Sie sind auf Seite 1von 236

DOXIADIS

Architectural Translated and Edited by


Jaqueline Tyrwhitt
Space in
Ancient Greece
Delphi
Athens

Selinus O ly m p ia
Pergam on

M agnesia
Samos
Priene
Sounion M iletus

Cos
Palmyra
Architectural Space
in Ancient Greece
The M IT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England
Architectural Space
in Ancient Greece

Translated and Edited by Jaqueline Tyrwhitt


C. A. Doxiadis
O riginally published in G erm an in 1937 under the
title Raumordnung im griechischen Stadtebau. Translated
with perm ission of Kurt Vow inckel Verlag,
H eidelberg

Copyright © 1972 by
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This book was designed by The MIT Press Design


Department. It was set in Fototronic Elegante by
York Graphic Services, Inc., printed on Warren's
Old Style by Halliday Lithograph Corp., and bound
in G. S. B. Bookcloth by Halliday Lithograph Corp.
in the United States of America.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be re­


produced in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.

ISBN 0 262 04021 2 (hardcover)

Library o f Congress catalog card num ber: 7 4 -8 7 3 0 0


To the memory of my father and mother
Contents

Editor's Note viii I


Preface ix

Illustrations x

Comparative Plans
of the Sites Studied xv

Discovery of the Ancient Creek System


of Architectural Spacing 1

1
Investigation 3

2
Documentation 15

3
Conclusion:
Development of the Twelve- and
Ten-Part System of Architectural Spacing 20
II The Sacred Precinct of the Olympian
Zeus at Priene 146
Description of Some Ancient Greek
Sites 27
The Sacred Precinct of Artemis at
Magnesia 148
4
Use of the Twelve- and the Ten-
The Agora and the Temple of Zeus
Part System 29
at Magnesia 154

The Acropolis at Athens 29


The Corinthian Temple at Palmyra 161
5
Use of the Twelve-Part System 39 7
Use of Exceptions to the System 166

The Temple Terrace of Apollo at Delphi 39


The Sacred Precinct of Demeter
Malophoros at Selinus 166
The Sacred Precinct of Aphaia at Aegina 48

The Sacred Precinct of Athena at


The Delphineion at Miletus 54
Sounion 172

The Agora at Miletus 62


The Sacred Precinct of Demeter
The Altis at Olympia 71 at Priene 176

The Sacred Precinct of the Egyptian


The Sacred Precinct of Poseidon at
Sounion 92 Gods at Priene 178

Index 181
The Agora at Pergamon 98

The Sacred Precinct of Athena at


Pergamon 104

The Altar of Zeus at Pergamon 110

6
Use of the Ten-Part System 114

The Heraion at Samos 114

The Asclepeion at Cos 125

The Agora and the Temple of Athena


at Priene 136
Editor's Note Abbreviations Used in the Bibliographies
In Chapters 5, 6, 7, notes and references are AbhPreuss.
placed at the end of each site description rather Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Abhandlungen. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse.
than at the end of the chapter. Notes added for
A JA
this edition are in brackets. Works consulted American journal of Archaeology
for the purpose of this edition appear in the Ath M itt.
bibliographical lists under the heading "A ddi­ Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.
tional References." Mitteilungen. Athenische Abteilung.
BCH
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
BSA
British School at Athens. Annual.

[viii]
Preface

This is the first translation into English of my various national archaeological schools and
doctoral dissertation, which was prepared at the institutes in Athens.
Berlin Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule The text of this edition does not constitute a
and published in 1937 as Raum ordnung im major revision of the original, although some
griechischen Stä dtebau. sections have been rearranged, minor inaccura­
My preface to the original edition began as cies have been corrected, and additional refer­
follows: ences and new illustrations have been pro­
Two great advances of the last three decades vided. The sites discussed in this book thus in­
have radically altered the conditions that pre­ clude only those that had been fully excavated
vailed in cities over the last three millennia.
The first advance concerns building materials. and documented before 1936, when my thesis
Until about the beginning of this century, man was written, and their state of preservation as
built with clay and stone, wood and marble, described here is that in which I found them at
natural materials whose characteristic properties
of weight and size determined the scale and that time. There has, of course, been a consid­
form of the buildings. Today, the increasing in­ erable change in the number and condition of
dustrialized production of new building mate­ the excavated sites in the last thirty years. In
rials has given man the freedom to create struc­
tures of whatever scale and form he may desire. cases where findings made since 1936 have al­
The second advance concerns transportation. tered the situation as I have described it, refer­
Until the last century man could proceed be­ ence to these is given in the notes. At the
yond the pedestrian range only with the help of
animals. Today mechanized transportation reigns Heraion at Samos, for example, excavations are
supreme and is completely altering the form still proceeding. Here I had postulated the po­
and scale of our cities. sition of an entry based on the theory of polar
The problems caused by these changing con­ coordinates. Recent findings on the site have
ditions made me determined to discover what shown the existence of an entry close to the
man might hold onto in a situation where city point I had selected but not close enough to be
planning policies could "as easily lead to terri­ conclusive.
ble failures as to happy solutions" for mankind. Of the sites necessarily omitted from my
I determined to discover what was "the human 1936 study the best known are perhaps Delos
scale"; what was the secret of the system of and Corinth, but there are also many minor
architectural spacing used by the ancient Greeks, sites, such as Perachora, Kea, Vraona, awaiting
which had the effect of satisfying man and up­ investigations that will throw further light on
lifting his spirit as he entered a public space— the theory I put forward here.
whether it was a precinct sacred to the gods To Professor Jaqueline Tyrwhitt I express my
with its temples and votive columns or the gratitude for her translation of my German text
agora with its stoas and statuary. As a student and for her supervision of this English edition. I
in Athens, I had visited and studied all the best- acknowledge also the contribution of my young
known archaeological sites in Greece and, later, colleague Andreas Drymiotis, engineer-
several in Asia Minor. In Berlin I was able to mathematician, who found the time to take
restudy them and compare my findings with some new photographs of the ancient sites. His
those of several outstanding archaeologists, photographs add to the quality of this pre­
including my professor, Dr. Daniel Krencker, sentation.
Dr. Wilhelm Dörpfeld, Dr. Theodor Wiegand,
then President of the German Archaeological Constantinos A. Doxiadis
Institute, and many other scholars from the Athens, 1969

[ix]
Illustrations

Unless otherwise noted, illustrations are by Altertumswissenschaft, suppl. 4, Stuttgart: Metzler,


C. A. Doxiadis. Page numbers are in brackets. 1924, p. 1199.)
16 [47]
1 [35]
Athens, Acropolis. View from point A, 1968. Delphi. General plan of sacred precinct. (Pierre
(Photo: A. Drymiotis.) de la Coste-Messelière, Delphes, Paris: Editions
du Chêne, 1943.
2 [35]
Athens, Acropolis III, after 450 b . c . Perspective
17 [50]
from point A.
Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. View from
point A, 1968. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
3 [36]
Athens, Acropolis I, circa 530 b . c . Plan.
18 [51]
Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. View
4 [36] (drawn in 1901). (Adolph Furtwangler, Aegina:
Athens, Acropolis II, circa 480 b .c . Plan. das Heiligtum der Aphaia, Munich: Franz, 1906,
5 [37] pi. 2.)
Athens, Acropolis III, after 450 b . c . Plan. 19 [52]
6 [38] Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia, early fifth
Athens, Acropolis II and III. Plan (W. B. Dins­ century b . c . Plan.
moor, The A rchitecture o f Ancient Greece, London: 20 [53]
Batsford, 1950, fig. 74.) Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. Plan, show­
7 [41] ing four different periods. (Adolf Furtwängler,
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. View from point C, Aegina: das Heiligtum der Aphaia, Munich: Franz,
1968. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.) 1906, suppl. 5.)
8 [42] 21 [53]
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Plan of temple. Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. Plan of the
great altar. (Adolf Furtwängler, Aegina: das Heilig­
9 [42]
tum der Aphaia, Munich: Franz, 1906, fig. 22.)
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Elevation of temple
and terrace. (Fernand Courby, La Terrasse du 22 [57]
temple, pt. 1, Fouilles de Delphes, vol. 2, Paris: Miletus, Delphineion. View from the west,
De Boccard, 1927, fig. 157.) circa 1914. (Georg Kawerau and Albert Rehm,
Das Delphinion in M ilet, Berlin, Staatliche
10 [43]
Museen, Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. View from point B,
und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, ed.
1968. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
Theodor Wiegand, vol. 1, pt. 3, Berlin: Reimer,
11 [44] 1914, pi. 6.)
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Monument to
23 [57]
Eumenes II. (Fernand Courby, La Terrasse du
Miletus, Delphineion I, fifth and fourth centu­
temple, pt. 1, Fouilles de Delphes, vol. 2, Paris:
ries b . c . Plan.
De Boccard, 1927, fig. 221.)
12 [44] 24 [58]
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Monument to Miletus, Delphineion II, third and second centu­
Aemilius Paullus. (Heinz Kahler, D er Fries vom ries b .c . Plan.
Reiterdenkm al des A em ilius Paullus in Delphi, Berlin: 25 [58]
Mann, 1965.) Miletus, Delphineion II. Plan of detail.
13 [45] 26 [59]
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Restoration. (Albert Miletus, Delphineion III, first century b .c . and
Tournaire, Relevés et restaurations, pt. 1, Fouilles first century a . d . Plan.
de Delphes, vol. 2, Paris: Fontemoing, 1902, pl. 27 [60]
6 .) Miletus, Delphineion IV, after first century a .d .
14 [45] Plan.
Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Sketch showing view 28 [61]
from the southwest in ancient times. Miletus, Delphineion III. Reconstruction.
15 [46] (Georg Kawerau and Albert Rehm, Das Del­
Delphi. General plan of sacred precinct. phinion in M ilet, Berlin, Staatliche Museen,
(H. Pomtow, "Delphoi: Die Topographie," in Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und
A. F. von Pauly, ed., Real-Encyclopä die der klassischen Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, ed.

[x]
Theodor Wiegand, vol. 1, pt. 3, Berlin: Reimer, its environment. (Ernst Curtius and Friedrich
1914, pl. 4.) Adler, eds., Olympia: die Ergebnisse der von dem
29 [61] deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung, Berlin:
Miletus, Delphineion. Composite plan. (Georg Asher, 1897, map 2.
Kawerau and Albert Rehm, Das Delphinion in 42 [83]
M ilet, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Milet: Ergeb­ Olympia, Altis. View from a point east of the
nisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen treasuries, looking south, 1968. (Photo: A. Dry­
seit dem Jahre 1899, ed. Theodor Wiegand, vol. miotis.)
1, pt. 3, Berlin: Reimer, 1914, pl. 7) 43 [84]
30 [64] Olympia, Altis. Hellenistic period. Plan.
Miletus, Agora III. Perspective. (Armin von 44 [85]
Gerkan, Der Nordmarkt und der Hafen an der Olympia, Altis, Hellenistic period. Plan. (Essen,
Löwenbucht, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Milet: Ausstellung, 1960. Olympia in der Antike, Essen,
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Unter­ 1960.)
suchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, ed. Theodor
Wiegand, vol. 1, pt. 6, Berlin: Reimer, 1922, pl. 45 [86-87]
27.) Olympia, Altis. View from point B, 1969.
(Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
31 [65]
Miletus, Agora I, fifth and fourth centuries b .c . 46 [87]
Plan. Olympia, Altis. Perspective from point B.

32 [66] 47 [88]
Miletus, Agora II, second century b . c . Plan. Olympia, Altis. View from point C, 1969.
(Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
33 [67]
Miletus. General plan. (Armin von Gerkan, 48 [89]
Griechische Städtanlagen, Berlin: De Gruyter, Olympia, Altis. Perspective from point C.
1924, fig. 6.) 49 [90]
34 [67] Olympia, Altis, Roman period. Plan.
Miletus. Plan of city center. (Armin von Gerkan, 50 [91]
Der Nordmarkt und der Hafen an der Löwenbucht, Olympia, Altis. Model. (By Hans Schleif, in
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Milet: Ergebnisse der Wilhelm Dörpfeld, Alt-Olympia, Berlin: Mittler,
Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem 1935, vol. 2, pl. 1.)
Jahre 1899, ed. Theodor Wiegand, vol. 1, pt. 6, 51 [94-95]
Berlin: Reimer, 1922, fig.l.) Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Poseidon. View
35 [68] from point A, 1969. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
Miletus, Agora III, first century b .c . and first 52 [96]
century a .d . Plan. Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Poseidon. Plan.
36 [69] 53 [97]
Miletus, Agora IV, second century a .d . Plan. Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Poseidon. General
37 [70] plan. (Valerios Staïs, Τὸ Σούνιον καὶ οἱ ναοὶ
Miletus, Agora IV. Perspective. (Armin von Ποσειδῶνος καὶ Ἀ θ ηνᾶς, Athens: Library of the
Gerkan, Der Nordmarkt und der Hagen an der Archaeological Service, 1920, end paper.)
Löwenbucht, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Milet: 54 [97]
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchun­ Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Poseidon. View of
gen Seit dem Jahre 1899, ed. Theodor W iegand, temple. (William H. Plommer, "Three Attic
vol. 1, pt. 6, Berlin: Reimer, 1922, pl. 28.) Temples," pt. 2, "The Temple of Poseidon," A n ­
38 [78-79] nual of the British School at Athens 45,1950, pl. 8.)
Olympia, Altis. View from point A, 1969. 55 [99]
(Photo: A. Drymiotis.) Pergamon, Agora. View from point A to the
39 [80] west, 1936.
Olympia, Altis, Hellenistic period. Plan. 56 [100]
40 [81] Pergamon, Agora. Plan.
Olympia, Altis. Perspective from point A. 57 [101]
41 [82] Pergamon. General plan. (Alexander Conze et
Olympia, Altis. General plan of the Altis and al., Stadt und Landschaft, Berlin, Staatliche
[xi]
Museen, Die Altertümer von Pergamon, vol. 1, 70 [121]
Berlin: Reimer, 1913, pl. 1.) Samos, Heraion II, Rhoikos period. Plan.
58 [102] 71 [121]
Pergamon, Agora. Sections. (Jakob Schrammen, Samos, Heraion III, Classical period. Plan.
Der grosse Altar; der obere M a rk t , Berlin, Staatliche 72 [122]
Museen, Die Altertümer von Pergamon, vol. 3, Samos, Heraion III, Classical period. Plan.
pt. 1, Berlin: Reimer, 1906, pl. 25.) (Hans W alter, Das griechische Heiligtum: Heraion
59 [103] von Samos, Munich: Piper, 1965, fig. 77.)
Pergamon, Agora. General plan. (Jakob Schram­ 73 [122]
men, Der grosse Altar; der obere M arkt, Berlin, Samos, Heraion. Reconstruction of the great
Staatliche Museen, Die Altertümer von Per­ altar. (Hans W alter, Das griechische Heiligtum:
gamon, vol. 3, pt. 1, Berlin: Reimer, 1906, pl. Heraion von Samos, Munich: Piper, 1965, fig. 59.)
32.)
74 [123]
60 [106] Samos, Heraion IV, Roman period. Plan.
Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Perspec­
tive from point A.
75 [124]
Samos, Heraion. General plan showing four
61 [107] different periods. (Hans Walter, Das griechische
Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan. Heiligtum: Heraion von Samos, Munich: Piper,
62 [108] 1965, fig. 86.)
Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan. 76 [128-129]
(Richard Bohn, Das Heiligtum der Athena Polias Cos, Asclepeion. View from point F, 1969.
Nikephoros, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Die (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
Altertümer von Pergamon, vol. 2, Berlin:
Spemann, 1885, pl. 40.) 77 [130]
Cos, Asclepion. Plan.
63 [109]
Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Recon­ 78 [131]
struction, seen from the south. (Richard Bohn, Cos, Asclepeion. General plan. (Rudolf Herzog,
Das. Heiligtum der Athena Polias Nikephoros, Berlin, ed., Kos: Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen und
Staatliche Museen, Die Altertümer von Per­ Forschungen, Berlin: Keller, 1932, vol. I, suppl.)
gamon, vol. 2, Berlin: Spemann, 1885, pl. 41.) 79 [132]
64 [111] Cos, Asclepeion. Perspective of upper terrace
Pergamon, Altar of Zeus. Plan. from entrance A. (Rudolf Herzog, ed., Kos: Ergeb­
nisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen und Forschungen,
65 [112] Berlin: Keller, 1932, vol. I, pl. 6.)
Pergamon, Altar of Zeus and Agora. Plan.
(Jakob Schrammen, Der Grosse Altar; der obere 80 [132]
M arkt, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Die Alter­ Cos, Asclepeion, Hellenistic period. Perspective
tümer von Pergamon, vol. 3, pt. 1, Berlin: from southwest. (Rudolf Herzog, ed., Kos: Ergeb­
Reimer, 1906, pl. 1.) nisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen und Forschungen,
Berlin: Keller, 1932, vol. I, pl. 40.)
66 [113]
Pergamon, Altar of Zeus. Reconstruction. 81a [133]
(Jakob Schrammen, Der grosse Altar; der obere Cos, Asclepeion. View of the site in relation to
M arkt, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Die Alter­ the sea, circa 1930. Rudolf Herzog, ed., Kos:
tümer von Pergamon, vol. 3, pt. 1. Berlin: Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen und Forschun­
Reimer, 1906, pl. 19.) gen, Berlin: Keller, 1932, vol. I, pl. 41.)

67 [118-119] 81b [134]


Samos, Heraion. View from point A, 1969. Cos, Asclepeion. View from upper terrace III
(Photo: A. Drymiotis.) looking north, 1969. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)

68 [120] 82 [135]
Samos, Heraion I, Geometrie period. Plan. Cos, Asclepeion. View from point 1,1969.
(Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
69 [120]
Samos, Heraion II, Rhoikos period. Reconstruc­ 83 [137]
tion. (Hans Walter, Das griechische Heiligtum: Priene. General view from the west, circa 1898.
Heraion von Samos, Munich: Piper, 1965, (Theodor W iegand and Hans Schrader, Priene:
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in
fig. 58.)
den Jahren 1 8 9 5 -9 8 , Berlin: Reimer, 1904, pl. 5.)
[xii]
84 [138] 98 [153]
Priene, Agora. Plan. Magnesia, Sacred Precinct of Artemis. Eleva­
85 [139] tions. (Carl Humann, Magnesia am Maeander:
Priene, Temple of Athena. Perspective, from Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre
the agora. 1 8 9 1 -1 8 9 3 , Berlin: Reimer, 1904, figs. 109-110.)

86 [140] 99 [153]
Priene, General plan. (Theodor Wiegand and Magnesia, Sacred Precinct of Artemis. Perspec­
Hans Schrader, Priene:. Ergebnisse der A usgrabung­ tive of altar and temple of Artemis. (Carl
en und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1 8 9 5 -9 8 ,
Humann, Magnesia am Maeander: Bericht über die
Berlin: Reimer, 1904, map 1.) Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1 8 9 1 -1 8 9 3 ,
Berlin: Reimer, 1904, frontispiece.)
87 [141]
Priene, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan. (Martin 100 [156]
Schede, Die Ruinen von Priene, Berlin: De Magnesia, Agora. Perspective of temple of
Gruyter, 1934, fig. 27.) Zeus. (Carl Humann, Magnesia am Maeander:
Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der
88 [142] Jahre 1 8 9 1 -1 8 9 3 , Berlin: Reimer, 1904, fig. 173.)
Priene, Agora. Section, from north to south.
(Theodor Wiegand and Hans Schrader, Priene: 101 [157]
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Magnesia, Agora. Plan.
den Jahren 1 8 9 5 -9 8 , Berlin: Reimer, 1904, fig. 102 [158]
180.) Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point A.
89 [142] 103 [159]
Priene, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Perspective Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point B.
of southwest corner of the temple, from the 104 [160]
agora. (Martin Schede, Die Ruinen von Priene, Magnesia, Agora. Elevations. (Carl Humann,
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1934, fig. 62.) Magnesia am Maeander: Bericht über die Ergebnisse
90 [143] der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1 8 9 1 -1 8 9 3 , Berlin:
Priene. Model. (Martin Schede, Die Ruinen von Reimer, 1904, figs. 111-112.)
Priene, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1934, fig. 12.) 105 [160]
91 [144] Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point C.
Priene. View of the site from the north, circa 106 [162]
1898. (Theodor W iegand and Hans Schrader, Palmyra, Corinthian Temple. Plan.
Priene: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Unter­
suchungen in den Jahren 1 8 9 5 -9 8 , Berlin: Reimer, 107 [163]
1904, pl. 8.) Palmyra. Plan of east part of the city. (Theodor
W iegand, ed., Palmyra: Ergebnisse der Expeditionen
92 [145] von 1902 und 1917, Berlin: Keller, 1932, pl. 11.)
Priene, Agora. View from the east, circa 1898.
(Theodor Wiegand and Hans Schräder, Priene: 108 [163]
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Palmyra. Sketch plan of the city. (Theodor
den Jahren 1 8 9 5 -9 8 , Berlin: Reimer, 1904, fig. 186.) W iegand, ed., Palmyra: Ergebnisse der Expeditionen
von 1902 und 1917, Berlin: Keller, 1932, pl. 1.)
93 [147]
Priene, Sacred Precinct of Zeus. Plan. 109 [164]
Palmyra. View of east end of main street show­
94 [149] ing ruins of Corinthian temple in foreground,
Magnesia, Sacred Precinct of Artemis. View of circa 1917. (Theodor W iegand, ed., Palmyra:
site, 1936. Ergebnisse der Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917,
95 [150] Berlin: Keller, 1932, pl. 12.)
Magnesia, Sacred Precinct of Artemis. Plan. 110 [165]
96 [151] Palmyra. View showing arch and colonnade
Magnesia, Agora and Sacred Precinct of north of Corinthian temple, circa 1917.
Artemis. Plan. (Theodor W iegand, ed., Palmyra: Ergebnisse der
Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917, Berlin: Keller,
97 [152]
1932, pl. 17.)
Magnesia. Sketch plan of the city. (Carl
Humann, M agn esia am M aean d er: Bericht über die 111 [167]
Ergebnisse der A usgrabungen der Ja h re 1 8 9 1 -1 8 9 3 , Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter Malophoros.
Berlin: Reimer, 1904, fig. 1.) Reconstruction from the east. (Jean Hulot and
[xiii]
Gustave Fougères, Sélinonte: la ville, l'acropole et les
temples, Paris: Librairie générale de l'architecture
et des arts décoratifs, 1910, p. 268.)
112 [168]
Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter Malophoros.
Plan.
113 [169]
Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter Malophoros.
Plan. (Robert Koldewey and Otto Puchstein,
D ie griechischen Tempel in Unteritalien und Sizilien,
Berlin: Asher, 1899, pl. 11.)
114 [170]
Selinus. General plan of the city. (Jean Hulot
and Gustave Fougères, Sélinonte: la ville, l'acropole
et les temples, Paris: Librairie générale de l'archi­
tecture et des arts décoratifs, 1910, frontispiece.)
115 [171]
Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter Malophoros.
Plan. (Jean Hulot and Gustave Fougères, Séli­
nonte: la ville, l'acropole et les temples, Paris: Li­
brairie générale de l'architecture et des arts déc­
oratifs, 1910, p. 264.)
116 [173]
Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Athena. View from
point A, 1969. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
117 [174]
Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan.
118 [175]
Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan.
(Valerios Staïs, Τὸ Σούνιον καὶ οἱ ναοὶ
Π οσειδῶνος καὶ Ἀ θ η ν ᾶ ς , Athens): Library of the
Archaeological Society, 1920, pl. B1.)
119 [175]
Sounion. View of Temple of Poseidon from the
Precinct of Athena, 1969. (Photo: A. Drymiotis.)
120 [177]
Priene, Sacred Precinct of Demeter. Plan.
121 [179]
Priene, Sacred Precinct of the Egyptian Gods.
Plan.
122 [179]
Pompeii, Sacred Precinct of Isis. Plan.

[xiv]
Comparative Plans 8 D elphi, Terrace o f A pollo, fifth century b .c .

Scale: 1 :3 4 0 0
of the Sites Studied
3 A thens, A crop olis I, circa 530 b .c .

4 A thens, A cropolis II, circa 480 b.c .

5 A thens, A cropolis III, after 450 b. c .

Scale: 1 :3 4 0 0

[X V ]
19 A egina, Sacred P recinct of A phaia, fifth 23 M iletus, D elp h in eion I, fifth and fourth
century b .c . centuries b .c .

Scale: 1: 1400 24 M iletus, D elp h in eion II, third and second


centuries b .c .

26 M iletus, Delphineion III, first century b . c . and


first century a . d .
27 M iletus, Delphineion IV, after first century a . d .
Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0

[x v i ]
31 M iletus, Agora 1, fifth and fourth centuries b.c . 39 O ly m p ia, A ltis, H ellen istic period
32 M iletus, Agora II, second century b .c . Scale: 1 :3 4 0 0
35 Miletus, Agora III, first century b . c . and first 49 Olympia, Altis, Roman period
century a . d . Scale: 1 :7 3 0 0
36 Miletus, Agora IV, second century a . d .
Scale: 1 :5 5 0 0

[xvii]
52 Sounion, Sacred Precinct o f Poseidon, fifth 56 Pergamon, Agora, third or second century b . c .
century b. c . 61 Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena, second
Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0 century b . c .
64 Pergamon, Altar of Zeus, second century b . c .
Scale: 1 : 3400

[xviii]
68 Sam os, H eraion I, G eom etric period 77 C os, A sclepeion, second century a .d .

70 Sam os, H eraion II, R h oiko s period Scale: 1 :3 4 0 0 .


71 Sam os, H eraion III, C lassical period
Scale: 1 :3 4 0 0
74 Sam os, H eraion IV, Rom an period
Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0 .

[xix]
84 Priene, Agora and Sacred Precinct o f the 96 M agnesia, Agora and Sacred Precinct of
O lym p ian Zeus, third century b.c . A rtem is, second century b.c .

Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0 Scale: 1 :5 5 0 0
106 Palmyra, Corinthian Temple, first century a .d .

Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0

[XX]
112 Selinus, Sacred Precinct of D em eter 120 Priene, Sacred Precinct of Demeter, fourth
M alophoros, sixth century b .c . century b . c .
117 Sounion, Sacred Precinct of A thena, fifth 121 Priene, Sacred Precinct of the Egyptian Gods,
century b. c . third century b . c .
Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0 Scale: 1 :1 4 0 0

[xxi]
A thens, A cropolis. View from point A, 1968. pages xxiv, xxv
D elp h i, T errace of A pollo. View from point C, 1968.

D elphi, Terrace o f A pollo. View from point B, 1968.


[xxiv]
[x x vj
A egina, Sacred Precinct o f A phaia. View from
point A, 1968.

[xxvi]
Miletus, Delphineion. View from the west, circa pages xxviii, xxix (top left and right)
1914. Olympia, Altis. View from point A, 1969.

page xxviii (lower left)


O lym p ia, A ltis. View from point C, 1969.

page xxix (lower right)


O lym p ia, A ltis. V iew from point B, 1969.

[xxvii]
[xxviii]
[xxix]
Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Poseidon. View from
point A, 1969.

[χχχ]
Samos, Heraion. page xxxii
Cos, A sclep eion. V iew from point 1 ,1969.

Cos, A sclepeion. View from point F, 196.9.

page xxxiii
Priene, Agora. View from the east, circa 1898.

[xxxi]
[xxxii]
[xxxiii]
M agnesia, Sacred Precinct o f A rtem is. View of
site, 1936.

[x x x iv]
Palmyra. View showing arch and colonnade north
of Corinthian temple, circa 1917.

[x x x v]
Sounion, Sacred Precinct o f A thena. V iew from
point A, 1969.

[xxxvi]
Sounion. V iew o f tem ple o f P oseidon from the
precinct o f A thena, 1969.

[x x x vii]
Architectural Space
in Ancient Greece
I The Discovery of the
Ancient Greek System
of Architectural Spacing

Man is the measure of all things,


of the existence of the things that are
and the nonexistence of the things that are not.

