102-165
Anadolu Dor Mimarisi: MÖ 4. Yüzyıl / Anatolian Doric Architecture: 4th Century BC
Authors: Zeliha GİDER BÜYÜKÖZER
Number of views: 163
The temple of Athena at Assos is the only known example in Doric order in Archaic Anatolia. After that, Doric architecture was worked again in the 4th century BC. Particularly with the Ionian Renaissance, which started after the King Peace in 387/6 BC, there is an increase in the number of buildings constructed in the Doric order. The majority of the Doric buildings built in this century were financed by the Carian dynast Mausolus and his successors. In most of these structures, Ionic profiles have been added to the Doric architectural elements, as the Hecatomnids combined the Carian cultural heritage with Anatolian, Greek, and Persian cultures. For this reason, the Anatolian Doric architecture is different from the contemporary structures in the mainland Greece. However, two buildings built in the ancient city of Knidos and Doric buildings in the islands had more influence on mainland Greece.
Building Type
Many authorities on ancient Greek architecture state that during the fourth century the Doric order was in decline, and that by the Hellenistic period it was virtually abandoned in temple architecture. The archaeological evidence, it is argued, seems to bear this out. Doric temples were built during this period. The temple of Demeter at Priene had an in antis plan, and the temple of Apollo Eretimos at Rhodos had an in antis or prostyle plan. It is thought that the temple of Apollo Pythios on Rhodes was planned prostyle plan and the peripteros was added later. The temple of Athena at Pergamon and the Doric Temple at Knidos were peripteral and both of them had opisthodomos but the Temple of Zeus Khrysaoreus at Alabanda lacked an opisthodomos. And in the ‘temple like’ planning of the andrones at Labraunda Ionic columns are combined with Doric entablature for the first time.
The plans of peripteral temples in Mainland Greece have some similarity with contemporaneous Asia Minor architecture. While most of the larger Doric temples in mainland Greece have larger pteromata on the front and back, Ionic temples of the Ionian Renaissance have pteromata of equal size on all four sides, like the Temple of Athena at Pergamon. While other, smaller Doric temples lack an opisthodomos and emphasize the front of the building by a larger hall, the Temple of Athena at Pergamon and the Doric Temple at Knidos have opisthodomoi, as the Late Classical Ionic temples at Labraunda, Priene, and the Artemision at Ephesos. The walls of the cella were not arranged on the axis as the penultimate columns of the peristyle, as was usual in Ionic architecture, but with the outward face of the wall along this axis. The later fifth-century trend toward slenderer columns and wider interaxial spacing also developed further during the fourth century.
In Anatolia, which had no known stoa structure during the 5th century BC, in parallel with the art and architecture developed in the 4th century BC, stoas were beginning to be built. The majority of stoas were I-shaped, one-aisled and single story. Generally, there were rooms behind the porticoes. The function of these rooms varies according to the area of the stoas. L-shaped stoas built at Colophon and Miletus were the first examples of the new stoa type that will develop in the cities with Hippodamian plan in the Hellenistic period. In this type, stoas on three sides of a rectangular open space with a street along the fourth, on the opposite side of which is usually another stoa. The street may run along one of the long sides of the rectangle or along one of its short sides, and the other three sides may be defined by one pi-shaped stoa or two L-shaped ones; these two types of stoa are typical of Hellenistic Ionia. All the stoas of Anatolia have Doric outer colonnades. The inner colonnades of the Delphinion at Miletus, which was the only example of two-aisled stoa, also have in the Doric order. Doric exteriors, with Ionic interiors in the case of two-aisled buildings, were by far the most common design from 5th century until late Hellenistic times in Mainland Greece. However, in the stoa built in the 4th century BC in Anatolia, both colonnades were in the Doric order.
Three of the buildings dated to the 4th century BC were named as “Doric Buildings.” It has been suggested that the Doric Building at Labraunda could have been used as a fountain or a stoa but it proved to be a fountain. It is thought that Doric architectural blocks in Amyzon may belong to the temple, propylon or stoa. These architectural blocks were dated to the second half of the 4th century, based on their stylistic features. The shape and stylistic features of the Doric architectural elements found in the agora at Iasos are similar to the andrones at Labraunda. In the excavations carried out in the agora, a monument dedicated to the Hecatomnid family and the remains of a building were found. This building, which is called as “Maussolleion” in the inscriptions, will be determined as a result of the study if there is a connection between the architectural blocks belonging to Doric Building A at Iasos.
Stylistic Assessment
The 4th century BC is a period when the diversity in the form repertoire of Doric architectural blocks increased. Doric columns generally have canonical “Doric flutes”. There are also column drums with basket-arched cross-section type flat flutes and in which the arrises are prominent. In this century, Doric columns with Ionic flutes were used also for the first time in Anatolia. In some of the buildings, the columns were built in “bossed style” (rustication for decorative). One of the innovations seen in the 4th century BC is the introduction of heart-shaped piers into architecture. Developed as an alternative treatment of the re-entrant angles problem in Doric order, this form first appeared in the Harbor Stoa at Miletus.
The majority of the Doric capitals are in canonical form: abacus is a flat slab forming, echinus is convex curves of which are not very pronounced, annulets are trapezoidal shaped and a neck. In all of the capitals of this century, the echinus is curled inwards at the point where it intertwines with the abacus. In these capitals, the profile of the annulets was worked in the same direction as the echinus profile axis, and the annulets were the continuation of the echinus. The annulets are trapezoidal and there are three or four of them. The necking of the Doric capitals was decorated in four different ways.
Doric architraves consist of a flat taenia, regula and six guttae. The conical shaped guttae were worked in Knidos and the Doric buildings on islands and the cylindrical shaped guttae were worked in Anatolia. For the first time, Doric architrave crowned with astragal and ovolo in the Oikoi Building at Labraunda. Another innovation seen in this century is the soffit carved to the underside of the Doric architraves. The first examples of these soffits, which were seen in the Labraunda buildings, had a rectangular, recessed panel and a flat surface. The proportions of the architraves are in conformity with the contemporary buildings in the mainland Greece and islands.
Doric frieze blocks had a rectangular triglyph and metope taenia, as the canonical Doric frieze. But the metope taenia composed of cyma reversa profile in the andrones at Labraunda and Doric Building A at Iasos and ovolo in the monumental tomb at Labraunda. The triglyph taenia were higher than metope taenia in the 5th century and later. But the metope taenia and triglyph taenia were applied at the same height in the end of the 4th century-beginning of the 3rd century.
Doric friezes were crowned with a cymatium, composed of astragal and ovolo. The adaptation of the ovolo profile, which was an indispensable element of Anatolian Ionic architecture into the Doric frieze was first observed in the Labraunda buildings. The combination of Doric frieze with Ionic profiles was first introduced in the 6th century BC, in the mainland Greece. But in all of the examples in the mainland Greece, the profile was composed of a small plain astragal. However, this combination reached the peak in the Labraunda buildings with the cyma reversa, astragal and ovolo profiles.
In the triglyph-metope blocks, the shaping of the upper end of the glyphs varies. In the majority of the buildings in Anatolia, the upper end of the glyphs is rectangular and the upper lip is cut downwards. This tradition, which began in the Labraunda buildings, soon became the unique style of Anatolian Doric architecture. During this period, glyphs were shaped as flat arches and their upper parts were concave in the Doric buildings of mainland Greece. On the triglyphs of the temple of Athena at Pergamon, the upper end of the glyphs was built in U-shaped. This tradition which began with the Temple of Athena at Assos built in the archaic period in Anatolia continued its existence for centuries.
Once its development was completed, the upper bound of half glyphs decorated with triglyph ears became a part of Doric architecture “the fully developed ears” form first appeared in the Labraunda buildings in Anatolia. There are also open sphere-shaped triglyph ears and open dropshaped triglyph ears. In this period, in the Doric building in mainland Greece, it is seen that the hookshaped end of the upper end of the half-glyphs is extended downwards. However, they have more straight lines compared to the drop-shaped examples from Anatolia.
