To what extent were the builders of the Erechtheion successful in solving the problems caused by the site and position of the temple?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Georgina Stewart

One would find the remains of the unique Erechtheion situated on the Acropolis after the Propylaea. The Erechtheion was built in 421 BC and completed by 406 BC by Pericles. The Erechtheion owes its name to Erechtheus who was a local hero and legendary king of Athens. This particular temple like others was interupted by war, yet this factor was not why the Erechtheion caused so may problems for the arithects who built it. The purpose of the Erechtheion was to replace the old temple of Athena Polias. When it was built, the architects and builders had to be careful not to make the Erechtheion more exuberant and revolutionary than the neighbouring Parthenon. However my opinion is that this temple is more unique than any temple that stands on the Acropolis, this argument is evident through out the essay.

The following essay will attempt to allow myself to come to a suitable conclusion, whether the builders of the Erechtheion were successful in solving the problems caused by the site and the position. In order to do this, I will be using evidence such as illustrations, ground plans and different viewpoints of the Erechtheion. I will analysis the Erechtheion through the individual elevations. A comparison of the Erechtheion and a regular hexastyle temple will be an imperative feature when dealing with the abnormalities and potential problems of the Erechtheion. Throughout this essay references to the mythological and historical facts of the Erechtheion will also be emphasised as well as the aesthetical successes of the Erechtheion.

In order to conclude whether the builders of the Erechtheion were successful, one needs to briefly highlight the problems, to allow the reader a full understanding of the Erechtheion uniqueness.

The Erechtheion lies at the north of the Akropolis, geologically the builders of the Erechtheion faced a nightmare. As one observes the Erechtheion it is apparent that this temple incorporates two different levels, this is probably the main problem that faced the arithects. The ingenious solution to this problem was that the temple incorporated four sets of columned supports and three independently roofed structures. Already it is apparent that the builders of the Erechtheion were successful in this respect. One could pursue the idea that the Erechtheion resembles three different temples formed to make one unique structure.

It was not just the geological problems that caused the Erechtheion to have the unique appearance it has. The Erechtheion lays upon the most sacred spot on the Acropolis. According to myth, it is here that two deities, Athena ad Poseidon, held a contest to decide which one would claim Athens as their city. Poseidon struck the Erechtheion and their came a salt-water spring, Athena offered the first olive tree. There were other cultural hindrances that would have caused problems for the builders of the Erechtheion. On the Westside of the Erechtheion lies the tomb of Kecrops, the ancestor of Athens. Also on this side of the elevation lies the mythical olive tree planted by Athena. In addition to the different mythical hindrances, from a religious point of view the Erechtheion was totally unique, and thus the problem this caused was that no other temple had the aspect of multi-dedication. Therefore the Erechtheion was evolutionary as well as revolutionary. Within the Erechtheion there would have been altars to Zeus Hypatos, Erectheus, Hephaistos, Boutes, Thyechoas and Xoanon of Hermes. Finally the temple was equally dedicated to Poseidon and Athena.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

From the evidence extrapolated from the above diagram, which illustrates how the site affected the ground plan of the Erechtheion, one is in a position to analyse the Erechtheion elvation at a time. The Erechtheion appears to be a complex structure, yet one can notice that the main structure of the Erechtheion resembles that of a hexastyle temple (a temple with two colunades of six columns on the west and east elevation.). Thus one could extrapolate that the builders were successful in allowing the Erechtheion to incorporate the popular architectural methods of the 5th century BC. This would allow the Erechtheion to be a seen as an aesthetical evolutionary structure, rather than controversial one. The Erechtheion incorporates all the feature of a regular temple such as the Naos, opisthodsmos and the pronaos.

Yet in contrast to this theory, the main ideologies of a temple was to be symmetrical thus emphasising the equality through out the temple. Like the Parthenon the Erechtheion, had many unique architectural features.

The Parthenon having a prostlye colonnade highlights grandeur, this is similar compared with the Erechtheion, as the Caryatid pronaos emphasises its cultural importance. The following section of this essay is an in depth evaluation of each section of the Erechtheion.

The problems of the Erechtheion have been highlighted, the following section illustrates how these problems were resolved and to what extent were they successful. When each section of the Erechtheion is analysed, one must keep in mind, three many factors that will lead to an architectural success.

In the case of the Erechtheion and the success of the builders overcoming the obstacles caused by the situation of this temple, three main factors appear.

Is the elevation an success aesthetically
How do the mythical and geological factors dictate the temples success
How does it compare with the normal hexastyle temple.

The East Elevation.

From the above illustration one can see that two different levels dictated the position of the east level, to be precise it was the existing substances of the old polis caused problem.

It is evident from sections (a) to (b) the Erechtheion closely resemble a normal hexastyle temple. This was a major success as this particular temple had many difficult aspects to work with that greatly affect the construction. Like other temples the main naos in the Erechtheion faces east. From this viewpoint it is evident that this temple is an excellent example of Ionic order.

From analysing this elevation, I have a theory that comes from a personal opinion; it is based upon the fact of orders such as ionic and Doric symbolising cultural emphasis. One problem that faced the builders (though minor) was that the Erechtheion could not be too unique, as the main emphasis on the Acropolis was the Parthenon, the pride of Athens. Thus my theory of solution, was a like the Parthenon which incorporated two orders such, Doric on the outer temple and Ionic in the Naos of the temple, the Erechtheion incorporated two deigns also. These were ionic and the caryatids that also closely followed the Ionic order. My opinion is that the use of more than one order symbolises the awesome power of the deity that was dedicated to the temple. Evidence for this theory is, is found in the Parthenon. The ionic order was mainly familiar on islands were was the Doric order was mainly used on inland temples, thus the use of both orders clearly highlights the extent of Athens influences and importance. A more obvious factor is that ionic columns are more efficient in delicate and elaborate temples as there reduce the surface area taken up by the column thus creating more space, thus one would be correct when stating from the deduced evidence that the builders of the Erechthieon were successful in solving the problems caused by the position of the Erechtheion.

When discussing the aesthetical success of this elevation it is important to incorporate the mythical and geological aspects that could dictate the construction of the Erechtheion. As highlighted throughout this essay the ground levels were of different levels, however when observing this elevation it is noticeable that the levels of (a) and (b) are not incredibly noticeable, considering the geological hindrance. This success is further evident in the frieze, the north and east columns are different at different, roughly two and half inches, however the amazing carved ornaments take away the focus of the unlevelled structure and allows this temple to appear continuous. This idea however was not a new concept. Again it was used in the construction of the Parthenon, the steps at the entrance of the Parthenon have a major dip in the centre, and this is due to the fact that from any position around the Parthenon the steps appear straight. The idea that symmetry and equality resembles perfect ness was a concept used by the builders of Erechtheion.

From this analysis of the east elevation I can deduce from the diagram and the above information that the builders were successful in solving the problems caused by the position and site of the Erechtheion. However aesthetically pleasing, the Erechtheion still appears out of place on the Acropolis, This factor is again evident when other elevations are analysed.

The South Elevation

Like the east elevation, the south elevation was dictated by the former foundations do the old polis. The result of this was that the south wall of Erechtheion and the Caryatid porch overlapped the foundations of the former northern pteron. Yet the builders of the Erechtheion managed to overcome this problem, thus, this evidence clearly portrays the builders to be successful in solving one of the problems caused by the site and position of the Erechtheion.

The Erechtheion is best known for what is on its southern side, the porch of the Caryatids. The Caryatids, the six columns shaped like maidens, support the roof of the porch. The relevance of this is the fact that the builders manage to use figure as columns whilst referencing the maidens to Ionic order. Normally a woman’s hair in ancient Greece was worn down as it was modest however the maidens’ hair is worn down, this is for structural purposes. The neck of the maiden would be too weak to keep up the structure above them, thus the extra hair added to the strength. This undetectable abnormality evidently shows that the builders of the Erechtheion were successful in incorporating unique structures yet using logical and traditional ideas of the time.

