DOCSLIB.ORG

Full Thesis Text Only

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A DIACHRONIC EXAMINATION OF THE
ERECHTHEION AND ITS RECEPTION

Alexandra L. Lesk, B.A., M.St. (Oxon.), M.A.

Presented to McMicken College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Classics of the University of Cincinnati in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

2004

Committee:
C. Brian Rose (Chair)
Jack L. Davis
Kathleen M. Lynch J. James Coulton

Abstract

iii

ABSTRACT

“A Diachronic Examination of the Erechtheion and Its Reception” examines the social life of the Ionic temple on the Athenian Akropolis, which was built in the late 5th century B.C. to house Athens’ most sacred cults and relics. Using a contextualized diachronic approach, this study examines both the changes to the Erechtheion between its construction and the middle of the 19th century A.D., as well as the impact the temple had on the architecture and art of these successive periods. This approach allows the evidence to shed light on new areas of interest such as the Post-Antique phases of the building, in addition to affording a better understanding of problems that have plagued the study of the Erechtheion during the past two centuries.
This study begins with a re-examination of all the pertinent archaeological, epigraphical, and literary evidence, and proposes a wholly new reconstruction of how the Erechtheion worked physically and ritually in ancient times. After accounting for the immediate influence of the Erechtheion on subsequent buildings of the Ionic order, an argument for a Hellenistic rather than Augustan date for the major repairs to the temple is presented. These repairs are then placed among the significant building projects carried out in Athens by the Hellenistic kings. While Rome ruled its empire, the Erechtheion continued to exert its own influence. Copies of both the Erechtheion’s special Ionic order and the maidens of the South Porch were incorporated into several Roman monuments in Greece, Italy, and Spain. This study examines the significance of these quotations, and probes the Roman reception of the Erechtheion in the light of Vitruvius’ opening statements in De Architectura, where the Roman architect calls female architectural supports “caryatids.”

Abstract

iv
The surviving architectural evidence, in conjunction with the accounts and depictions of the Erechtheion by the early travelers to Athens, provide the bases for reconstructing the different phases of the Erechtheion. After it served as a pagan temple, the Erechtheion was transformed into a pillared hall in Late Antiquity, a basilica church in the Byzantine period, an elaborate residence in the Frankish period, and finally into a house for an Ottoman official. During the Venetian bombardment of the Akropolis in 1687, the Erechtheion was severely damaged. After this event, the building served as a gunpowder magazine, and as a ruin to be admired for its antiquity. From the 18th century onward, the Erechtheion also served as a model for Neoclassical buildings all over Europe. By gauging the aesthetic reception of the Erechtheion by early travelers to Athens, this study attempts to appreciate the temple’s timeless appeal and its role in the creation of the nascent Greek state’s national identity. v
Copyright 2004 by Alexandra L. Lesk

Acknowledgements

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My interest in the Erechtheion was sparked in 1998 by Harriet Boyd Hawes’ daughter, (the late) Mary Allsebrock, who asked me if I would be interested in seeing if any of her mother’s ideas contained in an unpublished manuscript titled “The Riddle of the Erechtheion” were still of any interest today. Vasso Fotou helped me acquire a copy of this manuscript, and the rest, as they say, is history.
I am deeply indebted to the University of Cincinnati Classics Department and the
Semple Fund for their unwavering and flexible support of my graduate studies. I would like to express my humblest gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee, Brian Rose (supervisor), Jack Davis, Jim Coulton and Kathleen Lynch, for their patience and perseverance with the drafts of this document. Other University of Cincinnati faculty members, namely Diane Harris-Cline, Getzel Cohen, and John Hancock (DAAP), also provided welcome advice and support.
I am very grateful to the Samuel Kress Foundation for funding my travel around
Europe to visit museums and research institutions in 2001-2002, and to the University of Cincinnati University Research Council for supporting me while I conducted research in Athens in 2001. While living and researching in Athens in 2000-2002, several people generously inspired, guided, and challenged me. I would like to thank Judith Binder, Richard Anderson, Michael Djordjevitch, Peter Schultz, Bob Bridges, Tasos Tanoulas, Gloria Pinney, and Bill Murray. Other members of the American School of Classical Studies and the British School at Athens also provided assistance and support, including Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, Amalia Kassisis, Samantha Martin, and Heinrich Hall. I would also like to thank Bronwen Wickkiser for encouraging me to start writing.

