Content uploaded by Margaret M. Miles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaret M. Miles on Oct 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
dining in the sanctuary of demeter and kore 1
Volume 80
2011
Copyright © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, originally
published in Hesperia 80 (2011), pp. 657–675. This offprint is supplied for
personal, non-commercial use only. The definitive electronic version of the article
can be found at <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0657>.
Hesperia
The Journal of the American School
of Classical Studies at Athens
hesperia
Tracey Cullen, Editor
Editorial Advisory Board
Carla M. Antonaccio, Duke University
Angelos Chaniotis, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Jack L. Davis, American School of Classical Studies at Athens
A. A. Donohue, Bryn Mawr College
Jan Driessen, Université Catholique de Louvain
Marian H. Feldman, University of California, Berkeley
Gloria Ferrari Pinney, Harvard University
Sherry C. Fox, American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Thomas W. Gallant, University of California, San Diego
Sharon E. J. Gerstel, University of California, Los Angeles
Guy M. Hedreen, Williams College
Carol C. Mattusch, George Mason University
Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, University of Thessaly at Volos
Lisa C. Nevett, University of Michigan
Josiah Ober, Stanford University
John K. Papadopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles
Jeremy B. Rutter, Dartmouth College
A. J. S. Spawforth, Newcastle University
Monika Trümper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Hesperia is published quarterly by the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens. Founded in 1932 to publish the work of the American School, the jour-
nal now welcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek
archaeology, art, epigraphy, history, materials science, ethnography, and literature,
from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperia is a refereed journal, indexed in
Abstracts in Anthropology, L’Année philologique, Art Index, Arts and Humanities
Citation Index, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Current Contents, IBZ:
Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften-
literatur, Numismatic Literature, Periodicals Contents Index, Russian Academy of
Sciences Bibliographies, and TOCS-IN. The journal is also a member of CrossRef.
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is a research and teaching
institution dedicated to the advanced study of the archaeology, art, history,
philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world. Established
in 1881 by a consortium of nine American universities, the School now serves
graduate students and scholars from more than 180 affiliated colleges and uni-
versities, acting as a base for research and study in Greece. As part of its mission,
the School directs on going excavations in the Athenian Agora and at Corinth
and sponsors all other American-led excavations and surveys on Greek soil. It
is the official link between American archaeologists and classicists and the Ar-
chaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and, as such, is dedicated
to the wise management of cultural resources and to the dissemination of knowl-
edge of the classical world. Inquiries about programs or membership in the
School should be sent to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
6–8 Charlton Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5232.
© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens
hesperia 80 (2011)
Pages 657–675
THE LAPIS PRIMUS AND
THE OLDER PARTHENON
ABSTRACT
The first two sets of Athenian tribute quota lists recording aparchai offered
to Athena were inscribed on unusually large blocks of marble that have no
parallel among other Greek inscriptions. The author argues that the block
used for the first set of lists most likely was originally quarried for use as an
architrave on the Older Parthenon, and that the second block may also have
been intended for a building, perhaps the Parthenon. The reuse followed the
well-attested practice of recycling architectural material held to be the propert y
of a deity, and the monumental size of the blocks enhanced the dedicatory
character of the lists of aparchai.
Most visitors to the Epigraphical Museum in Athens feel some awe upon
first seeing the reconstructed lapis primus, which towers over everything
else in the museum, its top nearly touching the ceiling (Figs. 1, 2).1 On
this very large, upright rectangular block were inscribed lists of the payers
and amounts paid of one-sixtieth of the phoros (tribute) to Athens for at
least 15 years, from 454/3 to 440/39 (IG I3 259–272). The one-sixtieth
represented the aparche (first-fruits offering) given to the goddess Athena
and entrusted to her treasurers. The inscribed fragments of the tribute quota
lists, as they are known, have been central to reconstructions of Athenian
history in the 5th century.2 Why was such an enormous stone, not easy to
erect in the first place, and not easy to inscribe with additional accounts in
subsequent years, used to record the annual gifts paid to Athena? Was it a
deliberate monument to the iron grip of Athens on her allies, a statement
1. I thank M. Lagogianni, director
of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens,
for permission to scrutinize, measure,
and photograph the inscriptions, and
I am grateful to the many readers
who have helped me with suggestions,
in particular R. S. Stroud. All photo-
graphs are my own. All dates are b.c.
2. IG I3 259–272 provides the
current standard text and bibliography;
the fundamental study of this and
subsequent lists is ATL. For the recon-
struction and the problems of conser-
vation and study that it presents, see
Stroud 2006, pp. 11–16; for an over-
view of the organization of the texts of
this and related inscriptions, see Paar-
mann 2004, who argues (pp. 89–91)
that the treasurers of Athena were
responsible for the lists; for comments
on the method of reconstruction and
difficulties in the later lists, see Kallet
2004. For questions surrounding prob-
able aparchai to Apollo from earlier
tribute quotas prior to 454, presum-
ably gathered and stored on Delos, see
Chankowski 2008, pp. 37–43, 317–323.
margaret m. miles658
of imperial control that was foreseen by the Athenians in 454 to stretch
well into the future?
There is no parallel among known Greek freestanding inscriptions
for the scale of this inscribed block. I argue here that the original purpose
for which it was quarried was architectural, not epigraphical, and that it
was likely a leftover architrave block intended for the Older Parthenon. It
would have been selected from a store of blocks belonging to the goddess
and kept in her sanctuary, and reused to make this impressive epigraphic
monument. The store of blocks was accumulated in accordance with the
formal civic obligation to retain a deity’s property, illustrated in Athenian
and other Greek sanctuaries both archaeologically and epigraphically.
Figure 1. Lapis primus (IG I3 259–272),
front of block
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 659
Figure 2. Lapis primus (IG I3 259–272),
back of block
margaret m. miles660
THE LAPIS PRIMUS
The lapis primus as it stands today consists of some 183 fragments, held
together in a matrix of plaster over an iron armature (Figs. 1, 2). The physical
reconstruction was completed in 1927 and the texts on the front surfaces
of the fragments have been assiduously studied in the course of subsequent
decades. At present, the sides and backs of the fragments are not accessible,
and there are few published photographs of the inner surfaces.3 My concern
here is not with the texts and the many problems in their reconstruction
and interpretation, but rather with the original shape, size, and likely origin
of the block on which the texts are inscribed.
The authors of The Athenian Tribute Lists (ATL), the principal publica-
tion of the fragments, provide a brief description of the reconstructed block:
its minimum height was estimated at 3.663 m in 1927, and adjusted to
3.583 m by the elimination of five lines of text in 1953; its width is reported
as 1.109 m and its thickness as 0.385 m.4 No fragment preserves a trace
of the bottom surface. Some fragments with blank surfaces are set within
the plaster matrix as part of the lower, uninscribed area of the block. The
authors of ATL provide no description of the top of the block. In 1964 W.
K. Pritchett suggested that it was surmounted by a crowning member or
finial; the suggestion has not won support, but it has nonetheless brought
attention to the upper surface of the block.5
A new inspection of the block as it appears today yields the following
observations:
1. The thickness of the block at certain points seems secure, given
the links in several places between fragments on both sides.
