Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:09:01.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Principal Design Methods for Greek Doric Temples and their Modification for the Parthenon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Extract

During the fifth century B.C., Greek architects perfected a method for designing Doric peripteral temples, and this procedure was used for most temples constructed during the second half of the century in mainland Greece and in its colonies. This procedure had to be determined in order to see how it was adapted to design the Parthenon. Minor modifications enabled the architects of the Parthenon to achieve greater commensurability than for any other Doric temple (Fig. 1).

To lay foundations for a Doric temple, an architect needed to know the number of columns and the overall length. Since nearly all peripteral temples of the Doric Order have six columns on their fronts, the first decision which ordinarily needed to be made was how many columns would be used on the sides, and for hexastyle temples this ranged from ten to sixteen columns. The ratio of the number of columns on the fronts to the number on the sides determined the overall form and was the single most important ratio which had to be selected. The column number ratio was reused as the ratio for the stylobate of some of the earliest stone temples (Table 1, column 2; Table 2, column 6), and it was later applied to the krepis. It was used as the ratio of the krepis for the great majority of temples constructed from c. 535 and c. 320 (Table 1, column 1; Table 2, column 4).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 The principal conclusions in this article were presented in ‘How the Parthenon Was Designed’ at the annual meeting of the Society of Architectural Historians in St Louis, Missouri, in April 1996.

Stuart, James and Revett, Nicholas, Antiquities of Athens,3 (London, 1762,1787, and 1794), ch. 1, pl. 10.Google Scholar Stuart and Revett’s drawings of the Hephaisteion show only two steps rather than the three which actually exist and are standard for the majority of Greek Doric temples. The lowest step was made of limestone instead of marble like the rest of the building, and they disregarded it as part of the foundation.

2 Balanos, Nicolas, Les Monuments de l’Acropole Relèvement et Conservation(Paris, 1938), drawing no. 10.Google Scholar

Marina Yeroulanou noted that the alignment of every third joint of the first and third steps indicated advanced planning of some kind was done for the Parthenon before construction began (Metopes and Architecture: the Hephaisteion and the Parthenon’, Annual of the British School at Athens,93 [1998], pp. 408 and 411).Google Scholar

The history of the Parthenon and information on its construction and restorations is summarized in Korres, M. and Bouras, Ch., Meleti Apokatastaseos tou Parthenonos (Athens, 1983)Google Scholar. Recent research on the Doric order is summarized in Wilson-Jones, Mark, ‘Doric Measure and Architectural Design 2: A Modular Reading of the Classical Temples’, American Journal of Archaeology, 105 (2001), pp. 675713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Dinsmoor, William Bell, Architecture of Ancient Greece: an Account of Its Historic Development,3rd edn(London, 1950), appendix (pp. 337–40).Google Scholar All dates are from Dinsmoor unless otherwise noted. Although some dates are disputed, what was needed for this article was a largely correct sequence.

4 Coulton, J. J., ‘Towards Understanding Doric Design: the Stylobate and Intercolumniations’, Annual of the British School in Athens, 69 (1974), pp. 6186 and tables 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The dimensions cited in this study are from Coulton’s tables unless noted otherwise. Cella measurements are from Robertson, D. S., A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture,2nd edn (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 324–30.Google Scholar Dimensions for the smaller elements of the Hephaisteion are from Koch, Herbert, Studien zum Theseustemple in Athens(Berlin, 1955), pls 4051.Google Scholar

5 These and a number of other conclusions could not have been reached without the observation by Coulton that 2 per cent was a reasonable tolerance to allow for the construction of Doric temples (Towards Understanding Greek Temple Design: General Considerations’, Annual of the British School in Athens, 70 [1975], p. 99 Google Scholar).

