The Persian sack of Athens in 480 B.C.E. has left modern archeologist perplexed as to what it meant for the fate of the temple of Athena on the Acropolis. Gloria Ferrari has compiled and analyzed the most predominant theories concerning the temple’s actuality through use of evidence provided through archaeological, epigraphical, and historical means. The first theory is proposed by Dörpfeld, in which the temple was not destroyed during the sack of Athens merely damaged and repaired (Ferrari 2002, 11). Bates theorized the temple was destroyed by the Persians, but not rebuilt in order to uphold the Oath of Plataea (Ferrari 2002, 13). Thirdly Curtius proposes that the damaged temple was simply repurposed (Ferrari 2002, 15). With limited and
…show more content…
Bates agreed with Dörpfeld on his identification of the Athena Polias, but he disputed that the damaged temple was never rebuilt (Ferrari 2002, 13). He found his evidence in Plutarch’s Life of Pericles with regards to the Congress Decree of the Oath of Plataea (Ferrari 2002, 13). The oath states that shrines destroyed by barbarians are to never be rebuilt (Ferrari 2002, 13). Bates also agrees with Frazer and Michaelis on the notion that the Erechtheum is the successor to the arkhaios naos (Ferrari 2002, 13). Bates speculated that Pericles wanted to uphold the Oath of Plataea, but also wanted to erect a new temple, as a compromise he built the Erechtheum on the surrounding area instead of removing the ruin and building on the old foundation of the Athena Polias (Ferrari 2002, 14). The one flaw in Bates’ theory is the lack of explanation of why the ruin of the temple was not removed. The ruin had to have some significance to the Acropolis’ landscape, because the Oath of Plataea did not forbid Pericles from the removal of ruined shrines, just rebuilding them. Lycungus offers some possible insight into why the ruins remained (Ferrari 2002, 14). Lycurgus stated that the Athenians “stood by their oath firmly”, Ferrari interprets from this that the Athenians converted burned shrines into war memorials (2002, 14). Although this notion does answer the question as to why the ruins remained standing, it lacks a great deal of definitive evidence. What constituted a war memorial to the Athenians, and how did the other Hellenes in the oath view the idea of repurposing burnt
Bates agreed with Dörpfeld on his identification of the Athena Polias, but he disputed that the damaged temple was never rebuilt (Ferrari 2002, 13). He found his evidence in Plutarch’s Life of Pericles with regards to the Congress Decree of the Oath of Plataea (Ferrari 2002, 13). The oath states that shrines destroyed by barbarians are to never be rebuilt (Ferrari 2002, 13). Bates also agrees with Frazer and Michaelis on the notion that the Erechtheum is the successor to the arkhaios naos (Ferrari 2002, 13). Bates speculated that Pericles wanted to uphold the Oath of Plataea, but also wanted to erect a new temple, as a compromise he built the Erechtheum on the surrounding area instead of removing the ruin and building on the old foundation of the Athena Polias (Ferrari 2002, 14). The one flaw in Bates’ theory is the lack of explanation of why the ruin of the temple was not removed. The ruin had to have some significance to the Acropolis’ landscape, because the Oath of Plataea did not forbid Pericles from the removal of ruined shrines, just rebuilding them. Lycungus offers some possible insight into why the ruins remained (Ferrari 2002, 14). Lycurgus stated that the Athenians “stood by their oath firmly”, Ferrari interprets from this that the Athenians converted burned shrines into war memorials (2002, 14). Although this notion does answer the question as to why the ruins remained standing, it lacks a great deal of definitive evidence. What constituted a war memorial to the Athenians, and how did the other Hellenes in the oath view the idea of repurposing burnt