A NEW RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE ARCHAIC PARTHENON, THE ARCHAIC ACROPOLIS

AND THE EVOLUTION OF GREEK ARCHITECTURE REVISITED

Author(s): Elisavet Sioumpara
Source: Revue Archéologique , 2016, Nouvelle Série, Fasc. 1 (2016), pp. 196-205
Published by: Presses Universitaires de France

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24751654

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Presses Universitaires de France is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Revue Archéologique

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
196 Bulletin de la SFAC

au niveau de la séquence d'entrée de son péribole, dont l'effondrement a été en partie conserv
in situ. Cette façade monumentale est une construction totalement inédite tant par son répertoire ico
graphique que par ses caractéristiques architecturales et ses dimensions hors normes. La richesse
décor architectural de la façade évoque le style de l'école trévire53, mais l'iconographie serait insp
d'ateliers micrasiatiques.
L'écroulement de cette façade n'a pas marqué l'abandon du site. En effet, des éléments architectu
raux ont été remployés dans irne structure en II en avant de l'édifice central et dans le four de potier. D
monnaies du IVe s. ont encore été jetées dans la mare qui succéda au démantèlement du bassin. En
la façade, l'édifice cultuel et le péribole ont été entièrement spoliés jusqu'aux fondations, à environ 2 m
de profondeur. Les études des différents mobiliers, actuellement en cours ou à venir, permettront de
consolider l'évolution chronologique du site depuis la protohistoire jusqu'à sa dernière fréquentat
au Moyen Âge.

SEANCE DU 4 AVRIL 2015

Devant un auditoire de 24 personnes, Sophie Descamps, présidente de la SFAC, ouvre la s

à 15 h 03. Elle fait lire à Nicolas Monteix le procès-verbal de la séance du 14 mars 2015, ado
l'unanimité.
S. Descamps expose ensuite le déroulement de la sortie annuelle de la SFAC, qui aura lieu à
Rouen et Lillebonne, le 27 juin. Elle cède la parole à Elisavet Sioumpara, qui présente ime communica
tion intitulée « Une nouvelle reconstitution du Parthénon archaïque : l'Acropole archaïque et l'évolution
de l'architecture grecque revisitées ». Cette communication en anglais a été suivie notamment des ques
tions et remarques de Mmes S. Descamps, M.-Fr. Billot et A. Jacquemin. La séance est levée à 16 h 25.

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE ARCHAIC PARTHENON, THE ARCHAIC

ACROPOLIS AND THE EVOLUTION OF GREEK ARCHITECTURE REVISITED

par Elisavet Sioumpara, Service de restauration des monuments de l'Acropole

Together with the large-scale project of the Restoration of the Classical Monum
the Scientific Committee (ELMA) and the Service for the Restoration of the Acropo
(TEMA), over the last years, a work carried out by the 'Membra Disjecta Project' of t
has focused on the study of the archaic architecture of the Acropolis. The membra disjecta
—not of marble— were re-studied, and for the first time fully documented, through det
photographs and drawings.
This paper focuses on the new results concerning the reconstruction of the so-called
"Hekatompedon" Temple or "H-Architektur" or "Ur-Parthenon" or "Archaic Parthenon", the
well-known pediment sculptures which are exhibited in the new Acropolis Museum. Both the sculptures
and the hundreds of architectural members were found during the Big Excavation, which was carried
out on the Acropolis between 1885 and 1890, mostly to the South and to the East of the Parthenon. The
Hekatompedon is traditionally dated to about 570-560 bc.

53. B. Numrich, Die Architektur der römischen Grabdenkmäler

aus Neumagen,Trêves, 1997.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin de la SFAC 197

