W.J.’s volume is one of the most ambitious studies of Greek architecture to appear in recent decades. The investigation of the Doric and Ionic ‘orders’, more accurately genera, takes the form of thematic chapters advocating a variety of traditional and new approaches. While architectural theorists and historians are an audience for the project, much of the content is aimed at archaeologists who research the surviving evidence from ancient buildings. In contrast to the traditional archaeological divisions by material, period and type into many sub-specialisations, W.J. promotes a holistic approach. The contextualisation of the Greek temple as the premier offering to the gods invites comparisons across media to tripods, phialai and other votives found in the sanctuaries burgeoning during the Archaic period. The motivations behind architectural developments are interpreted along four primary axes: tectonics, continuity with established forms, aesthetics and symbolism. The Doric frieze is a key problem examined along each axis, although it is but one facet of more comprehensive analyses of Doric architecture and Ionic, Aeolic and Corinthian capitals.

The volume has already been reviewed with chapter-by-chapter commentary (A. Patay-Horváth, BMCR 2015.09.56; F. Rojas, JHS 135 [2015], 269–70; N.L. Klein, JSAH 74.3 [2015], 365–7). It deserves repeating that the book is thoughtfully organised, superbly written and lavishly illustrated. W.J. seldom treads the same ground as the previous scholarship on the archaeological evidence for early temple architecture (e.g. B. Barletta, The Origins of the Greek Architectural Orders [2001]; J.J. Coulton, Greek Architects at Work [1977], pp. 15–73; M.-C. Hellmann, L'architecture grecque I–II [2002, 2006]; E. Lippolis, M. Livadiotti and G. Rocco, Architettura greca: storia e monumenti del mondo della polis dalle origini al V secolo [2007]). Although generally positive, reviewers have expressed scepticism with the volume's contention that triglyphs symbolised tripods (even provoking a response by W.J. in BMCR 2016.01.17). In fact, tripods only concern a minority of the discussion of the Doric frieze. Early triglyphs presented in Chapter 2 are revisited to demonstrate the failures of tectonic explanations, that the form of triglyphs follow a wooden constructional device. Next considered as a conservative element drawn from Bronze Age split-rosette friezes in Chapter 4 (primarily about the Aeolic capital), the Doric frieze is treated formally as a preface to the chapter about the Ionic decorative vocabulary. The tripod–triglyph comparison in Chapter 8 revisits W.J.’s 2002 article on the topic, introduces new comparanda and proposes a hypothetical developmental model.

W.J. joins most specialists today in preferring ‘field-and-divider’ friezes as antecedents for the Doric frieze, over flawed tectonic explanations, but he goes farther by illustrating how some ancient Greeks appreciated the strong visual similarities between triglyphs and representations of tripods. Without more evidence, we cannot be certain whether tripods played a meaningful role in the initial formulation of triglyphs on altars and temples, but I see no reason that conservatism and revival of Mycenaean forms are inherently superior ideas. Both interpretations attempt to reconstruct lost meaning and symbolism, and W.J.’s new conceptualisation of tripods is carefully reasoned and should be given equal footing in future discussions of the origins of the frieze. His model accommodates the traditional view, even while celebrating the complexity and nuance created by complementary modes of interpretation.

Another important question in the volume is the meaning of continuity during a period of rapid innovation. W.J. agrees with the conclusion of recent scholarship that both the Doric and Ionic genera were synthesised relatively rapidly in the decades around 600 b.c.e. On the one hand, Egypt and other Near Eastern centres might have provided Greeks with technical know-how, some broad conceptions of sanctuary buildings and decorative patterns. On the other hand, Mycenaeans and Minoans already employed some of the same ‘Oriental’ ideas and motifs in their building and decorative arts. The question of whether Greeks revived local models from their distant past or adapted contemporary Near Eastern architecture by exploiting renewed interests and contacts abroad can never be completely settled. W.J. gives the Near Eastern evidence far more serious consideration than has been typical in recent literature, although his final conclusions largely coincide with the received view. The frieze, capitals, fluting and even Aeolic and Ionian capitals – which are often viewed as a clear-cut case for orientalising influences – are treated as if Mycenaean and Minoan forms must be the default models, and the strong case for foreign contact revealed by early Greek construction techniques is acknowledged but downplayed.

Aesthetics and symbolism are also major topics. Chapters on the origins and interrelationships of Ionic and Aeolic capitals are the best developed (Chapters 4–5). The evidence is presented concisely, enhanced by new illustrations (including 3D scans) and formal analysis of the capitals’ developments. The symbolism of the Corinthian capital is subsequent, following Scahill's association of the early capitals with funerary anthemia (D. Scahill, ‘The Origins of the Corinthian Capital’, in P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff [edd.], Structure, Image, Ornament: Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World [2009], pp. 40–53). Although the Vitruvian account does imply a symbolism of triumph over death, one misses discussion of the other possible symbolisms and a purely formal account of Corinthian capitals – whose elements also draw from floral patterns seen on the column shaft, sima and antefixes. A very original analogy between the Doric echinos and phialai is also presented, and the symbolism of columns as votives assessed not through this possible relationship but freestanding votive columns. Although not as thoroughly developed as the tripod analogy, these connections are intriguing, visually compelling, and deserve elaboration in future scholarship.

The book exhibits a mastery of the immense archaeological evidence and literature on early Greek architecture, yet there are minor omissions. The work is admirably concerned with historiography. However, the ideas of influential nineteenth-century theorists like G. Semper are frequently showcased without equivalent attention to the later generations of archaeologists who served as our primary interpreters of early Greek monuments. And although archaeologists have developed poststructuralist, cognitive and similar theoretical approaches to meaning and symbolism, none of this body of theory is integrated into the discussion of Greek architecture. Despite the general excellence of the text, the handling of the evidence from the formative period of Greek architecture, especially from the seventh century b.c.e., varies in quality. Much of the ‘raw data’ have been condensed into summary tables and diagrams with some inaccuracies, and it is not always clear why these examples were selected or how they factor into the narrative.Footnote ¹ Complete catalogues at the end may have served as a general reference, or the tables might have been eliminated altogether.

As a whole, the volume is an innovative and persuasive study. Viewing the temple as a monumental votive rather than a series of isolated architectural elements opens up many new explanations of structure, form and meaning. The pursuit of multiple, complementary analyses presents a fresh and compelling new account of the birth of Greek architecture. The concept of fertilisation across media within the sanctuary is a major contribution that should open up many new avenues for future research. W.J. has demonstrated that, after more than two centuries of scholarship, there is still a great deal of new territory in the study of Greek temples.