Published measurements range from 0.385 to 0.39 m. (The
difference of 0.005 m may be due simply to variations in the
plaster matrix.)
2. The width of the block, which varies from 1.109 to 1.14 m in
published measurements, has been considered secure by the
authors of ATL on the basis of their reconstruction of the text.
If we look only at the stone fragments themselves, however,
without regard for the text, it is clear that the block could
have been somewhat wider originally, although probably not
narrower. In other words, there are no visible physical joins
from fragment to fragment that limit the possible width. Thus,
1.14 m should be regarded as a minimum, not a fixed, width, at
least until any inner joins that might confirm a fixed width can
be inspected.
3. It is therefore impossible to test
any proposed changes to the current
arrangement. Recently found fragments
are better illustrated, and some have
been inserted into the plaster matrix
where possible (e.g., those found in the
excavations of the Athenian Agora:
Camp 1974, pp. 314–318). Some unin-
scribed fragments likely belonging to
the block are noted in ATL 1, p. viii,
and Stroud 2006, pp. 15–16.
4. ATL 1, p. 3; restated in Meritt
1966, p. 134. The height is given as
3.663 m again in Meritt 1972a, p. 403.
Pritchett (1964a, p. 129; 1964b) chal-
lenged the measurements and suggested
that the stone tapers downward slightly
in width, from 1.14 to 1.109 m; in fact,
the variation is caused not by taper but
by irregularities in the modern plaster
matrix that supports the fragments in
their current positions.
5. Pritchett 1966; 1967, pp. 113–
115, 119; 1972, pp. 153–159; contra,
Meritt 1966; 1972a, pp. 403–405, with
an excellent photo on pl. 100.
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 661
3. Since the time of the initial publication, the current height of the
block, reported by B. D. Meritt as 3.583 m, has been regarded
as a minimum.6 The repositioning of a fragment on the left side
in 1974 extended the height by ca. 5 cm (Fig. 3).7 The original
block could have been at least half a meter longer at its bottom,
which would have allowed it to be set within a secure base on
the Acropolis.
4. If we disregard the reconstructed text and speculate without
knowing whether there are any interior joins, the placement of
the fragments vertically within the overall height of the block
could vary somewhat from the present arrangement, on both
the front and the back.
5. The top of the block is preserved only on parts of some frag-
ments from the front side; nothing remains of the upper surface
of the back or lateral faces. Along the top of the block at its
front edge is a drafted margin, ca. 0.032 m wide, probably chis-
eled with a drove; behind it, and projecting above it to a height
of ca. 0.035 m, are parts of a roughly picked quarry surface,
weathered and pocked (Figs. 4, 5).8 The drafted margin was cut
through the quarry surface to give the block a squared edge on
this face. It seems safe to assume that a similar drafted margin
was cut along the top of the other sides of the block, because
the drafted edges give the block its precisely squared shape.
Figure 3. Lapis primus (IG I3 259–
272), detail of left side and back of
block, showing fragment 157 as reset
in 1974
6. Meritt 1966, p. 134.
7. A fragment (no. 181) found in
the Agora excavations in 1972 proved
to join other fragments of the left lat-
eral face, but the new spacing of the
text required that another nonjoining
fragment (no. 157, a piece that includes
part of the lower, uninscribed portion
of the back) be repositioned some 5 cm
lower on the left side. M. F. McGregor
had the base of the reconstructed block
altered in 1974 to accommodate the
lower position of the fragment (Meritt
1972b, pp. 420–421; McGregor 1976,
pl. 28:b).
8. The closest parallels are the rough
quarry surfaces visible on the exterior
faces, and especially the lifting bosses,
of unfinished marble blocks on the
Acropolis that have been assigned to
the Older Parthenon.
margaret m. miles662
It appears that no additional piece of stone sat on top of the
block, as Pritchett suggested, for the surface is not prepared to
receive one. Since the surface is still as quarried, it is clear that
the block, if originally intended for an architectural purpose,
had not yet been prepared for placement in a building; other-
wise we would see anathyrosis rather than the simple drafted
margin cut into the top to give it a squared shape.
Before it was broken into bits, then, the block was ca. 4.00 m or more
in length, with a minimum width of 1.14 m and a thickness of ca. 0.39 m
when it was inscribed. Quarrying such a huge marble block would have been
a difficult, time-consuming job. The quarry master had to identify areas
of the quarry that had no fissures and as few micaeous veins as possible, if
the block was intended for an architectural purpose. Optimally, the grain
or foliation planes of the marble should be parallel to the proposed weight
load. (In its present, upright position, the grain of the marble runs more or
less vertically along the long axis of the block; in a horizontal position, this
would have been the weight-bearing axis, and the grain would have run
approximately parallel to the load.) In the quarry, the perimeter of an area
of marble larger than the proposed block had to be chiseled out, separated
from the quarry bed on each of the four sides, and then—the most chal-
lenging operation of all for a block of this length—removed from the bed.
The procedure in antiquity is well documented by traces left in quarries, as
well as by blocks preserved at various stages of work both in quarries and
on building sites.9 Because of the perceived value of “pure” areas of marble
and the labor-intensive effort needed to extract it, premodern quarrying
was a conservative endeavor, with as little wastage as possible. It would be
surprising if such an enormous block had been quarried and transported
from Mount Pentele specifically to be used for inscriptions of lists. There
are no parallels for such a use.
Figure 4. Lapis primus (IG I3 259–
272), detail of top, showing drafted
margin along front side
9. On quarries and quarrying, see
Martin 1965, pp. 146–151; Orlandos
1966–1968, pp. 15–20; Dworakowska
1975; Korres 1995 (with extensive bib-
liography); Pike 1996. On the mechan-
ical aspects of stresses caused by loads
in marble beams, see Papantonopoulos
2006. The architrave blocks of the Par-
thenon are estimated to weigh nine and
a half tons (Coulton 1974, p. 15). Dur-
ing the current restoration of the build-
ing, the working team has sometimes
had to wait as long as three years for a
suitable replacement architrave block
from the Dionysos quarry on the oppo-
site side of Mount Pentele; even today
it is not an easy procedure (L. Lam-
brinou, pers. comm.).
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 663
Figure 5. Lapis primus (IG I3 259–
272), detail of top, showing drafted
margin along front side and quarry
surface remaining behind
THE OLDER PARTHENON
B. H. Hill’s reconstruction of the Older Parthenon in 1912 was a landmark
in our understanding of the Acropolis in the 5th century, and recent studies
by M. Korres have added many new observations.10 The immediate prede-
cessor to the existing Parthenon, the Older Parthenon was probably begun
soon after the battle of Marathon, and it was the first major architectural
project to use Pentelic marble. Hill was able to reconstruct its plan and
establish some facts about the elevation on the basis of close observation
of the podium of the present Parthenon, together with an analysis of other
blocks preserved on the Acropolis. The podium, constructed originally for
the Older Parthenon, is built of ca. 8,000 blocks of limestone quarried at
Piraeus; on the south side the foundations are 25 courses deep.11 On top
of the platform, the lowest step of the Older Parthenon was built of Kara
limestone (the southwest corner block is still in situ), with two additional
steps of marble above.
