Continuity or Rupture? Further Thoughts on the ‘Classical Revolution’ (2500+ Years after Salamis)

Abstract

In the last half-dozen years, the early fifth-century BC ‘Classical Revolution’ in Greek sculpture and painting has become ‘hot’ again.1 Did it develop gradually, incrementally, and logically out of the Archaic, or emerge quite suddenly (if so, when?), or involve some combination of both? Since chronology drives the debate, as usual in the study of ancient material culture, to restate some basic principles seems appropriate. I. Absolute chronologies, independently derived, should always underpin and guide relative ones. II. In a relative/gradualist chronology, the ‘latest’ feature of an artifact determines its stylistic terminus post quem, and thus its place in the series.2 Nevertheless: III. Such relative dates cannot be turned simply or unproblematically into history.3 IV. Nothing new comes out of nothing (even Athena came from the head of Zeus). Yet: V. Supposed ‘predecessors’ to a revolution on a gradualist chronology often turn out to be hesitant reactions to it when more data emerge.4 In the present case, unfortunately, the Sicyonian, Argive, Aeginetan, and Athenian bronzes celebrated in the texts are all lost, together with all contemporary wall and panel painting; no absolute chronology exists for early fifth-century East Greek sculpture;5 and West Greek sculpture clearly trails that of the mainland. So by default, our spotlight must fall largely on the marble sculpture of Athens, Aegina, and the Cyclades, and on red-figure vase-painting.