In addition to errors of construction, allowing for a 2 per cent margin of error provides for a variety of other types of errors which have made measurements difficult to compare: modern measurements of temples may be somewhat inaccurate, may not be comparable when made by more than one person, and may have been converted to another system of measurement and rounded off; earthquakes and other disasters may have displaced blocks; and variations in local lengths for the Doric foot may be difficult or impossible to determine. There is often no way to be certain how much of an error has been introduced by any one of these factors, much less by more than one. Allowing an adequate allowance for all such possibilities is essential for meaningful patterns to emerge.

The 2 per cent margin of error used for this article means that a given measurement can be up to 2 per cent larger than a suspected ratio or up to 2 per cent smaller. This does not mean that the margin of error was actually 4 per cent; in no case does a computed amount differ by more than 2 per cent from an actual amount.

This margin of error is comparable to the margin which Coulton determined by dividing the extremes for the range of measurements of elements which would ordinarily be identical in size in the same building. Differences in centimetres (rather than millimetres) were not unusual, and in some cases he found ranges which were substantially more than 2 per cent (‘General Considerations’, pp. 95–97). When he compared the column number ratio to the krepis, Coulton allowed for an error of only 1 per cent greater than or less than the column number ratio (‘Stylobate and Intercolumniations’, table 2, col. 5), but this is less than the actual margin of error he found when considering how accurately buildings were ordinarily constructed (irrespective of additional types of errors).

The validity of using 2 per cent as the margin of error to compare the column number ratio and the krepis can be confirmed by considering what happens when the margin is increased: a margin of 1 per cent fits 17 temples; a margin of 2 per cent fits 32 temples (15 additional temples); a margin of 3 per cent fits 33 temples (only 1 additional temple); a margin of 4 per cent fits 34 temples (only 1 additional temple). In other words, doubling the margin from 2 to 4 per cent only adds 2 temples to the 32 which fit within the 2 per cent margin. A margin of 2 per cent is thus necessary to determine whether a relationship was intended between these ratios or not, and a margin of 1 per cent is inadequate to show what all of the buildings have in common.

Almost any conscientiously made complete set of measurements would suffice for comparison. As Coulton argued, it is better for comparison to use comprehensive measurements which are comparable than to use more recent or more precise measurements which are not comparable (‘Stylobate and Intercolumniations’, p. 67).

6 Dinsmoor attempted to determine Greek procedures through a close reading of Vitruvius, but he was initially misled by the Roman preference for using column diameters to determine intercolumniations (How the Parthenon Was Planned: Modern Theory and Practice: Article II’, Architecture: the Professional Architectural Monthly, 48 [July 1923], pp. 241–44Google Scholar). By 1950, when he produced the 3rd edition of his book, he included measurements for interaxials instead of intercolumniations.

7 For a literal English translation with an extensive commentary and numerous illustrations, see Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, translated by Rowland, Ingrid D. with commentary and illustrations by Howe, Thomas Noble and with additional commentary by Rowland, and by Dewar, Michael J. (Cambridge, Mass., 1999).Google Scholar This edition is based on comprehensive studies of earlier translations and commentaries and on the advice of numerous specialists.

8 For Vitruvius’ smaller Doric temple (Fig. 4), there would have been the equivalence of 7.5 triglyphs for each of the two side interaxials (3 triglyphs [including two half-triglyphs] and 3 metopes), producing a subtotal equivalent to 15 triglyphs. By making the centre equivalent to 10 triglyphs (4 triglyphs and 4 metopes), he brought the subtotal to 25. There was the equivalence of one triglyph to complete each end triglyph (with one half of a triglyph to either outside edge of each end column) and the equivalence of one more triglyph of empty frieze at each corner (half a triglyph at each corner), producing his total of 27 modules for the entire frieze and stylobate.

Although Vitruvius stated that he was describing a distyle temple (4.3.7), this was not quite the case. His temple would have had intercolumniations of 2.75 lower diameters rather than the 3 lower diameters he prescribed for distyle (3.3.4). Significantly, he gave the triglyph frieze precedence over using a whole number of column diameters to determine what his intercolumniations would be.

