Note (return) — FIGURES.

The history of the temple presents, however, several questions, some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built? Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first question has received one and the same answer from all. The material and the technical execution of the peripteros, entablature, etc., of the temple show conclusively that this part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos. 2 We may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the peripteros. These differences lead Dörpfeld to assume that the naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle) existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not deny the possibility that builders of one date may have employed different materials and methods, as convenience or economy dictated. 3 Positive proof is not to be hoped for in the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is in favor of Dörpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than the peristyle, etc. 4 It is further certain, that this temple was called in the sixth century Β.C. το 'Εκατόμπεδον (see below p. 9). So far, we have the most positive possible evidence--that of the remains of the temple itself and the inscription giving its name. The evidence regarding the subsequent history of the temple is not so simple.