W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2010 DOI 10.

1179/175355210X12791900195142
conservation and mgmt of arch. sites, Vol. 12 No. 1, March, 2010, 6074
Preserving a Monument: The Example
of the Parthenon
Lena Lambrinou
Acropolis Restoration Service, Athens, Greece
The preservation of architectural relics of the past developed as a science
mainly in the last century. The more a ruin is preserved, the more informa-
tion it may provide about the past. Structural interventions on relics aim to
improve their state of preservation for the future, as well as to render their
shape more complete, for the overall purpose of safeguarding their historical
information. Over the course of past decades interventions have undergone
many changes with respect to methodology, materials, and scope. Interven-
tion in the name of preservation can be interpreted in various ways and
questions concerning the goals and nature of modern interventions have
become particularly relevant. The current Parthenon Restoration Project,
which differs in basic aspects from its predecessors, follows international
guidelines for interventions, but remains distinctive for its extent as well
as its methods of execution. This paper discusses the theoretical approach
underlying the intervention and practical aspects of its methodology.
keywords Athens, Parthenon, authenticity, building conservation
Introduction
The Parthenons ingenious design and meticulous construction in the middle of
fth century bc produced a temple dedicated to Athena, patron goddess of Athens,
possessing a complex use and symbolism that have long been subjects of scholarly
and public interest (Figure 1). This unique building withstood uctuating historical
tides, but eventually suffered a disastrous re in late antiquity, Roman repairs, and
conversion to a church and mosque before its nal destruction in the late seventeenth
century by a Venetian bombardment. A new era in the Parthenons existence began
in the early decades of the nineteenth century when a strong interest developed
in preserving the monument as a publicly exhibited ruin, a unique martyr of
Greek heritage, and a cherished national symbol for the newly founded Greek
state (Rangavis, 1837: 91). Intensive interventions subsequently undertaken on the
Parthenon were extensive and consequently led to the development of structural
problems in the authentic material of the building. The renewed interventions of
61 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
recent decades have aimed to prolong the life of the monument through updated, less
destructive methods and approaches.
The present-day aesthetic of Greco-Roman archaeological ruins is rooted within
the romantic perceptions of the European intelligentsia in the centuries after the
Renaissance. Sparked from philosophical beliefs in heritage and ancestral identity,
the notion of insuring the perdurability of an ancient structures original materials
eventually led to the rise of an entire science on the preservation of architectural
relics. Today, the central concern in interventions generally on ancient constructions
and particularly in anastylosis (the re-erection of ruins; the Athens Charter, 1931:
art. 6) is how to deal with the discontinuity evident in their life-history and changing
physical condition. This paper attempts to provide perspective on imposed modern
interventions on the Parthenon, in light of their realization, and considers the princi-
ples and terminology behind the choices taken for the preservation of this signicant
relic (Figure 2).
Buildings like the Parthenon have survived discontinuation of use, afterward
suffering multiple destructions and periods of abandonment at certain points in their
past. Ultimately, in their imperfect, ruined state they preserve a remote, tangible piece
of history. But an ancient structures past is like a series of separate snapshots, of
which today we see only the last image of the building in its nal ruined state. Then
to preserve a ruin in a state reective of only one specic phase in its history amounts
gure 1 View of the Parthenon from the Propylaia.
Photograph: L. Lambrinou, 2008, ESMA Archive
62 LENA LAMBRINOU
to something between stage-craft and scholarly conservatism. In interventions, there-
fore, the question arises, which phase of an ancient buildings history are we going
to endorse and consolidate?
Further complicating efforts to preserve an important historic ruin is the
occasional inclination to refer back to some earlier phase when it existed in a more
complete form. Yet this earlier form perceived through the mists of time is not
necessarily an accurate reection of an actual phase in the buildings appearance, even
though it is often presented in this way. Today, although reliance upon commonly
accepted regulations and procedures in anastylosis and other interventions leads to
an a priori acceptance of methods or approaches concerning the extent and feasibi lity
of an intervention, they nevertheless remain under constant review and negotiation
between specialists who adhere to historical clarity and advocates of straightforward
comprehension of the buildings form.
