This article challenges the suggestion made by various authors that the Ionic sekos frieze of the Parthenon was originally planned as Doric. It examines each piece of evidence in turn and offers alternative explanations. Perhaps the most persuasive argument for an originally Doric frieze is the presence of regulae and guttae on the epistyle crown of the facades. The elements do not, however, continue as expected on the sides of the sekos. Furthermore, the dimensions of the hypothetical frieze would not allow for the usual alignment of a triglyph over the anta return. A Doric frieze would thus be unsuitable for this location. Instead, the Ionic frieze fits better into the height of the entablature, and the length and spacing of its blocks correspond with those of the wall, suggesting that it was planned from the beginning. Rather than representing a change of design, the prominent combination of Doric and Ionic elements in the Parthenon reflects the Ionicization of Attic architecture and its experimentation with new forms in the Classical period.
Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.The American Journal of Archaeology (AJA) is published by the Archaeological Institute of America and in association with the University of Chicago Press. It was founded in 1885 and is one of the world’s most distinguished and widely distributed peer-reviewed archaeological journals. The AJA reaches more than 40 countries and approximately 700 universities, learned societies, departments of antiquities, and museums. The AJA regularly publishes open access content on itswebsite
Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
American Journal of Archaeology
© 2009 Archaeological Institute of America