Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38 27 ARTICLE Thirty years of anastelosis works on the Athenian Acropolis, 1975–2005 Fani Mallouchou-Tufano ABSTRACT The year 2005 saw the completion of thirty years of work on the new anastelosis of the monuments of the Athenian Acropolis. The works began solely as a means of rescuing the Acropolis monuments from the urgent problems they faced in the 1970s, especially fracturing and disintegration resulting from the rusting of the iron reinforcing elements that had been embedded in the monuments during earlier restorations. In the course of these works, however, various situations emerged, most of them previously unforeseen, which led to more extensive restoration interventions on the monuments. The purpose of these has been to correct the errors made during the earlier interventions, to improve the general state of preservation of the monuments and to display the inherent values and quality of the monuments in all their richness. To a certain degree, these interventions alter the conventional image of the Acropolis in a way that is significant but not dramatic. The works already completed, the current interventions on the monuments and the future programme are explained, along with the distinctive qualities of the interventions and the situations that emerged during their execution. Finally, the changing image of the Acropolis landscape is discussed. INTRODUCTION: PREVIOUS RESTORATION WORK The year 2005 saw the completion of thirty years of restoration work on the monuments of the Athenian Acropolis (Figure 1). The Acropolis monuments are expressions par excellence of the values and cultural accomplishments of the Athenian Democracy of the 5th century BC. Moreover, they represent the ideals of classical beauty. The monuments survived, through centuries of perils and changes in use and in form, wounded and in ruins but still standing, into the third decade of the 19th century when the modern Greek state was founded. Since the new state anchored its national identity in its ancient patrimony and heritage, the Acropolis was quickly to become the national monument of modern Greece, a source of pride and affirmation for its inhabitants and the main point of reference for modern Greece on the part of the other, older European states. It was in this context that, throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century to the time of World War II, the Acropolis monuments began to undergo successive interventions. The main purpose was to re-establish an impression that would be as close as possible to the conception that existed at that time of how they had been in Classical times. The interventions that most affected the appearance of the Acropolis monuments were: the thorough destruction during the 19th century of the remains of later, non-Classical historical phases of the monuments on the Acropolis rock; the great excavation of 1885–1890 which included the entire Acropolis plateau and reached the natural bedrock; and the anastelosis [1] projects of Balanos. Under the direction of the civil engineer Nicolaos Balanos, the work of anastelosis was to last around forty years, from 1898 to 1939, and it was to include all the monuments of the Acropolis rock, forming as a result the image that is known throughout the world. Although to a great extent the interventions of Balanos neither respected nor adhered to the structure of the monuments
Transcript
ANASTELOSIS WORKS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS, 1975–2005
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
27
ARTICLE
Thirty years of anastelosis works on theAthenian Acropolis, 1975–2005
Fani Mallouchou-Tufano
ABSTRACTThe year 2005 saw the completion of thirty years of work on the new anastelosis of the monuments of the AthenianAcropolis. The works began solely as a means of rescuing the Acropolis monuments from the urgent problems theyfaced in the 1970s, especially fracturing and disintegration resulting from the rusting of the iron reinforcing elements thathad been embedded in the monuments during earlier restorations. In the course of these works, however, varioussituations emerged, most of them previously unforeseen, which led to more extensive restoration interventions on themonuments. The purpose of these has been to correct the errors made during the earlier interventions, to improve thegeneral state of preservation of the monuments and to display the inherent values and quality of the monuments in all theirrichness. To a certain degree, these interventions alter the conventional image of the Acropolis in a way that is significantbut not dramatic. The works already completed, the current interventions on the monuments and the future programmeare explained, along with the distinctive qualities of the interventions and the situations that emerged during theirexecution. Finally, the changing image of the Acropolis landscape is discussed.
