HESPERIA
74
C
CAPITAL
(2OO5)
Page* 575S84
THE
FROM
HERAION
ARGIVE
ABSTRACT
column capital from the Argive Heraion,
capital C, has been widely
as
a very
or
to
b.c.) stage in
regarded
belonging
early (7thearly-6th-century
the development of the Doric capital. The author argues here from technical
A Doric
evidence that the capital instead dates to the Roman period and that itwas cre
as a
ated
for a
element
replacement
to the
repair
B.c. North
6th-century
Stoa.
In the original publication
of the architecture
of the Argive Heraion,
which appeared in 1902, E. L. Tilton
illustrated a Doric capital, capital
an
which
has
unfluted
neck
and
C,
broad, rounded echinus (Figs. 1, 2).1
The circumstances of the discovery of this capital were not reported, but in
light of the fact that Tilton
that it is now lying within
associated
the element with
the North
Stoa and
the stoa, it seems quite likely that itwas found
In the past it has been assumed that capital C
in or near that building.2
is of Early Archaic date because
of its overall proportions
and the profile
of its echinus. Pierre de La Coste-Messeli?re,
in his study of early Doric
at?or
at
it
least
near?the
head of the formal
capitals, proposed placing
of the Doric
development
the
l.Argive
Heraeum
I, p. 113, fig. 51.
Iwould like to thank theGreek
and especially
Service,
Archaeological
of the
the ephors, past and present,
Aikaterini
Argolid,
Dimakopoulou,
Phani
Pachianni,
Alexandras
Elisabet
Spathari,
and Zoe Asla
Mantis,
to carry
for permission
mantzidou,
on the site. I would
out my work
also
like to thank Charles
Williams,
Nancy
the two anonymous
comments
referees for helpful
Hesperia
to the
and corrections
The
manuscript.
Bookidis,
and
of this article were
main
arguments
at the 91st General
first presented
?
The
American
School
of Classical
7th
capital, which
century
of the Archaeological
Meeting
Institute
of America (AIA) in 1989; see Pfaff
1990a.
Unless
photographs
author.
otherwise
and drawings
all
indicated,
are
by
the
Herae
give
um I, p. 113,
in
fig. 51, capital C is
a
seven
cluded among
group of
capi
to
tals assigned without
distinction
stoa II (i.e.,
the North
That
Building.
S toa) and
Tilton
the
associated
capital C specificallywith theNorth
Stoa
can be
it in his
the stoa
Studies
of
It is clear from
fig. 52:E).
photographs
taken at the time of the excavations
in
1890s
the
have
that architectural
tended
to remain
were
found.
they
3. La Coste-Messeli?re
elements
in the areas
where
o? Ar
2. In the caption
West
he dated back to the middle
B.c.3
inferred
restoration
(Argive
from
his use of
of a column
Heraeum
from
I, p. 114,
1963,
p. 644. Earlier, Amandry (1952,
p. 230) had noted the irregularity of
the capital and concluded that it should
be placed
the earliest-known
among
Doric
which
he also dated
capitals,
to
approximately the middle of the 7th
century. Coulton (1976, pp. 28-29)
associated capital C with capitals B,
H, M,
and N
from
the Heraion
and
at Athens
American School of Classical Studies at Athens
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Hesperia
®
www.jstor.org
CHRISTOPHER
576
A.
PFAFF
A comparison of the profile of capital C (Fig. 3:B) with that of one of
the capitals of the early (ca. 570 B.c.) Temple of Aphaia on Aigina
(Fig. 4)
would indeed seem to support an Early Archaic date for the Heraion
capi
tal.4The
echinus of capital C is flatter and wider than that of the capital of
the Aphaia Temple, which could be interpreted as evidence that capital C
is less developed, and hence earlier than 570 b.c. In addition, the absence
Figure 1 (above, left). E. L.Tiltons
After Argive
of
capital C.