Ever since its first publication by Theodor Wiegand in 1904, the Hekatompedon-Temple has con
stituted one of the most controversial monuments. For 130 years of studies, the following two issues have
arisen as the main points of dispute: firstly, the type and the size of the temple, and, consequently, the
form of its pediments. Multiple and totally différent reconstructions of the Hekatompedon have been
proposed, none of which was met with general consent: the temple has been variously reconstructed as
a distylos or tristylos in antis, as a hexastyle or as a peripteral Doric temple. Différent reconstructions of
the type and size of the temple also affected différent reconstructions of the pediment sculptures, the
size and figures composition of which fluctuated greatly in relevant scholarly literature. Secondly, dis
pute remains over the exact site of the temple, some opting for the so-called Dörpfeld Foundations, and
others still placing it under the Parthenon.
It is the purpose of this paper to provide, as far as possible, a concrete answer to the aforemen
tioned questions, through an extensive re-examination of the surviving architectural members of the
" H-Architektur ".
The new reconstruction of the Hekatompedon is as follows. In order to give persuasive answers
as to how ali this various architectural material is distributed in the Doric peripteral Hekatompedon, as
rightly recognized by Manolis Korres, I will first focus on the entablatures, and then on all the preserved
blocks of the architraves, triglyphs and metopes, as well as the geisa. This method of approach aims, at
first, at the most probable and precise reconstruction of the axial intercolumniations of the peristasis and
of the cella of the temple and, accordingly, at recovering its overall measurements, if possible. Secondly,
it aims at checking whether the newly reconstructed superstructure of the tempie could indeed match
the Dörpfeld Foundation or not, and the reconstruction of the axial intercolumniations, especially those
of the peristasis. This is the only secure method, in my opinion, to do that; if the new reconstructed
axial intercolumniations do not match with the known and never questioned axial intercolumniations
of the Tempie of Athena Polias, then the Hekatompedon-Temple should by négation be located under
the Parthenon.
Concerning the first question of the type of the Hekatompedon, I will analyze the four main caté
gories of the material from the Doric entablatures.
Firstly, three main types of architraves can be discerned (fig. 1): first, architraves with taenia, regu
lae and six guttae; the upper surface of these architraves bares certain cuttings behind the regulae, where
the triglyphs were to be placed. Architraves of the second and third types présent taenia and regulae of
reduced height, and without guttae; the main différence between type B and C is that type B consists
of one block, while the architraves of type C consist of two blocks height wise.
Secondly, four types of triglyphs can be discerned (fìg. 2): the first and second types are thin tri
glyph-blocks, like slabs, with two différent widths of 82 and 78 cm, with or without cuttings at the upper
edges for the taenia of the metopes. The second type présents a horizontal cutting at the bottom. The
third type combines a triglyph and a metope on one block, while the compact triglyphs of the fourth type
consist of three blocks height wise.
Third, the re-examination of the metopes has established four différent types: the metope-types A
and B are slabs from Hymettian marble, with engraved Doric leaves, under the taenia. The taenia above
may reach the edges of the slab, as shown in type A, or not, as shown in type B.The famous Hekatompedon
inscription IG V 4 is engraved on two slabs, one of which belongs certainly to this type. The third type
of metopes, also of Hymettian marble, carry no décoration on the front side. The fourth type, which
combines a triglyph and a metope of poros-stone carved out in one block, is the same as type C of the
triglyphs already mentioned. One metope belonging to type A, and two belonging to type C, almost pre
serving their original dimensions, were used to dress the Mycenaean wall SE of the Propylaia.
Lastly, we have three types of cornice blocks: owing to the slanting upper side, the first type can be
recognized as the raking cornice block, of the long sides of the tempie. The second type is a horizontal
cornice block, with horizontal upper side, coming from the front sides of the tempie and lastly, we also
have a small part of one of the four original corner cornice blocks.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
198 Bulletin de la SFAC

F3*

S ay 6 ^ L
jA

•?»-, \/ U ,
a i
W > 3 n I

1. Architrave-Types A, B and C with Architraves Inv. Nr. 7889, 20765 and 207
© Drawings E. Tagaridi, G. Aslanis, E. Sioumpara.

2.Triglyphon-Types A, B, C and D withTriglyphon Inv. Nr. 21432 and 2066

© Drawings E. Tagaridi, G. Astanis, E. Sioumpara.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin de la SFAC 199