The Caryatids porch in opinion of my own and the Sunday times, mirror magazine is “ possibly the most interesting bit of architecture of the Erechtheion. As stated the porch appears usual and it certainly is however it carries a canonical ionic entablature. Thus the builders of the Erechtheion did use some regular tradition Greek methods of architecture. The mythology behind the Caryatids, which highlights the tension between the Greeks and the Persians in the fifth century, is incorporated in the Erechtheion. This mythology lies upon punishment; the caryatids were enslaved priestesses who came from the land of Caryare, a pro Persian country. As the caryatids were not loyal to Athena, they were made to forever face the Parthenon the pride of Athens. I personally find it amazing that the builders of the Erechtheion were able to incorporate this idea in to the temple, as the Caryatid porch directly faces the Parthenon. Therefore in answer to the question, I personally fell that the position of the Caryatid porch is an excellent example of the success of the constructers of the Erechtheion.

Finally, aesthetically this side of the Erechtheion is unique and highly stunning, yet this porch is what singles out the Erechtheion from other temples. Thus one could pursue the fact that the builders were successful in solving the problems caused by the site and position. Yet the Erechtheion no matter what, would also ways be unique and out of proportion to any other temple or building on the acropolis.

Therefore one could state that the south elevation highlights the aesthetic beauty if the Erechtheion however It does not incorporate and structure that resembles a regular temple, for example there is a solid wall then a porch; there is no outer colonnade around the building.

The West Elevation and North Elevation.

The north elevation is a difficult viewpoint to get; this is due to the fact that the north side of the Erechtheion looks over the side of the Acropolis. Thus the best angle to analysis in this case would be from the southeast. From this viewpoint one can see the elaborate gate of the Erechtheion. Also from this viewpoint we can see how the Erechtheion has many features that resemble other temples. The two arrows indicate the structure that easily relates to a “normal” temple.

The west elevation was built on the most sacred part of the Acropolis, where the Greeks believed that Athena had planted the olive tree that stood by the west elevation and on the site of the tomb of Kecrops the first king of Athens. The west elevation is the section of the Erechtheion that has the lowest ground level. This is due to many different mythological and religious aspects. One major problem that faced the builders of the Erechtheion was the tomb of Kecrops, the fist king of Athens. The solution was to allow this factor to dictate the structure of the Erechtheion. An enormous stone slab protected the tomb, thus part of this elevation was of the ground. The other religious aspect was the olive tree and the hole left purposely were Poseidon apparently struck the temple in the contest between himself and Athena. This aspect clearly shows that the mythical site did pose certain problems for the builders of the Erechtheion however they managed to solve these problems and to what extent, relies on personal opinion. From my point of view and from an aesthetical point of view the builders were successful in not letting these mythical factors dictate the appearance as much as it could have done.

Finally when considering if this elevation relates to a normally temple of the 5th century, it is more difficult to analysis this elevation due to the unique circumstances.

Evidence of the success of the builders in apparent between sections (a) and (b). The ionic columns do not extent completely to the ground. This would be due to the fact that it would appear abnormal and out of place. Thus the columns only extended half way down the temple. Finally another architectural susses is that there is a column missing on the colonnade marked (c). This is allows the colonnade to appear continuous, if the column had been visible it would make the Erechtheion look as if the colonnade was out of proportion.

Conclusion

From the extrapolated evidence given from the analysis of each elevation of the Erechtheion and the analysis of its mythical and religious background it is apparent to a certain extent that the builders of the Erechtheion were successful in solving the problem caused by the site and position of the temple. It is my opinion, that the builders of the Erechtheion were successful as they used subtle and ingenious methods when dealing with the difference in levels in the Erechtheion. Further evidence for its success was that problems such as this did not hinder the production of an amazing temple, which still managed to satisfy the requirements of all the mythical and geological factors. Further more; the builders of the Erechtheion through out the construction of the temple respected the traditional methods of architecture but at the same introduced “striking innovations”.

The only aspect of the Erechtheions construction that raises doubt to its success was the dictation of the holy and mythical artefacts. Yet personally I do not think that the abandonment of the traditional symmetrical method leads to the result that it was unsuccessful, I see it of a sign of respect even sympathy with the religious purpose of the Erechtheion.