Christian Desecration and Mutilation of PDF
Christian Desecration and Mutilation of PDF
Christian Desecration and Mutilation of PDF
the Parthenon”
by
John Pollini
in
I Most past studies dealing with Christian destruction of images have focused on the literary
rather than the archaeological evidence: See, e. g., Mango 1963, especially 55-70. With regard
to material remains, see now, however, the excellent study of Sauer 2003, especially 165-173.
For Greek Christian iconoclasm, see in particular Delivorrias 1991. In a book on which I am
presently working, I shall deal in depth with the subject of Christian destruction and desecration
of images of classical antiquity.
* Illid~aelih1871, 45.
Deichmann 1938/39, 137.
" Shear 2001, (153460 851-995; Ousterhout 2005, 296.
Deichmann 1938/39, 137.
" See also more recently Korres 1994, 146, who indicates that *possibly under Justinian, the
tenlplc W J useti
~ ~ i l t tal~liuugh
fnr CJl~ibli;ll~ ~, our first firm evidence of this dates from a centuly
aftsrwarcls~l.For a history of the Parthenon after classical antiquity, see especially the various
At some unknown point in the Late Antique period a devastating fire
clcstroycd the roof and interior of the Partlimon, which was subsequently
repaired7. A. Michaelis proposed long ago that the repairs occurred when the
relnple was converted8, but recent investigations argue against this theory9.
'l'he fact that the statue of Athena Parthenos, which was also destroyed in
the fire, was replaccd - though on a slightly smaller scalelo - indicates that
Athena continued to be worshiped in the Parthenon for some time after
the fire. The last evidence for a statue of Athena in the cella is provided by
Proclus, the head of the Neo-Platonic Academy, who had been barred by
Christians from entering the Parthenon. Before he died in 485 h e mentioned
that the statue of Athena, .which had stood so long in the Parthenon,
was taken away by those people who move things which should not be
moved((" - almost certainly a reference to the Christians, who probably
destroyed and recycled the statue after removing it. At around the same
time it is likely that the colossal bronze statue of Athena Promachos was
also taken as spolia to Constantinople, where it later perished12. The fire
that ravaged the Parthenon may have occurred accidentally, resulted from a
natural calamity like a lightning strike, or have been intentionally set. More
often than not the Heruli, who attacked Athens in 267, have been deemed
responsible. Although A. Frantz has argued persuasively against this view13,
the Heruli's culpability cannot be entirely ruled out1*. Subsequent foreign
invaders have also been blamed, but there is no conclusive evidence for
their having set the Parthenon ablaze1? Among the invading barbarians
were some who were christians16, including Alaric the Visigoth, who was
an Arian Christian.
articles in Tournikiotis 1996, as well as Hurwit 1999, 291-295; Williams 2002 (1 would like to
thank Dyfri Williams for bringing this work to my attention); and Ousterhout 2005, especially
302f. for a discussion of the date of conversion to a church. For a recent and succinct history of
the Parthenon and its sculptures, see Beard 2003.
' Korres 1994, 140-145. According to Korres (140), 13. 1-1. Hill was the first to recognize that
the repair work due to the fire took place in the Late Antique period.
Michaelis 1871, 48.
~ o r r e s1994, 14-3-146.
lo Korres 1994, 145-146. This difference was determined by the change in the size of the ped-
estals: The pre-conflagration pedestal r~lcasurcd7.85 m x 3.90 nl; the post-curlfiagratiorl one,
7.45 m x 3.50 m.
" hlalillus, Vila Procli, c.ap 30 See also Frantz ly/'), 4Ul 11. 54, xnd recently Lapatin 2001,
88 f.
l L This statlie w3.s standing on the Acropolis as latc as -465-470. For the fate of tlac Athcna
Promachos, see Frantz 1988, 76. 77.
l3 Frantz 1979, 395-401.
l 4 See Lapatin 2001, 89.
l5 For Athens in late antiquity, see Frant7 1965, 187--205; Ousterhout 2005, 294 -307.
'"ale Antiquity IWY, 393. 394 s. v . Conversion.
Commonly overlooked as possibly responsible for the burning of
the Parthenon are Athens' Greek Christians, who crrbdirlly had a strong
motive for destroying Athena's temple or at least her divine image within.
Christians in general had a history of destructive rampages, especially when
instigated by overly zealous bishops and other clergy who wanted to wipe
out polytheism by any means possible17. On the other hand, Christian
emperors, concerned with stability within the Empire, generally sought
to keep the peace between Christians and polytheists. at least as long as
polytheists constituted a majority or a sizable part of the population'8. By
the 4" century, however, the number of Christians was sufficiently large
that in 380 the emperor Theodosius I issued a decree officially outlawing
polytheistic religion19, a policy that promoted Christian destruction and
terrorism. The brutal murder of the noted philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria
in 415 at the hands of christians20, undoubtedly spurred on by Cyril, Bishop
of ~ l e x a n d r i a ~was
' , but one of the many instances of Christian mobs doing
violence to polytheists. In the case of the famous Serapeion at Alexandria,
its destruction under the bishop ~ h e o ~ h i l in u s391
~ ~sent a strong message
throughout the Empire that it was the duty of Christians to attack temples.