INTRODUCTION:PREVIOUS RESTORATION WORKThe year 2005 saw the completion of thirty years ofrestoration work on the monuments of the AthenianAcropolis (Figure 1). The Acropolis monuments areexpressions par excellence of the values and culturalaccomplishments of the Athenian Democracy of the 5thcentury BC. Moreover, they represent the ideals of classicalbeauty. The monuments survived, through centuries ofperils and changes in use and in form, wounded and inruins but still standing, into the third decade of the 19thcentury when the modern Greek state was founded.Since the new state anchored its national identity in itsancient patrimony and heritage, the Acropolis wasquickly to become the national monument of modernGreece, a source of pride and affirmation for itsinhabitants and the main point of reference for modernGreece on the part of the other, older European states.
It was in this context that, throughout the 19thcentury and the first half of the 20th century to the
time of World War II, the Acropolis monuments beganto undergo successive interventions. The main purposewas to re-establish an impression that would be as closeas possible to the conception that existed at that timeof how they had been in Classical times.
The interventions that most affected the appearanceof the Acropolis monuments were: the thoroughdestruction during the 19th century of the remains oflater, non-Classical historical phases of the monumentson the Acropolis rock; the great excavation of 1885–1890which included the entire Acropolis plateau andreached the natural bedrock; and the anastelosis [1]projects of Balanos.
Under the direction of the civil engineer NicolaosBalanos, the work of anastelosis was to last around fortyyears, from 1898 to 1939, and it was to include all themonuments of the Acropolis rock, forming as a resultthe image that is known throughout the world. Althoughto a great extent the interventions of Balanos neitherrespected nor adhered to the structure of the monuments
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
(which, in fact, they altered), visually they may beconsidered successful, for he managed to retain thecharacter of the monuments as ruins – by using to a greatextent ancient material, adding very little that was new.Yet, from a technical standpoint, the interventions werecatastrophic. Applying the technology of the time in aninappropriate way, Balanos incorporated ironreinforcements, some large, some small, within thearchitectural members of the classical monuments, andencased them in cement, following the contemporarybelief that this would counter the problem of theircorrosion [2].
During the years after World War II, the rusting ofthese reinforcements – which was rapid because of thedrastic change in environmental conditions [3] – wasto cause breakage and disintegration of themonuments, making a new anastelosis inevitable. Thenew intervention, moreover, also had to take accountof the rapid deterioration of the marble surface of themonuments resulting from environmental pollution,the faulty static efficiency of the monuments becauseof their ruined condition, and the problems anddamage to the monuments caused by the constantlyincreasing numbers of visitors to the Acropolis. Norwas the Acropolis rock, itself a monument bearing thetraces of a long history, immune to similar destruction.
THE NEW ANASTELOSIS PROJECT IN THEORYAND IN PRACTICEThe initial purpose of the new intervention was purelyto rescue the monuments. The sections already restored
had to be dismantled, the architectural members hadto receive conservation on the ground, the rusted ironpieces had to be replaced, and the conserved membersre-set on the monuments. In the course of this work,however, various situations emerged, most of themindeed unforeseen, which led to more extensiveinterventions on the monuments. This resulted incorrecting the errors made in the earlier interventions,in improving the general state of preservation of themonuments and in displaying their inherent values andquality in all their richness. To a certain degree, theseinterventions alter the conventional image of theAcropolis in a way that is significant but not dramatic.
The first step towards the new intervention was madein 1975 with the foundation of the Committee for theConservation of the Acropolis Monuments (known asESMA from the initials of the Greek words) within theHellenic Ministry of Culture. After a preparatory phaseof surveying and studying the state of preservation ofthe monuments, and defining the theoretical principlesas well as the techniques and materials of theprogrammed intervention, works were properly launchedin 1979 on the Erechtheion, and subsequently expandedto encompass all the monuments of the Acropolis [4].In 1987, the anastelosis of the Erechtheion wascompleted, while in 1986 the anastelosis of the Parthenonhad begun. Because of the scale of the monument, theintervention in this case was divided by area intoseparate programmes. The east façade, which had beenbadly damaged during the earthquake of 1981, wasrestored in 1986–1991. From 1995 to 2004, the pronaosof the monument was restored and between 1997 and2004 the opisthonaos [5]. Work is continuing on thenorth colonnade of the Parthenon and plans for thefuture include a new anastelosis of the side walls ofthe cella, the south colonnade and restoration of itswestern part.
