Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T15:22:37.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Temple of Aphaia on Aegina: The Date of the Reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

David W. J. Gill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent publication of the Attic black-figured pottery from the sanctuary of Aphaia on Aegina has brought into question the widely accepted date for the construction of the late archaic temple and its sculpture. Much of the pottery comes from the terrace system around the temple which preceded the building's construction. 47.7% of the black-figured pottery is later than the commonly assumed date of c. 510 for the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. Using the latest pottery and the widely accepted Studniczka-Langlotz chronology a terminus post quem is provided during the time of the Persian Wars. The range of pottery also shows that the terrace fills around the temple fall into the same chronological horizon as deposits at Athens which have been linked to the Persian destruction and may, in fact, be even later. The historical context for the rebuilding seems to be in the affluent years after the Persian Wars when the cities of Greece were able to benefit from booty won on the field of battle.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 83 , November 1988 , pp. 169 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Hugh Bowden, Judith Duffy, Mary B. Moore, Martin Robertson, A.J. Spawforth, Richard Tomlinson, Michael Vickers, Dyfri Williams and the Craven Committee, Oxford for advice, comments and assistance during the writing of this paper. Part of this work was conducted during the tenure of a Sir James Knott Fellowship in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Chart 1 was prepared using the GIMMS package (GIMMS Ltd., 30 Keir Street, Edinburgh EH3 9EU) at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (NUMAC).

Abbreviations: NT: North Terrace; WT: West Terrace; ST: South Terrace; ET: East Terrace; RRCS: Rectangular Rock-cut Shaft.

1 E.g. Williams, D., ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Temple iv. the inscription commemorating the construction of the first limestone temple and other features of the sixth century temenos’, AA 1982, 65Google Scholar: ‘the fire that destroyed the sixth century temple in c. 510 B.C.’ For the most recent work on the temple: Ohly, D., Ägina. Tempel und Heiligtum der Aphaia auf Ägina (Munich 1978)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Temple ii. Untersuchungen in der spätarchaisches Temenosterrasse’, AA 1971, 505–26. For the date of the temple and its sculpture: e.g. Robertson, D.S., A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture (Cambridge 1943) 327 (c. 490)Google Scholar; Richter, G.M.A., The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (New Haven 1950) 39 (c. 500–480)Google Scholar; Lullies, R. & Hirmer, M., Greek Sculpture (London 1960) 67 (c. 510)Google Scholar; Berve, H. & Gruben, G., Greek Temples, Theatres and Shrines (London 1965) 348 (c. 510)Google Scholar; Invernizzi, A., I Frontini del Tempio di Aphaia ad Egina (Turin 1965) 258 (c. 510)Google Scholar; Fraser, P.M., ‘Archaeology in Greece, 1969–1970’, AR 1969–1970, 7 (c. 520–510)Google Scholar; Ridgway, B.S., The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1970) 15Google Scholar (‘since no external evidence is available a stylistic analysis is bound to be somewhat subjective, the chronology here accepted will be ca.490 for the West pediment, and 480–470 for East II’); Cook, R.M., ‘The dating of the Aegina pediments’, JHS 94 (1974) 171 (not later than 500)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Podlecki, A.J., ‘Athens and Aegina’, Historia 25 (1976) 405 (pre 506)Google Scholar; Tomlinson, R.A., Greek Sanctuaries (London 1976) 106 (c. 500)Google Scholar; Coulton, J.J., Greek Architects at Work: problems of structure and design (London 1977) 106 (c. 510–490)Google Scholar; Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture, the Archaic Period. A Handbook (London 1978) 156 (end of 6th century)Google Scholar; Gruben, G., Die Tempel der Griechen (Munich 1980) 115–21 (c. 500)Google Scholar; Fuchs, W., Die Skulptur der Griechen (Munich 1983) 388 figs. 429–430 (c. 510–500).Google Scholar

2 Moore, M.B., ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Temple viii. The Attic black-figured pottery’, AA 1986, 51–93.Google Scholar

3 Ohly 1971 [n.1], 512 figs. 4 and 5; Moore (n.2] 51: ‘the fill of the North Terrace … was created when the early fifth century temple was built’. Ohly-Dumm's, M. claim (AA 1986, 50)Google Scholar that the sculpture from the north terrace fill may provide a terminus ante quem and by implication date the pottery is surely circular in its reasoning.

