>> Dr. Patterson:
Herodotus, there are other sources, but he is the first and the best and these other, the sources are later, they are, some of them are derivative of the Herodotus, and so on. 

I would just briefly mention that Herodotus is an important figure to study for the Persian war. 

We called him the Father of History, because he is the first Historian. 

He's the first person to write a comprehensive account of the past, and more importantly he's the first person to really try to make sense of the past, to ask what do the choices that our forebears made, what do those choices mean? 

What are the lessons that we can learn? 

And his subject was the Persian wars, and as you see from his states, he was born, he was a young boy when the second Persian war took place, so he is almost contemporary with it, he interviewed a number of veterans who had fought in the wars, decades before, and he consulted other sources, so he is a very, very important source, and I will mention him from time to time, for the next little while.  

Before we get into the Persian wars, themselves, we should say a little bit about the enemy, the Persian Empire.  

The Persian Empire was the largest empire in the world, up to this point. 

Starting out from it's, the homeland in Persia, modern day Iran, the Persians created an enormous empire absorbing previous empires like Babylonia, Egypt, and so on, at their height, they reached all the way to the Andes river valley, in what is modern day Pakistan, they went up into central Asia, and they went over even into Europe, including very early on in their conquests, extending over into western Anatolia, western Asia Minor.  

And in the part of the world, there were Greeks living along the coast, at places like Ephesus, Miletus, Palicornasis, where Herodotus, himself had come from, Samos, and on up.  

And collectively we usually refer to this part of the world as Ionia, in modern terms this is of course, Turkey, but by around 500 BC when we are getting close to Persian wars, these Greeks had been living here for centuries. 

If you've attended some of the other sessions, you've heard a lot about Miletus, and the role it has played in the development of Philosophy, and we've heard about some of these other places.  

So, these Greeks were subjugated already by the time we get to the Persian Wars.  

They've been subjugated since the mid-6th century or so.  

And by the turn of the 5th century, as we get into the 5th century, starting in 499, these Greeks decided they wanted to try to throw off the Persian yoke, so they basically rose up in revolt, we call this the Ionian Revolt. 

The city of Athens which had kinship ties with a number of these places, sent a force over there to try to help them out.  

They made a stab at it for about five years, they burned a local provincial capital, at Sardis, but in the end, this revolt failed.  

The Persians crushed them, and that was the end of that. 

Now, one thing that comes through when you read Herodotus is that Persians do not forgive and forget.  

And Darius, who is the king of Persians at this time, certainly did not forget the role that Athens played in the Ionian revolt. 

So, he decides to send a force over to Greece, over to the old country as it were, to try to subdue Athens, and probably incorporate the entire area.  

He doesn't lead the army himself, but he sends an army under the command of Datis and Artaphernes.  

And this army among other things, this army approaches Athens and lands on the Northeast side of the Attic Peninsula, the peninsula that Athens controls, basically the entire peninsula is essentially the territory of Athens, and they land near the site of Marathon.  

I am not going to go into all of the details about the battle of Marathon, the tactics and so on, but basically I will say that just as a couple of preliminaries, when they land, the Athenians of course are quite spooked by this. 

Because this is the mighty Persian empire bringing the hammer down on lowly Athens.  

Athens at this time was a young democracy, only 18 years before, they had developed democracy, and they were understandably quite frightened about what was likely to happen. 

So they send messengers down to Sparta, which was the premier land power in the Greek land world at that time, and the Spartans said well we'll be happy to send up a force and help you out but we've got to finish this festival we are doing right now, called the Corniea, and we have to wait for the next full moon, and that was going to probably take about another 10 days, so the Athenians were kind of in their view, they were really in a pickle. 

The only state that actually came to help them, was Plataea, if you can see up there in the upper left hand corner. 

And in the end, to make a long story short, the Athenians decide to send a hoplite force up against the Persian army, and engage them at Marathon.  

Now, without going into the details about the tactics, and so on, I would say that the main reason that the Athenians won the battle of Marathon was the use of hoplites. 

This is actually a Spartan hoplite, just kind of pretend like there is no land and the hair is not long, you know, it is just like most hoplitse, would more or less look like that.  

But, a hoplite basically is a heavily armed soldier, usually wears about seventy pounds of bronze armor, including the helmet, and the greigs, and carries a shield on his left arm, and a spear usually with an iron tips in his right hand. 

Apparently all Greeks were right handed. 

I don't know, that's the way it worked, but and actually the way it works is that these hoplites would form a formation called a Phalanx and they were be in very close formation, your shield protects your buddy on the left, and you are protected by your buddy on the right with his shield, and as long as they stay in formation, this is essentially like a tank, ok? 

And really the only thing that can stop a phalanx is another phalanx. 

So this isn't really something the Persians had, and when I say the Persians, I want to note that the Persian army really was a multinational army. 

I just showed you the map. [00:06:53;26] 

The Persian Empire included many various peoples had to contribute to the army, so you had Persians, Thracians, Indians, Scythians, Egyptians, probably some Greeks, from Ionia as well.  

But they never really, and we don’t seem to have much evidence of this in the Ionian revolt, the Persians had never really dealt with a hoplite phalanx before, and I think that that was really what made the difference. 

It really caught them off guard.  

And the long story short, the Athenians won this battle, and this is like the shot heard around the world.  

You can just imagine how unbelievable this victory must have been.  

The little lowly Athens defeating the mighty Persian Empire.  

