|
Chapter 2 (part 19)
9. Layer IX, the acropolis of the Roman city of Ilion (continued) (p.220)
The
use of sand and hard stone for the foundations, in contrast to the soft
porous foundations of almost all other IX layer buildings, makes our
temple different from the buildings of the Roman period and therefore
belongs to another epoch, namely, like a Part of its structures and its
sculptures seem advisable to be attributed to the Hellenistic period.
The porch, made of soft porous and erected without a sand foundation,
must then be a later addition and can only date from Roman times.
Fig.86: Preserved foundation of the Temple of Athena Ilias.
But
before we go into the history of the temple in more detail, we must
continue with the description of the surviving remains of the
foundation and the structural members, insofar as they have been found.
Although
the northern sand moat of the temple was almost completely destroyed
during Schliemann's first excavations, the dimensions of the rectangle
formed by the four main moats and thus the length and width of the
entire temple foundation could be determined; this is c. 16.40m, those
c. 55.70m. At a distance of 2.80 m from the eastern ditch (p.221) I
have ascertained the presence of an inner transverse ditch 2.6 m wide;
unfortunately only a small part of it has been preserved, and it was
therefore not possible to determine whether it reached as far as the
outer ditches at g and h (fig.86) and whether the ground plan had the
shape that this figure indicates, or whether the transverse ditch did
not turn around beforehand and belonged to a smaller quadrilateral that
lay within the outer rectangle.
It is
necessary for the restoration of the temple layout to choose one of
these options. For in the latter case the temple was a peripteral
structure, the outer square being the foundation of the annular hall,
and the inner that of the cella; in the former case the temple may not
have had a ring hall but must have been a prostyle or amphiprostyle. In
order to make a decision possible, we have first to determine the axis
width of the columns from the entablature to be discussed later, and
then to examine whether it fits the dimensions of the foundation and
how many columns could have stood on the various sides.
The
axis width of the triglyphs is c. 1.44m, that of the columns 2.88m. The
latter measure fits the dimensions of the foundation if we assume 6
pillars on the short and 13 on the long sides. The positions of the
columns that result from this are indicated in fig.86 by circles.
However,
I consider such an addition to be incorrect for a number of reasons.
First, it is noticeable that the pillars on the fronts are too close to
the outer edge. If we assume one less intercolumnium, the columns again
fall too close to the inner edge. On the other hand, a better solution
results if there are no columns on the long sides and we can therefore
shorten the temple by one triglyph and one metope. Secondly, in the
case of a peripteral structure, it cannot be explained why the sand
ditches on the short sides are im wider than on the long sides, while
the absence of columns on the latter is sufficiently explained by the
fact that the columns and steps of the fronts are thicker Foundations
were necessary than for the closed walls of the side walls. Thirdly,
the porch already mentioned, which presumably only supported a flight
of stairs located at the front, speaks decisively for the fact that
there were no columns on the long sides, but rather closed walls.
.
 Fig.87: Floor plan of the Temple of Athena. Addition.
For
these reasons, I think it most correct to add the temple without a ring
hall. If I have assumed a rear hall in addition to the vestibule in the
floor plan (fig.87), although nothing of a sand ditch for a second
transverse wall has been preserved, the decisive factor was that the
existing correspondence between the widths of the eastern and western
foundations can only be explained with this floor plan. In this case,
of course, a transverse wall and a sand foundation must be added
between the cella and the back hall, as was done in fig.87. This
presents no difficulty because the shallow (p.222) transverse ditch may
have been completely destroyed during the first excavations. The
assumption of a semi-column at the corners of the vestibule, instead of
a free-standing column or a quadrangular parastas, is also based on the
fact that the porch serving for the flight of stairs does not go as far
around the corner as is necessary with a lateral intercolumnium and, on
the other hand, the presence of Doric half-columns among the structures
of the temple that have been found. The pronaos of the Amphiaraos
temple in Oropos in Greece has a ground plan that is very similar to
the drawn vestibule; also with it the facade is formed by 4 full and 2
half Doric columns.
A
special justification is needed in the supplemented ground plan for the
large outside staircase. Only a piece (b c in fig.86) of its foundation
has survived. Since this ended at b in antiquity, but was broken off by
Schliemann at c, we need not hesitate to add it to e in front of the
entire eastern front of the temple. In my opinion, such a foundation
could only have been supported by a flight of stairs, which was used to
climb up to the temple from the east. However, it remains questionable
on the one hand how the stairs ended at the side and on the other hand
what height and inclination they had.
