DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0068
52
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS.
[chap. III.
No cross walls.
Reasons.
the
Coping.
Lesser Altar.
Rig. 46.—The Lesser Altar.
Triglyphs made
for this.
Metope and tri-
glyph treatment
not unusual.
Nature of detail
of triglyphs.
triglyph as on the metope—also a later
The detail (Fig. 45) shows
have been no cross walls inside, and this goes to show that the basis could not have been used
to support sculpture or other such heavy weight and must therefore been an altar.
It seems almost certain that the triglyplis
and metopes were made for this position and
were not removed from some other structure.
Many things point to this conclusion. First,
the materials; for if they had been used struc¬
turally elsewhere they would have been made
of better material, such as tufa, if coated with
stucco, or limestone: second, their construc¬
tion and especially the thinness of the stones;
for if they had originally belonged to an en¬
tablature they would have been much thicker.
Then again we find that the metopes are equal
in width along each side, while at each end
they are 5 inches wider. This also, I think,
shows that they were made for this position,
and that the end ones were made wider on
purpose. The triglyphs are of the later form.
They are long and thin, being in the proportion
of 7 in height to 4 in width. This is the
same proportion as those of the Stoa of Philip,
while those of the Portico are 6 to 4. The
tops of the sinkings are no longer cut up behind
but are splayed down, and here again they re¬
semble those of the Stoa of Philip. The line
of the upper fascia is at the same level on
characteristic. The metope is 1^ inches higher than its width.
the slabs as they exist without the stucco, and due allowance must be made for this, on
comparing it with other examples, as, with the stucco coating, the sinkings would not appear of
the exaggerated width that the drawing indicates. It is likely that the cornice or coping was of
limestone, but, whether this took the form of a complete Doric
cornice, or was merely a simple moulding, it is impossible to
say without evidence.
This metope and triglyph treatment was not unusual
on altars. Many altars are so represented on vases (see
J. H. S., vol. xi., pl. VI., and p. 226), and there is at Olympia
a circular drum about 4 feet in diameter which is so treated
and which was perhaps part of an altar.
About 190 feet east of the Thersilion, and very nearly
in a line with the centre of its east wall (see Pl. V.), is
another but smaller basis, also evidently that of an altar
(Fig. 46). It measures 11 feet long and 6 feet broad. The
level of the top of its cill is 7 feet 7 inches under that
of the stylobate of the Portico of the Thersilion, or 2 feet
10 inches below the top of the foundation course of its later steps. This basis has been
built of plain conglomerate blocks resting on a cill of the same material. The cill and some
of the blocks remain in position, but the coping has disappeared. These stones have also
had a coating of stucco.
1?t ■ < 1 t .3 . . I . » 1
Fig. 45.—Detail of the Greater Altar.
Temenos of Zeus
SOTER.
(Plate XIV.)
Nature of
remains.
§ 5. The Temenos of Zeus Soter.
The remains of this Temenos, which have been laid bare during the recent excavations,
consist principally of foundation walls ; it is possible however from an examination of these to get
a good general idea of the extent and arrangement of the buildings, although, on account of the
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS.
[chap. III.
No cross walls.
Reasons.
the
Coping.
Lesser Altar.
Rig. 46.—The Lesser Altar.
Triglyphs made
for this.
Metope and tri-
glyph treatment
not unusual.
Nature of detail
of triglyphs.
triglyph as on the metope—also a later
The detail (Fig. 45) shows
have been no cross walls inside, and this goes to show that the basis could not have been used
to support sculpture or other such heavy weight and must therefore been an altar.
It seems almost certain that the triglyplis
and metopes were made for this position and
were not removed from some other structure.
Many things point to this conclusion. First,
the materials; for if they had been used struc¬
turally elsewhere they would have been made
of better material, such as tufa, if coated with
stucco, or limestone: second, their construc¬
tion and especially the thinness of the stones;
for if they had originally belonged to an en¬
tablature they would have been much thicker.
Then again we find that the metopes are equal
in width along each side, while at each end
they are 5 inches wider. This also, I think,
shows that they were made for this position,
and that the end ones were made wider on
purpose. The triglyphs are of the later form.
They are long and thin, being in the proportion
of 7 in height to 4 in width. This is the
same proportion as those of the Stoa of Philip,
while those of the Portico are 6 to 4. The
tops of the sinkings are no longer cut up behind
but are splayed down, and here again they re¬
semble those of the Stoa of Philip. The line
of the upper fascia is at the same level on
characteristic. The metope is 1^ inches higher than its width.
the slabs as they exist without the stucco, and due allowance must be made for this, on
comparing it with other examples, as, with the stucco coating, the sinkings would not appear of
the exaggerated width that the drawing indicates. It is likely that the cornice or coping was of
limestone, but, whether this took the form of a complete Doric
cornice, or was merely a simple moulding, it is impossible to
say without evidence.
This metope and triglyph treatment was not unusual
on altars. Many altars are so represented on vases (see
J. H. S., vol. xi., pl. VI., and p. 226), and there is at Olympia
a circular drum about 4 feet in diameter which is so treated
and which was perhaps part of an altar.
About 190 feet east of the Thersilion, and very nearly
in a line with the centre of its east wall (see Pl. V.), is
another but smaller basis, also evidently that of an altar
(Fig. 46). It measures 11 feet long and 6 feet broad. The
level of the top of its cill is 7 feet 7 inches under that
of the stylobate of the Portico of the Thersilion, or 2 feet
10 inches below the top of the foundation course of its later steps. This basis has been
built of plain conglomerate blocks resting on a cill of the same material. The cill and some
of the blocks remain in position, but the coping has disappeared. These stones have also
had a coating of stucco.
1?t ■ < 1 t .3 . . I . » 1
Fig. 45.—Detail of the Greater Altar.
Temenos of Zeus
SOTER.
(Plate XIV.)
Nature of
remains.
§ 5. The Temenos of Zeus Soter.
The remains of this Temenos, which have been laid bare during the recent excavations,
consist principally of foundation walls ; it is possible however from an examination of these to get
a good general idea of the extent and arrangement of the buildings, although, on account of the