Authenticity and respect for original materials
The principles of intervention for ancient monuments, recorded in international
agreements such as the Venice Charter (1964), are interpreted with relative exibility
because of their formulation in generalities, an approach considered wise by some.
As a result, their application on site is often shaped by particular cultural values and
gure 2 View of the Parthenon from the north-east.
Photograph: L. Lambrinou, 2007
63 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
constricted by practical possibilities. Beyond the relative freedom in the choices
grante d to conservator-restorers, more recent conventions, such as the Nara Docu-
ment on Authenticity (1994), appear to give general approval to the signicance of
authenticity, as perceived through collective cultural sentiment, and perhaps to
justify the taking of certain measures within specic cultural frameworks. The idea
of authenticity, or originalness (Petzet, 2004: 8), can span a multitude of meanings
and, as Lowenthal admits, [. . .] different criteria have been valued in different
epochs (1995: 124).
Authenticity traditionally conveys an absolute idea of the primordial material,
which represents the most valued quality of a tangible, genuine relic. Authenticity in
a ruin encourages the preservation of the ruins original fabric to the fullest extent
possible. In European culture, the insistence on material authenticity of the remains
of the past, according to Tomaszewski (2002: 215), can be traced back to a Christian
respect for saints remains. When an object or building is both materially authentic
and instilled with a cultural symbolism, it sustains its own retention. Therefore, in
the effort to save historically and culturally signicant constructions by means of
conserving and exhibiting their remains, a convincing effort to preserve the authenti-
city of their materials is required. Retention of the authentic material is a principle
meant to insure that a ruin, such as the Parthenon, will continue into the future
to be a reliable historical source by allowing the reading of its history through the
traces left upon it by time.
Authenticity of the Ruins form
The incomplete form of the Parthenon and other ancient monuments becomes
accepted, despite any deciency in their comprehensibility and lack of any practical
use, through their promotion as exhibits. The philosophy behind this policy stems
from the idea that a ruin in its nal state is also understood as a work of art to
be curated as something valuable unto itself (Bouras, 1996: 29). Ultimately, this
perception separates it from the basic value according to which it was originally
constructed; that is, as an architectural design with a fully completed structure and a
practical function. The attempt, then, to preserve the authenticity of the form of a
monument is related less to its original design than to the form imposed on the build-
ing through history (UNESCO, 1977: 9). What is authentic about old buildings, as
Lowenthal notes, can be construed as the whole sequence of changes endured over
time (Lowenthal, 1995: 129).
The historically imposed form of a monument (Figure 4) is affected irreversibly by
any sort of reconstructive intervention that involves anastylosis and restoration a
fact that gives rise to scepticism concerning interventions (Orlandos, 1922: 97; Dima-
kopoulos, 1994: 198). The lling in and resetting of sections of a building cannot help
but subvert evidence for the process of its destruction and, consequently, distorts the
archaeological record. Yet the reversal of unfortunate historical developments, such
as the 1687 explosion that destroyed the Parthenon (Figure 3), has always been con-
sidered a primary goal of interventions (Balanos, 1940: 10), one that places the value
of the historical evidence of the monument at a somewhat lower priority. This desire
is understandable since architectural relics become more immediately comprehensible
when they are more structurally complete. Filling in their form makes them function
64 LENA LAMBRINOU
positively in terms of being both more instructive and comprehensible to viewers
(Figure 5).
On the other hand, the restoration of only those parts of a monument that can be
reconstructed by locating and identifying the original ancient material yields a partial
form that the monument very likely never had. Such partial restoration produces a
gure 4 The Parthenon in 1834 prior to any restoration, by C. Hansen.
Reproduced by kind permission of the Royal Library, Copenhagen
gure 3 The Parthenon in 1749 after the destruction of 1687 by a Venetian bombardment,
by R. Dalton.
Reproduced by kind permission of the Gennadius Library, American School of Classical
Studies at Athens
65 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
new construction within a subjective process of choosing what was the authentic form
of the monument. Thus, the idea to return a structure to an earlier condition, a
much promoted phrase found in the Burra Charter (1999: Denitions, arts 19, 20), is
not an accurate description of an intervention involving restoration and reconstruc-
tion of parts of the monument that depend on fortuitous survival of original mate-
rial. To return only portions of the building to an earlier morphological phase leads,
in fact, to a historically new form altogether. The articial and accidental image
(Mallouchou, 1994: 191) which the ruin acquires as a result of the intervention does
not refer to any of the previous forms that the building had taken through its history,
but represents an historically and formally new image of questionable authenticity.
The irreversibility of reversibility
Another key term, reversibility, which we like to think denes our interventions,
appears to reinforce this contradictory approach to historical remains. A structural
intervention, like an archaeological excavation, cannot truly be reversed. An interven-
tion that proclaims its reversibility is using a term that probably understates the pro-
cedures being taken to reinforce the buildings structural elements. Such procedures
include those which intervene in the fabric of the ruins material in order to adapt
ancient fragments to a new construction required to meet the specications of modern
engineering. Perhaps this is why the term reversibility is not used in any of the
gure 5 The Parthenon after the early twentieth-centurys restorations of Balanos.
Photograph: E. Kolyvaki, 2000, ESMA Archive
66 LENA LAMBRINOU
older charters to describe structural interventions with the exception of the
Burra Charter even though it has always represented an important concern for
conservator-restorers.
A more realistic approach to the concept of reversibility exists in its alternative
interpretation as the possibility of renewed intervention (or repeated reparability;
Petzet, 2004). This interpretation, rst offered by Otto Walter in 1922 (Walter, 1922
1923), championed the right to undo the intervention when it was found to have
omissions or errors. Interventions are then considered reversible since means are
chosen that will allow the buildings to be repaired in the future (Bouras, 1985a: 93).
In contemporary interventions, any perforation of original material, made to receive
thin, internal rod-reinforcements that connect ancient fragments, could be considered,
therefore although with understandable scepticism as a relatively reversible
procedure. The planting of metal reinforcements in the mass of an ancient fragment
(Figures 6, 7) can of course be undone by removing them in the future, but such an
intervention will have left its mark on the ancient material. Moreover, it will have
determined to a great extent the way in which any future intervention can be made.
In the case of the Parthenon, then, even the intervention of Nikolaos Balanos
1
in the
rst decades of the twentieth century, much criticized for its destructive procedures,
could be considered relatively reversible, since the monument is being repaired again
today (Figure 8).
Priorities in present interventions on the Parthenon
In the Parthenon, the policy for deciding on a course of intervention admits that
every action carried out to make the monument more easily understood is relatively
destructive much as in archaeological excavation. Priorities are reclassied
and comprehensibility of the whole is promoted over retaining intact the authentic
material of each structural member. Methods of intervention are chosen, however,
that will harm as little as possible the authentic material, in accordance with
todays criteria. This choice of least harmful methods is framed within the idea of
compatibility, as described in the Victoria Falls Charter (ICOMOS, 2003: art. 3.10).
Various degrees of compatibility exist, since, for example, each new material must be
assessed with regard to its suitability, based on its physical properties and potential
impact on the original material. An ideal new material is represented, then, by a
compatible, least-damaging substitute that serves to stabilize and supplement the
original material. For example, titanium, a stainless metal with properties similar to
marble under varying thermal conditions, is being used instead of iron for internal
reinforcements and clamps.
Decisions taken in approaching ancient monuments are indeed compromises made
in an effort to balance harm and benet (ICOMOS, 2003: art. 1.7) with consi deration
for both the essence and image of the buildings. It is often noted that such compro-
mises in the Parthenon were already made before the present-day intervention began
in the 1980s (Bouras, 1983: 708). The Parthenon with its reconstructed north colon-
nade and partly reconstructed cella represents a familiar image, thanks to pre vious
restorers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries especially Balanos. The
monument was signicantly altered, as a result of their interventions, in an entirely
67 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
gures 6 and 7 Rod
reinforcements for the
connection of architrave
fragments from the north
colonnade of the Parthenon.
Photograph: L. Lambrinou,
2003, ESMA Archive
68 LENA LAMBRINOU
fortuitous form (Bouras, 1985b: 196). The primary criterion was aesthetic, to the
disadvantage of the historical and archaeological value of the building (Mallouchou,
1998: 230). The form of the building became more complete and aesthetically pleasing
(Figure 5), but at the cost of misplacement of architectural members and drastic,
ultimately destructive methods of restoration in contradiction with Balanos
originally announced intensions (Balanos, 1940: 10).
Today, some might suggest that it would be more consistent with modern princi-
ples of conservation not to place the members restored by Balanos back on the
monument during the present structural intervention (even in their original positions)
so as to avoid further damage to the original material (Figure 9). Removal of internal
original material however minimal remains an unavoidable effect of any
contemporary intervention that employs reinforcement procedures. Yet, who would
have accepted so drastic a change or reversal in the universally known image of the
Parthenon (Figure 10)? The monument for the purpose of adhering literally to
present-day principles of anastylosis would have been deprived of a signicant part
of its material being. Furthermore, its comprehensibility would have suffered greatly
in comparison with its previous form.
Planning of interventions through theoretical modelling
Proposals for contemporary interventions on ancient buildings that involve anastylo-
sis advocate adherence to the original construction as a basic argument for their
acceptance. Therefore, a highly detailed theoretical model of the ancient structures
original form must rst be created, which 1) presupposes a complete understanding
of the structures shape; 2) claries the architectural canons; and 3) illuminates
constructional solutions reached by the original architects and stonemasons. Only
gure 8 The present restoration of the north colonnade of the Parthenon.
Photograph: A. Kafourou, 2008, ESMA Archive
69 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
with this model in hand, which revives each of the steps by which the building was
originally created, can the structures believed original form be convincingly reconsti-
tuted and, most importantly, the nature and extent of partial deformations that
affected it through time be explained.
gure 9 Image of the Parthenon as it would look if Balanos restoration were not replaced
during the present intervention.
Digital representation by P. Kostantopoulos, 2009, ESMA Archive
gure 10 Image of the Parthenon as it will look after completion of the present restoration
of the north colonnade.
Digital representation by P. Kostantopoulos, 2007, ESMA Archive
70 LENA LAMBRINOU
Furthermore, a process of anastylosis on monuments such as the Parthenon, which
calls for architectural members to be placed again in their original positions, obliges
us also to consider the spatial nature of missing parts of the building. For restorers,
to deviate as little as possible from the originally conceived position of the architec-
tural members remains a constant challenge, whose outcome is difcult to monitor.
The ancient structure in question is not in its original condition, due to its distortion
and the disappearance of some of its parts. These changes the structure has undergone
during its history have left their mark in the greater or lesser metamorphosis of its
shape, and often in considerable displacement of its in situ parts.
Displacement and weathering in the Parthenon
Displacement of architectural elements within ancient structures is caused by natural
actions, such as earthquakes, and man-made actions, especially warfare. The Parthe-
non has suffered from both these kinds of actions (Figure 11). On the Acropolis a
debate continues today concerning how much of the structures displacement is due
to ancient seismic activity and how much to the massive re of the third century bc
or the 1687 Venetian bombardment which caused the buildings nal destruction.
Whatever the causes of displacement might be, however, questions must be addressed
concerning how to deal with it while restoring the building. For example, in resetting
the architectural members, should corrections be made, or should the displacement
of the ancient structure be left intact during the intervention? The answer is not clear,
gure 11 Displacement of
drums of the south colonnade
of the Parthenon due to
seismic action.
Photograph: L. Lambrinou,
2004
71 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
really. In the case of the Parthenon, the monument is extraordinarily well preserved
in its sections that remain in situ. Visible distortions, block-shifting, and opening of
the joints within these areas are in the order of only a few millimetres in some
cases a few centimetres, at the most. These disgurations are often noted only because
of the buildings perceived perfection. The present intervention on the Parthenon
accepts the structures overall distortion and individual displacements, and interposes
the new form accordingly. This acceptance demonstrates a respect for the historical
course of the building, as well as a practicality from a constructional standpoint.
The intervention minimizes interference with original material that remains in situ.