4 Studniczka, F., ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung der Vasenmalerei mit roten figuren’, JdI 2 (1887) 159–68Google Scholar; Langlotz, E., Zur Zeitbestimmung der strengrotfigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik (Leipzig 1920).Google Scholar This scheme is now receiving much attention and the chronology needs some revision: Francis, E.D. & Vickers, M., ‘Leagros kalos’, PCPS 207 (1981) 96–136Google Scholar; Tölle-Kastenbein, R., ‘Bemerkungen zur absoluten Chronologie spätarchaischer und frühklassischer Denkmaler Athens’, AA 1983, 573–84Google Scholar; cf. Seltman, C., ‘On the ‘style’ of early Athenian coins’, NC 6 (1946) 97Google Scholar: ‘Langlotzismus' must not be treated as an infallible yardstick by means of which comparative dating can be achieved’. Such revision may require some amendment to the framework being proposed here for the Temple of Aphaia.

5 Moore [n. 2] 53.

6 Vanderpool, E., ‘The Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft’, Hesperia 7 (1938) 363–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Rectangular Rock-cut Shaft’, Hesperia 15 (1946) 265–336. It should be noted that the terms ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ used to describe the fill are merely used for convenience. There is in fact ‘no sharp, well defined break distinguishable in the earth’ between the two (Vanderpool 1938, 366). For the setting of this deposit and its chronological implications: Francis, E.D. & Vickers, M., ‘Kaloi, ostraca and the wells of Athens’, AJA 86 (1982) 264Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Agora revisited: Athenian chronology c. 500–458 BC’, BSA 83 (1988), 143–67. I am extremely grateful to E.D. Francis and M. Vickers for sharing their findings with me.

7 Vanderpool 1946 [n. 6], 266. This context continues to be misinterpreted: e.g. Roberts, S.R., ‘The Stoa Gutter Well. A late Archaic deposit in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 55 (1986) 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a more rigorous approach to the stratigraphy: Francis & Vickers 1982 [n. 6]; 1988 [n. 6].

8 Moore, M.B. and Philippldes, M.Z.P., Attic Black-Figured Pottery (Athenian Agora xxiii, Princeton 1986).Google Scholar

9 NT: Moore [n. 2], 65 fig. 11, 66, no. 29. ET: Moore [n.2), 84, 85 fig. 20, nos. 80 and 81. RRCS: Agora P2711 (ABV 618, 31; Vanderpool 1946 [n. 6], pl. 43, no. 72; Agora xxiii, 289, pl. 105, no. 1580), P2712 (ABV 619, 69; Vanderpool 1946 [n. 6], pl. 43, no. 73; Agora xxiii, 290, no. 1584); cf. P1338 (ABV 623, 4; Vanderpool 1946 [n. 6], pl. 45, no. 78; Agora xxiii, 292, no. 1604) and P1394 (ABV 623, 5; Agora xxiii, 292, no. 1605).

10 I am grateful to the anonymous referee for making the important observation that these late black-figured skyphoi ‘lack any relative chronology of their own and no absolute chronology’.

11 NT: Moore [n.2], 67, 68 fig. 12, no. 36. WT: Moore [n.2], 82 fig. 19, 83–4, 85 fig. 20, nos. 75 and 76. RRCS: Agora P2742 (ABV 568, 651; Agora xxiii, 282, pl. 103, no. 1506), P1360 (ABV 568, 656; Agora xxiii, 282, no. 1507), P1364 (ABV 568, 657; Agora xxiii, 282, pl. 103, no. 1508), P1362 (ABV 568, 658; Agora xxiii, 282–3, pl. 103. no. 1509. P1361 (ABV 568, 659; Vanderpool 1946 [n.6], pl. 46, no. 84; Agora xxiii, 283, no. 1510) and P1363 (ABV 568, 660; Vanderpool 1946 [n.6], pl. 46, no. 85; Agora xxiii, 283, pl. 103, no. 1511 ). The ones from the terrace fills are dated to the ‘early 5th century’ and those from the RRCS ‘c. 490–480’. It is not without significance that sherds from two of the skyphoi from the RRCS were found in the lowest levels (i.e. between 10.1m and 12m). This alone should bring into question Vanderpool's interpretation.