Protagoras,
quoted in Plato Theaetetus 152A
1 Investigation

The purpose of this study is to verify a theory The most important discovery resulting from
concerning the ancient Greek system of site this study, in my view, is that the Greeks em­
planning and to examine this system in relation ployed a uniform system in the disposition of
to the culture as a whole rather than to check buildings in space that was based on principles
the precise details of its application at every site of human cognition. The few variations in the
and at every period. system are related primarily to mathematical
I investigated twenty-nine sites, two of which formulae, which are described later in this
are Roman. The condition of these varies con­ chapter. Although most of the sites described in
siderably, so that it is impossible to comment this study are sacred precincts, I am convinced
with equal assurance on all of them.* Only eight that the system prevailing there represents a
can be considered intact or authoritatively re­ general theory of spatial organization—a theory
constructed: the Athens Acropolis III, the of city planning.
Asclepeion at Cos, the sequential layouts of As far as we can judge from excavations, the
the agora at Miletus, and the sanctuaries of temples of ancient Greece were better built and
Aphaia at Aegina, of Athena at Pergamon, of the sacred precincts more carefully laid out
Zeus at Priene, of Demeter at Selinus, and of than other parts of the city: this is why their re­
Poseidon at Sounion. These represent a very mains are more numerous than those of secular
small proportion of the known sites, and cer­ buildings. The relationship between a sacred
tainly they do not suffice to demonstrate an precinct and a secular layout was the same as
irrefutable argument concerning the Greek sys­ that between a temple and a secular building:
tem of planning. At some of the other twenty- the first was a more perfect exemplar than the
one sites only parts of the layout could be ob­ second. Just as we can consider a temple as rep­
served and verified, so that my account of these resentative of Greek architecture, so we may
is fragmentary. In short, the hypothesis pre­ consider the layout of an entire sacred precinct
sented here is based upon careful study of the as typical of all Greek spatial complexes. The
few complete examples just mentioned and layout of the agoras at Miletus, Magnesia, and
upon less thorough examination of a number of Pergamon, for example (see Figs. 32, 96, and
others. Imperfect evidence, I admit, makes it 56), appears to have been governed by the same
difficult to establish proof, yet in all the sites in­ laws as that of the sacred precincts. Only one
vestigated—and they comprise the most impor­ difference was found between the sacred pre­
tant and best-preserved of those now known—I cincts and the secular sites, and this may be
believe that I have traced the main outlines of a circumstantial, as there are so few well-
system of design. Even if future excavations documented examples of the latter. The differ­
show some of my conclusions to have been in ence is in the angles of vision and the distances
error, I shall be content if I have succeeded in between the buildings: in the secular sites it
laying the foundation stone upon which others was not possible to determine whether a spe­
can later construct a valid and comprehensive cific angle of vision was used. The reason for
theory. A preliminary hypothesis, whether it is this was, certainly in part, that the poor condi­
right or wrong in detail, is essential to the proc­ tion of some of the sites did not permit a pre­
ess of scientific investigation: only after its initi­ cise determination of the position of all build­
ation is there an incentive to test its accuracy. ings, But we can perhaps assume that it was
also because, as has just been mentioned, less
* The author refers (here and throughout the book)
to the condition of the sites as they existed in 1936.
exact proportions and measurements were used
—Editor. in these sites than in the sacred precincts.
[3]
Differentiation between sites that were
y
planned and those that developed over a period
of time may appear to present another difficulty. A'
I believe, however, that this study demonstrates A
that all changes obeyed the same basic rules of
architectural spacing. It is true that the rules
were not followed exactly on every occasion,
A''' c x
but on the whole they persisted—and here lies
the interest for us today. It is not always easy to
remember that these complexes were built by
the ancient Greeks not as isolated objects, as we
a A'
see them today, but as parts of a dynamic urban
environment. As elements of a city they were
subject to contemporary conditions of growth b
and change. They were not designed to satisfy z
the aesthetic demands of modem man for an
ideal layout, an ideal city, unrelated to an actual
time or place.
If we have hitherto failed to recognize that
the urban layouts of the archaic, classic, and
Hellenistic periods were organized on the basis
of a precisely calculated system, it is because
we are strongly influenced, consciously or un­
consciously, by the rectangular system of coordi­
nates (in which every point is established by its
position on a plane in relation to two lines in­
tersecting at right angles). This system was com­
pletely unknown to the ancient Greeks. Their
layouts were not designed on a drawing board;
each was developed on a site in an existing
landscape, which was not subject to the laws of
axial coordinates.
When a man stands in a landscape and looks
about him, he sees its various features as part of
a system of which he is the center and in which
all the points on the plane are determined by
their distance from him. If he wishes to estab­
lish the position of a tree, for instance, he notes
that it is to his left at a distance of about 7
paces and that a second tree is somewhat fur­
ther to his left at a distance of about 14 paces,
or double the distance of the first tree. He does
not automatically establish the position of the
two trees in relation to abstract axial coordi-
[4]
nates; he uses a natural system of coordinates. 6
It was this system, known as the system of One angle, frequently in the center of the field
polar coordinates, that formed the basis of site of vision was left free of buildings and opened
planning in ancient Greece. The determining directly to the surrounding countryside. This
factor in the design was the human viewpoint. represented the direction to be followed by the
This point was established as the first and most person approaching the site: it was the "sacred
important position from which the whole site way."
could be observed: usually, it was the main en­ 7
trance, which was often emphasized by a propy­ This open angle was usually oriented toward
lon. The following principles were used: east or west or in a specific direction associated
1 with the local cult or tradition.
Radii from the vantage point determined the 8
position of three comers of each important The buildings were often disposed so as to in­
building, so that a three-quarter view of each corporate or accentuate features of the existing
was visible. landscape and thus create a unified composition.
2
Generally, all important buildings could be The viewpoint from which these measure­
seen in their entirety from the viewpoint, but if ments were taken was crucial and was obvi­
this was not possible, one building could be ously situated not just anywhere within the
completely hidden by another; it was never main entrance, or propylon, but at a specific
partially concealed. place within it. The examples studied show that
3 this point lay where the mathematical axis of
The radii that determined the comers of the the propylon intersects the line of its innermost
important buildings formed certain specific step (i.e., the final step before one entered the
angles from the viewpoint, equal in size on each sanctuary) at a height of approximately 5'7",
site. These fell into two categories: angles of the eye level of a man of average height.
30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, and 150°, corresponding to
a division of the total field of 360° into twelve
parts; and angles of 36°, 72°, 108°, and 144°,
which resulted from division of the total field of
vision into ten parts.
4
The position of the buildings was determined
not only by the angle of vision but also by their
distance from the viewpoint.

5
These distances were based on simple geomet­
ric ratios deriving from the angles of vision.
Normally, the foot served as the basic unit of
measurement, and the distances used were 100,
150, or 200 feet or those based on simple geo­
metric proportions that could be determined on
the site.

[5]
Geometrical Relationships

A mathematical analysis of all the sites investi­ the distance of each of these two buildings from
gated is given in Tables 1-4, which show the de­ point A .
velopment of the twelve- and ten-part system It appears that one of the two following math­
of architectural spacing. There is, on the whole, ematical schemes was used (see Tables 1-4):
a conformity of mathematical relationships be­ Tw elve-Part System
tween certain angles of vision and certain dis­ The layout of the site was determined by angles
tances between buildings. In some instances of vision of 30°, 60°, etc., dividing the entire
these relationships vary slightly. This does not 360° into twelve equal parts. Distances be­
necessarily imply that the system is faulty but tween buildings were a , a / 2 , a / 2 a , or a √ 3/2;
rather that mathematical principles could not i.e., all were governed by a 60° angle. The area
be precisely applied in every case. For example, was thus divided into twelve equal parts.
some of the sites were developed over several Ten-Part System
centuries, and construction was carried out by The layout was determined by angles of vision
different architects, who frequently had to of 18°, 36°, 72°, etc., dividing 360° into ten
change the original plans to meet new altera­ equal parts. In this case distances between
tions or extensions. Sometimes the new com­ buildings were a / b , (a + b ) / a , (2a + b ) / ( a + b),
posite plan could no longer follow the principles etc; i.e., they followed the golden section, which
exactly because of new construction demands is determined by the isosceles triangle with an
or because of a difficult terrain—factors that angle of 36° = 180°/5. The entire area was
often upset calculations even today. Before thus divided into ten equal parts.
pointing out inaccuracies in any given measure­ There is but one complete exception: the pre­
ments, it is therefore necessary to take into ac­ cinct of the Egyptian gods at Priene, in which
count the far from ideal conditions under which sight angles of 45° and 90° (i.e., an eighth part
most of the sites were constructed. of 360°) were consistently employed. The rea­
I believe that the physical limit of a structure son may be that this was a foreign, not a purely
(as seen from the vantage point) was measured Greek, cult.
from the edge of either the top step or the low­ It appears that all sites in the same city, or
est step of the stylobate or from the edge of the the same locality, employed the same m athe­
cornice. All three measuring points were used, matical system, for example,
and this range of choice does not indicate a Athens: Acropolis II and Acropolis III used the
weakness in the system. In many cases the rea­ equilateral triangle (see Figs. 4, 5).
son for the choice is apparent. For example, at
Cos: All three terraces used an angle of 360°
the Athens Acropolis III (Fig. 5) the positions of
(180/5) and the golden section (see Fig. 77).
the Erechtheion, the Parthenon, and the Chal­
kotheke were determined by their equidistance Pergamon: The sanctuary of Athena, the agora,
from point A . In the case of the Parthenon and and the altar terrace used angles of 30° or 60°
the Erechtheion, this distance was measured to (see Figs. 61, 56, 64).
their lowest steps, because these are clearly vis­
Priene: The agora and the sacred precincts of
ible from point A . But in the case of the Chal­
Zeus and Demeter used an angle of 36° and, in
kotheke, the distance was measured to the top
part, the golden section (see Figs. 84, 93,120).
step (i.e., the base of the wall), as the lower
steps are invisible from point A . The distance Samos: The Heraion of Rhoikos and subse­
between the base of the wall of the Chalkotheke quent layouts used 36° and the golden section
and the top step of the Parthenon is equal to (see Fig. 70).
[6]
Sounion: The sacred precincts of Poseidon and Pergamon, sacred precinct of Athena, second
Athena used angles of 30° and 60° (see Figs. century b . c . (see Fig. 61).
52,117).
The following two sites with buildings in the
There seemed at first to be several possible
Doric style used the ten-part system:
explanations for the use of two variations of the
Cos, Asclepeion, fourth century B.c,-second
system: differences between cults and between
century a . d . (see Fig. 77)
individual deities; differences between the
Greek peoples and in relations between cities; Priene, sacred precinct of Demeter, fourth cen­
differences in architectural styles. Careful ex­ tury b .c . (see Fig. 120)
amination of the sites, however, eliminated two
of these possibilities: differences between the The following five sites with buildings in the
deities had to be discounted, as both systems Ionic style used the ten-part system:
were used for the same deity (e.g., the sanctu­ Samos, Heraion II, in the time of Rhoikos, mid­
ary of Athena in Pergamon was based on the sixth century b .c . (see Fig. 70)
twelve-part system, but the ten-part system
Samos, Heraion III, of the classical period, late
was used for her sanctuary at Priene); differ­
sixth century b . c . (see Fig. 71)
ences between the Greek peoples also had to be
dropped, as both systems were in use in Ionian Priene, agora, late fourth century b . c . (see
cities. The only plausible explanation seemed Fig. 84)
to be that the system depended on the architec­
Priene, sacred precinct of Zeus, third century
tural style employed. In general, when the
b . c . (see Fig. 93)
buildings in the sacred precinct were in the
Doric style, the twelve-part system was used; Magnesia, sacred precinct of Artemis, second
when in the Ionic style, the ten-part system was century b . c . (see Fig. 95)
used.
Sounion, sacred precinct of Athena, fifth
In the following nine sites (listed chronologi­
century b . c ., with buildings in the Ionic style,
cally) the buildings were in the Doric style and
used the twelve-part system (see Fig. 117).
the twelve-part system was used:
Athens, Acropolis III, fifth century b .c ., with
Delphi, terrace of Apollo, sixth century b .c .
buildings in the Doric and Ionic styles, used
(see Fig. 8)
both the twelve-part and ten-part systems (see
Athens, Acropolis II, fifth century b .c . (see
Fig. 5).
Fig. 4)
The exceptions may perhaps be explained as
Aegina, sacred precinct of Aphaia, fifth century
follows:
b . c . (see Fig. 19)
Cos: The temple of Asclepios was built in the
Miletus, Delphineion I, fifth and fourth centu­ Doric style, but the angle of 36° and the golden
ries b . c . (see Fig. 23) section were used to determine the positions of
Olympia, Altis, fifth century b . c . the buildings and the distances between them.
Sounion, sacred precinct of Poseidon, fifth cen­ This may be because the sacred precinct was
tury b .c . (see Fig. 52) built toward the end of the Hellenistic period,
when the architectural orders had become inter­
Miletus, Delphineion II, third century b . c . (see
mingled. The Doric columns here have Ionic
Fig. 24)
proportions, and, indeed, the whole site already
Pergamon, agora, third century b . c . (see Fig. 56) shows signs of Roman influence.
[7]
Priene: The sacred precinct of Demeter was plexes; sometimes it acted as an open axis, left
also built in the Doric style but followed the unobstructed as far as possible, so that the
ten-part system. This is the only outstanding eye could look out far into the distance. By con­
exception to the rule. It could be argued that it trast, the layouts of the second group, in which
provides evidence that the two systems were the Ionic style and the ten-part system were em­
related to differences between the peoples of ployed, had closed views or presented an im­
ancient Greece, although this is not borne out pression of enclosure, and a path was wholly
in other cases. As I have said, scarcity of exam­ incorporated within the layout. At the Heraion
ples prevents complete substantiation of my II (Rhoikos period) in Samos this effect of a
theory, and each case must be considered indi­ closed view is particularly noticeable. After the
vidually. destruction of the Rhoikos temple by fire, a
Sounion: The sacred precinct of Athena large square was created in front of the new
seems also to be an exception in that the build­ temple, Heraion III, but at the same time this
ing is Ionic, but the layout appears to follow the was bordered by a long line of monuments that
twelve-part system. As the location of the en­ effectively closed the view (Fig. 71). In both the
trance has not been precisely determined, how­ twelve- and ten-part systems it can be discerned
ever, this example cannot be considered defi­ that an attempt was made, whenever possible,
nitely contrary to the rule. to bring the outlines of the buildings into har­
Athens: At the Acropolis III of Athens the mony with the lines of the landscape.
majority of the buildings are in the Doric style, The open axis in the twelve-part system was
but the Erechtheion is purely Ionic. In general sometimes oriented toward the east and some­
the 30° angle and proportions of 1:2 were times toward the west. We can assume that this
used, but in subdivisions, angles of 18° and 36° was consciously done so that a person entering
were used with the golden section. It thus ap­ the site by the propylon and following the
pears that both mathematical systems were open path had a clear view of the sunrise or
used at this site, which contains important sunset. In the case of the Athens Acropolis, for
buildings in both styles. example, this axial view was held open in all of
Priene: The sacred precinct of the Egyptian the three different layouts of the site, probably
gods, as has already been mentioned, was a for­ to allow an uninterrupted view of the sunrise
eign cult, and this may account for the orga­ at the time of the Panathenaic Festival. A simi­
nization of the site on the basis of 45° and 90° lar intention can be observed in the closed
angles. Ionic layouts. As one enters the propylon at
Selinus: The sacred precinct of Demeter ap­ Samos, for instance, one faces a relatively low
pears to be organized on the basis of the angle altar above which the sun can be seen rising
of 90°, but the site is not sufficiently well docu­ from behind Mount Mykale.
mented for this to be certain.
There was yet another major difference be­
tween the two types of layouts in their orga­
nization of architectural space. In the first group,
in which the Doric style and the twelve-part
system were used, a path always formed an im­
portant feature in the disposition of the build­
ings in relation to the landscape. Sometimes this
path divided the layout into two separate com­
[8]
Table 1
Use of the Twelve- and Ten-Part System

Athens, Athens, Athens,


Acropolis I Acropolis II Acropolis III

Date ca. 530 b.c . ca. 480 b.c . after 450 b.c .

π /6 + π /6 π /6 + π /6 +
Angles of vision 3 equal angles of
+ π /6 + π /6 π /6 + π /6
ca. 16°
+ π /6 π /10 + (π /6
+ π /6 - π / 10 ) + ...

x , x /2 , x ,
Distances x + 2 = 2y
(x√3)/2 (3 x )/2
x :2 y = x /3 , (2 x )/3 , x , (golden section)
arithmetic progression ( 4 x )/ 3 , (5 x )/ 3

Measurements x/3 = 30.8 m


= 100 pre-
Periclean feet

Proportions of buildings Hecatompedon 1 : 2 Hecatompedon 1 : 2 Parthenon 1 : √ 5


Parthenon I Parthenon II Chalkotheke 1 : √ 5
1 :(1 + √ 2 ) l : √ 8:3 Erechtheion 1:2 √ 3
Stoa 1 : √ 8 :3 Propylaea 1 : √ 3

Basis of layout Proportion 1 : 2 Equilateral triangle Equilateral triangle


Clear view to east Clear view to east and golden section
Clear view to east

General orientation of Eastward Eastward Eastward


site

[9]
Table 2
Use of the Twelve-Part System

Delphi, A egina, M iletus, O ly m p ia,


Terrace of Sacred D elphineion I A ltis
A pollo Precinct of
A phaia

Date 530 b .c . 5 0 0 -4 7 0 b .c . 479 b .c . 4 7 0 -4 5 6 b .c .

4th cent. b .c .

π/3, π/3, π / 3 + π / 3 + π / 6 + π / 6
A ngles o f vision
(π / 4 ) π/6 + π/3 π/3 + π/3 + π/6 + π/6
π/3 + π/6,
π/6 + π/12

D istances 2 x :3 x x :2 x x :x √ 3
y :y √ 3:2y

M easurem ents 2x = 30.8 m x = 80 m


= 100 pre- = approx.
Periclean ft 250
D oric ft

Proportions 1 :2 C om plete Tem ple of


o f buildings (low est step) layout 2 :3 Zeus 1 : √ 5
H eraion
ca. 1: √8 :3
M etroon 1 :2

Field of vision D eterm ined by D eterm ined by D eterm ined by D eterm ined by
the angle of equilateral equilateral equilateral
60 °. Clear triangle. triangle. triangle.
view to south. C lear view
to north.

G eneral Southw ard Northward Northward


orientation
o f site

[10]
Sounion, Miletus, Pergamon, Pergamon, Miletus,
Sacred Delphineion II Agora Sacred Delphineion
Precinct of Precinct of III-IV
Poseidon Athena

450 b.c . 334 b.c . 3rd or 2nd 19 7-159 b.c . Late Hellenistic
cent. b .c . to early Roman
period

π/3 π /3 π /6 π / 6 + π /3 + π /6
+ π /6 + π /3 π / 3 + π / 18 + π / 12

x : x :
x:x √ 3 x / 2 : x:2x
[(x√3)/2] (x√3)/2

x = 52.40 m
= 100 ells

Temple of Complete layout Agora temple Temple of


Poseidon 1 : √ 5 1: √3 1 : √ 3 :2 Athena
1 : √ 3 :2

Determined by Determined by Determined by Determined by Determined by


equilateral equilateral equilateral equilateral equilateral
triangle. triangle. triangle. triangle. triangle.

Southward Westward Westward


(Westward?)

[11]
Table 3
Use o f the Ten-Part System

Sam os, Sam os, Priene, Cos,


H eraion II H eraion III A gora A sclepeion,
Lower terrace

D ate ca. 550 b .c . End of 6th 2nd half of 300-


cent. b .c . 4th cent. b .c . 250 b .c .

π/5 + π/5 π / 5 + π/10 π / 5 +


A ngles of
+ (3 π )/ 5 π/5 + π/6 π /5 + π/5
vision
+ π / 5
+ π/5

x / y = x / y =
D istances x:2x
(x + y )/x (x + y )/x

(golden section) (golden section)

M easurem ents x + y = 69.80 m x + y = 69.80 m


= 200 = 200
Ionian ft Ionian ft

Proportions of R hoikos tem ple H eraion Lower


buildings 1 :2 1 :2 terrace
1 :2

Field of D eterm ined by D eterm ined by D eterm ined by D eterm ined by


vision triangle with triangle with triangle with triangle with
angles of
angles o f π/5 (36°) angles of π/5 angles of π/5
π/5 (36°)
(36°) (36°)

G eneral Southw ard Southward


orientation
o f Site

[12]
Priene, Magnesia, Cos, Cos, Palmyra,
Sacred Sacred Asclepeion, Asclepeion, Small temple
Precinct of Precinct of Upper terrace Middle terrace precinct
Zeus Artemis

3rd cent. 158 b .c . ca. 160 b .c . 2nd cent. a . d . 1st cent.


B .C . and earlier A .D .

π /10 π / 10 + π /5 + π /5 π / 5 + π/5
+ π / 10 π /10 + π / 10 + π /5 + π/5 + π/5

+ π /5
π /5 + π /5

x / y = x / y = x / y = x / y = x / y =

(x + y )/x (x + y )/x (x + y )/x (x + y )/x (x + y )/x

(golden section) (golden section) (golden section) (golden section) (golden section)

x + y = 34.94 m x + y = 104.8 m x + y = 69.80 m


= 100 = 300 = 200
Ionian ft Ionian ft Ionian ft

Temple of Temple of Temple B Temple


Artemis Asclepios l : √ 3 :2 l:√ 5
l : √ 3 :2 1:2 Altar 1 : √ 2

Determined by Determined by Determined by Determined by Determined by


triangle with triangle with triangle with triangle with triangle with
angles of angles of angles of angles of angles of
π/5 (36°) π/5 (36°) π/5 (36°) π/5 (36°) π/5 (36°)

Westward

[13]
Table 4
Use o f Exceptions to the System

Selinu s, Sounion, Priene, Priene,


Sanctuary of Sacred precinct Sacred precinct Sanctuary o f
D em eter o f A thena of D em eter the Egyptian gods

D ate 6th cent. b .c . 4 8 0 -4 5 0 b .c . 2nd half o f 3rd cent. b .c .

4th cent. b .c .

A ngles o f
π/2 π / 6 + π/10 π / 2 +
π / 3 + (π / 6 ) + π/5 π/4 + π/4
vision

(x:x√3)/2
D istances x:2x

M easurem ents

Proportions of Tem ple o f A thena A ltar 1 : 2


buildings earlier 3 : 4 : 5
later 3 : 4 : 5

Field of D eterm ined by


vision triangle with

angles o f π/5 (36°)

General orientation W estward W estward


o f site

[14]
2 Documentation The Philosophic Concept of the Universe

Unfortunately, there is not a single extant work A Law Governing the Universe
on architecture—not even a sizable fragment— In the first half of the sixth century b . c . Anaxi­
from ancient Greek times, although it is known mander introduced into Greek philosophy the
that books on the subject were written by the idea of a law governing all events in the uni­
best architects of every period. The only treatise verse. This idea inspired the legal concept of
on architecture that has been preserved from the polis, the Greek city-state of which every
antiquity is the D e A rchitectura of Vitruvius, the individual was unconditionally a subject.1 Anaxi­
Roman architect and engineer. Although there mander's own words on this, from the only
are several passages in this work that might be fragment of his writings known to us, were re­
cited in support of my hypothesis, they make corded by Simplicius: "It is necessary that
no specific reference to the system of site plan­ things should pass away into that from which
ning I have just described, which, at the time they were bom . For things must pay one an­
when Vitruvius was in practice (about 46-30 other the penalty and compensation for their
b . c .), was no longer in use. Actually, Vitruvius injustice according to the ordinance of tim e."2
makes no reference at all to methods of plan­ Structure of the Universe
ning; he avoids the exposition of general theo­ All Greek philosophers assumed that the center
ries and describes shapes and forms only insofar of the universe was a corpus; this was usually
as they relate to building construction. thought to be the earth, although sometimes, as
As writings on architecture were unavailable, in the case of the Pythagoreans, it was thought
I turned to other fields: to the philosophers to be fire. W e know that Anaximander, for ex­
Plato and Aristotle, the mathematicians Euclid ample, held that the universe was a sphere with
and Proclus, the historian Plutarch, and the the earth as its center,3 and the same concept
traveler Pausanias (although he gives only was formulated by Aristotle: "Therefore all
factual details concerning certain aspects of the who hold that the world had a beginning say
sites he visited). Realizing the importance of that the earth travelled to the m iddle."4
relating the material achievements of an era to In connection with this theory most Greek
its ideas, I acquainted myself as thoroughly as philosophers believed that the universe was
possible with the literature of the period during spherical, everlasting, and motionless.5 This
which this system of group design prevailed. I view was held by the Pythagoreans and Eleatics
paid special attention to philosophic and math­ and also by Plato, who wrote "T he earth lies in
ematical concepts that, in my view, seemed the center of a finite, though circular space."6
closely linked to theories of planning. The first thesis of Euclid's Phaenomena states
that the earth lies in the center of the universe.7
The Finite or Infinite Nature of the
Universe
Plato's allusion to a "finite" space touched on
the most important issue in Greek philosophy:
whether the universe was finite or infinite. A c­
cording to Aristotle, "The first [problem] is
whether there exists any infinite body, as most
of the early philosophers believed, or whether
that is an impossibility. This is a point whose
settlement one way or the other makes no small
difference, in fact, all the difference, to our in-
[15]
The Geometrical Concept of the
Universe

vestigation of the truth. It is this, one might say, Until the late Hellenistic period Greek philoso­
which has been, and may be expected to be, the phy was influenced and sometimes dominated
original of all the contradictions between those by a mathematical, or geometrical, concept of
who make pronouncements in natural the universe. The earliest notion of a division of
science. " 8 the universe is found in Homer, who divided it
The Ionian philosophers maintained that the into five equal parts.12 Later, the Pythagoreans
universe was infinite, and Anaximander, in par­ asserted the ruling principle of numbers and
ticular, considered the infinite to be the basic believed in a geometrically ordered cosmos.
principle of all things.9 On the other hand, the The earliest Pythagorean, Petros of Chimera,
Pythagoreans, the Eleatics, as well as the Attic taught that there were one hundred and eighty-
philosophers— in short, all schools of philoso­ three worlds "arranged in the form of a trian­
phy except the Ionian— held that the universe gle, each side of the triangle having sixty
was finite. worlds; of the three left over each is placed at
Aristotle offers several proofs of the finite na­ an angle, and those that are next to one another
ture of space: "Every sensible body has either are in contact and revolve gently as in a
weight or lightness. . . . Further, every sensible d an ce."13 This theory formed the basis of the
body is in some place, and of place there are six concept of the harmony of the spheres enunci­
kinds [above and below, before and behind, ated by Aristotle.14 According to Proclus, the
right and left],10 but these cannot exist in an Pythagoreans always considered the equilateral
infinite body. In general, if an infinite space is triangle as the basic design of all created
impossible, so is an infinite b od y."11 m atter.15
The doctrine concerning the geometrical
form of the universe appears also throughout
the works of Plato and Aristotle and is re­
affirmed later by Plutarch in his M oralia.16
They maintained that the universe was based
on five regular polyhedrons: earth was based on
the cube, water on the pyramid, fire on the octa­
hedron, air on the dodecahedron, and the
heavens (light, or ether) on the icosahedron.
Further, they held that these five polyhedrons
corresponded to our five senses, resulting in the
following relationships:

cube earth touch

pyramid water taste

octahedron fire sm ell

d odecahedron air hearing

icosahedron light sight

[16 ]
Euclid taught that the earth formed the math­ 90° Rhea, Hera, Demeter, Hestia, Aphrodite,
ematical center of the universe, and according Hermes
to Proclus the universe was built up from the 150° Zeus
circle and the line.17 Optics and Perspective
Geometrical Symbols in Religious Cults The mathematicians Euclid and Proclus both
The significance of mathematical symbols in discuss optics. The contemporary laws of optical
religious rites led to the application of geomet­ perspective given in the first definitions and
rical rules in the organization of space. Use theories in Euclid's Optica show that even at
of the symbols that I mention here can be traced that time the rules governing the inclination of
for the most part to the Pythagoreans, particu­ lines in space and the vanishing point of two
larly Philolaos, and in some instances to parallel lines were formulated irrespective of
Plato. whether they could be applied in an actual
Proclus calls to witness Plato, the Pythagorean drawing. Proclus records that optics were de­
authority, and Philolaos (in the Bacchae) con­ rived from mathematics and were concerned
cerning a theology based on geometrical con­ with explaining the causes of false appear­
cepts.18 Proclus quotes Philolaos as saying that ances, such as the meeting of two parallel lines
the Pythagoreans identified certain angles with in space.25
specific gods: the 60° angle with Chronos, Numbers
Hades, Ares, and Dionysos; the 90° angle with Great importance was ascribed to numbers
Rea, Demeter, Hera, and Hestia; the 150° angle throughout antiquity. In illustration of this I
with Zeus.19 quote from two sources:
Further, according to Archytas in his H ar­ Plato: "the great power of geometrical equality
mony, the Pythagoreans taught that two stars amongst both gods and m en ."26
forming an angle of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, Philolaos: "T he nature of Number and Har­
or 180° exercised a powerful effect upon the mony admits of no Falsehood; for this is unre­
earth and upon human well-being.20 lated to them. Falsehood and Envy belong to
According to Philolaos the Pythagoreans also the nature of the Non-Limited and the Unintel­
identified certain geometric forms, such as the ligent and the Irrational.
circle, triangle, and square, with specific gods, "Falsehood can in no way breathe on Num­
for example, Athena with the triangle, Hermes ber; for Falsehood is inimical and hostile to its
with the square.21 A similar observation is nature, whereas Truth is related to and in close
found in Plutarch, who records that the Pytha­ natural union with the race of N um ber."27
goreans associated certain gods with certain Certain numbers such as 10 and 12 had a
numbers and signs, such as Athena with the particular significance for the Greeks. The great
equilateral triangle;22 Hades, Dionysos, and significance of 10 is referred to by almost all
Ares with 60° angle; Rhea, Demeter, Aphrodite, philosophers: Aristotle mentions it in his M eta­
Hestia, and Hera with the 90° angle; and Zeus physics, and it was the subject of a special study
with the 150° angle.23 Plutarch also states that by Philolaos in the second half of his book On
the Egyptians identified the right-angled trian­ the Pythagorean Numbers. "O n e must study the ac­
gle having sides in the proportion 3 : 4 : 5 with tivities and the essence of N um ber" he wrote,
Osiris and Isis.24 "in accordance with the power existing in the
The relationships between angles and deities Decad [Ten-ness]; for it [the Decad] is great,
can be summarized as follows: complete, all-achieving, and the origin of divine
60° Hades, Ares, Dionysos, Athena, Chronos and human life and its Leader; it shares . . . the
[17]
power also of the Decad. Without this, in philosophy and mathematics, it is clear that
all things are unlimited, obscure and indis­ they contain several ideas that could give sup­
cernible."28 port to my hypothesis, although no specific
mention is made of the system of organizing
Proportion
architectural space. The clearest allusion to
The first representation of proportion found
such a system is found in these words of Philo­
in classical writings is that implicit in the arith­
laos: "A nd you may see the nature of Number
metical expressions relating equal differences
and its power at work not only in supernatural
between two numbers, for example,
and divine existences but also in all human ac­
3 minus 2 = 2 minus 1
tivities and words everywhere, both throughout
5 minus 3 = 3 minus 1.
all technical production and also in m u sic."31
Aristotle gives this example:
The most likely reasons for the lack of con­
10 minus 6 = 6 minus 2.
tem porary reference to a system of organizing
This can be represented as physical space are, as I have said, that no writ­
a — b = b — c (sequential arithmetic progres­ ings by architects have been preserved from an­
sion) cient Greek times and that philosophers and
a — b = c — d (nonsequential arithmetic pro­ mathematicians were less concerned with ques­
gression) tions of physical design than with matters more
From the first we arrive at directly related to their own pursuits. The lack
a + c = 2b of written records, however, does not alter my
and b2 - ac = (a - b)2 = (b - c)2. (This hypothesis concerning the system I have de­
proportion is used at Athens, Acropolis I; scribed.32
see pp. 29-30.)
1 Werner W. Jaeger, P aideia: The Ideals of Greek C u l­
Later, there is reference to geometric propor­ ture , trans. Gilbert Highet, New York: Oxford Uni­
tion. Archytas defined continuous geometric versity Press, 1945, p. 110.
2 Ibid., p. 159.
proportion as a sequence of constant ratios 3 Ibid., p. 157.
between two figures: the first is to the second as 4 O n the Heavens 2 .1 3 .2 9 5 a l3 ff.
5 Empedocles O n N a tu re , in Hermann Diels, ed., D ie
the second is to the third.29
Fragmente der V orsokratiker, Griechisch u nd Deutsch,
a : b = b:c. 5th ed., Berlin: W eidm ann, 1 9 3 4 -1 9 3 8 ,1, 3 1 .3 2 4 -3 2 5 .
6 Plato P haidon 108CH .
Discontinuous geometric proportion is
7 Euclides, O pe ra O m n ia , ed. I. L. Heiberg and Hen-
a : b = c: d. ricus Menge, Leipzig: Teubner, 1 8 8 3 -1 9 1 6 , vol. 8,
Still later, harmonic proportion appears: Phaenomena et scripta musica, ed. Henricus Menge
(1916), pp. 1 0 -1 2 .
(a — b ) : ( b — c) = a : c. HO n the Heavens 1.5 .2 7 1 b lff.
The first systematic theory of proportions is 9 Jaeger, Paideia, p. 158.
10 Physics 205b31.
found in Euclid's Elements (Book V), although 11 M e ta p h y s ic s 11.10 .
they were intrinsically known long before his 12 Plutarch M o r a l i a 5.13.390C .
13 Plutarch M o r a l i a 5.22.422B .
time. To illustrate his theory Euclid used the 14 O n the Heavens 2 .9 .2 9 0 b l2 ff.
regular pentagon and, by halving its basic angle, 15 Proclus C o m m e n ta ry on the firs t book o f elements by
Euclid, Definitions XXIV-XXIX.
the golden section (although he did not use 16M o r a l i a 5.3 8 9 .F l l . Cy
this name). He states, "A straight line is said to 17 Proclus C o m m e nta ry on Euclid, Definitions XV, XVI.
18 Proclus C o m m e nta ry on Euclid, Prologue, pt. 1.
have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, 19 Proclus C o m m e nta ry on E uclid , Definition XXXIV.
as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is 20 Archytas H a rm o n y , in Diels, D ie Fragmente der V or­
s o k ra tik e r, I, 4 7 .B 2 .4 3 6 .6 -8 .
the greater to the less."30 21 In Diels, D ie Fragmente der V o rso kra tike r, I, 402.31.
From this cursory review of classical sources 22 M o r a l i a 5.381F.
[18]
23Moralia 5.363A.
24Moralia 5.379A.
25Proclus Commentary on Euclid, Prologue, pt. 1.
26"ἡ ἰσότης ἡ γεωμετρικὴ καὶ ἐν Θεοῖς καὶ ἐν
ἀνθρώποις μέγα δύναται." Gorgias 508Α.
27Philolaos On the Pythagorean Numbers, quoted by
Theo of Smyrna, 106.10, in Diels, Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker, I, 412.9-14. [English translation in
Kathleen Freeman, Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philoso­
phers, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1952, p. 75.]
28On the Pythagorean Numbers, in Diels, Die Fragmente
der Vorsokratiker, I. 4 11.8 -13 . [English translation in
Freeman, Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, p. 75.]
29 Quoted in Porphyry Harmonica of Ptolemy, in Diels,
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I, 47B2.436.6-8.
30 Euclid Elements (trans. Heath) 6.188, theorem 3.
31On the Pythagorean Numbers, quoted by Theo of
Smyrna 106.10, in Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokrati­
ker, I, 412.4-8. [English translation in Freeman,
Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, p. 75.]
32 For instance, it is undeniable that the Doric
metopes and triglyphs always had a ratio of 3 :2 , al­
though this is not recorded in any book that has
come down to us.

[19]
3 Conclusion: Origin of the System

Development of the Twelve-


and Ten-Part System of
Architectural Spacing

A synthesis of my findings from examination of The traditional system was devised to bring
the excavated sites and of the classical literature order into the disposition of buildings in a lay­
makes possible the following conclusions. out just as Greek philosophy brought order
Although my study was confined to exam­ into the cosmos: the ordering of space on the
ples of large open spaces for public use, I be­ earth would mirror the order of the universe.
lieve it can be safely inferred that the ancient As revealed in their writings, one of the most
Greek system of architectural spacing was uni­ profound beliefs of the ancient Greeks was that
versally employed, not only in the formation of man was "the measure of all things." This con­
urban spaces, whether on a large or small scale, cept was given visible expression in the orga­
but also in the disposition of statues and other nization of the human environment: man him­
decorative elements. self was the center and point of reference in the
Aristotle contrasted the new Hippodamian formation of architectural space.
system (ν εώ τερ ο ς κ α ὶἱπ π ο δ ά μ ε ιο ς τρόπ ο ς), or The ancient Greek writings also show the
grid-iron plan, for organizing the layout of a city strong influence of mathematical laws on every­
with the traditional system (ἀρχαιότερος τρόποs).1 day life and thought. A mathematical image of
Prior to the use of the Hippodamian system the universe was taught by all philosophers.
(fifth century b . c .) all cities had been laid out in Proportion, or harmony, was considered of
accordance with this traditional system, and great importance and was used in every sphere.
they give the impression (as in Athens, for ex­ Thus, it might be expected that the buildings of
ample) of having no comprehensive plan. But, ancient Greece would be disposed in space ac­
when Aristotle contrasted the new system with cording to mathematical laws. The inherent
the old, he was actually comparing two "sys­ logic of their siting was recognized by each suc­
tems," not a new system with previous haphaz­ ceeding generation, so that the harmonious de­
ard growth. And it is possible to assume that velopment of the layout was ensured. The ar­
the system of planning I describe here is that chitects continued to follow the accepted theo­
"traditional system" to which Aristotle referred. ries of proportion, based at first on arithmetic
and later on geometric principles. Certain prac­
tical considerations, however, such as the phys­
ical nature of the site and other technical exigen­
cies, also affected the development and use of
the system.2
Each site was divided into sectors, allowing
for extensions within the over-all plan. The
placing of the buildings was directly related to
the contours of the landscape, because the
Greeks continually sought to achieve order in
space, no matter whether the space was natural
or man-made. For example, when seen from the
main entrance to the Altis at Olympia, at the
southeast corner of the site, the outline, of the
Hill of Kronos, to the right, formed an essential
balance with the temple of Zeus to the left (see
Figure 40).
Since buildings were oriented according to
[20]
Development of the System

their relative position in space, the effects of The development of the ancient Greek system
optical perspective were important. (Parallel of planning can be traced from the seventh to
lines, for example, give the effect of diminishing the first century b . c . It came into being with the
space, open angles of magnifying it.) The effects birth of Greek architecture, reached the height
of different shapings of space were studied (see of its development during the golden age of
Euclid's O ptica ), and the lines of buildings were Greece, and fell into disuse when Greece de­
brought into harmony with each other and with clined. Its tradition was carried on in Hellenistic
the landscape. The ancient Greeks wished to Asia Minor. A brief chronology of the develop­
see for themselves the rising and setting of the ment of the system follows.
sun; hence the sectors of the site leading east Seventh Century B.C.
and west were usually kept open. It was man Concepts of the universe were still unclear.
himself—not the god in the temple—who was There were myths, but there was no philoso­
the measure of all things. phy; there was epic poetry, but no history. Site
As shown in the preceding chapters, there planning did not yet exist.
were certain differences between the Ionic and
Sixth Century B.C.
Doric sites. Although the small number of ex­
Philosophy had its beginnings in Ionia, and
amples available for study makes it impossible
there was interest in the laws governing the
to give definite reasons for these differences, a
universe. In Miletus, Anaximander expounded
tentative explanation can be put forward, which
his mathematical theory of the universe. The
is based on the contrasts between the Ionic and
first observations were made of architectural
Doric views of the universe. The Ionians consid­
space.
ered space to be infinite, and, since they feared
Ionic Order. The Heraion at Samos (Fig. 70), at
endless space, they always enclosed the views
in their layouts. The Ionians also favored the the time of the second hecatompedon, repre­
number 10, and it was fundamental in all their sents possibly the first conscious attempt of the
planning. It appears that they did not employ a Greeks to organize space. About 550 b . c . the ar­
different mathematical system for each god but chitects Rhoikos and Theodoros prepared the
used a single system based on the number 10. plan for the sacred precinct of Hera on the basis
On the other hand, all other Greeks, both on of the number 10, that is, dividing the space
the mainland and in the western colonial settle­ into ten parts.
ments, considered space to be finite and Doric Order. The sacred precinct of Demeter at
bounded. They had no fear of infinity, and their Selinus (Fig. 112) shows a full application of the
layouts always included a definite route that twelve-part system of organizing space without
traversed the entire site and opened to the out­ use of the corresponding angles. Possibly the
side world. They divided space into twelve 90° angle was used.
parts. According to the Pythagoreans, the uni­ 530 b .c . Acropolis I at Athens (Fig. 3) repre­
verse was based on the equilateral triangle. sents the first known application of the twelve-
Archytas refers in his H arm ony to the dominance part system on the Greek mainland. There is a
of angles of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, etc.3 Although balance of the major perceptible elements. Spe­
there are examples of numbers associated with cific angular measurements were apparently
the gods, there are too few to demonstrate posi­ not used. An arithmetical progression is observ­
tively whether certain mathematical systems able along the length of the plan.
were consistently associated with certain After 530 b .c . At the terrace of Apollo at
divinities.4 Delphi (Fig. 8) the space was divided into twelve
[2 1]
parts. The first observed use of the 60° angle at Pergamon (Fig. 61) a twelvefold division was
was made here. employed.
Ionic Order. End of sixth century b . c . In the re­ Ionic O rder. 160 b . c . The upper terrace of the
organization of the Heraion at Samos the divi­ Asclepeion at Cos (Fig. 77) and the sacred pre­
sion of space into ten parts was continued from cinct of Artemis at Magnesia (Fig. 94) are the
the earlier layout. first two examples of an axial site plan.
Fifth C entury B.C. D oric Order. The Altis at Olympia (Fig. 39)

Doric Order. Circa 480 b . c . At the Acropolis II was reorganized to give more sense of enclosure.

at Athens (Fig. 4) and the sacred precinct of Roman Period


Aphaia at Aegina (Fig. 19) the same mathe­ Ionic O rder. The axial layout of Palmyra (Fig.
matical system was used: twelvefold division of 106) clearly follows the Hellenistic tradition.
the area; the equilateral triangle was employed,
with its sides divided into three equal parts. Aesthetic form was created by man to give
479 b . c . At Delphineion I at Miletus (Fig. 23) pleasure to man. Pains were taken to place each
there was twelvefold division of the area; the structure and each group of structures to the ut­
equilateral triangle was used, with its sides di­ most perfection so that they could be enjoyed
vided into two equal parts. from every viewpoint. Every detail was impor­
470-430 b .c . At the Altis at Olympia the tant: roof tiles, which would be seen by no one,
sacred precinct of Poseidon at Sounion (Fig. 52), had to be finished with the same care as the col­
and Acropolis III at Athens (Fig. 5) the same umns of a portico.
system was used: twelvefold division of the The ancient Greek system was total. It
area; the equilateral triangle was employed, took all space into account, and all three-
with its sides divided into two equal parts. dimensional masses, man-made or natural,
Fourth C entury B.C. were incorporated as volumes in space. Voids

Ionic Order. 350 b . c . The Asclepeion at Cos as well as masses had their form, since together

(Fig. 77), the sacred precincts of Demeter (Fig. they constitute architectural space— the space

120), and the agora at Priene (Fig. 84) show a that is created by man to enhance his sense of
well-being.
tenfold division.
Summary
Doric Order. 334 b . c . In the reorganization of
It has been shown in Chapter 1 that the ancient
the Delphineion at Miletus (Fig. 24) the twelve­
Greek system comprehended certain basic
fold system was retained.
tenets.
Third Century B.C.
1
Doric Order. The agora at Pergamon (Fig. 56)
The relations between buildings had to be as
shows a twelvefold division.
simple as possible so that there would be the
Ionic Order. 300-250 b .c . In the reorganization fewest possible lines in man's angle of vision.
of the Asclepeion (Asclepeion II) at Cos (Fig. This principle extended to every detail.
77) and of the sacred precinct of Zeus at Priene 2
(Fig. 93) a tenfold division was used. The sacred Since gaps break the continuity and create a se­
precinct of the Egyptian gods at Priene (Fig. quence of different elements rather than a co­
121) shows an eightfold division. herent whole, care was taken to leave no optical
Second C entury B.C. gaps between buildings and to place them so
D oric Order. At the sacred precinct of Athena that the line of one structure was directly con-
[22]
tinued by the next. For the same reason an The organization of every site was entirely
effort was made to compose the outlines of the rational and could be immediately com pre­
different buildings into a unified silhouette. hended from the entrance. The visitor's eyes
In every layout man was the focus of the cre­ were led to the most significant goal (usually an
ation. All sight lines started from man's posi­ altar), which was approached by a clearly visi­
tion in space; all angles of vision were measured ble pathway, free of structures. But no organized
from the turning of his eyes; the length of his routes led to the different buildings, nor was
view decided the direction of the sacred way the site dominated by its largest structure.
(looking toward the sunrise or out over the nat­ Every form was distinctly visible, and the visi­
ural landscape); his height (that is, the level of tor was at liberty to choose his own way. The
his eyes) determined the line of horizontal per­ entire layout was directly related to the land­
spective; his foot was the measuring rod for the scape, and its design followed natural laws.
length and breadth of all buildings. Space was
created by man for man. 1 Politics 7.10.4.
2 [For inform ation on construction m ethods in an­
In Olympia, for example, the outline of the c ient G reece see Roland M artin, M anuel de l'architec­
temple of Zeus is continued in one view by the ture grecque, Paris: Picard, 1965, and A nastasios K.
O rland os, Τ ὰ ὑλ ικ ὰ δομῆς ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων, 2 vols.,
Nike of Paeonios (Fig. 40), and in another view
A thens: Library of the A rchaeological Society, 1 9 5 5 -
(Fig. 48) the line of the temple is continued to 1960. T h e latter has been published in French under
the left by the Hill of Kronos and the propylon the title Les matériaux de construction et la technique
architecturale des anciens grecs, trans. V. H adjim ichali, 2
and, to the right, by the Nike again. vols., Paris: D e Boccard, 1966.]
3 3Andreas Speiser, ed., Klassische Stücke der M athe­
matik, Leipzig: Orell Füssli, 1925, p. 9.
The governing principle was that each form 4[It is known that the most significant dimensions in
should be not only distinct but also visible in its the temples of ancient Greece always corresponded
to round numbers of Greek feet. The author sought
entirety: from each viewpoint a building should to determine whether this principle also applied in
either be seen as a whole or be excluded from the Greek organization of exterior space. In taking
measurements on the sites, the author used the fol­
the picture. No building could be obstructed so lowing foot lengths:
that it emerged only partially from behind an­ Attic foot = 0.328 m
other structure; nor could the continuation of a pre-Periclean foot = 0.308 m
Ionic foot = 0.349 m
building be hidden from view. Adherence to Egyptian ell = 0.524 m.
this law was universal. One finds in every Although the measurements of all important dis­
grouping that a building comes into view at the tances were checked according to these scales, the
tables (pp. 9 -1 4 ) record only the instances where
point where the view of another building ends. the author was able to establish a definite corre­
Precision and clarity were all-important ele­ spondence with round numbers such as 100, 150, or
ments in the formation of space. The sizes of 200 feet. In four cases the author was unable to ex­
amine the sites himself and was obliged to work
the various buildings visible at any one time, as from small plans that did not permit very detailed
well as the spaces in which they stand, appear study.
There is still no complete accord on the size of the
to man's eye in simple ratios such as 1 :2 ,1 :2 :1 , "foot" used in ancient Greece. The lengths used in
2 :1 :2 ,1 :1 :1 ,2 :3 :2 :3 . Space is always parti­ this work differ somewhat from those given by W. B.
Dinsmoor (in The Architecture of Ancient Greece, Lon­
tioned harmoniously. The total mass of each don: Batsford, 1950), the most widely accepted au­
structure was calculated and its effect deter­ thority on the subject. Dinsmoor does not mention
the existence of a pre-Periclean foot; he gives the
mined. At times, as for example in the sacred Attic, or Doric, foot as varying from 0.326 m to
precinct of Aphaia at Aegina (Fig. 19), these 0.3272 m but states that "the Athenian foot was
never quite so large as 0.328 m" (p. 195). He also
even appear to form a symmetry, which did not gives the Ionic foot as 0.294 m, based on evidence
exist in reality. from Didyma, "our most trustworthy source of in­
[23]
fo rm ation for the length o f the Ionic fo o t" (p. 222).
T h is is m uch sm aller than the m easurem ent ac­
cepted by D oxiadis. It is interesting to note, how ­
ever, that 0.294 m was derived from "a n axial spac­
ing of 3.528 m " (p. 222), which is not far off ten tim es
D oxiad is' unit of m easurem ent (0.349 m). D insm oor
also refers to the "S am ian foot (so-called ) o f 13 7/8
in ch es," which is alm ost exactly 0.349 m. But D in s­
m oor adds "th is unit is very h y p o th etical" (p. 137).
T h e question rem ains open, and several authorities
(ranging from Hans S ch le if to Stirling Dow ) have
been tem pted to believe that the exact length o f the
foot was m ore or less arbitrarily determ ined on each
site.]

[24]
II Description of Some
Ancient Greek Sites
4 Use of the Twelve- and the
Ten-Part System

The Acropolis at Athens, 530-437 B.C.

The Acropolis at Athens was inhabited for seems certain that the last two buildings date
about three thousand years. Its various trans­ from this period. It is generally accepted that
formations during this long period, and partic­ both were built after the Persian invasion, and
ularly during its golden age, in the fifth century they must have been built before the Periclean
B .C ., have been the subject of investigation since era, since they were removed at that time to
the beginning of archaeological studies. Unfortu­ make room for other structures.6
nately, the remains of individual buildings of The plan of Acropolis II (Fig. 4) relates to the
the earlier periods are few and do not permit a time before 447 b . c . when the building of Par­
complete reconstruction of the structural thenon III began, heralding the new plan pro­
changes and developments of the site. Several posed by Pericles.
theories, some partially conflicting, have already During the phase of Acropolis III, 447-437
been put forward; I shall therefore not attempt b . c . the Acropolis was undoubtedly designed as

to describe the development of the Acropolis in a unity by Pericles and his advisers, even though
historical or philosophic terms but simply ex­ it proceeded at first with gradual improvements7
amine the organization of its architectural space.1 and due to political and religious circumstances
I have divided this development into three was never fully completed.
phases, beginning with the era of Pisistratus The plan of Acropolis III (Fig. 5) shows the
(560-527 b . c .) and his successors, when the Parthenon, 447-432 b . c .; the Propylaea built by
general layout of the Acropolis is already recog­ Mnesicles, ca. 435 B .C .; the Erechtheion, 421-407
nizable, and passing over the earlier period, b . c .; the Chalkotheke, completed before 400

when the existence of only one building, the b . c .; the colossal statue of Athena Promachos,

ancient temple of Athena,2 is definitely known. 447-438 b . c . (C on the plan); the bronze quad­
During the first phase, 530-480 b . c ., alterations riga, re-erected ca. 446 b . c . (K on the plan);8 a
were made to the ancient temple of Athena, square building northwest of the Erechtheion
a surrounding colonnade (pteron) was added, that covered the east part of the old north stoa.9
and the first stone Parthenon and the pre- Acropolis I, 530-480 B.C.
Persian propylon were built.3 In 506 b . c . a Organization of the Site. The main entrance is
bronze quadriga was erected to celebrate a vic­ through the early propylon.10 Point A on the
tory over the Boeotians and Chalcidians. There plan (Fig. 3) is at the center of the edge of the
is no evidence, however, as to whether the stylobate facing toward the ancient temple of
Acropolis at this stage was consciously planned Athena.
as a whole (Fig. 3). SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
During the period I have termed Acropolis a to left corner of the ancient temple of Athena
II, 480-447 b . c ., the pre-Parthenon, or Parthenon b to right comer of the temple of Athena (B on
II, was built. Although there has been contro­ the plan), passing the right corner of the quad­
versy as to whether this building was erected riga (E on the plan)
before or after the Persian invasion (480 b . c .), c to left (northeast) comer of the Parthenon I
the prevalent opinion is that construction began (D on the plan)
in pre-Persian times and was never completed.4 d to the middle (northwest) corner of the Par­
In addition to the Parthenon II, the Acropolis of thenon I (C on the plan)
this period consisted of the ancient temple of e to the right (southwest) comer of the Parthe­
Athena, the adjacent sacred precinct of Pan­ non I
drosos, remnants of the early propylon,5 the ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
southwestern building, and northern stoa. It Angles ab, bd, and de are all equal.
[29]
Angle ae = 50°. plan) and left corner of the "northern wall."
D ISTANCES FROM PO IN T A d to right corner of this northern structure; d'
Along the line AD w e construct AB' equal to to middle corner.
AB and AC' equal to AC. e to left corner of the enclosure sacred to Pan-
We then find that AD = AC' + C'D = drosos.
AC + C'D. / to the left (northwest) corner of the ancient
We also find by measurement that AB = 80 m temple of Athena.
and AD — 160 m. g to the right (southwest) corner of the ancient
Hence AD = 2AB. temple of Athena (D2 on the plan).
If AC' — x, AB — y, C'D = z, h to the left (northeast) corner of Parthenon II
x - y = y - z and y : (x + z) = 1 : 2 . (G on the plan).
This is an example of arithmetic progression. i to the right (southwest) corner of Parthe­
We do not know the exact position of the rel­ non II.
evant corners, nor can we be certain how much ANGLES OF VISIO N FROM PO IN T A
attention was paid to views of the distant land­ Angles bd, dg = 30° = 180 °/6.
scape, since nothing remains of several build­ Angles ab,fh = ca. 30°.
ings that are known to have existed11 and that, Thus the plan is organized on the basis of an
with their accompanying monuments, may equilateral triangle AE1E4 with AEl = AE4 =
have been important elements of the layout. It E1E4 = 92.40 m.
can be asserted, however, that the field of vi­ DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
sion between the ancient temple of Athena and If arcs of a circle are described from point A
the Parthenon I was then free of structures, for, to corners of the buildings, the following obser­
to the extent that we can trust present evidence, vations can be made.
it always seems to have been kept open. This The distance along line g to point D2 at the
view is directly oriented toward the east. The comer of the ancient temple of Athena is equal
assumption that the space between lines b and c to the distance along line c to point D1 at the
was always held free is supported by the situa­ comer of the northern stoa;
tion of the quadriga, which was placed in posi­ i.e., A D 2 = A D 1.
tion E on the plan: this position takes the line b Also, the distance to the middle (northwest)
into consideration and avoids blocking the field corner of the Parthenon (E3 on the plan) is
of vision between b and c. equal to the probable juncture of the Pandroseian
Acropolis II, 480-447 B.C. precinct with the Hecatompedon (E2 on the
Organization of the Site. There is a single main plan);
entrance through the western propylon (Fig. 4). i.e., AE3 = AE2 (uncertain).
Point A remains in the same position as in Further, a series of arcs touching one corner
Acropolis I. of each of the buildings cuts the line h at equal
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A intervals;
a to left corner of the southwestern building. i.e., AB = BC = CE = EF = FG = 30.8 m.
b and b' to right corner of the southwestern The distance AD does not appear in this
building and left comer of the northern stoa. It series. It represents the height of the equi­
is possible that b and b' are identical, since the lateral triangle A E j£4;
exact position of the northeast corner of the i.e., A D = A E ( \ / 3 / 2 ) = 92.40 X 0.866 =
northern stoa (H on the plan) is uncertain. 80.02 m.
c to right comer of the northern stoa (D1 on Measurements show AD = 80.0 m.
[30]
The basic division of line h ( A B = 30.8 m) is ably determined either in 447 b . c ., when Parthe­
probably equal to 100 pre-Periclean feet (100 x non III was started, or in 437 b . c ., when the new
0.308 m). If this is accepted, all subsequent dis­ Propylaea was started. The plan was never fully
tances from point A are established at 100-ft carried out.
intervals (100, 200, 300, 400, 500). Neither the The main entrance is still through the Propy­
size nor even the existence of the pre-Periclean laea, and point A remains in the center of the
foot as a unit of measure has been completely front edge of the stylobate.
proved, however (see Chapter 3, note 4). SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
If A E — x, then >4D = 3x/2 and (* indicates that the exact position of these
x / 3 = 30.8 m = 100 Attic feet. structures is uncertain.)
Therefore the distances of B, C, £, F, G from a to left corner of the steps beside the old north
point A can be expressed stoa on the northern slope of the Acropolis.
x/3, 2x/3, x, 4x/3, 5 x / 3. a' t o nearest corner (southwest) of the house of
FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A the Arrephoroi.
From point A , looking from left to right, the b to right (southeast) corner of the same building.
following views are possible: c to left corner of the unbuilt, but probably
the southwestern building within an angle of 30° planned, west porch of the Erechtheion* and
left corner of the stylobate of the north porch of
the northern stoa and the "northern wall" to­
the Erechtheion.
gether within a second angle of 30°
c ' to right corner of the west porch of the Erech­
a field of vision that is apparently open but theion* (D2 on the plan).
is actually closed by the Lycabettos Hill, the sa­ d to left side of the base of the statue of Athena
cred precinct of Pandrosos, and the ancient Promachos (only the foundations remain, and I
temple of Athena—all three within a third have assumed a conventional base). This line
angle of 30° also leads to the right corner of the base of the
porch of the caryatids of the Erechtheion (H on
a completely open field of vision together with
the plan) as well as to the right (southeast) cor­
Parthenon II within a fourth angle of 30°
ner of the stylobate and architrave of the east
The entire architectural scene is thus divided porch of the Erechtheion (£ on the plan).
into four 30° sectors, and the central division, e to right corner of the base of the statue of
along line d, lies on the axis of the propylon. Athena Promachos and left corner of the altar
This means that the two remaining angles, left of Athena* (F on the plan).
and right, between lines a and i and the face of f to right corner of the altar of Athena* and left
the propylon, are also each 30°. In other words, corner of the altar of Zeus*.
the entire space is divided into six identical g t o left (northeast) corner of the lowest step of
angles, each 30°, and this division, with the the Parthenon (G on the plan).
equilateral triangle that is derived from it, h to middle (northwest) corner of the lowest
forms the organizing principle of the layout. step of the Parthenon (D3 on the plan).
The general view is enclosed on all sides except k to left (northeast) corner of the wall of the
for a single open field of vision directly toward Chalkotheke (D4 on the plan) and right (south­
the east; the background of the other opening is west) corner of the lowest step of the Parthenon.
entirely occupied by the Lycabettos Hill. k ' to middle (northwest) comer of the Chalko­
Acropolis III, 447-437 B.C. theke (C' on the plan).
Organization of the Site. The layout was prob­ l to right (southwest) corner of the wall of the
[31]
Chalkotheke*. As the position of the southern measure 39.80 m; i.e., AC = A C 1 = 39.80 m.
wall of the Chalkotheke has not been precisely Hence AC = A D /2.
determined, its southwest corner cannot be lo­ We also find that DE = 39.80 m.
cated with certainty, but it was probably at the Hence AC = CD = DE = 39.80 m; i.e.,
end of line l. if AD = x, th e n AC = x/2 and AE = 3x/2.
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A If a line is drawn from point D3 (the nearest

Angles ac, cg,gk, kl, all = 30° = 180°/6. corner of the Parthenon) parallel to the line

Thus an equilateral triangle A D 1D4 is A D4 (the northeast corner of the Chalkotheke),

bounded by two symmetrical sectors of 30 °, it will cut AG (axis of the equilateral triangle) at
point K.
with its axis on AG (line g).
Similarly, if a line is drawn from point H
The four equal angles ac, eg, gk, kl are divided
(southeast com er of the porch of the caryatids
into two parts (see Fig. 5), each of which has
of the Erechtheion) parallel to A D X(the line c
angles of 17°30' and 12°30' (approximately in
leading to the northwest com er of the north
the proportion 18°: 12°, or 3:2).
porch of the Erechtheion), it will also cut AG at
Angle ac = aaf + a'c = 17°30' + 12°30' = 30°.
point K.
Angle eg = cd + dg = 12°30' + 17°30' = 30°.
Angle gk = gh + hk = 12°30' + 17°30' = 30°. Point K possesses similar remarkable rela­
tionships with other buildings (see Fig. 5).
Angle kl = kk' + k'l = 12°30' + 17°30' = 30°.
FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
But angle c'h between the right comer of the From point A, the field of vision from left to
west porch of the Erechtheion* and the nearest right comprises the following:
corner of the Parthenon = 36° = 180°/5. By within the first angle of 30°, the house of the
dividing this important angle (18° and 18°) we Arrephoroi and an open view terminated by the
arrive at line f ', which may determine the right Lycabettos Hill
corner of the altar of Zeus*.
within the next angle of 30°, the Erechtheion,
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
the statue of Athena Promachos, the altars of
If an arc is described with center at A and ra­
Athena* and Zeus* and a completely open field
dius A D 3 (the nearest comer of the Parthenon),
of vision
it passes through the following points (from left
to right): within the third angle of 30°, the Parthenon
D, the northeast comer of the house of the Ar-
within the fourth angle of 30', the Chalko­
rephoroi (sensed but not visible from point
theke*
A) = 79.25 m;
D2, the southwest com er of the unbuilt western
porch of the Erechtheum*; The layout is thus organized within four 30°
D3, the northwest corner of the lowest step of sectors.
the Parthenon = 79.25 m; Consequently, the location of the various
D4, the northeast corner of the wall of the buildings is determined by a division of the
Chalkotheke = 79.70 m; i.e., AD = A D 2 = space into six or twelve parts, or by the angles
A D 3 = A D 4 = ca. 79.60 m. and sides of an equilateral triangle derived
If another arc is described with center at A from this division of space.
and radius AC' (the nearest corner of the Chal­ In certain instances, angles of 36° (180 °/5),
kotheke), it passes through the center of the 18° (180°/10), and 12° (180°/15) seem to play
statue of Athena Promachos and is found to an important role.
[32]
The field of vision from point A is enclosed South Side of N orth Side of
A cropolis A cropolis
on all sides except along the eastern axis (see
M ycenaean palace
Fig. 2). The buildings form two groups, the left shrine
1. Prim itive tem ple
group having an opening out into the land­ of A thena (D oxiadis'
"ancient tem ple of
scape, which is closed in the distance by the A thena")
Lycabettos Hill. This layout has many close simi­ ca. 570-566 b .c . 2. H ekatom pedon
(D oxiadis'
larities with that of Acropolis II. Most impor­ "Parthenon I")
tant, the open view to the east was retained in 529-520 b .c . 3. Pisistratid tem ple
of A thena
all three periods, although its relation to the en­
488-480 b .c . 4. O lder Parthenon
trance point A differed in each layout. (D oxiadis'
"Parthenon II")
THE STRUCTURES
480-479 B.C. PERSIAN DESTRUCTION
The proportions of the ground plans of the
479 b .c . 5. T em porary shrine
chief buildings were as follows: of Venerable image
447-432 b .c . 6. Parthenon
Parthenon 1:√ 5 (Doxiadis'
"Parthenon III")
Chalkotheke* 1:√ 5 439-437 b .c . (O pisthodom os
Erechtheion 1:2√ 3 refinished)

Propylaea 3
1:√ 421-405 B.C. 7. Erechteion

(to the outer walls of the wings). 353 B.C. (O pisthodom os


dem olished)]

5[According to Dinsmoor, the ancient propylon,


1 In addition to studying the literature on the A crop­ "being a secular building . . . was repaired after the
olis available in 1934 (T heod or W iegand, Die ar­ departure of the Persians" (The Architecture of Ancient
chaische Poros-Architektur der Acropolis zu Athen, Leipzig, Greece, London, 1959, p. 198).]
1904; W ilh elm D örpfeld, "D a s H ekatom ped on in 6Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 246. [Studies made
A then/' D eutsches A rchäologisches Institut, Jahrbuch since that of Judeich have cast doubts on the early
34, 1919, pp. 1 -4 0 ; G erhard Rodenw aldt, Die Akropo­ existence of the northern stoa, but the existence and
lis, Berlin: D eutsch er K unstverlag, 1930; W alter position of the southwestern building are still gener­
Judeich, Topographie uon Athen, 2nd ed., M unich: ally accepted. Gorham P. Stevens considers the lat­
Beck, 1931), I made careful investigations and took ter to have been "a dwelling for priests or priestesses,
m easurem ents on the site. C om parison of m y own or an office of some kind"; in his view, "the building
conclusions with the published plans convinced me was still standing when Mnesicles started the Pro­
that the latter were inadequate for my needs, since, pylaea in 437 B.C ." (The Periclean Entrance Court of the
no m atter how carefully they had been drawn, they Acropolis of Athens, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni­
had been made for different purposes. I therefore versity Press, 1936, pp. 6 9 -7 0 ). Architectural frag­
present my own drawings here, based on the m ost ments and roof elements of other buildings have
precise m easurem ents I was able to m ake. It is my been found, but their position is unknown.]
opinion, however, that angles and distances cannot 7Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 79.
be determ ined exactly until a com plete trigo­ 8 Ibid., p. 239.
nom etric survey has been m ade o f the A cropolis. 9[Doxiadis does not mention the boundary wall of
(This is true also o f all the other sites I have exam ­ the sanctuary of the Brauronian Artemis, built in the
ined.) fifth century b . c . between the Propylaea and the
2[In the original text (Raumordnung im griechischen Chalkotheke, nor the Mycenaean retaining wall of
Städtebau) Doxiadis referred to the ancient temple of the terrace of the old temple of Athena, behind the
Athena (i.e., the pre-Pisistratid temple) as the Heca- great statue of Athena Promachos. Both are included
tompedon. According to more recent studies, how­ in Doxiadis' drawing (Fig. 2) but not in his plan (Fig.
ever, this name was given to the structure that he 5). The height of these walls has not been definitely
has called Parthenon I, on the site of the present established. The drawing shows them as low bound­
Parthenon. See William B. Dinsmoor, "The Heka­ ary walls. According to Gorham P. Stevens, how­
tompedon on the Athenian Acropolis," American ever, the sanctuary of the Brauronian Artemis was
Journal of Archaeology 51, 1947, p. 140.] bounded by a high wall "bordered on the east and
3See Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 66. south with stoa-like structures," and the east stoa
4 [The dates now generally accepted are given in the "must have concealed a large part of the Parthenon
follow ing table based on D insm oor, "T h e H eka­ from those emerging from the east portico of the
tom p ed o n ," p. 140: Propylaea" (The Periclean Entrance Court of the Acropolis.
[33]
p. 18). T his statem ent should p erhaps be related to Works Consulted by the Author
S tevens' introductory rem arks in the sam e w ork D örpfeld, W ilhelm . "D a s H ekatom pedon in A th en ."
(p. 1) concerning the layout o f pre-H ellen istic sites: D eutsch es A rchäologisches Institut. Jahrbuch 34,
" T h e trained architect adm ires the beauty o f the in­ 1919.
dividual buildings o f early date, but he calls the
Judeich, W alter. Topographie von A th e n . 2nd ed.
grouping o f the buildings by its real nam e— a m ess.
M unich: Beck, 1931.
And he w onders how the ancient G reeks, who were
fam ous fo r their keen artistic appreciations o f all Rodenw aldt, Gerhard. D ie A k ro p o lis . Berlin:
kinds, tolerated such unsightly group planning ." D eutsch er Kunstverlag, 1930.
S tevens' ground plan o f the sanctuary o f the Braur­
onian A rtem is has been reproduced in alm ost all W iegand, Theod or. D ie archaische P o ro s -A rc h ite k tu r
subsequ ent plans of the A cropolis, but agreem ent der A cro p o lis zu A th e n . Leipzig: Fisher, 1904.
has not been reached on the "sto a -lik e stru ctu re" Additional References
along its eastern boundary or the height o f its sur­ Bundgaard, Jens A. M n esicles: A Greek A rc h ite c t at
rounding walls. In the sam e study (p. 60) Stevens W o rk . Copenhagen: G yldendal, 1957.
gives his reasons for assum ing that the M ycenaean
wall behind the statue o f A thena Prom achos was D insm oor, W illiam B. "T h e Burning o f the O p isth o-
4 - 5 m eters high, but this also rem ains to be proved.] dom os at A th en s." A m e ric a n J o u rn a l o f A rch ae olog y
10 T h e propylon is drawn according to the reco n­ 36, 1932, pp. 143 -1 7 2 , 3 0 7 -3 2 6 .
struction o f D orpfeld ("D a s H ekato m p ed on ," pl. 1) -----------. "T h e H ekatom pedon on the A thenian
and Judeich ( Topographie von A th e n , fig. 23). A crop olis." A J A 51, 1947.
11 Wiegand, D ie archaische P o ro s -A rc h ite k tu r der
A cro po lis, p. 148. D örpfeld, W ilhelm , and Schleif, Hans. Erechtheion.
Berlin: M ittler, 1942.
Raubitschek, A ntony E. D edications fro m the A th e n ia n
A k ro p o lis . Cam bridge, M ass.: A rchaeological Insti­
tute of A m erica, 1949.
Stevens, G orham P. "A rchitectu ral Studies C oncern­
ing the A cropolis o f A th en s." Hesperia 1 5 ,1 9 4 6 , pp.
7 5 -1 0 6 .
-----------. The Erechtheum. Edited by Jam es M . Paton.
Cam bridge, M ass.: Harvard U niversity Press, 1927.
-------- . The Periclean Entrance C o u rt of the A c ro p o lis of
A th e ns. Cam bridge, M ass.: Harvard U niversity Press,
1936.

-----------. "T h e Setting of the Periclean Parthenon."


Hesperia, suppl. 3, 1940.

[34]
1 A thens, A cropolis. V iew from point A, 1968.

2 A thens, A crop olis III, after 450 b .c . Perspective


from point A.

[35]
3 A thens, A cropolis I, circa 530 b .c . Plan.

4 A thens, A cropolis II, circa 480 b .c . Plan.

[36]
5 A thens, A crop olis III, after 450 b .c . Plan.

[37]
6 A thens, A cropolis II and III. Plan. (D insm oor.)

A. A rchaic (Peisistratid) Athena Temple.


AB. Artemis B rau ronia Precinct.
B. B eulé Gate.
C. Chalcotheca.
E. Erechtheu m.
H. Hecatompedos Naos (Parthenon)
M. M onument o f Agrippa.
N. Nike Temple.
O P. Older Parthenon.
P. Propylaea.
R. Roma and Augustus Temple.
S. Statue o f Athena Promachos.

[38]
5 Use of the Twelve-Part System

The Temple Terrace of Apollo at Delphi,


Fifth Century B.C.

Excavations of the sacred precinct of Delphi are a third entrance to the other end of the temple.
still incomplete, and the published reports on The great altar was dedicated in 476 b . c .
them do not present a clear picture of the entire Several monuments were added in the Hel­
site; there are even differences of opinion con­ lenistic period, including the double columns
cerning the structures that have been fully exca­ (D on the plan);3 a statue of Eumenes II, King
vated. I have therefore ventured to draw only of Pergamon, 182 b . c . (E on the plan; and see
one general conclusion regarding the site as a Fig. 11); a statue of Aemilius Paullus, 168 b . c .
whole, which is supported by the plans that (F on the plan; and see Fig. 12).
have so far been published. (Rechecking of Organization of the Site. The precinct devel­
measurements on the spot would be a tremen­ oped gradually over the years. The great temple
dously difficult and elaborate operation, as the of Apollo was built about 530 b .c .
site is on a steep mountain side.) A visual con­ SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
trast between the two largest building masses, Point A lies in the center of the opening just
the temple of Apollo and the theater, was pre­ south of the great altar.
vented. From both the main entrance to the site a to left (northeast) corner of the temple.
and from the southeast entrance, the theater b to left corner of the great altar, right (north­
was completely hidden by the temple; and from west) corner of temple.
other entrances, views of it were blocked by re­ Angle ab = 60° = 180°/3.
taining walls and similar structures (see Fig. 14). SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T B

The temple terrace is undoubtedly the most Point B, though more important, can be lo­
important feature of the site, but my studies of cated with less certainty, as it cannot be placed
it are merely preliminary. Scholars have estab­ centrally in a clearly marked entrance.
lished that it passed through two great building c to right corner of great altar, left (northeast)
phases. The first layout included the temple corner of the temple
said to have been built by the architects Tro- d to right corner of the temple
phonios and Agamedes,1 probably in the first Angle cd = 60° = 180°/3.
half of the sixth century b . c . (unfortunately The accuracy of lines c and d is confirmed by
there are too few traces of this building to per­ the placing of the later Hellenistic monuments
mit examination), and the second comprised D, E, and F, which shows regard for these lines.
the great temple built with the aid of the In fact lines c and d explain the positions of
Alkmaeonid family about 530 b . c .2 The exact D and F, which (unaccountably, as it may seem
points of access to this temple terrace are uncer­ to us) bear no relation to the axis of the temple.
tain, but it seems likely that the first general The sight lines may also account for the posi­
view of the temple from the sacred way was tion of the column south of the temple terrace.4
obtained from point A (Fig. 8), just south of the All these monuments were placed so that they
great altar erected by the Greeks of Chios, even would form a symmetrical composition with
though it is possible that there was no direct ac­ the façade of the temple when seen from one or
cess to the temple from this point. The second other of the main viewpoints; no account was
view was from point B, the only entrance of taken of their position in relation to the geo­
which we are positive (this was not framed by a metrical axis of the temple.
gateway). At this point the sacred way turned SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T C

to enter the temple terrace itself. A door in the The position of point C is somewhat uncer­
western wall of the precinct may have served as tain: it lies on the direct axis of the temple and

[39]
forms an isosceles triangle with the corners of does not mention this monument. According to
Georges Daux, "As to the Victory of the Messenians,
the west façade, whose angles measure 180 °/4, it is possible that the statue had been pillaged from
3 X 180°/8, 3 X 180°/8. the triangular column prior to this period" (Pausanias
à Delphes, Paris, 1936, p. 163). Daux's later opinion
1See Homeric Hymn, "To Apollo/' lines 2 9 4 -2 9 9 . was that there were probably two triangular columns
2 [D insm oor states that the second stone tem ple o f ("Inscriptions et monuments archaïques de Delphes,"
A pollo was undertaken in the last quarter o f the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 6 1 ,1 9 3 7 , p. 72) and
sixth century "to replace the structure burnt in 548 that both stood on the lower terrace, south of the
b . c . . . . T he plan was alm ost identical with that of
temple of Apollo. The exact position of these is still
the later tem ple w hich took its place after the de­ uncertain, however (see La Coste-Messelière, Delphes,
structive earthqu ake o f 373 b . c ." (The Architecture of no. 25 on plan, reproduced here as Fig. 16). They are
Ancient Greece, London: Batsford, 1950, pp. 9 1 -9 2 ).] now known as the Columns of the Messenians.]
3[While Doxiadis was preparing this dissertation in Works Consulted by the Author
Berlin (originally published as Raumordnung im Bourguet, Emile. Les Ruines de Delphes. Paris: Fonte­
griechischen Städtebau, Heidelberg, 1937), Pierre de la moing, 1914.
Coste-Messelière was completing a thesis in Paris
that was published in 1936 under the title A u Musée Courby, Fernand. La Terrasse du temple, pt. 1. Fouilles
de Delphes. In his study La Coste-Messelière revised de Delphes, vol. 2. Paris: De Boccard, 1927.
several of the previous positions of votive monu­ Pomtow, H. "Delphoi," pt. 1. In A. F. von Pauly, ed.,
ments, including the column of Aemilius Paullus Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
and the double columns of Lycos Diodes, which suppl. 4, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1924, pp. 1 1 89-1432.
Doxiadis had placed according to the opinion of
Pomtow (see A. F. von Pauly, ed., Real-Encyclopädie -----. "Die Paionios-Nike in Delphi." Deutsches
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, suppl. 4, 1924, Archäologisches Institut Jahrbuch 37, 1922.
map on p. 1199). The site of the column of Aemilius Schober, Friedrich. "Delphoi," pt. 2. In A. F. von
Paullus has been established in the corner of the Pauly, ed., Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertums­
lower terrace, slightly east of the position accepted wissenschaft, suppl. 5, 1931, pp. 5 9 -1 5 2 .
by Doxiadis (see Fig. 16, reproduced from Pierre de
la Coste-Messelière, Delphes, Paris, 1943). Even with Tournaire, Albert. Relevés et restaurations, pt. 1.
the statue in this changed position, Doxiadis' theory Fouilles de Delphes, vol. 2. Paris: Fontemoing, 1902.
still seems to hold, except that his line c from point
B now touches the northwest corner of the column Additional References
Am andry, Pierre. "C h ron iq u e des fouilles de 1943 à
of Aemilius Paullus instead of the southeast corner,
1 9 4 5 ," Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 6 8 -6 9 ,
and line a from point A touches the southeast cor­
1 9 4 4 -1 9 4 5 , pp. 4 3 9 -4 4 1 .
ner. The exact position of the double columns of
Lycos Diodes—dedicated by the ladies of the fam­ -----. "Chronique des fouilles en 1 9 4 7 ," BCH
ily of Lycos and Diodes, "sans doute deux 7 1 -7 2 , 1 9 4 7 -1 9 4 8 , pp. 4 4 5 -4 5 2 .
Delphiens" (Emile Bourguet, Les Ruines de Delphes,
-----------. "R ech erch es à D elphes, 1 9 3 8 -1 9 5 3 ," Inter­
Paris, 1914, pp. 1 4 8 -1 4 9 ) —is still in some doubt. The
national Congress of Classical Studies, 2nd, 1954,
position assigned to them beside the temple of
Acta Congressus Madvigiani, Copenhagen: M un ks­
Apollo by Pomtow is not now considered correct:
gaard, 195 7 -1 9 5 8 , I, pp. 3 2 5 -3 4 0 .
Pierre Amandry believes that this was probably the
site of the column of Nicopolis ("Chronique des Daux, Georges. Inscriptions, pt. 3, 2. Fouilles de
fouilles en 1 9 4 7 ," Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Delphes, vol. 3, Paris, 1943.
7 1 -7 2 , 1 9 4 7 -1948, p. 451). La Coste-Messelière
showed the Lycos Diodes columns south of the -----. "Inscriptions et monuments archaïques de
open area below the Athenian portico (Au Musée de Delphes," BCH 6 1 ,1 9 3 7 , pp. 6 7 -7 2 .
Delphes, no. 21 on plan), but this position is still not -----. Pausanias à Delphes. Paris: Picard, 1936.
definitely established (Amandry, "Chronique des
fouilles de 1943 à 19 4 5 ," Bulletin de correspondance Kahler, Heinz. Der Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius
hellénique 6 8 -6 9 , 1 9 4 4 -1 9 4 5 , p. 439)]. Paullus in Delphi. Berlin: Mann, 1965.
4 [In the original edition of this work (Raumordnung La Coste-Messelière, Pierre de, Au Musée de Delphes.
im griechischen Städtebau, p. 39), Doxiadis referred to Paris: De Boccard, 1936.
this column as the Nike column of Paeonios. This
attribution was based on the statements of Fernand -----. Delphes. Paris: Editions du Chêne, 1943.
Courby (La Terrasse du temple, pt. I, p. 302) and
Pomtow ("Delphoi," pt. 1, pp. 1308-1310). The tri­
angular-shaped column at Delphi bore such similar­
ity to the Nike column at Olympia that Pomtow was
convinced that the Delphi column, the Nike of the
Messenians, was surmounted by the original Nike
statue in gilded bronze by Paeonios and that the
marble statue in Olympia was a later copy. Pausanias
[40]
7 Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. V i ew from point C,
1968.

[41]
8 Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. Plan of temple.

9 D elphi, Terrace o f A pollo. Elevation o f tem ple


and terrace. (Courby.)

[42]
10 Delphi, Terrace of Apollo. View from point B,
1968.

[43]
11 D elphi, Terrace of A pollo. M onu m ent to 12 D elphi, Terrace of A pollo. M onu m ent to
Eum enes II. (Courby.) A em ilius Paullus. (K ahler.)

[44]
13 D elp h i, Terrace o f A pollo. Restoration.
(Toum aire.)

14 D elphi, Terrace of A pollo. Sketch show ing view


from the southw est in ancient tim es.

[45]
15 D elphi. G eneral plan of sacred precinct.
(Pomtow.)

[46]
16 Delphi. General plan of sacred precinct. (La
C oste-M esselière.)

[47]
The Sacred Precinct of Aphaia at Aegina,
Fifth Century B.C.

The remains of buildings in the sacred precinct ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A


of Aphaia (Fig. 18) show that there were three Angle ac = 60° = 180°/3.
major periods of construction, but only for the Angle cd = 30° = 180°/6.
last period is it possible to reconstruct an accu­ Angle dg = 60° = 180 °/3.
rate plan (Fig. 19), as traces of the layout during
the two earlier periods—especially indications Angle ac is subdivided as follows:
of the position of the temples—are insufficient.1 angle ab = 36 °, and angle be = 24°; i.e.,
The final temple of Aphaia and its contem­ angle ac is subdivided in a ratio of 3:2.
porary precinct were "built roughly between DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
500 and 470 b . c ., and were probably started A is equidistant from the southeast corner of
nearer to the earlier than the later date."2 The the temple (B) and the southwest corner of the
structures erected at the same time as the tem­ altar base (B'), i.e., 11.30 m.
ple—they can be recognized, as they follow the A is equidistant from the northeast corner of
same orientation—all form part of a single co­ the temple (C) and the northwest corner of the
hesive plan. They comprise the large altar (Fig. altar (C'), i.e., 25.60 m (possibly 50 Egyptian
21), the propylon, three of the terrace walls, and ells; see Chapter 3, note 4).
three bases for monuments on the east part of A is equidistant from the southwest corner of
the terrace.3 These three monument bases are the temple (D") and a point (D) on the north­
shown as S, M , and N in Figure 19. The only ern terrace wall, i.e., 38.55 m (possibly 75 Egyp­
monument of an earlier period that might pos­ tian ells).
sibly have remained in its original position is an The distance from A to the northeast corner
ancient Ionic votive column,4 the site of which of the temple (C) is therefore 2/3 A D , because
is shown as E in Figure 19. A C / D D = 25.60/38.55 = 2/3.
Organization of the Site. The precinct was laid In other words, construction of the equilat­
out between 500 and 470 b .c . Entry was through eral triangle A D " D determines the position of
the propylon, and point A , center of the inner the enclosure wall.
edge of the propylon floor, represents the geo­ FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
metric center of the complex. From point A , there were two equal fields of
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A vision, to right and left, each 60°, separated by
(* indicates that the exact position of this an open view down the center, 30°. The paved
structure is uncertain.) path from altar to temple was too low to affect
a to left (southwest) corner of temple (D" on this. The view to the left exactly encompassed
the plan, Fig. 19) the temple within an angle of 60°. To the right,
b to middle (southeast) corner of temple ( B on the complex of monument M, the altar, and
the plan) monument N again fell within a 60° angle. The
c to right corner of pedestal S; right (northeast) spectator thus saw two completely symmetrical
comer of temple (C on the plan) masses to right and left from a narrow central
d to left corner of monument M line of vision, 30°, whose open view followed
e to left corner of altar steps* (C' on the plan); the direct axis of the propylon.
right corner of monument M A mathematical symmetry exists, but it is a
f to left corner of monument N; right corner of visual symmetry, relating to the building masses
altar steps as seen from this point, not as they actually
g to right corner of monument N. exist. The most important relationship is the
ratio 2 :1 :2 (building mass, free space, building
[48]
mass). But the ratio 3:2 also determines the or­
ganization of the space, e.g., the relationship of
the two sides of the temple and the distances
seen from A to its left and right corners. These
relationships between angles and sight lines de­
termine the disposition of all buildings and
monuments in the precinct; they are based on a
division of the space into six parts and follow
conditions laid down by the equilateral triangle
A D " D . If the Ionic votive column (E) still
existed at this time, it too would have been in­
corporated in the system, as its distance from A
(AE) is equal to the height of the triangle A D nD .
Line a is oriented to the west, and line d to
the north, so that two of the most important
cardinal points are stressed by a sharp line be­
tween solid and void. The axis of the propylon
and the clear field of vision are both directed
toward the north (15° west of north).
THE STRUCTURES

The ground plan of the temple of Aphaia has a


ratio of 1:2; its dimensions (at the lowest step)
are 15.50 by 30.30 m.

1 I followed Furtwängler's history of this site, Aegina:


das Heiligtum der Aphaia, Munich, 1906, but I do not
entirely concur with his ground plans. Three of
these are reproduced here: Figures 18, 20, 2 1 . 1 drew
Figure 19, on which my geometric construction is
based, after comparing these three plans and check­
ing them by sample surveys carried out on the site.
Although my own plans are not executed with the
utmost precision, their dimensions are more accurate
than those of Furtwängler's plans, which were
drawn up for other purposes and from a different
point of view [i.e., they were less concerned with
site relationships].
2 Furtwängler, Aegina: das Heiligtum der Aphaia, p. 67.
3 Ibid., p. 85.
4 Ibid., p. 156.

Works Consulted by the Author


Cockerell, Charles Robert. The Temples of Jupiter
Panhellenius at Aegina and of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae.
London: Weale, 1860.
Furtwängler, Adolf. Aegina: das Heiligtum der Aphaia.
2 vols. Munich: Franz, 1906.
Additional References
Invernizzi, Antonio. I frontoni del tempio di Aphaia ad
Egina. Turin: Giappichelli, 1965.
Welter, Gabriel. Aigina. Berlin: Mann, 1938.
[49]
17 A egina, Sacred Precinct of A phaia. V iew from
point A, 1968.

[50]
18 A egina, Sacred Precinct o f Aphaia. V iew,
drawn in 1901. (Furtwängler.)

[51]
19 A egina, Sacred Precinct of A phaia, early fifth
century b .c . Plan.

[52]
20 Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. Plan, 21 Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. Plan of the
showing four different periods. (Furtwängler.) great altar. (Furtwängler.)

[53]
The Delphineion at Miletus, Fifth and
Fourth Centuries B.C.

Basing my study on plans prepared by the exca­ From the inscriptions on the structures still
vators,1 I examined the organization of the lay­ extant, we realize that the sacred precinct must
out of the Delphineion at four different periods: have been embellished with very many more
Delphineion I, fifth and fourth centuries B .C.; inscribed monuments. There are now very few
Delphineion II, third and second centuries b . c .; remains from which one can gain a notion of
Delphineion III, first century b .c . and first cen­ the richness of its former state,6 but fortunately
tury a .d .; Delphineion IV, after the first cen­ enough structures have survived to enable us to
tury A.D . make important observations regarding the or­
Nothing is definitely known of the original ganization of the layout.
form or layout of the Delphineion.2 From the Delphineion I, after 479 B.C.
existing ruins it appears that it was first built on Organization of the Site. An entrance is pre­
this site when Miletus was refounded shortly sumed in the center of the west wall of the
after 479 b . c . The first Delphineion occupied Delphineion (Fig. 23), and point B is located in
only about half the area of the later one; it was the middle of its inner face.
the size of one of the city blocks and was sur­ SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T B
rounded by roads (Fig. 23). According to a to right corner of the northern stoa
Gerkan, it is not possible to accept that the altar b to left (northern) side of the great central
base formed part of the earliest altar, dating altar
from before the Persian invasion, although the c to right corner of the great central altar
existing base does show signs of the altar having d to left corner of the southern stoa
been reconstructed.3 ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T B
In the time of Alexander the Great, the Del­ The angle between the left-hand part of the
phineion was redeveloped, and the precinct western wall of the Delphineion and line
was more than doubled in size through the ad­ a = 61° = 180°/3.
dition of a large horseshoe-shaped stoa. The Angle ad = 5 8 ° = 180°/3.
various monuments shown in Figure 24 date The angle between line d and the right-hand
from the early Hellenistic period. part of the western wall = 61° = 180°/3.
The erection of a western stoa (Fig. 26) DISTANCES FROM PO IN T B
marked yet another stage of development.4 Al­ If a semicircle with radius 15.20 m (x) is de­
though its exact date is unknown, it could not scribed from B, it passes through the following
have been built before the late Hellenistic pe­ points:
riod. There is no clear evidence as to whether the west corner of the northern stoa
the central tholos was built in Hellenistic or the southeast corner of the great central altar
Roman times.5 I have shown it in my plan of the outermost of a row of three circular altars
the late Hellenistic period (Fig. 26); Gerkan be­ the west corner of the southern stoa.
lieved this date to be the most likely, although
in the official publication of the excavations the We also find that the length of lines a and d ,
question is left open. extending from B to the farther corners of the
The Delphineion underwent a third radical northern and southern stoas, is equal and
transformation in the early Roman period (at measures 30.80 m ( y).
the end of the first or beginning of the second Hence 2x = y.
century a .d .), when it was surrounded on all The distance of 30.80 m may be taken as equiv­
four sides by a reconstructed Roman stoa (Fig. alent to 100 Attic feet, as used in Athens before
27). the Persian invasion.7 The central altar is set
[54]
slightly diagonally in the space, so that the line c to left tangent of the most northerly of the
of its northern side, if projected, would meet three circular altars; left corner of the inscribed
the western wall of the Delphineion at a point stele; left corner of the north-facing exedra
slightly south of B. One may perhaps be justi­ d to right tangent of the most southerly of the
fied in believing that this was done so that the three circular altars; left tangent of the circular
northeast corner of the altar would be clearly fountain at the far end of the enclosure.
visible from B, for it is this corner that is at the The field between lines b and c is free of
critical distance from B of 15.20 m (x). structures.
Delphineion II after 334 B.C. The diagonals of the enclosure divide the
Organization of the Site. In the reconstruction area into two identical right-angled triangles,
of the Delphineion (Fig. 24), which was begun each with one angle of 60° and the other of 30°
in 334 B .C ., careful respect was paid to all exist­ (180°/3 and 180°/6). Line b from point C and
ing monuments. There were three entrances, all line c from point A not only run parallel to
in the western wall. Points A, B, and C lie in the these diagonals but also determine the two
middle of each opening, on the line of the inner open fields of vision; they are therefore the
face of the wall. most important sight lines from each of these
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T C two entrances. During the period of Delphi­
a to left tangent of the large west-facing exedra neion I the entire space was organized within
b to right corner of the small south-facing an angle of 60° from point B. W ith the enlarge­
exedra ment of the precinct this organization was no
d to left corner of the north-facing exedra longer possible from point B, but the space was
e to right tangent of a cylindrical pedestal; right divided upon the same principle from the new
corner of the great central altar; right corner of entrances C and A.
the inscribed stele During the erection of the south-facing exedra
f to left corner of the square pedestal it proved necessary to remove an earlier pedes­
g to right corner of the same square pedestal; tal (A in Fig. 25). In the account of the excava­
left tangent of the nearest of the row of three tions the following explanation is given for the
circular altars. The field between lines b and d is selection of this position for the exedra: "T he
left open. reason for the choice of this particular location
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T B can most easily be explained by the care in the
b to left corner of the inscribed stele placing of the south-facing exedra sym m et­
c to right corner of the south-facing exedra rically opposite the north-facing one, which is
d to left corner of the large west-facing exedra consequently thought to have been constructed
e to right corner of the great central altar; left rather earlier."8 But, as the matter of symmetry
corner of the north-facing exedra is not taken into account in the relations be­
f to right corner of the inscribed stele. tween the great central altar, the large west-
The field between lines c and d is free of facing exedra, and the north-facing exedra, it
structures. All the features noted at Delphi­ seems unlikely that it would have become so
neion I, as seen from point B, still exist. important in determining the position of the
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A south-facing exedra: this can be explained by
a to left corner of the great central altar the importance of the sight line b from the al­
b to right comer of the square pedestal; right ready existing entrance C, which the new exedra
corner of the great central altar; right corner of would have to respect.
the south-facing exedra
[55]
Delphineion III, Late Hellenistic Period
Organization of the Site. The construction of a
stoa along the western wall did not materially
alter the organization of the precinct. The en­
trances remained the same, and the most im­
portant lines of vision were carefully preserved.
The central tholos (as mentioned earlier, we
cannot be certain that it was erected at this
time) is encompassed by lines b and c at 60°
from entrances C and A, and its presence
strengthens the importance of these sightlines.
All other features noted at Delphineion II still
remain.
Delphineion IV, after First Century A.D.
Organization of the Site. In the early Roman
period, about 1 0 0 a .d ., the Delphineion was
again reconstructed. In rebuilding the stoas,
even greater emphasis was given to the two
chief sightlines b and c from the entrances C
and A, since the two farthest corners of the en­
closure were now sited directly upon them. The
entire central tholos could be seen within an
angle of 15° from each of these entrances (i.e.,
180°/12) between the columns of the western
stoa. This leads me to believe that the central
tholos belongs to this early Roman layout
rather than to the late Hellenistic one, but, as I
have said, this cannot be stated definitely. Two
other assumptions seem equally probable: first,
that the tholos and the new stoas were planned
at the same time, but, for unknown reasons,
only the tholos was actually built; second, that
the stoas were both planned and constructed
after the tholos had been built and that their
form was derived as a result of consideration
for the existing sightlines.