9 Koch, , Studien: first measurement, p. 47; second, p. 47; and third, p. 49.Google Scholar

10 Vitruvius counted column numbers first across the front and afterwards along the side, counting the corner columns twice (3.2.5–6).

11 Thucydides (3.68) mentions a temple built for Hera at Plataea in c. 427 as being 100 feet in size. At least three surviving temples are within 2 per cent of being 100 Doric feet in length (nos 13, 30, and 40 in Table 2 and most notably Poseidon II, Sunion, which by computation is 100.61 Doric feet in length; 1.6 per cent discrepancy). The Hephaisteion is within 3.

I have used Dinsmoor’s 0.326 m for the length for a Doric foot ( Dinsmoor, , Architecture,p. 195, n. 1Google Scholar). Coulton concluded that in 13 buildings, the foot used appeared to range from 0.325 to 0.332, but that in three-quarters of them (9 out of 13), the range was from 0.326 to 0.328 (a discrepancy of 0.6 per cent). Mark Wilson-Jones discovered that a metrological relief from Salamis has a Doric foot measuring from 0.327 to 0.3275 m in length or almost exactly in the middle of Coulton’s estimated range (Doric Measure and Architectural Design 1: the Evidence of the Relief from Salamas’, American journal of Archaeology,104 [2000], p. 79 Google Scholar).

No unit of measure used for Doric temples is known to have been smaller than a dactyl, which is of a Greek foot and about 2.0 cm. This means that measurements could ordinarily not be applied except to the nearest dactyl or applied more accurately than 1.0 cm ( Coulton, , ‘General Considerations’, pp. 92 and 93Google Scholar). However, many measurements were demonstrably executed with far greater precision than this, and they must have been marked off using dividers or equivalent tools for duplicating modules. The overall length of buildings which were apparently intended to be 100 or 200 feet long are usually somewhat longer, and the reason for this is likely to be that some additional length had to be added in order for an imprecisely determined module to be marked off an even number of times. The imprecise module could then be applied with precision, and every element based upon it would be exactly divisible by it.

For the purposes of facilitating comparison and computation, I have divided Doric feet into hundredths in the same way that surveyors divide the English foot into hundredths and for the same reasons. This is not meant to imply that Greek architects and craftsmen used the decimal system or that they used more precise units than dactyls. It is an artificial way of trying to determine if a whole number of Doric feet may have been intended for a building element.

There has long been disagreement about whether or not a standard foot existed in Athens or anywhere else in Ancient Greece. Every Greek stadium was 600 feet long, yet none measures the same and some vary substantially ( Coulton, , ‘General Considerations’, p. 87 Google Scholar). By the mid-fifth century, the Doric foot seems to have been standardized throughout much of the Greek world to the measurements used for the Temple of Zeus, Olympia.

12 Koch, , Studien,pl. 46. Fig. 31 has a setback of 15 cm.Google ScholarPubMed

13 Dinsmoor, , Architecture,(p. 166) gives in. and in. (2.0 cm and 3.2 cm).Google Scholar

14 Dinsmoor gives the interaxial to order height as 1:2.99 and 1:2.98.

In most sixth-century temples the interaxial was not intended to be five triglyphs wide, but with essentially square metopes and with one full triglyph per intercolumniation, the result was often so close to 1:5 that this ratio could fairly readily have been discovered to be useful for planning purposes early on and even rediscovered.

For the variety of possible modules, cf. Vitruvius 1.2.4.

For the use of the 1.5 ratio for triglyphs to interaxials and 1:2 for triglyphs to lower diameters, see Table 1, columns 3 and 4. Altogether, six temples used both of these ratios at the same time, and in these cases the lower diameter to interaxial was necessarily 1:2.5 whether intended or not. At least 17 temples used the 1:5 ratio for planning purposes (Table 1, column 3).