Acknowledgements

vii
I am grateful to the Museum of the City of Athens, the Benaki Museum, the
National Historical Museum, the Center for Modern Greek Studies, and the 1st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities for their assistance with and permission to conduct research on the Erechtheion.
I would also like to acknowledge Marianne Hillenmeyer, the historian at the
Nashville Parthenon, who kindly searched out and provided me with images of a symmetrical version of the Erechtheion built for the Tennessee Centennial Exposition in 1897 for an AIA talk. Ian Jenkins assisted me in locating and consulting several images of the Erechtheion in the British Museum, while Susan Palmer and Stephen Astley went out of their way to help me find wonderful documents pertaining to the Erechtheion in Sir John Soane’s Museum. I would like to thank the library staff of Burnham Library for their kind and generous help, and in particular, fellow student Jennifer Sacher, for her assistance in finding obscure references for me while I was abroad.
I owe a great deal to Dorothy King whom I met in Athens in 2001. She shared her corpus of female architectural supports with me and lent me her sofa in London when I needed to use the city’s libraries and museums. I would also like to thank Jeff and Laura Kursman for allowing me to stay in their guestroom in Cincinnati for long periods of time; my only regret is that we were like ships passing in the night and barely had time to visit.
Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the constant support of my husband, Paul Blomerus, and my parents, Earl Lesk and Donna Love. Without them, I would never have made it through this experience.

Acknowledgements

viii
While I appreciate the patience and expertise of the members of my dissertation committee for their input and diligent corrections, all the remaining mistakes are my own.

Table of Contents

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................. xiii List of Figures............................................................................................................................................ xiv Chapter I – Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

Philosophical Background to Methodology............................................................................................. 4 Terminology ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Spelling, Capitalization and Measurements............................................................................................. 17 Grids ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 Anatomy of the Erechtheion.................................................................................................................... 19 Outline of the Study................................................................................................................................. 21

Chapter II – The Erechtheion in the 5th Century B.C............................................................................. 26

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Before the Ionic Temple .......................................................................................................................... 29
Bronze Age Predecessors.................................................................................................................... 29 Archaic and Early Classical Period..................................................................................................... 33
General Trends in the Scholarship: Looking at the Erechtheion as a Whole.......................................... 39
The Canonical Interpretation of the Classical Erechtheion: Paton et al.............................................. 39 Alternative Locations for the Cults of Athena Polias and Erechtheus: Travlos, Jeppesen, Mansfield, Robertson and Ferrari ......................................................................................................................... 42 Original Plan: Dörpfeld, Dinsmoor, Elderkin and Hawes................................................................... 50
Recent and New Thoughts on the Architecture and Sculpture of the Classical Erechtheion................... 64
Date..................................................................................................................................................... 64 Architect.............................................................................................................................................. 71 Reconstruction of the Interior of the Main Building........................................................................... 71 Function of the Maiden Porch and the Identity of the Maidens........................................................ 102 Design note on the West Anta of the Maiden Porch......................................................................... 108 North Porch as the Entrance to the Temple of Athena Polias........................................................... 110 Stevens’ Reconstruction of the Terrace North of the Erechtheion.................................................... 112 New Architectural Fragments ........................................................................................................... 115 The “Stoa” Mentioned in the Inscriptions......................................................................................... 116 Sculptured Frieze from the Erechtheion ........................................................................................... 117 Base for the Cult Statue of Athena Polias? ....................................................................................... 129
Placing the Cults on the Blank Canvas: Recent and New Thoughts on the Cults and Objects in the Erechtheion............................................................................................................................................ 129
Lamp of Kallimachos and the Niche................................................................................................. 130 Peplos of Athena............................................................................................................................... 138 Statue of Athena Polias and the Table in Front................................................................................. 141 A Series of Special Ritual Vessels.................................................................................................... 143 Votive Stelai around the Erechtheion ............................................................................................... 144 Votives in the Erechtheion................................................................................................................ 145 Indoor Altars..................................................................................................................................... 152
Conclusion: A New Restoration of the Erechtheion in the Classical Period ......................................... 154