One of the innovations seen in the Doric frieze blocks in the 4th century BC is the working the architrave and triglyph-metope in the same block. This is a result of the reduction of the dimensions of the entablature parallel with the expansion of the intercolumniation. Because for the first time in this century, three metopes were placed in each axial space in a temple. The four-metope frieze systems were applied in Labraunda, Priene and Miletus.
The increasingly slender and widely spaced Doric columns of the 4th century raised new problems with the elements of the Doric frieze. In archaic and early fifth century Doric, the architrave had been higher than frieze. In the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, the Parthenon and the Hephaisteion at Athens the two elements were equal in height. In the fourth century the height of the frieze continued to increase at the expense of the architrave. Proportion between triglyphs width and the metopes width reach about 1:1,5. By the end of the century, the proportion was decrease to 1:1,43.
Although the Doric geison was used in the majority of the 4th century BC buildings, the Doric buildings in Anatolia started to be ended with Ionic geison. Doric geisa, both raking and horizontal, carry a cyma reversa as a soffit molding. This profile, began to use below the mutules, between it and the fascia in Propylaea at Athens, which from the end of the 5th century, was the regular molding of the geison soffit in both the Doric and the Ionic orders. In Andron B and Andron A at Labraunda and Doric Building A at Iasos no molding decorated the soffit of the geison, so below the mutules came a plain vertical fascia. The unprocessed geison soffit in these examples reflects an old tradition of Doric buildings in the 6th and 5th centuries.
In the geison block of the Labraunda Doric Building, the geison soffit, which is made up of cyma reversa was used in conjunction with plain astragal. Similar ones of this combination, which is quite unusual for Doric geisons, were found in Mylasa and Halicarnassus. In the geison block found during the excavations around the Hekatomnos Monument in Mylasa and the geison block used as a reused material in the Italian Tower of Bodrum Castle, the geison soffit is made up of plain astragal and cyma reversa profile. Two known examples of cyma reversa profile combined with astragal belong to the Ionic architecture. The first of these is the horizontal geisons of the Erechtheion at Athens dating back to 421-406 and the other one is the Ionic geisons of the Naiskos of the Temple of Apollo at Didyma, dated to the second half of the 4th century. Three examples of this combination, the use on the Doric geisons of which has stayed unknown until know, were found in Hecatomnid buildings in Anatolia.
In Doric geisons, the mutulus placed in the area between the geison soffit and the drip is also connected to these two parts. It is seen that guttae’s distribution to the mutulus surface began to change in the beginning of the second half of the century. In the early stages, especially in the triple alining, the distance between the guttae rows is 2 times or slightly more than 2 times the diameter of the guttae, it is usually 1,5 times in the 4th century buildings. The degree of slope of the mutuluses varies between 8° and 10°. The width of the viae is about 1:4 of the mutulus width. Towards the end of the century it is seen that the width of the viae was reduced.
The Doric drip consisted of the tip, undercut and fascia, undercut deep, narrow and well curved. The depth of the undercut was considerable, frequently greater than its breadth. The hawksbeak is used as a geison crown. L. T. Shoe said that the chief use of the hawksbeak was for the crowning moulding of the geison of the Doric order, for which it was the regular type from shortly after the middle of the 6th century to the end of the 3rd century. Probably about the middle of the 4th century began the tendency to jog in the lower part of the ovolo and made it into cyma reversa.
The cyma recta used as a sima profiles in all Doric buildings. Type S1 is a vertical type and the lower curve is so slight and the upper curve is strongly projecting outward. Type S2 is a vertical type and the lower curve is projecting outward. Type S3 is a diagonal form and the lower curve so slight it is barely tangent to the diagonal. Sima profiles of the Doric buildings in the 4th century generally Type S2 was preferred. Type S1 worked in two buildings in Anatolia, and type S3 worked in islands.
Evaluation and Conclusion
In the 4th century, the Doric order was preferred in many building types. The majority of these buildings have widely spaced and slenderer columns similar to the Ionic order. This is the result of the reinterpretation of the Doric order of Anatolian architects who are familiar with the symmetry of Ionic architecture.
In the Doric architecture of the 4th century BC, a significant Ionic effect is observed. This is interpreted as a result of the choice of other orders in interior design which started at the end of the 5th century. The architects of the 4th century preferred formal decorations on the exterior of the buildings and they used Ionic ornament especially in anta base and on sima, which are seen in Archaic Period buildings in Western Anatolia. The mixture of Doric and Ionic had taken two forms by R. A. Tomlinson:
A- The use of both Ionic and Doric columns, and perhaps entablature, in one and the same building.
B- The combination of Ionic and Doric elements in a single order.
The applications in Doric buildings in Anatolia show that a third form can be added for the mixed order. Because, as seen in the Labraunda buildings, the Anatolian architects, as well as applying the Ionic and Doric order in the same building, they also added profiles such as astragal, ovolo and cyma reversa which are foreign to this order. Therefore, the application of mixed order in the 4th century BC should be divided into three forms.
1- The use of both Ionic and Doric columns, and perhaps entablature, in one and the same building.
2- The combination of Ionic and Doric elements in a single order.
3- Adding Ionic profiles to Doric architectural elements.
Anatolian Doric architecture is different from mainland Greece since the archaic period. The reason for this is the different interpretation of the Doric order, which was introduced to the lands where the Ionic order was born, by the Anatolian architects. Therefore, the group created by R.A. Tomlinson for mixed order application should be evaluated under three groups; and Doric architectural elements with Ionic profiles included in the second group should be considered as a separate group: addition of Ionic profiles to the Doric architectural elements . During the Hecatomnid period, the Ionic profiles which have a very long history in Anatolia, were added to at least one of the architectural elements in the buildings constructed in the Doric order. In the Labraunda Oikoi Building, the crown profile consisting of astragal and ovolo, which form the architrave crown, is a profile specific to Ionic architraves, and the Anatolian architects were the ones who carried this profile to the Doric architrave. The fact that the metope taenia is formed with cyma reversa profile in triglyph-metope blocks of Andrones are an innovation. Furthermore, in these andrones, the Doric frieze blocks were crowned with the astragal and ovolo, which are specific to the Ionic order, for the first time. Later on, these Ionic profiles became indispensable in the majority of the Doric buildings in Anatolia. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate these samples which are specific to Anatolian Doric architecture in the third group.
The addition of Ionic profiles to Doric architectural elements emerged during the archaic period in western Greece and in mainland Greece. This profiles, seen in the Doric buildings in southern Italy, was studied in the 6th century, where no “canonical Doric order” had yet developed, and then abandoned from the 5th century BC. In some of the 5th century buildings in mainland Greece, after the “canonical Doric order”, plain astragal was added to the upper part of the architrave and Doric frieze blocks and only a certain part of the Parthenon’s friezes this profiles were decorated with bead-and-reel. The use of a crown profile composed of ovolo and astragal in the triglyph-metope blocks of Andron B at Labraunda may be considered as the peak of the prototypes which seen in mainland Greece. This practice, which is limited to a few examples in these buildings, became widespread in Anatolia starting from the 3rd century; this style continued to be used until the Roman period. Thus, triglyph-metope blocks, which are crowned with the Pergamon ovolo, is considered to be a degenerated version of ovolo, is the original style of Anatolian Doric architecture. In the 2nd century BC, the Ionic influences, which were tried from time to time in the Doric architecture from the early stages, reached their peak. In addition to the different profiles crowning the architrave and triglyph-metope frieze, the surface of the Doric architrave has fasciae, and Doric columns were decorated with Ionic flutes. These applications, which are unique to Anatolian Doric architecture, are a unique style that is formed as a result of blending the salient architectural elements of Doric order with the softer aesthetics of Ionic architecture and the foundations of this style were laid in the 4th century.
Today
Yesterday
This week
This month
All days
