Greek Architecture

STATE OF THE DISCIPLINE Greek Architecture BARBARA A. BARLETTA Abstract however, that the list of works cited, which is provided The study of Greek architecture grew out of the me- at the end of this article, will assist the reader in locat- ticulous recording of buildings and their components by ing those contributions. 18th- and 19th-century investigators. Although the aims have changed, with an increasing emphasis on historical history of the discipline and social context, the basic methods of documentation remain the same. This essay traces the history of the disci- The study of Greek architecture has evolved consid- pline as a background to modern approaches, geographic erably from its origins in the 18th century, but some emphases, and new perspectives. It surveys the work of of the basic principles have remained the same. It was archaeological schools and conference bodies, followed initiated by architects seeking to preserve a record of by general studies of architecture and its components as monuments of the past and to use them as a source of well as individual building forms and complexes. A focus is placed on recent literature, from 1980 to the present, “good taste” in their own times. They were already fa- and on books rather than articles.* miliar with buildings in Rome, but by the 18th century, their interests had shifted to Greece. Stuart and Revett state the reasons for this shift in their 1748 applica- introduction tion for financing for what would be the first project Many contributions have been made to the field sponsored by the Society of Dilettanti. They wanted to of Greek architecture over the past 30 years. Previ- make exact drawings of the buildings, since the “beau- ously known buildings have received fuller studies, ties of a correct style” that existed in Athens surpassed and newly excavated ones have been brought to light. those of Rome “as much as an original excels a copy,” New books provide surveys of Greek architecture or of and these, having been “almost completely neglected,” particular building types and components. The inter- must be preserved in drawings for posterity.1 relationship of buildings has been mined for informa- Ancient architecture is no longer seen as a source tion about function and society. Progress has also been for contemporary models, although it may still enjoy made in elucidating the backgrounds of architects and some interest from practicing architects. This is ex- the processes by which they worked. pressed in the republication of books on topics such This article traces these developments with the aims as the origin and use of moldings.2 There is also an of presenting the current state of the discipline and increasing interest in the works of early investigators. of giving insights into its future directions. The works A reprint edition of Stuart and Revett’s The Antiquities cited are by no means comprehensive. Because of the of Athens has just appeared,3 and the first English trans- large number of publications, preference is given to lation of Le Roy’s Les ruines des plus beaux monuments books over articles, except for topics for which few de la Grece was issued in 2003.4 Illustrations of Greek books exist. The period considered, from 1980 on- monuments produced by 19th-century French, Dan- ward, is admittedly arbitrary and sometimes inconsis- ish, and German architects have formed the subject tent. As a result of these limitations, some important of exhibitions and catalogues.5 Some institutions now publications are necessarily excluded. It is hoped, host digitized versions of early publications that are * I wish to thank Editor-in-Chief N.J. Norman for inviting 1 Stoneman 1987, 122; see also Stuart and Revett 2008, v. me to write this article. Several people have kindly provided See Watkin (2006) for a detailed discussion of the intellectual assistance with research and writing. S. Lucore offered a bib- climate that gave rise to these views. liography on baths, and B. Tsakirgis has done the same with 2 Walker 2007. housing. Both M. Miles and H.R. Goette read the manuscript 3 Stuart and Revett 2008. and made valuable suggestions for improving the text and the 4 Le Roy 2003. works cited. I am very grateful to all of these scholars. The mis- 5 See Hellmann et al. (1986), Bendtsen (1993), and Bankel takes and omissions that remain are, of course, my own. (1986), respectively. 611 American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2011) 611–40 612 BARBARA A. BARLETTA [AJA 115 long out of print.6 These volumes provide valuable by J.P. Gandy in 1817, the temple was not fully docu- documentation both of the material and of previous mented and reconstructed until 1989, by Miles.12 A attitudes toward it. similar situation exists with the Late Archaic Temple Additionally, the approach taken by early investi- of Aphaia on Aigina. It was noted already in 1797, in gators remains fundamental to the study of Greek ar- the second volume of Antiquities of Ionia, and was the chitecture. They sought to document the remains of subject of several investigations over the years. Yet its buildings through accurate measurements, drawings, thorough documentation, with detailed drawings, and records of details. Modern scholars continue to plans, and architectural analysis by Bankel, only ap- accept this as the first step in the analysis of a build- peared in 1993.13 Similarly, von Freeden’s 1983 book ing.7 German publications provide useful models for on the Tower of the Winds in Athens, one of the best- this kind of documentation. They typically begin with a preserved Greek buildings in the city, relied on the thorough exposition of the remains, including descrip- drawings of Stuart and Revett,14 while a new study of tions of the elements with lists of preserved fragments that structure by Kienast is set to appear presently.15 in easily readable tables, and present both drawings In western Greece (South Italy and Sicily), the and photographs of the more important blocks.8 A circumstances are comparable, albeit more striking. reconstruction and interpretation of the monument Despite the “rediscovery” of the temples at Paestum follows. Even scholars whose aim is to offer a new re- by 1746,16 the Temple of Hera II, once thought to be construction or interpretation must necessarily rely dedicated to Poseidon, lacks a monographic study.17 on the primary documentation of the building and The complete documentation of the Temple of Hera its elements.9 Thus, publications from the 18th, 19th, I (the so-called Basilica) was published by Mertens in and even early 20th centuries, which in other fields 1993.18 For the other temple, that of Athena, we rely would be considered long out of date, continue to be on the 1959 exposition of Krauss, which is thorough significant for the study of Greek architecture. in its description and reconstruction but, in keeping One might assume that most Greek buildings, es- with its time, more limited in regard to architectural pecially those visible to the early investigators, would context.19 Additionally, the important and relatively have been thoroughly documented, but many of these well-preserved temple at Segesta in Sicily only received are becoming known for the first time. Thus, despite full publication, again by Mertens, in 1984.20 the initial discovery of the Temple of Apollo at Bas- Although thorough investigations of the Hera I and sai in the 18th century,10 it has only recently received Segesta temples were long delayed, the recent studies complete analysis: a four-volume publication, three offer models for their kind. Mertens’ approach is com- volumes of which (by Cooper) are devoted exclusively prehensive, providing not only the expected descrip- to the architecture.11 The Temple of Nemesis at Rham- tions, measurements, and drawings but also discussions nous provides another example. Although the Society of western Greek buildings of similar date. He thus of Dilettanti published drawings and measurements creates a context for the primary subject, while also of- 6 As in the case of Ross et al. (1839), which is hosted by Rupre- 11 For the architecture, see Cooper 1992, 1996a, 1996b. For cht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (http://digi.ub.uni-heidel- a volume on the sculpture, see Madigan 1992. berg.de/diglit/ross1839). AntDenk is also available from this 12 Society of Dilettanti 1817. In her study, Miles (1989, 139– site (http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/ad1891/0086), 40) discusses the history of investigations. as are certain other publications. 13 Society of Dilettanti 1797, 16–19, pls. 2–8 (labeled Tem- 7 Gruben (2007, 54–5) cites R. Koldewey’s maxim that an ple of Jupiter Panellenius). The temple was described by ancient building is not entirely known if not measured and Fiechter in Furtwängler (1906), but Bankel (1993) offers a drawn, which holds true even today. more complete study in accord with contemporary standards. 8 The publications of temples on Aigina provide a good ex- For the history of excavations and publications, see Bankel ample of this methodology (Schwandner 1985; Bankel 1993; 1993, 1–3. see also the Alt-Ägina volumes, such as those by Hoffelner 14 von Freeden 1983. 1996, 1999). The ﬁ rst two books are published by Walter de 15 Kienast (forthcoming). Gruyter and the other group by Philipp von Zabern. 16 See Chiosi et al. (1986, esp. 18, 19, 23), where it is noted 9 E.g., Norman’s (1984) reassessment of the Temple of Ath- that travel guides only began to include Paestum at the begin- ena Alea at Tegea used the documentation and observations ning of the 19th century. of the building in earlier publications and unpublished pa- 17 A detailed study of all three temples was planned by pers, in addition to her own discoveries.

Load more