In the supplemented ground
plan, I have assumed a large base at both ends as the end of the
staircase, without there being any specific clues for this solution.
For the determination of the height of the staircase it is also
important that the surviving porch, because it is made of different
material than (p.223) the main foundation and also has no layer of sand
as a base, is probably a later addition and is therefore in the
Hellenistic temple was not yet available. In fact, the older building,
like almost all Greek temples, only had 3 steps. The substructure of
the Roman building either retained the old height and instead of the
three high steps received a larger number of lower steps or a gently
sloping ramp. Or else it had a greater height in Roman times; the
podium, to which the outside staircase led in this case, can either
have been created by raising the floor of the temple during a thorough
reconstruction or by lowering the floor around the temple. As far as I
can see, we have no basis for deciding with certainty on one of these
different possibilities. If the temple really was on a higher podium,
then of course a special staircase must also be added on its west side
as an access to the back hall. In the profile (fig.85) I drew the
original 3 stages without considering the stem.
Of
the building parts of the temple, which were made of white marble, very
many pieces have been discovered near the foundation and on the
northern slope of the mountain. Among them are column drums, capitals,
architraves, triglyphs, metopes, geisa, simen and coffered stones. The
same pieces of architecture are also found in very large numbers in the
cemeteries of neighboring villages such as Kum-Koi, Chalil-Eli and
Chiblak. Unfortunately, it is not possible within the scope of this
book to describe and depict even the most important of these building
blocks, especially since there are pieces of different formations among
them, which indicate one or even several modifications and repairs of
the temple. They should all be noted. I therefore reserve the right to
deal with the architecture and history of the temple in more detail
elsewhere. Here only a sketch of the pillars and entablature may be
published, to give at least an idea of the architecture of the temple.
Fig.88: Entablature and Columns of the Temple of Athena. The architrave with 2 dedicatory inscriptions.
In
Figure 88 the upper parts of two columns are shown, which do not match
and yet both belong to our temple, on the left a well-crafted
Hellenistic or early Roman capital, on the right a somewhat younger
type of capital with strange curves at the upper end of the canellures.
The architrave drawn above gives a fragment found on the eastern front
of the temple, containing fragments of two inscriptions. It is the
fragment drawn above the left column, which I have already illustrated
on p. 77 and discussed on p. 78 in the book Troy 1893. We shall come back to the inscriptions shortly.
The
triglyphs drawn above the architraves have a straight end to the
incisions at the top. The metopes between them were decorated with
reliefs, which H. Winnefeld will deal with in Section V of this book
and will publish in detailed illustrations. (p.224) The well-known,
well-preserved Helios metope is sketched in the first figure, which was
in fact not placed above the inscription, but probably as the most
easterly metope on the north side, and a second, more damaged metope
whose former location is unknown.
Several pieces have been
found from the horizontal geison, while only smaller fragments have
survived from the ascending gable geison, which do not permit a
complete completion. Several pieces of marble simen are particularly
important for the history of the construction of the temple. These too
must be reproduced elsewhere; here I am content to repeat only two
fragments as a sample, of which the smaller one (fig.89) presumably
still belongs to the Hellenistic temple, while the other (fig.90)
obviously comes from a more recent period and must have been created
during repairs to the temple.
The
two mentioned inscriptions on the architrave tell us when the
restoration or renewal of the temple, to which many of the structural
elements refer, took place. I therefore think it best for the time
being (p.225) to confine myself to some information about the
inscription, some of which was made available to me by my
collaborators, and to the communication of its content, but leave the
detailed discussion and treatment for a monograph on the temple.
The
fragment of the architrave bearing the two inscriptions was the left
third of the middle architrave of the eastern front. The beginning of
the first and presumably also the beginning of the second line of one
of the inscriptions, the letters of which are 0.13 to 0.14 m high and
scratched only very flatly and irregularly, are still preserved (cf.
fig.88). The inscription is supplemented by using the other inscription
after Troja 1893 p. 79:
Fig.89: Fragment of Sima from the Temple of Athena.
Since
there doesn't seem to be enough room for a second "te", I left it out
in fig.88 and put it in parentheses here. The space would suffice,
however, if either the "i" adscriptum was omitted several times, or if
the central intercolumnium of the temple was somewhat larger than the
others, which is not impossible.
Fig.90: Fragment of Sima from the Temple of Athena.
A. Brückner proposes a new revision because he believes he
has to assume that the inscription had not concealed the fact that the
temple was only being repaired and not rebuilt. So he reads:
He may want to add "ton neon" or "to Hieron", but he rightly points out that there is probably not enough space for that.
[p.226) The second inscription is a single line and took up a
larger part of the architrave. It was made of large metal letters 0.20
m high and, although the letters themselves are missing, can still be
recognized by the holes in the pins with which the letters were
fastened to the stone. The position of these holes is different for the
individual letters, but always the same for the same letters. The
resulting holes, shown dark in fig.88, permit several additions,
because the 3 holes in second and fifth place may belong to a Y or T,
and because an A or A may have been in last place. We therefore read:
OTIOTA or OYIOYA or the like. Now neither the reading OTIOTA, nor
OTIOYA, nor OYIOYA gives a right sense, while OYIOYA can not only
easily be completed to 0E]OY IOYA[IOY YIOl, but also stands in full
harmony with the two-line inscription, provided that both have the same
wording have had. However, as already explained in Troja 1893
(p.79), this is fairly certain because the first half of the one-line
inscription ends with "Theo ioliou", while the second half of the
two-line inscription ends with the appropriate "uios" begins. This
situation can be seen in fig.88, although only the middle part of the
stately inscription is drawn; this actually extended over the three
central architrave blocks of the east side. There
is no difference of opinion between my collaborators and me that both
inscriptions had the same wording. We are also in agreement about their
relation to Emperor Augustus. Furthermore, it makes very little
difference to the sense and meaning of the inscription whether the
repair was expressly mentioned as such at the end, as A. Brückner
believes, or whether there was only talk of a dedication to Athena.
Concerning
the relative age of the two inscriptions, a consensus of views could
not be reached. I believe that the more stately inscription with the
metal letters is the older one and was added during the renovation of
the temple by Augustus, and that on the other hand the badly incised
two-line inscription belongs to a later repair. A. Brückner, on the
other hand, considers the latter inscription to be older and the metal
letters to be younger. I must refrain from going into more detail here
on the various reasons given for and against by both sides. The
difference is not of great importance to the history of the temple. It
consists mainly in the fact that in my view a second damage or robbery
of the temple must be assumed, which is not necessary in the other view.
From
what has been said it follows that the temple of the Ilian Athena, the
remains of which we have found the foundations and parts of, was most
probably built by Lysimachus about 300 BC and destroyed two centuries
later by Fimbria. If we have restored the inscription correctly, we owe
the renewal to Emperor Augustus.
The extent of the destruction
(p.227) and the extent of the roughness under Augustus can only be
determined by a precise compilation of all the preserved structural
elements. There is not enough space in this book for that. I can only
repeat here that not only parts of the entablature but entire columns
have been renewed. It has already been explained that it was only then
that the temple received a large frieze, which is often found in Roman
temples, and perhaps a higher substructure. Also the construction of
the sacred precinct with its Stoen and its Propylaion and the
demolition of the middle part of the Acropolis hill probably fell at
the same time. Only one of the stoen was, as the dedicatory inscription
discussed in Troy 1893
(p.139) indicates (see Chapter VI. No 61), only built under Emperor
Claudius. Which stoen that was, we have not ascertained; I presume it
was the one on the west side of the sacred precinct.
We
have almost no information about the later fate of the Athena Temple.
We only know that the building with its statues was still standing in
the middle of the IV century AD, when Emperor Julian was visiting the
city of Ilion. In the following century it may have been destroyed or
initially converted into a Christian church. Since Ilion is still
mentioned as a bishop's see by Constantinos Porphyrogennetus (cf. Ed.
Meyer, History of Troas, p.
97), the pagan temple may very well have become the bishop's church.
Certain Byzantine remains, however, have not been found on the
Acropolis; therefore the church may also have been located in the lower
town.
Of the other buildings in the sacred
precincts of Athena, a few foundations and other building remains
deserve to be briefly mentioned, which are shown in plan on Plate VII.
First
I name the foundation IX Z to the east of the temple, which we take to
be the great altar of Athena. Unfortunately, its floor plan is very
destroyed and can therefore no longer be supplemented. Our assumption
that these walls are the last vestige of an altar is based, on the one
hand, on their position just opposite the temple entrance, and, on the
other hand, on the resemblance of their construction to that of the
great altar at Pergamum. Just as small spaces were created there by a
network of walls, which were filled with rubble and stones, so we find
small rectangular spaces filled with large pebbles or clay in our
building. We know nothing about the structure, except that the
fragments of a frieze with chariots and winged Nikes depicted in the
book "Troy" (1882), pp. 228 and 229 formed a decoration of the altar.
Between
the temple and the altar a large part of the floor is still paved with
slabs of soft porous stone. In antiquity, these stones, which can be
seen on photo 29, did not form the actual covering of the floor, but
only the base for a marble pavement, which covered the most important
part of the sacred precinct, the square immediately in front of the
(p.228) temple, completely covered.
Further, at the northern
end of the surviving porous pavement, quite exactly in the axis of the
temple and altar, lies the deep well Ba, which we have discussed in
detail above. It probably comes in part from the sixth layer and was
only raised in the Greek period. As we have briefly mentioned above (p.
177), a small round temple was built over it, the structural elements
and reconstruction of which may be reported here.
Fig.91: Lower and upper plan of the round temple.
We
found numerous pieces of the substructure, the columns, and the lattice
work in the well itself; they were sufficient to be able to show the
ground plan and elevation of the interesting complex, at least in
picture form. In fig.91, the ground plan of the substructure is drawn
on the left, which could be put together from 4 large blocks of stone,
only one of which is partially missing. The visible remains of six
square pillars and five barriers allowed the superstructure to be
supplemented with a door, indicated by cross-hatching. By finding
several pieces of the pillars, the lower closed barriers and the upper
openwork latticework, it was also possible not only to show the upper
floor plan (fig.91 right), but also to draw a section and an external
view in fig.92. We only lack the entablature and roof, which are
therefore dotted in the drawing.
Fig.92: Elevation and section of the round temple supplement.
The
building, hollow in the middle, formed, as we believe, a covering over
the well; the rain was kept off by the roof, light could come in
through the grating, and water could be drawn through the doorway,
which was perhaps closed up to a certain height with a low barrier.
(p.229) The fact that the well could also be reached from the north by
means of an underground passage was described earlier (p.178). Finally,
it should not go unmentioned that there are no secure foundations or
standing traces of a round building on top of the well. The allocation
of the building to the well is therefore not completely certain,
despite many reasons that speak in favor of it.
The
significance of the cuboid foundations IX R, IX K, IX U, IX H uncovered
between the temple and the Propylaion IX D and some others, which are
not named but are all drawn on Plate VII, could not be determined in
detail. Almost without exception, they are made of soft porous stone.
Some of them will be small buildings, others may have supported altars,
statues, or votive offerings. It is not possible to say more precisely,
because not a single stone of the superstructure has been preserved in
its place. In their entirety, however, the many foundations bear
witness to the rich furnishings of the sacred area.
Only
one foundation in the eastern half of the district deserves a special
mention, namely the IX J square, which is adjoined to the north and
south by a ashlar wall. To the north-east of this foundation many
pieces of clay tablets with reliefs were found, which are discussed and
illustrated in Troy 1893 (p. 73) and are dealt with again in Section V
of this book. They probably belong to a Heroon, without us being able
to give the name of the hero worshiped here. We have explained the
square IX J and the adjoining ashlar wall as the gate and western
(p.230) boundary wall of this special sanctuary situated in the large
Athena district.
Even now this assumption seems very probable
to me, only the sacred precinct cannot have been as large as we used to
believe. Because between this structure and the east stoa of the Athena
district we still have to leave a passage. According to the clay
reliefs, the time of the erection of the Heroon must fall at least in
the fourth century BC or in a still earlier epoch. If the age of the
boundary wall, which must be assigned to the IX layer according to its
design (large blocks of soft porous stone), does not match this, this
can be explained by the change that the sanctuary and also the large
Athena - district in Roman times have experienced.
[Continue to Chapter 2, part 20]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|