Hill identified some 250 marble blocks that were certainly intended
originally for the Older Parthenon. Many of these were reused in the present
Parthenon; some were built into walls around the Acropolis; others were
10. Hill 1912; Korres 1993, pp. 59–
75; 1994b, pp. 54–58; 1995 (important
observations and excellent illustrations);
1997 (proposed sequences of construc-
tions); 1999, pp. 85–91. See also Dins-
moor 1934; Tsira 1940; Orlandos
[1976–1978] 1995, pp. 64–89. Early
but still useful observations are found
in Penrose 1888, pp. 1, 6, 98–102.
11. I agree with the long-standing
opinion that the Older Parthenon was
the first large temple on this site; contra,
Korres 1997, with p. 221, fig. 1.
For overviews of the problem, see
Hurwit 1999, pp. 105–135; Kissas
2008, pp. 99–110 (with additional
evidence).
margaret m. miles664
simply lying about on the summit of the hill, where they are still visible
today.12 He found that some of the dimensions of the present Parthenon
were planned to be identical with those of the Older Parthenon, so that its
blocks could be reused; these include the height of the steps and stylobate
of the peristyle, and that of the steps leading to the cella. He noted further
the close correspondence of the height of the columns.13 The Classical Par-
thenon is a rare Greek temple whose superstructure includes a substantial
amount of reused material from its predecessor.
The plan of the Older Parthenon as deduced by Hill has 6 x 16 columns
above a three-stepped crepidoma, with a tetrastyle amphiprostyle inner
building. The inner building is divided into two chambers, like that of the
present Parthenon. The interaxial spacing of the outer colonnade, estimated
as 4.53 m (4.40 m at the corners), establishes the minimum length of the
architrave blocks. The capitals of the Older Parthenon were slightly larger
than those of its successor, with an abacus 0.20 m wider, and the architrave
was probably slightly higher than that of the existing Parthenon, which
is 1.348–1.35 m high on the exterior, and 1.043–1.05 m on the interior.14
The architrave of the Parthenon is made up of a series of three parallel
blocks: a front block, the outer face of which was decorated with a taenia
and guttae; a back block, which was left plain; and a center block, of which
only the soffit would have been visible. The peristyle required 138 blocks
placed in sets of three over 46 intercolumniations.15 This arrangement of
three parallel blocks may have been inherited from the Older Parthenon
and some of the architrave blocks used in the existing Parthenon could
have been quarried originally for its predecessor: only some trimming would
have been necessary to reuse them, since the interaxial spacing of the later
building is slightly shorter on normal intervals, and reduced further at the
corners because of the greater corner contraction.16 With a plan of 6 x 16
columns, and at the scale indicated by the remains of the crepidoma and
platform, the peristyle of the Older Parthenon would have required 120
exterior architrave blocks, placed in sets of three to span the 40 intervals
between the columns.
Korres found positive evidence that some of the columns of the Older
Parthenon were in place in 480, up to at least three drums. He has observed
thermal fractures in blocks of the crepidoma and in the substructure of the
toichobate on the north side of the temple; this damage was later concealed
12. Blocks recorded by Hill (1912,
p. 535, n. 1) include 177 in the north
wall of the Acropolis, 38 scattered on
the summit, and 35 built into the exist-
ing Parthenon. Blocks originally in-
tended for the Older Parthenon may be
identified by the type of marble and by
their dimensions, shape, workmanship,
and degree of finish. Some rectangular
blocks subsequently reused in the pres-
ent Parthenon are also identifiable by
cuttings for half of a double T-clamp,
made and used when the blocks were
set in the Older Parthenon, but not
used in their current settings, where
they are adjacent to blocks with no
matching cuttings.
13. That the columns in the opisth-
odomos of the Parthenon are built of
reused blocks from the Older Parthe-
non was suggested first by Penrose
(1888, p. 8, n. 6).
14. The architrave dimensions used
here and below are those given by
Orlandos ([1976–1978] 1995, pp. 199–
205, figs. 126, 128, 139, pls. 30, 31).
The overall depth of the architrave
of the Older Parthenon would have
been narrower, in keeping with its
earlier date.
15. The exterior architraves (over
the peristyle) are 4.30–4.70 m long x
1.348–1.35 m high x 0.555–0.576 m
deep; the interior architraves (over the
porches) are 3.854–4.357 m long x
1.043–1.05 m high x 0.453–0.57 m
deep.
16. The interaxial spacing of the
Older Parthenon was an estimated
4.53 m (4.40 m at the corners); that
of the present Parthenon is 4.2965 m
(3.66 m at the corners).
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 665
by the builders of the present Parthenon.17 The Older Parthenon must have
been covered with wooden scaffolding (to its full intended height, as was
customary) at the time of the Persian sack in 480, and it was easy for the
Persians to set fire to it when they burned the Acropolis.18
Although many column drums, capitals, and step blocks, as well as some
toichobate blocks (bearing a distinctive Ionic molding) and orthostates for
the lower walls, are readily identifiable, architrave blocks from the Older
Parthenon have not yet been identified in published discussions. Quarry
masters typically look at a whole project and cut blocks for a variety of
uses; since the architrave blocks (and the long lintels over the doors) posed
the greatest challenge, it seems safe to assume that they were anticipated,
quarried, and prepared from the beginning of the project, as it went along—
that is, the quarrying was done pragmatically, not according to the strict
sequence of courses in the building itself. Hence some, at least, of the 120
blocks for the outer architrave should have been quarried and delivered by
the time of the Persian invasion. If the architrave blocks were not in place
on the temple before its destruction, presumably they were not burned,
since it was the scaffolding that provided fuel for the fire; it is likely that
they were stacked instead in a marble pile. The other possible use for a
block the size of the lapis primus would have been as a lintel over one of
the doors, which in the typical sequence of temple construction would be
built later, after the outer peristyle was constructed.19
It seems safe to assume that a large quantity of cut marble blocks re-
mained from the Older Parthenon immediately after the Persian invasion.
The first priority for the Athenians after the destruction of the city was to
rebuild the walls (Thuc. 1.93.1–3). During the Themistoklean reconstruc-
tion, many architectural blocks from both the Older Parthenon and the
Old Temple of Athena Polias were built into the north wall of the Acropo-
lis, where they remained clearly visible as a sort of memorial (Fig. 6).20
The cleaning up of the Acropolis, the burial of broken votive statuary in
pits supported by the north wall, and the sorting of architectural blocks
thus was begun in the early 470s. The blocks considered unsuitable for
future architectural use because of structural or fire damage or possible
interior faults were built into walls.21 Because only damaged blocks were
used in the north wall and elsewhere in retaining walls on and around the
Acropolis, we may infer that future use of undamaged architectural blocks
was anticipated.
Before the Parthenon was constructed, Iktinos and his coworkers
must have made a careful inspection and inventory of the usable blocks
17. Korres 1994a, pp. 54–58; 1995,
p. 111, fig. 34:1, 2; 1999, p. 91, fig. 3:15.
