middle helladic to the late helladic i shaft graves 10 страница

To return to the plan of the Delphi sanctuary (Figure 7.2), the temenos is defined by a boundary wall marking off the space. Before 548 bce, the temenos was smaller and not defined by a wall, but following the fire it was expanded and a new main entry point established at 103. The Sacred Way climbs steeply along the southeast border, between the old and new boundaries and lined on both sides by monuments (104-118) and small treasuries (121, 122, 124, 223, 219). The path switches back and winds up the hill to the corner and northeast side of the temple platform, passing more buildings and monuments, before turning into an open area between the temple (422) and its altar (417). Above the temple is a fourth-century theater (538) with half-circle stone banks of seating built into the rising hillside. The theater testifies to the importance of music and poetic performances in ritual life, as well as the worship of Dionysos at the sanctuary. Earlier, these performances would have taken place in more irregular, open areas with sloped banks for spectators. Above the theater is a winding path that leads further up and away to the west where the stadion for the athletic races is found. As we shall see at Olympia, the stadion was usually adjacent to the temenos, but the topogra­phy made this impossible at Delphi. The plan shows in black the buildings that still existed in the second century ce when the traveler Pausanias visited the site and recorded what he saw. By this time it was a very congested site with monuments and small buildings crowding the Sacred Way, such as the Athenian Treasury (see Figure 7.14, page 170) and the Siphnian Treasury (see Figure 7.15, page 171) that were constructed more than six centuries previously.

The monuments and buildings at a sanctuary like Delphi competed for visual prominence along the Sacred Way. The placement of the Athenian Treasury (225) at the switchback of the

7.2 Plan of the sanctuary at Delphi. Structures with black lines are those that still existed in the 2nd cent. ce. Source: plan no. 19.639, EfA/D. Laroche. Selected points: 122: Siphnian Treasury; 223, 225: Athenian Treasury and Marathon trophy base; 313: Stoa of the Athenians; 329: polygonal wall of temple platform; 417: altar; 422: Temple of Apollo; 511: Daochos Monument; 538: theater.

path exposes the entire south side of the building and its adjacent dedication of spoils from Marathon directly to the viewer’s eyes. So too the stoa (313) stands open in front of the temple platform; it would have appeared to support the temple rising above it, and promoted the importance of Athens. The Lesche, or dining room, of the Knidians (605) was built on the north side of the temenos in the 460 s after another victory over the Persians, this time at Eurymedon. It is isolated, but would have provided a good spot for smaller gatherings and was decorated with monumental mural paintings of the fall of Troy and Odysseus’s visit to the underworld by Polygnotos.

The competition for the visual and physical prominence of monuments was perhaps at its high­est in the crowded area to the north side of the temple platform (507-524). This defined the boundary of the space in front of the altar and temple facade; here visitors approached the priests serving the Pythia and sacrifices were made at the altar. During the fourth century, cities and states vied for the placement of new monuments in this space at the time the temple was being rebuilt, making rival claims for dominance in Greece. A similar set of competing claims is found in the sculptural monuments dedicated by Sparta and other poleis in the fifth century along the first leg of the Sacred Way (105-118).

This pattern is found in other sanctuaries. At Olympia, the altar of Zeus was on the level plain between the Kladeos and Alphaios rivers, called the Altis, and was the focal point of the site even before the Olympic Games were founded (Figure 7.3, 3). Sometime in the seventh century, the ashes from the altar and debris consisting of the terracotta and bronze votives were collected and buried in the sanctuary and new monumental structures were built, including the first temple. Starting in the early sixth century, the first temple was rebuilt and its foundations were reused for the sixth-century Temple of Hera, whose lower interior wall and partial colonnade stand on the site today (5). Afterward on the north side were built treasuries (6) with prime vantage

7.3 Reconstruction drawing of the sanctuary at Olympia. Date of photo: 1900. Photo: D-DAI-ATH- Olympia-Neg. 194. All rights reserved. 1: Entrance to temenos; 2: Temple of Zeus; 3: Altar of Zeus; 4: Philippeion; 5: Temple of Hera; 6: Treasuries; 7: Stadion.

points of the stadion to the east of the altar of Zeus. Around 470 все a Temple to Zeus (2) was started, built by Libon of Elis and completed around 457 after the city of Elis gained control of the sanctuary. The stadion was moved further to the east amid earthen banks for the spectators (7). Some additional treasuries were built, and these now lined a formal processional path from the temenos to the stadion. While much of the construction at Delphi was motivated by competition among poleis, the new phases of construction at Olympia were linked to struggles among neighboring cities for control of the sanctuary, with a new victory prompting deconstruction of existing structures and the construction of new ones. For example, the Philippeion, or shrine of Philip (4), was set just to the south of the temple and west of the Zeus altar in the fourth century, after the conquest of Greece by Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great.

Additional support structures were built outside of the temenos to house athletes and visitors, and their numbers multiplied in the late classical and Hellenistic periods. The paths along the temenos wall and in front of the temple with Zeus were populated with numerous dedications of statues, as was the path below the treasuries leading to the stadion. One can see that the area outside of the temenos became crowded with buildings, but the boundary wall kept open the space inside the sanc­tuary where sacrifices and the oath of the athletes would take place.

Both Olympia and Delphi were not constrained by surrounding cities in their expansion, although the boundaries of the temenos, the topography, and previous structures meant that these important sites experienced somewhat uneven and irregular growth. This was also true of sanctuaries like the Acropolis in Athens, which had housed the Mycenaean palace and probably most of the city’s population into the Geometric period. Literary sources suggest that the Acropolis began to be transformed into a sanctuary in the seventh century, and by the middle of the sixth century a temple dedicated to Athena had been constructed, along with numerous smaller buildings whose sculpture survives. After the Battle of Marathon in 490 все, the city began to build a new temple to Athena, the Parthenon, to the south and east of the archaic temple. This building was still under construction when the entire site was destroyed by the Persians in 480-479. The site was not rebuilt for thirty years, reportedly as a monument to the sacrilege of the Persians, but in 451 plans were made to build a new and larger Parthenon on the remains of the uncompleted building (Figure 7.4). Inscribed building accounts tell us that construction began in 447 and that the building was completed by 438, with the pedimental sculpture taking until 432 to complete. At the same time as the pediments a new gateway, the Propylaia, was constructed at the west end. From here, both visitors and the Panathenaic procession would walk along the north side of the Parthenon with walls defining the path. The altar of Athena was to the north, and a large gathering area was defined by a wall to the west alongside the present-day Erechtheion (see Figure 7.8, page 164). Additional buildings were placed mostly along the walls of the Acropolis, and a temple to Athena Nike was built above the processional entrance at the west end. On the south slope of the Acropolis was a temple of Dionysos and a theater area that was replaced by a stone theater in the fourth century.

We will discuss the Parthenon and Erechtheion in more detail below and in Chapter 10, but for now we should note that one of the buildings is generally visible from most spots in the city below and one can see their symbolic importance as signs for the city. Indeed, perhaps the best view of the Periklean building program is from the Pynx to the west, where the citizens of Athens would gather in assembly to hear speeches and vote on important actions (see Figure 1.9, page 13). From there one can see all the major buildings and recall the words of Perikles in his funeral oration of 431 все, at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, urging his fellow citizens to look around and become lovers of the city. The idea that even in ruins, the buildings of Athens would still impress later peoples, unlike their rival Sparta, indicates the significance of these places for the Greeks and explains their heavy investment in the cost of building the sanc­tuaries and their temples.

			o^Herocfes				Site of Agios letrios Katephore

7.4 Plan of the Acropolis and areas to north and east, Athens. Photo: American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations.

temples and the architectural orders

Even in its ruined state, the visual dominance of a sanctuary by the temple through its height and size is apparent. In this section we will focus on the design of the Greek temple itself, its component parts, and the system of its forms and decoration that constitute the Greek “orders." These systems of design provided some standardization to the temple throughout the Greek world that made it the most recog­nizable and influential of Greek buildings, but still allowed many variations of style, proportions, and materials. We can begin by looking at a temple that is one of the best preserved, the Temple of Concord in the ancient city of Akragas (modern Agrigento) in Sicily (Figure 7.5). This building was constructed around 440-430 все, but in the late sixth century ce it was converted into a church. Although the inte­rior walls were cut to provide arch windows, this conversion still preserved more of the original fabric, especially of the interior, than is the case today at Delphi, Olympia, and most other sites.

The most distinctive feature of its exterior is the peripteral colonnade, or columns that run around the exterior of the building, supporting the edge of the roof and enclosing a central rectangular chamber called the naos or cella. The colonnade rests on a stepped base called the stereobate that elevates the temple above the surrounding terrain; this and the other components of the elevation of the temple are shown in the diagram (Figure 7.6), with the Doric order found at Akragas/Agrigento on the left and the Ionic order to its right. The columns are set on the stylobate platform formed by the stereobate. The columns are built in sections or drums and are joined by dowels set in the center; after completion, the columns are then fluted, accentuating the vertical lines. The columns are not cylindrical but taper inward from the base to the top, a feature called entasis that gives the column more of a visual “lift" The top block is the capital and makes the transition between the circular column and the rectangular roof. Horizontal grooves mark the boundary of column shaft and the round section of the capital called the echinus. The cushion shape of the capitals here is distinctive of the Doric order, in contrast to the volute scrolls of the Ionic order that we will discuss later. Above the round echinus is a rectangular block, the abacus, that completes the transition to the rectangular blocks of the superstructure.

The horizontal upper section of the temple is called the entablature and consists of the architrave, the blocks or lintels that connect the columns, the frieze above it, and finally the sloping roof making

the triangular gable at the ends called the pediment. The Doric frieze is divided into alternating forms called triglyphs, the three-part projecting rectangles, and the square panels of the metopes. The triglyphs are framed by the peg-shaped element called regula underneath and the mutule above, which marks the cornice supporting the edge of the roof. The sima or gutter forms the edge of the roof and helps to channel the water to a series of spouts, usually in the form of human or animal heads with open mouths called antefixes for the water to exit. Finally, a sculpture call an acroterion could be set on the peak of the roof or on pedestals at the corners.

The regularity of these features in temples from the sixth century into the Roman period demon­strates that these forms constitute an order or rule that Greek architects employed since their first development in the late seventh to early sixth centuries bce. The rules were not without their issues, however. For example, the triglyph is placed over the center of each column, and another is set between two columns, with metopes filling in between them. A problem occurs at the corner, in that the corner edge of the entablature, while set back from the abacus, still extended beyond the center of the column, so that the triglyph at the corner could not be centered over the column, as can be seen in the temple at Akragas/Agrigento. Designers had to compensate for this either by fudging the placement of the first few triglyphs and widening the metopes to fill in the uneven spacing, or by adjusting the spacing of the columns. While the alternating triglyphs and metopes provide a doubled rhythm from the colonnade below that balances the horizontal and vertical elements, the anomaly of the rule would seem to be unsatisfactory. Recalling the organization of the sanctuaries, however, reminds us that temples were meant to be seen from multiple angles, especially from the corners. From this vantage point, the uneven spacing is less apparent and the meeting of two triglyphs at the corners makes for a stronger corner, continuing the rhythm from one side of the building to another.

One distinct advantage of an order is that it is not limited to a specific size of building. The Temple of Concord is moderate in size, 16.91 meters across the end and 39.44 meters down the side. The end

side has six columns, while the long side has thirteen. This proportion follows a colonnade ratio of acroterion (or akroterion)

x:2x + 1 [6:2(6) + 1, or 6:13]. The same formula is found in the larger Parthenon, which has an 8:17 ⁽P^l- ^acroteria)

([8:2(8) + 1] colonnade. This rule is not universal, but the articulation of the Doric order is flexible in ^{ornament or} s^culpture pkced

at the corners or peak of a roof

being applied to small treasuries or gigantic temples of varying proportions. It is perhaps this com­bination of consistency and variability with the Doric order and its Ionic counterpart that led to the long history of their use in Greek architecture.

The development of the Doric order has been the subject of much debate. It was called Doric because it developed on the mainland where Dorian Greek was spoken, particularly at Corinth and the northeast Peloponnesos. According to the Roman architect Vitruvius, the Doric order evolved from wooden architecture in a process of petrification (De Arch. 4.2.2-3). Triglyphs are the ends of beams set perpendicular to the architrave and the metope was a panel covering the gap between the beams, as can be seen in the reconstruction of the entablature for the seventh-century Temple of Apollo at Thermon (see Figure 6.22, page 148). The mutules are the remnants of the rafters rising up from the cornice to form the roof. While we have seen that in the Geometric period buildings were made primarily of wood, mud brick, and thatch, and that early exterior columns at Lefkandi and Samos were made out of wood, the theory of petrification has difficulties. Recent analysis of the archaeological evidence suggests that the Doric order evolved within a couple of generations between 625 and 575 все at a number of sites throughout Greece, and that its components have varied sources (Barletta 2001). The cushion capital has similarities to Mycenaean capitals, an example of which was visible in the pediment over the Lion Gate at Mycenae (see Figure 3.6, page 56). Technological developments such as ashlar masonry and the production of terracotta tiles also played a role.

Similarly, Near Eastern and Egyptian sources may have played a role in developments of some forms or motifs. As Barbara Barletta has suggested, the development of the orders was a process of experimentation and adaptations as Greek builders at many different sites sought to create a system over a short period of time.

Even once a system was developed, there was change in its deployment. We can see this readily by comparing the two temples dedicated to Hera at Poseidonia/Paestum (Figure 7.7). The temple on the left, Hera I, was built around 550 все, within a couple of generations of the founding of the city (see Figure 5.3, page 103). Its colonnade has nine columns across the front and eighteen down the side, for a ratio of 1:2. The odd number of columns on the end is unusual, but was also found at Thermon and might have accommodated a two-chamber cella on the interior. The second temple,

7.7 Temples of Hera at Poseidonia/Paestum. Left: Temple of Hera I, c. 550 все (width 80 ft 5 in/24.51 m). Right: Temple of Hera If c. 460 все (width 79 ft 7 in/24.26 m). Photo: author.

Hera II, dates to c. 460, but its colonnade is 6:14 rather than the “canonical” 6:13. Comparing the columns, one can see that there is a more pronounced bulge or entasis in the Hera I columns, its capitals are wider and proportionally flatter, and the proportions of the columns somewhat squatter. Hera II has a more subtle entasis and pronounced verticality in its columns, capitals, and the overall proportions of the building. One can readily see that there is a system at work that gives the Greek temple a distinctive visual identity, but also a range of variation and flexibility that makes each building individual and local.

Turning to the Ionic order (Figure 7.6), we can see that it has the same three-part elevation of base, colonnade, and entablature. The stylobate is the same, but the columns are more complex and ornate. The columns have a square plinth block and above it a three-part circular base, with a pro­jecting, rounded molding called the torus sandwiching a receding molding called the scotia. The fluting consists of channels carved between ridges. The capital consists of a circular echinus with projecting volute scrolls facing to the inside and outside, with a square and ornamented abacus block to make the transition from the circular column to the rectilinear entablature. This section has the same layers as the Doric order: architrave, frieze, cornice, and sima, but the decoration differs. The architrave has three staggered horizontal bands called fascia, while the frieze is left undivided. Like the Doric order, the frieze could be filled with relief or painted decoration (see Figure 7.15, page 171) that runs along the length of the building. The cornice and sima project outward as in the Doric order to enclose the roof, but rather than mutules as a decoration the Ionic order has small block-like teeth called dentils. The Ionic order, too, is not without its inconsistencies. Especially in a peripteral temple, one has a problem in that the Ionic capital has two faces with the volute scrolls. The scroll ends face each other in a colonnade until one reaches the corner. Here, one has two volute faces meeting each other, forcing the corner scroll to project more diagonally and making the corner columns inconsistent with the rest.

There are no peripteral Ionic temples that are as well preserved as the temple at Akragas/ Agrigento to give us a good view of the overall effect of the exterior. The Erechtheion on the Acropolis in Athens does give us a feeling for the ornateness of an Ionic building (Figure 7.8). Possibly designed by Mnesikles, it was started in 431 bce and after several delays completed about 405. The building is actually several temples with a facade facing east, a south porch supported by statues of women called caryatids, and a porch on the lower north side. The facade

has six columns sitting in front of the main chamber, making this a prostyle (columns before) rather than a peripteral temple. The three-step platform supports the columns, which have the three-part torus and scotia base but lack a plinth block. The columns are proportionally taller than those of the Doric order, and overall the building has more verticality. The columns have a decorative band at their top that marks the transition to the capitals. The architrave and its fas­cia are intact on the east end, but the frieze was once decorated with white marble figures set against the blue stone.

On the walls of the cella an additional and lavish ornamental frieze was added below the architrave, as can be seen in one of its blocks now in London (Figure 7.9). The frieze is divided into horizontal sections with a lotus and palmette chain in the lower half, an egg-and-dart molding above it, and a variant leaf-and-tongue pattern at the top. The three larger bands are separated by a thin bead-and-reel runner. The basic units of the top moldings align with each other in a 1:1 ratio and in a 1:2 ratio with the bead-and-reel molding. The lotus- and-palmette chain, however, has a different rhythm. It takes four of the lotus-palmette units to align with fifteen of the egg-and-dart units, creating a regular but syncopated pattern of 4:15:30 overall.

Vitruvius (De Arch. 4.1.6-8) tells us that the proportions of the Doric order were based on the ideal male figure, while those of the Ionic order were based on the female figure. The famous cary­atid porch of the Erechtheion suggests a visual, symbolic linkage of Ionic proportions and female figures, but it is not likely that there was such a precise correspondence in proportional systems as Vitruvius suggests. The Ionic order, like the Doric, developed over a few decades, about 600-550 все, in several places; its early proportions were varied, like those of both the Doric order and korai from the same period.

One other major order evolved at the end of the fifth century, the Corinthian, which is distinguished by its much taller proportions and the carving of acanthus leaves covering an underlying bell shape (Figure 7.10). According to Vitruvius (De Arch.

4.1.9-10), this was developed by the sculptor Kallimachos, who had observed a basket that had been set on an acanthus plant in a cemetery. The basket contained drinking vessels used by a young woman who had died and were left as a tomb offer­ing, with a tile placed over the top of the basket to protect them. The plant’s leaves and tendrils grew around and over the surface of the basket, and it is said that Kallimachos rendered this into a stone capital and created the Corinthian order from it.

This story may have some element of truth in it, although basically the Corinthian order is adapted from the Ionic, with the biggest change being in the tall, bell-shaped capital, giving it a more vertical proportion than the Ionic. Since the Corinthian capital does not have volutes at the corners, it did not have the problems of consistency that the Ionic order faced, and it became very common in Roman architecture. Its use in Greece was more limited to interiors at the beginning. At Epidauros it was used on the interior colonnade of the tholos or thymele, but not on the exterior (see Figure 12.2, page 290). An early example of it on the exterior is seen in the Lysikrates monument, where it forms essentially a false colonnade for the cylindrical shape of the monument (see Figure 12.5, page 293).

The exterior of the Greek temple masks a simpler interior, as we can see by looking at a generic plan of the temple (Figure 7.11). The top of the stylobate (6) is a rectangular platform with the columns along its edge in a peristyle or colonnade (5). In the case of very large temples, such as the Temple of Apollo at Didyma (see Figures 14.8-14.10, pages 353-354), it is necessary to double or even triple the rows of columns to support the superstructure, but this just adds another unit or layer to the plan without changing the basic concept. Once past the peristyle, the naos consists of a long, rectangular space with solid walls on the long sides and columns replacing the walls on the ends. This arrangement of columns in antis (anta is the term for the ending of the wall) creates a porch opening at both ends (7, 8). At the back side this is an enclosed chamber called the opisthodomos (3) that is often used as a storage or display space for offerings. The other porch, or pronaos (1,

before-the-naos), has a door in its back wall leading to the naos proper (2).

In the naos would be found the statue of the deity and other important cult objects or treasures, as can be seen in the reconstruction of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (Figure 7.12). The statue here, made of gold and ivory by Pheidias in the 430 s, completely filled the interior to create a glittering and over­whelming sight of the god. Long lost, reconstruc­tions based on literary accounts, excavations (including the workshop of Pheidias), and represen­tations on coins only hint at the wonder-inspiring nature of the experience. To support the roof in large temples like this, tiers of small, superimposed col­umns would line the sides of the naos, since a stand­ard column would be too wide and reduce the interior space. The interior was not well illuminated since natural light could only indirectly reach the interior. Reflecting stone floors or pools and lamps would supplement the lighting, but the interior of the temple was not a place intended for large-scale ritual and was meant to invoke a sense of awe or reverence. Most cult statues were more modest in size than the Olympian Zeus, such as the group from Lykosoura (see Figures 14.18 and 14.19, page 364) or copies of the Aphrodite of Knidos (see Figure 12.11, page 300), and some of the oldest cult statues were small wooden statues that resembled planks.