a palace and fortification.
In 1204, the Duchy of Athens was
created on the territory of Attica, subordinate to the Franks. From that
time on, the former sanctuary of Athena Nike was gradually rebuilt,
adapting it to new needs. The earliest construction work, which caused
significant damage to the ensemble, dates back to the 13th-15th
centuries. In the second half of the 13th century, a curtain wall was
built between the Mycenaean Bastion and the monument of Agrippa. The
fortress wall was part of the buildings erected by the Franks, who ruled
Athens from 1204 to 1311, in order to increase its defense capability.
At that time, curtain walls were an innovation in military construction
technology, invented for the Middle Eastern castles of the Crusaders.
During construction, the portals of the Böhle Gate and the Propylaea
were walled up. The only entrance to the Acropolis now passed through
the gate adjacent to the western side of the Mycenaean bastion. Only
through them could horses and other animals enter the fortress. To
ensure that the ramp had a slope suitable for horses, it was extended
north to the monument of Agrippa, where a door to the bastion was
installed. Inside the Frankish bastion, the road turned south and rose
by another ramp to the platform of the sanctuary, after which it went
around the southern wing of the Propylaea. The altar of the sanctuary of
Athena Nike was located on the path of the new road and, probably, it
was during this period that it was destroyed.
However, the
building of the temple of Athena Nike remained practically undamaged.
Apparently, by that time the roof of the building had collapsed, since
very few fragments remained of the pediments, sima and tiles. At the
same time, the temple remained completely undamaged up to the sculptural
frieze. The parapet of Nike was also well preserved. The reasons why the
temple was not rebuilt or demolished were the small size of the building
and the small area of the bastion, which prevented reconstruction and
major construction work.
In 1456, the Ottoman Empire captured Athens. Around 1460, the
Parthenon was rebuilt into a mosque. Around the 16th century, the Turks
reinforced the fortress on the Acropolis with cannons. In 1645,
lightning struck the Propylaea, which had been converted into a
gunpowder storehouse. The ensuing explosion severely damaged the
building. The Temple of Athena Nike was also converted into a powder
magazine. The Turks pulled out four slabs of the cella floor and dug up
the foundation, partially destroying the naiskos temple that lay
underneath. The resulting cellar was covered with a cylindrical vault
made of rubble stone, the upper part of which reached the level of the
former floor. The entrance was cut through the temple's eastern side.
The French physician Jacob Spon and the English traveler George
Wheeler were the only Europeans to see the Temple of Athena Nike in its
original form. Between 1671 and 1676, they visited Athens, climbed the
medieval ramp to the Mycenaean Bastion, where they lingered to admire
the views. Their notes contain evidence of admiration for the columns
and elaborate frieze of the temple, as well as a gunpowder storehouse in
the basement of the building. From the medieval "Guards' Court", the
travelers saw a frieze of the southern facade of the Nike parapet, which
they mistakenly considered to be the base of the Propylaea or marble
portico. To the west of the northern side of the courtyard, they found
another gate, above which they noted a sculptured image of an eagle,
executed "with the finest craftsmanship." Probably, the sculpture was
one of the surviving blocks of the Nike parapet.
The Temple of
Athena Nike was destroyed shortly before the siege of the Acropolis in
1687. Fearing an attack by the Venetians, the Turks decided to
strengthen the Mycenaean Bastion. The building was dismantled to the
level of the crepis, and a large battery was built on top of the pyrgos.
The medieval curtain wall, which ran from the bastion to the monument of
Agrippa, was supplemented with a podium from the inside and built on. A
firing position of four cannons was placed on the platform of the
podium. The epistyle, geison, cella blocks and four frieze slabs were
built into the superstructure of the wall. The remaining frieze slabs,
column drums, capitals and several fragments of the frieze of the
parapet of Nike were built into the internal podium. The powder magazine
was now protected by a battery covering the western half of the
stylobate of the temple. Presumably, during this reconstruction, the
Turks destroyed several meters of the temple's foundation, from the
location of the northern square pillar to the north-eastern anta, and
the cellar was expanded in the eastern direction. An engraving from 1687
depicting the Acropolis, which was in the collection of Etienne Gravier
(Marquis d'Ortiere), showed that by this time the Temple of Athena Nike
no longer existed.
The 18th century saw a colossal breakthrough in the study of history.
During the Age of Enlightenment, a new "picture of the world" of the
past emerged, and the formation of the main directions and terms of
history as a scientific discipline began. The emergence of the concept
of "culture", which entered into widespread use, was largely due to the
close attention of lovers of antiquities (antique dealers) to material
monuments. Excavations in Herculaneum and Pompeii in the first half of
the 18th century contributed to the development of neoclassicism in the
second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries, which was formed on the
basis of the aesthetics of the Enlightenment. One of its most important
trends was the so-called "Greek Renaissance" - a wave of fascination
among European intellectuals with ancient Greek art, caused by the
discovery of archaeological sites in the Eastern Mediterranean in the
second half of the century. Unlike the accessible ancient Roman art in
Italy, the monuments of the countries captured by the Ottoman Empire
were inaccessible to Europeans for a long time. Trips to this region
became more frequent in the last third of the 17th century, but it was
only from the mid-18th century that the systematic study of classical
Greece began.
In 1751, the London Society of Dilettante financed
an expedition to Athens by the painter James Stuart and the architect
Nicholas Revett. Over the course of three years, they carried out
systematic excavations, measurements and sketches of ruins and
sculptures, in particular the later disappeared monument of Thrasyllus
and the Ionian temple on the Ilissos River, and traveled twice to the
Cyclades Islands. Based on the excavations in England, they published
the book "Antiquities of Athens" in four volumes (1762-1830), with
images of all the monuments of the Athenian Acropolis. Stuart and Revett
sought to depict with the greatest accuracy the probable original
appearance of the buildings, with the aim of using architectural details
and ornaments in modern construction. The drawings and engravings of the
Antiquities of Athens were created on the basis of precise measurements,
excluding later medieval reconstructions and the influence of
contemporary architectural fashion. This method formed the basis for
reconstructions in modern archaeology.
Stuart and Revett
discovered partially open steps of the stylobate of the temple on the
Mycenaean bastion, as well as the wall of the cella and frieze blocks
walled up in the podium of the Turkish battery. The researchers'
sketches showed how extensive the losses were, since they considered the
temple mount not a separate building, but a continuation of the
Propylaea. The researchers carefully sketched four frieze slabs of the
entablature walled into the walls, but accessible for viewing. The
records did not contain any mention of the Propylaea podium and the
sculpted image of an eagle, which Spon and Wheeler wrote about in the
late 17th century. The discovered parts of the building became a complex
mystery for travelers who mistakenly considered the finds to be parts of
the Temple of Aglaurus.
With the beginning of travel to Greece in
the 18th century, two dangers were discovered that threatened the
preservation of the monuments. The first was that the Turks used the
ruins for utilitarian purposes - they burned stone and marble into lime,
and broke up the reliefs to obtain lead, which was used to connect
individual blocks. The second danger came from the interest of Europeans
in antiques, which were transported to Europe for bribes. The Turks
began to knock down parts of the friezes for the purpose of sale, and
some of them, not understanding the value of the monuments for
Europeans, believed that treasures were hidden inside and began to
actively destroy the sculptures. Travelers came to the conclusion that
it was necessary to save the cultural heritage of Ancient Greece from
the barbarity of the Turks.
In 1800–1802, Thomas Bruce, Lord
Elgin, organized an expedition to Greece to take casts of the largest
ancient Greek monuments. In Athens, the scope of the work expanded, in
addition to sketches and measurements, Elgin decided to obtain the
originals of the buildings and wrote: "I desire to have specimens of
every kind of original object and architectural ornament: every cornice,
every frieze, every capital; carved ceilings, fluted columns, examples
of the various architectural orders and variations of the various
orders: metopes and the like, and as many as possible." Thomas Bruce
assembled a famous collection, called the Elgin Marbles, consisting of
the sculptured decoration of the Parthenon, caryatids from the portico
of the Erechtheion, inscriptions, sculptures, coins and vases from
various parts of Greece. Most of the collection was taken from Athens on
the brig Mentor in 1802. The collection, later transferred to the
British Museum, also included parts of the Temple of Athena Nike: four
slabs of the entablature frieze, column capitals and antae, extracted
from the wall of the Turkish fortification.