I, p. 113, fig. 51
drawing
Heraeum
Figure 2 (above, right). Capital C
on
a
at the top of the echinus, or annulets or other type
capital C of groove
of decorative zone at the bottom of the echinus, gives the impression that
the capital belongs to a very primitive stage of development
before such
a
general characteristic of Doric capitals.5
the
of capital C, however,
Despite
apparently early characteristics
two details have been overlooked
that indicate that the capital is much
later than previously
thought. The first is the tooling of the surfaces of
the capital. Although
these surfaces are now somewhat weathered,
the
distinctive marks of a claw chisel can be seen on the sides of the abacus
and on the echinus (Fig. 5).6 My examination over the years of hundreds
of architectural elements in the Argolid
and Corinthia
indicates that the
claw chisel was not used in the northeast P?loponn?se
until the latter half
of the 6th century,7 and that itwas not used for carving varieties of soft
features had become
observed
that
around
period
their profiles
suggest
600 b.c." Schwandner
"the
see Schwandner
Aphaia,
128-129.
pp.
(1985, pp. 114-115, with nn. 155,157)
included
C
of
among
examples
with metal
necking
capital
stone
early
capitals
he did not
ornaments;
to
capital
assign
a
specific
to his
according
such
scheme,
developmental
capitals
at
should precede
the Archaic
capital
and the capitals
of the earlier
Tiryns
date
but
C,
Temple of Aphaia on Aigina
b.c.). Hoffeiner
a date
assigned
(Alt-?gina
of 590-580
(ca. 570
II.4, p. 18)
b.c. to
both capital C and capitalH without
discussing
them
specifically.
Wesenberg
(1971, p. 60) did not give a specific date
it
for capital C, but he clearly regarded
as
that the capital's
early and suggested
a
lack of annulets
reflected
pre-monu
mental
form of capital
that also gave
rise to the Tuscan
4. For
the date
capital.
of the Temple
5.
Wesenberg
the
lack of annulets
on
capi
talC to the diversity of Early Archaic
p. 58, n. 277,
(1971,
p. 60, n. 288) notes both the lack of a
design.
6. The
at the top of the echinus
and the
groove
or other
lack of annulets
type of deco
rative zone at the base of the echinus
in raking sunlight
in the morn
clearly
or
ing
evening.
7. At the
Heraion
the use of
Argive
C is the only
(see above, n. 3). Capital
he cites of an Archaic
example
capital
other
that lacks the groove. The
only
as
a
he
mentions
that
capitals
having
similar
zone
or decorative
lack of annulets
are three
of the capitals
Temple of Hera atOlympia
8). I would
on those
annulets
6, and
argue
capitals
that
from
(North 5,
lack of
the
is due
shelly
when
limestone
annulets
capitals
from
used
to the
for the capitals;
on other Archaic
appear
the temple,
coarse
they
pis. 22,23). Barletta (2001, p. 60)
II,
is not
chisel
seen most
attested
for the
the Archaic
buildings:
Temple
(second half of the 7th century
B.c.?)
and the North
Stoa (second
quarter of
century
It is attested
b.c.).
for the
West Building (third quarter of the
6th
century
and
b.c.)
later
buildings,
such as the South Stoa (middle to third
quarter
Classical
of the 5th
Temple
5th
century
is restricted
stone
are
(see, e.g., Olympia
the claw
can be
marks
earliest
6th
the
difficulty of carving fine details in the
unusually
of
attributes
1985,
marks
soft
B.c.),
to the
or marble
do not
limestone
B.c.) and the
century
(last quarter of the
but the use of the tool
carving
elements.
of hard
Claw
lime
chisel
appear on any original
on the site.
elements
CAPITAL
Figure 3. Profiles of an original
capital from the North Stoa (A) and
ofcapitalC(B)
Figure 4. Profile of the exterior
column of the Early Archaic Temple
on
Aphaia
Aigina.
1985, p. 114, fig. 72
of
Figure 5. Detail
claw
chisel
marks
After
Schwandner
of capital C showing
C
FROM
THE
ARGIVE
HERAION
A.
CHRISTOPHER
578
PFAFF
/Setting Line
+7fr^/Anathyrosis
-r
Figure 6. Capital C
(poros) until Roman times.8 The presence of claw chisel marks
is made of poros, would seem to indicate, therefore,
capital C, which
that this capital was carved, or at least reworked, in the Roman period.
The other detail that supports a late date for the capital is the ana
limestone
on
on one side of the abacus
is
which
thyrosis carved
(Fig. 6). Anathyrosis,
intended to assure a tight joint between adjacent blocks, would have served
no purpose on the side of this capital; itmust, therefore, relate to an earlier
8. Poros
with
claw
architectural
chisel
are
especially
ruins of Roman
marks
earlier
Corinthia
I first
presented
this observa
tion inmy AIA paper (Pfaff 1990a),
Elizabeth Gebhard objected that
blocks
assigned
b.c.
4th-century
of Poseidon
marks. We
by Oscar
Broneer
to a
repair of the Temple
at Isthmia
have claw
subsequently
those elements
together
and she was convinced
Roman
or not
see
repair;
and Hemans
Gebhard
Whether
the
among
at Corinth,
buildings
in the
poros elements
show no such claw marks.
whereas
When
abundant
to an extensive
elements
or claw hammer
1998,
the claw
ments
10-12.
pp.
chisel was
to be clarified. Casson (1933, p. 127)
is
that "the claw
used
doubt
work
no
in soft-stone
the
because
were
woodworker."
is nowhere
those
carving, mainly
in such
traditions
of the carpenter
More
recently,
and
however,
examined
Beyer (1974, p. 651) has claimed to
on
the site,
have
they belong
the poros Archaic
that
hammer
stone
claimed
found
claw
chisel marks
architectural
all over
ele
on
the Athenian
Acropolis.
Nylander (1991, p. 1046) reports claw
for carving
soft stones
such as
as
as the Archaic
poros
early
period
in the Greek world
remains
elsewhere
used
used
and chisel marks
foundations
temple
at
on
the
of the Archaic
but he
Syracuse,
lime
Ionic
concludes
that forArchaic Sicily this use of tools
Among
exceptional.
architectural
century
Museum
Syracuse
tool marks,
only
all the 6th
elements
that he
the Ionic
in the
examined
sima
for
from
was carved
which
Hyblaia,
Megara
from marble
rather than limestone,
had claw chisel marks; Nylander 1991,
p. 1048,
n. 10.
CAPITAL
C
THE
FROM
ARGIVE
HERAION
579
-**
e
Figure 7. E. L. Tilton
capital
fig. 51
s drawing of
After Argive Heraeum
H.
I, p. 113,
use of the block
of stone from which
the capital was carved.9 Originally
there was probably anathyrosis on the opposite side of the block as well,
which was removed when the block was recarved into the form of a capi
the original block was not quite long enough to allow the
on both sides (as it is, the abacus is
anathyrosis to be trimmed away
nearly
two centimeters
shorter when measured from the side with the anathyro
tal. Apparently
sis). The fact that this capital was carved from a reused block?moreover,
a block that would not allow the
on all
to be
capital
properly finished
sides?indicates
that the capital was made in a time of lowered standards
of craftsmanship. Taken
this observation points
If this capital was,
explained? Why would
with
the evidence
to a Roman
for the use of the claw chisel,
date for the capital.10
strongly
indeed, made in the Roman period, how is it to be
a
pseudo-Archaic
capital have been produced in
and where would
it have been used? To answer these ques
that period,
tions it is useful
votive
column
to a
capital C belonged
this capital was used in
to begin by
determining whether
or to an architectural support. That
an architectural
is suggested by the axial setting line on top of its
have been appropriate for centering the pairs of beams
that comprised the epistyle (Fig. 6). Moreover,
capital C was not unique,
which also indicates an architectural function; at least one other capital at
the Argive Heraion was nearly identical to it.This capital, capital H, is no
on the site, but it too was recorded in a
longer
drawing by Tilton
(Fig. 7).11
context
abacus, which would
the anathyrosis
does not
to a later reuse of the column
9. That
pertain
is evident
from the fact that the
capital
at each side of the
anathyrosis
margins
abacus have very different widths.
In
all likelihood, they originally had the
same width,
associated
but
trimming
subsequent
the carving of the
a substantial
of
portion
The broad anathyrosis
with
capital removed
the right margin.
at the untrimmed
margin
similar
Classical
to that found
on blocks
at the
buildings
left side
site
is
of the
(e.g.,
the Classical Temple and South Stoa).
As
I can attest
hundreds
from
of these
having
blocks,
is no description
there
Although
are
on their
rosis margins
joint surfaces
consistent
the
of generally
width
along
sides and top. Therefore,
the fact that
at the top of
the anathyrosis
margin
thinner
than that of
capital C is much
that
the left margin
the origi
suggests
nal top of the block was also trimmed
down
when
the element
was
reworked
into a capital.
10.While
Roman
plainly
manifest
through Hellenistic
Efficiency
periods.
was
more
to the
important
obviously
masons
of the Roman
than
period
achieving
elements
stucco
have
high quality. Moreover,
were often covered with
in Roman
encouraged
in general
of nearby Corinth
of details. It is possible that capital C
that
the
makes
stucco. There
level of crafts
manship
tectural
the anathy
Roman
times
it was
as annulets,
such
measured
than
covered with
originally
stucco and that some minor
terms,
in the
of poros archi
carving
elements was much
lower in
in the Archaic
poros
thick
times, which would
less precise
carving
was
I do not wish to denigrate
architecture
the evidence
and no record of the
of this capital
stucco
the
now
capital.
11.
Argive
were
such
a
details,
executed
in the
no trace of
is, however,
on any
part of
preserved
Heraeum
I, p. 113,
fig. 51.
CHRISTOPHER
58o
A.
PFAFF
Figure 8. Unfluted
near
circumstances
that itwas
ing multiple
Further
the
east
end
column drum
of the North
Stoa
of its discovery, its similarity to capital C strongly suggests
to match capital C in an architectural context
requir
columns.
intended
evidence
for the architectural
function of capital C may be
a poros column drum that now stands next to it in the North
provided by
seems to have concluded, this drum was
Stoa (Fig. 8). As Tilton
probably
with capital C.12 Its diameter
is suitable for a capital of the
size of capital C and its unfluted form matches
the unfluted necking of
the capital. Additional
evidence for the association of these elements that
associated
has not been previously
of the capital, isworked
is that the surface of the drum, like that
a claw chisel. That this drum served as an
architectural member
is beyond doubt, for cuttings on its side show that
it originally supported a fencelike parapet.
Since this drum and capital C are both now located in the North
Stoa, it is reasonable to conclude that they, as well as the missing
capital
H, were used in this building. They cannot, however, belong to the original
noted
with
construction
of the stoa, for various features of the design of the building,
such as the one-to-one
of the columns of the interior and
relationship
exterior colonnades, point to an Archaic date, and fragments of genuinely
Archaic column capitals in the building (Fig. 3:A) point more specifically
to the second quarter of the 6th
century.13 There
renovations
to this
stoa
on
tion, already noted by Hans
probably
Lauter,
more
than
is, however,
one
is the addition
occasion.
evidence
One
for
renova
of two steps below
the
not argue the
point,
the
capital C with
in his restored
unfluted
drum
drawing
of a column
from the North
Stoa (n. 2,
12. Tilton
but he
does
combines
above). Amandry
remains
undecided
tion of the
capital
13. The Archaic
(1952, pp. 231-232)
about
features
are noted
in Coulton
discussion
of the date
fragments,
see Pfaff
the associa
and drum.
of the stoa
p. 29. For
of the capital
1990b, p. 155.
1976,
CAPITAL
Figure 9. Stylobate of the North
with
two
later
the
southwest
from
steps
added
below,
Stoa
C FROM
THE
ARGIVE
HERAION
581
cannot be dated with confidence,
original stylobate (Fig. 9).14This addition
but itmight be associated with a leveling of the terrace south of the stoa
in the late 5th century.
when the Classical Temple was constructed
Other renovations, not previously recognized as such, are of Roman
date. One is the addition of three rectangular reservoirs at the west end
these reservoirs in his publica
of the stoa (Figs. 10,11). Tilton mentions
no
as
to
whether he believed them to be original
indication
tion, but gives
of the building or later additions.15 Their method of construc
components
use of tile and mortar walls coated with thick, gritty
which
makes
tion,
to a Roman date. A fourth reservoir
cement
(Fig. 11), points
waterproof
to a tunnel at the back of the stoa may
at least altered, in Roman times (Fig. 10).
connected
also have been built, or
to the installation of reservoirs, repairs to the essential fabric
in the Roman period. Clear evidence of
also undertaken
can be seen at the southeast corner of the stoa, where the short
In addition
of the stoa were
rebuilding
segment of the front wall is still in situ. The most obvious sign of repair is
at the west end of this segment of wall, where the block employed at the
bottom of the wall was too short for the lowest course, and so required a
number of small stones and tiles to be shoved under it to bring it up to the
of the other reset blocks
proper level (Fig. 12). One
traces of claw chisel marks
crude repair was undertaken
In light of this evidence
North
unfluted
15.
Argive
1973,
Heraeum
p. 176.
I, p. 112.
drum
it is reasonable
were
made
as
for one or more
to conclude
replacement
Roman
renovations
that capitals C and H
elements
for
preserves
that this
such
of the
and the
a renovation.
those of original elements of the building
the
that survive, the capitals and drum could have been integrated within
form of
the original design. The Archaizing
disturbing
building without
the replacement capitals shows that an attempt was made to harmonize the
new elements with the old, but as can be seen in the comparison of
profiles
a faithful copy of the prototype. The
(Fig. 3), the attempt did not produce
Because
14. Lauter
Stoa,
(Fig. 13), reinforcing
in the Roman period.
of the wall
the impression
their dimensions
match
CHRISTOPHER
582
A.
PFAFF
0
1 R M
R
? U._"-_
-
1
10
20 m
fluted necking, annulets, and groove at the top of the echinus of the original
capitals were not replicated.
In a modern
restoration project, such a simplification
of form might
be adopted out of a concern for distinguishing
elements
replacement
to sug
elements, but there is nothing, to my knowledge,
gest that this was a concern at any time in antiquity. It seems much more
likely, especially given the likelihood that the capital was created from a
reused block, that economy was the motivation
for the simplification
of
the design. By eliminating
the finer details of the Archaic prototypes,
the
masons
for
stoa
the
colonnade
of
the
would
responsible
renovating
surely
have reduced both the time and cost required to produce the necessary
from authentic
replacement
Figure 10 (top). North
showing
Roman
Stoa, plan
reservoirs
Figure 11 (bottom). Reservoir near
the west end of the North Stoa, from
the north
elements.
of identifying capital C as part of a Roman replace
consequences
ment column of the North
Stoa are significant to our understanding
of
two separate issues: the early
of
Doric
and
the
later
development
capitals
that capital C is Roman,
history of the Argive Heraion.
By recognizing
we can now see that the inclusion of this element in the corpus of Archaic
of the range of variation in
capitals may have distorted our understanding
The
their design. As other studies have shown,16 variations
are abundant
among
16. Coulton
103; Wesenberg
letta 2001,
1979,
1971,
pp. 60-63.
pp. 85, 97-98,
Bar
pp. 52-61;
CAPITAL
12. Spur wall
Figure
corner of the North
at the
C
FROM
THE
ARGIVE
HERAION
583
southeast
Stoa, from the
west
Figure 13. Detail
the
Stoa
of the spurwall at
corner
southeast
showing
of the North
chisel
claw
on
marks
the south face of one block
of capital C there is
genuinely Archaic capitals, but with the elimination
reason to doubt whether
such a simple design, devoid of both a groove at
the top of the echinus and annulets (or other decorative zone) at the bot
tom of the echinus, ever existed among monumental
Doric capitals.17
In terms of the later history of the Argive Heraion,
capital C is impor
tant for calling attention to the refurbishment
of the sanctuary in Roman
this subject has not yet been examined comprehensively,
times. Although
there are clear indications that a number of buildings at the Argive Heraion,
were repaired,
Building,
including the Classical Temple and the Northeast
no
or
evidence as
in
We
have
the
Roman
renovated,
period.18
replaced
17. To my
capitals
early
at
Olympia
only
knowledge,
from the Temple
mentioned
earlier
the
of Hera
(n. 5)
approach this kind of simplicity; in
to
they do
capital
the
have a kind of groove
articulating
to one
In response
top of the echinus.
I would
reviewer's
comment,
Hesperia
like to add here that I believe
that these
contrast
C,
however,
are
from Olympia
genuinely
later
since the demonstrably
capitals
Archaic,
capitals
the styles
were
early
case,
which
follow
of the Temple
of Hera
in which
of the periods
they
erected.
capitals
in that
was
design
of the poor
As
at
stated
Olympia
above
are a
the
(n. 5),
special
of their
simplification
at least in part the result
quality
of the stone
the
from
were
carved.
they
18. For discussion
of Roman
to the Classical
Heraion
I, pp.
the Northeast
the addition
spolia,
Argive
Renovation
Building,
of cross-walls
is discussed
in
repairs
see
Temple,
197-198.
which
made
Amandry
of
includes
of
1952,
pp. 235-238; Lauter 1973, p. 177;
Mason
1979,
pp. 414-418.
CHRISTOPHER
584
A.
PFAFF
yet to provide specific dates for these projects or to indicate if any of the
were connected with
as an
projects
specific people or events (such
imperial
interest
visit). Capital C, however, provides clear testimony to continued
and activity in the sanctuary into the time of the Roman Empire. In the
renovation
of the colonnade
of the North Stoa, the quality of the work
the high standards of the original Archaic construction, but
the attempt to replicate, at least in its general lines, the forms of the Early
care was taken to preserve the
Archaic
capitals shows that
period style of
what must, by Roman times, have been one of the oldest surviving build
ings in Greece.
did not meet
REFERENCES
= K.
II.4
Alt-?gina
Die
Hoffeiner,
sur les
P. 1952. "Observations
Amandry,
monuments
de l'H?raion
d'Argos,"
21, pp. 222-274.
Hesperia
Heraeum
I = C. Waldstein,
Argive
H. S.Washington,
E. L. Tilton,
R. B. Richardson,
The
Pfaff,
Classical
of the
Temple
Heraion
I), Princeton
(Argive
Hera
of
2003.
B. A.
2001.
The Origins
of the
Orders, Cam
Greek Architectural
bridge.
Beyer, 1.1974. "Die Reliefgiebel des
alten
1974,
S. 1933.
Casson,
der
Athena-tempels
lis,"^
Greek
Coulton,J.
Akropo
pp. 639-651.
The Technique
Oxford.
Sculpture,
J. 1976.
ofEarly
The Architectural
State
department
205
dodd
tallahassee,
E. R.,
and F. P. Hemans.
of
Exca
"University
Chicago
at Isthmia:
vations
II," Hesperia
67,
pp. 1-63.
La Coste-Messeli?re,
P. de.
University
of
classics
hall
florida
[email protected]
32306-1510
1963.
du haut
doriques
BCH
87, pp. 639-652.
1973. "Zur fr?hklassischen
archa?sme,"
Lauter,
H.
des Heraions
Neuplanung
AM
Argos,"
R.
Mason,
1979.
von
88, pp. 175-187.
"Architectural
at the
Argive
Northeast
Building
lems
ing Structures"
Heraion:
Prob
The
and
Neighbor
of North
(diss. Univ.
Carolina, Chapel Hill).
C.
P. Graef,
Die
von
Baudenkm?ler
Pfaff,
C. A.
Doric
1990a.
Capital
"The
'Earliest'
at the
Argive
He
raion,"4/?/94,1990,p.317
1998.
Nylander,
Christopher A. Pfaff
Florida
A
Capitals:
BSA 74,
Analysis,"
"Chapiteaux
I = C. A.
Argive Heraion
Architecture
Barletta,
and J. R. Wheeler,
I, Boston
Heraeum
The Argive
1902.
"Doric
Proportional
pp. 81-153.
Gebhard,
Stoa,
Olympia (Olympia II), Berlin 1892.
-. 1979.
1996.
Mainz
of the Greek
Development
Oxford.
Sphinxs?ule (Alt-Agina II.4),
1991.
"The Toothed
Chisel," ArchCl 43, pp. 1037-1052.
II = F. Adler,
R. Borrmann,
Olympia
F. Graeber,
W. D?rpfeld,
and
(abstract).
-. 1990b.
fixes
from
59, pp.
E.-L.
Hesperia
Schwandner,
Poros
Ante
"Three-peaked
the Argive
Heraion,"
149-156.
1985. Der
tempelderAphaia
?ltere
aufAegina,
Berlin.
B.
und
Kapitelle
zur Entste
Beobachtungen
hung der griechischen
S?ulenformen
Wesenberg,
Basen:
1971.
(Beiheft der Bonner Jahrb?cher 32),
D?sseldorf.
-. 1996.
griechischen
men
in der
der
"Die Entstehung
S?ulen und Geb?lkfor
literarischen
?berlief
erung
der Antike,"
in S?ule
Geb?lk,
ed. E.-L.
Schwandner,
Mainz,
pp.
1-15.
und