Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:21:21.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Architectural Sculpture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The erection of a building - be it temple, treasury, colonnade, or theatre - argues commitment, means, and purpose, and the architectural sculpture that adorned the religious buildings is likely to have had programmatic intent, whether religious or political. The very complexity of the undertaking, and the limitation of the shapes decorated, have been seen as generating forces behind the development of advances in archaic sculpture. This is Anthony Snodgrass’s antithesis to the position he maintains about the production of kouroi and korai (see p. 10 above): ‘It is the pedimental figures which should be held up as examples of the attainment of Archaic sculptors . . . their adventurousness in pose and subject was the biggest contribution of the age to later sculpture.’

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 22: Greek Art , 1991 , pp. 26 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

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

Notes

1. See II, n. 5, p. 183.

2. Benson, J. L., ‘The central group of the Corfu pediment’, Gestalt und Geschichte. Festschrift Karl Schef old zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag am 26 Januar 1965, ed. Rohde-Liegle, M., Cahn, H. A. and Ackermann, H. Chr. (AK Beiheft 4, 1967), pp. 48–60 Google Scholar, pl. 15 (quotation from 60); Hemelrijk, J. M., Gnomon 42 (1970), 169-70Google Scholar; Robertson HGA, pp. 63-7 and SHGA, pp. 16-17.

3. J. Boardman GSAP, pp. 153-4. For Herakles and Peisistratos, see pp. 70-1.

4. J. Boardman, ‘Herakles, Theseus and Amazons’, Eye of Greece, pp. 1-16, pls. 1-6. For a new reconstruction of the metopes, see Hoffeiner, K., ‘Die Metopen des Athena-Schatzhauses: ein neuer Rekonstruktionsversuch’, AM 103 (1988), 77–117 Google Scholar, Beil. 5. The evidence of Pausanias: 10.11.4. For the Siphnian Treasure, see pp. 3-6.

5. Full publication: Touloupa, E., (Ioannina, 1983)Google Scholar. See also Touloupa, E., ‘Die Giebelskulpturen des Apollon Daphne-phorostempels in Eretria’, AKGP I, pp. 143-51Google Scholar, pls. 59-65, Beil. 2; and Boardman, Eye of Greece, pp. 8-9. Frel, J., ‘Notes on some archaic Attic sculpture’, GettyMJ 10 (1982), 95–104 Google Scholar, esp. 98 connects other work with the ‘master’ of the pediment. For the Apollo Sosianus temple, see pp. 33-4.

6. Ohly, D., Die Aegineten I, Die Ostgiebelgruppe (Munich, 1976)Google Scholar; D. Williams, ‘Aigina, Aphaia-Tempel XI: the pottery from the second limestone temple and the later history of the sanctuary’, AA 1987, 629-680 and Gill, D. W. J., ‘The temple of Aphaia on Aegina: the date of the reconstruction’, BSA 83 (1988), 169-77Google Scholar (bringing the date down below 480 B.c.).

7. Ashmole, B., Yalouris, N. and Frantz, A., Olympia, the Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus (London, 1967)Google Scholar.

8. Barron, J., ‘Bakchylides, Theseus and a woolly cloak’, BICS 27 (1980), 1–8 Google Scholar and ‘Alkamenes at Olympia’, BICS 31 (1984), 199–211 Google Scholar, pls. 10-12.

9. For a recent history of the Akropolis, see Muss, U. and Schubert, Ch., Die Akropolis von Athen (Graz, 1988)Google Scholar.

10. On preserving the monuments, see 2nd International Meeting for the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments, Parthenon, Athens 12-14 September 1983, Proceedings (Athens, 1985); The Acropolis at Athens, Conservation, Restoration and Research 1975-1983, Ministry of Culture, Committee for the Preservation of the Acropolis Monuments (1986); Touloupa, E., ‘On preserving the monuments of the Athenian Acropolis’, AJA 91 (1987), 306-7Google Scholar.

11. Cook, B. F., The Elgin Marbles (London, 1984)Google Scholar; Hitchins, C., The Elgin Marbles: should they be returned to Greece? (London, 1987)Google Scholar. A useful introduction to the Parthenon: Woodford, S., The Parthenon (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar.

12. Mantis, A., ‘Akropolis 2381’, BCH 110 (1986), 231-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Un nouveau fragment de la 10e métope sud du Parthenon’, 619-24; ‘Neue Fragmente von Parthenonskulpturen’, AKGP II, pp. 71-6Google Scholar, pls. 102-6; ‘Contribution à la reconstruction de la 11e métope sud du Parthenon’, BCH 111 (1987), 137-46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Neue Fragmente von Parthenon-Metopen’, JDAI 102 (1987), 163-84Google Scholar; ‘Beiträge zur Wiederherstellung der mittleren Südmetopen des Parthenon’, Himmelmann Festschrift, pp. 109-14, pls. 18-19. See also Despinis, G., Parthenoneia (Athens, 1982)Google Scholar and ‘Neue Fragmente von Parthenonskulpturen und Bemerkungen zur Rekonstruktion des Parthenon-Ostgiebels’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 293-302, pls. 36-46.

13. For the work in the Antikenmuseum, Basel, see Berger’s, E. articles in AK 19 (1976), 1222 Google Scholar; 20 (1977), 124-41; 23 (1980), 56-100; 24 (1981), 98-102; 25 (1982), 162-8; 26 (1983), 110-3; Die Geburt der Athena im Ostgiebel des Parthenon (Basel, 1974); and a most important volume, Parthenon, Der in Basel, Dokumentation zu den Metopen (Mainz, 1986)Google Scholar, based on the study of casts in Basel (other volumes will follow).

14. Parthenon-Kongress - an important work of reference.

15. Brommer, F., Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel (Mainz, 1963)Google Scholar, Die Metopen der Parthenon (Mainz, 1967) and Der Parthenonfries (Mainz, 1977). These are being updated by Berger’s documentation, see n. 13 above. See also Brommer’s general survey, The Sculptures of the Parthenon: metopes, frieze, pediments, cult-statue, trans. Whittall, M. (London, 1979)Google Scholar and compare Boardman, J. and Finn, D., The Parthenon and its Sculptures (London, 1985)Google Scholar.

16. Carpenter, R., The Architects of the Parthenon (Harmondsworth, 1970)Google Scholar; Drerup, H., ‘Parthenon und Vorparthenon - zum Stand der Kontroverse’, AK 24 (1981), 21–38 Google Scholar, pls. 4-5; and see Berger’s book on the metopes (n. 13 above).

17. West: B. Wesenberg, ‘Perser oder Amazonen’, AA 1983, 203-8. East: Tiverios, M. A., Observations on the East metopes of the Parthenon’, AJA 86 (1982), 227-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 29.

18. North: J. Dörig, ‘Les Métopes nord du Parthenon’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 202-5, pl. 15, 1. South: Simon, E., ‘Versuch einer Deutung der Südmetopen des Parthenon’, JDAI 90 (1975), 100-20Google Scholar; M. Robertson, ‘Two question marks on the Parthenon’, Blanckenhagen Festschrift, pp. 75-87, esp. 78-87 (quotation from 78) and ‘The south metopes: Theseus and Daidalos’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 206-9, pls. 15.2-16. See also Wesenberg, B., ‘Parthenongebälk und Südmetopenproblem’, JDAI 98 (1983), 57–86 Google Scholar. For examples of the influence of the metopes on vase-paintings, see recently Schwab, K.A., ‘A Parthenonian centaur’, Greek Vases II (1985), pp. 89-94Google Scholar and ‘The gods of the Parthenon north metopes N31 and N32’, AJA 90 (1986), 207 Google Scholar. See alson. 12 above.

19. Simon, E., ‘Die Mittelgruppe im Westgiebel des Parthenon’, Tainia, pp. 239-55Google Scholar, pls. 51-4. A reclaimed head: Bruskari, M., ‘Die Wiedergewinnung eines Kopfes aus dem Westgiebel des Parthenons’, AK 30 (1987), 119-22Google Scholar, pl. 17. See also Arafat, K., Classical Zeus, (Oxford, 1990), pp. 156-9Google Scholar.

20. See nn. 13 and 14.

21. B. B. Shefton, ‘The krater from Baksy’, Eye of Greece, pp. 149-81, pls. 41-8. See also p. 17.

22. Robertson, M. and Frantz, A., The Parthenon Frieze (London,1975)Google Scholar.

23. J. Boardman, ‘The Parthenon frieze - another view’, Brommer Festschrift, pp. 39-49, pl. 16; and ‘The Parthenon frieze’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 210-15.

24. E.g. Linfert, A., ‘Die Götterversammlung im Parthenon-Ostfries und das attische Kultsystem unter Perikles’, AM 94 (1979), 41-7Google Scholar; Simon, E., ‘Die Mittelszene im Ostfries des Parthenon’, AM 97 (1982), 127-44Google Scholar, pls. 23-8; Mark, I. S., ‘The Gods on the East frieze of the Parthenon’, Hesperia 53 (1984), 289–342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 61-6; Jenkins, I. D., ‘The composition of the so-called Eponymous Heroes on the East frieze of the Parthenon’, AJA 89 (1985), 121-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; L. Beschi, ‘H , AKGP II, pp. 199—224; Schäfer, T., ‘Diphroi und Peplos auf dem Ostfries des Parthenon: zur Kultpraxis bei den Panathenäen in klassischer Zeit’, AM 102 (1987), 185–212 Google Scholar, pl. 14; J. Boardman, ‘Notes on the Parthenon East frieze’, Kanon, pp. 9-14, pls. 4-6; C. Clairmont, ‘Girl or boy? Parthenon East frieze 35’, AA 1989, 495-6. See also articles in the Parthenon-Kongress volume.

25. Brommer, F., Die Parthenonfries (Mainz, 1977), pp. 168-70Google Scholar.

26. ‘The viewing and the obscuring of the Parthenon frieze’, JHS 107 (1987), 98–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. l-2a (quotation from 104). Cf.Stillwell, R., ‘The Panathenaic frieze’, Hesperia 38 (1969), 231-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 61-3. Osborne (105) doubts the identity of Parthenon frieze workmen and carvers of late fifth-century grave stelai, pointing out that style is not the only criterion, ‘shared visual ideology’ must also be taken into account. For a recent history of grave reliefs, see Schmaltz, B., Griechische Grabreliefs (Darmstadt, 1983)Google Scholar.

27. Leipen, N., Athena Parthenos, a Reconstruction (Toronto, 1971)Google Scholar and ‘Athena Parthenos: problems of reconstruction’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 177-81, pls. 6-9; Prag, A. J. N. W., ‘Athena Mancuniensis: another copy of the Athena Parthenos’, JHS 92 (1972), 96–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 19-23 and ‘New copies of the Athena Parthenos from the East’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 182-7, pls. 10-12; P. Karanastassis, ‘Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Plastik in Griechenland II: Kopien, Varianten und Umbildungen nach Athena-Typen des 5. Jhs v. Chr. A. Athena-Parthenos, ’, AM 102 (1987), 323–428 Google Scholar, pls. 35-57.

28. Shield: Harrison, E. B., ‘Motifs of the City-siege on the shield of Athena Parthenos’, AJA 85 (1981), 281–317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 46-54; V. M. Strocka, ‘Das Schildrelief - Zum Stand der Forschung’, Parthenon-Kongress, pp. 188-96, pl. 13; Arafat, K. W., ‘A note on the Athena Parthenos’, BSA 81 (1986), 1–6 Google Scholar; Mauruschat, D., ‘Ein neuer Vorschlag zur Rekonstruktion der Schildamazonomachie der Athena Parthenos’, Boreas 10 (1987), 32–58 Google Scholar; Meyer, H., ‘Ein neues Piräusreliefs. Zur Überlieferung der Amazonomachie am Schild der Athena-Parthenos’, AM 102 (1987), 295–321 Google Scholar, pls. 29-34; W. Gauer, ‘Parthenonische Amazonomachie und Perserkrieg’, Kanon, pp. 28-41. For the mistaken Pheidias-Daidalos connection with the shield, see Preisshofen, F., ‘Phidias-Daedalus auf dem Schild der Athena-Parthenos? Ampelius 8,10’, JDAI 89 (1974), 50–69 Google Scholar.

