Neues zu den Giebeln des frühklassischen Tempels der Aphaia auf Aegina und zu anderen Werken des ›Aphaia-Architekten‹

Bankel, Hansgeorg

doi:10.1515/atc-2019-2002

Architectura

2019

DOI: 10.1515/atc-2019-2002

|View full text |Cite

Neues zu den Giebeln des frühklassischen Tempels der Aphaia auf Aegina und zu anderen Werken des ›Aphaia-Architekten‹

Hansgeorg Bankel¹

Abstract: Since the publication of Volume I of Dieter Ohly’s Die Aegineten in 1976 and the present author’s monograph on the Aphaia temple’s architecture in 1993, further ceramic, sculptural, and archaeological research has problematized Ohly’s late 6th century BC date for the burning of the archaic temple, the construction of its successor from around 505 BC, and the replacement of its east pediment (›East I‹) with another (›East II‹) around 485 BC. An alternative thesis (Stewart 2008; et al.) points to the discovery o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2021

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

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

Stewart¹

2021

JGA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

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

Stewart¹

2021

JGA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

New observations on the pediments of the early Classical temple of Aphaia on Aegina and on other works by the ‘Aphaia architect’

Bankel

Stewart

2022

JGA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over a decade ago, Andrew Stewart revived the question of whether the Persians destroyed the Archaic (or ‘older’) temple of Aphaia on Aegina, the scorched remains of which littered the terrace fills of its successor. Copious very late Attic black figure pottery accompanied them, roughly contemporary with the Athenian Agora’s ‘Perserschutt’ deposits. Stewart’s work supported that of Vinzenz Brinkmann and others who had re-dated this successor to the early Classical period, arguing that its pedimental sculptures, honoring Aeginetan prowess in the Trojan War (Figure 1), celebrated Aegina’s successful participation in the Battle of Salamis (480 BC). Heated controversy ensued, especially among German proponents of ‘style archaeology’ (Brinkmann 2006: 414), but also among ceramicists. Were our temple’s sculptures (henceforth termed ‘the Aeginetans’) late Archaic or early Classical; created simultaneously or successively; and before or after the Battle of Salamis, in which Aeginetan warships played a decisive role? Architecture played a negligible part in these debates, perhaps because the present author’s monograph of 1993 put our temple in a relative sequence with its closest kin on Paros and at Delphi, but – as sculptured buildings require – dated it according to Dieter Ohly’s chronology for its sculpture. Ohly dated our temple’s west pediment to c.500 BC. If one assumes that the whole project took just over five years (like the somewhat smaller Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, built a century later but quite comparable sculpturally), planning and construction would have started c.505. For its completion, after the sculptures of the more progressive east pediment, a date c.485 was agreed. Just fifteen years later, however, Ohly’s dates would be challenged, sparking the present debate. Hence this new attempt to date our temple and explain its apparently multiple pediments by analyzing its architecture, independently from all stylistic controversies about its sculptures. First, however, one must understand why the extraneous ‘non-pedimental warriors’ (found on the temple’s east terrace but carved in the style of its earlier west pediment) could not have belonged to the latter, but instead apparently stood in niches in the altar court (Figure 2). This task, in turn, immediately takes us to the horizontal cornice fragments with the shallow plinth sockets typical of the west pediment, found in Ohly’s excavations since 1971 and for good reason sidelined as ‘surplus.’

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Neues zu den Giebeln des frühklassischen Tempels der Aphaia auf Aegina und zu anderen Werken des ›Aphaia-Architekten‹

Cited by 2 publications

References 12 publications

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

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

New observations on the pediments of the early Classical temple of Aphaia on Aegina and on other works by the ‘Aphaia architect’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About