(N otes to pages 5 4 -5 6 are on page 63.)

[56]
22 M iletus, D elphineion . View from the west, 23 M iletus, D elphineion I, fifth and fourth cen -
circa 1914. (Kaw erau and Rehm .) turies b .c . Plan.

[57]
24 M iletus, D elphineion II, third and second cen ­
turies b .c . Plan.

25 M iletus, D elphineion II. Plan of detail.

[58]
26 M iletus, D elphineion III, first century b .c . and
first century a .d . Plan.

[59]
27 Miletus, Delphineion IV, after first century a .d .

Plan.

[60]
28 M i letus, D elphineion III. R econstruction. 29 M iletus, D elphineion. C om posite plan.
(Kaw erau and Rehm .) (Kaw erau and Rehm .)

[61]
The Agora at M iletus, Fifth Century b .c . to
Second Century a .d .

A complete survey of the architectural develop­ most important entrance was doubtless the one
ment of the agora at Miletus would be beyond from the southern agora (B on the plan, Fig. 32)
the scope of this work. Many public buildings as this provided access for almost all the traffic
were frequently altered and enlarged during from the southern part of the city (Fig. 33). Two
the seven centuries of the city's existence, from of the other entrances are marked C and D on
the fifth century b . c . to the second century a . d . the plan (Fig. 32).
I have therefore confined my study to the four SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T B
chief periods examined by the excavators.9 A Point B lies in the center of the opening be­
plan is given for each period (Figs. 31, 32, 35, tween two stoas on the line of their northern
36) so that comparison can be made of the lay­ fagades.
out of the site at each of these four phases of a to right corner of monument M on the plan
development. (Fig. 32); left com er of the propylon in the cen­
Agora I, Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. ter of the new boundary wall
Organization of the Site. At this period it is b to right corner of the stoa facing the harbor;
possible to reconstruct only the northern part left com er of the city block nearest the harbor
of the agora (Fig. 31). According to the excava­ c to left com er of monument M ' on the plan;
tors, "The ground plan of the stoa complex in­ left corner of the Delphineion
dicates that the extension of the later agora was d to left com er of monument M " on the plan;
not yet contemplated."10 We should therefore right corner of the propylon to the eastern
consider the layout at this period as a complete building
entity, not as the first stage in a development. e to right com er of monument M " ; entrance D
No traces remain of definite entrances from the on the plan.
city into this area. The layout of the southern SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T C
part of the site is uncertain: it probably con­ / to left corner of monument M ' on the plan;
sisted of a large rectangle within which several right com er of the Council House
small monuments were located, but the exact g to left corner of monument M " on the plan;
positions of these are still unknown. right com er of the propylon in the new bound­
Agora II, Second C entury B.C. ary wall
Organization of the Site. By the middle of the h to right corner of monument M " on the plan;
second century b . c . the agora had acquired its right corner of the propylon to the eastern
final, typically Hellenistic form (Fig. 32). Earlier building
buildings had been gradually completed, a new SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T D
southern agora had been built, and the area just i to left corner of monument M " on the plan;
south of the northern entrance had been reorga­ entrance B
nized. As in the first phase, this layout does not j to right com er of monument M " on the plan;
show signs of being developed according to a right corner of monument M ' on the plan; left
prearranged plan;11 it should be considered as com er of the propylon to the Council House
having evolved from the already existing layout k to left corner of the propylon to the eastern
and as independent of later development. building; left com er of the eastern building;
It was only at the end of the second century right corner of monument M on the plan.
b . c . that an eastern boundary wall was built en­ Sight lines drawn from the other entrances
closing the northern agora and cutting the yield similar results.
formed space into two parts. This area could be The newly enclosed northern agora could be
entered from several of the city streets, but the entered only from the propylon, which lay di­
[62]
rectly on the axis of the temple. But lines I and 1 Published in the series Milet: Ergebnisse der
m seem to indicate the position of another en­ Ausgrabungen, ed. T heod or W iegand. I verified these
at the site. M y own plans show n here in Figures
trance (E), as from point D the propylon would 2 3 -2 6 are based on plates 2 3 -2 6 in volum e 1, part 6,
be seen in its entirety between two monuments. of this series: A rm in von G erkan, Der Nordmarkt und
der Hafen an der Löwenbucht.
This entrance is also denoted by the later erec­ 2Armin von Gerkan, Griechische Städteanlagen, Berlin,
tion in the middle of the agora of a small altar 1924, p. 38.
3 Ibid., p. 40.
(F on the plan), which is so placed that it in no 4 G eorg Kaw erau and A lbert Rehm , Das Delphinion in
way interferes with the view of all existing Milet, M ilet: Ergebnisse der A usgrabungen, vol. 1,
pt. 3, p. 141.
structures from point E. In fact, line n, which 5 Ibid., pp. 147 -1 4 8 .
runs from point E to the right com er of the 6G erkan, Griechische Städteanlagen, p. 39.
7 [See C hapter 3, note 4, for discussion o f G reek feet.]
altar, also touches the left com er of the last of 8Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, vol. 1, pt. 3, p. 150.
these structures, thus bringing the altar into the 9 A fter studying the layouts published in Milet, par­
ticularly those in Der Nordmarkt und der Hafen an der
picture as part of a continuous sequence of ob­
Löwenbucht, by G erkan, I visited the site and found
jects, with no gaps or overlapping. It seems, that m y interpretations w ere confirm ed.
10G erkan, Der Nordmarkt und der Hafen an der
therefore, that the position of the altar (F) was
Löwenbucht, p. 91.
determined by the axis of the agora and line n 11 Ibid., p. 92.
from point £.
Works Consulted by the Author
If we assume that point £ represents an en­ Berlin, Staatliche Museen. M ile t : Ergebnisse der A u s ­
trance to the agora, then it must also have been g rabungen u nd U ntersuchungen seit dem fa h re 1899, edited
by Theodor Wiegand. Berlin, 190 6 -1 9 2 6 . (I
a point of access from the harbor or from an referred especially to Armin von Gerkan, D e r N o rd ­
important space, such as a temple precinct. The m a rk t u nd der H a fe n an der Löw enbucht, 1 9 2 2 , and
Georg Kawerau and Albert Rehm, D a s D e lp h in io n in
space to the north is sufficiently large for either M ile t , 1914.)
assumption to be possible, although neither is G erkan, A rm in von. Griechische Städteanlagen. Berlin:
certain. Gerkan considered it probable that D e G ruyter, 1924.

point E represents an entrance either from the Additional References


K obylina, M . M . Milet. M oscow , 1965.
harbor or from an earlier important architec­
W eickert, Carl. "N eu e A usgrabungen in M ile t." In
tural complex.
Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet und im
Agora M , First C entury B.C. and vorderen Orient. Berlin: D eutsches A rchäologisches
Institut, 1959, pp. 1 8 1 -1 9 6 .
First C entury A.D.
Organization of the Site. At the beginning of
the Christian era the general layout of the site
remained substantially as before, but the desire
to create enclosed spaces was manifest every­
where (Fig. 35). The continued respect for the
freedom of sight line n adds strength to the sup­
position that an entrance existed at point E, but
this still cannot be confirmed.
Agora IV, Second C entury A.D.
Organization of the site. By the second century
the site had become completely Romanized
a .d .

through the erection of new stoas that cut


across many of the earlier sight lines from the
entrances (Fig. 36).

[63]
30 Miletus, Agora III. Perspective. (Gerkan.)

[64]
31 M iletus, Agora I, fifth and fourth centuries b .c .

Plan.

[65]
32 M i letus, Agora II, second century b .c. Plan.

[6 6 ]
33 Miletus. General plan. (Gerkan.) 34 Miletus. Plan of city center. (Gerkan.)

[67]
35 Miletus, Agora III, first century b.c. and first
century a .d . Plan.

0 10 ^ t 50 _ ___ 100 _ 15

metres
[6 8 ]
36 Miletus, Agora IV, second century a .d . Plan.

[69]
37 Miletus, Agora IV. Perspective. (Gerkan.)

[70]
The Altis at Olympia, Fifth Century B.C.

The large enclosure, or Altis, at Olympia was the altar of Zeus, of which there are no
one of the earliest Greek sanctuaries.1 Its many definite remains
buildings date from several different periods,
the altar of Hera, the date of which is undeter­
and the layout cannot be considered as repre­
mined
senting an organized plan (Fig. 41). In fact, the
Altis is a typical example of a site that has con­ many small altars and votive structures of vari­
tinually been enriched by the addition of new ous periods.
buildings and monuments—in this case, from
the earliest archaic period to late Roman times, The form given to the enclosure at this time
and even into the Christian era. remained substantially unchanged for a cen­
The existing foundations of buildings and tury, as the main lines of the layout were re­
monuments are insufficient to permit a recon­ tained when the following new structures were
struction of the form of the early precinct, espe­ added in the fourth century b . c .:

cially as the original lines of its enclosure walls the southeast building, constructed in the
and entrances have not yet been traced. Only first half of the fourth century b .c . and
after the rebuilding of the temple of Zeus in the destroyed by Nero's building in the first
fifth century b .c . can there be some degree of century a .d .

certainty. It is possible that a general reorganiza­


the new Echo Stoa, second half of the fourth
tion of the site was undertaken at that time and
century b.c .
that careful heed was paid to the existing mon­
uments. By the time the new temple of Zeus the Metroon, temple of the M other of the Gods,
was completed, the Altis had acquired a fully first half of the fourth century b .c .

organized layout containing the following


the circular Philippeion, begun shortly after
structures:
338 b . c . by Philip II of Macedon
the temple of Zeus, built between 470 and
456 b .c . numerous new altars and votive structures.

the Heraion, probably the oldest building on


The principles on which the layout was orga­
the site (the early temple with wooden columns
nized remained identical during both these
was rebuilt in stone about the beginning of the
periods (the first of which was distinctly clas­
sixth century b . c .)
sic, and the second, distinctly Hellenistic) even
several treasuries, sixth century b .c . onward though the site acquired many new buildings
during the fourth century. Throughout both pe­
the Prytaneion, fifth century b .c .
riods also, the boundaries and especially the
the first Echo Stoa, rebuilt in the second half of entrances to the Altis remained unchanged. Be­
the fourth century b.c . cause of the similarity between the two periods,
I shall discuss them together.
the Pelopion, first planned as a circular precinct
During the Roman period, which I treat sepa­
sacred to Pelops and later given a pentagonal
rately, the Altis was repeatedly altered and ex­
enclosure wall
tended: new stoas were built, some of the en­
the Hippodameion, of which no definite traces trances were changed, and the exedra of
remain, but whose outline I have sketched in, Herodus Atticus was cut into the northern
based on the system that I have described boundary.

[71]
The Classical and H ellenistic Altis, landscape. That this was the general purpose
Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. seems certain. W ith regard to the details, how­
O rganization of the Site. There were four en­ ever, because of the complexity of the site and
trances (A, B, C, and £ on the plan, Fig. 39). The the need for consideration of the many existing
organization of the site will be discussed as structures at every new stage of development it
seen from each of these in turn. No traces have was inevitable that in some instances the rela­
been found of a pre-Roman southeast entrance tionships established should be only approxi­
at point A. I have therefore assumed that, as mately correct.
was customary elsewhere, the Roman portal SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A

was built where the Greek entrance gate had M easurements taken at the site show that
formerly been situated; this would have marked point A (Fig. 39) is on the axis of the Roman
the end of the sacred way and the beginning of entry, one meter back from the inner edge of
the Altis. This assumption is supported by our the Roman foundations.
knowledge that in ancient Greek times the (* indicates that the exact position of these
main road ended at approximately this point. structures is uncertain.)
The position of the southwest entrance, just a to left (southwest) corner of the temple of
below point B, is definitely established. On en­ Zeus; middle (southeast) corner of the Theo-
tering the Altis from this entrance and moving coleon, the priests' residence outside the Altis
in the most important direction, that is, toward (see Fig. 41).
the altars of Zeus and Hera, one must pass b to left side of the Victory of Paeonios; right
close to the northwest corner of the temple of (northeast) com er of the temple of Zeus (F on
Zeus. I thus consider that this point (D on the the plan)
plan) could also have become an important c to right side of the Victory statue; left (south­
starting point for the layout of the west side of west) corner of the Heraion (M on the plan)
the precinct. Entrance C in the northwest corner d to left corner of the altar of Zeus*;2 right
of the Altis is not entirely certain, but I have (northeast) corner of the Heraion
accepted the position determined by the excava­ e to right corner of the altar of Zeus*; left cor­
tors in their reconstruction of the site. Although ner of the altar of Hera
the position of entrance E in the southern wall f to right corner of the altar of Hera
is well established, it seems to have had very g to left end of the series of altars and treas­
little significance in the organization of the site uries on the upper terrace
plan. h to left (southwest) corner of the Metroon (G
As the analysis will show, the field of vision on the plan); right corner of the first treasury
from each of these points consists of a central i to right (northeast) corner of the Metroon; left
opening bounded on either side by a continu­ corner of the propylon of the Hippodameion*
ous series of structures. The position, orienta­ j to left corner of the nearest monument
tion, and distance of the buildings from each k to left (northwest) corner of the Hellenistic
point are determined on the basis of the 30° Echo Stoa
angle. Throughout, one can sense the desire to l to right com er of the nearest monument; left
connect the outlines of the different structures com er of the nearest altar
with one another and with the lines of the land­ m to right corner of the façade of the Helle­
scape, to form a continuous unity, and within nistic Echo Stoa (southwest corner)
this unity to emphasize one opening: one clear n to left com er of the southeast building; right
and unobstructed path leading out into the (southeast) com er of the Hellenistic Echo Stoa.
[72]
(This was the right, i.e., southwest, corner of are x :x √ 3. It may also be noted that the basic
the façade of the former stoa.) dimension used in the reorganization of the
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A Acropolis at Athens, which was roughly con­
Angle ab = 31° (30° = 180°/6). temporary with the Olympian Altis, was 79.6 m;
Angle bh = 30° = 180°/6. this is very near the dimension 80.5 m that we
Angle hk =30° = 180°/6. find in the Altis.
Angle km = 30° = 180°/6. FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
From left to right, we see from point A (Fig. 40)
The entire field of vision is encompassed within the temple of Zeus
an angle of 121° (120° = 2 X 180°/3). If we the Victory of Paeonios
examine the angles that encompass each of the the Heraion
major buildings we find the altar of Zeus
the Heraion lies within an angle of the altar of Hera
15° = 180°/12; an open field of vision looking toward the
the Metroon lies within an angle of small Hill of Gaia4
10° = 180°/18 = l/3(180°/6); a fountain (very low and perhaps not visible),
the Echo Stoa lies within an angle of some altars, and the first treasury
30° = 180°/6; the Metroon
the temple of Zeus lies within an angle of the Hill of Kronos with the Hippodameion
31° = ca. 180 °/6. below it
the Echo Stoa.
It is noteworthy that the Parthenon at The differing orientation of these buildings
Athens, which has certain similarities with the and the distances between them are determined
temple of Zeus, also falls within an angle of 30° by the equilateral triangle AFF', in particular
when viewed from the propylon. the angle of 30° (180 °/6), or a twelfth part of
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A the total field of 360°.
If an equilateral triangle AFF' is described on Figure 40 shows how the mass of the temple
the base A F (F is the northeast corner of the of Zeus is balanced symmetrically by the Hill of
temple of Zeus; see Fig. 39), we find that F' falls Kronos, and the Metroon by the Heraion. Both
along the line k, and that the sides of the trian­ are symmetrically placed on either side of the
gle measure 80.5 m, or approximately 250 axis leading to the small Hill of Gaia, which
Olympian feet (250 X 0.328 = 82.0 m).3 If an rises only slightly higher than the Heraion and
arc is described from point A with radius A F the Metroon. This axial symmetry is clearly
(80.5 m), the point at which it crosses line i may strengthened by two balancing groves of trees,
indicate the left corner of the propylon to the one within the Pelopion to the left, and the
Hippodameion. If the triangle A FF' is inverted other in the Hippodameion to the right.
on its side FF' to form the triangle FGF', we find The Victory statue was apparently placed to
that G falls on line h at the southwest corner of occupy exactly the small angle of vision be­
the Metroon. tween the northeast corner of the temple of
Hence AG = 2 A F √ 3/2 = A F √ 3 Zeus and the southwest corner of the Heraion,
or AG = 80.5 X 1.732 = 139.4 m. perhaps to emphasize the difference in volume
Measurements taken on the site show that of these two buildings. Its position is very simi­
AG = 139.2 m. lar to that of the statue of Athena Promachos on
In other words, the significant measurements the Acropolis at Athens, which, when seen
[73]
from the Propylaea, stands exactly between the view of the Altis from this point.
Erechtheion and the smaller mass of the altar of a to left tangent of the Philippeion
Athena (Fig. 2). The top of the statue of Victory b to right tangent of the Philippeion; left corner
and the tip of the acroterion on the temple of of the entry to the Prytaneion
Zeus were on the same horizontal level. This c to left side of the small altar before the
may also have been intentional. Heraion; right corner of the entry to the Pryta­
It seems clear that a principal aim of this neion
symmetrically organized layout, in which the d to left (southwest) corner of the Heraion, ap­
landscape is incorporated, was to maintain the proximately along the line of the west façade
importance of the central axial opening. This e to left corner of the propylon to the Pelopion;
marks the processional route of the people west side of the Pelopion*
through the sacred precinct from entrance A to f to right (northeast) corner of the propylon to
the altars. Also, from this entrance the peak of the Pelopion (H on the plan)
the Hill of Kronos lies directly to the north. g to right (southeast) corner of the Heraion
Thus, one of the cardinal compass points is h to right (northwest) corner of the temple of
made an integral part of the composition. Zeus (D on the plan); left corner of the first of
Although this is the only instance in which the row of treasuries on the upper terrace
we have found a spatially symmetrical layout, i to right (southeast) corner of the temple of
the conscious use of symmetry by the Greeks is Zeus (H ' on the plan)
not precluded. They did not shun symmetry j to left side of the Victory statue; right corner
when its use suited their purpose. For example, of the Echo Stoa*
on leaving the Altis through entrance A , going k to right side of the Victory statue; left comer
directly south, one has the impression that the of the southeast building.
landscape ahead opens up axially and symmet­ ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T B
rically. The broad band of the river Alpheios Angle af = 30° = 180°/6.
lies directly across the path, and the back­ Angle fi = 6 0 ° = 180°/3.
ground is occupied by a balanced line of hills,
the tallest in the center and two lower ones on DISTANCES FROM PO IN T B
either side (Fig. 42). The outline of this moun­ From point B, an equilateral triangle B H H '
tain chain, which dominates the whole valley, is can be formed, with H lying on line / at the cor­
immediately impressive. This was felt by the ner of the propylon to the Pelopion and H '
ancient Greeks and re-echoed in their layout. lying on line i at the southeast comer of the
The outline of the mountains is still visible to­ temple of Zeus, the sides measuring 88.0 m.
day, but the view of the river is now obstructed The distance from point B to point I —the
by alluvial deposits; one must imagine it stretch­ ramp to the propylon of the Pelopion—
ing in a straight line across the foreground. measures 76.2 m.
SIGH T LINES FROM PO IN T B Hence BI = B H √ 3 / 2 = the height of the
(* indicates that the exact position of these equilateral triangle B H H '.
structures is uncertain.) This implies that the significant measure­
Point B (Fig. 43) has been located a short way ments from this point were y:y√ 3 :2y.
in from the entrance, since the position of the Distances to other important points from
monument immediately to the right of the en­ point B cannot be precisely determined without
trance would have impeded a clear view of the a more accurate field survey. When studied on
temple of Zeus. Figure 46 shows a perspective the existing plans they show small deviations
[74]
from the usual system that cannot be explained of the steps, between lines g and h from point B.
without more complete information. a to left (southwest) comer of the Heraion
FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T B b to right (southeast) comer of the Heraion
Figure 46 shows the view from point B dur­ c to right (southeast) comer of the Pelopion (in
ing the first period, before the construction of Roman times [Fig. 49] this line ran along the
the Philippeion in the first half of the fourth southeast wall of the enclosure)
century b . c . d to left (northwest) corner of the Metroon;
From left to right we see right comer of the third treasury on the upper
the Philippeion terrace
the Prytaneion e to right (southeast) corner of the Metroon;
the Heraion, with the propylon to the Pelo­ left corner of the great altar on the upper
pion appearing in the center of its facade, giving terrace
the impression that this axial and symmetrical f to left (northwest) corner of the Echo Stoa;
position was intentional left corner of the last treasury on the upper
an open field of vision between the Heraion terrace.
and the temple of Zeus, toward the Hill of ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T D
Kronos The only statement that can be made with
the temple of Zeus certainty is that the Metroon is seen within an
the Echo Stoa angle of 10°, just as from point A. The other
the statue of Victory of Paeonios angles would need to be checked after comple­
the southeast building, to the extreme right tion of an accurate site survey.
and closing the picture. SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T C

I have placed point C (Fig. 39) in the center of


Seen from point B the Victory statue exactly the entrance determined by the excavators, on a
occupies the space between the Echo Stoa and line with the inner side of the wall enclosing
the southeast building. Just as when viewed the precinct.
from point A, its height is related to the temple a to left corner of the entrance to the Pryta­
of Zeus, although in a different way: from point neion
A it emphasizes the upward thrust of the tem­ b to right (east) comer of the Prytaneion; left
ple summit; from point B it punctuates the far (northeast) comer of the Heraion
end of the long pediment. c to right side of the small altar in front of the
The outline of the Hill of Kronos appears to Heraion; right (southwest) corner of the Heraion
continue on the line of the architrave of the ( M on plan)
temple of Zeus and to link it with the Heraion. d to central (northwest) corner of the Pelopion;
The hill on the left and the Victory statue on left (northeast) comer of the temple of Zeus
the right thus form a visual unity with the e to left (northeast) corner of the propylon of
temple of Zeus. the Pelopion; fifth column from the northeast
From point B the north point lies directly comer of the temple of Zeus
along line d, which leads to the west end of the f to right (southwest) comer of the propylon to
Heraion, so that this principal direction is again the Pelopion; fifth column from the northwest
emphasized in the layout. corner of the temple of Zeus
SIGH T LINES FROM PO IN T D g to right (southwest) corner of the temple of
Point D (Fig. 43) lies at the extreme north­ Zeus, before the erection of the Philippeion
west comer of the temple of Zeus, at the comer h to right tangent of the Philippeion.
[75]
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T C Zeus to form a visual unity.
The Heraion is seen within an angle of SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T E

30° = 180 °/6. As has been said, although this entrance (Fig.
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T C 43) is known to have existed, it seems to have
The distance from C to the far side of the en­ played little part in the determination of the lay­
trance to the Prytaneion (K on the plan) is equal out. Point E has been located in the center of
to the distance to the nearest point of the Philip- the entrance on the line of the inner side of the
peion (K' on the plan). precinct boundary wall. It is possible that the
CK = CK' = 20.9 m. boundary line of the northeast side of the Pelo­
Similarly, the distance to the nearest corner pion was determined by the direction EE', F
of the Heraion (L on the plan) is equal to the being the northeast corner of the temple of
distance to the farthest point of the Philippeion Zeus.
(L' on the plan). The Roman Altis, about 200 A.D.
CL = CL' = 35.5 m. Organization of the Site. In Roman times (Fig.
The distance from C to the right (southwest) 49) the Altis received a new boundary wall,
corner of the Heraion measures 41.6 m. several of the former entrances were closed,
Hence CK = C M / 2 . and the northwest corner, especially, was trans­
Arithmetically, CK = 2 0.9 = 41.8/2 (by formed by the construction of a new stoa. As a
measurement CM = 41.6 m). result of these changes, the earlier system of re­
Similarly, CL = ( √ 3/2)CM. lationships ceased to exist. Moreover, the erec­
Arithmetically, CL = 35.5 = ( √ 3/2)41 and tion of the exedra of Herodus Atticus in the
CM = 41.0 m (by measurement C M = 41.6 m). northern boundary wall influenced the entire
Therefore, CK, CL, and C M are the three site by completely blocking the open field of vi­
sides of a right-angled triangle with angles of sion, so that the former impression of a path
30°, 60°, and 90°, C M being the longest side. leading directly through the sanctuary into the
Similarly, they represent one side, the height, landscape was utterly destroyed. The Roman
and half the base of an equilateral triangle with Altis had become fully enclosed. Thus, many of
sides of 41.6 m. In other words, they represent the principles that had governed the composi­
a twelve-part division of the total field of 360°. tion of the site during the classical and Helle­
FIELD OF V ISION FROM PO IN T C nistic periods—in particular, the use of the
Standing at point C (Fig. 48), looking from landscape as an integral part of the plan—had
left to right we see now been abandoned.
the Prytaneion THE STRUCTURES
the Heraion The proportions of the temple of Zeus are 1:5,
an open field of vision between the Heraion and those of the Metroon, 1:2.
and the temple of Zeus
the temple of Zeus with the propylon appear­
1 W ilh elm D örpfeld, Alt-Olympia, Berlin, 1935, p. 29.
ing in the center of its façade, just as, from 2 This is based on H ans S ch leif's plan in his Die
point B, the propylon had appeared in the cen­ neuen Ausgrabuugen in Olympia.
3 [For d iscussion o f ancient G reek feet see Chapter 3,
ter of the Heraion note 4.]
(the Philippeion, at a later date). 4 [The Hill of Gaia is an offshoot o f the Hill of
K ronos, identified by D örpfeld (Alt-Olympia , p. 63)
and by Ludwig D rees ( Olympia, pp. 1 2 -1 3 ) as the
The outline of the mountains in the back­ cult center o f the early "earth m oth er" Gaia.]
ground is linked to the outline of the temple of
[76]
Works Consulted by the Author
C urtius, Ernst, and Adler, Friedrich. Olympia: Die
Ergebnisse der von dem deutschen Reich veranstalteten
Ausgrabung. 5 vols. B erlin: A sher, 1 8 90-1897.
Dörpfeld, Wilhelm. Alt-Olympia. Berlin: Mittler,
1935.
Schleif, Hans. Die neuen Ausgrabungen in Olympia und
ihre bisherigen Ergebnisse für die antike Bauforschung.
Berlin, 1943. (The material was available for study
before publication.)
Additional References
Drees, Ludwig. Olympia. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1967.
Essen, A usstellung, 1960. Olympia in der Antike.
Essen, 1960.
Kontis, Ioannes D. Τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ὁλυμπίας. Athens,
1958.
Schleif, Hans. Das Philippeion. Olympische For­
schungen, edited by Emil Kunze and Hans Schleif,
vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1944.

[77]
38 Olympia, Altis. View from point A, 1969.

[78]
[79]
39 Olymp i a, Altis, Hellenistic period. Plan.

[80]
40 Olymp i a, Altis. Perspective from point A.

[81]
41 O lym pia, A ltis. G eneral plan of the A ltis and
its environm ent. (Curtius and Adler.)

[82]
42 O lym p ia, A ltis. View from a point east o f the
treasuries, looking south, 1968.

[83]
43 Olymp i a, Altis, Hellen i stic period. Plan.

metres

[84]
44 O lym pia, Altis, H ellenistic period. Plan.
(Sch leif.)

[85]
45 Olympia, Altis. View from point B, 1969.

[86]
Below
46 O lym p ia, A ltis. Perspective from point B.

[87]
47 Olympia, Altis. View from point C, 1969.

[88]
48 Olympia, Altis. Perspective from point C.

[89]
49 O lym p ia, A ltis, Rom an period. Plan.
50 Olympia, Altis. Model. (Schleif.)

[9 1]
The Sacred Precinct of Poseidon at
Sounion, Fifth Century B.C.

This temple site shows traces of two phases of lowed lines laid down in the earlier archaic pre­
active building construction. From the first cinct that was destroyed by the Persians.
phase, which dates from before the Persian in­ Organization of the Site about 430 B.C. The en­
vasion, there are only some remains of the early trance was through the propylon; point A has
temple, built of tufa, and of the propylon. All been located on the axis of this structure at the
the remains now visible seem to date from the inner edge of the platform (Fig. 52).
fifth-century reconstruction: the marble temple, SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
the north and west stoas, the marble propylon, a to left corner (northeast) of the lowest step of
and the altar, whose traces have been found on the temple (B on the plan)
the rock near the southeast corner of the temple. b to left (southeast) corner of the temple plat­
Remains of the layout of the earlier precinct form
are insufficient to permit an investigation. We c to right (northwest) corner of the temple plat­
know that the dimensions of the platform of form
the temple that lay below the present one were d to right (northwest) comer of the lowest step
30.34 x 13.12 m 1 and that those of the later of the temple (C' on the plan)
marble temple were 31.15 x 13.48 m. Accord­ e to left (southeast) comer of the small stoa.
ing to Stais, an earlier tufa building lay under ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
the fifth-century propylon, but he furnished no Angle ad — 6 0° = 180 °/3.
proof of this.2 His opinion is supported, how­ DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
ever, by Dorpfeld's general observation regard­ The distance A B along the line a to the
ing the Poseidon temples that "when con­ northeast corner of the lowest step of the tem­
structing a new building, the ancient Greek ple measures 27.2 m. We can call this dis­
architects sometimes intentionally retained the tance x.
proportions and form of an earlier building."3 If we describe an equilateral triangle A B B ',
If we assume that this statement can be applied we find that point B ' falls along the line d. If
not only to the temple but to other important this triangle is then inverted along the side BB'
buildings within a sacred precinct, such as the to form the triangle BCB ', with radius A C , we
propylon, we can perhaps justify basing the can describe an arc cutting the projection of the
spatial layout of the fifth-century precinct at line A B ' at C', which falls at the northwest cor­
Sounion on that of the tufa temple in the ner of the lowest step of the temple.
archaic period. Hence A C = 2 x A B √ 3 / 2 = A B √ 3; since
There are various opinions about the exact A B = 27.2, A C = 27.2 X 1.732 = 47.11 m.
date of the fifth-century marble temple. Dorp- Measurements taken on the site show that
feld considers it almost contemporary with the A C = 4 6.5 m.
"Theseum " (temple of Hephaestus), beside the If another equilateral triangle A D D ' is de­
agora in Athens, with which it has close affini­ scribed, with its height A C , we find that point
ties. This would mean it is a little later than the D falls close to where traces of the altar of
Parthenon.4 A probable date is about 430 b . c .5 Poseidon have been found in the rock. Thus, it
The large northern stoa, the small stoa, and the is possible that point D marks the nearest (i.e.,
marble propylon all appear to have been built the southwest) corner of this altar, lying at a
after the temple. Thus, while the precinct un­ distance of 2A B , or 2x, from point A and upon
doubtedly had an organized site plan, it is not the arc A D ' .
possible to determine whether this was first FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
created in the classical period or whether it fol­ From left to right we can see
[92]
the eastern boundary wall of the precinct ings, which are so much lower and smaller that
an open field of vision they appear quite insignificant. Similarly, the
the broad-stepped base of the temple and immediate natural surroundings of the temple
perhaps the altar of Poseidon are unobtrusive and have no marked charac­
the temple of Poseidon teristics. The position of the northern and west­
the stepped base of the temple ern stoas echoes the relationship between two
an open view of the sea low chains of hills that meet one another at a
the western stoa. right angle, to north and west.
The observer has two open fields of vision,
one to the left of the temple, the other to the 1 W ilh elm D örpfeld, "D e r Tem pel von S u n io n ,"
D eutsches A rchäologisches Institut, Mitteilungen
right, between the temple and the stoa. In gen­ Athenische Abteilung 9, 1884, p. 331.
eral, we have found that whenever a sector of 2Valerios Staïs, Τὸ Σούνιον καὶ οἱ ναοὶ Ποσειδῶνος καὶ
Ἀθηνᾶς, p . 16.
the field of vision is left open, it has a particular 3 D örpfeld, " D e r Tem pel von S u n io n ," p. 335.
significance: it may, for instance, mark the pro­ 4 Ibid., p. 336.
5 [The dating and sequ ence o f the four tem ples at­
cessional way to the altars, as on the Acropolis tributed by m ost authorities to the sam e unknow n
at Athens and in the Altis at Olympia, or it may "H ep h aisteion arch itect" have long been a m atter of
dispute. W . B. D insm oor puts the H ephaisteion of
stress one of the cardinal points, as is the case,
A thens first: "a ll the evidence suggests 449 b . c . for
again, on the Acropolis at Athens and— where the beginning o f the w o rk " (Architecture of Ancient
Greece, London: Batsford, 1950, p. 180). In his opin­
this is very clear— in the agora at Pergamon. At
ion, "th e tem ple at Sunium m ay have been designed
Sounion the open view to the left of the temple about 444 b . c ., that o f A res at A thens about 440 b . c .,
and that at Rham nus in 436 b . c . " (ibid., p. 182).]
leads to the temple entrance and, most proba­
bly, to the altar of Poseidon. The open view to Works Consulted by the Author
D örpfeld, W ilh elm . " D e r Tem pel von S u n io n ."
the right of the temple may have been left free
D eutsch es A rchäologisches Institut. Mitteilungen.
to emphasize the path to a cave below the rock, Athenische Abteilung 9 ,1 8 8 4 .
which perhaps had special significance in the Fabricus, Ernst. "D ie Skulpturen vom Tem pel in
cult of Poseidon. It is also possible that this sec­ S o u n io n ." Ibid.

tor was not, in fact, left open but was closed by Orlandos, Anastasios Κ. " Τὸ ἀέτωμα τοῦ ἐν Σουνίω
ναοῦ τοῦ Π οσειδῶνος." Ἀ ρχαιολογικὴ Ἐ φημερίς, 1915.
a structure of which no trace has yet been
-----. "Τοῦ ἐν Σουνίω ναοῦ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος τοῖχοι
found (as was the case, for example, on the ter­ καὶ ὀροφή." Ib id ., 1917.
race of Athena at Pergamon). But, if we take the S taï s, V a le rio s, " Ἀ νασκαφαὶ ἐν Σουνίῳ." Ibid., 1900.
surrounding landscape into account, we cannot
--------- . "Σουνίου ἀνασκαφαί." Ibid., 1917.
rule out the idea that the purpose of an open
--------- . Τὸ Σούνιον καὶ οἱ ναοὶ Ποσειδῶνος καὶ
sector here was to offer an unobstructed view of Ἀθηνᾶς. A th e n s: L ib ra ry o f th e A rc h a e o lo g ic a l
the sea— the realm of Poseidon. Examination of S o c ie ty , 1920.

the cardinal points of the compass reveals that Additional References


W illiam H. Plom m er. "T h re e A ttic T e m p le s," pt. 2,
the two limiting lines of this open sector to the "T h e T em ple o f P oseid on ." British Sch ool at A thens,
right of the temple lie at 10° and 20° south of Annual 4 5 ,1 9 5 0 , pp. 7 8 -9 4 . (A detailed account of
the m easurem ents o f the tem ple.)
west, so that during the months of February
-----------. "T h e Tem ple of Poseidon on Cape Sunium :
and October there would be a direct view of the Som e Further Q u estio n s." BSA 5 5 , 1960, pp. 2 1 8 -2 3 3 .
setting sun over the sea.
Clearly, the extension of the landscape
played an important part in the plan for this
precinct. The great temple is raised high in the
center of the area in contrast to the other build­
[93]
51 Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Poseidon. View
from point A, 1969.

[94]
[95]
52 Sounion, Sacred Precinct o f Poseidon. Plan.
53 Sounion, Sacred Precinct o f Poseidon.
G eneral Plan. (Stais.)

54 Sounion, Sacred Precinct o f Poseidon.


View o f tem ple. (Plom m er.)

[97]
The Agora at Pergamon, Third Century B.C.

It is not known precisely when construction of DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A


the Pergamon agora began, but the existing AC, along line a = A C ' along line e = 52.4 m.
ruins seem to indicate that the entire site dates This is exactly 100 Egyptian ells;3 i.e.,
from the same period—the era of the Seleucid 100 X 0.524 = 52.4 m.
kings.1 It is thought that the western half of the A D ' along line c = A D " along line f =
agora and the stoas were built at the same time2 45.37 m.
and that the temple of Athena and the altar of If an arc is described with center A and ra­
Zeus were erected somewhat later. dius A D ' to cut line b at D, then A D ' = A D =
Organization of the Site, Third or Second A C √ 3 / 2 , and so
Century B.C. There were two entrances, north 45.37 = 52.40 X 1.732/2.
and south, at the points where an older road Thus A C D is a right-angled triangle whose
crossed the agora. They are marked A and B on side A C — 52.4 m and angle ab = 30°.
the plan (Fig. 56). Through entrance A passed FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
all the traffic proceeding from the high citadel The composition of the layout is determined
to the lower city, south of the agora (Fig. 57). by the angles of 30° and 60° and the ratio re­
Similarly, entrance B was used by all traffic sulting from them (x :x√ 3 / 2 ) . In other words,
from the lower city proceeding to the citadel. there is a twelvefold division of the total area of
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A 360°.
Point A is situated in the center of the en­ The field of vision is fully enclosed. The view
trance at the first spot from which the entire of the temple façade between lines c and d is
western agora can be seen. kept clear. Line A G , which points due west to
a to farthest (southern) corner of the southeast the sunset, lies exactly between A E and A D '
stoa (C on the plan) (line c).
b to left comer of the central group of monu­ SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T B
ments (F on the plan) At point B, in the center of the southern en­
c to right corner of the central group of monu­ trance to the site, the road is 3 m lower than the
ments; left comer of the temple façade (D' on surface of the western half of the agora. Only
the plan) when the spectator moves to point B ' is his eye
d to left comer of the exedra; right (northeast) at the same height as the parapet, i.e., 0.70 m
comer of the temple façade above ground level. B' is thus the first point
e to middle corner of the exedra; right (north­ from which a view of the site can be gained; it
west) corner of the temple (C' on the plan) can therefore be considered a visual entrance to
f to right corner of the exedra; left corner of the the site. If the road were not sunk, a view of the
northwest building (D' on the plan) open area without buildings that lies south of
g to a line parallel to the northern retaining the central group of monuments might be ob­
wall tained between points B and B' (see Fig. 55). As
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A it is, however, the layout of the site permits no
Angle ab = 30° = 180°/6. open views, for point B ' the view of the open
Angle bg = 60° = 180°/3. area is already closed by the most southerly of
the central group of monuments. This point
Thus, the northern boundary of the upper also determines the line B'E.
half of the agora is based on the position of
line g. (N otes to this page are on page 110.)

[98]
55 Pergam on, Agora. View from point A to the
west, 1936.

[99]
56 Pergamon, Agora. Plan.

[100]
57 Pergamon. General Plan. (Conze.)

[101]
58 Pergamon, Agora. Sections. (Schrammen.)

[10 2 ]
59 Pergamon, Agora. General plan. (Schrammen.)

[10 3 ]
The Sacred Precinct of Athena at Pergamon,
Second Century B.C.

Although the temple of Athena was built in the the eastern stoa = 60° = 180 °/3.
fourth century B .C., when Pergamon was only a DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
small town, its precinct was not created until Point A to the northeast corner of the pre­
the reign of King Eumenes II (197-159 B .C .), at a cinct (C") = 37.0 m. If an arc is described from
time when many other urban changes were A with radius A C ", it touches the nearest point
taking place. The existing temple served as the of the central monument at C and cuts a line a
starting point for the layout of the precinct, at a point C.
which was formed by the erection of three The distance along line a from point A to the
stoas. The only remaining monument, which northwest corner of the southern stoa (D) =
stands in the center of the precinct, dates from 55.5 m. An arc with radius AD touches the
the Roman era. We can be fairly certain that it northeast corner of the temple (D').
replaced a Hellenistic monument, since its posi­ The distance along line c from point A to the
tion fits into the Hellenistic layout, and since southeast corner of the temple (£') = 64.0 m.
we know that in the Hellenistic period the pre­ The distance along line e from point A to the
cinct was adorned with many famous statues, southeast corner of the northern stoa (F") =
of which there are now no traces. 74.0 m. An arc with radius AF" touches the
Organization of the Site, 197-159 B.C. The pre­ southwest corner of the temple (F') and perhaps
cinct had two entrances, a main entrance (A on denotes the northeast corner of the altar of
the plan, Fig. 61) from the east through the Athena* (F).
propylon and a minor entrance (B on the plan) Hence A C = A C ' = 37.0 m = 74.0 m /2 =
through the northern stoa. A F " / 2,
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A a n d A D = A D ' = 55.5 m = 2>AF"/4,
(* indicates that the exact position of this or A C = the small side of the right-angled tri­
structure is not certain.) angle AF"C".
Point A lies on the platform of the propylon, Also A D = A D ' = 55.5 m = 3 A F " /4 , or
at the crossing of its axis with the line of the top A D — three-quarters of the large side of the
step of the eastern stoa. triangle AF"C".
a to right (northwest) corner of the southern In other words, the organization of the space
stoa (D on the plan); left corner of the altar of is determined by the right-angled triangle
Athena* AF"C" and the use of the angle of 30°, or a
b to right corner of the altar of Athena*; pro­ twelvefold division of the total area of 360°.
nounced angle in the boundary wall FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
c to left (southeast) corner of the temple of From left to right we can see (Fig. 60)
Athena (£' on the plan); another angle in the the southern stoa
boundary wall the altar of Athena*
d to left tangent of the central monument; right an open view, obstructed only by the low
corner of the temple of Athena (junction with parapet of the enclosure wall
boundary wall) the temple of Athena
e to right tangent of the central monument; left the circular central monument
(southeast) corner of the northern stoa F" on the northern stoa.
the plan).
ANGLES OF VISIO N FROM PO IN T A The path to the altar and to the entrance of
Angle ce = 30° = 180 °/6. the temple of Athena is emphasized by an open
The angle between line e and the top step of view; line c, leading to point E' at the southeast
[104]
comer of the temple, lies directly perpendicular
to the main entrance to the precinct through the
propylon. The open field of vision is oriented
21° south of west.
The right-angled triangle A F"C " is similar to
the triangle formed by half the base of the tem­
ple, E'D'G, which also has angles of 30°, 60°,
and 90°. The triangle E'D'G lies so that its sides
are either parallel or perpendicular to the sides
of the triangle A F"C ". Thus, for example,
A F " is parallel to GD'
A C " is parallel to E'G
E'D' is perpendicular to AF".

As we have mentioned, the temple was built


two centuries before the precinct was laid out,
and we may conclude that its position and pro­
portions determined the form, size, and orien­
tation of the Hellenistic stoas.
SIGHT LINES FROM P O IN T B
This small entrance gave access to the sacred
precinct from the north. Point B lies on the edge
of the top step in the center of the opening.
h to left tangent of the central monument;
southeast comer of the precinct
g to left (northeast) corner of the temple of
Athena (D' on the plan), right (northwest) cor­
ner of the southern stoa (D on the plan)
/ to right (northwest) comer of the temple (G
on the plan); and angle in the boundary wall.

(See page 110 for list of works consulted.)

[105]
60 Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Perspec­
tive from point A.

[106]
62 Pergamon, Sacred Prec i nct of Athena. Plan.
(Bohn.)

[1 0 8 ]
Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan.

[10 7 ]
63 Pergamon, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Recon­
struction, seen from the south. (Bohn.)

[10 9 ]
The Altar of Zeus at Pergamon,
Second Century B.C.

Neither the exact date of the great altar of Zeus 1Jakob Schrammen, D e r grosse A lt a r , der obere M a r k t ,
nor the outlines of its terrace are precisely Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Die Altertümer von Per­
gamon, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 93, 118.
known, but it is generally believed that it was 2Ibid., p. 106.
built at the time of King Eumenes II (197-159 3 H ans Sch leif told m e that one should not be con­
fused by the use o f the term "Egyptian e lls ." T he ell
B .C .). This assumption is based on the style of used at Pergam on was developed there, and it is a
the sculptures and on the inscriptions that m atter o f chance that it was identical with the Egyp­
tian royal ell. [See also C hapter 3, note 4.]
adorn it, as well as on its enormous dimensions.
The outbreak of hostilities following Eumenes' Works Consulted by the Author
Bohn, Richard. D a s H e ilig tu m der A th e n a Polias N ik e ­
reign also make it unlikely that a monument of phoros. Berlin, Staatliche M useen. D ie A ltertüm er
this size could have been undertaken much von Pergam on, vol. 2. Berlin: Spem ann, 1885.

later than this date. We have thus accepted this Conze, Alexander, et al. S ta d t und Landschaft. Berlin,
Staatliche Museen. Die Altertümer von Pergamon,
date. vol. 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1913.
Organization of the Site. Three entrances seem Schram m en, Jakob. D e r grosse A l t a r ; der obere M a r k t .
likely, although they have not been definitely Berlin, Staatliche M useen. Die A ltertüm er von Per­
gam on, vol. 3, pt. 1. Berlin: Reim er, 1906.
proved (Fig. 64). There is slight evidence of a
propylon on the east boundary, and point A Additional References
Humann, Carl. D e r Pergamon A lt a r . Dortmund:
has been established as its center. From this Ardey, 1959.
point, the altar appears within an angle of 60°. Rohde, Elisabeth. Pergamon. Berlin: Henschel, 1961.
In the northwest comer of the terrace, there are Schober, Arnold. D ie K u n s t von Pergamon. Vienna:
Rohrer, 1951.
signs of some steps leading down from an
Zschietzschmann, Willy. "Pergamon." In Pauly,
upper terrace, although their beginning and A. F. von, ed. Real-Encyclopädie der classischen A l t e r ­
end have not been ascertained. If we assume tumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1937. XIX,
pp. 1235-1264.
that an entrance was situated at the foot of the
steps, and establish point B as its center, we
find that the altar again appears within an angle
of 60° and, further, that the west side of the
altar lies directly perpendicular to point B.
A third entrance (point C) is assumed to lie at
the head of a flight of steps—of which some
traces have also been found—leading down to a
lower terrace to the south.
We find that the sight lines from each of
these three entrances (assuming that their posi­
tions have been accurately determined) coin­
cide, that each encompasses two comers of the
altar, and that together they form a single equi­
lateral triangle A B C , within which the rectangle
of the altar is precisely placed. We also find that
from entrance A there is a view due west across
the altar to the only visible peak of a mountain
range lying on the far side of the valley of a
tributary of the Caicus. The position of the altar
thus acknowledges and emphasizes the domi­
nating feature of the landscape (see Fig. 57).
[110]
64 Pergamon, Altar of Zeus. Plan.

[111]
65 Pergamon, Altar of Zeus and Agora. Plan.
(Schrammen.)

[112]
66 Pergam on, A ltar o f Zeus. R econstruction.
(Schram m en.)

[113]
6 Use of the Ten-Part System

The Heraion at Samos, Sixth Century B.C.

As a result of the work of archaeologists such there seems to have been only a slight differ­
as Theodor Wiegand, Martin Schede, Ernst ence between them.
Buschor, and Hans Schleif, we have a clear pic­ 2
ture of the development of this site from the The Rhoikos period, mid-sixth century b .c .

early archaic period to early Christian times. (Fig. 70).


The great temple was built and rebuilt before 3
the sixth century b .c . To the east of the temple The period of the new great temple, from the
lay the great altar of Hera, which was rebuilt end of the sixth century b .c . until the second
seven times at seven different periods. In the century b .c . (Fig. 71).
late seventh century there were also several 4
treasuries, a stoa, and some other buildings. The early Roman period, first century a .d .

Figure 68 is based on Schleif's reconstruction of (Fig. 74).


the site during this period.
About 550 b . c ., the architects Rhoikos and No entrance has been definitely established
Theodoros demolished nearly all the earlier on the site at any of these four periods. It seems
buildings and erected the first great temple of that for a short time only the building southeast
Hera with its accompanying great altar (Fig. 70). of the temple served as a propylon, but this was
A small building (G on the plan) also dates demolished before the great altar was built over
from this period. it in the time of Rhoikos. It therefore cannot be
Only a few years later, this temple was considered as acting as an entrance in later pe­
burned down, and the Samians, probably still riods. In endeavoring to discover from the im­
under the rule of Polykrates, planned and portant sightlines where an entrance might
began construction of another great temple, al­ have been, I was obliged to concentrate upon
though it was never fully completed. As long as the third and fourth periods, as too few build­
this great temple of Hera remained in use, the ings remained from the earlier periods to allow
appearance of the forecourt remained un­ a test of the system to be made. As a result of
changed, except that more votive offerings ac­ my calculations, I found that it was possible to
cumulated around it.2 Figure 71 shows the site establish a point A between the two side walls
as it was from the fifth to the second century b . c . (antae) of a small building, not fully excavated
By the Augustan era the temple had lost its and thus not fully described, which, according
significance and was used as a storehouse for to a verbal statement by Hans Schleif, might
votive offerings. Gradually, the site became com­ well have been a propylon. I have therefore
pletely altered through the erection of many postulated that a propylon or at least an en­
small buildings, until by the early Christian pe­ trance existed on this site, and I have investi­
riod it was a mass of small structures. Figure 74 gated all four site plans to determine whether
shows the area surrounding the great altar in or not an entrance could have existed at this
the first century a . d .3 point.4
I divided the development of the site into Heraion I, Early Sixth C entury
four phases: O rganization of the Site. This is the period of
1 temple II, altar VII, and the southern temenos
The period just before the Rhoikos temple (Fig. (the great southwestern building). The layout
68). I have assumed this to be representative of had evolved gradually from the geometric pe­
the layout throughout the early periods, as riod until the sixth century (Fig. 68). Although

[114 ]
our supposition that point A represents the en­ entrance, planned at the same time as the
trance is not contradicted by any features of the Rhoikos layout of the site, is supported by the
layout, on the other hand, there is no strong ev­ following factors:
idence to support it, since no explicit use is 1
made of specific angles and distances. the angles within which the main buildings of
If we take the southeast building to represent the site are seen from point A are 180 °/5,
the propylon at this time, as do the excavators, 180°/5, 3 X 180°/5;
we find that no aspects of the system apply. We 2
must therefore conclude that this was not the the relation of the distances from point A to the
entrance, or that the system was not known in great altar (i.e., the golden section) and their
Samos, or that this entrance, which was the last unit of measure (i.e., the Ionic foot);
building to be erected, could not be placed in 3
accordance with the system. the prolongation of line c eastward lies along
Heraion II, Mid-Sixth Century B.C. the front line of the assumed propylon, thus
Organization of the Site. Point A lies in the perpendicular to its axis.
center of the edge of the top step of building I,
assumed to be the propylon (Fig. 69). Heraion III, End of the Sixth Century B.C.
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A Organization of the Site. The layout was altered
a to right corner of the small building to the by several new constructions: the great new
east; left (northeast) corner of the great altar temple, a small structure surrounded by a sin­
b to left (northeast) corner of the temple of gle row of columns (the monopteros), and a
Hera; right (southwest) corner of the great altar row of votive offerings, which were being
(B on the plan) erected when the great temple was being built.
c to right (northwest) corner of the temple of The assumed entrance has been maintained
Hera at point A.
c ' to extension of line c to the east. SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A a to right com er of the small building to the
Angle c'a = 36° = 180°/5. east (G on the plan) left (northeast) com er of
Angle ab = 36° = 180°/5. the great altar (F on the plan)
Angle be = 108° = 3 X 180°/5. b to right (southwest) com er of the great altar
(B on the plan)
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A d to left (southeast) corner of the "m onopteros"
The distance from point A along line b to the (F" on the plan); right (western) end of the row
southwest corner of the great altar (B on of votive offerings (D " on the plan)
plan) = 69.80 m. e to right (northwest) corner of the "m onop­
The distance from point A to the nearest teros"; left (southeast) corner of the great
(northwest) comer of the great altar (C on the temple (D on the plan).
plan) = 43.13 m. ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
Hence A C /A B = 43.13/69.80 = 0.618/1 = Angle ab remains the same = 36° = 180 °/5.
( √ 5 — l)/2 or the golden section. Angle bd = 37° = ca. 36° = 180° /5.
Also, AB = 69.80 = 200 X 0.349 or 200
Ionic feet.5 DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A The distance from point A along line e to
The hypothesis that point A represents an point D' at the southeast corner of the
[115]
temple = 78.50 m. south axis greatly strengthens our case, espe­
If we describe an arc with radius AD, we find cially since the route runs parallel to the façades
it touches the western end of the row of votive of several existing structures such as the temple
offerings (D" on the plan) and the southeast and the altar. The organization of the site is no
corner of the great altar (D on the plan). longer based on lines of sight, angles of vision,
According to measurements taken on the or relations between distances but is entirely
plans, A D ' = 7 8 .5 0 m ; A D " = 78.50 m; determined by right-angled axes.
AD = 78.00 m.
11 have studied this site only from the plans and re­
The distance from point A along line a to ports prepared by the excavators.
point F at the northeast corner of the great 2Hans Schleif, "Heraion von Samos: Das Vorgelände
des Tempels," Deutsches Archäologisches In s titu t, M i t ­
altar = 56.00 m. teilungen, A thenische A b te ilu n g 5 8 ,1 9 3 3 , p. 217.
If we describe an arc with radius A F, we find 3 For its further developm ent see S ch leif's four arti­
cles "H eraio n von S a m o s," A t h M i t t . 58, 1933.
it approximately meets the southeast corner of 4[According to Buschor and Ziegenaus ("Heraion
the monopteros at F along line d. According 19 5 9 ," p. 2), at the time of the Rhoikos temple there
were four sacred ways, though probably still with­
to measurements taken on the plans, AF' = out formal entrance structures. Two appeared to
57.00 m. come from the direction of the town to the east, a
third from the sea to the south, and a fourth from
FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A the north. These sacred ways are shown in a map in
From point A the monopteros is linked opti­ the short account of the sequence of excavations at
Samos by Hans Walter, D a s griechische H e ilig tu m ,
cally with the temple. 1965, and the building assumed by Doxiadis to have
Although line cc' now meets the temple at the been a propylon is there shown to have been built at
the time of Polykrates (5 3 8 -5 2 2 b . c . ) , although no
corner of its second row of columns, our as­ mention is made of its use (see Doxiadis7Figs. 72,
sumption that point A represents the entrance 75). According to Oscar Ziegenaus ("Die Tempel-
gruppe im Norden des Altarplatzes," 1957, p. 125),
is not necessarily invalidated, since the perpen­ "This building is much larger than one would ex­
dicular of the temple exactly bisects the angle pect a treasury to be at this period, and although the
bd, and the line of votive offerings starting from
form of its plan is reminiscent of a propylon, its po­
sition in the sacred precinct—far from the archaic
point D" runs parallel to cc'. It may be added, boundary of the temenos—makes this impossible."
without attaching much importance to the ob­ Ziegenaus points out that the structure has not yet
been fully excavated and that a final verdict must
servation, that the temple's northern line of col­ await a restudy of this part of the precinct.]
umns was never actually built. 5 [For discussion o f ancient G reek feet see Chapter 3,
note 4.]
Heraion IV, First Century A.D.
Works Consulted by the Author
O rganization of the Site. Considerable changes Buschor, Ernst. "Heraion von Samos: frühe Bauten."
were made in the early Roman period. As has Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. M itte ilu n g e n .
already been noted at other sites, the Romans A thenische A b te ilu n g 55, 1930, pp. 1 -9 9 .

ignored the earlier organization of the layout -----, and Schleif, Hans. "Heraion von Samos: der
Altarplatz der Frühzeit." A t h M i t t . 5 5 ,1 9 3 0 , pp. 1 4 6 -
and concentrated on the use of the right-angled 173.
triangle. Schede, M artin. "Z w eiter vorläufiger Bericht über
The site now contains a wide central pathway die A usgrabungen auf S a m o s." Preussische A kad­
em ie der W issenschaften. A b h a n d lu n g e n . P hilo-
(attested by a broad strip of land devoid of sophische-Historische Klasse, 1929, no. 3, pp. 1-2 6 .
buildings, with a water channel running Schleif, Hans. "Der grosse Altar der Hera von
through its center) and short paths that meet it Samos." A t h M i t t . 5 8 ,1 9 3 3 , pp. 174 -2 1 0 .
at right angles. This new Roman route starts Schleif, Hans. "Heraion von Samos: das Vorgelände
des Tempels." A t h M i t t . 58, 1933, pp. 2 1 1 -2 4 7 .
from point A, which we have taken to represent
W iegand, T heodor. "E rster vorläufiger Bericht über
the entrance in earlier periods. That point A die A usgrabungen in S a m o s." A bhP reuss., 1911, no.
now marks the start of an important north- 5, pp. 1-2 4 .

[116]
Additional References
Buschor, Ernst. "Imbraso."Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut. Mitteilungen. Athenische Abteilung 68, 1953,
pp. 1-1 0 .
--------, and Ziegenaus, Oscar. "Heraion 19 5 9 ." A th .
M itt. 72, 19 5 7 , pp. 5 2 -6 4 .
Johannes, Heinz. "Die Säulenbasen vom Heratempel
des Rhoikos." A thM itt. 6 2 ,1 9 3 7 , pp. 1 3 -3 7 .
Ohly, Dieter. "Die Göttin und ihre Basis." A thM itt.
68, 1953, pp. 2 5 -5 0 .
Reuther, O scar. Der Heratempel von Samos: der Bau seit
der Zeit des Polykrates. Berlin: M ann, 1957.
W alter, H ans. Das griechische Heiligtum: Heraion von
Samos. M unich: Piper, 1965.
Wrede, Walther. "Vorgeschichtliches in der Stadt
Samos: Fundtatsachen." A th M itt. 6 0 -6 1 ,1 9 3 5 -1 9 3 6 ,
pp. 1 1 2 -1 2 4 .
Ziegenaus, Oscar. "Der Südbau: Ergänzende Unter­
suchungen." A thM itt. 72, 1957, pp. 6 5 -7 6 .
--------. "Die Tempelgruppe im Norden des Altar­
platzes." A thM itt. 7 2 ,1 9 5 7 , pp. 8 7 -1 5 1 .

[117]
67 Sam os, H eraion. View from point A, 1969. T h e
m an at the left is standing at the northeast co rner of
the great altar. In the foreground are m any votive
offerings. T h e m an in the center (left o f the single
colum n) is at the northw est corner o f the m onopteros,
and directly behind him is the southw est corner o f
the great tem ple. T he colum n is the northernm ost of
the four facing the steps.

[ 118 ]
[119 ]
68 Samos, Heraion I, Geometric period. Plan. 69 Samos, Heraion II, Rhoikos period.
Reconstruction. (Walter.)
70 Samos, Heraion II, Rhoikos period. Plan.

71 Sam os, H eraion III, C lassical period. Plan.

[12 1]
72 Sam os, H eraion III, C lassical period. Plan.
(W alter.)

73 Sam os, H eraion. R econstruction o f the great


altar. (W alter.)

[1 2 2 ]
74 Samos, Heraion IV, Roman period. Plan.

[12 3 ]
75 Samos, Heraion. General plan showing four
different periods. (Walter.)

[12 4 ]
The Asclepeion at Cos,
Fourth, Third, and Second Centuries B.C.

This site bears evidence of building activity e to right (northwest) comer of temple B on
at several different periods.1 Although the only terrace II; right (northwest) corner of the west­
remains extant from before the third century ern stoa on terrace III
b .c . are those of the first altar, built between 350 f to left (southeast) corner of the western stoa
and 330 b . c ., there is ample evidence of exten­ on terrace I.
sive construction during the first golden age of ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T F

the island of Cos, between 300 and 205 b .c .,2 Angle ab = 34° = ca. 36° = 180°/5.
and in later centuries. Angle bd = 36° = 180 °/5.
Structures dating from the first active period Angle d f = 3 6 ° = 180°/5.
include the lower terrace (terrace I) with its
stoas and chambers (300-250 b . c .) and the earli­ Hence angle a f = 34° + 36° + 36° = 106° =
est buildings on the middle terrace (terrace II), ca. 108° = 3 X 180° /5.
such as building £ in Figure 77 and the build­ DISTANCES FROM PO IN T F

ings shown as C and D. Temple B and the The distance from F to either end of the
exedra on terrace II were built a little later, the northern stoa (G and G" on the plan) = 47.50 m.
former dating probably from about 280 b . c . If a semicircle is described with radius FG, it
It seems likely that the magnificent develop­ touches the supporting wall of terrace II at
ment of the site was begun soon after 190 b .c . point G'. The ground plan of terrace I thus has
following the island's great victories in 197 and a ratio of 1:2, although it is not a mathematical
190 b . c ., although evidence from the structures rectangle.
shows that the project was not completed until Asclepeion, M iddle Terrace (Terrace II),
about 160 or 150 b . c .3 Second C entury B.C.
The late Hellenistic altar on the middle ter­ O rganization of the Site. Although the middle
race (K on the plan) was built later than temple terrace had three distinct forms in three consec­
B and the exedra, between 160 and 150 b . c . utive periods, I have been obliged to base my
Temple C and building D were built in Roman investigations on the form of the last period, as
times, the former dating from late in the Anto- there was not sufficiently precise information
nine period (the second half of the second cen­ concerning the earlier ones.
tury B .C .) From 300 to 250 b . c . the terrace contained the
Asclepeion, Lower Terrace (Terrace I), first altar (K on the plan, Fig. 77), building £,
300-250 B.C. earlier buildings below C and D, temple B, and
Organization of the Site. This northern and the exedra. It is not possible to show whether or
lowest terrace has a central entrance from the not these were disposed according to a pre­
north. Point F lies midway between two columns arranged plan.
of the stoa on the axis of the outer stairway. From about 150 b . c . until the first century a . d .
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T F the terrace contained the later altar, all the for­
a to right (southwest) corner of the eastern stoa mer buildings, and the steps leading to the
on terrace I upper terrace (terrace III).
b to left (northeast) com er of temple C on ter­ At the end of the second century a . d . build­
race II ing E, temple B, the exedra, and the later altar
c to right corner of the exedra on terrace II (K on the plan) remained from earlier periods,
d to right corner of the steps leading up to ter­ and temple C and building D were added.
race II; middle corner (northeast) of temple B It can be recognized that the main entrance
on terrace II would lie on the axis at the head of the central
[125]
flight of steps leading up from the lower terrace the axis of the steps and the temple, approxi­
(terrace I), but, as the upper part of these steps mately at point I.
are missing, I have had to assume a probable SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T I

location for this point: H on the plan. n to left (northeast) corner of the temple; left
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T H inner corner of the upper terrace (N' on the
g to left (northeast) corner of the building plan, Fig. 82)
group £ on the plan o to right (northwest) corner of the temple;
h to right (southwest) corner of building £; left right inner corner of the upper terrace (N" on
(northeast) corner of temple C the plan).
i to left (northeast) corner of the altar (K on the ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T I

plan); right (southwest) corner of temple C; left The angle between line n and the axis of the
corner of the exedra temple (/M) = 36° = 180°/5.
j to left (northeast) corner of temple A on ter­ The angle between line o and the axis of the
race III temple (/M) = 36° = 180°/5.
k to left (southeast) corner of temple B on ter­ DISTANCES FROM PO IN T I

race II The distances from point I along lines n and o


l to right (northwest) corner of temple B on ter­ to point N ' and N" equal 69.80 m.
race II. The distance from point I along the axis of
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T H the temple to its far end (M on the plan) =
Angle lk = 36° = 180°/5. 43.13 m.
Angle kj = 36° = 180 °/5. Hence 1 M /I N = 43.13/69.80 = 0.618/1 =
Angle jg = 72° = 4 X 180°/10. golden section.
The basic unit of the length of 69.80 m is the
The entire layout as seen from point H thus
Ionian foot of 34.9 cm.
falls within an angle of 144° = 36° + 36° +
Hence IN = 69.80 m = 200 x 34.9 cm =
72° = 4 X 180°/5.
200 Ionian feet.5
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T H
Further, if the triangle IM M ' is turned on its
The distance from H along line i to the north­
east corner of the altar (K on the plan) = 10.50 m. side JM', we find that point M ''' of the new tri­
angle IM ' M ''' determines the inner line of the
The distance from H to the nearest (north­
eastern stoa. The inner line of the western stoa
east) corner of temple B (L ' on the plan) =
can be determined in the same way. The entire
17.00 m.
upper terrace is thus based on the 36° angle
If an arc is described with radius HL\ it
(180°/5) or on the ratio resulting from it, the
touches the nearest (northwest) corner of tem­
golden section.
ple C at L".
It is found that H K /H L = 10.5/17 =
0.618/1 = golden section. 1 M y investigations were based on the official ac­
Asclepeion, Upper Terrace (Terrace III), count o f the G erm an excavations, Kos: Ergebnisse der
deutschen Ausgrabungen und Forschungen, edited by
circa 160 B.C. Rudolf Herzog. I did not exam ine the site.
Organization of the Site. It is known that the 2 Paul Schazm ann, "D ie bauliche Entw icklung des
A sk lep ieio n s," p. 72.
upper terrace was created between 160 and 150 3 Ibid.
b . c . The entrance was clearly on the steps leading 4 [Although these steps have since been restored, it
is not certain that the restoration is correct.]
from terrace II; its exact position has not been 5 [For d iscussion o f ancient G reek feet see Chapter 3,
definitely established, but it must have lain on note 4.]

[12 6 ]
Works Consulted by the Author
Herzog, Rudolf, ed. Kos: Ergebnisse der deutschen A u s­
grabungen und Forschungen, vol. I. Berlin: K eller, 1932;
in particular, Paul Schazm ann, "D ie bauliche Ent­
wicklung des A sk lep ieio n s."

[127]
76 Cos, A sclepeion. V iew from point F, 1969. The
m an at the left stands at the southw est corner o f the
eastern stoa on terrace I. T h e colum ns o f tem ple C
on terrace II can be seen to the right.

[12 8 ]
[12 9 ]
77 Cos, Asclepeion. Plan.

[13 0 ]
78 Cos, Asclepeion. General plan. (Herzog.)

[13 1]
79 Cos, Asclepeion. Perspective of upper terrace
from entrance. (Herzog.)

80 Cos, Asclepeion, Hellen i stic per i od. Perspective


from northeast. (Herzog.)

[13 2 ]
81a Cos, A sclepeion. V iew o f the site in relation
to the sea, circa 1930. (Herzog.)

[133]
81b Cos, A sclepeion. V iew from upper terrace III
looking north, 1969. T h e distant hill across the water
directly fronts the flight o f steps.

[13 4 ]
82 Cos, A sclepeion. View from point 1 ,1969. T h e
left co m er of the tem ple is in line with the distant
corner of the upper terrace.
The Agora and the Temple of Athena at Priene,
Fourth Century B.C.

The position from which I studied the layout of equal in length to the parallel southern stoa,
the site is to the west of the altar in the center which extended from the steps leading up to
of the agora at Priene. From this point, the tem ­ the temple of Athena to the steep path leading
ple of Athena appears exactly between two up to the theater.3 The colonnade of this earlier
sight lines, a and b (Figs. 84, 86), that just touch stoa may lie below the Ionic columns of its suc­
the corners of the western and northern stoas cessor, but it seems more likely that both had
and form an angle of 17° (18° = 180°/10). The the same depth. Since the space of the earlier
temple stands on a higher level and, seen from stoa was divided into two,4 it was perhaps simi­
here, forms a link between the ridge of the lar to the central part of the southern stoa. In
steep rocks to the right and the low buildings to this case the southwestern corner of the earlier
the left (Fig. 85). stoa would have coincided with the same cor­
Although the entire agora was not built at the ner of the later one. This appears to be self-
same time as the temple of Athena, "it is obvi­ evident, as from the very first there must have
ous that the agora was planned for in the layout been a desire to achieve a view of the temple of
of the city, which goes back to the fourth cen­ Athena framed by sight lines a and b. It is im­
tury b . c ., and the leveling operations and retain­ possible to believe that this occurred as a happy
ing walls may well date back to that period, as accident after the erection of the temple and the
well perhaps as the south stoa . . . and parts of western stoa.
the west and east stoas."1The temple of Athena If these observations are correct, they explain
was built in 344 b . c . Shortly after 150 b . c . a new why there was a gateway at the eastern en­
stoa was built on the upper level, just south of trance to the agora but not at the western entry:
the temple, H in Figure 84, shutting off the view the latter was left open so that there would be
of the temple from the central altar in the agora. no obstruction to the view of the temple.
The great altar of Athena was erected to the
(N otes to this page are on page 146.)
east of the temple in 150 b .c ., just to the right of
sight line b (Fig. 84), perhaps to avoid blocking
the view of the temple from the agora. Yet this
choice of site would have been meaningless if
(as indicated in Fig. 85) the terrace to the south
of the temple, with its retaining wall, were at
the same level as the floor of the later stoa, for
then the great altar would be completely con­
cealed from view. This means that, if sight line
b were in fact taken into consideration, either
the level of the original southern terrace was
much lower, or its retaining wall was gradually
stepped back, so that the altar could be visible
from the agora.2 As the propylon to the sacred
precinct of Athena was built much later than
the southern stoa, it is of no interest to this in­
vestigation.
The northern stoa on the agora, which is of
importance to this study, was not built until
150 b . c ., but it replaced a former shorter stoa,
[13 6 ]
83 Priene. General view from the west, circa 1898.
(Wiegand and Schrader.)

[137]
84 Priene, Agora. Plan.

[13 8 ]
85 Priene, Tem ple of A thena. Perspective, from
the agora.

[13 9 ]
86 Priene, General plan.
(Wiegand and Schrader.)

[14 0 ]
87 Priene, Sacred Precinct o f A thena. Plan.
(Schede.)

àrf I . . . f . . . . E---------- *----------* ---------- ti --------- * --------- « ----------

[141]
88 Priene, Agora. Section from north to south. 89 Priene, Sacred Precinct o f A thena. Perspective
(W iegand and Schrader.) of southw est corner of the tem ple from the agora.
(Schede.)

Süd halle Westballe Strasse N ordhalle

[14 2 ]
90 Priene. Model. (Schleif.)

[143]
91 Priene. View of the site from the north, circa
1898. (Wiegand and Schrader.)

[144]
92 Priene, Agora. View from the east, circa 1898.
(W i egand and Schrader.)

[145]
The Sacred Precinct of the Olympian Zeus at
Priene, Third Century B.C.

This entire precinct was built to the east of the 34.90 m) tended to vary slightly from place to
agora during the third century b .c . as a single place.6
project. The site has not been fully investigated, FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
as a Byzantine fort was built over one of its cor­ The observer is presented with a completely
ners, but the published plans permit us to make enclosed view, dominated by the angles of
certain observations. Wiegand had attributed 18° = 180°/10 and 36 = 180°/5 and the pro­
the temple to Asclepios, but Schede found that portion of the golden section which derives
it was built to honor the Olympian Zeus.5 from them. In other words, this is a space deter­
Organization of the Site. Entry was only mined by the tenfold division of the total field
through a gateway on the east. Point A lies in of 360°.
the center of this opening (Fig. 93).
1 T h eod or W iegand and Hans Schrader, eds., Priene,
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A p. 214.
a to left corner of the great altar; left (south­ 2 Ibid., p. 129.
3 Ibid., p. 214.
west) corner of the precinct ( B on the plan) 4 Ibid.
b to left (southeast) corner of the temple 5 M artin Sched e, Die Ruinen von Priene, Berlin: D e
G ruyter, 1934, pp. 5 2 -5 9 .
c to right (northeast) corner of the temple; per­ 6 [For d iscussion of ancient G reek feet see Chapter 3,
haps the whole northern side of the temple note 4.]
d to left corner of the pedestal (S on the plan);
Works Consulted by the Author
right (northwest) corner of the precinct. Schede, M artin. D ie Ruinen von Priene. Berlin: D e
G ruyter, 1934.
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
W iegand, Theod or, and Schrader, Hans, eds. Priene:
Angle be = 18° = 180°/10. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den
Angle ad = 36° = 180°/5. Jahren 18 9 6 -18 9 8 . Berlin: Reim er, 1904.
Additional References
The elevation of the temple as seen from M eyer, Bruno. "D a s Propylon des sogenannten
A sklepieions in P rien e." D eutsches A rchäologisches
point A thus occupies half the angle of vision of Institut. Jahrbuch 49, 1934.
the entire precinct, although it is not placed Schede, M artin. Die Ruinen von Priene. 2nd ed. Berlin:
symmetrically in the center of its western side. De G ruyter, 1964.
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
The distance from point A along line a to
point B on the plan = 35.40 m = x.
The distance from point A along line c to the
facade of the temple (right corner of the upper
step) = 21.90 m = y.
The distance from A to the northwest corner
of the great altar = 13.40 m = z.
From this we see that
x/y = 35.40/21.90 X 1/0.618 =
golden section;
y/z = 21.90/13.40 = 1/0.612 = 1/0.618 =
golden section.
The greatest distance AB, which measures
35.40 m, may also equal 100 Ionian feet, since
the accepted measurement (0.349 x 100 =

[14 6 ]
93 Priene, Sacred Precinct o f Zeus. Plan.

[14 7 ]
The Sacred Precinct of Artemis at Magnesia,
Second Century B.C.

A sacred precinct of Artemis Leukophrene From point A to the front of the altar of
existed on this site from very early times, but Artemis = A C = 64.70 m.
the first building we know of was an archaic Hence A C / A B = 64.70/104.80 = 0.6173 =
limestone temple that endured until the second the golden section (0.618).
century b . c . The precinct acquired its final form FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
at the time of the rebuilding of the city in 400 The temple is placed on the center axis of the
b . c . At the end of the second century b . c ., the precinct. Standing at point A , the observer is
famous architect Hermogenes constructed a very conscious of this symmetry. The view is
new temple of Artemis, in which he incorpo­ entirely enclosed.
rated for the first time his new architectural The layout is based on the angle of 18°
concepts. The altar of Artemis, in front of the (180°/10) and the golden section. The entire
temple, can also be attributed to Hermogenes.1 space of 360° is thus divided into ten parts.
Although the other structures cannot be dated
accurately, it can be accepted that Hermogenes (N otes to this page are on page 155.)
reorganized the area at the same time as he re­
built the temple. We can therefore consider the
entire precinct as a unified layout.
Organization of the Site. There is a single en­
trance through the propylon from the agora.
Point A in Figure 95 represents the center of the
inner edge of the propylon as determined by
Humann's excavations.
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
a to left corner of altar of Artemis; left (north­
west) corner of temple of Artemis (lowest step);
left corner of the raised level for statuary, be­
fore the stoas
b to left (northwest) corner of the temple plat­
form (top step, B on the plan)
c to right (southwest) corner of the temple plat­
form (B' on the plan)
d to right corner of the altar of Artemis; right
corner of the lowest step of the temple; right
comer of the raised level.
ANGLES OF VISIO N FROM PO IN T A
Angle bc = 18° = 180°/10.
By turning the isosceles triangle ABB' on
both AB and AB', we find that points B" and
B '" determine the distance of the north and
south stoas from the temple.
DISTANCES FROM PO IN T A
From point A to the temple façade (AB and
AB') = 104.80 m = 300 Ionic feet2
(34.94 X 300 = 104.80 m).
[148]
94 M agnesia, Sacred Precinct o f A rtem is. View of
site, 1936.
95 Magnesi a, Sacred Precinct of Artem i s. Plan.

[15 0 ]
96 M agnesia, Agora and Sacred Precinct of
Artemis. Plan.

[151]
97 Magnesia. Sketch plan of the city.
(Humann.)

[152]
98 Magnesia, Sacred Precinct of Artemis. 99 M agnesia, Sacred Precinct o f A rtem is.
Elevations. (Humann.) Perspective o f altar and tem ple of A rtem is.
(H um ann.)

[ 15 3 ]
The Agora and the Temple of Zeus at
M agnesia, Second C entury B.C.

Although the agora of Magnesia formed part of e to right corner of the southwest structure.
the new city plan, prepared about 400 B .C ., the F IE L D O F V I S I O N F R O M P O I N T A
small temple that stands within it, the temple of The spectator has an entirely enclosed field
Zeus Sosipolis (Saviour of the City), was not of vision in which he perceives each structure
built until the beginning of the second century in succession, each a complete entity. From left
B .C ., possibly after Magnesia's great victory to right (Fig. 102) he sees, without any gaps be­
over Miletus. The other buildings, with the ex­ tween them, the propylon of the sacred precinct
ception of a Roman statue to the south of the of Artemis, the altar of Zeus, and the temple of
temple, seem to date also from the second cen­ Zeus, with the lower structure containing stone
tury B .C ., and were perhaps built by the archi­ benches in front of it. The position of the tem ­
tect Hermogenes. The organization of space in ple of Zeus must have been calculated to con­
the agora can therefore be traced back only to ceal the larger temple of Artemis, outside the
the early second century b . c . , and even this can­ agora (Fig. 95), and thus prevent the competi­
not be considered definite, as the site has not tion, in the eyes of the observer, of two equally
been completely excavated.3 It is possible that large volumes.
later findings will give rise to new points of The position of the southwest structure
view concerning the layout. seems determined by a desire to interrupt the
direct view of the Zeus temple, which would
Organization of the Site. The building of the otherwise be very dominant, and lead the eye
temple of Zeus in the second century b . c . had to the path to the altar and, beyond it, to the
an important influence on the layout. There are propylon of the sacred precinct of Artemis.
three entrances (Fig. 101). Points A and B are S IG H T L IN E S F R O M E N T R A N C E B
placed in the center of the two entrances east a to left corner of the altar of Zeus (Figs. 101,
and west of the southern stoa. At a later date 103)
two propylaea were built over them. Point C is b to left (southwest) corner of the temple of
placed at the access through the southern stoa Zeus; right corner of the altar of Zeus
from the sacred precinct (H in Fig. 96). c to center (southeast) corner of the temple of
The entrances from two roads that lead into Zeus
the southern stoa from the south, apparently d to right (northeast) corner of the temple of
had no influence on the layout of the agora. Zeus; left corner of the exedra opposite the
This seems to be supported by the fact that no propylon to the precinct of Artemis
attention is paid to the position of these roads e to right corner of the exedra.
in the design of the stoa. S IG H T L IN E S F R O M P O I N T C
S IG H T L IN E S F R O M P O I N T A a to left corner of the exedra (Figs. 101, 105)
a to left corner of the propylon of the sacred b to left side corner of the sitting place; right
precinct of Artemis (Figs. 101, 102) corner of the exedra
b to left corner of the altar before the temple of c to right corner of the sitting place; left corner
Zeus; right corner of the propylon of the sacred of the tall stele
precinct of Artemis d to right corner of the stele; left corner of the
c to left corner of the structure in the southwest altar of Zeus
of the agora; right corner of the altar of Zeus, e to right corner of the altar of Zeus; left corner
left (northwest) corner of the temple of Zeus of the propylon to the sacred precinct of
d to center corner of the southwest structure; Artemis
right (southeast) corner of the temple of Zeus f to left (northwest) corner of the temple of

[154]
Zeus; right corner of the propylon to the sacred
precinct of Artemis
g to right (southeast) corner of the temple of
Zeus.
Although the space is entirely enclosed, the
route to the propylon of the sacred precinct of
Artemis is kept entirely clear from each vantage
point, with the other structures in the agora
ranged on each side of it.

1 Julius K ohte, "D ie B au w erk e," in Carl H um ann,


ed., Magnesia am Maeander, p. 163.
2 [For discussion o f ancien t G reek feet see C hapter 3,
note 4.]
3 Carl H um ann, ed. Magnesia am Maeander, p. 107.

Works Consulted by the Author


G erkan, A rm in von. Der Altar des Artemis-tempels in
Magnesia am Mäander. Berlin: Schoetz, 1929.
H um ann, Carl, ed. Magnesia am Maeander: Bericht über
die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1 8 9 1 - 1 8 9 3 .
Berlin: R eim er, 1904; in particular, Julius K ohte,
"D ie B au w erk e," pp. 9 -1 7 2 .

[155]
100 Magnesia, Agora. Perspective of temple
of Zeus. (Humann.)

[156]
101 Magnesia, Agora. Plan.

[157]
102 Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point A.

[15 8 ]
103 Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point B.

[159]
104 M agnesia, Agora. Elevations. (H um ann.)

105 M agnesia, Agora. Perspective from point C.

[160]
The Corinthian Temple at Palmyra,
First Century A.D.

This precinct was founded in the Roman pe­ 1 1 studied the layout o f this C orinthian tem ple pre­
riod, in the first century a .d .1 It has an axial en­ cinct from the plans in T h eod or W iegand, ed.,
Palmyra: Ergebnisse der Expeditionen von 1 9 0 7 - 1 9 1 7 , 2
trance at A (Fig. 106) and two symmetrical side vols., Berlin: K eller, 1 9 3 2 .1 did not exam ine the site.
entrances at M and N. Although the two side
Additional References
entrances seem to have been left open, it was M ichalow ski, Kazim ierz. Palmyre: fouilles polonaises,
not possible to look from them into the interior 1959. W arsaw, 1960. (This covers only the D iocletian
area o f Palm yra.)
of the precinct. Similarly, from inside the pre­
Schlu m berger, D aniel. La Palmyrène du nord-ouest.
cinct, it was not possible to see out through Paris, 1951. (T hesis, U niversity o f Paris.)
these openings. This is effected by the unusual
size and form of the com er columns, which in­
terrupt the view to and from the side openings
(see sight lines a, b, a!, and V in Fig. 106). In
this way the architect's desire to create a visu­
ally enclosed space was maintained.
Organization of the Site. Point A is located on
the axis of the central entrance on a line con­
necting the centers of two columns of the stoa.
There is no step.
S IG H T L I N E S F R O M P O I N T A
c and c' to left and right comers of the temple
platform (E and £' on the plan, Fig. 106); left
and right far comers of the precinct
d and d' to left and right comers of the begin­
ning of the temple superstructure, i.e., the bases
of the nearest columns (B and B' on the plan).
A N G L E S O F V IS IO N FR O M P O IN T A
Angle dd' = 36° = 180%5.
D IS T A N C E S FR O M P O IN T A
The distances from point A along lines d and
d f to points B and B' are identical and = 25.5 m.
The distance from point A to the temple
steps (point C") = 15.75 m.
Hence A C ' / A B = 15.75/25.50 = 0.618/1 =
golden section.
We also find that the distance A C " is deter­
mined by the base of the isosceles triangle
A B B ':
BB' = AC" = 15.75 m.
The ground plan of the temple platform
E E ' : E’ F = l:\/ 5.
The position of the temple is therefore deter­
mined by the isosceles triangle A B B ' and gov­
erned by the 36° angle = 180 °/5 or the divi­
sion of the whole field of 360° into ten parts.
[161]
106 Palmyra, Corinthian Temple. Plan.

[162]
107 Palm yra. Plan of area near east wall o f the
city. (W iegand.)

108 Palm yra. Sketch plan o f the city. (W iegand.)

[16 3 ]
109 Palmyra. View of east end of main street
showing ruins of Corinthian temple in foreground,
circa 1917. (Wiegand.)

[16 4 ]
110 Palmyra. View showing arch and colonnade
north of Corinthian temple, circa 1917. (Wiegand.)

[16 5 ]
7 Use of Exceptions to the System

The Sacred Precinct of Demeter Malophoros


at Selinus, Sixth Century B.C.

The sacred precinct of Demeter Malophoros is From point A the four western buildings can
at Gaggera, on the western slope of the river be seen above the altar as a single sequence; no
valley, opposite the city hill of Selinus (Fig. gaps appear between them, and none of them
114). The origin of the precinct is uncertain.1 overlaps another.
Koldewey and Puchstein distinguished three The path to the megaron passes between
important periods of building activity. They at­ sight lines e and / along the open field of vision
tributed the temple, the small altar (between between the line of structures and the small
sight lines f a n d g in Fig. 112), and the votive altar; it leads due west.4
stele within the propylon to the sixth century
b . c .; the propylon to the fourth century b . c .; the
1 My studies of this precinct are based on the de­
scriptions in Koldewey and Puchstein, Die griechischen
three-sided rectangular structure (S in Fig. 112) Tempel in Unteritalien und Sizilien, and in Hulot and
and the room marked Z on the plan to a much Fougères, Sélinonte. I did not examine the site.
2Koldewey and Puchstein, Die griechischen Tempel,
later period.2 Their opinions must be somewhat p. 8 2 .
revised, however, following the later discovery 3 [This rectangular structure has not yet been identi­
fied with certainty. It might have served as a podium
by Italian archaeologists of the boundary wall for sculpture or an altar, or, indeed, it might have
and two more buildings to the southwest. As been a "sitting area," but the three walls do not look
like benches.]
there is no clear picture of the site at any partic­ 4 This path was identified by Koldewey and Puch­
ular period, it seems that the only feasible stein (ibid., p. 8 4 ) .
method is to study the layout as a whole, with­ Works Consulted by the Author
out reference to the time at which it was Gâbrici, Ettore. "II Santuario della Malophoros,"
Monumenti Antichi 3 2 , 1 9 2 7 , pp. 6 - 4 1 9 .
planned or completed.
Hulot, Jean, and Fougères, Gustave. Sélinonte: La
Organization of the Site. The propylon estab­ ville, l'acropole et les temples. Paris, 1 9 1 0 .

lishes the position of the entrance, and point A


Koldewey, Robert, and Puchstein, Otto. Die
lies on its axis midway between the centers of griechischen Tempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien.
two columns. 2 vols. Berlin, 1 8 9 9 .

SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A Additional References


Santangelo, Maria. Selinunte. Translated by G. H.
a to left corner of the three-sided rectangular Railsback. Rome, 1 9 5 3 .
structure (5 on the plan) White, Donald. "The Post-Classical Cult of Malo­
b to right corner of the rectangular structure phoros at Selinus," American Journal of Archaeology
7 1 , 1 9 6 7 , p p . 3 3 5 - 3 5 2 .
(considered by the original excavators to be a
"sitting area");3 left corner of the great altar;
left (southeast) corner of the southwestern
building
c to left (southeast) corner of the square build­
ing to the southwest; right (northwest) corner
of the southwestern building
d to left (southeast) corner of the temple; right
(northwest) corner of the square building
e to right corner of the great altar; right (north­
east) corner of the room marked Z on the plan
/ to left corner of the small altar
g to right corner of the small altar.
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
Angle ag = 90° = 180°/2.
[166]
I l l Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter
Malophoros. Reconstruction from the east.
(Hulot and Fougères.)

[16 7 ]
112 Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter
Malophoros. Plan.

[168]
113 Selinus. Sacred Precinct o f D em eter
M alop horos. Plan. (K oldew ey and Puchstein.)

[16 9 ]
114 Selinus. G eneral plan o f the city.
(H ulot and Fougères.)

[17 0 ]
115 Selinus, Sacred Precinct of Demeter
Malophoros. Plan. (Hulot and Fougères.)

[171]
The Sacred Precinct of Athena at Sounion,
Fifth Century B.C.

The present condition of the sacred precinct of FIELD OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A


Athena at Sounion (Fig. 116) permits only an Standing at point A and looking from left to
assessment of the layout in the post-Persian pe­ right, we would see
riod, although we know that even in the time of the large temple of Poseidon on the neighbor­
Homer there existed a holy Sounion.1 The ear­ ing hill
liest structure known is a small temple of a free field of vision
Athena that was destroyed by the Persians in the large altar of Athena
480 b . c . The Athenians then built a new, larger a second, very small, open view
temple. The cella was erected first, and a few the large temple of Athena
years later an Ionic colonnade was built round the small temple of Athena
two sides, but both were designed at the same the small altar
time.2 It also appears that the earlier small tem­
ple of Athena was rebuilt, and it is probable It is worth noting that, if the narrow field of
that both temples stood next to one another for vision between the large altar and the large
a number of years.3 temple (lines c and d ) was in fact free, its orien­
It appears that the large altar of Athena was tation was almost directly toward the west (10°
erected at the same time as the new temple, the north of west). It is also striking that the angle
eastern boundary wall, and the ramp, which of vision between the right corner of the temple
shows the position of the entrance to the pre­ of Poseidon and the left corner of the temple of
cinct.4 Athena is 60° = 180°/3. In other words, we
Organization of the Site, 480-450 B.C. The new find a planned connection not only between the
plan, prepared in 480 b . c . and completed by 450 buildings on the site itself but also between im­
b . c ., paid careful attention to earlier structures portant visual elements in the environment.
(Fig. 117).
One entrance is known; it leads from the 1Σούνιον ἱρὸν; see Homer Odyssey 3.278.
2Anastasios K. Orlandos, " Tοῦ ἐ ν Σουνίῳ ναοῦ τοῦ
ramp at the end of the eastern boundary wall. Π οσειδῶνος τοῖχοι καὶ ὀροφή, " Ἀ ρχαιολογικὴ
I have endeavored to identify it as precisely as Ἐ φημερίς, 1 9 1 7 , pp. 2 1 3 -2 2 6 ; Valerios Stais, " Σουνίου
ἀ νασκαφαί," Ἀ ρχαιολογική 'Εφημερίς, 1 9 1 7 , ρ. 181.
possible on the site (point A ). 3Ibid. Anastasios Orlandos wrote to me that he was
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A certain of this and that he believed both existed
until quite a late period.
a to left corner of the large altar of Athena (B 4 Stais, " Σουνίου ἀ νασκαφαί, " p. 181. This is also
on the plan, Fig. 117) noted in a letter to me from Orlandos.
b to middle corner of the large altar
c to right corner of the large altar
d to left (southeast) corner of the large temple
of Athena
e to right (northeast) corner of the large temple
of Athena (C'' on plan); left (southwest) corner
of the small temple of Athena
/ to right corner of the small, old altar to
Athena.
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
Angle ad = 30° = 1 8 0 % .
Angle de = 90° = 180°/2.
Angle ef = 30° = 180 °/6.

[172]
116 Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Athena. View
from point A, 1969.

[173]
117 Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan.

[174]
118 Sounion, Sacred Precinct of Athena. Plan. 119 Sounion. View of temple of Poseidon from the
(Stais.) Precinct of Athena, 1969.

[175]
The Sacred Precinct of Demeter at Priene,
Fourth Century B.C.

The entire layout seems to have been designed


and built at the time of the rebuilding of the
city in 350 b . c . (Fig. 120). Only the altar (B on
the plan) dates from the Roman period.1
Organization of the Site, 350 B.C. Point A was
taken in the center of the entrance A , on a line
with the inner surface of the walls.
SIGHT LINES FROM PO IN T A
a to right (northwest) corner of the enclosure to
the left of the entrance; left (southeast) corner
of the temple
b to left (southeast) corner of the temple porch
c to right (northeast) corner of the temple
porch
d to left (southwest) comer of the enclosure to
the right of the entrance.
ANGLES OF V ISIO N FROM PO IN T A
Angle be = 18° = 180°/10.
Angle ad - 36° = 180 °/5.

The frontage of the temple thus occupies half


the angle of vision, as in the temple of Zeus at
Priene.
When the altar (B on the plan) was built in
the Roman era, the existing field of vision was
taken into account, and it was located within
the only available angle of vision, approxi­
mately between lines c and d.

(N otes to this page are on page 178.)

[17 6 ]
12 0 Priene, Sacred Precinct of Demeter. Plan.

[177]
The Sacred Precinct of the Egyptian Cods at
Priene, Third Century B.C.

About the middle of the third century B .C ., A N G LE S O F V IS IO N F R O M P O IN T B

when Ptolemy III of Egypt ruled over Ionia, Angle be = 45° = 180 °/4.
Egyptian religious cults were introduced into Line c' divides this angle equally into two
the city of Priene. The first sacred precinct of angles of 22.50°.
the Egyptian gods was built during this period Hence 180°/8 + 180°/8 = 180°/4.
(Fig. 121); it was a rectangular courtyard with S IG H T L IN E S F R O M P O IN T C

a propylon (A on the plan) to the east, a great Point C is taken in the center of the entrance
altar in the middle, and perhaps a second en­ on a line with the inner face of the boundary
trance in the west wall.2 Unfortunately, only wall.
the foundations of this precinct remain, so that d to left (northwest) corner of the great altar
the exact position of the entrances cannot be e to right (southeast) corner of the great altar.
determined. A N G L E S O F V IS IO N F R O M P O IN T C

Somewhat later, but still in the Hellenistic Angle de = 44° (45° = 180°/4).
period, a square propylon (B on the plan) was FIELD O F V IS IO N

built in the north wall, and a stoa was erected Two major changes occur in the second pe­
along the west side of the precinct. This does riod. First, the importance of sight line a is en­
not necessarily mean that there were formerly hanced because it leads to the junction of the
entrances at points B and C. It is in fact possible new western stoa with the south wall of the
that there was originally only one entrance (A ), precinct. Second, the angle between the sight
as in the sacred precinct of Zeus in Priene (Fig. lines from entrance B is no longer 45° but, be­
93). cause the position of point B has moved to B'
Organization of the Site. In the first period the with the building of the propylon,4 has become
main entrance was through the propylon (A on 50°.
the plan), and it is possible that there were also It may be added that the angle of 45° (i.e., the
entrances at B and C. division of the total space into eight parts) is en­
In the second period the precinct was entered countered nowhere else in Greek layouts. The
from the propylon A, the propylon B,3 and the only other sacred precinct I know of in which it
gateway C. is used is the temple of Isis at Pompeii (Fig.
S IG H T L IN ES F R O M P O IN T A 122), which is also a temple of an Egyptian cult.
Point A lies on the axis of the propylon in the
center of the oblique line of the propylon front­ 1As in my other studies at Priene, I based my infor­
mation on Theodor Wiegand and Hans Schrader,
age, where the door would be. Priene: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen
a to left (southeast) corner of the great altar in den Jahren 1 8 9 5 -18 9 8 , Berlin: Reimer, 1904. I also
took measurements on the site.
b to right (northeast) corner of the great altar. “ For this precinct also my information is based on
A N G LE S O F V IS IO N F R O M P O IN T A Wiegand and Schrader, Priene. In addition, I took
measurements on the site.
Angle ab =90° = 180°/2. 3Wiegand and Schrader, Priene, p. 169.
B
S IG H T LIN E S F R O M P O IN T 4Ibid.
Point B lies on the axis of the propylon along
the inner face of the wall.
b to left (northeast) corner of the great altar
c to right (southwest) corner of the great altar
c' to middle (northwest) corner of the great
altar.

[17 8 ]
121 Priene, Sacred Precinct o f the Egyptian Gods.
Plan.

122 Pom peii, Sacred Precinct of Isis. Plan.


Index

Italicized page num bers m odel, 91 plan, 46, 47 proportions of, 9 -1 4 ,


refer to illustrations. plan, 80, 82, 84, 85, 90 tem ple terrace of, 33
tem ple o f Zeus, 10, D elphi, 7 ,1 0 , 21, relation betw een, 22,
A cropolis, A thens, xxiii, 23, 7 2 -7 6 , 80, 81, 84, 3 9 -4 0 , xxiu, xxv, 4 1, 172
9, 29, 35, 73, 93; see 85, 87, 89, 90, 91 42, 43, 45 relation to landscape,
also A cropolis I; A naxim ander, 15, 21 plan, 42, 46, 47 172
A cropolis II; A ngles, identified with A rchitectural space, secular, 3
A cropolis III gods, 17 organization of, 6, size of, 6, 23
A cropolis I, 9, 21, Angles o f vision, 3, 5, 2 0 -2 3 ; see also B uschor, Ernst, 114,
2 9 -3 0 9 -1 4 Ten-part system ; 116 n. 4
ancient tem ple of at A cropolis, 9, 29, 30, Tw elve-part system
A thena, 29 32 A rchytas, 17, 18, 21 Caicus, River, 110
first Parthenon, 29 at agora, Pergam on, 11, A res, tem ple of, A thens, C halcidians, 29
plan, 36 98 93 n. 5 C h alkotheke, A cropolis,
pre-P ersian propylon, at agora, Priene, 12 A ristotle, 15, 16, 17, 20 6, 9, 31, 32, 33, 38
29 at A ltis, O lym p ia, 73, A rrephoroi, house of City planning, 3, 20
A cropolis II, 7, 9, 22, 74 the, at A cropolis, 31, C larity, im portance of,
3 0 -3 1 at A sclepeion, Cos, 32 23
ancient tem ple of 1 2 -1 3 , 125, 126 A rtem is, Brauronian, C ontinuity, im portance
A thena, 30, 31, 38 at C orinthian tem ple, sanctuary of, 33 n. 9, of, 2 2 -2 3
H ecatom pedon, 30, 33 13, Palm yra, 161 34 n. 9, 38 C orinthian tem ple,
nn. 2, 4, 3 8 at D elphineion, A rtem is, sacred precinct Palm yra, 13, 161, 164
Parthenon II, 29, 38 M iletus, 1 0 -1 1 o f M agnesia, xxiv, 7, plan, 162
plan, 36, 38 at H eraion, Sam os, 12, 13, 22, 148, 149, 15 3 C os, A sclepeion, xxxii,
sacred precinct of 115 altar, 148, 15 3 3, 6, 7 -8 , 12, 13, 22,
Pandrosos, 29 at sacred precinct o f plan, 1 5 0 , 1 5 1 125, 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 , 13 2,
stoa, 29 A rtem is, M agnesia, tem ple, 1 3 ,1 4 8 , 150, 134, 1 3 5
A cropolis III, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 148 1 5 1 , 15 3 low er terrace (I), 12,
9, 22, 3 1 -3 3 , 35 at sacred precinct o f A sclepeion, Cos, 3, 7, 125
altar of A thena, 31 A thena, Pergam on, 1 2 -1 3 , 22, 1 2 5 -1 2 7 , m iddle terrace (II), 13,
house of the 11, 104 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 , 13 2, 1 3 5 1 2 5 -1 2 6
A rrephoroi, 31, 32 at sacred precinct o f plan, 130, 1 3 1 plan, 130, 1 3 1
C h alkotheke, 29, 31, A thena, Sounion, 14, in relation to relation to landscape,
32, 33, 38 172 landscape, 13 3 , 13 4 134
E rechtheion, 29, 38 at sacred precinct o f A thena, ancient tem ple upper terrace, 1 3 ,1 2 6
Parthenon, 29, 38 D em eter, Priene, 14, of, at A cropolis, 29, Cube, 16
plan, 37, 38 176 30, 31, 38 Cult, 6, 7, 8
Propylaea, 29, 38 at sacred precinct of sacred precinct of, Egyptian, 178
statue o f A thena D em eter Pergam on, 3, 6, 7, 11, geom etric sym bols in,
Prom achos, 29, 31, M alop horos, 22, 93, 1 0 4 -1 0 5 , 106, 17
32, 33 n. 9, 38, 73 Selinu s, 1 4 ,1 6 6 109
w alls, 33 n. 9 at sacred precin ct of plan, 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 D eities, see Gods
A egina, sacred Egyptian gods, tem ple, 11, 9 8 ,1 0 4 , D elphi (general), plan,
precinct of Aphaia, Priene, 1 4 ,1 7 8 105 46, 47
xxvi, 3, 10, 4 8 -4 9 , 5 1 at sacred precinct of sacred precinct of, tem ple o f A pollo,
altar, 48, 53 Poseidon, Sounion, Priene, 136, 14 2 3 9 -4 0 , 42
plan, 52, 53 11, 92 altar, 136, 138, 1 4 1 plan, 42
A em ilius Paullus, at sacred precinct of plan, 1 4 1 tem ple terrace of
m onum ent, D elphi, Zeus, Priene, 1 3 ,1 4 6 tem ple, 136, 1 3 9 A pollo, xxiv, xxv, 7,
39, 40 n. 3, 44 in ten-part system , 9, sacred precinct of, 10, 21, 3 9 - 4 0 ,4 1 ,4 3 ,
A gam edes, 39 1 2 -1 3 Sounion, 7, 8 ,1 4 , 45
Agora, see individual site in tw elve-part system , 172, 17 3 theater, 39
A lkm aeonid fam ily, 39 9, 1 0 -1 1 ; see also plan, 17 4 D elphineion, M iletus,
A lpheios, River, 74 Field o f vision; Sight tem ple, 14, 172 1 0 -1 1 , 22, 5 4 -5 6 , 57,
A ltar, see individual site lines Athena Prom achos, 61
A ltis, O lym p ia, A phaia, sacred precinct statue of, at D elphineion I, 7 ,1 0 ,
xxviii-xxix, 7, 10, 20, of, A egina, xxvi, 3, 7, A cropolis, 29, 31, 32, 22, 5 4 -5 5
22, 7 1 -7 7 , 7 8 -7 9 , 81, 10, 22, 23, 4 8 -4 9 , 50, 33 n. 9, 38, 73 plan, 57
8 6 -8 7 , 88, 89 51 A thens, A cropolis, see D elphineion II, 7, 54,
Echo Stoa, 7 1 -7 3 altar, 48, 53 A cropolis 55
H eraion, 10, 7 1 -7 6 , 80, plan, 52, 53 plan, 58
8 1 , 8 4 , 85, 89, 90, 91 tem ple, 49 Boeotians, 29 D elphineion III, 54, 56,
landscape at, 74, 76, A pollo, tem ple of, Buildings, outlines of, 61
83 D elphi, 39 23 plan, 59

[181]
D elphineion (continued) also Propylon at tem ple terrace o f plan, 1 2 3
D elp hineion IV, 54, 56 Environm ent, hum an, 20 A pollo, D elphi, 10 H erm ogenes, 154
plan, 60 Equilateral triangle, 9, in ten-part system , H erodus A tticus, exedra
D em eter, sacred 1 0 -1 1 , 16, 21, 22, 32, 1 2 -1 3 of, O lym p ia, 71, 76
precinct of, Priene, 6, 48, 73, 74, 92 in tw elve-part system , H ippodam eion,
7, 8, 14, 176 Erechtheion, at 10-11 O lym p ia, 71, 72
plan, 177 A cropolis, 8, 9, 29, Foot (unit o f m easure), H ippodam ian system ,
D em eter M alop horos, 31, 32, 33, 38 5, 23 n. 4 20
sacred precinct of, position of, 6 A thenian, 23 n. 4 H om er, 16, 172
Selinu s, 3, 8, 14, 166, Euclid, 15, 17, 18, 21 A ttic, 23 n. 4, 31 H um an scale, 20
167 Eum enes II, 104, 110 Ionian, 12, 23 n. 4, 126
plan, 168, 169, 1 7 1 m onum ent, D elphi, O lym p ian , 73 Icosahedron, 16
D insm oor, W. B., 23 3 9 ,4 4 Periclean, 9 Infinite space, 1 5 -1 6
n. 4, 33 nn. 2, 4, 5 Exedra, at agora, p re-P ericlean, 23 n. 4, Ionians, philosophy of,
D od ecahed ron, 16 Pergam on, 98 31 16, 21
D oric order, 7, 8 at A sclepeion, Cos, Sam ian, 23 n. 4 site planning, 7, 21
and site organization, 125, 126 Ionic order, 7, 8
,
21 22 at D elphineion, Gaggera, see Selinu s and site organization,
D orpfeld, W ilh elm , 92 M iletus, 55 G aia, Hill of, 73, 76 n. 4 2 1 -2 2
Dow, Stirling, 24 n G eom etry, 1 6 -1 7 at Sounion, 172
Field of vision, 9 -1 4 G erkan, A rm in von, 54, Isis, sacred precinct of,
Echo Stoa, at A ltis, at A cropolis, 9, 30, 31, 503 Pom peii, 178
O lym p ia, 71, 72, 73, 32 G ods, angles associated plan, 179
74, 75 at agora, Pergam on, 11, with, 17; see also
Egyptian gods, sacred 93, 98 individual gods K oldew ey, R obert, 166
precinct of, Priene, 7, at agora, Priene, 12 G olden section, 3, 6, K ronos, H ill of, 20, 23,
22, 178 at A ltis, O lym p ia, 10, 7 -8 , 9, 13, 126, 146, 73, 74, 75, 76 n. 4
plan, 179 73, 75, 76 148, 161
Ell, Egyptian, 23 n. 4, 48, at A sclepeion, Cos, 12, G rid -iron plan, 20 La C o ste-M esselière,
110 n. 3 13 Pierre de, 40 n. 3
Enclosure, in layout, 8 at C orinthian tem ple, H arm ony, im portance Landscape, and
Entrance, 5 Palm yra, 13 of, 20 A cropolis, 30, 33
to A cropolis, 31 at D elphineion, H arm ony o f the and A ltis, O lym p ia, 72,
to agora, M iletus, 62 M iletus, 10, 11 spheres, concept of, 73
to agora, Priene, 136 at H eraion, Sam os, 12, 16 and site planning, 4 -5 ,
to altar o f Zeus, 115, 116 H ecatom pedon, at 20, 23, 74, 76, 93,
Pergam on, 110 at sacred precinct of A cropolis, 9, 30, 33 134, see also
to A ltis, O lym p ia, 72, A phaia, A egina, 10, n. 2, 38; see also M oun tains; Sea
75 48, 49 Parthenon I Layout, see Site planning;
to C orinthian tem ple, at sacred precinct o f H ephaestus, tem ple of, individual site
Palm yra, 161 A rtem is, M agnesia, A thens, 92, 93 n. 5 Lycabettos H ill, A thens,
to H eraion, Sam os, 13, 148 Hera, altar of, at A ltis, 31, 32, 33
114, 115 at sacred precinct of O lym p ia, 72, 73, 80 Lycos D io d e s, colum ns,
to sacred precinct of A thena, Pergam on, altar of, Sam os, 114, D elphi, 40 n. 3
Aphaia, A egina, 48 11, 104 115, 118 -119 , 112
to sacred precinct of at sacred precinct of sacred precinct of, see M agnesia (general), 152
A rtem is, M agnesia, A thena, Sounion, H eraion 154
148 172 H eraion, at A ltis, agora, 3, 1 5 4 -1 5 5 , 156,
to sacred precinct o f at sacred precinct of O lym p ia, 10, 71, 72, 158-160
A thena, Pergam on, D em eter, Priene, 14, 73, 74, 75, 76 plan, 1 5 1 , 15 7
105 176 H eraion, Sam os, 7, 12, sacred precinct of
to sacred precinct of at sacred precinct of 1 1 4 -1 1 7 , 1 1 8 - 1 1 9 , A rtem is, xxxiv, 7, 13,
A thena, Sounion, Egyptian gods, 124 22, 148, 149, 153
172 Priene, 178 H eraion I, 1 1 4 -1 1 5 plan, 1 5 0 , 1 5 1
to sacred precinct of at sacred precinct o f plan, 120 tem ple of Zeus,
Egyptian gods, O lym p ian Zeus, H eraion II, 7, 8, 12, 115, 15 4 -1 5 5 , 15 6
Priene, 178 Priene, 146 12 0 M an, as factor in site
to sacred precinct of at sacred precinct of altar, 115 plan, 4-5
P oseidon, Sounion, Poseidon, Sounion, plan, 121 as "m easu re o f all
92 11, 9 2 -9 3 Fieraion III, 7, 8, 12, th in g s," [1], 20, 21
to tem ple terrace of at sacred precinct of 1 1 5 -1 1 6 M ass, relation to space,
A pollo, D elphi, 39 Zeus, Priene, 13 altar, 1 1 5 -1 1 6 , 1 2 2 23, 4 8 -4 9
to tem ple o f Zeus, at tem ple o f Zeus, plan, 1 2 1 , 12 2 M athem atics, in concept
M agnesia, 154; see M agnesia, 154 H eraion IV, 116 of the universe,

[18 2 ]
M athem atics (continued) xxxv, 13, 22, 161, 164, Poseidon, sacred Olympia, 71, 74, 75,
1 6 -1 7 , 20 165 precinct of, Sounion, 76
in site planning, 5, 6, plan, 162 xxx, xxxvii, 3, 7, 11, Ptolemy III, 178
9 -1 4 , 20; see also Panathenaic Festival, 8 22, 9 2 -9 3 , 94 -95 Puchstein, Otto, 166
G eom etry; N um bers Pandrosos, sacred plan, 96, 97 Pyramid, 16
M easu rem ents, in precinct, at temple, xxxvii, 11, 97, Pythagoreans, 15, 16, 17
ancient units, 23 n. 4; Acropolis, 30, 31 172, 7 75
see also Ell; Foot Parthenon, at Acropolis, Precision, importance Rectangular coordinates,
M easuring points, for 6, 9, 33, 38, 73 of, 23 4
architectural spacing, Parthenon I, 9, 29, 33 n. Priene (general), 13 7, Rhamnus, temple of,
6 2 140, 142, 143 Athens, 93 n. 5
M etope, D oric, 19 n. 32 Parthenon II, 9, 29, 30, agora, xxxiii, 6, 7, 12, Rhoikos, 8, 21, 114
M etroon, at A ltis, 38 22, 136, 745
O lym p ia, 10, 71, 72, Parthenon III, 9, 29, 31 plan, 13 8 Sacred precinct, see
73, 75, 76 Path, 8, 23 sacred precinct of individual god
M iletus (general), 62, 67 at Altis, Olympia, 72 Athena, 7, 136, 139, Sacred way, 5
agora, 3, 6 2 -6 3 at Heraion, Samos, 116 142 at Heraion, Samos, 116
agora I, 62, 65 at sacred precinct of plan, 747 n. 4
agora II, 62, 66 Aphaia, Aegina, 48 sacred precinct of at temple terrace of
agora III, 63, 64, 68 at sacred precinct of Demeter, 6, 7, 8, 14, Apollo, Delphi, 39
agora IV, 63, 69, 70 Artemis, Magnesia, 7 76 Samians, 114
D elphineion, 1 0 -1 1 , 155 plan, 7 77 Samos, Heraion, xxxi, 7,
22, 5 4 -5 6 , 57-67 at sacred precinct of sacred precinct of 21, 22, 1 1 4 -1 1 7 ,
Minesicles, 29 Poseidon, Sounion, Egyptian gods, 8, 14, 118 -119
Mountains, and site 93; see also Sacred 22, 178 altar, 1 1 4 -1 1 6 , 722
planning, 76 way plan, 7 79 plan, 120, 121, 122,
Mykale, Mount, 8 Pausanias, 15 sacred precinct of 12 3, 12 4
Pelopion, at Altis, Zeus, 3, 6, 7, 13, 22, Sanctuary, see individual
N ero, 71 Olympia, 71, 73, 75 146 god
N icopolis, colum n, Pergamon (general), 101 plan, 747 Schede, Martin, 114, 146
Delphi, 40 n. 3 Pergamon, agora, 3, 6, 7, Proclus, 15, 16, 17 Schleif, Hans, 24 n, 114
N ike, C olum n, of 11, 93, 98, 99, 10 2 Proportion, 18, 20 Sea, at Asclepeion, Cos,
Paeonios, 23, 40 n. 4 plan, 100, 103, 1 1 2 of buildings, 9 -1 4 , 33, 133
N ike Tem ple, at altar of Zeus, 6, 110, 49, 76 at Sounion, 93
A cropolis, 38 113 Propylaea, at Acropolis, Seleucid kings, 98
N um bers, im portance plan, 111, 112 9, 29, 31, 33, 38 Selinus (general), 17 0
of, 17 sacred precinct of Propylon, 5 sacred precinct of
Athena, 3, 6, 7, 11, at Acropolis I, 29 Demeter
O ctahedron, 16 93, 1 0 4 -1 0 5 , 106, 109 at Acropolis II, 30 Malophoros, 3, 8, 14,
O lym p ia, A ltis, plan, 107, 108 at agora, Miletus, 62 21, 166, 767
xxv iii-xxix, 7, 10, 20, Pericles, 29 at altar of Zeus, plan, 168, 169, 1 7 1
22, 7 1 -7 7 , 78-79, 81, Persians, 29, 92, 172 Pergamon, 110 Sight lines, at Acropolis,
86-87, 88, 89 Perspective, 17, 21, 23 at Heraion, Samos, 29, 30, 31
Echo Stoa, 7 1 -7 3 Petros, of Chimera, 16 114, 115 at agora, Miletus, 62
Heraion, 10, 7 1 -7 6 , Philip II, of Macedon, 71 at Hippodameion, 72 at agora, Magnesia, 154
80, 81, 84, 85, 89, 90, Philippeion, at Altis, at sacred precinct of at agora, Pergamon, 98
91 Olympia, 71, 74, 75, Aphaia, Aegina, 48, at altar of Zeus,
model, 91 76 49 Pergamon, 110
plan, 80, 82, 84, 85 Philolaos, 17, 18 at sacred precinct of at Altis, Olympia, 72,
in relation to Philosophy, and Artemis, Magnesia, 74, 75, 76
landscape, 74, 76, 83 architecture, 1 5 -1 6 148, 154 at Asclepeion, Cos,
temple of Zeus, 10, Greek, 20-21 at sacred precinct of 125, 126
23, 7 2 -7 6 , 8 0 , 8 1 , 84, Ionian, 21 Athena, Priene, 136 at Corinthian temple,
85, 87, 89, 90, 91 Pisistratus, 29 at sacred precinct of Palmyra, 161
Open view, see View, Plato, 15, 16, 17 Demeter at Heraion, Samos, 115
open Plutarch, 15, 16, 17 Malophoros, at sacred precinct of
Optics, 17 Polar coordinates, 4-5 Selinus, 166 Artemis, Magnesia,
Order, see Doric order; Polis, concept of, 15 at sacred precinct of 148
Ionic order Polyhedron, and Egyptian gods, at sacred precinct of
concept of universe, Priene, 178 Athena, Pergamon,
P aeonios, N ike colum n 16 at sacred precinct of 104, 105
of, 23, 40 n. 4 Polykrates, 114 Poseidon, Sounion, at sacred precinct of
Palm yra (general), 163 Pompeii, sacred precinct 92 Athena, Sounion,
C orinthian tem ple, of Isis, 178, 17 9 Prytaneion, at Altis, 172

[18 3 ]
Sight lines (continued) Symmetry, 23, 48, 73,
at sacred precinct of 74, 148
Demeter, Priene, 176
at sacred precinct of Ten, significance of, 17
Demeter Ten-part system, of
Malophoros, architectural spacing,
Selinus, 166 6 -8 , 9, 1 2 -1 3
at sacred precinct of Theocoleon, at Altis,
Egyptian gods, Olympia, 72
Priene, 178 Theodoros, 2 1 ,1 1 4
at sacred precinct of Theseum (temple of
Poseidon, Sounion, 92 Hephaestus),
at sacred precinct of Athens, 92
Olympian Zeus, Tholos, at Delphineion
Priene, 146 IV, 56
at temple terrace of Triangle, 6; see also
Apollo, Delphi, 39 Equilateral triangle
at temple of Zeus, Triglyph, Doric, 19 n. 32
Magnesia, 154 Trophonios, 39
Simplicius, 15 Twelve-part system, of
Site planning, 3, 4, 5, 15, architectural spacing,
21 , 22 6 -8 , 9, 1 0 -1 1 , 21, 22
Sounion, sacred precinct
of Athena, xxxvi, 7, Universe, concept of,
8, 14, 172, 173 1 5 -1 6 , 21
plan, 174, 1 75
sacred precinct of Victory of the
Poseidon, xxx, xxxvii, Messenians, statue,
3, 7, 11, 22, 9 2 -9 3 , Delphi, 40 n. 4
9 4 -9 5 Victory of Paeonios,
plan, 96, 97 statue, at Altis,
temple, xxx, 9 2 -9 3 , 97 Olympia, 72, 73, 74,
Space, 21 75
finite, 1 5 -1 6 View, closed, 8
infinite, 1 5 -1 6 , 21 open, 8
organization of, 3, 17, Viewpoint, 5
20, 23 (see also human, 22, 23; see also
Ten-part system; Angles of vision;
Twelve-part system) Field of vision; Sight
Stais, Valerios, 92 lines
Statues, in site planning, Visibility, importance
20 of, 23
Stevens, Gorham P., 33 Vision, field of, see Field
nn. 6, 9 of vision
Stoa, at Acropolis, 29, 30 Vitruvius, 15
at agora, Miletus, 63
at agora, Priene, 136 Wiegand, Theodor, 114,
146
at Altis, Olympia, 71,
72, 73
Zeus, altar of, at
at Asclepeion, Cos,
125, 126
Acropolis, 31, 32
at Corinthian temple, altar of, at Altis,
Olympia, 72
Palmyra, 161
altar of, Pergamon,
at Delphineion,
110, 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 3
Miletus, 54, 56
sacred precinct of,
at sacred precinct of
Athena, Pergamon, Priene, 3, 6, 7, 13, 22,
146, 176, 178
104
at sacred precinct of plan, 14 7
temple of, at Altis,
Poseidon, Sounion,
92, 93
Olympia, 10, 23,
7 1 -7 6
at tem ple of Zeus,
temple of, Magnesia,
M agnesia, 154
1 5 4 -1 5 5 , 15 6
Sun, view of, 8, 21, 93
Ziegenaus, Oscar, 116 n. 4
[18 4 ]