The standard wisdom on the origins of the Doric order revolves around the doctrine of petrification, by which a previously established timber vocabulary came to be perpetuated in stone once society acquired the means to build in this material. While the petrification doctrine takes its authority from the Roman architect-writer Vitruvius, and finds support from parallel processes observable elsewhere in the world, it none the less copes inadequately with the archaeological realities of Greece in the late Geometric and early Archaic periods. In particular, the form, size, and placement of the triglyphs in the frieze are not necessarily demanded by the logic of timber construction and the configuration of early temple superstructures. A growing number of scholars accordingly challenge the Vitruvian consensus, whether by tracing the Doric frieze back to Mycenae, Egypt, the Orient, and idioms of pattern making in Geometric art, or by arguing for symbolic modes of interpretation. After briefly reviewing these approaches, this paper presents connections between triglyphs and tripods, ritual objects of considerable significance for early Greek cultural and religious life. The formal characteristics of tripods and representations of tripods find echoes in the generic compositional structure of the triglyph. Depictions of multiple tripods alternating with decorative motifs recall the rhythmical disposition of the triglyph and metope frieze, while certain small-scale details on bronze tripod legs find counterparts in non-canonic types of triglyph. The concluding section initiates a debate over the explanation for these affinities by exploring the significance of the tripod and its many associations: as aristocratic gift with heroic overtones, as agonistic prize, as oracular instrument, as Apolline symbol, as the Greeks' ultimate votive offering. Some of these themes can strike chords with Greek temples, so there thus emerges the possibility that the triglyph frieze was invented to articulate visually the programmatic concerns of their builders.
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
© 2002 Archaeological Institute of America