29. Lawrence, A. W., ‘The Acropolis and Persepolis’, JHS 71 (1951), 111-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Root, M. C., ‘The Parthenon frieze and the Apadana reliefs at Persepolis: reassessing a programmatic relationship’, AJA 89 (1985), 103-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. A, 22-25 (quotation from 120). See also her The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: essays on the creation of an iconography of empire (Leiden, 1979).

31. Ares temple: Harrison, E. B. ‘The classical high-relief frieze from the Athenian Agora’, AKGP II, pp. 109-17Google Scholar, pls. 117-22 (doesn’t belong to the temple); Poseidon temple, Sounion: Felten, F. and Hoffeiner, K., ‘Die Relieffriese des Poseidontempels in Sunion’, AM 102 (1987), 169-84Google Scholar, Beil. 1-2; Nemesis temple, Rhamnous: Miles, M. M., ‘A reconstruction of the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous’, Hesperia 58 (1989), 131–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 29-48, and see p. 18 above for the cult statue and base.

32. Hephaisteion: Bockelberg, S. von, AntPl 18 (Berlin, 1979), 23–50 Google Scholar, pls. 10-48 (430-425 B.c.). Harrison, E. B. denies that the temple is the Hephaisteion and names it the temple of Artemis Eukleia, AJA 81 (1977), 139, n. 14 Google Scholar.

33. Dörig, J., La frise est de l’Hephaisteion (Mainz, 1985)Google Scholar.

34. Erekhtheion: Boulter, P. N., AntPl 10 (Berlin, 1970)Google Scholar (frieze); Schmidt, E. E., AntPl 13 (Berlin, 1973)Google Scholar (copies of the Caryatids); Lauter, H., AntPl 16 (Berlin, 1976)Google Scholar (the Caryatids); M. Brouskari, ‘ ΖΩΙΔΙΑ ΛΑΙΝΕΑ. Nouvelles figures de la frise de l’Erechtheion’, Kanon, pp. 60-8, pls. 15-16.

35. Jeppesen, K., The Theory of the Alternative Erechtheion (Aarhus, 1987)Google Scholar.

36. Nike temple: Mattingly, H. B., ‘The Athena Nike temple reconsidered’, AJA 86 (1982), 381-5Google Scholar (late 420s B.C.). See also E. Simon, ‘Zur Sandalenlöserin der Nikebalustrade’, Kanon, pp. 69-73, pls. 20-21 on the balustrade. Ilissos temple: Picon, C. A., ‘The Ilissos temple reconsidered’, AJA 82 (1978), 47–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (425-420 B.c.); Krug, A., AntPl 18 (Berlin, 1979), 7–21 Google Scholar, pls. 1-9; Miles, M. M., ‘The date of the temple on the Ilissus River’, Hesperia 49 (1980), 309-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 91-6 (435-430 B.c.); Childs, W. A. P., ‘In defense of an early date for the frieze of the temple on the Ilissus’, AM 100 (1985), 207-51Google Scholar, pls. 43-5 (440s).

37. Harrison, E. B., AJA 85 (1981), 233 Google Scholar.

38. Platner, S. B. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929), pp. 15–16 Google Scholar; Nash, E., A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome I (London, 1961), pp. 28-9Google Scholar.

39. Rocca, E. La, Amazzonomachia, Le sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sostano (Rome, 1985)Google Scholar; ‘Le sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sosiano a Roma’, AKGP II, pp. 51–58 Google Scholar, pls. 95-9, Beil. 3. See now R. M. Cook, ‘The Pediment of Apollo Sosianus’, AA 1989, 525-8, for a different arrangement of the fifth-century compositon.

40. For Theseus, see Boardman GSCP fig. 134; for the kneeling Amazon from the earlier pediment, see Boardman GSAP fig. 205.1.

41. See p. 7.

42. For the Niobid figures, see Boardman GSCP fig. 133.1-3. For the Niobids in art, see Cook, R. M., Niobe and her children (Cambridge, 1964)Google Scholar. For Greek art in Rome, see Pollitt, J. J., ‘The impact of Greek art on Rome’, TAPA 108 (1978), 155-74Google Scholar.

43. For the latest statement, see Yalouris, N., ‘Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempels von Epidauros’, AKGP II, pp. 175-84Google Scholar, pls. 148-53, Beil. 4. This volume has much more on other fourth-century architectural sculpture. See also Brown, B. R., Anticlassicism in Greek sculpture of the fourth century B.C. (New York, 1973)Google Scholar for new trends. For Skopas and Tegea, see p. 20.

44. Bassai: Cooper, F. R., The temple of Apollo at Bassai (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1971)Google Scholar; Hofkes-Brukker, C., Der Bassai-Fries (Munich, 1975)Google Scholar; Yalouris, N., ‘Problems relating to the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai’, Acta of the XI International Congress of Classical Archaeology (London, 1979), pp. 89–104 Google Scholar, pls. 37-46; Picon, C. A., ‘The Orpheus metope from Bassai’, BSA 76 (1981), 323-8Google Scholar, pl. 56.

45. Carter, J. C., The Sculpture of the temple of Athena Polias at Priene (London, 1983)Google Scholar.

46. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum are beginning to appear, published by Aarhus University Press: 1. The Sacrificial Deposit (1981); 2. The Written Sources and the Archaeological Background (1986). To come are; 3. The Maussolleion Terrace and Accessory Structures and 4. The Sepulchral Monument: Site, Foundation, Tomb Chamber and Superstructure. See also Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford, 1982), ch. IX Google Scholar.

47. Waywell, G. B., The Freestanding Sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the British Museum: a Catalogue(London, 1978)Google Scholar. For sorting out some of the frieze blocks and fragments, see Ashmole, B., ‘A new join in the Amazon frieze of the Mausoleum’, JHS 89 (1969), 22-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 1, and Cook, B. F., ‘The Mausoleum frieze: membra disjectanda’, BSA 71 (1976), 49–54 Google Scholar, pls. 6-7.

48. Robertson HGA, pp. 457-8; SHGA, pp. 184-5.

49. Andronikos, M., ‘The tombs at the Great Tumulus of Vergina’, Acta of the XI International Congress of Classical Archaeology (London, 1979), pp. 39–56 Google Scholar, pls. 1-30; Vergina(Athens, 1984), pp. 123-6, and many other publications. For the relation of the miniature ivory head to the skull, see Prag, A. J. N. W., Musgrave, J. H. and Neave, R. A. H., ‘The skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Macedon’, JHS 104 (1984), 60–78 Google Scholar, pls. 2-7, and Prag, A. J. N.. W., ‘Reconstructing King Philip II: the “nice” version’, AJA 94 (1990), 237-47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. Pollitt, J. J., Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge, 1986), chs. 1 Google Scholar and 3, and Smith, R. R. R., Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar.

51. Säflund, G., The Polyphemos and Scylla Groups at Sperlonga (Stockholm, 1972)Google Scholar; Conticello, B. and Andreae, B., AntPl 14 (Berlin, 1974)Google Scholar; Stewart, A. F., ‘To entertain an emperor: Sperlonga. Laokoon and Tiberius at the dinner-table’, JRS 67 (1977), 76–90 Google Scholar, pls. 9-12; Andreae, B. and Conticello, B., Skylla und Charybdis. Zur Skylla-Gruppe von Sperlonga (Stuttgart, 1987)Google Scholar; Neudecker, R., Die Skulpturen-Ausstattung römischer Villen in Italien (Mainz, 1988), no.62 Google Scholar, Beil. 3. For the Laocoon and Sperlonga sculptures, see Daltrop, G., Die Laokoongruppe im Vatikan (Constanz, 1982)Google Scholar; Andreae, B., Laokoon und die Gründung Roms (Mainz, 1988)Google Scholar and Howard, S., ‘Laokoón rerestored’, AJA 93 (1989), 417–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.