Herodotus tells us that a hundred ninety two Athenians fell in this battle, and that number probably is correct because we have some corroborating sources on that.  

They were buried inside in a, they were basically put in a tumulus, which is right there; it is still there on the side of Marathon. 

He also says that 6400 Persians fell, and that probably is an exaggeration, but you get that a lot in ancient accounts when you see exaggerated enemy casualties to glorify the winners, you know. 

But in any case, those who survived the battle of Marathon were the most revered people in Athens ever afterwards. 

They were sort of the Athenian equivalent of the greatest generation that Tom Brokaw likes to call the World War II Generation. 

And as an example, the great playwright, Escalus who we know for his plays like Agamemnon, well, in, according to later testimony on his gravestone, nothing was said about his career as a playwright, instead he celebrated the fact, or his relatives celebrated the fact that he had fought at Marathon and also at Salamis, those were the things he was proud of.  

So that was the first Persian war.  

Now, there were two very fortunate things that happened after the first Persian war. 

One, there was a revolt in Egypt, and this was a much more serious affair for Darius than anything going on in Greece, so he had to deal with that.  

But he did plan to go back to Greece eventually because if he was t'd off before, he was really t'd off now, so he was eventually going to go back. 

The other thing that was very fortunate, was that the Athenians who routinely would mine silver in the nearby mine of Laurium, in Southern Attica, they struck a huge vein of silver. 

So, what they are doing in the assembly, which is where citizens debate a public policy, this is a democracy, they have a debate about what are we going to do with all of the extra silver. 

I imagine it is kind of like what happened in the 1990's when congress was debating about what are we going to do with that surplus? 

Remember all that?  In those [unclear dialogue} days before our? 

Anyway.  

And here is where a very important person steps onto the stage of history.  

Themistocles. 

And he convinces the assembly we need to spend this money on ships.  

Now, Themistocles had a reputation both in Herodotus, and other sources for being a very, very clever, a very witty person. 

And he was smart enough not to say, we need to defend ourselves against the inevitable return of the Persians. 

The Athenians basically saw the Persian threat in the abstract. 

They didn't really see it as an immediate threat. 

We beat them at Marathon, why would they come back?  

But of course, anybody who was smart enough would know, of course they would come back. 

But what Themistocles did instead was sight a more immediate threat from a nearby island called Iganma, which had been a rival of Athens for centuries, and so that's how he convinced the assembly to build 200 triremes, and this is why world history transpired the way it did.  

Triremes are basically warships; they are kind of like guided missiles. 

Tri for three banks of oars, 170 rowers, these rowers are going to mostly come from the poorer classes of Athenian society, and they'll have a few officer corps, some hoplites, maybe some marchers, etc. 

The way the Athenians used triremes was with a huge bronze ram at the front, and basically you rammed the enemy. 

You rammed enemy ships to sink them. 

That's basically how they used their triremes.  

This is something that they have to refine, it takes a good deal of training but eventually the Athenians will get really, really good at this.  

Now we are ready for the second war, and this is the big one.  

Darius died before he had a chance to even finish crushing the road in Egypt, so his son Xerxes takes care of that. 

This is what the Greeks called him, Xerxes; in Persian his name was probably something more like [unclear dialogue]. 

Something like that. 

But anyway, those are his Reginald dates, and once he is done with Egypt, Xerxes now is going to turn back to Greece, and this time he leads the army himself and well, I'll get to that in a second. 

Thermopylae. 

He leads the army himself and Herodotus when you add up all the numbers Herodotus gives us, this army that Xerxes brings out of Asia through Northern Aegean Basin, down through Macedonia, into Northern Greece, the numbers that Herodotus gives us amount to around five million people, including everybody on the ships that he brought, everybody in the baggage trains, all the support staff, as well as the combatants. 

Ok, well, probably it wasn't that big, maybe one tenth of that, but even if it is one tenth of that, that's still 500,000 combatants and others, I mean Holy Mackerel. 

So, Xerxes was very serious about conquering Greece.  

I actually really am not going to say much about the most famous battle of all of them, because the Athenians had a minimal role in this, but obviously Thermopylae was famous and anybody who seen a certain movie a few years ago, probably can get all the information they need about that. 

Well, not, you should go read Herodotus, don't watch that movie. 

That movie didn't really, but anyway the movie, the point about Thermopylae is that there was a temporary delay in the progression of the Persian army, thanks to the 300 Spartans, and a few others, led by King Leonidas, but eventually they got through, and once they got through Thermopylae there was nothing to stop the Persians from getting to Athens, which was Xerxes's main objective.  

I'll get to Salamis in a second. 

So what they Athenians did, knowing that there was no hope to save their city, they basically evacuated the city. 

They took everybody, their women, children, their stuff, their dogs, their cats, everything. 

They took everything out of the city, and took them to other places like Treason, Salamis, and even Aegina, which was for now, sort of friendly to them, in light of the common threat, and then the men, the rowers, got in the ships, and ultimately were going to have the next great battle, the Battle of Salamis, later in 480, in probably in late summer, or early fall of 480.  

Themistocles is the great hero here, through a rather complicated series of events that Herodotus narrates for us, Themistocles was able to get the Persian fleet, he was able to engineer the engagement in the Strait, the Narrow Strait between the island of Salamis and the Mainland, Attica.  