Between 1810 and
1817, the architect and archaeologist Charles Robert Cockerell made a
sketch of the Mycenaean bastion site. Later, the archaeologist William
Martin Leake re-examined the area and, using Cockerell's drawings and
the evidence of Pausanias, attributed the building to the sanctuary of
Athena Apteros. In his book The Topography of Athens (1821), Leake
presented a reconstruction of the plan and façade, but it was completely
incorrect: in his interpretation, the temple was a distillation in
antae, open to the north. By the end of the Greek War of Independence of
1821-1829, the Turkish settlement on the Acropolis was in ruins. The
Parthenon, Erechtheion and Propylaea were also badly damaged. Great
Britain, France and Russia recognized the independence of Greece by the
London Protocol of 1830. The European powers initiated the creation of
the Kingdom of Greece and placed the German prince Otto I on the throne.
The new king arrived in Athens with a retinue of German military and
diplomats educated in classical traditions. The country's political
course was aimed at rapprochement with Western Europe, which considered
itself the heir to ancient Greek culture. The values instilled in the
representatives of the royal court largely contributed to the further
fate of the Acropolis.
After the evacuation of the Turkish
garrison from Athens on March 31, 1833, plans were made to clear the
Acropolis of medieval and later reconstructions, which personified the
oppression of the Greeks by the Franks and Turks. The newly formed Greek
nation sought to identify itself with the traditions of Ancient Greece,
revered throughout Europe, carried away by the "Greek Renaissance". The
desire to restore the Acropolis to the form it had in the 5th century
BC. e., led to the rapid dismantling of the medieval stone buildings.
Since they were considered a "barbaric" intrusion into the classical
past of Greece, no systematic documentation of the work was kept. The
German architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel proposed to Otto I to rebuild
the Acropolis into a royal palace in which the ancient Greek ruins would
be relegated to the role of exquisite garden decorations. Military
advisers recommended that the ruler build a fortress on the plateau. A
project was also proposed to build a memorial to the 1821 revolution on
the top of the hill.
The arrival of the famous architect Leo von
Klenze in Athens in 1834 sealed the fate of the Acropolis. Klenze
immediately realized that building a fortress on a hill was a completely
useless undertaking in the conditions of modern warfare, and the project
was rejected. The architect, being a purist by nature, proposed to
restore the ancient Greek temples, especially the Parthenon, and display
them as works of art of the classical period, free from later additions.
The Greek government also considered other options, but under pressure
from the public, it decided to preserve the Acropolis as an
archaeological park or museum. The ancient monuments were transferred to
the jurisdiction of the Greek Archaeological Service.
Archaeological excavations on the Acropolis began in the spring of 1833,
when archaeologist Kyriakos Pittakis began small excavations around the
Parthenon, but Klenze set new standards for the work. The architect drew
up restoration plans in which he tried to find a balance between the
classicist desire for a complete restoration of the monuments and the
romantic desire to preserve the picturesque character of the ruins. In
1834, he took part in small excavations and was present at the symbolic
ceremony of the beginning of the restoration of the Parthenon. In
October, Klenze left Athens, entrusting the supervision of the work to
the young German archaeologist Ludwig Ross, and the architects Stamatis
Kleanthis and Eduard Schaubert.
At the end of December 1834, larger-scale work began on the Acropolis
under the direction of Ross, Schaubert and Hans Christian Hansen, who
replaced Kleanthis. All the medieval and Turkish buildings were quickly
dismantled. In December, Ross supervised the work of a team of over a
hundred workers, dismantling the Turkish battery between the monument of
Agrippa and the Mycenaean bastion, as well as the Frankish
fortifications and ramps beneath them.
In April 1835, the first
marble parts were discovered that were definitely not parts of other
surviving buildings on the Acropolis: several blocks of the cella, three
columns, capitals, parts of the frieze and architrave, and several
fragments of the Nike parapet. They were quickly attributed to parts of
the Temple of Athena Nike. The broken parts did not show signs of
shelling. It was previously thought that the temple had been destroyed
by bombardment during the Venetian siege of Athens, but finds have
disproved this hypothesis. In September, the foundations of the temple
were completely uncovered, with two column bases in situ in the
north-east corner. On the western side of the stylobate, clear traces of
the previous position of the column bases were preserved. All surviving
parts of the building were excavated by the end of the year. The temple
began to be reassembled in December 1835. Pentelic marble was used to
make new column drums, replacing three broken ones, and new bases; poros
stones were used to replace missing parts of the cella walls. Since
there was no evidence of the original form of the building, Ross studied
other surviving ancient Greek buildings and the evidence of Spon and
Wheeler, who wrote about an Ionic temple, 9 × 15 feet, with columns and
a sculptured frieze. By May 1836, the temple was half restored. The
surviving parts of the columns were installed, the north and east sides
were restored to the level of the architrave, and the south and west
sides to the middle of the cella. Ludwig Ross resigned in July 1836 and
was succeeded by Pittakis, who continued the restoration according to
the original plan. The main works took place in 1843-1844. Under the
supervision of Pittakis, the south and west walls of the cella were
completed, the architraves, ceiling beams and portico coffers were
installed. The basement floor was waterproofed with a layer of rubble,
and the sanctuary area was fenced off from visitors. In 1845, the
British Museum donated four copies of the frieze blocks removed by Lord
Elgin to Greece. Three of them were built into the restored temple; the
fourth broke during installation. Ludwig Ross published archaeological
data on the temple in 1835-1837. In the German magazine Kunstblatt he
wrote a column for the general public entitled "Bericht von den Arbeiten
auf der Akropolis in Athens". In 1839 Ross, Schaubert and Hansen
published a report on the restoration - "Die Akropolis von Athens nach
den neuesten Ausgrabungen. Der Tempel der Nike Apteros". The report
would not meet today's academic standards, but it contained Hansen's
meticulous and informative sketches of all the work. Pittakis did not
publish reports. The Temple of Athena Nike became the first ancient
Greek monument to be restored. The restoration made a strong impression
on contemporaries: the restored building was an unprecedented example of
the classical style, exceeding all expectations of European connoisseurs
of antiquity. Architect Roman Kuzmin, during his pension, spent two
years in Greece studying ancient monuments. The result was the
publication in Rome in 1837 of "The Temple of Athena Nike on the
Acropolis of Athens" - the first book in the world dedicated to the
measurements and restoration project of the Temple of Athena Nike.
By modern standards, the excavations and the first restoration would
not meet scientific standards. The deliberate destruction of medieval
and Turkish buildings deprived the temple of its historical context, but
the main criticism was that Ross made no attempt to study the
archaeological material before starting work. As a result, many of the
temple's parts were installed in the wrong places and even fragments
from the Propylaea and other nearby monuments were used. Pittakis made
the same mistakes when restoring the architrave, placing some blocks
incorrectly.
In 1837, the Athens Archaeological Society was founded in Athens, responsible for the discovery, rescue and protection of Greek antiquities throughout the 19th century. The archaeological work was carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service. In the 1860s, excavations on the Acropolis acquired a more scientific approach. In accordance with European standards, working groups were created for research and documentation, and the technical side of restoration gradually became more and more important. In 1843, the French Institute in Athens opened, and foreign restoration specialists began to be increasingly involved in the work. In 1875, the Frankish Tower, erected in the Middle Ages over the southern wing of the Propylaea, was dismantled. Most of the work was paid for by the famous entrepreneur and self-taught archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, who had discovered ancient Troy five years earlier. The destruction of the medieval structure sparked the first wave of discussions in Greece about the value of monuments from different historical periods. Until then, the demolition of all non-classical heritage had been accepted as a fact. This policy was supported by influential lovers of Antiquity - members of the Athenian Archaeological Society. The demolition of the Frankish Tower revived interest in the Mycenaean bastion among archaeologists. In 1880, Richard Bon excavated part of the interior of the citadel in order to establish the relationship in time between the construction of the Propylaea and the sanctuary of Athena Nike. The archaeologist began excavations in the medieval cultural layers to the south of the temple, where he discovered epigraphic inscriptions, remains of sculptures and large fragments of the parapet of Nike. Continuing excavations in the eastern and northern directions, in areas where there were no pavement slabs, Bon discovered an intact layer of bastion backfill and the remains of two walls of the late Helladic period. In 1894, the Acropolis was damaged by an earthquake. A specially created task force initiated the restoration work, the management of which was entrusted to the civil engineer Nikolaos Balanos. From 1898, the Parthenon, Erechtheion and Propylaea were restored one after the other. Balanos, together with his fellow restorers Panagiotis Kavadis and Wilhelm Dörpfeld, followed the tradition established by Leo von Klenze and used the anastylosis method. In 1905, under the influence of the ideas of the "anti-reconstruction movement", new principles of archaeological work were established in Greece: material monuments were to be studied and described before being removed, and then returned to their original location. Balanos ignored the new rules and continued to use the anastylosis method. In 1909, after a military coup, the Athenian Archaeological Society lost its powers, and all its responsibilities were transferred to the state Greek Archaeological Service. In 1915, the Greek archaeologist Anastasios Orlandos published a study, Zum Tempel der Athena Nike, in which he described the mistakes made during the first restoration of the temple. In 1923, the archaeologist Gabriel Welter continued excavations on the Mycenaean Bastion. Since he was unable to obtain permission to remove the pavement slabs, several narrow tunnels were dug under them. To the east of the temple, Welter discovered an intact altar, located about a meter below the level of the High Classical sanctuary. To the north, a second square altar was discovered, and to the east, a continuation of the wall discovered by Bon.
In January 1934, the Greek Council of State appointed a commission to
inspect the bastion and sanctuary of Athena Nike. Over the previous few
years, the structures had been gradually settling: the temple had sunk
by twenty centimeters on its western and southern sides; the crumbling
masonry of the bastion had begun to shift and sag. The commission
recommended a thorough restoration. Nikolaos Balanos was appointed as
head of the work, and he began work in October 1935. The temple was
completely dismantled, and the bastion was partially dismantled. Balanos
dismantled the Classical masonry, as well as some parts of the Late
Helladic walls, in order to reach the solid rock. During the work, an
early Classical sanctuary with a naiskos temple was discovered. Balanos
carefully documented the excavations. A concrete foundation was laid on
the exposed rock surface as a new support for the bastion. The naisk
temple was reconstructed on the foundations, enclosing it with concrete
walls and creating access to the underground sanctuary through an
opening in the temple floor.
Balanos did not conduct a thorough
study before the work. He rearranged many parts, but again, as in the
first restoration, he placed them in the wrong places, and borrowed some
of the parts from other buildings. Apparently, the restorer deliberately
used parts that did not originally belong to the temple and the bastion
wall, since he wanted to use aesthetically beautiful marble, and he did
not consider the origin of the material to be such an important factor.
The temple crepis was restored with a deliberate slope, compensating for
the subsidence of the bastion. A preliminary study of the monument could
have prevented these errors. In addition, Balanos used techniques that
are not allowed in modern restoration practice: new blocks were joined
to original fragments, even if they did not fit together, while the
surfaces were hewn; new inserts were artificially aged so that they
became indistinguishable from the originals; the parts were fastened
together with glue sticks, cement and lime mortar; reinforced concrete,
approved by the Athens Charter of 1931 but now prohibited for
restoration work, was used for the foundation; iron brackets and beams
were used to strengthen the buildings, which, due to corrosion and
tension-compression, severely damaged the marble (the first cracks
appeared in the 1950s).
In 1939, Balanos resigned due to health
reasons. By that time, the Temple of Athena Nike had been restored to
the level of the entablature. The project was completed by Anastasios
Orlandos, the main critic of Balanos's restoration methods. He had
previously carefully studied the temple and the bastion, and in a year
of work he corrected many of the mistakes made by Balanos and Ross: he
correctly rearranged some of the blocks of the cella and architrave,
replaced the limestone inserts with marble ones, and independently
restored the columns and entablature of the temple. Orlandos studied the
data much better and took the opportunity to reposition the blocks that
had been incorrectly placed by Balanos, but was only able to carry out
the work in the upper parts of the temple. However, his work also
contained some errors, probably due to the desire to finish the
restoration as quickly as possible due to the approaching Second World
War. In particular, the capital partially restored by Pittakis was
replaced with a full replica, and the columns were re-done with missing
fluting that had not been recreated during the first restoration. The
restoration was completed in September 1940.
