A R C U S The Journal of the Danish Association of Classical Archaeologists

Tidsskrift for Klassisk Arkæologisk ForeningNummer • Juli 01 2008

KLASSISK ARKÆOLOGISK FORENINGForeningens formål er ifølge statu� erne at udgøre et forum for primære fremlæggelser af forskningsresultater, faglige deba� er og andre ak� viteter med � lknytning � l klassisk arkæologi.

Enhver med faglig interesse for klassisk arkæologi og an� kken kan blive medlem. Medlemskab tegnes ved indbetaling af kon� ngent, kr. 200 (studerende kr. 100). Beløbet bedes indbetalt � l Danske Bank: Reg.nr. 1551 Kontonr. 9257853. Anfør venligst navn, adresse og e-mail.

ARCUS: Tidsskri� for Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening udkommer to gange årligt.

Indlæg � l bladetBladet bringer referater fra møder i foreningen og modtager gerne andre indlæg fra medlemmer. Større indlæg bedes a� ales med redak� onen.

Bidrag indleveres i elektronisk format, da det le� er den videre bearbejdning i redak� onen. Indscannede illustra� oner foretrækkes, redak� onen kan eventuelt være behjælpelig hermed. Husk at angive kilde for lånte illustra� oner, da vi ellers ikke må anvende dem. Forfa� erne bedes også indsende en kort beskrivelse af dem selv og kontak� nforma� on (telefon, e-mail).

Bladet udkommer i 17 x 24 format.

Redaktørerne kan beslu� e at udskyde publika� onen af et eller fl ere indlæg under hensyn � l indleveringsdato og/eller aktualitetskriterier.

Bidrag skal sendes � l

Redak� onKonstan� n Kitsais-Jørgensen, RedaktørJesper Tae Jensen, Formand

Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening Københavns Universitet / Saxo-ins� tu� et Njalsgade 802300 København SE-mail: kitsais@gmail.com Korrespondance (generelt): KAF@hum.ku.dk

© Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening og forfa� erneTryk: Hertz Bogtrykkergården a/s ISSN 0907-3426

Forside: Uds� llingen i Alicante (Foto: Me� e C. Hermansen)Forside: Uds� llingen i Alicante (Foto: Me� e C. Hermansen)

INDHOLDSFORTEGNELSE

FRA BESTYRELSEN 4

MARQ – EN CATALANSK PERLE AF ET ARKÆOLOGISK MUSEUM 5Af James G. Schryver og Me� e C. Hermannsen

STYLE, STATUS AND THE SCULPTORS OF THE TEMPLE OF ASKLEPIOS AT EPIDAUROS 10 Af Peter Schultz

REFERAT AF KAF´S GENERALFORSAMLING 32Af Helmer M. Andersen

KLASSISK ARKÆOLOGISK FORENING. ÅRSREGNSKAB 2007 34

4

FRA BESTYRELSENVelkommen � l første nummer af ARCUS: Tidsskri� for Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening. Siden sidste generalforsamling den 1. april i år har den nyvalgte bestyrelse, arbejdet hårdt på mange projekter. Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening har fået nyt logo, brevpapir, og i disse dage er bestyrelsem ved at færdiggøre foreningens nye hjemmeside og e� erårets program i både København og Århus.

Den umiddelbare største forandring af foreningen er, at Meddelelser fra Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening har fået et nyt navn. Det nye fornavn ARCUS betyder bue på la� n, og dermed komplementerer navnet foreningens nye logo. Meddelelser er ændret � l � dsskri� , hvilket bla. skal signalere, at ARCUS vil bringe langt fl ere dybere ar� kler og beretninger skrevet ikke kun af danske forskere men også af interna� onale anerkendte arkæologer. ARCUS: Tidsskri� for Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening udkommer ligesom Meddelelser fra Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening to gange om året, men nu � l februar og � l september, hvilket er i overensstemmelse med semesterstarten på landets universiteter.

Det er endvidere bestyrelsens ønske og mål, at ARCUS og Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening i den kommende � d igen bliver et center for opmærksomhed, og hvor alle interesserede i an� kken kan mødes både � l vores arrangementer og få informa� oner om an� kken på vores kommende hjemmeside og gennem vores elektroniske nyhedsbreve. Foreningen skal være et sted, hvor udveksling af tanker og ideer kan fi nde sted, og hvor der endvidere også er plads � l social færden, hvor der kan udvikles nye eller bevare og pleje kontakter og netværk. ARCUS er tænkt som stedet for fordybelse, mens Klassisk Arkæologisk Forenings arrangementer bliver stedet for spontan vidensudveksling, og endelig bliver den nye hjemmeside stedet, hvor al informa� on bliver samlet, og dermed gjort � lgængeligt for alle interesserede i an� kken.

Som al� d e� er en generalforsamling træder nye ansigter frem, mens velkendte kræ� er desværre træder � lbage. I den forbindelse ønsker Klassisk Arkæologisk Forenings nyvalgte bestyrelse, at takke foreningens � dligere formand Anne Marie Carstens for hendes store insats og arbejde med foreningen. Bestyrelsen takker også foreningens � dligere kasser Me� e Korsholm for i så mange år, at have holdt rede på foreningens økonomi. Sidst men ikke mindst takker bestyrelsen de to energiske og ideerige redaktører for Meddelelser fra Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening S� ne Schierup og Camilla Sondrup for deres store redak� onelle arbejde og ikke mindst, at have givet Klassisk Arkæologisk Forenings � dsskri� et nyt � dssvarende design og format.

Bestyrelsen takker også Thore Clausen og Niels Bargfeldt for at have designet foreningens nye logo. De har brugt Titusbuen og indsat Klassisk Arkæologisk Forenings ini� aler KAF på indskri� spladen.

Endelig ønsker bestyrelsen, at takke forlaget Museum Tusculanum for vores nye samarbejde og kan i den forbindelse gøre opmærksom på den vedlagte folder, som indeholder � lbud på fagrelevante bøger for alle medlemmer af Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening. Bestyrelsen takker også forlaget Aarhus Universitetsforlag og Hertz Bogtrykkergården a/s for fi nansiel stø� e � l udgivelsen af ARCUS.

5

MARQ – EN CATALANSK PERLE AF ET ARKÆOLOGISK MUSEUMAf James G. Schryver og Me� e C. Hermannsen

De fl este, der drager mod Spaniens Costa Blanca, gør det for at fi nde sol,

strand og vand. Men lu� havnsbyen Alicante har mere at byde på end

blot at fungere som transit. Her er skønne gader, smukke torve og masser af

spiselige fristelser på det lokale marked. For den arkæologisk interesserede

fi ndes der en sand perle i byens østers: Museo Arqueológico de Alicante,

eller MARQ, som det også kaldes, og som absolut er værd at gøre holdt i

Alicante for. Museet blev grundlagt i 1932 og har nu � l huse i det gamle

San Juan de Dios hospital. Bille� er og eventuelt en audioguide købes i den

lille kiosk udenfor, der også huser museumsbu� kken. Museets første rum er

en præg� g forhal, der udover at fungere som indgang og informa� on også

huser en foredragssal, hvor der i et hjørne var en mindre uds� lling af en

nyudgravet bronzehånd. Hånden er pyntet med en signetring og holder et

rigt udsmykket sværdhåndtag. Den er sandsynligvis en del af en romersk

panserstatue, som var ops� llet på det lokale forum.

Selve museet består af et kæmpe hovedrum med fi re siderum på hver side.

Fem af disse siderum husede den permanente uds� lling, mens de sidste tre

var forbeholdt særuds� llinger. Ops� llingen af de permanente uds� llinger er

ens. Langs væggene i de afl ange rum løber en lav montre, hvor genstande,

forklarende tekster og lejlighedsvise rekonstruk� oner er placeret. Ovenover

er der meterstore tegninger eller videoer, som er med � l at levendegøre,

hvad de forskellige uds� llede genstande blev brugt � l. Desuden er der

skærme med interak� ve kort over de forskellige lokaliteter, der beskrives

i hvert rum. Ved at klikke på en lokalitet kan man udover en beskrivende

informa� on også få et lu� foto, planer og se enkelte af de genstande, der

er fundet på stedet samt læse en bibliografi . Disse skærme, hvor man kan

vælge en engelsksproget udgave, er uundværlige for de, der hverken er

kyndige i spansk eller catalansk, som er de to sprog, som museet normalt

bruger. Kun overskri� erne er oversat � l engelsk. De� e er museet absolut

6

svageste punkt.Opbygningen af uds� llingen i det første rum er kronologisk og

begynder fra Mellem Palæoli� kum � l omkring det 8. årh. f.v.t. Den besøgende

præsenteres først for fund fra Alicante og omegn. En kæmpe skærm viser en

video om, hvordan forskellige stenværktøj blev � l. Der er ingen tale, kun slå

og bankelyde, der fungerede som fi n baggrundsstøj, mens man kan studere

de virkelige værktøjer og de morderne rekonstruk� oner.

Det næste rum kaster lys over den iberiske kultur og bringer den besøgende

frem � l det 1. årh. f.v.t. Særligt interessant var for os at lære om den græske

indfl ydelse på området. Den var meget tydelig med importen af græsk keramik.

I de� e rum var den store skærm brugt � l en anima� onsfi lm, hvor fi gurer fra

de uds� llede genstande havde fået liv og dansede kædedans � l fl øjtespil.

Måske lidt søgt, men ikke desto mindre et hit for museets mindste gæster.

Tredje sal rummede den romerske del af uds� llingen. Udgangspunktet er

Lucentum, det romerske navn for stedet, hvor Alicante ligger i dag. Romernes

� lstedeværelse kan dateres � lbage � l den 2. Puniske Krig, men udgravninger

har vist, at det især var under kejser Augustus at byen blomstrede. Byens

forum, et badekompleks og fl ere villaer stammer således fra den augustæiske

periode. Men byen havde en kort varig opblomstring, da det ser ud � l, at

Fig. 1. MARQ Museum i Alicante. Foto: Me� e C. Hermannsen & James G. Schryver.

7

byen allerede blev forladt i det 4. årh. e.v.t. I omegnen af Lucentum er der

fundet steder, hvor man opdræ� ede fi sk og producerede romernes elskede

garum. Denne fi skesovs har sandsynligvis været en af grundene � l lokalitetens

velstand. Genstandene i montrerne levendegøres på den 18 meter lange

videoskærm, der ved hjælp af skuespillere sat ind i computergrafi k viser

dagligdagen i Lucentum. Bagerst i salen var to små afskærmninger, der

husede henholdsvis et rekonstrueret triclinium og enkelte begravelser. Under

overskri� en “800 års samliv” vises

genstande fra middelalderen op � l det

15. århundrede. Overskri� en hentyder

� l de forskellige religiøse retninger

såsom kristendommen, jødedommen

og islam, der levede sammen i området.

Denne blanding af forskellige kulturer

afspejles i mange af de uds� llede

genstande.

Det sidste af de permanente

uds� llingsrum var dedikeret � l den

nyere � ds Alicante. Da � den var knap,

blev vi desværre nødt � l at springe

denne del over.

To smukke særuds� llinger

Det var et af de meget smukke bannere

for en særuds� lling om Pompeji, der

havde lokket os � l MARQ. Uds� llingen

tog udgangspunkt i Ariadnes Hus, som

er genudgravet af spanierne. Hér kunne

ses både akvareller af vægmalerier

fra da huset blev frilagt i 1840’erne, Fig. 2. Det Iberiske rum. Foto: Me� e C. Hermannsen og James G. Schryver.

8

hverdagsgenstande og udgravningsfotoer. Den bedste del af uds� llingen var

indledningen om Pompeji. Her var lagt et kæmpestort lu� foto ned på gulvet,

så man næsten gik rundt i Vesuvbyens gader. Sam� dig med uds� llingen i

Alicante kørte også en særuds� lling, som omhandlede glas. To mørkelagte Alicante kørte også en særuds� lling, som omhandlede glas. To mørkelagte Alicante kørte også en særuds� lling, som omhandlede glas. T

rum var oversået med små montrer, hvor der i hver montre var uds� llet

enkelte eller meget få glasgenstande samt en enkelt tekst. Denne renhed i

både ops� llingen og i den enkelte montre gjorde, at genstandenefi k lov � l

selv at tale. Der� l i den ene ende af rummene, på bagvæggen, kørte en video

om, hvordan man laver glas.

Arkæologien levendegjort

Det, der gør MARQ � l noget særligt, er den vægt, der er lagt på de forskellige

arkæologiske teknikker. Hovedrummet er dedikeret � l tre tableauer, der viser

forskellige udgravningssitua� oner. Feltarkæologien er illustreret ved en kuns� g

hule. En gangbro giver museumsgæsten mulighed for at se udgravningen

foroven og giver sam� dig følelsen af at gå ind i hulen. I alt kan der afl æses

14 forskellig � dsfaser fra Palæoli� kum � l vor � d. Hvordan livet har taget i sig

ud fra hulen, kan man se i en tegnefi lm, der kun kan ses fra gangbroen. Det

fungere godt og føltes, som om man selv sad og kiggede ud på verden fra

Fig. 3. Rekonstruk� on af en skibsudgravning. Til højre kan man se, hvordan amforaerne var lastet i skibet. Foto: Me� e C. Hermannsen & James G. Schryver.

9

huleindgangen. Byarkæologiske undersøgelser er vist ved udgravning af en

go� sk kirke fra det 15. århundrede. Hér følger man byens udvikling gennem

forskellige � ders stra� grafi , eksempelvis ved en muslimsk gravplads for at

ende ved et mosaikgulv fra et romersk hus. Som i en virkelig feltudgravning

ligger tegnebræ� er, graveskeer og dagbøger - som om arkæologerne lige

var gået � l pause. Den sidste disciplin er marinarkæologien. Læssevis af

sand og en blålig lyssætning giver en rig� g fornemmelse af at være under

vand. Hér er en udgravning i gang af en skibslast, hvor amforaerne, enkelte

skåle og ankrer lige er blevet frilagt. Ved siden af udgravningsfeltet er et

(rekonstrueret) romersk skib fortøjet. En gangbro fører op over skibet og

udgravningen, og herved får man mulighed for at se, hvordan amforaerne

var lastet i skibet. Det undrer os ikke, at MARQ i 2004 blevet valgt som

European Museum of the Year, for det er absolut et besøg værd - især for

den arkæologiske interesserede. Det eneste minus er, at hovedparten af

informa� onstavlerne og genstandsteksterne blot er på spansk og catalansk.

Går vejen ikke lige forbi den catalanske kyst, kan man besøge museets

glimrende hjemmeside på: www.marqalicante.com. Den fi ndes desuden i en

engelsk version.

Bibliografi Collins, R. 1989. The Arab Conquest of Spain 710-797, Cambridge & Oxford.710-797, Cambridge & Oxford.710-797Curchin, L.A. 1991. Roman Spain: Conquest and Assimila� on, Cambridge & Oxford.Reilly, B.F. 1992. The Contest of Chris� an and Muslim Spain 1031–1157, The Contest of Chris� an and Muslim Spain 1031–1157, The Contest of Chris� an and Muslim Spain 1031–1157Cambridge & Oxford. Richardson, J.S. 1996. The Romans in Spain, Oxford.

På dansk fi ndes: Nielsen, P. 1998. Romerne i Spanien, Århus. 2007. Om Barcelona og Catalonien, Tidsskri� et Sfi nx 2.

10

STYLE, STATUS AND THE SCULPTORS OF THE TEMPLE OF ASKLEPIOS AT EPIDAUROS*Af Af A Peter Schultz

The host of recent studies trea� ng ideas of ancient agency represents

one of the more interes� ng conceptual shi� s in archaeological discourse

of the last twenty years.1 More specifi cally, new work that frames various

aspects of the “ancient individual” within and against ancient Greek society

has challenged many cherished orthodoxies.2 In the sphere of Greek art

and archaeology, however, these new developments have had li� le impact.

