An architectural investigation into the relationship between Doric temple architecture and identity in the archaic and classical periods

• Main Author: Woodward, Robert
• Other Authors: Rempel, Jane
• Published: University of Sheffield 2013
• Subjects: 726
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.577422

The predominant approach to the study of Doric temple architecture during the twentieth century has been the evolution model, which connects a temple’s design directly with its date of construction (Dinsmoor 1950; Lawrence 1996). Thus, the model allows temples to be dated to distinct decades, based upon their ‘key’ proportions, such as the length of the plan. B.A. Barletta’s (2011: 629) recent article entitled State of the Discipline: Greek Architecture discussed the need for constant reassessment of the proportions of Doric temples and their chronology, particularly in light of recent discoveries and new publications, suggesting that a reconsideration of the evolution model was now required. In the same article, Barletta (2011: 630) discussed the growing trend amongst classical archaeologists towards analysing the social role of temples. With the exception of the temple sculpture, which has generally been studied separately (Marconi 2007; Østby 2009; Maggidis 2009: 92-93), the move towards a social understanding of the temple has had little effect upon the study of the buildings’ designs. Although a number of studies have begun to investigate the role of architectural design in conveying meaning (Snodgrass 1986; Østby 2005), the studies are limited, both chronologically and geographically, by the constraints of the evolution model. Given the ‘mathematical’ image of classical architecture studies, and the subject’s “current lack of academic popularity” (Snodgrass 2007: 24), it is perhaps not surprising that a review of the evolution model and the social role of architectural design are long overdue. To this end, this study re-analyses the connection between date and design, demonstrating that a temple’s design was not entirely controlled by the date of its construction. Rather, temple design was affected by the sub-regional inter-group competition which was so prevalent in sanctuaries during the archaic and classical periods and the expression of identity on behalf of the different dedicatory groups.