The study of the above types of ali the entablature-categories ensured a new reconstruction of
axial intercolumniations of the peristasis and the cella. The main key to achieve this new reconstr
are actually the cornice blocks, and not the architraves, which have pretty much monopolized th
vant discussion so far, mainly because of the three whole architrave blocks that have been preser
the Kimonian south wall of the Acropolis. The cornice blocks of a Doric peripteros can originate o
from the peristasis, and therefore the architraves and frieze blocks that belong with them also ori
only from the peristasis of the tempie. The new study of the few fragments of the cornice blocks
that the block Inv. Nr. 21430 (fìg. 3) has a slanting upper side and therefore is surely a cornice b
from the flanks of the peristasis, and not a horizontal cornice block from the fronts, as Th. Wiega
other scholars proposed.This block leads to the reconstruction of the axial-spaces of the flanks (f
The measurements of the mutule and of the via of the above mentioned cornice block affect
architraves with a length of 3.95 m, triglyphs of 0.78 m, and metopes of 1.19 m.The right one of the
three architrave blocks which had been incorporated into the southern part of the Kimonian wall of
the Acropolis, behind the seventh pillar, with a length of 3.96 m, according to the new photogram
metric measurements of our service, defìnitely belongs to the axial intercolumniations of the flanks of the
Hekatompedon. The same stands for the triglyph slabs of type B, with a width of 0.78 m. I reconstruct

3. Raking Geison Inv. Nr. 21430. © Photo T. Souvlakis; Drawing E. Tagaridi, E. Sioumpara.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
200 Bulletin de la SFAC

4. Reconstruction of the Axial Intercolumniations of the Flanks. © Drawing G. Astanis, E. Sioum

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin de la SFAC 201

the metopes of the flanks without décoration, and according to the raking geison, with a visible width o
around 1.19 m.
The most famous architectural member of the Hekatompedon, the middle architrave in the south
acropolis wall, with a three-tiered cutting at its right edge, and with the same height and general charac
teristics as the other two architraves of the south wall, must also come from the flanks of the peristasis.
This also means that the aforementioned cuttings belong to the second use of the block in the wall, as
surely do the cutting of the tainia on all three of the aforementioned architraves. Contrary to what most
scholars have previously proposed, this releases the middle architrave from any possible connection with
a wall corner, and therefore with a cella.
Let us now turn to the reconstruction of the frontal axial-intercolumniations of the peristasis (fig. 5).
Normally, they should be larger than those on the sides, as in ali Doric peripteroi in mainland. The cor
nice block Inv. Nr. 20456 is the only horizontal cornice block, which préserves the original dimensions of
the mutule with four guttae and a via. These dimensions certainly affect smaller metopes than those at the
flanks, by almost 12 cm. Based on this block, and in case it really cornes from the normal frontal axial
spaces, then they should be about 24 cm smaller than the ones of the flanks, this means about 3.70 m
long. Two différent assumptions could possibly account for this rather surprising fìnding: a) either the
front axial-spaces were really smaller than the ones at the flanks, as is the case in some peripteral temples
of western Greece but never the case in mainland Greece; b) the above mentioned horizontal cornice
block, which demands smaller metopes, cornes from the corner intercolumniations, which would be in
this case over-contradicted, as was the case in the Periclean Parthenon. Furthermore, we have architrave
and triglyph-fragments, which are wider than the respective ones on the flanks, giving a triglyph around
82 cm. Therefore, of the aforementioned assumptions, only that of over-contradiction could possibly
stand. Otherwise, the aforementioned entablature fragments, with larger dimensions, could find no place
in the building. Furthermore, this interprétation is also supported by the fart that the only metope with
a visible width of around 1.00 m can thus be very well accommodated in the corner-intercolumniations
of the façades of the tempie.
Accordingly, I reconstruct the axial intercolumniations of the façades with a minimum of 4.08 m,
since we only have a minimum preserved visible width of the metopes of around 1.22 m from the
metopes SE of the Propylaia, and a corner intercolumniation of minimum around 3.70 m. I would like
to underline that the presented reconstruction of the fronts is only the most plausible model of interpré
tation, according to the material preserved, presenting the fewer possible conflicts. On the contrary, the
reconstruction of the flanks is certain.
bollowing the peristasis, we may now proceed to the reconstruction ot the porches or the cella
(fig. 5). Among the types of the entablature members presented at the beginning, only the architraves
without guttae, the triglyphs and the metopes carved out in one block, as well as the triglyphs consisted
of 3 blocks height wise, remain to be accommodated in the reconstruction. None of the architraves pré
serves the original width of the regulae, while only the architrave Inv. Nr. 21700 préserves a minimum
width of 42,5 cm for half a régula, which, in turn, effects a triglyph of almost the same width as that of
the front peristasis inercolumniations. This suggests a reconstruction of the cella porches with the same
intercolumniation as that in the front peristasis. The rest of the material preserved corroborâtes this
reconstruction. The triglyph-metope blocks have the same dimensions as those needed by the above
architraves. Furthermore, they are cut as the cutting at the upper part of the architraves requests.
Last remain the architraves and triglyphs consisting of 2 and 3 blocks height wise. Their general
characteristics and dimensions are the same as the architraves assigned to the pronaos, and this is the
reason why the possibility that these come from an inner entablature, as in the Aphaia tempie, or from
a possible colonnade inside the naos itself, should be excluded. The most plausible scenario appears to
be that a différent construction technique was used for the pronaos and the opisthonaos, which should
not corne as a surprise, especially considering similar différences which manifest themselves between the
eastern and western façade, as, for example, différences in the décoration pattern of the pediment sima.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
202 Bulletin de la SFAC