18. For the Persian destruction of
the Acropolis and the lower city, see
Hdt. 8.52–55, 9.13; Thuc. 1.89.3. The
archaeological evidence from the Agora
is discussed in Shear 1993.
19. The lintel for the preserved back
door of the existing Parthenon is com-
posed of four long blocks, 7.774 m
long x 1.043 m high x 0.50 m deep, set
parallel and spanning the opening of
4.90 m at the top of the door (Orlan-
dos [1976–1978] 1995, pp. 425–426,
fig. 269, pl. 30). The doors of the Older
Parthenon were presumably slightly
narrower, as in Orlandos’s plan com-
paring the two temples ([1976–1978]
1995, pl. 3), but they would still have
required very long blocks.
20. See Hill 1912, pp. 557–558,
with remarks on the sorting of the
blocks; Korres 2002, which shows that
most of the north wall of the Acropolis
is in fact “Themistoklean”; Kousser
2009, pp. 270–272, with reflections on
the memorial character of the blocks.
For the circuit wall around the city, see
Theocharaki 2007, pp. 17–21, 379–385;
2011; for Piraeus, Conwell 2008, p. 41,
n. 16, and pp. 57–59.
21. For the damaged blocks from
the Older Parthenon, see Korres 2002.
margaret m. miles666
remaining from the Older Parthenon, which by then had been in storage
for some 20 years. In 409/8 a similar situation faced the epistatai for the
Temple of Athena Polias (Erechtheion), who made an inventory of available
building material, including finished, partly finished, and unset blocks, as
well as blocks still in the rough (from quarries) and reused blocks.22 In the
Parthenon, some reused blocks that were deemed faulty or potentially weak
had clamps added where they would not be visible to hold them together
under stress.23 Many others, such as capitals and probably architraves as
well, were trimmed slightly for reuse in the later building. This was the
great challenge for Iktinos: to build a new temple that would reflect con-
temporary proportions and his own ideas about optical refinements, but
at the same time to reuse an old platform and as many of the old blocks as
possible. It seems likely that this civic requirement had religious aspects.
Figure 6. The north wall of the
Acropolis, with damaged column
drums from the Older Parthenon at
left and pieces of the entablature of
the Old Temple of Athena Polias at
right
22. IG I3 474. Worked blocks are
described as hεμίεργα, ἄθετος, ἀρραβ-
δότος, ἀκαταχσέστος, etc.; for blocks in
the rough no description is given, only
overall dimensions (lines 213–237, with
discussion in Caskey 1927, p. 315). The
list includes reused blocks from a stoa
(e.g., lines 156–159, discussed in Cas-
key 1927, pp. 316–317, with a list of
the reused material). Foundations for
an earlier stoa near the north wall of
the Acropolis, west of the Erechtheion,
were noted by Hill (Caskey 1927,
p. 317); they appear in Kavvadias and
Kawerau 1907, pl. 3.
23. A capital and a geison block so
clamped are illustrated in Korres 1995,
p. 110, fig. 3:3. Detailed measurements
of the Parthenon first taken by Pen-
rose (1888) show a notable variety of
lengths and widths among blocks of
similar type in many of the courses
(discussed in Korres 1994a, pp. 79–80;
Korres 1994b, pp. 64–68; Barletta 2005,
pp. 74–78); these variations are best
explained by the need to reuse material
intended for the earlier building.
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 667
THE BLOCKS INSCRIBED WITH THE APARCHAI
TO ATHENA
When the appointed treasurers required a piece of marble for the inscrip-
tion of the aparchai to Athena in 454, they likely requisitioned one from
Athena’s stockpile on the Acropolis.24 Because of its shape and size, I suggest
that this first block, the lapis primus, may have been originally intended
for an architrave. Although there is no proof of this, the dimensions of the
block do fit within the estimated dimensions of the architrave blocks of
the Older Parthenon. We can only speculate about why the block was not
reused in the later Parthenon: perhaps it had been damaged in some way,
making it unsuitable for architectural use. By choosing a block left over
from the abortive project partly destroyed by the Persians, the treasurers
avoided the additional expense of purchasing a stele that had to be newly
quarried, transported to the city, and brought up onto the Acropolis. The
large block was used for annual lists of aparchai until 440/39, when a second
block was selected.
The lapis secundus (IG I3 273–280; 439/8–431/0 b.c.) is also unusual
in shape and size, and it too may have been intended originally for some
architectural purpose, perhaps in the existing Parthenon (Fig. 7). By this
time, presumably, the most useful rectangular pieces left over from the
Older Parthenon had already been built into its successor, the structure
of which was nearly complete in 439/8. Although part of the top surface
of the lapis secundus is preserved above the upper right corner of the front
of the block, it is covered by thin layers of plaster and paint and currently
is not visible. The block was cut into two pieces sometime after it was set
up as an inscription, and was rejoined by D. Fimmen, with further modi-
fications by the authors of ATL, who give its width (determined by the
spacing of letters in a restored prescript) as 1.471 m, its thickness as 0.34 m,
and its estimated minimum height as 2.192 m.25 The front surface is partly
abraded, but the bottoms of some letters are still visible (Fig. 8); the block
was therefore at least a millimeter or two thicker when inscribed. Its thick-
ness, measured in 2010 at various places where the marble is best preserved,
varies from 0.324 to 0.336 m.
Only the restored prescript demands a width of 1.471 m; nothing else
about the preserved fragments visible in the plaster matrix indicates that
the block was so wide, and there are large blank spaces in the centers of
both the front and back sides. The thickness of the block and its estimated
overall size suggest that it might have been intended to be set horizontally,
either as a slab for ceiling coffers (0.345 m high in Orlandos’s series B) or
as a thranos, or ceiling bearer (0.34 m high). Blocks of this thickness, with
an overall size comparable to that of the lapis secundus, are documented
in the Parthenon.26 These upper courses of the temple would have been
under construction around the time of the inscription of the first list on
the lapis secundus; if the block was not needed or not considered suitable
for the temple, it might have been available for use to record the aparchai.
In contrast to the first two blocks, the fragments of the lists of aparchai
currently assigned to subsequent years seem to have belonged to stelai of
24. Paarmann (2004, pp. 89–91)
argues that the actual receivers of the
aparchai, and the board that drew up
the lists, were the treasurers of Athena,
not the Hellenotamiai; it is not clear
who was responsible for erecting the
stele. For the precise date of 454, see
Kallet 2004, p. 471, n. 24.
25. Fimmen 1913; ATL 1, p. 67.
26. Orlandos [1976–1978] 1995,
p. 488, fig. 315, p. 496, fig. 325,
pls. XXa, XXIII. The ceilings of the
peristyle on the facades consist of six
sets of three coffered slabs on each side;
hence 36 blocks were required. The
thranoi, which support the ceiling, have
varying widths and lengths; this course
sits above the sculptured frieze that
extends around the entire sekos, and is
composed of many blocks.
margaret m. miles668
relatively modest and unexceptional sizes (IG I3 281–291; 430/29–ca. 415 b.c.).
The preserved thicknesses vary from 0.094 to 0.184 m. By the 420s, after
the construction of the Parthenon and Propylaia, any surplus architectural
blocks may have been used up, with the result that stelai had to be purchased,
evidently of a fairly standard shape and size.
Because the lapis primus is so very large, and because in 454 there
were likely many blocks on the Acropolis to choose from, one still might
ask, why this one? Although modern scholars have used the inscriptions
to reconstruct the phoros that helped fuel the Athenian empire, it is worth
noting again that this tall marble block, set up in a sanctuary, records not the
phoros itself, but the aparchai given to Athena by some 150 cities, most of
Figure 7. Lapis secundus (IG I3 273–
280), front of block
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 669
them in the Aegean.27 Perhaps the block was initially presented as a record
of communal dedications, evidently intended (in light of its unparalleled
size) to be monumental. It may have been remembered that the block was
originally destined for the temple burned by the Persians when still under
scaffolding. Despite recent setbacks in Egypt, in 454, when the inscribed
block was hoisted into place, the record of offerings to Athena implicitly
commemorated the success of the Athenian-led alliance that defended the
Aegean from further Persian invasion. Now in its twenty-fifth year, the
alliance was placed directly under the aegis of Athena for its continued suc-
cess. As L. Samons has noted, however, for Greek visitors to the Acropolis
who were not Athenian, the vast blank space below the first list on the
tall block might have had daunting implications for the future collection
of tribute.28 Perhaps this assertion of power was intended in the selection
and vertical positioning of the block.
Figure 8. Lapis secundus (IG I3 273–
280), detail of upper left side, with
abraded surface on front
27. As Parker (1996, p. 144) notes,
the religious aspect of the donation to
Athena was significant enough that
allies were required to contribute the
aparche even when the tribute itself was
remitted, as indicated in the Methone
decrees of the 420s (IG I3 61, lines 5–9,
30–32). For discussion of other unusual
arrangements concerning the aparche,
see Smarczyk 1990, pp. 653–660. The
number of cities represented in the first
list is between 135 and 141, depending
on the restorations; Meiggs (1943,
pp. 29–30) states that ca. 170 cities
appear in later lists on the same block.
28. Samons 2000, p. 36. For discus-
sion of the “memorial” and “archival”
character of this and other inscriptions,
see, e.g., Thomas 1994, pp. 37–45;
Pébarthe 2006, pp. 268–275, 300–304.
margaret m. miles670
Where on the Acropolis the lapis primus and the other inscribed lists
of the aparchai stood is unknown, because there is no way to determine the
original size or shape of their bases or to match them to the many cuttings
preserved on the surface of the hill. Because the first two blocks are so large,
they would have required bases constructed of several additional blocks
supporting and surrounding them. Inasmuch as they record the goddess’s
property, we may assume that the lapis primus and its successors were set
up near the location of the treasury of Athena. In 454, this might have
been in the west end of the remains of the Old Temple of Athena Polias
(which is likely to be the “Opisthodomos” mentioned in later inscriptions).29
Wherever it stood, the great size of the lapis primus must have occasioned
frequent comment, as it does today, and over time the inscribed block itself
became a memorial of the Athenian role in the control of the Aegean.
THE REUSE OF ARCHITECTURAL BLOCKS
The suggestion that the original purpose of the lapis primus was architec-
tural, not epigraphical, should be considered within the broader context of
the custom of reusing architectural material in Greek sanctuaries, known
both from observation at excavated sites and from inscribed building ac-
counts. This custom is a consequence not merely of fiscal prudence, but
of the formal obligation that derived from the ancient Greek concept of
ownership of property by a deity.
Throughout the Acropolis older material has been reused in the sub-
structures of subsequent buildings, as in the Propylaia, the foundations of
which incorporate blocks from earlier structures, and in the Erechtheion,
where reused blocks, possibly from the earlier Propylon, are set beneath the
north porch and north door.30 Elsewhere, archaeological investigation in
many Greek sanctuaries has documented the common practice of reusing
architectural material from older buildings in the foundations of newer
constructions, especially during the 5th and 4th centuries. Notable examples
include the Sikyonian treasury at Delphi (ca. 525), built on foundations that
incorporated 542 blocks in seven courses from two earlier Archaic build-
ings, including sculpted metopes from one of them; Temple E at Selinous
(ca. 460), which contains extensive parts of at least two earlier temples in its
substructures; the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion (ca. 440), where blocks
from the Archaic temple are built into the foundations and a supporting
terrace on all sides; and the east front of the Temple of Ennodia at Pherai
in Thessaly (late 4th century), where columns and blocks from at least
one and perhaps two Archaic temples are embedded beneath the steps.31
29. On the problem of the Opisth-
odomos, see Paton 1927, pp. 470–474;
Harris 1995, pp. 40–41; Hollinshead
1999, pp. 210–212; Gerding 2006,
pp. 389–391; Linders 2007. The term
is first attested in the decrees of Kallias
(IG I3 52; 433 or 431 b.c.).
30. Reused blocks are visible in the
foundations of the west side of the
Propylaia, and under the northwest
wing on its east side. For blocks pos-
sibly from the earlier Propylon, see
Korres 1997, p. 243, n. 99.
31. Delphi: Laroche and Nenna
1990, pp. 241–280; Selinous: Gullini
1985, pp. 422, 431–433, pls. II, III;
Sounion: Dörpfeld 1884, pp. 329–336;
Pherai: Østby 1992, pp. 86–88; 1994,
pp. 139, 142; Graninger 2009, pp. 117–
120. These examples provide a sense of
the range of date and place; many oth-
ers could be cited. Reused architectural
blocks in formal buildings of the Clas-
sical period may be seen occasionally
outside sanctuaries as well, as in the
foundations of the Stoa Basileios
(Shear 1971, pp. 243–250) and the west
euthynteria of the Stoa Poikile (Shear
1984, p. 14) in the Athenian Agora.
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 671
The so-called Hekatompedon inscription (IG I3 4) provides an example
analogous to that of the lapis primus of the use of part of a temple for in-
scriptions that concern cult matters. Usually dated to 485/4 on the basis of
the archon’s name (partly restored), these regulations governing behavior
on the Acropolis are inscribed on two reused Hymettian marble metopes
from a series identified as part of the “H-architecture,” belonging to an
Archaic temple usually referred to as the Hekatompedon.32 The temple
had been dismantled, probably in order to construct the Old Temple of
Athena on its reused foundations, and others of its metopes were reused
as backer blocks for a bench near the entrance to the Acropolis.33
Architectural contracts, audits, and inventories from Eleusis illustrate
legal aspects of ownership by deities of architectural blocks, building
supplies, tools, and other equipment. An opisthographic account and
inventory of the late 5th century, for example, provides a vivid picture of
building material stored at Eleusis, some of it under a tent (IG I3 386–387;
408/7–407/6 b.c.). Described carefully in the lists is a large quantity of
architectural blocks that had been “taken down from the temple,” that is,
from the Late Archaic Telesterion (IG I3 387, line 113).34 T. L. Shear Jr.
demonstrates that architectural blocks, wooden epistyles and rafters from
the interior, three pairs of doors, and some 1750 marble roof tiles from
the Late Archaic Telesterion were dismantled and stored. He argues that
this took place prior to the Persian invasion of 480/79, in anticipation of
new construction, and that because they were in stockpiles they escaped
the extensive damage described by Herodotos (9.13, 65.2).35 If this is
correct, the architectural blocks listed in the inventory had been stored
for close to a century.
Other blocks from the Late Archaic Telesterion were used in the
construction of a bridge built to facilitate the transportation of ta hiera by
the priestesses in the processions over the Rheitoi, the two lakes belonging
to Demeter and Kore (IG I3 79, lines 5–11; 422/1 b.c.).36 Although in this
case the blocks were used in a structure built outside the sanctuary, they
were still intended to ensure the proper conduct of the Eleusinian festival,
and set on property that belonged to the goddesses. Other inscriptions
of the 5th and 4th centuries concerning the sanctuary at Eleusis and the
City Eleusinion in Athens specifically list building material to be sold
or reused.37
32. Date: Stroud 2004; description
of fragments: Butz 1995a, pp. 300–313;
2010, pp. 133–159; new fragments:
Matthaiou 2000–2003; use of Hymet-
tian marble: Butz 1995b; Butz, Mani-
atis, and Polikreti 1999; SEG XLVI 36.
33. Shear 1999. The location of
the Hekatompedon has been much
debated; for new evidence and discus-
sion, see Kissas 2008, pp. 99–110.
34. For a full commentary, see
Cavanaugh 1996, pp. 119–209. The
inscription is republished in Clinton
2005, pp. 64–70, no. 52, with addi-
tional commentary in Clinton 2008,
pp. 72–82. The connection with the
Late Archaic Telesterion was noted
by Noack (1927, pp. 57–61). The same
lengthy inventory and account of 408/7
lists an expenditure for the preparation
of a stele for the previous year’s records,
at a cost of 62 drachmas, which in-
cluded the cutting and painting of
the letters (IG I3 386, lines 165–167 =
Clinton 2005, pp. 64–70, no. 52,
face A, col. III, lines 44–46; see Clin-
ton 2008, p. 81).
35. Shear 1982, pp. 138–140. Clin-
ton (2008, p. 76) comments that some
“old” column drums from the Archaic
Telesterion may be traced well into the
4th century, and may be the ones listed
in IG II2 1672, line 310 (= Clinton
2005, pp. 188–206, no. 177, line 439).
36. Clinton 2005, pp. 54–55,
no. 41. Other existing blocks still in
the sanctuary at Eleusis have been
identified within various walls and
foundations (listed in Shear 1982,
pp. 134–135).
37. Examples cited by Clinton
are IG I3 393 (= Clinton 2005, pp. 51–
52, no. 37), lines 4–5 (ca. 430–425? b.c.),
and IG II2 1672, lines 309–310 (= Clin-
ton 2005, pp. 188–206, no. 177,
lines 438–439) (329/8 b.c.); for com-
mentary, see Clinton 2008, pp. 76–77.
margaret m. miles672
In the contracts for the 3rd-century Temple of Zeus Basileus at Leba-
deia, the status of architectural blocks within the sanctuary is recorded
in explicit detail. If the contractor damages a block during transport, he
must remove it from the sanctuary within five days; otherwise, the block
becomes hieros and must remain in the sanctuary (a provision that implies
that building materials are not instantly considered hieroi).38 Here we read
a precise, contractually defined statement about the way in which new ar-
chitectural blocks destined for a temple were viewed by the naopoioi. The
time limit may have served as a practical way to ensure the prompt removal
of damaged blocks, but what is of interest here is the implicit assumption
that, in order to enforce the threatened confiscation, the supervisors had
the power to declare the block hieros, and thus the god’s property. What
seems to be the reverse situation is indicated in another account from Eleu-
sis, concerning the porch of the Late Classical Telesterion, which records
that on one occasion during the transportation of material from Mount
Pentele to the sanctuary, a drum, apparently rejected, was actually returned
to the quarry after having been hauled all the way to Eleusis (IG II2 1673,
lines 80–82; 336/5 or 333/2 b.c.).39
Ownership by deities of obvious valuables, including dedications, vo-
tive offerings, grain, land, and sums of money, is a familiar phenomenon,
well known from literary and epigraphical testimonia such as treasury
inventories, financial accounts of loans made by deities, and the records of
aparchai in the Athenian tribute quota lists themselves.40 While temples
and their component parts are clearly part of that property in the Classical
and Hellenistic periods, by the 1st century evidently even intended building
material could be considered “dedicated.” Diodoros (8.11) reports a local
tradition about a consecrated place in Syracuse called Embrontaion (struck
by lightning): an epistates had appropriated the building stone intended for
a temple for use in his own house and suffered the consequences. Although
the story may be interpreted in various ways, it suggests that in Diodoros’s
time building material itself, in the form of quarried blocks, could be con-
sidered sacred property simply on the basis of its intended use, regardless
of any financial transactions.41
38. IG VII 3073, col. I, lines 36–
37; similar provisions in IG VII 3074,
lines 14–15; Choisy 1896, pp. 318–325,
col. I, lines 32–33. These texts are gath-
ered in Turner 1994, pp. 151, 269–337,
nos. 263.1, 2, and 6, and are being pre-
pared for republication by R. Pitt. For
further discussion of divine “owner-
ship,” see Ridgway 1999, p. 206.
39. Clinton 2005, pp. 163–169,
no. 159, with commentary in Clinton
2008, pp. 151–164. No explanation is
given for the rejection of the drum and
its return to the quarry at the sanctu-
ary’s expense. Those who hauled the
drums (perhaps slaves) had to undergo
initiation, which was paid for on their
behalf, since the job required entering
the sanctuary; they also made group
sacrifices (Clinton 2008, p. 158).
40. For discussion of the concept
of “sacred” or “sacral” treasuries, see
Samons 2000, app. 6, pp. 325–329;
for “sacred laws,” see Parker 2004.
41. The story reflects a range of
social and juridical anxieties about
luxus, private vs. public use of property,
and sacrilege, with respect to private
architecture. These same anxieties are
found in 1st-century discussions of
captured statuary and other art as spoils
of war, particularly in Cicero’s Verrines;
see Miles 2008, pp. 152–210.
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 673
CONCLUSION
Like other dedications and more portable accumulated valuables in a sanc-
tuary, temples and their blocks were considered the property of the deity.
Architectural blocks, whether of limestone or marble, were intrinsically
valuable because of the cost of quarrying, transporting, and shaping them,
and their storage and use were part of the economy of a sanctuary, account-
able as the deity’s property. Occasionally architectural blocks could be sold
off or recycled as raw material, but the regular custom was to make use of
the property within the sanctuary, just as discarded or broken dedications
were normally buried within the sacred precinct. For the most part, old
blocks were consigned to foundations and thereby also buried, but in some
cases such material was reused in more visible contexts. In Athens in the
early 5th century, recycled marble metopes from the Hekatompedon were
inscribed with regulations of the sanctuary and lined part of the approach
to the principal entrance to the Acropolis. Damaged architectural blocks
from the temples burned by the Persians were displayed deliberately and
conspicuously in the north wall of the citadel, while usable parts of the
Older Parthenon were built into the superstructure of its successor. In the
case of the lapis primus (and later the lapis secundus), the exceptional decision
to inscribe a large block originally intended for a temple might have been
motivated by the content of the text. The aparchai to Athena represented
one-sixtieth of the phoros, and the great size of the selected block thus took
on a metaphorical significance.
REFERENCES
ATL = B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery,
and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian
Tribute Lists, 4 vols., Princeton
1939–1953.
Barletta, B. A. 2005. “The Architecture
and Architects of the Classical Par-
thenon,” in The Parthenon: From
Antiquity to the Present, ed. J. Neils,
Cambridge, pp. 67–99.
Butz, P. A. 1995a. “The ‘Hekatompe-
don Inscription’ at Athens: Site,
Text, and Stoichedon Style” (diss.
Univ. of Southern California).
———. 1995b. “The ‘Hekatompedon
Inscription’ and the Marble of Its
Metopes, Part I: Empiricism and
the Epigraphical Tradition,” in
Transactions of the 3rd International
Symposium of the Association for the
Study of Marble and Other Stones
used in Antiquity (ASMOSIA 3),
ed. Y. Maniatis, N. Herz, and
Y. Basiakos, London, pp. 65–72.
———. 2010. The Art of the Hekatom-
pedon Inscription and the Birth of
the Stoikhedon Style. Leiden.
Butz, P. A., Y. Maniatis, and K. Poli-
kreti. 1999. “The ‘Hekatompedon
Inscription’ and the Marble of its
Metopes, Part II: The Scientific
Evidence,” in Archéomatériaux:
Marbres et autres roches. Actes de la
IVe conférence internationale de
l’Association pour l’étude des marbres
et autres roches utilisés dans le passé
(ASMOSIA 4), ed. M. Schvoerer,
Bordeaux, pp. 255–260.
Camp, J. McK. II. 1974. “Greek In-
scriptions,” Hesperia 43, pp. 314–
324.
Caskey, L. D. 1927. “The Inscriptions,”
in The Erechtheum, ed. J. M. Paton,
Cambridge, Mass., pp. 277–422.
Cavanaugh, M. B. 1996. Eleusis and
Athens: Documents in Finance,
Religion, and Politics in the Fifth
margaret m. miles674
Century B.C. (American Classical
Studies 35), Atlanta.
Chankowski, V. 2008. Athènes et Délos
à l’époque classique: Recherches sur
l’administration du sanctuaire
d’Apollon délien (BÉFAR 331),
Athens.
Choisy, F. A. 1896. “Devis de Livadie,”
BCH 20, pp. 318–335.
Clinton, K. 2005. Eleusis: The Inscrip-
tions on Stone: Documents of the Sanc-
tuary of the Two Goddesses and Public
Documents of the Deme 1A: Text,
Athens.
———. 2008. Eleusis: The Inscriptions
on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary
of the Two Goddesses and Public Doc-
uments of the Deme 2: Commentary,
Athens.
Conwell, D. H. 2008. Connecting a City
to the Sea: The History of the Athenian
Long Walls (Mnemosyne Suppl. 293),
Leiden.
Coulton, J. J. 1974. “Lifting in Early
Greek Architecture,” JHS 94,
pp. 1–19.
Dinsmoor, W. B. 1934. “The Date
of the Older Parthenon,” AJA 38,
pp. 408–448.
Dörpfeld, W. 1884. “Der Tempel von
Sunion,” AM 9, pp. 324–337.
Dworakowska, A. 1975. Quarries in
Ancient Greece (Bibliotheca antiqua
14), Wrocław.
Fimmen, D. 1913. “Die attischen
Tributquotenlisten von 439/8 bis
432/1 v. Chr.,” AM 38, pp. 231–
238.
Gerding, H. 2006. “The Erechtheion
and the Panathenaic Procession,”
AJA 110, pp. 389–401.
Graninger, D. 2009. “Apollo, Ennodia,
and Fourth-Century Thessaly,”
Kernos 22, pp. 109–124.
Gullini, G. 1985. “L’architettura,” in
Sikanie: Storia e civiltà della Sicilia
greca, ed. G. Pugliese Carratelli,
Milan, pp. 417–491.
Harris, D. 1995. The Treasures of the
Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford.
Hill, B. H. 1912. “The Older Parthe-
non,” AJA 16, pp. 535–558.
Hollinshead, M. B. 1999. “ ‘Adyton,’
‘Opisthodomos,’ and the Inner
Room of the Greek Temple,”
Hesperia 68, pp. 189–218.
Hurwit, J. M. 1999. The Athenian
Acropolis: History, Mythology, and
Archaeology from the Neolithic Era
to the Present, Cambridge.
Kallet, L. 2004. “Epigraphic Geogra-
phy: The Tribute Quota Fragments
Assigned to 421/0–415/4 b.c.,”
Hesperia 73, pp. 465–496.
Kavvadias, P., and G. Kawerau. 1907.
Ἡ ἀνασκαφὴ τῆς Ἀκροπόλεως
,
Athens.
Kissas, K. 2008. Archaische Architektur
der Athener Akropolis: Dachziegel,
Metopen, Geisa, Akroterbasen
(AF 24), Wiesbaden.
Korres, M. 1993. “Wilhelm Dörpfelds
Forschungen zum Vorparthenon und
Parthenon,” AM 108, pp. 59–78.
———. 1994a. “The Architecture of
the Parthenon,” in The Parthenon
and Its Impact in Modern Times,
ed. P. Tournikiotis, Athens, pp. 54–
97.
———. 1994b. “Der Plan des Parthe-
non,” AM 109, pp. 53–120.
———. 1995. From Pentelicon to the
Parthenon, Athens.
———. 1997. “Die Athena-Tempel auf
der Akropolis,” in Kult und Kult-
bauten auf der Akropolis. Internation-
ales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995
in Berlin, ed. W. Hoepfner, Berlin,
pp. 218–243.
———. 1999. “Refinements of Refine-
ments,” in Appearance and Essence:
Refinements of Classical Architecture:
Curvature. Proceedings of the Second
Williams Symposium on Classical
Architecture Held at the University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, April
2–4, 1993 (University Museum
Monograph 107. Symposium Series
10), ed. L. Haselberger, Philadel-
phia, pp. 79–104.
———. 2002. “On the North Acropo-
lis Wall,” in Excavating Classical
Culture: Recent Archaeological Dis-
coveries in Greece (BAR-IS 1031),
ed. M. Stamatopoulou and M. Ye-
roulanou, Oxford, pp. 179–186.
Kousser, R. 2009. “Destruction and
Memory on the Athenian Acropo-
lis,” ArtB 91, pp. 263–282.
Laroche, D., and M.-D. Nenna. 1990.
“Le trésor de Sicyon et ses fonda-
tions,” BCH 114, pp. 241–284.
