User:Twospoonfuls/sandbox/8



The Temple of Athena Nike (Greek: Ναός Αθηνάς Νίκης) is the tetrastyle amphiprostyle Ionic Greek temple that stands on the southeast edge of the acropolis plateau above the steep bastion adjacent to the Propylaia. Dedicated to Athena in her aspect as bringer of victories, it was built circa 426-421 BCE. The Classical temple, designed by architect Kallikrates, is the successor of earlier shrines on the site also dedicated to Athena Nike. In 1686 the Ottoman power in Athens demolished the temple in order to use its marbles to fortify the Propylaia to counter the attacks of the Venetians under Morosini. The temple underwent its first anastolysis by Ross, Hansen and Schaubert in 1835-1836. A second reconstruction, under N. Balanos begun in 1935, corrected the errors of the original work and saved the monument from potential collapse.

History


During the dismantling of the classical ashlar wall of the bastion by Balanos it was revealed for the first time that the core was a massive Mycenaean bastion of Cyclopean masonry which, together with the gate and the Pelasgic wall, had been built to fortify the entrance to the Acropolis. Subsequent development on this bastion crown can be delineated into four stages. Stage I represents the first post-Mycenaean construction on the promontory when a poros altar and base were installed, along with a stone base for what would have been the cult statue of Athena, and, most significantly, the fragment of a second poros altar with an inscription. This inscription, which reads “Altar of Athena Nike, Erected by Patrokles”, and is dated to circa 566 BCE, shows that a cult of Athena Nike had been established on the site by the mid-sixth century. Immediately below the statue base was a repository of terracotta figurines which have not been preserved. Stage II, suggested by a photograph of an excavation trench, may have been the levelling of the bastion crown to the height of the euthynteria of the naiskos in the proceeding stage. There is no evidence of building during this phase of the sanctuary, which corresponds with the Persian sack of Athens and its aftermath.

The development of the site did not resume until the mid-fifth century when a π-shaped naiskos was built. This building was walled on three sides, open to the east, made of poros stone and measured 3.12 x 2.47 m. . Five blocks of its euthynteria were found in situ. The naïskos had 2 altars connected to it, a rectangular altar on an axis to the east, and a possible square altar toward the northern edge of the bastion. The date of this phase is between 465 and 435 BCE

The final phase of construction, designated IV, saw the sheathing of the bastion with ashlar blocks of Piraeus limestone that is visible today. This covered the cyclopean masonry of the Mycenaean period but purposefully left two apertures through which the original structure can be glimpsed: the double niche at the foot of the bastion and a polygonal hole on the north face. The wall was decorated with the shields of defeated Spartans in the late 5th century. The level of the bastion was raised to meet the southwest wing of the Propylaia, which itself was curtailed to accommodate the new marble Ionic temple. The stage III square altar was replaced with a marble one and a parapet was erected around the edge of the sanctuary. The form of the temple, amphiprostyle, is unusual; the only other Attic example is that of the Temple at Ilissos. This latter building of c. 435-430 is similar enough to the Nike temple to raise the question of whether it was either an influence on the later building or by the same architect. The stylistic dating of the Nike sculptures and the Atiic capitals and the acropolis temple's relationship to the Ilissos temple make up the argument for a later completion date of c. 420-418.



The later history of the temple was one of reuse, destruction and eventual reconstruction. The Nike Temple was adapted into a powder magazine with the installation of cannons on the Akropolis in the 16th century. Jacob Spon and George Wheler were the only early travellers to have seen this stage of the Nike Temple when it was still relatively intact. The temple was later destroyed during the attack by the Venetians in 1687 and overbuilt with a major battery. Work on the site yielded major archaeological discoveries including the π-shaped naiskos, the terracotta depository and the 6th c inscribed altar stone.

The third and final anastylosis took place between 2000 and 2010, which saw the complete dismantling and rebuilding of the temple, strengthening of the cella foundation and a resolution of the damage caused by previous restoration work

Dating controversy


In 1897 a stele was discovered on the north slope of the Acropolis detailing the appointment of a priestess to the cult of Athena Nike and commissioning the building of a temple designed by Kallikrates. An initial consensus formed around the dating of this decree to the early 440s, implying that the inception of the building was during the Periclean Building Programme but that actual construction was delayed until the 420s. The date of the inscription was so early partly due to the epigraphic form of the sigma; this was composed of three bars, then understood to be not used after 446, rather than the later four-bar form. H.B Mattingly questioned this orthodoxy in a series of papers. In particular, he pointed to the application of photogrammetry to the Egesta-Athens Treaty, which was more securely dated to 418/7, which revealed that the use of the three-bar sigma persisted late into the century. This allowed for a revision of the date of the Athena Nike Decree to the 420s, though this has by no means been widely accepted. The dating of the decree is further complicated by the presence of a 'delayed rider' on the back of the stele detailing the conditions of payment to the priestess. Mattingly notes that this form of amendment is similar to that of the Chalkis Decree and that the dates of both decrees could therefore be roughly similar. Stephen Tracey's demonstration that IG I3 35/36 was inscribed by the same sculptor as the Promachos accounts, IG I3 435, makes a substantial case for the traditional dating of the decree.

If the decree dates to the 440s then it might be the case that Kallikrates was only responsible for phase III of the Nike shrine and not the later classical temple that exists today. His authorship of the final temple could be asserted more confidently if the Nike decree can be ascribed to the 420s. Furthermore, a later date of inception would place the building in the historical context of the period between the Peace of Kallias and the revolt on Lesbos.

Architecture


The evolution of the Ionic capital can be traced in the treatment of the fillets and the corner palmettes which on the Nike capitals are of the flame type.

Sculpture


The orientation of the temple is set up so that the East Frieze sits above the entrance of the temple on the porch side. The north frieze is poorly conserved, but perhaps depicts a battle between Greeks entailing cavalry. The south frieze showed the decisive victory over the Persians at the battle of Plataea. The east frieze showed an assembly of the gods Athena, Zeus and Poseidon, rendering Athenian religious beliefs and reverence for the gods bound up in the social and political climate of 5th Century Athens. The west frieze has a good amount of the original sculpting preserved. Similar to the east frieze it is most likely telling the story of a battle, or more specifically a victory. There are multiple corpses depicted (more than any of the other three friezes) and imagery of one about to be killed with some figures wearing helmets. Pemberton argues that the battle is that of Marathon depicted for propaganda purposes.

Of particular note is the so-called Sandal-binder, a Nike balancing on one foot while adjusting (or removing) her sandal. Its precarious balancing of masses and freedom of treatment of the drapery folds make it a paradigmatic example of the Rich Style and justly regarded as a masterpiece.

The main body of the central statue that made up the akroteria was composed of bronze, not marble. There is evidence of gold foiling and gold wiring through the main bronze core. Researchers have hypothesized about the form of the statue, but there is no trace of the original sculpture to indicate what the central akroteria really looked like. The same can be said for the statues that would make up the east and west akroteria. Both were made of bronze and it is impossible to know what the figures could have been. Theories around the figure of the central statue include the winged horse Pegasus or the monster Chimera. However, these theories may be unlikely as the proportions of these animals’ bodies would not match where their feet would be placed in the akroteria's base block. Alternative theories of the arkoteria sculpture include: a bronze tripod, a trophy, and an alighting Nike.