15 Although Coulton found that the column number ratio seemed to have been applied to the krepis in as many as 17 out of 43 temples (39.5 per cent; Coulton, ‘Stylobate and Intercolumniations’, table 2), he concluded that interaxials were probably used to plan the stylobate of most Doric temples.

16 Douglas Arthur Clark concluded that the 2:3 ratio for triglyph to metope widths recommended by Vitruvius was the single most frequently recurring ratio for all elements of Greek temples except for some of the earliest in Italy. He did not indicate how the size of a triglyph was determined or utilized, but he noted the important fact that Vitruvius allowed the triglyph to determine what intercolumniations his Roman Doric temple would have. Clark also noted that the 2:3 ratio between triglyphs and metopes recommended by Vitruvius occurred as early as the oldest surviving stone entablature fragments which are preserved for the older Temple of Aphaia, Aigina (‘Doric Proportions in Greek Monuments: 600–110 B.C’[dissertation, University of Toronto, 1991], pp. 313,317–18, 236, and 55).

17 Mertens, Dieter, Der Alte Heratempel in Paestum und die Archaische Baukunst in Unteritalien(Mainz am Rhein, 1993)Google Scholar, blilage 3. Mertens’ measurements for individual stones are exemplary, but were not needed for this study. His overall measurements differ little from Dinsmoor’s and Coulton’s, and I have used theirs for more comparable results. For example, for the temple at Segesta, Mertens gives the stylobate width as 23.193 m while Dinsmoor gives it as 23.120 (differing by 7.3 cm, a discrepancy of 0.3 per cent).

18 For a discussion of early references to commensurability, see Pollitt, J. J., Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology(New Haven, 1974), pp. 1517 Google Scholar (especially Pl. Phil. 25D-E).

Schofield, P. H. states that Vitruvius and Alberti show an implicit awareness of commensurability (the ‘repetition of ratios’), but that Barca and Lloyd ‘made explicit what before had been merely implied’ (Theory of Proportion in Architecture [Cambridge, 1958], p. 102; cf. p. 94).Google Scholar

19 The relevant documentary evidence about Iktinos and Kallikrates is summarized and discussed in McCredie, James R., ‘Architects of the Parthenon’, in Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: a Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen,ed. by Kipcke, Gunther and Moore, Mary B. (Locust Valley, NJ, 1979), pp. 6973.Google Scholar Kallikrates’, qualifications are discussed by Bundgaard, J. A., Parthenon and the Mycenaean City on the Heights(Copenhagen, 1976), p. 48.Google Scholar

20 ‘… the third Step, on which the Columns of the Portico stand, measured 101 feet 1 inch English in front, and 227 feet 7 inch on each side, which are so nearly in the proportion of 100 to 225, that, had the greater measure been of an inch less, it would have been deficient of it’ (Stuart and Revett, Antiquities),11, p. 8.Google ScholarPubMed

21 Penrose, Francis Crammer, An Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture or the Results of a Survey Conducted Chiefly with Reference to the Optical Refinements Exhibited in the Construction of the Ancient Buildings at Athens,new and enlarged edition (London, 1888), p. 118.Google Scholar Lloyd, W. Watkiss, ‘On the General Theory of Proportion in Architectural Design, and Its Exemplification in Detail in the Parthenon’, in Penrose, Investigations,pp. 11116 Google Scholar; the analysis of the 4:9 ratio for column diameter to interaxial is on p. 113.

22 Ibid., p. 98.

23 In order to achieve this amount of commensurability, the architects had to settle for triglyphs which relate to the interaxial as 1:5.11 rather than 1:5.00, and although the discrepancy was only 2 per cent, the cumulative effect later required further adjustments. The slightly smaller triglyph which was adopted for commensurability (6 mm less than computed) is the reason why the ratio of the triglyph to krepis is almost 1:86 rather than 1:85 (17 columns x 5 triglyphs).