12 NT: Moore [n.2], 76, 77 fig. 17, no. 50. RRCS: Agora P1383 (ABV 520, 31; Vanderpool 1946 [n.6], pl. 54, no. 184; Agora xxiii, 297, pl. 107, no. 1657). The black-glazed pottery from the terrace fill will be published in a forthcoming number of AA by Dyfri Williams.

13 Thompson, H.A., ‘Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1954’, Hesperia 24 (1955) 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Agora xii, 397; Roberts [n.6], 1–72.

14 Roberts [n.6], 4.

15 Agora P24577: Para 307,49 bis; Roberts [n.6], 29, pl. 8, no. 52; Agora xxiii, 289–90, no. 1582.

16 Athens NSlope AP949 (ABV 621, 108; Broneer, O., ‘Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis, 1937’, Hesperia 7 [1938] 177, fig. 4, no. 8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Y-Z: Broneer 1938 [n.16], 170–87. RRCS: Vanderpool 1938 [n.6], 364

18 Well A: Roebuck, C., ‘Pottery from the North Slope, 1937–1938’, Hesperia 9 (1940) 141–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘CHC Group’: Athens NSlope AP1992 (ABV 621, 97; Roebuck, 186 fig. 25, 188, no. 96), AP1755 (ABV 622, 121; Roebuck, 187 fig. 25, no. 97), AP1570 (ABV 622, 122; Roebuck, 187 fig. 25, no. 98) and AP2184 (ABV 622, 123; Roebuck, 187 fig. 25, no. 95).

19 A black-figured onos from the well joins fragments found on the Acropolis (Roebuck [n.18], 147 fig. 2, no. 2). Fragments of a small black-figured vase in Well A were found in Well D (Roebuck [n.18], 214 fig. 37, 215–6, no. 187), and pieces from a black-figured plate in Well E (Roebuck [n.18], 225–6, fig. 43, no. 217).

20 Roebuck [n.18], 142.

21 Podlecki [n.1], 405.

22 Hdt. v.81.

23 Hdt. iv.152. Tartessos was an important source of silver.

24 Anchor: Torelli, M., ‘Il santuario di Hera a Gravisca’, PdP 26 (1971) 55–60.Google Scholar For a distorted picture of Sostratos: Johnston, A.W., ‘The rehabilitation of Sostratos’, PdP 27 (1972) 416–23Google Scholar; idem, Trademarks on Greek Vases (Warminster 1979) 189, 240; Figueira, T.J., Aegina. Society and Politics (New York 1981) 241–7Google Scholar; Starr, C.G., ‘Economic and social conditions in the Greek world’, in Boardman, J. & Hammond, N.G.L. (eds.), CAH 2 III, 3 (Cambridge 1982) 428Google Scholar; Morris, S.P., The Black and White Style. Athens and Aegina in the Orientalizing Period (New Haven 1984) 191–2Google Scholar; M. Martelli, , ‘I luoghi e i prodotti dello scambio’, in Cristofani, M. (ed.), Civilta degli etruschi (Milan 1985) 176 and 185–6, no. 7.1.9.Google Scholar For a more realistic assessment: Harvey, F.D., ‘Sostratos of Aegina’, PdP 31 (1976) 206–14.Google Scholar

25 Hdt. vii. 147.

26 Sutherland, C.H.V., ‘Corn and coin: a note on Greek commercial monopolies’, AJP 64 (1943) 129–47Google Scholar; Milne, J.G., ‘Trade between Greece and Egypt before Alexander the Great’, JEA 25 (1939) 177–83Google Scholar; Roebuck, C., ‘The grain trade between Greece and Egypt’, CP 45 (1950) 236–47Google Scholar; Price, M.J. & Waggoner, N., Archaic Greek Silver Coinage: the ‘Asyut’ hoard (London 1975) 69 ffGoogle Scholar; Vickers, M., ‘Early Greek coinage, a reassessment’, NC 145 (1985) 35.Google Scholar Siphnian silver: Gale, N.H., Gentner, W. & Wagner, G.A., ‘Mineralogical and geographical silver sources of archaic Greek coinage’, Metallurgy in Numismatics, Royal Numismatic Soc. Special Publications 12 (1980) 36–43Google Scholar; Kraay, C.M. & Emeleus, V.M., The Composition of Greek Silver Coins: analysis by neutron activation (Oxford 1962) 8, 12 ff.Google Scholar

27 Williams [n.1], 64–5; Jeffery, L.H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961) 110Google Scholar n. 4. For ivory from Egypt: Vickers 1985 [n.29], 41; cf. idem, ‘The influence of exotic materials on Attic white-ground pottery’, in Brijder, H.A.G. (ed.), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery (Allard Pierson Series 5, Amsterdam 1984) 97.Google Scholar

28 Hdt. ii.178. The foundation poses a problem as Herodotus tells us that Naucratis was founded by Amasis (568–525): Vickers 1985 [n.27], 18–9; c.f. Snodgrass, A.M., ‘Greek archaeology and Greek history’, Classical Antiquity 4, 2 (Californian Studies in Classical Antiquity 16, 2, Oct. 1985) 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 For examples of the sort of wealth which could be won in these wars: e.g. Hdt. i.188; v.49; vii.41, 54, 83, 118–119, 190; ix.41, 80, 82, 83; ix.106; Plut. Cim. xiii.2. See also: Vickers, M., ‘Artful crafts: the influence of metalwork on Athenian painted pottery’, JHS 105 (1985) 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem 1985 [n.27], 24–5; idem, ‘Attic symposia after the Persian Wars’, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica (Oxford, forthcoming); idem, ‘Interactions between Greeks and Persians’, Proceedings of the Achaemenid Workshop, forthcoming.

30 Diod. xii. 3–4.

31 ap. Plut. Cim. ix.1.

32 Ar. Knights 814. The wealth was not confined to the Greek world and the distribution of Persian booty may have been the stimulus which hastened the formation of La Tène cultures in Central Europe: Vickers, M., ‘Hallstatt and Early La Tène chronology in Central, South and East Europe’, Antiquity 58 (1984) 208–11.Google Scholar For forces at play in Central Europe: Frankenstein, S. & Rowlands, M.J., ‘The internal structure and regional context of Early Iron Age society in south-western Germany’, BIA 15 (1978) 73–112Google Scholar; Wells, P.S., Culture Contact and Culture Change (Cambridge 1980).Google Scholar

33 Hdt. viii.93, 122.

34 Hdt. viii.28, ix.80; cf. Podlecki [n.1], 408.

35 Blakesley, J.W., Herodotus, with a Commentary (1854) ii, 383 n. 241Google Scholar; cf. Millar, W., ‘A history of the Akropolis at Athens’, AJA 8 (1893) 502.Google Scholar

36 For the problems involved in the interpretation of such scenes: Osborne, R., ‘The myth of propaganda and the propaganda of myth’, Hephaistos 5/6 (1983–1984) 61–70Google Scholar; cf. Ashmole, B., AJA 79 (1975) 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘much of the writing about Greek art verges on romantic fiction’.

37 E.g. Hdt. i.4–5, vii.20, 43. Nash, D.E.M. (‘Another view of the chronology of early Athenian coinage’, in Jenkins, G.K., Le Rider, G., Waggoner, N. & Westermark, U. (eds.), Memorial Volume for C.M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm [Paris, in press])Google Scholar has seen Heracles in the east pediment as a symbol of ‘the triumph of all the Greeks over the eastern enemy’.

38 Hdt. viii.64. cf. viii.83–84.

39 Hdt. viii. 121.

40 Cf. Polycritus' reproach of Themistocles during the battle of Salamis (Hdt. viii.92).

41 For the chronology of these odes: Bowra, C.M., Pindar (Oxford 1964) 407.Google Scholar

42 Cook [n.1].

43 Theseus group on the Acropolis: Payne, H. & Young, G.M., Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (London 1936) 43–4, pls. 105–6 & 107, 4Google Scholar; Boardman 1978 [n.1], fig. 168. Theseus myth: Francis, E.D. & Vickers, M., review of Brommer, F., Theseus, die Taten des griechischen Helden in der antiken Kunst und Literatur (Darmstadt 1982)Google Scholar, in JHS 104 (1984) 267–8; cf. idem, ‘Signa priscae artis: Eretria and Siphnos’, JHS 103 (1983) 53; idem, ‘The Oenoe painting in the Stoa Poikile, and Herodotus' account of Marathon’, BSA 80 (1985) 100; Vickers, M., ‘Persepolis, Vitruvius and the Erechtheum Caryatids: the iconography of medism and servitude’, RA 1985, 12–6.Google Scholar Theseus appears in the sculpture of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi said by Pausanias (x.11.4) to have been dedicated from the spoils of Marathon; some however could want to place to c 500 BC (e.g. Boardman, J., ‘Herakles, Theseus and Amazons’, in Kurtz, D.C. & Sparkes, B.A. (eds.), The Eye of Greece: studies in the art of Athens (Cambridge 1982) 4Google Scholar: ‘it is a measure of the confidence of scholars in their chronology for archaic Greek art that they are ready to set aside this testimony and prefer an earlier date’).