There is both literary and archaeological evidence from various parts of the
Empire for such destructive raids on temples, as well as for assaults on the
sacred objects of p o l y t h e i ~ t s ~ ~ .
Even when there were imperial decrees promoting religious intolerance,
civic authorities in cities that still had sizable polytheistic populations would
sometimes not enforce such rulings in the interest of maintaining the peace.
This laxity is indicated by the fact that these imperial decrees had to be
reissued and sometimes made more severe2*. For example, a decree of
"' Momigliano 1963, 12; Geffcken 1978, 170 et passim; MacMullen 1984, 98-100; Chuvin
1990, 76; Frankfurter, 1998, 26f. 265f. 277-283. For an ancient contemporary description of
attacks in Syria by monks, described as ))black-robedFuries., see Libanius, Or. 30,8,9. See also
Fowden 1978, 67 f.; Trombley 2001, 11, 134-173; Stewart 1999, 179t.
Is See, e. g., Fowden 1978, 73-78.
l 9 Cod. l'heod. 16,1,2. Imperial decrees from the time or Theudosius I on also pcnalized
Christians who reverted or converted to polytheism or participated in polytheistic cult worship:
Cod. Theod. 16,7. See also Geffcken 1978, 223f.
20 Chuvin 1990, 85-89; Brown 1995, 116.
21 Hist. ECC.7,15,5. 6 (ed. G. C. Hansen, Sokrates, Kirchengeschichte \Berlin 19951 360f.I. For
Cyril's role in the murder, see Damascius' Life of Isadore, recorded in the lothcentury Byzantine
lexicon, lht. Suda, s. v. Hypatia (4, 644-654,A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon [Reprint: Stuttgart 1967-
13711 - Dam. trag. 102, pp. 79.18; 81. 10, Zintzen [l$)(57])(:f the T,:dlirl version in Cassioclo~.~ls
Epiphanius, Historia Ecclesiastics '1hpartita 11,12.
'' See, e. g., King 1961, 78-82; Gellcke11 1978, 172-174 et passirrl; F v w d e ~1978,
~ 69-71.
23 See in general Sauer 2003.
"'or this legislation, see, e. g., Frano 1965, 187.
Arcadius and Honorius in 399 calling for the destruction of temples in
country districtsZi was later revived by Theudosius 11, ~ v h uin 435 called
for the destruction of ))allsanctuaries, temples, and shrines(Cz6.He expressed
his displeasure that these decrees were being blatantly disregarded2'.
Exceptions were nevertheless sometimes made by the very emperors who
decreed that temples be closed or destroyed in the first place. In some
cases, temples were allowed to stand if no sacrifices were performed there
or if their sacred images were removed, while in other instances images in
temples were spared if they were treated as works of art rather than objects
of worshipz8.These less drastic acts of )tolerance(were probably intended to
mollify the polytheistic segment of the population. Such half-way measures
served as an alternative to the total destruction of the last symbols of the
old religionz9. In Athens itself, anti-polytheistic imperial decrees appear to
have been ignored in the late 4th and early 5" century because of the many
polytheists that were still in the city. In fact, the Neo-Platonic Academy
remained a dominant force until Justinian ordered its closing in 52930.
Dismayed by the lack of enforcement of imperial decrees against the old
religion and emboldened by the destruction of the Serapeion in Alexandria,
some Greek Christian fanatics may very well have decided to take matters
into their own hands in the late 4th century and set ablaze the Temple of
Athena, the preeminent symbol of polytheistic worship in the city. If so,
the restoration of the temple may have been undertaken by Herculius,
who was Prefect of Illyricum (407-412). A great benefactor, Herculius was
responsible for the rehabilitation of the Library of Hadrian in ~ t h e n s ~His
l.
statue was also set up on the Acropolis next to the colossal image of Athena
~romachos~~.
At whatever date in antiquity the rebuilt Parthenon was converted to a
church, it was probably then that Christians pulled down and reduced to
" See Frantz 1979, 400f., who also points out that Herculius' benefactions in Greece were
1 1 o 1 corlfined 10 Athells. Frantz 1988, 64, takes Herculius lo be a polytheist, but Fowden 1990,
IUO, criticizes Frantz for incautiously identihing Herclilius as such. Fowden indicates that ),Her-
h doubt L V I I ~ U I ~ publicly
c l ~ l i ~ i1-10 I I ~ ~ lu Cl~sisti~a~iity([.
Iri this peroid of uncertainty and religious
rr:~nsition,especially when it was disadvantageous or dangero~isin some qliarter politically not
11) I7cs ;I Christian, it is likely, in my opinion, that Herculius nras a cr-ypto-polytheist.. See, for ex-
;1111ple, the bishop Pegasius of Troy, who nrxs clearly a polytheist, but used his office as bishop
.I.\ ;I way lu save terriplcs at Troy. For Pcgasius, see Julian Cp. 19. See also Vowden 1978, 60 f.
4L Frantz lcl7cl 401 with n 5-3
lime thc ccntral figures of the East ~ e d i m e n tIn
~ ~the
. case of the metopes,
it is well known that a great many were likewise defaced by ~ h s i s t i a ~ ~ s ~ ~ ,
but Christian mutilation of the frieze has been almost entirely overlooked
in the scholarly literat~re3~. This essay represents the first attempt to point
out and discuss the specific types of damage to be found in the sections
of frieze that I argue were attacked, as well as the possible reasons for this
defacement and the time period or periods in which the mutilation may
have occurred. My observations regarding the physical condition of the
frieze are based on my personal inspection of the various sections in the
British Museum and in the Acropolis use urn^^. I have also endeavored to
distinguish between injury to the frieze attributable to early Greek Christians
and to either Turks or Europeans during the Turkish occupation of Greece,
especially in the 1 8 ' ~and 1Ythcenturies.
Modern scholarship, influenced by a Judeo-Christian cultural bias, has
sometimes sought to present Christian desecration in a positive light, as a form
33 See, e. g., Palagia 1998, 9; Hurwit 1999, 294; Williams 2002, 132, Palagia 2005, 226. Much
later, in the late 17'" century, the Christian general Francesco Morosini tried to remove some of
the central figures of the West Pediment to bring back to Venice as spoils of war. In the proc-
ess, the machinery he used to lower the sculptures failed, and they crashed to the ground.
The Carrey sketches of the West Pediment (1674), made thirteen years before the Venetian
bombardment, show most of the sculptures still in place. The figures of the Vl'est Pediment
may have survived the destruction wreaked on the temple by early Christians because some
Christian myth was perhaps thought to be represented in the pediment on the west side. For
the Carrey drawings and Morosini's destruction of the central figures of the West Pediment, see
Brommer 1979, 47-58 figs. 23. 25; Korres 1994, 146-152: Palagia 1998, 10f. figs. 1-4; Hurwit
1999, 174-179. 291-298 figs. 140. 142. 234; Williams 2002, 122 n. 74; Beard 2003, 76-81 fig. 8;
Palagia 2005, 226.
34 For the metopes and their history in scholarship, see recently Schwab 2005, 15W97, es-
pecially 165.
35 I first began to recognize Christian damage to the frieze in 1999 when working on a paper
on Christian destruction and desecration of images of classical antiquity for a conference at the
Carlos Museum at Emory University on .Tyranny and Transformation.. In further researching
the history of the Parthenon frieze, I discovered that A. H, Smith (1892/93, 95f. fig. 31) had long
ago also noted battering of the heads in the central section of the East Frieze (Brommer 1977,
pl. 177) and suggested that Christians might have mutilated this part. Smith's opinion was gener-
ally ignored in later scholarship. Brommer (1977, 210), for example, dismissed Smith's observa-
tion with the passing comment, ))Smithmeinte, dalS dies ebenfalls absichtlich geschehen sei,
aber das ist nicht so deutlich((.J. Neils 2001, 4, mentions in passing the possibility of Christian
responsibility but does not point out wllese in the frieze this type of damage may be seen or dis-
c~rssthe matter further. In later publications, Neils (2004, 43-85; 2005, 199-2231 is silent on the
matter of Christian damage. Others who have recently discussed the friezc, as well as tlie fate
oi the Parthenon in post-classical a~ltiquity,liavc likcwi~enot dealt wit,h ill(: i s s ~ l eof Christiarr
deface~llerlivf the friczc. SCC,for essmplc, Sprneonogl~u:?i104~ O~lsterhorll2005.
" In the British M u s r u ~ ~Il ,was kindly l,l,r,vided with a ladder to inspect the frieze at close
range and to photograph it. I would also like to thank Dyfri Williams and Ian Jenkins of the
13ritish Museu~nfor discussing with me aspects of the Elgin Marbles.
( : IIKISTIAN ~ E S E C R A T I O NA N D MUTILATION
OF THE PARTHENON 213
( I \ (;l-c.ece. With regard to the Parthenon, Korres has claimed that the ))worst
See, e. g , the title and point of view of Delivorrias 1991. Cf. Sauer 2003, 165-173.
37
K O I I ~ 1994,
78 S 137. Of course, it could equally be argued that polytheists would have con-
tinued to care for the Parthenon if their religion and rites had not been attacked and destroyed
I>y Christians.
39 KUI-1-cs 1994, 140.
65-74
4 V a rr-oll 1 982, cspeci~~lly
41 For Alexander's commemoration, see Arr. an. 1,16,7;Paus. 1,25,6. For the shields added to
the Parthenon, see Boardman 1985, 213; Korres 1994, 138f.
42 See, e. g., Brommer 1979, 23; Berger 1986: and Schwab 2005, with a brief review of more
recent scholarship on the metopes.
L3 Rodenwaldt 1935
south metopes at such an acute angle very difficult4! In addition, Christians
may have built some wooden structure or series of structures on this side
of the Parthenon, obscuring any view of the south metopes, as suggested in
a sketch made before 1670 showing later buildings on the south side45.In
the case of the east, north, and west metopes, almost all of the figures were
largely hacked or picked off the relief ground46,as evident, for example, on
the north side in Metope XXV", Metope XXIX~" and Metope In certain
metopes, like East Metope IV, hack and pick marks have been obscured by
considerable weathering over the centuries50. In other metopes, like West
Metope XIII, weathering has severely eroded certain figures, while leaving
the effects of assault discernible in other figures in the same metope5l.
Evidence of similar intentional damage and weathering is likewise found in
other contexts in Greece and elsewhere in the Mediterranean area, where
ancient objects, including some that were marked with Christian crosses,
were buried and long forgotten before Muslims, with similar iconoclastic
tendencies, arrived on the scene52.
More well preserved than other metopes from the east, north, and west
sides of the Parthenon is the only metope that might be interpreted in a
Christian light. This metope - the so-called )Annunciation Metopec (North
Metope XXXII: pl. 27, 1 ) ~ 3 - is prominently positioned at the corner of the
north side. It has generally been agreed that the two figures in it were not
obliterated because early Christians saw here Christian imagery; namely,
that moment in Christian myth when the Archangel Gabriel arrived to tell
Mary that she was to bear the son of the Jewish god54.I was able to examine
III ~ S C ligiires closely in the spring of 2007, when I was permitted to climb the
%( :~lli)lclingon the Parthenon to inspect and to photograph North Metope
\ i ~ ~ l l ' ' .Seen at close range, the heads of both figures appear to have
I )vcbn intentionally knocked off their bodies. Under normal circumstances
1 1 1 ~considerable
~ overhang of the cornice and sima would have protected
1 1 1 c - w destroyed parts, as they did the well preserved garments of both
ligiit-cs. Traces of what seems to be hacking are more evidenceti on top of
111c. torso of the seated figure in this metope @Z. 28, 1) than on the standing
I'ig~lse,only the head of which has been knocked off (pl. 27,2). As a result
of' hacking, all that remains of the left foot of the seated figure is a stump
1/11. 27,3). As for the right foot of this figure, it is clear that the mortise of
r lle front part of the foot had been carved separately in marble and added
to a shallow tenon with a roughened surface (pl. 28, 2). Because of this
~llcthodof piece-joining, the front section of the foot probably popped out
when struck with some object. All of the left arm has also been knocked
oII; while all that remains of the mutilated right forearm is a stump (pl.28,
$1. In the case of the standing figure, her raised left arm and hand, which
were once carved in relief, were completed destroyed, while most of her
free-standing right arm has been broken off. The hand, once in relief, was
:dso bashed (pl. 28, 4). Although part of her right leg is extant, her whole
right foot has been hacked away, and the front part of her left foot is broken
off. The sandaled left foot and the rocks beneath the seated figure were
carved in such a way that they do not make contact with the top of the
laenia (pl.28, 5). Over the centuries, the surface of the hacked and bashed
human extremities has suffered the effects of weathering, resulting in this
intentional damage being now wholly or partially concealed. In many other
cases, it was typical for the Christians to not only knock off the heads of
free-standing sculpture and relief figures but also to attack and destroy arms,
hands, legs, and feet. Such actions were most likely intended to make sure
that these figures would be immobilized, as it was commonly believed by
--
which Athena commonly wears is more in keeping with her in~ageas a ar:trrior godcless. She is
dressed in the peplos, for example, in her colossal chryselephantinc image as I'arthenos, in the
I.tAmnia Athena, and most likely in the Athena E'romachos - all three cvorlis l,y I'hidias, all three
o n thc Acropolis. Although IIera is also I C ~ ) I L : MI. II ~ Y I i r i 1l1(: l~cq~/.)s
in the Pitr rht-t~ot
I Mull~rc~lrh,
Iier statue types often show her in the chitnn. The difference in dress in Mctopc X Y I I may have
I )cAt.xl
int~nc1c.dto hclp distinguish visually hetn.ret~tllc t w o goddesses. Since thc mctopcs on
rl~isside of the Pasthtt~iu~ideal with the Trojan War, perhaps this metope represents a meeting
of the two chief goddesses, who, denied the golden apple, conspired to destroy Troy. The rocky
outcrop on which the chiton-clad figure of Hera sits might be interpreted as Mt. Ida, since the
~r;odscame down from Olympos to get a better view of the war.
55 I thank Dr. Christina Vlassopoulou for granting me this permission.
superstitious Christians that the images were possessed by demonic forces5?
