The interventions on the temple of Athena Nike. A study of restoration techniques and guidelines based on the interventions on the temple of Athena Nike on the Athenian Acropolis
MetadataShow full item record
In this thesis I look at the development of restoration techniques and principles in connection with the restorations of the temple of Athena Nike on the Athenian Acropolis. The temple was built in the second half of the 5th century BC, as a part of the classical Acropolis, but was dismantled in 1686 during the Ottoman occupation of Greece. In 1834 the members of the temple were rediscovered in a Turkish fortification, and the German archaeologist Ludwig Ross performed the first restoration of the temple using the method known as anastylosis. The work was completed by Kyriakos Pittakis in 1844. In 1935 large cracks were discovered in the bastion on which the temple stood, and a new anastylosis was performed between 1935 and 1944 by Nikolaos Balanos and Anastasios Orlandos. In 2000 a third anastylosis of the temple was begun by the Acropolis Restoration Service. This project is due to be completed this year. I have attempted to connect these interventions to the principles and guidelines that existed for restoration work in the different periods. These are the principles proposed by Leo von Klenze in 1834, The Charter of Athens from 1931 and the Venice Charter from 1964. The focus has been on how the guidelines have been followed in the separate cases, as well as on the socio-political questions that have arisen with the latest intervention. I conclude that all three interventions have very different approaches to the guidelines. The first restoration used the guidelines for support as a similar project had not before been attempted in Greece, and the results are satisfactory. The archaeologists of the second restoration paid less regard to the guidelines, and drew on their own experience instead. This restoration has proven more problematic, due to their choice of methods and materials. The latest restoration has been done following the guidelines, and the restorers have even added their own to ensure the quality of the work. This third restoration is not yet finished, and a final verdict will have to wait until the results are published.
PublisherThe University of Bergen
- Archaeology 86
Copyright the author. All rights reserved