Again, the numbers that Herodotus gives us to the Persians, and their ally's Phoenicians, and Egyptians, and so on, probably exaggerated. 

He says about 1200. 

We don't know for sure, but maybe it is more like 600 ships. 

The Athenians, the Spartans, and the Corinthians, and the other Greek allies probably in the neighborhood of 370 ships. 

So, you would think, oh no, they are out-numbered. 

But remember they are in a narrow strait, and this gives them the advantage, because in a narrow strait, the very heavy Persian fleet, the 600 ships or so, do not have the room they need to effectively maneuver, so ultimately the Athenians have more room to work, and they are able to take advantage of that, and ram the enemy ships, and so on.  

So ultimately this is going to be another major victory.  

And Athens plays the premier role in this great victory.  

Xerxes decides, "Ok, I've had enough of this." 

He, himself, goes back to Persian, he leaves the bulk of the army in Greece, under a general names Mardonius, who then loses the next year at the battle of the Plataea, and one more battle I should mention, I didn't put it on here, is the battle of Mycale in 479.  

This is the last battle of the Persian war and basically what happens here is the liberation of Ionia.  

The Ionian Greeks on the Eastern side of the Aegean Sea are finally liberated from Persian Rule.  

That's not to say that the Persian empire is not still a threat, it's just over the horizon, across the mountains, but for now, the Ionian Greeks are free at last, and this is important for us to know, to talk about the next stage, and that's the Delian League. 

Just to go through this quickly, I don't want to take too much time on this, the Delian League was essentially a confederation of Greek states whose purpose was to provide mutual defense against any future Persian incursion.  

And, by mutual agreement of these 150 or so states, they all made contributions except for those that contributed not through money, but through ships, they create this mutual defense alliance. 

But as you can imagine, because of the clout that Athens had gained, because of the role that it had played in the Persian wars, and also because of the fact that they had the largest fleet by far, of all the member states, thet are really the ones sort of that are calling the shots, and directing the policy of the league.  

And the treasury is located on the island of Delos, which is why we call it the Delian leagues. 

Delos is this tiny little island here in the south part of the Cyclades, in the Aegean islands here. 

I guess it's in the middle part, that's what that, that's where the treasury was kept until 454, and I'll explain why they moved it in just a bit.  

The architect, well, let put it this way, the person responsible for turning the Delian League into an Athenian empire, is basically Pericles. 

There are some others involved, but basically Pericles.  

He was a strategos, that is to say a general. 

A general in Athens was somebody who was annually elected, so elected for a year, so he was annually re-elected straight on for 30 years, except for a couple toward the end.  

Remember I told you this was a democracy. 

Policy is made in the assembly, right, and policy is made after citizen’s debate, and when I say citizens, by the way, I am of course only talking about free adult males.  

Sorry ladies, but you know, there is no voting for women in ancient Athens. 

But anyway, so as you can imagine, anybody who can persuade the populous the citizens to vote in certain ways, that person is going to be sort of the director of public policy.  

And you have to have very good powers of persuasion, very good oracle skills and so on, and that certainly was Pericles, just as it had been the case with Thermosticles. 

So he essentially is the pilot who guides Athenian policy and his policy is to be essentially an imperialist, to take Athenian power, extend it, enhance it, if other members of the league try to withdraw from the league, the Athenians called that a revolt, they send their fleet, or part of their fleet and the crush the revolt and they will often enslave people, or replace them with Athenian citizens, and so on, and so basically the Delian league became a realm in which Athens started throwing it's weight around, acting very, very tyrannically, and getting involved in ventures like down in Egypt, in the mid, in the 450's. 

The Egyptians once again tried to throw off the Persian yoke, and the Athenians were invited to help out, so they saw an opportunity. 

They went down there, and they got clobbered, and so this is the reason they cite for moving the treasury away from Delos to Athens, in 454.  

Once they do that, we have records for the contributions made by the member states. 

On the stele, on stone slabs that were erected in Athens, and they are fragmentary now, so if you go to the Epigraphical museum in Athens, you'll see them sort of on display this way. 

Sort of positioning them where they would have originally been.  

If you went to the presentation last week, done by a number of our colleagues from the business school, talking about business practices, accountancy, and so on, you may have heard professor Bill Wooten talk about how the Athenians used some of the expenditures from the dealings of the, some of the expenditures he showed us a receipt of expenditures for the Parthenon. 

So, Professor Wooten told us where the money went to, this is where the money came from.  

It came from member states of the Delian League.  

One last bit, just a bit of a coda, where did all this lead to?  

Well, while Athens is behaving this way, Sparta is down there in the Peloponnesus looking on thinking this is, we've got to do something about this.  

And in the end, we have the Peloponnesian war between Sparta and it's allies on the one hand, and Athens and it's allies on the other hand.  

This war saw the defeat of Athens by 404 and the end of the Delian League, and then on to new destinies in the fourth century.  

So I just wanted to kind of tell you where this sort of ends up, but we need to go back now in time, and talk about the Periclean age, and this is where we need to talk about the Parthenon and for that, I will hand it over to my colleague. 

>> Dr. Janet Marquardt:
That was sudden.

[applause]

I wonder why that keeps doing that. 

>> Dr. Patterson:
I don't why that happened either. 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
There is some default in here, or it is channeling Google

>> Dr. Patterson:
Or it is possessed by Google. 

Google is trying to get into everything. 

There we are. 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
Well, thank you to everyone for coming and thank you to Lee who had a little something different planned, and then I asked him if we could do a, what do you call this, a pony and cart show? 

Whatever that 

>> Dr. Patterson:
Trick and pony. 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
Trick and pony show.  

Whatever, and so he narrowed it to set up just the Persian war for me.  

I am also feeling a little intimidated by all the introductions, so I hope this is ok. 

And I decided to write out what I was going to say because to talk about the Parthenon in thirty minutes, is really daunting as my students know, I tend to run on, and don't nod, and so I thought I'd better keep it to the essentials.  

Anyway, the decisions regarding the building and the decoration of the Parthenon are really fascinating. 

But the interpretations vary widely since at least the early 19th century there has been continuous lively debate about this building. 

So the topic though it is ancient, it is not static.  

And what I am presenting tonight are my favorite interpretations, as well as some of the most current thought on the building, cutting out some of the complicating arguments. 

And by the way, I have, this is not my field. 

I am not an expert; this is not what I do.  

We must first keep in mind, as we consider the Parthenon that the entire acropolis is, in fact, in an artificial condition.  

For the sake of tourism, as illustrated by this photo, as illustrated by the photo that Lee took, that you've been looking at the whole symposium, waiting for this talk, this presentation is a stripped down version a cleaned up acropolis for us. 

And first you are probably wondering how do they get into such a ruined state?  

Why is the Parthenon building for instance empty in the middle? 

Well, since it's inception as a Greek temple, and the years of accretion under the Greeks are a memorial, and monuments all around it, it became later a Christian church and then an Islamic mosque, when the Turks took over Athens as part of the Ottoman Empire, and then in 1687 when the Venetians were fighting the Turks, they shelled the city, and they made a direct hit on the Parthenon which at that point was being used as a powder magazine, or what we might call an ammo dump.  

So, it blew sky high from the inside out, the sculpture jumped off, onto the ground, and most of it was damaged. 

In either on the building, or when it hit the ground.  

Nevertheless, in 1764, art history began when Johann Vinckleman established the Parthenon as the eternal standard of beauty that had already been ruined by then.  But he could tell.  

As we learned from Mr. Finnigan on Monday, is David Finnigan here? 

No? He talked about the Greek monuments.  

During the early 19th century, the British ambassador to Constantinople today Istanbul, Lord Elgin removed most of what remained to his of the sculpture to his estate in Britain and eventually ended up in a special gallery in the British Museum. 

The Greeks gained their independence shortly afterwards and have been asking for the Marbles to be returned ever since. 

The debate, as my students know very well, continues to be relevant as they now have an award winning museum that as Ioanna Efthymidaou, the Greek General Consul who visited at the beginning of this symposium told us, was designed to house those marbles and place their viewing within sightlines of the original Acropolis location. 

You can see how the Acropolis is at the top of the image, and the windows allow people to look at it while they are looking at the art.  

My point, however, is that in the interest of emphasizing the classical location of the marbles, all residues of subsequent changes to the building has been removed.  

Even by foreigners, so for instance, in 1876, when Schliemann was trying to get a permit from the Turks to excavate Troy, he had a medieval tower knocked down on the Acropolis, to prove his good intentions. 

It is as if, for me, it is as if in a thousand years, Times Square, in New York City, were found with just metal and concrete ruins.  

Stripped of neon lights, bright theatre facades, billboards, the windows, all the shop windows filled with commodities, it wouldn't make any sense to someone, and this is basically the Acropolis we are trying to understand.  

We see a clear, white, and empty space, calling out for its marbles.  

And this is deliberate. 

It is not naturally come to this state; it's been carefully pruned and shaped, to give that impression.  

Let's step back and see, look at what we know, or what we think we know, about how this Parthenon came to be.  

After the second Persian war ended and the Greeks had astonished everyone, including themselves, by beating the Persians, the Athenians as we know, took most of the credit for leading the allied city states, and they were certainly as we saw the most important in the key battles at Salamis, and Marathon.  

Once they had negotiated a treaty with the Persians, however, 30 years later, they felt they had a right to use the funds in the Delian League treasury for a new building to the goddess Athena on the acropolis, which is of course the most sacred hill, ancient hill in Athens.  

Their reasoning was that Athena being their patron deity thus Athens, right, should be thanked for her role in supporting them, because through their leadership, the Greeks had won, and as long as they, with Athena's help, were strong, they could continue to protect these various cities.  

They could justify their appropriation of the funds and demand continuing contributions to the fund or forus, as protection money. 

There were many shrines on the Acropolis to the goddess of Athena already, in fact, the Acropolis was cluttered and busy with shrines, building, statues, reliefs, steles [00:27:56;11] and other monuments.  

As I said, not look at all like the arid and whiten 19th century version that we see today. 

And a new temple to her, as Parthenos, or virgin had already been built after the first Persian war, they had already begun one between the two wars.  

But it was destroyed by the enemy in a sack of the acropolis in 480 BCE, so the newer temple would take its place. 

The first one probably looked a lot like this, the one that was built between the wars, demonstrating a formula for symmetry and balance, that characterizes Greek art through the archaic and early classical periods.  

No two Greek temples were identical.  

But they followed certain rules for height, versus length, versus width, and so on.  

Again, Ioanna Efthymidaou referred repeatedly to Keats’s line that truth is beauty and beauty, truth when she was speaking of Greek Philosophy and Cultural values. 

