Tripods, Triglyphs, and the Origin of the Doric Frieze Author(S): Mark Wilson Jones Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tripods, Triglyphs, and the Origin of the Doric Frieze Author(s): Mark Wilson Jones Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Jul., 2002), pp. 353-390 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4126279 Accessed: 29-01-2016 12:55 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:55:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Tripods, Triglyphs, and the Origin of the Doric Frieze MARK WILSON JONES Abstract Conventional wisdom sees the origin and the The standard wisdom on the origins of the Doric order early development of the Doric order, and hence revolves around the doctrine of petrification, by which a the Doric temple as a whole, as the fruit of con- previously established timber vocabulary came to be per- structional mediated aesthetic in stone once the means to logic by experience. petuated society acquired The frieze is such a of this of build in this material. While the petrification doctrine triglyph paradigm way that to raise of takes its authority from the Roman architect-writer thinking merely the question sym- Vitruvius, and finds support from parallel processes ob- bolic content might appear to be rhetorical or po- servable elsewhere in the world, it none the less copes lemical in intention. inadequately with the archaeological realities of Greece The for in Greek in the late Geometric and Archaic In possibility conveying meaning early periods. par- sacred architecture is instead seen to reside ei- ticular, the form, size, and placement of the triglyphs in in to the frieze are not necessarily demanded by the logic of ther the way temples relate the landscape, timber construction and the configuration of early temple an idea popularized by Vincent Scully in his book superstructures. The Earth, Templeand the Gods,' or in the sculpture A number of scholars growing accordingly challenge associated with friezes, pediments, and acrote- the Vitruvian consensus, whether the Doric by tracing as do the back- frieze back to Mycenae, Egypt, the Orient, and idioms of ria.2 Standing proud they against on pattern making in Geometric art, or by arguing for sym- drop of mountains, or high up a promontory bolic modes of interpretation. After briefly reviewing or acropolis, Greek temples lend themselves to these approaches, this paper presents connections be- readings that emphasize the role of structure and tween and ritual of consider- triglyphs tripods, objects nature. It is well to be aware, however, how able for Greek cultural and just significance early religious much such are conditioned on the life. The formal characteristics of tripods and representa- perceptions one the loss mis- tions of tripods find echoes in the generic compositional hand by of sculpture, paint, and structure of the triglyph. Depictions of multiple tripods cellaneous paraphernalia, and on the other by alternating with decorative motifs recall the rhythmical modernist architectural theory promoting con- of the and frieze, while cer- disposition triglyph metope structional rationalism as the proper basis for tain small-scale details on bronze tripod legs find coun- terparts in non-canonic types of triglyph. The conclud- design.3 section initiates a debate over the for ing explanation THE DOCTRINE OF PETRIFICATION these affinities by exploring the significance of the tri- pod and its many associations: as aristocratic gift with Mainstream opinion on the rise of the Doric or- heroic as as oracular instru- overtones, agonistic prize, der is conditioned by the doctrine of petrification, as as the Greeks' ultimate votive ment, Apolline symbol, which the formal characteristics of a timber Some of these themes can strike chords with by sys- offering. tem came to be canonized in stone. This idea is Greek temples, so there thus emerges the possibility that a the triglyph frieze was invented to articulate visually the directly attributable to famous passage (4.2.2) by programmatic concerns of their builders.* the Roman architect-writer Vitruvius: *Afteroccasional bouts of speculationrelated to this topic nowwithmore evidence-including BarbaraBarletta, Malcolm going back to 1993, I was fortunate to be awardeda grant in Bell, Jim Coulton, Michael Djordjevitch,Gottfried Gruben, 1997from the BritishAcademy to carryout researchin Greece. ThomasHowe, Manolis Korres, Dieter Mertens, Margaret Miles, The BritishSchool at Athens providedinvaluable hospitality Catherine Morgan,and Joseph Rykwert.I would also like to and assistanceon this and subsequentvisits, and I am grateful thank Martin Schaifer for courtesies beyond the call of duty at to the NationalMuseum in Athensfor permissionto studyand the GermanArchaeological Institute in Athens,as well as Sophia photograph artifactsin its collection. Fledgling hypotheses Diamantopolouand IdaLeggio for valuable research assistance were presented to half a dozen local chaptersof the Archaeo- in Athens and Rome respectively. logical Instituteof Americain the academicyear 1997-1998, 1Scully 1969. and overthe yearsI havealso benefited from livelydiscussions 2 For a criticalreview of the significanceof sculpturalpro- with manyscholars and friends-often failing,it must be said, grams,see Knell 1990. to convince them of the merit of the ideas presented here 'Howe 1985, esp. 29-50; Forster1996. 353 AmericanJournal of Archaeology106 (2002) 353-90 This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:55:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 354 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 So it was that ancient carpenters, engaged in build- structures to ones in stone. Models of houses and the tie-beams so ing somewhere or other, after laying other types of building datable to between the eighth that from the inside to the outside of they projected and sixth centuries are sometimes articulated in ways the walls, closed the between the beams, up space that could the ends of timber mem- and above them ornamented the coronae and ga- plausibly express bers.5 Vitruvius's also the basic char- bles with carpentry work of beauty greater than usu- theory explains al; then they cut off the projecting ends of the beams, acter of Doric forms: brittle and prismatic, very much of bringing them into line and flush with the face the the product of the saw, the plane, and the chisel. walls; next, as this had an look to them, ugly they Indeed, the appeal of the petrification doctrine has fastened boards, as are now made, shaped triglyphs commentators to extend it to on the ends of the beams, where they had been cut persuaded many parts of Doric not treated Vitruvius. off in front, and painted them with blue wax so that temples explicitly by the cutting off of the ends of the beams, being con- Thus the guttae, the little conical stubs on the un- cealed, would not offend the eye. Hence it was in derside of the mutules, are the memory of timber imitation of the of the tie-beams that arrangement pegs or dowels; the diminution in width toward the men began to employ, in Doric buildings, the device of column shafts is a rationalization of the shape of triglyphs and metopes between the beams. top of tree trunks (cf. Vitr. 5.1.3); the concave flutes styl- Vitruvius then went on to deal in a like manner ize the grooves made in the process of fashioning with mutules, the projecting brackets in the geison timber trunks into circular posts using an adze, and course surmounting the frieze (4.2.3): so forth. The literature on Greek architecture con- tains dozens of such speculations, a representative Later, others in other buildings allowed the project- graphic summary being that by Josef Durm repro- rafters to run out till were flush ing principal they duced here (fig. 1).6 with the triglyphs, and then formed their projections The doctrine remains popular de- into simae. From that practice, like the triglyphs from petrification however. On detailed in- the arrangement of the tie-beams, the system of spite significant obstacles, mutules under the coronae was devised from the pro- spection only the mutules convince in terms of tim- jections of the principal rafters. Hence generally, in ber construction, corresponding well with rafter- of stone and marble, the mutules are carved buildings ends in terms of position, rhythm, shape, and incli- with a downward slant, in imitation of the principal nation. The most characteristic of the rafters. component Doric order is unquestionably the triglyph frieze, As a unique ancient testimony, this passage de- yet paradoxically it is precisely this feature that is mands serious consideration. But it must also be re- the most difficult to reconcile with the petrifica- membered that the bulk of the sources on which tion doctrine. By contrast with mutules, the physi- Vitruvius based his account date from the fourth to cal configuration of triglyphs positively contradicts the second centuries, that is to say well after the ap- a timber origin. Triglyphs run around both ends pearance of the Doric order in the seventh century and flanks of rectangular buildings, whereas con- B.C.4 The text could well represent post-rationaliza- structional logic anticipates beams only on one or tion rather than straightforward reporting.