Linders, T. 2007. “The Location of the
Opisthodomos: Evidence from the
Temple of Athena Parthenos Inven-
tories,” AJA 111, pp. 777–782.
Martin, R. 1965. Manuel d’architecture
grecque, Paris.
Matthaiou, A. 2000–2003. “Δύο νέα
θραύσματα τῆς IG I3 4,” Horos 14–
16, pp. 19–22.
McGregor, M. F. 1976. “The New
Fragments of the Fifteenth Quota-
List,” Hesperia 45, pp. 171–172.
Meiggs, R. 1943. “The Growth of
the Athenian Empire,” JHS 63,
pp. 21–34.
Meritt, B. D. 1966. “The Top of the
First Tribute Stele,” Hesperia 35,
pp. 134–140.
———. 1972a. “The Tribute Quota
List of 454/3 b.c.,” Hesperia 41,
pp. 403–417.
———. 1972b. “Two New Fragments
of the Tribute Lists,” Hesperia 41,
pp. 418–421.
Miles, M. M. 2008. Art as Plunder:
The Ancient Origins of Debate about
Cultural Property, Cambridge.
Noack, F. 1927. Eleusis: Die baugeschicht-
liche Entwicklung des Heiligtumes,
Berlin.
Orlandos, A. 1966–1968. Les matériaux
de construction et la technique architec-
turale des anciens Grecs (TravMém
16), 2 vols., Paris.
———. [1976–1978] 1995.
Ἡ ἀρχιτεκ-
τονικὴ τοῦ Παρθενῶνος
(Βιβλιοθήκη
τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικὴς
Ἑταιρείας 86), 3 vols., repr. Athens.
Østby, E. 1992. “Der dorische Tempel
von Pherai,” OpAth 19, pp. 85–120.
———. 1994. “A Reconsideration of
the Classical Temple at Pherai,”
in La Thessalie: Quinze années de
recherches archéologiques, 1975–1990:
Bilans et perspectives. Actes du colloque
international, Lyon, 17–22 avril
1990, vol. 2, Athens, pp. 139–142.
Paarmann, B. 2004. “Geographically
Grouped Ethnics in the Athenian
Tribute Lists,” in Once Again: Studies
in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia
Einzelschr. 180), ed. T. H. Nielsen,
Stuttgart, pp. 77–109.
Papantonopoulos, C. 2006. “Spanning
Intervals: Towards Understanding
the Ancient Greek Optimization
Procedure for the Design of Hori-
zontal Beams,” in Fracture and
Failure of Natural Building Stones:
Applications in the Restoration of
Ancient Monuments, ed. S. K. Kour-
koulis, Dordrecht, pp. 257–268.
the lapis primus and the older parthenon 675
Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A
History, Oxford.
———. 2004. “What Are Sacred
Laws?” in The Law and the Courts
in Ancient Greece, ed. E. M. Harris
and L. Rubenstein, London, pp. 57–
70.
Paton, J. M. 1927. “The History of the
Erechtheum,” in The Erechtheum,
ed. J. M. Paton, Cambridge, Mass.,
pp. 423–581.
Pébarthe, C. 2006. Cité, démocratie,
et écriture: Histoire de l’alphabétisa-
tion d’Athènes à l’époque classique,
Paris.
Penrose, F. C. 1888. An Investigation of
the Principles of Athenian Architec-
ture, 2nd ed., London.
Pike, S. 1996. “A Geological Survey of
Mount Pentelikon and Its Implica-
tions for Sampling,” in Archaeometry
94. Proceedings of the 29th Interna-
tional Symposium on Archaeometry,
Ankara, 9–14 May 1994, ed. Ş. De-
mirci, A. M. Özer, and G. D. Sum-
mers, Ankara, pp. 111–119.
Pritchett, W. K. 1964a. “The Height
of the Lapis Primus,” Historia 13,
pp. 129–134.
———. 1964b. “The Width of the
Lapis Primus: A Correction,” CP 59,
p. 272.
———. 1966. “The Top of the Lapis
Primus,” GRBS 7, pp. 123–129.
———. 1967. “The Location of the
Lapis Primus,” GRBS 8, pp. 113–
119.
———. 1972. “Lucubrationes Epi-
graphicae,” CSCA 5, pp. 153–181.
Ridgway, B. S. 1999. Prayers in Stone:
Greek Architectural Sculpture ca. 600–
100 B.C.E. (Sather Classical Lectures
63), Berkeley.
Samons, L. J. 2000. Empire of the Owl:
Athenian Imperial Finance (Historia
Einzelschr. 142), Stuttgart.
Shear, I. M. 1999. “The Western Ap-
proach to the Athenian Acropolis,”
JHS 119, pp. 86–127.
Shear, T. L., Jr. 1971. “The Athenian
Agora: Excavations of 1970,” Hes-
peria 40, pp. 241–279.
———. 1982. “The Demolished
Temple at Eleusis,” in Studies in
Athenian Architecture, Sculpture,
and Topography Presented to Homer
A. Thompson (Hesperia Suppl. 20),
Princeton, pp. 128–140.
———. 1984. “The Athenian Agora:
Excavations of 1980–1982,” Hes-
peria 53, pp. 1–57.
———. 1993. “The Persian Destruc-
tion of Athens: Evidence from
Agora Deposits,” Hesperia 62,
pp. 383–482.
Smarczyk, B. 1990. Untersuchungen
zur Religionspolitik und politischen
Propaganda Athens im delisch-
attischen Seebund (Quellen und
Forschungen zur antiken Welt 5),
Munich.
Stroud, R. S. 2004. “Adolf Wilhelm and
the Date of the Hekatompedon
Decrees,” in
Ἀττικαὶ ἐπιγραφαὶ.
Πρακτικὰ συμποσίου εἰς μνήμην
Adolf Wilhelm (1864–1950), ed.
A. Matthaiou and G. Malochou,
Athens, pp. 85–97.
———. 2006. The Athenian Empire on
Stone: David M. Lewis Memorial
Lecture, Oxford 2006, Athens.
Theocharaki, A. M. 2007. “Ο αρχαίος
αθηναϊκός οχυρωματικός περίβολος:
Ζητήματα μορφολογίας, τοπογρα-
φίας, και διαχείρισης” (diss. Univ.
of Athens).
———. 2011. “The Ancient Circuit
Wall of Athens: Its Changing
Course and the Phases of Construc-
tion,” Hesperia 80, pp. 71–156.
Thomas, R. 1994. “Literacy and the
City-State in Archaic and Classical
Greece,” in Literacy and Power in the
Ancient World, ed. A. Bowman and
G. Woolf, Cambridge, pp. 33–50.
Tsira, A. 1940. “Die unfertigen Säul-
trommeln auf der Akropolis von
Athen,” JdI 55, pp. 242–261.
Turner, L. A. 1994. “The History,
Monuments, and Topography of
Ancient Lebadeia in Boeotia,
Greece” (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania).
Margaret M. Miles
American School of Classical Studies
54 souidias street
106 76 athens
greece
mmmiles@ascsa.edu.gr