In the Propylaia, the sections that had been restoredearly in the 20th century (the ceiling of the west hall ofthe central building and the section of the colonnade,the entablature [6] and ceiling of the east portico)were dismantled. Their new anastelosis began in 2000at a rapid pace, a project expected to be completed inthe first months of 2007. Also in 2000, the newanastelosis of the Temple of Athena Nike started – thethird such project [7].
In addition to interventions on the monuments,pathways for the circulation of visitors have been
Figure 1. General view of the Acropolis from the Areopagus Hill
(NW). Photo: F. Mallouchou-Tufano (February 2006).
ANASTELOSIS WORKS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS, 1975–2005
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
29
constructed on the plateau of the Acropolis rock andthe rocks on the slopes of the hill have beenconsolidated. This was carried out during the years1979 to 1993. The project included securing those rocksin danger of falling by anchoring them to the rockmass using an alloy of stainless steel under pressure. Inaddition, inventorying and tidying up of the ancient
stone material scattered about the Acropolis plateauis under way. Future work is to include consolidationof the circuit wall of the Acropolis and the finalarrangement and display of the plateau (Figure 2).
The current works on the Acropolis are financedby the Greek State and the European Community(Programme ‘Culture’ of the 3rd Community
Completed Works
1. Anastelosis of the Erechtheion2. Consolidation of the rocks of the Acropolis
slopes3. Anastelosis of the Parthenon east façade4. Anastelosis of the eastern part of the south wall
of the Propylaia5. Anastelosis of the Parthenon pronaos6. Anastelosis of the Parthenon opisthonaos7. Partial anastelosis of the north wall of the
Propylaia
Current Works
8. Recording and tidying up the scattered ancientmaterial on the Acropolis plateau
9. Restoration of the coffered ceilings of thecentral building of the Propylaia
10. Anastelosis of the Parthenon north colonnade11. Anastelosis of the Temple of Athena Nike
Future Works
12. Consolidation of the Acropolis circuit wall13. Anastelosis of the lateral walls of the Parthenon
cella14. Restoration of the west wall of the Parthenon
cella15. Restoration of the Parthenon west façade16. Anastelosis of the Parthenon south colonnade17. Partial anastelosis of the south wall of the west
hall of the central building of the Propylaia18. Restoration of the Propylaia north lateral wing19. Restoration of the Propylaia south lateral wing20. Display of the surface of the Acropolis plateau
Figure 2. General plan of the Acropolis with indication of the completed, current and future interventions on the monuments.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
Framework) with a budget of e27,500,000 for the years2000–2006. They are carried out by a specific service ofthe Hellenic Ministry of Culture, the AcropolisRestoration Service (known as YSMA from the initialsof the Greek words).
In the course of the interventions, sections of themonuments restored in the past are dismantled and thecracked or fragmentary architectural members areplaced on the ground (Figure 3). The rusted iron joiningor reinforcement elements are removed and replacedwith titanium, and the ancient fragments are joined –and, where needed, completed – with new Pentelicmarble. The purpose is to restore the structural autonomyand structural efficiency of the members. The structurallyrestored members are then re-set on the monument,with an attempt to place them in the positions that theyoccupied in antiquity. If this is not possible, the membersare re-set on the monument to occupy the position thatthey had following the previous anastelosis. In the case ofthose architectural members that are being re-set for thefirst time on the monument, they are positioned in placessimilar to their original locations, i.e. in places that arecompatible with the form and function they initially had.
To date, no suitable material with proven long-termperformance has been found for protecting the marblesurfaces of the monuments, which are continuouslyand irreparably damaged by atmospheric pollution.For this reason, the sculptural decoration of themonuments whose further erosion would beirreversible – the Caryatids of the Erechtheion, the east
metopes of the Parthenon, a number of the pedimentalstatues, the west frieze and the frieze of the temple ofAthena Nike – have all been removed to the AcropolisMuseum. They are replaced on the monuments byaccurate copies made of artificial stone (Figure 4).Finally, since 1986, conservation of the surfaces of allthe monuments has been carried out together with theworks of structural restoration of the members. Thisincludes the filling of cracks and joins, the stabilizing ofsurfaces with minor damage, cleaning and preservingagainst biological attack, and so forth.
PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THEANASTELOSIS WORKFrom the start of the project, a special effort was madeto ensure a high quality of work on a level appropriateto the exceptional artistic, cultural and symbolic valueof the Acropolis monuments. It was based on a numberof principles, scholarly presuppositions and proceduresthat were immediately implemented. These are:
● An interdisciplinary approach to the work in all itsphases, both theoretical (studies) and practical(application). This is achieved through theinterdisciplinary composition of the ESMA(architects, archaeologists, civil engineers, chemicalengineers, conservators), which programmes andsupervises the execution of the projects, together withthe scholars and other personnel in charge of theworksites of the monuments.
Figure 4. The colonnade of the Parthenon opisthonaos with the
copies of the West frieze in place. Photo: F. Mallouchou-Tufano
(March 2006).
Figure 3. The architectural members of the Propylaia set on the
ground at the worksite, surrounding the portal crane on
ANASTELOSIS WORKS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS, 1975–2005
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
31
● Ensuring an objective approach to decision-makingabout interventions on the monuments, in order tominimize the possibility of errors. This was achievedthrough enacting procedures for multiple inspectionsof the proposed interventions (first by the members ofESMA, then by the Central Archaeological Council,the supreme advisory institution of the Ministry ofCulture) and through the adoption, in relation to thedecisions made and to the interventions underway, ofan attitude that was transparent and open to criticism,as is shown by the successive International Meetings forthe Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments held inAthens in 1977, 1983, 1989, 1994, 2002 [8] and theprolific debates among the experts who participated.(It must be noted that the establishment in 1975 of aninterdisciplinary committee of experts for the Acropolisand of objective and qualified decision-makingprocedures constituted an absolute innovation forGreece. The country had a well-rooted tradition ofunilateral, single-minded, arbitrary and uncontrolledapproaches towards monument restoration, a traditionthat developed around the dominant figures of NicolaosBalanos (until World War II) and of Anastasios Orlandos(in the post-War period until the political handover of1974) [9]. The foundation of the Acropolis Committeereflects the hopeful, optimistic and innovating spiritthat prevailed in the country immediately after the fallof the 1967 military dictatorship in 1974. Moreover, theprinciples and procedures that the Acropolis Committeeestablished for approaching intervention exercised agreat influence and contributed to the formation ofthe modern ‘school’ of restoration of ancientmonuments in Greece.)
● Basing the interventions on scholarly research. Thepublication prior to any intervention of a comprehensive,interdisciplinary study of the state of preservation ofthe monuments from all points of view – historical,architectural, structural and physico-chemical –had been considered absolutely necessary forthe formulation of the restoration proposals. Thepublication of the ‘Study for the Restoration of theErechtheion’ in 1977, a collective and original work atthat time, opened the way to the subsequent publicationof more than fifteen volumes of studies on therestoration of the different parts of the Parthenon, thePropylaia and the Temple of Athena Nike, and to agreat number of unpublished studies, held in the ESMAArchives, concerning problems and issues that have
emerged during the execution of the works [10]. Allthis re-animated scholarly research, resulting in rich andimportant new information, not only on thearchitecture, structure and sculptural decoration ofthe monuments being restored but also on their laterhistorical phases and the earlier restoration interventionsthat they had undergone. It also helped identify boththe errors in earlier interventions and a great manyancient architectural members that had remainedscattered on the ground, which can now be re-set onthe monuments from which they had become detached.
● Meticulous documentation and recording ofthe interventions by various means (descriptions,drawings, photographs, mapping, etc.) through allphases of the work, followed by the best possible useand management of the records, through speciallydesigned computer applications.
● The use and application of traditional building materialsand methods during the intervention, for example, theuse of Pentelic marble – the same building stone as usedin the original Acropolis monuments – for completingexisting architectural members or for replacing missingpieces. The use of natural stone, preferably of the sametype as the original building, is again a well-rootedtradition in monumental restoration in Greece [11].The new marble, moreover, is worked with traditionalmethods and tools (the ancient art of stone workingremains equally alive in Greece today) (Figures 5 and 6).
● The use of modern materials that are compatiblewith the ancient building stone. For example, thetitanium employed in joining fragments of themembers was chosen because, in addition to itsdurability and excellent anti-corrosive qualities, it hasmechanical properties that are remarkablycompatible with those of Pentelic marble. Materialsare selected that have an established and reversiblebehaviour through time. Thus, polymeric materialshave been excluded for stone conservation and onlynon-organic materials are used.
● The use of up-to-date modern technology in carryingout research, in organizing the worksites, in managingdocumentation and in performing a number ofinterventions of a special nature. The hoisting andhandling technology of the worksites is particularlydeveloped, with a variety of machines (bridge craneson elevated rails, portal cranes on ground-level rails,slewing cranes, etc.) (Figure 7), which are usedaccording to the specific requirements of each
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
monument. Since the year 2000, in order to acceleratethe pace of the works, mechanical means – both thosecommercially available and others specificallydesigned (such as the machine on the Parthenonworksite for making flutes in the new marble drumsof the columns (Figure 8)) are being used for the
Figure 5. The new Ionic column capital, which will be set on the NE
column of the West hall of the central building of the Propylaia, on
temporary exhibition along the central passageway of the monument.
Photo: T. Tanoulas, ESMA Archives (April 2006).
Figure 6. Detail of the volute of the new Ionic column capital of the
Propylaia. The capital has been constructed in Pentelic marble using
traditional methods and techniques as an exact copy of the ancient
original, by the marble technicians of the Acropolis Restoration
Service, Giorgos Desypris and Aristeidis Kladios, and based on a study
by Tasos Tanoulas, architect in charge of the Propylaia anastelosis
project. The skill shown in the execution of the work and its high
quality demonstrate the survival of the traditional art of marble working
in modern Greece. Photo: T. Tanoulas, ESMA Archives (2005).
Figure 7. The North colonnade of the Parthenon under anastelosis.
The two slewing cranes on the worksite of the monument are
visible. Photo: M. Mentzini, ESMA Archives (2006).
Figure 8. The purpose-built machine at the Parthenon worksite for
cutting the flutes in the new marble of the column drums, a machine
based on an idea by Nikos Toganidis, the architect in charge of the
Parthenon anastelosis project, and designed and constructed by the
mechanical and electrical engineer in charge of this aspect of the
Acropolis restoration works, Spyros Oikonomopoulos. The machine
accelerates the working of marble for the Parthenon north colonnade
anastelosis project by doing the rough cutting of the flutes of the drums
or of the fillings in new marble. The final work and finishing touches will
be executed manually by the marble technicians on the Parthenon
ANASTELOSIS WORKS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS, 1975–2005
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
33
interventions on the architectural members arereversible and non-destructive. This is achieved,wherever possible, by avoiding making new cuts inthe stone (for example, new cavities for dowels orclamps) and by retaining the break surface in themember for joining and infilling with new marble.The modern non-destructive method – using apointing device (Figure 11) – is contrary to the olddestructive method that involved levelling the breaksurface of the ancient member before attachingnew marble material. Using a pointing device, asurface that is the negative of the break surface onthe ancient member is created on the new marbleinfill. Thus, if the missing ancient piece is identifiedin the future, it will be possible to remove the modernreplacement and re-set the original fragment in itsplace.
● Information about the work itself and the additionalknowledge it provides is made known as widely aspossible through publications (ranging from thestrictly scholarly to publications for the general public),exhibitions and films and, finally, through educationalprogrammes in cooperation with primary andsecondary schools, the chief aim being to informand inspire the very young.
FROM A RESCUE TO AN ANASTELOSISINTERVENTIONAs mentioned above, during the course of theinterventions various factors, most of them previouslyunforeseen, became apparent, which helped change
cutting and the rough working of the stones. Thefinal touches are always by hand in the traditionalway, the manual quality, finishing and texture of thework remaining a distinctive feature and a constantdesideratum. As for advanced technology, laserradiation in an original application combiningultraviolet and infrared laser pulses has been usedfor the cleaning of the Parthenon west frieze (Figure 9).
● Retention of the original structural system of themonument during the interventions, through a choiceof solutions for static strengthening that respects andcomplements the original structural characteristics(this is one of the main principles of the newanastelosis). The characteristics comprise mainly thearticulated system of construction, that is, joiningautonomous architectural members by means of metalclamps and dowels in dry masonry, without mortar;the structural independence of the separatearchitectural members; and achieving their staticefficiency with their own weight (the structuralrestoration described above aims specifically tore-establish their structural autonomy and efficiency)(Figure 10).
● Carrying out the interventions to be bothnon-destructive and, to the extent possible, reversible(another main principle of the current anastelosis).Reversibility means that contemporary anastelosismust not interfere with the possibility of futureinterventions for improving the monuments. As faras possible, it should make today’s work obvious andcomprehensible to future generations. This is ensuredby the fullest possible documentation of the work,and by publicizing and fully publishing it. Likewise,
Figure 10. Structural restoration of a Propylaia ceiling beam with
titanium rods. Photo: V. Papavasileiou, ESMA Archives (July 2004).
Figure 9. During cleaning of the Parthenon west frieze block W III,
using laser technology. Photo: S. Mavrommatis, ESMA Archives (2000).
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
the original character of the work. In fact, it shiftedfrom a straightforward rescue operation to a broaderanastelosis, extended to a greater part of themonuments than those included in the initial projectand extended in time. These factors may be summedup as follows.
● Discovery of fractures in architectural members insections of monuments that had never undergoneanastelosis in the past (a fact that became evident afterdismantling the areas that had been restored earlier).It was therefore necessary to extend the interventionsinto those areas. Characteristic cases were the area ofthe north wall of the Erechtheion above the northdoorway, the entablature and central section of theeast pediment of the Parthenon, and the eastern endof the south wall of the central building of the Propylaia.In all cases, these sections were dismantled, thearchitectural members conserved on the ground andthen re-set on the monument. The advantage of theseextra interventions (apart from strengthening thesesections of the monuments) was the great amount ofnew information gained about the art and technologyof ancient building.
● Discovery that the extent of Balanos’ interventionswas much greater than that known from archival andbibliographical sources. This made it absolutelynecessary to extend the interventions into parts of themonuments that had not been included in the originalplan of work. Relevant examples include the columns
of the east colonnade of the Propylaia, where it wasfound that the Balanos intervention had extendedfinally to twenty-nine column drums (rather than onlyeight as originally known; Figure 12); and the northwall of the central building of this same monument,where earlier – and completely unknown –interventions were revealed on a total of fifty-fivearchitectural members. In both cases, the areasrestored by Balanos had to be dismantled, repaired,conserved and re-set.
● Adoption of a critical approach towards Balanos’methods of intervention, which are contrary to modernprinciples and perceptions of anastelosis, in most casesmeant that his earlier reconstruction was abolishedduring our modern intervention. The conditionscreated by previous interventions that had to beconfronted include the following. (a) Correcting theerrors in Balanos’ anastelosis in which the architecturalmembers of the monuments were placed in thewrong positions. Characteristic examples are seen inthe new setting in their original positions of the blocksof the side walls of the Erechtheion cella, the columndrums and members of the entablature of the northcolonnade of the Parthenon, and the cella wallblocks of the Athena Nike Temple. In this way muchof the authentic structure and form of the ancientmonuments was recovered. In addition, their aestheticand architectural quality and refinement were nowdisplayed, and their relation with the environmentre-established and their impact increased [12].
Figure 11. Preparation of the new marble replacement infill of an
architrave of the Parthenon north colonnade, using a pointing
device. Photo: L. Lambrinou, ESMA Archives (2003).
Figure 12. The dismantled east colonnade of the central building of
the Propylaia, during execution of the anastelosis work; view from
the east. The extent of the dismantling shows the final limit of
Balanos’ intervention, which proved much more extensive than
previously known. Photo: E. Petropoulou, ESMA Archives (2003).
ANASTELOSIS WORKS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS, 1975–2005
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
35
(b) Correcting the errors in Balanos’ anastelosis ofadding missing parts in new marble, a characteristicexample being the backing blocks of new stone inthe Parthenon west frieze. In the new intervention, theerrors in their number, shape and positioning onthe monument have been corrected (the backingblocks have been proven to be seven only instead ofthe eleven used in the previous restoration, andrectangular in shape – similar to the architraves below –and not quadrangular as they had been restored byBalanos). (c) Abandoning in most cases the widelyused ‘Balanos method’, that is, the creation ofarchitectural members that were suitable foranastelosis by combining different ancient fragmentsof various provenances. These are now replaced byothers comprising ancient pieces that match togetheror ancient fragments that join and are filled in withnew marble (characteristic examples are the restora-tion of drums, column capitals and members of theentablature of the north colonnade of the Parthenon,and of beams and ceiling coffers or Ionic capitals ofthe Propylaia).
● Finally, identification of a great number of ancientmembers and fragments that were lying scattered onthe ground, in terms of their origin and position inthe monuments undergoing restoration. Thus we haveidentified ancient architectural members that hadbeen replaced during the Balanos intervention bynew ones (relevant situations of this sort are the re-setting, in the recent intervention, of two ancientarchitrave blocks in the Parthenon opisthonaos, whereBalanos had used new marble and, in a projectplanned for the future, the re-building of the lintelof the west door of the Parthenon with three of theoriginal four ancient beams). With this newly re-dis-covered ancient material in hand, it is possible toextend the anastelosis to a greater extent than inBalanos’ intervention. (Examples are the new anastelosisof the ceiling of the central building of the Propylaia(Figure 13) and, planned for a future project, theanastelosis of the side walls of the Parthenon cella,which are expected to include 400 additional stonesthat have been identified in recent years.)
REVIEW AND REACTIONThe anastelosis works on the Acropolis during the pastthirty years have received international recognition.Particularly respected are the interdisciplinary
approach of the entire operation, the transparencyaccompanying it, the scholarly research that imbues itand gives it its special character, the documentation,the quality of its execution and its technologicallyadvanced applications.