Par� cularly, the interconnected no� ons of agency, economic status and style

have received almost no a� en� on by historians of Greek art.3 This is hardly

surprising. Indeed an important recent discussion of Classical sculpture that

urges us “to remember that the remember that the remember ‘discovery’ of the ar� st as a dis� nct and

dis� nc� ve personality did not occur un� l the fi � eenth century”, provides a

representa� ve picture.4

This tendency to mi� gate or eliminate the impact of individual cra� sman in

the development of Greek art is hardly an obvious or natural one. The trend

actually provokes many interconnected ques� ons, all of which revolve around

issues of agency, style and economic status. For example: How did Greek

“ar� sts” actually develop their products, their styles, and their professional

iden� � es within the daily contexts of ancient Greek culture? How, if at all,

did these styles and iden� � es aff ect their earnings, wages, commissions

and careers? What sort of socio-economic value or meaning, if any, can we

assigned to the products of sculptors whose professional iden� � es were

associated new or innova� ve stylis� c development?

One way to try and answer these ques� ons might be to return to the

epigraphical and physical evidence. Here, the accounts from the temple of

Asklepios provide a unique opportunity to discuss these problems of style

and agency in an epigraphically and archaeologically secure context.

Some� me around 380 B.C., the ci� zens of the small Peloponnesian city of

11

Epidauros launched a program of monumentaliza� on at the nearby healing

sanctuary of Asklepios. Whether in response to the Athenian plague or

other poli� cal factors, Epidaurian Asklepios had acquired an interna� onal

reputa� on during the last quarter of the fi � h century. This change in status

was accompanied by a demand for sumptuous material vo� ves. By the end

of the fi � h century a massive building programme was underway. In terms of

scale, expense and design, nothing like the Epidaurian building program had

been a� empted since Perikles’ imperial project in fi � h-century Athens. In

addi� on to smaller structures, the programme at Epidauros included a new

temple designed and built by the architect Theodotos (IG IV2 102 AI, ll. 7-

9), a chryselephan� ne cult statue made by the Parian sculptor Thrasymedes

(Paus. 2.27.1-2; SEG 15.208; see also IG IV2 I 198), a fl amboyant tholos

designed by the Younger Polykleitos of Argos and built by a predominantly

Argive workshop (Paus. 2.27.5; IG IV2 I 103, l. 15), and an innova� ve theater

which was also a� ributed to Polykleitos the Younger in the later tradi� on

(Paus. 2.27.5).5

The project also a� racted a number of sculptors to work on the expensive

Pentelic elements of Asklepios’s new cult building.6 A famous inscrip� on

excavated at the site, IG IV2 102 AI-BI, records the expenses involved in these

ar� sts’ work and provides a picture of their various sculptural assignments.7

ll. 34—35 Timotheos took the contract to make and supply carved reliefs or 900 drachmas; Pythokles was his guarantor.

ll. 43—46 Thrasymedes took the contract to construct the ceiling, the cella door and the gates between the columns for 9800 drachmas; Pythokles, The- pheides and Hagemôn were his guarantors.

ll. 87—88 Hektoridas took the contract to work one-half of the pedimental sculptures for 1610 drachmas; Philokleidas and Timokleidas were his guarantors.

ll. 88—90 Timotheos took the contract for the akroteria over one pediment for 2240 drachmas; Pythokles and Hagemôn were his guarantors.

12

ll. 95—96 Theo took the contract for the akroteria over one pediment for 2240 drachmas; Theoxenidas was his guarantor.

ll. 96—97 took the contract to work the pedimental sculptures in one pediment for 3010 drachmas; Theoxenidas was his guarantor.

ll. 109—110 To Hektoridas for the sculpture in the other pediment, 1400 drachmas.

These detailed accounts correspond with a well-known set of architectural

sculpture from the temple of Asklepios now located in the Na� onal Museum

in Athens (Figs. 1, 2).8 The sculptural fragments show that the temple’s east

pediment depicted the sack of Troy and that it was made up of about 20

fi gures (Fig. 1), including the xoanon of the Trojan Athena and a pathe� c

Priamos whose face is a mask of sorrow. As Nikolaos Yalouris has shown,

technical details of the east pediment seem to suggest that it was carved

in two, dis� nct phases. IG IV2 102 BI (ll. 87-8, 109-10) show that two

separate payments for two halves of a pediment were made to a sculptor

named Hektoridas over a year apart.9 For this reason the eastern pediment

should probably be assigned to Hektoridas. The western pediment was

also comprised of about 20 fi gures. This pediment represented the Trojan

Amazonomachy (Fig. 2).

The central Amazon (Figs. 3, 4) can be iden� fi ed by her large size, royal

diadem and the primacy of her posi� on as Penthesileia the Amazon queen.

Her tradi� onal opponent is Achilles, the largest warrior in the gable. Since

the workshop of Hektoridas seems to have been engaged elsewhere, the

western pediment should probably be assigned to the unknown sculptor

missing from IG IV2 102 BI (ll. 96-7).10

The temple’s crowning akroteria, made by the workshops of Theo- (IG IV2

102 BI ll. 95-6) and Timotheos (IG IV2 102 BI ll. 88-90) respec� vely, showed

an abduc� on scene accompanied by two fl anking Nikai on the east (Fig. 1)

and a Nike accompanied by two fl anking Nereids on the west (Fig. 2).

13

Unlike the pediments, whose fi gures are o� en anatomically incorrect, roughly

fi nished and treated as ultra-high relief, the akroteria are fully ar� culated,

intricately cra� ed and display a concern with circularity, theatricality,

transparency and what could probably be called technical virtuosity.11 With

the understanding that close examina� on of sculptural style should play an

important roll in any complex, social history of art that seeks to understand

the connec� on between style and ancient agency, a closer look at one of

these akroteria seems appropriate. Here a major fragment of a Nike, probably

carved by Timotheos, from the northeastern corner of the temple’s roof

provides important material evidence (Figs. 5, 6).12

Fig. 1. The east pediment and akroteria of the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros. Athens. Pentelic marble, ca. 380 B.C. Original fragments in the Na� onal Archaeological Museum, Athens. Restora� on drawing: David Boggs a� er Yalouris 1992.

Fig. 2. The west pediment and akroteria of the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros. Athens. Pentelic marble, ca. 380 B.C. Original fragments in the Na� onal Archaeological Museum, Athens. Restora� on drawing: David Boggs a� er Yalouris 1992.

14

The fi gure was conceived as a dynamic spiral of transparent drapery holding

the slender fi gure of a Nike at its center (Fig. 6). Radia� ng from the proper right

side of her torso, the curl of her mantel is characterized by and understood

as a series of concentric arabesques. While appropriately impressive from

below, as all akroteria were, the drama� c eff ect of the sculptor’s skill is

par� cularly impressive in front of the fi gure (Fig. 5). Here the arced edge of

the Nike’s mantel merges with, or emerges from, the unpinned peplos below

her le� armpit. Cupping and emphasizing her le� breast, this mannerist fold

curls up past the torso and then billows outwards in a blossom of windswept

drapery let loose by the fi gure’s upraised right arm

Under the Peloponnesian sun, the sense of shadow, energy and movement

created by this dynamic furl of drapery would have been potent. While these

supple drapery eff ects are stunning - made all the more so by the fact that the

preserved fragment, like the famous Nike of Paionios at Olympia (Fig. 7) was

Fig. 3-4. Penthesileia. The central fi gure from the western pediment of the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, Athens, ca. 0.90 m, Pentelic marble, ca. 380 B.C. This fi gure, and the pedimental composi� on to which it belongs, may be the work of the sculptor’s workshop whose name is missing from lines 96-97 of IG IV2 102A. Na� onal Archaeological Museum, Athens 136. Photo: Courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Ins� tut, Athens; Gösta Hellner, negs. 1974/1172 & 1175. All rights reserved.

15

carved from a single piece of Pentelic marble - the no� on of a solid human

fi gure as the conceptual and physical center of the composi� on is never lost.

A series of parallel folds that rhythmically duplicates the opening on

the right side of the Nike’s peplos twist forward around her slender

right side and serve to anchor the vortex of drapery on a fi gural axis.

The sculptor’s fi nal tour de force came in the upper stretches of

the mantle which were slung high between the Nike’s outstretched wings.

When vividly painted with an array of brilliant colors, this mantle would have

provided a stunning theatrical backdrop for the en� re fi gural composi� on.

Other ancient tes� monia help to invigorate this epigraphical and material

evidence and to provide a broader context for the work of the sculptors of

Asklepios’ temple.

Hektoridas, for example, is known to have made another expensive dedica� on

inside the sanctuary of Asklepios (IG IV2 I 695), while Theo- is o� en thought to

be the architect of the temple (Theodotos), a natural enough assump� on.13

Thrasymedes of Paros also was known in Roman � mes and Pausanias (2.27.1-

2) provides a detailed discussion of his cult statue at Epidauros. While these

Fig. 5-6. Nike. An akroteria from the eastern pediment of the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, Athens, restored height ca. 1.7 m, Pentelic marble, ca. 380 B.C. This fi gure may be the work of Timotheos; his contract is recorded on IG IV2 102A lines 88-90. Na� onal Archaeological Museum, Athens 162. Photo: Courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Ins� tut, Athens; Gösta Hellner, negs. 1974/1161 & 1170. All rights reserved.

16

are interes� ng points, it is worth no� ng that only the A� c sculptor Timotheos

made a signifi cant impact on the later art historical tradi� on.14 Pliny included

him in a list of famous fourth-century bronze casters (NH 34.91) and connected

him to a statue of Artemis that

had been moved to Rome (NH

36.32) while Pausanias associated

him with a statue of Asklepios in

Troezen (Paus. 2.32.4). His most

well-known associa� on, however,

are with the sculptural program of

the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos

(NH 36.30-1; Vitruvius 7 praef.praef.praef 12-

3) and, much more specula� vely,

with a famous Leda and Swan

group known from mul� ple Roman

copies.

But even if this tradi� onal

connec� on between the akroteria

of the temple of Asklepios and a

“Great Master” is acknowledged,

it does not help us signifi cantly

with our ques� ons about ancient

“ar� sts” and ancient Greek styles

and sculptors. For this, we need

to take a closer at the accounts.

As noted, IG IV2 102 BI ll. 87-8, 96-

7 and 109-10 make clear that a

sculptor whose name is lost to us

and Hektoridas each received 3010

Aeginitan drachmas (4300 A� c

Fig. 7. The Nike of Paionios, Olympia, ca. 1.95 m, Pentelic marble, ca. 420 B.C. The Nike was set up on a triangular pillar over three captured Spartan shields. It was iden� fi ed by an inscrip� on (Olympia V, no. 259) that read:

“The Messenians and the Naupak� ans dedicated [this] to Olympian Zeus, a � the from war [spoils]. Paionios of Mende made it and was the victor [in the compe� � on] to make the temple’s akroteria.” Olympia Archaeological Museum.

Photo: Courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Ins� tut, Athens; Walter Hege, neg. Hege 663. All rights reserved.

17

drachmas) for the comple� on of the temple’s two pediments. On the other

hand, lines 88-90 and 95-6 show that Theo- and Timotheos each received

2240 Aeginitan drachmas (3200 A� c drachmas) for the comple� on of the

temple’s two sets of akroteria. The temple’s pediments were comprised of

about 20 fi gures each while the sets of akroteria were made up of three

(west) or four (east) fi gures. In sum, Hektoridas was paid 215 A� c drachmas

for each of the three-quarters life-sized Pentelic statues that he sculpted for

the temple’s east pediment. Timotheos, on the other hand, was paid 800

A� c drachmas for each of the three-quarters life-sized Pentelic statues that

he made for the temple’s roof.15 Why was Timotheos paid four � mes more

than Hektoridas for his sculpture?

Since we are concerned here with problems of ancient styles, agencies

and economies, one ins� nc� ve response would be to suggest that this

epigraphical evidence confi rms the existence of a socially based hierarchy

(here an economic hierarchy associated with “skill” or “technique” or “status”)

within which these sculptors operated and that the “famous” Timotheos was

able to command a higher price for his work because of his posi� on in this

hierarchy as a “master.”

For the moment, however, let us resist this intui� ve solu� on. Remember,

our evidence for Timotheos’s “fame” is based on Roman sources and our

knowledge of Timotheos’s style is confi ned to his work at Epidauros and to

possible Roman copies of his Leda and Swan, a connec� on that is specula� ve.16

Instead, let our ini� al response be to look to the material evidence itself.

Is there a fundamental diff erence between the Pentelic marble used in the

pediments and that used for the akroteria which might explain the radical

diff erence in price that exists between the sculptural contacts? The answer

is no. The Pentelic marble used for both pediments and akroteria share

iden� cal physical and visual characteris� cs. Grain size is consistently very

fi ne (ca. 0.5-2.5 mm) in both. In terms of luminosity, the sculpture from

18

both architectural zones was observed in diff use morning light, in raking

noon sunshine and with a fl ashlight and magnifying glass. To the naked eye,

light refrac� on at all � mes was iden� cal. These visual similari� es have been

confi rmed by isotopic analysis.17 The temple’s pedimental sculpture and its

akroteria were made of similar, high quality Pentelic stone. It does not seem

that the diff erence in the sculptors’ contract wages can be accounted for by

a diff erence in their basic materials.18

Another response to the epigraphical evidence might be that the sculptors

of the akroteria were responsible for peripheral aspects of their individual

projects. Is it possible that Theo- or Timotheos’s contract included the

fashioning of the statue base for their images or maybe the pain� ng of their

sculptures? In both cases the answer is no. Bases for akroteria in the Classical

period were always considered part of their buildings and are almost always

carved as one piece with the sima.19 The two tasks were connected in

logis� cal terms (as opposed to terms of design) only insofar as the temple

architect made basic technical and spa� al allowances for the installa� on of

roof sculpture. In the case of the temple of Asklepios, this is made clear by

IG IV2 102 BI ll. 97-9 which shows that:

- took up the contract for the � les on the raking cornice of the pediment, the

antefi xes and the bases for te akroteria for [+]320 drachmas; Atla� das, Aineas and

Pyrras were his guarantors.

Similar evidence seems to rule out possibility that subsidiary decora� on

contributed to Theo- and Timotheos’s expenses, since IG IV2 102 BI ll. 99-100

records that:

Eukles took up the contract for the [decora� on] of the akroteria for 305 drachmas;

Lysion was his guarantor.

19

Satellite projects cannot explain the added cost of the akroteria. Indeed,

even if we ignore the epigraphical evidence which specifi cally dis� nguishes

diff erent contracts, it would be extraordinary if the costs involved in se� ng

or pain� ng the akroteria added over 4800 A� c drachmas to their cost.

Another possibility is that the akroteria were gilded.20 Could the compara� vely

high cost of the sculptures be explained by the possibility that Theo-’s and

Timotheos’ sculptures were covered in gold? This solu� on is the most

a� rac� ve of our hypotheses based on raw materials.21 It is also implausible

for two reasons. Firstly, the IG IV2 BI ll. 99-100 already records the cost for

the fi nal decora� on of the akroteria at 305 drachmas. The contract itself

shows that peripheral decora� ve expenses were listed separately and

that they were considered to be dis� nct projects with their own discrete

contracts. This is a common prac� ce that is a� ested with absolute certainty

elsewhere.22 In other words, if the temple’s akroteria were gilded - which is

quite possible, although no traces of gilding were no� ced during excava� on -

then the purchase of the gold and the actual process of gilding the sculpture

would have been recorded independently.

Second, even if our hypothe� cal gilding was merged with the contract for

the akroteria, it is impossible that the gold leaf required to gild the temple’s

roof sculpture cost over 4800 drachmas. Leaf gilding did not cost this much.

Think of the Athenian goldsmith Adonis from Melite who earned a grand

total of 166 drachmas for the 166 gilding leaves (petala) used for the 30

marble rose� es of the ceiling of the Erechtheion’s north porch (IG I3 476, ll.

291-5).23 About 5.5 petala were required for each rose� e. Each rose� e had a

diameter of 0.22 m. Thus, in late fi � h century Athens it cost about fi ve and a

half drachmas to fully gild a circle about one foot across. The reason for the

rela� vely low cost of gilding (it was cheaper than paper, see IG I3 476, ll. 288-

91) is that such gilding was purchased in the form of very thin leaves not much

thicker than ca. 1/900 mm; hardly any gold was used in their manufacture.24

20

When these factors are considered, the addi� on of hypothe� cal gold does

not seem to account for the akroteria’s extraordinary cost. The hypotheses

based on raw materials or logis� cs do not seem to explain the discrepancy

between Hektoridas and Timotheos’s wages.

But what happens if we look at style as opposed to logis� cs or raw materials?

Here, a number of interconnected diff erences between the two sets of

sculpture appear. To begin, the akroteria are fi nished in the round while

the pedimental sculpture is treated as high-relief. While the backs of the

akroteria seem somewhat cursorily treated a comparison between the two

architectural zones reveals a marked diff erence in the manner in which the

sculptures were conceived and cra� ed. The back sides of the pedimental

fi gures are rough, barely fi nished and marked with the inevitable dowel

holes and struts used to a� ach them to the tympanum wall. The rear view of

Penthesileia (Fig. 4), for example, demonstrates how her anatomy collapses

when it is out of view. The Amazon’s shoulder and arm are fl a� ened out

against her side and become simple slabs of marble. Her upper torso, in

addi� on to being unfi nished (traces of the point are broadly evident) is

marked by the large (ca. 0.10 x 0.43 m) socket where a marble strut that

was used to secure her to the tympanum wall. This u� litarian cra� smanship

is evident elsewhere. While the akroteria are also “frontal” their backs and

sides are treated as intricate parts of complex three dimensional wholes. In

terms of basic three dimensionality, the sculpture in the two architectural

zones are diff erent; only the akroteria display evidence of a� en� on to

complex circular form.25

The interests in mannerist eff ects and transparent drapery, or lack thereof,

cons� tute another stylis� c and technical dis� nc� on between the two sets

of sculpture. A comparison of the drapery of Penthesileia (Figs. 3, 4) and the

northeastern akroteria (Figs. 5, 6) illustrates the diff erence. The sculptor of

the Penthesileia pulls his drapery over and around the Amazon’s fi gure, both

following and emphasizing the form beneath. Timotheos, on the other hand,

21

cuts his drapery loose from all prac� cal concerns and treats his marble fabric

as pure form that almost seems to exist in it own right and for its own sake.

These diff erences would have been made more no� ceable when the pieces

were painted and set in the open air where the transparent, mannerist

arabesques of Timotheos’s marble would have created deep pockets of void

and shadow and the billowing mantle of Timotheos’s Nike would have served

as a theatrical background against which this sophis� cated carving took

place. The pedimental sculptor’s Amazon is representa� ve of straigh� orward,

func� onal carving. Timotheos’s akroterion is a kaleidoscope swirl of form,

light and sensuality. Timotheos is doing something diff erent in his work.

The nature and amount of free standing drapery associated with the akroteria

sculpture and the pediments is also worth comparing. Like the famous Nike of

Paionios, the eastern lateral akroteria are marked by solid (un-pieced) marble

elements that extend drama� cally away from the central core of the body.

The broken marble edges of the le� mantle of the northeastern akroterion

reveal that the Pentelic marble is less than 0.01 m thick at the fracture and

that this thickness was some� mes stretched as far as a meter from the core

of the piece. Sheila Adams has reminded us that “while the sculptor was

nego� a� ng his chisel around these drapery ridges one false blow would have

ruined his work by knocking a hole in the thin wall of marble . . . like fi ligree,

as soon as it was damaged, the whole eff ect was lost “.26 A similar fragility

of material is not evidenced in the pedimental fi gures. There, the most well

preserved drapery ridges extend no more than 0.02 m from the fi gures’

central mass. The interest in the physical limits of marble and the boundaries

of sculptural technique is confi ned to the temple’s akroteria alone.

The pediments and akroteria of the temple of Asklepios display stylis� c

diff erences that can be documented in concrete terms. For example, the

styles of Hektoridas and Timotheos are dis� nct. This diff erence in style does

not correspond with a diff erence in date - both clearly belonging to the fi rst

half of the fourth century. Rather, this diff erence in style corresponds to a

22

diff erence in contract wages. Hektoridas was paid 215 A� c drachmas per

piece and produced, as we have seen, a large scale composi� on of 20 fi gures

in which he cut technical corners when possible and convenient. Timotheos

was paid 800 A� c drachmas per fi gure and produced a set of sculpture that

included at least one marvel of sculptural techne - a word that implies cra� ,

art, cunning and style.27 In this par� cular case, excep� onal sculptural skill,

complexity and elegance - in other words, some idea of virtuosity - seems to

have contributed to the determina� on of a sculptor’s pay.

While this evidence might provoke a number of conclusions, the most

important for us is that it strongly suggests that the sculptors at Epidauros

worked within an established social (economic) hierarchy and that their

posi� on within this hierarchy was connected to their skills, techniques and

styles. The archaeological and epigraphical evidence from Epidauros suggests

that, in some instances at least, this premise is valid. Certain sculptors seem

to have been considered to be master ar� sts or master cra� smen by their

peers and within their communi� es. And they were paid accordingly. Diff erent

styles, the technical skills connected to them and the sculptors associated

with both existed within a hierarchy of (economic) value. The best (and

maybe even the worst) Greek sculptors - exactly like their ancient peers in

the fi elds of poetry, music, philosophy, rhetoric and athle� cs - competed with

each other, bragged about the accomplishments and thereby pushed each

other (and themselves) into undiscovered formal and conceptual territory.28

Not every ar� st could be equally “well prac� ced in the arts of Athena” as

Simonedes once boasted for the sculptor Arkesilas.29

Of course, the diff erences between the styles and “salaries” of Hektoridas and

Timotheos that we have outlined above have li� le to do with the tradi� onal

biologico-evolu� onary model of stylis� cal development currently entrenched

in our histories of Greek art. Rather, these transforma� ons and diff erences

are be� er understood in terms of culturally situated “ambi� on,” (fi lo� mia)

23

“compe� � on” (agon) and “talent” (idemosyne) and the culture of struggle

that made these words meaningful for members of ancient Greek society.30

If this is true, then the changes in style that we observed at Epidauros might

be partly understood as material evidence for fi erce compe� � on between

individual ar� sts seeking to elevate themselves within the shi� ing hierarchies

of Greek society by way of individual acts of technical virtuosity - by way of

what we might call “art.”

Of course, this can hardly be the whole story. For in addi� on to evidence

like this that points fi rmly and directly to the possible wealth and status of a

select group of ancient Greek sculptors, we must also consider all the usual

scorn that was so o� en heaped upon “lowly cra� smen”; that they were

“worthless” (Herod. 2.167), “slavish” (Xen. Mem. 2.8.3-5) and “bad defenders

of the city”(Xen. Oik. 4.2-3). Obviously, by the early fourth century, Greeks

could perceive a diff erence between virtuosi and “worthless,” anonymous

laborers. It seems equally clear that the percep� on of these two posi� ons

demands the corresponding existence of a vast middle ground within which

individual workmen, cra� smen, ar� sans and ar� sts of various talents and

ambi� on vied for sustenance, wealth, pres� ge and glory.31

24

Noter

* This paper was wri� en at the Carl B. Ylvisaker Library at Concordia College; I am happy to

thank Erika Rux and Amy Soma for their kind assistance during the course of its composi� on.

It is also a pleasure to thank the following friends and colleagues who have discussed various

aspects of this project with me: Judy Barringer, David Boggs, George Connell, Eddie Schmoll,

Kris Seaman, Olin Storvick and Jeremy Tanner. All mistakes are mine.

1 For agency and the historical signifi cance of ancient individuals: Sewell 1992; Dobres &

Robb 2000, 8-10; Hodder & Hutson 2003, 90-105; Fowler 2004; Gardner 2004; Johnson

2004. For ancient individuals and social hierarchies: Sassaman 2000; Sinclair 2000; Wobst

2000; Hodder & Hutson 2003, 99-105. See also Clarke & Blake 1994; Price & Feinman 1995;

Clark 2000; Dobres & Robb 2000, 8, 10-1; Joyce 2000; Duplouy 2006.2 For agency, individuals and ancient Greek culture, see Fowler 2004; Thomas 2005; Christ

2006; Duplouy 2006; Farenga 2006; Schultz 2007.

3 Tanner (2006, 141-204) is a notable excep� on. See also Schultz 2007.

4 Ridgway 1999, 186 (my italics). See also Ridgway 1997, 242. However, Stewart (1977; 1979;

1990; 1997) and Hölscher (2000; 2002), for example, provide important and nuanced

alterna� ves.5 Theodotos and temple: Burford 1969, 141-4. Thrasymedes and the cult image: Mitsos

1967; Burford 1969, 59-61, 154-5; Krauss 1972; Ridgway 1997, 36; Lapa� n 2001, 109-11;

Muller-Dufeu 2002, 537. Polykleitos and the thymele and theater: Burford 1969, 141-5;

Seiler 1986; Schultz 2007, 223-4, ns. 147-50.

6 Athenian sculptors and Epidauros: Burford 1969, 155 and 202 (Table 10); Yalouris 1992;

Smith 1993; Ridgway 1997, 41 and 366; Feyel 1998; Rolley 1999, 203-8; Leven� 2003, 101-

2.

7 Roux (1961, 84-130) and Burford (1969) give the standard readings of the inscrip� on while

Feyel (1998) gives a good overview of the problems.

8 Yalouris 1992, with a comprehensive bibliography.

9 Burford 1969, 215; Yalouris 1992, 67-74.

10 Schlörb (1965) suggested that Timotheos be restored here. Others have proposed

Thrasymedes, the sculptor of the cult image (Polli� 1974, 204-15), Theodotos, the architect

of the temple (Marcadé 1986, 172), or even Theodoros, the architect of the early fourth

25

century tholos at Delphi (Leven� 2003, 101 n. 38). All sugges� ons are specula� ve baring the

discovery of further evidence.

11 Hasty workmanship of the temple’s pediments: Yalouris 1992, fi gs. 8.d, 10.d-e, 11.e, 14.d,

18.d, 42.c. Conceptualiza� on of fi � h and fourth century pediments as high relief: Croissant

& Marcadé 1972, 890 (the temple of Apollo at Delphi); Yalouris 1992, 38 (the temple of

Asklepios at Epidauros) and Touloupa 2002, 40-4 (the temple of Apollo Daphnephoros at

Eretria) all with comparanda and references.

12 Yalouris 1992, 67-74.

13 Hekoridas: Muller-Dufeu 2002, 537. The no� on that Theo- is Theodotos may be supported

by the later tradi� on which preserves several examples of architects doing double duty as

sculptors, see e.g. Skopas (Paus. 8.45-7), Pytheos of Priene (Vitruvius 7. praefpraef.praef 12-3; Plin.

NH 36.30-1), Satyros of Paros (Vitruvius 7. praefpraef.praef 12-3; Plin. NH 36.30-1) and Polykleitos the

Younger (Paus. 2.27.5, 6.6.2). While this idea the accords well with the o� en heterogeneous

skills of Greek cra� smen (Burford 1969, 138-45); Yalouris (1992, 68) argues against the

restora� on.

14 For this reason, Timotheos is o� en (Schlörb 1965, 1-5; Yalouris 1992, 70-2; Leven� 2003,

101) given credit for the design of the temple’s elaborate sculptural program. It is some� mes

(Yalouris 1986, 185-6) argued that this understanding of Timotheos’ role is confi rmed by IG

IV2 102 AI (ll. 34-35) which records “Timotheos took the contract to work and supply typos

for 900 drachmas” with typos being understood as “models.” However, as Polli� (1974, 272-

93), Aleshire (1989, 157), Posch (1991) and now Palagia (2006b, 263) have shown, typos

almost certainly refers to “reliefs.” These lines probably refer either to a set of metopes over

the pronaos or the relief on the base of Thrasymedes’ cult statue.

15 The price is not high when considered in context. Middle fourth-century sculptors normally

made 3000 drachmas for a single bronze statue - with materials cons� tu� ng only 300

drachmas of the cost, see IG II2 555; Diog. Laert. 6.35; Stewart 1979, 109-11. In architectural

sculpture, the sculptor Androsthenes e.g. made 5000 drachmas per Pentelic pedimental

fi gure when he worked on the new temple of Apollo at Delphi, see Stewart 1982; 1990,

66).

16 Schlörb (1965) expands the list of “known” works signifi cantly.

17 I am grateful to Olga Palagia for sharing her research on the use of Pentelic marble at

Epidauros.

26

18 Indeed, the actual diff erence in price for the pediments and akroteria at Epidauros may be

considerably larger than it ini� ally appears if the sculptors were responsible for selec� ng and

transpor� ng their own marble as was some� mes the case, see Stewart 1990, 66. If this was

so, then the pediments, not the akroteria, should have been signifi cantly more expensive

because of the larger number of assistants that would have been needed for carving and the

larger amount of raw marble that would have been selected and transported.

19 The akroteria bases of the Parthenon (Hurwit 1999, fi g. 133), the Hephaisteion (Dinsmoor

1976, 233), the Propylaia (Dinsmoor 2004, 303-4) and the temple of Athena Nike (Schultz

2001, fi gs. 3-9) are well-known examples.

20 Ancient leaf gilding: Kluge & Lehmann-Hartleben 1927, 31-4; Oddy 1985; 1990, 108; 1991.

Gilding of ancient marble architectural sculpture: Fengler 1886, 21-33; Reuterswärd 1960;

Palagia 1993, 12; Schultz 2001, 2-5; Artal-Isbrand et.al. 2002; Tiberios et.al. 2002; Higgs

2006, 192; Palagia 2006a, 127; 2006b, 261.

21 Indeed, the famous gilded Nikai akroteria of the temple of Zeus at Olympia (Olympia V, Olympia V, Olympia V

no. 259; Paus. 5.10.4) and gilded Nikai akroteria of the temple of Athena Nike (IG II2 1425

ll. 103-6; Schultz 2001) would have been known to the Athenian sculptors at Epidauros and

could have exerted a strong infl uence there.

22 Compare, e.g., the procedural stages by which the gilded marble rose� es for the ceiling of

the Erechtheion were commissioned and paid for in 408/7 (IG I3 476).

23 Paton 1927, 409.

24 One of our best ancient tes� monia to this fact comes from Pliny (NH 31.19.61) who notes

in his discussion of gilding techniques that one ounce of gold could yield seven hundred and

fi � y micro-thin gilding leaves each about 10 cm². Master gilders were prized in the ancient

world precisely because they could take very small amounts of gold and stretch it over vast

surfaces. Ancient leaf gilding: Kluge & Lehmann-Hartleben 1927, 31-4; Oddy 1985; 1990,

108; 1991.

25 Of course, it could be argued that this diff erence was “dictated” by the architectural

se� ng of the sculpture on the temple itself. Even though the Parthenon pediments were

fully fi nished (a fact that problema� zes arguments based on simple types), in the case of the

temple of Asklepios this kind of argument could make sense. And it is precisely here that the

27

complex social interac� ons between sculptor, patron and commission become important. If

we want to suggest that akorteria were considered inherently more complex than pediments,

then we should probably ask how this knowledge contributed to the choice of sculptor and

what the selected sculptor brought to the table. In Olympia, for example, the Elean offi cials

held a contest for the akroteria of the temple of Zeus and Paionios won it (Olympia V, no. Olympia V, no. Olympia V

259; Fig. 13). Was the same true for Epidauros? Was a par� cular kind of “master” required

or sought for this par� cular kind of composi� on? Were only akroteria connected to these

sorts of architectural contests? Is this why Timotheos was paid more? Now even if we cannot

answer these ques� ons at present, asking them is just as important. More to the point, the

possibility that one par� cular zone of architectural sculpture was considered to be more

important or more complex than another and that the sculptors of this par� cular zone were,

in fact, paid more certainly seems to merit a discussion within the context of ancient social

prac� ce as well as modern typological divisions. And it is precisely this kind of ques� on that

could make a complex social history of ancient Greek art signifi cant.

26 Adams 1966, 94. See also Yalouris 1992, 76-80.

27 Polli� 1974, 32-7.

28 Greek sculptors and social hierarchies generally, see Stewart 1979, 106-11; Lauter 1980;

Hurwit 1997; Schultz 2003a; 2003b.

29 Arkesilas: Diog. Laert. 4.45.

30 This sort of culture of compe� � on for Greek sculptors (for which there is much Roman

evidence, e.g. Plin. NH 34.53, 36.17) seems logical enough when placed within the

fundamentally agonis� c character of Greek society, see Onians 1999, 9-104; Neer 2002;

Hölscher 2000; Fleischer 2002 and now Duplouy 2006.

31 Duplouy 2006 now gives the comprehensive discussion of these social goals in ancient

Greek society.

28

BibliographyAdam, S. 1966. The Technique of Greek Sculpture, London.Aleshire, S.B. 1989. The Athenian Asklepion: The People, Their Dedica� ons and the Inventories, Amsterdam.Artal-Isbrand, P., L. Becker & M.T. Wypyski. 2002. ‘Remains of Gilding and Ground Layers on a Roman Marble Statue of Hygeia’, in Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, edited by L. Lazzarini, ASMOSIA VI, Padova, 240-9. Burford, A. 1969. The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros. A Social and Economic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary, during Fourth and early Third Centuries B.C., Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies, Liverpool.Burford, A. 1972. Cra� smen in Greek and Roman Society, London.Christ, M. 2006. The Bad Ci� zen in Classical Athens, Cambridge & New York. Clark, J. 2000. ‘Towards a Be� er Explana� on of Hereditary Inequality: A Cri� cal Assessment of Natural and Historic Human Agents’, in Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres & J.E. Robb, London & New York, 92-112.Clark, J. & M. Blake. 1994 ‘The Power of Pres� ge: Compete� ve Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Socie� es in Lowland Mesoamerica’, in Fac� onal Compe� � on and Poli� cal Development in the New World, edited by E. Brumfi el & J. Fox, Cambridge & London, 17-30.Croissant, F. & J. Marcadé. 1972. ‘Sculptures des frontons de temple du IVe Croissant, F. & J. Marcadé. 1972. ‘Sculptures des frontons de temple du IVe Croissant, F. & J. Marcadé. 1972. ‘Sculptures des frontons de temple du IV siècle’, BCH 96, 887-95.Dinsmoor, A.N. ed. 2004. The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis II: The Classical Building, Princeton, N.J.Dinsmoor, W.B. 1976. ‘The roof of the Hephaisteion’, AJA 80, 223-46. Dobres, M.-A. & J.E. Robb eds. 2000. Agency in Archaeology, London & New York.Duplouy, A. 2006. Le Pres� ge des Élites: Recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grèce entre les Xe et Ve siècles avant J.-C., Paris. Farenga, V. 2006. Ci� zen and Self in the Greek City State, Cambridge & New York.Fengler, L. 1886. Dorische Polychromie, Berlin.Feyel, C. 1998. ‘La structure d’un groupe socio-economique: les ar� sans dans les grands sanctuaires grecs du IVe sanctuaires grecs du IVe sanctuaires grecs du IV siecle’, TOPOI 8, 561-79.Fleischer, R. 2002. ‘Die Amazonen und das Asyl des Artemisions von Ephesos’, JdI 117, 185-216.Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach, London & New York.Gardner, A. 2004. ‘Introduc� on: Social Agency, Power and Being Human’, in Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspec� ves on Social Agency, Power and Being Human, edited by A. Gardner, London, 1-18.Higgs, P. 2006 ‘Late classical Asia Minor: Dynasts and Their Tombs’, in Greek Sculpture: Func� on, Materials and Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, edited by

29

O. Palagia, Cambridge & New York, 163-207.Hölscher, T. 2000. ‘Die Amazonen von Ephesos: Ein Monument zur Selbstbehauptung’, BCH Suppl. 38, 205-28.Hölscher, T. 2002. The Languages of Images in Roman Art, Cambridge & New York. Hodder, I. & S. Hutson. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpreta� on in Archaeology, Cambridge. Hurwi� , J.M. 1997. ‘The death of the sculptor’, AJA 101, 587-91.Hurwi� , J.M. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge & New York.Johnson, M. 2004. ‘Agency, Structure and Archaeological Prac� ce’, in Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspec� ves on Social Agency, Power and Being Human, edited by A. Gardner, London, 241-47.Joyce, A. 2000. ‘The founding of Monte Albán: Sacred Proposi� ons and Social Prac� ces’, in

Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres & J.E. Robb, London & New York, 71-91.Kluge, K. & K. Lehmann-Hartleben 1927. Die an� ken Grossbronzen, Berlin.Krauss, B. 1972. ‘Zum Asklepios-Kultbild des Thrasymedes in Epidauros’, AA 87, 240-57.Lapa� n, K. 2001. Chryselephan� ne Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford.Lauter, H. 1980. ‘Zur wirtscha� lichen Posi� on der Praxiteles-Familie im spatklassischen Athen’, AA 95, 525-31.Leven� , I. 2003. Hygieia in Classical Greek Art, Archaiognosia Suppl. 2, Athens.Marcadé, J. 1986. ‘Les sculptures décora� ves de la tholos de Marmaria à Delphi: État actuel du dossier’, in Archaische und Klassische Griechische Plas� k, edited by H. Kyrieleis, Mainz am Rhein, 169-173. Mitsos, M. 1967. ‘Epigraphika ex Asklepieiou Epidauros’, ArchEph, 1-28.Muller-Dufeu, M. 2002. La Sculpture grecque. Sources li� éraires et épigraphiques, Paris.Neer, R. 2002. Style and Poli� cs in Athenian Vase Pain� ng: The Cra� of Democracy, 530-460 B.C., Cambridge & New York.Oddy, W.A. 1985. ‘Vergoldungen auf prähistorischen und klassischen Bronzen’, in

Archäologische Bronzen, An� ke Kunst, Moderne Technik, edited by H. Born, Berlin, 64-70.Oddy, W.A. 1990. ‘The Gilding of Bronze Sculpture in the Classical World’, in Small Bronze Sculpture from the Ancient World, M. True & J. Podany, Malibu, 103-24.Oddy, W.A. 1991. ‘Gilding: An Outline of the Technological History of the Pla� ng of Gold on to Silver or Copper in the Old World’, Endeavor 15, 29-33.Endeavor 15, 29-33.EndeavorOlympia V = W. Di� enberger & K. Purgold, 1896. Die Inschri� en von Olympia. Berlin.Onians, J. 1999. Classical Art and Cultures of Greece and Rome, New Haven. Palagia, O.(1998) [1993] The Pediments of the Parthenon, Leiden.Palagia, O. 2006a. ‘Classical Athens’, in Greek Sculpture: Func� on, Materials and Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, edited by O. Palagia, Cambridge &

30

New York, 119-62.Palagia, O. 2006b. ‘Marble Carving Techniques’, in Greek Sculpture: Func� on, Materials and Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, edited by O. Palagia, Cambridge & New York, 243-79.Paton, J.M., L.D. Caskey, H.N. Fowler & G.P. Stevens. 1927. The Erechtheum. Cambridge,

Mass.Polli� , J.J. 1974. The Ancient View of Greek Art, Yale. Posch, W. 1991. ‘Die typoi des Timotheos’, typoi des Timotheos’, typoi AA 106, 69-73.Price, T. & G. Feinman eds. 1995. Founda� ons of Social Inequality, New York. Reuterswärd, P. 1960. Studien zur Polychromie der Plas� k. Griechenland und Rom, Stockholm.Ridgway, B.S. 1997. Fourth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Madison. Ridgway, B.S. 1999. Prayers in Stone. Greek Architectural Sculpture, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London. Rolley, C. 1999. La sculpture grecque 2: La période classique, Paris.Roux, G. 1961. L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVème et IIIème siècles avant J.C., Paris.Sassaman, K. 2000. ‘Agents of change in hunter-gatherer technology’, in Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres & J.E. Robb, London & New York, 148-68.Schlörb, B. 1965. Timotheos, JdI-EH 22.Schultz, P. 2001. ‘The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike’, Hesperia 70, 1-47. Schultz, P. 2003a ‘Kephisodotos the younger’, in The Macedonians in Athens 323-229 B.C. Proceedings of an Interna� onal Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24-26, 2001, edited by O. Palagia & S.V. Tracy, Oxford, 186-93.Schultz, P. 2003b. Review of To thorakio tou naou � s Athinas Nikis, ArchEph Suppl. 137, by M. Brouskari, AJA 107, 29-30.Schultz, P. 2007. “Style and Agency in an Age of Transi� on,” in Deba� ng the Athenian Cultural Revolu� on. Art, Literature, Philosophy and Poli� cs 430-380 BC., edited by R. Osborne, Cambridge, 144-87.Seiler, F. 1986. Die griechische Tholos. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung, Typologie und Funk� on kunstmäßiger Rundbauten. Mainz am Rhein.Sewel, W.H. Jr. 1992. ‘A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transforma� on,’ American Journal of Sociology 98, 1-29. Journal of Sociology 98, 1-29. Journal of SociologySinclair, A. 2000. ‘Constella� ons of knowledge: Human Agency and Material Aff ordance in Lithic Technology’, in Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres & J.E. Robb, London & New York, 196-212.Smith, A.C. 1993 ‘Athenianizing Associa� ons in the Sculpture of the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros’, AJA 97, 300. Stewart, A. 1977. Skopas of Paros, Park Ridge, N.J. Stewart, A. 1979. A� ka: Studies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenis� c Age, JHS Suppl. Paper 14, London. Paper 14, London. PaperStewart, A. 1982. ‘Dionysos at Delphi: The Pediments of the Sixth Temple of Apollo and

31

Religious Reform in the Age of Alexander’, in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenis� c Times, edited by B. Barr-Sharrar & E.N. Borza, Studies in the History of Art 10, Washington, DC, 205-27.Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Explora� on, New Haven.Stewart, A. 1997. Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece, Cambridge & New York. Tanner, J. 2006. The Inven� on of Art History in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Tiberios, M., M. True, D. Tsiaphaki & Walter-Karydi eds. 2002. Color in Ancient Greece. The Role of Color in Ancient Greek Art and Architecture 700-31 B.C., Proceedings of the Conference held in Thessaloniki, 12th-16th April, 2000 organized by the J. Paul Ge� y Museum and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki.Thomas, C. 2005. Finding People in Early Greece, Columbia & London. Touloupa, E. 2002. Ta enae� a glupta tou naou tou Apollonos Daphniphorou s� n Eretria, Library of the Athenian Archaeological Society 220, Athens.Wobst, H.M. 2000. ‘Agency in (spite of) Material Culture’, in Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres & J.E. Robb, London & New York, 40-50.Yalouris, N. 1992. Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempels in Epidauros, AntP 21.

32

KAF’S ORDINÆRE GENERALFORSAMLING 2008

Den 1. april 2008 kl. 19.00 a� oldte KAF sin ordinære generalforsamling på KUA.

DAGSORDEN:1. Valg af dirigent2. Valg af referent3. Fremlæggelse og godkendelse af bestyrelsens beretning4. Fremlæggelse og godkendelse af revideret årsregnskab5. Fremlæggelse og godkendelse af budget, herunder kon� ngent6. Valg af formand, kasserer og redaktør af KAF-Meddelelser7. Valg af to � l fi re menige bestyrelsesmedlemmer henholdsvis øst og vest for Storebælt8. Valg af revisor og revisorsuppleant9. Eventuelt

REFERAT AF GENERALFORSAMLINGENAd. 1Anne Marie Carstens blev valgt som dirigent.

Ad 2.Helmer Munch Andersen blev valgt som referent.

Ad. 3Anne Marie Carstens, som formand, fremlagde bestyrelsens beretning:I København arrangerede man en biogra� ur � l De 300 den 25.3.2007Elpida Kosmidou holdt foredrag om Arms and Armour in Greek Coinage i København den 19.9.2007To numre af KAF- Meddelelser er udkommet.Klassiske Arkæologiske Studier bind 3 er i trykken og udkommer snart.Troels Myrup Kristensen har stået for foreningens hjemmeside. Det er foreningen ham taknemmelig for.I Århus blev der ikke a� oldt arrangementer i det forløbne år.Beretningen blev godkendt.

Ad. 4Me� e Korsholm, som kasserer, redegjorde for årsregnskabet:Foreningen har et underskud på 2.600 kr. Store udgi� er har været porto (3.100 kr.) og udgivelse af to numre af KAF- Meddelelser (7.500 kr.). Årsregnskabet blev godkendt og står andet steds i de� e referat.

33

Det blev beslu� et at undersøge, om der var andre muligheder for at betale kon� n gent elektronisk end med PBS, da denne betalingsform p.t. er for dyr for foreningen.

Ad. 5Det blev beslu� et, at kon� ngentet skulle forblive uændret (200 kr. for færdigt uddannede og 100 kr. for studerende).

Budget blev godkendt.

Ad. 6Anne Marie Carstens ønskede ikke genvalg som formand. Jesper Tae Jensen blev valgt som ny formand.Me� e Korsholm ønskede ikke genvalg som kasserer. S� na Brorson Winther blev valgt som ny kasserer.Camilla Sondrup ønskede ikke genvalg som redaktør. Konstan� n Kitsais-Jørgensen blev valgt som ny redaktør.

Ad. 7Vest for Storebælt:Jacob Munk Højte og Søren Handberg blev genvalgt.Øst for Storebælt:S� ne Schierup ønskede ikke genvalg.Helmer Munch Andersen og Thore Clausen blev genvalgt som menige bestyrelsesmedlemmer.Fremover vil Kris� na Borgen også være ansvarlig for foreningens hjemmeside og grafi sk designer. Chris� na Videbech og Catharina Lindeballe blev valgt som nye menige bestyrelsesmedlemmer.Sanne Hoff mann og Jens Evald Vandel blev valgt som nye suppleanter.

Ad. 8Tyge Bro blev genvalgt som revisor og Chris� na Bülow-Jensen blev genvalgt som revisor suppleant.

Ad. 9De bestyrelsesmedlemmer, som trak sig � lbage, blev rost for at have udført et godt stykke arbejde.

Helmer Munch Andersen

34

ISSN 0907-3426

Forfa� erbiografi er

James G. Schryver er Assistant Professor of Art History, University of Minnesota, Morris. Han indleverede i 2005 ph.d.-a� andlingen Spheres of Contact and Instances of Interac� on in the Art and Archaeology of Frankish Cyprus, 1191-1359 ved Medieval Studies, Cornell University.James G. Schryver har bl.a. skrevet ar� klerne “The Garden” (sammen med K. Gleason og L. Passalacqua), i The “Villa of Horace” at Licenza, Final Report of the Excava� ons 1996-1999, redigeret af B. Frischer, J. Crawford & M. De Simone, Oxford: Archaeopress 2006, 71-96; “Monuments of Iden� ty: La� n, Greek, Frank and Cypriot?”, i Iden� tés croisées en un milieu méditerranéen: le cas de Chypre (An� quité – Moyen Âge), redigeret af S. Fourrier & G. Grivaud, Mont-Saint-Aignan Cedex: Publica� ons des Universités de Rouen et du Havre 2006, 385-405; “Nabataean Landscape and Power: Evidence from the Petra Garden and Pool Complex” (sammen med L.-A. Bedal), i Crossing Jordan – North American Contribu� ons to the Archaeology of Jordan, redigeret af T.E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, R.W. Younker & M. Shaer, London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2007, 375-83.E-mail: schryver@morris.umn.edu

Me� e C. Hermannsen blev mag.art i Klassisk Arkæologi, Københavns Universitet i 2006 og skrev specialet Gro� en som arkitektonisk element. En analyse af de romerske gro� er og deres funk� on.Me� e C. Hermannsen har bl.a. skrevet ar� klerne “Emperors between Scylla and Polyphemus: The Use and Abuse of Roman Gro� oes”, i Stable Places and Changing Percep� ons: Cave Archaeology in Greece and Adjacent Areas, redigeret af J.T. Jensen & F. Mavridis, Athen: Aarhus Universitetsforlag 2009; “Preliminary Report on some of the Stucco found in the Roman Villa by Lake Nemi, Loc. S. Maria”, Analecta Romana Ins� tu� Danici 30, 2004.E-mail: mecathe@hotmail.com

Peter Schultz er Olin J. Storvick Chair of Classical Studies, Department of Art, Concordia College, Moorhead, MN, USA. Han tog sin ph.d.-grad i 2003 ved Athens Universitet og skrev sin ph.d.-a� andling på græsk hos Olga Palagia om Athene Nike-templet. Han har sammen med J.T. Jensen, G. Hinge og B. Wickkiser redigeret antologien Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Ritual, Context, Iconography, Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag 2008, og sammen med R. von den Hoff antologien Early Hellenis� c Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.Peter Schultz har skrevet talrige ar� kler om græsk skulptur og arkitektur og beskæ� iget sig indgående med Makedonien før Alexander den Store. Han er tæt på at færdiggøre en monografi om Athene Nike-templets skulpturprogram.E-mail: schultz@cord.edu