Moreover, the aim of the present intervention is to repair and replace the damaging
restorations made by Balanos, and not to correct deformations of the ancient
construction that pose no danger to its collapse.
Replacement of original sculptures with copies
Todays intervention on the Parthenon addresses not only the buildings architecture,
but also its sculptural decoration for which a decision was taken to replace the
monuments original sculptures with copies (Figure 12). This policy of removal was
based on the idea that the artistic value of the sculptural parts was more important
than the integrity of the monument. Despite strong, understandable disagreements
gure 12 The replacement of the west part of the frieze of the Parthenon with copies (2004)
the original is now exhibited in the New Acropolis Museum.
Photograph: L. Lambrinou, 2009
72 LENA LAMBRINOU
from the beginning of this policy, the measure was considered an important, tempo-
rary means of rescuing the monuments most affected sculptural elements from severe
atmospheric pollution (Bouras, 1983: 700), in accordance with the Venice Charter
(1964: art. 8). The disagreements concerning the dismantling were related to the
reduction of the buildings artistic and cultural value (Dontas, 1996: 18), and to dis-
turbance of in situ areas that had previously been left intact. This policy has recently
undergone renewed consideration, however, based on the argument that most of the
sculptural parts that still remain in undisturbed areas of the monument have suffered
irreparable damage and have lost nearly all their artistic value. For example, most of
the metopes of the west side, due either to ancient events or modern atmospheric
pollution, no longer exhibit any recognizable decoration. Their retention on the mon-
ument is therefore considered a preferable solution so as to avoid further disturbance
through their dismantling and removal (YSMA, 2008).
Conclusion
Much has been learned at the Parthenon since the present intervention began in the
1980s. However, by employing new methods to monitor the interventions structural
results through experimental testing and mathematical, computer-based simulations,
we strive today to formulate approaches that are even more compatible with the
ancient structure. Policies concerning interventions on ancient monuments like the
Parthenon clearly should be adjusted according to particular circumstances, even
within the same monument. Debates concerning the best form of intervention, which
arise from a sincere desire to preserve the ancient monument, reect the diverse
approaches of the different specialists involved, including architects, engineers, histo-
rians, and archaeologists. In Athens and elsewhere these debates produce a healthy
exchange of ideas that insures ancient ruins will continue to be both important
historical documents and cherished relics of the past.
iron bars, Balanos managed to solve the static prob-
lems of the re-erection of the buildings heavy, frag-
mentary marble members. The materials Balanos
chose betrayed him, however, since the industrial
iron reinforcements he used were easily corroded
and provoked serious cracking in the ancient mate-
rials and general decay of the buildings restored
areas.
Bibliography
Athens Charter. 1931. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome: ICOMOS, pp. 3132.
Balanos, N. 1940. vo:poi :v Mvpuciv :p koac [The Anastylosis of the Acropolis Monuments].
Athens: koooci L. Tpouooaouo.
Bouras, Ch. 1983. The Aims and Principles of the Proposed Operation on the Parthenon. Mc/:p aok:o:ooc
:oo H0cvvo [Study for the restoration of the Parthenon]. Athens: aitpoaq Luvtqpqoq Mvqciev kpoaoce,
pp. 690707.
Note
1
Balanos, a civil engineer who undertook the restora-
tion of the Parthenon between 1898 and 1933, trans-
formed the ruins appearance by placing on the
monument much of its scattered material identied
on the ground. Using innovative materials, such as
reinforced concrete, and extensive excision of origi-
nal material for the insertion of internal, connective
73 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON
Bouras, Ch. 1985a. The Problems of Conserving the Parthenon and the Possibilities of Improving the Value of the
Monument. The Principles Which Will Guide the Operation. Proceedings of the Second International Meeting
for the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments, Parthenon, Athens 1214 September 1983. Athens: CCAM,
Ministry of Culture and Sciences, pp. 8695.
Bouras, Ch. 1985b. Discussion. Proceedings of the Second International Meeting for the Restoration of the
Acropolis Monuments, Parthenon, Athens 1214 September 1983. Athens: CCAM, Ministry of Culture and
Sciences, pp. 19597.
