Aegineten in Metapont?

Der frühklassische Tempel C II und seine Bauplastik

https://doi.org/10.34780/v0h9-98rp

Authors

  • Madeleine Mertens-Horn [Author]
  • Dieter Mertens [Author]
  • Aenne Ohnesorg [Author] Technical University of Munich image/svg+xml

Abstract

The oldest oikos C I in the sanctuary of Metapontum, probably dedicated to Athena, was replaced by an elaborate new building (C II) in the early 5th century BC. Its foundations and a few building fragments suggest that the building was a large amphidistyle temple following Western Greek typology. A number of building and sculpture fragments made of Parian marble, mostly badly damaged, are associated with this building, which were produced by Greek craftsmen based on their stylistic characteristics. For example, the pieces of a roof edge with lion’s heads and volute acroteres, one of which can be reconstructed based on a model from the Temple of Aphaia in Aegina. In addition, there are numerous sculpture fragments of artistic quality, style, iconography and size, which identify them as components of a gable of the same type as the Aphaia Temple; these are, however, a third smaller and thus match the dimensions of the temple C II. It is therefore assumed that the production of the marble decoration of the temple was given to a Greek, probably Aeginetian workshop. Another group of sculptural fragments of the same size and period, but made of white limestone and possibly from the west gable of temple C II, was certainly made by local craftsmen. Considerations on the significance of the sculpture and building programs in the poleis of Magna Graecia conclude this contribution to the current discussion about the mobility of workshops in the early classical period.

Keywords:

Metapontum, Aegina, building sculpture, Parian marble, Severe Style, mobility, identity

Published

2024-12-03

Issue

Section

Artikel

How to Cite

Mertens-Horn, M., Mertens, D. and Ohnesorg, A. (2024) “Aegineten in Metapont? Der frühklassische Tempel C II und seine Bauplastik”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 139, pp. 1–232 (§). doi:10.34780/v0h9-98rp.