But from what I know of the Parthenon, it is an interesting case to consider that building against this notion. 

On the one hand, the Parthenon engineering and artistic sculpture set a very high standard of achievement that defines what we now call high classical Greek art.  

The templates for measuring every individual piece and all blocks, every column drawn, are different. 

There are no two pieces of the Parthenon that are the same.  

There are highly skilled mathematical inventions and the precision and cutting and setting, the precision of cutting and setting the stones together is proving difficult for workers today to replicate, even with sophisticated machines of our technology.  

Yet the kind of beauty that the Parthenon represents is not always based on truth.  

Let me explain. 

Beginning with the temple plan, which disappeared, oh there it is, we can compare this typical perfect formula to the much larger building that became the Parthenon.  

So you see the temple of Harrah, which we saw a minute ago, and the Parthenon below.  

The Parthenon is a massive project involving a hundred thousand tons of marble carried across ten miles, and up to the top of the hill.  

And more than 200 masons having to be coordinated.  

Unlike most Greek temples that had only parts in marble, often painting plaster over limestone to look like marble, this building was wholly marble, from the steps all the way to the roof tiles.  

The expense therefore was heretofore unseen.  

We know that the Greek believed that one should be able to read a building from one corner to understand the overall design and to perceive the symmetry that was so important to their notions of harmony and beauty. 

In the case of the Parthenon, worshippers and pilgrims climbed up the steps of the Acropolis, and proceeded through the propoly, this building here, this sort of entrance building or series of rooms, which had dim interiors, and caused their pupils to enlarge, so that when they came out, into the sunlight, the white stone surface that was the acropolis, and that old monuments were made out of, would glow and seem brighter than normal.  

A huge statue of Athena was straight ahead, you can just see it, and right on the top of the propoly, there is a huge statue, right there, with all her warrior gear.  

And that was along with the fact that everything was above, because they were not yet at the peak of the acropolis, was meant to make the visitor feel small, and insignificant and continue to impress them.  

So, you can see in comparing the plans that the Parthenon was so huge that the ideal proportions between length and width, which was usually six by twelve, thirteen, or fourteen, long, have been thrown off.  

The height and length has required so many additional adjustments for optical illusions, and we can't see them, but they are there, and the enormous amount of sculpture, much more than any previous building, all compromised the clarity of the structure.  

DIsagreement about why construction techniques made it necessary for every column to bulge a bit differently in the middle, called entosis, about why the base or syleabate, and roofline or the entablature actually humped higher in the middle, and other refinements muddle what used to be considered brilliant corrections.  

So these arguments now have muddled the question where the builders trying to compensate for optical illusions, that would cause the line of columns to appear to sag, and thus give the impression of perfection in its place, where they enhancing the magnitude of this building from the ideal perspective from below, as one exited the propoly, there you can see the statue again, here you are exiting there's the building up to the right. 

So were they trying to enhance that with these changes, or were they exaggerating the effects with these imperfect shapes to subtly throw off viewers and make them take a closer look at this particular version of the Greek temple?  

The first theory is certainly the most popular; that they were doing it to account for optical illusions that would make it look like it was sagging or going in.  

But either way, engineering tricks were definitely used to create a beauty that did not derive from truth.  

Likewise, if the Greek gods were the measure of beauty, why do we seem to have a building where the decoration emphasizes the mortal Athenians themselves to the point of almost overshadowing the gods?  

Let's look at the decoration. 

There are three main areas. 

The pediments, and then the Doric and Ionic friezes.  

So, this is the kind of sculpture we'll look first at the pediments. 

The pediments had sculptural programs that illustrated Athena's birth from Zeus's forehead, and her victory over the god of the sea, Poseidon, in a gifting competition for patronage of the city. 

They were both damaged badly already before the explosion, in order to change the entrances for use as a church.  

So and that is visible in these drawings from 1674.  

But we know they both illustrated myths that underline Athena's importance as patron deity to the city and by implication, her importance to the Greek victory over the Persians.  

The fully sculpted figures that make up the what's left of the Pediments are huge, they are imposing, they have loads of bunched drapery to try and help that strong Mediterranean light create volume and physical weight. 

They are probably each part of many layers of meaning. 

Not just the original stories about Athena, but including references to the various regions of Greece, the movement of the sun and the moon, messengers arriving, divine witnesses witnessing, and all this sort of thing. 

They established Athena's story as worthy of adorning a temple. 

This is something new and created just for this building.  

The Doric frieze on the outer entablature of the building contains 92 metopes. 

Metopes are these square reliefs that are set between Triglyphs, three lines dividing each one, and they only occur on a Doric building. 

Doric buildings are built on the mainland, and this is part of mainland territory.  

They are decorated rather boringly, based upon what is remaining, with four different traditional subjects.  

Most often interpreted as metaphorically celebrating the victory over the Persians.  

So the Greeks versus the Amazons, the gods versus the giants, the Greeks versus the Trojans, and as you see here, the Greeks versus the centaurs or the [unclear dialogue] versus the centaurs. 

And that is an example of what they might have looked like. 

This entire building was brightly painted, it would have been very garish, it would have looked more like a circus tent than the Parthenon that we know today.  

In each case of these four stories that are illustrated on [00:37:08;25] the four sides, the bad guys are either barbaric or eastern foreigners thus feeding the ancient Greeks notions of order (cosmos) versus Chaos which is caused by others like the Persians that they fought, the Greeks fought, through self discipline and city-state homogeny. 

This is a concept that drives Herodotus' account of the Persian war, written a half century after it occurred when he characterizes the Persians as decadent, and indulgent, relying upon conquered slaves to fight for them, while he claimed the Greeks were honorable and disciplined, believing in youth, intellect and self-determination. 

This reminds us that the inscriptions over the portal to the shrine of Apollo at Delphi read "Know Thyself", and "Nothing in Excess". 

And suggests this control was the essence of shared Greek values.  

But we should remember as we just learned from Dr. Patterson, that the Athenians were also at this time, not just celebrating their trouncing of the Persians, but expanding their own empire.  

What had been the Delian League had become the archaic primarily to the east, taking over the Ionic areas in the Aegean as well as many of the city-states on the coast of Asia Minor.  

And you are looking at the area here that is as we said, was originally part of the league, and then becomes part of their empire. 

Although Greeks, these people were not Athenians, and thus foreign, Eastern like the Trojans, or Amazons in the Metopes, and thus characterized as other, the Athenians thus paradoxically claimed to have liberated these people from the Persians, even as they came to subjugate them and force them to pay for their own on-going protection.  

Finally, the most important and significant sculptural decoration occurs in a completely novel location on the building, new to Greek temple design. 

It concerns a frieze without triglyphs, a continuous frieze as was used by buildings of the Ionic order above the outer wall of the cella but behind the Doric colonnade. 

So it is here.

And this would only have appeared before this on an Ionic building, which would never have been built on the mainland, unless it was an offering from an island, or Asia Minor city-state.  

So this is a building now, a Doric building but it also has an ionic frieze.  

This is completely new.  

It is assumed that the reason for this addition of an ionic element to a Doric building related to that acquisition to eastern city-states, into the Athenian empire, thus making this offering to Athena not just relevant to mainland Greeks, but also to those on the islands and Asia Minor coasts.  

If Athena is to be thanked for her part in winning the war, we assume Athens proposed that her temple should be from all the Greeks, and should appeal as a PanHellenic or all-Greek shrine in the manner of Delphi’s dedication to Apollo and Olympia's dedication to Zeus.  

Up until this time, there were, they were the only two PanHellenic shrines in Greece. 

Athens was making a bid for a third in the hopes of bringing great pilgrimage and tourism funds into the city.  

This frieze is a much more complex and fascinating artwork than the others.  

It does not take a traditional subject like those of the Metopes, but rather represents a procession most likely the annual PanAthenic or all-Athens event that was extra special every fourth year.  

It begins at the southwest corner and this is what you are looking at there, and it begins at that corner, you remember it's behind the Doric colonnades, so to look at it, people would have had to duck around the columns and kind of start over each time.  

And it also begins visually in a different place. 

One is supposed to imagine that one is down below the acropolis, out in the Agora, sort of downtown area, and that one is at the beginning of the day, at dawn, and then as one walks around it, going two directions at once, it goes off, it doesn't just go off and around, it goes off and it meets over the East, one is to imagine that as one progresses, one moves through the day, and one comes through Athens up the hill and eventually finishes at this place, at the Parthenon and at the Eastern or main doorway.  

So, there's sort of an imaginary journey and an imaginary lapse of time that occurs when looking at the frieze.  

It starts with horsemen going two directions, from that corner, and these are either horsemen that represent soldiers from an original battle against Poseidon from the mystic past, or contemporary young men on parade in the PanAthenic procession.  

Other figures also elude to actual Athenian citizens, water-bearers, chariot drivers, people bringing animals for sacrifice, and the temple virgins of the Parthenon who wove a new garment of peplous to dress the ancient and all of wood statue of Athena.  

On the East end, over the doorway to the main shrine, a scene appears which can be interpreted in two ways, or at least it has been, and it probably can be interpreted more.  

Either illustrating a myth from the early history of Athens when a king was forced to sacrifice his youngest daughter in order to save the city, or showing the culmination of the contemporary procession in the presentation of the new peplous garment to Athena by the priestesses. 

In either case, the story concerns Athenian citizens. 

They are observed by the gods, supposedly from Mt. Olympus but in reality, in the same architectural space as the Athenians. 

If this is a correct interpretation, it is perhaps the first and last time that Greek citizens represented themselves, mere mortals, on a sacred building, without the distance of mythological time.  

It had been read, as proof of Athenian pride along with the massive size of the architectural plan, something that was apparently debated even at the time of the building's design.  

Like the metope figures, the Parthenon, like the metopes, the Parthenon figures are more naturalistic than many previous sculpted forms, yet they aren't idealized.  

With the powerful emphasis on control of processional formality, and greatly exaggerated for distance viewing, anyone seeing this is looking from forty feet below, and this was covered by the roof, so it was actually sculpted closer to the stone here, with higher relief at the top, so it leaned forward slightly so that the person below could see the top of it, but remember that it's covered so the light had to be just right to actually kind of bounce off of things, and get it up there.  

So they exaggerated things so that you could see them.  

Later, artists would copy this style, without understanding the practical motivations for deep folds, swirling lines and blank expressions. 

We can never see the original effect when it was painted in strong colors, and adorned with metal objects punctuated by the oops, and these are the swirling, those are some of the effects I meant to show you, the swirling drapery and the deeply cut things. 

But we do have a painting from the 19th century imagining what it might have looked like, when the sculptor Thaddeus, who was in charge of the program, took his best friends up to the scaffolding to look, so you can get a sense of what kind of dark blue background and bright colors, and there would have been metal plating or metal objects.  

Inside the main doorway on the east was a huge room housing a prodigious statue of Athena in gold and ivory on wood, decorated with scenes on the base clothing and shield that reinforce the same themes of victory.  

It's been lost and this is only a later copy made from descriptions but it would have made all the sculpture on the exterior pale in people's memories once they walked in and saw it.  

So, if beauty is truth, we have an enigma in the Parthenon. 

Beautiful, yes, yet oversized and over stated. 

The Parthenon represented propaganda more than truth and optical tricks were used to correct true visual effects.  

The Athenians deliberate refusal to follow the earlier cautions of Delphi, they did not know their own limitations and they did much in excess, both on this building program and in their political aspirations, caused this product of golden age Greece to precipitate it's end.  

For their great accomplishment came at the price of harshly repressive control of other city-states and led to a devastating war with the army of Peloponnesian allies that would both enslave Athens for a time, and eventually allow the Macedonians to the north, under Phillip the Second and his son, Alexander the Great, to conqueror the Greek city-states altogether. 

Perhaps this beauty the truth this beauty showed in the end, was the Athenian hubris that led to the anamnesis, or downfall.  

Empedocles, whose theories of mutation and natural selection Dr. Sterling discussed here yesterday, lived during this period of the 5th Century BCE. 

He believed there are two forces, love and strife that determined the consistency of matter on earth, always moving from fusion, to explosion and back.  

In between he said, good things can occur, and develop.  

It makes sense that he would theorize this, since he lived in a time of devastating war and great empire building, which led to more war.  

The Parthenon seems to have come in between them.  

In any space, any case, spurred by the complexity of the design and engineering decisions by the ambiguous use of traditional and new subject matter for the sculptural decoration by the combination of two styles in one building, and by the controversy over the remains of the sculptural program taken to England by Lord Elgin, in the first years of the 19th century, the Parthenon is anything but an irrelevant antique subject.  

It raises the issues of how we construct our memory of the past, how we retain it, or remove later layers of usage, clean up debris, and modern recreations to effect an authentic appearance, market a famous monument's importance, or uniqueness in the history of art, by downplaying the value of predecessors or attributing later works to its influence, and interpret the meaning of narrative scenes as our approaches to the discipline of art history changes over the decades.  

We still have much to learn from the Parthenon story, but remember, you can go see a full size copy, only five hours away from here, anytime you like. 

The Nashville Museum of Art even has a theoretical reproduction of the colossal ivory and gold statue of Athena that once stood in Athens.  

And it's all in perfect condition.  

Thank you. 

[applause]

>> Dr. Wahby:
Very good.  Thank you very much, both of you.  

We have a couple of minutes for any questions before you go to supper. 

 Do you have any questions?  

I have a question until you prepare yours, have you read anything about or established relationship between Egypt and Greece and Athens, regarding these buildings, stone buildings at all?  

Any relationship building cooperation copying, or 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
Well, there's certainly learned a lot from the Egyptians but it was an earlier period, from what I know, I mean, they learned how to make free-standing sculptures, statutes, life-size, they learned post-mental construction, they were traders with them, so they knew. 

I don't think by this period, they were looking to anybody else, they pretty much thought they had the answers, as far as I know, but again, it is not my field.  

>> Dr. Patterson:
Well, that makes sense to me.  

>> Dr. Marquardt:
ok.

>> Dr. Wahby:
And regarding the art, I noticed that in Egypt you have the carvings, kind of two-dimensional not three dimensional like we see the horse, as if it is kind of, 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
High relief, yes,

>> Dr. Wahby:
When did this happen, is this kind of building on what they saw there, and tried to do something different, or any idea? 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
Well, they would have to have purposes, the ones in Egypt are inscribed, they are inscriptions and they outline what was painted, so they were really more paintings on the wall that had carving around them, and the hieroglyphs were right in with them. 

These are three dimensional reliefs, I mean they are not, they don't have the same purpose at all, even though they were painted, they were really meant to be sculpture. 

>> Dr. Wahby:
Ok.  Any other questions?

If you don't have questions, I'll ask another question. 

Yes, we have 

>> 
More of a comment than a questions, and I regret that I wasn't able to go to either of philosophical presentations that might have answered this for me, but I am struck with both of you said, this Greek emphasis on precision, like the Phalanx only works if everyone is lined up just so.  

The smaller outnumbered triremes only work if in modern day language, we would use a precision strike against a larger and more oppressive force, and then when we see the Parthenon, too, I mean the precision is what really stands out, and maybe it's in the precision that we see beauty I guess, again I don’t have a question, but I thought that was an interesting interconnection between art and war.  

>> Dr. Marquardt:
And remember the Greeks prided themselves on creating order against chaos, and math is one of the things that they used, that precision is part of the discipline that they brought to the chaotic world.  

>> Dr. Patterson:
And I think it sort of connects with what David Linton talked about this earlier today, and others have talked about, and Mike Cornebise have talked about this the other day, about the Greek, how does one describe it? 

The Greek need to account for things, to explain why things work the way they do, so to take astronomy for example, which was David talked about earlier, you know, there is a great deal of work that had been done by Babylonians, and Egyptians, and so on earlier, but they really had not tried to explain why the cosmos is the way it is, they would just more or less, observed, and made observations and recordings, but the Greeks beginning with people like Thales, and Anaximander and so on, tried to actually account for, you know, come up with explanations. 

This is essentially the beginning of philosophy, these explanations didn't always hold up in the end, but they made the attempt. 

And I think this attempt to sort of account for the 'why', works into some of these other dynamics about the world that emerges in their mind-set of the orderly cosmos, a cosmos that is, that you, if you try to understand it, you see the order in it, and that order can reflect in the political realities of, again this is all perception, right but the political realities of the fifth century Athenian world the political, the realities that emerge, and the aesthetic of the Parthenon, a lot of the sculptures including sculptures the statuary like the Doryphorus of Polykleitos, the spear bearer, that also was made in this period, and so on, so there are a lot of things working together, there's an aesthetic, there is a need to account for why, all of these things I see, in my having studied this as I have over the years, I see certain things sort of working together. 

This is one of the reasons why Greek civilizations are so dynamic.  

I think for that reason, this interaction of these different factors.

>> Dr. Wahby:
How safe historically and scientifically to say the temples in Egypt were built by the Pharaoh who considered himself a god, and he got the people to build it for himself, and his name, like [unclear dialogue] and others.  

While in here I understand from you that the people came and said, Athena helped us, so let us build this for her. 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
No, no, no, no. Athens was saying, they should say that, but Athens the city-state said that we were responsible for winning the war, so we should thank Athena, so we are going to take all of your money, whether you want to give it to us or not, and we are going to build this temple to her and now we want you to come visit it.  

No, the other, it caused revolts. 

>> Dr. Wahby:
Just one point is that Pharaoh in Egypt built the temple for himself, while in here; the people built it for the god.  

Something like that, is it correct? 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
Yes, of course, the Pharaoh incarnated the god at the time, so, 

>> Dr. Wahby:
So the call for the rebuilding in Egypt was from the Pharaoh, he's the cooler, while here the people said, Let us [unclear dialogue] 

>> Dr. Patterson:
But Athena glorifies the people, or Athena is the one who is either responsible for, or should be thanked for anyway, the success of the Athenians.  

And the Romans were like this too, and you achieved the success, and then you erect a thing offering in the form of a temple to the gods who were sort of guaranteeing that success, or provided for that success.  

>> Dr. Wahby:
Ok,

>> Dr. Marquardt:
and your piety only hides a political aspiration of 

>> Dr. Wahby:
There was no separation between church and state at that time. 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
Of course not. 

>> Dr. Patterson:
And that would never have occurred to them.  

>> Dr. Wahby:
Well, yeah, but, 

>> Student:
You talked about the Greeks having a democracy for around 18 years, how did they come up with this idea of democracy, out of anarchy? 

>> Dr. Patterson:
Well, it's a little complicated, but not to be too cynical about it, but basically these were the reforms that Cleisthenes, in 508 and what Cleisthenes’s objective was, was as follows: Cleisthenes wasn't so much saying "I want to invent democracy, and be remembered for that." 

That wasn't what his intention was. 

His intention was to redistribute the power structure in Athens to the disadvantage of the rival families, his own family the [unclear dialogue] were one of a number of aristocratic families who were vying for a position in power and so on, and the old system, which was more of an oligarchy, and oligarchy was when you don't have the vote, all right, it is only limited to people who own a certain amount of property. 

Ok, and that is usually the elite, ok, so that is how most states were in Greece, Athens, and elsewhere, and often what would happen in Athens and Corinth and elsewhere as these aristocratic families would vie for a position for power, and so, there were various ways in which you could handle that, you could kill them, you could expel them, etc., and the Athenians had done these things in the past, but what Cleisthenes did was he basically reorganized the power structure, he created a new tribal system, ten new tribes, and these tribes were, the memberships were distributed among the three major regions of Attica, the city, the shore, and the hills. 

And each of these regions provided members of each of these tribes, so that there wasn't a consolidation of any one tribe. 

In doing this, he broke up the old power blocks, and that's part one. 

Part two is, he basically empowered the assembly, the [unclear dialogue] to be the legislative branch of government in essence that they would make the decisions and the thing about the assembly is anybody can be a member of the assembly, as far as citizens. 

Any citizen can be a member of the assembly. 

Doesn't matter how much property they own. 

So this essentially opened up the franchise, the vote to all citizens. 

So by combining those two factors and there's more to it than that, but combining those, he created a system that we call democracy and this was the beginning of the system that we described here today, but his original intention was to create a system to the disadvantage of his rivals. 

So that was kind of the initial motivation but it is funny how these things happen, the players of a historical event have a certain intention and unintended consequences reverberate and we call that history. So, 

>> Dr. Wahby:
Any story behind having this in North America and why in Nashville, particularly? 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
I honestly don't know. 

>> Dr. Patterson:
Vanderbilt would have had a say in that, there is some vibrant classics in that department there.  So, 

>> Dr. Marquardt:
And this style of building was very popular across the US. 

>> Dr. Wahby:
I mean to build a replica of that, because they have the pediment somewhere,

>> Dr. Patterson:
Memphis has that. It's a sports arena, but yeah, 

>> Dr. Wahby:
Tennessee is trying to do, and Las Vegas 

>> Dr. Patterson:
Vegas has it all. 

>> Dr. Wahby:
Any other questions?  

We can stay here until tomorrow morning. 

Well, would you please join me in thanking? 

[applause]