DOI issue:
Egypt
DOI article:Czerner, Rafał; Medeksza, Stanisław: The commodus monument from house H21C in Marina el-Alamein
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42093#0111
MARINA EL-ALAMEIN
EGYPT
into two colours (no fragments of any other
colour marble slab have been discovered).
The biggest doubt in relation to the base
is whether a cornice existed under this slab
top. The Marina site has yielded a few
examples of cornices under half-columns
and pilasters, mostly from the framing of
the said house aedicules. A sill cornice of a
small niche from the same room as the
monument in question has also been
preserved in fairly good condition, as well as
the profile of a broken sill cornice of the
niche from House H10, the cornice itself
from House H9a, which was connected
with the doorframe, and about half
a cornice from House H 10a, found together
with elements of a small crowning cornice
of corresponding size with attached pilaster
and half-column from a niche framing. All
of these cornices were quite prominent with
a full cyma recta taking up at least half the
profile, supporting a massive slab, in two
cases carved with dentils and framed with
additional profiling. The half-columns
standing on these sills were very much like
the supports from the commemorative
monument in question, that is, identified as
stylized Marina-type pseudo-Corinthian.
Assuming such a sill had existed in this
monument, it would have been richly
carved and considering the length it would
have had (a total of 8 m), it seems unlikely
that not one single fragment has survived.
The only possibility for its complete
disappearance is that it was made of a
material prized like marble and was removed
and used elsewhere once the monument fell
into ruin and was dismantled. Had it
existed, it would have had to be c. 35 cm
high counting together with the slab top
(about one and a half times higher than in
the case of the niche from House 10 per
analogiam).
Two examples of a lower and more
modest form of base cornice have also been
discovered at Marina. They separate the
bases from the higher parts of the pillar
superstructures of tombs T2 and T3. As far
as the structuring logic of architectural
orders is concerned, these cornices serve the
same purpose as the cornices under
columns, despite the fact that the pillars
under which they are placed have no bases.
They did have, however, crowning capitals,
architraves and cornices. These examples
are earlier than the commemorative monu-
ment by some 300 years and they are slightly
different in form despite an overall
geometrization so characteristic of Marina’s
architectural orders (the Marina-type
pseudo-Corinthian form of the order was
not established until the end of the 1st and
beginning of the 2nd century AD). In any
case, these base cornices were low in
proportion to the pillar and simple, not to
be distinguished from ordinary stone
blocks, especially if the bevelling, if any, was
executed in plaster and not in the stone
itself. The minimal value for such an
element would be the thickness of a typical
floor slab, that is, approximately 12 cm,
which together with the almost 5 cm of the
marble top would have raised the floor of
the monument base that much above the
height of the surviving base walls.
The third possibility is for the marble
top to have rested directly on the edges of
the base walls, on top of whatever filling was
found inside the two units. No evidence
survives for this, or any other possibility,
hence the reconstruction has assumed a
simplified form of considerable height,
executed in a manner leaving no doubt as to
the nature of this conservation intervention.
The proportions of the Marina-type
pseudo-Corinthian columns, engaged
columns and pilasters, between 15 and 18
modules, have been found to be
proportionately smaller than in the Vitruvian
version of the Corinthian order (Czerner
Polish Archaeology in die Mediterranean 19, Reports 2007
105
EGYPT
into two colours (no fragments of any other
colour marble slab have been discovered).
The biggest doubt in relation to the base
is whether a cornice existed under this slab
top. The Marina site has yielded a few
examples of cornices under half-columns
and pilasters, mostly from the framing of
the said house aedicules. A sill cornice of a
small niche from the same room as the
monument in question has also been
preserved in fairly good condition, as well as
the profile of a broken sill cornice of the
niche from House H10, the cornice itself
from House H9a, which was connected
with the doorframe, and about half
a cornice from House H 10a, found together
with elements of a small crowning cornice
of corresponding size with attached pilaster
and half-column from a niche framing. All
of these cornices were quite prominent with
a full cyma recta taking up at least half the
profile, supporting a massive slab, in two
cases carved with dentils and framed with
additional profiling. The half-columns
standing on these sills were very much like
the supports from the commemorative
monument in question, that is, identified as
stylized Marina-type pseudo-Corinthian.
Assuming such a sill had existed in this
monument, it would have been richly
carved and considering the length it would
have had (a total of 8 m), it seems unlikely
that not one single fragment has survived.
The only possibility for its complete
disappearance is that it was made of a
material prized like marble and was removed
and used elsewhere once the monument fell
into ruin and was dismantled. Had it
existed, it would have had to be c. 35 cm
high counting together with the slab top
(about one and a half times higher than in
the case of the niche from House 10 per
analogiam).
Two examples of a lower and more
modest form of base cornice have also been
discovered at Marina. They separate the
bases from the higher parts of the pillar
superstructures of tombs T2 and T3. As far
as the structuring logic of architectural
orders is concerned, these cornices serve the
same purpose as the cornices under
columns, despite the fact that the pillars
under which they are placed have no bases.
They did have, however, crowning capitals,
architraves and cornices. These examples
are earlier than the commemorative monu-
ment by some 300 years and they are slightly
different in form despite an overall
geometrization so characteristic of Marina’s
architectural orders (the Marina-type
pseudo-Corinthian form of the order was
not established until the end of the 1st and
beginning of the 2nd century AD). In any
case, these base cornices were low in
proportion to the pillar and simple, not to
be distinguished from ordinary stone
blocks, especially if the bevelling, if any, was
executed in plaster and not in the stone
itself. The minimal value for such an
element would be the thickness of a typical
floor slab, that is, approximately 12 cm,
which together with the almost 5 cm of the
marble top would have raised the floor of
the monument base that much above the
height of the surviving base walls.
The third possibility is for the marble
top to have rested directly on the edges of
the base walls, on top of whatever filling was
found inside the two units. No evidence
survives for this, or any other possibility,
hence the reconstruction has assumed a
simplified form of considerable height,
executed in a manner leaving no doubt as to
the nature of this conservation intervention.
The proportions of the Marina-type
pseudo-Corinthian columns, engaged
columns and pilasters, between 15 and 18
modules, have been found to be
proportionately smaller than in the Vitruvian
version of the Corinthian order (Czerner
Polish Archaeology in die Mediterranean 19, Reports 2007
105