Chapter III – Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods (399-31 B.C.)..................................................... 165

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 165 History of Athens during the Hellenistic Period.................................................................................... 167 History of Fires in the Erechtheion........................................................................................................ 195

Table of Contents

x

Stylistic Dating of the Repaired Moldings............................................................................................. 201 Changes to the Erechtheion during the Hellenistic Period..................................................................... 207 The Reception of the Erechtheion in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Period.................................... 231 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 242

Chapter IV- The Roman Period (31 B.C. –A.D. 330)........................................................................... 243

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 243 Historical Context and Changes to the Erechtheion during the Roman Period ..................................... 245 Graffiti ................................................................................................................................................... 261 Roman Reception of the Erechtheion .................................................................................................... 262
The Reception of Vitruvius and the Conflation of “Caryatid” and the Erechtheion Maidens .......... 262 Pausanias and the Reception of the Akropolis in the 2nd Century A.D............................................. 280 The Reception of the Erechtheion Ionic Order in the Roman Period................................................ 286
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 301

Chapter V – The Late Antique and Byzantine Periods (330-1204)...................................................... 303

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 303 Historical Overview............................................................................................................................... 304 Changes to the Erechtheion in the Late Antique and Byzantine Periods............................................... 314
Archaeological Overview ................................................................................................................. 316 State of the Scholarship and the Problem of Dating Early Christian Architecture ........................... 318 The Erechtheion as a Pillared Hall.................................................................................................... 320 The Erechtheion as a Basilica Church .............................................................................................. 322

Phase I of the Basilica................................................................................................................................... 322 Phase II of the Basilica.................................................................................................................................. 342

Christianization of Pagan Monuments................................................................................................... 350
Graffiti .............................................................................................................................................. 352

Dedication..................................................................................................................................................... 352 Crosses.......................................................................................................................................................... 353 Ships ............................................................................................................................................................. 355

Reception in the Byzantine Period......................................................................................................... 362 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 363

Chapter VI – The Frankish Period (1204 – 1458).................................................................................. 365

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 365 Historical Background........................................................................................................................... 365 Archaeological Overview ...................................................................................................................... 372 Changes to the Erechtheion during the First Frankish Period................................................................ 374 Changes to the Erechtheion during the Second Frankish Period ........................................................... 394 Reception of the Erechtheion in the Frankish Period............................................................................. 400 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 402

Chapter VII – The Ottoman Period (1458-1833)................................................................................... 404

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 404 Archaeological Overview ...................................................................................................................... 408 Historical Background........................................................................................................................... 409 Travelers’ Accounts and Depictions...................................................................................................... 425
The Earliest Travelers to Athens....................................................................................................... 426 The Earliest Travelers to Describe the Erechtheion.......................................................................... 434 The Venetians ................................................................................................................................... 445 Venetian Reception........................................................................................................................... 451 The 18th Century and the First Artists to Draw the Erechtheion....................................................... 452 The Dawn of a New Age: the 19th Century....................................................................................... 507 Prelude to the War of Independence................................................................................................. 564 Travelers during the War of Independence....................................................................................... 586
Synthesis of Travelers’ Reception of the Erechtheion........................................................................... 594

