The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 8

to this assumption, because I do not
know where the Athenians would have kept their public monies if the
entire building had been removed. Perhaps part of the peristyle was so
badly injured by the Persians that it could not be repaired. At any rate,
the Athenians intended (as Dörpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to
remove the whole building so soon as the great new temple should be
completed. I think they carried out their intention.
[Footnote 17: LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was
restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship connected
with the building, he would seem to imply that at least part (and in that
case, doubtless, the whole) of the cella was restored, and he also
maintains the continued existence of the opisthodomos and the two
small chambers. E. CURTIUS, Stadtgeschichte von Athen, p. 132,
believes that only the western half of the temple was restored.
DÖRPFELD, p. 425, suggests the possibility that the entire building,

even the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained until
the erection of the Erechtheion.]
This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the various
parts of the older temple and of the new one (the Parthenon), the
evidence for the continued existence of the older temple being based
upon the occurrence of these names in inscriptions and elsewhere. As
these matters have been fully discussed by Dörpfeld and Lolling, I shall
accept as facts without further discussion all points which seem to me
to have been definitively settled by them.
Page 9 Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an inscription
put together by him from forty-one fragments. It belongs to the last
quarter of the sixth century B.C., and relates to the pre-Persian temple.
Part of the inscription is too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but
the meaning of the greater part (republished by Dörpfeld) is clear at
least in a general way. The [Greek: tamiai] are to make a list of certain
objects on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The servants of the
temple, priests, etc., are to follow certain rules or be punished by fines.
The [Greek: tamiai] are to open in person the doors of the chambers in
the temple. These rules would not concern us except for the fact that
the various parts of the building are mentioned. The whole building is
called [Greek: to Ecatompedon]; parts of it are the [Greek: proneion],
the [Greek: neôs], the [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: ta
oikemata]. There can be no doubt that these are respectively the eastern
porch, the main cella, the large western room and the two smaller
chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most important of all is the
fact that the whole building was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek:
to Ekatompedon.]. The word [Greek: opisthodomos] does not occur in
the inscription, and we cannot tell whether the western half of the
building was called opisthodomos in the sixth century or not. Very
likely it was.
Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that [Greek: to
Ecatompedon] is the [Greek: neô o Ecatompedos] often mentioned in
the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] and elsewhere." If this is correct,
the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the [Greek: veôs o

Ecatompedos]. Lolling maintains that the eastern cella of the Parthenon
was the Parthenon proper, that the western room of the Parthenon was
the opisthodomos, and that the [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos], was the
pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name [Greek: Ecatompedon] or
[Greek: neô o Ekatompedos], Lolling thinks the pre-Persian temple was
also called [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs].[18] Dörpfeld maintains
that the western cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, the
western part of the Page 10 "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the
eastern cella of the Parthenon was the [Greek: neôs o Ekatompedos],
leaving the question undecided whether the "old temple" was still
called [Greek: to Ecatompedon] in the fifth century, but laying great
stress upon the difference in the expressions [Greek: to Ecatompedon]
and [Greek: o neôs o Ecatompedos].[19] Both Lolling and Dörpfeld
agree that the [Greek: proneôs] of the inscriptions of the fifth century is
the porch of the Parthenon.[20]
[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the [Greek: archaios neôs] of
the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] CIA, II, 753, 758 (cf. 650, 672) is
the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same inscriptions
the [Greek: epistatai] of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems
to me insufficient reason for assuming that [Greek: archaios neôs]
means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.]
[Footnote 19: Mitth., xv, p. 427 ff.]
[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression [Greek: en tô
neô tô Ecatompedô] could not be used of a part of a