Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology Faculty Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology Research and Scholarship 1971 Review of Samothrace 3: The Hieron, by Phyllis Williams Lehmann Brunilde S. Ridgway Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/arch_pubs Part of the Classical Archaeology and Art History Commons, and the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Custom Citation Ridgway, Brunilde S. 1971. Review of Samothrace 3: The Hieron, by Phyllis Williams Lehmann. American Journal of Archaeology 75:100-102. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/arch_pubs/73 For more information, please contact [email protected]. 100 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 75 ing health of Professor Schweitzer forced him to cease tion, the painstaking presentation of evidence and espe- writing in 1964. Research into the nature of geo- cially the elegant format of these three volumes. For metric art has proceeded at an extremely fast pace since such typographical quality it is perhaps a small price that time, and it is regrettable that more of the re- to pay that the book took several years in printing cent studies could not have been incorporated into this (the Preface is dated July 1965), although some re- volume. However, an interpretation of the period as cent publications could not therefore be taken into ac- it was known in 1964 is not without value, although count. But the final appearance certainly does credit it can sometimes lead to embarrassing conclusions to the Bollingen Series and the Princeton University when published at this late date. For the Corinthian Press. figure style, for example, Schweitzer bases much of The author's task was formidable. When she un- his interpretation of the local fashion-which he re- dertook the study of the Hieron in 1948, the building gards as a reflection of the Doric stamp of the Corin- had already been "excavated" by the French in 1866, thian people--on the decoration of the ship krater the Austrians in 1873 and 1875, and again by a 919.5.18 from the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, French-Czech expedition in 1923. Even during the now recognized as most probably Attic. definitive campaigns by the New York University The most serious drawbacks to the book arise from Institute of Fine Arts, as so often in the past, the an uneven treatment of the various subjects and from structure was severely damaged by local vandals. Old the fact that the author is often no better than his photographs and drawings, often erroneous, had to sources, which are sometimes out of date. Most present be correlated with the new excavational evidence, and writers would consider the chronology to be about a fragments in Samothrace had to be "joined" and generation too early (the Dipylon Master is placed compared with others in Vienna and Prague. The immediately after 770 B.c.), but a few subjects, the challenge has been fully met and the results have architecture for example, are assigned dates that con- finally clarified many incorrect theories on the Hieron form to the later chronology, which leads to problems which had found their way into the most authorita- in the interrelationship between styles. tive handbooks. Die geometrischeKunst Griechenlandswould be These excavational vicissitudes are outlined in the most useful to the student or scholar who is already Introduction. Chapter i describes and reconstructs the familiar with the as the material can geometric field, building from foundations to roof, reasoning out on then be placed in its proper perspective. Since so few paper every step of the reconstruction, so that the books have been written on this as a general period reader can evaluate for himself the strength of each a work like Schweitzer's can fill a serious whole, help theory. Through stylistic and structural correlations need. In of a few it would make a spite drawbacks, with other buildings, both in Samothrace and else- welcome addition to an because archaeological library where, Chapter 2 tries to determine the date of the it material that is not available brings together readily marble Hieron, and Chapter 3 discusses its Hellenistic in form its footnotes and its summary elsewhere, architectural sculpture, from pronaos coffers to akro- clear format make it and its illus- eminently usable, teria. In Vol. 2, chapter 4 (written by the late Karl trations are excellent. especially Lehmann in 1959) offers a reconstruction of the ritual PHILIP P. BETANCOURT enacted within the Hieron based on literary sources TYLER SCHOOL OF ART and on the material evidence of the structure and its TEMPLE UNIVERSITY alterations. Chapter 5 then attempts a chronological description of the various phases of the Hieron down to Constantinian times. A short appendix on the SAMOTHRACE THE HIERON, Williams 3, by Phyllis modern restoration of the building in situ is followed with Contributions Martin R. Lehmann, by by the catalogues of ceramics (by I. Love) and minor Jones, Karl Lehmann, Gilbert Cass, Alec Day- objects (E. P. Loeffler and M. L. Hadzi). Six excel- kin, Martha Leeb Hadzi, Elaine P. Loefler, Iris lent indices conclude the work. a self-contained each C. Love and Philip Oliver-Smith. Vol. I, pp. xxxv Though basically unit, chapter derives inspiration and support from the material + 387, figs. 344; Vol. 2, pp. xv + 304, figs. 345- discussed in the others, so that some arguments seem and line and of 447 many drawings photographs somewhat circular but the general picture is clear. finds; Vol. 3, pls. 116. Bollingen Series LX.3, In outline it shows that the marble Hieron is the Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1969. third on the site, preceded by a late 6th century struc- $45.00. ture and an Early Classical one of the same general plan and dimensions. From the beginning, the build- The Society of Architectural Historians has assigned ing was also called the Epopteion, and served for the to this book the Alice Davis Hitchcock Award for second degree of initiation into the Samothracian mys- the most distinguished work of scholarship in the teries. The third Hieron, built in the late 4th century, History of Architecture produced by a North Ameri- was left unfinished and completed, with modifications, can scholar in 1969. This fact alone would attest to only after 15o s.c. It was partly damaged and restored the excellence of the but even the fore- publication, in the early Imperial period (earthquake of A.D. 17?). warned reader will be impressed by the lucid exposi- Extensive alterations, mostly dictated by changes in 1971] BOOK REVIEWS 101 the ritual, took place around A.D. 200, while further pended judgment on chronological matters, waiting modifications occurred probably under Constantine. for architectural confirmation (e.g., M. Bieber, AJA Within this complex framework individual bits of 67 [19631 426-429.) This documentation has now ap- evidence may seem vague, but combine into fairly peared and is as complete and painstaking as any strong arguments for each proposal. It would be im- scholar could make it. Yet, in ultimate analysis, it is possible here to discuss everything in detail, and I the style of the sculptures which dates the architecture shall arbitrarily select a few points of interest or rather than vice versa. Of the other criteria, the na- controversy. ture of the alterations in the plan implies a return to Perhaps the most attractive feature of the marble classicizing proportions, but the classicistic movement Hieron is its wall system: smooth orthostats and string fluctuates within the 2nd century and cannot be course between a recessed toichobate (here called pinned down, especially now that the date of Dam- stereobate) and blocks with drafted margins (two ophon of Messene has also been questioned; the ce- courses of stretchers followed by a single course of ramic finds from the pronaos fill are not safely datable, binders). This specific pattern is first found in the witness the cautious statements of the catalogue (vol. temple of Athena at Priene, but with smooth blocks; 2, 173-177) and Mrs. Lehmann's admission (vol. i, on the Hieron it makes its first appearance in com- 234 n. 229); finally, the alteration of decorative pat- bination with drafted margins, though the temple of terns on sima and antefixes has no relative chrono- Hemithea at Kastabos should now be taken into ac- logical value except to suggest diversity of hands and count as a possible rival in ornamental drafting. The methods, which is implicitly accepted. interior wall decoration of the Hieron has been re- Scholars may be disappointed by this conclusion, stored to repeat the outside pattern on the evidence since the style of the Samothracian sculptures has of colored plaster and molded stucco fragments. The been variously and subjectively assessed. I agree with result strongly resembles the so-called Pompeian First Mrs. Lehmann that the pedimental figures, especially Style and, more specifically, Macedonian funerary and the striding woman in the center, should date shortly domestic wall painting. The implications of this Samo- after the Pergamene Gigantomachy. The other ex- thracian example have already been discussed by V. tant statues and fragments make a less definite im- Bruno in AJA 73 (1969) 314-316. Mrs. Lehmann pression and look more classicistic, less aesthetically visualizes the Hieron architect as a local man grafting appealing. The boneless quality of arms and hands, his knowledge of contemporary practices in Asia even in the one clearly male figure, makes one won- Minor and Macedonia onto traditional local forms, der at the female classification of "disiecta membra." thus skillfully correlating his building to surrounding Is the "Harmonia" of the NE corner (fig.