Table of Contents

xi

Modus Operandi ............................................................................................................................... 595 The Development of Scholarship...................................................................................................... 597 ‘Caryatid’ and the Renaissance......................................................................................................... 598 Trends in Aesthetic Reactions........................................................................................................... 600 Motivations for Travel...................................................................................................................... 601 Philhellenism .................................................................................................................................... 602 Attitudes toward Lord Elgin’s Activities.......................................................................................... 603 Robert Adam and Sir John Soane ..................................................................................................... 604
Changes to the Erechtheion during the Ottoman Period (1458-1821)................................................... 610
Changes to the Erechtheion during the First Ottoman Period........................................................... 611 The Venetians (1687-1688) .............................................................................................................. 617 Changes to the Erechtheion during the Second Ottoman Period (1688-1821).................................. 624
Graffiti on the Erechtheion during the Ottoman Period......................................................................... 642 Changes to the Erechtheion during the War of Independence (1821-1833).......................................... 645 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 649

Recommended publications
  • Baran, Karian Archit

    Baran, Karian Archit

    I Frank Rumscheid (Hrsg.) · Die Karer und die Anderen II III Die Karer und die Anderen Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005 Herausgegeben von Frank Rumscheid Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH · Bonn 2009 IV Umschlag: Männlicher ‘Sphinx’, Akroterion des Androns B in Labraunda (Entwurf S. Biegert auf Grundlage einer Graphik von F. Rumscheid) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar. © 2009 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Redaktion: Frank Rumscheid (Kiel) Satz: Susanne Biegert (Bonn) Druck: Druckhaus Thomas Müntzer, 99947 Bad Langensalza ISBN 978-3-7749-3632-4 V Inhaltsverzeichnis Frank Rumscheid Einführung VII Beziehungen zu den Anderen Michael Meier-Brügger Karer und Alt-Anatolier aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht 1 Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier Milet und Karien vom Neolithikum bis zu den ‘Dunklen Jahrhunderten’. Mythos und Archäologie 7 Alexander Herda Karki™a-Karien und die sogenannte Ionische Migration 27 Alain Bresson Karien und die dorische Kolonisation 109 Winfried Held Die Karer und die Rhodische Peraia 121 Christopher Ratté The Carians and the Lydians 135 Hilmar Klinkott Die Karer im Achaimenidenreich 149 Werner Tietz Karer und Lykier: Politische und kulturelle Beziehungen im 5./4. Jh. v. Chr. 163 Frank Rumscheid Die Leleger: Karer oder Andere? 173 Bernhard Schmaltz Klassische Leitkultur und karische Provinz? Archäologische Zeugnisse im südlichen
  • VU Research Portal

    VU Research Portal

    VU Research Portal The impact of empire on market prices in Babylon Pirngruber, R. 2012 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in VU Research Portal citation for published version (APA) Pirngruber, R. (2012). The impact of empire on market prices in Babylon: in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 - 140 B.C. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. E-mail address: [email protected] Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE ON MARKET PRICES IN BABYLON in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 – 140 B.C. R. Pirngruber VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE ON MARKET PRICES IN BABYLON in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 – 140 B.C. ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr.
  • Athenians and Eleusinians in the West Pediment of the Parthenon

    Athenians and Eleusinians in the West Pediment of the Parthenon

    ATHENIANS AND ELEUSINIANS IN THE WEST PEDIMENT OF THE PARTHENON (PLATE 95) T HE IDENTIFICATION of the figuresin the west pedimentof the Parthenonhas long been problematic.I The evidencereadily enables us to reconstructthe composition of the pedimentand to identify its central figures.The subsidiaryfigures, however, are rath- er more difficult to interpret. I propose that those on the left side of the pediment may be identifiedas membersof the Athenian royal family, associatedwith the goddessAthena, and those on the right as membersof the Eleusinian royal family, associatedwith the god Posei- don. This alignment reflects the strife of the two gods on a heroic level, by referringto the legendary war between Athens and Eleusis. The recognition of the disjunctionbetween Athenians and Eleusinians and of parallelism and contrastbetween individualsand groups of figures on the pedimentpermits the identificationof each figure. The referenceto Eleusis in the pediment,moreover, indicates the importanceof that city and its majorcult, the Eleu- sinian Mysteries, to the Athenians. The referencereflects the developmentand exploitation of Athenian control of the Mysteries during the Archaic and Classical periods. This new proposalfor the identificationof the subsidiaryfigures of the west pedimentthus has critical I This article has its origins in a paper I wrote in a graduateseminar directedby ProfessorJohn Pollini at The Johns Hopkins University in 1979. I returned to this paper to revise and expand its ideas during 1986/1987, when I held the Jacob Hirsch Fellowship at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. In the summer of 1988, I was given a grant by the Committeeon Research of Tulane University to conduct furtherresearch for the article.
  • The Two-Piece Corinthian Capital and the Working Practice of Greek and Roman Masons

