Zusammenfassung

Since the publication of Volume I of Dieter Ohly’s Die Aegineten in 1976 and the present author’s monograph on the Aphaia temple’s architecture in 1993, further ceramic, sculptural, and archaeological research has problematized Ohly’s late 6^th century BC date for the burning of the archaic temple, the construction of its successor from around 505 BC, and the replacement of its east pediment (›East I‹) with another (›East II‹) around 485 BC. An alternative thesis (Stewart 2008; et al.) points to the discovery of burned fragments of the archaic temple in the construction fills of its successor along with attic black figure pottery contemporary with the extensive ›Perserschutt‹ destruction debris from the Athenian agora. It therefore attributes the old temple’s destruction to the invading Persians in 480 BC and its replacement to the 470s. This article has sought an architectural ›third way‹ out of this impasse.

Research on the later temple has confirmed the existence of ›surplus‹ horizontal geisa with sockets in the style of the west pediment, which Ohly connected with some ›surplus‹ sculptures from the altar court, and attributed to East I. Yet the latter never proceeded beyond its (unfinished) corner geisa, ruling out Ohly’s theory of its installation on the temple and later replacement.

Together with the extensive epigraphical data on oversight procedures in Greek temple building, and other evidence from the site, all this points to a rejection of one of the pediments by an ad hoc building committee before installation, its rapid replacement by East II, and entire construction lasting not more than seven years.

Clear traces of the same architect at the Delion on Paros in the 480s and on the ›Temple of Juno Lacinia‹ at Agrigento around 460 BC, all but irreconcilable with Ohly’s chronology, now are best explained by the post-Persian date for the new temple signaled by the ceramic and stratigraphic evidence noted above (Stewart 2008; et al.).

Weitere Artikel in diesem Heft:

architectura Hefte