DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0060
44
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS.
[CHAP. III.
Access led to
lower diazoma.
Buttresses in
wall.
Inner· wall.
Approach to main
diazoma between
walls.
Finish of wall
at top.
Slope of bank
behind.
West retaining
wall.
Pedestal at end.
Capping on same.
Single wall for
55 feet.
Double wall after
this.
Front wall.
Nature of front
wall.
Height of front
wall.
Back wall.
Cross wall
at end.
Spurs of the
Auditorium.
Difference of
construction
between east
and west walls.
Reasons for this.
foundation course of
for the same
the top, nor
walls of the Theatre
This front wall was
In excavating in the
of two small internal
' ELEVATION
Fig. 34.
Here it finishes against a short wall at right angles to, and connecting
at an angle with the axis
These walls are about 14 feet apart from face to
are built of double rows of blocks and have an average thickness of 4 feet,
front wall rises straight up from about the level of the foundation course of the
of the portico and the topmost course at present existing is 24 feet above that,
of square blocks of conglomerate of an average size of 4 feet 6 inches long by
This seems to have
been obtained to the diazoma from without, on the cast side. The remarkable correspondence
of this point with another on the opposite side of the theatre, both in position and level,
seems to afford considerable proof of some definite structural line in the
auditorium at this particular part. Beyond this distance the main retaining Avail
has both external and internal buttresses at several points. These were rendered
necessary on account of the depth of bank to be supported. There are also
traces, behind the highest part of the wall, of another and inner wall parallel
with this outer one. This suggests an approach to the main diazoma from
behind, up the end of the embankment, as at Mantinea (Bull. Corr. Hellen.
XIV. Pl. 17); or it may have been merely an additional support to relieve the
front wall, where the bank was highest. We cannot however come to any
very definite conclusion on this point as so much of the wall has disappeared.
As our object is primarily to ascertain tangible data, it would lie useless,
reason, to go into any theories regarding the finish of this retaining wall on
need we consider what happened beyond the ridge of the theatre, further than to suggest
that most probably the bank merely sloped down till it reached the general level of the
surrounding ground, much as it does to-day, only from a greater height. A trench was dug
to see if there were any traces of a Avail at what might have been the line at the foot of
this bank, but nothing was found.
The west retaining wall, like the other, abuts on a limestone pedestal (D) next the
orchestra. This pedestal is very similar to the one on the other side and its capping, which
was not in position, was found lying beside it. An examination of this capping shows that
it has no fixing marks on its top surface; so, presumably, there was nothing further in the
way of finish above the capping—no figure or other decorative adjunct. The wall runs off
at an angle to the axis of the theatre similar to that of the east wall, for a distance of 55
feet from the pedestal.
the ends of two retaining walls beyond, which do not run
of the theatre but are parallel, to it.
face; they
The
later steps
It is built
1 foot 3 inches high and in alternate courses of headers and stretchers.
been the usual method of building supporting Avails with double thickness of blocks, at this
period. We see the same arrangement in the blocks of the retaining
at Athens, and in the wall supporting the Temple of Victory there.
probably never more than a course or two higher than its present level.
space on the top of this wall, and between it and the second Avail, traces
buttresses were found.
The foundations of the back wall commence 22 feet above the
the later steps of the portico, and its present greatest height is 11 courses or about 13^- feet.
Except the two lower foundation courses, which are of conglomerate, this wall is built of beautiful
square blocks of limestone Avith ‘ bull-nosed ’ faces somewhat similar to those in the west
wall of the Thersilion. The blocks both of this wall and of the outer Avail have been joined
together with ‘ swallow-tail ’ dowels, like those in the east Avail. Abutting on this wall, at
its west end, is a short cross wall projecting out to the line of the front wall, which latter
appears to continue along to join it under the present surface of the ground. About 13J
feet east of this cross Avail, the west Avail of the Skanotheka joins, at right angles, the front
retaining Avail.
Of the two spurs of hill forming the sides of the auditorium, judging from their appearance
to-day, that on the east side seems more artificial than the one on the Avest; and while the lines
of the former must to a considerable extent have been made up by embanking, those of the
latter Avere probably largely formed by cutting out the hill-slope, at least for a considerable height.
Hence we find that a difference of construction has been folloAved in building the tAvo walls;
for Avhile in the former case it was probably more convenient to build a thinner wall with
internal cross stay walls at intervals and external buttresses, in the latter, cross walls of any
considerable length could not so easily have been formed, especially low down, and so a greater
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS.
[CHAP. III.
Access led to
lower diazoma.
Buttresses in
wall.
Inner· wall.
Approach to main
diazoma between
walls.
Finish of wall
at top.
Slope of bank
behind.
West retaining
wall.
Pedestal at end.
Capping on same.
Single wall for
55 feet.
Double wall after
this.
Front wall.
Nature of front
wall.
Height of front
wall.
Back wall.
Cross wall
at end.
Spurs of the
Auditorium.
Difference of
construction
between east
and west walls.
Reasons for this.
foundation course of
for the same
the top, nor
walls of the Theatre
This front wall was
In excavating in the
of two small internal
' ELEVATION
Fig. 34.
Here it finishes against a short wall at right angles to, and connecting
at an angle with the axis
These walls are about 14 feet apart from face to
are built of double rows of blocks and have an average thickness of 4 feet,
front wall rises straight up from about the level of the foundation course of the
of the portico and the topmost course at present existing is 24 feet above that,
of square blocks of conglomerate of an average size of 4 feet 6 inches long by
This seems to have
been obtained to the diazoma from without, on the cast side. The remarkable correspondence
of this point with another on the opposite side of the theatre, both in position and level,
seems to afford considerable proof of some definite structural line in the
auditorium at this particular part. Beyond this distance the main retaining Avail
has both external and internal buttresses at several points. These were rendered
necessary on account of the depth of bank to be supported. There are also
traces, behind the highest part of the wall, of another and inner wall parallel
with this outer one. This suggests an approach to the main diazoma from
behind, up the end of the embankment, as at Mantinea (Bull. Corr. Hellen.
XIV. Pl. 17); or it may have been merely an additional support to relieve the
front wall, where the bank was highest. We cannot however come to any
very definite conclusion on this point as so much of the wall has disappeared.
As our object is primarily to ascertain tangible data, it would lie useless,
reason, to go into any theories regarding the finish of this retaining wall on
need we consider what happened beyond the ridge of the theatre, further than to suggest
that most probably the bank merely sloped down till it reached the general level of the
surrounding ground, much as it does to-day, only from a greater height. A trench was dug
to see if there were any traces of a Avail at what might have been the line at the foot of
this bank, but nothing was found.
The west retaining wall, like the other, abuts on a limestone pedestal (D) next the
orchestra. This pedestal is very similar to the one on the other side and its capping, which
was not in position, was found lying beside it. An examination of this capping shows that
it has no fixing marks on its top surface; so, presumably, there was nothing further in the
way of finish above the capping—no figure or other decorative adjunct. The wall runs off
at an angle to the axis of the theatre similar to that of the east wall, for a distance of 55
feet from the pedestal.
the ends of two retaining walls beyond, which do not run
of the theatre but are parallel, to it.
face; they
The
later steps
It is built
1 foot 3 inches high and in alternate courses of headers and stretchers.
been the usual method of building supporting Avails with double thickness of blocks, at this
period. We see the same arrangement in the blocks of the retaining
at Athens, and in the wall supporting the Temple of Victory there.
probably never more than a course or two higher than its present level.
space on the top of this wall, and between it and the second Avail, traces
buttresses were found.
The foundations of the back wall commence 22 feet above the
the later steps of the portico, and its present greatest height is 11 courses or about 13^- feet.
Except the two lower foundation courses, which are of conglomerate, this wall is built of beautiful
square blocks of limestone Avith ‘ bull-nosed ’ faces somewhat similar to those in the west
wall of the Thersilion. The blocks both of this wall and of the outer Avail have been joined
together with ‘ swallow-tail ’ dowels, like those in the east Avail. Abutting on this wall, at
its west end, is a short cross wall projecting out to the line of the front wall, which latter
appears to continue along to join it under the present surface of the ground. About 13J
feet east of this cross Avail, the west Avail of the Skanotheka joins, at right angles, the front
retaining Avail.
Of the two spurs of hill forming the sides of the auditorium, judging from their appearance
to-day, that on the east side seems more artificial than the one on the Avest; and while the lines
of the former must to a considerable extent have been made up by embanking, those of the
latter Avere probably largely formed by cutting out the hill-slope, at least for a considerable height.
Hence we find that a difference of construction has been folloAved in building the tAvo walls;
for Avhile in the former case it was probably more convenient to build a thinner wall with
internal cross stay walls at intervals and external buttresses, in the latter, cross walls of any
considerable length could not so easily have been formed, especially low down, and so a greater