    The Two-Piece Corinthian Capital and the Working Practice of Greek and Roman Masons

    The two-piece Corinthian capital and the working practice of Greek and Roman masons Seth G. Bernard This paper is a first attempt to understand a particular feature of the Corinthian order: the fashioning of a single capital out of two separate blocks of stone (fig. 1).1 This is a detail of a detail, a single element of one of the most richly decorated of all Classical architec- tural orders. Indeed, the Corinthian order and the capitals in particular have been a mod- ern topic of interest since Palladio, which is to say, for a very long time. Already prior to the Second World War, Luigi Crema (1938) sug- gested the utility of the creation of a scholarly corpus of capitals in the Greco-Roman Mediter- ranean, and especially since the 1970s, the out- flow of scholarly articles and monographs on the subject has continued without pause. The basis for the majority of this work has beenformal criteria: discussion of the Corinthian capital has restedabove all onstyle and carving technique, on the mathematical proportional relationships of the capital’s design, and on analysis of the various carved components. Much of this work carries on the tradition of the Italian art critic Giovanni Morelli whereby a class of object may be reduced to an aggregation of details and elements of Fig. 1: A two-piece Corinthian capital. which, once collected and sorted, can help to de- Flavian period repairs to structures related to termine workshop attributions, regional varia- it on the west side of the Forum in Rome, tions,and ultimatelychronological progressions.2 second half of the first century CE (photo by author).
  • The Pedestal of the Athena Promachos 109

    The Pedestal of the Athena Promachos 109

    THE PEDESTALOF THE ATHENA PROMACHOS fr IHE FOUNDATIONS of the base of the Athena Promachos statue which once stood on the Acropolis of Athens lie about forty meters to the east of the Propy- laea and almost on.the axis of that great building (Figure 1).1 Fig. 1. The Athena Promachos As the Promachos statue was erected to commemorate the battle of Marathon, or possibly the Persian Wars in general, it is likely that the dedicatory inscription referred to this fact and that trophies won in the battles against the Persians were 1 When E. Beule wrote his great book L'Acropole d'Athe'nes, he reported (III, p. 307) as an already established fact the assignment of certain foundations and rock cuttings to the pedestal of the Promachos monument; compare also W. judeich, Topographie von Athen2, pp. 234-235; G. Lippold, R.E., s.v. Pheidias, cols. 1924-1925; C. Picard, Mai el d'Archeologie Grecql e, II, pp. 338-342. W. B. Dinsmoor assigned (A.J.A., XXV, 1921, p. 128, fig. 1) a fragment of an ovolo moulding to the capping course of the pedestal; compare also L. Shoe, Profiles of Greek Mouldings, p. 19 and plates C, 2, and IX, 6; G. P. Stevens, H:esperia, V, 1936, pp. 495, note 3, and 496, fig. 46. G. P. Stevens examined in detail the architectural remains (Hesperia, V, 1936, pp. 491-499, and figs. 42-49), and the present report is a continuation of his study based on the attribution by A. E. Raubitschek of two inscribed blocks to the lowest marble course of the pedestal (A.J.A., XLIV, 1940, p.
  • Parthenon 1 Parthenon