The pronaos and the opisthonaos can be reconstructed either as normal distyloi in antis, or as p
styloi with four columns, as the Archaios Naos and later the Parthenon itself were. This question ha
remain open, although I do favour the second solution, namely that of a prostasis, not only because of
attestation later on the Acropolis itself, but also because of its occurrence in the archaic Aphaia Tem
which has been similarly dated by E. L. Schwandner to around 570-550 bc and which, I think, must h
had the Hekatompedon as a sort of prototype.
The result of the above research lead to the new graphie reconstruction of the Hekatompedon-tem
(fig. 6), for the purposes of which further groups of architectural members were likewise re-exami
without having reached final results yet, like the question whether the columns had entasis or
The new reconstruction practically results in an entirely new building: If we suppose that the tempi
had 13 columns on the flanks, as proposed here, the Hekatompedon appears even more monume
and imposing than until recently believed, with a stylobate measuring around 21.50 by 47.30 m, so n
100 feet long at stylobate, but maybe at the cella or even to a part of it.
Based on the results presented above, we can move on to the second question, namely the exact
location where the tempie originally stood. In order for one to prove that the Hekatompedon sh
be located on the Dörpfeld Foundations, one should be able to prove that the superstructure, t
"H-Architektur", is compatible with the given foundations —something that none of those arg
in favour of this view has actually been able to do. It should be said, however, that scholars who arg
in favour of a location of the Hekatompedon under the Parthenon enjoy the advantage of not having
prove that the "H-Architektur" actually matches a given foundation, as this would be lying under th
stereobate of the Pro-Parthenon and will thus forever remain non-visible and inaccessible. In short,
they only need to prove is that the superstructure of the "H-Architektur" does definitely not match w
the foundations of the Athena Polias Tempie.
Based now on the above new reconstruction of the peristasis of the Hekatompedon and the dim
sions of the Dörpfeld Foundations, the axial intercolumniations at both the fronts and the flanks of
Hekatompedon were wider than those in the Archaios Naos of Athena Polias. In the flanks the différ
is certainly a little over 10 cm, in the fronts there is a minimum discrepancy of 4 cm.This means that
"H-Architektur" cannot be matched with the Dörpfeld Foundations and accordingly cannot be seen a
a first phase of the later tempie of Athena Polias.
Regarding the rest of the arguments of those scholars who favour the location of the
Hekatompedon-temple on the Dörpfeld Foundations, I would like to add the following remarks.
Firstly, the absence or the existence of any marks of the claw-chisel on architectural members
and sculptures of the Hekatompedon, like the sima, cannot be used as an argument for relocating the
Hekatompedon on the Dörpfeld Foundations, where they are surely attested. IfW. B. Dinsmoor had any
right to preclude any connection between the "H-Architektur" and the Dörpfeld Foundations because
a crucial tool was used in one case and not in the other, the attestation of the same tool on both monu
ments cannot be used in order to argue for the opposite. At best, it cannot exclude such a possibility.
Yet, the matching of the superstructure with the foundation still remains to be proved, despite the pos
sible earlier datine of a tool.