When the given diameter is divided by 2.25, the result is 99.3 per cent of the average triglyph width given by Coulton (0.841 m or 2.58 df). When the lower diameter is multiplied by 2.25, it is 99.7 per cent of the front interaxial and 99.9 per cent of the side interaxial.

24 Hill, B. H., ‘The Older Parthenon’, American journal of Archaeology,16 (1912).Google Scholar

25 Within a 2 per cent margin for error, three-quarters of the 13 temples designed between c. 495 and 440 used the 1:5 ratio for triglyph to interaxial, and it is likely that the architect of the Older Parthenon planned to do the same. No triglyphs are known to survive for the Older Parthenon, but if its stylobate length is divided by the number of triglyph-equivalents that its 16 columns would have had, the resulting width of a triglyph is within 2 per cent of being one-fifth of the known interaxial widths. Judging by this, the earlier architect intended to maintain the standard 1:1.5 ratio for triglyph to metope and had not intended for his triglyphs, lower diameters, and interaxials to be related as 1:2.25.

26 The masonry added to the south-east corner had long since settled and proved to be sound, and although the precaution of expanding to the north was wise, it proved unnecessary. The south-east corner is still slightly higher in elevation than the north-east corner, so little if any settling has taken place. The cracks in the east front must have been caused by earthquakes or by the 1687 explosion.

27 Yeroulanou, (‘Metopes and Architecture’, p. 422)Google Scholar argues that a difference of 3.2 cm in the location of a joint of the top and bottom steps on the north side (for the second interaxial from the east end) indicates a change in plans caused by recalculation to determine the amount of contraction needed. However, as she indicates there is a difference of about 4.8 cm on the west front (for the fifth interaxial from the north end; her figures 1 and 3, lines ‘F-G’). So large a discrepancy was highly unusual for the distances between the joints of krepis blocks that correspond to interaxials, but since the still larger discrepancy was clearly accidental and had nothing to do with corner contractions, it cannot be argued convincingly that the smaller error was significant. She acknowledged that no similar adjustments were made on either side at the west end of the temple, and she admits that it is doubtful whether or not a similar difference existed on the south side in the same relative position (p. 421). Since the amount of difference is too small to be clearly intentional and since there is no definite indication of a corresponding differences where they might be expected, this single measurement cannot be safely used to draw any conclusion about whether or not contractions were calculated. Yeroulanou argues persuasively that the subject matter of metopes did not influence their dimensions. The sizes of metopes were thus determined by architectural, rather than sculptural, considerations.

28 Their intended width can be calculated by subtracting two triglyph widths from the side interaxials and then by dividing by two. Dividing 1.305 m by 0.326 m (Dinsmoor’s Doric foot) equals 4.00. The intended width for the front metopes was 1.307 m. The metopes thus needed to be made 4.35–4.55 cm wider than 1.5 times the triglyph width.

The interaxials of the Older Parthenon are known to have been 4.413 m and 4.359 m, and having been designed after Aphaia, Aigina, it is could well have had a regular Doric frieze. If so, its triglyph would have been 0.870 m wide (computed by dividing the known krepis length of 69.616 m by 80 modules). This was significantly wider than the Parthenon’s triglyph at 0.841 (2.9 cm wider; 3.4 per cent discrepancy). Multiplying 0.870 m time 1.5 produces a metope with the width of 1.305 m, which is 4.00 Doric feet (the same dimension intended for the metopes of the fronts of the Parthenon).

29 Koch, , Studien,(pls 42 and 43Google ScholarPubMed) gives the height as 1.78 m and width as 14.49m; of 14.49 is 1.81 (2 cm more; 1.7 per cent discrepancy).

The use of and appears to indicate a preference for ninths. An extraordinary characteristic of ninths is that each fraction from to divides out indefinitely with the same numeral that is divided by 9; 1 divided by 9 is 0.111… and 4 divided by 9 is 0.444…, and so forth.

30 D. S.Robertson gives separate dimensions for the overall length of all four sides of the cella: east, 21.72 m; west 22.34 m; north 59.02 m; south 59.83 m. (Handbook, p. 328). The ratio 1:2.70 is an approximation derived from the average for the two widths relative to the two lengths. There seems to be no good reason why the south wall should have been made 81 cm longer than the north wall or why the east wall should have been made 38 cm longer than the west wall, and the differences must be regarded as substantial, but inconsequential errors.

31 Stadter, Philip A., Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles(Chapel Hill, 1989)Google Scholar, note on 13.7; other usage of this term are summarized, including its late fourth-century application to the entire Parthenon. Orlandos gives the length of the Parthenon’s naos as 29.786 m. ( Orlandos, A., I architektoniki tou Parthenonos[Athens, 1976–78], vol. 3, pl. 26 Google Scholar [with a minor transcription error corrected]). The number of Doric feet (as opposed to Solonian feet) for this measurement is 91.37.

32 Orlandos, (I architektoniki; vol. C, pl. 26)Google Scholar shows that the alignment of the outside surfaces of the cella walls in front and back were not precise and that the cella columns do not come close to aligning with peristyle columns. The distances from the cella walls to the edge of the stylobate differ by as much as 58 cm (ibid., Atlas [vol. A], pl. 52).

33 Ibid., pl. 20.

34 Ibid., pl. 27. The range is from 1.237–1.333 m with the end metopes coming closest to an average width of 1.277m.

The middle interaxial (fourth intercolumniation) measures 4.299 m, but the architrave block directly above it is 4.336 (3.7 cm more; 1 per cent discrepancy) while the next to last interaxial (sixth intercolumniation) is 4.300 m with a corresponding architrave of 4.150 m (15 cm more; 3 per cent discrepancy). Thus, four measurements which should have been identical have a range of 4.150–4.336 (18.6 cm; 4.3 per cent discrepancy). This is another example of measurements which should be the same, but which even in the Parthenon differ by twice the usual margin of error, and other examples have been given in notes 30 and 32. How carefully building blocks could be fitted together is a completely different matter from how precisely dimensions could be measured. For example, krepis blocks might be made various lengths except when their joints were expected to align with the centres of columns, yet regardless of their respective lengths would be joined with equal precision.

Although scale drawings were not needed to design and construct the Hephaisteion or the Parthenon, full-sized templates were undoubtedly used to ensure the uniformity of cornice profiles and the size of other elements such as triglyphs which were intended to be identical. Scale drawings as opposed to sketches or models would have been superfluous for laying out the plan, which could be done with sufficient precision only at full scale.

35 Penrose, Investigation, pls 7 and 8.

Most, if not all, columns seem originally to have been placed at the edge of the stylobate, but there has been much damage and restoration. Orlandos gives the amount of the stylobate projection as 0.6 cm for the east side at its north end and 5.8 cm for the south side at its east end (n. 31; vol. C, pl. 27). Dinsmoor, , Architecture,(p. 166)Google Scholar gives the inward lean as 2in. (6.03 cm).

36 A number of attempts have been made to relate the 4:9 ratio to other parts of the Parthenon, to the Hephaisteion, and to other temples, but the proposed relationships have remained unconfirmed by parallels elsewhere. Frederick E. Winter suggested, for example, that‘… the axial width of the two interior rooms [of the Parthenon’s cella] combined is related to the axial length as 4:9, and the same is true of the outside dimensions of the colonnaded rectangle of the nave in the eastern rooms (counting the door-wall of the fourth side)’ (Tradition and Innovation in Doric Design III; the Work of Iktinos’, American Journal of Archaeology, 84 [1980], p. 490Google Scholar).

Gruben wondered if it was a coincidence that the intercolumniation of the Hephaisteion related to the column height as 4:9 (1.6 per cent discrepancy), but since Doric temples were designed on the basis of interaxials rather than intercolumniations and since the column height was a fraction of the order height, this is unlikely. Similarly, he noted that the second step of the krepis had the proportion of 4:9, but no other example is known of a second step having been used to design a temple ( Berve, Helmut and Gruben, Gottfried, Greek Temples, Theatres, and Shrines [New York, n.d.], p. 392)Google Scholar.

Dieter Mertens searched for the use of the 4:9 ratio at Segesta and elsewhere in Italy and found that it appeared to have been used to determine the ratio of the column height to the width to the end interaxials of the fronts (Der Temple von Segesta und die Dorische Tempelbaukunst des Grieschischen Westens in Klassischerzeit[Manz am Rhein, 1984], beilage 24). By contrast, this ratio was used for order height to the full width of the stylobate for the Parthenon. In neither case is the ratio known to have been applied in the same way elsewhere.

Merten’s drawings for Segesta reveal numerous important details such as the alignment of euthynteria blocks to column centres (as for the Hephaisteion).

37 Orlandos, (I architektoniki), Atlas (vol. A), pl. 20.Google Scholar

38 The Parthenon’s columns are 1.905 m wide and the columns of the Temple of Zeus are 2.25 m and 2.21 m. The Parthenon’s interaxials are 4.2965 m and 4.2915 m, and the interaxials of the Temple of Zeus are 5.2265 and 5.221m wide.

39 No earlier column heights come nearly as close to 32 Doric feet, and only two are at all close (A, Akragas, and ER, Selinous). So close a relationship between the columns of Zeus, Olympia, and the Parthenon is so singular that it is unlikely to be a coincidence.

40 The architects of the Parthenon appears to have borrowed both the height and proportions for their peristyle columns from Libon’s pronaos columns. The 32 Doric-foot height of Libon’s peristyle columns are twice the width of his interaxials, a design procedure which had been used earlier for seven temples, but none of which is later than Hera Lacinia (Table 1, column 5). Since Libon used whole numbers of Doric feet in several other instances, the 32 Doric-foot height evidently originated as an integral dimension for the Temple of Zeus rather than the Parthenon ( Dinsmoor, , Architecture,p. 152 Google Scholar). Sturgis’ reconstruction (Fig. 8 herein) shows the columns of the Temple of Zeus too tall.

41 Dinsmoor (ibid., p. 150) states that the platform is solid stone. This made it possible to plan temples of such different size and proportions using the same foundation. Manolis Korres found through drill samples that the slope was cut into broad steps which could readily accommodate individual stones of up to two tons (Architecture of the Parthenon’, in Panayotis Tournikiotis, Parthenon and Its Impact on Modern Times[Athens, 1994], pp. 56 and 66, n. 3)Google Scholar.

42 Hill, , ‘The Older Parthenon’, pp. 556–57Google Scholar, 536. Hill rejected Dörpfeld’s reconstruction of an 8 x 19 temple (which would have had a column number ratio of 1:2.38). He considered 8 x 20 to have been also less likely. The Olympieium in Athens (515–510 B.C.) was initially intended to have 8x21 Doric columns (1:2.63) and not 8 x 20 as is sometimes stated, but was corrected by Dinsmoor, (Architecture,p. 91, n. 2)Google Scholar.

There is no reason to believe that a larger foundation than necessary was created to provide a footpath. The construction fill to the south of the Parthenon provided adequately for this purpose, and that such a fill was originally intended is evident from the extreme irregularity of the courses of stone on the south side below the top three levels of the platform’s cut stone ( Bundgaard, J. A., Excavations of the Athenian Acropolis, 1882–1890, I [Copenhagen, 1974]Google Scholar, figs 51 & 57).

43 Coulton, , ‘Stylobate and Intercolumniations’, p. 61.Google Scholar

44 Wilson-Jones, , ‘Doric measure’, p. 694.Google Scholar

45 Wilson-Jones, , ‘Doric measure’, p. 704.Google Scholar

46 Wilson-Jones, , ‘Doric measure’, p. 685.Google Scholar