Aegina E 10, Left Archer of E. Ped. 2, left leg, view facing pediment
Aegina E 9, Left Helper of E. Ped. 2, view facing pediment
Aegina E 1, Athena of East Ped. 2, full frontal view
Model of temple, from E
Aegina E 3, Right Opponent of E. Ped. 2, full figure, from right
Aegina E 2, Right Champion of East Ped. 2, full figure, from right
| Collection: | Munich, Glyptothek |
| Title: | Aegina, East Pediment 2 |
| Context: | From Aegina, Sanctuary of Aphaia |
| Findspot: | Excavated at Aegina, Sanctuary of Aphaia |
| Summary: | First Battle of Greeks and Trojans |
| Material: | Marble |
| Sculpture Type: | Architectural |
| Category: | Statuary group |
| Placement: | East pediment |
| Style: | Late Archaic |
| Technique: | In-the-round |
| Original or Copy: | Original |
| Date: | ca. 490 BC - ca. 480 BC |
| Dimensions: | L. 13.20 m; H. at center 1.74 m |
| Scale: | Life-size |
| Region: | Saronic Gulf |
| Period: | Late Archaic |
| In Group: | Sculptures from the Temple of Aphaia at Aegina |
Subject Description:
Athena (E1) stands in the center of the pediment as warriors fight on either side. In view of the absence of Giants and Amazons and the presence of Athena, the subject appears to be a Trojanomachy, a battle of the Greeks against the Trojans. It is not, however, the famous Trojan War described in detail by Homer and depicted in the West Pediment, but rather an earlier campaign mentioned by Apollodorus (
The two figures closest to Athena and hence occupying a position of special prominence should be important leaders of their respective sides, hence Telamon for the Greeks and probably one of the sons of Laomedon for the Trojans. Ohly interpreted the outstretched, aegis-covered arm of Athena as a threat directed specifically toward the figure on the right (E2), hence a Trojan. Since this warrior appears to be defeating his opponent, Ohly identifies him as Priam, the only son to survive the battle, and the next Trojan king. The figure on the left (E7) would then be Telamon. The fourth figure to whom Ohly gives a name is the dying warrior in the left corner (E11). He is singled out as Herakles' victim, so probably Laomedon himself. His mature age and regal bearing support this identification.
Unlike the West Pediment where the warriors are arranged in fighting pairs, in the East all figures converge toward the center, as if each half of the pediment represented one force. Only the leader of each force has reached the other side and met the opponent. It would be dangerous to read the pediments too literally, but perhaps it is not too far-reaching to assume that the Right Opponent and his Helper (E3 and E4) expose their backs to Herakles because he is their compatriot, one of the archers backing up the forward line. Thus the figures facing left (i.e. on the right side of the pediment) are Greeks, while those facing right are Trojans.
The importance of the theme of the pediment is indicated by the history of the Late Archaic temple which it adorns. (See also the discussion under Dating Notes.) It is now clear that this group of figures (known as East Pediment 2) was substituted for an earlier group (East Pediment 1), itself only recently finished. Since there was no evidence of physical destruction to explain the replacement, Ohly reasoned that the change was politically motivated. The subject of the earlier pediment was perhaps the Rape of Aegina by Zeus (the original location of the earlier pediments, whether east or west, is not clear), essentially a foundation myth without obvious overtones. An extra set of horizontal geison blocks with cuttings for attachment of sculpture as well as an extra central acroterion indicate that the original sculptural decoration of the east facade was fully installed before a decision was taken to replace it. The new pediment which invoked the legend of the ancestral Aeginetan heroes, who were called to fight against powerful Troy and proved themselves valiant warriors, had clear militaristic overtones. The newly designed Athena was equally militaristic in tone. Given the immense effort and expense involved in producing a new pediment, the new theme must have been considered of the highest importance and probably reflected a new initiative of the Aeginetan state.
Date Description:
The destruction of the early 6th century temple, followed almost immediately by the building of the Late Archaic temple, took place about 500 B.C. The date (see below for refinements) is based on pottery associated with the burned debris and fill connected with the subsequent rebuilding. General corroboration of the date is provided by the style of the sculpture which decorated the new temple. The situation is complicated, however, because there are four sets of pedimental sculpture associated with the new temple. The latest sets, East 2 and West 2, are identified by their findspots below the pediments, where they fell when the temple collapsed in Late Antiquity. The other two sets are represented by only a few fragments, principally heads but also other pieces. Since their scale and style, especially close to West Pediment 2, leave no doubt that they were originally designed for the pediments of this temple, they must represent earlier versions of the sculptural program. Final publication of these early pediments is still pending, but the latest reports (especially Williams 1987) suggest the following scenario.
When the building of the Late Archaic temple commenced, a team of sculptors concentrated on the early East Pediment, possibly a depiction of the Rape of Aegina. This was completed and installed. Work on the early West Pediment, a battle scene with Amazons (?), was also begun. Before it was completed, however, a decision was made to change the subject matter of the pediments. The new West Pediment was apparently undertaken first, possibly because work on the west facade was already in progress. After West 2 had been completed, the east end of the building may have been temporarily closed off, since a door was cut in the opisthodomos wall to allow entry from the rear (West), while the front was being reworked. Later the rear opening was closed off with a grate, and again the East would have become the principal entrance. Finally, figures from the two early groups were exhibited in stoa-like structures on either side of the Altar Court in front of the temple.
In his publications of the 1970s, Ohly dated the destruction and rebuilding, including the change of design and carving of West Pediment 2, to the decade 510-500 B.C. Perceiving a significantly advanced style of carving in East Pediment 2, he allowed for a substantial passage of time and dated it 485-480 B.C. A number of scholars, relying on Ohly, emphasized the difference in style between the two later pediments and supported the lengthy interval in date. In recent years, however, the various scholars most closely involved with the analysis of the Aegina material have modified the dating, and now envisage a narrower time frame for work on the Late Archaic temple. New studies of the pottery (M. Moore and D. Williams) suggest, with some leeway, that both the destruction and rebuilding may have taken place as late as the first decade of the 5th century, particularly the early 490s. Following Ohly's notion that political motivation lay behind the design change, Williams suggests that both the funds and the impetus to undertake such major renovations may have come from Aegina's raids on Phaleron, possibly while the Athenian fleet was in the eastern Mediterranean ca. 498 B.C. Work on West Pediment 2 would have followed soon after. Thus, the latest studies argue for a slight lowering of the dates of these phases. Williams reports that, in notes made before his death, Ohly also was moving in this direction. The dating of East Pediment 2 is somewhat more difficult and necessarily controversial, since it depends almost wholly on considerations of style. Arguments concerning the interpretation of the iconography and the evidence of Pindar (see Stewart) have been introduced, but these are not conclusive. Ohly's attribution to the second East Pediment of fragments previously associated with the earlier pediments suggests that he had come to believe the styles of the earlier and later pediments are not so distinct as once thought. His dates in the most recent Glyptothek Guide (
Condition: Fragmentary
Condition Description: Eleven figures. Five — E 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 — are relatively well preserved. Six are preserved in fragmentary f
Material Description: Parian Marble
Associated Building: Aegina, Temple of Aphaia
Sources Used:
Other Bibliography: