ANAQHMATA. Studien zu den Weihgeschenken strengen Stils im Heiligtum von Olympia

Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Felix Eckstein
1971 American Journal of Archaeology  
Ridgway, Brunilde S. 1971. Review of ANATHEMATA: Studien zu den Weigeschenken strengen Styls im Heiligtum von Olympia, by Felix Eckstein. American Journal of Archaeology 75:342-343. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 75 (fig. I) shows the relationship of the cella east anta and two stones of the SE "peristasis": two of four stones roughly parallel to the front of the temple. A narrow row of small stones is identified as part of the peristyle foundation on the NE flank. These lines of stones
more » ... semble the "retaining wall" 2.00 m. NE Of and nearly parallel to the flank of the temple. This wall was built when the 8th century structures were leveled out to form a terrace for the 7th century temple. If there had been a wooden peristyle, one should expect a series of flat slabs for column bases, as at Thermon in Temple B. In his restoration, Auberson's use of "the Ionic foot" (0.349 m.) is misleading, since no architectural historians agree on this ancient unit of measure. For example, Dinsmoor calculates an Ionic foot of 0.2943 m. from the 4th century temple at Didyma (The Architecture of Ancient Greece, 222 n. 2), while Gruben suggests a foot length of 0.3286 m. for Hera Temple I at Samos (Die Tempel der Griechen, 318). In order to make his Ionic foot fit the dimensions of the foundations, Auberson takes all measurements from the axes or centers of walls, following the theory that Ionic buildings were designed in terms of axial alignment. This may have been true of the design (if there were any columns to be aligned here), but the building specifications must have been written to guide laborers who built walls from end to end and measured from finished surfaces. Auberson admits the seventh century hecatompedon would be almost exactly ioo Ionic feet in length, if one measured from the outer edge of the foundations (34.80 m.), but this violates his system of axial measurement. Actually the foundations are too little preserved to bear such a detailed restoration. Only the length of the cella can be measured within a 10-20 cm. tolerance. Although nothing remains of the superstructure, Auberson calls the 7th century temple "Ionic," because of the resemblance of the restored plan to Hecatompedon II at Samos. Ceramic evidence indicates the terrace below the temple was built in the first quarter of the century and Auberson dates the temple about a decade later, 670-650 B.c. The foundations of the 6th century temple are fairly well preserved, although none of the finished blocks remain. No new fragments of superstructure have been found in the recent Swiss excavations, so one must be content with a piece of a Doric capital, two broken triglyphs, a corner acroterion base, and a fragment of a geison block. The acroterion base, which provoked the controversy over restoring a "Chinese roof" at Eretria, has not been restudied by Auberson. The two triglyphs are finely drawn, but the bit of geison block is mentioned only in a footnote. In a clean drawing at I:5 scale, the profile of the Doric capital is compared with capitals from the temples of Apollo at Corinth, Delphi, Aegina, and the Old Athena Temple on the Acropolis at Athens. No photographs are given of these architectural elements. The building remains are clearly described, and the drawing seems accurate when examined on the site.
doi:10.2307/503983 fatcat:rnv2yfnhu5aqdpm24dioqk44za