Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros34ÉtudesThe Erechtheion on the Acropolis ...

Études

The Erechtheion on the Acropolis of Athens

J.Z. van Rookhuijzen
p. 69-121

Résumés

L’emplacement du temple du roi mythique Érechthée, connu sous le nom d’Érechthéion, sur l’Acropole d’Athènes est un vieux problème topographique. Au fil des siècles, l’identification traditionnelle de l’Érechthéion avec une partie du temple des Caryatides dans la partie nord de l’Acropole a suscité de nombreux doutes. D’autres emplacements proposés n’ont toutefois pas été communément acceptés. Le présent article analyse tout d’abord le problème et les propositions antérieures. Il examine ensuite l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’Érechthéion était situé sur la « fondation Dörpfeld » au milieu de l’Acropole, le site d’un bâtiment archaïque détruit par les Perses en 480 avant notre ère. De nombreux savants situent déjà la version archaïque de l’Érechthéion dans une partie de ce bâtiment et supposent qu’après sa destruction, l’Érechthéion a été déplacé vers le temple des Caryatides. Le présent article soutient que l’Érechthéion n’a pas été déplacé, mais qu’il a continué à être reconnu dans la fondation Dörpfeld jusqu’à la fin de l’Antiquité.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

For astute comments, discussion, and other help, I thank Kernos editor Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, several anonymous reviewers, Josine Blok, Gunnel Ekroth, Henrik Gerding, Mary Hollinshead, Brady Kiesling, Patrik Klingborg, Barbara Kowalzig, Patricia Marx, Marion Meyer, Arjan Nijk, Robert Pitt, Tasos Tanoulas, Antonio Tibiletti, Stephen van Beek, Floris van den Eijnde, and Jean Vanden Broeck-Parant. The English has been corrected by Rosie Campbell. The views and mistakes in this article remain my own. Quotations of Greek literary texts are taken from Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature (http: //stephanus.tlg.uci.edu). Quotations of inscriptions are taken from Searchable Greek Inscriptions: A Scholarly Tool in Progress, The Packard Humanities Institute (https: //inscriptions.packhum.org). Translations are by the author. Dates are BCE unless otherwise indicated. This research is part of a Veni grant funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and benefited from a fellowship granted by DFG Kolleg-Forschungsgruppe 2615, Freie Universität, Berlin. Further institutional assistance has been provided by the Dutch, German, and Swedish institutes at Athens and the Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens.

  • 1 Hom. Il. 2.547 (μεγαλήτωρ). On the mythology of Erechtheus, see Parker (1987), p. 193–205; Fowler(...)
  • 2 e.g. Amm. Marc. 16.1.5; Aristid. Panathenaicus, 192.21–28; Hdt. 8.55; Hom. Il. 2.546–551; Nonn. D (...)
  • 3 e.g. Aristid. Panathenaicus, 118.32–33; Eur. Erechtheus; Isoc. 12.192–193; Lycurg. 1.98–100; Paus (...)
  • 4 [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.196; Athenagoras, Leg. 1.1; Eur. Erechtheus, fr. 65.93–94 in Austin (1968); H (...)
  • 5 Kron (1976), p. 52–55.
  • 6 e.g. Amelesagoras, FGrHist 330 F 1 (Antig. Car. Historiarum mirabilium collectio, 12.2); Androtio (...)
  • 7 On the relation of Erechtheus and Erichthonios, see Kron (1976), p. 37–39; Brulé (1987), p. 15–18 (...)

1A “great-hearted” man called Erechtheus appears in myth as one of the first kings of Athens.1 He was known for his miraculous birth from the earth and upbringing in the Temple of Athena Polias,2 as well as for the war with Eumolpos, ruler of Eleusis.3 In this conflict, he was killed by Poseidon. The name “Erechtheus” was occasionally used as an epithet of “Poseidon”, as if the king and the deity could not be distinguished.4 Erechtheus was the eponymous hero of the Athenian tribe Erechtheis.5 Another Athenian prince, Erichthonios, was also earthborn. Athena placed him in a basket entrusted to the daughters of the earlier king Kekrops (Aglauros, Herse, and Pandrosos); he was brought up in the Temple of Athena.6 The partial correspondence between the stories told about Erechtheus and Erichthonios and the similarity of their names prompt the idea that these figures were originally undifferentiated. If so, Erichthonios, perhaps in the fifth century BCE, crystallized as a separate figure onto which Erechtheus’ birth myth and upbringing were projected.7 However, it cannot be entirely excluded that Erechtheus and Erichthonios were always distinct, yet occasionally confused.

  • 8 Jeppesen (1979); (1983); (1987); Mansfield (1985), p. 245–252; Ridgway (1992), p. 126–127; Pautas (...)

2Throughout antiquity, literary sources situate on the Acropolis of Athens a structure associated with Erechtheus, sometimes called the “Erechtheion”. It has traditionally been recognized in all or part of the Ionic temple with Karyatids on the north side of the citadel (referred to in this article as the “Karyatid Temple”; Fig. 1). However, as several scholars have shown, this hypothesis is incompatible with the rich textual material concerning the Acropolis. Hence, they conclude that the Erechtheion must be sought outside the Karyatid Temple.8

Fig. 1. Simplified plan of the Acropolis (drawing by R. Reijnen and J.Z. van Rookhuijzen; after van Rookhuijzen (2020), fig. 2)

Courtesy Archaeological Institute of America and the American Journal of Archaeology).

  • 9 Nilsson (1950), p. 563. Graindor (1938), p. 209, and Boardman (2002), p. 46, posited that the str (...)
  • 10 e.g. Furtwängler (1893), p. 155–162; Riemann (1950); Lacore (1983), p. 222–227; Childs (1994), p. (...)

3The present article, following a brief suggestion by Nilsson,9 argues that the Erechtheion was located on the terrace situated centrally in the Acropolis, between the Great Temple (the Doric temple of Athena generally known as the “Parthenon”) and the Karyatid Temple (Fig. 2). In 1885, Dörpfeld recognized the site as the foundation of the Old Temple of Athena destroyed by the Persians in 480 BCE. In the present article, however, the neutral terms “Dörpfeld foundation” and, for the hypothetical building carried by the foundation, “Dörpfeld Temple” (see Fig. 1) are used. Many scholars already identify the early incarnation of the Erechtheion in the west half of this temple and surmise that it was relocated to the Karyatid Temple after the Dörpfeld Temple’s destruction.10 Following a review of the ancient references to the Erechtheion, I consider the problem of its association with the Karyatid Temple. I offer additional arguments against that association by showing that Poseidon’s trident mark, sometimes regarded as an identifying feature of the Erechtheion, was not located at the Karyatid Temple. I then proceed to consider textual and material evidence to suggest that the Erechtheion was not moved after the Persian attack, but rather that it continued to be recognized in the Dörpfeld foundation until the end of antiquity.

Fig. 2. The Karyatid porch, the Dörpfeld foundation, and the Great Temple

Walter Hege 1928/9; D-DAI-ATH-Hege-2066

The Erechtheion in literary sources

4The two oldest attestations of Erechtheus’ cult are found in Homeric epic. One appears in the Iliad’s ship catalogue, in the entry describing the Athenians (2.546–551):

Οἳ δἄρἈθήνας εἶχον ἐϋκτίμενον πτολίεθρον
δῆμον Ἐρεχθῆος μεγαλήτορος, ὅν ποτἈθήνη
θρέψε Διὸς θυγάτηρ, τέκε δὲ ζείδωρος ἄρουρα,
κὰδ δἐν Ἀθήνῃς εἷσεν ἑῷ ἐν πίονι νηῷ·
ἔνθα δέ μιν ταύροισι καὶ ἀρνειοῖς ἱλάονται
κοῦροι Ἀθηναίων περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν·

Those who had Athens, the well-built city, the realm of great-hearted Erechtheus, whom Athena, Zeus’ daughter, once reared, and whom the grain-giving earth bore. And she placed him in [his or her] own rich temple in Athens, where the sons of the Athenians appease him with bulls and rams, as the years pass by.

  • 11 West (2001), p. 180, considered the lines suspect: “There is nothing comparable in the rest of th (...)
  • 12 Ferrari (2002), p. 16, n. 29.

5The Iliadic passage could be an interpolation of, perhaps, the sixth century.11 The possessive pronoun ἑός qualifying the temple can refer either to the grammatical subject or to the most prominent person in the sentence and may here be translated as either “her” or “his”; the νηός (“temple”) in question could therefore be either Athena’s or Erechtheus’.12 Despite this uncertainty, Erechtheus has his own building in the Odyssey (7.81), where Athena descends into Ἐρεχθῆος πυκινὸν δόμον (“Erechtheus’ strong house”) in Athens.

  • 13 On the tragedy’s reference to the Acropolis, see Brown (1984), p. 274.

6Authors of the Classical period also refer to Erechtheus’ building. In Aeschylus’ tragedy Eumenides, Athena promises the Eumenides, city-protecting virgins, worship on the Acropolis in ξυνοικία (“cohabitation”; 833, 916) with Athena, at a τιμία ἕδρα πρὸς δόμοις Ἐρεχθέως (“honorable seat by the house of Erechtheus”; 855).13 Around 430, Herodotus describes Erechtheus’ temple (8.55):

ἔστι ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλι ταύτῃ Ἐρεχθέος τοῦ γηγενέος λεγομένου εἶναι νηός, ἐν τῷ ἐλαίη τε καὶ θάλασσα ἔνι, τὰ λόγος παρὰ Ἀθηναίων Ποσειδέωνά τε καὶ Ἀθηναίην ἐρίσαντας περὶ τῆς χώρης μαρτύρια θέσθαι. ταύτην ὦν τὴν ἐλαίην ἅμα τῷ ἄλλῳ ἱρῷ κατέλαβε ἐμπρησθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων·

There is on that Acropolis a temple of Erechtheus who is said to be earthborn. Inside, there are an olive tree and a sea; the Athenians say that Poseidon and Athena, when they fought about the land, placed these as their testimonies. This olive tree, along with the rest of the sanctuary, was set to fire by the Persians.

7The invasion of Athens by the Eleusinian warlord Eumolpos is the topic of Euripides’ fragmentarily preserved tragedy Erechtheus. In this conflict, Poseidon kills Erechtheus in an earthquake; the fragment preserves the words συμπίπτει στέγη (“the roof is collapsing”; fr. 65, l. 51 Austin). Soon after, Athena appears on stage to halt Poseidon ruining the city and to instruct Praxithea, Erechtheus’ widow, to honor her dead husband (fr. 65, l. 90–94 Austin):

πόσει δὲ τῷ σῷ σηκὸν ἐμ μέσῃ πόλει
τεῦξαι κελεύω περιβόλοισι λαΐνοις,
κεκλήσεται δὲ τοῦ κτανόντος οὕνεκα
σεμνὸς Ποσειδῶν ὄνομἐπωνομασμένος
ἀστοῖς Ἐρεχθεὺς ἐμ φοναῖσι βουθύτοις.

  • 14 On the association of the passage with the Erechtheion, see Clairmont (1971); Jeppesen (1979), p. (...)

And I command you to build in the middle of the Acropolis a precinct with rocky enclosures for your husband, and he will be called by the name of his killer, holy Poseidon, also named Erechtheus by the citizens in bloody cattle sacrifices.14

  • 15 Eur. Ion, 568, 791, 966, 1036, 1057, 1069, 1291, 1293, 1303, 1541, 1542.
  • 16 Eur. Ion, 810, 814, 838, 1021, 1273.
  • 17 Eur. Ion, 476, 486.
  • 18 Eur. Ion, 607, 841, 865, 1058–1059 (v.l.), 1073, 1562, 1620.

8The royal palace of Athens features often in the Ion, another tragedy by Euripides that narrates the reunion of the eponymous Athenian prince with his mother, Erechtheus’ daughter Kreousa. In many lines in which the lack of a successor to the royal line is lamented, the empty abode of the noble Erechtheids is described by the terms δόμος/δόμοι,15 δῶμα/δώματα,16 θάλαμοι,17 and οἶκος/οἶκοι,18 which can all be translated as “house”. Most of these mentions can metaphorically invoke the Athenian dynasty rather than their actual dwelling. However, in one reference (1293), Kreousa addresses Ion to explain her hostility towards him: κἀπίμπρης γἘρεχθέως δόμους (“you would have burnt the house of Erechtheus”).

  • 19 Cf. Isid. Etym. 15.4.9.

9References to a cult site of Erechtheus continue in the Roman period. Cicero (Nat. D. 3.49) professes to have seen Erechtheus’ delubrum (perhaps a shrine with a sacred font19) and priest. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in a retelling of Herodotus’ story about the olive tree (Ant. Rom. 14.2.1–2), places it in Erechtheus’ σηκός (“precinct”). Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.178) says that Poseidon, with a blow of his trident, created a θάλασσα (“sea”) called “Erechtheis” in the middle of the Acropolis. He also states that the olive tree is now in the Pandroseion (the sanctuary of Pandrosos) and that Poseidon destroyed Erechtheus and his οἰκία (“house”; 3.204). Pseudo-Plutarch (X Orat. 843e) mentions a painting of priests of Poseidon and four wooden statues representing Lycurgus and his sons inside the “Erechtheion”. This is the first of only two attestations of that term; the other is found in the most detailed and influential description of the building in the second-century CE work of Pausanias (1.26.5):

ἔστι δὲ καὶ οἴκημα Ἐρέχθειον καλούμενον· πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἐσόδου Διός ἐστι βωμὸς Ὑπάτου, ἔνθα ἔμψυχον θύουσιν οὐδέν, πέμματα δὲ θέντες οὐδὲν ἔτι οἴνῳ χρήσασθαι νομίζουσιν. ἐσελθοῦσι δέ εἰσι βωμοί, Ποσειδῶνος, ἐφοὗ καὶ Ἐρεχθεῖ θύουσιν ἔκ του μαντεύματος, καὶ ἥρωος Βούτου, τρίτος δὲ Ἡφαίστου· γραφαὶ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τοίχων τοῦ γένους εἰσὶ τοῦ Βουταδῶν καὶδιπλοῦν γάρ ἐστι τὸ οἴκημα—[καὶ] ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἔνδον θαλάσσιον ἐν φρέατι. τοῦτο μὲν θαῦμα οὐ μέγα· καὶ γὰρ ὅσοι μεσόγαιαν οἰκοῦσιν, ἄλλοις τε ἔστι καὶ Καρσὶν Ἀφροδισιεῦσιν· ἀλλὰ τόδε <τὸ> φρέαρ ἐς συγγραφὴν παρέχεται κυμάτων ἦχον ἐπὶ νότῳ πνεύσαντι. καὶ τριαίνης ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ σχῆμα· ταῦτα δὲ λέγεται Ποσειδῶνι μαρτύρια ἐς τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν τῆς χώρας φανῆναι.

There is also a structure called “Erechtheion”. Before the entrance, there is an altar of Zeus Hypatos, where they do not offer any animal, and after placing bread, they ordinarily do not use wine either. For those who enter there are altars: of Poseidon, on which they also offer to Erechtheus according to an oracle, and of the hero Boutes, and a third of Hephaestus. On the walls, there are paintings of the family of the Boutadai, and (as the structure is twofold), inside there is salty water in a well. This is not a great wonder, because other people who live inland, including the Carian Aphrodisians, have them too. But this well, remarkably, emits the sound of waves when a south wind blows. And there is the shape of a trident in the rock. It is said that these appeared as testimonies for Poseidon in the conflict about the land.

  • 20 Himerius certainly refers to the Erechtheion because Poseidon was on the Acropolis equated with E (...)

10Pausanias again refers to the salt-water well elsewhere (8.10.4), this time calling it a κῦμα (“wave”) similar to those in the sanctuaries of Poseidon Hippios near Mantineia and of Zeus Osogoa in Mylasa. The rhetorician Aelius Aristides (Panathenaicus, 107.10, 119.19) describes Erechtheus as the πάρεδρος (“companion”) of Athena and other gods on the Acropolis. He also refers to Poseidon’s token as the ῥόθιον (“wave”; 41), as does Libanius (Or. 61.6). Finally, the fourth-century CE Athenian rhetorician Himerius (5.210–211) speaks of τῆς Πολιάδος νεὼς καὶ τὸ πλησίον τὸ Ποσειδῶνος τέμενος· συνήψαμεν γὰρ διὰ τῶν ἀνακτόρων τοὺς θεοὺς ἀλλήλοις μετὰ τὴν ἅμιλλαν… (“the temple of the Polias and the nearby court of Poseidon, for we linked the gods to each other by their palaces after the conflict”).20

  • 21 On the occasional synonymy of σηκός and τέμενος, see Poll. Onom. 1.7.
  • 22 e.g. the Kraneion near Corinth featured a temenos of Bellerophontes, a temple of Aphrodite Melain (...)

11In the present article, I follow pseudo-Plutarch and Pausanias in designating the structure associated in antiquity with Erechtheus as the “Erechtheion”. The sources span roughly a millennium and we can expect that Erechtheus’ cult and the appearance of the Erechtheion itself changed considerably in this period. It can perhaps not be entirely excluded that the Erechtheion was relocated. However, there are no sources that testify either to the existence of two or more sanctuaries of Erechtheus or to its relocation, which is unlikely given the fixed position of Poseidon’s sea. On the basis of the literary record, it is natural to assume that the Erechtheion remained where it was. The discussed sources do not necessarily offer certain indications for the Erechtheion’s contemporaneous material appearance and do not allow a precise reconstruction at any point in time, let alone in a diachronic perspective. However, they probably have the actual Acropolis as a frame of reference. The terminology used for the Erechtheion and information about associated objects yield a general impression. The terms περιβόλος (“surrounding wall”), σηκός (“enclosure”), and τέμενος (“precinct”) indicate an enclosed sacred terrain with or without a building.21 Himerius contrasts Poseidon’s τέμενος with Athena’s ναός. Other terms, including δόμος (“house”), νηός (“temple”), οἴκημα (“structure”), and οἰκία (“dwelling”) can imply that some kind of building stood, or was believed to have formerly stood, inside the precinct. Pausanias refers to the Erechtheion’s entrance, walls with paintings, and a division into two parts (one for altars and one for the sea). These installations may not have required a complete, roofed building; the altars are more easily imagined in a roofless structure. The shape of the Erechtheion that emerges from the literary record is in harmony with the appearance of several other sanctuaries whose names end in -(ε)ιον, that Pausanias describes as holy precincts that may contain buildings, trees, or objects.22 There are indications that the Erechtheion was not intact: Herodotus describes it as burnt down, pseudo-Apollodorus says that it was destroyed, and Kreousa’s words in the Ion would have had all the more dramatic force if this ruined state was apparent to Euripides’ Athenian audience.

The traditional identification of the Erechtheion
as the Karyatid Temple

  • 23 Meursius (1622), p. 52–57.
  • 24 Amm. Marc. 16.1.5; [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.190–191; Aristid. Panathenaicus, 107.10 (with scholia), 11 (...)

12The conventional conception of the Erechtheion is that it and the Temple of Athena Polias constituted a single building. This idea derives from Meursius’ Cecropia, a 1622 analysis of ancient references to the Acropolis and its buildings.23 Meursius relied on Pausanias, who mentions the ancient statue of Athena Polias (1.26.6) immediately after his description of the Erechtheion, yet before expressly referring to her own temple as the ναὸς τῆς Πολιάδος (“Temple of the Polias”; 1.27.1). According to Meursius’ understanding of the text, this would imply that Pausanias saw Athena’s statue in a building that he called the “Erechtheion” and, consequently, that the Temple of Athena Polias was part of or even identical to the Erechtheion. Support for this reading of Pausanias has been found in several literary references that associate Athena with Erechtheus, Erichthonios, or Poseidon.24 However, as discussed later in the article, these sources do not confirm the hypothesis that Athena and Erechtheus shared a building. Nevertheless, this theory has become standard, with far-reaching consequences for the current understanding of the topography of the Acropolis at large.

  • 25 Spon – Wheler (1678), vol. 2, p. 159–160; Wheler – Spon (1682), p. 364–365.
  • 26 Spon – Wheler (1678), vol. 2, p. 161; vol. 3, p. 62–63; Wheler – Spon (1682), p. 337, 447. Cf. Fa (...)
  • 27 In Spon’s account, it seems to be suggested that the structure with the sculpted women encompasse (...)
  • 28 Infra n. 34, 39.

13Meursius was the first to regard the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias as identical or united, but he had no knowledge of the material remains on the Acropolis. The first published identification of the temples on the ground is that by Spon and Wheler, who in 1676 received permission for a brief tour of the Acropolis, then an ordinarily inaccessible Ottoman fortress and town.25 Through the prisms of the works of Pausanias and perhaps Meursius (whose work they knew26), they tried to discern ancient buildings from the encroaching contemporary houses. They identified the Erechtheion with the Karyatid Temple, believing that it conformed to Pausanias’ description of a “twofold structure”. They were also told that the Karyatid Temple contained a dried-up well that would amount to Poseidon’s sea. To their disappointment, however, they were not permitted to inspect the well. They seem to have identified the Karyatids as Graces sculpted by Socrates and possibly situated the Temple of Athena Polias in that part of the building.27 Spon’s book was especially seminal and was soon translated into Italian (1688), Dutch (1689), and German (1690). Today, the most widespread opinion is still that the Karyatid Temple included the last incarnations of both the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias.28 The Karyatid Temple as a whole is nearly universally called the “Erechtheion”.

  • 29 Supra n. 10.
  • 30 On the evidence for interior walls, see Paton et al. (1927), p. 146–161. Paton et al. (1927), p.  (...)

14The Karyatid Temple’s double identification implies the presence of many cult sites and an accordingly complex interior arrangement. The interior of this building is poorly understood and its division is debated. However, it certainly had two main entrances on two different floor levels, on the north and the east. Therefore, it was primarily divided into two main parts (see Fig. 1[2, 3]), which may or may not have been subdivided. Figure 3 is a traditional plan; the division of the Karyatid Temple presented in it follows partially from the common opinion that the Dörpfeld foundation’s west half with its three compartments (see Fig. 1[4]) was the Archaic Erechtheion, which would have been destroyed by the Persians and then rebuilt to the north as the Karyatid Temple’s west half.29 The Karyatid Temple’s west half would therefore match Pausanias’ description of the Erechtheion as a διπλοῦν οἴκημα (“twofold structure”). However, there is no firm proof that the Karyatid Temple’s west half was partitioned as the Dörpfeld foundation is; a north-south wall may have divided the Karyatid Temple’s west half in an antechamber and a central room, but the evidence for an east-west wall subdividing the central room is weak.30

  • 31 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 1, 75; 475 (409/8), lines 269–270.
  • 32 Cf. Plut. Num. 14.4.
  • 33 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 45, 170, 177; 475 (409/8), lines 131, 258.
  • 34 e.g. Boetticher (1863), p. 13; Dörpfeld (1887a), p. 57–61; (1904), p. 103; Petersen (1887), p. 62 (...)

15Building accounts that certainly belong to the Karyatid Temple and date to 409/8 mention the ancient statue of Athena Polias as standing (in the present or in the future) inside the Karyatid Temple and thus validate the view that it was or contained a temple of Athena.31 As Pausanias saw the statue in the “Temple of the Polias”, this should be a designation of all or part of the Karyatid Temple. It is usually surmised that the statue stood in the Karyatid Temple’s east half (see Fig. 1[3]), where she could face her altar located in the east part of the Acropolis. Greek temples and cult statues in them, such as Phidias’ chryselephantine Athena in the Great Temple, were typically oriented east.32 Cassius Dio (54.7.3) reports an omen in which the east-facing statue of Athena turned west and spit blood. Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 67) reports an omen in which a dog enters the Temple of Athena Polias, then enters or jumps down into the Pandroseion, and finally climbs the altar of Zeus Herkeios (“of the courtyard”). The Pandroseion was certainly adjacent to the Karyatid Temple’s west facade, because this wall is described in the building accounts as πρὸς το Πανδροσείο (“facing the Pandroseion”).33 The dog’s route implies that the Temple of Athena Polias was entered through the building’s east entrance, which lay over 3 m higher than the west half. If the Karyatid Temple encompassed both the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias and if Athena’s statue stood in the east half, it would follow by exclusion that the cults of the Erechtheion were installed in the west half (see Fig. 1[2]). This lay-out represents the conventional opinion.34

  • 35 Nilsson (1901), p. 325; Meyer (2017), p. 262–263.
  • 36 I owe this insight to Patrik Klingborg.
  • 37 Boetticher (1863), p. 196, identified it with a chasm in the Karyatid Temple’s central part. Dörp (...)
  • 38 Jeppesen (1979), p. 384. For the remains, see Paton et al. (1927), p. 169–171.

16Following the hypothesis that the Karyatid Temple contained the Erechtheion, one would hope to find here evidence for Poseidon’s sea. Because no natural springs existed on the Acropolis, the sea was probably an artificial installation.35 Pausanias’ term φρέαρ can be translated as “well” or, less often, “cistern”.36 Several theories exist about an ancient well or cistern inside the Karyatid Temple,37 but these are not supported by unambiguous traces. The large cistern in the building’s west end is post-antique.38

Alternative theories on the Erechtheion

  • 39 Stuart – Revett (1825), p. 59, 70–71; Fergusson (1876), p. 5; Travlos (1971), p. 213; Papachatzis(...)
  • 40 e.g. Dörpfeld (1919); Osanna (2001), p. 338–339; Ferrari (2002), p. 15; Davison (2009), vol. 1, p (...)
  • 41 Pakkanen (2006).

17The standard view on the topographical arrangement of cult sites in the Karyatid Temple has over the years attracted substantial debate. Several scholars have attempted to locate Athena in the Karyatid Temple’s west half because of indications, examined below, that this part belonged to her; by exclusion, they locate the cults of the Erechtheion in the east half.39 However, this hypothesis ignores the clues that the old statue stood in the east half and there is no direct evidence for a location of the Erechtheion there. Still other scholars have proposed to identify the Erechtheion with the entire Karyatid Temple, which would not have housed the statue of Athena.40 However, this theory is untenable because, as indicated above, the building accounts state that the ancient statue of Athena stood (or was to stand) inside the Karyatid Temple. The exclusion of Athena from the Karyatid Temple therefore requires an implausible contortion of these inscriptions.41

  • 42 Le Roy (1770), p. 11–12; Montagu (1799), p. 64–65. Cf. Rinaldo de la Rue in a 1687 report cited i (...)
  • 43 Supra n. 8. Scholars who identify the entire Karyatid Temple with the Erechtheion (supra n. 40) a (...)
  • 44 Pirenne-Delforge (2010). On Pausanias’ use of the term ναός, see Pirenne-Delforge (2008), p. 151– (...)

18The present article adheres to yet another line of thought on the Erechtheion: the Karyatid Temple as a whole was primarily the Temple of Athena Polias and the Erechtheion must be sought elsewhere. This notion already existed in the early modern period,42 but was abandoned as Meursius’ reading of Pausanias took root. Yet, in 1979, the idea reemerged with Jeppesen and has since found several advocates.43 These scholars propose a more straightforward reading of Pausanias’ account, where the ancient statue of Athena is introduced immediately after the description of the Erechtheion. According to the usual interpretation, this sequence would imply that Athena’s statue stood inside the Erechtheion. In fact, however, Pausanias does not state this. Not long afterwards, he explicitly mentions the Temple of the Polias, without associating it with the Erechtheion. It is, furthermore, apparent that Pausanias qualifies the Erechtheion as a διπλοῦν οἴκημα (“twofold structure”) because it was divided into a room with three altars of Boutes, Hephaistos, and Poseidon-Erechtheus, and another room with Podeison’s sea, rather than into two rooms for Erechtheus and Athena. Pirenne-Delforge, following a study of the instances of the word οἴκημα in Pausanias’ work, determines that a διπλοῦν οἴκημα cannot have been part of a larger building and must have been free-standing. In addition, the term ναός, as used by Pausanias, describes colonnaded temples and is mutually exclusive with οἴκημα, as appears in the description of an οἴκημα at Chaeronea where a sacred scepter was kept (Paus. 9.40.12). This invalidates the traditional hypothesis that the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias (a ναός) were synonyms or that they were united in a single building. Pirenne-Delforge convincingly concludes that the Erechtheion remains to be found somewhere outside the Karyatid Temple.44

  • 45 Supra n. 24.
  • 46 Jeppesen (1987), p. 25–27; Pautasso [1994], p. 88.
  • 47 Infra n. 66.
  • 48 Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.190–191) says that Erichthonios was nursed and buried in Athena’s tem (...)
  • 49 Jeppesen (1987), p. 25–54.

19The other sources that have been used to argue for the unity of the Temple of Athena Polias and the Erechtheion do not, in fact, concern the relation of these sanctuaries.45 Athena and Erechtheus feature in both Homeric passages, yet the temple mentioned in the Iliad (2.549) can be either Athena’s or Erechtheus’ and the narrative of Athena’s visit to Erechtheus’ strong house in the Odyssey (7.81) does not mean that she was worshipped there. Athena and Erechtheus received joint sacrifices according to Herodotus (5.82) and were companions according to Aelius Aristides (Panathenaicus, 107.10, 119.19). This can imply their topographical proximity, but not necessarily the unity of their sanctuaries. Plutarch (Quaest. Conv. 9.6 = 741A–B) pairs Athena and Poseidon in a single temple in Athens, but this temple was not necessarily situated on the Acropolis and could be the sanctuary on the Kolonos Hippios (Paus. 1.30.4).46 A scholiast on Aelius Aristides, Panathenaicus 107.10 says that Erechtheus was considered Athena’s πάρεδρος (“companion”) because Erechtheus was depicted driving a chariot behind Athena on the Acropolis. However, this is not a reference to the Erechtheion, but rather to the west pediment of the Great Temple, which probably depicted Erechtheus driving a chariot.47 Several late sources say that Erechtheus or Erichthonios was brought up or buried in the Temple of Athena;48 and the sixth-century CE lexicographer Hesychius of Alexandria (s.v. οἰκουρὸν ὄφιν) states that Athena’s sacred snake was kept in Erechtheus ἱερόν (“sanctuary”). Again, these sources do not refer to the Erechtheion, but rather support the view, discussed later in the article, that the myth of Pandrosos and Erichthonios was commemorated in a part of Athena’s temple. In sum, no source proves the theory that the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias were united in a single building or that these designations were (near-)synonyms.49

  • 50 Statue: supra n. 31. Pandroseion: supra n. 33. Altar of Thyechoos: infra n. 59. Cf. Paton (1927a) (...)
  • 51 Paton (1927a), p. 488, stated that Pausanias’ words imply that he referred to the whole building (...)
  • 52 On the identification of the Vitruvius’ temple of Pallas Minerva with the Karyatid Temple, see Gr (...)
  • 53 Pausanias (1.22.8, 9.35.3, 9.35.6) refers to Socrates’ statues of Graces near the Propylaea. Thes (...)

20Another argument shaking the traditional hypothesis that the Erechtheion was located in the Karyatid Temple is that the cults of the Erechtheion appear neither in documents pertaining to the Karyatid Temple nor in descriptions of the Temple of Athena Polias. The extensive building accounts of the Karyatid Temple use Athena’s ancient statue in it to identify the building at large as well as an interior wall, qualify the west facade as “facing the Pandroseion”, and mention the altar of the Thyechoos in the north porch.50 Yet, there is not a single point of overlap with Pausanias’ detailed description of the Erechtheion. Perhaps a complete gazetteer of cults inside the Karyatid Temple cannot be expected from these inscriptions, but the Erechtheion is also absent in literary mentions of the Karyatid Temple. In Philochorus’ description of the omen of the dog, the Temple of Athena Polias and the Pandroseion appear as adjacent structures, leaving no room between them for the Erechtheion. Similarly, Pausanias’ description of the ναός (“temple”) of Pandrosos as συνεχής (“contiguous”) with the Temple of Athena Polias excludes the Erechtheion from the building.51 Vitruvius (4.8.4) identifies the Karyatid Temple in its entirety as belonging to Pallas Minerva and uses the term pronaos (“fore-temple”) for the west half, without mentioning the cults of the Erechtheion.52 Athena, not Erechtheus, possesses the πρόναος τῆς Πολιάδος (“fore-temple of the Polias”) mentioned by Lucian (Pisc. 21). Himerius (5.210–211) presents the temple of Athena and the temenos of Poseidon as two separate structures. Scholiasts on Aristophanes, Nubes, 773, seem to explain the Karyatids as Graces sculpted by Socrates in the wall ὀπίσω τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς (“behind Athena”), not at the Erechtheion.53

  • 54 Tétaz (1851), p. 90; Penrose (1851), p. 76; Archaiologikos Syllogos (1853), p. 7–8; Dörpfeld (190 (...)
  • 55 Dörpfeld (1903), p. 468.

21The Erechtheion’s absence in sources that certainly refer to the Karyatid Temple or the Temple of Athena Polias militates against the conventional opinion that the Erechtheion was located in the Karyatid Temple, which certainly accommodated the Temple of Athena Polias. However, another argument for the conventional view derives from Pausanias’ mention of Poseidon’s trident mark in his discussion of the Erechtheion. The trident mark has sometimes been associated with a chthonic cult site in a crypt in the north porch of the Karyatid Temple, first cleared by Tétaz.54 Although, as indicated, the building was identified with the Erechtheion long before the discovery of the indentations, Dörpfeld stated that the identification of the trident mark here secures the Karyatid Temple’s west half as the Erechtheion.55 The trident mark can thus be considered crucial in the discussion of the Erechtheion’s identification and deserves full treatment.

Poseidon’s trident mark

  • 56 Nilsson (1901), p. 325–329; Paton et al. (1927), p. 104–110. Boetticher (1863), p. 192–193, thoug (...)
  • 57 Paton et al. (1927), p. 89.
  • 58 Kron (1976), p. 44–48. On cup marks generally, see Gansser (1999).
  • 59 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 77–80, 202; 476 (408/7), line 220.
  • 60 IG II2 5026 (Hadrianic period).
  • 61 Cf. Kontoleon (1949), p. 20–21.
  • 62 Phot. s.v. θυηχόοι: οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων θύοντες τοῖς θεοῖς (“the priests who offer to the (...)

22The crypt is located underneath the east part of the pavement of the north porch (Fig. 4). It certainly belonged to the original plan of the building, because it is linked to the interior by an intentionally constructed passage in the north wall’s foundation.56 The roof of the porch directly above the crypt was deliberately left open, as indicated by the dressing down of the two adjoining beams and the insertion of clamped marble pieces for the placement of orthostates.57 The floor of the crypt, the bedrock of the Acropolis, has four indentations. In very general terms, these can be considered part of the worldwide phenomenon of cup marks, round depressions in stones, often interpreted as offering receptacles.58 The building account of 409/8 states that an altar consisting of four stone slabs of a figure called the θυηχόος remained to be placed in the north porch.59 The Thyechoos is also known from his preferential seat in the Theater of Dionysos.60 His title, deriving from the words θύος (“offering” or “sacrificial cake”61) and χέω (“to pour”), etymologically means “pourer of offerings”. Lexicographers define the term θυηχόος as a priest responsible for offerings on behalf of others.62 The duty of the Thyechoos in the north porch fits the presence of the crypt and the cup marks.

Fig. 4. Cross section of the Karyatid Temple looking east, indicating crypt and indentations in the north porch

G.P. Stevens 1903–1905; published in Paton [1927b], pl. 9; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

  • 63 Jeppesen (1979), p. 381. Doubt was earlier expressed by Boetticher (1863), p. 190–193; Nilsson (1 (...)
  • 64 Jeppesen (1979), p. 385, 389–390.

23Tétaz’ identification of Poseidon’s trident mark with the indentations in the crypt does not stand up to scrutiny. As Jeppesen pointed out, it requires some creative reasoning because the crevices “are irregularly placed rather than on a line and could hardly be taken to resemble the marks of a trident, unless a predisposition to see them as such and an unimpeded view through the opening are assumed”.63 Close consideration of the sources for the trident mark points to a better identification elsewhere. Euripides’ play Erechtheus contains the earliest reference to the trident story. During Eumolpos’ invasion of Athens, Poseidon kills Erechtheus using his trident. Athena then requests Poseidon to remove his earthquake-causing weapon from the Acropolis (fr. 65.45–55 Austin). Euripides’ Ion (281–284, 492–506, 936–941, 1400) makes mention of a place called Makrai, the overhanging rocks at a πρόσβορρον ἄντρον (“north-facing cave”). This place, sacred to Pan, was the location of Apollo’s seduction of Erechtheus’ daughter Kreousa, and considered the dancing places of the city’s princesses before the temples of Pallas. Here, in a χάσμα χθονός (“wide opening of the earth”), Erechtheus was killed by Poseidon’s trident. The next reference to the trident mark appears in a fragment of the third-century author Hegesias of Magnesia, cited by Strabo (9.1.16):64

ὁρῶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν καὶ τὸ περιττῆς τριαίνης ἐκεῖθι σημεῖον, ὁρῶ τὴν Ἐλευσῖνα, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γέγονα μύστης· ἐκεῖνο Λεωκόριον, τοῦτο Θησεῖον· οὐ δύναμαι δηλῶσαι καθἓν ἕκαστον· γὰρ Ἀττικὴ θεῶν αὐτοῖς […] καταλαβόντων καὶ τῶν προγόνων ἡρώων […].

I see the Acropolis and the mark of the enormous trident there, I see Eleusis, I have become initiated in the mysteries. There is the Leokorion, here is the Theseion. I cannot distinguish them from each other. For Attica belongs to those gods […] who have seized it, and to the ancestral heroes […].

24Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.178) says that Poseidon struck the Acropolis with his weapon causing the sea called “Erechtheis” to appear. Finally, Pausanias associates the sea inside the Erechtheion with the impact of Poseidon’s weapon, evidence for which was a τριαίνης […] ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ σχῆμα (“shape of a trident in the rock”).

  • 65 Kavvadias (1897), p. 25; Kron (1976), p. 43–44; Meyer (2017), p. 57–59, 263–264, 300. The myth of (...)
  • 66 Parker (1987), p. 202–203; Brinkmann (2016a), p. 32–34. Euripides’ Erechtheus and vase paintings (...)

25Some scholars propose the existence of two trident marks: one created in the conflict between Athena and Poseidon associated with Poseidon’s creation of the sea and another created in the conflict between Erechtheus and Eumolpos.65 However, a more economical explanation would require the existence of only one trident mark. The myths of the Eleusinian invasion and the fight for divine patronage of the city can be considered part of the same mythical narrative: Erechtheus was the grandson of Erichthonios, who was Athena’s foster son; Eumolpos was Poseidon’s son. Erechtheus and Eumolpos could therefore represent, on a mortal level, the divine conflict between Athena and Poseidon.66 With a single hit, Poseidon may have killed Erechtheus and caused the appearance of the sea on the surface of the Acropolis.

  • 67 Kavvadias (1897), p. 15–16, 24–26 identified the gap in the earth into which Erechtheus disappear (...)
  • 68 e.g. 38°1’36.50” N 23°38’36.21” E (north of the road); 37°59’48.88” N 23°37’9.23” E (south of the (...)
  • 69 From Pausanias’ brief reference to the trident mark, it cannot be certainly inferred that he saw (...)

26Euripides’ location of the trident’s impact is the Makrai, the area with caves on the north slope below the Propylaea (see Fig. 1), the location of a sanctuary of Apollo Hypakraios.67 From Hegesias, it appears that the mark was made by a περιττός (“enormous”) trident and was visible from afar. Hegesias seems to have stood at a place from where he could behold at once both Eleusis and the Acropolis. Such lookout points are, in fact, available on the Aigaleos ridge north and south of the Sacred Way, approximately midway between Eleusis and the Acropolis.68 Following Euripides’ indications and Hegesias’ gaze, the trident mark comes into view as the three caves in the north-west slope of the Acropolis at the Makrai (Fig. 5). Here, Poseidon thrusted his mighty weapon into the rock. The Erechtheion was not necessarily located near the trident mark, because no source explicitly specifies that it was.69 Regardless, the proposed identification of the trident mark at the Makrai invalidates the crucial remaining argument for the idea that the Erechtheion was situated in the Karyatid Temple’s west half.

Fig. 5. The three caves in the northwest face of the Acropolis identified as the Makrai

Unknown photographer 1898; D-DAI-ATH-Akropolis-0324

Functions of the Karyatid Temple’s west half

  • 70 Jeppesen (1979), p. 393. He later conjectured that this compartment also belonged to Athena or to (...)
  • 71 Van Rookhuijzen (2020).
  • 72 Van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 31–32. Cf. Bernard (1996), p. 496–503.

27As Jeppesen realized, the dissociation of the Erechtheion from the Karyatid Temple raises an important new question: What was the purpose of the temple’s west half with its salient porches?70 Several non-mutually exclusive identifications of this part are possible. First, as I have argued elsewhere, it was probably the location of a treasury, known in fifth- and fourth-century inventory inscriptions as the Παρθενών (Parthenon, “Virgin Room”).71 The crypt under the north porch was probably referred to by Lucretius (6.749–755) and Philostratus the Athenian (VA, 2.10) as an opening in the earth at the temple of Pallas Minerva, ἐν προδόμῳ τοῦ Παρθενῶνος (“in a porch of the Parthenon”).72

  • 73 Supra n. 33.
  • 74 Meyer (2017), p. 68–70 (with earlier literature). Fergusson (1876), p. 3–10, was the first to pro (...)
  • 75 Pirenne-Delforge (2008), p. 151–154.
  • 76 e.g. Francis Vernon in a letter to Mr. Oldenburg from 1675/6, recorded in Ray (1693), vol. 2, p.  (...)
  • 77 Pallat (1912), p. 191–202; (1935); (1937).
  • 78 Cf. LIMC 4.1, p. 923–951 s.v. “Erechtheus” [U. Kron]; Brinkmann (2016b), p. 35–36.

28Second, the temple’s west half may have been the Temple of Pandrosos. The building’s west facade was described as “facing the Pandroseion”.73 The Pandroseion is now commonly identified with the area west of the Karyatid Temple.74 However, this theory is unsatisfactory, because Pausanias (1.27.2) describes Pandrosos’ sanctuary as a ναός, a term that implies a considerable structure,75 that was συνεχής (“contiguous”) with the Temple of Athena Polias. Furthermore, the Pandroseion and the Temple of Athena Polias appear as the constituent parts of a single building in Philochorus’ story (FGrHist 328 F 67). If the Pandroseion was a mere courtyard, these sources are difficult to take at face value, as there is no evidence available for a structure qualifying as Pandrosos’ ναός in the courtyard. Yet, they become readily understandable if the Temple of Pandrosos was all or part of the west part of the Karyatid Temple, which was a common interpretation well into the nineteenth century.76 It would seem possible that the Pandroseion encompassed both the Karyatid Temple’s west half and the area to its west, which could be entered from the building and from the north porch (see Fig. 3). This identification is in agreement with the finding that the frieze of the building’s north porch probably included a depiction of the myth of Pandrosos and Erichthonios.77 The crypt below can accordingly be explained as the holy site of Erichthonios’ birth from the earth and, simultaneously, as the lair of Athena’s sacred snake.78

Fig. 3. Plan of the Karyatid Temple and the Dörpfeld foundation

G.P. Stevens 1903–1905, published in Paton [1927b], pl. 1 [scan; labels removed]; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

  • 79 Cf. infra n. 85.
  • 80 Vanden Broeck-Parant (2021), discussing Pausanias’ description of the temple of Poseidon at Isthm (...)
  • 81 e.g. Mansfield (1985), p. 265–66, 276–77; Meyer (2017), p. 279, 283.

29Third, the Karyatid Temple’s west half with its windows may have functioned as the dwelling of the priestesses called “Arrephoroi”.79 Pausanias (1.27.3) describes the ritual of these young virgins, said to live οὐ πόρρω (“rather close”80) to the Temple of Athena Polias, παρὰ τῇ θεῷ (“with the goddess”). The passage on the Arrephoroi immediately follows, and is probably still part of, the description of the Temple of Pandrosos (1.27.2), itself a digression inserted in the account of the Temple of Athena Polias (1.26.6–27.6). The myth of Pandrosos and Erichthonios is the plausible aition for the Arrephoroi ritual.81

  • 82 Supra n. 48.
  • 83 Cf. Aesch. Eum. 833, 916. Nonnus (Dion. 13.171–174, 27.113–117, 27.321–323) associates the upbrin (...)

30The functions of Parthenon treasury, Temple of Pandrosos, and dwelling of the Arrephoroi are eminently compatible. If they apply to the Karyatid Temple’s west half, the sources that associate Erichthonios’ or Erechtheus’ upbringing with the Temple of Athena Polias become understandable:82 the west half can then be regarded as Athena’s Virgin Room, where the virgin princesses Pandrosos, Herse, and Aglauros nursed the future king of Athens. In fact, Kreousa’s female servants in Euripides’ Ion (235–236) declare that they live in Παλλάδι σύνοικα τρόφιμα μέλαθρα τῶν ἐμῶν τυράννων (“the nursing room of my kings, in the same house as Pallas”).83

Alternative locations for the Erechtheion

  • 84 Jeppesen (1979); (1987).
  • 85 Stevens (1936), p. 489–491. On the problem of the structure’s identification with the house of th (...)
  • 86 Broneer (1939); Travlos (1971), p. 72–75; Bundgaard (1976), p. 32–33; Jeppesen (1979), p. 386, 39 (...)
  • 87 Mansfield (1985), p. 245–252; Pautasso (1994). I am grateful to Patricia Marx for attending me to (...)
  • 88 McInerney (2014), p. 116.
  • 89 Robertson (1996), p. 37–42. Shrine of Pandion: IG II2 1144 (beginning of the fourth century), lin (...)

31Three alternative locations for the Erechtheion outside the Karyatid Temple have been proposed. Jeppesen recognized the Erechtheion in Building III in the northwest area of the Acropolis.84 This structure, traditionally but only tentatively associated with Pausanias’ passage on the Arrephoroi, was a rectangular room and porch with a substantial foundation (see Fig. 1[1]).85 It gave access to a crevice of 35 m leading down to a subterranean fountain, used in the Mycenaean period, collecting water that seeps through the limestone of the Acropolis. This would be a suitable identification of Poseidon’s sea, appropriately large to have been considered created by a divine trident.86 However, to go by the latest pottery discovered here, the fountain fell into disuse after the Bronze Age. This complicates the idea that the fountain was regarded as Poseidon’s sea in later times. Mansfield and Pautasso identify the Erechtheion with the area northeast of the Great Temple, which may have featured a building complex that is often interpreted as a sanctuary of Zeus Polieus (see Fig. 1[7]). In this area exist indications of a north-facing structure with a shallow rock-cut shaft that would correspond to the sea. Fifty-five rock-cuttings here would amount to the sign of Poseidon’s trident.87 However, the sloping bedrock in this area is unlikely to have accommodated a building.88 Robertson identifies the Erechtheion with the building foundation southeast of the Great Temple, conventionally interpreted as the location of the shrine of Pandion referred to in inscriptions (see Fig. 1[8]).89 However, there is no indication of a well or cistern here.

  • 90 [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.178; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14.2.1–2; Hdt. 8.55; Paus. 1.27.2; Philoch. FGrHist(...)
  • 91 Bundgaard (1976), p. 85–91; Mansfield (1985), p. 217, 255. Other sacred structures with olive tre (...)

32None of the three alternative proposed locations for the Erechtheion is convincing, as none has yielded evidence for the Erechtheion to the exclusion of other explanations. The proposals become unsatisfactory if Athena’s olive tree is taken into consideration. Herodotus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus associate the tree with the Erechtheion, whereas Philochorus and pseudo-Apollodorus locate it in the Pandroseion, which was certainly adjacent to the west wall of the Karyatid Temple, and Pausanias mentions it between his descriptions of the Temple of Athena Polias and the Temple of Pandrosos.90 Consequently, the olive tree must have stood near the west wall of the Karyatid Temple, approximately where its modern reincarnation grows. The presence of the olive tree could perhaps explain the remarkable gap underneath the Karyatid porch bridged by a large block, the remaining bosses on building blocks in this area (Fig. 6), and the fact that the southwest corner of the temple required most attention according to the building accounts.91 To ignore the testimonies of Herodotus and Dionysius should be a last resort. Thus, any attempt to position the Erechtheion far away from the Karyatid Temple requires the uneconomical assumption, advocated by Robertson and Pautasso, that Athena possessed two holy olive trees. If the olive tree could be associated with either the Erechtheion, the Pandroseion, or the Temple of Athena Polias, the conclusion that the Erechtheion was contiguous with the Pandroseion and the Temple of Athena Polias is inescapable. Thus, the three alternative Erechtheion theories, although rightly questioning the conventional identification of the Erechtheion in the Karyatid Temple, do not offer convincing alternative identifications. In the continuation of this article, I argue that the problems of earlier propositions are resolved if the Erechtheion is identified with the Dörpfeld foundation.

Fig. 6. West facade of the Karyatid Temple

G.P. Stevens 1903–1905; published in Paton [1927b], pl. 4; American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Archaeological Photographic Collections, AK 0156; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

Archaeological exploration of the Dörpfeld foundation

  • 92 Paga (2015), p. 188.
  • 93 For the comparison with other temple plans, see Childs (1994), p. 1–2.
  • 94 Paga (2015).

33The Dörpfeld foundation is a large structure situated centrally on the Acropolis (see Fig. 1[4, 5] and Fig. 3). Its perimeter, of Kara limestone from Mount Hymettus, functions as a retaining wall on the north and west sides and thus creates a rectangular terrace (21.34 by 43.44 m92), that levels with the inclining surface of the Acropolis on the east and south sides. It could, possibly, have carried a colonnade. The inner foundation walls, of Acropolis limestone, show an unparalleled segmentation. This inner foundation is centrally divided into two halves by a north-south wall. Each half has a shallow porch-like compartment, indicating two separate entrances on the east and west. The west half is subdivided into one rectangular compartment and two nearly square compartments. Two east-west walls, perhaps for interior colonnades, divide the east half into three east-west aisles, of which the “nave” is wider than the side aisles. There may not have been communication between the two halves, because the aisles in the east half do not align with the square compartments in the west half. The foundation certainly predates the construction of the Karyatid Temple in the Periclean period, and can approximate the mid-sixth-century date of the temple of Apollo at Corinth that has a comparable double cella.93 The stones of both the inner and outer walls of the foundation are selectively worked with the claw-tooth chisel, which may indicate a date in the second quarter of the sixth century.94

  • 95 Spon – Wheler (1678), vol. 2, p. 159–160; Wheler – Spon (1682), p. 364. Cf. Penrose (1851), p. 4. (...)
  • 96 Illustrations in Stuart – Revett (1825), pl. 18; pl. 19, fig. 1; Pomardi (1820), after p. 124; Do (...)
  • 97 Rangavis (1837a), p. 12; Ross (1855), p. 121–123; Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 10; Seure (1912) (...)
  • 98 Leake (1841), unnumbered Acropolis map; Rey et al. (1867), pl. 24.
  • 99 Archaiologikos Syllogos (1853), p. 3.
  • 100 Boetticher (1863), p. 206–208.
  • 101 Infra n. 158.
  • 102 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 32.
  • 103 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84.
  • 104 Dörpfeld (1885); (1886); (1887a); (1887b); (1890); (1897).

34The foundation’s discovery is today credited to Dörpfeld, but the area had attracted archaeological interest long before. In the seventeenth century, Spon and Wheler reported ancient ruins here.95 A building appearing on the site in nineteenth-century paintings was demolished as part of the clearing of the Turkish town on the Acropolis.96 In 1837 and 1838, Pittakis excavated a small area east of the Karyatid porch, yielding fragments of one of the Karyatids.97 He also appears to have excavated south of the Karyatid porch in an area that could be indicated on Leake’s 1841 map of the Acropolis, corresponding to a low-lying patch of land amidst ruined walls in a drawing by Rey from 1843–1844 (Fig. 7).98 By 1853, the foundation’s perimeter wall on which the Karyatid porch rests had been traced further west and it was revealed that it turns south to align roughly with the west front of the Great Temple.99 In 1862, Boetticher excavated part of the terrace. He found several “polygonal” walls and concluded that these were the remains of a consecutively paved, solid stone terrace that could have contained a few chapels and have been the ball court of the Arrephoroi mentioned by pseudo-Plutarch (X Orat. 839c).100 According to another theory, discussed below, this was the site of the Kekropion.101 It was not until 1886, with the area’s excavation by Kavvadias and Kawerau, that the earth-filled foundation walls fully emerged (Fig. 8). No objects were found during this excavation.102 Large parts of the walls were restored with stones found nearby (see Fig. 3 for the walls that were actually preserved in situ).103 In an influential series of articles in Athenische Mitteilungen, Dörpfeld pronounced his views on the temple’s role in the topography of the Acropolis, but paid less attention to the excavation process and did not acknowledge earlier theories on the site.104

Fig. 7. The Karyatid Temple and an unknown building on the Dörpfeld foundation (drawing by Étienne Rey 1843–1844 from Rey et al. [1867], pl. 24)

Courtesy Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation, https: //www.travelogues.gr

Fig. 8. The restored Dörpfeld foundation and the Karyatid Temple looking north

Unknown photographer 1887; D-DAI-ATH-Akropolis-0015

  • 105 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906). Extensive discussion in Carpenter (1970), p. 26–28; Steskal (2004), p (...)
  • 106 Wiegand (1904). For measurements of blocks attributed to both temples, see Paga (2015), p. 188, t (...)
  • 107 See e.g. Wiegand (1904), p. 72–107, 214–227; Heberdey (1919); Stewart (2008), p. 399–401; Santi ( (...)
  • 108 Paga (2015), p. 193.
  • 109 Wiegand (1904), p. 118–119. More fragments were added by Kissas (2008), p. 56–98.
  • 110 e.g. Stähler (1972), p. 101–123; Childs (1994); Stewart (2008), p. 382–383 n. 23; Paga (2015), p. (...)

35Between 1885 and 1890, the known material evidence of the Acropolis was further enriched and complicated.105 From 1888, the work concentrated on the deposits south and east of the Great Temple, where, among much else, great quantities of poros and marble architectural members and sculptures were unearthed. As became clear with the publication of the poros material in 1904, it included remains of two large, equally-sized buildings of the Archaic period that are probably temples.106 A building called the “H-Architecture” or “Bluebeard Temple” (after the three-bodied, bearded figure with wings and snake tails in the right corner of one of its pediments) can be reconstructed from poros and marble fragments found in the excavations south and east of the Great Temple and others reused in the south wall of the Acropolis.107 It is dated to ca. 570–560 based on the style of its sculpture and architectural members.108 Another building, commonly known as the “Old Athena Temple”, for which a more neutral name can be “Gigantomachy Temple”, can be reconstructed from architectural material of poros stone consisting of architraves, triglyphs, and geisa in the Acropolis north wall and of capitals, column drums, and other blocks found in excavations all over the Acropolis.109 This temple is dated to ca. 500, again on the basis of the style of its sculpture and architectural members.110

  • 111 Paga (2021), p. 43 n. 33.
  • 112 e.g. Wiegand (1904), p. 49–55; Plommer (1960), p. 129–134, 140–159; Boersma (1970), p. 13–14, 20– (...)
  • 113 e.g. Dinsmoor (1947), p. 109–118; Dinsmoor (1980), p. 28; Korres (1997b), p. 225–236; Correa Mora (...)

36The topography of these reconstructed temples is unresolved. The Gigantomachy Temple is generally believed to belong with the Dörpfeld foundation. Its situation on the other available foundation on the Acropolis, the massive platform under the Great Temple, is chronologically possible, but would lead to an implausible scenario in which the Gigantomachy Temple was dismantled after a lifetime of perhaps only ten years to make space for the marble Older Parthenon (following the common dating of the inception of that problematic building to just after the battle of Marathon in 490).111 Two main theories exist regarding the location of the Bluebeard Temple. According to the first theory, the Bluebeard Temple stood on the Dörpfeld foundation and was replaced on the same site by the Gigantomachy Temple around 500.112 According to the second theory, the Bluebeard Temple stood on the site of the Great Temple, as the predecessor of the Older Parthenon, and could be termed the “Urparthenon”.113 Reasonably, at least one group of remains can be associated with the Dörpfeld foundation. However, this discussion is only tangential to the question of the location of the Erechtheion, as the architectural and sculptural remains of these temples do not offer certain indications for the nature of the cultic practices in them.

Current interpretations of the Dörpfeld foundation

  • 114 Letter from Schliemann to Brockhaus of 1 November 1885, published in Meyer – Dörpfeld (1936), p.  (...)
  • 115 Dörpfeld (1885). In addition, he located here the Hekatompedon temple destroyed by the Persians a (...)
  • 116 Praxiergidai decree: IG I3 7, line 6. Other references include IG II2 983 (middle of the second c (...)
  • 117 Cf. Fowler (1893), p. 1: “Dörpfeld’s results must be accepted as final and certain.” For dissente (...)

37Upon the discovery of the foundation, Schliemann and Dörpfeld believed that the remains of Athens’ ancient palace, resembling the megarons of Tiryns and Troy, had come to light.114 However, in his first publication on the site, Dörpfeld proposed that it had carried the Ἀρχαῖος Νεώς (“Old Temple”) of Athena Polias and that her statue had stood in the temple’s east half.115 The Archaios Neos is first attested in the Praxiergidai decree roughly dated to 460–420 and appears in various inscriptions and literary sources until the Imperial period.116 This theory followed mainly from exclusion: as Dörpfeld equated the Great Temple and the Karyatid Temple with the “Parthenon” and “Erechtheion” respectively, the label “Archaios Neos” was still available to be applied to the new foundation. This application found wide, though not universal approval.117

  • 118 Supra n. 40, 41.
  • 119 e.g. Bates (1901); Paton et al. (1927), p. 446–478; Dinsmoor (1932); Hoepfner (1997), p. 153–154; (...)
  • 120 Boersma (1970), p. 51; Korres – Bouras (1983), p. 131; Bundgaard (1976), p. 134–136; Drerup (1981 (...)
  • 121 Diod. Sic. 11.29.1–4; Lycurg. Leoc. 81; Paus. 10.35.2–3. Cf. Aesch. Pers. 809–812. An epigraphica (...)
  • 122 Drerup (1981), p. 32–33; Ferrari (2002), p. 12–14, 26, 29; Lindenlauf (2003), p. 55–56; Steskal ( (...)

38Dörpfeld also argued that the position of the Karyatid porch on the outer wall of the old foundation showed that the Karyatid Temple (at the time unanimously believed to accommodate both the Temple of Athena Polias and the Erechtheion) was designed to replace the Dörpfeld Temple and to inherit from it both Athena’s statue and the name “Archaios Neos”. Dörpfeld himself supposed that the intended replacement did not materialize: contrary to the original plan, Athena’s statue would have remained in the Dörpfeld Temple, which was restored and retained its name “Archaios Neos”. The Karyatid Temple was henceforth only needed to accommodate the Erechtheion and was only partially completed. As discussed, this complex theory has in recent decades acquired renewed attention, but is untenable.118 In the conventional view, the replacement was completed: the Karyatid Temple received both the statue and the name “Archaios Neos”.119 The Dörpfeld Temple would not have been restored, in obedience to the spirit of the oath allegedly sworn by the Greeks before the battle of Plataea in 479.120 This oath, as attested in various texts, dictated that the temples destroyed by the Persians not be rebuilt, but to remain standing in a ruined state as memorials of the invasion.121 Although this vow is not certainly historical, the tradition about it may have been generated by the survival of ruined temples on the Acropolis, juxtaposed to new Periclean buildings.122

  • 123 e.g. Dörpfeld (1886), p. 339–340; (1897), p. 164–170; Dinsmoor (1932), p. 314; Meyer (2017), p. 9 (...)

39If Athena’s statue was located in the Dörpfeld Temple’s east half, then the west half with its three compartments (see Fig. 3) would have had a different function. Dörpfeld and many other scholars placed here the Opisthodomos, a treasury of Athena and other gods that appears for the first time in the Kallias decree of the 430s and in later inventory inscriptions and is perhaps identical to τὸ μέγαρον τὸ πρὸς ἑσπέρην τετραμμένον (“the west-facing megaron”) mentioned by Herodotus (5.77).123 This theory, too, requires that the Dörpfeld Temple continued in use after the Persian destruction.

  • 124 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84.
  • 125 Frazer (1898), vol. 2, p. 331, 564–570; Körte (1898), p. 242; Michaelis (1902), p. 1, 10–11; Hond (...)
  • 126 Van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 12–17 (with earlier literature).

40However, current views of the Dörpfeld foundation are insufficiently supported by evidence. First, there is no unambiguous indication that the terms “Archaios Neos” and “Opisthodomos” belonged with it. Kavvadias and Kawerau emphasized that their designation of the Dörpfeld foundation in Katharevousa Greek as Ἀρχαῖος Ναός was inspired by the apparent antiquity of the structure rather than by its identification as the Ἀρχαῖος Νεώς of ancient texts.124 The term Ἀρχαῖος Νεώς is first attested long after the Persian destruction of the Dörpfeld Temple and, in several instances, certainly refers to the Karyatid Temple. It is therefore reasonable to associate other occurrences of the term with the Karyatid Temple as well.125 Similarly, there are good indications that “Opisthodomos” and “west-facing megaron” were appellations of the west room of the Great Temple rather than of the Dörpfeld foundation’s west half.126

  • 127 Nilsson (1950), p. 498–503, argued that Athena originated as “house-goddess of the Mycenaean king (...)
  • 128 Dörpfeld (1919), p. 30–31. I tentatively suggest that the cutting may have served the altar of Ze (...)
  • 129 On the uncertainty that the Gigantomachy pediment belonged with the Dörpfeld Temple, see Stähler (...)
  • 130 In Euripides’ Ion (206–218), Kreousa’s servants admire the scene of Athena slaying the giant Enke (...)

41Second, there are no certain material grounds to associate the Dörpfeld Temple with Athena. The Dörpfeld Temple’s reconstructed size and prominence on the Acropolis may seem to certify its association with the principal deity of the Acropolis in the Classical period and after. However, such reasoning ignores that, on the post-Persian Acropolis, the statue of Athena resided in the rather small Karyatid Temple. The size of a sanctuary is thus not necessarily a good guide to the importance of the cult in that sanctuary.127 If Athena possessed the spacious Dörpfeld Temple, what justified the construction of the equally-sized late Archaic predecessor of the Great Temple on the south side of the Acropolis? Instead, the limited size of Athena’s original shrine on the site of the Karyatid Temple offers an attractive rationale for the later construction of a new, large repository for Athena’s accumulating votive offerings. One could also be led to associate the Dörpfeld foundation with Athena because of the presence of a cutting in the bedrock east of it (Fig. 1[6]), possibly for an altar that is commonly labelled as Athena’s. However, such reasoning would be circular, as the cutting’s association with Athena’s altar rests on the assumption that the Dörpfeld Temple belonged to Athena.128 Another argument for the identification of the Dörpfeld Temple as an Athena temple could be taken from her prominent appearance in the Gigantomachy pediment that is commonly associated with the Dörpfeld foundation. However, even if it could be conclusively shown that the Gigantomachy pediment adorned a building on the Dörpfeld foundation,129 the Gigantomachy was a popular theme in Greek temple sculpture and does not necessarily indicate an Athena cult.130

  • 131 Cf. Lacore (1983), p. 225.
  • 132 The older remains underneath the Karyatid Temple were investigated by Holland (1924a); (1924b). C (...)

42Third, the hypothesis that the Karyatid Temple replaced the Dörpfeld Temple is not supported by conclusive evidence. The location of a cult can be assumed to be stable unless there is a definite indication that it was moved. In this case, such an indication is not available. The position of the Karyatid porch on the outer wall of the Dörpfeld foundation, not on its core, cannot testify to the replacement of the structure that occupied the core.131 When Dörpfeld discovered the foundation and applied the term “Archaios Neos” to it, the remains of one or more older structures underneath the Karyatid Temple were not yet known. With that information, it is possible that the Classical Karyatid Temple was built on top of or around Athena’s old shrine as a renovation and that the complex deserved the name “Archaios Neos” to distinguish it from the new Great Temple.132 Thus, Athena’s cult may always have been situated on the site of the Karyatid Temple. The relocation hypothesis creates many problems without ready solutions: Why was Athena’s temple in the fifth century rebuilt as a smaller shrine, rather than as a larger shrine? Why was it rebuilt to the north, rather than on the same site? Why was the Karyatid Temple built on top of or around an older structure? What was the function of that structure and why was it supplanted with the cult of Athena? Was the function of the older structure relocated, and if so, where? These difficult questions do not exist in the scenario that Athena was always worshipped on the site of the Karyatid Temple.

  • 133 Supra n. 10.
  • 134 Cf. Leake (1821), p. 268–269.
  • 135 Cf. Nilsson (1950), p. 563.

43The absence of conclusive textual or material evidence for Athena in the Dörpfeld foundation perhaps does not rule out her historical presence there, but it is possible to consider additional or alternative functions of the site. The solution offered in the present article moves from the minor theory that the Dörpfeld foundation’s west half contained the original, pre-Persian Erechtheion.133 This theory is, in its current formulation, compatible with the views that the Dörpfeld Temple’s east half housed the statue of Athena and that the Karyatid Temple replaced the Dörpfeld Temple: after 480, the Erechtheion would, along with the cult of Athena, have been moved to the Karyatid Temple, whose west half would have featured the same compartmentalization as the Dörpfeld Temple’s west half. Yet, like the hypothesis that the cult of Athena was relocated, the hypothesis that the Erechtheion was relocated is problematic. It would have been difficult to move the Erechtheion off-site as it contained Poseidon’s salt-water sea in one of its rooms.134 Herodotus, writing in the second half of the fifth century, speaks of the Erechtheion in the present tense but also states that it was burnt by the Persians.135 The pre- and post-Persian locations of the Erechtheion can thus not be distinguished. Nor was the Erechtheion moved after Herodotus: Pausanias, centuries later, saw the same Erechtheion, as both authors mention Poseidon’s sea inside. If the Dörpfeld foundation contained the pre-Persian Erechtheion, it can be hypothesized that it also contained the post-Persian Erechtheion. The remainder of this article aims to test this hypothesis by comparing post-Persian textual sources for the Erechtheion with the material situation of the Dörpfeld foundation.

Topographical indications for the Erechtheion as the Dörpfeld foundation

  • 136 Supra n. 90.

44As discussed, hitherto proposed locations for the Erechtheion do not fully agree with the literary sources. However, these texts do provide compelling topographical clues for its identification with the Dörpfeld foundation. First, this solution solves the discussed conundrum of the wandering olive tree, variously assigned to either the Erechtheion, the Pandroseion, or the Temple of Athena Polias.136 As the Karyatid Temple was the Temple of Athena Polias and the Pandroseion was adjacent or even part of it, identifications of the Erechtheion far away from the Karyatid Temple are difficult to maintain. The only considerable structure adjoining the Karyatid Temple is the Dörpfeld foundation. If the Erechtheion was the Dörpfeld foundation, it is understandable why ancient authors considered the olive tree as belonging to either the Erechtheion, the Pandroseion, or the Temple of Athena Polias.

  • 137 Austin (1967). Meyer (2017), p. 65–66, recognizes that Euripides’ description does not fit the Ka (...)
  • 138 The adjective λάϊνος, deriving from λάας (the kind of rock used in catapults and by Sisyphus) may (...)

45Second, Euripides’ Erechtheus describes the Erechtheion as a precinct with rocky enclosures in the middle of the Acropolis (fr. 65.90–94 Austin). Traditional theories that place the Erechtheion in the Karyatid Temple, formed long before the publication of the tragedy’s fragments in 1967, fail to explain Euripides’ description of the Erechtheion.137 However, if the thesis argued in this article is correct, Euripides can be understood to be referring to the Dörpfeld foundation, a precinct with rocky enclosures that contrast with the regularly cut Pentelic marble blocks of the Periclean buildings.138 The description may be shaped by poetic license, but cannot be ignored because Euripides, an Athenian, is unlikely to have produced pure fantasy about the locations of his city’s sanctuaries. If the Erechtheion was not located on the Dörpfeld foundation, the play’s Athenian audience would not have understood the reference. Similarly, pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.178) places the sea called “Erechtheis” κατὰ μέσην τὴν ἀκρόπολιν (“at the middle of the Acropolis”). The Dörpfeld foundation is situated just north of the center of the Acropolis, between two other prominent temples. More so than any other structure known to have stood on the Acropolis, it deserves the qualification “in the middle of the Acropolis”.

  • 139 Leake (1821), p. 257, remarked that Pausanias’ account of the Erechtheion is “a remarkable instan (...)

46Third, Pausanias, after his sighting of statue groups dedicated by the Pergamene king Attalos, statues of Olympiodoros and Artemis Leukophryene near the south wall of the Acropolis, and a seated statue of Athena (1.25.2–26.4), proceeds to mention the Erechtheion. After the Erechtheion, he reaches the Temple of Athena Polias, which was a part of the Karyatid Temple. If the Erechtheion was the Karyatid Temple’s west half, Pausanias would have unexpectedly backtracked during his tour of the Acropolis.139 However, if the Erechtheion was the Dörpfeld foundation, it was situated between the south area of the Acropolis and the Karyatid Temple and Pausanias’ tour would be straightforward.

  • 140 Jeppesen (1987), p. 19–20.

47Finally, the proposed identification of the Erechtheion agrees with Himerius’ mention of a τέμενος (“precinct”) of Poseidon on the Acropolis (5.210–211). From Himerius’ testimony it can be inferred that the Erechtheion was a precinct separate from, yet linked with the Temple of Athena Polias.140 If the Erechtheion was inside the Karyatid Temple, Himerius’ reference is incomprehensible because no part of the Karyatid Temple was a precinct rather than a temple. But if the thesis of the present article is correct, Himerius’ description readily applies to the Karyatid Temple and the nearby Dörpfeld foundation, which were linked by the Karyatid porch.

The Kekropion

  • 141 Supra n. 22.
  • 142 On the mythology of Kekrops, see Parker (1987), p. 193; Gantz (1993), p. 235–239; Gourmelen (2004 (...)
  • 143 e.g. Ar. Nub. 300–301; Plut. 773; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.1779; [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.177; Eur. El. 1289 (...)
  • 144 e.g. [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.177–178; August. De civ. d. 18.9; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 93 (Georgius Sy (...)
  • 145 e.g. [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.178–179; Diod. 5.56.5–6; Paus. 1.27.1.
  • 146 Shapiro (1998), p. 136; Gourmelen (2004), p. 198–207.

48A further argument for the identification of the Erechtheion with the Dörpfeld foundation can be derived from a reconsideration of the evidence of the Kekropion, another elusive sanctuary known almost exclusively from inscriptions dating to the period between 485/4 and 334/3. The term Κεκρόπιον implies a sacred terrain141 associated with Kekrops, another early king of Athens who is often described and depicted as half man, half snake and was the eponymous hero of the Kekropis tribe.142 The Acropolis and Athens were considered to belong to Kekrops.143 The contest of Athena and Poseidon for the hegemony of Athens, when the gods offered to the city their respective gifts (the olive tree and the sea), took place during Kekrops’ reign.144 He was said to have installed the cults of Athena and Zeus on the Acropolis.145 In vase painting, he is sometimes depicted in scenes of the birth of Erichthonios.146

  • 147 IG I³ 4.B, line 10. Cf. Paton (1927a), p. 440–441; Stroud (2004); Butz (2010), p. 56, 164.
  • 148 Michaelis (1902), p. 10.

49The first attestation of the Kekropion is probably in the “Hekatompedon inscription”, a set of two decrees that likely date to 485/4 and pose regulations for visitors and cultic personnel on the Acropolis.147 It contains a location name starting with Κ- in a sentence forbidding certain actions: ]|τοθεν τ̣[ο͂ ν]εὸ ἐντὸς το͂ Κ[εκροπίο μεδ ἀν] πᾶν τὸ ℎ̣ε|κατόμπ[εδ]ον (“[south, below, or outside] of the temple within the Kekropion nor along all the Hekatompedon”). The restoration Κ[εκροπίο fits the inscription’s stoichedon (grid) arrangement and is likely because Κεκρόπιον is the only attested toponym on the Acropolis starting with Κ-.148

  • 149 IG I³ 474 (409/8), line 9.
  • 150 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 59, 63, 84.
  • 151 IG I³ 476 (408/7), lines 125–128. Here also appears Κ]|εκροπικα[, which could reflect either an a (...)
  • 152 IG II2 1141 (376/5), lines 6–7: a decree found “in basilica S. Nicolai Borealis” stating that a v (...)
  • 153 Clem. Protr. 3.45; Favorinus of Arles, F 96,9; Theodoretus, Graecarum affectionum curatio, 8.30. (...)

50In 409/8 and 408/7, the Kekropion is encountered several times in the Karyatid Temple’s building accounts. These describe the relation of parts of the Karyatid Temple with the Kekropion using the preposition πρός, significantly governing two different grammatical cases. The southwest corner of the temple was oriented πρὸς το῀ Κεκροπίο;149 with a genitive, πρός means “on the side of” or “facing”. The porch of the Karyatids was situated πρὸς το῀͂ι Κεκροπίοι;150 with a dative, πρός describes an adjacent position and can be translated as “near”, “by”, “on”, or “at”. The accounts also speak of a τροχιλεία (“block and tackle”) in relation to the Kekropion.151 There exist many, mainly fourth-century inscriptions that relate to the tribe Kekropis. Some of these mention a ἱερόν (“sanctuary”) of Kekrops where inscribed stelai could be set up and where votes could take place.152 The Kekropion does not appear in literary sources, but on the authority of the fifth-century historian Antiochus (FGrHist 29 F 2; or Antiochus-Pherecydes of Athens, FGrHist 333 F 1), several late literary sources attest to a grave of Kekrops on the Acropolis, παρὰ τὴν Πολιοῦχον αὐτήν (“beside the city goddess herself”).153

  • 154 e.g. Dörpfeld (1911), p. 40; (1942), p. 25–27; Collignon (1920); Paton et al. (1927), p. 127–137; (...)
  • 155 The expected preposition would have been ὑπέρ (“above”, “over”). Paton (1927a), p. 460, found the (...)
  • 156 Cf. Foucart (1889), p. 258–259.

51The Kekropion is now commonly identified with the gap underneath the west side of the Karyatid porch spanned by a large block in the west wall of the temple (see Fig. 6) and with the remains of various walls in the area immediately west of the Karyatid Temple.154 However, this identification is unsatisfactory because there is no parallel for the designation of a narrow gap between a temple and a foundation wall as a sanctuary. Furthermore, this identification relies on imprecise interpretations of the references to the Kekropion in the Karyatid Temple’s building accounts and on traditional, but unconfirmed interpretations of the Karyatid Temple and the Dörpfeld foundation. If the Kekropion was the gap underneath the Karyatid porch, the usage of the preposition πρός in the building accounts would be incorrect.155 In the inscriptions, the Kekropion was a point of orientation and a place where enough space was available for stelai, a block and tackle, and taking secret votes. This implies a sanctuary of some size and excludes the gap underneath the Karyatid porch as the identification of the Kekropion.156

  • 157 Van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 6–9.
  • 158 Wilkins (1816), 195; Michaelis (1871), pl. 1; (1902), p. 10; Fergusson (1876), p. 12; Penrose (18 (...)

52The inscriptions rather suggest that the Kekropion was situated on the Dörpfeld foundation. First, the wording of the Hekatompedon inscription implies that the Kekropion was close to “the temple” and that these structures were different from the Hekatompedon. “The temple” should be the most important one: the ancient shrine of Athena around which the Karyatid Temple later rose. The “Hekatompedon” can be the predecessor of the Periclean Great Temple, itself also called “Hekatompedon”, on the south-side of the Acropolis.157 Thus, the term “Kekropion” is available to be applied to the Dörpfeld foundation. Second, if the Kekropion was situated on the Dörpfeld foundation, the authors of the building inscriptions would have correctly described the southwest corner of the Karyatid Temple as “facing” the Dörpfeld foundation and the Karyatid porch as “at” the Dörpfeld foundation. The rather straightforward epigraphical indications for the site of the Kekropion have urged a number of scholars to identify the Kekropion with all or part of the Dörpfeld foundation.158

  • 159 Hdt. 5.72, 8.41, 8.55; Him. 5.210–11; Paus. 1.26.5, 1.27.1.
  • 160 Cf. Leake (1841), p. 580–581; Furtwängler (1893), p. 196–199; Körte (1898), p. 262–263.
  • 161 The timeframe of the Kekropion in inscriptions coincides with the period in which depictions of K (...)
  • 162 Rangavis (1837b), p. 35–36.

53In traditional interpretations of Acropolis topography, the terms “Erechtheion” and “Temple of Athena Polias” are overlapping terms or synonyms for the Karyatid Temple. However, this synonymy is unclear because the two sanctuaries had different cult recipients and objects and were described by different terms. It is, moreover, untenable because of the independent mentions of these sanctuaries in the works of Herodotus, Himerius, and Pausanias.159 The identification of the Erechtheion with the Dörpfeld foundation enables a more plausible scenario in which “Erechtheion” was not synonymous with “Temple of Athena Polias”, but rather with “Kekropion”.160 As no source mentions both the Erechtheion and the Kekropion, they need not necessarily be distinguished. Remarkably and unexpectedly, inscriptions never speak of the Erechtheion, but do refer to the Kekropion between 485/4 and 334/3 as a spacious sanctuary and use it as a point of orientation. After this, we hear no more of the Kekropion.161 Conversely, there is an unexpected absence of the Kekropion in literary sources, whereas the Erechtheion appears exclusively in literary sources with a wide chronological span as a notable feature of the Acropolis. Our fullest ancient guide to the Acropolis, Pausanias, has much to say about the Erechtheion, the Temple of Athena Polias, and the Pandroseion, but surprisingly does not know the Kekropion. These unexpected absences would disappear if “Erechtheion” and “Kekropion” (and related designations) are synonymous terms for the Dörpfeld foundation, as summarized in Table 1.162 Neither name was a precise description, covering everything that devotees could find here. The colloquial nature of the terms is shown by their variation and by Pausanias’ qualification of the name “Erechtheion” as καλούμενον (“so-called”).

Table 1. Proposed references to the Erechtheion and the Kekropion

Source

Designation

Date

Hom. Il. 2.549

(Ἐρεχθῆος?) νηός

ca. 700–500 BCE?

Hom. Od. 7.81

Ἐρεχθῆος πυκινὸς δόμος

ca. 700–500 BCE?

IG I³ 4.B, l. 10

Κ[εκρόπιον]

485/4 BCE

Aesch., Eum. 855

δόμοι Ἐρεχθέως

458 BCE

Antiochus, FGrHist 29 F 2 or Antiochus-Pherecydes of Athens, FGrHist 333 F 1

(τάφος) Κέκροπος

ca. 450 BCE

Hdt. 8.55

Ἐρεχθέος νηός

ca. 430 BCE

Eur. Erechtheus, fr. 65.90 Austin

σηκὸς ἐμ μέσῃ πόλει

ca. 420 BCE

Eur. Ion, 1293

Ἐρεχθέως δόμοι

ca. 413 BCE

IG I³ 474, l. 9, 59, 63, 84.

Κεκρόπιον

409/8 BCE

IG I³ 476, l. 126–127.

Κεκρόπιον

408/7 BCE

SEG 2.8, l. 11

[τὸ τοῦ Κέκρο]πος ἱερόν

400–300 BCE

IG II3.1 392, l. 9

ἡ Κέκρο[πος…]

ca. 350–335 BCE

Isoc. 12.126

οἶκος

339 BCE

IG II2 1156, l. 34–35

τὸ τοῦ Κέκροπος ἱερ[όν]

334/3 BCE

Cic. Nat. D. 3.49

delubrum Erechthei

45 BCE

Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14.2.1

Ἐρεχθέως σηκός

7 BCE

[Apollod.] Bibl. 3.178

Ἐρεχθηὶς (θάλασσα)

0–200 CE?

[Apollod.] Bibl. 3.204

οἰκία Ἐρεχθέως

0–200 CE?

[Plut.] X Orat. 843e

Ἐρέχθειον

100–200 CE?

Aristid. Panathenaicus, 106.24

ῥόθιον

ca. 150–180 CE

Paus. 1.26.5

Ἐρέχθειον

before 180 CE

Paus. 8.10.4

κῦμα

before 180 CE

Lib. Or. 61.6

ῥόθιον

358 CE

Him. 5.210–211

Ποσειδῶνος τέμενος

before 383 CE

Note: Designations have been given in the nominative.

  • 163 For similarities between Kekrops and Erechtheus, see Nilsson (1950), p. 563; Parker (1987), p. 19 (...)
  • 164 Cf. supra n. 15, 16, 17, 18.

54The proposed synonymy of “Kekropion” and “Erechtheion” for the Dörpfeld foundation implies that it could be regarded as the residence of both Kekrops and Erechtheus. It is not the case that Kekrops and Erechtheus were regarded as a single figure: they are clearly distinct in surviving mythological descriptions. They were, however, similar in that they were earthborn kings of Athens, could be associated with snakes or depicted as serpent-men, and had city-saving daughters.163 Moreover, Athens’ royal palace belonged to the Erechtheid dynasty rather than to a single member of that dynasty.164 If “Erechtheion” and “Kekropion” were synonyms, a statement by the Athenian rhetorician Isocrates (12.126) that Erichthonios took over the palace of Kekrops can be taken literally: Ἐριχθόνιος μὲν γὰρ φὺς ἐξ Ἡφαίστου καὶ Γῆς παρὰ Κέκροπος ἄπαιδος ὄντος ἀρρένων παίδων τὸν οἶκον καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν παρέλαβεν (“For Erichthonios, offspring of Hephaestus and Ge, received from Kekrops, who was without male children, his house and kingdom”).

“Palatial” remains at the Dörpfeld foundation

  • 165 On the Mycenaean terraces and the purported palace on the Acropolis, see Kavvadias – Kawerau (190 (...)
  • 166 e.g. Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84; Holland (1924b), p. 162–166; (1939), p. 289.
  • 167 Iakovidis (1962), p. 62–65; Nylander (1962); Mountjoy (1995), p. 42; Glowacki (1998), p. 82.
  • 168 Nylander (1962), p. 53–57.
  • 169 Michaelis (1902), p. 3; Holland (1924b), p. 143, 161–169; Nilsson (1950), p. 473–482.
  • 170 Hdt. 9.65. Cf. van den Eijnde (2019), p. 108–112.
  • 171 Paus. 9.38.2. Cf. Schliemann (1881), p. 13–50.
  • 172 Here stood two altars of Zeus Herkeios and Zeus Keraunios, who had destroyed the house with a thu (...)
  • 173 Supra n. 9.

55The Dörpfeld foundation is, even in its current state, an impressive feature of the Acropolis. The Classical Propylaea seem built to face it (Fig. 9, cf. Fig. 1). The possibility that the foundation was regarded as the Erechtheion or Kekropion finds comfort in its occupation of the terrace of the surmised Mycenaean “palace” of Athens, tentatively identified by Mycenaean-style retaining walls, blocks identified as stairway steps, Mycenaean pottery (LHIIA–LHIIIC middle or late), obsidian dagger blades, and a column base of Acropolis limestone found nearby.165 Two further poros column bases found in the foundation (perhaps, but not certainly in situ; see Fig. 2) have also often been interpreted as Mycenaean,166 but are more likely Archaic.167 Using these bases, Nylander reconstructed a seventh-century, small, prostyle temple on the site of the Dörpfeld foundation.168 The presence of a Late Bronze Age palace or later monumental building here suits Athens’ Homeric fame or later claim to that effect, on the evidence of the cited passages from the Iliad and the Odyssey, which represent Archaic reflections on the city’s Homeric past. The Dörpfeld foundation’s association with figures from the heroic age would be in concert with cultic developments in other Bronze Age structures: the former palaces of Mycenae and Tiryns were later occupied by temples,169 the Telesterion at Eleusis with its ἀνάκτορον (“palace”) developed on the remains of a late Bronze Age building that may have been understood as a former palace,170 and the monumental tholos tomb of Orchomenos, in which an altar was installed in the Roman period, was regarded as the treasury of king Minyas.171 Even if there never was a true palace on the site of the Dörpfeld foundation, remains of any sort could have been recognized as a palace, as happened at Olympia where θεμέλια (“foundations”) near the temple of Zeus were believed to have carried the palace of king Oinomaos.172 On these parallels, it would seem appropriate that the location of a monumental Late Bronze Age structure on the Athenian Acropolis, correctly or incorrectly recognized as an ancient palace, became the cult site of the city’s royal family.173

Fig. 9. View of the Acropolis from the central intercolumniation of the east portico of the Propylaea looking east, with the terrace of the Dörpfeld foundation in the center

Unknown photographer ca. 1905; American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Archaeological Photographic Collections; negative X 0056

Epigraphical indications for the Erechtheion

  • 174 IG II2 4982 (fourth or third century BCE): in arce orientem versus ab Erechtheo; Paton (1927a), p (...)
  • 175 IG II2 5166 (350–300). Cf. IG III 302: “in Erechtheo”; IG II 1656: “ad Erechtheo”; Stuart – Revet (...)
  • 176 IG II2 3538 (IG III 805; 54–68 AD), lines 9–10. Ross (1855), p. 123–124 mentions that the inscrip (...)
  • 177 EM 6319; IG I3 873 (DAA 384; ca. 450). Ross (1855), p. 176–180 found the basin in 1832 in a locat (...)
  • 178 IG I3 828 (IG I2 706; DAA 229; ca. 480–475), found in arce, mentions the dedication of a kore as (...)

56A further material argument for the identification of the Erechtheion with the Dörpfeld foundation comes from epigraphy. The Erechtheion is not attested in inscriptions by name, but four inscribed blocks can, by their texts, be recognized as functionally belonging with the Erechtheion. Their findspots are suggestive. The fourth-century thrones for the priests of Boutes and Hephaestus, cult recipients in the Erechtheion according to Pausanias, were found in the area of the Dörpfeld foundation (Fig. 10): the throne of Hephaestus’ priest was first sighted among the Dörpfeld foundation southwest of the Karyatid Temple,174 and the throne of Boutes’ priest was discovered near the Karyatid porch in the debris of the Turkish house that stood on the Dörpfeld foundation.175 South of the Karyatid porch was also found an inscribed statue base mentioning the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus.176 Finally, the base of a perirrhanterion (“wash basin”) dedicated to Poseidon Erechtheus, now in the Acropolis museum, was found close to, not inside the Karyatid Temple, possibly also in the area of the Dörpfeld foundation.177 There are several further inscriptions from the Acropolis that mention the cult of Poseidon Erechtheus, but these were not necessarily kept inside the Erechtheion and their precise finds spots are usually not recorded.178 Inscribed blocks may move about, but can coincidence explain how up to four blocks originally belonging in the Erechtheion arrived at the same general location? The concentration of blocks belonging in the Erechtheion at the Dörpfeld foundation cannot prove, but may nevertheless corroborate the hypothesis that the Erechtheion was situated on the Dörpfeld foundation.

Fig. 10. The inscribed thrones of the priests of Boutes and Hephaistos on the Dörpfeld foundation looking west

Photo by A. Lesk in Lesk [2005], fig. 534; courtesy of the photographer

Material requirements of the Erechtheion

  • 179 Supra n. 40, 123. Ferrari (2002), p. 21–24, provides a reconstruction in which the Dörpfeld Templ (...)
  • 180 Supra n. 125, 126.
  • 181 Pakkanen (2006), p. 279–280.
  • 182 Dörpfeld (1902), p. 401; (1911), p. 41–42; (1919), p. 12–13; Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 126; (...)
  • 183 Gerding (2006); Rous (2019), p. 104.
  • 184 Lacore (1983), p. 225.

57The Dörpfeld foundation’s identification with the Erechtheion has two material requirements. First, it requires the presence of some structure, however humble, in the post-Persian period. As discussed early in the article, literary sources characterize the Erechtheion as a precinct that contained some kind of double building with walls high enough for the display of paintings. The post-Persian presence of a building on the Dörpfeld foundation is also required by those who situate here the Archaios Neos and/or the Opisthodomos.179 Although, as indicated, these topographies are unlikely,180 their popularity shows that the presence of a structure on the Dörpfeld foundation in the post-Persian period is attractive, because the Karyatid Temple and the Great Temple do not offer enough space for all discussed ancient names. Unfortunately, the material history of the Dörpfeld foundation following the Persian siege cannot be reconstructed.181 Blocks of its outer wall between the Karyatid porch and the southeast corner of the Karyatid Temple were reused in the terrace wall west of the Great Temple, indicating that the outer structure (possibly, but not certainly a colonnade) was no longer intact in the 440s.182 It has been argued that the Dörpfeld Temple’s superstructure was cleared away after the attack to become an open courtyard.183 However, this clearing does not preclude that the foundation featured a building in the post-Persian period. Maximally, the entire core building on the inner Dörpfeld foundation could have survived, because the Karyatid porch does not stand on top of it (see Fig. 8). Thus, the Karyatid Temple and the core of the Dörpfeld Temple could have coexisted.184 Yet, the scenario for a complete survival of the core building, that would have obscured the Karyatids from most perspectives, is not very attractive.

58A much humbler reconstruction of the post-Persian building on the Dörpfeld foundation is preferable. It would seem possible that the ruined Dörpfeld Temple’s superstructure was not entirely removed after the Persian attack and that some parts of its walls remained in place for an indefinite amount of time. This reconstruction is in agreement with the textual sources that represent the Erechtheion as a ruined structure and is more compatible with the encroaching Karyatid porch. The podium on which the Karyatid statues stand, and which itself rests on the outer perimeter of the Dörpfeld foundation, is well over 2 m high. This implies that the Dörpfeld foundation could have featured a structure with walls up to a height of over 2 m without obscuring the Karyatids (cf. Fig. 7). If the post-Persian Erechtheion was a ruin of the entire core building, Pausanias may have called it a “twofold structure” in reference to the foundation’s west and east halves. In that case, the three altars may have belonged in the tripartite west half, and Poseidon’s sea in the east half. Many other reconstructions, that can include a partial rebuilding in antiquity, are viable. For example, the twofold structure can be recognized in the two juxtaposed (north and south) compartments in the west half. The state of the evidence does not allow a certain conclusion regarding the post-Persian material history of the Dörpfeld Temple, but enables the presence of a modest structure on the Dörpfeld foundation, as the textual sources on the Erechtheion require. Despite the uncertainty on the superstructure, the foundation itself retains a prominent presence on the Acropolis and meets most expectations of the Erechtheion even in its present state.

  • 185 Guillet (1675), p. 200–203. Cf. Paton (1951), p. 10, n. 11; Constantine (1989), p. 1–9; Kreeb (20 (...)
  • 186 Guillet (1675), p. 203–205.

59Second, the Erechtheion’s identification with the Dörpfeld foundation requires that the foundation contained an installation that could qualify as Poseidon’s salt-water sea. A description of a sacred well on the Acropolis appears in an account of Athens from 1675 by André Guillet, that, albeit fictionalized, relies on information provided by French Capuchin missionaries in Athens.185 If the account can be trusted, the well was then still in use and had the same miraculous properties as Pausanias reported centuries earlier. Unfortunately, Guillet does not specify the well’s location more precisely than “Au so[r]tir du Temple […] à cinquante pas de là” (“Exiting from the [Great] Temple, at fifty steps from there”). The Acropolis had many cisterns that could qualify as fifty steps from the exit of the Great Temple and none in particular can today be related to Pausanias’ account. However, because Guillet’s description of the well is followed by a discussion of the central courtyard of the fortress, where he imagined the altars of the Erechtheion, and because adjacent buildings are separately discussed later, it may be inferred that the well stood outside in this central courtyard.186

  • 187 Boetticher (1863), p. 206–208. On the “Hydrien”, see also p. 82–83.
  • 188 Dörpfeld (1887a), p. 61.
  • 189 I am grateful to Patrik Klingborg for sharing his thoughts on this structure. It was intentionall (...)
  • 190 A cistern is depicted roughly southeast of the Karyatid Temple on the only preserved Ottoman map (...)

60There are indications that the Dörpfeld foundation contained water installations. Boetticher found here many colossal clay “Hydrien”, that could have been ancient.187 Dörpfeld reported a great number of post-Persian cisterns in the Dörpfeld foundation.188 Unfortunately, neither Boetticher nor Dörpfeld specified the appearances, dates, and locations of these objects. Nevertheless, the south wall of the “nave” of the Dörpfeld foundation’s east half is presently cut by a rectangular brick compartment with traces of plaster that appears to be a Roman cistern or industrial installation (see Fig. 8).189 A functioning cistern is depicted roughly in the same location in a watercolor by Carl Werner (1877, Fig. 11).190 If the brick structure is a Roman cistern, it does not necessarily follow that it is Poseidon’s sea. Perhaps more definite vestiges of the sea await discovery in the Dörpfeld foundation.

Fig. 11. The Karyatid Temple (Carl Friedrich Heinrich Werner, 1877; watercolor)

Athens, Benaki Museum; courtesy Benaki Museum

Conclusion

61In agreement with several earlier studies, the present article concludes that the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias were two independent structures. The pre-Persian sites of the Erechtheion and the Temple of Athena Polias cannot certainly be distinguished from their post-Persian locations. Because the Karyatid Temple was primarily devoted to Athena Polias, it cannot have contained the Erechtheion. The combined force of textual indications, vestiges of Bronze Age structures, and the findspots of inscriptions rather imply that the Erechtheion was situated on the Dörpfeld foundation. Post-Persian sources present the Erechtheion as a ruined structure with walls, which seems an appropriate description of the Dörpfeld foundation if it carried a modest building. It is an eminent possibility that the Erechtheion was referred to in inscriptions as the “Kekropion”. The additional presence of a cult of Athena in the Dörpfeld Temple in the pre-Persian period is possible, but cannot be confirmed on present evidence.

  • 191 Ferrari (2002), p. 25–31. The present article interchanges Ferrari’s identifications of the Archa (...)

62If the Dörpfeld foundation is recognized as the location of the Erechtheion, there is reason to return to Ferrari’s enthralling understanding of the site as a memorial space respected until the end of antiquity in a “choreography of ruins”.191 Beyond the gates of the Acropolis, a multitemporal landscape unfolded where past struggles of gods and men became manifest. Amidst the Pentelic marble testimonies to Athens’ Classical resurrection, the center of the Acropolis remained occupied by a blackened, crumbling relic of an earlier age. Still today, six maidens can be seen leaving their Parthenon to solemnly adjoin what remains of the hall of the kings (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. West side of the Dörpfeld foundation looking east

Gösta Hellner 1974; D-DAI-ATH-1974/2468

63Thus, the Persian calamity did not obliterate the Erechtheion. As the years passed by, the Athenians continued to venerate their great-hearted king in a rocky precinct, that, as before, encompassed Poseidon’s roaring sea and sheltered Athena’s sprouting olive tree. It was, perhaps, in this spirit of endurance that Euripides composed Kreousa’s joyful words upon the reunion with her son, heir to the Athenian throne (Ion, 1463–1467):

ἄπαιδες οὐκέτἐσμὲν οὐδἄτεκνοι·
δῶμἑστιοῦται, γᾶ δἔχει τυράννους,
ἀνηβᾶι δἘρεχθεύς·
τε γηγενέτας δόμος οὐκέτι νύκτα δέρκεται,
ἀελίου δἀναβλέπει λαμπάσιν.

No more am I without children and offspring.
The house has a hearth, the earth has kings,
Erechtheus once again is young.
And the earthborn house no longer gazes into the night;
It looks up to the torches of the sun.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Archaeological Institute of America, “General Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. December 27–29, 1911”, AJA 16.1 (1912), p. 101–110.

Archaiologikos Syllogos, Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἐρεχθείου ἐπιτροπής ἢ ἀναγραφὴ τῆς ἀληθοῦς καταστάσεως τοῦ Ἐρεχθείου, Athens, 1853.

C. Austin, “De nouveaux fragments de l’Érechthée d’Euripide”, Recherches de Papyrologie 4 (1967), p. 11–67.

—, Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta, Berlin, 1968.

W.N. Bates, “Notes on the Old Temple of Athena on the Acropolis”, HSPh 12 (1901), p. 319–326.

P. Bernard, “III. L’Aornos bactrien et l’Aornos indien. Philostrate et Taxila : géographie, mythe et réalité”, Topoi 6.2 (1996), p. 475–530.

J. Boardman, The Archaeology of Nostalgia: How the Greeks Re-Created their Mythical Past, London, 2002.

J.S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningen, 1970.

C. Boetticher, Bericht über die Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis von Athen im Frühjahr 1862, Berlin, 1863.

C.A. Boettiger, “Über die sogenannten Karyatiden am Pandroseum in Athen und ueber den Missbrauch dieser Benennung”, Amalthea 3 (1825), p. 137–152.

V. Brinkmann, “Der Mythos von Athena und der Triumph der Bilder”, in V. Brinkmann (ed.), Athen. Triumph der Bilder, Petersberg, 2016a, p. 28–49.

—, “Die Skulpturen des Parthenon”, in V. Brinkmann (ed.), Athen. Triumph der Bilder, Petersberg, 2016b, p. 52–59.

O. Broneer, “A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis”, Hesperia 8.4 (1939), p. 317–433.

A.L. Brown, “Eumenides in Greek Tragedy”, CQ 34.2 (1984), p. 260–281.

P. Brulé, La Fille d’Athènes. La religion des filles à Athènes à l’époque classique. Mythes, cultes et société, Paris, 1987.

E.L. Brulotte, “The ‘Pillar of Oinomaos’ and the Location of Stadium I at Olympia”, AJA 98.1 (1994), p. 53–64.

J.A. Bundgaard, Parthenon and the Mycenaean City on the Heights, Copenhagen, 1976.

P.A. Butz, The Art of the Hekatompedon Inscription and the Birth of the Stoikhedon Style, Leiden/Boston, 2010.

R. Carpenter, The Architects of the Parthenon, Middlesex, 1970.

R. Chandler, Travels in Greece, or, An account of a tour made at the expense of the Society of Dilettanti, Oxford, 1776.

W.A.P. Childs, “The Date of the Old Temple of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis”, in W.D.E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T.L. Shear, Jr., H.A. Shapiro, F.J. Frost (eds.), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy: Proceedings of an International Conference celebrating 2500 years since the birth of democracy in Greece, held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 4–6, 1992, Oxford, 1994, p. 1–6.

M. Christopoulos, “Poseidon Erechtheus and ΕΡΕΧΘΗΙΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΑ”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence: Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22–24 November 1991, Stockholm, 1994 (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 13), p. 123–130.

C.W. Clairmont, “Euripides’ Erechtheus and the Erechtheion”, GRBS 12.4 (1971), p. 485–495.

M. Collignon, “L’emplacement du Cécropion à l’Acropole d’Athènes”, Mémoires de l’Institut national de France 41 (1920), p. 1–17.

N. Comes, Mythologiae, sive explicationum fabularum libri decem, Venice, 1567.

J.B. Connelly, The Parthenon Enigma: A Journey into Legend, London, 2014.

D. Constantine, “The question of authenticity in some early accounts of Greece”, in G.W. Clarke (ed.), Rediscovering Hellenism: The Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination, Cambridge, 1989, p. 1–22.

I. Correa Morales, “Il Vecchio Partenone”, NAC 27 (1998), p. 47–81.

S. Darthou, “Retour à la terre : fin de la Geste d’Érechthée”, Kernos 18 (2005), p. 69–83.

C.C. Davison, Pheidias: The Sculptures & Ancient Sources (with the collaboration of B. Lundgreen; edited by G.B. Waywell), 3 vols., London, 2009 (BICS, suppl. 105).

G. Despinis, “Αρχαϊκά ηρώα με ανάγλυφες ζωφόρους”, ASAA 87 (2009), p. 349–366.

R. di Cesare, “La storia murata. Note sul significato del riutilizzo di materiali architettonici nel muro di cinta dell’Acropoli di Atene”, NAC 33 (2004), p. 99–134.

—, La città di Cecrope. Ricerche sulla politica edilizia cimoniana ad Atenem, Athens/Paestum, 2015 (Studi di Archeologia e di Topografia di Atene e dell’Attica 11).

W.B. Dinsmoor, Sr., “The Burning of the Opisthodomos at Athens 2: The Site”, AJA 36.3 (1932), p. 307–326.

—, “The Hekatompedon on the Athenian Acropolis”, AJA 51.2 (1947), p. 109–151.

W.B. Dinsmoor, Jr., The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis. Vol. 1. The Predecessors, Princeton, 1980.

E. Dodwell, A classical and topographical tour through Greece, during the years 1801, 1805, and 1806, 2 vols., London, 1819.

W. Dörpfeld, “Der alte Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis zu Athen”, MDAI(A) 10 (1885), p. 275–277.

—, “Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis”, MDAI(A) 11 (1886), p. 337–351.

—, “Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis 2: Baugeschichte”, MDAI(A) 12 (1887a), p. 25–61.

—, “Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis 3”, MDAI(A) 12 (1887b), p. 190–211.

—, “Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis 4”, MDAI(A) 15 (1890), p. 420–439.

—, “Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis 5”, MDAI(A) 22 (1897), p. 159–178.

—, “Die Zeit des älteren Parthenons”, MDAI(A) 27 (1902), p. 379–416.

—, “Zum Erechtheion”, MDAI(A) 28 (1903), p. 465–469.

—, “Zu den Bauwerken Athens”, MDAI(A) 36 (1911), p. 39–72.

—, “Das Hekatompedon in Athen”, JDAI 34 (1919), p. 1–40.

—, “Review of J.M. Paton (ed.), The Erechtheum, Cambridge, MA, 1927”, Philologische Wochenschrift 35 (1928), p. 1062–1075.

—, “Der Brand des Alten Athena-Tempels und Seines Opisthodoms”, AJA 38.2 (1934), p. 249–257.

W. Dörpfeld, H. Schleif (ed.), Erechtheion, Berlin, 1942.

H. Drerup, “Parthenon und Vorparthenon. Zum Stand der Kontroverse”, AK 24 (1981), p. 21–38.

F. Fanelli, Atene Attica: descritta da suoi principii fino all’acquisto fatto dall’Armi Venete nel 1687, Venice, 1707.

J. Fergusson, The Erechtheum and Temple of Minerva Polias at Athens, London, 1876.

G. Ferrari, “The Ancient Temple on the Acropolis at Athens”, AJA 106.1 (2002), p. 11–35.

P.-F. Foucart, “Décrets en l’honneur des éphèbes de l’année”, BCH 13 (1889), p. 253–271.

H.N. Fowler, “The Temple on the Acropolis Burnt by the Persians”, AJA 8.1 (1893), p. 1–17.

R. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography, 2 vols., Commentary, Oxford, 2013.

J.G. Frazer, Pausanias’s Description of Greece, 6 vols., London, 1898.

A. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik, Leipzig/Berlin, 1893.

A. Gansser, Schalensteine: prähistorische Kult-Objekte, Munich, 1999.

T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore/London, 1993.

H. Gerding, “The Erechtheion and the Panathenaic Procession”, AJA 110.3 (2006), p. 389–401.

—, “The stone doors of the Erechtheion”, in L. Karlsson, S. Carlsson, J.B. Kullberg (eds.), LABRYS: Studies presented to Pontus Hellström, Uppsala, 2014, p. 251–269.

K. Glowacki, “The Acropolis of Athens Before 566 B.C”, in K.J. Hartswick, M.C. Sturgeon (eds.), ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Philadelphia, 1998, p. 79–88.

P. Goeßler, Wilhelm Dörpfeld. Ein Leben im Dienst der Antike, Stuttgart, 1951.

L. Gourmelen, Kékrops, le Roi-Serpent. Imaginaire athénien, représentations de l’humain et de l’animalité en Grèce ancienne, Paris, 2004.

P. Graindor, “Parthénon et corés”, RA 11 (1938), p. 193–211.

P. Gros, A. Corso, E. Romano, Vitruvio. De Architectura, 2 vols., Turin, 1997.

A.G. Guillet, Athènes ancienne et nouvelle, et l’estat présent de l’empire des Turcs, Paris, 1675.

J.M. Hall, A History of the Archaic Greek World ca. 1200–479 BCE, 2nd ed., Hoboken, 2014.

R. Heberdey, Altattische Porosskulptur. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der archaischen griechischen Kunst, Vienna, 1919.

A. Hess, “Der Opisthom als Tresor und die Akropolis-Topographie”, Klio 28 (1935), p. 21–84.

W. Hoepfner, “Probleme der Topographie und Baugeschichte”, in W. Hoepfner (ed.) Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis. Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin, Berlin, 1997, p. 152–159.

L.B. Holland, “Erechtheum Papers. I: The Remains of the Pre-Erechtheum”, AJA 28.1 (1924a), p. 1–23.

—, “Erechtheum Papers. II: The Strong House of Erechtheus”, AJA 28.2 (1924b), p. 142–169.

—, “The Hall of the Athenian Kings”, AJA 43.2 (1939), p. 289–298.

M.B. Hollinshead, “The North Court of the Erechtheion and the Ritual of the Plynteria”, AJA 119.2 (2015), p. 177–190.

R.R. Holloway, “Peisistratus’ House”, NAC 28 (1999), p. 83–96.

B. Holtzmann, L’acropole d’Athènes : monuments, cultes et histoire du sanctuaire d’Athèna Polias, Paris, 2003.

J.J.E. Hondius, Novae Inscriptiones Atticae, Leiden, 1925.

R.J. Hopper, “Athena and the Early Acropolis”, in G.T.W. Hooker (ed.), Parthenos and Parthenon, Oxford, 1963, p. 1–16.

J.M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge, 1999.

—. The Acropolis in the Age of Pericles, Cambridge, 2004.

S. Iakovidis, Η μυκηναϊκή Ακρόπολις των Αθηνών, Athens, 1962.

K. Jeppesen, “Where Was the So-called Erechtheion?”, AJA 83.4 (1979), p. 381–394.

—, “Further Inquiries on the Location of the Erechtheion and its Relationship to the Temple of the Polias. 1. Προστομιαῖον and Προστόμιον”, AJA 87.3 (1983), p. 325–333.

—, The Theory of the Alternative Erechtheion: Premises, Definition, and Implications, Aarhus, 1987.

P. Kavvadias, “Τοπογραφικὰ Ἀθηνῶν κατὰ τὰς περὶ τὴν Ἀκρόπολιν ἀνασκαφάς”, Archaiologike Ephemeris (1897), p. 2–32.

P. Kavvadias, G. Kawerau, Die Ausgrabung der Akropolis vom Jahre 1885 bis zum Jahre 1890, Athens, 1906.

K. Kissas, Archaische Architektur der athener Akropolis. Dachziegel – Metopen – Geisa – Akroterbasen, Wiesbaden, 2008.

N.M. Kontoleon, Τὸ Ἐρέχθειον ὡς οἰκοδόμημα χθονίας λατρείας, Athens, 1949.

M. Korres, “The history of the Acropolis monuments”, in R. Economakis (ed.), Acropolis restoration: the C.C.A.M. interventions, London, 1994, p. 34–51.

—, “Τοπογραφικά ζητήματα της Ακροπόλεως”, in Αρχαιολογία της πόλης των Αθηνών: επιστημονικές – επιμορφωτικές διαλέξεις, Athens, 1996, p. 57–106.

—, “An Early Attic Ionic Capital and the Kekropion on the Athenian Acropolis”, in O. Palagia (ed.), Greek Offerings: Essays on Greek Art in Honour of John Boardman, Oxford, 1997a, p. 95–107.

—, “Die Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis”, in W. Hoepfner (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis. Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin, Berlin, 1997b, p. 218–243.

M. Korres, C. Bouras, Μελέτη αποκαταστάσεως του Παρθενώνος, Athens, 1983.

G. Körte, “Der ‘alte Tempel’ und das Hekatompedon auf der Akropolis zu Athen”, RhM 53 (1898), p. 239–269.

M. Kreeb, “The Antiquities of Athens through the Eyes of Foreign Travellers”, in Ch. Bouras, M.B. Sakellariou, K.S. Stakos, E. Touloupa (eds.), Athens: From the Classical Period to the Present Day (5th century B.C. – A.D. 2000), New Castle, 2003, p. 344–369.

U. Kron, Die Zehn attischen Phylenheroen. Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen, Berlin, 1976.

M. Lacore, “Euripide et le culte de Poseidon-Erechthée”, REA 85.3–4 (1983), p. 215–234.

J.-D. Le Roy, Les ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Grèce, 2nd ed., Paris, 1770.

W. Leake, The topography of Athens; with some remarks on its antiquities, London, 1821.

—, The topography of Athens and the Demi, vol. 1., The topography of Athens; with some remarks on its antiquities, 2nd ed., London, 1841.

A.L. Lesk, A Diachronic Examination of the Erechtheion and its Reception, Ph.D. Diss., University of Cincinnati, 2005.

A. Lindenlauf, “Constructing the memory of the Persian wars in Athens”, in A. Brysbaert, N. de Bruijn, E. Gibson, et al., SOMA 2002. Symposium in Mediterranean Archaeology. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers. University of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology, 15–17 February 2002, Oxford, 2003, p. 53–62.

E. Lippolis, “Il giuramento di Platea: gli aspetti archeologici”, in L.M. Caliò, E. Lippolis, V. Parisi, Gli Ateniesi e il loro modello di città. Seminari di Storia e Archeologia greca I, Roma 25–26 giugno 2012, Rome, 2014, p. 89–104.

J.M. Mansfield, The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos, Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1985.

J. McInerney, “Bouphonia: Killing Cattle on the Acropolis”, in A. Gardeisen, C. Chandezon (eds.), Équidés et bovidés de la Méditerranée antique Rites et combats. Jeux et savoirs, Lattes, 2014, p. 113–124.

J. Meursius, Cecropia. Sive De Athenarum arce, et ejusdem antiquitatibus, liber singularis, Leiden, 1622.

E. Meyer, W. Dörpfeld (eds.), Briefe von Heinrich Schliemann, Berlin, 1936.

M. Meyer, Athena, Göttin von Athen. Kult und Mythos auf der Akropolis bis in klassische Zeit, Vienna, 2017.

—, “To Cheat or Not to Cheat: Poseidon’s Eris with Athena in the West Pediment of the Parthenon”, Electra 4 (2018), p. 51–77.

A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon, Leipzig, 1871.

—, “ Ἀρχαῖος Νεώς. Die alten Athenatempel der Akropolis von Athen”, JDAI 17 (1902), p. 1–31.

M.M. Miles, “Burnt Temples in the Landscape of the Past”, in J. Ker, C. Pieper, Valuing the past in the Greco-Roman world: proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII, Leiden, 2014, p. 111–145.

M.C. Monaco, “L’Eretteo”, in E. Greco (ed.) Topografia di Atene. Sviluppo urbano e monumenti dalle origini al III secolo d.C., Athens/Paestum, 2009, p. 132–136.

J. Montagu [Earl of Sandwich], A Voyage Performed by the Late Earl of Sandwich Round the Mediterranean in the Years 1738 and 1739, London, 1799.

P.A. Mountjoy, Mycenaean Athens, Jonsered, 1995.

M.P. Nilsson, “The Σχῆμα Τριαίνης in the Erechtheion”, JHS 21 (1901), p. 325–333.

—, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion, 2nd ed., New York, 1950.

C. Nylander, “Die sogenannten mykenischen Säulenbasen auf der Akropolis in Athen”, OAth 4 (1962), p. 31–77.

A.K. Orlandos, Ἡ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ τοῦ Παρθενῶνος, 3 vols., Athens, 1976–1978.

M. Osanna, “Pausania sull’Acropoli. Tra l’Atena di Endoios e l’agalma caduto dal cielo”, MEFRA 113.1 (2001), p. 321–340.

J. Paga, “The claw-tooth chisel and the Hekatompedon problem. Issues of tool and technique in Archaic Athens”, MDAI(A) 127/128 (2015), p. 169–203.

—, Building Democracy in Late Archaic Athens, Oxford, 2021.

J. Pakkanen, “The Erechtheion Construction Work Inventory (IG 13 474) and the Dörpfeld Temple”, AJA 110.2 (2006), p. 275–281.

L. Pallat, “The Frieze of the Erechtheum”, AJA 16.2 (1912), p. 175–202.

—, “Der Fries der Nordhalle des Erechtheion”, JDAI 50 (1935), p. 79–137.

—, “Zum Friese der Nordhalle des Erechtheion”, JDAI 52 (1937), p. 17–29.

N. Papachatzis, “The Cult of Erechtheus and Athena on the Acropolis of Athens”, Kernos 2 (1989), p. 175–185.

J.K. Papadopoulos, Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora, Princeton, 2003 (Hesperia, suppl. 31).

R. Parker, “Myths of Early Athens”, in J. Bremmer, Interpretations of Greek Mythology, London, 1987, p. 187–214.

J.M. Paton, H.N. Fowler, L.D. Caskey, “Description of the Erechtheum”, in J.M. Paton (ed.), The Erechtheum, Cambridge, MA, 1927, p. 3–180.

J.M. Paton, “The History of the Erechtheum”, in J.M. Paton (ed.), The Erechtheum, Cambridge, MA, 1927a, p. 423–581.

— (ed.), The Erechtheum, Cambridge, MA, 1927b.

, Mediaeval and Renaissance visitors to Greek lands, Princeton, 1951 (Gennadeion Monographs 3).

A. Pautasso, “Tra Skira e Buphonia: dove cercare l’Eretteo?”, Cronache di Archeologia 33 (1994), p. 85–102.

F.C. Penrose, An Investigation of the principles of Athenian Architecture, or the results of a recent survey conducted chiefly with reference to the optical refinements exhibited in the construction of the ancient buildings at Athens. London, 1851.

—, An Investigation of the principles of Athenian Architecture, or the results of a recent survey conducted chiefly with reference to the optical refinements exhibited in the construction of the ancient buildings at Athens, 2nd ed., London, 1888.

E. Petersen, “Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis. II. Baugeschichte”, MDAI(A) 12 (1887), p. 62–72.

C. Picard, L’Acropole. L’enceinte, l’entrée, le bastion d’Athéna Niké, les Propylées, Paris, 1929.

V. Pirenne-Delforge, “Le lexique des lieux de culte dans la Périégèse de Pausanias”, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 10 (2008), p. 137–172.

—, “Un oikèma appelé Érechtheion (Pausanias, I, 26, 5)”, in P. Carlier, C. Lerouge-Cohen (eds.), Paysage et religion en Grèce antique. Mélanges offerts à Madeleine Jost, Paris, 2010, p. 147–163.

K.S. Pittakis [Pittakys], L’ancienne Athènes, ou la description des antiquités d’Athènes et ses environs, Athens, 1835.

—, “Σημειώσεις ἐπὶ τῶν Λιθογραφημάτων”, Archaiologike Ephemeris (1839), p. 144–166.

H. Plommer, “The Archaic Acropolis: Some Problems”, JHS 80 (1960), p. 127–159.

S. Pomardi, Viaggio nella Grecia fatto da Simone Pomardi negli anni 1804, 1805, e 1806, Rome, 1820.

A.R. Rangavis, “Συνοπτικὴ ἔκθεσις τῆς τυχῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων μνημείων εἰς τὴν Ἐλλάδα κατὰ τὰ τελευταία ἔτη”, Archaiologike Ephemeris (1837a), p. 5–13.

—, “Σημειώσεις ἐπὶ τῶν λιθογραφημάτων”, Archaiologike Ephemeris (1837b), p. 30–36.

— [Rangabé], Antiquités helléniques ou répertoire d’inscriptions et d’autres antiquités découvertes depuis l’affranchissement de la Grèce, 2 vols., Athens, 1842.

J. Ray, A Collection of Curious Travels and Voyages, 2 vols., London, 1693.

E. Rey, A.M. Chenavard, J.-M. Dalgabio, Voyage pittoresque en Grèce et dans le Levant fait en 1843–1844, 2 vols., Lyon, 1867.

R.F. Rhodes, Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge, 1995.

P.J. Rhodes, R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC, Oxford, 2007.

B.S. Ridgway, “Images of Athena on the Akropolis”, in J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, Hanover, NH, 1992, p. 118–142.

H. Riemann, “Der peisistratidische Athenatempel auf der Akropolis zu Athen”, MDAI 3 (1950), p. 7–39.

N. Robertson, “The Riddle of the Arrhephoria at Athens”, HSPh 87 (1983), p. 241–288.

—, “Athena’s Shrines and Festivals”, in J. Neils (ed.), Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon, Madison, 1996, p. 27–77.

L. Ross, Archäologische Aufsätze. Erste Sammlung, Leipzig, 1855.

S.A. Rous, Reset in Stone: Memory and Reuse in Ancient Athens, Madison, 2019.

F. Santi, I frontoni arcaici dell’Acropoli di Atene, Rome, 2010 (Supplementi e Monografie della Rivista Archaeologia Classica 4).

T.S. Scheer, Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Munich, 2000 (Zetemata 105).

H. Schliemann, Bericht über meine Ausgrabungen im böotischen Orchomenos, Leipzig, 1881.

A. Scholl, Die Korenhalle des Erechtheion auf der Akropolis. Frauen für den Staat, Frankfurt am Main, 1998.

G. Seure, Monuments antiques relevés et restaurés par les architectes pensionnaires de l’Académie de France à Rome, 3 vols., Paris, 1912.

H.A. Shapiro, “Autochthony and the Visual Arts in Fifth-Century Athens”, in D. Boedeker, K.A. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, Cambridge, MA., 1998, p. 127–151.

T.L. Shear, Jr., Trophies of Victory: Public Building in Periklean Athens, Princeton, 2016.

E.P. Sioumpara, “Η νέα αναπαράσταση του « Εκατομπέδου » ναού με βάση τα διάσπαρτα πώρινα αρχιτεκτονικά μέλη της Ακρόπολης”, in C. Bouras, V. Eleftheriou (eds.), 6th International Meeting for the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments. Proceedings. Athens, 4–5 October 2013, Athens, 2015, p. 247–266.

—, “A new Reconstruction for the archaic Parthenon, the archaic Acropolis and the evolution of Greek architecture revisited”, Bulletin of the société française d’archéologie classique (XLVI 2014–2015) in RA 2016, p. 196–205.

—, “Zahneisen – Werkspuren und ihre Bedeutung für die Topographie der archaischen Akropolis von Athen”, in D. Kurapkat, U. Wulf-Rheidt (eds.), Werkspuren. Materialverarbeitung und handwerkliches Wissen im antiken Bauwesen, Regensburg, 2017, p. 41–62.

—, “Managing the Debris. Spoliation of Architecture and Dedications on the Acropolis after the Persian Destruction”, in O. Palagia, E.P. Sioumpara (eds.), From Hippias to Kallias. Greek Art from 527 to 449 B.C., Athens, 2019, p. 31–51.

F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris, 1969.

C. Sourvinou-Inwood, R. Parker, Athenian Myths and Festivals: Aglauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia, Oxford, 2011.

B.S. Spaeth, “Athenians and Eleusinians in the West Pediment of the Parthenon”, Hesperia 60 (1991), p. 331–361.

J. Spon, G. Wheler, Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant: fait aux années 1675 et 1676, 3 vols., Lyon, 1678.

K. Stähler, “Zur Rekonstruktion und Datierung des Gigantomachiegiebels von der Akropolis”, in Antike und Universalgeschichte: Festschrift Hans Erich Stier zum 70. Geburtstag am 25. Mai 1972, Münster, 1972, p. 88–112.

—, Form und Funktion. Kunstwerke als politisches Ausdrucksmittel, Münster, 1993 (EIKON 2).

K. Stathi, “The Carta Incognita of Ottoman Athens”, in M. Hadjianastasis (ed.) Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination: Studies in Honour of Rhoads Murphey, Leiden, 2014, p. 168–184.

E.M. Stern, “Das Haus des Erechtheus”, Boreas 9 (1986), p. 51–64.

M. Steskal, Der Zerstörungsbefund 480/79 der Athener Akropolis. Eine Fallstudie zum etablierten Chronologiegerüst, Hamburg, 2004.

G.P. Stevens, “The Periclean Entrance Court of the Acropolis of Athens”, Hesperia 5.4 (1936), p. 443–520.

—, The Setting of the Periclean Parthenon, Princeton, 1940 (Hesperia, suppl. 3).

A. Stewart, 2008. “The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions of 480 B.C.E. and the Beginning of the Classical Style: Part 1, the Stratigraphy, Chronology, and Significance of the Acropolis Deposits”, AJA 112.3 (2008), p. 377–412.

R.S. Stroud, “Adolf Wilhelm and the Date of the Hekatompedon Decrees”, in A.P. Matthaiou (ed.), Αττικαί επιγραφαί: πρακτικά συμποσίου εις μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm (1864–1950), Athens, 2004, p. 85–97.

J. Stuart, N. Revett, The Antiquities of Athens, vol. 2, rev. ed., London, 1825.

J.M. Tétaz, “Mémoire explicatif et justificatif de la restauration de l’Érechtheion d’Athènes”, RA 8.1 (1851), p. 81–96.

J. Travlos, Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Athen, Tübingen, 1971.

F. van den Eijnde, “Invention of Tradition in Cult and Myth at Eleusis”, in I.S. Lemos, A. Tsingarida (eds.), Beyond the Polis: Rituals, Rites, and Cults in Early and Archaic Greece (12th–6th Centuries BC), Brussels, 2019 (Études d’Archéologie 15), p. 99–114.

J.Z. van Rookhuijzen, “The Parthenon Treasury on the Acropolis of Athens”, AJA 124.1 (2020), p. 3–35.

J. Vanden Broeck-Parant, “Pausanias au sanctuaire de Poséidon à l’Isthme : topographie littéraire et paysage archéologique”, AC 91 (2022, forthcoming).

P. Vannicelli, “Il giuramento di Platea: aspetti storici e storiografici”, in L.M. Caliò, E. Lippolis, V. Parisi, Gli Ateniesi e il loro modello di città. Seminari di Storia e Archeologia greca I, Roma 25–26 giugno 2012, Rome, 2014, p. 77–88.

F. von Duhn, “Ein Bericht über Athen aus dem Jahre 1687”, AZ 36 (1878), p. 55–65.

C.H. Weller, Athens and its Monuments, New York, 1913.

M. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, Leipzig, 2001.

G. Wheler, J. Spon, A journey into Greece by George Wheler, Esq., in company of Dr. Spon of Lyons in six books, with variety of sculptures, London, 1682.

T. Wiegand, Die archaische Poros-architektur der Akropolis zu Athen, mit unterstützung aus der Eduard Gerhard-stiftung der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kassel/Leipzig, 1904.

A. Wilhelm, “Ἀττικὰ ψηφίσματα”, Archaiologike Ephemeris (1905), p. 215–252.

H.W. Williams, Select Views in Greece with Classical Illustrations, 2 vols., London/Edinburgh, 1829.

W. Wilkins, Atheniensia, or, Remarks on the Topography and Buildings of Athens, London, 1816.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Hom. Il. 2.547 (μεγαλήτωρ). On the mythology of Erechtheus, see Parker (1987), p. 193–205; Fowler (2013), vol. 2, p. 448–453, 458–459, 464–468; Meyer (2017), p. 244–267. For representations of Erechtheus in art, see LIMC 4.1, p. 923–951 [U. Kron].

2 e.g. Amm. Marc. 16.1.5; Aristid. Panathenaicus, 192.21–28; Hdt. 8.55; Hom. Il. 2.546–551; Nonn. Dion. 13.171–174, 27.113–117, 27.321–323; Xen. Mem. 3.5.10.

3 e.g. Aristid. Panathenaicus, 118.32–33; Eur. Erechtheus; Isoc. 12.192–193; Lycurg. 1.98–100; Paus. 1.5.2; Thuc. 2.15.1; Xen. Mem. 3.5.10.

4 [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.196; Athenagoras, Leg. 1.1; Eur. Erechtheus, fr. 65.93–94 in Austin (1968); Hsch. s.v. Ἐρεχθεύς; Paus. 1.26.5; [Plut.], X Orat. 843b–c; IG I3 873 (ca. 450); IG II2 1146 (middle of the fourth century), lines 2–3; 3538 (54–68 AD), lines 9–10; 4071 (middle of the second century AD), lines 26–27; 5058 (first century AD). Cf. Kontoleon (1949), p. 23–27; Kron (1976), p. 48–52; Lacore (1983); Christopoulos (1994); Darthou (2005); Meyer (2017), p. 244–250.

5 Kron (1976), p. 52–55.

6 e.g. Amelesagoras, FGrHist 330 F 1 (Antig. Car. Historiarum mirabilium collectio, 12.2); Androtion, FGrHist 324 F 2 (Harp. s.v. Παναθήναια); [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.189–191; Eratosth. Cat. 1.13; Eur. Ion, 20–21, p. 267–268; Hellanicus, FGrHist 324 F 39 (Harp. s.v. Παναθήναια); Hyg. Astr. 2.13; Isoc. 12.126; Luc. De domo, 27; Philops. 3; Paus. 1.2.6; 1.18.2; IG XII.5 444 (263/2), lines 17–18; XIV 1389 (161 CE), lines 89–90. For representations of the myth of Erichthonios in art, see LIMC 4.1, p. 923–951 [U. Kron]; Kron (1976), p. 55–72; Brulé (1987), p. 53–58, 68–79; Shapiro (1998), p. 133–145; Meyer (2017), p. 274–279, 363–369.

7 On the relation of Erechtheus and Erichthonios, see Kron (1976), p. 37–39; Brulé (1987), p. 15–18; Parker (1987), p. 200–201; Gantz (1993), p. 233; Christopoulos (1994), p. 125–126; Gourmelen (2004), p. 125–126; Brinkmann (2016a), p. 22–23; Meyer (2017), p. 264–267, 362, 414.

8 Jeppesen (1979); (1983); (1987); Mansfield (1985), p. 245–252; Ridgway (1992), p. 126–127; Pautasso (1994); Robertson (1996), p. 37–42; Pirenne-Delforge (2010). On the problem, see Hurwit (1999), p. 200–202; (2004) p. 164–168; Hollinshead (2015), p. 177.

9 Nilsson (1950), p. 563. Graindor (1938), p. 209, and Boardman (2002), p. 46, posited that the strong house of Erechtheus, mentioned in the Odyssey (7.81), was in antiquity recognized in the ruins of the Dörpfeld Temple. Cf. infra n. 114.

10 e.g. Furtwängler (1893), p. 155–162; Riemann (1950); Lacore (1983), p. 222–227; Childs (1994), p. 1; Hurwit (1999), p. 122–123; Holtzmann (2003), p. 163–164; Monaco (2010), p. 132; Connelly (2014), p. 68–69; Paga (2021), p. 43. The information available on signposting on the Acropolis itself in 2020 adheres to this view. Meyer (2017), p. 90–93, states that the Dörpfeld Temple’s west half may have been used for unidentified cultic companions of Athena, but prefers to see it as a treasure store. Cf. Dörpfeld (1919), p. 4, 33; (1928), p. 1065; Weller (1913), p. 316–317.

11 West (2001), p. 180, considered the lines suspect: “There is nothing comparable in the rest of the Catalogue, and it is hard to believe that Athens in the early or mid seventh century was of sufficient importance to an Ionian poet to have prompted this digression. I have therefore bracketed these five lines, assuming them to have replaced the original list of towns.” Cf. Kron (1976), p. 32–37; Parker (1987), p. 193–194; Hall (2014), p. 247.

12 Ferrari (2002), p. 16, n. 29.

13 On the tragedy’s reference to the Acropolis, see Brown (1984), p. 274.

14 On the association of the passage with the Erechtheion, see Clairmont (1971); Jeppesen (1979), p. 383; (1987), p. 35–37; Lacore (1983), p. 222–227; Sourvinou-Inwood – Parker (2011), p. 80–83; Connelly (2014), p. 140; Shear (2016), p. 374–375.

15 Eur. Ion, 568, 791, 966, 1036, 1057, 1069, 1291, 1293, 1303, 1541, 1542.

16 Eur. Ion, 810, 814, 838, 1021, 1273.

17 Eur. Ion, 476, 486.

18 Eur. Ion, 607, 841, 865, 1058–1059 (v.l.), 1073, 1562, 1620.

19 Cf. Isid. Etym. 15.4.9.

20 Himerius certainly refers to the Erechtheion because Poseidon was on the Acropolis equated with Erechtheus and did not have any other presence here (supra n. 4).

21 On the occasional synonymy of σηκός and τέμενος, see Poll. Onom. 1.7.

22 e.g. the Kraneion near Corinth featured a temenos of Bellerophontes, a temple of Aphrodite Melainis, and a grave of Laïs (Paus. 2.2.4). The Aiakeion on Aegina was a quadrangular enclosure of white stone (Paus. 2.29.6). The Altis at Olympia included the Pelopion, a temenos with trees and statues (Paus. 5.13.1) and the Hippodameion, a plot of land surrounded by a wall (Paus. 6.20.7). The Poseidonion near Myonia was a temenos with a temple (Paus. 10.38.8).

23 Meursius (1622), p. 52–57.

24 Amm. Marc. 16.1.5; [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.190–191; Aristid. Panathenaicus, 107.10 (with scholia), 119.19; Arn. 6.6.3; Clem. Protr. 3.45; Hdt. 5.82; Hom. Il. 2.546–551; Od. 7.81; Hsch. s.v. οἰκουρὸν ὄφιν; Plut. Quaest. Conv. 9.6 (= 741a–b); IG XIV 1389, lines 89–90. Cf. Kontoleon (1949), p. 3–7; Hurwit (1999), p. 202; (2004), p. 167–168.

25 Spon – Wheler (1678), vol. 2, p. 159–160; Wheler – Spon (1682), p. 364–365.

26 Spon – Wheler (1678), vol. 2, p. 161; vol. 3, p. 62–63; Wheler – Spon (1682), p. 337, 447. Cf. Fanelli (1707), p. 321.

27 In Spon’s account, it seems to be suggested that the structure with the sculpted women encompassed both the Temple of Athena Polias and the Temple of Pandrosos. In Wheler’s slightly divergent work, it is stated that these temples were no longer extant. Fanelli (1707), p. 322, also identified the Karyatids as Graces. Cf. Paton (1927a), p. 530–532; Lesk (2005), p. 439–442.

28 Infra n. 34, 39.

29 Supra n. 10.

30 On the evidence for interior walls, see Paton et al. (1927), p. 146–161. Paton et al. (1927), p. 151–161, regarded four stone doors mentioned at IG I3 474, lines 194–199 as evidence for two compartments in the building’s west half. For a different explanation of the doors, see Gerding (2014).

31 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 1, 75; 475 (409/8), lines 269–270.

32 Cf. Plut. Num. 14.4.

33 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 45, 170, 177; 475 (409/8), lines 131, 258.

34 e.g. Boetticher (1863), p. 13; Dörpfeld (1887a), p. 57–61; (1904), p. 103; Petersen (1887), p. 62–64; Nilsson (1901), p. 331–332; Paton (1927a), p. 424–425, 456–457, 482–483; Kontoleon (1949), p. 81–84, p. 88; Hopper (1963), p. 3–4; Bundgaard (1976), p. 85; Kron (1976), p. 41–44; Stern (1986); Rhodes (1995), p. 131; Hoepfner (1997), p. 158–159; Sourvinou-Inwood – Parker (2011), p. 72–73; Shear (2016), p. 382–384; Meyer (2017), p. 47–59.

35 Nilsson (1901), p. 325; Meyer (2017), p. 262–263.

36 I owe this insight to Patrik Klingborg.

37 Boetticher (1863), p. 196, identified it with a chasm in the Karyatid Temple’s central part. Dörpfeld (1934), p. 255 and (1942), p. 27, 36–49, regarded the great post-antique cistern in the west half as the site of the sea. Meyer (2017), p. 58–59, 262–263, 300, argues that there was an ancient well doubling as the trident sign in the north part of the Karyatid Temple’s west half. It would have originated as an artificial pit marking the place of Erechtheus’ birth that was only later filled with water, when it became a cult site of Poseidon. However, there is neither material nor textual evidence for this proposal.

38 Jeppesen (1979), p. 384. For the remains, see Paton et al. (1927), p. 169–171.

39 Stuart – Revett (1825), p. 59, 70–71; Fergusson (1876), p. 5; Travlos (1971), p. 213; Papachatzis (1989), p. 181–182; Robertson (1996), p. 32; Gerding (2006), p. 396–397. Cf. Lesk (2005), p. 98, 159–161.

40 e.g. Dörpfeld (1919); Osanna (2001), p. 338–339; Ferrari (2002), p. 15; Davison (2009), vol. 1, p. 569–570; Lippolis (2014), p. 100–102; Rous (2019), p. 84–106. Cf. Connelly (2014), p. 228, 230, 252.

41 Pakkanen (2006).

42 Le Roy (1770), p. 11–12; Montagu (1799), p. 64–65. Cf. Rinaldo de la Rue in a 1687 report cited in von Duhn (1878), p. 59–60. A related early view was that the Karyatid Temple was divided into the Temple of Athena Polias and the Temple of Pandrosos and called “Erechtheion” as a whole: Wilkins (1816), p. 129–130, 141–142; Dodwell (1819), vol. 1, p. 346–357; Leake (1821), p. 257–260; (1841), p. 574–592.

43 Supra n. 8. Scholars who identify the entire Karyatid Temple with the Erechtheion (supra n. 40) also follow this reading of Pausanias.

44 Pirenne-Delforge (2010). On Pausanias’ use of the term ναός, see Pirenne-Delforge (2008), p. 151–154.

45 Supra n. 24.

46 Jeppesen (1987), p. 25–27; Pautasso [1994], p. 88.

47 Infra n. 66.

48 Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.190–191) says that Erichthonios was nursed and buried in Athena’s temenos. Ammianus Marcellinus (16.1.5) says that Erechtheus was reared in Athena’s private room. Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 3.45) and Arnobius (6.6.3) place Erichthonios’ burial place in the Temple of Athena Polias. IG XIV 1389, lines 89–90, refers to Athena placing Erichthonios in her temple.

49 Jeppesen (1987), p. 25–54.

50 Statue: supra n. 31. Pandroseion: supra n. 33. Altar of Thyechoos: infra n. 59. Cf. Paton (1927a), p. 456; Jeppesen (1987), p. 7–10.

51 Paton (1927a), p. 488, stated that Pausanias’ words imply that he referred to the whole building as the Temple of Athena Polias.

52 On the identification of the Vitruvius’ temple of Pallas Minerva with the Karyatid Temple, see Gros et al. (1997), vol. 1, p. 512–515. Cf. Paton (1927a), p. 476–478; Meyer (2017), p. 45, n. 294.

53 Pausanias (1.22.8, 9.35.3, 9.35.6) refers to Socrates’ statues of Graces near the Propylaea. These statues are also referred to in Diog. Laert. 2.19 and Sud. s.v. Σωκράτης, yet without a clear indication of their location. Pausanias’ passage gained fame through the work of Natalis Comes (Comes [1567], p. 129), which may be the inspiration for Spon and Wheler’s identification of the Karyatids as the Graces (supra n. 27).

54 Tétaz (1851), p. 90; Penrose (1851), p. 76; Archaiologikos Syllogos (1853), p. 7–8; Dörpfeld (1903), p. 467–469; (1942), p. 25; Paton et al. (1927), p. 89, 104–110. Cf. Meyer (2017), p. 57, n. 408 (with earlier literature). Nilsson (1901), p. 326–327 identified the “shape of a trident” with a carving that resembles a trident in the bedrock near the north wall of the Karyatid Temple.

55 Dörpfeld (1903), p. 468.

56 Nilsson (1901), p. 325–329; Paton et al. (1927), p. 104–110. Boetticher (1863), p. 192–193, thought that the crypt dates to the Ottoman period and was used as a cesspit.

57 Paton et al. (1927), p. 89.

58 Kron (1976), p. 44–48. On cup marks generally, see Gansser (1999).

59 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 77–80, 202; 476 (408/7), line 220.

60 IG II2 5026 (Hadrianic period).

61 Cf. Kontoleon (1949), p. 20–21.

62 Phot. s.v. θυηχόοι: οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων θύοντες τοῖς θεοῖς (“the priests who offer to the gods on behalf of others”); Hsch. s.v. θυηκόοι: ἱερεῖς (“priests”).

63 Jeppesen (1979), p. 381. Doubt was earlier expressed by Boetticher (1863), p. 190–193; Nilsson (1901), p. 325–327; Paton (1927a), p. 483, 490–491.

64 Jeppesen (1979), p. 385, 389–390.

65 Kavvadias (1897), p. 25; Kron (1976), p. 43–44; Meyer (2017), p. 57–59, 263–264, 300. The myth of the divine contest, first attested in Herodotus (8.55) and the west pediment of the Great Temple, could be a fifth-century invention (Meyer [2017], p. 395). Cf. Parker (1987), p. 198–200.

66 Parker (1987), p. 202–203; Brinkmann (2016a), p. 32–34. Euripides’ Erechtheus and vase paintings combine the two myths (Meyer [2017], p. 395–415). Spaeth (1991) and Brinkmann (2016b), p. 53, argue that the west pediment of the Great Temple combines the narratives by showing Athena and Poseidon in the center, with Erechtheus and his entourage in the left wing and possibly Eumolpos in the right wing. A scholiast on Aristid. Panathenaicus, 107.10 says that Erechtheus was depicted driving a chariot ὀπίσω [τῆς θεοῦ] (“behind the goddess”). For a different view, see Meyer (2017), p. 394–402; (2018).

67 Kavvadias (1897), p. 15–16, 24–26 identified the gap in the earth into which Erechtheus disappeared with a fissure with a diameter of 2 m and a depth between 1.90–2.65 m in front of the cave of Pan. Cf. Picard (1929), p. 13–15; pl. 11.

68 e.g. 38°1’36.50” N 23°38’36.21” E (north of the road); 37°59’48.88” N 23°37’9.23” E (south of the road). Viewsheds that can be generated in Google Earth Pro reveal that both the archaeological site of Eleusis and the Makrai are visible from these locations.

69 From Pausanias’ brief reference to the trident mark, it cannot be certainly inferred that he saw it in or close to the Erechtheion. Like Strabo (9.1.16), Pausanias may have used the word πέτρα to designate the Acropolis as a whole. His sighting of Poseidon’s sea in the Erechtheion could have prompted him to mention the trident mark that he had seen elsewhere. Pausanias does mention the cave of Apollo Hypakraios (1.28.4) at the Makrai. The textual lacuna here could have contained another reference to the trident mark.

70 Jeppesen (1979), p. 393. He later conjectured that this compartment also belonged to Athena or to her foster son Erichthonios: Jeppesen (1983), p. 332: “private quarters of Athena”; (1987), p. 53.

71 Van Rookhuijzen (2020).

72 Van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 31–32. Cf. Bernard (1996), p. 496–503.

73 Supra n. 33.

74 Meyer (2017), p. 68–70 (with earlier literature). Fergusson (1876), p. 3–10, was the first to propose that the Pandroseion was situated west of the Karyatid Temple.

75 Pirenne-Delforge (2008), p. 151–154.

76 e.g. Francis Vernon in a letter to Mr. Oldenburg from 1675/6, recorded in Ray (1693), vol. 2, p. 24; Rinaldo de la Rue in a 1687 report cited in von Duhn (1878), p. 59–60; Le Roy (1770), p. 11–12; Chandler (1776), p. 55; Montagu (1799), p. 64–65; Wilkins (1816), p. 129–130, 141–142; Dodwell (1819), vol. 1, p. 346–357; Leake (1821), p. 258–260; Boettiger (1825); Stuart – Revett (1825), p. 61–64; Pittakis (1835), p. 399; Rangavis (1837a), p. 12; Tétaz (1851), p. 86–87, 90; Boetticher (1863), p. 193, 201. On the suffix -(ε)ιον, see supra n. 22.

77 Pallat (1912), p. 191–202; (1935); (1937).

78 Cf. LIMC 4.1, p. 923–951 s.v. “Erechtheus” [U. Kron]; Brinkmann (2016b), p. 35–36.

79 Cf. infra n. 85.

80 Vanden Broeck-Parant (2021), discussing Pausanias’ description of the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia (2.1.7), shows that litotes is common in Pausanias’ stylistic repertoire and that it has the value of the non-negated opposite term.

81 e.g. Mansfield (1985), p. 265–66, 276–77; Meyer (2017), p. 279, 283.

82 Supra n. 48.

83 Cf. Aesch. Eum. 833, 916. Nonnus (Dion. 13.171–174, 27.113–117, 27.321–323) associates the upbringing of Erechtheus with an enclosure in Athena’s Parthenon.

84 Jeppesen (1979); (1987).

85 Stevens (1936), p. 489–491. On the problem of the structure’s identification with the house of the Arrephoroi, see Jeppesen (1979), p. 386–387; (1987), p. 13–14, 22–24. Cf. Robertson (1983), p. 253; Brulé (1987), p. 90–91.

86 Broneer (1939); Travlos (1971), p. 72–75; Bundgaard (1976), p. 32–33; Jeppesen (1979), p. 386, 390–392; (1987), p. 12–18; Hurwit (1999), p. 78–79, 199–200.

87 Mansfield (1985), p. 245–252; Pautasso (1994). I am grateful to Patricia Marx for attending me to Pautasso’s article.

88 McInerney (2014), p. 116.

89 Robertson (1996), p. 37–42. Shrine of Pandion: IG II2 1144 (beginning of the fourth century), line 9; 1140 (ca. 386/5), lines 18–19; 1148 (before the middle of the fourth century), lines 13–14; 1157 (326/5), lines 14–15; 1152 (end of the fourth century), lines 12–13.

90 [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.178; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14.2.1–2; Hdt. 8.55; Paus. 1.27.2; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 67. For epigraphical references to the Pandroseion, see supra n. 33.

91 Bundgaard (1976), p. 85–91; Mansfield (1985), p. 217, 255. Other sacred structures with olive trees include the tomb of the Hyperborean virgins at Delos (Hdt. 4.34) and the tomb of Ino at Megara (Paus. 1.42.7).

92 Paga (2015), p. 188.

93 For the comparison with other temple plans, see Childs (1994), p. 1–2.

94 Paga (2015).

95 Spon – Wheler (1678), vol. 2, p. 159–160; Wheler – Spon (1682), p. 364. Cf. Penrose (1851), p. 4. Ancient ruins in this area are depicted in a romanticizing drawing of the Karyatid porch (1813) by Louis-François Cassas in the Benaki Museum, Athens.

96 Illustrations in Stuart – Revett (1825), pl. 18; pl. 19, fig. 1; Pomardi (1820), after p. 124; Dodwell (1819), vol. 1, after p. 356; Williams (1829), vol. 1, p. 5; Ippolito Caffi’s Il Partenone (1843; Ca’ Pesaro Galleria Internazionale d’Arte Moderna, Venice).

97 Rangavis (1837a), p. 12; Ross (1855), p. 121–123; Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 10; Seure (1912), p. 1, pl. 36; Paton et al. (1927), p. 81, 395; Paton (1927a), p. 564–565.

98 Leake (1841), unnumbered Acropolis map; Rey et al. (1867), pl. 24.

99 Archaiologikos Syllogos (1853), p. 3.

100 Boetticher (1863), p. 206–208.

101 Infra n. 158.

102 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 32.

103 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84.

104 Dörpfeld (1885); (1886); (1887a); (1887b); (1890); (1897).

105 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906). Extensive discussion in Carpenter (1970), p. 26–28; Steskal (2004), p. 49–65; Stewart (2008), p. 393–406.

106 Wiegand (1904). For measurements of blocks attributed to both temples, see Paga (2015), p. 188, table 1.

107 See e.g. Wiegand (1904), p. 72–107, 214–227; Heberdey (1919); Stewart (2008), p. 399–401; Santi (2010).

108 Paga (2015), p. 193.

109 Wiegand (1904), p. 118–119. More fragments were added by Kissas (2008), p. 56–98.

110 e.g. Stähler (1972), p. 101–123; Childs (1994); Stewart (2008), p. 382–383 n. 23; Paga (2015), p. 176, n. 31; (2021), p. 43.

111 Paga (2021), p. 43 n. 33.

112 e.g. Wiegand (1904), p. 49–55; Plommer (1960), p. 129–134, 140–159; Boersma (1970), p. 13–14, 20–21, 180–181; Bundgaard (1976), p. 118–120; Orlandos (1976–1978), vol. 2, p. 33–40; Childs (1994), p. 1; Holloway (1999), p. 86–88; Kissas (2008), p. 99–110; Paga (2015), p. 175–193; (2021), p. 33–43.

113 e.g. Dinsmoor (1947), p. 109–118; Dinsmoor (1980), p. 28; Korres (1997b), p. 225–236; Correa Morales (1998), p. 65–66, 69; di Cesare (2004), p. 103; Stewart (2008), p. 401; Sioumpara (2015); (2016); (2017); Meyer (2017), p. 115–118. Cf. Santi (2010), p. 80–84.

114 Letter from Schliemann to Brockhaus of 1 November 1885, published in Meyer – Dörpfeld (1936), p. 250; Dörpfeld (1919), p. 3–4; (1928), p. 1065. Cf. Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84; Goeßler (1951), p. 58.

115 Dörpfeld (1885). In addition, he located here the Hekatompedon temple destroyed by the Persians and mentioned by Hesychius (s.v. ἑκατόνπεδος).

116 Praxiergidai decree: IG I3 7, line 6. Other references include IG II2 983 (middle of the second century), line 6; Strabo 9.1.16. For more attestations, see van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 20–24.

117 Cf. Fowler (1893), p. 1: “Dörpfeld’s results must be accepted as final and certain.” For dissenters, see infra n. 125.

118 Supra n. 40, 41.

119 e.g. Bates (1901); Paton et al. (1927), p. 446–478; Dinsmoor (1932); Hoepfner (1997), p. 153–154; Hurwit (1999), p. 143–145; (2004), p. 166; Gerding (2006), p. 389–391; Meyer (2017), p. 90–93; Paga (2021), p. 37, n. 16, 48.

120 Boersma (1970), p. 51; Korres – Bouras (1983), p. 131; Bundgaard (1976), p. 134–136; Drerup (1981), p. 32–33; Hurwit (1999), p. 142; di Cesare (2004), p. 120; (2015), p. 135.

121 Diod. Sic. 11.29.1–4; Lycurg. Leoc. 81; Paus. 10.35.2–3. Cf. Aesch. Pers. 809–812. An epigraphical copy of the oath from Acharnes (Rhodes – Osborne [2007], p. 440–448) does not include the clausula about destroyed temples. Theopompus (FGrHist 115 F 153) doubted the authenticity of the oath. Cf. Stähler (1993), p. 4–6; Scheer (2000), p. 201; Steskal (2004), p. 212–216; Lippolis (2014); Vannicelli (2014); Shear (2016), p. 8–9; Rous (2019), p. 99–102.

122 Drerup (1981), p. 32–33; Ferrari (2002), p. 12–14, 26, 29; Lindenlauf (2003), p. 55–56; Steskal (2004), p. 214; Rous (2019), p. 99–102; van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 26–27. On destroyed temples in Greek rhetoric, see Scheer (2000), p. 209–211; Miles (2014), p. 126–133.

123 e.g. Dörpfeld (1886), p. 339–340; (1897), p. 164–170; Dinsmoor (1932), p. 314; Meyer (2017), p. 90–93.

124 Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84.

125 Frazer (1898), vol. 2, p. 331, 564–570; Körte (1898), p. 242; Michaelis (1902), p. 1, 10–11; Hondius (1925), p. 76–84; Paton (1927a), p. 434–492; Holland (1939), p. 298; van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 21.

126 Van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 12–17 (with earlier literature).

127 Nilsson (1950), p. 498–503, argued that Athena originated as “house-goddess of the Mycenaean king” in a smaller shrine to the north of the Dörpfeld foundation.

128 Dörpfeld (1919), p. 30–31. I tentatively suggest that the cutting may have served the altar of Zeus Hypatos that Pausanias saw in front of the Erechtheion, but there is no evidence for this proposal to the exclusion of other solutions.

129 On the uncertainty that the Gigantomachy pediment belonged with the Dörpfeld Temple, see Stähler (1972), p. 99, 108.

130 In Euripides’ Ion (206–218), Kreousa’s servants admire the scene of Athena slaying the giant Enkelados depicted on a pediment of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

131 Cf. Lacore (1983), p. 225.

132 The older remains underneath the Karyatid Temple were investigated by Holland (1924a); (1924b). Cf. van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 26–27 (with earlier literature). Elsewhere in Greece, Pausanias saw several shrines encapsulated in new structures: the temple of Demeter Mysia between Mycenae and Argos (2.18.3) and the temple of Poseidon Hippios near Mantineia (8.10.2).

133 Supra n. 10.

134 Cf. Leake (1821), p. 268–269.

135 Cf. Nilsson (1950), p. 563.

136 Supra n. 90.

137 Austin (1967). Meyer (2017), p. 65–66, recognizes that Euripides’ description does not fit the Karyatid Temple as it appears today and therefore suggests that Euripides referred to a hypothetical open-air temenos in the area later occupied by the Karyatid Temple’ west half. However, this location was rather known as the Parthenon and Pandroseion (supra n. 71, 73).

138 The adjective λάϊνος, deriving from λάας (the kind of rock used in catapults and by Sisyphus) may have been chosen for purely poetic reasons, but indicates stones that were cruder than ashlar building blocks. For references, see LSJ Online, s.v. λάας; λάϊνος.

139 Leake (1821), p. 257, remarked that Pausanias’ account of the Erechtheion is “a remarkable instance of his want of method and logical consistency”.

140 Jeppesen (1987), p. 19–20.

141 Supra n. 22.

142 On the mythology of Kekrops, see Parker (1987), p. 193; Gantz (1993), p. 235–239; Gourmelen (2004); Fowler (2013), vol. 2, p. 447–453; Meyer (2017), p. 288–292. For literature on and pictorial representations of Kekrops, see LIMC 6.1, p. 1084–91 [I. Kasper-Butz/I. Krauskopf/B. Knittlmayer]; Kron (1976), p. 99–101; Gourmelen (2004), p. 97–112, 317–321.

143 e.g. Ar. Nub. 300–301; Plut. 773; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.1779; [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.177; Eur. El. 1289; Hipp. 34; Ion, 936, 1400, 1571; Supp. 658; fr. 14.10; Hdt. 7.141; Men. Sam. 325; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 93.

144 e.g. [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.177–178; August. De civ. d. 18.9; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 93 (Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica, 179); scholia on Hom. Il. 17.53; Xen. Mem. 3.5.10. Cf. Gourmelen (2004), p. 176–197.

145 e.g. [Apollod.], Bibl. 3.178–179; Diod. 5.56.5–6; Paus. 1.27.1.

146 Shapiro (1998), p. 136; Gourmelen (2004), p. 198–207.

147 IG I³ 4.B, line 10. Cf. Paton (1927a), p. 440–441; Stroud (2004); Butz (2010), p. 56, 164.

148 Michaelis (1902), p. 10.

149 IG I³ 474 (409/8), line 9.

150 IG I³ 474 (409/8), lines 59, 63, 84.

151 IG I³ 476 (408/7), lines 125–128. Here also appears Κ]|εκροπικα[, which could reflect either an adjective (“Kekropian…”) or Κέκροπι καί (“to Kekrops and…”).

152 IG II2 1141 (376/5), lines 6–7: a decree found “in basilica S. Nicolai Borealis” stating that a vote of the tribe Kekropis was organized on the Acropolis; the Kekropion seems to have been the most obvious place where this voting took place. Cf. Kron (1976), p. 88–89; Gourmelen (2004), p. 299. IG II2 1143 (early fourth century) was found during work on the Karyatid Temple (Wilhelm [1905], p. 223). IG II2 1145 (353/2): “in arce”. IG II2 1155 (353/2): “in arce”. IG II2 1156 (334/3), lines 34–35: an inscription found “in arce” that was to be placed ἐν τῶι τοῦ [Κέκρο]πος ἱερῶι (“in the sanctuary of Kekrops”). A similar clause is specified in IG II2 1158 (after 350), lines 9–10, also found “in arce”. IG II2 2338 (27/6–18/7) was found in excavations west of the Karyatid Temple. IG II3.1 392 (ca. 350–335), line 9: a decree of unknown provenance that was to be set up ]|πὶ τῆς Κεκρο[π․․․․9․․․․․] (“at the […] of Kekrops”). SEG 2.8 (fourth century), lines 11: an inscription mentioning the [Κέκρο]πος ἱερῶι (“the sanctuary of Kekrops”) found “in arce”.

153 Clem. Protr. 3.45; Favorinus of Arles, F 96,9; Theodoretus, Graecarum affectionum curatio, 8.30. Cf. Arn. 6.6.3 (in Minervio). Furtwängler (1893), p. 197 and Körte (1898), p. 263, considered the grave apocryphal.

154 e.g. Dörpfeld (1911), p. 40; (1942), p. 25–27; Collignon (1920); Paton et al. (1927), p. 127–137; Dinsmoor (1947), p. 120; Kontoleon (1949), p. 69–79; Travlos (1971), p. 213–214, p. 218; Kron (1976), p. 87–88; Hoepfner (1997), p. 158–159; Scholl (1998), p. 15–20; Holloway (1999), p. 89–90; Hurwit (1999), p. 204; Gourmelen (2004), p. 293–295; Gerding (2014), p. 258–264; Shear (2016), p. 384; Meyer (2017), p. 55, 67–68, 302. For an Archaic Ionic column found in this area and associated with the Kekropion, see Korres (1994), p. 41; (1996), p. 82–83; (1997a); Despinis (2009), p. 357–361; Santi (2010), p. 93–94.

155 The expected preposition would have been ὑπέρ (“above”, “over”). Paton (1927a), p. 460, found the absence of the Dörpfeld foundation as a point of reference in the building accounts remarkable.

156 Cf. Foucart (1889), p. 258–259.

157 Van Rookhuijzen (2020), p. 6–9.

158 Wilkins (1816), 195; Michaelis (1871), pl. 1; (1902), p. 10; Fergusson (1876), p. 12; Penrose (1888), p. 5–6 (positing that the Dörpfeld Temple was called “Kekropion”, while still being the oldest temple of Athena); abstract in Archaeological Institute of America (1912), p. 104 [C.H. Weller]; Weller (1913), p. 317; Hess (1935), p. 83–84 (east part of the Dörpfeld Temple’s west half); Bundgaard (1976), p. 112–120 (east half); Mansfield (1985), p. 254–255 (west half).

159 Hdt. 5.72, 8.41, 8.55; Him. 5.210–11; Paus. 1.26.5, 1.27.1.

160 Cf. Leake (1841), p. 580–581; Furtwängler (1893), p. 196–199; Körte (1898), p. 262–263.

161 The timeframe of the Kekropion in inscriptions coincides with the period in which depictions of Kekrops are attested, ca. 500–350 (Gourmelen [2004], p. 314–315). The disappearance of the name “Kekropion” and the cessation of depictions of Kekrops may perhaps be explained by the circumstance that no cult of Kekrops is attested, although IG II2 2338 (27/6–18/7), line 8, mentions the appointment of a priest of Kekrops. Cf. Holtzmann (2003), p. 164–165; Gourmelen (2004), p. 299–300.

162 Rangavis (1837b), p. 35–36.

163 For similarities between Kekrops and Erechtheus, see Nilsson (1950), p. 563; Parker (1987), p. 194; Shapiro (1998), p. 130–131, 149; Gourmelen (2004), p. 123–125, 152, 155; Sourvinou-Inwood – Parker (2011), p. 94–95; Connelly (2014), p. 135. On the confused genealogies of the Athenian kings, see Parker (1987), p. 200; Gantz (1993), p. 233–235; Fowler (2013), vol. 2, p. 447–455. Remarkably, Kekrops is ever the wise old king, but we are not informed about his birth and death, whereas Erechtheus was primarily known for his birth and death (cf. Parker [1987], p. 193; Gourmelen [2004], p. 123, 172). Pausanias (8.2.3) says that the cult of Zeus Hypatos, whose altar he saw before the Erechtheion, was initiated by Kekrops. According to Hyginus (Fab. 158), Hephaestus was Kekrops’ father.

164 Cf. supra n. 15, 16, 17, 18.

165 On the Mycenaean terraces and the purported palace on the Acropolis, see Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 34, 84, 88–94; Dörpfeld (1919), p. 3–4; Holland (1924b), p. 161–169; Iakovidis (1962), p. 101–105, 173–178; Bundgaard (1976), p. 112–113; Mountjoy (1995), p. 16, 22–24, 41–43, 69–72; Glowacki (1998), p. 79–80; Papadopoulos (2003), p. 303–305; Meyer (2017), p. 32–33. For the obsidian dagger blades, see Boetticher (1863), p. 206–208. For the column base, see Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84; Holland (1924b), p. 165, n. 1; Nylander (1962), p. 39–40, 46, 49.

166 e.g. Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 84; Holland (1924b), p. 162–166; (1939), p. 289.

167 Iakovidis (1962), p. 62–65; Nylander (1962); Mountjoy (1995), p. 42; Glowacki (1998), p. 82.

168 Nylander (1962), p. 53–57.

169 Michaelis (1902), p. 3; Holland (1924b), p. 143, 161–169; Nilsson (1950), p. 473–482.

170 Hdt. 9.65. Cf. van den Eijnde (2019), p. 108–112.

171 Paus. 9.38.2. Cf. Schliemann (1881), p. 13–50.

172 Here stood two altars of Zeus Herkeios and Zeus Keraunios, who had destroyed the house with a thunderbolt (Paus. 5.14.7). Of the superstructure, only one decaying wooden column was believed to survive, now protected under a canopy (Paus. 5.20.6–7). The historical presence of a real palace here is doubtful and the column may, in fact, have been an old turning post (Brulotte [1994]). Comparable examples are the foundations of Hippomedon’s house on Mount Pontinos near Lerna (Paus. 2.36.8), Amphitryon’s house near the Electran gate at Thebes (Paus. 9.11.1), and Kadmos’ house at the agora of Thebes (Paus. 9.12.3).

173 Supra n. 9.

174 IG II2 4982 (fourth or third century BCE): in arce orientem versus ab Erechtheo; Paton (1927a), p. 484–486; Jeppesen (1979), p. 388–389.

175 IG II2 5166 (350–300). Cf. IG III 302: “in Erechtheo”; IG II 1656: “ad Erechtheo”; Stuart – Revett (1825), p. 60; Pittakis (1835), p. 408–409; Ross (1855), p. 116; Paton (1927a), p. 484; Jeppesen (1979), p. 388–389. IG II2 5170 (second or first century BCE) is a set of two similar thrones inscribed ἄρχοντος (“of the archon”) and πυρφόρου (“of the fire-bringer”), found “occidentem versus a Parthenone” (“west of the Great Temple”). Cf. Paton (1927a), p. 484.

176 IG II2 3538 (IG III 805; 54–68 AD), lines 9–10. Ross (1855), p. 123–124 mentions that the inscription was found near the south side of the Karyatid Temple, contradicting Pittakis (1839), p. 158, who indicated the location as close to the Propylaea (followed by IG III and IG II2).

177 EM 6319; IG I3 873 (DAA 384; ca. 450). Ross (1855), p. 176–180 found the basin in 1832 in a location described as “unweit des Erechtheion”, where also a first or second century CE altar for Zeus was found (IG II² 4740: inter Propylaea et Parthenona). This location was taken over by Rangavis (1842), vol. 1, p. 38 (“non loin du temple d’Erechthée”) and in IG I 387 (eruta in arce ad Erechtheum). Pittakis (1835), p. 400–401, however, reported the object close to the north porch of the Karyatid Temple.

178 IG I3 828 (IG I2 706; DAA 229; ca. 480–475), found in arce, mentions the dedication of a kore as a thank offer to, possibly, Poseidon. IG II2 1146 (before the middle of the fourth century), discovered in the Odysseus bastion, contains a reference to the oracle mentioned by Pausanias. Cf. Sokolowski (1969), p. 58–59. IG II2 1150 (before the middle of the fourth century) was found in arce. IG II2 1165 (300–250) was found in excavations near the Propylaea. IG II2 1357 (IG II 844; 400–350) was excavated in clivo meridionali arcis (“at the south slope of the Acropolis”). Fragments of IG II2 1951 (beginning of the fourth century) were found in the foundation of the church inside the Karyatid Temple. IG II2 1953 (357/6): in arce. Cf. Jeppesen (1987), p. 32–33.

179 Supra n. 40, 123. Ferrari (2002), p. 21–24, provides a reconstruction in which the Dörpfeld Temple’s central part was destroyed, whereas its west half (the Opisthodomos) and the east-most part of the east half (the Archaios Neos), including the peristyle, remained standing.

180 Supra n. 125, 126.

181 Pakkanen (2006), p. 279–280.

182 Dörpfeld (1902), p. 401; (1911), p. 41–42; (1919), p. 12–13; Kavvadias – Kawerau (1906), p. 126; Stevens (1936), p. 472; (1940), p. 33–34; Dinsmoor (1947), p. 135–136; Riemann (1950), p. 10; Sioumpara (2019), p. 37–38.

183 Gerding (2006); Rous (2019), p. 104.

184 Lacore (1983), p. 225.

185 Guillet (1675), p. 200–203. Cf. Paton (1951), p. 10, n. 11; Constantine (1989), p. 1–9; Kreeb (2003), p. 360; Lesk (2005), p. 434–435.

186 Guillet (1675), p. 203–205.

187 Boetticher (1863), p. 206–208. On the “Hydrien”, see also p. 82–83.

188 Dörpfeld (1887a), p. 61.

189 I am grateful to Patrik Klingborg for sharing his thoughts on this structure. It was intentionally omitted in the plan that formed the basis of Fig. 3, because it was dated later than the foundation itself (Dörpfeld [1887a], p. 61; Kavvadias – Kawerau [1906], p. 84).

190 A cistern is depicted roughly southeast of the Karyatid Temple on the only preserved Ottoman map of Athens, entitled Atina kal’âsıyla varoşunun krokisi (Sketch of the castle and suburb of Athens; 1826, Hatt-ı Hümayun collection of the Başbakanlık Ottoman Archives). Cf. Stathi (2014), p. 172.

191 Ferrari (2002), p. 25–31. The present article interchanges Ferrari’s identifications of the Archaios Neos and the Erechtheion, and prefers a lesser reconstruction of the building on the Dörpfeld foundation in the post-Persian period, but agrees with her view on the commemorative function of the Dörpfeld foundation.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Simplified plan of the Acropolis (drawing by R. Reijnen and J.Z. van Rookhuijzen; after van Rookhuijzen (2020), fig. 2)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 46k
Légende Fig. 2. The Karyatid porch, the Dörpfeld foundation, and the Great Temple
Crédits Walter Hege 1928/9; D-DAI-ATH-Hege-2066
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 40k
Légende Fig. 4. Cross section of the Karyatid Temple looking east, indicating crypt and indentations in the north porch
Crédits G.P. Stevens 1903–1905; published in Paton [1927b], pl. 9; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 76k
Légende Fig. 5. The three caves in the northwest face of the Acropolis identified as the Makrai
Crédits Unknown photographer 1898; D-DAI-ATH-Akropolis-0324
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Légende Fig. 3. Plan of the Karyatid Temple and the Dörpfeld foundation
Crédits G.P. Stevens 1903–1905, published in Paton [1927b], pl. 1 [scan; labels removed]; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 72k
Légende Fig. 6. West facade of the Karyatid Temple
Crédits G.P. Stevens 1903–1905; published in Paton [1927b], pl. 4; American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Archaeological Photographic Collections, AK 0156; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 72k
Légende Fig. 7. The Karyatid Temple and an unknown building on the Dörpfeld foundation (drawing by Étienne Rey 1843–1844 from Rey et al. [1867], pl. 24)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 20k
Légende Fig. 8. The restored Dörpfeld foundation and the Karyatid Temple looking north
Crédits Unknown photographer 1887; D-DAI-ATH-Akropolis-0015
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 44k
Légende Fig. 9. View of the Acropolis from the central intercolumniation of the east portico of the Propylaea looking east, with the terrace of the Dörpfeld foundation in the center
Crédits Unknown photographer ca. 1905; American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Archaeological Photographic Collections; negative X 0056
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 24k
Légende Fig. 10. The inscribed thrones of the priests of Boutes and Hephaistos on the Dörpfeld foundation looking west
Crédits Photo by A. Lesk in Lesk [2005], fig. 534; courtesy of the photographer
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 36k
Légende Fig. 11. The Karyatid Temple (Carl Friedrich Heinrich Werner, 1877; watercolor)
Crédits Athens, Benaki Museum; courtesy Benaki Museum
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 388k
Légende Fig. 12. West side of the Dörpfeld foundation looking east
Crédits Gösta Hellner 1974; D-DAI-ATH-1974/2468
URL http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/docannexe/image/3853/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 23k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

J.Z. van Rookhuijzen, « The Erechtheion on the Acropolis of Athens »Kernos, 34 | 2021, 69-121.

Référence électronique

J.Z. van Rookhuijzen, « The Erechtheion on the Acropolis of Athens »Kernos [En ligne], 34 | 2021, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2023, consulté le 22 juillet 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/3853 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.3853

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search