Secondly, the cutting on the back-side of the only in situ stylobate-plaque at the north peristasis
from the Dörpfeld Foundationss was used as strong evidence for the existence of two phases of the
crépis, a first one for the Hekatompedon and a second one for the Athena-Polias temple. But cutting and
anathyrosis belong to the same construction phase, where the stylobate is set first with an anathyrosis of a
n-shape and then, almost at the end of the érection of the building, the prera-plates are laid on the above
mentioned cuttings, something attested also at Parthenon.
For the aforementioned reasons and based on the findings of my studies so far, I would locate the
Hekatompedon under the Parthenon, and re-recognize in it the archaic Parthenon.
Lastly, a further évaluation of the first monumentai tempie of stone of the Athenians on their main
city-sanctuary follows in a wider context.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin de la SFAC 203

• : - , % §g|
LMj r?
5S

5. Reconstruction of the Axial Intercolumniations of the Fronts. ©Drawing G. Aslanis, E. Sioumpara.

6. Perspective View of the "Hekatompedon" or archaic Parthenon. © Drawing G. Astanis, E. Sioumpara.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 Bulletin de la SFAC

The archaic Parthenon (fig. 6) belongs certainly to the earlier known Greek peripteral
tempie entirely stone built, after Olympia and Corfu, before Corinth and Delphi. It represen
first monumentai Doric tempie in mainland Greece, for the first time demonstrating almost
basic architectural features of a Greek Tempie per se: monumentai size, clear forms, the choice of
perishable, everlasting and expensive materiate, very careful technical construction, and, lastly, r
décoration. It's the first time that these features are designed to work together in order to a
Monumentality, ali the more so at a much earlier date than until now believed.
After having tried to clarify the scale of the edifice, the last question I wish to raise is: "Who
be behind this monumentai tempie and why was it erected at this particular moment?"
In modern scholarship the Hekatompedon has been connected mostly, although not always, w
Peisistratos, as one of his main building programs at Athens, typical for Greek Tyrants. But the d
of 570-560 bc for the Hekatompedon shows that the project was undertaken before Peisistratos' fi
return to Athens, in 546 bc, something that makes it highly implausible that Peisistratos would h
been the main actor of this initiative. What we should accept, however, is that the Hekatompedon
associated with the inauguration of the Great Panathenaea, most probably in 566/5, a period of ex
building activity at the western entrance to the Acropolis, which shows that in the second quarte
the 6th cent, bc Athens was recovering from the long crisis and politicai instability that followed
Kylonian Conspiracy, which later peaked with the reforms of Solon in 594/3, and moved to a new
which is today archaeologically very visible. The Acropolis became a grandiose spectacle of th
order, the visible expression of a city that was joining the first ranks of Greece.
Who, then, could be the initiator of the monumentalization of the sanctuary of Athena on th
Acropolis, the principal cuit centre of the polis of Athens? An individuai member of the aristocra
the model of wealthy kings, such as Croisos who dedicated at least the columns of Archaic Artemi
at Ephesus, or native aristocrats like the Alkmeonids who financed the Late Archaic temple of Ap
at Delphi? Or, instead, should we be thinking of boards of civic or religious officiais acting in the
of Athens?
Two boards of sacred or quasi-sacred officiais are attested at the time of the construction of
the Archaic Parthenon: first, the financial board of the kolakretai, managed several financial matters,
including payments for the construction of the statue of Athena Promachos or for the sacred embassies
to Delphi. Second, and perhaps most important, the naukraroi, who later most probably became the
Treasurers of the sacred monies of Athena: these religious magistrates were already extant at the time of
the Affair of Kylon, with their seat of power on the Acropolis and with responsibility over the collection
of the eisphora. After Solon, the Treasurers of the sacred monies of Athena were chosen by lot ffom the
first economie class, the pentakosiomedimnoi. By that time, they were responsible not only for the treas
ures of Athena but also for the city-treasures, collecting taxes and other civic revenues. The sacred and
civic treasuries would have been kept on the Acropolis, under Athena's protection. It should be noted
that the tamiai (i.e. the Treasurers) are first attested in IG V 510, an inscribed bronze tablet recording
the dedication to Athena of several bronze objects by her treasurers, dated to around 550; the Treasurers
are also attested in the famous Hekatompedon-Inscription, ffom 485, which was a copy of an original
document that goes back to the 6th cent. bc.
The first real mark of the community's coalescence is in the shared expenses for sacrifice and
worship. The mix of sacred and secular was complete at this early period, with the two concepts being
inséparable. This is very obvious in the case of the board of the Treasurers of the Sacred Monies of
Athena during the 6th cent. bc. It is worth looking at a contemporary major neighbour of Athens,
Aigina. IG IV 1580 dates to the middle of the 6th cent, bc, and records the building of the tempie
and the aitar of Aphaia. Remarkably, the only magistrate mentioned in this inscription is the priest.
This has led to the inference that the recorded constructions were financed with money belonging to
the sanctuary itself. This sounds cogent and could help explain what was happening around the same
time in Athens.

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin de la SFAC 205

After the better understanding of the properties of the goddess Athena in the Classical period,
due to the monograph of Nikolaos Papazarkadas, we know that Athena's property included, amongst
others, gifts, fines, confiscated goods, war spoils, rentals from sacred land and buildings, war indem
ties, sacred taxes. But the nucleus of this property went back to the Archaic period, to the 6th, if not
the 7th cent. bc. We can be fairly certain that the sanctuary of Athena, diligently managed by some
the wealthiest Athenians throughout the Archaic period, was able to cover by itself at least some expen
associated with building works and repairs.The financial means were there. It is very difficult to estim
how much a temple like the archaic Parthenon would have cost and how much of this cost could have
been covered by the assets possessed by the administrators of the shrine, especially in the beginning
6th cent, bc, when we have practically no numismatic data. If we take into account the property of
sanctuary, as delineated above, I think it is perfectly plausible to assume that the Archaic Parthenon, w
certainly very high costs, was initiated and funded by the men in charge of the sanctuary of Athena,
Treasurers, the elected aristocrats of the Athenian elite, who contributed their own money, that of th
fellow-aristocrats, and the goddess's assets in order to transform a medium-sized power into one of t
most important city-states of ancient Greece.
If temples can be the measures of men, and if the Acropolis is allowed to shed, for a moment, i
peplos of mystery that scholars have long woven with contentions and complicated théories, then, h
fully, we may understand a little bit better what happened at the first half of the 6th Century bc on
Sacred Rock, and how the Archaic Parthenon took the form I presented you earlier.

SEANCE DU 27 JUIN 2015

EXCURSION A ROUEN ET LILUEBONNE (SEINE-MARITIME)

Vingt-deux personnes ont participé à la traditionnelle sortie de la SFAC, qui a eu lieu le 27 juin
2015 à Rouen et à Lillebonne. Durant la matinée, la directrice du Musée départemental des Antiquités
de Rouen, Caroline Dorion-Peyronnet, a présenté la salle dite « de Lillebonne », récemment réaménagée,
qui rassemble les vestiges antiques de la cité fondée sur le territoire des Calètes (blocs sculptés du théâtre,
stèles funéraires, grande mosaïque de la chasse, fragments de statues de marbre et de bronze), puis l'expo
sition temporaire Lillebonne-Juliobona. A la lumière des découvertes anciennes. L'après-midi a été consacré
à la visite du théâtre de Lillebonne, avec son fouilleur, l'archéologue départemental Vincenzo Mutarelli.
L'exposition temporaire avait pour but de rassembler autour d'oeuvres, mises au jour à Lillebonne
durant le xixe s. et conservées dans le musée actuellement fermé de la ville, de nombreux documents
des archives départementales de l'Eure et de Seine-Maritime ainsi que du musée départemental des
Antiquités de Rouen, afin de retracer l'histoire de l'exploration archéologique de la cité antique (théâtre,
thermes, nécropoles, domus), manifestant ainsi l'intérêt des érudits normands pour les trouvailles, for
tuites ou non. Citons, parmi les découvertes les plus remarquables, le mobilier de la tombe dite « de
Marcus », de la fin du ne s. ou du début du mc s.
Dans le cadre de l'exposition, le musée du Louvre avait accordé le prêt majeur de « l'Apollon de
Lillebonne », le plus grand bronze doré de Gaule romaine connu à ce jour, découvert fortuitement en
1823 sans contexte particulier, à quelque 300 m à l'est du théâtre, et acquis en 1853 après un séjour de
plusieurs années à Londres (H. 1,91 m, département des Antiquités grecques, étrusques et romaines,
Br 37, fig. 1). La confrontation de l'Apollon avec les sculptures en ronde bosse et les reliefs funéraires les
plus imposants découverts à Lillebonne et présentés dans la salle de la mosaïque, telle une tête féminine
en marbre retrouvée dans des thermes ou la stèle en calcaire « du marchand » remployée dans le Castrum
du IVe s. mais peut-être issue du cimetière du Carillon, a confirmé l'appartenance du grand bronze à
une même sphère de production, lui conférant un écrin stylistique au sein duquel il se détachait très

This content downloaded from

194.146.158.220 on Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:34:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms