DOI chapter:
Divison D: The Acropolis, from the Propylaea to the statue of Athene Lemnia
DOI chapter:Section XX
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61302#0675
SEC. XX OF ANCIENT ATHENS 501
in all three greater at the back and front than at the sides ; but
the difference is most observable on the Acropolis fragments.
One broad-triglyphed architrave beam being given to the front,
it remains to measure the blocks. Their length is 4-04™, the exact
length wanted. We can therefore, with no hesitation, put the
broad-triglyphed blocks over the front of the colonnade.
Next we take the narrow-triglyphed blocks. The matter is
not so easy ; there is no door in the sides of a temple, so we
cannot assume that the number of columns will be even ; but a
simple calculation sets the matter straight-
The architrave block length = 3-84m.
Therefore, distance from centre to centre of columns = 3-84ra.
The length of the stylobate from centre to centre of each corner
column = 41-70“.
Now, if the columns all stood at equal distances all along the
stylobate, it would suffice to divide 41.7ο111 by 3-84m and we should
get the number of intercolumniations ; but this is not the case. In
all early Doric temples the two corner columns stand nearer to
each other than the others, and that by a distance varying from
0-25m to 0-30™. Suppose we take the midway distance, -275m, it
is clear that if we added this amount to each end of the length,
4i-7om, we should get a length which would allow for the distance
between each column being even, as it is only in the two end ones
there is any deficit; hence the number of intercolumniations is
•275 + 41-70 + -275 _
3 · θ4
Eleven intercolumniations means twelve columns, therefore the
peristyle may be restored with a front of six and sides of twelve
columns ; and as the peristyle fragments have yielded results so
satisfactory, there need be no hesitation in using the \vhole of the
similar poros fragments to reconstruct the temple. The internal
restoration of the temple—seen in the ground-plan—is, as regards
everything not directly deducible from the foundations remaining,
conjectural.
The temple being so far restored, it remains to consider what
arguments as to its date can be deduced from its building materials
and style.
The foundations of the peristyle differ in material and technique
from those of the inner cella. The foundations of the peristyle,
including the stylobate, are of a hard reddish-gray stone found
in all three greater at the back and front than at the sides ; but
the difference is most observable on the Acropolis fragments.
One broad-triglyphed architrave beam being given to the front,
it remains to measure the blocks. Their length is 4-04™, the exact
length wanted. We can therefore, with no hesitation, put the
broad-triglyphed blocks over the front of the colonnade.
Next we take the narrow-triglyphed blocks. The matter is
not so easy ; there is no door in the sides of a temple, so we
cannot assume that the number of columns will be even ; but a
simple calculation sets the matter straight-
The architrave block length = 3-84m.
Therefore, distance from centre to centre of columns = 3-84ra.
The length of the stylobate from centre to centre of each corner
column = 41-70“.
Now, if the columns all stood at equal distances all along the
stylobate, it would suffice to divide 41.7ο111 by 3-84m and we should
get the number of intercolumniations ; but this is not the case. In
all early Doric temples the two corner columns stand nearer to
each other than the others, and that by a distance varying from
0-25m to 0-30™. Suppose we take the midway distance, -275m, it
is clear that if we added this amount to each end of the length,
4i-7om, we should get a length which would allow for the distance
between each column being even, as it is only in the two end ones
there is any deficit; hence the number of intercolumniations is
•275 + 41-70 + -275 _
3 · θ4
Eleven intercolumniations means twelve columns, therefore the
peristyle may be restored with a front of six and sides of twelve
columns ; and as the peristyle fragments have yielded results so
satisfactory, there need be no hesitation in using the \vhole of the
similar poros fragments to reconstruct the temple. The internal
restoration of the temple—seen in the ground-plan—is, as regards
everything not directly deducible from the foundations remaining,
conjectural.
The temple being so far restored, it remains to consider what
arguments as to its date can be deduced from its building materials
and style.
The foundations of the peristyle differ in material and technique
from those of the inner cella. The foundations of the peristyle,
including the stylobate, are of a hard reddish-gray stone found