Bouras, Ch. 1996. Mvqci tq piotqto. T opi tev aoktotocev [The Monuments of the Antiquity. The
Limits of the Interventions]. M/v: 37, 1996, Oi pvik/ vo:poci [The Greek Restorations]. Athens:
cv 0qvi piooikq tipci, pp. 2430.
Burra Charter. 19791999. Denitions. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome:
ICOMOS, pp. 6369.
Dimakopoulos, J. 1994. CCAM Questionnaire. Acropolis Restoration; The CCAM Interventions. London:
Academy Editions, pp. 19798.
Dontas, G. S. 1996. iic cutcpq Luvcopi tev tipev. M/v: 37, 1996, Oi pvik/ vo:poci [The Greek
Restorations]. Athens: cv 0qvi piooikq tipci, pp. 519.
ICOMOS. 2003. Victoria Falls Charter. Principles for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of
architectural heritage. Rome: ICOMOS. [accessed 20 June 2010] Available at: <http://www.international.
icomos.org/charters/structures_e.htm>
ICOMOS. 2004. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome: Icomos.
Lowenthal, D. 1995. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. Proceedings of Nara Conference on Authenticity. Japan:
UNESCO-Agency for cultural Affairs Japan-ICCROM-ICOMOS, pp. 12135.
Mallouchou, F. T. 1994. The International Debate; The Current Interventions; Viewpoints and Opinions.
Acropolis Restoration; The CCAM Interventions. London: Academy Editions, p. 191.
Mallouchou, F. T. 1998. vo:pop :v ,iv Mvpuciv o:p Nc:cp oo, [The Restoration of the Ancient
Monuments in Modern Greece]. Athens: cv 0qvi piooikq tipci.
Nara Document on Authenticity. 1994. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome:
ICOMOS, pp. 118119.
Orlandos, A. 1922. Pro Parthenone. M/v: 37, 1996, Oi pvik/ vo:poci [The Greek Restorations]. Athens:
cv 0qvi piooikq tipci, pp. 97102.
Petzet, M. 2004. Principles of Preservation International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Paris:
Icomos, pp. 729.
Rangavis, A. R. 1837. Luvoi apktikev tq cv 0qvi piooikq tipci [Synopsis of the Proceedings of
the Archaeological Society of Athens]. M/v: 37, 1996, Oi pvik/ vo:poci [The Greek Restorations].
Athens: cv 0qvi piooikq tipci, pp. 9193.
Tomaszewski, A. 2002. Towards a Pluralistic Philosophy of Conservation. 13th Icomos General Assembly.
Madrid: Icomos, pp. 21215.
UNESCO. 1977. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris:
UNESCO.
Venice Charter. 1964. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome: ICOMOS, pp. 3738.
YSM. 2008. Hk:iko oovcoiooc ai:oap ov:ppop Mvpuciv koac [Proceedings of the Committee for
the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments]. Athens: pcio YLM 2008.
Walter, O. 19221923. Zur Frage des teiweisen Wiederaufbaues des Parthenon H Hk:iko ,iooyikp
pucio [Proceedings of the Archaeological Review]. Athens: cv 0qvi piooikq tipci,
pp. 5055.
Notes on contributor
Lena Lambrinou gained a BS in Architecture at the National Technical University of
Athens in 1989, followed by a BA in Archaeology and Art History at the National
Cappodistrian University of Athens in 1994. She was awarded an MA in Building
74 LENA LAMBRINOU
Conservation by the University of York, Department of Archaeology, in 1998. She
has served as Team Architect on numerous excavations in Greece, and between 1995
and 1997 she also worked for the Athens Metro, for whom she supervised the
archaeological documentation of excavations in Central Athens. Presently she is
researching the future restoration of the West Wall of the Cella of the Parthenon and
overseeing the North Colonnade intervention on the Parthenon. She is writing her
doctoral dissertation on repairs made to the building during the third century bc.
Correspondence to: Lena Lambrinou, The Acropolis Restoration Service,
Polygnotou 10, 10555, Athens, Greece. Email: lenalambr@hotmail.com