It is true that from time to time objections, disapprovaland reservations have been expressed about variousaspects of the work. Some are of an aesthetic andtherefore subjective nature, referring to the percentageof the new marble incorporated in the monuments duringanastelosis, its chromatic impact on the overallimpression of the monuments, the technique of infillingthe inner faces of walls destroyed by fire and the finalfinish of the restored surfaces. All these are problemswithout a clear answer. The degree to which these issues
Figure 13. The coffered ceiling of the west hall of the central
building of the Propylaia after restoration. The extension of the
anastelosis of the ceiling over the central passageway of the
monument constitutes a perceivable change in the archaeological
landscape of the Acropolis, as it will restore the experience of
passing through the roofed space of the central hall of the building.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | 2006 | volume 8 | pages 27–38
will be successfully resolved depends on many factors:the passing of time, the results of various and repeatedtesting, the acquisition of experience and, above all, theaesthetic sensitivity of those who carry out theinterventions, in particular those who oversee them.
Other speculation is of a psychological natureconcerning the changes that the current anastelosiswork causes to the established image of the Acropolismonuments, especially as a result of the anastelosis of agreat number of the architectural members that hadlain scattered on the rock. The changes to thearchaeological site of the Acropolis originate in butalso respond to the scholarly presuppositions of modernanastelosis: the necessity of re-setting the restoredarchitectural members in the unique and distinctposition they had in the articulated, dry-masonry systemof classical monumental construction; theconsideration of the individual architectural membersas monuments in their own right – bearers, each andevery one, of the form and function of the whole – andthe resulting requirement that they be preserved in thebest possible way, by means of their anastelosis on themonuments from which they came.
The changing archaeological site of the Acropolisupsets the time-honoured perception of the visitor. It isa matter about which people are very conservative, asZacharias Papantoniou wrote in the newspaperEleutheron Bema dated 17 May 1930, on the occasion ofthe completion of the similar project of anastelosis ofthe north colonnade of the Parthenon [13]. Themetamorphosis of the Acropolis landscape, however, alsobelongs to a long tradition, which began immediatelyfollowing the establishment of the modern Greek stateand continues to our time. It is a tradition that includesa host of interventions, each representative of its specialperiod and inventing the Acropolis site as a symbol of acollective national vision, but also of a fantasy.
In its turn, the new anastelosis of the monuments ofthe Athenian Acropolis during the past thirty yearsrepresents the scholarship and technology of the endof the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. It alsoresponds to one main social demand of our time forgreater and more immediate comprehension andenjoyment of, and participation in heritage possessions.One danger emerges: does the new anastelosis of theAcropolis perhaps respond in a similar fashion to theother main contemporary demand, that of culturalhyperconsumption? One can trace here both a threat
and a goal, the achievement of which will be determinedby the education of those who are responsible for theinterventions.
◗ ◗ ◗ ◗ ◗ Fani Mallouchou-Tufano is Head of theDocumentation Office of the Acropolis RestorationService. She also teaches historic preservation at theFaculty of Architecture of the National TechnicalUniversity of Athens and at the Department ofArchaeology of the University of Athens.Contact details: The Acropolis Restoration Service,10 Polygnotou Street, 10 555 Athens, Greece. Tel./fax: +30 210 3243427, +30 210 3251620; email:[email protected]
NOTES AND REFERENCES1 The term anastelosis, used in the text, designates a
specific type of intervention in which the existing
but dismembered parts of monuments are
reassembled, with the addition of new material
necessary for the repositioning of the ancient parts.
This operation is (under the erroneous spelling
anastylosis) especially recommended in the Charter
of Venice for monuments preserved in a state of
ruin. It is eminently compatible with the articulated
system of construction used in the classical Greek
monuments, which consists of independent
architectural members bound together in dry
masonry, that is without mortar, with horizontal and
vertical iron clamps and dowels. In this system of
construction the idea of the assembling and
disassembling of the blocks is inherent.
2 For the history of earlier interventions on the
Acropolis, including those by Balanos, see Mallouchou-
Tufano, F. The Restoration of Ancient Monuments in Greece
(1834–1939). The Work of the Archaeological Society at
Athens and the Greek Archaeological Service. Library of the
Archaeological Society at Athens no. 176, Athens
(1998) (in Greek with a summary and captions of the
illustrations in English).
3 The drastic change in the environmental conditions