44 Wurster, W.W., Der Apollontempel (Alt-Ägina i, l, Mainz 1974) 115Google Scholar; Tomlinson, R.A., Greek Architecture (Harmondsworth 1983) 146, 178.Google Scholar

45 Wurster [n.44].

46 Wide, S. & Kjellberg, L., ‘Ausgrabungen auf Kalaureia’, AM 20 (1895) 267–326Google Scholar; McAllister, M.H. & Jameson, M.H., ‘A temple at Hermione’, Hesperia 38 (1969) 169–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boersma, J.S., Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 BC (Groningen 1970) 180–1 no. 48Google Scholar; Plommer, H., ‘The Archaic Acropolis: some problems’, JHS 80 (1960) 129–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New York 1980) 143–7.Google Scholar For problems with the dating of the Old Temple of Athena: Drerup, H., ‘Parthenon und Vorparthenon zum Stand der Kontroverse’, AK 24 (1981) 21–38.Google Scholar Cf. Vickers 1985 [n.26], 23.

47 Boersma [n.46], 62–3, 190 no. 57.

48 Plut. Them. 22; Travlos [n.46], 121–3.

49 Travlos [n.46], 198–203.

50 Daux, G., BCH 39 (1965) 858–862, figs. 1–7Google Scholar; Goldberg, M.Y., Archaic Greek acroteria', AJA 86 (1982) 213 no. N29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Two of the acroterial bases were inscribed Theseus and Ariadne. For the part of Ceos in the Persian Wars: Hdt. viii.1. & 46. A further building outside Athens belonging to this period was the Persian Stoa at Sparta, erected from the proceeds of the booty from Plataea: Vitr. i.1.6; Paus. iii. 11.3; cf. Coulton, J.J., The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (Oxford 1976) 39Google Scholar; Vickers 1985 [n.43], 16.

51 Francis & Vickers 1983 [n.43], 49–54; Vickers 1985 [n.26], 33–4; cf. Boardman, J., ‘Signa tabulae priscae artis’, JHS 104 (1984) 161–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It should be noted that this temple also had a marble Nike akroterion: Goldberg [n.50], 213 no. N19. The proposals of E.D. Francis and M. Vickers are by no means universally accepted, although responses have been weak and have done little to dispel doubts: Ridgway, B.S., ‘Late Archaic Sculpture’, in Boulter, C.G. (ed.), Greek Art. Archaic into Classical. A symposium held at the University of Cincinnati April 2–3, 1982 (Leiden 1985) 1–6Google Scholar; cf. J. Boardman, ‘Image and politics in sixth century Athens’, in Brijder [n.27], 239 and 241; Robertson, M., ‘Beazley and Attic vase painting’, in Kurtz, D.C. (ed.), Beazley and Oxford (Oxford 1986) 21.Google Scholar M. Robertson (in his lecture at the Centenary Celebration of the British School at Athens: ‘Attic vase-painting: Beazley's work and its effect on the subject’) now admits ‘the very shaky foundations on which our chronology rests and the schematic, unreal character of the dating by decades which we use so glibly’. He still rejects their case ‘though with gratitude for brilliant insights and for being made to think afresh and to recognise how wide open many questions remain’. I am grateful to M. Robertson for allowing me to read a draft of his paper. The most even-handed assessment of their chronological revision has been made by A.M. Snodgrass ([n.28]), 199): ‘the value of their work lies partly in showing that a different interpretation may be possible for each of the findings which make up the skeleton of the archaeological chronology of the period, and partly in exposing the very small number of such findings’.

52 Francis & Vickers 1983 [n.43], 52; Vickers 1985 [n.26], 34; Paus. v.27.9; Jeffery [n.27], 88 no. 19. Cf. the bronze ox looted from Aegina and placed in the Forum Boarium in Rome (Pliny, HN XXXIV.v 10Google Scholar).

53 For one of the most useful summaries of the debate: Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 504–7.Google Scholar Cf. Badian, E., ‘The Peace of Callais’, JHS 107 (1987) 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar