A Chronology of Greek Sculpture 400 B.C. to 40 B.C.

Abstract

Archaeologists have dealt with later Greek sculpture in many ways. They have described the masterpieces of great artists such as Praxiteles, Skopas, Lysippos and others; they have traced the development of schools which followed these masters or which sprang up in the great centers of Pergamon, Rhodes, and Alexandria; also the development of style has been pointed out, from the still classical style of the fourth century to the baroque of the Pergamene school, and to the later rococo. But such terms are very vague and general and are inappropriate for discovering the position of an individual sculpture within the stylistic development of the whole period. The lack of an accurate chronology is, indeed, the surprising fact in archaeological studies in later Greek sculpture. True, much progress has recently been made on the chronology of the fourth century by scholars like Diepolder, Speier, Binneboessel, and Schefold.1 But we are still far from the precision with which we date a late archaic statue or vase, or one of the fifth century. The matter is much worse in regard to monuments of Hellenistic times. Competent scholars still differ so widely that some works are pushed back and forth through the centuries. The Nike of Samothrace is dated shortly before 300 or as late as the second half of the second century,2 the little Gauls about 200 or in the third quarter of the second century,3 the Hellenistic Ruler 160–150 or about three generations later.4 A similar uncertainty in our dating works of the fifth century would mean that we were unable to say whether a work was made c. 470 or 410, or in the sixth century that the style of Klitias could not be distinguished from that of the younger Euphronios. Are the reasons for this state of knowledge, or rather of ignorance, owing to peculiarities of the Hellenistic material? Was the development in Hellenistic times less coherent and consistent than in the earlier periods? Were there separate streams flowing side by side but differing in their paths of development? Or is it our own fault because we have neglected the Hellenistic period, deeming it less worth studying than the earlier periods?