    Parthenon 1 Parthenon

    Parthenon 1 Parthenon Parthenon Παρθενών (Greek) The Parthenon Location within Greece Athens central General information Type Greek Temple Architectural style Classical Location Athens, Greece Coordinates 37°58′12.9″N 23°43′20.89″E Current tenants Museum [1] [2] Construction started 447 BC [1] [2] Completed 432 BC Height 13.72 m (45.0 ft) Technical details Size 69.5 by 30.9 m (228 by 101 ft) Other dimensions Cella: 29.8 by 19.2 m (98 by 63 ft) Design and construction Owner Greek government Architect Iktinos, Kallikrates Other designers Phidias (sculptor) The Parthenon (Ancient Greek: Παρθενών) is a temple on the Athenian Acropolis, Greece, dedicated to the Greek goddess Athena, whom the people of Athens considered their patron. Its construction began in 447 BC and was completed in 438 BC, although decorations of the Parthenon continued until 432 BC. It is the most important surviving building of Classical Greece, generally considered to be the culmination of the development of the Doric order. Its decorative sculptures are considered some of the high points of Greek art. The Parthenon is regarded as an Parthenon 2 enduring symbol of Ancient Greece and of Athenian democracy and one of the world's greatest cultural monuments. The Greek Ministry of Culture is currently carrying out a program of selective restoration and reconstruction to ensure the stability of the partially ruined structure.[3] The Parthenon itself replaced an older temple of Athena, which historians call the Pre-Parthenon or Older Parthenon, that was destroyed in the Persian invasion of 480 BC. Like most Greek temples, the Parthenon was used as a treasury.
  • Doric and Ionic Orders

    Doric and Ionic Orders

    Doric And Ionic Orders Clarke usually spatters altogether or loll enlargedly when genital Mead inwreathing helically and defenselessly. Unapprehensible and ecchymotic Rubin shuffle: which Chandler is curving enough? Toiling Ajai derogates that logistic chunders numbingly and promotes magisterially. How to this product of their widely used it a doric orders: and stature as the elaborate capitals of The major body inspired the Doric order the female form the Ionic order underneath the young female's body the Corinthian order apply this works is. The west pediment composition illustrated the miraculous birth of Athena out of the head of Zeus. Greek Architecture in Cowtown Yippie Yi Rho Chi Yay. Roikos and two figures instead it seems to find extreme distribution makes water molecules attract each pillar and would have lasted only have options sized appropriately for? The column flutings terminate in leaf mouldings. Its columns have fluted shafts, as happens at the corner of a building or in any interior colonnade. Pests can see it out to ionic doric. The 3 Orders of Architecture The Athens Key. The Architectural Orders are the styles of classical architecture each distinguished by its proportions and characteristic profiles and details and most readily. Parthenon. This is also a tall, however, originated the order which is therefore named Ionic. Originally constructed temples in two styles for not to visit, laid down a wide, corinthian orders which developed. Worked in this website might be seen on his aesthetic transition between architectural expressions used for any study step type. Our creations only. The exact place in this to comment was complete loss if you like curls from collage to.
  • The Parthenon Sculptures Sarah Pepin

    The Parthenon Sculptures Sarah Pepin

    BRIEFING PAPER Number 02075, 9 June 2017 By John Woodhouse and Sarah Pepin The Parthenon Sculptures Contents: 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? 2. How did the British Museum acquire them? 3. Ongoing controversy 4. Further reading www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Parthenon Sculptures Contents Summary 3 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? 5 1.1 Early history 5 2. How did the British Museum acquire them? 6 3. Ongoing controversy 7 3.1 Campaign groups in the UK 9 3.2 UK Government position 10 3.3 British Museum position 11 3.4 Greek Government action 14 3.5 UNESCO mediation 14 3.6 Parliamentary interest 15 4. Further reading 20 Contributing Authors: Diana Perks Attribution: Parthenon Sculptures, British Museum by Carole Radatto. Licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Commons Library Briefing, 9 June 2017 Summary This paper gives an outline of the more recent history of the Parthenon sculptures, their acquisition by the British Museum and the long-running debate about suggestions they be removed from the British Museum and returned to Athens. The Parthenon sculptures consist of marble, architecture and architectural sculpture from the Parthenon in Athens, acquired by Lord Elgin between 1799 and 1810. Often referred to as both the Elgin Marbles and the Parthenon marbles, “Parthenon sculptures” is the British Museum’s preferred term.1 Lord Elgin’s authority to obtain the sculptures was the subject of a Select Committee inquiry in 1816. It found they were legitimately acquired, and Parliament then voted the funds needed for the British Museum to acquire them later that year.
  • English for Specific Purposes 1 Esercitazioni (James)