It is difficult to know when the mutilation of North Metope XXXII took
place, especially since it seems to have been spared when the Parthenon
was converted into a Church, probably because of the belief that the figures
did indeed represent the Christian Annunciation. In my opinion, the most
likely time for the intentional mutilation of this metope would have been
during the period of Christian iconoclasm in the 8thand 9thcenturies, when
Christians were attacking, destroying, and defacing their own sacred art, in
keeping with the old biblical ban on images5'.
Unlike the east, west, and north metopes, which were highly visible and
therefore primary targets of attack, the Parthenon frieze would have been
difficult to see, being placed at the top of the exterior wall of the naos and
over both porches, where the viewing angle was acute and largely blocked
by the outer pteron of massive Doric columns. Deep shadows would have
also been cast on the figures. When the temple was later transformed into
a church, high walls were added to the intercolumniations of the outer
peripteral colonnade (fig. I), restricting still further the view of the frieze.
The difficulty of seeing the figures, coupled with the problem in mutilating
so long a continuous frieze, probably accounts for the fact that the frieze
was not systematically attacked by Christians at the time the Parthenon was
converted to a church58. Nevertheless, a few sections d o show evidence of
assault, those being the parts of the frieze that were located precisely at the
points where Christians made alterations in the building in order to transform
it into a church. It has generally been assumed that all such damage to the
frieze was a result of the Venetians' bombardment of the Acropolis in 1687.
This shelling and the consequent explosion of the gunpowder stored in the
Parthenon tore apart the central lateral sections of the building and took
the lives of some 300 women and children who had taken refuge there59.
A section of the North Frieze (Blocks IWNII-XXXIX) (pl. 29, 1) is one of
the many parts of the frieze that show the types of breaks, splitting off of
sections of marble, chipping, and abrasions to the surface that might have
56 Christians also sometimes marked parts of the bodies of humans and animals with crosses,
most likely to immobilize them. See, e. g., the relief of a rider from the Athenian Agora in which
his arm and the flank of his horse are both marked with crosses: Inv. no. S 1197: Delivorrias
1991, 118 pl. 59, 3. For the Christian belief that demons possessed Greco-Roman sculpture, see
n. 76 below.
57 There is a great deal of lite~dtuseon this subject. See recently Haldon - Dnibaker 2001.
5X AS was undoubtedly the case with the metopes on the less visihlc solith sidc of thc huild-
ing.
'' Williams 2002, 121f. It is reported that the Parthenon burned for two &ys before thc Turks
surrendered. For the recent line drawing by M. Korres recreating the explosion, see Korres 1994,
fig. 21.
Fig. 1 Line drawing of reconstruction of the I'arthenon in the 17"' century
been caused by the blast6! The flaking-off effect of the marble's surface is a
result of breaks occurring along the natural foliation of the marble.
By contrast with the randomness of destruction in North Blocks
XXXVII-XXXIX, the central block of the East Frieze (V) shows a consistent
concentration of hacking and/or bashing of all the heads of the principal
Olympian gods (nos. 29. 30. 36. 37: pl. 30, 1-2; 31, 2--3) and their mortal
attendants, including some of their limbs and the sacred objects they carry
(nos. 31-35: pl. 30, 3-6:31, a61.
Only the head of one of the lesser gods
(no. 28: pl. 31, 4)' who stands next to Hera (no. 29: pl. 30, I ) , has survived
largely unharmed62.As best seen in the plaster cast and reconstruction of
For North Block XXXIX: Hrommer 1977, pl. 103. Other sections of the frieze showing the
same types of damage are represented in the many photos in Brorrl~rler1977, 1979; Boardman
1985; Jenkins 1994; Neils 2001.
For the East Frieze, see Rrommer 1977, 106124. 2 5 4 2 7 0 et passim, pls. 174. 177. For (tic
individual figures in tht= frieze. I f ~ l l o wthe new nllmheritlg sequencc cstablishcd by Jenkins
1994.
6"l"his section will pres11m2hly he displayed with other elements of the frieze in thc Ncw
Acropolis Museurl~.For this fragment, see Hrommer 1977, 114f. 259t. pl. 174 (lower left im-
age).
this section of East Block V, this well preserved figure is wingedQ and has
generally bee11identified as Iris or Nikc, or more rarely, ~ e b e " "In my view,
her wings, her position within the Hera-Zeus group (nos. 29. 30: pl. 29, 21,
and her left hand raised to the back of her headG5- a common crowning
gesture - suggest an identification as Nike, who was not only important to
the Panathenaic games given in honor of Athena but who also cotnmonly
figured on Panathenaic amphorae. At some unknown time, the upper left
hand corner of the section containing this head was split off. The break
does not go straight through the relief ground (pl. 32, I), since the fractured
curving back part of the block is largely preserved except for a small section
at the very corner ('2.30, 1).The history of the fragment with this head is
unknown, but it seems likely that it was intentionally separated from the
block6" Christians may have interpreted this winged figure as an angel, as
in North Metope XXXII, and removed the head to be used elsewhere, or
they may simply have spared it because of what they thought it to represent,
only to have it removed much later for whatever reason.
As for the major Olympian gods in the central block, a series of small,
sharp, parallel prismatic hack marks, probably produced by some sort of
small adze-like tool, can still be discerned in some figures. In the case of
Hera (no. 29: pl. 30, I), for example, hack marks run diagonally across
her face. Facial features were also bashed with some blunt instrument, as
evident in the head of Zeus (no. 30: pl. 30, 2). On the head of Hephaistos
(no. 37: pl. 31, 3) both short diagonal slashes and holes made by a pick
can be made out. Still well preserved are a small section of the hair on
the head and along the side of the face where the head meets the relief
ground. The face of the male priest (no. 34: pl. 30, 6 )appears to have been
hacked in from the front, with further bashing of the rest of the head. The
weathering of the surface of the marble, which obscures somewhat the
effect of hacking, bashing, and picking, is one reason why such intentional
damage has not generally been recognized. Although some pit marks and
abrasions can be detected in the clothing, hair, and background surrounding
the heads, these other areas lack the sort of concentrated damage found in
the faces or heads of the Olympian gods and attendants6'. By contrast with
the mutilated heads of central East Block V, the figures in the two frieze
Ar~opolisMuseum, but lias Iiow t ~ c c ntransfcrcd to the New Acrnpnlis Museum: For these
I)locks, see Jenkins 1985, Korres 1994. See also the excellent rttce~ltstudy by Wlllla~rlsLUUL.
'I'llere has, however, been little or no discussion of early Christian attacks on any of the figures
( ) n either the north or east sides of the frieze.
from the building in late antiquity to create one of three windows on the
north side for the early Christian church ('g.1,ji4. At the same time, three
windows were cut through the frieze on the south side directly opposite
the three windows on the north. Of the six blocks that were taken down to
create windows for the church, only Block X is largely preserved7i. Christian
workers laboring to remove the relief blocks for the new windows of the
church were most likely responsible for the intentional damage to the heads
on this block. Probably fearful of the gaze of the figures represented there,
the workers may have thought that obliterating the facial features woultl
protect then1 from being harmed by the .demons( that were often thought
to inhabit such figures7? Fear of the evil eye, giving rise to the production
of amulets, has a long history going back to antiquity in the Mediterranean
area7'. The Greek myth of Medusa's gaze turning individuals to stone is, of
course, a well known manifestation of the tradition of the evil eye.
In the case of the preserved central block of the East Frieze Cpl. 29, 2), we
know that this huge section was removed in making an apse for the church
on this side of the Parthenon. The central block was lowered to the ground
and then used as part of a parapet wall on the precipitous south side of
the ~ c r o p o l i s '-~ a functional redeployment that fortunately resulted in the
survival of this section of the frieze. Although it is fairly clear that Block X
on the north side was removed when the six clerestory windows were cut.
it is less certain exactly when the central east block was taken down, since
--
- - - -
74 ~ e n k i n s1985, 87 f. 1)insmoor 1954, 144f., had earlier pointed out, but only as a passing ob-
servation, that the long-lost version of the 1675 description of the Parthenon by Francis Vernon
(the >VernonManuscript0 had mentioned windows cut through the frieze and architrave.
75 This section of the frieze was undoubtedly excavated on the Acropolis, where it would
have remained since its removal from the building by the early Christians. From the fall of 1802.
G. Lusieri, working for Lord Elgin, began removing what was left of the sculptural decorations
of the Parthenon: Williams 2002, 135-140. The other five sections of the frieze that were re-
moved to make windows have either not come down to us or exist now only In fragmentaq
form, with no human heads surviving. For Block XVIII (with part of a horse) on the north side.
see Jenkins 1994, 90 and for Block XXVI (with horses but not charioteer or apobates [figures 70
and 71 on the adjoining right block]), see Jenkins 1994, 94. For the three windows on the south
side: Jenkins 1994, 62f. 66. 70.
('' Cf. an gth or gth century Byzantine text, Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, that also notes.
.Take care when you look at old statues, especially pagan ones(<,and records an incident in
which a statue that was looked at too closely fell over on and killed an observer: James 1996, 12:
Ousterhout 2005, 307. For the Christians' belief that classical statues or images were possessed
by demons, see, e. g., Mango 1963, 56-60; Trombley 2001, 98-122 et passim. For medieval mo-
saics in San Marco in Venice showing horned demons tiriven olit of statiles of Helios/Snl and
Selene/I,una by St Simon and St. Jude, see Sauer 6005, 65-67 color plate 10.
' Biederrriann 1994, 122 f. s. v. Eye.
'* See Williams 2002, 134 with no. 125, who assumes that this block was removed in the 1 2 ' ~
century remodeling of this side of the churcll to put in a larger apse.
M A l N DOOR
fiom 13th century)
t o w n and rtairca
(13th century)
M A l N DOOR
(unttlz3th centu
Eart endfrom
12th century
ride altar
high altar
baldachino
(ciborium)
there were two phases in the construction of the church's apse. The first
apse Cjrig. 2) was contemporary with the clerestory windows created in late
antiquity, probably in the late bth century. If the central block of the East
Frieze was not taken down when the first apse was installed, this section
would have been removed in the lzth century when a new, larger apse
was constructed (fig. 2-31'" Although the central block would not havch
inrcrfcrccl archirctcr~irallywith rhc smallcr apsc, thc rcmoval of this Ill( )cli
would have facilitated construction of this first apse. Whatever the c~isc.,
~ ,l l ecerilral sectivri ul rsieze would liavt: I )eel I I I( )(
alter. bei~iglake11 ~ U L V I ~
just far more accessible to attack but also far more visible. While in pl:tc'cl
.- - -
'' For the renloval of the central block at this tlme, see Ko~res1994, 148.
Fig. 3 Line drawing of larger eastern apse of church
o n the Parthenon, the figures of the frieze, as already noted, would have
been very difficult to see and therefore would not have provoked anxiety
or caused offense because of the representation of ancient Greek gods and
their attendants.
Not all of the damage to the frieze is attributable either to Greek Christians
involved in the conversion of the Temple of Athena into a church or to
Venetians in the bombardment of 1687. It is necessary to discuss this later
clan~ageby v~liersso llial il is not confused with the effects of early Christian
attacks on the frieze. A section of the East Frieze further to the right of
the large central blocli appcars to have been defaced in tlze lsrhor early
lgth century, when the Turks still controlled the Acropolis. This section
rcprcscnts the so-called Eponymous T-{el-oes 01.3418" The hat-lied off
vertical area to the right of thc lowcr body of figure no. 45 is an indicator of
irilcri~iorialrriu~ilalion,as is the obliteration of figlire no. 46, otiiy the litli line
of which now survives. Although some damage would have been caused
The identity of these figures as the ten Eponymous Heroes has been debated: See Neils
2001, 158-161. Some have seen the figures as being nine in number and therefore being the
riirle arclions of Athens: See, e. g . , Jenkins 1955; 1994, 80f. figs. 43-46.
CHRISTIAN
DESECRATION
AND MUTILATION
OF THE PARTHENON 223
\%'illi~llls2002, 156T.
8L CVillia~~x 2002, 11(;110.
X"illiarns 2002, 117.
'* See Williams 2002, 112. 118 127-129 For this section of the frieze with the ~.ni.;silij!p;ll.l\
of t h e figures from Fa~ivel'scast, see also Rrommer 1977, 1 19f, pl. 183 (0 VI); t3rorlirncb1- 107C1,
44 pl. 107.
greater care was taken in chiseling around the raised upper arm of figure
47, as well as around the four heads of figures nos. 43-46.
Through a consideration of the evidence for deliberate attacks on the
Parthenon and its architectural sculpture, particularly its frieze, I have tried to
show some of the ways to detect willful destruction of ancient monuments.
A greater awareness of past assaults like those that I have discussed will,
I believe, lead to a better understanding of the ways that individuals and
groups may respond to - or react against - art, especially sacred art, in
any period in which religious fervor or fanaticism takes holdg5. Evidence
of intentional damage also merits attention in contemporary discussions
about national patrimony and the ownership of the material culture of
ancient peoples who were quite different - both culturally and religiously
- from those who now occupy the lands in which the ancient artifacts and
monuments were created8%
Address
" The psychology of destruction under the influence of an intolerant religious dogma unfor-
tunately continues to find expression, as witnessed in recent years by the Taliban's attacks on
the Bamiyan Buddhas and other figurative art of the pre-Islamic peoples of Afghanistan. For the
destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, see Flood 2002.
86 For this matter in general, see recently, e. g., Gibbon 2005.
Sources of Illustrations: Fig. 1:From M. Korres, The Parthenon from Antiquity to the lgthCentury,
o t ~ f i 'J.'llc 1':~rtlicrionand Its Impact on hlodcrn Tin~cs(Athcns 1994) fig. 20.
111: P. ' I b l i l - ~ ~ ~ k l(ed.),
- Fig.2 From ILI. Beard, The Pal tl~tllio~l ( C ~ I idgc,
~ I ~ Mass.
I 2003). - Fig. 3: FIVIIIkl. 1iu1.1.e~
1994
(see above here tig.1) fig. 13. - FZ.27, 1 - 29,1:J. Pullini. - PI. 29, 2:H. R. Gutt~te.- PI. 30, 1
31,. 3:J. Pnllini. - PI. 31, 4: From .'+I FSrommer, I.)er I-'~rthenonfries:Katalog und Untersuchung
(1977) pl. 174. - PI -3.2, 7. H R Gnette. - PI. 32, 2 - -74, 1:J. Pollini. - PI. 34, 2 From F. Rrom-
mer (see above here FI. 31, 4 )pl. 183. - PI. 34, 3-4J. Pulli~ii.
Bibliography
M. Beard, The Parthenon (Cambridge, Mass. 2003)
E. Berger, Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zu den
Metopen (Mainz 1986)
H. Biedermann, Dictionary of Symbolism, trans. by J. Hul-
bert (New York 1994)
J. Boardman, The Parthenon and Its Sculptures (Austin
1985)
F. Brommer, Die Metopen des Parthenon (Mainz 1967)
F. Brommer, Der Parthenonfries: Katalog und Untersuchung
(Mainz 1977)
Brommer 1979 I;. Brommer, The Sculpture of the Parthenon: Metopes,
Frieze, Pediments, Cult-Statue (London 1979)
P. Brown, Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of the Christia-
nisation of the Roman World (Cambridge 1995)
Carroll 1982 K. K. Carroll, The Parthenon Inscription, Greek, Kon~an,and
Byzantine Monographs 9 (Durham, NC 1982)
Chuvin 1990 P. Chuvin, A Chronicle of the Last Pagans (London 1990)
Deichmann 1938'39 F. W. Deichmann, Die Basilika im Parthenon, AM 63/64,
1938/39, 127-139
Delivorrias 1991 A. Delivorrias, Interpretatio Christiana: rupw an6 r a 6 p ~ rou a
n a y a v i o r ~ ~ oK6a i sou xp1ostavc~o6K ~ G ~ O Vin: , ~ucpp6ouvov.
~ q d p w p osova Mavdhq ~ a s < r l 6 h ~I r(Athens
l 1991) 107-123
Dinsmoor 1954 W. B. Dismoor, New Evidence for the Parthenon Frieze, AJA
58, 1954, 144-145
Flood 2002 F. B. Flood, Between Cult and Culture: Bamiyan, Islamic
Iconoclasm, and the Museum, ArtB 84, 2002, 641-659
Fowden 1978 G. Fowden, Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Em-
pire 320-435 A. D., Journal of Theological Studies 29, 1978,
53-78
Fowden 1990 G. Fowden, The Athenian Agora and the Progress of Christi-
anity, JRA 3, 1990, 494-501
Frankfurter 1998 D. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and
Resistance (Princeton 1998)
Fr.mtz 15165 A. Frant7, From Pgganism to Christ.ianity in the Temples of
Athens, DOP 13, 1365, 187-205
Frantz 197? A. Frantz, Did .Julian the Apostate Rebuild the Parthenon?,
AJA 83, 1979, 395401
Frantz 1988 A. Frantz, The Athenian Agora: Late Antiquity: A. D. 267-700,
Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens 24 (Princeton 1988)
Geffcken 1978 J. Geffcken, The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism,
'trans. from the 1920 ed. with updated references (Amster-
dam 1978)
Gibbon 2005 K. F. Gibbon, Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural
Property, and the Laws (New Brunswick 2005)
Haldon - Brubaker 2001 J. Haldon - L. Brubaker, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca.
680--850): The Sources (Aldershot 2001)
Hurwit 1999 J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology,
and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present (Cam-
bridge and New York 1999)
James 1996 L. James, .Pray Not to Fall into Temptation and Be o n Your
Guard(: Pagan Statues in Christian Constantinople, Gesta 35,
1996, 12-20
Jenkins 1985 I. Jenkins, The Composition of the So-called Eponymous
Heroes on the East Frieze of the Parthenon, AJA 89, 1985,
121-127
Jenkins 1994 I. Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze (London 1994)
King 1961 N. Q. King, The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment
of Christianity (London 1961)
Korres 1994 M. Korres, The Parthenon from Antiquity to the 19'" Century,
in: P. Tournikiotis (ed.), The Parthenon and Its Impact in
Modern Times (Athens 1994) 138-161
Lapatin 2001 K. D. S. Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient
World (Oxford 2001)
Late Antiquity 1999 G. W. Bowersock - P. Brown - 0 .Grabar (eds.), Late An-
tiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, MA
1999)
MacMullen 1984 R. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire A. D. 100-
400 (New Haven 1984)
Mango 1963 C. Mango, Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,
DOP 17, 1963, 55-75
Michaelis 1871 A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon (Leipzig 1871)
Momigliano 1963 A. Momigliano, Christianity and the Decline of the Roman
Empire, in: A. Mornigliano (ed.), The Conflict between Pa-
ganism and Christianity in the Folirth Century (Oxford 1963)
1-16
CHRISTIAN
DESECRATION
-4ND MIJTILATION
O F THE PARTHENON 227
1, Whole relief
I I
3. Detail nf @. 29,2Hephaistos =
figure 37
1. Upper left b d comer of the blwk where h a d of Nike (?I was once I d
2. -
Block X ofNorth Frieze f i p s 3 3 4 3
-
-
1. Bbck X ofNorth Frieze: Dehn figures 38+d
TAFEL 34