Orlandos published a
report on the restoration under the title "Nouvelles observations sur la
construction du temple d'Athèna Nikè" in 1947-1948 in the Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellenique. The publication described the building and
its dimensions in detail. Balanos's brief report, written in 1940, was
published only in 1956 in the journal Archaiologike Ephemeris. As a
result of the restoration, the temple acquired the appearance of a more
complete structure than the number of surviving parts allowed. This is
partly due to the discovery of new blocks, but mainly due to the
restoration techniques. Orlandos used the term "anapaleosis" ("return to
the ancient state") to describe his work. Therefore, the work of
1935-1940 is considered more of a reconstruction than a restoration.
Following World War II, economic hardship left the Acropolis largely
untouched for thirty years. In 1971, UNESCO issued a report on the
deteriorating condition of the monuments, citing growing pollution in
Athens and cracks in the marble caused by iron staples. Since 1965, the
Greek Archaeological Service had been trying to rectify the situation,
but lacked the necessary funding, as the "Black Colonels" regime of
1967–74 had plunged Greece into an economic crisis. In 1975, the
Committee for the Conservation of the Acropolis Monuments (ESMA) was
established to lead the restoration and conservation work. The Committee
included specialists and scholars in the fields of history,
architecture, structural engineering and chemical engineering. The
principles of the Venice Charter formed the basis of the Committee's
work. ESMA organized new restoration work in order to conserve the
monuments. The Erechtheion was dismantled, repaired and rebuilt between
1979 and 1987. Next, they began restoring the Parthenon and Propylaea.
The work was supposed to be completed in 2000, but the condition of the
monuments turned out to be worse than expected. In 1999, the Acropolis
Restoration Service (YSMA) was formed on the basis of the Committee for
Restoration and Conservation Work.
In 1994, the architect and
head of the Greek Authority for the Restoration and Reconstruction of
Monuments, Demosthenes Giraud, presented a "Sketch for the Restoration
of the Temple of Athena Nike". The project was supported by participants
in a special international conference, and in 1999 it was approved by
the Greek government. The work involved completely dismantling the
temple, conserving its architectural elements, restoring the gorge and
foundation, while preserving the naiskos temple. After that, the temple
had to be completely reconstructed, with the correct arrangement of
elements and restoration of the original curvature. In 1998, the
original parts of the entablature frieze were removed and transferred to
the Acropolis Museum for safekeeping. Work began in October 2000 and was
scheduled to be completed in 2004, but early on it was discovered that
the monument had suffered significantly more damage than previously
thought. Of the 319 elements of the temple, only the columns were
undamaged. It was very difficult to remove the cement plaster from
previous restorations. Another problem was the lack of working space on
the western side of the bastion. This was solved by erecting scaffolding
around the entire perimeter of the sanctuary.
The Temple of
Athena Nike was dismantled in 2002 and restoration began in 2004. During
this time, all the elements were preserved and the issue of the concrete
slab laid in the archaic sanctuary of Balanos was resolved. The system
of iron beams supporting the northeastern corner of the temple and the
reinforced slab in the sanctuary were replaced with a specially designed
stainless steel grid. Problems with the cella of the temple arose during
the reconstruction. A thorough study of the original placement of all
elements was conducted, which helped to install 22 old blocks and two
newly discovered ones in the right places. The new inserts were reduced
from 14 to 10 pieces. A similar study was conducted in 2007 regarding
the correct placement of the column capitals. The work was completed in
the summer of 2010, when restorers installed the architrave blocks,
caissons, copies of the sculptural frieze, cornice, sima and part of the
eastern pediment. In 2011-2012, the following works were completed:
access to the underground crypt of the sanctuary was opened, four blocks
of the crown of the northern facade of the bastion were restored, after
dismantling the scaffolding, the adjacent territory was landscaped.