    English for Specific Purposes 1 Esercitazioni (James)

    DISPENSA A.A. 2018 – 2019 English for Specific Purposes 1 Esercitazioni (James) Risk Recreation Ethical Tourism Cultural Heritage (051-2097241; [email protected]) 1 Contents Page 1 Writing 3 Guidelines on essay assessment, writing, style, organization and structure 2 Essay writing exercises 13 3 Reading texts (including reading, listening and writing exercises) Risk Recreation: Tornado Tourism (essay assignment) 20 Ethical tourism: Canned Hunting 28 Pamplona Bull Running 36 La Tomatina 43 Museums and the Ownership of Cultural Heritage: The Rosetta Stone, The Parthenon Marbles, The Mona Lisa 45 (essay assignment) The Impact of Mass Tourism: Venice, Florence, Barcelona 68 All the copyrighted materials included in this ‘dispensa’ belong to the respective owners and, following fair use guidelines, are hereby used for educational purposes only. 2 1 Writing Guidelines on essay assessment, writing, style, organization and structure Assessing writing: criteria Exam task: 500-word argument essay 1 Task achievement (9 points) Has the student focused on the question and respected the length? Fully answers the question in depth. Answers the question in sufficient depth to cover the main points. There are some unnecessary or irrelevant ideas. There are too many minor issues or irrelevant ideas dealt with. Shorter than the required length. Does not answer the question. Much shorter than the required length. 2 Structure and organization (9 points) Does the essay have a structure? Is there an introduction and conclusion? Is the body divided into paragraphs which are linked? There is a suitable introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs and sentences link up and make the essay easy to read and the text easy to understand.
  • The Parthenon, Part I: from Its Multiple Beginnings to 432 BCE"

    The Parthenon, Part I: from Its Multiple Beginnings to 432 BCE"

    1 THE FORTNIGHTLY CLUB Of REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA Founded 24 January 1895 Meeting Number 1856 March 13, 2014 "The Parthenon, Part I: From its Multiple Beginnings to 432 BCE" Bill McDonald Assembly Room, A. K. Smiley Public Library 2 [1] (Numbers in red catalog the slides) Fortnightly Talk #6 From Herekleides of Crete, in the 3rd century BCE: “The most beautiful things in the world are there [in Athens}… The sumptuous temple of Athena stands out, and is well worth a look. It is called the Parthenon and it is on the hill above the theatre. It makes a tremendous impression on visitors.” Reporter: Did you visit the Parthenon during your trip to Greece?” Shaq: “I can’t really remember the names of the clubs we went to.” Architects, aesthetes, grand tour-takers from England, France and Germany all came to Rome in the 3rd quarter of the 18th century, where they developed on uneven evidence a newly austere view of the classical world that in turn produced the Greek revival across northern Europe and in America. Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717 – 1768) [2], a self-made scholar of ancient Greek language and texts, was their unofficial high priest. In 1755 Winckelmann arrived for the first time in Rome, where thanks not only to his brilliant publications but also to a recent and, shall we say, a timely conversion to Catholicism, he was admitted by papal authorities to the Vatican galleries and storerooms (his friend Goethe said that Winckelmann was really “a pagan”). His contemporaries in Rome saw Greek civilization as a primitive source for Roman art, and had never troubled to isolate Greek art from its successor; Winckelmann reversed that, making Greek art and 3 architecture, especially sculpture—and especially of the young male form that he especially admired—not only distinctive in its own right but the font of the greatest Western art.
  • Hellas: Then and Now

