Context: Smyrna
Type: Temple
Summary: Temple of Athena located on terrace near north-east gate of Old Smyrna, adjacent to the north fortification wall.
Date: ca. 700 BC - ca. 590 BC
Dimensions:

The dimensions of the temple stylobate are ca. 19 m. x 32 m., resulting in a distance between the corner columns (width) of 17.70 m. If Akurgal's reconstruction of six columns across the rear is accepted, this would result in an intercolumniation of 3.54 m. This large intercolumniation yields a proportional relationship of 4.4:1 (intercolumniation:lower column diameter). If the temple had eleven columns along the south flank, this results in an intercolumniation of less than 3 m. If, however, seven columns are restored across the rear, the intercolumniation becomes 2.95 m.; or, if eight columns are restored, the intercolumniation becomes 2.53 m.
Region: Ionia
Period: Archaic

Architectural Order:

Aeolic. Fragments of Aeolic capitals with vertical volutes between palmettes are interpreted as originating from the peripteros of the cella.

Plan:

The reconstruction of the temple building itself is open to question. The excavators reconstruct the cella building as peripteral, but only on the south and west sides, with 6 x 11 columns. The eastern facade is reconstructed without columns. The interior of the cella may have contained one or two rows of columns, although there are no traces of column bases inside the cella (Akurgal 1983, fig. 75). This reconstruction has been questioned, however; an alternative reconstruction shows the temple with 8 x 14 columns, including columns across the east facade (Kuhn 1986, fig. 10). The northern wall of the temple appears to have been without a colonnade, resulting in a temple with a peripteros around only three of its sides. A stepped ramp approached the temple at the east. At the south, the terrace or podium upon which the cella building stood was extended in two separate sections (the so-called east and west terraces). Between these extensions, an additional entrance or propylon to the temenos was formed. Stoas are reconstructed as standing on the east and west terraces, based on the evidence of foundation walls, but there is no evidence for colonnades.

Date Description:

Related ceramic finds (Corinthian pottery) in the excavation levels; evidence of changes in masonry technique in terrace walls. Reference in Herodotus to capture of Old Smyrna by Alyattes Hdt. 1.16.2. Style of carving of tufa capitals and (?) bases.

History:

At the beginning of the seventh century B.C., an area at the north of the city, adjacent to the city wall, was reserved as a sanctuary to the goddess Athena. Due to the slope of the land, an artificial terrace was constructed, with a curved corner at the south-west. The excavators of the site identify the following construction phases:

Phase I dates to the late geometric period (725-700 B.C.); to this phase belong a 5.5 m. long stretch of wall, and a ca. 3 m. wide ramp which may have led to the altar of the late geometric temple.

Phase II (the "sub-geometric podium"): between ca. 675-640 B.C., a monumental podium was constructed. Differences in masonry technique indicate that this phase can itself be divided into two distinct sequences.

Phase III (the "Orientalizing" phase): the excavators date the erection of the cella building, and its colonnades at west and south, to ca. 640 B.C. At about this time, the podium was enlarged at the south and west. The foundations of a rectangular structure inside the cella building are interpreted as a cult base. At ca. 620-610 B.C., two additional terraces were built at the south of the temple, to accommodate dedications (votive columns and statuary). At this time, the ramp of the late geometric period (at the south of the temple) was altered, flanked with side walls, becoming the main entrance to the temenos. In ca. 600 B.C., the Lydian king Alyattes captured Old Smyrna, and the temple, which may have been unfinished, was destroyed. Almost immediately after this destruction phase, however, the temple was restored, and the west terrace was extended even further to the west. Numerous votive deposits from the period ca. 600 - 550 B.C. indicate that the temple remained a center of cult activity. A barricade wall across the main entrance to the temenos is associated with the Persian conquest of ca. 545 B.C. The absence of any deposits or associated finds suggests that the temple was abandoned after ca. 545 B.C.

An alternative theory (Kuhn 1986) argues that there is no evidence for the existence of the cella building prior to ca. 600 B.C., or its destruction during the Lydian sack; therefore, the entire peripteral temple may date to the first quarter of the sixth century B.C., after the sack of Alyattes.

Other Notes:

The dedication of the temple to Athena seems secure, based on the evidence of a bronze votive bar found during the excavations. The bar preserves the following inscription: *A*R*H*N*T*H*N*D*A*N*E*Q*H*K*E*N*T*E*A*Q*H*N*A*E*H*I*O*I*N*O*T*I*M*O*S*P*R*O*T*A*R*X*O.

A problematic feature of the temple and its architectural remains is the restoration of the tufa capitals (or bases) with a convex above a concave element, and decorated with two tiers of floral ornament of lotus buds and flowers. Once interpreted as column bases (Wesenberg 1971), it was then argued that their upper diameter was smaller than the lower diameter of the column shafts, and therefore they must have appeared at the top of the shaft. Since, however, the lower diameter of these mushroom-form capitals is greater than the upper diameter of the column shaft fragments, it is argued that they must belong to some as-yet unidentified columns and did not form part of the architecture of the cella building itself. If they did belong to free-standing votive columns located, for example, to the south of the temple, these votive columns must then have been far taller than the columns of the temple itself. In fact, there is no evidence for free-standing votive columns beyond the evidence suggested by the discovery of the mushroom-shaped capitals (or bases). Kuhn 1986, 39-80 finds this explanation unacceptable and restores the mushroom-shaped elements as column bases.

Perhaps equally problematic is the origin of the Aeolic capital type, with vertical volutes separated by a palmette. Parallels have been sought in Hittite, Egyptian, Assyrian and Syro-Palestinian architecture; it seems likely that the Ionian Aeolic capitals reflect some Near Eastern influence, although a direct prototype cannot be identified.

Sources Used:

Akurgal 1946, 55-80; Cook 1952, 104-106; Cook 1958, 1-34; Nicholls 1958, 35-137; Akurgal 1961, 182-3, 284-6; Wesenberg 1971; Betancourt 1977, 58-63; Coulton 1977, 167 n. 32; Schiering 1979, 77-108; Akurgal 1983, 63-99, figs. 37-88, pls. 49-100; Kuhn 1986, 39-80.