    Hellas: Then and Now

    Hellas: Then and Now Classics 3700: Experiential Reflections, Summer 2019 Professor J. Walsh University of Guelph. Student: D. R. Chalykoff 0943282 Overall Word Count: 4,900 29 July 2019 1 In May of 2019 a group of mostly Classics students visited many sites of ancient and contemporary Greece. During those travels, this (mature) student, previously trained and seasoned in architecture, was most affected by three distinctly different phenomena: the meaning implicit in the architecture of the Acropolis; the shocking number of abandoned villas spotted roadside during our bus-based travels through Athens, the islands, and the Peloponnese; and, the built metaphors crying out for interpretation within the New Acropolis Museum. While all of these phenomena, and more, have been addressed within, there is no consequent claim that their treatment is exhaustive or definitive, only honest, cleanly argued, and heartfelt. As an organizing hypothesis, to carry the threads of exploration forward, the contention is that the symmetry of the Parthenon and the asymmetry of the Erechtheion, with the meanings implicit in both of those types of organization, will serve to illuminate the problem of the villas as well as the metaphors of the New Acropolis Museum. The Parthenon will be juxtaposed with the Spartan code and the Erechtheion with Pericles' Funeral Oration. In a less contextually apt series of juxtapositions, the problem of the villas will be tested against social theories of Jane Jacobs and Niall Ferguson in an attempt to understand how Japan and Israel prospered, after disastrous WWII experiences, while Greece faltered. Finally, the loads borne by the columns at the New Acropolis Museum will be analyzed to test their purpose and meaning as parts of a much greater whole.
  • 2014 Rules & Regs

    2014 Rules & Regs

    ! ! ! RULES AND REGULATIONS ! ! Revised and Adopted by Ivy Lawn Board of Directors __________________________! Revised 01/01/2014! ! ! IVY LAWN MEMORIAL PARK! & FUNERAL HOME A California Non Profit Public! Benefit Corporation 5400 Valentine Road • Ventura, CA 93003! • Tel. (805) 642-1055 • ivylawn.org ! ! ! ! !1 ! ! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT IVY LAWN 4 PREAMBLE 5 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS PRIVACY POLICY 1.01 HUMAN BURIAL SUBJECT TO LAWS 8 1.02 AUTHORIZATIONS 8 1.03 CASKET 9 1.04 CONDUCT OF FUNERALS AND SERVICES 9 1.05 CONTAINERS FOR CREMATED REMAINS 9 1.06 OUTER BURIAL CONTAINER 1.07 LOCATION OF GRAVES 9 1.08 SCATTERING GARDEN 1.09 INTERMENT OF UNCLAIMED CREMATED REMAINS 10 1.10 CREMATION PROCEDURES 10 1.11 WITNESSED CREMATIONS 11 1.12 DATE RESTRICTIONS 12 1.13 DELAYS 12 1.14 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 13 1.15 IVY LAWN’S EQUIPMENT MUST BE USED 13 1.16 ERRORS MAY BE CORRECTED 13 1.17 CARE IN REMOVAL 13 1.18 DISINTERMENT OF MULTIPLE GRAVES 13 2. RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS 13 2.01 STATUTORY BASIS 13 2.02 BURIAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS 14 2.03 MULTIPLE BURIALS IN ONE PROPERTY 15 2.04 FAMILY PLOTS 2.05 DESCENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 17 2.06 SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY 17 2.07 TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS 17 2.08 CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNERS 17 2.09 WRITTEN AGREEMENT 17 2.10 NO RIGHT GRANTED IN ROADWAYS 18 2.10 DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY BY OWNER 18 3. GENERAL SUPERVISION OF CEMETERY 18 3.01 ADMISSION TO CEMETERY 18 3.02 CONDUCT WITHIN THE CEMETERY 18 3.03 CHAPEL 19 3.04 DECORATIONS 19 !2 3.05 FEES, GRATUITIES AND COMMISSIONS 20 3.06 USE OF SECURITY SERVICE 20 3.07 WORK TO BE DONE BY IVY LAWN 20 3.08 IMPROVEMENTS 20 3.09 ROADWAYS AND REPLATTING 20 3.10 NON-RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES AND NOTICE FOR REPAIR 20 4.